Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Discussion Forums

John Raica's Forum Activity | 695 posts in 1 forum

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Fri, 21 Dec 2012
Topic: K The essential Texts

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

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Mon, 30 Sep 2013
Topic: K The essential Texts

REVISITING THE 'ENDING OF TIME' series of K-Bohm DIALOGUES ( reader friendly re-edited) :


Tracing back mankind's wrong ('psychological') turning

JK: I would like to ask if ( the collective consciousness of ?) humanity has taken a 'wrong turn' in trying to become something ( quite different from what it actually is ?) inwardly. And the resulting inner conflict has been the root of all this ('going astray' inwardly) )

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

K: Isn't it ( produced by ignoring or?) not being able to face the 'facts' and change them , but rather moving (outwardly) to something more and more and more.

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

K: The Christians said, the 'original sin', but long before them, the Hindus had this idea of Karma...

DB: Well, whatever it was they tried to imagine something better. And technologically it worked (only too ) well ! They found new techniques to make things better and then they have extended this (inwardly) by saying said 'I too must become (inwardly) better, all of us must'.

K: Yes, inside 'becoming better'.

DB: Well I should thing it is natural for human thought to project this goal of becoming better ; it is intrinsic in the structure of thought : if it is good to become better outwardly then why shouldn't I become better inwardly ?

K: Is ( our self-centred thinking in terms of?) 'time' the factor?

DB: We still don't see how 'time' in itself will cause trouble.

K: It is the idea that inwardly we am trying to become something ( better than what I am now ?) in time.

DB: Most people would say that is only natural. What is 'wrong' about becoming better in time ?

K: In that there is ( the seed of an inner) conflict. When I am trying to become something (better inwardly) it brings about an ( inner ?) 'contradiction' .

DB: And the contradiction is...?

K: Between 'what one is' and the 'what one should be'. And (in time?) this is creating a (dualistic ?) 'centre'.

DB: So, then we are inwardly forcing ourselves to become something that we are not ?

K: That is a 'fact'. And has one's brain become so accustomed to ( this mentality of ?) conflict that one rejects any other form of living?

DB: Well that must have come later. After (constantly fighting for their own survival) these ancient people probably came to the conclusion that conflict is inevitable and necessary (at all the levels of their existence)

K: But we are going into the (inward) origin of all our misery, confusion, conflict, struggle - what is the beginning of it? That's why I asked at the beginning: has mankind taken a wrong turn? Is the origin our dualistic thinking in terms of 'I' and 'not I'?

DB: Well, that might be getting closer - the separation between 'I' and 'not I' .

K: Yes, and why has mankind created this 'I' ( self-centred consciousness?) , which must inevitably cause conflict? 'I' and 'you', and me doing better (than you), and so on ?

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

K: Is that the origin of all this? DB: Well it seems close. What do you feel?

K: I am inclined to observe that the origin is this (self-interest based mentality that created ) the ego, the 'me', the 'I'. If there is no 'ego' there is no problem, there is no conflict, there is no (psychological) 'time' - in terms of becoming or not becoming, being or not being.

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

K: Is it (also because our original 'mind ?) energy' being so vast, limitless, has been narrowed down to an ( ego-centric ) mind, and the brain itself has become narrowed down because it couldn't contain all this enormous energy ?

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

K: It couldn't handle it. (But going back?) why has the brain, with all its thought and so on, created this sense of 'me' ?

DB: Well, ( the primitive) man did certainly need a certain sense of identity in order to function properly , to know where he belongs.

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

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

K: Yes, but I want to lead up to it slowly...

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

K: Is that it? That the human brain cannot hold this vast (Mind ) energy? I'd like to question ( the inward validity of ? ) evolution. I understand our ( outward ) evolution. say, from the bullock cart to the jet (plane) …

DB: Yes. And there is some evidence of man developing through a series of stages (erectus, sapiens...???) - you can't question that, can you?

K: No, of course not...

DB: I mean, it is clear that (our biological) evolution has occurred in some way, and the human brain has got larger, more complex. But probably you are questioning whether thinking of (our inward) evolution has any meaning ?

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

DB: Yes, I understand.

K: To me this ( inner mentality of time?) is the (psychological ?) 'enemy'.

DB: Yes, this use of time certainly. Man had to use time for a certain purpose and (psychologically ) he has misused it.

K: Inwardly, that is what I am talking about. Is that this cause of man's ( existential?) confusion - introducing time as a means of ( self-improving ?) of becoming more and more perfect, more and more evolved, more and more (knowledgeable or even more) 'loving'? You follow what I mean?

DB: Well, I understand. Certainly if we didn't do that the whole ( self-centred mental ) structure would collapse.

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

DB: Right...

K: That is, ( thinking in terms of?) 'time' is (intrinsically related to?) 'movement' - either inwardly or outwardly. The 'psychological' time and the (physical) time 'outwardly'.

DB: Yes. And there is a (very intimate?) relation between those two.

K: Now if my 'psychological' ( sense of continuity in?) time doesn't exist then there is no ( personal) conflict, there is no 'I' which is the origin of conflict. Do you understand what I am trying to get at? Outwardly we have certainly evolved - ( eg : all the modern advances of technology involved in ?) this ( tiny) microphone and so on. And 'psychologically' we have also moved 'outwardly' ( 'What you what you get!') .

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

K: Yes. We have extended our ( mental?) capacities outwardly.

DB: Yes we have developed outwardly...

K: And our life inwardly is ( less or more?) the same movement as our life outwardly.

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

K: Yes, now if there is no inward movement as 'time', (as constantly scheming ) to become more and more, then what takes place?

DB: When all this (self-projected ) movement of time ceases …

K: ... time 'ends'. You see (as of now ?) the outward movement is ( pretty much ?) the same as the inward movement.

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

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

DB: Yes. It is going around and around (in a loop)

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

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

K: Outward, and psychologically is also outward ('me' interacting with the 'outer world'?) .

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

K: We like to think it is 'inward' but it is actually outward – right?

DB: Yes... K: Now if that movement ( of 'psychological' time?) ends, is there a really inward movement - movement not in terms of time?

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

K: Yes.

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

K: That's right.

DB: Well, we have to go into that.

K: You see, (metaphorically speaking?) the human brain has been accustomed for centuries to go 'North' ( on the Highway of Self Interest ?) . And it suddenly realizes that this 'going North' is ( accumulating lots of psychological debris and/or ?) everlasting conflicts. As it realizes ( the hopelessness of its whole situation ?) it now ( turns around & ) 'moves East'. In that ( radical change of attitude ?) the brain itself is changing. Right?

DB: Well, something changes, yes.

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

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

K: Yes, different. I have been 'going North' all my life, and if there is a stoppage from going North then ( the old mentality based on self-interest & ?) conflict ceases. It is not moving in any (temporal) direction.

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

K: Could one say when (in one's meditation?) one really comes to that state (of mental non-movement) , it is ( joining ) the source of all energy?

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

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

DB: Yes, that would seem to stop all movement...

K: Would that be (joining ) the (innermost?) Source of all (our psychical?) Energy?

DB: Well, we could say that...

K: May I talk about myself a little bit? First of all, (a self-) conscious meditation is no meditation. Is there a ( meditator-free?) meditation which is not the ego trying to become something 'negatively' or 'positively' ?

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

K: A 'meditation' in which there is not a particle of ( personal ?) endeavour, of consciously trying to reach a (superior) level (of consciousness) and so on.

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

K: That is what I want to get at.

DB: Not looking for anything. K: You see, what (often?) happens with me is that I wake up meditating...

DB: In that state.

K: And one morning, I woke up in the middle of the night, (and I hesitate to say this because it sounds extravagant ?) and the 'Source of all Energy' had been reached. And that had an extraordinary effect on the brain even physically. Sorry to talk about myself but I don't mind now (since ?) I am 'in it'. Literally there was no sense of division as "the world" and "me" and "That" - only this sense of tremendous Source of Energy.

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

K: Yes. Now, as I have been talking for sixty years, I'd like other (people ?) to 'reach' this (Original Source ) - because then all our human problems are resolved, political, religious, because It is pure energy from the very beginning of time. This ( East-bound?) way leads to a complete sense of peace, love and all that... Suppose you have come to That and your brain itself is 'throbbing' with It, how would you help me to come to That?

DB: Yes... ?

K: ( To recap:) The human brain has certainly evolved (biologically) . But...(as any material ) evolution implies (a long process of ?) time, it can only think and live in (terms of a 'horizontal continuity' in ?) time. Now for this brain to deny ( the validity of inwardly thinking in terms of ?) time is leading to a tremendously (inwardly creative) activity (based on ) having no (personal) problems'. ( More specifically?) any ( human) 'problem' that arises is immediately solved. It has no duration of a problem.

DB: Well is this ( New) situation self-sustained or is it (available only) for a limited period ?

K: It is sustained, obviously, otherwise there is no point in it. It is not sporadic, intermittent and all that.

Now ( in the context of holistic education?) how are you to 'open the door', how are you to help me to see that we have been going in the wrong ( psychological?) direction, there is only a ( free inner dimension of ?) 'non-movement', and if that takes place, you follow, everything will be correct ( will find its right place?) .

DB: Well ( reaching ?) that ( inwardly Creative ?) 'movement' would certainly make a big difference...

K: Sir, let's go back to what we began with. Can this 'wrong turning ' be completely reversed? Can my (temporal) brain which is so accustomed to this evolutionary idea, can it realize suddenly (that inwardly ?) there is no such thing as 'time'?

DB: Yes. I think it would be untrue to say the human mind (or consciousness?) has really evolved in time. But this seems to imply that the 'mind' is not originating in the brain and that perhaps the brain is an instrument of this Mind?

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

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

K: Sounds odd ?

DB: It would sound odd to (the average materialistic ) person not used to it, but in the past people used to accept this idea ( of a Holy Spirit?) quite easily.

K: The mind not being of time, and the brain being of time - is that the (metaphysical ) origin of (all our inner/outer) conflicts?

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

K: Yes, that is what I meant...

DB: It has evolved in time so it has ( a linear order of ) 'time' within it.

K: Yes, 'time' is part of it.

DB: It has become part of its structure. And now, since the 'mind' operates without time, the brain is not able to do it (or to keep pace with it?).

K: Would that mean that 'God' is (unknowingly present ) in man and 'God' can only operate if the brain is quiet, if the brain is not caught in time ?

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

K: But can the human brain itself 'see' that it is caught in time and as long as it is moving in that (time-bound) direction its (existential) conflict is endless? You follow what I am saying?

DB: Yes. But... can the brain 'see' this ?

K: Has the brain the ( insightful?) capacity to see that what it is doing now, caught in time, in that process there is no end to conflict ?

DB: Couldn't we rather say the human brain is not totally caught in time, and therefore it can awaken and 'see' ?

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

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

K: Can one say that the human brain, not being conditioned by time completely, there is a part of it... ?

DB: Well not (necessarily ) a 'part', but rather that the general tendency now is for time to dominate the brain, but this doesn't necessarily mean that it couldn't shift.

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

DB: That's right. In that moment it comes out of (its old internal logic baseds on ?) 'time'. It is dominated (by time) only when you 'give it time' - the usual self-centred thinking is dominated by time, but anything (really) fast is not dominated.

K: Yes, that's right. So, what is the (triggering ?) factor that will make the brain see the way it has gone is not ( 'psychologically ?) correct' ?

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

K: Of course, of course. Because it is used to that (way of functioning) , for many centuries. How will you make the brain realize (the truth of ?) this fact?

DB: Well, I think one has to deny the very notion of 'time' in the sense of looking forward to the 'future', and (relying on our personal experience of the ) past.

K: That's just it sir, that's just it. ( The 'psychological' ) time is ( the invisible ?) 'enemy'. Meet it and go beyond it.

DB: Or deny its 'independent' existence. You see we have the impression that Time exists independently of us and we are ( part of) this Stream and therefore it would seem absurd for us to deny it because that is all what we are, you see ?

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

DB: Well we can say that none of the methods that man uses outwardly are going to work in this regard, since (following ) any 'method' implies time.

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

DB: I think that unless that person has ( seriously contemplated this issue?) and gone deeply into it, you are not likely to convey it at all...

K: So, as that cannot be conveyed through words, then what is a ( holistically responsible?) man to do? Would you (for starters ?) suggest to 'resolve' any (personal) problem immediately as it arises - because if you can't resolve it immediately, later on you may do the most foolish things. Suppose I have a 'psychological' ( aka : a 'personal'?) problem: can the mind resolve it immediately- face it and end it ?

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

K: So, would that (earnest inward?) activity end the 'psychological' time we are talking about ?

DB : Only if we could bring this immediate action to deal with the (central) problem, which is the 'self'.

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

DB: Yes, because the ending of (any psychological continuity in ) 'time' is immediate – right?

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

DB: Yes, because usully if one feels something is 'out of order' (inwardly ) then he then brings in the notion of time and the thought of becoming, and that creates endless problems.

K: Would that 'open the door' to this ( holistic?) sense that 'time' has no place inwardly? Wouldn't you say (that our everyday ) thought is a process of time? Because it is based on (our past) experience, knowledge, memory and (their active ) response, which is the whole (inner process of ?) of time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

DB: There may be another kind of thinking which is not dominated by time, you know, because we could still use thought to do a lot of (practical & theoretical) things. So, we have to be careful not to say that thought is always dominated by time.

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

DB: So let's make it clear that we are talking of the ( inner activity of) thought whose content is of the order of the mind. And this kind of thought clearly 'is' time.

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

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

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

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

K: Yes. So he lives in ( the field of?) time.

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

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

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

K: No. So, when you end (the psychological) 'time' we were talking about, there is no (accumulation of personal ) knowledge as (my?) 'experience'.

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

K: Which is becoming.

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

K: Of course, that is quite different sir.

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

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

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

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

DB: Without 'psychological' knowledge to organize itself ?

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

DB: No. But... many people being faced with this (very realistic possibility) , might feel that there would be (some chaotic inner ) disorder.

K: Of course.

DB: I think that what you were saying is the notion of controlling yourself 'psychologically' has no ( inwardly creative?) meaning.

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

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

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

DB: Well, it seems there would be nothing.

K: Nothing.

DB: It seems rather dull! It is either frightening or it is all right.

K: Wouldn't you say because there is 'nothing' it is everything?

DB: Yes, it has all. So far as a 'thing' is limited, in this 'no-thingness' there are no limits. I mean at least it has everything in potential.

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

DB: Yes. The ( scientific) ground of everything is energy.

K: Of course. But what is the source of this thing?

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

K: But what started this energy?

DB: Well the Christians have the idea of a 'Godhead', which is the very source of God too.

K: And also the Hindus have this. Are we going against all that?

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

K: Then is one just living in emptiness?

DB: Well, you must make that clearer.

K: Does it then mean there is only the physical organism living, which is a part of ( an Universal) energy? Has mankind journeyed through many millennia to come to this: that I am nothing and therefore I am everything and everything is energy?

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

K: That is what I wanted you to begin with. The ending of all this, in the ending of 'time', there is a new beginning. What is this (new beginning ?)

DB: There could be a 'movement' that has not the order of time...

K: Yes. So we will use the word '(New) beginning' and deprive it of (the connotations of ?) time. What is then happening? That is not the end (of our spiritual journey ) . Then what is going on? Is that Creation?

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

K: We will do it... tomorrow

2ND K CONVERSATION WITH DAVID BOHM (reader friendly edited)

Placing the Ground of Being on the Orbit (of Human Consciousness)

K: As we said yesterday, when you come to that (critical ?) point ( of meditation ?) when ( inwardly) there is 'nothing' (not-a-thing) and (therefore?) there is 'everything' - that is, ( Universal Mind?) energy, and when (the inner process of 'thought-) time' ends, there is a beginning of something totally new. So... what is there when all (the mental movement of thought & ) 'time' ends?

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

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

DB: The Christian mystics have had some similar (experiences)

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

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

K: But we also said all the Universe 'is' the Mind.

DB: Has an 'universal' Mind ?

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

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

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

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

K: To put it very simply: ( within one's consciousness the sense of?) division has come to an end. The ( self-centred) division created by time, created by thought, created by this education and so on and so on, all that, because it has ended, the 'Other' (the 'universal dimension' of Consciousness?) is obvious.

DB: You mean without the ( ego-centric) division ( brought by thought & time ?) the 'Other' is there to be perceived ?

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

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

K: Would you say it is not (a matter of) I perceive it, or that it is perceived. It 'is' (making itself present?) .

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

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

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

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

DB: No (inner) division ?

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

DB: Beyond this ( Universal Mind?) energy, you mean?

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

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

K: We can 'stop' there for the time being . ..

DB: Yes, because we haven't yet seen the necessity for going beyond this ( Universal Mind) energy...

K: I think it is necessary.

DB: Why is it necessary?

K: Why is it necessary? Tentatively: there is something in us that is operating, there is something in us much 'greater'. But how can we talk about It?

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

K: Yes. ( Hopefully?) we have not been caught in any illusions so far. And can we keep ( drilling inwardly with ? ) that same kind of 'watchfulness' in which there is no illusion, for 'That' which is beyond emptiness to 'come down to earth' - in the sense to be 'communicated' ?

DB: Well, then...why hasn't It come down until now ?

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

DB: Well, generally speaking, no.

K: No. And It demands that the 'I' ( the self-consciousness created by time & thought?) 'ends'.

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

K: Yes, the ego 'is' ( or ' has' a material?) substance, quite right.

DB: And therefore That (infinitely finer ?) Substance seems to be...

K:... untouchable.

DB: But the 'ego' is an illusion of a true (spiritual?) Substance.

K: That is a (very strong?) illusion, but , why do you relate it to the Other?

DB: In the sense that if the mind thinks it already has ( within itself) this (spiritual ) substance then it will not be open to ( the true nature of?) It.

K: Of course, of course. So, can 'That' ( Origin of All Creation?) ever be put into words?

DB: Well, if it can be properly perceived, the (right) words can come to communicate It.

K: Yes, but can That be 'perceived' and therefore communicable?

DB: But is that 'Something' beyond emptiness, something 'living' ?

K: Living, oh yes...

DB: And intelligent?

K: I don't want to use those words - living, intelligence, love, compassion - it is all too limited. So, we have come up to a certain point and we are saying there is something still more - but is it palpable, is it something that our ( knowledgeable ?) mind can capture?

DB: Are you saying that it can't?

K: I don't think it is possible for the mind to 'capture' it, grasp it, understand, for the mind to 'look at' it even. Sir, after having examined 'scientifically' the ( internal structure of the?) atom - don't you feel there is something much more beyond all that?

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

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

DB: It is clear that whatever we 'know' ( already) it is limited and there must be something more ( left to be discovered) beyond.

K: How can That communicate with you so that you can ( experientially?) 'enter' It ? Sir, what is beyond ( inner) emptiness? Is it silence? Or is that silence part of emptiness?

DB: Yes, I should say that.

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

DB: Something totally independent, that is what the word 'absolute' really means - it doesn't depend on anything, something entirely self moving, self active.

K: Yes. Would you say that every ( material or mental ?) thing has a cause and 'That' has no cause at all?

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

K: You see probably it can never be put into words...

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

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

DB: There is always room, logically, for something beyond that.

K: No, no, no. There is nothing beyond It. I feel 'that' (innermost Ground of Creation) is the beginning and the ending of everything. Sir, just in ordinary parlance, the 'ending' and the 'beginning' are the same. Right?

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

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

K:... energy, emptiness, silence, all that is ( behinning and ending?) on that 'Ground'. There is nothing beyond It.

DB: You mean to say that this Ground has no cause.

K: That is the beginning and the ending (of All That Is?) . Does that convey anything to you?

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

K: Would you say further that (life has?) no beginning and no ending ? The implications are enormous. Is 'death' the complete ending of everything?

DB: We began with ( the state of inner) emptiness as the ending of 'things', isn't it?

K: Yes, yes. That ( inward space of?) emptiness is the 'death' of everything the human mind has cultivated (in its ages old evolution ) .

DB: Right...

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

DB: Yes, it is (part of?) the universal mind.

K: That ''emptiness'' can only exist when there is the death of the 'particular'.

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

K: Oh yes, oh yes...

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

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

DB: Into the Ground ?

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

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

K: And that 'dies' too.

DB: Into the Ground (of Creation). So we could say this ( original) Ground is neither born not dies.

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

DB: Yes : out of That that everything 'arises' and 'dies'.

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

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

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

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

K: But it hasn't. That Ground hasn't any relationship with man.

DB: Apparently not...

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

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

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

DB: Well, we went into this ( series of K-Bohm dialogues) logically starting from the suffering of mankind, showing it originates in a 'wrong turning' and that leads inevitably...

K: Yes but...howcan you help me get on the right path ? And to that you (magistrally ?) say, '' (For starters) don't (struggle to) become anything (other than what you are, inwardly ?)'' .

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

K: That he won't even 'listen' to you.

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

K: Obviously you can see what is the barrier. The ( self-protecting mental shield of the?) 'I'.

DB: Yes but I meant, more deeply...

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

DB: What he wants is the result of the ( ego-centric) way he is thinking.

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

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

K: Of course. ( Tele-evangelists like?) Billy Graham are doing it everyday (for free ?) …

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

K: Ah no, this isn't ( the same?) 'God'.

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

K: Yes. To give them hope, give them faith, and to make their (inner) life a little more comfortable ...

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

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

DB: Exactly.

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

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

K: Live ( in freedom?) .

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

K: Yes. When you have no (inner ) conflicts, no 'I' (no 'egotism' ?) , there is 'something else' operating.

DB: Yes, because the Christian idea of 'perfection' may seem rather boring because there is nothing to do (besides chanting & praying?) .

K: Sir we must continue this (insightful dialogue?) because it is something that has got to be 'put into orbit' (of human Consciousness?) .

DB: It seems impossible.

K: We already have gone pretty far.

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Tue, 01 Oct 2013
Topic: K The essential Texts

3RD K CONVERSATION WITH DAVID BOHM (reader friendly edited )


B: The question that we might discuss is whether this ( Sacred?) Ground (of Creation ) which we were talking about the other day, is it as indifferent to mankind, as the physical universe appears to be? In the past people were more religious and felt that the ground of our existence is in something beyond matter - 'God', or whatever they wished to call it. And that gave them a sense of deep meaning to the whole of their existence, which meanwhile has gone away. That is one of the difficulties of modern life, the sense that it doesn't have any ( deeper) meaning .

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

B: Perhaps we could start by clearing this up: if this Ground is indifferent to ( the fate of?) human beings then it would be the same as scientists' 'ground' - the material universe appears to be totally indifferent to mankind. It goes in immense vastness, it pays no attention, it may produce earthquakes and catastrophes, it might wipe us out, it essentially is not interested in mankind. It does not care whether man survives or does not survive . Now I think that in the past people felt that 'God' was a ( sacred) ground who was not indifferent to mankind. You see they may have invented it but that is what they believed. And that is what gave them …

K:... a tremendous energy, quite.

B: Now I think the point ( that needs clarification) would be: would this Ground be indifferent to mankind?

K: What is the relationship of this Ground (of All Creation?) to man? What is Its relationship with man and man's relationship to It?

B: Yes, that is the ( 2-way) question. Does man have some significance to It? And does It have significance to man?

K: Suppose you say this Ground ( does really) Exist , then the next question is: what relationship has It to man and what is man's relationship to it? How would one discover, or find out if this Ground exists at all? In 'scientific' terms as well as the feeling of it, the non verbal communication of it?

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

K: Rational.

B: Something that we can actually touch ?

K: Sense. "Scientifically", we mean by that, rational, logical, sane, many can come to it - that it isn't just one man's assertion. Because we said from the very beginning that if 'half a dozen' of us actually freed ourselves it can be shown , not just verbally talk about it. Now, (reaching) this ( innermost?) Ground (of Creation?) has certain demands: absolute (inner) Silence, absolute 'emptiness', which means no sense of egotism in any form. So, ( in the context of an authentic meditation ?) am I willing to let go all my 'egotism' because I want to find out if what you are saying is actually true ?

B: Perhaps in some sense one is willing but this 'willingness' is not subject to our conscious effort or determination.

K: So we go ( quickly?) through all that: it is not ( an action based on ) will, it is not desire, it is not effort. And what are the facets or the nature of the self? You point them out to me : attachments, fears, beliefs and I say, 'Right' - Can ten of us do it by being absolute rational (in our self) observation. I think if ten people do it, any ( New Age?) scientist will accept it. But ( as of now?) there are no ten such people (and no 'holistic scientists' either ?)

B: I see. So, ( for starters?) we'll have to do it together publicly...

K:... that's it.

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

K: Now, who will do this sir? The 'scientific community' will readily say that this is all nonsense, but 'X' says 'It is not nonsense, there is such a ( Sacred) Ground and you do these things ( hopefully?) It will be there.

B: Yes, but as of now, some of the things you're saying may not (in the beginning) make (total) sense to the person you talk with.

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

B: Yes, his whole ( cultural) background is going against it. You see the ( cultural) background gives you the notion of what makes sense and what doesn't. For example, one of the (highly recommended ?) steps is not to bring in 'time'...

K: Ah, that's much more difficult.

B: Yes but that is fairly crucial.

K: I would begin at the 'schoolboy level'. and say, look, do these elementary things (for homework?)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B: All right, first what is happening 'out there'. The instruments and theories are needed to even ( prove the actuality of those facts)

K: So, what are the (psychological?) facts 'out there'? There are (lots of human ) conflicts, why should I make a theory about it? And inwardly the only ( central) fact is that ( the consciousness of?) mankind suffers, is miserable, confused, (entangled in a state of inner) conflict. That is a fact. Why should I make a theory about it?

B: You must go slowly. You see , the ('psy' specialists & ) scientists might say yes, psychology is the science with which we try to look inwardly, to investigate the mind. And ( some obviously) biased people have ( created their own models or ) theories such as did Freud, and Jung and others. Now we have to make it clear why it has no point to make these theories.

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

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

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

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

K: A way of observing. So, can't you just 'observe' inwardly whatever is going on ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B: When it comes to 'looking inwardly', the question is whether a 'theory of psychology' would be of any help in doing this. ( It may, but?) the (hidden) danger is that the theory itself might become the new prejudice.

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

B: That could become a prejudice because we have not yet observed (directly) anything to found it on.

K: So (we can take the ) common factor (of human consciousness?) that man 'suffers' (or feels frustrated inwardly...?)

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

K: All right. ( Living in a state of inner?) Conflict?

B: Well, they have argued about it.

K: Take attachment, pleasure, fear...

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

K: Which is what?

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

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

B: We have to make this point clear. In the past somebody like Aristotle might have said 'rationality' (thinking rationally ) is the common factor of man. Now your argument against it is that men are not generally 'rational'.

K: No, they are not.

B: Though they can be scientifically rational , they are not ( when it concerns their personal self-interest?) .

K: That's it.

B: So you are saying that is not a ( 100% true?) fact.

K: That's right.

B: I brought up 'rationality' (as a common factor?) because the very existence of science depends on people feeling that their common goal is finding the 'truth' which is beyond personal satisfaction - if your theory is proven to be wrong you must accept that it is wrong, though it is not gratifying. It becomes very disappointing for these people but they accept it, and say, 'Well, that is wrong'. They may agree that they are not very rational in private life, but they say that at least they are capable of being ( totally objective & ) rational when they do scientific work.

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' ('territorial'?) in their relationship with other human beings.

B: Yes. They cannot maintain it.

K: So this ( incapacity of being totally rational inwardly ?) is the common factor.

B: O.K. Their 'rationality' is limited and you say the fundamental fact is more generally they cannot be ( totally) rational (when it comes to their own self-interest?) .

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

B: Yes. Let's see how we could proceed with a scientific (rigorous) approach. Why is everybody 'irrational' (inwardly?) ?

K: Because we have been ( culturally) conditioned that way.

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

K: We can go into all that.

B: Yes, but I meant that following that ( horizontal 'time-) line' is not going to answer our question (experientially) . However, you were saying the other day that perhaps man took a 'wrong' turning ...

K: You are going back to 'taking the wrong turn'. I think the wrong turn was taken when ( the self-interest based ) thinking ( aka : 'thought'?) became all important.

B: Yes, and what made it all important? And also it would have to be made clear why (our self-centred) thought causes all the difficulties. These are the two ( scientifically friendly ) questions.

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

B: I think he has 'slipped' into it. You see, in the beginning he did not see (its potential ) danger.

K: The (experientially observable answer) is fairly easy. ( For elementary survival reasons?) the things that I 'know' are more important (& safer?) than the things I 'don't know' - ( so we kept gathering) the 'things' thought has created, the images, all the rest of it.

B: Yes. So, it ( surreptitiously) slipped into irrationality by saying ' What I know is all that matters .' But why should man have made that (elementary ) mistake?

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

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

K: Because (inwardly) we are basically ( driven by a stream of collective self-interest which is inherently ?) 'irrational'. The ( holistically inclined?) man, Mr 'X', starts ( experientially by acknowledging that) 'I am irrational, I contradict myself' and so on. (And action-wise?) I will have to clear up that first, either (a) step by step, or (b) Do the whole thing at one ( totally insightful?) 'blow'. Right? ( But in both cases?) I'll have to accept ( as a starting inner fact) that I am irrational.

B: Well there is a (major thinking block or ? ) difficulty: if you accept you are (inwardly) irrational, you get stuck, because you say : how are you going to begin. Right?

K: If I accept completely (or... see the actual truth?) that I am (inwardly) irrational - I am ( becoming experientially ?) rational !

B: We'll have to make this point more clear. We could say that man has been deluding himself into believing that he is already rational.

K: The (starting inner) fact is I am ( holistically-wise ?) 'irrational' (fragmented inwardly?) . And to find the ( Sacred) Ground (of Creation?) I must become terribly 'rational' (orderly?) in my life. That's all I start with. And irrationality has been brought about by ( my self-interest based?) thought creating this idea of 'me' as separate from everybody else, etc., etc. So can I, find the (root) cause of my irrationality and wipe it out? If I can't do that I cannot reach the ground which is the most rational. So, become rational in your (inner) life, . Begin in here rather than out there. Now, this must be done without effort, without any sense of (outside) persuasion, otherwise you are back in the old ( self-centred mind-?) game.

B: So then you might as well look at the (inner) source of this whole irrationality (inner fragmentation?) .

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

B: But now you'll have to make it clear how it really can be done.

K: I say first become aware that (inwardly?) you are totally irrational.

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

K: No, that is my ( 'no escape' ) question. I say you are (inwardly) 'totally' irrational. First recognize (the inward truth of?) it. The moment you admit there is some part of you which wants to wipe away the irrationality...

B: But there must be sufficient rationality to understand what you are talking about. So, I would rather put it that you are dominated (inwardly) by your (self-interest based) irrationality, that irrationality dominates even though there is enough rationality to discuss the question.

K: A few of us begin to talk because we are willing to listen to each other, we are willing to set aside any conclusions we have, and that gives us the (basic) 'rationality' to listen to each other.

B: Yes. Listening is essential for rationality.

K: So can we, who are listening, be rational somewhat and begin? 'X', 'Y', 'Z', because they listen to each other, because they have become somewhat rational, therefore they are listening to each other, we can see that ( our self-centred?) thought is the main source of this current.

B: Yes, well we have to say what exactly do you mean by 'thought' ?

K: Thought is the 'movement' of the memory (experience, knowledge) stored up in the brain.

Q: You see Krishnaji at this very moment we are also 'thinking' and it seems that this kind of thinking is not just ( the mechanical response of?) memory.

B: Is all our rational thinking only (the processed response of?) memory?

K: Wait a minute. If we are ( inwardly) completely rational there is total insight. That insight uses thought and then our thinking is rational.

B: Then it is rational.

K: My god, yes.

B: Then thought is not only memory?

K: No, no.

B: Well, since it is being used by insight.

K: Insight uses thought.

B: Ordinarily thought runs on its own, it runs like a machine on its own, it is not rational. But when thought is the instrument of insight then you see it would be a qualitative difference between...

K: Agreed, agreed. Then thought is not memory.

B: Memory is used, but it is not based on memory.

K: That's right. Then what? 'X', 'Y', 'Z', who are fairly rational, who have seen this point that thought being limited, divisive, incomplete, can never be rational...

B: ...without insight. K: That's right. Now how is ( the holistically friendly?) 'X', 'Y', 'Z', to have insight? Which is total rationality. Not the ( ego-centric) 'rationality' of thought.

B: I should call it the 'rationality' of ( holistic) perception.

K: Yes, the 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 ( comprehending?) insight? That is the next question : What am I to do - or not do- to have this immediate insight, which is not of time, which has no cause, which is not based on – (expecting a) reward or punishment, it is free of all that. Now in discussing with 'X', 'Y', 'Z', who want to come upon the ground, how how does the mind have this insight? It is possible to have that ( global) insight if your mind is free from time.

B: Right. Let's go slowly, because implicitly 'time' is taken as the (objective) ground of everything in any scientific work. And also in the common sense, even in the ancient Greek mythology, Chronos the God of Time produces his children and then ...swallows them. That is exactly what we said about the Ground (of Creation) , everything comes from the Ground and dies to the Ground. So in a way mankind began to take time already as 'the' ground.

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

B: That's right. So up until now even scientists have been looking for the ground somewhere in time, and everybody else too. And you say time is not the ground. This of course somebody might say is nonsense but we say OK, we will stay open to that. Right?

K: We, ( the holistically friendly?) 'X', 'Y', 'Z', are open to it.

B: We are going to be open to it but some people might easily dismiss it right away. Now if you say time is not the ground, we don't know where we are.

K: I know where I am. We will go into it.

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

K: Yes, ( inwardly) time is ( created by) thought.

B: Yes, well, let's go slowly again on that because there is an objective chronological time, but in addition we are thinking (in terms of time) . You see thinking takes time even chronologically but in addition it projects a kind of 'imaginary time'...

K:... which is the future ...

B:... which is the future, the present and the past as we experience it. This (continuity of ) 'time' which is imagined is (the result of a) real process of thinking.

K: Which is a fact.

B: It is a fact. It is taking time physically, to think, but we also have the time we can imagine the whole past and future.

K: Yes, which are facts.

B: So let's say that this 'time' is not the ground, perhaps not even physically. But we also feel that we exist in time. Without ( a physical continuity of) time there could be no (psychological continuity of?) me.

K: That's it.

B: So, 'I' must exist in time, constently trying to be or to become something.

K: Becoming and being are in the field of time. Now can the human mind ( or consciousness ?) which has evolved through time...

Q: What do you mean here by mind ?

K: Mind - the brain, my senses, my feelings all that is the mind.

B: The 'particular' mind, you mean?

K: Particular mind, of course, I am not talking of the Mind which is (…) - I am talking of 'X', 'Y', 'Z', s' mind. The human mind has evolved through time. And now we are asking: can this mind free ( or disengage itself momentarily?) of time and have an insight which is totally rational, which then can operate on thought, which will be ( holistically friendly & ) rational? Now 'X' says : how am I to be free of ( inwardly thinking in terms of?) time - as 'my' becoming (something ) .

B: Or as being ( someone or something?) ?

K: Of course, becoming is being. I start from being to become.

B: And being something in myself - being happier.

K: Yes, the whole thing - the 'more'. Now can my brain ( meditatively?) investigating to find out if the Ground exists, can my whole mind be free of ( thinking inwardly in terms of?) time? That is, can my brain not function as it has always in 'time' as thought? Which means can ( the time-binding process of ?) thought come to an end?

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

K: Yes, which is ( creating its own continuity in?) time.

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

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

B: The 'psychological' ( mechanism of?) 'time' comes to a stop ?

K: Yes, I am talking of that.

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

K: Of course. That is understood.

B: Are we discussing the conscious ( temporal) experience ?

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

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

K: The memory of (the past) experiences, hurts, attachments, the whole of it. Now can that (self-sustained movement ?) come to an end? Of course it can (in the wider context of meditation?) . It can come to an end when the (inward ) perception asks, what is it hurt or damaged psychologically, the very perception of it is also the ending of it. Not carrying it over, which is the ( psychological ?) time. The ending of it is the ending of time. Is that clear?

( To Recap:) Suppose that 'X' is hurt, ( or psychologically) wounded from childhood, for various reasons, and by listening, talking, discussing with you, realizes that the continuation of these hurts is (generating its own compensatory process of ) time. And ( in order to find out experientially?) the Ground, this ( psychological continuity of?) 'time' must end. So can ( the memory of all my past hurts) end immediately ?

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

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

B: What do you mean by that?

K: All right. In the (process of being & ) becoming, which is ( my psychological) time, ( for safety reasons?) I have created a ( self-protective interface or ?) 'image' about myself. Right?

B: Well ( my self-centred) thought has (instinctively) created that image.

K: Thought has created (my personal or public self-?) 'image' through its own experience, through education, through conditioning, (and pretending ) that this 'image' is distinct from ( the real?) 'me'. But this image is actually ( a versatile facet of?) 'me'

B: Yes....

K: But we have separated this ( psychologically protective ) 'image' and the 'me', which is (holistically speaking?) irrational. So in realizing that the 'image' (or the whole image making mechanism) 'is' me, I have become somewhat...more 'rational' .

B: Well, this is not very clear because if a person is hurt, he also feels that what was hurt was not only his image, but himself .

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

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

K: Which is ( holistically speaking an act of ?) 'irrationality'.

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

K: Quite right. So by seeing this, I become ( holistically) rational and the action is to be free of (both the image and the hurt) immediately (ASAP?)

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

K: I 'am' that.

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

K: Yes, who can operate on it.

B: Right. Now that ( image fixing?) takes time.

K: That 'is' time.

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

K: That's right.

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

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

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

K: The 'me' ( feels it) is different because it is (engaged in a constant ) 'becoming'

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

K: Yes. I am getting hurt. There is a separation: the (all controlling ) 'me' , which is always (updating its temporal ) becoming , says, I must control it . I must wipe out that hurt. I must act upon it - and all the rest of it. So all this movement of separation is ( part of 'my' continuity in ?) time.

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

K: My ( holistic) 'rationality' discovers there is no separation.

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

K: That's right. Because the ( central) illusion is 'I' am becoming .

B: Yes. So I am hurt and I will become 'non hurt'. So, that very thought maintains (both the 'me' and ?) the hurt.

K: That's right.

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

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

B: Well it does, but I think that before that happens you get a kind of (a personal) shock or pain which you identify and then you verbalise it by saying 'I am hurt' and that immediately implies the separation ( of the 'observer' in order?) to do something.

K: Of course. But if I am not hurt I don't know anything about separation or not separation.

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

K: Yes, any kind of shock. ( To recap:) ) I am ( holistically speaking ? ) 'irrational' as long as I maintain the ('image' making mechanism that inevitably will get ) hurt and try to do something about it , which is to become (or be better protected?) . Then 'irrationality' comes in.

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

K: Ah, that means I am no longer observing (myself) using ( the past experience accumulated in?) 'time' as a (guideline for my ) observation.

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

K: That's right.

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

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

B: 'Psychological' time ?

K: Of course, that is understood.

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

K: Does not continue, it ends (and it heals?) .

B: It ends...

K: Because 'you' are not ( struggling to?) become anything.

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

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

So, ( to re-recap) we are basically talking about ( having a total ?) insight. That insight being free of time acts upon memory, makes thought (the thinking brain?) 'rational'. We said insight comes into being when there is no (psychological continuity in ?) time. Thought which is based on memory, experience, knowledge, that is the 'movement' of time as becoming. We are saying that to be free of ( our self-created illusion of?) 'time' requires insight. Insight being free of time, it may use the capacity of thinking to explain, but it (basically) acts. Before our action was based on thought, now when there is insight there is only (a directly perceptive) action. So insight doesn't (need to ) use thought.

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

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

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

K: Partial. The scientists, the painters, the architects, the doctors, the artists and so on, they have 'partial' insight. But here we are talking of ( the holisticaly inclined?) 'X', 'Y', 'Z', who are seeking the Ground (of All Being) , they are becoming rational and we are saying insight is without time and therefore without thoughts, and that insight is action. Because that insight is rational, our action is rational. (Eg) When the young man K in 1929 dissolved the Order (of the Star ) there was no thought. He had an insight (into what was wrong with it & ?) finished. He dissolved it. Why do we need thought?

B: But then you used some thought in ( the practical aspects of?) dissolving the Order. Say, when to do it, how to do it.

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

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

K: That is nothing. It is like moving a cushion from here (Ommen?) to there (Ojai?) .

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

K: It is like a wave.

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

K: Yes, of course, of course. Because insight is without time therefore the brain itself has undergone a (holistic ?) change. (To wrap it up: ) does it mean, sir, every human response must be viewed, or must enter into ( the clarity field of?) insight? Is there a (timeless flash of ?) insight which will cover the whole field of jealousy: envy, greed, and all that is involved, so end the (whole causation of that?) jealousy. (Holistically?) 'irrational' people say, step by step, get rid of jealousy, get rid of attachment, get rid of anger, get rid of this, that and the other. Which is (refueling ) the constant process of (self-) becoming. But the (total ) 'insight', which is (holistically ?) rational, wipes all that away. Right?

B: Right...

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

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

K: Oh yes, I will guarantee it!



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

K: Is this Ground of Being a (new) philosophic concept? Or it is something ( Real & ) 'absolute' in the sense that there is nothing beyond It? First I want to see whether we perceive That (Ultimate Ground of Creation?) as a (speculative intellectual) concept. Go we approach It from the (conceptual) point of view? Or with a ( philo-sophical?) 'love of truth', with (an authentic passion?) of investigating the process of the human mind ?

B: Well, perhaps not even all the 'philosophers' ( from the Greek 'philo-sophia meaning 'love of Truth'?) have been basing themselves on concepts. But certainly, (the modern ) philosophy is (opportunistically ?) taught through concepts.

K: I didn't say 'all', sir.

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

K: So, what is the (qualitative ?) difference between a 'religious' ( aka: 'holistic' ) mind and a ( conceptual) philosophic mind? Can we investigate the Ground (of Creation ?) with a mind that is disciplined ( to function exclusively in the field of?) knowledge?

B: Well, fundamentally we can say that the Ground is 'unknown', therefore we can't begin with ( using our available ?) knowledge. Many years ago we had a ( private ) discussion in London and you suggested we should start with the 'unknown'.

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

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

K: How can my ( culturally 'pre-formatted'?) mind which has evolved through knowledge, which has been highly disciplined in knowledge, even touch That, because that is not knowledge, that is not put together by thought.

B: Yes, as soon as you say, 'prove it', you want to turn it into knowledge. To be absolutely certain,( this kind of static?) knowledge is what you want. And yet ( in blindly accepting someone's authority?) ) there is also the danger of self-deception and delusion.

K: Right from the beginning we said the Ground cannot be (experientially approached ?) as long as there is any form of illusion (aka : wishful thinking?) - the projection of one's desire, pleasure, fear and all that.

B: The ( science) person who says 'Prove it', is also trying to protect it against those illusions. But ( in the area of Meditation?) this is a vain hope...

K: So is this (innermost?) Ground (of Creation ?) an idea that has to be logically investigated? Or is it something that cannot be investigated with a mind trained, disciplined, by (its materialistic ) experience and knowledge, which can only function in that area (of the known?) . And you ( K?) come along and tell me that this Ground is not something to be understood by thought. Then what am I to do? I have only this ( subliminally self-centred?) mind that has been conditioned by knowledge. How is one to (meditatively?) move away from all that and 'feel' this thing, touch it, comprehend it? You (K) tell me that words will not convey That, that one must have a mind that is free from all ( second hand inner ) knowledge. You are asking me an 'impossible' thing, aren't you? ( Metaphorically speaking?) You ( K ?) are on the other bank as it were, and tell me that there is no boat to cross. You can't swim across either . In fact 'you' can't do anything. Basically that is what it comes to. So you are asking this ( knowledgeable?) 'particular' mind to eschew all its knowledge ! Hasn't this been said in the Christian world ? B: In some sense the Christians tell you to put your faith to God, or (as an alternative shortcut ?) to 'give yourself over to Jesus' and let Him act as the mediator between you and God.

K: Yes. But (in the ancient Hindu spiritual tradition ) 'Vedanta' (literally 'the end of the Vedas') means (or points to?) the ending of knowledge.

B: It could mean that I suppose. I don't know Sanskrit that well, but 'Veda' by itself means knowledge. And 'Vedanta' means ( what comes at ?) the end of it, yes.

K: But being an (educated) Westerner, ( experientially speaking) this means nothing to me. Because from the Greeks on, the culture in which I have lived is emphasizing knowledge. But when you talk to a (highly cultivated?) Eastern mind, they acknowledge that in their religious life, a time must come when 'knowledge' ( symbolised by the Vedas?) must end. Vedanta is the whole way of looking at life ( free of knowledge) . They would immediately understand ( the concept ) that the mind must be free of knowledge. But it is a theoretical understanding. But to a Westerner, it means absolutely nothing.

B: Well, I think there has been a similar (spiritual attitude in) Western tradition, but not as common. Like in the Middle Ages there was a book written called 'The Cloud of Unknowing', which is on that line, but that is not the main line of Western thought.

K: So what shall I do since I can see (or intuit?) vaguely, that coming upon this Ground, could gives an immense significance to my life.

B: Yes, well people have used the notion of God to give significance to life.

K: (This) 'God' is merely an idea.

B: Yes but this idea contains something similar to the Eastern idea that ( the wisdom of?) 'God' is beyond our knowing. Most people accept it that way.

K: But you ( K) tell me that you cannot (experientially ?) come upon It through any manipulation of ( the self-centred?) thought.

B: I was just trying to say that there is this problem, danger, delusion, in the sense that in the West people say, 'Yes, that is quite true, it is through a direct experience of Jesus that we come upon it, not through thought', you see.

K: I mean after all a 'direct experience of Jesus'...

B: Well I may not be able to express their view accurately. Perhaps by the 'Grace of God' ?

K: As a fairly thoughtful man, I reject all that.

B: Yes, why do you reject it?

K: Because it has become 'common' ( vulgarised ?) , first of all, in the sense that everybody says that. And also there may be in it a great (potential) of illusion created by our own desires, hopes, fears.

Q: But wouldn't you say that there are some more serious people in all religions who would say that God, or the 'absolute', or the Ground is something that cannot be ( dualistically) experienced ?

K: Oh yes, 'X' says it cannot be 'experienced' ( by the self-centred mind) - it is something so (immaterially?) immense that (the materialistic?) thought cannot capture it. So, how is a human brain conditioned in knowledge, ( culturally standardised &?) disciplined, how is it to free itself from all that?

Q: By understanding its own limitation?

K: When you say that my thought is limited I don't (really) feel it. It is just a lot of words which you have told me.

Q: Well, perhaps it does require some serious (self-) investigation ?

K: You don't even need the (analytical) investigation. How will you 'aid' (assist?) me to have this (holistic insight ?) that ( my self-centred?) thinking is such a small affair, so that 'I get it' - you don't have to explain it.

Q: But isn't it possible look directly at what the ( self-centred thinking?) mind can and cannot do ?

K: Which is, ('me' ) thinking, ( 'me') feeling, ( 'me') hating, ('me)' loving - the everydat inner activity of the (particular ?) mind. I know this ( limitation) very well, you don't have to tell me.

Q: I would say you don't ( actually) know it, you may only 'think' you know it.

K: I am fed up with this (psycho-analytical) investigation, I have done it all my life. I say these are all just words. How am I to have this 'passion' that will 'explode me out' of my little enclosure. You understand? I have built a ( self-protective inner interface or ?) 'wall' which (through a subliminal process of self-identification?) is (becoming) 'myself'. I have lived ( less or more safely?) with this 'thing' for millions of years and I am still (solidly) 'anchored' in it . You talk about the Ground because you see something that is breathtaking, so alive, extraordinary and I am ( stuck) in here, anchored in here. You, who have 'seen' the Ground must do something ( educationally?) that will 'break up' this thing completely.

Q: I must try to do something, or you must (try to) do something?

K: What is the human mind's relationship to this (innermost?) Ground (of All Being ) ? Perhaps if I could establish ( an interactive?) relationship, It could break up this ( self-enclosing?) 'centre', totally. If the mind could establish an ( inner ) relationship with That, my mind has become (an integral part of) That. So, I am just asking, is there an ( interactive ?) relationship between That and the ( holistically friendly?) human mind?

Q: Are you suggesting establishing a 'bridge' - if there is such a thing ?

K: I am asking this question being fully aware of (its potential ?) 'dangers' . Can this ( egotistic) 'centre' to be 'blasted' ? Do I see that this 'centre' is the cause of all the mischief, of all the illusions, all the effort, all the misery, everything is from that core ? After a million years,we haven't been able to get rid of it. Is there a ( possibility for a redeeming ?) relationship at all? What is the relationship between ( holistic?) 'Good'- ness and ( the self-centred fragmentation of ?) 'bad'-ness ? - it comes to the same thing. There is no relationship.

B: It depends upon what you mean by 'relationship'.

K: All right: contact, being in touch, being in the same room.

B: Coming from the same root ?

K: Yes, same root.

Q: So, Krishnaji, aren't we postulating there is the Good and that there is the 'evil'?

K: To use another (more holistically friendly) words : is there (an authentic?) relationship between the 'whole', and 'that which is not whole' ? Obviously not.

B: Well, if you are saying that the 'centre' is a (self -created) illusion - then an illusion cannot be related to that which is true because the content of the illusion has no relation to that wich is true.

K: That's it! You see, that is a great ( experiential?) discovery. 'I' - this petty (self-centred ?) 'thing' - want to establish relationship with That Immensity. ( Obviously...) 'I' cannot (do it) .

B: Yes, it is not just because of its Immensity but because in fact this 'thing' is not actually.

K: Yes.

Q: Dr Bohm says the centre is not 'actual'. But that is part of my (experiential) difficulty - I don't see this (psychological) centre is not 'actual'.

B: We are using the term 'actual' in the sense of not being a (self-created?) illusion. I mean, something is acting ( within our self-centred thought process ) but it is not the 'I' which we ( think we ) know.

K: Do you see that?

Q: No. You say this ( egotistic ) 'centre' must explode. It does not 'explode' because I don't see the 'falseness' in it.

K: You missed my point - it can't do anything about it. It has prayed, it has done everything (to transcend its limitations but...) it is still there. And he (K) comes along and tells me there is this (Otherness) 'thing'. And this ('self'-centred ?) mind says it it wants to have that relationship with That . And 'That' says, 'Sorry, 'you' can't have relationship with me.' That's all! My million years of ( materialistic ) experience has given me a certain ( intellectual ?) capacity, but... I realize at the end of it all that there is no ( interactive ?) relationship between 'me' and Truth. That ( Universal Intelligence ?) says, 'Sorry'. So what is happening to this (self-centred) human mind that has lived this way, done everything that man has done in search for That, and That one morning (returns your Call and?) says , 'You have no relationship with me' ?

Q: If It (really) says that, it is a tremendous shock to the 'me'...

K: Isn't it a shock to discover that all your knowledge is ( inwardly) valueless? All your self-examinations, all your struggles, all the virtues that one has gathered through centuries of abstinence, self- control, at the end of it... you see they are valueless. Sir, you understand what it does to me?

B: I mean, if the whole thing goes ( down the drain?) then it is of no consequence....

K: Because what you have done or not done (inwardly) , is absolutely of no ( authentic spiritual) value.

B: Not in a 'fundamental' sense. It has only relative value within a certain ( cultural) framework, but in itself it has no ( intrinsical spiritual) value.

K: Yes, thought has relative value. But the Ground says "whatever you have done on Earth" has no ( truly spiritual) meaning. Do we receive the full blow of it ?

Q: Well you see, ( modern science's ) dismissal of ( 'Universal Intelligence' or?) 'God' has not had any shocking effect on people.

K: ( As) I 'am' ( sharing the same Consciousness as all ) the people, it has given me a tremendous shock to discover the Truth that all the churches, all the prayers, all the books have absolutely no ( authentic spiritual?) meaning - except in building a better ( 'humane' ) society and so on .

B: If we could manage to bring this point to order then it would have a great meaning to build a Good society.

K: From there I start creating a (new ) society.

B: But as long as this ( egotistic) 'disorder' is ( going on) at the 'centre' we can't use that (major insight?) in the right way. I think it would be more accurate to say that there is a great potential in all that (modern developpment) but as long as it does not affect the 'centre' - and there is no sign that it has ever done so...

Q: You see, what I don't understand is that there are a great many people who in their life have never ( even considered to ?) pursue what you call the 'Ground'.

K: The are not interested.

Q: Well I an not so sure. How would you approach such a person?

K: I am not interested in approaching any (such) person. All the 'good works' I have done, the Ground says are valueless. But if I can drop all that (karmic heritage of self-centredness ?) my mind 'is' (becoming one with?) the Ground. Then from there I (can really) 'move'. From there I can create ( the right foundations for a new?) society.

( To recap:) I want to clear up all the illusions that I hold - not just some of them . I have ( easily) got rid of my illusion about nationalism; I have got rid of my illusion regarding belief, about Christ, about this, about that. But at the end of it, I realize my ( 'all-knowing' ?) mind is ( the greatest?) illusion. To me, ( as a human being) who has lived ( personally or collectively?) for thousands of years, to find it is absolutely worthless, it is something enormous.

B: When you say 'you' have lived for thousands years, does that means that all the experience of mankind is...

K:... is 'me' ( contained in our shared consciousness ) .

B: Do you feel that?

K: I do.

B: And 'how' do you feel it?

K: It is an absolute, irrevocable 'fact' to me.

B: Yes, well perhaps we could share this ( holistic) feeling. It seems to be one of the ( important) steps that we're missing ; you have repeated this point quite often as an important part of (understanding) the whole thing.

K: Which means sir, that when you ( selflessly ?) 'love' somebody there is no 'me' (involved) , it is ( Universal?) Love. In the same way, when I say 'I am ( sharing the consciousness of all ?) humanity', it is so, it is part of me.

B: Well let's say it is a (holistic) feeling that if others have gone through it then I also have gone through it.

K: Of course. But one is not (yet totally ?) aware that our brains are not 'particular' brains but the (total) 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 (personally) through all that. Let's say that somebody thousands of years ago went through science or philosophy. Now how does that affect me? That is what is not very clear.

K: Because we are ( comfortably installed or ?) 'caught' in this self-centred narrow little ( egotistic ) cell, which refuses to look beyond (its safety perimeter?) .

B: That is the thing which has been going on.

K: But you come along as a ( holistically friendly?) scientist, or as a religious man, saying that 'my' brain is the brain of mankind.

B: Yes and that all our knowledge is the knowledge of mankind. So that in some way we all have ( access to) this knowledge. (Not in specific details, of course).

K: So you tell me all this . But I come to (see the actual truth of ) it only (after ?) I have given up the ordinary (psychologically 'sticky'?) things like 'nationalism', you know...

B: Yes, once we have given up our (personal ) 'divisions', we can see that our experience is that of all mankind.

K: It is so obvious sir. You go to the most primitive village in India and they will tell you all about their ( personal) problems, wife, children, poverty. It is ( essentially) exactly the same thing, only here ( in the Ojai valley ?) he is wearing a different style of trousers, or whatever it is. For 'X' it is an indisputable fact, 'it is so'. So, at the end of all this million of years (of a widely diversified evolution?) , I suddenly discover, that all that I have done (regarding my inner life ?) is ( either redundant or?) useless. They are 'ashes'. You see sir, this (realisation?) doesn't ( necessarily) depress one. That is the beauty of it. I think it is like the ( ancient myth of?) Phoenix.

B: Rising from ashes ?

K: ( Re-)born out of its own ashes.

B: Well in a way this is (the ultimate ) freedom- to be free of all that (burden of the past)

K: Something totally new is ( being) born.

B: You said before that this (newly born) mind 'is' ( becoming one with?) the Ground, it 'is' the Unknown.

K: Yes. But it is not this mind. It is a 'new' mind.

B: That's clear. The ( particular) mind 'is' ( intrinsically limited by ?) its (psychological ?) content, its content is ( expressing itself as ) 'knowledge' and without that ( heavy burden of 'psychological' ?) knowledge it is a 'new' mind

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Tue, 21 Jan 2014
Topic: K The essential Texts

6TH K CONVERSATION WITH DAVID BOHM (reader friendly edited)


Dr Bohm: I wonder if we could discuss ( your assertion that?) insight changes the brain cells.

Krishnamurti: As it is constituted the human brain functions (predominantly) in the (closed circle of its past ?) memory, experience, knowledge. It has functioned in that area as much as possible and (apparently?) most people are still satisfied with it.

B: Well, they don't know of anything else...

K: Suppose 'X' asks himself what is a 'radical change', is it to take place in the outer environment, or in ( the field of) human relationships, with a sense of ( selfless?) love which is not in the area of knowledge and so on? Where is it to begin? Unless there is some ( qualitative?) mutation taking place inside the brain, it may be a superficial change, but not a change in depth.

B: Well, what is implied here is that the present state of affairs involves not only the ( conscious) mind but also the nervous system, the psycho-somatic body, all is set in a certain (self-centred) way.

K: Of course, that is what I meant, the whole movement is (set going ) in a certain way. And along that way I can modify, adjust, polish, a little more, a little less and so on, but if a ( serious) man is concerned with a very radical change, where is he to begin and what is there to change? 'X' sees he can change certain things along this way, but unless he finds a way to change the brain itself...

B: But what will change the brain?

K: The human brain has been set in a (self-centred?) pattern for millennia.

B: So the question is how can the brain change?

K: If this question is put to you as a scientist, what would your answer be?

B: I don't think science can deal with this ( 'mutational ') issue because it can't possibly probe that deeply into the structure of the brain anyway. Many questions are positing the relationship of brain and mind, which science has not been able to resolve. If it is not a ( quantifiable) material solution, for the moment science has very little to say about it.

K: You (K) tell me that insight can change the brain cells and so on. My immediate answer to that is, 'how'?

B: You were implying previously that there is 'something' beyond the brain, it seems clear, in putting that question. The very statement implies that insight is somehow beyond the ( physical) brain, else it couldn't change the brain.

K: You (K) explain that this 'insight' is not a result of progressive knowledge, it is not a process of time; it may be the real activity of an ( integrated?) brain.

B: I think people can generally see that ( 'intuition' or ?) 'insight' comes in a flash, it does not come through will. Those of us who have considered it at all, can see that. And probably ( bio-) chemistry won't bring it about either. So, it is not at all clear what is going to make this ( radical qualitative) change in the brain : is it something more than the brain, is it something deeper in the brain? This is one of the questions.

Q: Are you saying that the 'insight' is a function of the brain which acts without reference to its (previously known) content?

K: To the past, to the content.

B: That is a 'good' question, yes. Is there a function in the brain which is independent of the content, which is not conditioned by the content, but it might still be a physical function?

K: Sir, apart from this (self–interest based ? ) consciousness with its (conditioned ) content, is there in the brain an activity which is not touched by the content of this consciousness?

B: All right, that suggests that it may be possible for the brain to change. Either the brain is entirely controlled by its content, or in some way it is not that conditioned, it has some...

K: That is a 'dangerous' ( 'risky' statement?) of admitting to myself, and so of trying to tell somebody else, that there is a part of the human brain...

B: An activity ?

K:... all right, an activity of the brain which is not touched by ( its conditioned ?) content.

B: It is a possible activity. It may be that has not yet been awakened ?

K: It has not been awakened. That's right. So, is there such an activity which is totally independent of the ( conditioned) 'content'? And is it part of the brain? Would you say it is still ( of a ) material (nature)?

B: Yes. There could could be a deeper (and finer) level of matter which is not conditioned by the content.

K: I don't quite follow...

B: If you say water is matter then it is clear. Now, consider water in the ocean. Its 'waves' are not matter, they are just a 'process' in matter. So, is thought a material substance, or is it a process in some other material substance, like in the cells of the brain?

K: It is a material process in the brain.

B: Yes, scientists would generally agree with that.

K: Then can that material process ever be independent of something that is not a material process …

B: You are saying that the 'insight' is not a material process?

K: I must be careful of using the right words. Thought is a material process in the brain and any other movements springing from that material process is still ( of a ) material (nature) .

B: Yes, it has to be.

K: And is it (in) there another activity which is not a material process?

B: Well of course people have asked that question for ages. Is there a 'spirit' (or 'mind') beyond matter, right?

K: Is there some other activity in the brain which be related to this, to the material process ?

B: Well 'insight' cannot obviously depend on the material process as it would be just another material process. But you were saying that the material process (of thought) may be changed by 'insight' ?

K: The material process is dependent on 'that', but 'that' is not dependent on this.

B: So, 'that' ( non-material energy of?) insight can still act within the material process of the brain ?

K: That's right. It (the Mind?) is independent of the material process but yet it can act upon the material process.

B: Well let's discuss that a little. Generally speaking in science if A can act on B it is usually reciprocal action of B on A. We don't find situations where A acts on B and B never acts on A.

K: I see, I see.

B: This is one of the ( logical) difficulties you have raised. In human relations if I can act on you, you can act on me – right?

K: Yes. But if I don't respond to your action, I am independent of it.

B: You see, science generally finds that this kind of situation is not possible : to have a one-sided action.

Q: Could one maybe envisage that 'insight' is ( the action of ) a much larger ( and/or subtler?) movement than the material process of the brain, and therefore that much larger movement can act on the smaller movement but the smaller movement cannot act on the larger movement?

K: Yes, we are saying the same thing... B: Or if you drop a rock in the ocean, the ocean absorbs it with no significant...

K: Quite, quite.

Q: Well then they would still have an (inter)action amongst themselves but there is only one action that is significant

K: No, no, be careful. Don't enter into that too quickly. Sir, ( the action of selfless ?) love has no relationship to ( the action born of?) hate. These actions are independent. And this is a very important ( experiential) thing to discover : ( in a self-centred consciousness?) where there is ( resentment and/or) hate the 'Other' cannot exist. Right?

B: Yes, they can't act on each other.

K: No, they can't. So when (these materialistic ) scientists say A must have a relation to B, B must have a relation to A, we are contradicting ( the 'psychical' validity of?) that.

B: Well not all scientists have said that, a few have said otherwise - I don't like to bring in Aristotle, but he said there is an 'unmoved mover', you see, he says that God is never moved by matter, he is not acted on by matter but he acts. Do you see? So that is an old idea then. Since that time science has thrown out Aristotle and said that is impossible.

K: If I see clearly that (the action of selfless?) love is independent of ( the action based on) hate, (it follows that an intelligence action of ?) love may act on ( a consciousness obscured by?) hate, but (in a consciousness dominated by ) hate, the 'other cannot' be (co-exist) .

B: Right. They have no ( mutual inter-) relationship. But perhaps ( the action of) insight could (have some impact?) .

K: Slowly. I am 'edging' my way into it. Violence and (non-) violence are two entirely different factors. Right?

B: Well, you could say that the existence of the one is the non-existence of the other, and there is no way fot them to act together.

K: That's right. I'll stick to that. So ( in a self-centred consciousness ) where there is this material ( self-centred thought) process in action, the 'other' cannot exist.

B: And what is this 'other' - 'insight' ?

K: Yes.

B: Well then this denies what we were saying before that there is an action from insight on the material process.

K: Where there is violence peace cannot exist. But where there is (a state of inner) peace, is there violence? Of course not. So (inner) peace is independent of the other.

Q: Sir, you have said many times that intelligence can act upon thought, insight can act, can affect thought, but it doesn't work the other way round.

K: ( The illuminating action of ?) Intelligence can wipe away ignorance, but ignorance cannot touch intelligence. Now, can (the insightful action of selfless ?) love wipe away (the residual content of ?) hate? It just came to my mind (to put it this way) : Love has no cause. Hate has a cause. (In other words) Insight has no cause, but the material process in the brain, as thought, has a cause ( 'self-interest'?) . That which has no ( material) cause, can it act ever upon that which has a cause?

B: Well, we can see no reason why 'that' (compassionate intelligent energy) which has no cause might not act on ( a material brain process ) what has a cause.

K: Yes, and apparently the action of ( the intelligent energy of) insight has an extraordinary effect on the material process in the brain (whenever the personal resentments are not active?) .

B: Yes, so as to wipe out (or 'delete') some ( bad karmic?) causes for example.

K: As ( the energy of ?) insight is causeless, that (inwardly perceptive action of?) insight has a definite effect on that ( residual content of the brain ?) which has cause.

B: Well it doesn't ( quite) follow (logically) but it is 'possible'.

K: No, no, I don't say (just that it ) is 'possible'. (However, since the selfless?) Love is without cause, and hate has a cause, the two cannot co-exist (simultaneously in the same consciousness?) . Now, I just want to explore a little more. Is 'insight' ( the intelligent action of selfless?) love ?

B: Well at first sight we see that they are not necessarily exactly the same thing. ( The inner nature of?) Insight may be Love but you see,( the timeless perception of ) insight also occurs in a 'flash'...

K: It is a 'flash' (of pure spiritual light?) of course. And that flash alters the whole pattern, and uses ( recycles ?) the thinking patterns in the sense, of reason, logic and all that.

B: Well I think once the flash has operated then the (thinking) patterns are different and therefore our thinking would be more rational. The flash may make logic possible because you may have been confused before the flash.

K: Ah, yes, yes sir. Aristotle may have come to all this by 'logic'.

B: Well he may have had some insight, we don't know.

K: We don't know but I am questioning it. Would you say he had 'insight' by reading a few of his books?

B: I haven't really read Aristotle directly because it is' hard'. Most people read what other people said about Aristotle. There are a few ( catch?) phrases of Aristotle which are common - the 'unmoved mover', which suggest that he was quite intelligent, at least.

K: I am talking of 'total' insight, not partial insight. An artist can have a partial insight. A scientist can have a partial insight. I am talking - 'X' is talking about 'total insight'.

Q: So you mean that a partial insight illuminates only a limited area of consciousness , or a particular subject ?

K: Yes.

Q: Then what would encompass a total insight ?

K: The total human activity (inclusing its centre of self-interest?) . Right sir?

B: Well that is one ( very fine) point. But coming back to what we were discussing before, we are saying that insight is a (special) 'energy' which illuminates the whole activity of the brain. And in that illumination the brain itself begins to act differently.

K: That's right sir. That is what takes place.

B: And 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 (100 %) pure (compassionate & intelligent?) energy. That's right, sir. Which means, is there (such inwardly perceptive ) action without a cause?

B: Yes, or without 'time', since any causation implies 'time'.

K: That is, (the in-sighting ) action of this flash has altered completely the patterns which the material process has set (in the brain) .

B: Yes. Could you we that the material process (in the brain) generally operates in a kind of ( psychic) 'darkness' (or 'lack of inner light'?) and therefore it has set itself in a wrong path ?

K: Darkness, yes. The material process acts in 'ignorance', in darkness. Right? And this 'flash' enlightens the whole field (of our consciousness) . Which means the ( residual heritage of ?) ignorance, the ( spiritual) 'darkness' has been dispelled. Right. I will hold to that.

B: Then you could say that 'darkness' and 'light' cannot co-exist for obvious reasons. Nevertheless the very existence of light is (operating a qualitative ) change in the process of darkness.

K: Quite right. I hold to that. What has happened is that the material process (of our self-centred thought) has worked in 'darkness' ( or has its 'blind spots'?) and has brought about such confusion and all the mess that exists in the world. And this flash wipes away the (surrounding) darkness. Which means what? That the material process (of thinking) then is not working anymore in darkness. Right?

B: Right. But now let's make another ( small technical?) point clear. Here is a flash (of insight), but it seems the light will go on.

K: The 'light' is ( freely available?) there, the flash 'is' the light.

B: You see, at a certain moment, the 'flash' is immediate but as you work from there there is still light ?

K: Why do you differentiate the flash from light?

B: Well just simply because the word 'flash' suggests that the ( illuminating) 'insight' would only last only for that moment. Like a flash of lightening gives light for that moment but then the next moment you are back in darkness.... until the next flash of lightening.

K: It is not like that.

B: So is it that the (inner) light suddenly turns on and stays on?

K: When we put that question 'stays on and goes off', you are still thinking in terms of time.

B: Yes, well we have to clear this up because it is the question everybody will ( eventually) put.

K: ( Recap:) The material process (of self-centred thought) is working in darkness, in time, in ( its past) knowledge, ignorance, all that. When that insight takes place there is the dispelling of that darkness. And then the same thinking, which is ( stiil) the material process in the brain , is no longer working in ( its self-created ) darkness, therefore that (intelligent flash of) 'light' has ended ( the inner cause of ) ignorance.

B: So we say this 'darkness' (of self-interest?) is really something which is built into the content of thought.

K: Its ( 'psychological) content' is darkness.

B: That's right. Then that (pure) 'light' has dispelled the (karmic causation of) ignorance.

K: That's right sir. Dispelled the (self-interest based ?) content.

B: But still we have to be very careful, you still have a content (of objective knowledge) in the usually accepted sense of the word, like you 'know' all kinds of things. So we can't say it has dispelled all the content.

K: It has dispelled the ( self-identified?) centre of darkness. The 'self' (-image) . The 'centre' of darkness, which has ( ctively) maintained this darkness, has been dispelled.

B: We can see that this means a 'physical' change in the ( behaviour of the ) brain cells. That centre (of selfishness is dispelled) and this alters the whole disposition of all the brain cells.

K: Of course sir, obviously. And this has an enormous significance in our relationship with our society, in everything.

Now the next ( technical) question which Mrs Lilliefelt has put, is: how does this 'flash (of insight' ) come about? Let's begin the other way round. How does Love come about? How does Peace (of mind?) come about? Which is, (inner) peace being cause-less, and ( our state of inner conflict ) is causal ( has so many material causes) , how does that 'causeless' thing come about when my whole (inner) life is ( entangled in the field of?) causation? (For starters?) There is no 'how' since the 'how' implies a (new) causality. So to the ( trick?) question that Mrs Lilliefelt - 'how does it happen' ? I say that is a 'wrong' question. There is no 'how'. If you 're attempting to show me 'how' you are back into the ( old causality of?) 'darkness'. Right ?

B: Right...

K: But I am asking something else : why is it that we have no ( free access to?) insight at all, why doesn't it start from our childhood ? Is it our education? Is it our society? - I don't believe it is just that. You follow?

B: What do you say then?

K: It is some other ( collective karmic ?) factor. I am groping after it. I am groping after this, which is why don't we have it, it seems so natural?

B: Yes, well at first one would say something is interfering with it.

K: For 'X' it is quite natural. Why isn't it natural for A, B, C ? Why isn't it possible? If we say blockage, education, which are all causes -and trying to remove the blockages implies ( creating) another ( temporal) cause. So we keep on rolling in that (linear ) direction. There is something 'unnatural' about all this. If to 'X' ( K?) it seems so natural. Why isn't it natural to everybody?

B: You see, many ( open minded) people might feel it is natural to everybody, but being treated in a certain way they gradually get caught in hate.

K: I don't believe that.

B: Well most people would say that it is natural for the young child meeting ( violence &) hate to respond (accordingly) with (violence&) hate.

K: Yes, this morning I heard that. Then I asked myself why? 'X' (K ?) has been put under all these circumstances which could have produced blockages, which could have produced all the rest of it - but 'X' wasn't touched by it. You follow? Why is it not possible for everybody?

B: We should make it more clear why we say it would be 'natural' not to respond immediately to hate with hate. You know, the child is not really able ( or inclined) to think about all this. Is it possible, meeting hate not to respond with hate ? Many people would say it would be the animal instinct to fight back.

The animal will respond with love if you treat him with love, but if you treat the animal with ( violence or with ?) hate he is going to fight back. Now some people would say that the human being in the beginning is like that animal and later he can understand. Right?

K: Of course. That is, the human being began his origin with the animal and the animal, the ape or any other animal, the wolf...

B: The wolf will respond with love too. Now you are saying why don't all children fail to respond to hate with hate? You were implying is that there is something deeper.

K: Yes sir. I think there is something quite different. Let's have an (illuminating?) insight! Would it be right to say that the beginning of man's (consciousness) is not in the animal?

B: Well that is not clear, you see. In the present theory of evolution you can follow the line where the apes become more and more like human beings....

K: And therefore if the beginning of man is (in) the animal (lineage) therefore we have that instinct highly cultivated and that instinct is natural.

B: Yes, that instinct is cause and effect.

K: Yes, cause and effect and it becomes 'natural'. And someone comes along and says, 'Is it so?'

B: Let's try to get this clear then. Because if it would not have been helpful for survival to respond to hate with love, then it would have been a 'natural selection' of people who responded to hate with hate.

K: So at the beginning there were some people, or there were half a dozen people who never responded to hate because they had Love, and those people had 'implanted' this thing in the human mind also. Right? And that has also been part of our (colletive consciousness) inheritance. Right? And why haven't we as human beings cultivated to respond to hate by hate, why haven't we cultivated the other?

Q: They have tried to cultivate it.

K: No, it is not 'cultivatable'.

B: It (Love) is not casual. It cannot be, and any 'cultivation' depends on a cause.

K: So why have we lost that?

Q: But when you ask why we have lost it, that implies that we have had it sometime.

B: Some have had it ?

K: Yes. Some. When man began some 'X', 'Y', 'Z' implanted in man this thing,( Selfless) Love, which is causeless, which will not respond ( violently) to hate. All right. That has been 'implanted'. But (later on) we have cultivated very carefully by thought, to respond to hate by hate, violence by violence, and so on. Why haven't we moved along with the other line? You follow my question?

B: Yes, doesn't see any way of proceeding.

K: To 'X' this (selfless attitude ) seems so natural. 'X' never even thought about the other. So (the 1000$ question is :) if that is so natural to 'X', why isn't it natural to 'Y' and so on? If he is ( considered a biological) freak that is a 'stupid' (or convenient?) way of pushing him off. If it is natural to 'X' it must be natural to others, why isn't it natural?

You know, there is this ancient idea in the Indian religions and so on, that the 'Manifestation of the Highest' takes place (on planet Earth) , occasionally. So, have we moved in the wrong direction?

B: What do you mean by that?

K: We have taken the 'wrong turn': responding to hate by hate, violence by violence, (rather than not responding the causal way)

B: And giving supreme value to ( self-preserving?) knowledge....

Q: Wouldn't another ( available) factor in the attempt to cultivate the idea of love?

K: Who says that?

Q: Well many (responsible) people have always tried to really produce love and better human beings.

B: That is the purpose of religion.

Q: It is the purpose of religion.

K: Is it cultivatable by ( the process of our self-centred) thought? Thought is a material process. Love has no cause, it is not cultivatable, full stop. (However,) if it is natural to 'X' why isn't it natural to A, B, C? I think this is an (experientially) valid question.

B: Another point of view is that you could see that the response of hate to hate just makes no sense anyway, so, why do we go on with it? Because people may ( subliminally) believe in that moment that they are protecting themselves with hate, but it is not ( a real) protection.

K: I think this is a valid (experiential question :) . 'X' s ( consciousness) is born without cause and A, B, C's are caught in causality. Is it the privilege of (the lucky ?) few, of a (self-selected ?) elite? No, no... Let's begin the other way round, sir. 'X's' mind is the mind of humanity. We have been through that. This 'mind of humanity' has (traditionally) ( been thinking in terms of responding to) hate with hate, violence by violence, knowledge by knowledge and so on. But (the consciousness of?) A, B, C are part of 'X's' conscience, part of ( our original Consciousness heritage) .

B: Then why is there this (visible qualitative ?) difference?

K: Yes sir, that is what I am asking. One is natural, the other is unnatural. Now, who is asking this question? The A, B, C people, who ( are thinking in terms of responding ) to hate by hate, are they asking the question? Or are the 'X' (type) asking the question ?

Q: It would seem that the X's are asking this question.

B: But you see, we were also just saying that (consciousness-wise) they are not ( fundamentally) different .

K: They are not different.

B: There is only one ( human consciousness or?) 'Mind'. And how does it come that an (overwhelming) part of this 'one mind' says, 'no'?

K: Of course there are all kinds of (possible) explanations - ( a poor collective?) Karma & reincarnation. But remove all those explanations, what am I left with, the fact that 'X', 'Y', 'Z' are (inwardly) different from A, B, C. And those are facts. X's do not respond with that ( violent heritage) . That is, X, Y, Z (the Founding Fathers?) have given me that gift and I have not carried that gift. You follow what I mean? I have carried the other 'gift' (of survival-oriented thinking) but not this – why?

Q: Did you say that it was implanted in (the Common Consciousness of ?) all of us?

K: Of course. If man began with the animal, if my father was responding to hate by hate, why has his (young) son not responded in the same direction?

B: I think it is a question of 'insight'.

K: Which means what? He (the young K) had 'insight' right from early childhood, which means what? There is some other ( hidden) factor that is missing sir. I want to capture it. You see, if that ( mind of the young K ) is an exception then it is silly.

B: All right then, then this ( 'otherness') thing is 'dormant' in all human beings - I mean that the ( 'selfless love' ?) factor is ( potentially ) in (the consciousness of) all mankind.

K: That is a 'dangerous' ('risky' ?) statement too.

B: But that is ( pretty much) what you were saying.

K: I know, but I am still questioning, and when I am quite sure I will tell you.

B: All right. We tried this (avenue) and we can say it seems promising but it is a bit 'dangerous' (or slippery) . The possibility ( of a holistic consciousness?) is there in (the all-one consciousness of) all mankind and in so far as some people have seen it.

K: Which means "God is in you"?

B: Not (necessarily, but ) just that the possibility of insight is there in everyone.

K: Why did that (young K) 'chap' have it?

B: Yes, why?

K: And he says this seems so terribly natural, what is natural it must be to everybody. Water is 'natural' to everybody.

B: Yes, well why isn't ( the selfless clarity of?) 'insight' present for everybody from the beginning?

K: Yes, that is all I am asking. Nothing could affect it, maltreatment, being put into all kinds of (odd ?) situations, it hasn't affected it. Why? You follow sir? We are coming to something.

7TH K CONVERSATION WITH DAVID BOHM (reader friendly" edited)


Krishnamurti: Shall we start from where we left off?

B: We were discussing the other day that our inherited animal instincts may often be overpowering in their intensity and speed, especially with young children (& or teenagers?) . It may seem that it is only 'natural' for them to respond with animalistic instincts.

K: So that means that (consciousness-wise ?) after a million years we are still instinctively behaving like our ancestors?

B: Well in some ways. Probably the animal instincts have now become entangled with thought and it is getting in some ways worse. Because all these instincts of ( violence or?) 'hatred' now become directed by thought and are ( rationally?) sustained by thought so that they are more subtle and more dangerous.

K: So, during all these many, many centuries (of sloppy evolution?) we haven't found a way that will move us away from that track. Now, if 'X' (K?) behaves naturally in a way, which is not responding to the animal instincts, what place has such (holistic behaviour or ) insight in our modern human society?

B: Well, in the modern society as it is going now, it cannot be accommodated because society is organized under the assumption that pleasure and pain and fear are going to rule, except when you (can keep them under?) control. Say, friendliness is a kind of animal instinct too, people do become friendly for instinctive reasons or may become enemies for similar reasons.

K: We were talking really about (how )'insight' does actually change the nature of the brain itself.

B: Yes, by dispelling the (internal) 'darkness' in the brain, it allows the brain to function in a new way.

K: Yes. Thought has been operating in darkness, creating its own darkness and functioning in that. And (the spiritual clarity of ?) insight is (acting) like a flash (of inner light?) which breaks down that darkness. And after that insight is clearing the 'darkness' (of self-isolation?) , then does the human brain act & function rationally?

B: Yes, a 'rationally' of direct perception, rather than guided by rules and reason. But there is a freely flowing reason. You see some people identify reason with certain rules of logic which would be mechanical.

K: So are we saying that 'insight' is ( a holistic) perception?

B: It is the flash of inner 'light' which makes possible the perception (of the truth or falseness of something ?) So, it is something more fundamental than perception.

K: So 'insight' is (an all clarifying?) pure perception and from that perception there is a (holistic) action (or non-action?) which is then sustained by rationality. Is that it?

B: Yes. This ( holistic) 'rationality' being the perception of order, I would say.

K: So would you say: insight, perception and (establishing a dynamic ?) order' that is not mechanical since it is not based on (preset) rules. Then you brought the ( academical) question: is 'insight' continuous, or is it (coming only in a ) flash?

B: We went into that and said it was a wrong question since ( the insightful perception ) is not time-bound.

K: So now let's get a little further. This ( total) 'insight' is the elimination of ( the inner) ?) 'darkness' which is the very centre of the self (or of our soul?) , which is, the self (centred consciousness) creates this darkness (as it goes) . And so (the clarity of ) insight dispels that very centre (of existential darkness ?).

B: Yes, and (in the absence of?) that 'darkness' (a clear inward ) perception is now possible. In a way it was like a 'blindness' …

K: So, as an ordinary man with all my (well controlled ?) animal instincts, pleasure and pain and reward and punishment and so on, I hear you say this, and I see what you are saying has some kind of reason, logic, and order.

B: Yes, it 'makes sense' as far as we can see.

K: Then how is one to have such a total 'insight' in one's everyday life? Is it possible for me to have this insight so that (self-centred) pattern of life is broken? As we said the other day, we may have once in a while 'partial insights', but the partial insight is not the whole insight so there is still ( left some?) partial darkness.

B: It may dispel some darkness in a certain area but the source of the darkness, the 'creator', the 'sustainer' of it is still there.

K: So we have stated the general plan. Right? And I have to make the moves, or make no moves at all. But, (experientialIy – wise, there are some 'logistics' issues:) haven't the ( necessary volume of integrated?) energy. I haven't the capacity to see it quickly, I haven't got that sense of urgent immediacy. And outwardly, everything seems to be working against me: my family, my wife, society, everything – (not to mention?) that you (refuse to guide ?) me , so I am just left (on my own ) . So, is there a different ( more holistically friendly?) approach to this 'insight' question altogether?

B: Well, are you suggesting that there is another way? One certainly can't produce this flash of insight at will.

K: Oh, we have been through that, but also we came to this ( Karmic check-) point: if for 'X' this insight seems so natural and why is it not natural to others? If we could find that sir...

B: If you begin with the (common consciousness of the ) child, it seems natural to the child to respond with his animal instincts, which have a great intensity and sweep him away. Darkness arises because it is so overwhelming.

K: Yes, but why is that not true with 'X'?

B: It seems 'natural' to most people that the animal instincts would take over ( in any critical situation?) and they would say the 'other fellow' is 'unnatural' (a psychological freak?). That is the way mankind has been thinking for ages, saying that if there are indeed any such ( special) people they must be very unusual and unnatural.

K: But if this is natural, that is, ( the human responses of violence or ) hate, what is one battling against (inwardly) ?

B: Well, the (more thoughtful) people say we must battle to control this kind of responses it because it will destroy (our whole civilisation) . So, they say the best we can hope for is to control it with reason or with another ( 'alternative') ways.

K: If that ( self-centredness ) is 'natural', are 'the few' privileged by some miracle, or by some strange chance event?

B: Yes, many people would say that they (the X-ses) are unusual in some way.

K: No, that goes against one's grain. I wouldn't accept that.

B: Well, if you say they are fundamentally the same, then why do they behave differently?

K: This question has been asked many times, over and over again in different parts of the world. Why this division?

Q: Well I'd just want to say that the division does not seem to be so entire.

K: Oh yes sir, (holistically speaking ?) the division is entire, complete.

Q: Then why are people not saying ' Let's just live that way and enjoy it to the last moment'? Some would want to get out of it.

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 there is something wrong with it , that it (eventually) leads to ( a gathering up of ?) suffering for them.

B: Or else they find they can't help it. You see, when the ( critical) time comes they get really angry, or ( are being tempted by?) pleasure, they can't get away.

Q: They are helpless, there are ( inertial psychic) forces which are stronger than even their ( good) will.

K: So what shall we do? Or this division ( can be insightfully perceived as being ?) false ?

B: That's the point. We had better called it an ( illusory ) 'difference' between these two. This difference is not fundamental. If you say the division is false, you say fundamentally they are the same, but a difference (of mentality) has developed between them. Perhaps one has taken a 'wrong turning'...

K: Let's put it that way, yes.

B: But the difference is not 'built in' like the difference between a tree and a rock.

K: Right. So there are (these) two (existential choices ?) , they start from the same (life) source and one has taken one direction and the other has taken another direction. But their ( Original) Source is the same. So, why haven't all moved in the right direction?

B: I was just saying that if we understand (the truth of ) that (unique Source) then you do not have to take the wrong turn. In some sense we are continually 'taking the wrong turn', so if we can understand this ('instant karma' of the ?) 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, there's no point for going back in time to the Source. If this Source (of All That Is?) is timeless, it seems that we are continually taking the wrong turn, again and again (resulting in a 'cyclic' or 'spiralling' evolution ) . Right?

K: Yes. If we cut out ( the cultural assumption of our linear progression in?) 'time', (it follows that we are using our 'free will' in ) constantly (taking) the 'wrong turn'.

B: Constantly the wrong turn, yes. Which means there is always the possibility of a 'right turn'.

K: Yes, of course. That is, if we (think of an original ) source from which we all once began, then we are caught in ( the irreversible logic of) time.

B: You can't go back.

K: You can't go back. That ( option) is out. Therefore, apparently we are ( unconsciously) taking the 'wrong turn' all the time.

B: Constantly.

K: Now ( when we exit the temporal logic) these (two existential options ?) are constantly (available) : one is 'living with insight' and the other is 'not living with insight'. So, ( even) the man who is (enjoying his/her temporarily comfortable ?) living in darkness can 'move away' at any time to the 'other' (existential option) . That is the point: at any time.

B: Then nothing holds him, except (the inertia of) taking the wrong turn constantly. You could say his ( inward blindness or ) 'darkness' is such that he doesn't even see himself taking this wrong turning.

K: Now, suppose you have that ( open access to?) insight, and the very 'centre of darkness' has been dispelled completely. And as I am a serious, fairly intelligent, human being, I come to 'listen' to you. And as whatever you have said (until now) seems (holistically ?) reasonable, rational, sane, I ( come to) question this division ( within myself) . The ( perfect illusion of my) division is created by this (karmic ) centre (of self-interest?) which creates ( isolation & ) darkness. Right?

B: Yes. It is the same as the outer divisions, it is (the subliminal working of our self-centred ) thought.

K: Thought has created (and maintained) this division. You who have the ( free access to ?) insight, say 'there is no division'. But I won't accept that ( even as a working hypothesis?) because in my darkness I can see nothing but division. Living in darkness we have created this division. We have created it in our thoughts...

B: I am constantly creating it.

K: Yes, constantly creating division, that's right, constantly creating division even in ( my sincere hope of ) wanting to live in a (holistic ?) state in which there is no division. Right?

B: Yes...

K: But that (kind of wishful thinking) is still part of the movement ( activity ) of darkness. Right?

B: Yes...

K: So, how is one to 'dispel' this constant darkness, to perceive the thought that is creating darkness and to see that the ('thinking) self' is the source of this darkness.

B: Well, intellectually it is pretty clear .

K: Yes but somehow that doesn't seem to operate. So do I realize sir, (as) for the first time, that my 'self (-interest'?) is creating the darkness which is constantly breeding ( the observer-observed) division ? Do I see that very clearly ?

B: Yes.

K: Now if I see this ( truth?) very clearly, what shall I do? I don't admit (living inwardly in this illusory ) division.

( Recap:) 'X' has ( free access to?) insight and he has explained to me very clearly how the 'darkness' ( of self-isolation ) is banished. I listen to him and he says, your (self-created ) darkness is creating the division. Actually there is no division, no division as 'light' and 'darkness'. So he asks me, can you banish, can you put away this (inner) sense of (self-) division?

Q: Can one put away (this inner sense of) division as long as one is (inwardly fragmented and actually feeling ) divided?

K: No, you can't, but (if I care to listen ) something so extraordinarily true, which has such immense significance and beauty, my whole being (the totality of my consciousness awakens & ) says 'Capture it !', this is not (the action of inner ) division. I have 'listened' to 'X' who says 'there is no division'. And my very listening (to the truth of) that saying has an immediate effect (impact) on me.

I have lived constantly in division and you come along and say : there is no division. What effect has it on me? It must have some impact on me (on the totality of my consciousness?) .

B: So then, that makes total sense. But on the other hand it seems that ( my inner sense of?) division does still exists.

K: I recognize the ( fact of this inner ) division, but ( the universal truth of?) your statement ''there is no division'' has a tremendous impact on my (total conscousness) . When (and if?) I see ( the truth of) something that is immovable, it must have some effect on me. I respond to it with a tremendous shock. ( If?) I am ( inwardly) sensitive, watch very carefully and all the rest, and realize I am constantly living in ( the darkness of my self- created) division, ( seeing the truth of) it has broken the pattern (of self-centredness) .

Q: At least for that ( timeless) moment, it breaks the (self-centred) pattern.

K: It has broken the pattern, because he has said something which is so fundamentally true: there is no (division between ) 'God' and (the Consciousness of?) 'man'. You follow sir? (The living truth of ?) that enters into me and therefore 'dispels the darkness'. It is not 'I' making an effort to get rid of 'darkness' but you are (bringing) the Light.. So it comes down to something (trés 'simple') which is: can I 'listen' in my (inner state of) darkness ? Of course I can.

B: Now on what basis do you say you can 'listen' in the darkness?

K: Oh yes. If I can't ...I am doomed (or...back to sleep for a couple of thousand years?) .

B: But that is not (a valid rational) argument.

K: Of course that is no argument but 'that is so'. If I am constantly living darkness...

B: That's clear: living constantly in 'darkness' ( or in the 'field of the known'?) is not worthwhile. But now we say that it is possible to 'listen' in the darkness.

K: Yes sir. ( This 'total ?) listening' (to something true ?) is not (the action of) division.

Q: Can you make it a little bit more clear?

K: Listening to (the inward truth of such an absolute ? ) statement has brought my constant 'movement in darkness' to an end . If this ('miracle of listening'?) doesn't take place I am perpetually living in darkness. There is a 'voice in the wilderness' and listening to that voice has an extraordinary effect in my wilderness.

B: You probably mean that this ( total) 'listening' reaches the source of my movement in darkness , whereas the common (self-) observation does not.

K: Yes sir, in that (inner) 'wilderness' a voice says ''There is water !''. You follow? ( If I listen non-verbally to it?) there is an immediate ( awakening) action in me. But would you say that one must (have the inner honesty to?) realize, understand, that this 'constant movement in darkness' is (all) my life (is about) . Can one realize with all the (immense outward experience and) knowledge of a million years, suddenly realize that (inwardly) I am (still) living in total darkness?

That means I have reached the end of all (my personal 'high ) hopes' . Right? My 'hope' is also ( a shiny projection from this inner ) darkness. So I am left ( to contemplate inwardly ? ) this enormous darkness and that is also the end of ( all 'psychological) becoming'. I have reached (in the meditational context ?) this point ( of timeless-ness) and 'X' tells me, 'Naturally sir !' You see, all the ( organised) religions have said this division exists. 'God' and the 'son of God', ('Brahman' and 'brahman', etc)

B: But haven't the Indian religions also said that this division can be overcome ?

K: I have discussed this with some 'pundits', but I doubt very much ( that they transcended it?) . It doesn't matter who said it (there & then) but the fact is that somebody( here & now?) in this 'wilderness' is saying that when there is ( total) Insight there is no ( inner sense of self isolation or?) division and... I have been listening to it ( it is not your insight or my insight) it is "Insight". In ( the flashing light of) that (total insight ?) there is no division.

B: Yes....

K: Which means sir, that in the ( Original) Ground (of Being) , which we talked about, there is no 'darkness' (per se) and no 'light' (per se) ; there is no such division and so It is not born or time, or thought and all that. So in that Ground...

B: ... 'light and 'darkness' are not divided?

K: Right.

B: Which means to say that there is neither.

K: Neither, that's it. There is something else - a different ( holistic) 'movement' which is non-dualistic.

B: But nevertheless there is (a living timeless ?) 'movement'. But what would it mean, 'movement without division'?

K: I mean by that (holistic syntagm ?) a 'Movement' that it is not time, and doesn't breed division. Would you say sir, that the Ground (of All Creation ?) is an endless movement?

B: Yes.

K: What does that mean?

B: Well, it is not clear - it is difficult to express...

K: I think one can go ( experientially ?) into it, and (try to) express it. What is a 'movement' ? Apart (of going ) from here to there, apart from the (chronological) time (involved ) is there any other 'movement'?

B: Yes.

K: There is. The 'psychological' movement from being (this) to becoming (that), the ( mental) movement of (a thought-created ) time. Now, is there an ( All-One?) 'Movement' ( of the Universal Consciousness?) which in itself has no division ? When you (K) have made that statement that (in the Ground of Creation ?) there is no division, it is that Movement, right?

B: Well, you are saying that when there is no division (within one's psyche) then 'That' Movement is ( present ) there. Right?

K: Yes. And 'X' says that is the Ground (of All Creation?)

B: Right...

K: Would you say that movement has no ending and no beginning?

B: Yes... it flows without (any temporal?) divisions, you see.

K: But do I capture the (inward) significance of that? Do I understand the depth of that statement? A movement (of Creation ?) in which there is no division (no separation ?) which means no element of time in it at all. Is that movement, surrounding man's ( consciousness ?) ?

B: Enveloping ?

K: Enveloping (the consciusness of ?) man. I am concerned with (the consciousness of ?) mankind, which 'is' me. 'X' (the 'Speaker'?) has made several ( holistic ?) statements and one seems so absolutely true: that (consciousness-wise ?) there is no division. Which (if properly understood ?) means there is no action which is (self-) divisive. And also I see that this Timeless Movement is (envelopping the whole consciousness of the ?) world.

B: The universe ?

K: The universe, the cosmos, the whole.

B: The totality (of All Existence) ?

K: Isn't there a statement sir, in the Jewish religious world, "Only God can say, I 'am' "? You follow what I am trying to get at?

B: That in fact, only this (timeless ) Movement (of Creation ) 'Is'.

K: So, sir, can the (human) mind be (an integrated part ) of that Movement? Because That is timeless, therefore deathless.

B: Yes, this Movement ( of Creation) is without death. And as the (human) mind takes part in That, it is of the same (nature) .

K: You understand what I am saying?

B: Yes. But then...what 'dies' when the individual mind dies?

K: It has no meaning once I have understood there is no division...(For a holistically integrated mind ?) death has no meaning.

B: Well, it still has a meaning in the (physical) context...

K: Oh, the ending of the (physical) body, that's totally 'trivial'.... But ( seeing the truth of your) ?) statement "there is no division", has broken the spell of my ( inner) darkness, and I see that ( down there?) there is an (integration into a?) Movement and that's all. Which means you have abolished totally the fear of death.

B: Yes, I understand that when the human mind is partaking in that (Timeless ) Movement then the mind 'is' that movement.

K: That's all. The mind 'is' that movement.

B: Would you say that 'matter' is also (part of ?) that movement?

K: Yes sir, I would say everything.

(To re-recap:) In my darkness I have ( still been able to) listen to you. That's most important. And your ( truthful) clarity has broken the 'spell'. And when you have said (that in the Ground of Creation ?) there is no division, you have abolished the division between 'life' and 'death'. One can never say then 'I' am becoming immortal, but you have wiped away the whole sense of 'moving in darkness'. I wonder if you get this?

Q: When you make this statement, there is no division, and ''life 'is' death'', what then is the significance for modern man's existence with all his struggles, with all his...

K: None. He is like struggling (to survive ?) in a locked room. That is the whole point.

B: So, the true significance (of human existence ) can only arise when the darkness is dispelled.

K: Of course.

B: Aren't we going to say that something more can be done besides dispelling darkness?

K: The mind of the one who has this (liberating ) insight, therefore dispelled darkness and therefore has understanding of that Ground, which is an (eternally creative ?) movement without time and so on, then that mind itself 'is' (becoming one with) that Movement.

B: Yes, and that Movement is including the material world, (as well as the Universal) Mind ?

K: Yes sir.

B: So we were saying that the Ground ( of Creation?) may be beyond the Universal Mind. You were saying earlier that this Ground is more than the universal mind still, more than the emptiness.

K: We said that, much more.

B: But you said the Ground goes beyond the Mind...

K: Would you say beyond that (Universal) Mind is this Movement?

B: Yes. The mind emerges from the movement as a Ground and falls back to the Ground, that is what we are saying.

K: Yes, that's right. Mind emerges from the (Ground) movement.

B: And it 'dies back' into that movement.

K: That's right. It has it being in the Ground movement. But sir, what I want to get at is: I am a human being faced with this (ages old mystery of death ?) ending and you have removed one of the greatest fears of our life - the fear of death. You see what it does to a human being when there is no death (on his existential horizon?) ? 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 you know that?

K: Because there is no conflict, because there is no strain, there is no becoming, movement. You follow?

B: Well, ou are stating something about the (non-aging of the ?) brain cells about which I have no feeling for. It might be so, (or... maybe not?)

K: I think it is so. But for a human mind which has lived in the darkness is in constant movement there is the wearing out of the cells, they decay biologically .

B: But somebody might argue that even without conflict they could still decay, only 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. But I can readily accept that the rate of decay of cells could be cut down when you get rid of conflict.

K: Decay can be slowed down.

B: Perhaps a great deal ?

K: A great deal. And that means what? What is the quality of that mind which has no ( personal ?) problems? Suppose such a mind lives in pure air, has the right kind of food and so on and so on, why can't it live two hundred years?

B: Well, some people already lived up to a hundred and fifty, living in very pure air and having good food.

K: Yes but the brain which has had insight has changed the cells.

Q: Are you implying in a way that even the organic brain...

K: Yes sir. We said that insight brings about a ( qualitative ?) change in the brain cells, which means these brain cells are no longer thinking in terms of time. Right sir?

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 a healthy environment all round.

K: Yes. That all sounds so 'damn trivial', all that.

B: Yes, it doesn't seem to make much difference. But it's an interesting idea.

K: What we are trying to find out is: what effect has (the impact of ?) this extraordinary Movement ( of Creation ?) on the human brain, you understand sir?

B: Yes. If we say the brain in some way directly "enveloped" in this (universal) movement, that would bring it to order, a direct (inter-) flow, physically and also mentally.

K: Yes, both. It must have an extraordinary effect on the brain. But to come much closer to ( life on planet ) Earth, I have lived with the fear of death, fear of not becoming and so on, and suddenly I see ( that consciousness-wise ?) there is no division and I understand this whole thing. So what has happened to my brain? If you see this whole thing as a tremendous truth -with all your heart, mind, you 'see' this thing, that very perception must affect (the everyday functioning of) your brain.

B: Yes. It brings order.

K: Not only order in my life but in the brain itself.

B: (The science) people did prove that if you are under stress the brain cells start to break down. And if you have order in the brain cells then it is quite different.

K: I have a feeling sir, that the brain never loses the quality of that Movement.

B: Once it has (touched ) it ?

K: Of course. I am talking of the person who has been ( seriously enquiring & meditating ?) through all this .

B: So probably it never loses that ( holistic) quality.

K: Therefore it is no longer (getting inwardly entangled ?) in time.

B: It would no longer be 'dominated' by time. The brain, from what we were saying, is not evolving in any sense, you can't say that man's brain has evolved since the last ten thousand years. You see science, knowledge, has evolved but people felt the same about life several thousand years ago as they do now.

K: Now, (for the 'ground meditation' homework ?) in that 'silent emptiness' is the brain absolutely still? I am talking of the (non-) movement of thought, or of any reaction.

B: Yes. The brain does not go off on its own, like (indulging in egocentric ?) thoughts.

K: You see, we have done a tremendous lot - we have abolished (the fear of?) death, which is a tremendous thing. And what is (inner state of ) the brain, when there is no more death? You follow? It has undergone a 'surgical operation'.

B: We talked before about the brain normally has the notion of (its own) death continually there in the background and that notion is disturbing the brain constantly. Because the brain foresees (is anticipating ) its own ending and it is trying to stop it, but... it can't.

K: It can't.

B: And therefore it has a (major) problem.

K: A constant struggle with it.

B: ...going on in the background.

K: So all that (psychologically created fear) has come to an end. How does that affect my everyday life? Because I still have to live ( for a while?) on this earth. But my daily life as this everlastingly becoming more & more successful, all that is gone (with the wind?) . What an extraordinary thing has taken place !

B: In bringing in this question of daily life you might bring in the question of compassion.

K: Of course, is that 'movement' Compassion?

B: It would be beyond. Compassion might emerge out of it.

K: Of course if you haven't got that yet. We had better stop (on a 'good ball' ?)

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Fri, 24 Jan 2014
Topic: K The essential Texts

8TH K CONVERSATION WITH DAVID BOHM (reader friendly edited)

The creative interaction between the Ground of Being and the Consciousness of mankind

Krishnamurti: We left off with 'non-movement'. A human being who has been pursuing (for ages) the (materialistic ?) path of becoming and (meditatively ?) went through this sense of (inner) emptiness, silence, energy, and abandoned almost everything and comes to this (central ?) point, the Ground (of Creation). And how does (such a total) insight affect his daily life? What is now his relationship to society, what is his action with regard to a ( materialistic) world that is really living and struggling in (spiritual) darkness ? As we discussed the other day, (his action) is ( one of inner?) 'non-movement'. What does that mean?

B: Well, in some sense it seems inconsistent to say 'non-movement' while you say the Ground is (in a constant creative ?) movement.

K: Would you say the ordinary, average man with all his (pleasant and/or ?) unpleasant activities, is constantly in ( mental) movement ? I mean a movement in ( thought &) time, a movement in (self-) becoming. And we are saying the man who has trodden that path and come to this (innermost) point, from there what is his action? We said, non-action, non-movement. What does that mean?

B: Well, it is not clear why you should call it 'non-action', we could think that it is action of another kind which is not part of the process of (psychological) becoming, but since whatever we do is 'action', his action would be directed towards ( the karmic cause) that underlies this illusory process: like we were discussing the other day the 'wrong turning' which is continually coming out of the Ground. Right?

K: Yes, yes. You see various religions have described the man who is illuminated, especially in the Hindu religious books, there it is stated very clearly, how he looks, how he walks, the whole state of his being. I think that is merely a poetic description of something which is...

B: You think it is ( a flight of?) imagination?

K: I'm afraid a great deal of it is imagination. But I have discussed this point with some (Hindu wise men ?) and it is not like that, that is no imagination. Somebody who described it knew exactly what it was. So how does a man of this kind live in this world? It is a very interesting (experiential ?) question if you go into it rather deeply. So, (inwardly speaking?) there is this state of ( mental) 'non-movement'.

B: You see it is not clear exactly what you mean by this 'non-movement'.

K: ( Metaphorically) it is like a single tree in a field. There is no other tree but that tree, whatever the name of that tree is, it 'is' there.

B: Well, the tree is (alive and ) moving but in relation to the field it 'stands'. That is the picture we get.

K: You see, if you have gone into this from the beginning to the end, now you are with a totally different kind of (inner) movement, which is timeless and all that.

B: I agree.

K: You 'are' (one with ?) that. And I ( the earnest follower?) come to you and say, 'What is the state of a mind, that has walked on that path and ended (its psychological becoming in time) , totally moved out of darkness, what is the state of that mind? And what does such a mind do, or not do, in the world which is in darkness?

B: Well, (for starters) this mind does not enter into the movement of the world . And it has a 'constancy' which is ( of ) the same nature as the Ground movement, which is completely free.

K: This mind being ( inwardly as) nothing, 'not-a-thing', therefore empty of knowledge - would it be always acting in the 'light' of insight?

B: Yes, it would be constantly pervaded by the quality of insight.

K: Yes, that is what I mean. It is acting constantly in that (light) of insight. So what does that mean in one's daily life? ( Get a job and?) earn a livelihood... ?

B: Well, you would have to find a way to stay alive.

K: But what if he has no professional skill and no coin with which he can buy (anything) ?

B: Well, you would need to acquire a certain practical skill to find the food which you need...

K: But this (K ?) man says, there may be a different way of living and earning (one's livelihood) . We are used to that ( learn & earn?) pattern - right sir? And he says, 'Look, that may be totally wrong'.

B: Then it depends what you mean by 'skill'. Suppose he has to drive a car, well that takes some practical skill, you see. But 'skill' could also have a bad meaning by being very clever at getting money.

K: So this man is not money-minded, he is not storing up for the future, he hasn't any insurance, but he has to live, and when we use the word 'skill', as driving a car...

B: But then people become very skilful at getting other people to (donate) them money, you see!

K: That might be 'the game'. That may be it! As I am doing!

Q: I wish you were more skilled at that!

K: Sufficient unto the day. So, we were talking of a man who has been through all this and has 'come back' to the world and says, 'Here I am'. What is his relationship to society ?

B: Well, there is a 'superficial' relationship he has to have. He has to obey the laws, he has to follow the traffic signals...

K: Quite. But I want to find out sir, what is he to do (in the creative sense) ? I think if we could find out the (inner) quality of a mind that has been through that from the beginning to the end, that man's mind is entirely different, and he is (living ?) in the world. How does he look upon the world? You have 'reached' and come back and I am an ordinary man, living in this world, what is your ( cooperating)?) relationship to me? Obviously none because I am living in a world of darkness and you are not. So (an authentic) relationship can only exist when (my inner) darkness ends. Then there is only That. But ( as of) now I look at you (the Enlightened One?) with my eyes which are accustomed to darkness and to division. You have to have some contact with me, a relationship (based on) compassion - not what is ( commonnly) translated as compassion: ''Oh it shows you are not compassionate if you don't do this''. I don't know what your love is, what your compassion is because my only love and compassion has been ( ego-centric). So, what do I do with you?

B: Of which one are you talking about now?

K: You, 'X', who have been through all that and come back.

B: Yes, and 'Y' has not.

K: Has not. 'Y' says ; ''Who are you? You seem so different, your whole way of looking at life is different ?'' And what will 'Y' (the worldly person) do with you, 'X'? That is the question.

B: I mean, what will 'Y' do?

K: Our initial question has been what will 'X' do with 'Y'. But I think we were putting the wrong question. What will 'Y' do with 'X'? I think what would happen generally is (a) 'Y' would worship him, (b) 'kill' him , or (c) neglect ( ignore ?) him. If (a) 'Y' worships 'X' , then everything is very simple . He has ( access to all ) the 'goodies' of the modern world. But that doesn't (totally) answer my question. 'X's' (educational role ?) is to say, 'Look, walk out of this ( inner mentality of?) darkness, there is no answer in this darkness so walk out.' And 'Y' then says ' Show me the way' - We're back again (in 'time') , you follow?

B: But if ( the Intelligence of Universal?) Compassion works in 'X'...?

K: Yes, 'X' 'is' ( one with?) That. He won't even call it 'Compassion'.

B: Then 'X' will work (educationally?) to find a way to penetrate that (dense 'psychological) darkness'.

K: Wait: so 'X's' ( educational) job is to work on darkness?

B: Well to discover how to penetrate darkness.

K: So, in that way he is earning a ( decent?) living.

B: Well... 'possibly'. It depends on whether people are willing to pay him for that.

K: Talking seriously : probably 'X' is the (holistic ?) Teacher who is saying to the 'people of darkness': ''Come out''. What's wrong with that?

B: Well nothing is wrong with that.

K: So, that is his ( right?) means of livelihood.

B: It's perfectly all right as long as it works for him...

K: It seems to work!

B: Of course if there were a lot of people like 'X' there would be some limits.

K: What would happen if there were lots of people like 'X'?

B: That is an interesting question (for the future generations ?)...

K: What would happen?

B: Well then I think there would be something revolutionary ( consciousness-wise) . The whole thing would change.

K: That is just it. 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 (consciousness-wise) 'undivided' they would exert a ( psychical?) force that had never been seen in our history.

K: Tremendous. That's right.

B: Because I don't think it has ever happened, that ten people were undivided.

K: So, that is 'X's' job in ( his earthly?) life. A group of those ten 'X's' will bring ( possibly?) a totally different kind of ( Cultural ?) revolution. Will society stand for that?

B: They will have this extreme intelligence and so they will find an intelligent way to do it, you see.

K: Quite right, quite right. You are saying something that is actually ( on the way of?) happening. So would you say then that the ( educational) function of those many 'X's' is to awaken human beings to that (Compassionate Universal ) Intelligence which will dispel the darkness? And that is their (correct) means of livelihood. Right? ( Seen from a distance ?) that seems very simple. But I don't think it is all that simple.

B: Right...

K: Is that the only function of 'X'? That seems very simple, doesn't it?

B: Well it is a difficult function ( of any holistic education ?) , it is not really so 'simple'...

K: The function may be complicated but ( given the right people ?) it can easily be solved. But I wanted to aim at something much deeper: apart from this (' holistic' educational) function, what is 'X' to do? 'X' says to 'Y', 'listen', and 'Y' takes time and gradually, or perhaps once (...upon a time?) , 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. But is that all he has to do in this world? Just to teach ( or 'awaken' ?) people to move out of darkness?

B: Well that seems to be the prime task at the moment, in the sense that if this doesn't happen the whole society will sooner or later collapse. But he needs to be in some sense creative, more deeply.

K: What is that?

B: Well that is not clear...

K: Sir, suppose you are 'X' and have an enormous field( of Universal Consciousness ?) in which you operate, not merely bt teaching me, but (assuming) you have (free access to ?) this extraordinary Movement (of Creation) . That is, you have this abounding energy and you have ( has been?) produced all that (in order to) to teach me to move out of darkness. So what does the rest do, you follow? I don't know if I am conveying this.

B: Well, that is what I mean by some 'creative action' taking place.

K: Yes, beyond that. You may write, you may preach, you may heal, but all those are all a very small business. But you have (free access to ?) 'something else' . Have I ( the 'activist & follower' ?) reduced you to my pettiness? My pettiness says, 'You must do something more to help me move.' Right? You comply to the very smallest degree, but you have (access to ) something much more immense than that. You understand my question?

B: Yes. So what?

K: How is That ( 'Otherness') operating (more directly) on 'Y'? How is that immensity operating on 'Y' - I don't know if I am conveying this?

B: Well are you saying that there is some more direct action?

K: Either there is a more direct action, or 'X' is doing something totally different to affect the (total) Consciousness of mankind.

B: What could this (totally different action) be to affect ( the total consciousness of) mankind? It would almost suggest some sort of "Extrasensory effect" that it spreads.

K: That point is what I am trying to capture: because that Immensity must necessarily has other activities.

B: At other levels of Human Consciousness ?

K: Yes, other activities at various degrees of (human) consciousness. But (even) that too is a very small affair. What do you say sir?

B: Well since that Universal Consciousness emerges from the Ground, it may be affecting (the consciousness of) all mankind (directly ) from the Ground ?

K: Yes.

B: You see many people will find this ( 'holistic' concept) very difficult to understand, of course.

K: I am not interested in those 'many people'. I want you and I to understand that this Ground (of All Creation) , this Immensity, is not limited to such petty little affairs. It couldn't.

B: Yes, since this Ground includes even physically the whole universe.

K: The whole universe, yes, and to reduce all that to...

B:... to these little activities.

K: It sounds so silly.

B: Well, this raises the question of what is the significance of mankind in the universe, or in the Ground? The best we could be doing has very little significance on that scale. Right?

K: Yes. I think that by his very existence 'X' is just opening the (next evolutionary ?) chapter …

B:... he is making something possible?

K: Yes. Einstein ( along with a few other physicists?) has made something possible, which man hadn't discovered before.

B: We can see that ( kind of contribution?) fairly easily because that works through the usual channels of society.

K: What is 'X' bringing apart from the little things (in the field of education?) ? Would you say, sir, since 'X' has that immense intelligence, that Energy must operate at a much greater level than one can possibly conceive, which must affect the (struggling ?) consciousness of those who are living in darkness.

B: Well, possibly so. The only question is : will this ( Insider?) effect show manifestly?

K: Apparently not, but it must affect it sir.

B: Well ; why do you say 'it has to'?

K: Because ( in the area of Universal Consciousness?) 'light' must affect 'darkness'.

B: Well, perhaps (the open minded) 'Y' who is living in darkness, is not at all sure that there is such a (miraculous) effect. He might say : maybe there is, but I'd want to see it manifest. But not seeing anything and still being in darkness, he says ''what shall I do?'' It may be true that that activity is much greater but... it hasn't shown. If we could 'see' it...

K: How could it be 'shown'?

B: Well not proof but just to be 'shown'. 'Y' might say that many ( providential ?) people have made similar statements and some of them have obviously been wrong and one wants to say' it could be true'. Until now I think the things we have said 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 (for ages) and one feels that they were fooling themselves...

K: No. No. 'X' says we are being very 'logical'

B: Yes but at this ( innermost) stage, our 'logic' will not carry us any further. But having seen that the whole thing was reasonable so far, 'Y' may have some 'confidence' (good faith ?) that it may go further.

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

B: Of course there is no proof. So we could only explore.

K: That is what I am trying to do.

B: So, you were saying that somehow he (X) makes possible a (more direct) activity of the Ground in the whole consciousness of mankind which would not have been possible without him.

K: Yes.

B: That is what I understand.

K: Yes. We are trying to find out what is that (something) 'greater' that must necessarily be operating?

Q: Is it something that appears in the daily life of 'X'?

K: In his daily life of 'X' is apparently doing the petty little stuff - teaching, writing, ( watching TV?) or whatever it is. Is that all? It seems so silly.

B: Are you saying that in the daily life 'X' does not look so different from anybody else?

K: No, he apparently is not.

B: But there is a 'something else' going on ( within himself?) which does not show, right?

K: That's it. When 'X' talks, he may be ( sounding) 'different', he may say things differently but we are asking: if such a man has the whole of that (Intelligent & Compasionate) Energy to call upon, to reduce all that Energy to this petty little place seems so ridiculous.

B: Yes, well let me ask you a (more personal?) question. Why does that Ground require this ( 'K') man to operate on ( the consciousness of?) mankind? Why can't the Ground operate directly on it to clear things up?

K: Are you asking why does the Ground demand 'action'? That I can easily explain. It is part of Existence, like the stars.

Q: But can't that Immensity act directly upon (the consciousness of ) mankind?

K: Why does the Ground need this (X) man? It doesn't need him.

B: Yes but when he is (around ?) then the Ground will use him.

K: That is all.

B: Well, wouldn't it be possible that the Ground could do something more directly to clear up this ('psychological' mess) ?

K: That is why I am asking in different words. The Ground doesn't need this (K) man but the man has touched the Ground. So the ground is 'employing' him. He is ( an active) part of that 'Movement'. So, why should he do anything?

B: Well, perhaps he does nothing.

K: That very 'doing nothing' is (allowing) the 'doing' (of the Ground) .

B: So, in 'doing nothing' which has any specified aim, he is still 'supremely active'.

Q: Is there an action which is beyond ( the limitations of space &) time for that man?

K: He 'is' that . 'X' says: if I am only concerned to talk, that is a very small thing and I am not (really?) bothered about that. But there is a vast field ( of inward action) which must affect the whole ( consciousness ) of mankind.

B: Well in chemistry a 'catalyst' makes possible a ( normally impossible) chemical reaction, without directly taking part, merely by being what it is.

K: Yes, what it is...

Q: But even then 'Y' would say it isn't happening because the world is still in a mess. So is there a truth in the world for the activity of that man?

K: 'X' says : Sorry, I am not interested in proving anything. It isn't a mathematical problem or a technical problem to be shown and proved. He says "This is so": I have walked from the beginning of man to the very end of man and ( meditatively found that) there is a 'Movement' which is timeless. The Ground which is ( the Creative source of ?) the whole universe, the Cosmos, everything. And the Ground doesn't need the man but this man has ( been 'helped' to?) come upon it. Right? And he is still a man in the world. Right? And that man says 'I write and do something or other.' - not to prove anything but he does that just out of Compassion. But there is much greater Movement which necessarily must play a part in the (consciousness of the ?) world.

Q: Does this 'greater Movement' play a part through 'X'?

K: Obviously, obviously. And if there were ten 'X's' of course it (the impact) would be (far greater?) ... ( So, to make this long story short : ) 'X' says there is 'Something Else' operating which cannot possibly be put into words. There is nothing which a man like 'Y' will understand. He will immediately translate it into some kind of illusory thing. But all that 'X' can say is that there is ('something')

B: Well, the general view (the 'science') people are developing now is that the universe has no (spiritual) meaning. That it moves any old way, all sorts of things happen and none of them have any meaning.

K: None of them have meaning for the man who is 'here', but the man who is 'There', says it is full of meaning, not invented by thought and all that. 'X' says (or hopes ?) that perhaps there will be ten people who will 'join the (Universal?) Game', that might affect the present human society - it might be something totally different, based on intelligence, compassion and all the rest of it.

B: Well if the whole of mankind were to see this, are you saying then that that would be something different?

K: Oh, yes sir. Of course ... it would be 'paradise on earth'.

B: It would be like an organism of a new kind.

K: Of course. I think we had better stop there (on a good ball?) . But I am not satisfied with leaving (the inward action of) this Immensity to be reduced to some few words. You see, (the practical ) 'Y' (person) is concerned with 'show me, prove it to me, what benefits it has, will I get my future (life assured?) So he reduces that Immensity to his ( activistic?) pettiness (of mind & heart?) and puts it in a 'temple', and has therefore lost ( the essence of ) it completely. 'X' says: there is something so Immense, please do look at this, and 'Y' is always translating it into 'show it to me', 'prove it to me', 'will I have a better life' - you follow? He is concerned always with that (mentality based on self-interest) .

( In a nutshell:) 'X' brings the 'Light'. That's all he can ( or is supposed to) do. Isn't that enough?

B: To bring the ( Spiritual) 'Light' which would allow other people to be open to the immensity.

K: We that Immensity only as a very small thing ('mustard seed'?) . But that Immensity is the ( Consciousness of the ?) whole Universe. I can't help but think that it must have some immense affect on ( the consciousness of?) 'Y', on society.

B: Well, certainly the perception of this must have an effect, but it is not (at all obvious) in the consciousness of society at the moment.

K: I know...

B: But you are saying that Its effect (impact ?) is 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 he is taking?

K: Yes sir, that is what I am thinking. But to divert this (collective karmic?) course of man's destruction, somebody must 'listen'. Right? Somebody - ten people must listen to that Immensity calling.

B: So ( being inwardly open to?) that Immensity may divert the course of man, yes. The individual ( good will) cannot do it.

K: The individual cannot do it, obviously. But 'X', who is supposed to be an individual, has trodden this Path and says, 'Listen', but they don't 'listen'...

B: Well then is it possible to discover 'how' to make people 'listen'?

K: No, then we are back ( to 'problem solving' within the field of thought & time ?) .

B: What do you mean?

K: Don't act, 'you' have nothing to do.

B: What does it mean 'not to do a thing'?

K: Sir, as 'Y', I can ( eventually?) realize that whatever I do, sacrifice, give up, practise, I am still living in that 'circle of darkness' (within the field of the 'known'?) . So 'X' says, 'Don't act, 'you' have nothing to do.' You follow? But 'Y' does everything except 'wait and see what happens' . We must pursue this sir. Because it is all (looking ) 'hopeless' from the point of view of 'Y'.

9TH K CONVERSATION WITH DAVID BOHM (reader friendly edited)


K: Can the human brain be psychologically (inwardly?) free of of time?

B: What does it really mean to be 'psychologically' free of time?

K: That there is 'no tomorrow'.

B: Can you describe this better, what do you mean when you say, 'no tomorrow'?

K: Let's take the other side first: what does it mean to live (inwardly) in time? Hoping, ( wishful ?) thinking (about tomorrow) , living in the (illusory comfort provided by the?) memories of past, and acting from the ( personally biased ) knowledge of the past, images, prejudices, they are all an outcome of the past, all that ( acting memory is projecting its own 'psychological') time. And ( outwardly) that is producing ( a major) chaos in the world.

B: So you say I am looking now at the watch but I am not (obliged to) 'psychologically' extend how it is going to feel in the next hour, when I have the fulfilment of my desire, or whatever.

K: I am just saying the way we are living now is in the field of 'time' (aka ; in the field of the known) . And there we have brought all kinds of problems, ( personal & collective) suffering, all that. Right?

B: Yes, but it should be made clear why this produces suffering necessarily. Say, if you live in the field of time you are saying suffering is ( eventually) inevitable?

K: Inevitable, inevitable.

B: Why?

K: It is simple. Which is, ( our inner mentality based on ?) time has built the ego ( the self- identified image ?) sustained by society, by parents, by ( our standardising?) education, and from there 'I' act. (and subsequently my 'self image' will be inevitably hurt by fellow 'image makers' ?) This ( imaginary) 'centre' is always (concerned by its own?) 'becoming'.

B: Trying to become better?

K: Better, nobler, and so on ; all this constant endeavour to become something psychologically, is a factor of time.

B: And are you saying that produces suffering?

K: Obviously. Because it is a divisive ( process) . It divides ( isolates?) 'me' and ( feeling inwardly insecure ?) I will depend on somebody and when that somebody (special) is gone, I feel ( still more?) lonely, miserable, unhappy, grief, suffering. So we are saying that any factor of ( self-) division which is the very nature of the self, must inevitably bring suffering.

B: You are saying that through time the 'self' is set up, organized, and then the self introduces division and conflict and so on. So, if there were no psychological (thinking in terms of) time then maybe this entire structure would collapse and something entirely different would happen?

K: And therefore the brain itself has broken out (from the limitations of i self-centred thinking ?) .

B: Well, that would be the next step, when the brain has broken out of that ( ego-centric) rut and maybe it could regenerate then. It doesn't really follow logically, but still ...'it could'.

K: I think it does follow ( even) logically.

B: Well, it follows logically that it would stop degenerating.

K: Yes...

B: And you are adding further that it would start to regenerate itself.

K: So can this 'time' element not exist (inwardly) ? I say it can. And we said the ending of suffering comes about when this 'self' ( egocentric consciousness) , which is built up through time, is no longer there. Someone who is actually going through a terrible time, is bound to reject it, but ('if' and ?) 'when' he comes out of the shock of this (and, before getting entangled in other personal issues ?) , somebody points this out to him, and 'if' he is willing to listen, 'if' he is willing to see for himself the sanity of it, the brain is ( stepping ) out of that ( self-centred thinking with its?) time-binding quality.

N: Temporarily. Then he eventually slips back into time.

K: No, you can't go back, if you see (the egocentric thinking as ?) 'dangerous' . Like a cobra, or like any 'physical ' danger, you cannot. ( But unfortunately inwardly or ?) 'psychologically we are unaware of the (potential) dangers (of our way of thinking?) . But 'if' we become as (acutely) aware of these (hidden ?) 'dangers' as we are aware of any physical danger, there is a ( 'stepping out'? ) action which is not time-binding.

B: Yes, as long as you could perceive it you will respond immediately. But to use your analogy of the 'dangerous animal', inwardly it might take another form that you don't see as 'dangerous'.

K: Yes...

B: Therefore there would be a slipping back in ( the safe routines of) time . This 'illusion of time' might come in some other form.

K: Of course. Which is, the (unaware ?) brain itself might get back because it itself has not seen the danger.

B: But you see, ( our thinking in terms of 'time') and our 'individuality' are basically the same structure.

K: Of course.

B: Although it is not obvious in the beginning...

K: I wonder if 'you' see that.

B: It might be worth discussing that. Why is 'time' of the same structure as the illusion of 'individuality'? You see, 'individuality' is the sense of being a physical person who is located here or somewhere.

K: Located and divided...

B: ...divided from the others. And its domain extends outwardly to some periphery and also he has an identity which goes over time. He wouldn't regard himself as an 'individual' unless he had a (temporal) identity . So it seems that we mean by 'individual' somebody who is (existing) in (terms of space &) time.

K: I think that is such a fallacy, this idea of (our self-centred) 'individuality'.

B: Yes, but you may find it very hard to convince people that their individuality is a 'fallacy'.

K: Of course, many people find anything (inwardly challenging ?) 'very hard'.

B: The common feeling is that as an individual I have existed at least from my birth if not before, and go on to my physical death and perhaps later. The whole idea of being an individual is to 'be' (an entity that continues) in time. Right?

K: Obviously, sir...So if that (totally 'realistic' ?) illusion ( of temporal individuality?) could be broken...

B: Yes, it is through (our collective evolution in ?) time that this notion of 'individuality' has arisen.

K: Of course. Can the human brain understand that?

B: Well I think that there is a great (psychical ?) momentum in any brain, which keeps it 'moving along'.

K: Can this 'momentum' stop for a minute ?


N: Is there a faculty in the human mind which has some transforming effect on the brain?

K: We have said that (a totally integrated ) perception is out of time, seeing immediately the whole ( psychologically poisonous?) nature of time. Which is to have a (total) insight into the nature of time. If there is (such ) an insight into the nature of time the very brain cells which are part of time break away (from their old temporal patterns) and bring about a (qualitative) change in themselves. That is what this (K) person is saying. You may disagree, but I say this is not a matter of proof, it is a matter of (meditative ) action. Do it, find it, test it ( as homework?)

N: You were saying the other day that when the human consciousness is empty of its content..

K:... the (psychologically active) content being 'time'...

N: ... that leads to a (qualitative) transformation of the brain cells. So, when this consciousness is 'empty of its (temporal) content' there...

K:.. there is no (individualistic ?) 'consciousness' as we know it. This (self-) consciousness has been put together by its 'content' (of past memories) . If you have a (total) insight into that, the whole pattern is gone, broken.

N: But then, who has this insight?

K: Not 'me'. There is an insight. We are saying 'time' is the ( cummulative) factor which has made up the content. It has made it up and it also thinks about it. All this (dynamic ?) bundle (of personal memories?) , is the result of time. Now an (illuminating) insight into this whole movement brings about a (radical qualitative ?) transformation in the brain. Because that ( flash of ) insight is not time-binding.

B: We may say that in order for this psychological content to exist, the brain over many years has made many inter-connections of the cells, which constitute ( the neuronal infrastructure of ) this content.

K: Quite, quite.

B: And then there is a flash of insight which sees all this and sees that it is not necessary and therefore all this (old neuronal network) begins to dissipate. And when that has dissipated there is no 'content'. Then, you're saying that whatever the brain is doing is... something different ?

K: Which is, sir, then there is an (inner state of ) total "emptiness" ( aka : ''nothing-ness''?) .

B: When you say 'total emptiness' you mean 'empty' of all this inward content ?

K: That's right. ( And that state of inner) 'emptiness' has a tremendous energy. It is ( pure 'mind'?) energy.

B: So we can say that the human brain having had all these (survivalistic?) connections 'tangled up', has locked up a lot of ( intelligent) energy?

K: That's right. Wastage of (a highly intelligent?) energy.

B: Then when they begin to dissipate, that ( special?) energy is there.

K: Yes.

B: Would you say that is as much 'physical energy as any 'other' kind?

K: Of course, of course.

So Sir, these (highly paid?) 'scientists' or 'brain specialists', would they accept this? Would they even listen to all this?

B: Maybe a few would, but obviously the majority would not. To most scientists it will sound rather abstract, you see. They will say it could be so, it is a nice theory... but we have no proof (that it does really works) . Therefore even the more favourable ones would say, ''if you have some more evidence we will come back later, and become very interested''. And we can't give any proof because whatever is happening (in the depth of the human psyche ) nobody can see it with their (physical ) eyes.

K: Of course. It is the 'old' human brain which has evolved through a million years. One 'biological freak', can move out of it, but how do you get at the human mind to make him see this?

B: Well I think ( that for starters?) you have to communicate the ( holistic ) 'necessity' of what you are saying, that it is inevitable. And then, if somebody sees ( its validity?) when you explain it to him and he sees it happening before his eyes he says, 'That is so !'.

K: But sir, even that requires somebody to 'listen'. Somebody who wants to understand this, to find out.

B: Well it is a (central self preserving ) function of this (thought-) occupied brain that it is occupied with itself and it doesn't listen.

N: In fact one of the things is that this (self-preserving mental ?) occupation seems to start very early. When you are young it is very powerful and then it continues through all your life. How do you through ( (a holistic approach to ?) education make this..

K: Oh, if you are asking (me?) how to set about it ( educationally?) I will tell you. The moment you ( the aspiring educator?) see the importance of not being occupied (and/or of being inwardly free?) , you see that as a tremendous truth, you will ( hopefully?) find (the practical) ways and methods to help them. That is 'being creative', not being told ( by an authority?) and copy and imitate, for then you are lost.

B: Well then the question is: how is it possible to communicate (the vital necessity of 'freedom from the known'?) to the brain ?

K: You see, sir, I think 'meditation' is a great factor in all this. I feel we have been 'meditating' (without realising it?) . So (the right beginning of ?) meditation is this 'emptying' of consciousness'. You follow?

B: Yes, but let's be clear. Before you said it would happen through insight, you see. Now are you saying that meditation is conducive to insight ?

K: Meditation IS ( inseparable from?) insight.

B: It is insight already. But you see insight is usually thought of as the flash.

K: Yes, insight is a flash.

B: But 'meditation' sounds like a more constant (endeavour)

K: Now we must be careful. What do we mean be 'meditation'?

B: That's the question, yes.

K: We can reject the systems, the methods, the authorities, the traditional repetition, all this time-biding nonsense. Now ( the active ingredient of any authentic ?) meditation is this (inward) penetration, this sense of moving without any past.

B: The only point we'll still have to clear up is that when you (K) use the word 'meditation', you seem to mean something more than 'insight', you see.

K: A bit more, much more! Because (the triggering flash of ?) insight has freed the brain from (its subliminal tethering to?) the past, from time, therefore there is no sense of (self-conscious ) becoming.

B: But that seems to mean that you have to insight if you are going to meditate. Right?

K: Yes, sir, that's right.

B: But you can't regard 'meditation' as a (diligent) procedure by which you will come to insight.

K: No. That immediately implies time. (So, to start with : ) an insight into ( being inwardly driven by?) greed, fear, into all that, frees the mind from all that. Then 'meditation' has quite a different quality. It has nothing to do with all the guru's (fake?) meditations. Would we say, sir that to have insight there must be silence?

B: My mind has silence, yes.

K: So the silence of insight has cleansed - cleansed, purged, all that... B: ...structure of the self-centred occupation ?

K: Yes. Then Meditation, what is it? There is no ( mental) movement as we know it, and how we can describe by words that sense of a limitless state ?

B: But nevertheless it is necessary to find some ( holistically friendly?) language, even though it is unsayable.

K: We will find the language. Shall we continue next Sunday?

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Sat, 25 Jan 2014
Topic: K The essential Texts

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


Krishnamurti: We left off the other day at the point where real meditation begins : the mind is totally ( silent & ) empty of all the 'things' ( past memories & reactions?) that thought has put there. But I would like (to take an experiential detour?) and find out if the human brain, can ever be free, not only from all its 'illusions', from any form of (self-) deceptions , but whether it can have its own (sense of inner harmony and ?) order . And also whether the brain, however much damaged it is, and most brains are damaged by all kinds of shocks, whether this brain can 'heal itself' completely.

Let's begin by asking : is there a (sense of an Universal ?) Order which is not man-made, which is not the result of calculated order out of disturbance, an order which is not thought-made?

Bohm: Are you referring to the (universal order of the?) 'Mind'?

K: Is there a (sense of?) 'Cosmic' order?

B: Well, the very word 'Cosmos' actually means order, but (are we talking of ) the whole order which includes the order of the universe and the order of the mind?

K: Yes. Is there a (living dimension of the Universal?) Order which man can never possibly conceive? You follow? Because any concept (of order) is still within the (existing) patterns of thought.

B: Well, then how are we going to discuss about it?

K: Is the 'order' we know now part of disorder ?

B: Well (scientifically speaking) anything that actually happens has its own internal order. Now you can call (this entropic 'order') 'disorder' if you like. For instance if your (psycho -somatic) body is not functioning rightly, say a cancer is growing, there is a certain 'order' in the (developpment of the ) cancer cells, but in a way which tends to break down the ( total order of the) body, so, this whole thing has its own kind of order and it has not violated the laws of nature.

K: Yes, yes...

B: But relative to some (more personal) context you could say it is disorder because if we are talking of the health of the body then the cancer is called disorder.

K: Quite, quite. Cancer has its own order...

B: But it is not compatible with the order of the growth of the body.

K: Quite. So what do we mean ( inwardly) by order? Is there such a thing as (an inner sense of cosmic ?) order?

B: Well, 'order' is a ( holistic) perception - we can't get hold of 'order'.

K: You see, the human brain, the (self-centred ?) mind is so contradictory, so bruised, it can't find (any authentic sense of) order.

B: Yes, but what kind of 'order' does it want?

K: It wants an 'order' (and harmony) in which it will feel safe, where it won't be bruised, shocked, or feel physical or psychological pain.

B: The whole point of ( any psychological) order is not to have ( self-) contradictions.

K: That's right. But the ( average human) brain has a lot of such contradictions

B: Yes, something 'has gone wrong', as we said before , it took a 'wrong turn'.

K: We think it took a wrong turn, yes. But I want to go into something else , which is: can the mind, the brain, be totally free of all (mentally) 'organized' order?

B: Why you want it to be free of 'organized' order ?

K: Because then it becomes a (mechanical ) pattern.

B: You mean by 'organized' an order that is 'imposed' ?

K: Imposed or self-imposed. I am trying to find out whether the brain can ever be free from all these (cultural) impositions, pressures, wounds, of all the trivialities of modern existence, which are pushing it in different directions, whether it can be completely free of all that. If it cannot, Meditation has no meaning.

B: Yes, but you could go further and say probably that human life itself has no meaning if you cannot free it of all that. It just goes on (& on?) indefinitely.

K: Yes. If it goes on ( drifting in the Stream of Time ?) as it has done indefinitely for millennia, our life has no (true) meaning. But I think there is a ( more universal?) meaning if the brain is free of all these (temporal pressures & diversions?) .

B: Well, so that is what you call 'disorder'. We could say it is almost like a ( 'virtual' ?) cancer going on inside the brain. It is moving in a way which is not compatible with the natural health of the brain.

K: Yes.

B: It grows as time goes on, it increases from one generation to another, through tradition. Now we say - it is almost the same question to ask how are we going to stop these (mental) 'cancer cells' from taking over.

K: That is what I want to get at. How is this (entropic) pattern, which has been set, and has accumulated for generations, how is that to end, to be 'broken through'? That is the real question at the back of my mind.

B: Why does the brain provide the soil for this ( mental disorder?) stuff to go on, to grow?

K: It may be merely (due to the psychological comfort of our materialistic ?) traditions & habits.

B: Well, but why does it 'stay' in that, you see?

K: It may be that it is (instinctively ) afraid of something new taking place because in the old traditions it feels safe.

B: Yes, it seems that the brain deceives itself about this ( psychological) 'disorder'. It doesn't seem able to see clearly (what is really wrong with ?) it.

K: I am asking why the brain has accepted that (entropic) pattern in spite of all the conflicts, misery and goes on in the same way, and is it possible to 'break through' that pattern? Dr Bohm asked, why does it go on, why doesn't it break through? And we said : is it so heavily conditioned that it cannot see its way out of , or it may be that by this constant repetition ( recycling its repetitive mental patterns?) the human brain has become 'dull' (inwardly inert?) .

N: Is there a 'momentum of repetition' ( going on in the brain?) ?

K: Yes. That (self-sustained) 'momentum' of repetition makes the mind sluggish (sloppy & ?) mechanical. And in (in the mental & sensory comfort of ?) this mechanical sluggishness it takes refuge and says, 'It's all right, I can go on'. That's what most human beings do (instinctively?) .

B: Well to think that way 'is' a manifestation of disorder.

N: Do you connect 'order' with 'intelligence'? Or is order something that exists on its own?

B: Intelligence certainly requires the perception of order without (hidden ) contradictions. But in the terms what we're discussing we don't impose this order but rather it is natural.

K: Yes. Sir, let's come back (to the Meditation cursus?) Suppose that I am the ordinary ( A, B, C...Y ?) man caught ( in time) - my whole way of living; my thinking and my attitudes and so on, beliefs, are the result of this enormous length of time. 'Time' is (the materialistic ground of) my whole existence. I take refuge in the (knowledge and experience of the ?) past, which cannot be changed.

B: Yes, but this 'ordinary' man, doesn't really understand that ( this process of ) 'time' happens (within ?) himself.

K: After talking over with you (the 'X' person) , I see that my whole existence is based on time. Which is, 'time' is the ( recycled continuity of what happened in the?) past and in that the brain takes refuge.

B: What does that mean exactly? How does it take refuge in the past ? People also think that the future can be changed, the Communists have said, give up the past, we are going to change (it all for you ?) .

K: But I can't give up (my personal & collective background of ?) the past. We only (may like to) think that we can give up the past.

B: Yes, well that is the second point : that even those who try to give up their past, those who don't want to take refuge in the (deadly routines of the) past, still can't give it up.

K: That is just my point.

B: Then it seems that which ever way you're doing it, you are still stuck (in time) .

K: So the next (meditational ) step (to consider ?) is: why does the human brain accept this way of living, and why doesn't it break it down? Is it just (a matter of psycho-somatic?) 'laziness'? Or is it that in breaking down ( the existing 'temporal' order?) it has no (more personal expectations or ?) 'hopes'?

B: Well, we haven't really understood why it does this. Say this (traditional) behaviour is disorderly, irrational and so on, and people have said, 'OK, let's give up the (psychological conditioning of the ?) 'past'... but (eventually) they find that they can't. Why can't we ?

K: Why can't we give up the (psychological conditioning of the ?) past? If I give up the past... 'I' have no ( sense of my) existence.

B: Well you'll have to clarify that...

K: It is simple: if I 'give up' all my (personal) remembrances, etc., etc., I have nothing ( to identify myself with ?), I am (feeling as) 'nothing'.

B: I think some people would look at it a little differently, like the Marxists. Marx said that it is (first) necessary to transform the material conditions of human existence and that will remove his (psychological burden of the ) past, you see ?

K: But ( history shows that) it cannot be done.

B: Well, is that because when he tries to transform (his physical environment) he still works from (his mental projections of the ) past?

K: Yes, that is what I am saying.

B: So, we don't rely on (our experiences of the ) past at all, as you (seem to?) suggest, then what ( exactly) are we going to do?

K: ( At this major experiential 'check-point' ?) I am 'nothing' (not-a-thing) . Because all my (self-centred) existence, my way of thinking, my life, everything is (projected) from the (memories of the ) past. And if you say, ''wipe that out'', what have I left?

B: Well, we obviously have to keep certain things (acquired in) the past like practical knowledge and technology. But suppose we keep this (useful) part of the past and wipe out all the (redundant) parts of our past which are contradictory...

K: What is left? Just (the daily chores and ) going to the office? Inwardly there ( seems to be?) nothing left. Is that the (subliminal ) reason why we cannot 'give it up'?

B: So you are saying simply that when people say they are giving up the past, they are not really doing it (inwardly) ?

K: They are not doing it. Because our whole (psychological ) being has its (active) roots in the past.

B: Now if you told somebody 'OK, give all that up and in the future you will have something quite different, or better', then people would be attracted. You see, people want to be 'assured' of at least something.

K: That is just it. There is no-thing . The common man wants to be assured, wants something to which he can cling to, can hold on to.

B: Or something to reach for: they feel not that they are clinging to the past but they are reaching for something (new) .

K: If 'I' reach for something it still is the ( same updated?) movement of the past.

B: Yes, but that is not often obvious because people say it is a big new revolutionary situation. But it has its roots in the past.

K: That is what I am asking. As long as I have my roots in the past there cannot be an (authentic sense of Universal ?) order.

B: Because our (personal & collective) past is pervaded with disorder?

K: Yes, disorder. So, ( in the context of this transformational Meditation?) is my mind, my brain, willing to see ( face the fact?) that if I give up ( my psychological anchoring in?) the past there is absolutely 'not a thing' (inwardly) ? Is one willing to inwardly face (this feeling of ) absolute 'emptiness'?

B: Well, what will you tell somebody who is not 'willing'?

K: If somebody says, 'I am sorry I can't do all this nonsense' - you say, 'Well, carry on'. But if I am willing to (experiment with?) letting go completely my (psychological) past completely - which means there is no ( personal expectation of) rewards, punishments, no 'carrots' (either) , nothing. And the ( meditating) brain is willing to face this extraordinary state, totally new to it, of existing in a state of 'nothing'-ness. ( But if for 'experiential' purposes ?) I am willing to face this absolute 'no-thingness', ( inner) emptiness, because it has seen for itself that all the various places where it has taken refuge are illusions, it has finished with all that.

B: I think this ( Great Meditational Leap into the Unknown?) leaves out something. You have also brought up the question of the damage of the scars to the brain. A human brain that it wasn't 'damaged' possibly could do that fairly readily.

K: Look: can we discover what has caused damage to the brain? One of the factors is strong emotions.

B: Strong sustained emotions.

K: Strong sustained emotions, like (a major personal frustration and/or ?) hatred, anger, they are not only a ( momentary) shock but ( if cyclically repeated?) they do wound the brain . Right?

B: Well, as does any form of excessive excitation.

K: Of course, drugs and all that ( 'heavy metal'?) stuff. Excessive excitement, excessive anger, violence, hatred, all that. The natural responses doesn't damage the brain. Right? But suppose that my brain actually got damaged, suppose, it has been damaged through (recurring reactions of?) anger.

B: You could even say probably that neurons get connected up in the 'wrong way' and the connections are too fixed. I think there is evidence that these things will actually change the brain cells structure.

K: Now, can one have an insight into the (destructive) nature of ( responding emotionally with?) anger and/or violence ? If so, ( this holistic?) insight changes the cells of the brain which have been wounded.

B: Well and possibly it would start them healing, yes.

K: All right. Start them healing. But this 'healing' must be immediate (or begin ASAP?) .

B: It may take some time if wrong connections have been made it is going to take time to redistribute the ( neuronal) material. But the beginning of it, it seems to me, is immediate.

K: Make it that way, all right. And all the adjustments the ( synapses & neurones involved) will be as rapid as possible.

B: Something similar happens even with the cancer cells. Sometimes the cancer (tumors) suddenly stops growing and it goes the other way, for some reason that is unknown but a change must have taken place in those cells.

K: Would it be, sir, that when the brain cells change, a fundamental change there, the 'cancer' process stops?

B: Yes, fundamentally it stops and it starts to dismantle.

K: Dismantle, yes that is it.

N: But there is another thing which we did not mention when talking of about ( our instinctual attachment to the ) past: for most people the past also means memories of pleasure.

K: Not only past pleasures, the (personal) remembrance of all the things.

N: One starts disliking ( a repetitive ) pleasure only when it becomes stale, or it leads to ( financial) difficulties but basically one wants pleasure all the time. Now, what is your (holistic) attitude to pleasure?

K: What do you mean, 'my attitude'?

N: How does one deal with this immense problem of pleasure in which most people are caught, because it is (part of this momentum of the ) past.

K: There is no ( instant mental processing of ?) pleasure at the moment it is happening. It comes in later when it is remembered. So the remembrance (of pleasure) is -(the momentum of) the past.

(Back to our cursus in Meditation ?) am I willing to face (this inner state of) 'nothingness', which means wipe out all that ('personal' content?) ?

N: How does one 'wipe out' this instinctual drive for pleasure?

K: What is ( the inward origin of?) 'pleasure'? It is a constant remembrance of (sensory rewarding?) things which have happened in the past.

B: And also the expectation that it will happen again ?

K: Of course, always (projected from the memory of the ) the past.

B: But you have also usually made this distinction between ( thought sustained ) 'pleasure' and (the spontaneous) 'enjoyment'...

K: Yes, I did.

N: But the ( average sensuous?) human being, even though he understands ( intellectually?) what you are saying, he is sort of 'held back' in this field...

K: Because he is not willing to face this inward 'emptiness'. ( The instinctual craving for) pleasure is not compassion, nor love. But perhaps if there is this (qualitative inner) mutation, Compassion is stronger than pleasure. So pleasure has no place in Compassion.

B: Even the perception of (the Universal) order may be stronger than pleasure. If people are really concerned about ( learning or discovering ) something new, the ( factor of personal) pleasure plays no role at that moment.

K: Compassion has got tremendous strength, an incalculable strength, ( and the personal factor of?) pleasure is nowhere in it.

N: But what happens to a man in whom pleasure is dominant?

K: As long as he is unwilling to face this extraordinary emptiness he will keep on with ( updating & recycling) the old patterns.

B: We have to say that this emphasis on sustained pleasure is producing a certain brain damage, as does ( any response of) fear, anger and/or hate.

K: But we were saying that the damaged brain is healed when there is insight. So do you, as a ( holistically responsable?) human being, have an insight into the (psychological ) past, how very destructive it is to the brain, and the brain itself sees it and has an insight into it and moves out of that (ASAP ) ?

N: You are saying the beginning of order comes from insight?

K: Obviously. Let's walk from there.

N: Isn't it possible to gather a certain amount of inner order so that it gives rise to a certain ( level of energy necessary for ) insight?

K: Ah! You cannot through the false find truth.

N: I am saying it on purpose, because for many people the basic ( qualitative) energy that is required for insight ; or even the 'keenness' , seems to be lacking.

K: You are tremendously keen to earn a livelihood, to do something you are interested in. If you are (becoming) vitally interested in this transformation, you will have the energy.

( To recap:) If this ( total ?) insight has wiped away the (psychological residues of the ?) past, and the brain is willing to live in 'no-thingness': there isn't a thing which thought has put there, there is no movement of thought, except (regarding the practical activities involving ?) knowledge ,which then has its own place. But we are talking of the 'psychological' state of mind in which there is no ( interfering) movement of thought, there is absolutely nothing.

B: What does this 'no-thingness' really means, experientially ?

K: What it really means is: thought is 'movement', thought is time. So, (in the meditational context?) there is no (mental movement of) 'time and thought'.

B: Yes, and perhaps no sense of the existence of a (self-conscious) 'entity' inside ?

K: Absolutely, of course. The existence of the (self-conscious?) 'entity' is the bundle of ( collective & personal?) memories, the 'past'.

B: But the (sense of one's inner) existence is not just (the mechanistic result of ) thought thinking about it , but also the feeling that 'it is' there, inside, you get a sort of feeling.

K: The feeling of one's ( total?) 'being', yes. But otherwise (on the mental level ?) there is nothing.

B: Yes, even though it doesn't seem verbalizable.

K: Of course. But I wonder if you are caught in an illusion that there is such a state...

B: Well it may be. So that inner 'no-thingness' would be a state without any interference of will, without...

K: Of course. All those are gone (with the wind?)

B: Now, how do we know that this state is real, is genuine?

K: In other words you want a proof of it ?

B: Not a proof, but some 'communion' of that state.

K: Now wait a minute. Supposing you have this peculiar (sense of) Compassion, How can you communicate it to me who is living in pleasure and all that? You can't.

N: But what if I am prepared to 'listen' to you ?

K: Prepared to listen - how deeply?

N: To the extent my ( inward capacity of?) listening takes me to.

K: Which means what? That you will go with it as long as it feels safe, secure ?

N: Not necessarily...

K: This ('X') man says (that in that meditative state of 'no-thingness' ?) there is no (self-consciousness of one's ?) being. One's whole life has been this movement of (self-) becoming, being and so on. And in that state he says there is no sense of 'me' being (there) at all.

Now if you say, 'Show it to me'. It can be shown only through certain qualities it has, certain actions. What are the actions of a mind that is totally empty of 'being' (or 'becoming' something ) ? What are its actions? ( For starters?) this ( 'X' ?) man has got this sense of emptiness and there is no (sense of) 'being' (anything) , is not acting from self-centred interest. So his actions are ( totally visible) in the world of daily living and you can judge only there, whether he is a hypocrite, whether he says one thing and contradicts it the next moment, or whether he is actually living this 'Compassion' - not the 'I' who feels compassionate.

B: Well if you are not doing the same you can't tell, you see....

K: That's just it. So how can you convey to me in words that peculiar quality of an (universally integrated ? ) mind? You can describe, you know go round it, but you can't give the essence of it. I mean David, for example, he could discuss with (Professor ?) Einstein, they were on the same level. And he and I can discuss here up to a certain point, I can go very close but I can never enter or come upon that (inward quality of ?) mind unless I have (meditatively found ) it ( for myself) .

N: Is'nt there any way of communicating it (non-verbally) for one who is open?

K: We said Compassion. In the everyday life such a mind acts without the (all-knowing supervision of the ?) 'me', without the ego, and it might make a (honest ?) mistake but it corrects it immediately and it is not carrying (over) that mistake.

N: It is not 'stuck'.

K: (Is not) stuck (not entangled in time ) . We must be very careful here not to find (convenient) excuses for doing something wrong.

So sirs, (if and when in this inward journey ?) we come to that point (of selfless Love & and Compassion ?) , what is then (the universal significance of) Meditation? To the man ( engaged in ) 'becoming' or 'being' (someone or something ) and who tries to 'meditate', it has no meaning whatsoever (besides quieting his mind?) . But when there is this no ( active process of psychological) becoming, or ( constantly tweeting about one's mentally troubled state of?) being then what is Mediation? It must be something totally (non self-) conscious, totally 'uninvited' (unpremeditated?) .

B: You mean without a 'conscious' intention ?

K: Yes, without conscious intention. Would you say, sir that the (Intelligent Mind of the ?) Universe, the Cosmic Order, is in a ( constant ) state of Meditation?

B: Well, regarding this (Cosmic) Meditation, what is it doing?

N: What 'order' can we discern, which would indicate cosmic meditation or universal meditation?

K: The sunrise and sunset is (just one visible expression of Universal ?) Order, all the(galaxies?) stars, the planets, the whole thing is (moving) in perfect order.

B: Yes, but...we have still to connect this with Meditation.

N: I am told that 'contemplation' has a different connotation from meditation. Contemplation implies a deeper state of mind, whereas meditation is...

B: It is hard to know. The word 'con-template' comes from the word 'temple' really. To 'make an open space' so you can ( have the inner peace and leisure?) to look at it.

K: Is that to create an open space between God and me?

B: That is the way the word arose. From 'temple', which means an 'open space'. I just asked in what sense is K using the word 'meditation'. Let's find out ( from the 'horse's mouth'?) what he really meant here.

K: A state of infinity, a measureless state ( of Being?) 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 (its known) content.

K: Yes. What are you trying to get at?

B: Well I am trying to get at that it is not merely 'infinite' but it seems that something more is involved (experientially-wise?) .

K: Oh, much more.

B: So, in this 'emptying of content', we said that this ( psychological) content is the ( active memory of the?) past which has become disorder. So, we could say that in some sense 'meditation' is constantly cleaning up the past. Would you agree to that?

K: No, no.

B: When you say ''the mind is emptying itself of content''...

K: 'Has emptied' itself.

B: All right, then you say that when the (psychological residues of the?) past are cleaned up...

K: That is ( part of?) 'contemplation'..

N: So, the 'emptying of the past' is just a beginner's (contemplative chore?) ?

K: That must be done (for starters) . ( Exposing, Examining and?) Emptying this (psychological content of the ) 'past' which is anger, jealousy, beliefs, dogmas, attachments, all that is the content. If any part of that exists (in thought's background ) it will inevitably lead to illusion. So the ( meditating) mind must be totally free of all illusion - illusions brought by desire, by wanting ( to optimise its temporal ?) security and all that.

B: Are you saying when this (cleaning-up) is done this opens the door to something broader, deeper?

K: Yes. Otherwise life has no ( spiritual?) meaning, just repeating this (cyclic survivalistic) pattern.

N: What exactly did you mean when you said the Universe is in (a state of?) Meditation?

K: I feel that way, yes. Meditation as a 'non-movement' ( a silent ?) Movement.

B: All right, yes. Could we say first of all that the Universe is not actually governed by its past ? It is free and creative.

K: It is 'creative', moving (and... creating?)

B: And then this 'movement' is in itself a (creative?) order.

K: Would you, as a scientist, accept such a thing?

B: Well, as a matter of fact I would! You see the Universe creates certain forms which are relatively constant, so if people look at it superficially they only see that,- the order of the Univers seems to be then determined from ( what happened way back in) the past.

K: Sir, (regarding the experiential approach to meditation ?) can we put the question the other way: is it really possible for ( our self-centred thinking in terms of ? ) time to end - the whole idea of ( 'I-me-mine' constantly projecting itself in ?) time, ( inwardly ) to have 'no (sense of?) tomorrow' at all? Of course there is ( a chronological) 'tomorrow', but the (inward) feeling, the actual reality of having no ('existential' problems to solve for ?) tomorrow. I think that is the healthiest way of living. Which doesn't mean that I become irresponsible - that is all too childish.

B: It is merely a question of physical time ?

K: Sir, is the (total order of the ?) universe based on time?

B: I would say, no, but the general way it has been formulated (by the professional scientists?) ...

K: That is all I wanted (to hear ?) ; you say "no". Now, can the human brain which has evolved in time...

B: Well, has it evolved in time ? That is a (convenient ?) way of talking but (inwardly) it has become entangled in time - because if you say the universe is not based on time, the human brain is also part of this (living order of the?) universe.

K: I agree.

B: However, ( the self-centred process of ) thought has entangled the brain in time.

K: In time. Now, can that ( temporal?) entanglement be unravelled, freed, so that the (creative order of the ?) universe 'is' ( integrated in the human ) mind? You follow? If the (Holistic order of the ?) universe is not of time, can the human mind which has been entangled in time, unravel itself and so 'be' (integrated with ?) the (intelligent order of the?) Universe? You follow what I am trying to say?

B: Yes...

K: That is ( the Cosmic?) Order.

B: So, would you say that (reaching It?) is (the true role of ?) meditation?

K: That's what I would call 'meditation' : an (inner) state of (mind?) in which there is no ( interfering?) element of the past.

B: So, you(re saying that the mind is disentangling itself from time and it is also disentangling the brain from time?

K: Yes, sir. Would you accept that?

B: Yes, as a ( valid experiential ?) proposal.

K: Now, somebody (like K?) says one can live in this (holistic ) way and then (your everyday) life has an extraordinary meaning, it is full of compassion and so on, and every ( 'faux pas' ?) action in the physical world, can be corrected immediately and so on. Would you, as a (holistically friendly?) scientist, accept such a state ?

B: I feel it is perfectly possible, it is quite compatible with anything that I know about (the Laws of ) Nature. Part of our (mental) entanglement in time is that the 'science' (people?) have put time into a fundamental position which actually 'helps' to entangle (the human consciousness?) still further.

K: We had better stop (on a good ball?) , sir. Of course just putting it into words is not the actual (meditative?) thing. But can it be communicated to other (earnest truth seekers?) ?

B: Well I think that the very point of (sharing these insightful dialogues?) is to bring it about.

K: Of course. So, can some of us (experientially access this profound dimension of Meditation ?) so that we can 'communicate' it actually ?

11-th K conversation with David Bohm (reader friendly edited)


Krishnamurti: Last time we talked about ( the Universal?) order, whether the order of the universe is based on time at all, and whether man can ever comprehend (or meditate?) and live in (harmony with ) that supreme order. Dr Bohm and I wanted to investigate profoundly, how to live from that Ground (of all Being) that is timeless, there is nothing beyond it. And I think we had better begin from there.

Dr Bohm: Begin from the Ground...

K: Sir, I don't know if you will agree as a scientist of eminence, whether there is such a Ground, and whether we can as human beings come to That ?

B: Well, I don't know if science as it is now constituted can say much about that.

K: ( For starters?) I can bring (some ?) order in myself, by careful observation, self-study, self-investigation, by understand the nature of (my ongoing) disorder, and a (global) insight into it dispels that ( superficial?) disorder. And that's one level of order.

B: Yes, that's the level that most of us have been concerned with, till now, you see. We see this ( tidal surge of?) disorder going on in the world, and in ourselves, and we say it is necessary to be aware, observe all that, to be aware of that and as you say, to 'dispel' (the causes of) it.

K: Yes, but ( inwardly speaking?) that's a very small affair.

B: May be, but most people generally don't feel it as a 'small affair' and feel that clearing up the ( ongoing) disorder in themselves and in the world would be a very big thing. And perhaps all that's necessary.

K: But a man who is fairly intelligent and cultured - cultured in the sense civilized - with a great deal of self-enquiry and investigation, can actually come to the point when in himself he can bring ( some basic) order.

B: Yes, and why not bring that kind of order into the whole of society ?

K: If we all could be (inwardly) orderly, we'll perhaps create a new society. But that again ( from the Universal point of view?) is a very small affair.

B: I understand that. But one should go into it carefully because most people commonly don't see it as 'small', although a few (might?) have seen that there's something beyond that.

K: Much more beyond that, that's what I want (to discuss) .

B: Perhaps it might be worth considering why is it that it is not enough to just produce an orderly living . In what sense is that not enough?

K: I mean, because we live in ( a thoughtfully organised?) 'chaos', to bring ( a holistic quality of inner?) order, we think that's a tremendous affair.

B: Agreed, from the present state it looks very big.

K: Yes, very enormous, but in itself it isn't.

B: Could you make it a little more clear why it isn't ?

K: All right. If I can put my (inner) room in order, that it gives me certain (free inner?) space, a certain sense of freedom. Can I, as a human being, put things in myself in order, which is, not to have ( endless?) conflicts, not to have comparison, not to have any ( divisive?) sense of 'me' and 'you' and 'they' - since out of that division grows conflict. So if one understands that, and profoundly realizes (the significance of) it, that ( ego-centric conditioning ? ) is finished.

B: Supposing we have achieved this ( level of selfless inner order ?) , then what? K: That's what I want to get at. Will that (inner clarity of ) insight really alter my whole structure and nature of my ( inner) being ? So what is "insight" - do we have to go again through that?

B: Well, just to sum it up, you could make it ( sound) more intelligible.

K: Could we start with (the very common inner condition of ?) being 'tied' ( identified or strongly attached ?) to some habit, to some personal experience, or to a person, an ideal ? Which ( psychological dependence?) inevitably must create disorder, because it implies the (illusory?) 'escape' from one's own loneliness, fear, and all that. Now to have a total insight into ( the nature & consequences of?) this 'attachment', clears it away.

B: Yes. I think we were saying that the 'self' is the centre of darkness, it could be considered like a centre creating darkness in the mind, or clouds, and the insight penetrates that, it would dispel the cloud so that there would be clarity and therefore this problem ( of personal attachment?) would vanish.

K: Vanish, that's right.

B: But even this would take a very intense ( intelligent energy of?) insight, a 'total' insight.

K: That's right, and are we (really) willing to go through that? Or this attachment (to my 'self'-image?) is so strong, that I'm unwilling to let go it ?

B: And then what?

K: Then.... this is (the actual condition in which ) most people are (presently) . I think it's only very few who( would really ) want to do this kind of thing. .. So, we are discussing the nature of ( a total) insight, whether it can wipe away or dissolve this whole ( existential condition ?) of being attached, dependent, feeling lonely, all that, 'at one blow' , as it were. I think it does this when there is a profound insight into this whole thing. That insight is totally different from the (ordinary activity ?) of memory, knowledge, experience.

B: Well, it seems such an insight ( throws light ?) onto the whole of (our inner) disorder, into the very source of all disorder of a psychological nature, not just into attachment or greed. So that in the (light of ?) that insight the mind can 'clear itself up' and then it would be possible to (meditatively ) approach the cosmic order.

K: That's what I want to get at. That's much more interesting than this, because this is all rather immature - any 'serious' man should be able to put his (inner) house in order. And that must be not just order in a particular direction, but order in the wholeness of man ( of his being?) .

Now, that can be done (eventually?) , and it is necessary, because society as it is now (is quickly) disintegrating and (becoming self-) destructive and all the rest of it, (not to mention that ?) it destroys (the inner quality of) human beings. ( Our self-centred thinking ?) is a 'machinery' (at work?) that is destructive in itself and if a human being is (getting) caught in it, it (ultimately?) destroys him (his integrity?) . So realizing this (xlear & imminent danger ?) , any intelligent human being must ( should?) do something about it', not just sit back and talk about it (academically ) .

B: But you see, most people might feel that 'doing something about it' consists of solving their particular problems like attachment or removing disagreements between people, or something of this nature.

K: The resolution of a 'particular' ( personal ) problem, is not the resolution of the whole.

B: So, that's the key point : if you find the source that generates this whole (inner disorder ) , then getting at its root is the only way (for a holistic solution) .

K: Yes, that's right.

B: Because if we try to deal with a particular problem, they are still always coming from the same old source.

K: The source is the 'me' ( my all-knowing 'self'- consciousness' ?) , and this little pond, this little stream, must ( eventually?) 'dry up'. So, unless this (self-identified ?) centre which is the very essence of disorder, is not dissolved there is no ( inwardly integrated?) order. So at this level it is ( conceptually very ?) clear. Can we go on from there?

B: Yes, I think so...

K: I'd like to ask, is there another ( holistic dimension of ?) order totally different from this? This is a 'man-made' disorder, and therefore 'man-made' order. Right? So realizing this (intrinsical limitation ?) is there an order which is totally different, of a dimension which is necessary to find, because this is so small an affair ?

B: Yes, eventually people won't be satisfied with this (man-made order?) , they'll get bored with it.

K: Yes. Now, a human being who has really deeply understood the (inner nature of the ) disorder made by human beings, says, 'Is there an order that's beyond all this?'

B: Yes, but... how do we get into that question? Even in the field of science men are seeking the order of the whole universe, not just to gett 'useful results' but because the question fascinates them. And I think that, perhaps many have been seeking the 'absolute' ( dimension of Universal Order?) - something free of all limitation, of all dependence, of all imperfection.

K: Yes, free of all ( personal) motives and all the rest of it – 'absolute'.

B: Yes, but this ( search for the ) absolute has been the source of tremendous illusions, of course because it is our limited 'self' who seeks to capture the absolute.

K: Of course, that's impossible.

B: But supposing that we recognize that this ( concept of an ) 'absolute' (Order) is 'dangerous' (a very risky ?) concept when the particular mind tries to grasp it, yet it seems that ( we can express it in terms of?) 'freedom' – it could mean the same as the 'absolute', you see, because anything that is dependent in any way is not free.

K: So how do we approach this ('top of the line' existential ?) question? As a scientist, would you say there is an Universal Order which is beyond all human order and disorder? B: Yes, I would say it. Although a scientist may not be able to say anything ( relevant?) on this question because any order discovered by science is relative.

K: Because their own 'egotism' ?

B: Not only that but also because the amount of information we have is limited. And we can only say that science can go only so far.

K: So as a human being who is ( a responsible representative of?) the totality of human beings, there is order in my ( inner) life. That ( inner sense of?) order is naturally brought about through insight and so perhaps it will ( or not ?) effect society. His 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 (all around us?) the order of nature and of the 'Cosmos' which we don't really know in its depth, but we could consider that to be (pointing to) that sort of Order.

K: Yes. Unless man interferes with it, Nature has its own order. Now let's move to something else. Man has sought a different dimension (of Consciousness ?) and perhaps used the word '(Cosmic ?) order'. He has sought a different dimension, because he has understood (the limitations of) this dimension: he has suffered, he has gone through all kinds of mess and misery, he says, 'I've come to the end of all that' - actually come to the end of all that. And 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 all that? Is it of any interest to one who hasn't gone through it?

K: I think it is.

B: All right, what is it?

K: Because even intellectually, he may see the limitations of it.

B: Yes, it's important for him to see this even before he has 'finished up' with it. Rather than saying : wait until I clear it all up and then...

K: Of course, that would be too (universally-wise?) 'stupid'. So how does the mind approach this problem? (pause...) Through 'meditation' ?

B: I think people may have used the word 'meditation' in the distant past to indicate that by looking (in terms of?) measure , you can see disorder as being out of proportion, but they may have also meant to go on from there.

K: Yes, let's try to do it. Perhaps it is a preposterous statement but let's see. First (of all) , this (insightfully meditative ) mind must be free of measurement, otherwise it can't enter into the Other (universal dimension of Consciousness?) .

B: Well, that's an important point, because the instinctive tendency is to try to 'make the measures come right', to correct (this inner disorder)

K: Correct it, quite. But we said...

B: But ( from the holistic point of view?) this might be a fundamental mistake ?

K: We said that all ( self-centred?) effort to bring order into disorder is (perpetuating the existing?) disorder.

B: Yes, but this (point ) is very different from what almost everybody has been saying .

K: Yes. We are, perhaps 'exceptional'...

B: There may be a few who implied it, but it's never been said explicitly to my knowledge.

K: All right, let's 'explicitly' say it.

B: So you're saying that the attempt to (inwardly) 'control' that ( ongoing disorder ?) is wrong, you see that it has no ( holistic ?) meaning.

K: No meaning, yes.

B: So, when we say 'no control', what do we do?

K: ( For startes?) if one has an insight into the ( violent ?) nature of ( self-) 'control', this liberates the mind from the burden ( of personal effort?) .

B: Could you explain the nature of such an 'insight', what it means (experientially?) ?

K: It is not a 'movement' ( a mental activity born ?) from knowledge, from thought, remembrance and all the rest of it, but (can only occur in ?) the cessation of all that - to 'look' with a pure observation, without any pressure, without any ( personal) motive, all that - to observe this whole movement of measurement ( comparison & evaluation ?).

B: Yes, I think we can see that this ( trend of ) 'measurement' is the same as (self-) becoming; and that this attempt of the mind to 'measure' itself, to 'control' itself, to 'set itself a goal', is the very source of our inner disorder.

K: That 'is' the very source of disorder.

B: So, in a way this was the 'wrong turning' in the sense that man has extended ( the capacity of mental?) measurement from the external sphere ( of reality) into the ( inward dimension of the?) mind.

K: Yes.

B: But I think that our first ( instinctual?) reaction would be that if we don't control this thing, it will 'go wild'. That's what somebody might fear.

K: Yes, but you see, if I have an insight into (the distorting nature of inner comparison & ) measurement, in that very insight there is a different (inner sense of ) order.

B: Yes, it (the personal mind) does not 'go wild' because it has begun in order. It is really the attempt to 'measure' (to inspect and control?) it that makes it 'go wild'.

K: Yes, that's it. This ( trend of control &?) 'measurement' is creating its own confusion. Right? Now after establishing all this (right fundation for a 'new' holistic order) , can this (newly integrated?) mind through 'meditation' find something which is not 'man-made' ? We've been through all the 'man-made' things and saw they are all limited, there is no freedom in them, there is Chaos, there is mess and all that.

B: Well, when you say : you've been through all the 'man-made' things , what are they?

K: Everything : ( ego-centric?) worship, prayers, anxieties, sorrow, attachment, detachment, loneliness and suffering and confusion and ache and anxiety, all that.

B: And also all the attempts (to change everything ) by (a physical ?) 'revolution' ?

K: Of course, physical revolution, or a 'psychological' (Utopia?) , all that. Those are all 'man-made'. And many (thoughtful?) people have put this question and therefore they say, 'God' - another ( man-made ?) concept that creates disorder.

B: Well, that's clear that man has invented 'God' and given Him the power of the absolute... which is (... a glorified image of?) himself.

K: Now, one has finished with doing all that. Then the question is, is there "Something" beyond all this , which was never touched by the human thought ?

B: Yes, now, that makes a difficult (experiential) point, ''not touched by the human mind'', so the mind might go beyond (the limitations of ) thought.

K: That's what I want - yes.

B: Then what do you mean by the 'mind' ? Only thought, feeling, desire, will, or something much more?

K: For the time being, we have said the human mind is all that. As long as the human mind is caught in that , it is limited (by its own self-centred content?) .

B: Yes, so the human mind has a larger potential.

K: Tremendous potential.

B: Which it does not realize right now, since it is caught ( entangled) in ( self-centred) thinking & feeling, desire, will, and that sort of thing.

K: That's right.

B: So, that ( Universal Order?) which is beyond this is not touched by this limited sort of mind.

K: Yes. (pause)

B: Now what will we mean by a (meditating?) mind which is going beyond this limit?

K: First of all, sir, is there such a ( mature ) mind that can actually say, ''I've' been through all this and finished with it''. Is there such a mind? Now, this "mind", having come to the end of it, is no longer the same old limited mind. Is there a ( holistic quality of?) mind which is totally limitless?

B: Now that raises the ( experiential?) question of how the brain is able to be in contact with that "mind", you know.

K: I'm coming to that. But I want to be clear that this human mind (which includes the emotions, the brain's reactions, physical responses and all that) - which has lived ( for ages?) in turmoil, in chaos, in loneliness - has finally a profound insight into all (its unhappy past ?) . And having such a deep insight has cleared the field. This ('emptied'?) mind is no longer the old damaged mind. Let's use that word '(time -) damaged'. But when there is this ( flash of total ?) insight and therefore ( a perception of the Universal?) order, the ( karmic?) damage is undone.

B: We can see that ( physiologicall) this 'damage' was done by disorderly thoughts and feelings, which over-excite the cells and disrupt them and now with the insight, that stops and a new process...

K: Yes, it's like a person going for fifty years in a certain direction and realizes suddenly that that's not the (right) direction, the ( vital quality of his?) whole brain changes.

B: It changes at the core and then the wrong structure is dismantled and healed, that may take ( some healing) time.

K: That's right.

B: But the insight ( of wlking in a new direction?) …

K:... is the factor that changes...

B: And that insight does not take time.

K: Isn't ( the inner quality of ) that mind having had insight into this limitation, and therefore moved away from that limitation, isn't that something of a 'revolutionary' (nature?) ? It is no longer the 'man-made' mind with its (limited self-centred) consciousness.

B: Yes, so that is the 'general' (collective ?) consciousness - I mean, not just in individual's but it has been all round.

K: Of course I'm not talking (only) of the (particular) consiousness...

B: Yes. We discussed that the (so called) 'individual' consciousness is the 'particularised' outcome of a 'general consciousness' of mankind A particular outcome, rather than an independent thing. You see, that's one of our ( very common) confusions: we take this 'individualistic' mind to be the concrete actuality.

K: Yes.

B: So, it's necessary to ( wisely?) consider this 'general' mind as the 'actuality' from which the 'particular' mind is formed.

K: Yes. That's all very clear.

B: But now you are saying that we 'move away' even from that 'general' mind ; so, (in the meditative context ?) what does it actually mean?

K: If one has totally moved away from those (self-interest based?) limitations , then what is the (quality of one's ) mind? And what is the relationship between that (universally integrated ?) 'mind' - which is not man-made- , and the 'man-made' mind?

B: Well, didn't we agree to call it the 'Universal' Mind ?

K: I don't like (to call it positively ?) 'universal mind', but (rather) a Mind that is not made by man. Does such a (holistic ?) mind exist?

B: You see, one of the ( major experiential) problems that comes up is : 'Who' observes it ?

K: There is no ( such) division in ( the context of holistic?) observation. Not, 'I observe' , but there is only ( a quality of non-personal ) observation .

B: Would you say the particular brain takes part in this observation?

K: No, sir, it doesn't take place in the 'particular' ('personalised' ?) brain.

B: Yes, but it seems that even a 'particular' brain may respond to it .

K: Of course, but it is not 'K' 's brain.

B: What I mean by the word 'particular' brain, was that given the particulars of where a certain human being is in space and time or whatever his physical form is, is distinguished from another one which might be here or there.

K: Look, sir, let's get clear on this point. We live in a 'man-made' world, our brains are the result of a 'man-made' mind - and so on.

B: Well, the human brain itself is not 'man-made' but it has been (culturally ?) conditioned.

K: Conditioned by man, right, that's what I meant. Now, can this ( meditating?) 'mind' uncondition itself ( step out of its conditioned patterns?) so completely that it's no longer 'man-made'? Can it go to that extent, as to completely liberate itself from... 'itself' ? (from its 'self' -centredness ?) .

B: That's a somewhat paradoxical statement.

K: Of course. Paradoxical, but it is so. (In a nutshell:) One can observe that the (collective?) consciousness of humanity 'is' (conditioned by ?) its (past) 'content' - all the 'man-made' things : anxiety, fear, and all the rest of it. Now not only the particular, but the 'general '( human mind) having had an insight into ( what was wrong with?) it, has 'cleansed' itself from all that.

B: So, if this ( purifying) insight transforms the 'man-made' mind, it's no longer the (same ) mind ?

K: It's no longer. That (inward exposure to the truth of this ) insight means the 'wiping away' of all the (conditioned) content of consciousness. Not bit by bit, but the 'totality' of it. And this 'insight' is not the result of man's ( temporal ) endeavour.

B: Yes, but then where does it come from ?

K: Where does it come from? In (or from?) the Mind itself – in the whole of it.

B: So, we say there is ( an Universal ) Mind, right?

K: Let's go slowly - the (meditating ?) mind comes to a (Check-) Point when it says, 'Can all this ( conditioned content) be wiped away at one breath, one blow, in one movement ?' And that is the movement (timeless action of?) of insight. It is still ( occuring) in the ( same) mind. But is not born of the content of the (self-centred?) consciousness.

B: So, you are saying the human mind has the potential of moving beyond the (conditioned) consciousness.

K: Of course. It must be a part of the (intelligent heritage of the human ) mind.

B: So, the human mind can do that, but it hasn't generally done it ?

K: Yes. So, having done all this, is there a (holistic quality of ?) mind which man cannot conceive, cannot create, is there such a Mind?

B: Well, I think what you are saying is, having freed our mind from the general and particular structure of consciousness of mankind, from its limitations, now this Mind is much greater. And you say that this Mind is raising the question...Which is ?

K: Is there a (new ?) mind which is not man-made? And if there is, what is its relationship to the man-made mind? I think that can only be asked when the limitations are 'ended', otherwise it's just a theoretical question.

B: That'll be still part of the 'man-made' structure.

K: Of course, of course. So ( the meditating mind?) must be absolutely free of all this. Then only can you put this (two-folded) question : (a) is there a ( holistic quality of?) Mind that is not 'man-made', and (b) what is its relationship to the 'man-made' mind. (a) Of course there is. Without being authoritative or personal or all that business, there is. But it is not 'God' …

B: ...which is part of the man-made structure.

K: And (b) if there is such a Mind, and someone ( such as K?) says 'there is', then what is the relationship of 'that' (holistic?) to the 'man-made' mind? Has it any relationship?

B: Yes, this is a difficult (metaphisical) question because we could say that the man-made mind is pervaded with illusion, most of its (psychological) content is not 'real'.

K: So this (new mind) is 'real' in the sense of 'actual', and the other is measurable, confused - has 'this' a relationship to 'That'? Obviously not.

B: Well, I would say it has a superficial one at least at the practical or technical level, like let's say, this TV system ( recording our discussion) and so on. But as you were saying that is a very small area. But more fundamentally...

K: ...'this' man-made ('self-interest' based?) mind has no relationship to 'That'. (However) 'That' has a relationship to 'this'. Let's be ( more) clear: the human mind has got ( its own temporal?) illusions, desires and all the rest of it. And That 'Other' mind is beyond all ( space & time?) limitations. ( However?) this illusory mind, the man-made mind, is always seeking ( to reach) 'That' ( God, Truth, or... the Unknown?)

B: Yes, that's its main ( existential) trouble.

K: Yes, that's its main trouble. And it is always measuring it's 'progress' : I'm getting nearer, farther, all the rest of it. So this man-made mind is always seeking ( to contact ) 'That' (universal mind ?) , and therefore it's creating more and more ( colateral) mischief, confusion. ( But in a nutshell?) 'this' ( man-made mind) has no (actual) relationship to 'That'. Now, has 'That' any relationship to it?

B: It can have an (educational?) relationship to the 'man-made' mind in (the sense of ) understanding its true structure.

K: Are you saying, sir, that 'That' ( Universal?) Mind has a ( working?) relationship to the human mind the moment this is moving away from the limitations?

B: Yes, in understanding ( the truth regarding the nature of ?) those limitations it moves away.

K: Yes, moves away. Then 'That' has a ( 2-way working?) relationship.

B: Then It has a 'genuine' relationship to what this limited mind actually is, not with the (self-centred?) illusions of what it thinks it is.

K: Let's be clear...

B: Well, the Mind which is not limited, which is not 'man-made', cannot be related (or have a working relationship?) to the illusions which are in the 'man-made' mind.

K: Agreed.

B: But it has to be related to the source, to the real nature of the man-made mind, which is ( active) behind the ( screen of) illusion.

K: How can 'That' have a relationship to 'this', even basically?

B: So, you are retracting what you just said before ?

K: No, I'm just 'pushing' ( or 'dramatising'?) it a little . What is the relationship of (a Selfless ) Love to ( a 'selfish love' loaded with ?) jealousy? There is none...

B: Not to 'jealousy' itself- which is a (self-centred ?) illusion, but to the 'mind' of the human being who is jealous, there may be (some relationship)

K: Take (a holistic mind that has free affection & ) 'love' and ( the egocentric mind that) 'hates' -they have no ( authentic) relationship to each other.

B: No, not really....

K: None, not just 'not really' !

B: But I think that the latter might understand the origin of its hatred, see ?

K: Ah, 'it might' - yes, yes...

B: In that sense I would think they have a (shared learning?) relationship.

K: Are we saying, sir, that (a Selfless?) Love has a relationship to 'non-love' (to a 'mind without love' ?) ?

B: Only in the sense of 'dissolving' it.

K: In the ending of ( self-centred jealousy, resentment or ?) 'hatred', the 'Other' is.

B: Yes, then we have to ask how it (this inner transformation?) gets started ?

K: That's very simple.

B: I mean, supposing we say we have ( a psychological residue of resentment & ) 'hatred'....

K: Suppose 'I hate you' . I can ( sit down, meditate & ? ) see the origin of it. Because you ( or other people did hurt or?) insulted me.

B: Well that's the (immediate) origin, but why does one behave so irrationally is ( coming from a far ) deeper origin. You see, if you merely insulted me, why should I respond to your insult ?

K: All my (past) conditioning is ( responding in ?) that. Now, does your love (or your 'loving presence'?) help me to understand the origin of my hatred?

B: No, but I think that someone ( entangled in 'hard feelings' of resentment & ) hatred, by understanding their origin, can move away.

K:...and then the 'Other' is (Present) . But the 'Other' cannot 'help' ( 'push'?) him to move away...

B: No, but suppose one one human being has open access to this ( Selfless ) Love and the other has not - can't the first one communicate something which will start the (awakening?) movement in the second one?

K: The ( metaphysical) question was : is (the psychological content of?) 'hate' dispelled by ( Selfless?) Love ? Or in the ( insightful?) understanding of ( the violent causation of?) hatred and in the ending of it, the 'Other' is (coming) ?

B: That's ( holistically?) right, but supposing 'A' has reached 'That' and he sees B... what is he going to do, you see, that's the question.

K: What is the (interacting?) relationship between the two? My wife loves (selflessly?) and I hate ( personally?) . She can talk to me, she can point it out to me, but her ( selfless) love is not going to transform the innermost source of my hatred.

B: That's clear, yes, except (that a selfless ) Love is the energy behind her talk.

K: Behind the talk, yes.

B: Of course, that ( selfless) Love itself doesn't 'go in there'...

K: Of course - that's 'romantic' and all that ( wishful thinking?) business. So the man who 'hates' (everything?) , having an insight in the ( primary ?) source of his hatred , the causation of it, the ( reactionary ?) movement of it, and ending it, has (open access to ?) the 'Other'.

B: Yes, ( to sum it up:) if A is the man who has seen ( the truth regarding?) all this and he now has the energy to put it to B - then what happens it's up to B.

K: Of course. I think we had better pursue this.

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Mon, 27 Jan 2014
Topic: K The essential Texts

12TH K CONVERSATION WITH DAVID BOHM (reader friendly edited)


Krishnamurti: We were talking the other day about a human being who has ( meditatively?) 'worked his way' through all the problems of modern life, both physical and psychological, and has grasped the full (existential ) significance of freedom from his 'psychological' (self-centred) memories, conflicts and travails, comes to the (critical) point where his mind finds itself free (of the 'known' ?) but hasn't yet gathered that supremely (intelligent?) energy necessary to 'go beyond' itself (or transcend its condition ?). Can we go on from there?

Bohm: If you like, yes.

K: ( So, for starters?) Can the human mind ( our whole psychological structure) ever be free from all (personal ) conflict, from all shadow of any disturbance?

B: Well, some people would say (that in the 'real' world) we could have only a partial freedom.

K: Yes, partial freedom, like some modern philosophers have stated.

B: Well, some people feel that's actually the case. But of course there are those who have said it is done (naturally ) through reincarnation. But even that group say it will take a very long time.

K: Yes, they say it will take a very long time. You must go through various (40 +?) lives and suffer and go through all kinds of miseries and ultimately you come to That. But here we are not thinking in terms of (linear?) time. We're asking, a ( decent?) human being knowing that he is deeply conditioned, so that his whole being is that, can he ever free itself ? And if it does, what is 'beyond'? Would this ( ultimate existential?) question be valid, unless the mind has really finished all the (psychological ?) travails of life? As we said the other day, our minds are 'man-made' ( culturally formatted?) . And is there an (innermost ) mind which is not man-made? And is it possible for it to free itself from its own man-made ( characteristics ?)

B: I think there's this kind of a 'tangle' there: if this mind is totally man-made, totally conditioned, then in what sense can it get out of it? So if we would say that it had at least the 'possibility' of something beyond...

K: Then ( the experiential risk is that?) it becomes a reward, a temptation, a thing to be...

B: But I think that even logically there seems to be an inconsistency in saying that the human mind is 'totally' conditioned and yet it's going to get out (of that condition) .

K: I understand that, but if one ( assumes?) that there is a part which is not conditioned, then we enter into quite another inconsistency. In our discussions, we've said, that the human mind (although) being deeply conditioned, it can free itself through 'insight' - that is the real clue to this. We went into the nature of it that insight, and can it uncondition the mind completely, wipe away all the (self-centred ?) illusions, desires and so on, can that insight completely wipe it out? Or is it partial (acting by parts?) ?

B: Well, the first point to consider is that the human mind mind is not static and if one thinks it's totally conditioned, this suggests something static, which would never change. Now, if we say the mind is always in movement, then it seems in some way it becomes impossible to say what it is at this very moment -all we could say is that 'it has been' totally conditioned.

K: Can we say that it is in constantly movement, but its movement is within a border, within a certain field ?

B: Yes.

K: And this field ( of its self-centred knowledge?) can expand and/or contract, but the (margin of freedom?) within its boundaries is very limited.

B: Yes. And even if we try to move (or to transcend our condition ?) within that structure, then we stay in the same boundary.

K: The (man-made mind ?) is always moving within that limitation. Can it 'die away' from that?

B: That's the point, that's another kind of movement - in another dimension, I think you've said.

K: Yes. And we say this is possible through insight, which is a totally different kind of (perceptive ) 'movement'.

B: Yes, and you said that this ( holistic ?) movement does not originate in the particular , nor in the general mind.

K: That's what we discussed the other day. It is not the insight of a particular, or of the general mind. We are then stating something quite outrageous.

B: Yes, I think that it rather violates the sort of logic that people have been using, that either the particular and the general mind should cover everything, in terms of ordinary logic.

K: Yes.

B: Now if you're saying there's 'something' beyond both, this is already a question which has not been stated clearly . And I think it has a great importance.

K: How do we then state it, or how do we 'come to it'?

B: Yes, well, I've been noticing that people divide themselves roughly into two groups, one group feels the most important thing, the ground their existence is the concrete particular daily activity. The other group feels that the general, the universal is the ground. You see, the one is the more 'practical' type, and the other the more 'philosophical' type. And this division has been visible throughout history, also in everyday life, wherever you look.

K: But is the 'general' separate from the 'particular'?

B: It's not, but the question is what is it that's going to be given primary value, people tend to give emphasis to one or the other. Some people give the main emphasis to the 'particular' (aspects of human life) - they say the 'general' is there but if you take good care of the 'particular' the 'general' will be all right. The others say the 'general' and the 'universal' is the main thing and getting that right you'll also get the particular right.

K: Quite.

B: So there's been a kind of unbalance to one side or the other, a bias in the mind of man. Now what's being raised here is the notion of neither the general nor the particular.

K: That's right. That's just it. Can we have a conversation about it, using your scientific brain and and this ('X') man who is not all that, so we have a conversation to find out if the general and particular (aspects of human existence ) are actually not divided at all ?

B: Also that there's to be no bias to one or the other.

K: And not laying emphasis on one or the other. So, if we don't do that (splitting ) , then what is, what is there?

B: Well, then we have no easy way to talk about it... We have discussed in California about the Ground (of All Being) and you said that the 'particular' mind dies (in)to the general or universal mind or into the 'emptiness', and then saying that ultimately even this universal mind dies into the Ground.

K: That's right, we discussed that. Would an ordinary person, fairly intelligent, see all this?

B: I'm not so sure...

K: Or would he say, 'What nonsense is all this is ?.'

B: Well, if it were just thrown at him (as an intellectual proposition) , he would reject it as nonsense – but with a very careful presentation some people might see it, I think. But if you just say it to anybody, they would say, Whoever heard of that ?

K: So where are we now? We are neither in the particular nor in the general. That's a statement which hardly can be accepted reasonably.

B: Well, it's reasonable in the sense that if you take thought to be a (mental activity or ?) 'movement', rather than a 'content', then thought is the ( go-between) 'movement' between the particular and the general.

K: That's the whole point, isn't it? Ordinarily the general and the particular are in the same area.

B: Yes, and either you focus on one or on the other.

K: Yes, but in the same area, in the same field. And thought is the movement between the two. (In fact the self-centred ) thought has created both.

B: Yes, it has created both and moves in-between in that area.

K: Yes, in that same area ( of our personal & collective knowledge ?) And it has been doing this for millennia.

B: Yes, and most people would feel that's all it could do.

K: Now, we are saying, that when (the continuity of ?) thought ends, the 'time' movement' also comes to an end.

B: We should go more slowly here, because it's a 'jump' from 'thought' to 'time', which we've gone into before, but it's still a jump.

K: Let's see (the missing step ?) . Thought has created the general and the particular (area of experience and knowledge ?) , and thought is a movement that connects the two, thought moves round it, so it is (moving back & forth) within the same area.

B: Yes, and in doing this it has created 'time' - the particular (concept of ) time and also a general concept time -all time, for ever.

K: Yes, but you see, thought 'is' time.

B: Well that's another question, you were saying, thought has a (past memory) content which is about time, and besides that, thought is a (mental) movement ( projecting ) its own continuity in ?) time, from the past into the future. Right?

K: But, sir, thought is based on time, thought is the outcome of ( our whole evolution in?) time.

B: Yes, but then does that mean that 'Time', exists beyond thought? If you say thought is based on time, then 'time' is ( a concept ?) more fundamental than thought - is that what you want to say?

K: Yes...

B: So then we have to go into that (more analytically?) . You could say that Chronological Time is something which was there before thought, or at least is at the origin of thought.

K: Time was there ( entered into the human consciousness?) when there is the accumulation of (personal and collective ?) knowledge.

B: So it has come out of thought to some extent.

K: I can act and in the very doing I learn something . So is not (the very process of) thought essentially a 'movement' (a mental activity ) of time?

B: Well, in what sense is this 'learning' a movement of time ? You can say, when we learn it is registered. Right? And then whatever you have learned operates ( as practical knowledge ?) in the next experience

K: Yes. The (memory of the ?) past is always moving (or interfering) into the present (action)

B: Yes, mixing or 'confusing' with the present. And the two together are again registered as the next experience.

K: So, is ( the 'psychological' ) time different from thought, or time 'is' thought ?

B: Well, this movement of learning and the response of memory into (the new) experience and then re-registering, we say this is (a process of) 'time', and that is also (the actual functioning of ?) thought.

K: Yes, so, is there a time apart from thought? B: Well, that's another question. Wouldn't we say that physically or in the Cosmos that 'Time' has an (objective) significance apart from (our own) thinking?

K: Physically, yes, I understand that.

B: Right. So here we're talking of the ( movement of ) 'time' in the mind or 'psychologically'.

K: Psychologically. As long as there is an accumulation of 'psychological' knowledge, as the 'me' and so on, there is ( a personal thinking in terms of ) time.

B: Yes, so we say that wherever there is an accumulation there is time.

K: Yes, that's the point.

B: Which turns the thing around because usually we think that time is there first and then, in time you accumulate.

K: I would put it round the other way...

B: Yes. But it's important to see that actually it 'is' the other way. Then, suppose there is no ( 'psychological') accumulation, then what?

K: Then - that's the whole point - there is no ( sense of our 'personal' continuity in ?) time. But as long as keep accumulating, gathering, becoming, there is the process of 'time'. But if there is no gathering, no becoming, no accumulation, does any 'psychological' time exist?

B: Well, probably you could say that even the physical time must depend on some kind of physical accumulation.

K: Of course, but that's quite a different matter.

B: So, that chronological 'time' we are not denying - we're denying the significance of the psychological accumulation.

K: That's right. So (the self-centred process of ?) thought is the outcome of psychological accumulation, and that accumulation, that gathering, gives it a sense of (its temporal ) continuity, which is 'time'.

B: It seems to be a (cyclical) movement : whatever has been accumulated is responding to the ( challenges of the ) 'present' with the projection of the 'future' and then that (projection) is again registered...So, the constant accumulation of all that's registered is in the (sequential) order (or logic) of time.

K: That's right. So we're saying ( that inwardly ?) thought 'is' time.

B: Yes, or time 'is' thought.

K: One way or the other.

B: So, the movement of psychological time - which is the result of that accumulation is actually ( a background activity of?) thought. Both mean the same thing.

K: So the 'psychological' accumulation is ( generating) thought and time.

B: So, we have two words when really we only need one.

K: One word. That's right.

B: But because we have two words we look for two different things.

K: Yes. There is actually only one ( mental) movement, which is 'time-thought'. Now can the mind which has moved for millennia in this (well trodden) area, free itself from that?

B: Yes, but what exactly exactly is holding the mind in that area ?

K: (Its natural instinct of ?) accumulation.

B: Yes, but why does the mind continue to accumulate (all its 'personal' experience ) ?

K: I think that it is because in this ( indiscriminate ) accumulation there is (a global sense of?) security - apparent security.

B: I think this point needs a little discussion - since in the area (of material existence) the accumulation of physical things does provide a sense of security .

K: Of course.

B: But then, since no ( intelligent ) distinction was made between the 'outer' and the 'inner' ( accumulations) , there was the feeling that one could accumulate inwardly either more experience or some ( higher ?) knowledge of what to do.

K: Are we saying that the outward necessity of physical accumulation for security is necessary (for our survival) and the same urge ( spilled ) into the 'psychological' field ? And there you accumulate ( personal experience ?) hoping to be ( feel more) secure.

B: Yes, inwardly hoping to accumulate pleasant memories, or useful relationships, or principles you could count on.

K: So ( we just assume that in these ? ) psychological accumulations there is safety, protection, security.

B: The illusion (of it) , anyway.

K: All right, the illusion of security and man has lived in ( the inner comfort of ?) this ( perfect?) illusion.

B: Yes, so it seems that the first mistake was that man never understood the distinction between what he has to do in the world 'outside' and what he has to do 'inside' himself, right?

K: Yes, it is the same (accumulative momentum ) outwardly and inwardly.

B: So, man carried that procedure which was right outwardly he carried it inwardly, perhaps being entirely ignorant, that this would make trouble.

K: So where are we now? A human being has come to the point when he says, 'Can I really be free from (the burden of?) this 'psychological' time?'

B: Yes...

K: Is that possible?

B: Well, if we see where it had this origin, then it should be possible to dismantle it, while if it were built into us, nothing could be done.

K: Of coursse it is not 'built into us'...

B: Although most people act as though they believe it was... So, if it's not built into us, then the possibility exists for us to change. Because in some way we said it was built up in the first place through (our evolution in ?) time. And I think that's one of the difficulties of people who are hoping that by bringing in 'evolution' they hope to get out of this static boundary.

K: Boundary, quite.

B: But they don't realize that evolution is the very means by which the trap was made.

K: Yes. So my next question is: can the mind move out from this field altogether, and enter, perhaps, into a totally different dimension ? We said this can only happen when there is insight ( a global comprehension of our inner condition ?).

B: Yes, and it seems that this insight arises when one questions this whole thing very deeply. One sees it doesn't make sense (to keep going that way ?).

K: Now, having had insight into this and seen its limitation and therefore going beyond it, what is there 'beyond'?

B: I think it's very difficult to even bring this into words, but we said that anyway, something has to be done along this line, right?

K: I think it has to be put into words.

B: Could you say why ? Because many people might feel we should leave this entirely 'non-verbal'.

K: Can we say that "the word is not the thing"?

B: That's clear, yes.

K: So, recognising that ( verbal) limitation then what is there beyond all this? Can my mind be so desire (-free) , so it won't create the illusion of something beyond?

B: Well, desire must be involved in the same process of thought-time

K: Of course, desire 'is' (the vector of psychological ?) time. After all, 'being' or 'becoming' something is based on desire.

B: Yes. They are one and the same, really.

K: Yes, one and the same. Now, when one has an 'insight' (a holistic perception ?) into the whole movement of (thought controlled) desire, and its capacity to create illusion, it's finished.

B: Yes, this is a very crucial point, so we should say a little more about desire, how it's intrinsic in this accumulating process, how it comes out in many ways. For one thing you could say that as you keep accumulating (more personal experience) there comes a ( nagging) sense that something is missing. So, you feel you should have more, something to finish, to complete , since whatever you have accumulated until now is not complete.

K: So, could we go into the question of ( our temporal) 'becoming' first, then desire comes into it. Why is it that all human beings right through the world have this urge to become (psychologically) ? Outwardly one can understand the desire of getting a better job, more comfort and so on. But why is there this need in the human mind of trying to become something better (within oneself)

B: Well, there must be some dissatisfaction with 'what's in there' already, that's one thing.

K: Is it dissatisfaction (with what one actually is ) ?

B: Well, you know, a person feels he would like his life to be 'complete' . You see suppose for example he has accumulated a lot of memories of past pleasures, but as these memories are no longer adequate and he feels something more is needed (to keep going?)

K: Is that it?

B: Well, to get more, that's one of the ( issues) – and eventually he feels that he must have the whole, the ultimate (existential experience ).

K: I'm not at all sure whether (thinking in terms of?) 'more' is not the real thorn : I will be more, I will have more, I will become - you follow? - this whole movement of moving forward, moving, gaining, comparing, advancing, achieving – psychologically.

B: The word 'more' is implicit in ( the very logic of) 'accumulation'. If you're ( engaged in ) accumulating, you will have to accumulate more, there's no other way to do it.

K: So why is there this seed (of the 'more' ) in the human mind ?

B: Well, he didn't see that this (wanting ) 'more' is wrong, inwardly. If he started outwardly to use the term 'more', but then he carried it inwardly, and for some reason he didn't see how (potentially ) destructive it was.

K: Why have fairly intelligent philosophers and religious people who have spent a great part of their life in 'achieving' (superior knowledge and/or wisdom ?) , why haven't they seen this simple (psychological) fact that where there is accumulation there must be ( this constant demand for) more.

B: Well, they did not see any harm in doing it. They're all saying, we are trying to get a better life - you see. (Starting with) the nineteenth century it was the century of 'industrial progress', of improving everything all the time.

K: All right, progress outwardly.

B: And they felt inwardly too that man would be 'improving himself' inwardly.

K: But why haven't they ever questioned this?

B: Well, what would make them 'question' it?

K: Obviously this constant struggle for the more (can eventually become frustrating or painful?) .

B: But they thought that was necessary for progress (as in the dictum :'No pain, no gain')

K: Yes, let us admit outwardly. Is it that this same urge of becoming something better outwardly, has moved into the psychological realm?

B: Yes. But can we make it clear why it does harm in the 'psychological' realm ?

K: What is the harm in accumulating, psychologically? It brings about a division between 'you' and 'me', ( the have's & the have not's) and so on.

B: Could we make that more clear ? Suppose you are accumulating in your way and I accumulate in my way. And then we try to impose a 'common way of accumulating' and that's creating conflict. They say everybody should be more...

K: Or I have accumulated 'psychologically' as a Hindu, another has accumulated as a Muslim.

B: There are thousands of such divisions in one profession or in another, in one place or another.

K: Therefore (the instinct of ?) accumulation in its very nature divides people.

B: Because each accumulates in his particular way. Right? Which is different from someone else, you cannot make a common way of accumulating (except in an Utopian Society ?)

K: So can we say then, in accumulation man has sought psychological security, and this ( optimisedd?) security with its accumulations (has become the active) factor of human division ?

B: Yes...

K: So, is it possible not to accumulate ( on the 'psychological' levels ?) That's a tremendous (task) .

B: Yes, because it seems the human mind automatically accumulates.

K: I know. And why? For the very clear and simple reason, that in the 'psychological' accumulation, as in the outwardly one , if feels safe, secure (in a pretty insecure world !) .

B: Yes. Well perhaps you could say that having got on into this trap it was very hard for the mind to get out, because the mind was 'programmed' by this process of accumulation and it becomes very hard to see any other option.

K: Yes, suppose my mind is filled with this process of ('meaningful'?) occupation, can all that ( burden of ) psychological knowledge, end?

B: Only if the mind will get to the root of it.

K: Which is, to 'see' that it is an (self-induced) illusion that in ( the process of psychological) accumulation there is security.

B: Well, now, one can see this at a certain level, like one has drawn a map of this whole process. But then the question is, when you have a map you must now be able to look at the (real) country.

K: Yes.

B: So (map-wise ?) we are saying, that desire is what 'keeps people going'.

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 (creating the process of 'time') Right?

B: You can say desire actually means 'need', a person feels he 'must accumulate more' because he 'needs' more.

K: Yes. Now, I'm asking, can this process 'end'. If it ends through an action of will, it is still the same thing ( 'frozen' in time ?) .

B: Well, 'will power' is part of (highly concentrated) desire.

K: Of course. If it ends because of ( expectations based on) punishment or reward, it's still the same thing. So one's mind 'sees' ( the falseness of ) all this this and puts all that aside. Right? Is the mind now free of accumulation?

B: Yes, I think that...

K: Yes sir, I think it can, ( at least) with us (here) . That is, to have no ( attachments to our ?) 'psychological' knowledge at all, and so on.

B: Yes, but we'll have to consider that this (psychological) knowledge goes very much further inwardly than is ordinarily meant : it builds up an 'image' of yourself and there is a lot of (associated) knowledge about what sort of person you are, that builds up into a (very realistic) 'picture', with all the ( personal) expectations involved .

K: But after all, if 'you' have knowledge of 'yourself', you have built an image already.

B: That's right, yes, but there's a subtle transfer of what you do ( with the objective knowledge) in the outside world , saying, "I know the sort of person I am" and it builds up, there's a lot of ( colateral) accumulations that builds up in forms that we don't ordinarily call 'knowledge', but '' our character', or our personal preferences, as likes and dislikes.

K: But once you realize that your 'psychological' ( image) based on your accumulations as ( personal) knowledge are an illusion and that (in time it ) causes ( various degrees of frustration) pain and misery, when you see it ( what's wrong with it?) , it's 'finished'.

B: Yes, but there may be other kinds of ( ancestral) knowledge which I don't recognise as being knowledge, I say that's...

K: What what other ( subliminal ?) knowledge does one have? Preferences, like and dislike, prejudices...

B: ...habits ?

K: Habits. All these are ( incorporated in ?) the 'self-image' that one has ( consciously or not ?) created about oneself.

B: Yes, but (the human 'psyche') has developed in such a way that this 'self-image' seems extraordinarily real. And therefore its qualities don't seem to be (mere) 'knowledge'...

K: All right, sir ( leave this fine observation for homework?) .

(To recap:) We have said, ( that this ancestral momentum of ?) accumulation 'is' (creating its own 'psychological') 'time' and in it there is ( a certain sense of ) security, but (on the other hand) this 'psychological' accumulation there must create division . And the mental process of 'thought' is the ( 'go-between') movement between the 'particular' and the 'general', and ( the 'thinker' ?) is also born out of the (personal) 'images' that have been accumulated.

B: Yes...

K: Right? All that is one's inward state. That is deeply imbedded in me.

B: Yes, both physically and mentally.

K: All round. I recognize that physically (the accumulation of knowledge) is 'somewhat' necessary...

B: Yes, although it is overdone, even physically.

K: Of course, but to realize that psychologically (inwardly) , how do I set about it? How do I, who has accumulated for millennia, that has been ( my inner ) habit , and when I do recognize the (psychological dangers of this?) habit, how does its 'movementum' come to an end? That is the real question.

B: Yes...

K: Does 'Intelligence' play a part in all this?

B: Well, there has to be some ( fundamental ?) intelligence just to see this.

K: Is it the so-called 'ordinary intelligence', or something entirely different?

B: Well, yes, I don't know what most people mean by 'intelligence', but if they mean just merely the capacity to discern and...

K: solve technical problems, economic problems and so on - I would call that 'partial' intelligence...

B: Yes, we can call that (an intelligent) thinking skill .

K: Skill in thought, all right. But in here, another ( perceptive) quality is necessary. Is that quality Intelligence? (I'm trying to move away from the banalised term "insight" for a while)...

B: You mean, not to repeat this word so much ?

K: So, is 'intelligence' the outcome of very clear precise, exact, logical conclusions of thought ?

B: That would be just a higher ( thinking) skill. You seem to suggest that this 'Intelligence' is of a different quality.

K: Yes. Is this ( holistic) Intelligence related to ( the quality of Selfless?) Love?

B: I'd say they go together.

K: Yes, and one cannot (really?) accumulate Love.

B: No, but some people might try to...

K: It sounds silly!

B: Many people ( even) try do 'guarantee' their Love.

K: That is all romantic nonsense, cinema stuff, all that. You cannot accumulate Love, you cannot associate it with ( the mixed feelings of 'love &) hate', all that. So this 'Love' it's something entirely different. And has this ( non-personal?) Love (its own ) Intelligence? Which then operates - you follow? - which then 'breaks down the Wall'.

B: Yes... ?

K: All right, sir - I don't know what this ( Intelligence of ) Love is, but I do realize that pleasure, desire, accumulation, remembrance, 'pictures', are not Love. I realized all that, long ago. But now I've come to the point where my ( 'self'-enclosing ?) Wall is so enormous that I can't even jump over it. So I'm now 'fishing around' to see if there is a different movement which is not a 'man-made' movement. And this 'movement' may be Love.

B: You are saying it is an ( Universal) movement, not just a ( personal) feeling ?

K: So is that ( quality of selfless ) Love, with its Intelligence, is that the ( active) factor that will break down my (invisible inner) Wall? ( Clue :) It's not the 'particular' or 'general' Love ; it is something beyond.

B: Ywell, that's a hard point (to grasp) of course, since that ( quality of intelligent & selfless Love?) has never been part of (our cultural) background ; mankind tends to make love a particular thing or individual, but...

K: I think when one 'loves' ( selflessly?) with that Intelligence, it covers the whole ( of our existence) it's not the particular or general - it is 'light', not a 'particular light'. So if that ( selfless love ?) is the ( active) factor that can "break down the Wall" , and as a human being having reached a certain point, 'I' can't go beyond (jump the inward Wall) to find that love - what shall I do when I realize that any 'movement' from this side of the wall is still strengthening the wall?

So ( to make this long story , short?) you come along and say, 'Look, that (invisible inner ) 'Wall' ( of Selfishess?) can be dissolved, or 'broken down', if you have that quality of Love with ( its own ?) intelligence.' And I say, 'Excellent, but I don't even know what it is.' But realizing that 'I' cannot possibly do anything what has happened to the quality of my mind, when all its movement to accumulate, to become, has stopped ? The moment I realize this, is there in my mind a ( Silent ?) revolution? Revolution in the sense that ( all the traditional mental) movement has completely stopped. And if it has, is That 'love' still something beyond the wall?

B: Well, the Wall itself is the illusory product of the (self-centred) mental process.

K: Exactly, I'm realizing the 'wall' is ( created by my self-centred mental ?) movement. So when ( in the meditative context ) this 'movement' ends, that quality of Intelligence, Love and so on, is there. That's the whole point.

B: Could we say that the ( accumulative mental ) movement ends, when it sees that it has no point ?

K: It is like, it is like the skill to 'see' a danger.

B: Well, it could be...

K: Yes. Any (direct perception of?) 'danger' demands a certain amount of awareness. But I have never realized inwardly that this ( 'accumulative') process is a tremendous danger.

B: Yes, because that seems to be the essence of ( the inner sense of comfort & ?) security.

K: Of course, and you come along and point it out to me, and ( if.... ?) I'm listening to you very carefully, I can actually perceive the 'danger' of that. And ( this quality of direct ?) perception is part of Love, isn't it?

B: So, you're suggesting that (this selfless ?) Love is a kind of ( non-material) energy which may momentarily 'envelop' certain things.

K: So ( the 'loving ) perception' without any (personal) motive or direction, of this ( invisible inner ) 'wall' which has been brought into being by this (ages old) movement of (psychological) accumulation, the Perception of that is ( the action of ?) Intelligence and Love.

13TH K CONVERSATION WITH DAVID BOHM ( reader friendly edited)


Krishnamurti: We came to this ( critical ?) point when after having been been through all kinds of (self-inquiry ) investigation and insight one comes, one comes to a 'blank wall' , and that ( 'invisible' inner ?) Wall can only be broken down when there is ( selfless?) love and intelligence. But before we go into that I would like ( to take a small detour &?) ask: why ( most) human beings, however intelligent, however learned, however 'philosophical' and 'religious', do always fall into this groove (of cummulative self-interest ?) ?

Bohm: Well, I think the groove is inherent in the very nature of knowledge .

K: Are you saying then that ( constantly functioning in the field of ) knowledge invariably must create a groove?

B: Not necessarily, but it has ( become routine) in the way it has developed in mankind. But the (gathering of) 'psychological' knowledge I would agree that it must create a groove.

K: But why has the human mind did not see the 'danger' of it - a life of mechanical repetition in which there is nothing new - and it keeps on doing it ?

B: It seems to me that the 'groove' of the 'psychological' knowledge accumulated seems to have a significance far beyond what its real significance is, that it seems to carrt vital a necessity. If we say we have knowledge of some object, like this microphone, that has some limited significance. But the knowledge about the ( family, tribe or?) nation to which you belong seems to have immense significance.

K: Yes, yes. So is this 'significance' the cause of this narrowing down of the mind? B: Well, it 'holds' the mind, since this kind of 'psychological' knowledge seems to have a tremendous value. It makes the mind stick to that because it seems the most important thing in the world (in terms of our individual and collective survival) .

K: In India, there is this philosophy of Vedanta , saying that ( inwardly all) knowledge must end. But apparently very, very, very few people do (actually) end their (psychological) knowledge and talk from freedom.

B: You see, though a person may verbally say it should end the knowledge about the 'self'...

K: Yes. You mean I am ( inwardly so ?) 'stupid' that I don't see this psychological knowledge has very little significance essentially and yet my mind clings to it?

B: Yes, I wouldn't quite put it that a person is that 'stupid' but rather to say that this knowledge 'stupefies' (or 'drugs'?) the ( deeper areas of the?) brain.

K: 'Stupefied', all right, but it doesn't seem ( willing) to extricate itself.

B: Because it is already so stuck (in the field of the 'known' ?) that it can't see what it is doing.

K: So what shall it do? I have been watching this for many years, why human beings think or attempt to become free from certain things, and yet this is the root of it - this ( subliminal process of?) 'psychological' accumulation which becomes ( their 'personal'?) knowledge and so it divides and all kinds of things happen around it and within it. And yet the mind refuses to let it go.

B: Yes...

K: Is it that it doesn't see that it has given to ( living almost exclusively in the field of?) 'knowledge' such immense importance?

B: Yes, that is what I mean, yes.

K: Why? Is that because there is 'safety' or 'security' in it?

B: Partly, I think in some way knowledge has taken on the significance of the 'absolute', you see, while any knowledge should be properly considered as 'relative'.

K: I understand all that, sir, but you are not answering ( the psychological aspect of my?) question. Deeper down inside do we realise that ( living in the closed field of?) knowledge is very, very destructive.

B: That is true, but the ( illusion of a total inner safety provided by living in the field of ?) knowledge 'deceives' ( tranquilises?) the mind so that the person is not normally aware that it is actually 'destructive'.

K: Is that why human beings cling to it?

B: Well, even if we don't know exactly how it got started, once it gets started the mind is generally in a state in which it is not capable to look ( objectively) at this because there is a tremendous 'self defensive' mechanism to escape looking at the whole question.

K: Why?

B: Because it seems that something supremely precious ( like one's very 'individuality '?) might be at stake.

K: One is strangely intelligent in other directions, capable and efficient, skilled, having a great deal of skill, but here, where the root of all this trouble is, why don't we comprehend it fully?

B: I think once this ( settling down in the field of the known ?) has happened there is a mechanical process that resists intelligence.

K: So what shall we 'do' when we are ( finally getting) 'serious' about all this. Is it the lack of energy?

B: Not primarily. You see the (available intelligent?) energy is being dissipated in this ( very ?) process.

K: I understand that. Having dissipated a great deal of energy I haven't got the energy to grapple with this (potentially disturbing challenge ?) B: That energy could come back quickly if we could ( see how to?) get out of this. The energy is constantly being dissipated and a person may be a little 'worn down' ( discouraged) but he could probably recover if this would stop.

K: So, realizing that this knowledge is inevitably forming the ( habitual) groove in which I live, my next question is: how am I to break it down?

B: Well, I am not sure that it is clear in general to people that this is just another 'knowledge' - it seems to be the very identity of our being, the self, the me, this is experienced as an entity which is not just having some knowledge, but as some real being. Right?

K: Are you saying this 'being' is different from that knowledge?

B: It appears to be, it feigns the difference.

K: But is it?

B: It isn't but it has a very powerful ability .

K: That has been my ( whole cultural ?) conditioning.

B: That is true. Now your question is, how do we get to the breaking down of that 'groove' (habit of living self-enclosed in the known?) ? Because it creates a pretension of a 'state of being'.

K: Look: if I really apply my mind to it then the question arises: is it possible to function without ( this very 'sticky'?) ?) 'psychological knowledge' in this world?

B: But you see, you may tell this to somebody, and he may feel that his ( existential ?) status is threatened . He does not see that the knowledge of his (personal identity or ?) status is behind the trouble. Knowledge seems to be at first sight something passive, something which you know, which you could use if you wanted to, or which you could just put aside, you see, which is the way it should be. But when the moment comes, this ( subliminal 'psychological) knowledge' no longer appears to be just 'knowledge'.

K: How does one go about it? Say for instance, I have a (professional) career, I know it is necessary to have (lots of practical & theoretical ) knowledge there, but (inwardly?) I have come to a point, where I see how important it is not to be caught in this (sticky?) process of 'psychological knowledge' which is always playing tricks with me. It is like hide and seek.

And we said ( metaphorically?) that is ( pretty much like an inner?) 'wall' that one has to break down (for homework?) . And we said ( as an experiential clue?) that this (mental) 'wall' can be broken down through ( a joint action of Selfless ?) Love and Intelligence. Aren't we asking something enormously difficult?

B: Well, it actually is something difficult...

K: We said the other day that the wall can be broken down through (having an ) Insight ( into the nature of self-interest?) - we went into that (briefly ?) but I immediately make an intellectual abstraction of it, which means that I move away from ( dealing directly with?) the fact and then, that 'abstraction' becomes all important. Which means ( that an 'image' of this miraculous 'insight' is created in the field of?) knowledge.

B: Yes, well it is incorporated the ( psychological) activity of knowledge.

K: So I am back again (in the field of the 'known' ?) .

B: Well, the general difficulty is that this (kind of 'psychological') knowledge is not just sitting there as a static form of information but it is extremely active, meeting every moment and shaping every moment according to the previous knowledge, so even when we raise this issue, (the same mechanism of ) knowledge is all the time waiting (lurking in the background?) and then... acting.

K: All the time ( on 'stand-by' ) and waiting (ready to act) , yes...

B: So, one point is that ( this 'psychological') knowledge is really 'active' ( or on 'stand-by'?) but people don't generally think of it that way.

K: Of course... B: It is waiting to act, you see. And anything you would try to do about it, this 'knowledge' ( interface?) is already acting. By the time you realize that this is the problem it has already acted.

K: Yes. Do I realize it as an (actual experiential) problem , or as an idea (or concept?) which I must carry out? You see the difference?

B: Yes, so the first point is that (this 'all-knowning' attitude of ?) knowledge automatically turns everything into an idea which you must carry out. That is the whole way it is built. Right?

K: That is the whole way I have lived. Now, how am I to break (free from ?) that ( vicious mental circle?) even for a second?

B: If this ( active) 'knowledge (interface'?) could become aware of itself at work (it might eventually take a break ?) but the point is that (this kind of 'active?) knowledge' seems to work unawares, you see, it is just simply waiting (or 'lurking' from down ?) there and then 'acts' and by that time it has already disrupted the ( natural harmony & ) order of the brain.

K: Would you say ( that at this 'critical' point ?) the capacity to 'listen' ( non-verbally) is far more important than any explanations, any logic, just to 'listen'?

B: It comes to the same problem...

K: No, no. It doesn't. There is a possibility that when one 'listens completely' (openly & non-personally?) to ( the truth of?) what you are saying , this 'wall' is broken down. You understand?

B: If it is the capacity to listen then we have the question that the mind of the ordinary man is full of opinions, you see, so he can't listen. I think (this 'psychological') knowledge has all sorts of defences. If you trying to make it possible for the ordinary man to have this ( insightful ?) perception, that is really what you are asking, isn't it?

K: Yes.

B: Or at least, for those who are seriously interested. So, it seems that this ( 'self'-identified ?) knowledge has a tremendous number of defences, it has evolved in such a way that it resists, is built so as to resist seeing this, so it has 'personal opinions' which also act immediately.

K: I understand that, sir. But there must ( should?) be a ( quality of holistic?) communication between you and me who is so strong that my very act of listening to you and you communicating with me operates.

B: Yes, but then you have to break through this ( self-protective shield of ) opinions, through the whole ( 'psychological ?) structure'.

K: Of course, ( after all?) that is why I have come here. I have left all the 'churches' and all that stuff and I realize all that has been said here is true and I am burning to find out (what may happen) . When you (X) communicate with me your 'communication' is so strong, so real. You are not speaking from knowledge, you are not speaking from ( personal) opinions and all the rest of it. You are really a 'free' human being who is trying to communicate with me.

B: Right...

K: So, can I 'listen' with that same intensity which, you the communicator, are giving me?

B: Well, but we would have to ask here : is the ordinary man full of that (same passion for truth ?) ?

K: No, he is not. But if I want to 'listen' (without my self-protective mental shield?) to somebody who is telling the truth, in the very telling of it something is taking place in me - because I am so ardently listening, it just 'happens'.

Suppose I am one of your students, and you want to tell me something which must be enormously important because you have given your life to ( the study of) it, and as a student I have given up (a lot of stuff) just to come here. And if I don't receive it instantly, is it your fault who are communicating with me, or is it my fault that I am incapable of really listening to you? that?

B: Well, supposing the difficulty is that 'I' am 'incapable' of ( such a total?) listening, then what can be done?

K: You see, that is the difficulty (with all the 'followers'?) . If I am full of ( personal) prejudices, opinions, (value) judgements, self-defences and all the rest of course, I won't ( be able to really?) listen to you.

B: Well let's say there is somebody who has got through some of these defences and so on, but perhaps there are others that he is not aware of, you see. It is something not quite so simple as that.

K: I feel it is dreadfully simple somehow : if I could 'listen' with all my being, with all my attention, it takes place. It is as simple as that, I think. You see, sir, usually you are telling me something ( really insightful?) and there is an interval between your telling and my absorbing. And in that interval is the danger (of psychological becoming) But if I absorb it absolutely, listen to it with all my being, it is finished.

Is it because you are not offering me any (hope of personal) gratification ? You are saying, "it is so, take it". Is my mind so involved in ( high expectations of ?) pleasure that it won't listen to anything that is not completely satisfactory. I realize too the danger of that. I say, 'All right, I see what I am doing' - so I put that aside too. No ( high expectations of ?) pleasure, no reward, no ( fears of ) punishment in my listening, but there is only pure (inward) observation.

So we come back to that point: is this quality of pure observation, which is actually involved in 'listening', is that pure observation ( an action of selfless?) 'love'? I think it is. Then where am I? You have told me perception without any motive, direction, pure perception is love. And in that perception (of selfless ) love there is intelligence. They are not three separate things, they are all one thing. If I am sensitive enough by listening to all this, I come to that point when I say, 'By Jove, that is so'. But … it goes away so quickly. Then begins, 'How am I get it back?' Again the 'remembrance' of it, which is ( the psychological) knowledge, ( interferes with it and) blocks.

B: Well, what you are saying is that every time there is an authentic communication, ( our 'psychological' ?) knowledge gets to work in many different forms.

K: So you see it is enormously difficult to be free of this ( 'sticky' personal?) 'knowledge'.

B: We could ask why doesn't knowledge wait until it is needed? K: Ah, that requires to be psychologically free of knowledge but when the occasion arises you are acting from ( a state of ) freedom (from the known?) , not from ( your past) knowledge..

B: So, ( the right place of ) knowledge is to 'inform' our action but it is not the (living) source of action

K: That is, to put it rather succinctly, freedom from knowledge, and being free it is from freedom one communicates, not from knowledge. That is, from 'emptiness' ( from 'not-knowing' ) there is communication. One may use the words, or language, which is the outcome of knowledge, but it is from that state of complete freedom.

B: Yes. Knowledge, communication, takes place but it is concerning the question of knowledge as the irrelevance of knowledge, of psychological knowledge, that is the communication.

K: Yes. Now, sir, can I communicate with you from (this inner) freedom? Suppose I, as a human being, have come to that point where there is complete freedom from knowledge and from that freedom a communication, using words, takes place. Can I communicate with you without any barrier?

B: Yes.

K: Can that man who is inwardly free from knowledge, but uses knowledge merely as a means of verbal communication, can I be in such a state of mind to receive that communication?

B: Well, (this psychological) knowledge ordinarily seems more than mere information, it seems that knowledge itself does not ordinarily see that ( its action in the field of?) knowledge is not free.

K: It is never free. B: No, but it may seem it at first sight that 'you' are free to use 'your knowledge', you see.

K: Of course. But If I am going to understand myself I must be free to look at myself .

B: But ( this psychological) knowledge has pressures in it to prevent you.

K: Knowledge prevents me from looking then. That is so obvious !

B: Well, it may be obvious at this stage, but I am saying that generally people don't see that. One tends to say that there are certain kinds of knowledge which are obviously harmful like 'prejudice' and then you say there are other kinds which are not harmful. But the whole thing is part of one structure, yes. It is impossible to have prejudice in one part without having it in the other.

K: How will you communicate with me who have come to a certain point when I am really burning to receive what you are saying, so completely it is finished? Am I, having come here, am I in that state really or am I fooling myself ?

B: Well that is the question: knowledge is constantly deceiving itself. I would say that it is not even that 'I' am deceiving myself but ( the whole process of our) knowledge has a built-in tendency to deceive itself.

K: So, sir, is my ( self-interested ?) mind always deceiving itself?

B: The tendency is there constantly there when knowledge is operating psychologically.

K: So what shall I do?

B: Again I think it is the same point: to listen.

K: Why don't we listen, sir? Why don't we immediately understand this thing, instantly, immediately, why? One can give the reasons why but that doesn't - old age, conditioning, laziness, ten different things.

B: Well all that is superficial, but would it be possible to give the deep reason for it?

K: We come back to the same thing. You see I think, sir, is it that this ( psychological) knowledge is 'me' (is producing my self-consciousness ?)

B: Yes, that is the point, yes.

K:.. the knowledge which is ( projecting the ?) the 'me' is so tremendously strong as an idea, not as a fact?

B: Yes, but this kind of 'ideas' have tremendous significance and meaning. For example, suppose you have the idea of God, this takes on a tremendous power. And it creates a state of mind which seems to be the very being of the 'self'. Now the person doesn't experience it as mere knowledge but at first feels something very powerful which doesn't seem to be 'knowledge'.

K: Yes. Aren' t we going round and round and round?

B: Well I was wondering if there is anything that could be communicated about that overwhelming power that seems to come with ( this sticky kind of ) knowledge.

K: With ( self-) 'identification' ?

B: With identification. That seems to be something that would be worth looking into.

K: What is the Latin root meaning of 'identification'?

B: Well, "always the same".

K: Always the same, that's right. That's it, you see! It is 'always the same'.

B: That is the essence of it. You say the 'self' is 'always the same'. It tries to be always the same in essence if not in details.

K: Yes, yes.

B: I think this is the thing that goes wrong with knowledge that knowledge attempts to be knowledge of what is always the same, you see, so 'it holds', you see ? And even our rational knowledge itself tries to find what is permanent and perfect and always the same. I mean even independent of any of us you see. It is built into it, like ( in the DNA of) the cells, you see.

K: From this arises a question: is it possible to 'attend diligently' 'Diligence' in the sense of being accurate.

B: Literally it means 'to take pains'...

K: To take pain, (in considering ) the whole of it. Sir, there must be some other way round all this intellectual business. We have exercised a great deal of intellectual capacity and that intellectual capacity has led to the blank wall. I approach it from every direction and eventually the wall is there, which is the 'me', with my knowledge, my prejudice, and all the rest of it - me. And the 'me' then says, 'I must do something about it' - which is still the 'me'. We all know that.

B: Well the 'me' wants to be 'always the same' at the same time it tries to be different.

K: To put on a different coat. It is always the same. So the mind which is functioning ( identified ) with the 'me' is always the same ( good old ?) mind.

B: But you see, 'being always the same' gives a tremendous force. Now is it possible to let go of that 'always the same'?

K: You see, there is no other means to break down this (self-created inner ?) wall : when somebody who is beyond the wall, has gone beyond, broken down the wall, says, 'Listen, for God's sake, listen'. When I so listen my mind is (inwardly ?) 'empty' (as nothing?) , there is no sense of hoping to come back, to have it in the future, or - it is empty (all the burden of the known?) and therefore is (100%) listening. It is finished.

We had better stop here , we have come to an (essential ?) point. Even as a scientist, to discover something new, you must have a certain 'emptiness' (some freedom from what you knew before ?) from which there will be a different perception.

B: Yes, but here there is a difference in the sense that usually the (scientifc) question is limited and so the mind may be 'empty' only with regard to that question.

K: To that particular question, yes.

B: Allowing for discovery and insight into that ( scientific) question.

K: But without any specialization, does this (innocent state of 'not-knowing' or ?) 'emptiness' hold every other...

B: Well, I think we are not questioning this particular area but rather we are questioning the whole of knowledge.

K: It is most extraordinary when you go into it.

B: As you were saying, the 'ending of knowledge' is the the whole point of Vedanta.

K: That is the real answer.

B: But if a person can take this scientific attitude and question ( inwardly) the whole of knowledge...

K: Oh, of course, of course.

B: But generally people would feel they must keep ( at least some very basic ) knowledge in one area to be able to question it in another. You see this is something that might worry people to say, ''with what knowledge do I question that knowledge?'' In a way we have gone through it logically and rationally and seen that the whole structure of 'psychological' knowledge has no meaning.

K: Would you then ask from that emptiness: is there a Ground or a Source ( of Creation) from which all things begin? Matter, human beings, their capacities, the whole movement starts from there.

B: We could consider that certainly (next time) . But let's try to clarify it a little. We have the emptiness...

K: Yes, ( a state of inner) 'emptiness' (not-knowing?) in which there is no movement (or activity ) 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 time by the watch ?

K: Yes. We have gone beyond that, don't let's go back to it.

B: The words are often confusing, they often carry wrong meanings...

K: There is no psychological time, no movement of thought. And is in that emptiness the beginning of all Movement (of Creation?) ?

B: Well, would you say the 'emptiness' is the Ground of Creation 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.

K: We had better stop.

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Thu, 19 Jun 2014
Topic: K The essential Texts

14TH K CONVERSATION WITH DAVID BOHM (reader friendly edited)


Krishnamurti: We talked the other day about (the diligent ) mind that is entirely free from all ( self-centred inner ) movement, and from all the 'things' that thought has brought about, and we (got to the critical point ?) where the 'wall' (of self-centredness?) is broken down by an 'insight' into the ( time-binding?) nature of ( our mental) reactions.

B: So, you are saying that (the internal activity of the brain ) can be affected by an 'insight' which is 'beyond' matter ?

K: Yes, beyond matter. But is this (meditative) 'emptiness' (an actuality ?) within the brain itself? Or something that thought has 'conceived' as being empty? One must be very clear on this.

B: Yes, because (the self-centred process of) thought always feels that it can always make a contribution by saying : this state of inner 'emptiness' ( which is also free of all problems?) could do me good , therefore I will try to bring it about ...

K: Of course....So, we have come to this ( experiential check-) point: is this ( meditative?) 'emptiness' within the (self-centred?) mind itself, or beyond it?

B: What do you mean here by the 'mind' ?

K: The mind being the whole consciousness (including) the ( biological activity of the ?) brain, the whole of that is the 'mind'.

B: This word 'mind' has been used ( by you ) in several different ways ? So, now you are using it as representing the whole material process ( of the brain) : thought, feeling, desire and will … ?

K: Yes, the whole material process.

B: ... ( The 'mental activity' that?) is actually going on in the brain and the nerves.

K: The whole of it. And does this ( inner) emptiness contain "no-thing"?

B: You mean nothing that has form, structure, stability ?

K: Yes, all that, form, structure, capacity, reactions - all that. It contains none of that. Then, what 'is' it ? Is it then 'total' energy?

B: Yes, the ( free) movement of energy.

K: Movement of energy. It is not the movement of ( our mental) reactions.

B: It is not movement of 'things' reacting to each other. Because the material world can be regarded as made up of a large number of 'things' which react to each other and that is one kind of movement. But we are saying ( that within the meditating mind ?) there is a different kind of (timeless) 'movement' ( being born) .

K: Entirely different.

B: Which has 'nothing' in it.

K:' No -thing' in it and therefore it is not of time - right? And in that ( meditating?) emptiness there is a movement of timeless energy.

B: So we now have an energy that is timeless but nevertheless (alive and ?) 'moving' ; but what is (the nature of this new ?) 'movement'?

K: Sir, what is (involved in any material) movement? ( Going) from here to there, or from yesterday to today, and from today to tomorrow.

B: Yes, there are various kinds of ( physical and mental) movement.

K: But is there an inner (state of mind ?) which is not 'moving' , a ( creative? ) 'movement' which has no beginning and no end? Because thought has a beginning and an end - there is (the arising of) a (mental) reaction and the ending of that reaction.

B: Yes, in the brain.

K: And in this brain there are various kinds of ( mental and physical activities or ?) 'movements' ( going on) . That is all we know . And someone comes along and says there is a totally different kind of (timeless ) movement. But to understand that one must be ( inwardly) free of the movement of thought & time to understand a 'movement' that is not...

B: Well there are two things involved : it has no beginning and no end but also it is not determined as a series of successions from the past.

K: So, you want to understand logically a 'movement' that is not a movement ?

B: First, why are you calling it a 'movement' if it is not a movement?

K: Because it ( the movement of Creation?) is not still, it is 'active' .

B: It is energy ?

K: It has a tremendous energy, therefore it can never be 'still'. But there is in that energy a 'stillness' (a sense of inner Peace?) .

B: That 'movement' can be said to emerge from stillness ?

K: You see, that is what it is sir. When the ( meditating?) mind is so completely still there is a ( creative?) 'movement' out of it. Does it It sound crazy ?

B: Well it needn't sound crazy. In fact Aristotle also talked about the "Unmoved Mover" - that is the way he tried to describe God.

K: Ah, I don't want to do that.

B: This notion has been held in the past by various people, but since then it has gone out of fashion, I think...

K: Let's bring it back 'into fashion', shall we ? Is that ( non-moving ?) 'movement' ( emerging ?) out of stillness, the movement of Creation? Except that here (in the experiential context of meditation ?) this ('non-moving' movement of) Creation is not expressed in ( a material) form.

B: Yes, that is an important point, because usually we think that Creation is expressed as form or as ( mental) structure. So ( in the non-manifested) context what does it mean?

K: Would you say, sir, that this (innermost?) Movement (of Creation ?) , not being of time, is eternally new (is renewing itself?)

B: Yes, in the sense that Creation is eternally new. Right?

K: Creation is eternally new. But to come ( experientially ?) to that point where the mind is absolutely silent, completely silent, then out of that silence there is this a (timeless) 'movement' which is eternally new. Now, the moment when that movement is expressed...

B: ... its expression is ( bringing It in the field of ?) thought – right?

K: That is just it.

B: And this may often be useful but (inwardly) it gets fixed and may become a barrier.

K: I was told, once by an Indian scholar, that before they began to sculpture a head of a god, or whatever it was, they had to go into deep meditation. And at the 'right' moment they took up the hammer and the chisel.

B: To have 'it' come out of the emptiness ?

K: ( from) that (inner) emptiness.

B: There is another point. The Australian aborigines draw ( sacred ?) figures in the sand, so they didn't have permanency. You see the marble is already too static, it stays there for thousands of years. So although the original sculptor may have understood (something beyond ?) , the people who follow see it as a fixed form.

K: Now, what relationship has ( the discovery of that still movement of Creation ?) to my daily life? In what way does 'It' act through my ordinary physical responses? (in other words:) what relationship has the physical (brain ?) to that 'silent ( creative) movement'?

B: Well in so far as the ( deeper layers of the?) mind are ( in harmony and?) silent then our thinking itself is becoming orderly.

K: Yes, it is orderly. And would you say that silent ( meditating?) movement with its unending newness, is ( expressing the ?) total order of the Universe?

B: Yes, we could consider that the order of the universe emerges from this (inner) silence and emptiness....

K: So what is the relationship of this ( silent meditating ?) mind to the (Intelligent Order of the?) Universe?

B: The particular mind?

K: No, beyond the general and the particular (mind) , there is the Mind.

B: Well would you say that is ( one with?) the universal Mind ?

K: I don't like to use the word 'universal'...

B: That which is beyond the particular and general would usually be called the 'universal' mind. But it may be that the word is 'difficult', eh?

K: Can't we find a different word?

B: Well you could say it is the source, the ( spiritual) essence. It has been called 'absolute' – literally meaning 'free of all limitations, of all dependence'...

K: All right, if you agree that 'absolute' means freedom from all dependence, from all limitations. Then we will use that, all right.

B: But it has its own 'unfortunate' (cultural) connotations.

K: Of course, of course. Let's use this word for the moment in our dialogue : There is this 'absolute' stillness and in that stillness or from that stillness there is a ( creative) movement which is everlastingly new. And then, what is the relationship of that 'mind' to the ( Cosmic Order of the?) Universe?

B: To the universe of matter?

K: Yes, to the whole universe. Matter, trees, nature, man, the heavens...

B: Well this is a very interesting ( metaphysical ? ) question...

K: The whole Universe is (existing and moving ) in order, whether it is destructive or constructive, it is still Order.

B: Well it is a 'necessary' order. You see this (Universal) order has the character of being absolutely necessary - it cannot be otherwise. The order that we usually know is not absolutely necessary, it could be changed, it could depend on something else, any ordinary order is contingent, it depends on something.

K: Quite. Now in the Universe there is this order and this mind which is still, is completely in order.

B: The absolute Mind.

K: So is this (inwardly integrated) Mind ( becoming part of the timeless order of ?) the Universe?

B: Well, in what sense is that the Universe?

K: It means sir, is there a division (a separation ?) between this 'absolute' ( integrated human consciousness or ?) 'mind' and the (Mind of the?) Universe? Or are both the same?

B: Both are the same, right.

K: That is what I wanted to get at...But I want to be quite sure we are not treading (intellectually?) on something which really needs very, very, subtle, great care, you know what I mean?

B: Well ( let's see if we got it right) : we have said that our physical ( brain & ) body is material. And we said the 'mind' ( or the consciousness?) of this body - including thought, feeling, desire, the general and the particular (mind) are part of the material process.

K: Absolutely, all our ( physical & mental) reactions are ( part of the ) material processes.

B: And therefore this 'mind' is not different from what we usually call the 'body'.

K: Quite, quite.

B: Now you are making this much greater in saying consider the ( Consciousness of the?) whole universe, and say that ( the 'absolute' ) mind is not different from what we call the Universe itself?

K: That's right. You see that's why I feel in our daily life there must be (a time-free?) "Order", not the order of (our temporal ) thought.

B: Well ( our self-centred?) thought is of a limited order, it is 'relative'.

K: That's it. So ( we're talking of?) an order that is free of limitations. And in (terms of ) my daily life that means ( a mind that has?) no conflict whatsoever, no contradictions (no vested conflicts of interest?) . So if in my everyday life there is this complete ( flawless?) order in which there is no ( egotistic?) disturbance, what is the relationship of this ( newly found?) order to the never ending order (of the Universe ) ? Can that silent ( Creative ) movement of (the Universal) Order, of that "extraordinary something", can it affect my daily life when I have ( established a ) deep inward psychological order? You understand my question?

B: Yes, whether (the life of a holistically integrated ? ) human being in his daily life can be similar ( share inner that same harmony & Order) .

K: Similar. That's it. If not, I don't see what is the point of the 'Other'.

B: Some (materalistically minded ?) people would say ''Who cares about the Order of the Universe, all we care about is ( putting order in) our own society, what we are doing here & now '' . But then this ( local concept of Order ) falls down because it is full of ( its own hidden ?) contradictions.

K: Obviously. So that (the total order of the ?) Universe, which 'is' in total order, does affect my daily life.

B: Yes. But I think that many scientists might ask 'How ?'. You see, these (very brainy) people might say, 'OK, we understand that the universe is constituted of matter, and can see how the laws of matter affect your daily life,' - is not so clear how (the Universal Order can ) affect the human mind – or even if there is this 'absolute' Mind which affects the daily life.

K: Ah! What is my 'daily life' (inwardly speaking ?) ? A series of reactions and ( a lot of residual sorrow & ?) disorder.

B: Well ( psychologically speaking?) it is mostly that...

K: Mostly. And ( the self-centred) thought is always struggling to bring some order within that (interacting 'inner-outer' disorder)

B: Yes...

K: And when it does that, it is still ( creating further ) disorder.

B: Because ( the 'self-interest' based?) thinking is limited by its own contradictions.

K: Of course. Thought is always creating disorder because it is in itself ( ego-centric and) limited.

B: And even as it tries to go beyond its limits, that is (creating still more ) disorder.

K: Now, (assuming that?) I have gone into it, I have an insight into it, I have ( established?) a certain kind of order in my life. But this order (brought in from outside?) is still limited.

B: Now, many people would be happy if they could bring even this 'limited' order - given that we have so much ( outer) disorder now...

K: Of course that must be done. But in the very doing of it one has to realize that it is 'limited' ( by a collectively shared mentality based on self-interest?)

B: Yes, even the highest ( level of?) order you can produce is limited...

K: Limited. So the ( holistically inclined ?) 'mind' realizes its limitation and says, ''let's go beyond it''.

B: Well let's try to make it clear because what is wrong with this (intrinsical) limitation?

K: In that limitation there is no ( inner sense of?) freedom, it only is a limited freedom (with invisible 'strings' ?) .

B: So let's try to put it more clearly : eventually we come to the boundaries of our ( materialistic) freedom - something not (previously) 'known' to us makes us react and through ( this personal?) reaction we would fall back into contradiction.

K: Yes, and (any decent?) human mind inevitably rebels against that (sad existential) condition of always moving within a certain area.

B: That is an important point: the human mind wants freedom. Right?

K: Obviously, ( if...?) I do realize I am a prisoner within this limitation.

B: Some people get used to it and say, 'I accept it'.

K: I won't accept it. My mind says there there must be a "freedom" beyond all that.

B: Now, which mind says this? Is it the 'particular' mind of the human being?

K: Ah! The ( personal & collective accumulations of frustration and?) pain, the very 'suffering' demands that we go beyond.

B: So, this 'particular' ( survivalistic ? ) mind even though it accepts ( to live in the safety of its self-imposed ?) limitations, ( eventually) finds it painful, therefore this particular mind feels that something is not right ?

K: Yes.

B: It seems to be ( in the very nature of human consciousness?) a necessity of freedom.

K: Freedom 'is' necessary. And any hindrance to ( accessing this?) freedom is ( resulting in stagnation & ) retrogression.

B: So that necessity is not an external necessity due to reaction.

K: ( The demand for ?) freedom is not a reaction. But you see, ( experientially that) means freedom from (our self-centred ) reactions, the freedom from all the 'movement' ( from the divisive activities ?) of ( thought & ) time. There must be 'complete freedom' from all that, before I can really understand the ( meditative value of an ?) 'empty' mind and the order of the universe, which is then ( becoming one with ?) the order of the mind. We are asking a tremendous lot! Am I willing to go that far?

B: Well you know...a life of 'non-freedom' has its ( own ?) attractions.

K: Of course. We have found safety, security, pleasure in 'non-freedom'. ( However, with some hinsight?) we can realize that (in the constant pursuit of?) pleasure,( and/or in the avoidance of?) pain, there is no ( inner degree of ?) freedom and the ( holistically responsible?) mind says, there must be freedom from all this. However, to come to that point and to let go ( one's attachments to the past?) without conflict, demands its own discipline, its own 'insight'. This is why I asked those of us who have given a certain amount of time and investigation into all this, whether can they go (inwardly) as far as that? Or there are the responses of the ( psychosomatic?) body, the responsibilities of our daily committments - wife, children, and all that - is that preventing this sense of complete freedom?

So, that ( Mind of the ?) Universe and the ( human) mind that has emptied itself of all this (residual psychological stuff?) , are they one?

B: Are they ?

K: They are not separate, they are one. But we must be very careful also not to fall into the trap of assuming that the Universal Mind is 'always there' .

B: Well, so how would you put it then?

K: They have said that: "God is always there" and all you have to do is to cleanse (purify ?) yourself (inwardly) and arrive at that. Which is also a very 'dangerous' (slippery ?) statement because then you say, ''the Eternal (is aways present ?) in me''.

B: There is even a 'logical' difficulty in assuming that 'It' is always there, because that implies ( thinking in terms of time ) ''that it is there every minute'', while ; as we discussed; 'That' has nothing to do with space & time. So we can't place it as being located 'here' or 'there', 'now', or 'then'.

K: Sir, we have come to the point, that there is this Universal Mind, and that the human mind can be (an integral part) of That' when there is ( an authentic inward ?) freedom .

15TH K CONVERSATION WITH DAVID BOHM ( reader friendly edited)

Ending all the 'personal' problems

Krishnamurti: We have cultivated a mind that can solve almost any technological problem. But apparently 'human' (our 'existential' ?) problems have never been solved. And (the modern) man in spite of his knowledge, in spite of his centuries of evolution, has never been free of (all his 'personal') problems.

Bohm: Well as they are put now they are really insoluble problems.

K: As they are now (man's existenial) problems have become so complex, and so incredibly insoluble, as things are. And no philosopher or (brainy ?) scientist, are going to solve them (for us?) . So what are the things that prevent the solution of these ( existential) problems, completely? (a) Is it that we have never seriously turned our minds to it because we spend all our days and probably half the night in thinking about ( solving so many ) 'technological' challenges and problems that we have no time left for ( tackling?) the others?

B: Well many people feel that the (inner domain ?) should take care of itself. I think many people don't give a lot of attention to these problems.

K: Why, why? Is it ( due to a sloppy & lopsided ?) education? Is it our deeply rooted ( survivalistic) tradition to we accept things as they are?

B: Yes, that is certainly part of it. But our ( unsolved psychological) problems accumulate as civilization gets older, because people keep on accepting those things which make problems.

K: We are talking here about the 'human' problems - problems of relationship, problems of lack of freedom, of this sense of constant uncertainty, fear and all the ( daily) human struggle : it all seems so extraordinarily wrong, the whole thing.

B: Yes, well I think people have lost sight of that. Generally speaking they sort of, as you say, accept the situation in which they find themselves and try to make the best of it, like trying to solve some little problems to alleviate their global situation. They wouldn't even ( care to ) look at this whole big situation very seriously.

K: We live (holistically speaking ) in 'chaos' ( a form of organised disorder?) . Now, I'd want to find out if one can live without a single ( personal ?) problem for the rest of one's life. Is that possible? You see personally I refuse to have 'problems'.

B: Well, maybe because you are not seriously challenged with something ?

K: I was challenged the other day about something which involved ( the jobs of?) lots of people and so on, and a certain action had to be taken. But to me... it was not a problem.

B: Well, then you'll have to make it clear what you mean by '(personal) problem' .

K: Something you worry about, something with which you are endlessly concerned and questioning, answering, doubt, uncertain, and take some kind of action at the end which you may regret.

B: Let's begin with the 'technical' problem where the idea first arose. The root meaning of the word 'problem' ( something being thrown at you ) is based on the idea of putting forth a possible 'solution' and then trying to achieve it.

K: Or, I may have a ( deeply buried psychological?) problem and I don't know how to deal with it. So I go around asking other people, getting more and more confused.

B: Well let's take a ('homebound'?) example : people cannot agree (on how to run a K school ?) , they fight each other constantly.

K: Yes, even with with a group of ( well intentioned & educated ?) people, it seems almost impossible to 'think together', to have the same outlook, the same attitude - ( due to obscure issues of 'authority' & 'power') each person puts his ( personal) opinion forward and he is contradicted by another. And so this goes on all the time both in the world, and

B: Well, people will probably cooperate better and 'work together' if they are paid highly. But in a situation where this (option) is not available, then we have a 'problem'...

K: Yes, that is right. Now how do we solve such a ( compounded 'personal & collective' ) problem? All of us are offering their 'personal' opinion and we don't meet each other at all. So what shall we do? It seems almost impossible to give up one's opinions.

B: Many people find it hard to give up their personal opinions simply because they feel they are true...

K: They call them 'facts'.

B: Well, people have not only (strong) opinions, but ( a still stronger ?) self-interests...If two people have self-interest which is different, then there is no way in my view that they can 'work together'...

K: Agreed. Suppose in a place like this (B Pk school ?) , we are a group of people, and it is important that we all work together; and apparently that becomes almost incredibly difficult.

B: Now, this being the actual problem, how do you break into this? And why is it that we cannot carry out our (original good) intentions? It seems puzzling.

K: One can give lots of reasons but even knowing all those causes and reasons and explanations don't solve the problem, don't solve the issue. We come back to the same thing: what will make a human mind change? Some 'new' factor is necessary. Is this new factor 'attention'?

B: Yes, but what kind of attention ?

K: We can discuss this (quality of 'holistic' attention ) . Where there is 'attention' there is no ( personal effort or?) problem; but where there is inattention everything arises. So can I understand the (compassionate?) nature of this (non-personal?) attention in which no problem can ever exist ? Obviously it is not ( the result of the mental ) effort to be attentive. When there is attention there is no ('control ?) centre' from which 'I' attend.

B: Yes, but that is the difficult thing : we may only 'think' we are attending.

K: In that state of ( pure ?) attention there is no ( interference of ?) thought.

B: But how do you stop ( the whole momentum of ?) thought then? You see, while thinking is going on there is a ( strong) feeling of 'me' paying attention, which is obviously not the pure 'attention' (you seem to be talking about). That is, one just assumes that one is paying attention.

K: When one supposes one is paying attention, that is not 'attention'.

B: So how do we communicate the true meaning of 'attention'?

K: Could we approach it ('negatively' in terms of ?) 'what is inattention' and through ( an intelligent act of?) 'negation' come to the positive ? When I am inattentive, what takes place?

B: All sorts of things take place (and keep going on indefinitely)

K: No, but ( experientially speaking ?) in my 'inattentiveness' I feel lonely, depressed, anxious and so on.

B: Yes, the mind begins to 'break up' ( work in isolated comparments?) and ( eventually end up?) in confusion.

K: 'Fragmentation' takes place. Or in my lack of attention I can identify myself with so many other things.

B: Yes, and it may also be pleasant.

K: Of course. But I find later on that that which was pleasing becomes painful (or simply boring ?) . So all that is a ( fragmentary mental ) 'movement' in which there is no attention. Are we getting anywhere?

B: I don't know...

K: I feel that ( a holistic quality of ?) attention is the real solution to all this. A mind which has understood the ( sloppy ?) nature of inattention and moves away from it.

B: So, what is the nature of 'inattention'?

K: The nature of inattention? Indolence, negligence, self-interest , self contradictions, all that, is (involved in ?) the nature of inattention.

B: Yes. Now, a person who has self-concern may feel that he is attending to the concerns of himself. He feels he has got problems, then paying attention to ( try to solve) them.

K: If there is a self-contradiction (a conflict of intersts ?) in me, and I pay attention to it in order not to be self-contradictory, that is not attention.

B: Then, can you make it more clear, because ordinarily one might think that that is attention.

K: No, it is not, it is merely a ( self-centred ?) process of thought, which says, 'I am this (inattentive) , I must be that (attentive) '.

B: So, you are saying the ( self-centred) attempt to become (inwardly attentive) is not attention.

K: Yes, that is right. (Trying to ?) 'become (attentive'?) breeds ( the ego-centric form of ?) inattention.

B: Yes, although the person may think he is 'attending' to something but he is actually not, when he is engaged in this process.

K: Isn't it very difficult sir, to be free of (self-) becoming? That is the root of it. To end ( the illusory process of self-centred ) 'becoming'.

B: Yes...

K: Does this convey anything?

B: Well we have just answered it: there is no ( integrated ?) attention and that is why all our ( personal ) problems are there.

K: Yes. So ( after this brief detour) let's come back (to what we were discussing last time) : The (meditating ?) human mind ( generally ) so full of knowledge, self-importance & self-contradictions has come to the critical point where it finds that 'psychologically' it can't move

B: There is nowhere for it to move, yes.

K: So I come to that point and I want to 'break through' it. Is this desire to become the root of all this?

B: Well it must be close to the root, ( but) it keeps on coming in without notice. The inattention is such that you would say that I am looking at my problem, but my problem is always 'becoming' (evolving?) , so trying to stop this 'becoming', is ( another, more subtle form of?) inattention.

K: So how do I look at this whole complex issue of 'myself', without the movement (implicit expectations?) of becoming (something different ) ?

B: Well it seems that one has to look (non-personally ?) at the whole issue. When you said, 'how can I pay attention', you not look at the whole ( process of self ?) becoming - part of it seemed to slip out and became the 'observer'. Right?

K: Sir, (the process of 'psychological' ) becoming has become our (invisible inner) ' curse'.... And though it sometimes brings pleasure & other times (fustrations and ?) pain, this sense of becoming, fulfilling, achieving psychologically, has made our ( inner & outer ) life into all that it is. Now I ( finally ?) realize that but I can't stop it.

B: Yes, 'why' can't we stop it?

K: Partly it is because I am always ( subliminally involved ?) in this (self-) becoming - there is (the expectation of a future ?) reward at the end of it and ( also ?) I am also avoiding ( facing the present) pain (or a future) punishment . And in that (vicious?) cycle I am caught. That is probably one of the reasons why the mind keeps on trying to become something. And the other is this deeply rooted fear that if I don't become anything I am lost (a nobody) , uncertain, (and financially?) insecure. So the mind has (subliminally) accepted these ( very common collective ?) illusions and says : I cannot end that.

B: But there is no ( true) meaning to these illusions...

K: How do you 'convince' me that I am caught in illusion? You can't, unless I see ( the falseness of?) it myself. And I cannot see it because my (subliminal attachment to this ?) illusion is so strong. That illusion ( of self-centred becoming ?) has been cultivated by religion, by family and so on and so on, it is so deeply rooted that I ( subliminally ?) refuse to let that go.

B: Well then the whole attempt ( of letting go our 'personal' illusions) seems impossible.

K: That is what is happening. That is what is taking place with a large number of people. They say, '' 'I'd really want to do this... but ( on a second thought?) I cannot''.

Now given this (given) situation, what is one to do (educationally?) ? Will your (logical) explanations of all the various contradictions, and so on, will that help him? Obviously not.

B: Because all gets absorbed into my ( ' highly knowledgeable' mental) structure.

K: Obviously. So what is the next thing?

B: Well, if a human mind is healthy it will not accept living in such a contradiction.

K: But our mind isn't ( harmoniously integrated or?) 'healthy'. So how do we help him to see clearly the danger of this 'psychologically becoming', which implies identification with (my name & form, my family, property …) all that business.

B: Yes, ( not to mention) holding to one's (personal) opinions...

K: Opinions, beliefs. How do you (educationally) 'help' such a person, to be free of all that? I wonder if there is another factor, another way of communication, which isn't based on words, knowledge, explanations and ( fake promises of ?) reward and punishment. You follow? Is there another way of communicating, of which we were talking about last time for a brief moment?

B: Perhaps there is.

K: Now how do you communicate non-verbally with me, who got caught in this ( ages old) trap (of self-interest?) , so that it breaks away everything else? My mind has always communicated with another with words, with explanations, with logic, with analysis, either compulsive, or with 'suggestion' and so on. There must be another element which breaks through all that, otherwise it is really impossible.

B: Something that will break through the inability to 'listen' ?

K: Yes, through the inability to listen, to observe (compassionately & non-personally ) 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 ( Ramana Maharishi?) 'saint' and in his ( silent) company they say "all our problems are resolved". But then they go back to their life, back to the old game.

B: Yes, well there was no 'intelligence' in it.

K: You see the danger ? That man, that 'saint' (holy person?) , being (inwardly) quiet, in his very presence they also felt quiet. And they were feeling that all their ( personal) problems got 'resolved'.

B: But it is still ( an influence induced ?) from the outside.

K: Of course, it is like going to church. And in a good ancient church, or a cathedral, you feel extraordinarily quiet. It is the atmosphere, it is the structure, you know, all that, the very atmosphere makes you be quiet (and momentary forget all your problems ?) .

B: Yes, well it communicates what is meant by quietness, I think, but it gets across the communication which is non-verbal.

K: But it is like incense, it evaporates! So if we push all that (sat-sang or (communion of the wise) aside , what is there that can be communicated, which will break through the (mental) wall which human beings have built for themselves? Is ( it the quality of selfless?) Love the element that is lacking?

B: Well, you see maybe people are somewhat chary of this word and therefore as they resist listening, they will resist love too. But we were saying the other day also that ( Selfless ) Love also contains Intelligence, that ( universal ?) energy which also contains intelligence and caring, all that.

K: Now (supposing ) you have (free access to?) that quality and I am caught in my misery, my anxiety and so on, and you are trying to penetrate through this "mass of darkness" with that ( Selfless Love & ?) Intelligence . Will that act? If not we human beings are lost. I think that is the ( missing ) factor sir. Attention, perception, intelligence and ( Selfless) 'love'. You may bring it to me but I can't hold it - the moment I go outside this room I am lost.

B: Well that really is the (BP School ?) problem.

K: Yes sir. That is the real problem. Now, is this (reservoir of selfless) 'love' something which you give me as a ( personal bonus or ) gift, or it is a 'common ground' for all of us ?

B: But somebody who is looking for ( this presence of selfless?) love is saying "you obviously have got it, but I haven't" - that is his way of thinking.

K: ( This selfless Love & its ?) intelligence is not 'personal'.

B: But again it goes contrary to the whole of our ( individualistic way of ?) thinking. Everybody says this person is intelligent and that one is not.

K: Quite, quite. It is the ( self -) 'fragmented' mind that invents all this.

B: We have picked it up ( this individualistic attitude?) verbally and non-verbally from childhood and by implication, therefore it pervades, it is the ground of all our thoughts, of all our perceptions. So it is this whole ( 'individualistic' mentality ?) that has to be questioned in the first place.

K: We have questioned it, we have questioned that grief is not my grief, grief is human.

B: But a person who is caught in grief feels that it is 'his' (personal) grief. Doesn't that seem right?

K: I think it is partly due because of our education, partly our society, tradition.

B: But it is also implicit in our whole way of thinking. So we'll have to have to 'jump out' (step aside?) of that (mentality ?) . Perhaps many of us can see that ( the nature of Selfless ?) 'love' is not personal, love does not belong to anybody any more than any other quality.

K: That is what I want to find out sir: is ( this feeling of Selfless?) 'Love' something that is common to all of us?

B: Well in so far as it exists it has to be common. It many not exist but if it does, it has to be common.

K: I am not sure it doesn't exist. (Similarly) compassion is not 'I am compassionate' - compassion is there, it is not 'me' (having) compassion (for those who 'ran out of luck'?) .

B: Well, then Compassion is (of ) the same nature (as Selfless Love) , it is "universal".

K: Compassion, love, and intelligence. You can't be (truly?) compassionate without intelligence.

B: So you're saying that 'Intelligence' is universal too ?

K: Obviously.

B: But we have (QI) methods of testing intelligence in particular people.

K: Oh, no! Such (measurement is ?) part of our divisive, fragmentary way of thinking. Our ordinary thinking 'is' an (ego-centric) fragmentary process ( the 'thinker' who is 'thinking'?) .

B: Well, there may be a 'holistic' thinking, but we are not there yet ...

K: Yes. But this 'holistic thinking' is not ( just the common memory based ?) thinking, it is ( containing) some other factor.

B: Some other factor that we haven't gone into yet...

K: So if ( this capacity of Selfless?) Love is common to all of us, why am I blind to it? Is it the fear of letting go my old (inner) values, standards, opinions, all that (to be dumped down the drain ?) ?

B: I think it is probably something deeper. It is hard to pin down but it isn't a 'simple' thing. I mean this is just a partial explanation.

K: That is a 'superficial' explanation. But deeper down could it be due to deeply rooted longing to be totally secure (in a pretty insecure world ?) ?

B: But that again is based on ( the common thinking) based on fragmentation. If we accept that we are 'fragmented' (isolated inwardly) we will inevitably want to be totally secure. Right? Because being fragmented you are always in danger.

K: Is that the root of it? This urge, this demand, this longing to be totally secure in my relationship with everything, to be certain?

B: Yes, but you have often said that that the real (inward) security is to be found in 'nothingness' (in the inner innocence of 'not-knowing'?) .

K: Of course, in 'nothingness' there is complete security.

B: Therefore, it is not our natural demand for security which is wrong but the demand that the ( self-isolating ?) 'fragment' be secure. The 'fragment' cannot possibly be secure. But the ( cryptic ?) way you have often put it sounds as if we should live eternally in insecurity...

K: No, no. We ( should?) have made that very clear...

B: So, it makes sense to ask for security but we are going about it the wrong way ?

K: Yes, that's right. So, how do you convey to a man who has lived (for ages ?) completely in the narrow groove of self-interest) that ( this quality Selfless ?) Love is universal (and available to all?) ?

B: Well, will he be ready to question his narrow, 'unique personality'?

K: Some did actually question it. You see, people who have been very serious in these matters, have tried to find the 'wholeness of life' through every kind of way. ( Supposing) I have a brother who refuses to see ( the inward truth of ) all this. I have tried to communicate with him verbally and sometimes non-verbally, by a gesture, by a look, but all this is still ( felt as a pressure imposed ) from the outside. Now, if I do point out that this 'Flame' ( of Attention) can be awakened in himself , it implies that he must 'listen' to me.

B: Well, he may not actually be free to take an action there, because of the whole structure of thought that holds him. So we have to find some (shared free?) place where he is free to act, to move, which is not controlled by ( his active ) conditioning.

K: So how do I 'help' my brother? We said ( for starters, by ) becoming aware - but after explaining all this he says, 'You have left me where I am'. But my ( compassionate ) intelligence, my affection, love says 'I can't let him go' (empty handed) . Sir, ( as a brief mystical detour?) there is an (old spiritual ?) tradition in India, and probably also in Tibet, that there is one ( Highly Advanced spiritual entity ?) called the "Maitreya Buddha" who took a vow that he would not become the ultimate Buddha until he has (helped ) liberate ( other) human beings too.

B: Altogether?

K: Yes. But you see , the (popular belief in this ) tradition hasn't changed anything. How can one, if he has that Intelligence, that Compassion, that Love,- the purity of That - can that be transmitted to another? Even by living with him, talking to him everyday, it all becomes another mechanical (habit) .

B: Would you say this this question ( of holistic education ?) has never really been solved ?

K: I should think so, sir. But we must ( try to?) solve it. It has not been solved but this (compassionate ) Intelligence says, ( we should ?) 'solve it'. Or rather , that ( 'Buddha Maitreya') 'Intelligence' says, these are the 'facts' and perhaps some will capture (the inward truth of?) It

B: Well it seems to me that there are really two steps: one is the preparation by reason to show that it all makes sense; and from there possibly some will capture it.

K: We have done that sir. You laid out the map (of the human psyche) very clearly and I have seen it very clearly, all the rivers, the conflicts, the misery, the confusion, the insecurity, the becoming, all that is very clear. And I may have a glimpse of it, but it becomes (another personal) craving to 'capture' that ( Timeless) Glimpse and hold on to it and... (before you know it...) 'That' becomes a ( dead) memory. And all the nightmare ( of 'spiritual becoming') begins. So it is a constant battle, and I think the whole way we are living is so wrong.

B: Well, many people must have already seen that by now. At least a fair number.

K: We were talking in Ojai, whether man has taken a wrong turning, and entered into a (dark) valley from where there is no escape. That can't be sir, that is too depressing, too appalling.

B: The very fact it looks 'appalling' does not make it untrue. You should give a stronger reason why you feel that to be untrue. Do you perceive in the human nature some possibility of a real change?

K: Of course sir, otherwise we'd be ( just clever ?) monkeys (or programmable thinking ?) machines. You see, if we don't look to ( follow) anybody and are completely free from all that, then that Solitude ( All-Oneness ?) is common to all of us. It is not (the loneliness of?) self isolation, but when you see ( the whole truth about?) all this you are naturally 'alone' (All-One ?) . And this inner sense of All-Oneness' is common to us all

B: I think we could say that when the ( meditating ?) mind goes deep (within itself ?) it comes into something Universal.

K: Universal, that's right. And that is the ( experiential ?) problem: to make the mind go very, very deeply into itself.

B: Yes, there is (psychological insight?) that occurred to me. When we start with our 'particular' problem it is very shallow, then we go to something more 'general' ( which has the latin root of 'genus'- to generate) you go to the 'depth' of what is generated.

K: That's right, sir.

B: And going from that, still further (inwards ) , the 'general' is still limited because it is ( still in the area of man-made) thought.

K: Yes, it is too limited – So 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 all that...

B: But you see, many people would say that this is ( sounding) very abstract and has nothing to do with their daily life...

K: I know. But ( approaching our daily life from the Universal perspective?) is the most practical thing. Not an abstraction.

B: But I think that many people feel they want something ( tangible ) that really affects their daily life, they don't just want to get lost in talking. Therefore they say all these 'vapid generalities' don't interest us. Instead of getting into the real, solid, concrete realities of daily life. Now, it is true that it must work in daily life, but the daily life does not contain the solution of its problems.

K: No. The daily life is the 'general' life.

B: The 'general' and the 'particular' ?

K: And the 'particular'.

B: Many problems which arise in our daily life cannot be solved (at their own level) - such as the 'human' problems.

K: From the particular move to the general, from the general move still deeper (inwardly) , and there perhaps is ( found ?) the purity of Compassion, Love and Intelligence. But that means giving your mind to this (insightful inquiry) , your heart, your mind, your whole being must be involved in this. We have gone on for a long time. Have we reached somewhere?

B: Possibly so.

K: I think so !

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Sun, 13 Jul 2014
Topic: K The essential Texts

THE LAST K CONVERSATION WITH PROF D BOHM 1983 (reader friendly edited)


J.Krishnamurti: Can the ('all-one') consciousness of mankind be changed through time? That is one of the questions we should discuss this evening.

DB: I think that with regard to human consciousness time is not relevant, that it is a kind of illusion. We discussed prviously the illusion of (self-) becoming' .

JK: We are saying, aren't we, let's be clear, that the concept of an evolution of human consciousness is a fallacy.

DB: Of a gradual evolution through time, right. And since the future of mankind depends on the (condition of the human) psyche , it seems then that the future of mankind is not going to be determined through actions in (term of) time.

JK: That's right.

DB: So we are left with this (major existential) question: what will we do?

JK: Now let's proceed from there. Shouldn't we first distinguish between the 'brain' and the 'mind'? I think the 'mind' is separate from the 'brain'.

DB: Well what does it mean 'separate'?

JK: 'Separate' in the sense the 'brain' is (easily) conditioned and the 'mind' is not.

DB: You are saying that the (intelligent faculty of the?) 'mind' has a certain independence of the brain. Even if the brain is conditioned...

JK: ...the 'Other' is not.

DB Now, on what basis do you say that?

JK: As long as one's brain is conditioned, it is not free. And the 'mind' is free. What actually is this "freedom"? The freedom to enquire and it is only in this freedom ( from what was previously known ?) that there is a deep "insight".

DB: Yes, that's clear because if you are not free to enquire then you are limited (to what you knew already) .

JK: So as long as the brain is conditioned (to function predominantly in the 'known'?) its relationship to the ( natural intelligence of the) "mind" is (very seriously) limited.

DB: So, (there should be some interactive?) relationship of the brain to the mind, and also the other way round.

JK: Yes, yes. The 'mind' being free has a relationship to the brain.

DB: Yes. And you're saying that the ( non-material energy of the?) 'mind' is not subject to the ( temporal) conditioning of the brain ?

JK: Yes.

DB: Now one could ask a (still deeper) question: what is the nature of this 'mind'? For example, is the 'mind' located inside the body, or is it in the brain?

JK: No, it 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: You said 'space' and 'silence', now what kind of 'space' is this ? It is obviously not the (physical ) space in which we see life moving.

JK: Let's look at (this inner space ?) the other way. Thought can (create or ) invent 'space'.

DB: Well, we have the (physical) space that we see and in addition thought can invent all kinds of (imaginary ?) spaces.

JK: And space (as the measurable distance ?) from 'here' to 'there'.

DB: Yes, the (physical) space through which we move is that way.

JK: Then, there is also the 'space' between two noises.

DB: Well, they call it an 'interval'. The 'interval' between two sounds.

JK: Yes, interval between two noises, or between two thoughts.

DB: Yes...

JK: (Then there is the psychological ) 'space' ( or distance ) between two people...

DB: ...the space between the walls.

JK: And so on. But this is not the ( inwardly open ?) 'space' of the Mind.

DB: You mean, it is not limited ?

JK: That's right. It is not 'bounded' by the 'psyche'.

DB: By the psyche. But is it bounded by anything?

JK: No.

DB: Now the ( inner space of the ) 'psyche' is bounded because we have said it is limited and so on. Right ?

JK: So that is what I want to talk over : can the brain, with all its (memory) cells (being ?) 'conditioned', can ( the functioning of) those brain cells radically change?

DB: Well, we often discussed this, it is not certain that all the cells of the brain are conditioned. For example some 'science people' think that only a small part of the brain's cells are being used, and the others are just rather being inactive, dormant.

JK: Not used at all, or just touched occasionally.

DB: Just touched occasionally. But those cells that are conditioned, whatever they may be, they evidently dominate our consciousness – as it is now - right?

JK: Yes, can those cells be changed?

DB: ?

JK: We are saying that they can be changed (qualitatively ? ) through 'insight'. 'Insight' being out of time, is not a (personal ) intuition, or desire, or hope, it has nothing to do with any (mental activity of ?) 'time & thought'.

DB: And you are saying that this 'Insight' is it the ( natural ?) activity of the 'Mind'?

JK: Yes.

DB: Therefore we are saying that (the non-material energy of the ?) 'Mind' can act in the matter of the brain cells ?

JK: Yes, we said that earlier.

DB: Yes, but you see this is a difficult point, you see, how is ( a purely spiritual?) 'Mind' able to act in ( the domain of time & ) matter.

JK: It is able to act on the ( perceptive quality of the?) brain, say for instance in any major personal crisis, or problem - (usually) we meet it with all the remembrances of our past, with a bias and so on. And therefore our 'problems' multiply. Now to have an (indepth) perception of that problem without any past memories and thoughts interfering...

DB: Now that implies that ( a totally insightful ?) perception is of the 'mind' ?

JK: Yes, that's right.

DB: Are you more or less saying that in this case, the brain is becoming the instrument of the 'Mind'?

JK: (It can be an ?) instrument of the mind when the brain is not 'self'-centred.

DB: You see, our 'psychological' conditioning may be thought of as the brain exciting itself and keeping itself going just from that 'programme'. And this ( mechanistic activity ) occupies all of its capacities.

JK: All our days, yes.

DB: ( polarising) the whole capacity of the brain. It is rather like a ( poorly tuned ) radio receiver which generates (?) its own internal noise, rather than picking up the ( actual radio ) signal. Now would this ( technological) analogy be at all valid ? ...

JK: Not quite.

DB: Then, what is preventing our brain it from ( being inwardly open to the Mind & ) operating in an unlimited area?

JK: ( The 'self'-centred activity of ?) thought.

DB: So, the brain is running its own (thinking routine?)

JK: Yes, like a computer that is running on its own 'programme'.

DB: Now, essentially what you are implying here is that the brain should really be responding to this 'Mind'.

JK: And it can only respond (adequately) if it is free from the ( mechanistic routine of ?) thought which is limited.

DB: Yes, so that 'programme' does not dominate it. But (eventually) we are going to still need that 'programme'.

JK: Of course. We need it for...

DB: ...for many things. So, is 'Intelligence' (coming) from the Mind then?

JK: Yes, intelligence 'is' the Mind.

DB: 'Is' the Mind...?

JK: And there is no Intelligence without 'compassion'. And compassion can only be when there is ( self-less) 'love' which is completely free from all personal remembrances, jealousies and all that kind of thing.

DB: Now is all that 'Compassion' and 'Love', also of the Mind?

JK: Of the Mind. But you cannot be ( 'loving' & ) 'compassionate' if you are attached to any particular experience, or any particular ideal - like those people who go out to various poverty ridden countries and work, work, work, and they call that 'compassion'. But they are ( inwardly) 'tied' to a particular form of religious belief and therefore that is 'empathy' , not ( an intelligent action of ?) Compassion.

DB: Well, I understand that we have here two things which can be somewhat independent. There is the 'Brain' and the 'Mind', though they can make contact. And you're saying that 'Intelligence', Love & 'Compassion' come from beyond the ( physical) Brain. Can we go into the question of 'how' they are making contact ?

JK: Ah! An (interactive?) 'contact' between the Mind and the Brain can only exist when the brain is ( meditaively?) quiet.

DB: Yes, so that is the ( experiential) requirement. So, how is the brain to be (totally) quiet.

JK: Sir, this ' being quiet' is not a 'trained' quietness. It is a natural outcome of understanding ( the destructive nature of?) one's (egocentic?) conditioning.

DB: Yes and if the brain is 'so quiet' then it could 'listen' to something deeper - right?

JK: Deeper, that's right. Then if it is ( effortlessly?) quiet it is related to the Mind. Then the Mind can function through the brain.

DB: Now, has the human brain a ( natural quality or ) activity which is beyond thought ? For example, one could ask is 'awareness' part of the ( holistic ?) function of the brain?

JK: ( Yes) As long as in this awareness there is no ( personal interferences based on ?) choice .

DB: Yes, well that may cause ( a slight experiential) difficulty. You see, what is wrong with 'choice' ?

JK: ( Psychological) 'choice' means ( lack of inner clarity or?) confusion.

DB: This point is not so obvious. You see, if I choose which (sweater) colour I want to wear, I don't see why my mind should be 'confused'.

JK: There is nothing wrong there.

DB: But in the choices about the 'psyche' it seems to me is where the confusion is.

JK: We are talking of the 'psyche' who 'chooses' what to become, and this kind of choices exist where there is ( an existential) confusion ( regarding 'who' or 'what' you really are?) .

DB: Yes. Being (psychologically) confused it tries to become something better.

JK: And this choice implies a duality ( 'what I am' vs 'what I should be') .

DB: Yes but now it seems that we have another duality which you have introduced, which is the 'Mind' and the 'Brain'.

JK: No, that is not a 'duality'.

DB: That is important to get clear. What is the difference?

JK: Let's take a very simple example. Human beings are violent and the ideal of 'non-violence' has been projected by thought and that is (what we call) duality - the 'fact' and the 'non-fact'.

DB: So, the mental division of those two you call 'duality'. Why do you give it that name?

JK: Because they are divided.

DB: Well, they 'appear' to be divided.

JK: Divided, and they are the outcome of ( an go-centric) thought which is limited and this is creating havoc in the world.

DB: Yes. So there is a 'division' in terms of dividing something which cannot be divided. We are trying to divide the 'psyche', and the psyche cannot be divided into violence and non-violence - right?

JK: It is 'what it is'.

DB: If it is (basically) violent it can't be divided into a violent and a non-violent part.

JK: That's right. So can we remain ( inwardly with the fact of ?) 'what is', not invent ideals and all the rest of it?

DB: Now, could we return to the 'mind' and the 'brain' , where you are saying that is not a division.

JK: Oh no, that is not a 'division'.

DB: ( Because knowingly or not ?) they are in contact, is that right?

JK: We said there is ( an interflowing) contact between the mind and the brain when the brain is silent and has ( free inner) space.

DB: Yes, so if they are in contact and not divided at all, the 'Mind' can have a certain independence of the (spatio-temporal) conditioning of the brain.

JK: Now careful Sir ! Suppose my brain is (culturally) programmed as a Hindu, and my whole life is ( safely) conditioned by the idea that I am a Hindu. The 'Mind' obviously has no relationship with ( the active content of ?) that conditioning.

DB: When you are using the word "Mind", it means it is not 'my' mind .

JK: Oh, the "Mind", it is not mine.

DB: It is universal ?

JK: Yes. It is not 'my' brain either.

DB: No, but as there is a 'particular' brain, would you say there is a particular mind?

JK: No.

DB: That is an important difference. You are saying "Mind" is really universal.

JK: Mind is "universal" – it is not polluted by thought.

DB: But I think most people will be asking : " How do we know anything about this (non-personal ) Mind ?" The first feeling is that it is 'my mind' - right?

JK: You cannot call it 'your' mind . You only have 'your' brain which is conditioned. You can't say, "It is my mind".

DB: Well whatever is going on inside my 'psyche' I feel is 'mine' and it is very different from what is going on inside somebody else.

JK: I question whether it is different - we both go through all kinds of problems, suffering, fear, anxiety, loneliness, suffer, and so on and so on. We have our dogmas, beliefs, superstitions, and everybody has this.

DB: Well we can say it is all very similar but it seems as if each one of us is isolated from the other.

JK: By ( our self-centred ?) thought. My thought has created ( the concept ) that I am different from you, because my body is different from you, my face is different from you, so we extend that same (self-divisive mentality ?) into the psychological area.

DB: We have discussed that. But now if we said all right that division is an illusion perhaps.

JK: No, not 'perhaps', it 'is'...

DB: It is an illusion, all right. Although it is not (at all) obvious when a person first looks at it.

JK: Of course, of course.

DB: Now then, we say mind - in reality even brain is not divided because we are saying that we are all not only basically similar but ( consciousness-wise ?) really connected - right? And then we say that beyond all that is an (Universal dimension of ?) "Mind" which has no division at all.

JK: It is unconditioned.

DB: This would almost seem to imply then that in so far as a person feels he is a 'separate' being he has very little contact with this Mind - right?

JK: Quite right. That is why it is very important to understand ( in the first place) not the ( Universal dimension of the ) Mind but whether my conditioning can ever be dissolved. That is the real issue.

DB: Yes. But I think that any (serious ?) human being would like to consider what is the meaning of this Mind ? So, we have a Mind that is universal, that 'is' in some kind of (inner) 'space' you say, or is it its own space?

JK: It is not ( located ?) in 'me' or in 'my' brain.

DB: But it has (its own ?) space.

JK: It lives in space and silence.

DB: It lives in a space and silence, but it is the (inward ?) space of the mind. It is not a space like the space we know ?

JK: No. That is why we said that this (inner) 'space' is not invented by thought.

DB: Now, is it possible then to perceive this (inner open ?) 'space' when the mind is silent, to be in contact with it? JK: You are asking whether the ( Universal ?) Mind can be perceived by the brain ?

DB: Or at least if one can have an awareness, a sense (of it)

JK: We are saying "yes", through meditation. And that is the (main experiential ?) difficulty: in the 'meditation' as it is generally understood (and practised) there is always a "meditator" meditating. But this Meditation is not a ('self-) conscious' process.

DB: How are you able to say that meditation takes place then if it is 'un-conscious'?

JK: It is taking place when the brain is quiet.

DB: But there is also some kind of 'awareness' (of it) , isn't there? You see, there is also an 'unconsciousness' of which we are simply not aware of at all. A person may be 'unconscious' of some of his inner problems, conflicts.

JK: Let's go into it a bit more. If I do something 'consciously' it is the ( thinker-controlled ?) activity of thought. Right?

DB: Yes, it is ( the self-centred process of ?) thought reflecting on itself.

JK: Yes, it is the activity of thought. So, if you "consciously" try to practise ( a system of) 'meditation' then 'you' are making the brain conform to another series of patterns.

DB: Yes, there is some ( self-) becoming (involved) : you are trying to become inwardly better.

JK: There is no 'illumination' by becoming - if I can use that word.

DB: But it seems very difficult to communicate about a meditation of which one is not 'conscious', you see.

JK: Let's put it this way: a meditation practised 'consciously' – trying to control thought, or to free oneself from conditioning, is not ( an act of ) freedom.

DB: Yes, I think that is clear, but now it is not clear how to communicate what else is to be found there ?

JK: How can I tell you what lies beyond thought...

DB: Or what happens when thought is silent?

JK: Quite, silent. So, what words would you use?

DB: Well I suggested the word 'awareness'. Or...what about using the word 'attention'?

JK: 'Attention' is better. And would you say that in this 'attention' there is no ( controlling ?) centre as the 'me'?

DB: Well, not in the kind of attention you are discussing. There is a kind, which is the usual kind, where we pay attention because of what interests us.

JK: This ( meditative?) attention is not 'concentration'.

DB: So, we are discussing a (non-personal quality of ?) attention without ( the self-conscious?) 'me' present, and which is not the activity of conditioning.

JK: Not the activity of thought .

DB: Yes...

JK: In (this total ?) 'attention' thought has no place.

DB: Yes, but could you say more regarding what do you mean by 'attention'? Would the (ethymological ?) derivation of this word be of any use? It actually means "stretching the mind" - would that help?

JK: No, no. Would it help if we say this (total ) attention is not ( the result of mental ) concentration ? Attention can only come into being when the 'self' (-consciousness) is not (involved ?) .

DB: Yes but this seems to get us in a 'circular logic' because usually we are starting from a position when the 'self' is ( there ?) . A person who says meditation is necessary, begins with the 'self', he says, "I am here".

JK: As long as there is a 'measurement' ( a mental evaluation ?) which is ( a subtle attempt of personal ?) becoming, there is no ( authentic) Meditation.

DB: So, we can only discuss what ( the authentic ?) meditation is not ?

JK: That's right. And through the negation (of 'fake meditations' ?) the 'Other' is.

DB: So, if we succeed in negating the whole ( traditional ) activities of what is not meditation the "Meditation" will be there.

JK: Yes, that's right. As long as there is (any mental evalution or?) 'measurement', which is (a subliminal activity of ) 'becoming', which is the process of thought, ( the authentic ?) Meditation, or Silence, cannot be.

DB: So, this 'undirected attention' is it of the Mind ?

JK: Attention is of the Mind.

DB: And then It contacts the brain, doesn't it?

JK: Yes. As long as the brain is silent, the "Other" has contact with it.

DB: So this (meditating quality of ?) attention has contact with the brain when the brain is silent.

JK: Silent and has ( free inner ?) Space.

DB: What is this "Space"?

JK: The ( constantly busy?) brain has no (free inner) space now because it is concerned with itself, it is programmed, self-centred and ...(self-) limited.

DB: Now, the Mind is (exists ? ) in its Space, but doesn't the brain have its ( own mental) space ?

JK: Limited.

DB: Limited space?

JK: Of course. Thought has a limited ( self-enclosed) space.

DB: But when thought is absent does the brain have its (own inner ?) space?

JK: That's right. The brain has ( its own inner) space, yes.

DB: Unlimited?

JK: No. It is only the ( Universal ?) Mind that has unlimited Space. My brain can become quiet over a problem which I have thought about and I suddenly say, "Well I won't think any more about it" and there is a certain amount of ( free inner) space. In that ( knowledge free mental) 'space' you solve the problem.

DB: So, if the ( thinking) mind is silent, (the available?) inner space is still limited, but it is (potentially ) open to...

JK: the 'Other'.

DB: the "attention". Would you say that through this ( attending) attention , the Mind is contacting the brain?

JK: When the brain is not 'inattentive'.

DB: So what happens then to the brain?

JK: What happens to the brain? That (universal ?) Intelligence born out of compassion and love, ( can act or?) 'operate' when the brain is quiet.

DB: It operates through "attention"?

JK: Of course, of course.

DB: So "attention" seems to be the ( necessary) contact.

JK: Contact, naturally. ( But this) "attention" can only be when the 'self' is not (active ?).

DB: So in other words you're saying that Love and Compassion are the Ground (of Creation ?) , and out of this Ground comes the Intelligence through "attention" ?

JK: Yes, (It) functions through the brain.

DB: Now, there are two questions regarding this (Universal) Intelligence : one is about the nature of this intelligence, and the second is what does it do to the brain, you see?

JK: Yes. We must again approach it 'negatively'. (Universal ) Love is not ( 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: (In a nutshell ?) this ( non-personal quality of?) Love has no relationship to ( the self-centred ?) thought.

DB: Yes, and it does not originate in the particular brain.

JK: Yes, and when there is that ( quality of Selfless?) Love, out of it there is Compassion and there is Intelligence.

DB: And this Intelligence (of the Universal Mind?) is able to understand more deeply ?

JK: No, not 'understand'.

DB: But what does it do? Does it perceive?

JK: Through perception it 'acts'.

DB: Yes. Perception of what?

JK: Now let's discuss ( the insight based ?) perception. There can be ( such ) perception only when there is no interference from the movement of thought. Then there is ( a holistic ?) perception, a direct insight into a problem, or into the human (psychological) complex.

DB: Yes, now this ( Insightful ?) Perception originates in the Mind?

JK: Yes. When the brain is "quiet".

DB: Yes, but here we used both words 'perception' and 'intelligence', what is their difference?

JK: Between (the insightful ?) perception and (the action of universal ?) intelligence? None.

DB: So we can say that intelligence 'is' perception.

JK: Yes, that's right.

DB: ( So, the action of ) Intelligence is the ( instant ) perception of ( the truth regarding ) 'what is' - right? And through attention there is a contact (with the physical) brain)

JK: Sir, ( for instance ) let's take the ( eternal) problem of human suffering : the human beings have suffered endlessly, through wars, through every kind of disease, and through wrong relationship with each other. Man has suffered a great deal. Now can this suffering end?

DB: Well, I would say that the difficulty of 'ending it' is that it is on the programme. We are conditioned to (live accepting the inevitability of ) this whole thing - right?

JK: Yes, to this 'whole thing'. And this has been going on for centuries.

DB: Yes, so it is very 'deep' ?

JK: Very, very deep. Now can ( the causation of ) that 'suffering' end?

DB: Obviously, it cannot end by a (premeditated ) action of thought. Because the brain is caught in ( the very causation of) suffering and it cannot take an action to end its own suffering.

JK: Of course, that is why thought cannot end it. Thought has created it- thought has created ( or accepted as inevitable ?) the wars, the misery, the confusion, and ( the 'self-interest' based ) thought has become prominent in all human relationship.

DB: Yes, many people would agree with that, but still think that human thought can also do a lot of good things.

JK: No, ( holistically speaking) thought cannot do 'good' or 'bad'. It is thought, limited (by its self-interest)

DB: So, thought cannot get hold of this ( deep continuity of ) suffering. That is this suffering being ( implicit) in the physical conditioning of the brain, thought has no way of knowing what it is even.

JK: When I lose my ( brother or my) son I am ( getting face to face with it?)

DB: Yes but I mean just by thinking (about it) I don't (really ) know what is going on inside me. I can't (operate on) the suffering inside myself because my thinking will not show me what it is. But now you are saying that ( the compassionate action of ?) Intelligence...

JK: After all, we are asking can suffering end? That is the problem.

DB: Yes, and it is quite clear that our thinking cannot do it.

JK: Thought cannot do it. That is the point. But if I have an 'insight' into it...

DB: Yes, now this Insight will be ( happening) through the ( holistic ?) action of the mind, intelligence, and attention.

JK: When there is this ( inner clarity of ) insight, intelligence wipes away ( the very causation of ?) suffering.

DB: Yes, now you are saying therefore there is a contact from Mind to Matter which removes the whole physical & chemical (mental) structure which keeps us going on with suffering ?

JK: That's right. In that 'ending' there is a ( qualitative) mutation (occurring) in the brain cells. We discussed this some years ago.

DB: Yes and that mutation 'wipes out' (deletes?) the whole 'structure' ( of self-interest based attachment) that makes you suffer.

JK: Yes. Therefore it is like I have been going along following a certain tradition, and when ( a flash of insight ) suddenly changes that (path of) tradition there is a change in the whole brain. ( like before it 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 even if we accept that "mind" is different from "matter" , many people would find it hard to say that 'mind' would actually...

JK: Mind is after all is 'pure' ( intelligent ) 'energy'

DB: Yes, but then... matter is also ( a crystalised form of ) energy .

JK: Therefore matter is limited, as thought is limited.

DB: So, we are saying that the 'pure (intelligent) energy' of the Mind is able to reach into the limited energy of (the human brain)

JK: Yes, that's right. And change the 'limitation'.

DB: Yes, removing (or deleting ?) some of the ( mental) limitations...

JK: ...when there is a deep issue, or a deep (existential) challenge which you are facing (directly )

DB: Yes, so we could also add that all the traditional ways of trying doing this cannot work because...

JK: It hasn't worked.

DB: Well that is not enough. We have to say that actually it cannot work , because people still might hope it could .

JK: It cannot.

DB: Because thought cannot get at the basis of its own physio-chemical (engramming ?) basis in the cells, and do anything about those cells.

JK: Yes Sir, we have said that very clearly : thought cannot bring about a (radical) change in itself.

DB: And yet practically everything that mankind has been trying to do was based on thought. There is a limited area where that is all right but we cannot do anything about the future of mankind from the usual approach.

JK: Exactly. We are saying the old instrument which is thought is worn out , except in certain areas .

DB: Well it never was adequate except in those areas.

JK: Of course, of course.

DB: And man has always been in trouble as far back as history goes.

JK: Yes Sir, man has always lived in turmoil, fear. But as ( responsible ?) human beings, facing all the confusion of the world, can there be a solution to all this?

DB: Yes, that comes back to the question that there are a few people who are (seriously) talking about it, and perhaps 'meditating' and so on, but how is that going to affect this vast current of ( the selfishness of?) mankind?

JK: Probably very little.

DB: I think there is an instinctive (common sense) feeling that makes one put the question.

JK: Yes. But I think that is ( a 'holistically ) wrong' question. Because if whoever 'listens' and sees the truth that ( our self-centred way of ) thinking in its activity both externally and inwardly has created a terrible mess, great suffering, one will inevitably ask : is there an ending to all this ( time-bound condition?) ? And if thought cannot end it what will? What is the new ( directly perceptive?) instrument that will put an end to all this human misery? You see, there is actually a new instrument which is Intelligence. But the difficulty is also people won't ( be ready, able & willing?) to 'listen' to all this. They have already come to definite conclusions, both the scientists and the ordinary layman so... they won't 'listen'.

DB: Yes, well that what I had in mind when I said that a few people don't seem to have much affect.

JK: Of course, of course. But after all, a 'few' people have always changed the ( course of the?) world....

DB: Do you think it is possible that say a certain number of brains coming in contact with Mind in this way will be able to have an affect on mankind which is beyond just the immediate obvious effect of their communication?

JK: Yes, that's right.

DB: I mean obviously whoever does this may communicate in the ordinary way and it will have a small effect but now this is a possibility of something entirely different - right?

JK: You see, I have often thought about it - how do you convey 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, the human conditioning may have some sort of 'permeability'. Is it possible that every person has something he can listen to... if it could be found?

JK: But 'who' will listen? Perhaps someone not highly educated and not too conditioned by his professional career, money, the (average decent ?) person who says, "I am suffering, please let's end that." So perhaps it is like ( starting?) a wave in the (shared consciousness of the ?) world - it might catch somebody. But I think it is a wrong question to say, 'how does it affect'?

DB: Yes all right, because that brings the human 'psyche' in the same process of becoming. So, what you are proposing is that it does affect ( the consciousness of ?) mankind through the Mind directly rather than through (endless talking?)

JK: Yes, yes. It may not show immediately (or 'manifest'?) in action.

DB: So, you are taking very seriously what you said that the Mind is Universal and is not located in our ordinary space, is not separate and the ( actual) question is that we have to come directly in contact with 'this' to make it real - right?

JK: Of course, that's it. They can only come into contact with 'It' when the 'self' ( centred consciousness ?) is not (in charge ?) . To put it very simply, when the 'self (-consciousness ) is not, there is Beauty, there is Silence, Space, and that Intelligence which is born of ( Universal ) Compassion operates through the brain.

DB: Now are there some ( practical) aspects of 'Meditation' which can be helpful even when the 'self' is acting ? Suppose a person says, "OK I am caught in this 'self' ( enclosed consciousness) but I want to get out. What shall I do ?" What would be your answer ? JK: That is very simple. Is the 'observer' different from the 'observed'?

DB: Well, suppose he says, "Yes, it appears to be different" - ordinarily one feels the observer is different from the things observed. I say we do all begin there.

JK: We begin there. Look at it : are 'you' (really ?) different from your anger, from your envy, from your suffering? Obviously you are not.

DB: Well, at first sight it appears that I am different , and I might try to control it.

JK: You 'are' that.

DB: Yes, but how will I see that I 'am' that?

JK: You 'are' ( mentally identified with ?) your name. You are ( psycho-somatically identified with ?) your body. You 'are' all the reactions and actions. You are the belief, you are the fear, you are the suffering and pleasure. You 'are' ( consciously or not, identified with ?) all that. DB: Yes but the first experience is that I am here first and that those are my qualities which I can either have or not have. I might be angry or not angry, I might have this belief or that belief.

JK: You 'are' all that.

DB: But you see, it is not so obvious. When you say I 'am' that, do you mean that I 'am' ( just ) that and I cannot be otherwise?

JK: At present you 'are' ( identified with all ?) that (psychological stuff) . But... it can be totally otherwise.

DB: Yes, OK. So I 'am' all that. But what if I feel like an unbiased observer who is looking at anger ? Are you telling me that this 'unbiased observer' is ( of the same nature?) as the anger he is looking at?

JK: Of course. Like I when I analyse myself, the analyser 'is' the analysed.

DB: Yes. He is biased by what he analyses. So if I watch my anger for a while I can see that I am actually biased by the anger, so at some stage I say that I am one with that anger - right?

JK: No, not 'I am one with it', but "you 'are' it".

DB: ( You mean that ) the ( reaction of) anger and I ( who am feeling angry ?) are ( part of ) the same (psychological process ?) , right?

JK: Yes. The observer 'is' ( not separate from) the (reaction) observed. And when that (holistic ) 'actuality' exists, you have really eliminated altogether (the "observer vs observed") conflict. ( A subliminal inner) conflict exists when 'I' ( consider myself as ) separate from 'my qualities'.

DB: Yes that is because if I believe myself to be separate, then I can try to change it, right?

JK: Yes, that's right. When the quality 'is' 'me', the (ages old dualistic ) division has ended. When that quality 'is' me, all that ( intelligent ?) energy which has been wasted is now ( integrated and free ) to look, to observe.

DB: But why does it make such a difference to have that quality 'being me'?

JK: It makes a difference when there is no division between the quality and me.

DB: Yes, so when there is no perception of a ( dualistic) difference, the mind does not try to fight itself. While if there is the illusion of a difference ( like between 'me' and 'my anger') the brain feels be compelled to fight against (another compartment of ?) itself.

JK: Yes, that's right.

DB: In other words, when there is no illusion of a 'difference' the brain just stops fighting (with itself or with others )

JK: Stops fighting, and therefore you have ( integrated a ) tremendous energy.

DB: Yes. The brain's natural energy is released, eh?

JK: Yes, yes. And this ( unified ) energy is ( providing) the attention necessary for that thing to dissolve.

DB: Well, wait a minute, we said before that "attention" was a contact of the Mind and the brain.

JK: Yes Sir.

DB: ( Therefore) the brain must be (already ) in a state of 'high energy' to allow that (illuminating ?) contact ?

JK: That's right.

DB: So, a brain which is ( in a condition of ?) 'low energy' cannot allow that contact.

JK: Of course. But most of us are (indulging in a ?) 'low energy' ( living) because we are so conditioned.

DB: Well, essentially you are saying that this ( removal of the duality 'observer-observed') is the (right) way to start.

JK: Yes Sir. Start 'simply'. Start with 'what is', with what I am. That is why ( the experiential approach to ?) self-knowing is so important - a constant learning about oneself.

DB: Yes, but this 'knowing' is not the 'self-centred knowledge' we talked about before, which is conditioning.

JK: That's right. Knowledge conditions.

DB: Then, why do you still call it knowledge? Is it a different kind of knowledge?

JK: Yes, yes. 'Self- knowing' is to know and to comprehend 'oneself' (in real time?) , the 'self' which is such a subtle complex thing, it is 'living'.

DB: So, essentially this 'knowing yourself' in happening the very moment in which things are happening, rather than store it up in memory.

JK: Of course. Through ( becoming aware of my personal ) reactions I begin to discover what I am, and so on and so on.

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Sun, 28 Dec 2014
Topic: K The essential Texts

Uncovering the Innermost Source of Creation ( experientially friendly edited )

PUPUL JAYAKAR (PJ): Sir, most of our lives are so futile. And unless one discovers within oneself the capacity to leap out of this ( materialistic ?) 'futility', one will never be able to have a creative spring (in one's own life) . You see, sir, when the mind has this 'creative spring', whatever be the outer circumstances, one seems to go beyond them. And that happens when the mind is not dependent on anything, and when it has some inner space, some clear perception. I have been wondering for the last few months—what is the Ground of a 'creative' mind?

K: Would you call the activity of a poet, of a ( very thoughtful?) thinker, or even of a scientist who makes a new discovery, creative activity?

PJ: Perhaps...

K: But it is limited, 'partial' (in the sense that the gift creativity ?) is not related to their everyday life. Even the greatest scientist may lead a very mediocre life.

PJ: You see, that’s why I did not speak of 'creative action'...

K: ...but of a 'creative mind'?

PJ: Of a mind which rests in the Creative (Ground of Existence) . You have not answered duirectly any questions on the Ground of Creation, on the ‘coming into being’ of anything.

K: Are you asking what is the Source of All Life—both the manifest and the non-manifest ?

PJ: Yes, if possible. And for starters I would like to probe into what you have said just now: the 'manifest' and the 'pre-manifest'... (I won’t use the word 'unmanifest').

K: Are we ( experientially) probing into something which you and I don’t 'know'? We know all about the birth of a baby...

PJ: One may know the 'how it comes into being', but one still does not know the quality of life which pervades it. You see, sir, the actuality of birth is very different from the description of birth.

K: Yes. Can we talk about what is the Origin, the Beginning, of all Life or of all Existence, in order to come upon that 'Something' which is the beginning of all things?

PJ: Yes... ?

K: Man has asked this question (for ages): what is the meaning and the origin of all this ( existence) is, what is the "ground" from which arises all existence, all life, all action?  Now, to investigate (inwardly?) into that 'something' it demands an extraordinary (inner) freedom – a quality of mind which is both practical and sensitive and which has the quality of great Compassion.

PJ: Sir, I would like to 'move' with this question, but if I say that the mind can question only when it is free and, therefore, has love, what do I do?

K: But how else can you inquire into a question, that man has asked for millions of years? How does a mind inquire into something that must be extra-ordinary, that must have a quality of not only the universal, but one of supreme order? How does one’s inquiry begin? If you inquire with 'thought', that doesn’t lead very far.

PJ: So, how does the inquiry begin? Obviously by becoming aware of the (ongoing) disorder within oneself.

K: You see, Pupul, after all, I am the 'manifest'. I have been born. I am a human being.

PJ: Yes, but obviously, sir, there can be no other starting point.

K: ( How about holistically observing ?) the world outside and the world inside. If I can observe without any bias what actually is happening in the world outside of me, and if I can relate what is happening outside to what is happening inside (myself) , then I can see that it is only one "movement" - not two separate movements.

PJ: Sir, I am in the midst of life and I move into that.

K: You 'are' it.

PJ: Yes, I 'am' it. But you see, it is easier to see that ‘I 'am' it’ with regard to the interior movement. To see that with regard to an exterior movement is much more difficult. If you tell me that I 'am' (personally responsible for ?) all the wars which are taking place in the world, that’s very difficult for me to see.

K: Pupul, (holistically speaking ?) we 'are' responsible—in the deepest sense of that word—for all the 'wars' that are taking place.

PJ: Yes, but that’s a distant responsibility. I can’t relate to it in the same way to what is happening within me.

K: Why don’t we feel total responsibility for the wars, the brutality, the terrible things that are happening in the world?

PJ: In what sense is one 'totally responsible'? Just by being born?

K: My entire way of thinking and of acting—as a 'nationalist', or this or that—has contributed to the present state of the world.

PJ: I think it’s better to leave that. We were probing into the (Creative) Ground of existence which is the ''Is''-ness of life. And the only ( available ?) way to probe is to 'move into oneself'.

K: All right. Now, I can’t enter into it ( safely but ...dualistically ?) as an 'observer' coming from the outside, or I 'am' all that.

PJ: Yes, in uncovering what I am, I comprehend that one is uncovering the whole existence of man.

K: Yes, that’s very simple.

PJ: And in this 'uncovering' the superficial things are swept clean. But once the superficial (cleaning-up ) is over, the (inner ?) room also has to be swept.

K: Is this (inner) 'sweeping', or 'uncovering', a complete moving away from all the superficial reactions, superficial conditionings, and attempting to enter into the nature of the central 'movement' ( of self-interest?) that conditions the human mind?

PJ: Obviously, sir, but you can’t say that you have swept the room and it is over...The 'dust' gathers again. And it is quite possible to sweep away the more obvious things, but the subtler things survive in hidden 'corners' you have not been able to get to.

K: Yes, that’s right. But, ( for starters?) let’s go into the 'obvious' things...

PJ: For instance, personal ambition, or envy...?

K: Yes, and also ( personal resentment or?) 'hatred'. Can you be free of all sense of aggressivity?

PJ: But isn't hatred different from the quality of aggression ?

K: Aggressivity is related to hatred, because it’s part of the same movement (of violence) . An ( ambitious or?) 'aggressive' person inevitably hurts another, and that hurt breeds hatred.

PJ: Yes, that’s what I meant by grosser things and the subtler things. Anyone who has known hatred knows that hatred is a very powerful and a very destructive thing. But the aggressivity ( involved in ambition & competitivity ?) may, to some extent, be part of one’s nature.

K: Yes, of course, it’s part (of the instinct ?) to survive, and all the rest.

PJ: That’s why I made the distinction between the grosser things which can be swept clean and the...

K: But how does one know what is gross and what is subtle? Nothing is (really ?) trivial and all (the gross ) reactions', have their source in one’s ( deeper) conditioning.

PJ: Please let us pursue this, since one can live a trivial life, think that it just doesn’t matter; or that nothing (really) matters.

K: You see, Pupul, the (holistic sense of ) ‘freedom’ also means affection, love...

PJ: And a tremendous 'discipline’ as well as an (inner) watchfulness, so that the trivial does not, at any time, creep in.

K: You see, the point is: does this (inner) 'watchfulness', or 'awareness', need training?

PJ: Sir, we commonly mean by 'discipline' some kind of ( mental or physical) regimentation. But I mean by ‘discipline’ the mind awakening to the (truth of the ?) fact that it must be aware of every movement within itself. Sir, that also is a form of 'discipline'.  Without such 'diligence' nothing is possible.

K: Go slowly. To be (inwardly) 'diligent’ means to be aware of what you are doing, to be aware of what you are thinking, to be aware of your reactions. And from those reactions, to observe the actions taking place. Now, the question is: in that 'awareness', is the ( perceptive) action controlled, or put into a certain framework?

PJ: No, obviously not.

K: What I am objecting is (the controlling connotation of ?) the word ‘discipline’.

PJ: Are you not restricting the use of that word ( discipline) to mean merely the putting of something into a ( thought controlled ?) framework ?

K: Yes, but I also hold that the very act of 'learning' is (generating ) its own discipline.

PJ: Yes. But how does this 'act of learning' come to be? Can we take it one step back? From where does the need for (a holistic) observation arise? Why should I 'observe' (myself) ?

K: For a very simple reason, namely, to see whether it’s possible for a human mind to change itself, to change the ( present trend of the ?) world which is entering into such a catastrophic (era ?) .

PJ: All right. If I start there, or if I start with my own sorrow—which is very often the real ground from which one starts...

K: Yes.

PJ: The ( starting) ground is really 'sorrow'. But I think we have moved away. K: Yes, what we started out with was an inquiry into the Origin, the Ground, of all life.  And to inquire into that, you have to inquire into 'yourself', because you are the expression of that. You 'are' life. So, I can only do this by understanding 'myself' - a messy, disordered living 'entity'. I said ( one can start by observing that ) the (outer) world is in disorder. I begin with that. And realise that there is also disorder inside myself . Now, how do I comprehend or become aware of the origin of this (tide of ?) disorder? If I can begin to understand the origin of disorder, I can move more and more deeply into something ( still deeper?) which is total order.

PJ: Isn’t this (inner-outer observation ) done by being as 'simple' as possible?

K: Yes, that’s what I am trying to say.

PJ: And I have certain instruments of inquiry: eyes, ears, the other senses.

K: Yes, but you don’t inquire only with your (physical) ears or eyes.

PJ: Don’t you?

K: A little bit, yes. But the question is: I can’t see the psychological complexity of myself with my (optical ) eyes. I must be (inwardly) aware, sensitively, without any choice, of this ( disorderly inner ?) condition.

PJ: Why do you say, sir, that you cannot be aware with your eyes?

K: Do you mean the "inward" eye?

PJ: Is there any other way?

K: Yes, I think there is. Hearing, seeing, feeling: those are actually sensory responses, right?

PJ: Yes. But is there not an 'inward seeing' or ' listening' to a 'psychological' reaction of anger?

K: Do you listen to it with your ears or do you (inwardly ?) "observe" anger?

PJ: How do you "observe" anger?

K: When you are (getting) angry, you look at the cause and the effect of that anger.

PJ: When you are ( really ?) angry, you can’t...

K: Yes, you can’t at that moment. So, later on...

PJ: But Sir, the word you just used is ‘look’. You 'see' the nature of the mind...

K: Would it help if we talked about (an inwardly integrated ?) perception?  I hear you make a statement. I’ve understood the words and see the (verbal) meaning of what you are saying. A verbal communication has obviously taken place. But the deeper significance...

PJ: But while I am listening to you and seeing you, I am also listening and seeing my own mind, the 'ground' of the mind.

K: 'Who' is listening?

PJ: Take attention. What is the state of the mind in that act of being totally attentive?

K: To answer that question, one must first understand what we mean by 'complete attention'. Attention is not concentration. I think that’s clear.

PJ: Of course, sir, attention is not (a mental) concentration.

K: Attention means that there is no 'centre' from which 'you' are attending.

PJ: Sir, are we still 'dusting the periphery'?

K: No, no; I don’t want to 'dust the periphery'.

PJ: Unless I understand what (the holistic?) attention is, I can’t even take the first step.

K: So, what does this attention—to attend completely—mean?

PJ: You see, ‘to attend completely’ is for the ‘I’ not to be there.

K: Yes, that is the real thing. When there is attention, there is no ‘I’. It isn’t a state of 'I' am attending, but only a state of mind which is wholly attentive.

PJ: With all the senses (integrated ) ...

K: With all the senses and with the whole body.

PJ: The 'whole being' is awake ?

K: Yes, you can use that word.

PJ: And if you are in that state when your whole being is awake, then you can listen, you can observe; you can proceed from there.

K: Because I myself am life and if I am to inquire into what I am, my inquiry has to be correct, accurate, not distorted. It is only then that I may come upon the Ground, the Beginning of all Life. It is only then that the ( innermost) Origin may be uncovered.

PJ: If we start from there, we will find that the ‘I’ is there in the first step. There’s the 'observer'...

K: I know that there is the ( perceptive duality between the ) 'observer' and the 'observed'. But I am inquiring whether this ( duality?) is actually true. So far I have taken it for granted.

PJ: Obviously, sir, when I first start inquiring, I start with (as an) 'observer' who is trying to observe . Now you have placed a doubt in my mind and I ask, ‘Is there really an observer?’

K: Is there an 'observer' (who is) separate from the 'observed'?

PJ: Having that statement within me, I look for the 'observer'.

K: Yes. Who is the observer? Let’s look into this slowly. Because if I understand the ( nature of the ?) observer, then perhaps I may see the falseness of the division between the observer and the observed.

PJ: Who will see the 'falseness' of this division ?

K: The point is not 'who' will see, but the ( insightful ?) perception of what is true. What is of ( experiential) importance is the perception (of the truth regarding that division ?) not 'who' sees.

PJ: So, 'seeing' the truth of what the 'observer' is, will end the state of division.

K: Yes, that is what I have said a thousand times.

PJ: Yes, for this instant it is so. But I cannot expect to have an understanding of what you say unless the mind is awake and is diligent about being awake. You cannot deny this.

K: No. It (one's mind?) has to be 'diligent'; it has to be watchful; it has to be attentive, subtle, hesitant. It has to be all that. I can only inquire into myself through watching ( non-dualistically !) my reactions—the way I think, the way I act, the way I respond to the environment, the way I observe my relationship to another.

PJ: And as I start to observe myself, I find out that that these (self-centred) responses and reactions are rapid, confused, continuous.

K: I know; they are contradictory, and so on.

PJ: So, in the very observing, an ( inner) space ( of freedom?) comes into being.

K: Yes, some (free inner) space, some order.

PJ: And ( as you have often said, this basic inner freedom) is just the beginning, sir !

K: I know. But I would like to ask a ( 'second wind'?) question. Is it necessary to go through all this? Is it necessary to watch my actions, to watch my reactions, my responses? Is it necessary to observe, diligently, all my relationship with another? Must I go through all this (time consuming routine ?) or...?

PJ: The fact is, sir, ( that after listening to your suggestions many years ago?) one has gone through all this.

K: You may have gone through it because you have ( subliminally) accepted ( the idea of a spiritual progress in time)   That is what we have all done—the thinkers, the sannyasis, the monks, and...

PJ: ...and Krishnamurti ?

K: I’m not sure. ..

PJ: Either in the recent years you have taken a 'jump' or (you don't remember what you were saying thirty years ago ?) ...

K: Wait a minute. We have (all?) accepted ( the validity of ?) this (diligent, hard working ?) pattern of ( self-) examination, analysis and investigation, we have watched the ‘self’ and so on. Now, there is something in it which rings a 'false note'—at least to me.

PJ: You mean to say that a person caught in the whole confusion of (his wordly) existence...

K: Pupul, (s)he won’t even listen to all this...

PJ: So, there has to be ( created some inner) space in order to listen.

K: Yes.

PJ: does this (necessity for some free inner ?) 'space' arise?

K: You suffer. Now, you can either say, ‘I must find out (the root cause of this ?) ’ or you merely say, ‘God exists, and I am comforted by that’

PJ: Now, sir, you have asked: Is it necessary to go through all this (self-observing routine ) ?

K: Yes, for I think that it may not be necessary.

PJ: Then show me how ( would he do it ?)

K: I’ll show it to you. We shall call, for the moment, the diligent watching of your reactions, the 'analytical' process of inquiry. Now, this self-investigative process, this constant watching, man has done for thousands of years.

PJ: Not really. He has looked at (whatever was happening in ) his mind and tried to suppress (the undesirable trends)

K: Ah, you see, that’s part of the same ( temporal) pattern . Suppress, escape, substitute, transcend—all that is within that ( evolutionary) framework.

PJ: Agreed, it’s not the same thing as to observe without doing anything about the observation.

K: But Pupul, you are not answering my question: Is it essential, that I go through all this?

PJ: No, but are you trying to say that out of the middle of ( your inner ?) chaos you can 'leap' to a state of total non-chaos?

K: No, I won’t put it that way.

PJ: Then... what are you saying?

K: I am saying that ( the mind of) humanity has already gone through this process. It has been the ( ethical ?) pattern of our existence—of course, some have gone through the process more diligently, sacrificing everything , inquiring, analysing, searching, but still the end of it all you may be just a 'dead' (but totally disciplined?) entity.

PJ: But it may not necessarily be so.

K: May not be. But you see, Pupul, very, very, few—have got out of it.

PJ: So, sir, you are saying that all this whole ( evolutionary ?) process is not necessary ?

K: ....and if it is not necessary, then ''show me the other ''?

PJ: Yes, show me the other !

K: I’ll show it to you. But first, step out of this (self-becoming mentality ?) .

PJ: And if I 'step out' of it, the 'Other' is already there ?

K: Of course. Step out (of it ASAP?) . Don’t take time to go through all this.

PJ: But... what is exactly meant by ‘stepping out' of it?

K: I’ll tell you what I mean: (To see the truth : ?) that man has tried this process of introspective observation, diligence and so on, for a million years in different ways, and ( due to his subliminal expectation for a well deserved reward?) somehow his mind is not clear at the end of it (not to mention that ) this (time consuming ?) movement is very, very shallow. Now, can you 'listen' to ( this holistic ) statement—and actually see the truth of it? If you 'do (see it)', it means that your disordered (time-bound) mind is now quiet; it is 'listening' to find (the true way ?) out. Once you (get to ?) see the truth of this, you are 'out of it'. It’s like putting away something utterly meaningless.

Let me put it another way. My ( time-bound) mind is disorderly. My life is disorderly. You come along and say, ‘Be diligent; be watchful of your actions, of your thoughts, of your relationship and 'be watchful all the time’. And I say that that’s impossible because my ( time-bound ?) mind won’t allow me to be ( so inwardly) diligent all the time. It is not diligent; it is negligent, and I constantly struggle between these two (trends)

PJ: Do you mean to say that a mind which is not capable of observing itself...

K: No. I am saying this to a mind that is ( finally) willing to 'listen'...

PJ: Do you really think an ordinary (time-bound) mind can be in that state of 'listening'?

K: That’s very simple ( if it is approached adequately ?) I say: ''just listen to a story that I am telling you''. ( And if you are getting really ?) interested, your mind is ( naturally becoming) quiet; you are eager to see what the story is about and so on.

PJ: I’m sorry, sir, but it doesn’t seem to happen that way...

K: I am going to explain what I mean by ( a holistic quality of ) "listening": not only the listening with the sensory ear, but the listening with the ( mind's ?) 'ear' that has no movement. That is really 'listening'. Now, when you listen so completely, without any ( mental) movement, to a man who comes along and says, ‘Don’t go through all this diligent process, because it is false, because it is superficial’, what takes place? If you 'hear the truth' of his statement, what takes place? What actually takes place when you see something really true?

(The experiential answer is left for listener's homework)

( In a nutshell:) this diligent process ( of self-improvement ?) is time-consuming. But... my ( earthly ?) life is so short. I’ve got so many ( unsolved material ?) problems, and you are adding another; "be diligent". So this (K) man says, ‘I know you have got many problems which are all interrelated. But just forget your (immediate) problems for the moment and "listen" to me’.

PJ: Sir, you are talking of a mind which is already "mature". Such a mind, while listening to a statement like this...

K: You see, Pupul, we have made our minds so immature that we are incapable of ( freely) listening to anything.

PJ: You see, Krishnaji, you always start by making things ( look) 'impossible'...

K: Of course. ( To) 'see the truth'. It has a tremendous...

PJ: Where can I find the energy to deal with such an 'impossible' thing?

K: It’s very simple. Do we both ahree that this 'diligent process' has really led nowhere? And that in terms of 'going to the very Source of things’ , it is not the way?

PJ: Yes, obviously. I would accept that.

K: That’s all. If you (see the truth of ) that, what is the quality of your mind?

PJ: I know what you are trying to say, sir...

K: What is the quality of a ( time-bound) mind which has been caught ( for ages ?) in the process of diligent ( self-) inquiry when it sees that this 'diligent process' will not help it to come upon or to uncover the Origin ? This process is time-consuming. The 'Other' may have no time at all.

PJ: But, the danger is that I will not be concerned with (putting order in my inner house?)

K: That very inquiry demands that the mind and the heart—my whole existence—is orderly.

PJ: Again, you start with the 'impossible' …

K: (With great energy) Of course, I start with the 'impossible', Pupul, man has done everything that’s 'possible' (along this line ?) . Man has fasted, sacrificed; man has done everything to find ( God or?) the Origin of All Things. Man has done all that has been possible, and that has him to led to certain (cultural & social ) benefits, but it has also led to ( the accumulation of ?) a great deal of (inner) misery for mankind. So, this (K) man tells me that this diligent process is time-consuming and also time-binding. He tells me that as long as I am doing this, I am just 'scratching the surface' (of Creation ?) which may be the most pleasant and ennobling thing—but it’s just the surface. If you actually see, actually feel that this ( diligent approach is) 'false', you have already 'stepped out of the ordinary' into something (into an inner dimension?) that is 'Extra-ordinary'.

But we are not willing to do that. We treat it like learning a (foreign) language - where discipline, diligence & attention 'are' necessary. We carry the same mentality into ( our inward inquiry into ) the ' Other'. That’s what I object to.

PJ: So, what if one puts aside this ( diligent ?) seeing & listening... ?

K: Which means what? That the ( time - thought) movement of diligence has stopped—right? If ( I see that it was ?) false, it's gone. So what has happened to the ( quality of ?) the mind that has been caught in a diligent (self-) inquiry which is time-bound, and utterly superficial? What is the state of this mind? It is a totally "New" Mind. Such a mind is necessary to uncover the Origin (of All Creation ) . Now, such a mind has no bondage to time. You see, the diligent process is ( a sublimated desire ?) to become something; to clarify, to understand, to 'go beyond' itself. This (New ?) Mind has no 'beyond'—it is not becoming something.  Do you see the fact that such a mind cannot have any kind of dependence, any kind of attachment?

PJ: Yes, all this is part of the movement of becoming.

K: That’s right. All that ( self-introspective dilligence) is the perpetuation of the 'self' in a different (sublimated) form, in a different network of words. But when there is this "Oncovering of Origins", then my life, my actions—everything—is different.

( Recap :) The diligent process ( of self-introspective undersanding) is a time-consuming ( & time binding) action which ( in the spiritual realm?) is destructive. It may be necessary in order to learn a technique, but this is not a 'technique' (or a new trick?) to be learnt.

(Long pause)

PJ: Sir, you have an "antique mind", in the sense that it contains the whole of human...

K: You see, Pupul, that’s why it’s important to understand that "I am the world".

PJ: No one else would (sincerely ?) make that kind of statement but you.

K: And one must make it. When you see all the destruction, the brutality, the killing, the wars—every form of violence (and vulgarity ?) that has never stopped—where are you? A man who loved ( Life) couldn’t kill another. I see this process has been going on for thousands and thousands of years—everybody trying to become something. And all the diligent, religious workers are helping man to 'become' something—to achieve illumination, to achieve enlightenment. It’s so absurd.

PJ: With you, sir, the whole movement of the 'dormant' has ended.

K: That is, (self-) becoming has ended. Pupul, let us not make this into some 'elitistic' understanding. Any person who 'pays attention', who wants to 'hear', who is passionate and not just casual about it and who, really, says, ‘I must find ( in myself the innermost ?) Source of all Life’, will 'listen' —not to me; he will just 'listen'. It’s 'in the air'.

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Wed, 21 Jan 2015
Topic: K The essential Texts



Dr Rahula: This morning I want to ask you one or two things to clarify : (a) In the Buddhist terminology there are three levels of knowledge: one is what we get through learning, reading the books, or listening to the teacher; then there is the 'wisdom' that you get by thinking, or meditating, but even this knowledge, still within words, it is still within language; and the highest wisdom goes beyond words, it actually has no words, meaning that you see the 'thing' without a word. Is this (non-verbal perception ) implied when you said, "when you see the thing, all our reflections, accumulated meanings disappear" ? And my second question (b) is what happens to ( an 'Arhat') - to the person who realized the Truth, who is Liberated, who is free, after his death? "Does he (continue to ?) exist after his death?" The Buddha said, these terms 'exist' or 'does not exist', can't be applied to that (timeless ?) state." All those terms, relative, dualistic terms, are used only within our (earthly) knowledge, within our experience, within the empirical world. But the ( Arhat's liberated consciousness ?) is beyond that. So what do you say to this?

K: Could we (take a small philosophical detour and?) talk over together on what is 'living' and what is 'dying', and what is the state of the mind that is (involved) in the process of dying? Or are you asking what is the state of a mind that has no 'self' whatsoever?

Dr R: I think this is a good approach, because that is an 'Arhat' who has no 'self' (-identification ?) whatsoever.

K: So what is one's 'self' (consciousness?) ? The ( result of a subliminal identification with one's ?) name, the form, the body, the organism, plus certain (inherited) characteristics and with what I possess - my property, my house, my furniture, my wife, my books. All that, plus the ( momentary fits of?) violence, the pleasure, the fear, and the (existential?) agonies, constitutes the 'self' ( the 'personal' consciousness?) . So is the root of tha 'self' (an unconscious identification with all one's ) acquired experiences ? And if there is no identification is there a 'self' (-consciousness ?) ? You understand sir?

Dr R : Yes, I follow.

K: So can this (subliminal process of attachment and/or ?) identification come to an end? Which is, this identification is the (result of a hidden activity of our self-interest based ?) thought. So the root of the 'self' is this ( identitary?) movement of thought. Now, 'death' is the ending of that movement. Or death (permits the?) continuity of that ( self-conscious ?) movement into the next life? You understand?

Dr R : Quite.

K: Now, the 'Arhat', or the 'Liberated man', why should he wait until the end, till he reaches that ( point of no return ?) which is ( commonly) called 'death'? When (and if ?) he realizes that the very root of the 'self' is the movement of thought in time, along with ( its accumulated) conflicts, fears, miseries, confusions, created by thought. . So when ( this 'psychological' movement of ?) thought comes to an end ; that is a form of ( experiencing ) 'death' while living.

Dr R : Yes...

K: Now, how can ( the 'psychological' continuity of ?) thought come to an end? Every human being has ( consciously , or not?) identified himself with something or other, with (the noble search for ?) God, Nirvana, Heaven and so on. Now while living can this (psychological ?) death, which is the ending of ( all the personal attachments of?) thought, take place ( 'now', in the safe inner space of meditation?) rather than at the very end of one's life which then is a 'graveyard' ( or compulsory?) renunciation ?

Dr R: I agree that it is not necessary to wait until the end of your life, and Buddha pointed out the same thing. When this ( personal) question was put to him : What will happen to the Buddha after his death ? He asked the disciple, "What is 'the Buddha'? Is it this body?" And the disciple said, "No". "Then if you can't pin-point ( what is ) the Buddha even now, while he is living, then how can you ( ask what happens to him ?) after death?"  So, this is my ( updated?) question for you : What happens to the person who has realized the truth, who has become liberated ?

K: I would never ask ( someone else to answer ) that question, because he might say this happens, or he might say that happens, or nothing happens . Which ( if I accept his spiritual authority?) becomes a 'theory' to me, which is a (dead?) idea.

R: I wanted from you a little more than (this 'generic' answer ?) .

K: Then, if you want ( to hear ) it from this person, you'll have to enquire as he is enquiring. So, he asks : is it possible to live your life without this (time binding?) identification process which brings about the structure and the nature of the 'self', which is the result of thought? Can this (identification with this 'time-binding' ?) movement of thought end while I am living? That is the ( experiential) question, rather than 'what happens with me when I die'. 

( To Recap:) :) The 'me' ( aka : the 'thinker', the 'observer' or the 'experiencer' ?) is merely a (self-identified ?) movement of thought. And as the thought process itself is very limited, a fragmentary piece in a vast movement of (Universal Existence) whatever it creates will still be limited, broken up, fragmentary. Right? So can a ( holistically minded ?) human being, you, I, or any of us, can we live without ( getting identified with ?) this movement of thought, which is the essence of the 'self' ? Suppose I say, yes, it can be done - what value has it to you?

Dr Schoegel: Well, once this (subliminal ?) identification is really broken ...

K: Ah, not 'broken', but 'end'. When you 'break' something it can continue (in another form ?) . Here (this 'psychological' death ) it is an 'ending'. Now, suppose this ( K) person says, yes, it is possible, then what? What (experiential) value has it to you?

Dr S: That is what personally I hoped we can discuss...

K: I can only start with what is a fact, for me - I suffer, I have fears, I have sexual demands. How am I to deal with all these tremendously complex things which make my life so utterly miserable, unhappy ? So, I start, with something which is (inwardly) common to all of us - this confusion, uncertainty, insecurity, travail, effort - and the root of this is the 'self (centred consciousness) , the 'me'.  Now : is it possible to be free of this 'me' (self-identification ?) which produces all this outer chaos, and also inwardly, this constant ( sense of existential) struggle, constant battle, constant effort? So I am asking, can ( this self-identified process of ?) thought end? That (meditating mind ) which 'ends' ( this self-centred continuity ?) has a totally different beginning. Right sir? So, in what manner ( the virtual continuity of this self-identified ?) thought can end? That's the problem. The Buddha must have talked about it , but I don't think Christianity has ( experientially) touched this point. And somebody like me comes along and says, (making a super-human ) effort (to transcend itself ?) is the very essence of the self.

Dr S: You mean that the very effort that I make to ('end') it, that in itself is already contributing to my delusion?

K: The 'maker of the effort', who has already identified itself with something 'greater', is making an effort to reach its (own projection ?) . It is still within the movement of thought.

Dr S: And it is still a bargaining - if I do this, or if this happens, then I will get that.

K: So ( if this self-transcending effort is out, the next holistic question is : ?) how do you 'listen'?

Dr S: Listen to what ?

K: A person like me says, "effort of any kind only strengthens the (continuity of the ?) self". Now how do you 'receive' or 'listen' to that statement?

Dr S: I am entirely in agreement.

K: No, not agreement, or disagreement. How do you listen to it?

Bohm: You probably mean : do we listen in the same ( self-centred ?) way we have made identifications, that is in general we listen through the past, through our previous ideas, through what we 'know'?

Dr S: One can 'open out' and just listen.

K: Can you listen without the 'idea' (mental attitude of?) of receiving, or accepting, or denying, or arguing, but just 'listen' to a statement? It may be false, it may be true, but just listen to it. Can you do it?

Dr S: I would say 'yes'.

K: Then if you so 'listen', what takes place?

Dr S: Nothing...

K: No, madam, don't say immediately, nothing. I listen to ( the inward truth of ) a statement that ( the self-interest based ?) thinking is the root of the self. How do we listen to the truth of that fact, that thought is the root of the self? Is it perceived as an idea, a conclusion, or as an absolute, irrevocable fact?

Dr R: If you ask me, it is a 'fact' I can see.

K: Aren't you listening to it as a Buddhist (scholar?) - forgive me for putting it that way?

R: I am not identifying with anything at all. I am not listening to you as a Buddhist or a non-Buddhist.

K: Just a minute - aren't you listening as a person who has read a great deal about the Buddha, and what the Buddha has said and who is (surreptitiously ?) comparing - therefore you have gone away from ( purely ?) listening. Are you listening to the words and the implications of those words, or are you listening without any sense of 'verbal comprehension', through which you have gone through quickly, and see the absolute truth of that?

Dr R: That is what I said.

K: Then it is finished. It is like seeing it as something tremendously dangerous, it is over, you don't touch it.

Dr S: Why not touch it?

B: It seems to me there is a ( natural) tendency to listen ( in a self-protective mode?) ?) through the ( rationality of the ) words, while the ('self') identification still goes on (subliminally ?) and one (is honestly ?) thinks one is listening. It is very subtle...

Dr R: In other words, you are using 'listening' in the sense of 'seeing' (the truth or falseness of what is being said?)

K: Sir, I was listening to what you were saying about ( the Noble Truths of the ) Buddha. Just listening. Probably you were quoting correctly and so on, but you are not revealing yourself to me, while here I am revealing myself to you. Therefore we have a relationship through (the mutual appreciation of the wisdom of the ?) Buddha, not a direct relationship.

S: So, what you are looking for is our personal 'experiential' response.

K: Your 'personal' experience is also the experience of everybody else, it is not (really ?) 'personal'. If you and I suffer it is 'suffering', not my suffering and your suffering. But when there is ( a subliminal ?) identification with suffering there is 'my' suffering. And I say, 'I must be free of it'. But as human beings in the world we suffer.

Dr B: It seems to me this question of "identification" is the main one, it is very subtle, since in spite of all that you have said, the ( subliminal continuity of this ?) identification still goes on. It (this sense of 'my' continuity ?) seems to be built into us.

Dr S: And this raises a question whether that identification can be ended - if I understood rightly.

Dr B: Identification prevented listening freely, openly, because one listens through the (safe distance created by this ) identification.

K: What does 'identification' mean? Why do human beings identify themselves with something - 'my' car, 'my' house, my 'wife', 'my' children, 'my' country, 'my' God ? Why?

Dr S: To 'be something', perhaps ?

K: Let's enquire why. Not only identify with outward things, but also inwardly identify with (one's past) experience and say, this is 'my' experience. Why do human beings go through this all the time?

Dr B: At one stage you said we identify (psycho-somatically ?) with our (psycho-somatic) sensations, (with the responses of ?) our senses, and this seems a very powerful (psychological conditioning ?) . What would it be not to identify with our sensations?

K: One would 'attend' so completely that there is only the act of listening and nothing else. When one does listen this way, then one sees directly the the truth that thought is the essence of the self, and that the 'self' creates all (our psychological) misery, it is finished. It is all over when I see the (hidden ?) 'danger' of this thing. So can we listen so completely that there is the absence ( non-ingerence ?) of the 'self'? 

And ( for our everyday homework ?) can we see, observe something directly without the ( usual interference of the ?) self ? "This is my country, I love that sky, it is a beautiful sky" - and all the rest of that ? So this "ending'' of thought, which is the cutting at the very root of the 'self' does happen when there is this active, non-identifying attention - this 'listening' implies listening to the (responses of the ) senses. I mean you can't stop the senses to respond , then you would be (physically) paralysed. But the moment I say, "That was marvellous taste, I must have more of that", there begins the whole ( psycho-somatic?) identification.

Dr B: It seems to me that this is the general condition of mankind, to be identified with the ( activity of the ?) senses. are we going to change that?

K: That is the whole problem sir. Mankind had been conditioned for millenia to identify with everything - my house, my god, my country, my queen, and all that goes on...

Dr B: You see, with each one of those ( identifications) there is a 'personal' sensation.

K: Which you call the 'personal' experience.

Dr R: Can we come back to our initial point ?

K: When the 'self' ends, what takes place?  There is a totally different (perception of the?) world altogether, a different dimension (of consciousness ). Can I, as a ( liberated?) human being, living in this tremendously violent world, economically, socially, morally and all the rest of it, live without the (psychologically protective shield of the ) 'self'? That means I must put everything in its 'right' place. I have to continue to live, to have ( a decent shelter & clothes &) food, but I don't have to identify myself with that (gorgeous Malibu?) house or with that food, I eat the 'right' ( healthy ) food, and it's finished, therefore it has its right place. Also there are all the bodily demands, sex, put them at their 'right' place ( 'Enjoy responsibly'?) shall I find out what is the right place for everything ? I have got the ( experiential) key to it : "non-identification with sensation", that is the 'key' of it. The identification with sensation makes the (psycho-somatic background of the ?) self. So is it possible not to identify with sensations? If I really see the (inward) truth of it then sex, money, everything has its 'right place'.

Dr R: In other words, you can now see without the 'self'.

K: There is this ( holistic ?) truth that the identification with sensation, with this, or that, builds the structure of the 'self'. Is that an absolute, irrevocable, passionate, lasting truth?

Dr B: But... doesn't that means the end of desire for anything ?

K: No, but ( in the holistic context ?) desire has very little meaning.

Dr B: Are you saying ( that thought's) identification gives desire excessive meaning?

K: Of course. So having put everything in its right place – and it happens because I have seen the truth of this thing - everything falls in its right place. Then what is the right place of thought? Obviously when I am talking I am using words, the words are associated with memory and so there is some 'thinking' (required) there - so thought has its place - to catch a train, when I have to go to the dentist, when I go to do something (in the real world) . But it has no place 'psychologically' when there is the identifying process taking place.

N: Are you implying that because there is no thought the identifying process has lost its strength?

K: We said just now, that living with the truth that identification brings about the structure and the nature of the self, which creates all the innumerable problems, seeing the truth, living ( in the spirit of?) that truth, ( even the complex process of ) thought 'falls into its right place'.

Dr B: So, you are saying that identification makes ( the objective capacity of ) thinking do all the wrong things.

K: That's right. ( the self-?) identification has made thought do the 'wrong' things.

Dr B: And it would be all right otherwise ?

K: Otherwise thought has its place.

Dr B: But when you say ''no identification'', you mean that the 'self' has no more ( psychological) content, doesn't it?

K: There are only sensations.

Dr B: Which are just going on by themselves ?

K: Yes, sensations are going on.

Dr B: Outside or inside ?

K: Inside.

N: And you are also implying there is no 'slipping back' (into the self-identified mode ?) .

K: Of course not. When you see something ( a bad habit?) as being most dangerous (inwardly) , you don't 'slip back' , it is "dangerous". 

So (back to our main theme) is this (ending of self-identification the essence of the 'psychological' ) death? And then, is there a ( new quality of ?) living with the senses fully awakened and alive - but non-identifying oneself with ( these?) sensation wipes away the 'self'. And ( for more 'meditation homework'?) is it possible to live a daily life with 'death', which is the ending of the 'self'?

Dr R: Yes. Once you see it, 'Finished !'.

K: ( Providing that ) one 'has' an insight into the whole nature of the self.

Dr B: Would you say this ( total) insight transforms the person? 

K: That (holistic) insight transforms not only the state of the mind but the brain cells themselves undergo a ( qualitative) change.

Dr B: Therefore the brain cells being in a different state behave differently, it is not necessary to repeat the insight.

K: So I am left with this now: I am left with the question of what is ( the spiritual significance of ?) 'death'. Is the ending of the 'self' death? Being (inwardly ) nothing (not-a-thing) ? This 'no-thing'-ness, is quite a different state of mind. And this is (meant by entering the House of?) Death while one is still living, with ( armoniously integrated) sensations and the brain active, undamaged (by time) . 

Therefore there is an (inner state of) 'non identification', complete and total. Is that ( the open Door to Selfless ?) Love? This 'dying while living' is Love in which there is no attachment. When there is this (Selfless?) Love, it is a 'global' (Urbi & Orbi?) Love. Sir, does one ( have this quality of Selfless) love without identification, which implies no self, no attachment?

Dr B: But wouldn't this Love (for All?) come if there were no suffering? You know if mankind were to be free of it... ?

K: Are you saying, a human being must go through suffering to have (this quality of Selfless?) Love?

Dr B: Well, you could say that there could be Love whether there is suffering or not. And the other is compassion, the way the Buddhists use it, is that is only for the suffering.

K: I question that.

Dr R: In the Buddhist doctrine there are four 'Supreme Qualities' - 'Maitri', 'Karuna', 'Mudita', 'Upekkha'. ( 'Maitri' embraces the suffering and the not suffering; 'Karuna' embraces only the suffering, 'Mudita' is directed towards the 'happy people', and 'Upekkha' is equanimity) . These four qualities are called the Brahma Viharas, the supreme, divine qualities. But when you use the word ( Selfless ) 'Love' it is much bigger.

K: No, I haven't come to ( our 'three supreme qualities' ; Love, Intelligence &) Compassion yet, sir. I just want to know as a human being, do I ( feel this selfless?) 'Love' for somebody - the ( local) dog, the chimney, the clouds, that beautiful sky, without identifying (myself with It?) ? Not as a theory but (as an actual) 'fact' (of life) ?

Dr S: As long as I feel (self-conscious?)... I cannot do it.

K: Madam, we said the ( ultimate?) truth is: "the identification breeds the self which causes all the trouble, miseries".

Dr S: But only if this (Universal Truth ?) is seen.

K: I said that (for K?) , it is an absolute, irrevocable reality, it is in my blood, I can't get rid of my blood, it is there.

Dr S: Then... you cannot help but 'Love'.

K: No, no. You are all too quick.

Dr S: I beg your pardon ?

K: Do you see the truth that (personal attachment &?) 'identification' is the root of the self, ( identifying oneself?) with thought and all the rest of it? That is an absolute fact, like seeing a precipice, or a deadly ( but...time-released ?) 'poison' ? There is absolutely no (desire for) identification, when you see the ( inner) "dangers" (implied) . Then what is my (new) relationship to the world, to nature, to my woman, man, child? Is there indifference, callousness, saying "I don't identify" and put your nose in the air?

Dr R: That would be very 'selfish'....

K: Is this what is going to happen if ( your 'seeing' ?) is intellectual.

Dr R: That is what I meant : you would be even more 'selfish' you have not seen (the truth of it ?) ...

K: I am asking, sir, is this 'non-identification' becoming a (top of the line spiritual) ideal according to which I am going to live and therefore my relationship to the dog, to the wife, to the husband, to the girl, or whatever it is becomes very superficial, casual. It is only when this ( danger of personal ?) identification is absolutely 'cut out' of one's life, there is no ( more mental ) callousness then - because that ( totally insightful perception?) is Real.

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Sun, 25 Jan 2015
Topic: K The essential Texts


(a reader friendly edited K dialogue with Dr Rahula & Friends) )

K: Sir, your question was, if there is ( a continuity of ?) life after death ?

Dr Rahula : You see, I wanted to put you this question because all religions accept a life after death. However, Buddhism does not accept the idea that the 'self', or the 'soul', is something permanent, eternal, everlasting, unchanging. Buddhism states that man is composed of five 'aggregates' ( Form, Sensation, Perception, Mental Formation & Consciousness - and they are governed by the principle of impermanence. Therefore each of the aggregates is undergoing constant changes) and what we commonly call 'death' is only the non-functioning of the (physical) body. But this does not mean the non-functioning of all other qualities and forces, like 'desire', the "will to become", and all that. So ( the redeeming opportunity of?) 'rebirth' is there for him, because he is not perfect. But it is not one unchanging substance that goes on, but as Buddha says, every moment we are dead and reborn. So in Buddhism we use now the term 'rebirth'. The question is asked very often in Buddhism: is it the same person ( being reborn) or another one? The traditional Buddhist answer is, "neither he nor another". That is, as a child grows up to be a man of fifty, he is neither the same child nor another one. In the same way, it is 'neither he nor another'. That is the Buddhist attitude to rebirth. Now I would like to know what is your attitude and what is your interpretation?

K: Sir, could we take a journey investigating into this together ? (For starters?) Would you say that ( the shared consciousness of?) all humanity is (presently) caught in sorrow, conflict, strife, loneliness, unhappiness, confussion; that is the common lot of all men, throughout the world? (In short) "You 'are' the world and the world 'is' you" ?

R: Yes. In a sense...

K: Not 'in a sense'. It is not 'partially so' , it 'is so'. Outwardly one's culture, one's tradition, one's climate, food, all that may vary. But inwardly we have the same feeling of ( existential ?) anxiety, loneliness, various forms of depression, sorrow and fear, this is (the shared substrate of 'ignorance' ? ) in the consciousness of all human beings. So all the human beings throughout the world are (inwardly) more or less similar, apart from their physical 'name' and 'form'. Would you agree?

R: Yes...

K: So one can say, as an ( inwardly perceivable?) fact, that we human beings are alike : you 'are' me and I 'am' you.

R: Yes, we are inwardly very similar.

K: And so the 'world', the (shared consciousness of ?) humanity is one. Would you agree?

F: ( The consciousness of ) Humanity is one.

K: So, if you see ( the inner truth of ?) that, then...'what' is it that dies? The 'name' & the (physical) 'form' (certainly) , but the anxiety, the pain, the sorrow, the misery does it also die ? If this is the Stream ( of Time ) in which man lives, psychologically, then what is it that dies? The form and the name may die but this vast stream (of human consciousness ?) is going on all the time. It's (like) a Great River. Let's discuss it.

M: Sir, are you saying that ( as long as we are part of that ?) stream , the whole notion of our 'individual' consciousness is a complete illusion?

K: I think so.

M: Then, why everyone has this ( very real sense of his/her isolated individuality ?) ?.

K: Because this whole 'idea' that ''you are an individual'' is part of our culture, both religiously and worldly. (And also because ?) the word 'individual' is really misapplied, because 'in-dividual' literally means "one who is indivisible". But we're all (inwardly ?) 'broken up' . So we can hardly call ourselves 'individuals'.

F: You mean that we are (inwardly) 'fragmented' ?

K: We are fragmented ( self-centred & ) broken up. So if we see that man's consciousness 'is' ( actually) the consciousness of the world , in that vast "River (of Time?) " which has no beginning, which is still going on, when I die, what happens to all my ( unfulfilled expectations &?) desires, what happens to all my (personal) anxieties, fears, longings, aspirations, the enormous burden of sorrow which I have (unknowingly) carried for years - what happens to all that?

F: It 'co-mingles' with the world's Stream ?

K: It 'is' part of that stream - which has manifested itself as 'K' , with his (personal name and ?) form. Sir, this is a very 'drastic' (statement ?) compared to all the (promises of ) religions.

R: Now this was exactly my question: in that stream there is 'X'...

K: Wait! There is no ( personal consciousness of ?) 'X'. That's my whole point. There is only that Stream (of Mankind's Evolution in Time ?) - made up of ( high hopes and ?) desires, ( of depressing?) anxieties and loneliness, and all the 'travail' of mankind. That is the River.

F: As well as their ( positive?) 'opposites' ?

K: My (joys &) pleasures, which last for a few days, and then I cry if I can't get them, so it's all part of that vast River (of Time) .

F: Would you say, sir, that that which we naw call the 'individual' (mind) is a misnomer ?

K: Not only a 'misnomer', but I don't think it (really?) exists: because ( at the deeper levels ?) your consciousness is like everybody else's.

M: Is there nothing else apart from that ( Collective Stream) in the human consciousness ?

K: In that Stream, man has invented 'gods', 'saviours', all that - they are all part of that Stream.

M: But apart from the invention, the illusions, isn't there any other 'something'?

K: You mean, is there anything 'spiritual', anything that is not of ( the Stream of thought & ) time ?  . Is that what you're asking?

M: Yes, whether in the human mind, or consciousness there is not something (else) that is not of the Stream ? I'm asking if there's something else in man's consciousness except this River (of thought & Time) .

K: Nothing. No 'atman', no 'soul', no-thing. Don't accept it , please.

M: If that were so, there would be no (possibility to ) end to the Stream...

R: What Mary (Z) just said, is a very important point to consider...

K: Yes. We'll answer presently (about) the ( consciousness of the ?) man who 'steps out' ... But in considering ( the psychological aspects of?) 'death', I want this point to be clear : that ( until further notice?) we 'are' part of that Stream, that our consciousness 'is' of that Stream.

F: Yes, that is so...

K: And when the body dies, the desires, the anxieties, the tragedies and the (compounded ?) misery goes on : I die (physically) but that Stream, that River (of Time ?) is going on. I don't see how you can reject it... So ( back to the 'personal' issue :) this River (of Time) manifests itself as 'K'. 

R: Not the whole river, though... One of its manifestations is 'K'.

K: The river manifests itself as K. And K has certain (personal gifts &) capacities by ( his brahmanic ?) tradition, by education and so on, but we're talking 'psychologically'.

R: I agree that for the whole humanity without exception, all ( the deeper stuff?) you describe as 'suffering' and all the rest , are common to all humanity.

K: We are ( personalised manifestations of ?) of that Stream. I 'am' the representative of all mankind.

R: Well, I don't know about that...

N: (At least potentially?) all the qualities of the Stream are in me.

K: : Yes, that's right. All the qualities of that Stream.

N: In the sense that ( qualitatively) any 'drop' contains all the qualities of the River.

M: Would it be helpful to use the example of a 'wave' ? A wave is no different from the rest of the ocean. But it manifests momentarily as a 'wave' which then disappears.

K: If you like to put it that (metaphorical) way... But ( responsibility -wise) this point must be clear. Each one of us is (consciously or...not?) the representative of all mankind, the representative of the whole of that Stream. Now, that stream manifests itself as 'X', with a (physical) form and a name, and also in this Stream ( of our Collective Consciousness?) there is also 'art', every thing is in there.

Now, as long as one ( individualised?) 'manifestation' of that Stream leaves the Stream , he is completely free of that Stream.

R: So if you leave the River ( of collective Thought & Time?) , then you leave the whole humanity, then all humanity is away.

K: That Stream has manifested in X and if in ( the time-span of ?) that manifestation, X doesn't (care to ?) free himself completely from ( the man-made 'qualities' of ?) this stream, (at his death ?) he's back in it.

M: But, sir, this is what my earlier question referred to : what else 'is' there ( in the human consciousness?) ? And you said there was 'nothing' apart from the Stream...

K: I haven't yet explained it (properly?) . So, if that A doesn't 'step out' of that Stream, there is no ( true Hope for the ?) salvation for mankind.

M: Sir, what is there ( in 'A' s total consciousness that allows him ?) to 'step out'?

K: Finish with your ( time-binding attachments ?) anxieties, sorrow, all the rest of it.

M: But you said there was nothing ( else in that consciousness ?) except the 'content' of the stream.

K: ( Correction: ?) As long as 'I' remain in the stream.

M: What is this 'I'?

K: 'I' is the 'thing' that has manifested itself as 'A', and (s)he calls himself 'individual', which is not factual, which is illusory. So when 'A' dies, his ( "personalised" consciousness is still going on as?) part of that Stream. That's clear ?

M: Yes, but how can the ( drop of ?) water of the Stream 'step out' of the stream?

K: Oh, yes (it can, given enough energy ?)

P: So there is some logical error in your...

K: Is that 'so' or not ? Aren't you the 'representative' of whole of mankind, psychologically?

R: Yes, but I think that is both too general and too vague a statement.

K: No, ( responsibility -wise ?) it's not 'vague'. The 'Stream (of Time') is this ( karmic ?) 'content' of our consciousness, which is agony, pain, desire, strife, all that.

R: That is common to all. In that sense, all humanity is one. But I can't accept your position, that I 'am' humanity.

K: If I accept ( the inner reality of ?) that Stream, that I'm part of that stream, therefore I am like the rest of humanity.

R: 'Like' the rest...

K: I said that, therefore a 'representative' of all of that Stream.

R: That also I accept. But you can't say "I am the whole stream".

K: No, I 'am' that stream.

M: Sir, maybe we're being too literal, but what is 'that' that can (step out and ?) individualise itself from the Stream if it is only made up of the water of the stream?

R: Her point is this. What is it that 'steps out' of the river. That is the question.

K: If that is the question, I'll answer it presently. You see, in asking this question, "what is it that steps out ?", you're positing an 'Otherness', something which is not of the Stream. And I've said that as long as (a responsible ?) man does not step out of that Stream, there is no salvation to mankind. That's all.

F: Sir, I think the question which the lady (M) asked implies an identifiable (spiritual) entity.

M: A 'something' (of purely spiritual essence?) ?

K: I know what you're trying to say.

N: Some (dormant ?) aspect of 'intelligence'....

M: 'Something' that can step out of the Stream.

K: Yes, is there some (innate ?) aspect of ( wisdom or?) Intelligence in the stream?

N: Yes, which sees the...

K: Which sees the (whole situation ) ... yes, and therefore steps out?

N: Sees the futility of ( endlessly drifting within that Karmic ?) Stream.

K: Yes...

M: So then this quality is (innate in the consciousness of ) all the other human things, something that is able to separate (individualise ?) itself from all the rest of the stream.

K: Why do you (have to ?) introduce some other factor?

R: According to Buddha's teaching, in that Stream there is also (a non-personal quality of ?) 'wisdom' which 'sees' the (existential tragedy of the?) whole thing. And then is that 'stepping out', that 'seeing' is the stepping out.

K: A is of that stream, with a name and a form. And as he lives he realizes what he's going through. Right? In that realization he says, "I'm suffering." Then he begins to enquire into the whole nature of his suffering, and 'ends' that suffering. And he is out of that stream. That ( spiritually reborn ?) 'entity' is really unique, who is out of that stream.

S: So it's something (new awakened ?) that wasn't there before ?

K:(Recap ?) That Stream ( Of Time) has manifested itself in 'A'. As 'A' is living (responsibly?) , he realizes he's suffering (or...the Noble Truth of Suffering?) , and he doesn't ( attempt to ) escape from it, because he wants to know the whole nature of it, what is behind that suffering. So he examines it, both logically, sanely and also non-verbally. Looks into it. And the very 'looking into it' is (coming?) the insight. It is not of the Stream, the looking into the suffering.

R: That 'looking in', from where does it come?

K: He's concerned, he's questioning the whole beastly thing: Why is there suffering? In the very enquiry of it ( Clue : the integrity of his enquiry depends on your resilient capacity of not 'escaping' and all the rest of it - in the very enquiry into the nature of suffering and the cause and effect of it and so on, in that very enquiry comes ( a Flash of Divine ?) Insight. Insight isn't in the Stream.

R: Then where does that (Flash of ?) "insight" come from?

K: As 'A' begins to enquire, he realizes (that an authentic ?) enquiry can only exist when there's complete freedom from all escapes ; so in that moment of ( holistic) enquiry there is ( a Divine Spark of ?) Insight.

N: You're implying that (spark of) 'Insight' is just being born, which is not of the stream ?

K: Don't introduce 'born', 'not of the stream'...

N: Then, where does it come from this insight?

K: I'm telling you. From the freedom to enquire.

N: Where does that 'freedom to enquire' come from?

K: From his own examination. He realises that that as long as he's not free from the blockages ( and the usual energy wastage ?) that prevents exploration, and thereforeas he ( wisely ?) puts them aside, he's now free to enquire. And in that freedom is (occurring the Flash of?) Insight.

P: There is missing a 'link' here.

K: There may be ten ( steps missing ?).... Let's follow it step by step : A is the manifestation of that stream. Part of ( one's safe living within ?) that Stream is suffering. A is suffering, so A says, "Why, should I suffer?" Man has given a dozen explanations, but the man who is (fully immersed in?) suffering says, " I reject all that, because that doesn't leave me the freedom to enquire.

F: So, the traditional (introspective) enquiry...

K: part of the stream.

F: How about the 'free enquiry' ?

K: A realizes he can only explore (efficiently?) if he's (inwardly) free to look : free from fear, free from reward and punishment, free from any kind of (personal) motive. The moment he's in that ( holistic ?) state of examination, there is ( a Divine Spark of ?) Insight. This is (logically ?) very clear...

F: And of course ( experientially it is ?) very difficult to do.

K: Because we have never given all our energy to this. We don't care, we have put up with so many things... Suppose that 'B' is part of that stream, and he also suffers, but he says, "Yes, but that's the human nature, there is no way out, I'll put up with it." So he is contributing to the Stream. So we come to the (critical?) point: what is death?

R: So, A is out of the river ?

K: No, sir. A is not out of the river.

R: But he has seen, he has some insight ?

K: He has insight. The moment A is (becoming responsibly ) aware of his conditioned state and begins to enquire into it, he has got the energy to put aside ( the conditioned content?)

F: Tthe Buddha himself said, "Put aside with the right wisdom all (your attachments to ) shape and form, all sensation, all perceptions, even to your discriminative consciousness itself."

R: That's what I say. Put it aside with 'right wisdom', but he (K's 'absolute' approach ?) is making it look so complicated.

K: We're all making it complicated, it is actually very simple : A doesn't accept any (spiritual) authority. So in his enquiry into sorrow, A rejects everything that anybody else had said on this subject. Sir, the printed word or the hearsay, to a 'hungry' man has no meaning. The food is not cooked by anybody, I have to cook it, eat it.

So, what is the state of the mind of the human being who has had an insight into the whole nature of suffering, and therefore into the whole Stream (of Time) ? What is the nature of that mind? Is not ( the newly awakened ?) Intelligence essentially part of Love and Compassion ? What do you say, sir? The 'love' in the stream is not Love.

R: Agreed, as long as there is the 'me' there is no Love.

K: You see, sir, are we discussing intellectually all this? Or realizing, seeing that this Stream ( of Time ?) 'is' you, and say, "Look, examine, end it ?"  The immediacy (of this 'ending of Time' ) only takes place when there is Insight.

See, sir, what is Immortality? We have related immortality as something beyond death - mortal and the beyond mortality, beyond death. No?

F: That's the usual conception. But... what happened to our initial question?

K: About death and rebirth?

R: Yes, what happened there ?

K: I've told you. "Rebirth" is in this constant Stream (of Time) , which constantly manifesting itself into A, B, C, down the alphabet.

SS: Are you also suggesting therefore death is part of that Stream?

K: You see, sir, to find out what 'death' is, one has to be with death. That means, to end one's (personal ?) attachments and beliefs, end to everything that one has ( psychologically ?) collected . You see, the man who has gone through this, he doesn't think even in "Streams", it's something entirely different.

M: It's the action of the insight, is it not?

K: Yes, the action of insight. Action of insight, and you cannot have (free access to ?) insight if there is no ( Selfless) Love, Compassion & intelligence. And only then there is a relationship to Truth.

So have we answered the question? Is there a 'reincarnation', a continuation of the 'me' in different forms? I say, no!

R: Of course not, of course not. First of all there is no 'me' to be reborn.

K: No, sir, (it is ?) the Stream that 'manifests' (incarnates itself ?) and then B says, "I am ", therefore I'm frightened to die. But as long as B lives in that stream, his consciousness is part of that stream, he's only contributing more and more to the volume of that 'water'. So there is no (individually integrated ?) 'me' to continue. Sir, nobody will ( readily ?) accept this, but it's the truth.

F: You would agree then, that what is necessary is to see in this profound (way ?) …

K: Yes, ( the insightful ?) 'seeing' is that.

F: ... and that 'truly seeing' is the real creative action.

K: (The 'insightful' seeing ?) 'is' action, the moment I see, I drop anxiety. The moment I see I'm 'petty-minded', it's finished.

F: It is a complete transformation of the ordinary psychical process.

K: Yes.

M: Isn't it really the place where most people 'go wrong', that they do not 'see' in the sense you're talking about; they see verbally, intellectually, on various levels, but they don't really 'see' ?

K: I think mostly they don't mind being ( comfortably self-centred and ?) sorrowful, they say well why not? One doesn't see one's own petty reactions.

M: Or they don't 'see' that 'they don't see' They don't realize that what they think is understanding is not (what they think it is) .

K: But Maria, has one dropped any opinion that one holds? One's prejudices, completely? Or one's (personal ?) experience?

So if 'A' is no longer (part) of the Stream, his (time-free) Consciousness is entirely different. It is a different dimension altogether. Let's put it round the other way: Goodness has been always part of (the total Consciousness of ?) Mankind – as has been its 'badness' . (So, why ?) not contribute to the ( Reservoir of ) Goodness (rather than) to the other...

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Fri, 06 Mar 2015
Topic: K The essential Texts


The redundancy of verbal knowledge when dealing holistically with the internal dynamic of the human psyche

K: Most minds are weighed down with (second hand?) knowledge. Can such a mind perceive what is truth? Or must it be free from ( the field of) knowledge?

R: I think that in life, most of the things are useful at the beginning, for instance, as young children at school we can't write without rules, but today I can't write on ruled paper. But at that stage...

K: I agree that when you are at school, college and university, you need ( guidelines?) but (in the area of self-knowing?) does not the beginning matter enormously ? Does the freedom ( from the known?) exist (only) at the end or ( it should be there from the very?) the beginning?

R: There are two terms in Buddhism with regard to the (those following the spiritual) way: all those people who are on the way , but have not yet arrived, may need disciplines, precepts. But an 'Arhat' who has realized the truth has no ( need for these ) disciplines because he is beyond that.

K: You are talking about knowledge being useful or necessary, as a 'boat' to cross the River. Which means accepting ( the concept of a spirirual) evolution (in time) , advancing gradually, and ultimately reaching Truth.

R: What do you think?

K: What do I think? No.

Dr Schloegel: I am very much with you, I can't believe (that it works this way)

K: We must go into it very carefully because the whole tradition, both Buddhist, Hindu and Christian, all the religious and non-religious attitudes are caught up in ( the mentality of time) : 'I will become better, I will be good, I will eventually blossom in goodness'. I am saying in that there is ( a seed of ?) untruth in it.

S: I entirely agree, for the very good reason that ever since human beings have existed as far as we know, we all knew that 'we should (try to) be good'. If it would be possible to progress (along this line) we would not be the human beings that we are nowadays. We would all have progressed sufficiently.

K: We have progressed technologically, scientifically, medically and all the rest of it, but inwardly, we have not - we are what we were ten thousand years ago, or more (but in a more sophisticated way?) .

S: And having evolved so many systems of 'how to do it' has not managed to help us to become precisely that. As I see it there is a specific (hidden) obstacle in all of us, since most of us want to be good but most of us do not bring it off .

K: Biologically there is evolution. But we have transferred that biological fact into our 'psychological' existence, thinking that ( inwardly) 'psychologically' we will also evolve (or improve?) .

R: But I don't think that is the ( Buddhist) attitude. That realization of truth, attainment of truth, or seeing the truth, is without a plan, is without a scheme.

K: Is 'out of time' ?

R: Out of time. Exactly.

K: Therefore why should I ( bother to) accumulate (academic?) knowledge (in this area ) ? Is it because my brain , which has evolved for millenia, (assumes that ) acquiring knowledge (about its inner workings?) will reveal the extraordinary truth ?

R: Yes, but how can you 'undo' all that if you are ( already) conditioned ?

K: Let's go into it a little more. But is it a fact, or we have just assumed that inwardly truth will take place if I prepare the (psychological) 'ground' ?

R: The realization of Truth is a 'revolution', not an evolution.

K: So inwardly can there be (such a ) a 'revolution'?

R: Yes. Certainly.

K: Which means what? No time.

R: There is no time in it. But am I asking you : how do you proceed ?

K: Proceed with what?

R: With that 'Realization of Truth', how do you do it?

K: Ah, that's quite a different matter...

R: What I was saying is that we are ( presently) 'conditioned' (by our knowledge) . Nobody can tell us ( how to get free of ) that, however much they try. So the ( first step of your inner) 'revolution' is to see that you are conditioned. The moment you see that it has no time, it is an entire revolution ( which is set going) and that is the Truth.

K: But suppose one 'is' conditioned ( to think within ?) the evolutionary pattern : 'I have been, I am, I shall be'. That is our whole attitude, psychological structure of our being. This is an everyday fact.

R: ( In Buddhism) there is no question of 'trying to be good'.

K: But sir but average human being says, "I am not as good as I should be, but give me a couple of weeks, or a couple of years - and I will be awfully good".

R: Certainly that is the attitude of the people.

K: Practically everybody. That is our ( cultural) 'conditioning' ( the collective mentality?) - the Christian, the Buddhist, the whole world is conditioned by this idea, which may have come from the biological idea of progress moved (or transfered) into the 'psychological' field.  So, how is a ( serious) human being, to 'break through' this pattern without time?

R: Only by ( an insightful) 'seeing'.

K: You say it is only by seeing, but ... I can't 'see'.

R: Then you can't (make it)...

S: For me personally as a Westerner, as a one-time scientist, I have found the most satisfactory answer in the Buddhist teaching that 'I' blind myself, 'I' am my own ( perceptive) obstacle, as long as 'I', with all my (pro-active) bundle of ( personal & collective?) conditioning, am here, one cannot see and act.

N: There seems to be one ( extra ) difficulty in this. Knowledge has a certain fascination, a certain power - knowledge, whether it is Buddhist, or scientific, gives you a peculiar inner sense of freedom  and you value it, even if it hasn't got the quality of what you might call 'truth'. The ( hidden) difficulty with all ( these spiritual) practices seems to be that when you practice you feel that you achieve something; and that feeling of 'achievement' has got a certain power, a certain fascination and maybe a certain ( sense of inner) clarity.

R: By that you get 'attached' to it.

N: Yes. And to 'break away' from it is much more ( disturbing?) than for a ( total) beginner, who may see something more directly.

R: That depends on the individual. You can't generalize.

K: One can generalize as a 'principle'. But let's come back to being inwardly 'attached' to in this idea of ( our spiritual ) progress. One might have transferred ( the evolutionary attitude) to our psychological existence. Now is that the truth ?

R: I don't think it is the truth.

K: Therefore I abandon the whole idea of ( following a spiritual ?) discipline. When a ( spiritually minded) human being sees the falseness of it, actually not theoretically, then it is finished.

R: Absolutely.

K: Why should I then acquire knowledge of scriptures, of this or that, inwardly? Why do I read the Buddha?

R: I told you, because we are all ( starting from being) conditioned.

Bohm: Could I ask (you a personal?) question: do you accept that you are conditioned?

R: I accept it. To exist in time is to be conditioned.

B: Well, Krishnaji has said in some of our (private) discussions, that he was not deeply conditioned in the beginning and that therefore he had a certain (clarity) 'insight' that would not be common. Is that fair?

K: Please leave me out of it. I may be a 'biological freak' (a 'psychological' mutant?) ... Back to our (meditative?) inquiry : can we see the truth that ( spiritually) there is no 'movement forward' . Do we as ( holistically responsible) human beings see the falseness of what we have done?

R: You mean, the human beings generally?

K: The whole world.

R: No, they don't see it.

K: Therefore when you are telling them, read what the Buddha said, what Christ said, and so on - they are full of this ( greedy?) accumulative instinct which (they hope) will propel themselves into ( a Starway to?) Heaven.

B: But, is it true that we are all ( 100%) conditioned? That is really what I wanted to say.

R: That is a very complicated question. As far as our society is concerned, all are ( supposed to be culturally standardised or?) conditioned. But we are talking about an (individual ) Realization which has no time, which is unconditioned.

B: We can all accumulate knowledge about our conditioning, we can observe the common human experience, we can look at people and see they are 'generally' (speaking) conditioned. But...can we see in a more 'direct' way that we are all conditioned ?

K: There may be, or there may not be. But how would that help?

B: The point I was trying to make is that if we say « we are all conditioned » then I think there is nothing else to do but some kind of 'disciplined' or 'gradual' approach. That is, you begin with ( the reality of?) your conditioning.

K: Not necessarily...

B : That's the way I take from the assumption that if we begin all ( by being 100%) conditioned, then how can we be free of the conditioning as we do whatever we do?

R: The freedom from conditioning is to 'see'.

B: Well, the same question, how do we 'see' (as long as we are conditioned) ?

R: Of course, many people have tried various ways...

K: No, no, there are not 'various ways'. The moment you say '( there is?) a way', you have already 'conditioned' him.

R: Then you are also 'conditioning' ( people) by your talks, your lectures are also conditioning. Trying to uncondition the mind is also ( havong the risk of ) conditioning it ( in a different way?) .

K: I question whether what K is talking about 'conditions' the mind. I doubt it, I question it.

R: So, the ( experiential) question is how to 'see' it...

K: There is no 'how'. Do I, as a (holistically responsible) 'human being', see the falseness the step human beings have taken, moving from the 'biological' to the 'psychological' field , with the same ( evolutionary?) mentality? There is ( an obvious) progress, from the (discovery of the ?) wheel to the jet engine . But (inwardly?) do I see the 'mischief' that human beings have created, moving ( with the same mentality?) from there to this?

R: Yes...

K: Do I see it (here & now?) as I see this table? Or I say, "Yes, I accept the idea of it," and moving further away from ( dealing with the actual) the facts.

R: Yes. I guess that human beings (got stuck?) in that.

K: Sir, it is seen as a fact that we have (transfered?) that mentality (of our limitless material progress?), into the psychological field and create there a 'false' movement?

S: Don't we all want to 'become' something (better than what we are now) ?

K: Which is, you want a sense of (personal) achievement.

S: So, it is all in the 'wanting'...

K: So why doesn't a human being see what s/he has actually done ?

S: I may not like to see it. I fear it.

K: Therefore you are ( inwardly?) living in an illusion.

S: I want to be (inwardly) 'something else' than what I am actually afraid to see (now). This is where the divide is.

K: No, madam. when you see what ( is wrong with what?) you have done ( by avoiding to see it?) there is no fear.

S: But I usually do not 'see' it.

K: Why don't you see it?

S: I suspect, because of fear (of opening Pandora's Box?)  ?

K: You are entering into quite a different field, (of our unconscious) fears. But I would just like to know as an (academical ?) enquiry, why human beings have played this game for millenia. Why this living in this false ( yet... very safe?) structure ( of the known?) , and then the people come along and say, be unselfish, be this and all the rest of it – why?

S: Could it be that all human beings have a very strong irrational side ?

K: Because ( inwardly) we are not living with ( a direct perception of the?) 'facts' but with ( a mental 'firewall' of ?) ideas and knowledge. The actual 'fact' is that biologically there is (an evolution ?), but psychologically there isn't. And so ( in ignoring it?) we give ( a disproportionate ) importance to knowledge, ideas, theories, philosophy, and all the rest of it.

R: You don't see at all a certain development, an evolution, even 'psychologically'? A man who has been very undesirable, criminal, telling lies, ( cheating on the stock market?) and all these things - you explain to him certain very fundamental, very elementary things, and ( while staying in prison?) he 'changes' into a better man, now he does not ( need to?) steal, now he does not tell lies...Don't you agree that you can meet a criminal like that, you explain to him what is wrong in the way that he lives, and he realizes what you have said, because of your personal ( noble?) influence, or whatever it be, he transforms himself, he changes himself.

K: I am not sure, sir. You can pacify him, you know, give him a reward and this and that, but the criminally minded man, will he ever listen to any sanity ?

R: I don't know. Until I have more proof I can't say that...

K: I have no proof either, but you can see what is ( generally) happening.

R: What is happening is that we don't know whether any terrorists have been converted into good men. We have no proof.

K: You see that is my whole point . The 'bad' man evolving into the 'good' man.

R: In the conventional sense I can't deny that. A 'bad' man, or a criminal, changing his way of life, and becoming a 'good' man .

K: Yes, we know that, we have dozens of examples ( of 'better ' people after quitting smoking or gambling...?) . But that is not Goodness. Goodness is not born out of 'badness'.

N: We might put it this way. In the conventional level the 'bad' man might become a 'good' man. But I think we carry same that attitude to our inner progress, psychologically. That's one thing we do, the human mind does.

K : May I put it this way: is there really an 'opposite' (to 'what is') 'psychologically' ? Is there an opposite of fear? Is there an opposite of goodness? Is love the opposite of hate?

R: When we talk about 'good' and 'bad' we are talking in the dualistic level. You can't talk about the absolute in terms of good or bad, there is nothing called absolute good, or bad.

K: Is courage the opposite of fear? That is, if fear is non-existent ( can the new condition be called) 'courage'? Or it is something totally different?

S: It is something totally different.

K: Therefore Goodness is never the opposite of 'badness' . The 'freedom' which is ( thought of as?) the ( idealised) opposite of my ( existing) conditioning is not freedom at all. That ( idealised image of?) 'freedom' is born out of my conditioning because I am caught in this prison and I want to be free. It is a ( mental) reaction to the prison, which is not freedom.

R: I don't quite follow you...

K: Sir, is ( the Selfless?) Love the opposite of 'hate'? If it is, then in that 'love', there is (a karmic residue of?) hate, because it is born out of hate, out of the opposite.

R: How?

K: Sir, if someone 'hates' (dislikes?) you but then says I must have 'love' (for this person) , that ( programmed) 'love' is born out of ( the old feeling of dislike or?) hate. So 'that' is the opposite of 'this'. So you ( the ethically minded person?) are already caught in this 'corridor of opposites'. And I question its whole ( validity). We have invented it (for our ethical & moral convenience) , but actually it doesn't exist.

S: Personally I see this channel (of opposites) as a humanizing factor – ecvept that we got caught in it.

K: Oh no, that is not a ( really?) 'humanizing' factor. 'I have been a tribal (territorial?) entity, now I have become a nationalistic entity , and …. ultimately I will be internationalistic - it is the old 'tribalism' going on ( with higher levels of tolerance) .

S: I see some ( moral) progress in the sense I could have laughed when you had broken your leg, nowadays I could not laugh any more.

B: In the sense that we are not as barbaric as we were before. Right?

S: That is what I mean by the 'humanizing factor'.

K: I question whether it is (100%) 'humanizing'.

B: You are saying that this is not a 'genuine' progress. You see, in the past people were far more barbaric generally than they are today, but you're saying that that really doesn't mean very much?

K: We are still 'barbarous'.

B: Yes, but... not as 'barbaric' as in the dark ages

K: Not 'as'...

B: Let's see if we can get it straight. Would you say that our moral & ethical progress is not significant?

K: No. When I say that I am ( inwardly ) better than I was - it has no ( holistic?) meaning.

B: I think you should better clarify this...

K: I see how the (image of the?) 'opposite' is born in everyday life : I am greedy, that's a fact, and if I remain with the fact that now I 'am' that greed, then I can do something about it now. Therefore there is no ( point to project its ) opposite. So then I can then deal ( in real time?) with (my psychological) facts, ( rather than by trying to substitute them?) with 'non-facts'.

R: So... what is your point?

K: My point is, there is no ( need to think in terms of ?) duality even in daily life. It is the ( convenient?) invention of all these philosophers, intellectuals, who say there is the opposite, work for that. The fact is 'I am violent' ( or we have has a psychological heritage of strong self-interest based reactions?) and we can deal with them ( here & now) rather than invent ( 'fake ideals' of?) 'non-violence'.

S: The question now is: how am I going to deal with it (in real time)

K: Then we can proceed, I'll show you.

S: And the question is 'how ?' to proceed.

K: We'll proceed with the (preliminary step one : ) Don't run but remain with the 'fact'. Can you do it?

S: It is part of our (daily Zen Buddhist ) training.

K: Of course you can do it. It is like seeing something (as being) dangerous and you say, "It's dangerous I won't go near it".

R: If you 'see' ( the actual danger) there is no running away from it.

K: I am saying (step one:) Don't run. Then ( step two) you 'see'. So there is no 'duality' as the (cultivation of the?) opposite.

R: So, what is the argument? We agree there are only facts.

K: Which means, sir, to look at 'facts', time is not necessary. And if time is not necessary I can see it now.

R: Yes, agreed.

K: You can see it now. So...why don't you?

R: That is another question.. B: If you take it seriously that 'time' is not necessary (to see the 'facts') then right now one 'could' perhaps clear up the whole thing.

R: Yes, but this does not means all human beings can do it (right away) , there are people who can do it (right now, and some that can do it later...)

K: No. If I can see it, you can see it.

R: I don't think so. Here I don't agree with you.

K: It is not a question of agreement ? When we have 'ideals' ( or redeeming plans?) away from 'facts', then time is necessary to get there : I must have more (self-) knowledge to progress. All that ( time-delaying) comes in. Right? So can you abandon ( your spiritual ) 'ideals'?

R: It is possible.

K: Ah, the moment you use the words 'it is possible' ( but not right now, the postponement of the 'directly perceptive' action in?) 'time' is there. 'Do it now, sir !' - I am not being authoritarian, but when you say 'it is possible' you have already moved away.

R: I mean, not everybody can do it (right here & now) .

K: How do you know?

R: That is a ( statistical?) fact.

K: No, I won't accept that...

S: I can perhaps come in with a more concrete example : If I stand on a high springboard over a swimming pool and I cannot swim, and I am told ''  Just jump in and relax completely, the ( buoyancy ) will carry you (safely to the surface) ''. There is nothing that prevents me except I am frightened of doing it. That is the (same critical) point as in your question : Of course I can 'do it', there is no difficulty, but it is this basic (primal?) fear (of the Unknown?) which does not stand to reason that makes us 'shy away' (and temporise ) .

K: Please forgive me, I am not (yet?) talking of that. If one realizes that one is greedy, why do we invent 'non-greed'?

S: It seems to me pretty obvious that if I am greedy, then... I 'am' greedy.

K: So to deal (directly) with the problem, 'remove' (the interference of the 'known') . I can't have one foot 'there' and one foot 'here'. I must have both my feet 'here'.

S: And then, if both my feet are 'here'? Supposing I see that I am greedy, or violent ?

K: Then I have only this fact, '' I am greedy''. Now ( the next step is;) do we go into that (non-verbally ) ? The very word 'greed' is condemnatory. You cannot understand the depth and the feeling of 'greed' or be free of it if you are caught in words. So as my 'whole being' is concerned with observing the actuality of that greed ( including the observer's 'greed'?) is it the same (quality of?) feeling if the (non-personal) observation is divorced from the word 'greed' ?

S: No, it isn't. Please go on.

K: So as my mind is full of ( culturally loaded ) words and ( the 'observer' entity?) is caught in words, can it look at something, like 'greed', without the ( connotations of the?) word?

R: That is really seeing the 'fact'.

K: Then only I see (directly) the (ongoing) 'fact'.

R: Yes, without the ( screen of?) words.

K: This is where the ( experiential) difficulty lies, sir : I want to be free of ( violent reactions like ) greed because my (moral) education says 'be free of that ugly thing'. So I am all the time making an effort to be free of (or to dissociate myself from?) that (undesirable reaction) . So now I have only the fact : I am greedy. Can I look at it without past remembrances? Then ( as the ' censoring observer' does not interfere?) it is ( seen as ) something 'new' ( not previously known) so I won't condemn it. So ( the first & last perceptive step is:) can one look at it without the word, without the ( mental ) associations of words (and without the 'me-who-knows-best ' ?) That doesn't need constant practice, but just 'look' at that tree, woman, man, sky, heaven, without the word and find out (for myself what Life is all about?) ? 

(By Jove, we have been talking an hour and a half !)

R: There are several other things that I would like to ask you tomorrow morning and afternoon. (to be continued...)

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Sun, 08 Mar 2015
Topic: K The essential Texts



Narayan: I have also got two things to ask Dr Rahula  : the first thing is about the ( meditative) importance of 'shunyata'.

R: From the Buddhist point of view 'shunyata' literally means 'voidness', 'emptiness'.

K: Nothingness ?

R: That is the literal meaning. Ananda who was Buddha's nearest disciple, asked one day, "Sir, it is said (by you that)  the ( total consciousness of the?) world is sunyata, empty'', what does it mean ?" Buddha said, "Ananda, it is without 'self' and anything pertaining to 'self', therefore it is (self-less or?) sunyata". In many other places he told a man, "See the world as 'shunyata' and you are liberated". And that is exactly what Krishnaji says also. There is no 'self', and if you see (the truth of) it, every problem is solved.

N: The relationship between the 'outer' and the 'inner' world .

R: That is exactly what Krishnaji and Dr. Bohm discussed as 'Actuality and Truth' : 'Sunyatasatva' is the conventional (reality ) , that is what we do, talk and eat and all these things ; you can't say that this table is false. But 'Paramatsatva' is the ultimate, absolute truth. But Nairanjana clearly says that ''one who cannot see and does not see the conventional truth is incapable of arriving at the ultimate truth''.  The third question you raised was, about Nirvana and Samsara ('Samsara' is continuity, but 'Nirvana' is never defined in positive terms by the Buddha. Whenever he was asked ( to describe it) he said, ''no, that is not Nirvana''. And once I asked Krishnaji what he thought. Krishnaji paused for a minute and asked me, "What did Buddha say about all this?" I said, « nothing ». You (K) said, « that is correct, that is right ».

K: Now, sir, Dr Rahula) you had better ask your questions too .

R: One question is that in the western thought, 'free will' has played a very important part. But according to Buddhism, such a thing is impossible because all our thinking, all our construction, all our work, all our knowledge is conditioned. Therefore if there is a 'free' will, it is free only in a relative sense and it is not absolute freedom. That is the Buddhist position. That is one question .

K: Let's talk it over, sir. What is the origin, of will? - I will do this, I won't do that' . Is it not desire?

R: It is a desire.

K: Desire heightened, strengthened (or sublimated?) , which we call 'will'.

Bohm: It seems to me that we make that desire 'determined' and it gets 'fixed' there.

K: I desire that, and to achieve that I make a (mental) effort. The motive of that effort is desire. So will is ( a sublimated form of?) desire. Right?

R: It is a form of desire.

K: Now, can desire (even if sublimated?) ever be free?

R: Absolutely (not) . That is what I wanted to hear from you because you ( often) don't like to say this ( plainly) but I want to say it.

K: Desire can never be free. The objects of desire can change: I can desire one year to go to buy this, the next year that, change, but ( the nature of ?) desire is constant, the objects vary. And in the 'strengthening' of desire, ''I 'will' do that'', the ( personal free ?) will is in operation. Will is desire. Now can desire ever be free?

R: No.

K: But we say 'free will' exists because I can go from England to France 'freely'. So this idea of 'free will' is (culturally ?) cultivated with a sense that human beings are free to choose (or do what they want?), but apart from material things, (inwardly) why is there the necessity of ( a personal) 'choice' at all? If I have understood the whole significance of Catholicism, with its rituals, dogmas and I abandon that, why should I (choose to) 'join' something else? When I have investigated this I have investigated all the (organised) religions. So ( in the 'spiritual' area ?) choice must exist only when the mind is ( dull or?) confused. When one's perception is clear there is no ( question of personal) choice. Is that right?

B: But the western philosophers might not agree with you; they say that will is not just desire, and the 'free will' is an action (undertook ) in freedom. Catholic philosophers may say that when Adam 'sinned', he 'willed wrongly', he made a wrong ( existential?) choice and he set us off on this way.

K: You see that is a very 'convenient' way of explaining away everything. First invent ( the myth of?) Adam and Eve, the Serpent and the Apple, and God, and then put everything as the 'primal crime'.

R: Yes, there's a lot of mental creation in that...

B: If one observes more carefully one can see that will is the result of desire. But many people have the impression that will is something entirely different.

K: Yes, that Will ( or God's Will ?) is part of something sacred.

B: That's what many people think.

K: Something derived from a divine Being.

R: According to the 'western' philosophy.

K: But if one puts all that 'theoretical' aspects aside, what is then the action without choice and will? Is there any action which is not 'compounded' with will?

N: Would you say that 'insight' has nothing to do with will?

K: Oh, nothing whatever to do with will, or desire, or memory.

R: Yes. Insight is (the clarity of inner ?) 'seeing' . And in that ( direct) seeing there is no (question of preference or) choice, there is no value judgement. You just 'see' (the whole truth about 'what is') .

N: So 'insight' is not visible to will, nor is it visible to analysis.

R: No.

K: So, we are talking about ( the perceptive?) 'action' in which there is no choice, in which there is no effort as will. Is there such action?

R: There is such an action.

K: You know it? Or is it a theory? One should 'move away' (distance oneself?) from theories, from ideas, from conclusions and find out for oneself the ( living?) truth of that matter: which is, is there an action in which there is no effort of ( one's personal) 'will' at all, and therefore no 'choice'? To find that out one must be very clear of the nature of desire : desire is part of sensation ( a mental extension of the sensory activity ?) and ( the 'psychological' process of?) thought identifies itself with that sensation, and through this 'identification' the 'I' is built up, (a mental entity who ) says, "I must", or "I will not". 

So we are trying to find out ( experientially) if there is an 'action' which is not based on ideals, on desire, on will ( power) ; is there such action? Because most of our actions have a ( personal) motive. I want to build a house, I want ( to marry?) that woman, or 'I' ( my 'self-image'?) was hurt and my motive is to hurt back - so there is always some kind of 'motive' in action, in what we do in our daily life. This (personal) motive is part of the identification process. So if there is a perception of the truth that ( this subliminal process of?) 'identification' builds the (infra)structure of the 'self', then is there an action which doesn't spring from ( our self-centred) thought?

B: Before we go into that -could we ask why there is this 'identification', why is it that this is so prevalent?

K: Why does thought 'identify' ?

B: With sensation and other things. Specially with sensation.

K: Yes. Go on sirs, answer it. Why do you give such importance to sensation? Do you say, I am a 'sensate' being and nothing else?

N: If I have to identify ( myself ) with anything it can only be with sensation.

B: Isn't there a duality in 'identification'? Could we make it clear ?

K: In 'identification', as you point out sir, there is duality (a separation between ?) the 'identifier' and the 'identified'.

B: But aren't we trying to overcome this (real) duality by saying, "I am not different", when you are, or when you feel you aren't.

K: You see I don't want to enter into the ( very slippery?) field of ideologies, theories. I want to find out by talking over together if there is an action in which the 'self' is not (involved ) ? Which means the 'mind' has to find out an action which is not the result of ( previous) causes and effects. So is there such an action?

B: Well, it seems to me we can't find it (experiential) as long as we are ''identifying'.

K: That's right. As long as (the mental self-?) identification exists one can't find the answer.

B: So, why does thought identify? Is it something 'irresistible' or is that just something you can put aside?

K: I don't know if that is 'irresistible', or if it ( if thought itself?) is part of sensation.

B: You think that sensation is behind the (self-identifying process?) ?

K: Perhaps, but let's investigate (analytically?) . Why have 'sensations' become so important in our everyday life - sexual sensations, the sensation of power, whether occult power or political power, economic power, or power of a woman over man, or man over woman, power of influencing the environment - and why has thought yielded to this pressure ( of sensations?) ?

B: Does sensation necessarily produce a 'pressure'?

K: What do we mean by 'sensation'?  The operation of the senses - touching, tasting, seeing, smelling, hearing.

B: The ( direct sensory) experience at that moment ; and also the memory of it.

K: No, the (past) 'memory' is ( interfering?) only when there is an identification with sensation . When there is no identification, the senses are senses. But why does thought identify itself with senses?

B: Are you saying that when the sensation is ( registered, processed and?) remembered then we have identification?

K: Yes.

B: Can you give an example to make that more clear?

K: Take the visual perception of a beautiful (Swiss?) lake, what takes place in that seeing? There is not only the 'optical' seeing but also the other senses are awakened, the smell of the water, the reflexion of the trees on the lake...

B: The other senses start to operate.

K: And the other senses start operating. Why doesn't it stop there?

B: What is the next ( mental ?) step?

K: The next step is when thought comes in (to process and store that stimulating experience ?) - how beautiful that is, I wish I could remain here.

B: So thought 'identifies' with it. It says, " This very beautiful perception is mine".

K: Because in that there is ( the recording of a sensory rewarding?) pleasure. The ( pure) delight of seeing (that Swiss Lake?) , then ( one's self-centred thinking ) coming into operation and saying, "I must have more, we must build a house here, it will be all mine (or ours?) ".

B: Why would thought do all this (redundant thinking?) ?

K: Why does thought 'interfere' with senses - is that it?  The moment when the senses ( fully enjoy ) the picture and stop there, thought doesn't enter. ( This may also happen when the perception ) is something painful thought doesn't want to identify itself with that.

B: But there too it does 'identifies' against it, it says, "I don't want it".

K: Either denies it or moves away from it. But if it is 'pleasurable', when the senses begin to enjoy, then thought begins to identify itself with it.

B: But why?

K: Because of ( the 'high hopes' brought by that ?) pleasure.

B: But why doesn't it give it up when it sees how futile this is?

K: Oh, that's ( coming ?) much later, when ( a 'wiser' ) thought is (becoming) aware that 'identification' breeds both pleasure and fear, then it begins to question.

B: Well, are you saying that thought is making an 'honest mistake' in the beginning ?

K: That's right. Thought has made a ( honest?) mistake in identifying itself with ( the image of ) something that brought it pleasure, or in ( wishfully ) thinking there is pleasure in something.

B: So, thought tries to take over. To make it 'permanent', perhaps ?

K: 'Permanent', that's right, which means ( storing it in the 'personal files' of?) memory. A fine 'remembrance' of that (Swiss ) Lake with the daffodils and the trees and the water and sunlight, and all the rest of it.

B: And even if thought later discovers its mistake, it seems to be too late because it doesn't know how to stop (the 'image making' mechanism)

K: It is now 'conditioned' (got stuck with it?)

B: So why it cannot give it up ?

K: Why it cannot give it up ? That's our whole problem.

B: Can we try to make it more clear ?

K: Let's take a simple example: psychologically one is getting 'hurt'. Why can't one immediately give up (completely forget ?) that 'hurt', knowing that (carrying over the painful memory of that?) hurt is going to create a great deal of (colateral?) damage - like building a ( mental fire-)wall round 'myself' in order to not be hurt more, ( with which comes ?) fear, self- isolation, and a string of neurotic actions that follows. 

And why doesn't thought (or...'the thinking brain'?) just say, " By Jove, I have seen this !", and drop it (that whole image making mechanism?) immediately? Simply because when it drops the ( personal) 'image' there is 'nothing' left.

B: So, we have another ingredient here : thought wants to hold on to the memory of that ( self rewarding) ) image.

K: Hold on to the ( many personal ?) memories which have created the 'self'

B: And which thought feels they are very 'precious'.

K: Yes, they are very precious, nostalgic and all the rest of it.

B: So somehow it assigns a very high value to all that. How did it come to do that?

K: Why has it made the ( self-) image so valuable ? Why has the ( personal) image become so important which thought has created?

B: I would say that in the beginning it was an (honest) mistake, and thought made an image of pleasure and it seemed to become very important, precious, and ( later on) was unable to give it up.

K: Sir, if ( our self-interest based ) thought gives up ( its ages old pursuit of?) 'pleasure', what is there left?

B: It would return to the (innocent) state ( it had ) in the beginning (in the early childhood?) when there was nothing (to identify with ) .

K: Ah, that is the 'pristine' state.

B: But now it seems unable to return to that state.

K: It can't because thought ( has its own dynamic ?) - you know, all the rest of it.

B: And thought thinks that in giving up a 'pleasure' which has become very precious, the simple thought of that is 'painful'.

K: Yes, 'giving it up' is ( felt as potentially ?) painful.

B: And therefore thought runs away from that.

K: Yes, so it clings to that pleasure, until there a better pleasure (comes up) .

B: But that's no change. So thought seems to have constantly fallen into this (psychological 'trap' created quite naturally by ) innocently remembering yesterday's pleasure, and then gradually making it important and then.... it becomes too painful to give it up. Because any change resulting from the immediate removal of a pleasure is resented as (personally ) painful.

K: Because then it has nothing ( left to look forward?) afterwards, and it is getting frightened (just by thinking of that alternative?) .

B: But you see in the beginning ( as a young child) it was not frightened to have nothing else. Now it is.

K: Yes, In the beginning, that means the beginning of man. Can we question even that? Beginning of the ape.

B: Yes, if we go far enough back, thought has built this ( mental) trap which has gradually got worse.

K: Sir, could we say as the human brain is very old - all out brains are very old – and merely tracing it back further and further and further in time , you can never find out (the original 'faux pas') . But I can say : my brain is now as it is, which is (subliminally) conditioned ( to think ) in terms of pleasure and pain (and of its temporal continuity?) .

B: They say the 'old brain' is also the emotional product of the brain.

K: Of course, emotional and all the rest of it, sensory. So where are we now?

B: Well, we say this brain has conditioned itself by continually (recycling the ) memory of its image of pleasure, along with the 'unpleasantness' of giving it up and the fear.

K: So it clings to what it 'knows'.

B: Which it knows and which is very precious to it.

K: But it doesn't ( want to ) know that this is ( eventually) going to breed ( a residual sorrow and?) fear.

B: Well, even when it 'knows it', it still clings...

K: would rather 'run away' from ( the collateral pains and ?) fears hoping that ( its Long March Forward for safety & ?) pleasure will continue.

B: Although eventually it starts to become 'irrational' because ( this collective drive?) creates pressures which make the brain unable to get this straight.

K: Yes. So (to recap:) we started off, with the question : ''Is there an 'action' in which there is no motive, no cause, the self doesn't enter into it at all?'' Of course there is such a (holistic way of action) when 'self (interest' ) is not (involved) , which means no ( subliminal) process of 'identifying' takes place. There is the perceiving of a beautiful Swiss Lake with all the colours and the (timeless) beauty of it, that's enough. Not 'cultivating' the memory of it, which is developed through the ( self-) identification process. Right?

B: This raises the ( key experiential) question, how are we going to stop this (subliminal process of?) 'identification'?

K: I don't think there is a (preset methodology of ?) 'how'. You see , following that way makes the mind mechanical (repetitive and?) dull, literally incapable of receiving anything new.

Schloegel: If these practices are done (in a spirit of) imitation, this is precisely what happens.

K: Do you remember that famous story of a guru, he had a favourite cat, and he also had many disciples. Every morning before they all started meditation, he caught hold of the cat, put it on his lap, and meditated. And when he died the disciples had to search around for the ( meditating ) cat. You see our minds have been made 'mechanical'. Can't we investigate why we have become mechanical, rather than practice a ( Sudden Awakening) which is 'non-mechanical' ?

S : We are looking at your approach as a possible proposition.

K: I ( would ?) start with myself. I don't have to look for somebody who is ( supposed to be ) « enlightened » because they may deceive themselves (in a very credible way?) . So one must start with 'oneself'.  This approach is so simple, whereas the other leads to so many complications.

S: I do not necessarily see it as a 'complication', because if I do not think that there is a possibile (way out ?) then I might not even try. But If I see that there might be a possibility, this gives me the sense that it is worthwhile trying to work with myself as my own subject of experiment, to work it out.

K: Why do you want a 'motive'?

S: I think it is almost impossible to start without ( having a serious spiritual) 'motivation'.

K: I just want to know myself, not ( necessarily?) because I suffer, but I just want to know what I am, just know about myself. So I begin to enquire, I begin to look into the ( 2-way ?) 'mirror' (of relationship) , which says : ''this is what your ( self-centred?) reactions are and as long as you have these reactions you are going to 'pay heavily' , you are going to suffer''. So how am I to observe myself without a ( 'personal' ?) cause based on reward and/or punishment ) . So can I look at myself (free of?) any ( personal) 'motive'?

S: At this stage (of meditation) where I am 'trying to do it', I may realise that I cannot do it, because I am too conditioned.

K: I wouldn't admit that...

S: But nevertheless I can be able slowly, to have a closer look at those things that normally I do not like to see in myself.

K: I understand that madam. I don't know myself but I will gradually learn about myself.

S: In the very looking into my suffering there is a 'changing factor' - which in the end makes it possible. And if it is continued in that spirit, with that attitude, then there is a sudden change which is possible...

K: Madam, either you have ( the inner clarity of  ?) insight immediately, or you don't have it. There is no 'preparation', that means time, which means cultivating ( or upgrading?) the (self-) identification, the 'me'.

S: Not necessarily. But if I do it for something that I want to gain out of it, then it is certainly a cultivation of the self.

K: Madam, ( the perceptive clarity of?) insight is timeless, it is not a thing to be cultivated by thought. So to have an insight into oneself instantly, not by degrees. Is that possible?

S: Yes. I would say with my own conviction and experience, yes.

K: So, if you have (such) an insight, that insight wipes away the 'self'-(identification) , not ( just) 'momentarily'.  So would you say its action then is without motive?

R: If you have such an 'insight', all your actions are without motive.

K: Are we talking theoretically or actually?

R: Actually.

K: That means your action is correct, accurate, right through your life ?

S: May I make one point clear - it is not that 'I' have the insight, that is not possible. There is that 'insight'. It is not as if 'I' had it.

K: If I say that "I'' have an insight... I (could be?) a little bit mentally deranged. 

R: Now I have another question dealing with Intelligence : there is this theory, that we 'think in a language'. ( Our universal capacity of?) thought has no language, but the thought is immediately interpreted into the nearest language.

K: Sir, could you convey your thoughts to me without the word?

R: That depends on the level. But even without talking, without words, there is a certain qualty of communication.

K: That is, sir, there can only be communion, when you and I are on the same level, and with the same intensity, at the same time. Then words are not necessary. Wouldn't you call that ( Selfless) 'Love'? When that quality of Love exists, words become unnecessary. There is instant communication. 

But for most of us ( the cultural meanings of the?) language 'drives' us, pushes us, shapes us. But if we use words without the ( 'cultural ' connotations of the?) language, words then have an entirely different meaning.

B: I think that ordinarily we are identified with our language and therefore it is driving us, but if we are free of identification...

K: That's right, sir, It is extraordinary how language has made us. I am a ( defining myself as a?) 'communist'.

B: That's a (self-) 'identification' right there But do you think that language is the major source of identification?

K: One of them.

B: One of the big ones ?

K: Yes.

R: I would like to remind here of a very important Mahayana Buddhist philosophical attitude. It is said that '' The world is caught up in language  like an elephant in the mud''. So one must obviously go beyond words to see them. Because as long as you are, as you say, driven by language...

K: Are you?

R: Are you asking personally?

K: Yes, are you? Am I or Dr.Bohm he driven by language?

R: That I can't see. You answer it.

K: I can answer for myself, but I am asking you.

R: As you said, you can answer only for yourself. That's enough.

N: I think the more 'scholarly' one becomes, there is a great possibility of being caught in ( the complexities of) language.

R: Yes...

N: Whereas the 'rustic' ( person) might just use it for simple communication.

K: Does the words create the thought, or is thought creating the word?

B: You once asked the same question, but lightly differently « Is there a thought without the word? »

K: That is very interesting, sir, shall we go into it a little bit?

R: If there is thought without words ?

B: That is the question.

R: I think thought has no ( need for using ) words. Thought is ( based on?) images.

B: Agreed, the word can easily be turned into an image, for example, by an artist, a verbal description can be turned by an artist into an image, or vice versa, the image could be described and turned into words. So they have an equivalent content.

K: Sir, what is the Origin of Thought?

R: Is there an 'origin of thought' ?

K: In you sir, what is the origin?

R: No origin.

K: Of course, sir, there must be a beginning of thought.

R: That is a wrong way of looking at it. By assuming everything must have a 'beginning'.

K: With the dogs, with the animals, everything that is living, they all 'think' in various ways, or 'feel', and so on - there must be a beginning of that. What is that ( beginning) in human beings. How did thought begin in myself? What made you think?

R: I would say that it is in(herent) the nature of yourself, thinking. There is no other cause.

K: Oh yes there is. I'll show you.

R: What is that?

K: If I had no memory, would there be 'thinking'?

R: I ask you again, what is the origin of that 'memory'?

K: That's fairly simple to answer. I remember seeing you in Paris - that is recorded, isn't it?

R: That is the generally accepted - an old 18th century theory - that everything is recorded in the brain somewhere.

K: Look, I meet you and ( my thought) says, ''yes, I recognize you''. How does that recognition take place? We have met last year - the brain has recorded that memory of meeting you, learning your name. So that is (stored in my personal ?) memory, and when I meet you next time ''I recognize you''. Right?

R: How does it happen?

K: It is very simple. A ( background process of ?) 'recording' ( & remembering) goes on (independently) - how to drive a car, or whatever it is, it is a careful accumulation of ( experience stored in brain's ) memory, which then acts (responds?) .

R: It is not so clear to me. Let us admit it is recorded, how does that record come up when we meet next year?

K: When I see you. That memory comes up and says, oh, this is Mr. Rahula. And the ( objective ) recording is ( completed with an overall ) 'image' ( file stored previously ) , pleasurable or not pleasurable. So whatever it is (thought of) , there must be (a previous) recording. No?

R: Certainly it is so. But it is not (recorded in a specific part of ?) the brain but in what ( Buddhists) call the the 'mind faculty'.

K: It is the faculty of the brain to record.

R: But it is not (recorded in?) the physical brain. That is my point.

N: You are saying that this 'mental faculty' is spread all over the ( energy field of the ) body, not necessarily in the head?

R: This 'mental faculty' is (like the sixth) sense organ – the eye, ear, nose, tongue and sensory body deals with the external world, material world. And this 'mind faculty ' many aspects, many potentialities; one of them is the memory. 

K: Sir, I meet you today and I see you a week later. There is the process of 'recognition'. All right, that's one part of the ( 'mind') faculty. The other part of the faculty is to think logically, or not logically. So there are several aspects, 'faculties' which are made up in the mind. You cannot have ( this 'temporal') mind without the brain.

R: Yes. Without the physical existence you can't have the ( temporal) mind.

K: That's all. And this 'mind' ( faculty) as long as it is functioning within the 'field of thought' is limited.

B: You mean ( our self-) consciousness' ?

K: Yes, (this ) consciousness is limited.

S: And yet, if I have met you just for a moment, and there was not a sufficient 'impact' of you of that meeting image, I will next week pass you by and not recognize you.

B: That's the ( critical 'recognition' ) point, it has to be recorded with some energy, you see.

S: That is what I meant.

K: All recording must have ( a certain amount of ?) energy.

B: Like, if you don't 'turn on' this microphone, nothing is being recorded on the recording machine.

R: And many things that we casually see and hear we don't 'remember', only those things that leave a certain ( emotional?) impression.

B: I think it is fairly clear how the record could give rise to a recognition in the next experience. The next time you see the person the record is compared with.

R: It 'comes back'. Exactly like the computer.

K: So our brains are 'computers' ?

R: No, why do you only say brain, why not the whole body, whole heart, without heart can you think?

K: No. The 'mind' contains the brain, the feelings, the heart, the whole structure.

B: All the nerve centres.

K: We are using the 'mind' as 'consciousness', which is, I cannot have consciousness if the heart doesn't function.

R: That is why I used the word 'mental faculty' instead of the 'mind', or 'consciousness', the word 'faculty' embracing all that department. The mind has the power, the capacity, the potentiality, to do all that

K: Oh, I see.

B: The ( mind?) faculty is inborn ?

R: Inborn, innate, in itself has the power. And you can't ask 'why' and 'from where'. Say the 'mind' just like our eyes has the power to see.

K: So the mind is the 'active energy' to do all this.

B: Well also our physical structure is all over the body. I think that it is a good analogy to say that the eye has certain possibilities and in this whole body already the infant has the ability to think already built into him because of the heredity.

K: I don't know sir, how we have evolved but I do know the very simple thing which is, without recording there is no thought.

R: That means that thought is ( the response of?) memory ?

K: Of course. Memory, which is experience, which is knowledge, stored up and when it is challenged it operates.

B: Well, but thought is also (including ) the ability to reason logically along with the ( mechanical responses of) memory. All that together is what you have called 'faculties'.

R: Yes, I used that word because it uses a bigger field.

B: But you are saying it still depends on memory ?

K: Of course, a sense of recording is memory.

B: And without memory none of the other faculties could operate ?

K: Of course. So what is the origin, the beginning of this ( mental) conditioning? Why does man condition himself? For security, to avoid danger? The instinctual response of a human being is to feel secure, like a child, sir, obviously. No?

R: How does it come about, that sense of security, the feeling of security, what is the origin of that?

K: The mother and the child, the baby must have a physical security, it must have food at the right times, at the right hour, and all the rest of it. I don't know, not being a baby, but I am sure it feels safe. So, from that physical security we turn to ( building up our ) psychological security, having comfort in some ( personal or collective) illusions. And you have your security in something, I have my security and each one of us clings to our own particular form of ( psychological) security, whether it is reasonable, sane, rational, that doesn't matter.

B: It seems to me that it is similar to the pleasure question, that is you register the feeling of pleasure and then try to build it up.

S: I think it is harder with pleasure because people nowadays can change their religions without too much difficulty, but we are much against giving up our ( hedonistic?) pleasures when it really comes to it.

R: But where are we going with our discussion ?

K: Is there an action which is total, which is complete, total, whole, not partia ?. Which means can I observe myself wholly, not in fragments? So is there an action which is whole? I say, yes, there is, definitely. Don't you ask me, what is that?

R: What is that ( holistic) action ?

K: First of all, can you see the tree as a whole? Can you see your wife, or your husband as a whole entity? Can you see anything totally, or are you always seeing partially (as a safely separated 'observer' ) ?

R: When you use the word 'totally' what is the meaning?

K: Whole. Can I see 'myself' as ( a representative of all?) humanity? Because (total consciousness of?) humanity is like mine - suffering, miserable, confused, agony, terrified, insecure, sorrow-ridden, like another. So in seeing humanity, I see myself.

R: Or rather the other way: by seeing yourself you see humanity.

K: So I see the world as myself, which is a (holistic perception ) . Would that be right sir?

B: Could consider the perception of the tree for a moment. It is not clear when you say « see the tree as a whole. »

K: The whole thing, to see something 'wholly' (observerlessly?) , sir.

B: Just 'see it all' ?

S: This, " seeing as a whole", really it means that the self, or the fallacy of the self, has clearly been seen into and has broken down, because otherwise however much I see the tree as a whole it is still (the action of) my (self-centred) thought.

K: That is the 'ultimate' thing ( for 'advanced' learners ?) . What happens when you can see something wholly?

S: Tremendous warmth ?

K: So, if you (selflessly ) 'love' that tree you will see it 'wholly'.

S: But we have also to be careful what we mean here by 'love'.

K: To keep it very simple, ( the Selfless) Love not ( containing ) possessiveness, acquisitiveness , all the rest of that nonsense, if one 'loves' (selflessly) the whole thing is there, the totality of that man or woman is there. So can I see myself ( holistically or?) wholly - 'myself' being humanity? I am not different from humanity. ( Consciousness-wise) I 'am' the rest of the world, I 'am' the world. Can one see this as a whole? 

I can only see myself (holistically) 'as a whole' when I ( feel that I ) am actually the rest of mankind. When one sees oneself 'as a whole' the ( fragmentary ) parts disappear, therefore the 'self' is not. Sir, I can see this tree 'completely', only if I don't say, "It's my tree, it's in my garden." You understand what I am saying?

R: Yes, yes.

K: So when I ( non-personally) love that tree, I can 'see it as a whole'.

B: Would you say then that it is similar to all trees? Like saying, if I see myself as a whole I am the same as all mankind.

K: So I love all trees.

B: Is that the same?

K: Of course.

B: It doesn't depend on that single tree. It is not just this tree that you love.

K: I love all the 'trees' whether they are in your garden, or my garden, or on the field. I raised this ( holistic) question of 'seeing wholly' because this is the ( perceptive) action which is not fragmented, not broken up as the ( specialised) action of a business man, professor, or priest, an action which is 'total' ( encompassing the totality of human existence) .

B: So, you are suggesting, 'See the self 'wholly' and it will not be there' ?

K: Yes, sir.

B: Therefore would you also say that you have to ( have some inteligent selfless ) love ( for observing ) the 'self'?

K: That is a 'dangerous' (slippery?) statement which I was going to make, but... stopped myself in time.

B: Could you say instead of ''You 'are' mankind'', ''you (selflessly) Love mankind''? 

K: Ah, now, be careful...

B: So, these verbal analogy seem to be limited ?

K: Analogies are limited.

S: So are the words in themselves.

K: Any more questions, sir?

R: There is no end to these questions, but you have answered all my today's questions, and thank you very much for all your very 'enlightening' explanations.

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Tue, 10 Mar 2015
Topic: K The essential Texts

A K CONVERSATION WITH BUDDHIST SCHOLARS & FRIENDS ( experientially friendly edited )


Dr Rahula : Sir, I want to ask you just one thing today. You see we all talk of truth, absolute truth, ultimate truth; and seeing it and realizing it; always we talk about it. And the Buddha says '' there is only one Truth, there is no second ''. But this 'one truth' is never defined in 'positive' terms or at most 'metaphorically', in a symbolic way. So, I am asking you today: what is the absolute truth, what is ultimate truth and what is 'non-duality' as you see it? Tell us. It is a (pretty tough?) challenge.

K: Don't you think, sir, that if we could distinguish between what is 'reality' and what is 'truth', then perhaps we could (perhaps?) penetrate more deeply into this question ? So, what is 'reality'? The latin root (of the word) means 'things'. Could we say that everything that human thought has created is ( our man-made ) 'reality' - like this microphone - it's made by ( a very ingenious human) thought, and it is there, an 'actuality '. ( On the other hand?) Nature is not created by thought. It exists (independently) but we have used nature to produce 'things', like houses, chairs, and so on and so on. So we could say then that anything that thought has created, brought about, put together, is 'reality'- including the illusions it has created, as well as the material things it has created through technological knowledge and so on, so on, all that is 'reality'.

R: According to Buddhas's teaching, there is a 'relative truth' and an 'absolute truth'. What you say is fully accepted, that is our 'reality'.

K: That is, everything that human thought has created is (our) 'reality'.  The dreams, all the sensory and sensuous responses, all the technological world of knowledge, all the things that human thought has put together as literature, poem, painting, illusions, gods, symbols - all that is 'reality'. Would you accept that, sir?

F: Yes, but through the centuries, people have tended to talk of 'reality' more in terms of an 'ultimate' Reality.

K: I know, but I would like to separate the two - 'truth' and ( our man made ) 'reality'. Otherwise we mix our terms all the time.

S: Are you also including Nature in your ( concept of ) 'reality'?

K: No. Nature is not created by thought.

R: That means, you don't take the tree as a reality ?

K: I take is as a reality, of course it's a reality, but it's not ( the man-made 'reality') created by thought. So, let us look at this 'reality' - the world is reality, these lamps are reality. You sitting there, this person sitting there, are realities. And the illusions that one has are an actual reality.

M: But sir, the people sitting there are not created by thought. So the 'reality' of which you are speaking is 'man-made', in a sense.

K: Man-made. Like war is a ( man-made) reality.

F: Could we regard all that is apprehended through our senses, and then interpreted by the brain as 'reality' ?

K: That's right, sir. And would we say that the 'actual' is what is happening now?

F: Yes, that's a good way of putting it. But the (experiential) point is that we are not capable of apprehending the totality of 'what is' happening now. We apprehend only a portion of it.

K: Yes . So, what is happening now is the 'actual', but the interpretation or the understanding of what is happening now depends on our thought. Can we see that from ( this time-bound ?) 'reality' you cannot go to ''Truth'' ? Can the human mind, which is the network of all the senses, actualities and so on, can that apprehend, see, observe what is Truth?

F: Provided the mind can be free of all its conditioning.

K: That's the problem. To find out what the 'absolute truth' is, ( the 'real' limitations of?) thought must be understood - the whole movement and the nature of thought must have been gone into, observed and (put into its) 'relative' place, and so the 'mind' ( or the energy matrix of the brain ?) becomes absolutely still and perhaps in that stillness, ( the Whole?) Truth is perceived, which is not to be measured by words.

R: Yes, I agree with that.

K: Now, the 'mind' (the intelligent 'energy matrix' of the brain ?) is caught in the 'movement' of thought. And this (time-warped?) movement projects ( its own concept ) what is truth.

F: This is the 'mistake' (the karmic 'faux pas'?) that man makes.

K: Of course. He projects ( his needs & values ) from 'this' (spatio-temporal reality?) to 'That', hoping to find what is truth. Or projects what he thinks is truth. And this ( 'reality' based concept of) 'truth' can be put in different words – God, Brahman, Nirvana, or Moksha. So, our ( experientially critical) question is then : can this (reality based ?) mind cease to 'measure' ? This ( habit of mental? ) 'measurement' is ( the result of all ) our cultural & social (collective ?) conditioning (Eg : one 'measures' ( evaluates & compares) oneself against the cultural standards or somebody else ; so there is this constant mental measurement of comparison, both externally and inwardly.) Right?

R: Well, then what is non-duality? What is truth?

K: As long as thought is 'measuring' (comparing) there must be 'duality'.

R: Absolutely, that is a fact.

K: Now, how has this conditioning come about? Why has man been caught in this constant ( competitive mental attitude of?) 'measurement', comparison, imitation ?

R: The whole measurement is based on the ( 'reality' of the?) 'self' …

K: Yes, but what is the source of this measurement ?

P: It seems that ( our thinking brain?) needs a 'fixed' point to measure, and itself being in a state of continuous flux or movement, it creates a static (refference) point  which is (apparently) immovable, which is the 'centre', or one's self-(consciousness) . From there only you can measure.

K: But why has ( the collective thinking of?) mankind been held in this measurement? SS: Probably he thinks it's the (only way to move?) 'forward', because, for instance if you're a farmer and you plant to crop in a certain way, and you get this kind of result, the next year you plant in a different way, and you get a better result.

K: Yes, so it is ( the result of thinking in terms of our personal or collective favorable evolution in ?) time. Why has man used time as a means of 'progress'? (I'm talking 'psychologically', not about the time which is necessary to learn a language, to develop a certain technology and so on.)

F: Do you think that starting with the physical facts of difference, in size, in quantity, and so forth, we apply that analogically to the 'psychological' process also ?

K: Yes. Without ( comparison and?) measurement there would have been no ( development of ) technology. But man used 'psychological' time as a means of self growth, of 'getting better', getting more noble, achieving enlightenment? All this (evolutionary mentality?) implies time. And that's what we're discussing. Whether there is any 'psychological' (inner) evolution at all : do we need time at all 'psychologically' ( for a qualitative inner change?) ?

SN: What is it that creates time?

K: Thought  is ( projecting its self-centred continuity in ?) time.  Time is involved in moving from 'here' to 'there'; ( from being poor to becoming materially secure, or if ?) one is (unhappy ?) greedy & envious, one needs 'time' to ( improve this 'psychological' condition or?) be free of it. We are questioning whether that is not an illusion - this 'psychological' distance. Is there (psychologically speaking) a 'tomorrow'?

F: Only in terms of anticipation. But in addition to (this psychological projection of ) thought, there is the fact of our physical experience, of day and night, and therefore the 'tomorrow' does actually exist

K: We are asking whether thought (or 'the thinking brain'?) has invented this 'psychological' time in order to live in some kind of ( inner) security?

R: What is 'time'? (Inwardly speaking?) 'time' is nothing but the unbroken continuity of cause and effect, and we give a name called 'time' to that (mental) movement.

K: Yes, that's one aspect of 'time'. And also the (chronological) aspect of time (necessary to cover a ) physical distance. I have to go to London and it takes time to get there.

M: Sir, would you say that thought in itself 'implies' time, because the action of the mind going through the thought process, even if it it takes a very small amount of time, it does take 'time' ?

K: Surely, because thought is ( based on?) the response of memory, and memory is ( the result of ) time. 

So ( to recap:) . There a 'physical' ( or 'chronological' continuity of ?) time, ''yesterday, today and tomorrow'' . There is also the time of growth – the tiny acorn becoming a big oak tree. So time, physically is a 'reality'. But 'inwardly' , thought has invented ( its own becoming in ?) 'time' as a means of either achieving (a higher level of?) security, or because it is too lazy to completely transform itself (now ?) . So it says, "Give me time". Give me time to become 'strong' psychologically, give me time so that I get rid of my anger, my jealousy or whatever it is, and I'll be free of it. Using ( the reality of chronological ?) time as a means of achieving something (inwardly ?) 'psychologically'.

M: But then one can ask : How can you be without thought psychologically?

K: We are coming to that. Isn't the the whole movement of the 'me' put together by thought ?

M: If that is so, then how would it be possible for time not to be involved in any 'psychological' movement?

N: In the whole religious world there is ( a profound spiritual ) aspiration. Wouldn't you say that?

R: Of course in all the religious traditions, there is ( this spiritual) aspiration, always. But what we are discussing here is whether you can 'see the Truth' at this very moment, or whether you postpone it till you 'become better'. So if something is 'true' (or not) , you can see it only Now.

K: I don't want to enter the 'World of Truth' yet. If there is no psychological ( postponement for ?) 'tomorrow' our whole action ( in the world of 'reality' ? ) is different.

N: You would say then, any aspiration, however 'noble' it is, is in the field of reality ?

K: In the field of thought (in the field of the 'known'?) , yes.

F: Yes, because it is a 'formulation'. So would I be right in saying you are concerned with being free of the 'time factor' totally, in psychological terms.

K: Yes, sir. Otherwise our mind is living always in a 'circle' ( within a closed area?) .

F: Yes, that is true. We are tied the ( 'tethered' to our ?) past, to that which has become fossilised.

K: Yes, this (active memory of the?) past modifying itself into the 'future' is time. So when one says, "I will become better", "I will understand", I quesion whether it's merely an invention of thought and so it is illusory, and so there is no ( point to postpone the 'psychological' action for ?) 'tomorrow'. (Eg:) If one is ( greedy and/or ?) envious - a thought sustained sensory response, we generally say, give me some time to be free of that envy.

F: Yes, provided we perceive (objectively?) that 'envy'...

K: Oh, yes, everybody can perceive this envy, this jealousy, this antagonism. So is it possible, being envious, to (have a flash of insight into its nature and?) 'be free' of it instantly, and not allow time to intervene? That is the whole point.

F: Isn't this 'envy', a (personal) reaction to what is perceived through the senses?

K: Yes, that's right.

F: So these 'psychological' reactions follow (surreptitiously) the sensuous activity. And that involves this (ages old?) pleasure/pain drive within us.

K: Obviously. One sees you driving in a big lovely car. And I'm driving a small car, so there is comparison.

F: This is more pleasant or this is less pleasant.

K: That ( mental pattern of comparison?) begins from (early) childhood.

F: So we get (caught) in this psychological habit.

K: First one must realize the actuality of it. Not say "Yes, I have already understood it''

Do we see (the truth?) that the psychological usage of time is a very ( 'realistic' ) illusion ? We must be clear on this point : ''I will reach heaven'', ''I will become enlightened'', ''I will eventually through various series of lives, or one life, achieve Nirvana, Moksha'', all this is psychological time. We are questioning whether this ( whole mentality?) is an illusion. It if is an illusion it is part of thought.

N: I think there's also some difficulty in apprehending what you're saying, because there is maturity and growth in nature, through time. Isn't there a mental maturity and growth in human beings, through time?

K: Yes, but what do you mean by 'maturity'? A tree is mature at a certain age, a human being physically is mature at a certain age. But is there a 'psychological ' maturity at all? That's my whole point.

M: Even psychologically there is a certain 'maturity', but it's still founded on thought and time.

K: Yes, but I'm just asking, Maria, do we understand clearly, even intellectually, that we have used time as a psychological catalyst to bring about ( a holistic inner) change? I'm questioning ( the validity of?) that catalyst.

F: Sir, when you say, "Do we see that psychological time is an illusion", what do you mean by the word 'see'?

K: I mean by that word 'see', to observe ( acutely & objectively) without the interference of thought.

F: That means, to be completely conscious, to be completely aware of time being an illusion, ( to see it ) as a 'fact'.

K: Yes, like when I see a snake, I don't mistake it for a rope. (or the other way around?)

F: So would that involve a complete (qualitative) transformation of our mode of awareness, of our consciousness?

K: Just to observe without any ( buffer of mental?) 'reflection'.

F: Without naming it ?

K: Naming it all the rest of it.

F: In other words, to 'see' is a (holistic ?) seeing...

K: Is it to 'listen' first ( non-verbally) ; Take for instance ( this statement) '''Psychologically' there is no time, the 'psychological' time is the invention of thought, and may be an illusion''. Now to 'listen' to that without interpreting it or asking 'what do you mean ?', or saying, "I don't understand", just to listen to that statement and not make an idea of it. As one can 'listen' that ( profound, non-verbal) way, in the same way 'observe', 'see'. What do you say, sir?

R: What are you trying to tell us?

K: I'm trying to say, sir, that truth cannot possibly be perceived, seen, through ( a mental process of?) time. I'm trying to say that man through comparison with the outer world has created (invented ) a 'psychological' time as a means of achieving a desired 'rewarding' end.

R: I agree.

K: you see that as a (true ) 'fact' ?.

F: Wouldn't you say that (our partial perception) is due to the fact that we are tied to the idea of a separate 'me', a separate 'I' ? Now, supposing one sees, hears, touches, in terms of an awareness of wholeness...

K: You can't be aware of the wholeness, unless you have understood the movement ( the time-binding activity ?) of thought.

F: Yes, of course, which means the intrusion of the self-consciousness as a separate 'something'.

K: Sir, how did this  'self separative'  consciousness  come into being?

F: Conditioning in the first instance. 'I', 'you', 'me'.

K: Of course, (and ?) measurement.

F: Measurement, exactly. And this mentality inevitably gets transferred to the realm of the psyche, the realm of the mind...

K: Of course. So you make a statement that 'psychological' time has been used by man as a means of achieving his reward. It's so obvious. And that 'reward' is away from the pain which he's had (in the past) . So we are saying, this 'achievement of the ( spiritual) reward', is a movement of time. And it may be illuson. Now, from this 'illusion', one can't go to Truth. So the mind must be totally, completely free of this (inner) movement of 'measurement'. Is th'at possible?

F: As a short answer, I would simply say yes' : if one really 'sees it' then one doesn't go in the other direction.

K: So do we 'see it', or we 'think that we see it' ?

M: Can we go back for a moment? When you said 'observe', what does the mind do in that 'observation'?

K: This ( holistic?) observation implies 'seeing' without naming, without measuring, without a motive, without an 'end'. Obviously that is actually seeing. Even the Greek root of the word 'idea' means to observe.

M: Sir, we would probably all agree with that. But what is 'acting' at that moment?

K: ( The holistic?) observation is just to « observe silently », without any psychological or sensory response and ( eventually having a direct ?) 'insight' ( into what is being observed) without the responses of memory.

R: Without any value judgement ?

K: Yes. Thought is absolutely quiet in (this direct ?) 'observation'.

F: When scientists, for example, have really new remarkable inspirations, or great artists when they create wonderful things, this happens when everything is 'quiet' inside, which allows this ( perception of the?) New to emerge, the pulse of Creation.

K: Yes, sir, but that insight is partial. ( A total?) 'insight' also implies a whole transformation of his daily life. 'Insight' implies the way the man lives as a whole. Insight implies an observation in which there is no ( interfering?) remembrance of things past, therefore the mind is alert, free to observe. Only then you have an Insight. And the 'insight' of which we are talking about, implies, his whole life, not as a 'scientist', as an 'artist'. They do have partial insights, but that's not what we're talking.

R: And what we talk is of the whole existence. And that 'seeing' is (transcending?) time. It is beyond time, that seeing is not limited or caught in time.

K: That 'insight' is not involved in time. But... wait a minute. Have we got this insight into this 'psychological invention' of time by thought, as achieving some result? Or it is just at a verbal, intellectual level?

R: Or... it is (seen as) a fact.

K: Then how is a human being to totally 'move away' from that, totally transform this whole inner concept (mentality ) of time? I say it's only possible when you have an « insight » into this whole thing. This is (the true purpose of a?) real meditation.

M: Sir, would you say that if an insight comes into being at that moment, then it doesn't fall back into the thought mechanism ?

K: Of course not. Insight means ''action'' instantly, not have an insight and later act. And that action is always ''right'' – in the sense of being accurate, precise, without any regret, without any effort, without any reward or punishment, it is so.

SS: But that action is not necessarily doing anything, though. It may be 'non-action' in terms of doing things externally.

K: You may have to, both externally and inwardly. If I have an insight into my attachment to ideas, attachment to conclusions, attachment to persons, attachment to my knowledge, experience. If I have an insight into that, the 'whole thing' is abandoned.

R: And if I may I put it in another way - to see 'what is' is to see the truth.

K: I'm not yet ready for that.

R: Your main thesis is, don't put in time. To see 'what is' as it 'is', is to see the truth. That's what I would like to cut it short. And truth is not away from...

K: You have told me what it means to 'see', but I may not see. I may just think that I see.

R: Well... then you are not 'seeing'.

K: I must be very clear that I am not 'thinking I'm seeing'. Our whole life is ( based on) - I ''think that I see''.

R: Which is very different from 'seeing'.

K: You say so, but the ordinary ( thoughtful ) person say, 'I see, yes'. Which is, 'I think I see' what you're saying. But I may not see actually 'what is'. I ( just delude myself in?) thinking that I see 'what is'. So, sir, now come back to this question of ( the Ultimate) 'Truth'. We have a discussion this afternoon and can we then pursue 'truth'?

R: No. I don't want to wait for ( hearing the Ultimate?) Truth. (laughter)

K: You want it all in five minutes, sir?

R: Not even in five minutes.

K: One minute?

R: One minute. If you can't do it in one minute, you can't do it in five hours.

K: I quite agree. All right, sir, in one minute. ( The World of?) Truth is not perceivable through time. Truth doesn't exist when the 'self' is there. Truth doesn't 'come into (one's) existence' if thought is moving in any direction. Truth is something that cannot be ( verbally described or?) 'measured' . And without Love and Compassion, and Intelligence, Truth cannot 'be'.

R: Now again you have given it in 'negative' terms, in the real, tradition of the Buddha.

K: You see, you have already 'translated' Truth into terms of tradition, therefore you've moved away from the actual 'listening' of this.

R: I listened, I listened very well.

K: Then have you captured the (true?) 'perfume' of it ?

R: Yes, and I captured the 'perfume' of what you said. And that is why I wanted to have it in one minute.

K: So, sir, what then is the relationship of Truth to our (man-made) 'reality'? Are these two everlastingly divided?

R: No. They are not divided.

K: They are not divided. Now what do you mean by that, sir?

R: That is what I said, to 'see'.

K: No, just a minute, sir. Reality is everything that thought has put together, including illusion. And Truth, has nothing whatsoever to do with this, It can't. And therefore the two cannot 'be together'. Truth is timeless, it's not 'your' truth, 'my' truth, 'his' truth - it is something beyond time. And ( the self-centred) thought is of time, the two cannot 'run together'.

R: That is again duality, again you are dividing them ?

K: No, I'm not. I'm just pointing out, that thought has created such illusions, and it may also deceive itself by saying, "Yes, I've seen the truth." Therefore there must be ( such inner) clarity that there is no deception whatsoever. And I'm saying that deception will inevitably exist if I don't understand the ( limiting) nature of ( our man made?) 'reality'.

R: I think here we have come to (the Ultimate?) Truth. I don't know whether you would agree ?

K: 'I' haven't come to Truth, 'I' can't 'go to Truth'. Truth can only 'be' , or Truth 'Is', only when the 'self' (-consciousness?) is not (present?) .

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Tue, 19 May 2015
Topic: Pages from the Book of Life

Hopefully this new thread will not end up in a 'calendar' format, with carefully selected quotes and beautiful pictures, but rather offer some authentic pointers towards a spiritual or 'holistic' way of life. Many of them will be certainly inspired by the timeless truths of the K Teachings, but our fine readers and participants are free to bring in their own favourite insights- especially those which worked out in their own life.

To start this new thread here are a few of K's first degree encounters with Nature:

The morning star was quite high in the sky, and as you watched, it grew paler and paler until the sun was just over the trees and the river became silver and gold. Then the birds began, and the village woke up. Just then, suddenly, there appeared on the window-sill a large monkey, grey, with a black face and bushy hair over the forehead. His hands were black and his long tail hung over the window-sill into the room. He sat there very quiet, almost motionless, looking at us without a movement. We were quite close, a few feet separated us. And suddenly he stretched out his arm, and we held hands for some time. His hand was rough, black and dusty for he had climbed over the roof, over the little parapet above the window and had come down and sat there. He was quite relaxed, and what was surprising was that he was extraordinarily cheerful. There was no fear, no uneasiness; it was as though he was at home. There he was, with the river bright golden now, and beyond it the green bank and the distant trees. We must have held hands for quite a time; then, almost casually, he withdrew his hand but still remained where he was. We were looking at each other, and you could see his black eyes shining, small and full of strange curiosity. He wanted to come into the room but hesitated, then stretched his arms and his legs, reached for the parapet, and was over the roof and gone. In the evening he was there again on a tree, high up, eating something. We waved to him but there was no response.

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Wed, 20 May 2015
Topic: K The essential Texts


KRISHNAMURTI (K): As dialogue can be a conversation that takes place between two very 'religious' people— in the sense that they are totally free from all tradition, from all systems and from all authority. We are talking about this ( holistical?) kind of dialogue— a questioning and an answering where the very answering provokes a further questioning and so on. In this kind of dialogue 'you' and 'I' (as self-conscious entities?) , disappear altogether, and only the question and the answer remain. Do we agree with that?

PUPUL JAYAKAR (PJ): I looked up the word ‘dialogue’ in the dictionary, and found that it can be a conversation between a group of people. It is not restricted, necessarily, to two people.

K: Yes.

PJ: But the essential nature of a dialogue is a probing into something. Now, it seems to me, that all problems of the mind...

K: Of the brain; let us stick to that one word.

PJ: All right. I would like to start with this, namely, that all problems of the brain are born of time.

K: Are born from the (brain's internal?) process of 'time'.

PJ: Problems arise because the brain changes ‘what is’ into something different, and the movement ( mental activity?) of the brain which wants to change ‘what is’ into something else, creates 'time'.

K: Could we say this very simply? There is both physical time and psychological time. Physical time is ( implied in?) going from here to there; in covering a certain distance from one point to another point. Physical time is ( measured clock or?) by sunrise and by sunset. All ( physical ) movement is a matter of time. Right?

PJ: Yes.

K: Now, there is also the 'psychological' (dimension of?) time—the time of ( inwardly?) becoming something (other than one is presently?) . ‘I am this, I will be that.’

PJ: Yes.

K: There is also this whole process of ( brain's) evolution—both psychological and physical. All this is fairly simple and clear, and we all accept this. Right? Now, my question is: Is there a time (a 'timeless' dimension of conciousness?) outside this movement which we know and call 'time'? That is, is there a 'time of non-movement'? Let us go slowly into this. Time as we know it, is a ( mental or physical?) movement. The ( psychological?) 'gap' between one action and another, between one understanding and another, is 'time'. Inwardly, 'time' is a movement (a projection?) of fear or hope. The whole ( thinking?) movement from the past to the present to the future is generally acknowledged as 'time'. (Any material?) movement—of evolution, of growth, of achievement, of fulfilment, of becoming something—involves time. The interval between seeing something, thinking about it and acting is time. And I'm asking whether there is a 'time' which doesn’t belong to this category at all.

PJ: When you use the word ‘time’ and say that it does not belong to the category of movement, does it belong to the category of matter?

K: Matter as I understand it—I’ve discussed the matter with Dr Bohm and others—is (a form of?) 'solidified' energy; matter is a 'manifested' energy. The body is manifested energy.

PJ: You see, sir, the brain is (living?) matter.

K: Yes, the brain is matter. And thought is a material process.

PJ: Let us leave aside 'thought' for the moment; let us take the brain. The brain is matter. Now, in that (living) matter, evolution must exist.

K: Of course. We were monkeys at one time. Gradually, through a million years of evolution, we became 'Homo sapiens'—what we are now.

PJ: Yes, but we can link that evolution with the 'content' which the brain cells hold.

K: Which is memory.

PJ: Yes. Now, we link the (physical) evolution which took place in the brain with the evolution in ( the content of our ?) memory.

K: I see what you are trying to get at. Is memory (in ) a process of evolution?

PJ: The brain of the ape has evolved to the brain of the human being. Within that brain is the ( memory ?) content of a million years.

K: Yes, millions of years of memory. The gathering process of memory which is (including?) knowledge, experience, isn't it a process of time?

PJ: Yes. We apply (extrapolate?) the process of evolution which exists in the brain to the 'content' in the brain. My question is: Is the content of the brain which is nothing but a gathering of experiences and knowledge, identical with the (evolutionary?) nature of the brain itself? We all know that becoming is illusion. That is (relatively?) simple to understand. But you then ask: Is there another (inner dimension of?) time which doesn’t belong to these two categories?

K: That’s my question.

PJ: Now, time and matter are one.

K: Time is matter. Time is manifested energy. The very 'manifestation' is a process of time.

PJ: So, time cannot exist without manifestation.

K: That’s what I want to inquire into : is there a (different dimension of?) 'time' which is not manifest?

PJ: When you say that it is not the outcome of 'manifestation', why do you then use the word ‘time’?

K: I have no other word for the moment (for the timeless 'now'?) ...

SUNANDA PATWARDHAN (SP): Are you saying that the very Ground ( of Being) from which all manifestation arises is ( existing in?) another ( dimension of?) time?

K: Probably. Love is not of time.

PJ: Forgive me for saying so, sir, but the moment you use the word ‘love’, you have cut the ground from under our feet.

K: Why?

PJ: Because it is an absolute statement. And with (such) absolute statements, no discussion is possible.

K: Wait, Pupul. That’s rather an unfair statement. We are trying to find out what 'Eternity' is. We are trying to find out a (timeless dimension of?) Reality which is not of time. We know that what is mortal grows and dies. We are asking whether there is a(n inner state) or a (psychical?) movement which is beyond time. Do you understand?

PJ: I understand, sir.

K: Which means, is there (available within ourselves?) a timeless activity which is infinite and measureless? You see, we are using words to measure (evaluate and describe?) the Immeasurable, and our words have become ( part of the inner process of thought ?) 'time'. Words have become (part of thought -) time and with those words we are measuring a state (of being?) which is not measurable, and 'that' is not of time.

PJ: Now let us go into (this inner process of 'time'?). We know 'time' as the (memory of the?) past, as (what we 'think' we are in the) 'present' and as a projected 'future'. But what is the perception of that (timeless 'now'?) instant which is the only Reality?

K: The (action projected in the) 'future' is the (action of the?) past modifying itself. That is 'time'. Now, there is also a 'timeless' action, an action which is « perception-action ». In this 'timeless' action, that is, in « perception-action » there is no (time gap ?) interval. Right? Do go slowly, if you want to understand it.

PJ: Before I can even go into this, I want to go into what is this ‘past modifying itself in the present’ .

K: 'I' am afraid of (something that happened in?) the past and 'I' meet the present. Thought (the 'me'-thinking process?) modifies itself and goes on, but it’s still (surrounded by?) ‘fear’.

PJ: But can we examine that 'instant' where this modification takes place?

K: Yes. I am afraid of what might happen (to me?) 'tomorrow', but (my projection of?) 'tomorrow' is (contained) both in the ( what I am?) 'today' and in the (what happened?) 'yesterday'. The 'present moment' , the ‘now’, is (containing both?) the 'past' and the 'future'.

PJ: But a (time-free?) perception in the present negates both the past and the future.

K: That’s what I am saying. But such 'perception' requires a state without the past. Perception is timeless. ( But if ) I am full of prejudices, knowledge, conclusions, convictions, beliefs, with that ( psychologically biased background?) I look at ( what is happening in?) the present. And that 'present' is getting modified by the challenge—I might alter certain beliefs but I still remain in the same field. The present is 'modified', and so the 'future' is the modification.

PJ: Yes, but when you speak of another (dimension of?) time which does not belong to these two—the past and the future—obviously the essential element of this perception is the ‘now’.

K: Yes, and that 'perception' is not of time. Because that perception doesn’t contain the 'past'.

PJ: What is the ‘now’?

K: The ‘now’ is the past and the present.

PJ: Is it actually (just) that?

K: Yes, that is the ‘now’.

PJ: I want to question that.

K: The ‘now’ is ( containing?) all time: past time, future time and the present time.

PJ: Now, you can experience 'past time', and you can experience 'future time' because you project, but what is the experiencing of ‘all time’?

K: 'You' can’t 'experience' it.

PJ: This is exactly what I am trying to get at—the past you can experience...

K: You can project the 'future' and experience (visualise?) it without going through it.

PJ: Yes; but this experience of ‘all time’ is not an 'experience' ?

K: No; (having an?) experience implies an 'experiencer' who is 'experiencing (something)'. The 'experiencer' is of time.

PJ: Therefore when you say that the ‘now’ contains the past and the future, what does it exactly mean? How do you contact it?

K: You are using the word ‘contact’ in the sense of 'me' contacting 'you' ?

PJ: No, I just asked : what is the ( non-dualistic experience of the?) ‘now’?

K: I’ll tell you what the ‘now’ is....

SP: Pupul, ‘what is’ is the present. Fear is the ‘what is’, though it is the ‘what is’, the whole (active memory of the?) past is (contained?) in the ‘what is’.

K: Pupul is asking: What makes you certain that the 'past' (and the future) are contained in the present? Is it an idea, is it a theory or do you have an 'insight' into that?

PJ: The only (time?) where the 'revelation' or the 'insight' into this can come about is in the present. Now, how do I come to this ‘now’ ('eternal present' dimension of?) of existence?

K: 'You' cannot come to it.

PJ: Yes. 'You' cannot come to it—then what?

K: You can’t experience it, but your brain is conditioned to ( want to?) 'experience'. Your brain is conditioned to (evaluating it in terms of its previous?) knowledge, it is conditioned to measurement in words. But 'this' (timeless dimension of the now?) cannot be approached that way. And this is where 'religious' minds meet – because (if?) they have wiped away the ( speculative?) theories and concepts. They deal with the actual state (of one's 'beingness'?). And this is where the ( meditative?) religious inquiry begins.

PJ: Is it possible to probe into this ( other?) 'time' which is not of this...?

K: Yes, it is possible. Possible in the ( non-verbal?) sense . You can’t measure (or probe into?) this with words.

PJ: But the moment words cease...

K: ... the 'question' remains.

PJ: This is something quite extraordinary, the question remains, but the 'questioners' do not remain...

K: Yes. The question remains and the questioners don’t exist.

ASIT CHANDMAL (AC): What does the 'question' operate upon?

K: I said: ( the non-dualistic?) perception (insight?) means that there is no ( self-conscious?) 'perceiver'. See what the implication of that is. The 'perceiver' is the ( creator of the?) 'past' and the 'future'. But the ( holistic?) perception is now. Therefore it is timeless just as its action is timeless.

PJ: Therefore, in that perception, the (observer's?) past and the future are totally annihilated (put on hold?) .

K: Listening is not of time. If I listen, it is now. So 'attention' has no time. And, therefore, there is no linear or horizontal time.

AC: I understand. In that state what is there a perception of? Who or what is listening or inquiring into that state? How can you ask a question?

K: You can. I am going to show it to you in a minute. I am saying that perception is timeless. But, please, realize what has happened before we probe. The mind has rid itself of all 'hopes' (self projected expectations?) : it is now in a state of clarity. Right? So in that state, you can inquire non-verbally. That’s what I want to get at.

AC: I don’t understand. K: Look, sir, ( suppose that?) I tell you « Love is not of time ». How do you listen to that? First you hear the words—those words have a certain meaning and those words are interpreted (translated?) according to your(cultural?) background, according to your intellectual capacity, your emotional capacity, and so on. But can you listen to the truth of it? Do you understand what I am saying?

AC: I am first listening to the words, therefore I can’t (simultaneously ) listen to the (truth of the?) thing said. How can I?

K: Sir, don’t you understand the simple truth of ( this statement?) « Love is not of time » ?

AC: It cannot have any meaning.

K: Now, have a dialogue with me. Don’t categorically state that it has no meaning.

SP: Then, what is the comprehension of the ( truth of this?) statement ‘Love is not of time’?

PJ: There is no 'comprehension'... you take a perfume...

K: We can have a dialogue regarding that. Here is a statement K makes: « Love is not of time ». Do you understand the ( meditative?) beauty, the depth of it?

SP: I can understand that love is not ( related to?) attachment. I understand that where jealousy is, love is not.

K: That’s analysing.

SP: I know that. But, in spite of all this dialogue, this 'state of love' which is not of time...

PJ: Sunanda, you can never use words to ( meditatively?) 'open up' this statement. Forgive me for saying it.

K: You are using your intellect. We all have been trained to be highly intellectual. A poor (simple minded?) man who is who has not passed exams and secured ( scholarships and?) professorships, will ( perhaps?) understand a simple statement like this. At least I 'think' he will...

AC: Sir, may I come back? How can there be an inquiry into this state of (timeless?) perception?

K: I tell you, ( communicate the insight that ?) ‘Love is not of time’. To me that’s a tremendous fact; it is the truth. You say, ‘I really don’t understand you’. And I tell you, ‘You won’t understand it the way you want (expect?) to understand it, because you want to understand it through the (mental?) intellectual process’- through (logical?) arguments, through a reactionary process, a constant back and forth of words. I say that you won’t understand it that way. You might say that that is the only instrument you have, and I reply, ‘Look, there is a totally different instrument. I will tell (show?) you what that instrument is if you can put aside your enormous 'weight' (emphasis?) of knowledge which is of time’.

AC: Do you put aside your 'intellectual' instrument or your 'knowledge'?

K: I said 'knowledge'. Knowledge is ( the cummulative result of all our?) evolution. Is there an 'insight', an 'immediate perception' of (the truth of it?) without bringing all your ( past experience and?) knowledge into it? Oh yes, sir.

AC: I understand that, sir.

K: So, if you understand that there is a 'pure perception' of something, you will probe into that perception. I will show it to you.

AC: How can I inquire into that state?

K: I will show it to you.

PJ: Can you discuss that?

K: You can’t 'discuss' it.

AC: You see, this state, to me, is the end of inquiry, not the beginning of inquiry.

K: All right, if it is the 'end of inquiry', do you stop there? The brain—does it see ( the truth of?) this? Then that’s finished. Do you get it?

AC: Yes.

K: Do you get it? Do you 'get it' ( in the sense?) that the brain says, ‘Yes, that’s finished’?

AC: No, the brain cannot maintain that level of energy—it 'lapses' (falls back into the known?) .

K: On the contrary.

AC: Sir, as long as there is ( that integrated ?) 'energy', there is no further ( need for?) inquiry or question.

K: I agree.

(Madras 28 December 1985- one of K's last dialogues )

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Sun, 05 Jul 2015
Topic: Pages from the Book of Life



MAN IS AN amphibian who lives simultaneously in two worlds - the given and the homemade, the world of matter, life and consciousness and the world of symbols. In our thinking we make use of a great variety of symbol-systems - linguistic, mathematical, pictorial, musical, ritualistic. Without such symbol-systems we should have no art, no science, no law, no philosophy, not so much as the rudiments of civilization: in other words, we should be animals. Symbols, then, are indispensable. But symbols - as the history of our own and every other age makes so abundantly clear - can also be fatal. Consider, for example, the domain of science on the one hand, the domain of politics and religion on the other. Thinking in terms of, and acting in response to, one set of symbols, we have come, in some small measure, to understand and control the elementary forces of nature. Thinking in terms of and acting in response to, another set of symbols, we use these forces as instruments of mass murder and collective suicide. In the first case the explanatory symbols were well chosen, carefully analysed and progressively adapted to the emergent facts of physical existence. in the second case symbols originally ill-chosen were never subjected to thoroughgoing analysis and never re-formulated so as to harmonize with the emergent facts of human existence. Worse still, these misleading symbols were everywhere treated with a wholly unwarranted respect, as though, in some mysterious way, they were more real than the realities to which they referred. In the contexts of religion and politics, words are not regarded as standing, rather inadequately, for things and events; on the contrary, things and events are regarded as particular illustrations of words. Up to the present symbols have been used realistically only in those fields which we do not feel to be supremely important. In every situation involving our deeper impulses we have insisted on using symbols, not merely unrealistically, but idolatrously, even insanely. The result is that we have been able to commit, in cold blood and over long periods of time, acts of which the brutes are capable only for brief moments and at the frantic height of rage, desire or fear. Because they use and worship symbols, men can become idealists; and, being idealists, they can transform the animal’s intermittent greed into the grandiose imperialisms of a Rhodes or a J. P. Morgan; the animal’s intermittent love of bullying into Stalinism or the Spanish Inquisition; the animal’s intermittent attachment to its territory into the calculated frenzies of nationalism. Happily, they can also transform the animal’s intermittent kindliness into the lifelong charity of an Elizabeth Fry or a Vincent de Paul; the animal’s intermittent devotion to its mate and its young into that reasoned and persistent co-operation which, up to the present, has proved strong enough to save the world from the consequences of the other, the disastrous kind of idealism.

Will it go on being able to save the world? The question cannot be answered. All we can say is that, with the idealists of nationalism holding the A-bomb, the odds in favour of the idealists of co-operation and charity have sharply declined. Even the best cookery book is no substitute for even the worst dinner. The fact seems sufficiently obvious. And yet, throughout the ages, the most profound philosophers, the most learned and acute theologians have constantly fallen into the error of identifying their purely verbal constructions with facts, or into the yet more enormous error of imagining that symbols are somehow more real than what they stand for. Their word-worship did not go without protest. ”Only the spirit,” said St. Paul, ”gives life; the letter kills.” ”And why,” asks Eckhart, ”why do you prate of God? Whatever you say of God is untrue.” At the other end of the world the author of one of the Mahayana sutras affirmed that ”the truth was never preached by the Buddha, seeing that you have to realize it within yourself”.

Such utterances were felt to be profoundly subversive, and respectable people ignored them. The strange idolatrous over-estimation of words and emblems continued unchecked. Religions declined; but the old habit of formulating creeds and imposing belief in dogmas persisted even among the atheists. In recent years logicians and semanticists have carried out a very thorough analysis of the symbols, in terms of which men do their thinking. Linguistics has become a science, and one may even study a subject to which the late Benjamin Whorf gave the name of meta-linguistics. All this is greatly to the good; but it is not enough. Logic and semantics, linguistics and meta-linguistics - these are purely intellectual disciplines. They analyse the various ways, correct and incorrect, meaningful and meaningless, in which words can be related to things, processes and events. But they offer no guidance, in regard to the much more fundamental problem of the relationship of man in his psychophysical totality, on the one hand, and his two worlds, of data and of symbols, on the other. In every region and at every period of history, the problem has been repeatedly solved by individual men and women. Even when they spoke or wrote, these individuals created no systems - for they knew that every system is a standing temptation to take symbols too seriously, to pay more attention to words than to the realities for which the words are supposed to stand. Their aim was never to offer ready-made explanations and panaceas; it was to induce people to diagnose and cure their own ills, to get them to go to the place where man’s problem and its solution present themselves directly to experience.

In this volume of selections from the writings and recorded talks of Krishnamurti, the reader will find a clear contemporary statement of the fundamental human problem, together with an invitation to solve it in the only way in which it can be solved - for and by himself. The collective solutions, to which so many so desperately pin their faith, are never adequate. ”To understand the misery and confusion that exist within ourselves, and so in the world, we must first find clarity within ourselves, and that clarity comes about through right thinking. This clarity is not to be organized, for it cannot be exchanged with another. Organized group thought is merely repetitive. Clarity is not the result of verbal assertion, but of intense self-awareness and right thinking. Right thinking is not the outcome of or mere cultivation of the intellect, nor is it conformity to pattern, however worthy and noble. Right thinking comes with self-knowledge. Without understanding yourself you have no basis for thought; without self-knowledge, what you think is not true.”

This fundamental theme is developed by Krishnamurti in passage after passage. ‘’There is hope in men, not in society, not in systems, organized religious systems, but in you and in me.” Organized religions, with their mediators, their sacred books, their dogmas, their hierarchies and rituals, offer only a false solution to the basic problem. ”When you quote the Bhagavad Gita, or the Bible, or some Chinese Sacred Book, surely you are merely repeating, are you not? And what you are repeating is not the truth. It is a lie, for truth cannot be repeated.” A lie can be extended, propounded and repeated, but not truth; and when you repeat truth, it ceases to be truth, and therefore sacred books are unimportant. It is through self-knowledge, not through belief in somebody else’s symbols, that a man comes to the eternal reality, in which his being is grounded. Belief in the complete adequacy and superlative value of any given symbol system leads not to liberation, but to history, to more of the same old disasters. ”Belief inevitably separates. If you have a belief, or when you seek security in your particular belief, you become separated from those who seek security in some other form of belief. All organized beliefs are based on separation, though they may preach brotherhood.”

The man who has successfully solved the problem of his relations with the two worlds of data and symbols, is a man who has no beliefs. With regard to the problems of practical life he entertains a series of working hypotheses, which serve his purposes, but are taken no more seriously than any other kind of tool or instrument. With regard to his fellow beings and to the reality in which they are grounded, he has the direct experiences of love and insight. It is to protect himself from beliefs that Krishnamurti has ”not read any sacred literature, neither the Bhagavad Gita nor the Upanishads”. The rest of us do not even read sacred literature; we read our favourite newspapers, magazines and detective stories. This means that we approach the crisis of our times, not with love and insight, but ”with formulas, with systems” - and pretty poor formulas and systems at that. But ”men of good will should not have formulas; for formulas lead, inevitably, only to ”blind thinking”. Addiction to formulas is almost universal. Inevitably so; for ”our system of upbringing is based upon what to think, not on how to think”. We are brought up as believing and practising members of some organization - the Communist or the Christian, the Moslem, the Hindu, the Buddhist, the Freudian. Consequently ”you respond to the challenge, which is always new, according to an old pattern; and therefore your response has no corresponding validity, newness, freshness. If you respond as a Catholic or a Communist, you are responding - are you not? - according to a patterned thought. Therefore your response has no significance. And has not the Hindu, the Mussulman, the Buddhist, the Christian created this problem? As the new religion is the worship of the State, so the old religion was the worship of an idea.” If you respond to a challenge according to the old conditioning, your response will not enable you to understand the new challenge. Therefore what ”one has to do, in order to meet the new challenge, is to strip oneself completely, denude oneself entirely of the background and meet the challenge anew”. In other words symbols should never be raised to the rank of dogmas, nor should any system be regarded as more than a provisional convenience. Belief in formulas and action in accordance with these beliefs cannot bring us to a solution of our problem. ”It is only through creative understanding of ourselves that there can be a creative world, a happy world, a world in which ideas do not exist.” A world in which ideas do not exist would be a happy world, because it would be a world without the powerful conditioning forces which compel men to undertake inappropriate action, a world without the hallowed dogmas in terms of which the worst crimes are justified, the greatest follies elaborately rationalized.

An education that teaches us not how but what to think is an education that calls for a governing class of pastors and masters. But ”the very idea of leading somebody is antisocial and anti-spiritual”. To the man who exercises it, leadership brings gratification of the craving for power; to those who are led, it brings the gratification of the desire for certainty and security. The guru provides a kind of dope. But, it may be asked, ”What are you doing? Are you not acting as our guru?” ”Surely,” Krishnamurti answers, ”I am not acting as your guru, because, first of all, I am not giving you any gratification. I am not telling you what you should do from moment to moment, or from day to day, but I am just pointing out something to you; you can take it or leave it, depending on you, not on me. I do not demand a thing from you, neither your worship, nor your flattery, nor your insults, nor your gods. I say,” This is a fact; take it or leave it. And most of you will leave it, for the obvious reason that you do not find gratification in it.”

What is it precisely that Krishnamurti offers? What is it that we can take if we wish, but in all probability shall prefer to leave? It is not, as we have seen, a system of belief, a catalogue of dogmas, a set of ready-made notions and ideals. It is not leadership, not mediation, not spiritual direction, not even example. It is not ritual, not a church, not a code, not uplift or any form of inspirational twaddle. Is it, perhaps, self-discipline? No; for self-discipline is not, as a matter of brute fact, the way in which our problem can be solved. In order to find the solution, the mind must open itself to reality, must confront the givenness of the outer and inner worlds without preconceptions or restrictions. (God’s service is perfect freedom. Conversely, perfect freedom is the service of God.) In becoming disciplined, the mind undergoes no radical change; it is the old self, but ”tethered, held in control”. Self-discipline joins the list of things which Krishnamurti does not offer. Can it be, then, that what he offers is prayer? Again, the reply is in the negative. ”Prayer may bring you the answer you seek; but that answer may come from your unconscious, or from the general reservoir, the storehouse of all your demands. The answer is not the still voice of God.” Consider, Krishnamurti goes on, ”what happens when you pray. By constant repetition of certain phrases, and by controlling your thoughts, the mind becomes quiet, doesn’t it? At least, the conscious mind becomes quiet. You kneel as the Christians do, or you sit as the Hindus do, and you repeat and repeat, and through that repetition the mind becomes quiet. In that quietness there is the intimation of something. That intimation of something, for which you have prayed, may be from the unconscious, or it may be the response of your memories. But, surely, it is not the voice of reality; for the voice of reality must come to you; it cannot be appealed to, you cannot pray to it. You cannot entice it into your little cage by doing puja, bhajan and all the rest of it, by offering it flowers, by placating it, by suppressing yourself or emulating others. Once you have learned the trick of quietening the mind, through the repetition of words, and of receiving hints in that quietness, the danger is - unless you are fully alert as to whence those hints come - that you will be caught, and then prayer becomes a substitute for the search for Truth. That which you ask for you get; but it is not the truth. If you want, and if you petition, you will receive, but you will pay for it in the end.” From prayer we pass to yoga, and yoga, we find, is another of the things which Krishnamurti does not offer. For yoga is concentration, and concentration is exclusion. ”You build a wall of resistance by concentration on a thought which you have chosen, and you try to ward off all the others.” What is commonly called meditation is merely ”the cultivation of resistance, of exclusive concentration on an idea of our choice”. But what makes you choose? ”What makes you say this is good, true, noble, and the rest is not? Obviously the choice is based on pleasure, reward or achievement; or it is merely a reaction of one’s conditioning or tradition. Why do you choose at all? Why not examine every thought? When you are interested in the many, why choose one? Why not examine every interest? Instead of creating resistance, why not go into each interest as it arises, and not merely concentrate on one idea, one interest? After all, you are made up of many interests, you have many masks, consciously and unconsciously. Why choose one and discard all the others, in combating which you spend all your energies, thereby creating resistance, conflict and friction. Whereas if you consider every thought as it arises - every thought, not just a few thoughts - then there is no exclusion. But it is an arduous thing to examine every thought. Because, as you are looking at one thought, another slips in. But if you are aware without domination or justification, you will see that, by merely looking at that thought, no other thought intrudes. It is only when you condemn, compare, approximate, that other thoughts enter in.” ”Judge not that ye be not judged.” The gospel precept applies to our dealings with ourselves no less than to our dealings with others. Where there is judgement, where there is comparison and condemnation, openness of mind is absent; there can be no freedom from the tyranny of symbols and systems, no escape from the past and the environment. Introspection with a predetermined purpose, self-examination within the framework of some traditional code, some set of hallowed postulates - these do not, these cannot help us. There is a transcendent spontaneity of life, a ‘creative Reality’, as Krishnamurti calls it, which reveals itself as immanent only when the perceiver’s mind is in a state of ‘alert passivity’, of ‘choiceless awareness’. Judgement and comparison commit us irrevocably to duality. Only choiceless awareness can lead to non-duality, to the reconciliation of opposites in a total understanding and a total love. Ama et fac quod vis. If you love, you may do what you will. But if you start by doing what you will, or by doing what you don’t will in obedience to some traditional system or notions, ideals and prohibitions, you will never love.

The liberating process must begin with the choiceless awareness of what you will and of your reactions to the symbol-system which tells you that you ought, or ought not, to will it. Through this choiceless awareness, as it penetrates the successive layers of the ego and its associated subconscious, will come love and understanding, but of another order than that with which we are ordinarily familiar. This choiceless awareness - at every moment and in all the circumstances of life - is the only effective meditation. All other forms of yoga lead either to the blind thinking which results from self-discipline, or to some kind of self-induced rapture, some form of false samadhi. The true liberation is ”an inner freedom of creative Reality”. This ”is not a gift; it is to be discovered and experienced. It is not an acquisition to be gathered to yourself to glorify yourself. It is a state of being, as silence, in which there is no becoming, in which there is completeness. This creativeness may not necessarily seek expression; it is not a talent that demands outward manifestation. You need not be a great artist or have an audience; if you seek these, you will miss the inward Reality. It is neither a gift, nor is it the outcome of talent; it is to be found, this imperishable treasure, where thought frees itself from lust, ill will and ignorance, where thought frees itself from worldliness and personal craving to be. It is to be experienced through right thinking and meditation.” Choiceless self-awareness will bring us to the creative Reality which underlies all our destructive make-believes, to the tranquil wisdom which is always there, in spite of ignorance, in spite of the knowledge which is merely ignorance in another form. Knowledge is an affair of symbols and is, all too often, a hindrance to wisdom, to the uncovering of the self from moment to moment. A mind that has come to the stillness of wisdom ”shall know being, shall know what it is to love. Love is neither personal nor impersonal. Love is love, not to be defined or described by the mind as exclusive or inclusive. Love is its own eternity; it is the real, the supreme, the immeasurable.” ALDOUS HUXLEY

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Tue, 07 Jul 2015
Topic: Pages from the Book of Life


One wonders what is the future of mankind ? This 'future' is ( a modified continuation of?) what we are now. You see on television endless entertainment from morning until late in the night ; the entertainment of sport - thirty, forty thousand people watching a few people in the arena and shouting themselves hoarse. Or you watch some ceremony being performed in a great cathedral, and that too is a form of entertainment, a sentimental, romantic experience, a sensation of religiosity. Watching all this in different parts of the world, watching the human mind being occupied with (striving to earn a livelihood plus?) amusement, entertainment, sport, one must inevitably ask, if one is in any way concerned: what is the future (of human consciousness?) ? Probably you haven't given it much thought about (our collective) destiny, the result of our present way of life - as we said earlier, this 'future' is what you are now. If there is no t a deep change that is demanding your attention, your care, your affection – if there is not a fundamental change, then the future is ( already obvious in ?) what we are doing every day of our life in the present. One must enquire carefully into this word 'change'. Perhaps a better phrasing is : 'the ending of what is'. The ending, not the movement of changing 'what is' to 'what should be'. ( However?) when desire enters into the act of the ending, that desire becomes the cause of ending. Where there is a cause there is a motive and so there is no real ending at all.

The twentieth century has had a tremendous lot of changes produced by two devastating wars, the 'dialectical materialism', and the technological world which has brought about a great many changes, and when the computers (eventually) take over (the routine chores ?) what is going to happen to our human minds? When this whole industry of entertainment takes over, when the young people, the students, the children, are constantly instigated to pleasure, to romantic sensuality, the (deeper meaning of such words as ) restraint and austerity are pushed away, never even given a thought. You probably won't even listen to what the (spiritual ?) implications of austerity are. When you have been brought up from childhood to escape from yourself through entertainment and the psychologists saying that you must express everything you feel and that any form of restraint is leading to various forms of neuroticism, you naturally enter more and more into the world of sports, amusement, entertainment, all 'helping' you to escape from ( the actuality of?) what you are. The understanding of the nature of what you are, without any reactions to what you discover you are, is the beginning of austerity. The awareness, of every thought, every feeling, like watching a bird in flight - that ( free) watching brings about an extraordinary sense of austerity (sobriety?) that goes beyond all the fooling around with this ideas of self- improvement and self-fulfilment. In this watching there is ( an inner sense of?) great freedom and in that freedom there dignity of austerity. But ( unfortunately?) if you said all this to a 'modern' group of students or children, they would probably look out of the window in boredom because the ( temporal consciousness of the modern ?) world is bent on (biased by?) its own pursuit of pleasure.

It appears that man has always escaped from what he is, from where he is going, from ( fundamental questions as?) What all this is about ? – the ( meaning of the?) universe, of our daily life, of the dying and the beginning. It is strange that we have never realized that however much we may ( succeed to?) escape from ourselves, however much we may wander away consciously, deliberately or unconsciously, subtly, the ( deeper existential?) conflicts (brought by the pursuit of ?) pleasure, the pain, fear and so on are always there. And they ultimately dominate ( the temporal consciousness?) . You may try to push them away deliberately with an act of will but they surface again. And ( the instinctual seeking of) pleasure is one of the factors that predominate; it too has the same conflicts, the same pain, the same boredom. The weariness of pleasure and the fret is part of this turmoil of our life. You can't escape it, my friend. You can't escape from this deep unfathomed ( existential) turmoil unless there is a careful attention, a diligent watching of the whole 'movement of thought' and the 'self'. You may say all this is perhaps unnecessary. But if you do not pay attention to this the future of mankind is not only going to be more destructive, more intolerable but without much significance. All this is not a depressing point of view, it is actually so. What you 'are' (inwardly) now is what you 'will be' in the coming days. You can't avoid it. It is as definite as the sun rising and setting. This is the ( time-bound) share of all man, of all humanity unless each one of us change to something that is not projected by thought.

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Wed, 08 Jul 2015
Topic: Pages from the Book of Life


IT IS THE second day of a spring morning. There is a scent in the air of many flowers and the sky is blue, dotted with passing clouds. The beauty of such a morning is timeless. It isn't just this morning: it is the morning of the whole world. You sit quietly far from everything and look at the blue sky, feel the whole earth, the purity and the loveliness of everything that lives and moves on this earth - except man of course.

K: Man is what he is now after many thousands of centuries of ( evolution in) time. His 'future' is what he is now unless there is a deep abiding mutation of his whole 'psyche' (psychological structure?) . Time has become extraordinarily important to man, to all of us - if you had no time you couldn't put things together to bring about a house; you must have time to lay brick upon brick. You must have time to go from here to where you want to go, but we also think that we need a 'psychological' time, the ( subjective continuity in ? ) 'time' of what has one been, modified now and continuing in the future. Man inwardly pins his hopes ( personal expectations?) on time; - one is 'this', but one hopes will become 'that'. In the physical world one can understand that time is necessary to travel, to reach to the desired place. The desired place is the future. There, (organising one's life in terms of?) time seems not only necessary but must exist. And this same movement (mentality?) is extended in the world of the psyche. But is there ( a time of) psychological becoming at all? The religions, the evolutionary books, have informed us that we need time to change (inwardly) from 'what (one) is' to 'what ( one) should be'. And there is a certain ( amount of) pleasure and pain in inwardly becoming 'non-violent' when one is 'violent' (greedy, self-centred, fearful?) , and that it needs an enormous amount of time. And perhaps that is one of the ( psycho-) miseries of man – when that fulfilment, that hope, is not achieved, is not come by easily. Is there actually 'time' in the (inner) 'psychological' world - is the divisive (mentality?) of man that has brought about conflict? After all, ideologies have existed perhaps as long as man can remember. And, like belief or faith, they separate man from man. And this ( mentality of?) separation comes about through time. The 'me', the I, the ego, the person, from the family to the group, to the tribe, to the nation. One wonders if these tribalistic divisions can ever be bridged over. Evolution ( of mankind) has separate groups, so time, knowledge, experience, definite conclusions, will never bring about a global relationship, a global mind.

So the question is: is there a possibility of bringing about a change in the actuality of what ( one) 'is', totally disregarding the ( wishful thinking?) movement of time? Is there a possibility of changing ( one's inner heritage of?) violence - can ( greed?) envy, with all its implications, be changed without ( thinking in terms of?) time being involved at all- to radically end 'envy' without time? This 'ending' has no time.

Q : Why do you say, sir, that time is unnecessary for change?

K : Let us together find out what is the truth of the matter, together having a dialogue to explore into this matter. It is the ( generally accepted) tradition that time is necessary for any change. That is correct about the physical time, the time necessary to gain a physical skill, but here we are considering whether the ( human) 'psyche' can ( through will?) reach a 'higher' state of consciousness. That is the whole movement (mentality?) of measurement, comparison. What does ( a radical inner?) ) 'change' imply? We live inwardly in disorder, confused, uncertain, constantly seeking rewards and avoiding punishments. We want to be secure, yet everything we do seems to bring about insecurity. This, and more, brings about disorder in our daily life. We have this constant ( psycho-) urge to move away from ( an unsatisfactory reality of?) "what (one) is", to become something other, rather than the understanding of "what is" and the causes of disorder.'

Q : That I understand, we do 'escape' from (facing?) "what is". We never consider diligently, what is happening now in each one of us. If we have a great deal of pain, psychologically, inwardly, we never look at it carefully. We want immediately to erase it, to find some consolation. And always there is this (instinctive ?) struggle to reach a state where there is no pain, where there is ( inner peace and?) no disorder. But the very attempt to bring about order seems to bring about other problems. So, you are saying, sir, that time is not a factor of change? I am not sure I really understand it.

K : Let us ask the question: is there a ( possibility for a?) timeless (time-free?) perception of that "which is"? That is, to look at "what is" without all the accumulated memories, words, reactions - to look at that feeling, at that reaction of (say for instance) , 'envy'. To observe this feeling without the 'actor' ('controller'?) who is ( impersonating?) all the remembrance of things that have happened before. Time is not merely the (chronological interval between the?) rising of the sun and the setting, or yesterday, today and tomorrow. ( Inwardly, the movement of?) time is much more complicated, more intricate, subtle. And to really understand the nature and the depth of time one has to meditate upon whether in the field of the 'psyche' time has a stop, whether (this thought projected?) time, really, actually, can ever come to an end? That is really the question : whether the continuity of the psyche is a reality or the desperate hope of man to cling to something that will give him some sort of security, comfort. When you look at the heavens, the planets and the unimaginable number of stars, can that ( immensity of the?) universe be understood by the time-bound mind ( by our temporal consciousness?) ? Is time necessary to see instantly that which is always true? One should really 'hold it in your mind', not 'think about it', but just observe the whole (inner) movement of 'time', which is really the movement of thought. Thought and time are not two different things : Time is (the creation of?) thought and thought is (the creation of) time. To put it differently, is there the actual 'ending of thought'? That is, the 'ending of knowledge'? Knowledge is time, thought is time, and we are asking whether this

accumulating ( and updating?) process of ( psycho-) knowledge, gathering more and more information, pursuing more and more the intricacies of one's existence, can end? Can ( the psychological content of?) thought, which is after all the essence of the 'psyche', the fears, the pleasures, the anxieties, the loneliness, the sorrow and this self-centred activity of selfishness, can all that come to an end? When death comes there is the ( compulsory?) ending of all that. But we are not talking about (that) death, the final ending, but whether we can actually perceive that ( the psychological component of?) thought, time, have an ending. Our knowledge after all is the ( result of a constant ?) accumulation ( updating, processing?) through time of our various ( personal and collective) experiences, the recording of various incidents, happenings, and so on; this recording is naturally stored in the brain, this recording is the essence of 'time' ( our temporal consciousness?) . Can we find out when this recording (and usage?) of knowledge is necessary, and whether the 'psychological ' recording is necessary at all? When one is ( feeling) insulted or psychologically hurt by a word, by a gesture, by an action, why should that 'hurt' be recorded? Is it possible not to record the flattery or the insult so that the 'psyche' (the mind?) is never cluttered up, so that it has vast space (inwardly) , and the ( identified?) 'psyche' that we are conscious of as the "me", which again is put together by thought and time, comes to an end?

We are always afraid of something that we have not previously experienced. But you can't 'experience' ( have a personal experience of?) truth. To 'experience' (truth personally ?) there must be the 'experiencer' ( a self-consciousness?) . The 'experiencer' is the result of time, accumulated memory, knowledge and so on. As we said at the beginning, ( understanding the inner process of?) 'time' demands quick, watchful, attentive understanding. In our daily life can one live without 'time', inwardly? The roots of Heaven are not in time and thought.'

Q : Sir, your various statements about 'time' and 'thought' seem now, while I am listening to you, so simple, so clear, and perhaps for a second or two there is the ending and stopping of 'time'. But when I go back to my ordinary routine, the weariness and the boredom of it all, even pleasure becomes rather wearisome - when I go back I will pick up the old threads. It seems so extraordinarily difficult to let go of the threads and look, without reaction, at the way of time. But I am beginning to understand that there is a possibility of 'not recording', if I may use your words. I realize I 'am' the record. I have been programmed to (thinking of) being this or that. One can see that fairly easily and perhaps put all that aside. But the ending of thought and the intricacies of time need a great deal of observation, a great deal of investigation. But you are really saying; just watch without any reaction, give total attention to the ordinary things of life and there discover the possibility of ending time and thought. Thank you indeed for this interesting talk.

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Tue, 14 Jul 2015
Topic: Pages from the Book of Life


We came to this house ( in ojai) which was recently built and with the cleanliness that houses in towns don't have. There were lots of flowers, a place in which to be deeply, inwardly, quiet, not just vegetate.

Silence is a great benediction, it cleanses the brain, gives vitality to it, and this silence builds up a great unpolluted energy, untouched by thought. It is the ( total) energy (of the brain) that has incalculable capacity, skills. And this is a place where the brain, being very active, can be silent. That very intense activity of the brain has the quality and the depth and the beauty of silence. (Holistic ?) education is the cultivation of the whole brain, not one part of it; it is a cultivation of the (whole?) human being. (Such) a school should teach both science and religion. Science really means the cultivation of (the field of?) knowledge, and this has given us the innumerable small things for an easier way of life in which human beings need not struggle endlessly but it has also given us the modern ( techno-?) deity, the computer.

Human beings look to science to bring about peace in the world, but it has failed, just as the politicians have failed to give them total security and peace. And the essence of a religious way of life is inner freedom, to have no conflict, psychologically, inwardly. With such freedom the brain becomes holistic, not fragmented in itself. Freedom also means love, compassion, and there is no freedom if there is not intelligence. If there is some ( cooperating ?) peace among a few people, then those few, not necessarily ( the self-selected?) 'elite', will employ all their skill to bring about a different world, where religion and science can go together. Religion is a form of ( inward?) science : to go beyond (the limitations of?) knowledge and to comprehend the nature and immensity of the human mind and heart. But this ( inward) immensity has nothing whatsoever to do with any 'organized' religion.

A ( holistically oriented ?) school is a place for learning the art of living. This art is the greatest, it surpasses all other arts for this art touches the entire human being, not one part of him, however pleasant that may be. And in a school of this kind, if the educator is committed to this as an actuality of daily life (s)he can actually try to find out in the human brain a way of living that is not caught in problems, strife, conflict and pain. And (such an) educator could also instil in the students' ( beyond the scholastic) acquisition of knowledge this freedom from knowledge (absolutely necessary ?) to understand 'that' which is eternal, which is timeless. Knowledge is of time, and ( a religious mind?) is free from the bondage of time. It seems so urgent and important that we bring about a new generation, even half a dozen people in the world would make a vast difference. But this (new) educator needs (to go through self-?) education (since) this is the greatest vocation in the world.

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Mon, 03 Aug 2015
Topic: Pages from the Book of Life

K to himself: the root-cause of 'psychological' disorder

Everything seems to live (integrated) in (an universal) order, in its own order - the sea with its tides, the new moon and the setting of the full moon, the lovely spring and the warmth of summer. Even the earthquake of yesterday has its own 'order' (a resettling of the tectonic plates?) . Order ( harmony?) is the very essence of the universe - the order of birth and death and so on. It is only man that seems to live ( in the artificial order of self-projected time?) in such disorder, confusion. He has lived that way since he began.

Talking to the visitor sitting on the veranda, with the red climbing rose and a young wisteria and the smell of the earth and the trees, to discuss about human disorder, human confusion and misery, seems so utterly out of place. But there he is, friendly, knowledgeable and probably given (addicted?) to thought. The fog is clearing, there is that spring sunshine and the lizard is coming out, warming itself on the rock, and all the little things of the earth are busy. They have their order, they all seem to be so happy, enjoying the sunshine, with no man near to hurt them, to spoil their day.

Q : If one may ask,what is to you the most important thing in life? What to you is the most essential quality that man must cultivate?

K : If you ( are trying to?) 'cultivate' it , as you cultivate the fields of the earth, then it is not the most essential (most spiritual ?) thing. It must happen naturally, easily, without any self-centred motives. The most important thing for each human being, surely, is to live in order, in harmony with all the things around him - even with something (an environment?) that is ( becoming) ugly, vulgar, without letting it affect or alter the course of his life, alter or distort the order in which he is living. Surely, sir, ( the sense of being integrated in an universal?) order is the most important thing in life, or, rather, one of the most important.'

Q : Why shouldn't order be simply a quality of a brain that can act correctly, happily, precisely (efficiently?) ?

K : ( Universal) Order isn't created by thought. Order isn't something that you follow day after day, practise, conform to. As the streams join the sea, so the river of Order, is endless. But that order cannot be (perceived?) if there is any kind of inner struggle to achieve, or slipping into a routine, into various well defined (settled psychosomatic?) habits. All that is not Order. ( Self-isolation and its resulting ?) conflict is the very source of our disorder, is the very cause.

Q : ( In the material world) everything struggles, doesn't it? Those trees, they have struggled to exist, struggled to grow. The marvellous oak there behind this house, it has withstood storms, years of rain and hot sunshine, it has struggled to exist. Life is conflict, it is a turmoil, a storm. And you are saying, are you not, that order is a state in which there is no conflict? It seems like (you are?) talking in a strange language, something utterly foreign to one's own daily life, one's own way of thinking. Do you, if I am not impudent, live in (such an) Order in which there is no conflict whatsoever?'

K : Is it very important to find out if another is living (inwardly) without effort, without conflict? Shouldn't you rather ask if you, as a human being, who live in ( conflict and ) disorder, can find out for yourself the many causes - or perhaps there is only one cause - of this disorder? Those flowers know anything about order nor disorder, they just 'exist'. Of course, if they were not watered they would die, but dying also is ( part of?) their order. It seems to be the nature of the (material) world: the big things live on little things, and the bigger live on the big. This is the cycle in the world of nature. We know from time to time this sense of total harmony and also (more often than not?) the pain, the anxiety, the sorrow, the (inner and outer?) conflict. The cause of (our inward, psychological) disorder is the everlasting 'becoming' - ( the desire?) to become (better) , to seek ( one's ) 'identity', the struggle to 'be' .

As long as the (human) brain, which is so heavily conditioned, is measuring, moving psychologically from 'this' to 'that', it must inevitably bring about a sense of conflict, and this is ( generating its own?) disorder. Not only becomingt something 'more', 'better', but the ( gratifying) feeling of achieving, gaining - as long as there is this duality (between what one is and what one should be?) , there must be (a time-binding?) conflict. And out of this conflict is (coming) disorder. Perhaps one is aware of all this, but being negligent (not diligent?) in this 'awareness', one 'carries on' living in the same way, day after day all the days of one's life. This duality is not just on the verbal (intellectual?) level but is a deeper division as the 'thinker' and (his) thought. The 'thinker' (mental entity) is 'put together' (automatically generated?) by (the thinking brain?) thought, the 'thinker' is the (identification with the knowledge of the?) past, the thinker is knowledge, and (the process of) thought too is born out of knowledge. Actually there is no division between the 'thinker' and the (process of self centred) thought, they are one inseparable unit; but thought plays a clever ( self-protective) trick upon itself, it divides (splits?) itself. Perhaps this constant (self-) division , this inner fragmentation, is the cause of our (living in?) disorder. Just to see the truth of this, that the 'perceiver' is (not separated from what is?) 'perceived', ends this (artificially generated?) disorder.

The morning ends and the sun now is bright and there are a thousand shadows. The earth is quiet but man is lost and confused.

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Tue, 04 Aug 2015
Topic: Pages from the Book of Life


K : What does 'death' mean to you, Sir?

Q : As far as I can understand, 'death' means the ending of a living thing, a sudden ending of that person which has been living with all its memories, ideas, pain, anxiety, joys, pleasures – all that has come to an end. And the remembrance of all that, ( of the one who is still alivenot only brings tears but also the realization of one's own inadequacy, one's own loneliness. The idea of (a sudden) separation from the attachments and the pain of attachment - all that and more ceases suddenly. That is death. The ending of a long life, or the ending of a new born baby.

K : It is very important to understand the way we actually live now- why we live this way after so many centuries. Isn't it one constant struggle? Conflict, pain, joy, pleasure, anxiety, loneliness, depression, and working, labouring for others or for oneself; being self-centred and occasionally generous, envious, angry, trying to suppress the anger, or letting that anger go rampant, and so on. This is what we call 'living' - the weariness of it all, the boredom, the inanities: this is our life. Not only yours but the life of all human beings on this earth. This ( inner) agony, fear has gone on from the ancient of days until now - labour, strife, pain, uncertainty, confusion, and joy and laughter. All this is part of our existence. And the coming to an end of all this is called 'death'. Death puts an end to ( the physical objects of ? ) all our attachments, however superficial or however deep. The attachment to one's family, every form of attachment must end with death. Is there such a thing as immortality? The immortal ( essence of our consciousness?) is that which is beyond time and is totally unaware of this ( physical) ending. Is the 'self' ( centred consciousness?) , the "me", immortal? The "me", the I, with all its qualities is put together through time, which is thought- that 'self' (identified consciousness?) can never be immortal.

Secondly (this is a little bit more challenging?): is it possible to ( inwardly) live with death? Why have we divided death from living? Death is part of our life, it is part of our existence - the dying and the living are inseparable. The (continuity of our) envy, t sorrow, the ( self-isolating?) loneliness, and the (occasional) pleasures that one has, which we (generically ) call 'living', and this ( 'ending'?) thing called death - we are always separating life and death. This is a 'psychological' problem which we should question, see the inward implications of, not (self) deceptively. Another (psychological) question involved is the issue of 'time' -the time that separates the living from the ending. Where there is such a 'separation', from "what is" to "what should (or could?) be", ( a mental process of?) time is involved. Sustaining this ( temporal) division between that which is called 'death' and that which is called 'life', is to me a major ( deteriorating?) factor. When there is this division, this separation there is the fear (of 'not being'?). and the effort of overcoming that fear and the (compensating) search for comfort, satisfaction, for a sense of continuity. (We are talking about the (in ner) 'psychological' world not the physical world or the technical world.) It is time that has put the 'self' (consciousness) together and it is ( the same process of) thought that sustains the ego, the self. If only one could really grasp the significance of ( this thought created?) 'time' and the (resulting) separation, psychologically, of man against man, race against race, one type of culture against another. This separation, this division, is brought about by ( the joint process of?) 'thought and time'. And to 'live with death' means a profound change in our whole outloo on existence. (It implies) to end (the 'psychological' ) 'attachments' without time and motive, that is 'dying while living.' Love ( a loving mind?) has no time and is never 'personal'; one may 'love' another but when that love is narrowed down to one person, then it ceases to be (unconditional) Love. Where there really is (a quality of?) Love (in our mind and heart?) there is no division of ( created by thought created ?) 'time' and all the complexities of life, all the misery and confusion, the uncertainties, jealousies, anxieties involved. One has to give a great deal of ( meditative?) attention to (the inner process of?) 'time and thought'. Not that one must live only in the present, which would be utterly meaningless (in the modern world?). ( The thought-created?) time is the 'active memory of the?) past, modified (by the 'present' circumstances?) and continuing ( projecting itself into?)j the future'. It's a 'continuum' and (the self-centred) thought holds on, clings to this. It clings to something which it has itself created, put together.

Another (third and more universal?) question is that you 'are' the (consciousness of the?) entire humanity, « you are the world and the world is you » - what happens to you when you die? You and are the (psychical) manifestation of that Stream of (collective) Consciousness. That Stream (shared colectivistic mentality?) has conditioned (imprinted?) the human brain, and as long as we remain conditioned by (that mentality of self-centred ?) greed, envy, fear, pleasure, joy and all the rest of it, we are (an active contributor ?) part of this stream. Your physical organism may end but you (subconsciously?) are while living, ( an impersonation of?) that stream itself. That Stream is slow at times, fast at others, deep and shallow, narrowed by the 'banks' and breaking through the narrowness into a vast volume of water - as long as you are of that stream there is no (authentic inner ?) freedom. There is no freedom from (the ongoing process of thought created?) 'time', from the ( residual) confusion and the misery of all the (collective and personal?) accumulated memories and attachments. It is only when there is the ending of (the identification with?) that Stream (of self-interest?), the ending, not 'you' stepping out of it and becoming something else, but the ending of it, only then is there quite a different dimension (inward state of mind ?) . That dimension cannot be measured (described or evaluated?) by words. This (meditation act of?) 'ending' without a motive is the whole significance of 'dying and living'. The roots of Heaven are (to be found ?) in ( inwardly integrating?) 'living' and 'dying'.

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Wed, 05 Aug 2015
Topic: Pages from the Book of Life

K to himself: on the ebb and flow of life

At last you came to the blue Pacific. It was like a pond this morning, so quiet, so extraordinarily still, and the morning light was on it. One should really meditate on on that glittering water. If you can look at that sea, the sparkle of the dazzling light, and the clear water, with all your senses highly awakened to their excellence, in that observation there is not the ( self-conscious ?) centre as 'you', watching. It is a beautiful thing to watch that sea, and the sand, clean, washed every day. No footprint can remain there, even the little birds of the sea never leave their mark, the sea washes them away. Sitting on the shore watching the birds, the sky and hearing the distant sound of passing cars, it was a most beautiful morning.You 'went out' with the ebb and 'came in' with the tide. You went out far and came back again - this endless movement of in and out and out and in. You could see as far as the horizon where the sky met the waters. It was a big bay with blue and white water and tiny little houses all around it. And behind you were the mountains, range after range. Watching without a single thought, watching without any reaction, watching without identity, only endlessly watching, you really are not awake, you are absent minded, not all there; you are not 'you' but watching. Watching the thoughts that arise and then fade away, thought after thought, thought (the 'thinking' brain?) itself is becoming aware of itself.

Sitting on the beach watching the people pass by, two or three couples and a single woman, it seems that all nature, everything around you, from the deep blue sea to those high rocky mountains, was also watching. We were not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. In that watching there is a 'learning' which is not the accumulation of knowledge but watching closely, deeply, with a swiftness and a tenderness; then there is no 'watcher'. When there is a 'watcher' it is merely the ( acting memory of the?) past watching, and that is not (pure?) watching, that is just remembering and it is rather dead stuff. Watching (free of the past?) is tremendously alive, every moment a vacancy. Those little crabs and those seagulls and all those birds flying by are watching. They are watching for prey, for fish, watching for something to eat; they too are watching. Somebody passes close by you and wonders what you are watching. You are watching nothing, and in that 'no-thingness' everything is.

The other day a man who had travelled a great deal, seen a great deal, written something or other, came - an oldish man with a beard, which was well kept; he was dressed decently without the sloppiness of vulgarity. He took care of his shoes, of his clothes. He spoke excellent English, though he was a foreigner. He said he had talked to a great many people, discussed with some professors and scholars, and while he was in India he had talked to some of the pundits (local wise-men?) . And most of them, according to him, were not concerned with society, not deeply committed to any social reform or to the present crisis of ( the Falklands?) war. He was deeply concerned about the society in which we were living, though he was not a social reformer. He was not quite sure whether society could be changed, whether you could do something about it. But he saw what it was; the vast corruption, the absurdity of the politicians, the pettiness, the vanity, and the brutality that is rampant in the world.

Q : What can we do about this society? - not petty little reforms here and there, changing one President for another, or one Prime Minister for another - they can't do much because they represent the mediocrity, or even less than that, the vulgarity; they want to show off, they will never do anything. They will bring about potty little reforms here and there but society will go on in spite of them.' He had watched the various societies, cultures. They are not so very different fundamentally. He appeared to be a very serious man with a smile and he talked about the beauty of this country, the vastness, the variety, from the hot deserts to the high Rockies with their splendour. One listened to him as one would listen to and watch the sea.

K : Society cannot be changed unless man changes (inwardly) . Man, you and others, have created these societies for generations upon generations; out of our ( self-centred?) limitation, out of our greed, envy, brutality, violence, competition, and so on. ( Therefore ) we are responsible for (accepting?) all the tribal nonsense and religious sectarianism. Unless each one of us (inwardly) changes radically, ( the outer human) society will never change. It is there, we have made it, and then it shapes us, it puts us in a mould and the mould puts it into a framework which is the society. So this action-reaction is going on endlessly, like the sea with a tide that goes far out and then comes in, sometimes very, very slowly, at other times rapidly, dangerously. In and out; action, reaction, action. This seems to be the nature of this movement (of time?) , unless there is (established a ) deep order in oneself. That ( inward) order will bring about order in society, not through legislation, governments and all that business - though as long as there is disorder, confusion, the law, the authority, which is created by our disorder, will go on.

So the inner (world) , the 'psyche', creates the outer (society) according to its limitation; and the outer then controls and moulds the inner. ( However) the inner always overcomes the outer, for it is far more vital, than the outer. Can this ( time-based?) movement ever stop - the inner creating the outer environment psychologically, and the outer, the laws, the institutions, the organizations, trying to shape (condition?) the human brain, to make it act in a certain way, and the brain, the inner, the psyche, circumventing the outer limitations? This movement has been going on for as long as man has been on this earth, crudely, superficially, sometimes brilliantly - but it is always the inner overcoming the outer, like the sea with its tides going out and coming in. One should really ask whether this (interactive 'evolutionary'?) movement can ever stop - action and reaction, hatred and more hatred, violence and more violence. It has an end when there is only a 'watching' without motive, without direction. Direction comes into being when there is ( a process of psychological ?) accumulation. But the watching, in which there is attention, awareness, and a great sense of compassion, has its own intelligence. This (time-free?) 'watching' and its intelligence act. But this requires a great alertness, to see things directly without the word, without the name, without any (mental) reaction; in that 'watching' there is a great vitality, passion.

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Fri, 07 Aug 2015
Topic: Pages from the Book of Life

A meditative outlook on death and sorrow (from The only revolution)

Meditation is the unfolding of the New. The New is beyond and above the repetitious past - and meditation is the ending of this repetition. The 'death' (the ending of our attachment to the old?) that meditation brings about is the (timeless) immortality of the new. The New is not (to be found) within the area of thought, and meditation is the silencing of thought. Meditation is not a (personal) achievement, it is like the river, not to be tamed, swiftly running and overflowing its banks. It is the music without sound; it is the silence in which the 'observer' has ceased from the very beginning. The sun wasn't up yet; you could see the morning star through the tree. There was a silence that was really extraordinary. Not the (interval of) silence between two noises or between two notes, but the Silence that has no reason whatsoever - the Silence that must have been at the beginning of the world. It filled the whole valley and the hills. And this Silence spread, and seemed to go beyond the hills. Towards the end of the evening, as the sun was setting over the western hills, the Silence came in from afar, over the hills, through the trees, covering the little bushes and the ancient banyan. And as the stars became brilliant, the Silence grew into great intensity; you could hardly bear it. The little lamps of the village were put out, and with sleep the intensity of that Silence grew deeper, wider and incredibly overpowering. Even the hills became more quiet, for they, too, had stopped their whisperings, their movement, and seemed to lose their immense weight .


Q : l lost my husband four years ago. He was a doctor and died of cancer. He must have hidden it from me, and only in the last year or so did I know about it. He was in agony although the doctors gave him morphine and other sedatives. Before my eyes he withered away and was gone. I somehow cannot bear this loneliness, this meaningless existence without him. I loved my children; I had three of them, a boy and two girls. One day last year the boy wrote to me from school that he was not feeling well, and a few days later I got a telephone call from the headmaster, saying that he was dead. I don't know what to do. This death has shaken the very foundations of my life. Like a house, our marriage was carefully built on what we considered a deep foundation. Now everything is destroyed by this enormous event.

K : Do you want to talk about this seriously - go to the root of it all? Or do you want to be distracted from your sorrow by some satisfying words?

Q : I'd like to go into it deeply, but I don't know whether I have the capacity or the energy to face what you are going to say. When my husband was alive we used to come to some of your talks; but now I may find it very difficult to go along with you.

K : Why are you in sorrow? Is it for your husband - or is it for yourself? If you are crying for him, can your tears help him? He has gone ( in the next world?) irrevocably. It is a fact which you have to accept; you can't do anything about it. But if you are crying for yourself, because of your loneliness, your empty life, because of the sensual pleasures you had and the companionship, then you are crying out of self-pity? Perhaps for the first time you are becoming fully aware of your own inward poverty. You have 'invested' ( emotionally?) in your husband, and it (the resulting attachment?) has given you comfort, satisfaction and pleasure. All you are feeling now - the agony of loneliness and anxiety - is ( basically?) a form of self-pity, isn't it? His death has shaken you and shown you (brought to the surface?) the actual state of your mind and heart. You may not be willing to look at it, but if you observe a little more you will see that you are ( actually) crying out of your own loneliness, out of your inward poverty - which is, out of self-pity.

Q : You are rather cruel, aren't you, sir? I have come to you for real comfort, and what are you giving me?

K : It is one of the (psychological) illusions most people have - that there is such a thing as (a lasting) inward comfort; that somebody else can give it to you or that you can find it for yourself. I am afraid there is no such thing. If you are seeking ( this illusory?) comfort you are bound to live in ( the comfort of?) illusions, and when the (material support of these?) illusions is broken you become sad because the comfort is taken away from you. So, to understand sorrow and/or to go beyond it, one must 'see' ( acknowledge ?) actually what is inwardly taking place, and not try to cover it up. When you see ( the truth about?) this (sad inner situation ?) , very clearly, then you ( may?) come out of it immediately, without a scratch, unblemished, fresh, untouched by the events of life. ( Recap :) Death is an inevitable fact (of life) for all of us; one cannot escape from it. We try to find every kind of explanation, cling to every kind of belief, but do what you will it is always there; tomorrow, or many years away - it is always there. And ( psychologically ) one has to come into touch with this enormous fact of our life.

Q2 : But the Atman (the eternal soul?) is in every one of us! It is reborn and continues until it realizes that it is (one with) Brahman. We must go through sorrow to come to that ( eternal) Reality. We live in illusion; the world is an illusion. There is only one Reality.

K : There is nothing 'permanent' either on earth or in ourselves. Thought ( the 'thinking brain'?) can give continuity to something it thinks about; it can give 'permanency' to a word, to an idea, to a tradition. Thought thinks itself permanent, but is it permanent? It can build a (mental) image and give to that image a continuity, a permanency, calling it Atman or it can remember the face of the husband or the wife and hold on to (the memory of) it. All this is the activity of (a self-centred ?) thought which creates fear, and out of this fear there is the drive for (seeking some) permanency - the fear of not having a meal tomorrow, or shelter - the fear of death. This fear is the result of thought, and ( the concept of?) 'Brahman' is the product of thought, too.

Q2 : Memory and thought are like a candle. You put it out and re-light it again; you forget, and you remember again later on. You die and are reborn again into another life. The flame of the candle is the same - and not the same. So in the flame there is a certain quality of continuity.

K : But the flame which has been put out is not the same flame as the new flame. There is (must be?) an ending of the old (flame ?) for the new (one) to be. If there is a constant modified continuity, then there is no 'new' thing ( flame) at all. The (memory of) thousand yesterdays cannot be made new; even a candle burns itself out. Everything must end for the new to be.

Q1 : I am not concerned about all these (metaphysical issues?). I am utterly miserable. I have lost my husband and my son, and there are these two children left. What am I to do? K : If you are ( truly) concerned about the two children, you can't be concerned about yourself and your misery. You have to look after them, educate them without the usual mediocrity. But if you are consumed by your own self-pity, which you call "the love for your husband", and if you withdraw into isolation, then you are also destroying the other two children. Consciously or unconsciously we are all utterly selfish (self-centred ?) , and so long as we get what we want we consider everything is all right. But the moment an event takes place to shatter all this, we cry out in despair, hoping to find other comforts which, of course, will again be shattered. So this process (of time and sorrow?) goes on, and if you want to be caught in it, knowing full well all the implications of it, then go ahead. But if you see the ( spiritual ?) 'absurdity' of it all, then you will naturally stop isolating yourself, and live with a new light and with a smile on your face.

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Sat, 08 Aug 2015
Topic: Pages from the Book of Life

From K's 1973 Journal on: meditation, order and...pleasure

Darkness of the night is as necessary as the light of day. In the quiet darkness, there is growth and flowering, gathering strength to meet the vibrant day; night and day are essential; both give life, energy, to all living things. Only man dissipates it. Sleep is very important, since in sleep many things happen both in the physical organism and in the brain (the mind is (the energy of?) the brain; they are one, a unitary movement). To this whole (mind-brain) structure sleep is absolutely essential. In sleep order, adjustment and deeper perceptions take place; the quieter the brain the deeper the insight. The brain needs ( a deep feeling of protection and?) security and order to function harmoniously, without any ( inner fragmentation and?) friction. Night provides it and during quiet sleep there are states (levels of consciousness?) , which thought (the thinking function of the brain?) can never reach. ( Then) dreams are 'disturbance' ( distractors?) ; since they distort total perception. In sleep the mind rejuvenates itself. Dreams are the expression (reflexion?) in different forms and symbols of our daily life. If there is no harmony, no (profound ) order in our daily life of relationship, then dreams are a ( compensating?) continuance of that disorder. The brain during sleep tries to bring about order out of this confusing contradiction. ( With age?) in this constant struggle between order and disorder the brain is (getting) worn out. But it must have ( an inner feeling of protection and?) security in order to function at all, and so beliefs, ideologies and other 'neurotic ' concepts become necessary. Turning night into day is one of those neurotic habits, but the inanities that go on in the 'modern' world after nightfall are (just) an escape from a daily life of routine and boredom.

A total awareness of disorder in our relationships both private and public, personal and distant, a choiceless awareness of 'what is' during the day, brings ( a new) order out of (the existing ?) disorder. Then the brain has no need to seek (a deeper feeling of ) order (through dreams) during sleep. Order in the whole of consciousness, not merely at the conscious level, takes place (only?) when division between the 'observer' and the 'observed' ceases . The 'what is' ( the temporal 'reality'?), is transcended when the 'observer' who is the ( active knowledge of the?) past, who is ( the result of?) time, comes to an end. The ( perception in the?) 'active present' is not in the bondage of time as the 'observer' is. Only when the mind, the brain and the (psychosomatic?) organism during sleep has this total order, is there an awareness of that wordless state, of that timeless movement. This is the very summation of meditation. The brain is constantly active ( registering ?) , waking or sleeping, but the constant conflict between ( living inwardly in a state of ?) disorder (and trying to establish some compensatory feeling of?) order, wears down the brain. (Inner ?) order is the highest form of virtue, sensitivity, intelligence. When there is this great beauty of (inner) order, harmony, the brain is not endlessly active (thinking ?) ; certain parts of it have to carry the burden of ( practical) memory but that is a very small part; the rest of the brain is free from the noise of ( material?) experience. That freedom is the order, the harmony, of silence. This freedom and the noise of memory move together, intelligence is the action of this movement. Meditation is this 'freedom from the known' and yet ( intelligently?) operating in the field of the known. There is no 'me' as the (self-conscious?) 'operator'. In sleep or awake this ( inner quality of?) meditation goes on.

It is the oldest living tree on the earth. It is gigantic in proportion, in its height and vast trunk. Among other redwood trees, which were also very old, this one was towering over them all; other trees had been touched by fire but this one had no marks on it. The noisy ( groups of) tourists had not come yet and you could be alone with this great 'silent one'; it soared up to the heavens, vast and timeless. Its very age gave it the dignity of silence- it was as silent as your mind was, as still as your heart, and living without the burden of ( the memories of?) time. You were aware of a compassion that time had never touched and of innocency that had never known hurt and sorrow. There was immortality, for death had never been. Nothing ( seemed to ?) exist except that immense tree, the clouds and the earth. You went to that tree and sat down with it, and every day for many days it was a benediction of which you were only aware when 'you' wandered away. You could never come back to it asking for more; there was never the 'more', the 'more' was in the valley far below. There was unfathomable sacredness which would never again leave you, for it was not yours.

In the early morning when the sun had not yet touched the tops of the trees, the deer and the bear were there; we watched each other, wide-eyed and wondering; the earth was common to us and fear was absent. The blue jays and the red squirrels would come soon; the squirrel was tame and friendly. You had nuts in your pocket and it took them out of your hand; when the squirrel had had enough the two jays would hop down from the branches and the scolding would stop. And the day began.

In the world of pleasure sensuality ( the pursuit of sensations?) has become very important. Taste dictates and soon the habits of pleasure takes hold; (and even) though it may harm the whole organism, pleasure dominates. Pleasure of the senses, of a cunning and subtle thought, of words and of the images of mind and hand (plus?) the pleasure of violence and the pleasure of sex, are (sustained by of our?) culture and education. (The total consciousness of?) man is moulded into the shape of pleasure, and all his existence, religious or otherwise, is the pursuit of it. When the mind is not free and aware (of the bio-cultural pressures?), then 'sensuality' (living on the sensory level?) becomes a factor of corruption which is what is going on in the 'modern' world (where the ) pleasure of money and sex dominate. When man has become a secondhand (conditioned?) human being, the expression of sensuality is his (only available?) freedom. Then love is (translated in terms of?) pleasure and desire. ( The joint efforts of?) organized entertainment, religious or commercial, makes for social and personal immorality; (and eventually) you cease to be responsible. Responding wholly to any challenge is to be responsible, totally (humanely?) committed. This cannot be when the very essence of human thought is fragmentary and the pursuit of pleasure, in all its obvious and subtle forms, is the principal movement (motivation?) of existence.

Pleasure is not joy; joy and pleasure are entirely different things; the one is uninvited and the other cultivated, nurtured; the one comes when the "me" is not and the other is time-binding; where the one is the other is not. Pleasure, fear and violence run together; they are inseparable companions. Learning from observation is action, the doing is the seeing. In the evening when the darkness was approaching, the jays and the squirrels had gone to bed. The evening star was just visible and the noises of the day and memory had come to an end. These giant sequoias were motionless. They will go on beyond time. Only man dies and the sorrow of it.

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Sun, 09 Aug 2015
Topic: Pages from the Book of Life

Meditation and Space

In a small boat on the quiet slow current of the river all the horizon was visible; there wasn't a tree or house that broke the horizon; there was not a cloud floating by. The banks were flat, stretching on both sides far into the land and they held the wide river. The sky and the earth met and there was vast space. In this measureless Space the earth and all things had their existence, even this small boat carried along by the strong current. There must be this Space for beauty and compassion. Everything must have (its own ) space, the living and the dead, the rock on the hill and the bird on the wing. If rats are enclosed in a restricted space, they begin to destroy each other; human beings living in crowded cities are becoming (increasingly?) violent. Where there is no ( free) Space, outwardly and inwardly, every form of mischief and degeneration is inevitable.

Conditioning the mind through the so-called 'education', 'religion', 'culture', gives little (inner) space to the flowering of the mind and heart. When there is no such space there is (decay and) death Music creates the space it needs; the sound of a word not only makes space: it needs space to be heard. The interval between two thoughts is ( confined within?) the (mental) space that thought makes. The continuous extension of ( the psychological ?) 'time' movement and the interval between two movements of thought need space. Our consciousness is ( contained?) within the movement of time and thought. This consciousness, wide or narrow, exists where there is ( the identification with?) a centre , the "me". This "me" has its being and its activity within this small space it has created for itself. All its problems and sorrows, its hopes and despairs are within its own (self-protecting ?) frontiers, and there is no (free inner) space (left). The 'known' occupies all (the free inner space of our) consciousness. Consciousness 'is' the known and within its frontiers there is no solution to all the problems man has created. And yet he won't let go; clinging to the known hoping that (an extensive knowledge?) will bring the solution his problems. This (mental) space which the "me" has built for itself is (generating ?) its own sorrow and the pain of ( its endless search for?) pleasure. The vast, measureless Space lies outside the measure of thought, and thought is the (natural activity of the?) known. Meditation is the emptying of consciousness of its (psychological?) content, the known, the "me".

Slowly the oars took the boat up the sleeping river and the light of a house gave it the direction. It had been a long evening and the sunset was gold, green and orange and it made a golden path on the water.

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Mon, 10 Aug 2015
Topic: Pages from the Book of Life


He was a sannyasi and he spoke of himself as of a third person. While still young he had renounced the world and its ways and had wandered all over the country, staying with some of the well known religious teachers, talking with them and following their peculiar disciplines and rituals. He had fasted for many a day, lived in solitude among the mountains, and done most of the things that sannyasis are supposed to do. He had damaged himself physically through excessive ascetic practices, and although that was long ago, his body still suffered from it. Then one day he had decided to abandon all these daily practices, rituals and disciplines as being vain and without much (spiritual) significance, and had gone off into some faraway mountain village, where he spent many years in deep contemplation. The usual thing had happened, he said with a smile, and he in his turn had become well known and had had a large following of disciples to whom he taught simple things. He had read the ancient Sanskrit literature, and now that too he had put away. Although it was necessary to describe briefly what his life had been, he added, that was not the thing for which he had come.

Q : Above all virtues, self-sacrifices, and the action of dispassionate help, is meditation. Without meditation, our knowledge and action become a wearisome burden with very little meaning; but few know what (true) meditation is. If you are willing, we must talk this over. In meditation it has been the experience of this speaker (aimed) to reach different states of consciousness; he has had the experiences that all aspiring human beings sooner or later go through, the visions embodying Krishna, Christ, Buddha. They are the outcome of one’s own thought and education, and of what maybe called one’s cultural (conditioning?). There are visions, experiences and 'powers' of many different varieties. Unfortunately, most truth seekers are caught in the net of their own thoughts and desires, even some of the greatest 'exponents of truth'. Having the power of healing and the gift of words, they become prisoners to their own capacities and experiences. The speaker himself has passed through these experiences and dangers, and to the best of his ability has understood and gone beyond them - at least, let us hope so. What then is (true?) meditation?

K : Surely, in considering meditation, the effort (to achieve something higher?) and the ('meditator' or the ?) 'maker of effort' must be understood. ( Psychologically speaking?) 'good' effort and 'wrong ' effort are both (time) binding, and it is this (time) bondage that must be understood and broken. Meditation is the breaking of all bondage; it is a state of (inner) freedom, but not 'freedom from anything' . To be conscious of 'being free' is not freedom. Self-consciousness is the experiencing of freedom or of bondage, and that self-consciousness is the 'experiencer', the maker of effort. Meditation is the breaking down of the 'experiencer' (self-identification?) , which (unfortunately?) cannot be done 'consciously' ( by a conscious effort?) . If the 'experiencer' is broken down consciously, then there is a strengthening of the will, which is also a part of (self-) consciousness. Our problem, then, is concerned with (seeing through ?) the whole process of our consciousness, and not with one part of it, small or great, dominant or subservient.

Q : What you say seems to be true. The ways of (our self-centred?) consciousness are profound (hidden?), deceptive and contradictory. It is only through a dispassionate observation and careful study that this tangle can be unravelled and order can prevail.

K : But, sir, the 'unraveller' is still there; one may call him the Higher Self, the Atman, and so on, but he is still part of consciousness, the maker of effort who is everlastingly trying to 'get somewhere' (to a desired state) . Effort is (the dualistic action of?) desire. One desire can be overcome by a greater desire, and that desire by still another, and so on endlessly. Desire breeds (self-) deception, illusion, contradiction, and the 'visions' of hope. The all-conquering desire for (attaining) the ultimate (truth), or the will to reach 'That' which is nameless, is still the way of (a self-centred) consciousness, of the 'experiencer' of good and bad, the 'experiencer' who is waiting, watching, hoping. Consciousness is not of one particular level, it is the totality of our being.

Q : What has been heard so far is excellent and true; but if one may inquire, what is it that will bring peace, stillness to this ( ordinary) consciousness?

K : No-thing ( not-a-thing?) . Surely, the (human) mind is ever (instinctively) seeking a result, a way to some 'achievement'. It is a (mental) instrument that has been 'put together', it is the fabric of time, and it can only think in terms of result, of achievement, of something to be gained or avoided.

Q : That is so. It is being stated that as long as the ( mental) mind is active, choosing, seeking, experiencing, there must be the (identification with the?) 'maker of effort' who creates his own (self-) image, calling it by different names, and this is the net in which thought is caught.

K : Thought (the 'memory based' thinking?) itself is the maker of the net; thought is the net. Thought is (time) binding; thought can only lead to the vast expanse of 'time', the field in which knowledge action, virtue, have importance. However refined or simplified is our thinking, it cannot breakdown all thought. (The self-identified?) consciousness as the 'experiencer', the 'observer', the 'chooser', the 'censor', the 'will', must come to an end (in the inner space of meditation?) , voluntarily and happily, without any hope of reward. The 'seeker' (de- ?) ceases. This is (the beginning of?) meditation. Silence ( Inner Peace?) of the mind cannot be brought about through the action of will. There is Silence (only) when 'will' ceases. This is ( the key to?) meditation. ( The timeless dimension of ?) Reality cannot be sought; it 'is' when the 'seeker' is not. The (self centred?) mind is (the result of?) time, and ( the time binding process of ) thought cannot uncover the Measureless.

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Fri, 14 Aug 2015
Topic: Pages from the Book of Life


You (should?) not 'invite' ( give continuity to?) joy; if you do, it becomes (another?) pleasure. ( Seeking the satisfaction of ?) pleasure is the (motivating?) movement of thought, but ( the self-centred) thought can in no way, cultivate joy ; if it pursues that which has been joyous, then it's only a remembrance, a dead thing. Beauty is never time-binding; it is wholly free of time and so of culture. It is there when the 'self' (-identification?) is not. The self (-consciousness) is put together by ( the personal memories of?) time, by the ( self-centred?) movement of thought, by the known, by the word (naming process?) . In the abandonment of the self-(identification ) , in that total attention, the essence of Beauty is there. The letting go of the self (centred consciousness?) is not the result of a calculated action of desire-will. The dissolution of the self is not ( found along the accumulation of?) self- knowledge; time does not enter into it at all. There is no way or means to end it. The total inward 'non-action' is the positive attention of beauty. You ( the collective consciousness of mankind?) have cultivated a vast network of interrelated activities in which you are caught, and your mind, being conditioned by it, operates inwardly in the same manner : ( personal and collective) 'achievement' becomes the most important thing and the fury of that drive is the skeleton of the self. That is why you follow a Guru, a Saviour, or your ideals; 'faith' (spiritual wishful thinking?) takes the place of insight, of awareness. There's no need for prayer when the self is not. You fill the empty spaces of the skeleton with knowledge, with images, with meaningless activities and so keep it 'alive' (busy?). In the quiet stillness of the ( emptied ?) mind, that ( universal feeling of?) everlasting Beauty comes, uninvited, unsought, without the noise (need?) of recognition.

How lovely it was that morning, the purity of light and the golden path the sun made on those living waters. You were (one with?) the world, the Cosmos, the deathless Beauty and the joy of Compassion. Only 'you' weren't there; if 'you ' were all this would not be. 'You' (the self-identified consciousness?) bring in the (time fragmentation of?) beginning and the ending, only to begin again in an endless chain. In the process of self-becoming there is uncertainty and instability. In 'nothingness' there is an absolute (inner) stability and so clarity. That (essence of our consciousness?) which is wholly stable never dies; corruption is in the becoming (part ?) . ( Unfortunately?) the world is bent on (biased by the illusion of?) becoming, achieving, gaining and so there is fear of losing everything and dying. The mind must go (inwardly) through that small (fox?) 'hole' which it has put together, the 'self', to come upon this vast No-thingness whose stability thought cannot measure. Thought may wish to capture it and put it on the market- making it acceptable and so respectable, to be worshipped. Thought cannot put it (the inner no-thingness?) into any category and so we think that it must be a delusion, or it must be for the few, for the select. And so (the self-centred?) thought goes about its own mischievous ways, (inwardly) frightened, vain and never stable, though its ( intellectual?) conceit asserts there is stability in its actions and in knowledge it has accumulated. The dream (of inwardly and outwardly becoming 'somebody'?) becomes a reality which it has nurtured. But what thought has made real is not truth. 'Nothingness' is not a reality but it is the truth . That small (fox-) hole, the self, is the 'reality' of thought, the 'reality' of its (self-isolating?) fragmentation, the pain, the sorrow and its 'love'. In this 'reality' ( created by thought) there is no stability or pure clarity. The knowledge of the self can be accumulated, used as a 'ladder' to become, to improve, to achieve, but it will in no way free the mind of the (psychological) burden of its own 'reality'. 'You' are the burden; the truth of it (is revealed) in the very 'seeing' of it and the freedom (from the known) is not the 'reality' of thought. The seeing is the doing. The doing comes from the stability, the clarity, of no-thingness.

Every living thing on earth has its own sensitivity, its own way of life, its own consciousness, but man assumes that his own is far superior and thereby he loses his 'love' ( the feeling of all-oneness?) and becomes insensitive, callous and destructive. ( Man's evolution in the material world dominated by ?) time has bred (his personal content-colored ?) consciousness with its 'content'. Its ( 'psychological') content makes up consciousness; without it, consciousness, as we know it, is not. Then there is no-thing. We ( keep ourselves busy by?) moving (shifting) the little pieces in this ( time-bound) consciousness from one area to another according to the pressure circumstance but this is happening in the same field of pain, sorrow and knowledge. This movement is ( a process of?) time, of thought its measurement. It is a senseless (psycho-illusory?) game of hide and seek with yourself, the 'past ' and the 'future' of thought. Thought cannot hold the (present) moment for it is not of time. This is the ending of time : time has stopped at that moment, there is no ( mental) movement and so it is not related (linked) to another moment. It ( the timeless dimension of the present ? ) has no cause and so it has no beginning and no end. ( The problem is that the 'content' generated?) consciousness cannot contain it. ( So, the actual purpose of?) Meditation is the emptying of this 'consciousness' of its ( conditioning conditioned) content. In that (timeless) moment of (inner) no-thingness everything 'is'.

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Sat, 15 Aug 2015
Topic: Pages from the Book of Life

Think about these (other) things

Any form of ('self'-) conscious (dualistic ?) meditation is not the real thing; it can never be. The deliberate attempt to meditate is not (a living?) meditation. It must happen; it cannot be invited. Meditation is not the play of the (intellectual?) mind nor of desire and pleasure. All (effort?) to meditate is the very denial of it. Only be (passively, choicelessly ?) aware of what you are thinking and doing and nothing else. The seeing, the hearing, is the doing (has its own action?), without rewards and punishments. The skill in (a holistic) 'doing' lies in the skill of seeing, hearing. Every form of (premeditated ?) meditation leads inevitably to deception, to illusion, for desire blinds (inwardly) .

It is good to be alone. To be far away from the world and yet walk its streets is to be alone. To be alone walking up the path beside the rushing, noisy mountain stream full of spring water and melting snows is to be aware of that solitary tree, alone in its beauty. The loneliness of a man in the street is the pain of (a self-centred?) life; he's never alone, far away, untouched and vulnerable. To be full of ( wordly?) knowledge breeds endless misery. The demand for ( self-) expression, with its ( rewards?) frustrations and pains, is ( causing the loneliness of?) that man who walks the streets; he is never alone (all-one?) . Sorrow is the movement of that loneliness. He ( the young K) only discovered recently that there was not a single thought during these long walks, in the crowded streets or on the solitary paths. Ever since he was a boy it had been like that, no thought entered his mind. He was watching and listening and nothing else. Thought with its ( mental) associations never arose. There was no 'image-making'. One day he was 'suddenly aware' ( had the insight?) how extraordinary it was; he even attempted often to 'think' but no thought would come. On these walks, with people or without them, any movement of thought was absent. This is to be (inwardly) alone.

He (young K) always liked machinery; he dismantled the motor of a car and when (put back) it ran as new. When you are driving, meditation seems to come so naturally. You are aware of the countryside, the houses, the farmers in the field, the make of the passing car and the blue sky through the leaves. You are not even aware that meditation is going on, this meditation (of the Cosmic Mind ?) that began ages ago and would go on endlessly. Time isn't a factor in (such) meditation, nor the word which is the (verbal interference of the?) 'meditator'. There's no 'meditator' in ( the universally integrated?) meditation. If there is, it is not meditation. The 'meditator' (mental interface?) is the word (naming process?) , thought and time, and so subject to change, to the coming and going. Meditation is not a flower that blooms and dies. You are sitting on the bank of a river, watching the waters, the current and the things floating by, but there's no 'watcher'. ( The essence of?) Beauty is not ( to be found) in the mere (artistic) expression, it's in the abandonment of the words and ( artistic) expression, ( forgetting about ?) the canvas and the book.


He was a short man, lean and hard of muscle: he had come from a far away country, darkened by the sun. After a few words of greeting, he launched into criticism.

Q : You may be free and live really all that you are talking about, but physically you are in a prison, padded by your (wealthy?) friends. You don't know what is happening around you. People (such as... ?) have assumed authority, though you yourself are not authoritarian.

K : I am not sure you are right in this matter. To run a school or any other thing there must be a certain responsibility and it can exist without the authoritarian implication. ( Acceptance of someone's psychpological?) authority is wholly detrimental to ( an authentic) co-operation, to talking things over together. This is what is being done in all the work that we are engaged in. This is an actual fact. If one may point out, no one comes between me and another.

Q : What you are saying is of the utmost ( spiritual) importance. All that you write and say should be printed and circulated by a small group of people who are serious and dedicated. The modern world is exploding and it is passing you by.

K : I am afraid again you (or we?) are not fully aware of what is happening. At one time a small group ( R&R?) took the responsibility of circulating what has been said. Now, too, a small ( but better organised and funded ?) group has undertaken the same responsibility. Again, if one may point out, you are not aware of what is going on.

He made other various criticisms but they were based on assumptions and passing opinions. Without defending, one pointed out what was actually (supposed to be?) taking place. But how strange human beings are....

The hills were receding and the noise of daily life was around one, the coming and the going, sorrow and pleasure. A single tree on a hillock was the beauty of the land. And deep down in the ( Saanen) valley was a stream and beside it ran a railroad. You must leave the world to see the beauty of that stream.