The Ending of Time
J. Krishnamurti
and
Dr. David Bohm
BROCKWOOD PARK 14TH CONVERSATION
WITH DAVID BOHM 20TH SEPTEMBER 1980
`THE ENDING OF TIME'
Krishnamurti: We talked the other day about a mind that is
entirely
free from all movement, from all the things that thought
has put
there, that thought has brought about, has experienced, the
past and
the future and so on. But before we go into that I would
like to ask,
what is materialism?
Bohm: Materialism.
K: Man is caught in this materialistic attitude and values
and
experiences. What is the nature of materialism?
B: Well, consider first of all materialism is the name of a
certain
philosophical....
K: I don't mean that.
B: No.
K: I don't mean a certain philosophical saying but I want
to find
out.
B: Matter is all there is.
K: I want to go into that a little bit. That is, all
nature, all human
beings react physically. This reaction is sustained by
thought. And
thought is a natural process. So reaction as in nature, in
animals, in
human beings, is the materialistic response.
B: Well, I think the word materialistic is not quite right.
It is the
response of matter.
K: The response of matter, let's put it that way. All
right. The
response of matter. That's better. Let me repeat it again,
let's be
clear.
We are talking about having an empty mind and we have come
to that point when the wall has been broken down and this
emptiness and what lies beyond it, or through it, and so
on, we will
come to that, but before I begin with that, as I said: is
all reaction
matter?
B: Matter in movement.
K: Matter in movement.
B: Well that is the suggestion. You could say there is a
lot of
evidence in favour of that, that science has found a
tremendous
number of reactions which are due to the nerves.
K: Yes, all that. So would you call matter and movement the
reactions which exist in all organic matter?
B: Yes, it is necessary - all matter as we know it goes by
the law
of action and reaction. Every action has a corresponding
reaction.
K: So action and reaction is a material process, as thought
is.
Now to go beyond it is the question, that is the point.
B: Yes. Now some people might say it has no meaning to go
beyond it. That would be the philosophy of materialism:
there is no
meaning to go beyond it.
K: Beyond it, that's right. But if one is merely living in
that area
it is very, very shallow. Right? It has really no meaning
at all. But
if one recognizes thought as a material process and
reaction and
action are matter and movement.
B: Yes. Perhaps one should say one other thing that some
people have said that matter is not merely action and
reaction but it
may have a creative movement. You see matter may create new
forms.
K: Matter may create new forms, but it is still within that
area.
B: Yes. Let's try to make it clear what is the difference.
We
have to see there are very subtle forms of materialism
which might
be difficult to pin down.
K: Let's begin: would you consider, or agree or see that
thought
is a material process.
B: Yes. Though some people might argue that it is both
material
and something beyond material.
K: I know. I have discussed this. But it is not.
B: How can we say that simply to make it clear?
K: Because any movement of thought is a material process,
whether it is beyond.
B: Well we have to make it clear so that it is not a matter
of
authority. From observation one sees that thought is a
material
process, now how are would one see that?
K: How would one be aware of all that? Aware that it is a
material process. I think that is fairly clear. There is an
experience,
an incident, recorded, which becomes knowledge, from that
knowledge thought arises and action takes place.
B: Yes. So we say thought is that.
K: Any assertion that is beyond is still thought.
B: It is still coming from the background. So if we say
that
something new coming into there is not part of this
process, is that
what you are saying?
K: Yes, if there is to be something new, thought, as a
material
process, must end. Obviously.
B: And then it may take it up later.
K: Later, yes. Wait, see what happens later. So could we
say, all
reaction and action, action from that reaction is movement
of
matter.
B: Yes, very subtle movement of matter.
K: Yes, very subtle movement of matter. So as long as one's
mind is within that area it must be a movement of matter.
B: Yes, well let's proceed from there then.
K: So is it possible for the mind to go beyond reaction?
That is
the next step obviously. As we said yesterday morning in
our
discussion with the group, one gets irritated and that is
the first
reaction. Then the reaction to that, the second reaction to
that is 'I
must not'. Then the third reaction, 'I must control' - or
justify or
whatever it is. So it is constantly action and reaction.
Can one see it
is a movement, a continuous movement without an ending?
B: Yes. The reaction is actually continuous but it seems at
a
certain moment to have ended and the next moment appears to
be a
new moment.
K: But it is still reaction.
B: It is still the same but it presents itself differently.
K: That's right.
B: It is always the same.
K: It is exactly the same always.
B: It presents itself as always different.
K: Of course.
B: Always new.
K: That is just it. You say something, I get irritated, but
that
irritation is a reaction.
B: Yes, it seems to be something suddenly new.
K: Suddenly new. But it is not.
B: It is not. But one has to be aware of that.
K: Of course, of course.
B: Generally the mind tends not to be aware of it.
K: But after discussing a great deal and talking one can.
B: We are attentive to it.
K: Yes, we are sensitive to it, alert to the question. So
there is
an ending to reaction if one is watchful, attentive,
understand not
only logically but have an insight into this reacting
process all the
time, it can of course come to an end. That is why it is
very
important, I think, to understand this, before we discuss
what is an
empty mind and if there is something beyond, or in that
very
emptying of the mind there is some other quality. So is
that empty
mind a reaction? You follow sir? A reaction to the problems
of
pain and pleasure and suffering, and the reaction to that
is to
escape from all this into some state of nothingness.
B: Yes, well the mind can always do that, it can fail to
notice
pain and pleasure.
K: It can invent. Of course, of course. That becomes an
illusion.
Now we are not talking - because we went into the question
of
illusions and said desire is the beginning of illusion. Now
we have
come to the point that this quality of emptiness is not a
reaction.
That must be absolutely sure. Right sir?
Now before we go further into this: is it possible to have
a mind
that is really completely empty of all the things that
thought has put
together?
B: Well, then thought ceases to react.
K: That's it.
B: Thought being a material process, on the one hand
perhaps
you could say that perhaps the reaction is due to the
nature of
matter which is continually reacting and moving, but then
is matter
affected by this insight?
K: I don't quite follow. Ah, I understand. Does insight
affect the
cells of the brain which contains the memory?
B: Yes. The memory is continually reacting, moving, as does
the air and the water, everything around us. Now if nothing
happened we should say, why would it ever stop?
K: Quite. After all sir, physically if I don't react I am
paralysed.
One is paralysed. But the reacting continually is also a
form of
paralysis.
B: Yes, well the wrong kind of reaction.
K: Yes.
B: Reaction around the psychological structure.
K: Yes, we are talking psychologically always.
B: But now assuming that the reaction around the
psychological
structure has begun in mankind why should it ever stop,
because
one reaction makes another and another.
K: It is like a chain, endless.
B: One would expect it to go on for ever unless something
will
stop it. Right?
K: Nothing will stop it. Only the insight into the nature
of
reaction ends psychological reaction.
B: Yes, but then you are saying that matter is affected by
insight, which is beyond matter.
K: Yes, beyond matter. Didn't we discuss this matter also
in
Ojai?
B: Yes.
K: So is this emptiness within the brain itself? Or
something
thought has conceived as being empty? One must be very
clear on
this.
B: Yes. But whatever is discussed, no matter what the
question
is, thought begins to want to do something about it because
thought
feels it can always make a contribution.
K: Quite.
B: That might be useful, eh? So thought in the past did not
understand that there are areas where it has no useful
contribution
to make, but it keeps on in the habit of trying to say
emptiness is
very good, therefore thought says I will try to help bring
about
emptiness.
K: Of course.
B: Thought is trying to be helpful.
K: We have been through all that.
B: Yes.
K: We have seen the nature of thought, what is its
movement,
time, and all that. We have been through all that. I want to
find out,
I have come to a point: is this emptiness within the mind
itself, or
beyond it?
B: What do you mean by the mind, do you see.
K: The mind being the whole, emotions, thought,
consciousness, the brain, the whole of that is the mind.
B: The mind has been used in many ways, that word. Now you
are using it in a certain way, which is that it represents
thought,
feeling, desire and will - the whole material process.
K: Yes, the whole material process.
B: Which people have called non-material.
K: Quite. The mind is the whole material process.
B: Which is going on in the brain and the nerves.
K: The whole of it.
B: Yes.
K: The whole structure. One can see this reaction, this
materialistic reaction can end. And the next question I am
asking
is: is that emptiness within or without? And without in the
sense it
is elsewhere.
B: Where would it be?
K: I don't think it would be elsewhere but I am just
putting it.
B: Well any such thing is part of the material process. You
see
here and there are distinctions made within the material
process.
K: Yes, that is right. That is what I wanted to get at. It
is there.
It is in the mind itself. Not outside it. Right?
B: Yes.
K: Now what is the next step? Is that emptiness - does that
emptiness contain nothing, not a thing?
B: Yes, well not a thing, meaning anything that has form,
structure, stability.
K: Yes, all that, form, structure, reaction, naturally.
B: Yes it is stability and reaction.
K: Form, structure, capacity, reaction - all that. Or it
contains
none of that. Then what is it? Is it then total energy?
B: Yes, movement of energy.
K: Movement of energy. It is not movement of reaction.
B: It is not movement of things reacting to each other.
Because
the 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 it is a different kind of movement.
K: Entirely different.
B: Which has no thing in it.
K: No thing in it and therefore not of time - right? Is
that
possible? Or are we just indulging in imagination?
Indulging in
some kind of romantic, hopeful, pleasurable, sensation? I
don't
think we are because we have been through all that step by
step by
step right up to this point. So we are not deceiving
ourselves. Now
we say that emptiness has no centre - right? - as the 'me'
and all the
reactions and so on. It is in that emptiness there is a
movement of
timeless energy.
B: Yes, when you say timeless energy - we could say what we
have already said that time and thought are the same.
K: Yes, of course.
B: Then you were saying that time can only come into a
material process.
K: Time can only come into a material process, that's
right.
B: Now if we have an energy that is timeless but
nevertheless
moving...
K: Yes, it is not static.
B: It is moving.
K: It is moving.
B: Yes, now what is the movement?
K: Sir, what is movement? From here to there.
B: That is one form.
K: One form. Or from yesterday to today, and from today to
tomorrow.
B: Yes, there are various kinds of movement.
K: So what is movement? Is there a movement - I am asking,
I
want to question it - is there a movement which is not a
moving?
Just a minute. You understand? Is there a movement which
has no
beginning and no end? Because thought has a beginning and
an
end.
B: Except, we could say that the movement of matter might
have a beginning and no ending, the reactive movement - you
are
not talking of that?
K: No, I am not talking of that.
B: So it is not enough to say it has no beginning and no
end -
right?
K: We must go back then to the other. That is, thought has
a
beginning and thought has an ending. There is a movement of
matter as reaction and the ending of that reaction.
B: Yes, in the brain.
K: In the brain. But there are these various kinds of
movements.
That is all we know. And someone comes along and says there
is a
totally different kind of movement. But to understand that
I must
be free of the movement of thought, material process and
all that,
the movement of time, to understand a movement that is
not...
B: Well there are two things: it has no beginning and no
end but
also it is not determined as a series of successions from
the past.
K: No causation.
B: It is not a series of causes, one following the other.
K: Of course. No causation.
B: But you see matter can be looked at as a series of
causes,
though it may not be adequate. But you were saying that
this
movement has no beginning and no ending, it is not the
result of a
series of causes, one following another without end.
K: So, sir I want to understand, verbally even, a movement
that
is not a movement. I don't know if I am making it clear.
B: Then why is it called a movement if it is not a
movement?
K: Because it is not still, it is not - it is active.
B: It is energy.
K: It has tremendous energy, therefore it can never be
still. But
it has got in that energy a stillness.
B: Yes, the energy itself - I think that we have to say
that the
ordinary language does not convey it properly, but the
energy itself
is still and also moving.
K: Yes, but in that movement it is a movement of stillness.
Does it sound crazy?
B: The movement can be said to emerge from stillness.
K: That's right. You see that is what it is sir. We said
that this
empty mind, this emptiness is in the mind. That emptiness
has no
cause and no effect. It is not a movement of causation. It
is not a
movement of thought, time. It is not a movement of material
reactions; none of that. Which means: is the mind capable
of that
extraordinary stillness without any movement? And when it
is so
completely still there is a movement out of it. It sounds
crazy.
B: Well it needn't sound crazy. In fact I think I mentioned
before that some people have had this notion in the past -
such as
Aristotle - we discussed it. He talked about the unmoved
mover -
that is the way he tried to describe god.
K: Ah, god, no. I don't want to do that.
B: You don't want to describe god but I mean some sort of
notion similar to this has been held in the past by various
people,
but since then it has gone out of fashion, I think.
K: Out of fashion. Let's bring it into fashion, shall we!
B: I am not saying that Aristotle had the right idea, it is
merely
that he was considering something somewhat similar, though
probably different in many cases.
K: Was it an intellectual concept or an actuality?
B: This is very hard to tell because so little is known.
K: Therefore we don't have to bring in Aristotle.
B: I merely wanted to say it to point out that it wasn't
crazy
because other very respectable people have had something
similar.
K: I am glad! I am glad to be assured I am not crazy!
B: Because you did ask if it was crazy.
K: And is that movement out of stillness, is that the
movement
of creation? Not the creation of the artist, the poets and
the writers
and all the painters call creation - to me that is not
creation, just a
capacity and skill and memory and knowledge operating
there.
Here I think this creation is not expressed in form.
B: Yes, that is important. Usually we think creation is
expressed
as form or as structure.
K: Structure, yes.
B: Now, then this is difficult, what does it mean?
K: We have gone beyond being crazy so we can go on. Would
you say, sir, this movement, not being of time, is
eternally new?
B: Yes. It is eternally new in the sense that the creation
is
eternally new. Right?
K: Creation is eternally new. You see I think that is what
the
artists are trying to find out.
B: Yes, that's true, yes.
K: Therefore they indulge in all kinds of various
absurdities, but
to come to that point where the mind is absolutely silent,
completely silent, out of that silence there is this
movement which
is always new, eternally new. And the moment when that
movement is expressed...
B: Yes, the first expression is in thought - right?
K: That is just it.
B: And that may be useful but then it gets fixed. Then it
may
become a barrier.
K: I was told, once by an Indian philosopher, an Indian
scholar,
that before they began to sculpture a head of a god, or
whatever it
is, they had to have deep meditation, go into deep
meditation. At
the right moment they took up the hammer and the chisel.
B: To have it come out of the emptiness.
K: The emptiness.
B: There is another point. The Australian aborigines draw
figures in the sand so they don't have permanency.
K: That is right.
B: If thought could be looked at that way. You see the
marble is
already too static, it stays there for thousands of years.
So although
the original sculptor may have understood, the people who
follow
see it as a fixed form.
K: Sir, what relationship has all that to my daily life?
What way
does that act through my action, through my ordinary
physical
responses? There are no psychological responses but there
are
physical responses, to noise, to pain, various forms of
disturbances,
physical disturbances. What relationship has the physical
to that
silent movement?
B: Yes, well in so far as the mind is silent then the
thought is
orderly.
K: Yes, it is orderly. Ah, we are getting on to something.
Would
you say that silent movement with its unending newness, is
total
order of the universe?
B: Yes, we could consider that the order of the universe
emerges from this silence and emptiness.
K: So what is my relationship, what is the relationship of
this
mind to the universe?
B: The particular mind?
K: No, mind.
B: Mind in general.
K: Mind, the general and the particular we went through and
beyond that, there is the mind.
B: Well would you say that is universal?
K: Universal mind. That universal mind - I don't like to
use the
word universal.
B: In the sense, that which is beyond the particular and
general
would usually be called universal mind. But it may be that
the
word is difficult, eh?
K: Can we find a different word? Global, no. A mind that is
beyond a particular. No.
B: Well you could say it is the source, the essence. I
don't know
what you could say. It has been called the absolute.
K: I don't want to use that word absolute either.
B: But in the sense - the absolute means literally that
which is
free of all limitations, of all dependence, right?
K: All right, if you agree that absolute means freedom from
all
dependence, from all limitations.
B: From all relationships.
K: Then we will use that, all right.
B: It has unfortunate connotations.
K: Of course, of course. Let's use that word for the moment
for
our convenience, in our dialogue. There is this absolute
stillness
and in that stillness or from that stillness there is a
movement and
that movement is everlastingly new. And what is the
relationship
of that mind to the universe?
B: To the universe of matter?
K: Yes, the universe, the whole universe. Matter, trees,
nature,
man, the heavens.
B: Yes, well that is an interesting question.
K: That is in order, the universe is in order, whether it
is
destructor or constructive, it is still order.
B: Well it is necessary order. You see the order has the
character of being absolutely necessary. In a sense 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: The eruption of a volcano is order.
B: It is order of the whole universe, it is necessary
considering
the whole universe, it cannot be otherwise.
K: Quite. Now in the universe there is order and this mind
which is still, is completely in order.
B: The deep mind, the absolute.
K: The absolute mind. So is this mind, the universe?
B: Well that is the question. In what sense is that the
universe?
We have to understand in what sense, what it means to say
that.
K: Or it means sir, is there a division, or a barrier,
between this
absolute mind and the universe? Or are both the same?
B: Both are the same, right.
K: That is what I want to get at.
B: We have either duality of mind and matter, or they are
both
the same.
K: That's it. Is that presumptions?
B: Not necessarily, no. I mean these are just two possibilities.
K: I want to be quite sure we are not treading on something
which really needs very, very, subtle, great care, you know
what I
mean?
B: Yes. Well if you go back to the body. We have said the
body
is physical, it is material. And we said the mind of the
body - the
mind which is in the body - thought, feeling desire, the
general and
the particular are part of the material process.
K: Absolutely, the material process.
B: Not different from the body.
K: That's right. All the reactions are material processes.
B: And therefore what we usually call the 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
whole universe. And we say what we call the mind in the
universe,
is it different from what we call the universe itself?
K: That's right. You see that's why I feel in our daily
life there
must be order, not the order of thought.
B: Well thought is a limited order, it is relative.
K: That's it. So an order that is...
B:... free of limitation.
K: Free of limitation, yes. In my daily life I have to have
that,
which means no conflict whatsoever, no contradiction, no,
all the
rest of that.
B: Well if we take the order of thought. You see when it is
rational it is in order; in contradiction the order of
thought has
broken down, it has reached its limit. Thought works until
it
reaches a contradiction and that's the limit.
K: So if in my daily life there is complete order in which
there
is no disturbance, what is the relationship of that order
to the never
ending order? Can that silent movement of order, of that
extraordinary something, can that affect my daily life when
I have
deep inward psychological order? You understand my
question?
B: Yes. We have said, for example, the volcano is a
manifestation of the whole order of the universe.
K: Absolutely. A tiger killing a deer.
B: The question is then, whether a human being in his daily
life
can be similar.
K: Similar. That's it. If not I don't see what is the point
of the
other.
B: Well it has no point to the human being.
K: That's it.
B: Then you would fall back into the human being trying to
make his own purpose out of himself, out of his thoughts.
You see
I think some people would say who cares about the universe,
all we
care about is our own society, what we are doing. But then
that
falls down because it is full of contradiction.
K: Obviously. It is only thought that says that. So that
universe,
which is in total order, does affect my daily life.
B: Yes. I think, that scientists might ask how. You see
people
might say, 'OK. I understand that the universe is
constituted of
matter, the laws of matter affect your daily life,' - but
we are saying
it is not so clear how it affects the mind - you know if
there is this
absolute mind which affects the daily life.
K: Ah! What is my daily life? A series of reactions and
disorder. Right?
B: Yes.
K: I am making it very quick, brief.
B: Well it is mostly that.
K: Mostly. And ought is always struggling to bring order
within
that.
B: Yes.
K: And when it does that, it is still disorder.
B: Because thought is limited.
K: Of course.
B: Always limited by its own contradictions.
K: Of course. Thought is always creating disorder because
it is
itself limited.
B: As soon as it tries to go beyond the limit, that is
disorderly.
K: That is disorderly. Right. I have understood, I have
gone into
it, I have an insight into it, so I have a certain kind of
order in my
life. But that order is still limited. I recognize that and
as long as
matter, this existence, I say it is limited.
B: Now some people would accept that and say why should you
have more.
K: Ah, I am not having more.
B: But I mean some people would say, 'I would be happy if I
could bring this limited order, seeing that we have so much
disorder now, if we could live in a material life with real
order.'
K: I say, let's do it! Of course that must be done. But in
the very
doing of it one has to realize it is limited.
B: Yes, even the highest order you can produce is limited.
K: Limited. And the mind realizes its limitation and says,
let's
go beyond it.
B: Why? Some people would say, why not be happy within
those limits, continually extending them, saying we can
discover
new thoughts, new order, the order will discover new forms
of art,
the scientists new kind of sciences.
K: But it is always limited.
B: Though we have to go slowly because I think some people
would go this far and say that that is all that is
possible.
K: I like the human condition, let's accept it, and make
the best
of it.
B: They say, we could do much better than we are doing.
K: Yes, but it is still the human condition, a little
reformed, a
little better.
B: Some people would say enormously reformed.
K: But it is still limited.
B: Yes. Well let's try to make it clear because what is
wrong
with limitation?
K: In that limitation there is no freedom, it is a limited
freedom.
B: Yes. So eventually we come to the boundary of our
freedom
- but let's try to put it clearly. Something not known to
us makes us
react and this would inevitably fail because through
reaction we
would fall back into contradiction.
K: Yes, but when I see sir, that I am always moving within
a
certain area...
B: Therefore I am under the control of the forces.
K: Forces and the limited. The mind inevitably rebels
against
that.
B: That is an important point. You see the mind wants
freedom.
Right?
K: Obviously.
B: Yes, it says that is the highest value, yes. So do we
accept
that and say that is just a fact?
K: That is, a prisoner, I 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 must be freedom
from
prison. I am a prisoner and the prison is very nice, very
cultured
and all the rest of it, but it is still limited and it says
there must be
freedom beyond all that.
B: Yes, which mind says this? Is it the particular mind of
the
human being? Or?
K: Ah! Who says there must be freedom? Oh, that is very
simple. The very pain, the very suffering, the very all
that,
demands that we go beyond.
B: This particular mind even though it accepts limitation,
finds
it painful.
K: Of course.
B: And therefore this particular mind feels somehow that it
is
not right.
K: Yes.
B: It can't avoid it. It seems to be a necessity of
freedom.
K: Freedom is necessary.
B: Is necessary, yes.
K: And any hindrance to freedom is retrogression. Right.
B: That necessity is not an external necessity due to
reaction.
K: Freedom is not a reaction.
B: The necessity of freedom is not a reaction. Some people
would say that having been in prison you reacted in this
way. No?
K: So where are we? You see sir, that means there must be
freedom from reaction, freedom from the limitation of
thought,
freedom from all the movement of time. You know, all that,
there
must be complete freedom from all that, before I can really
understand the empty mind and all that, and order of the
universe,
which is then the order of the mind. We are asking a
tremendous
lot! Am I willing to go that far?
B: Well you know the non-freedom has its attractions.
K: Of course. I am not interested in its attraction.
B: But you asked the question: am I willing to go that far.
So it
seems to suggest that there may be something attractive in
this.
K: I am sure. I have found safety, security, pleasure in
nonfreedom.
I realize in that pleasure, pain, there is no freedom and
the mind says, not as a reaction, says there must be
freedom from
all this. To come to that point and to let go without
conflict,
demands its own discipline, its own insight. That's why I
said those
of us who have given a certain amount of time, thought and
investigation into all this, can one go as far as that? Or
there are the
responses of the body, responses of daily demand, the
responsibilities of daily action - wife, children, and all
that - is that
what is holding and preventing this sense of complete
freedom?
And the monks, the saints and the sannyasis have said, 'You
must
abandon the world.'
B: We went into that.
K: Yes, we have gone into that. That again is another form
of
idiocy. Sorry to put it like that. We have been through all
that so I
refuse to enter again into all that. Now I say is that
universe and the
mind that has emptied itself of all this, are they one?
B: Are they one?
K: One. They are not separate, they are one.
B: Yes, it sounds as if you are saying that the material
universe
is like the body of the absolute mind.
K: Yes, all right, all right. All right.
B: It may be a picturesque way of putting it!
K: We must be very careful also not to fall into the trap
that the
universal mind is always there.
B: Yes, well how would you put it then?
K: They have said that: god is always there and god -
Brahman,
or that highest principle, is always there and all you have
to do is to
cleanse yourself and arrive at that. Do all kinds of things
to come
there. Which is also a very dangerous statement because
then you
say, there is the eternal in me.
B: Well I think thought is projecting.
K: Of course, sir, of course.
B: But suppose - how would you put it, there is a logical
difficulty in saying it is always there, because that
implies time and
it is there every minute and we are trying to discuss what
has
nothing to do with time.
K: Nothing to do with time.
B: So we can't place it as being here, there, now, or then.
K: Sir, we have come to a point, that there is this
universal
mind, and the human mind can be of that when there is
freedom.
I think that is enough, isn't it?
B: Yes, what time is it?
K: We are going by time, all right!
B: Well that should be enough.
K: That should be enough.
B: You want to continue next week, on Saturday?
K: We will see.
BROCKWOOD PARK 15TH CONVERSATION
WITH DAVID BOHM 27TH SEPTEMBER 1980
`THE ENDING OF TIME'
Krishnamurti: Sir, I would like to discuss, have a dialogue
about
something which we were talking about the other day. We
have
cultivated a mind that can solve almost any technological
problem.
And apparently human problems have never been solved. Human
beings are drowned by their problems: the problems of
communication, the problems of knowledge, problems of
relationship, problems of heaven and hell - you know, the
whole
human existence has become a vast complex problem. And
apparently throughout history it has been like this. And
man in
spite of his knowledge, in spite of his centuries of
evolution, he has
never been free of problems.
Bohm: Yes, well really of insoluble problems. I would add
insoluble problems.
K: I question if human problems are insoluble.
B: Well I mean as they are put now.
K: As they are, of course, now these problems have become
so
complex, and so incredibly insoluble, as things are. No
politician,
or scientist, or philosopher is going to solve them except
through
wars and so on. So why has the mind of human beings
throughout
the world, why have they not been able to resolve human
daily
problems of life? What are the things that prevent the
solution of
these problems, completely? Is it that we have never turned
our
minds to it? Because we spend all our days and probably
half the
night in thinking about technological problems that we have
no
time for the other?
B: Well that is only partly so. Many people feel that the
other
should take care of itself. I think many people don't give
a lot of
attention to these problems.
K: Why, why? I am rather concerned about this because in a
school like this, or with all the people we talk to, the
human
problems remain constant. And I am questioning, asking, in
this
dialogue, whether it is possible to have no problems at all
- human
problems, apart from technological problems, that can be
solved.
But human problems seem insoluble - why? Is it our
education? Is
it our deep rooted tradition that we accept things as they
are?
B: Yes, well that is certainly part of it. These problems
accumulate as civilization gets older, people keep on
accepting
things which make problems. For example there are now far
more
nations in the world than there used to be and each one
creates new
problems.
K: Of course.
B: If you go back to a certain period of time...
K: Every potty little tribe becomes a nation.
B: And then they must fight their neighbour.
K: Of course, of course. They have this marvellous
technology
to kill each other. But we are talking about human
problems,
human problems of relationship, human problems of lack of
freedom. This sense of constant uncertainty, fear and all
that, you
know, the human struggle and working for a livelihood for
the rest
of your life. 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 situation. They
wouldn't even
look at this whole big situation very seriously.
K: But the religious people have created a tremendous problem
for man.
B: Yes. They are trying to solve problems too. I mean
everybody is often his own little fragment solving whatever
he
thinks he can solve, and it all adds up to chaos.
K: Chaos, that's what I am saying. We live as human beings
in
chaos. I want to find out if I can live without a single
problem for
the rest of my life. Is that possible?
B: Well I wonder if we should even call these things
problems.
A problem would be something that would be reasonably
solvable.
If you put a problem of how to achieve a certain result
then that
presupposes that you could reasonably find a way to do it,
technologically. I don't think, psychologically, the
problem can be
looked at that way. To propose a result you have to achieve
and
then find a way to do it.
K: What is the root of all this? What is the cause of all
this
human chaos?
B: We have been discussing this for a long time.
K: I am trying to come to it from a different angle:
whether
there is an ending to problems. You see personally I refuse
to have
problems.
B: Well somebody might argue with you about that saying
that
maybe you are challenged with something.
K: It is not a problem. I was challenged the other day
about
something very, very serious.
B: It is a matter of clarification then. Part of the
difficulty is
clarification of the language.
K: Clarification. Not only language, it is a question of
relationship and action. A certain problem arose the other
day
which involved lots of people and so on, and a certain
action had to
be taken. Personally to me it was not a problem.
B: Well, we have to make it clear what you mean because I
don't know without an example.
K: I mean by problem something that has to be resolved,
something you worry about, something you are endlessly
concerned and questioning, answering, doubt, uncertain, and
take
some kind of action at the end which you will regret.
B: Let's begin with the technical problem where the idea
first
arose. Saying you have a challenge, something which needs
to be
done, and you say that is a problem.
K: Yes, that is generally called a problem.
B: Now the word problem is based on the idea of putting
forth
something, a possible solution and then trying to achieve
it.
K: Or, not. I have a problem but I don't know how to deal
with
it.
B: Then if you have a problem and you have no idea of how
to
deal with it, then...
K: So I go round asking people, getting more and more
confused.
B: That would already be a change from the simple idea of a
technical problem where you usually have some notion of
what to
do.
K: I wonder if we do.
B: What?
K: Technical problems are fairly simple.
B: They often bring challenges requiring you to go very
deeply
and change your ideas.
K: That is what I am trying to get at.
B: Even a technical problem may do that. But now you say -
if
it were anything like a technical problem, either you would
say,
'Well I can see generally what I have to do to solve this'
- if you
say there is lack of food, generally what you have got to
do is
produce more and more food, find ways and means of doing
it.
K: We can do that.
B: And also we could discover entirely new ideas and so on.
Now we have a psychological problem, can we do the same?
K: Yes, that is the point. How do we deal with this thing?
B: Well what kind of problem shall we discuss?
K: Human problems.
B: Human - what sort?
K: Any problem that arises in human relationships.
B: Well let's say people cannot agree, they fight each
other
constantly.
K: Yes, let's take that for a very simple thing. In our
discussions
here with a group of people, it seems to be almost
impossible to
think together, to have the same outlook, the same
attitude, not
copying each other, but an attitude which seems so normal,
healthy. And each person puts his opinion forward and he is
contradicted by another. And so this goes on all the time
in the
world, and here.
B: All right. Now we say our problem is to work together,
to
think together.
K: Yes, work together, think together, to co-operate
together
without a monetary issue involved in it.
B: Yes, well that is another question that people will work
together if they are paid highly.
K: Yes, of course, you can see that happening.
B: But given a situation where this is not what we want
then we
have a problem.
K: Yes, that is right. Now how do we solve such a problem?
I
offer my opinion, you offer, and he and so on, all of us
are offering
an opinion and so we don't meet each other at all. So what
shall we
do? It seems almost impossible to give up one's opinions.
B: Yes, that is one of the difficulties. I don't think - if
you say it
is my problem to give up my opinions, it doesn't make
sense. That
is what I was trying to say, I am not sure you can regard
it as a
problem, saying what shall I do to give up my opinions.
K: No, of course. But that is a fact. So observing that and
seeing
the necessity that we should all come together, and when
this is put
forward to the others it becomes a problem to them.
B: That is because people find it hard to give up opinions.
K: That's it. Opinions, frequency of their ideas, their own
experiences, their conclusions, their ideals, you know all
that.
B: Even it may not seem like an opinion at that point, they
feel
it is true.
K: They call it fact.
B: Fact or truth.
K: So, what shall we do? If you see that it is important
that
human beings work together, not for some ideal, for some
belief, or
for some god, or for some principle, but the importance of
working, the necessity of working together. I mean, in the
United
Nations they are not working together. In India they are
not
working together. No people in any country feel or work
together.
B: Yes, well some people might say that we have got not
only
opinions, but self-interest.
K: Self-interest.
B: Which is very similar and so on.
K: All that, and it becomes a problem.
B: Well it is called a problem. If two people have
self-interest
which is different, then there is no way in my view that
they can, as
long as they maintain that, that they can work together.
K: Agreed. Suppose in a place like this, we are a group of
people, and it is important that we all work together. Even
in a
small village, small country, whatever it is, we all must
work
together. And apparently that becomes almost incredibly
difficult.
B: Yes, now how do you break into this?
K: That is what I want to discuss.
B: Let's discuss it.
K: If you point that out to me, that we must work together,
and
show to me the importance of it, and I also see it is
important but I
can't do it.
B: That's the point, that it is not enough even to see it
is
important and have the intention to do it. Ordinarily when
we say 'I
see the importance and I have the intention to do it' - I
go and do it.
So there is a new factor coming in here that a person sees
something is important, he intends to do it and he can't do
it.
K: That's it, and that creates a problem to him.
B: To everybody.
K: Yes, to everybody.
B: But why is it that we cannot carry out our intentions?
We see
the importance, knowing we want to do it and yet we can't
do it. It
seems puzzling.
K: One can give many reasons for that but those causes and
reasons and explanations don't solve the problem, don't
solve the
issue. What will - we come back to the same thing - what
will
make a human mind change? Seeing it is necessary and yet
incapable or unwilling to change. What factor is necessary
in this?
Some new factor is necessary.
B: Well I feel it is a perception of the ability to observe
this
whatever it is that is holding the person, preventing him
from
changing.
K: So is the new factor attention?
B: Yes, that is what I meant, attention but then if you are
going
to break into this in a group of people, what kind of
attention do
you mean?
K: We can discuss that. What is attention, we can discuss
that.
B: It may have many meanings, to different people.
K: Of course, that is obvious as usual - as usual so many
opinions about attention.
Could we, you and I, see what attention is? I feel as
somebody
wrote this morning, a letter came, in which the person
says: where
there is attention there is no problem; where there is
inattention
everything arises. Now without making attention into a
problem,
what do we mean by that? So that I understand it, not
verbally, not
intellectually but deeply, in my blood I understand the
nature of
attention in which no problem can ever exist. Obviously it
is not
concentration.
B: Yes, we went into that.
K: We have gone into that. Obviously it is not an
endeavour, an
experience, a struggle to be attentive. But you show me the
nature
of attention which is, when there is attention there is no
centre
from which I attend.
B: Yes, but that is a difficult thing.
K: Don't let's make a problem of it.
B: I meant that I have been trying that for a long time. I
think
that there is first of all some difficulty by what is meant
by
attention because the content of thought itself when the
person is
looking at it he may think he is attending.
K: No, in that state of attention there is no thought.
B: But how do you stop thought then? You see while thinking
is
going on there is an impression of attention which is not
attention.
That is one thinks, one supposes that one is paying
attention.
K: No, no. When one supposes one is paying attention, that
is
not attention.
B: But that is what often happens. So how do we communicate
what is the true meaning of attention?
K: Or would you say: to find out what is attention could we
discuss what is inattention?
B: Yes.
K: Through negation come to the positive. When I am
inattentive, what takes place? When I am inattentive?
B: All sorts of things take place.
K: No, but much more than that. In my inattentiveness - if
there
is such a word as inattentiveness - I feel lonely,
desperate,
depressed, anxious and so on.
B: The mind begins to break up and go into confusion.
K: Fragmentation takes place. Or in my lack of attention I
identify myself with so many other things.
B: Yes, and it may also be pleasant.
K: Of course. It is always pleasant.
B: But it may be painful too.
K: I find later on that that which was pleasing becomes
pain.
B: Pain, yes.
K: So all that is a movement in which there is no
attention.
Right? Are we getting anywhere?
B: I don't know.
K: I think - I feel that attention is the real solution to
all this. A
mind that is really attentive, which has understood the
nature of
inattention and moves away from it.
B: Yes, now what is the nature of inattention?
K: The nature of inattention? Indolence, negligence, this
selfconcern,
the self contradiction, all that, is the nature of
inattention.
B: Yes. 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 them.
K: Ah, I see you are using it, quite, quite. If there is
selfcontradiction
in me, and then I pay attention to it in order not to be
self-contradictory, that is not attention.
B: But can you make it clear because ordinarily one might
think
that that is attention.
K: No, that is not, it is merely a process of thought,
which says,
'I am this, I must not be that'.
B: Then you are saying this attempt to become is not
attention.
K: Yes, that is right.
B: Because it is not based on...
K: The psychological becoming breeds inattention.
B: Yes, and the person may thing he is attending to
something
but he is not, when he is engaged in this process.
K: Isn't it very difficult sir, to be free of not becoming?
That is
the root of it. To end becoming.
B: Yes.
K: Does this convey anything? Are we getting anywhere, sir?
Or are we going round and round in circles? You see most
human
beings have problems of one kind or another. Apart from
technological problems which can be solved, apparently
human
problems are not soluble. And I say, why?
B: Well we have just answered it: because they are not
really
paying attention to them.
K: No, but then paying attention becomes a problem.
B: I know it does. But I am saying there is no attention
and that
is why these problems are there.
K: Yes. And then you point that out and it becomes a
problem.
B: Yes. That is the question, to stop it. The difficulty is
that the
mind plays tricks and in trying to deal with this it does
the very
same thing again.
K: Of course, of course. So let's come back. Is the mind,
which
is so full of knowledge, self-importance,
self-contradiction, and all
the rest of it, that mind, the human mind, has come to a
point
where it finds itself psychologically that it can't move.
B: There is nowhere for it to move, yes.
K: So what? What would I say to a person who has come to
that
point? I wonder if I am moving along, or are we not?
B: Well I think it is beginning to focus the question.
K: I come to you. I am full of this confusion, anxiety, and
sense
of despair, not only facing what the world is, but also in
myself. I
come to that point and I want to break through it. So it
becomes a
problem to me.
B: Well then we are back, there is an attempt to become
again.
K: Yes. That is what I want to get at. So is that the root
of all
this, this desire to become?
B: Yes, well it must be close to the root, it keeps on
coming in
without notice. The inattention is such that you would say
that I am
looking at my problem and my problem is always becoming, so
I
say I want to stop becoming, which again is inattention.
K: Which again becomes a problem. So how do I regard, or
look, without the movement of becoming, at this whole
complex
issue of myself?
B: Well it seems that one has to look at the whole, we did
not
look at the whole of becoming, when you said, how can I pay
attention. Part of it seemed to slip out and became the
observer.
Right?
K: Sir, look, becoming has become the curse -
psychologically -
the curse of this. A poor man wants to be rich and a rich
man wants
to be richer, and it is this movement all the time of
becoming,
becoming, both outwardly and inwardly. And though it brings
a
great deal of pain and sometimes pleasure, this sense of
becoming,
fulfilling, achieving psychologically, has made my life
into all that
it is. Now I realize that but I can't stop it.
B: Yes, but one thing is, why can't I stop it?
K: Let's go into that a little bit. You see partly it is
because I am
always concerned in becoming that there is a reward at the
end of it
and I am always avoiding pain, punishment. And in that
cycle I am
caught. That is probably one of the reasons why the mind
keeps on
trying to become something. And the other perhaps is deep
rooted
anxiety, fear if I don't become, be something I am lost,
and I am
uncertain, insecure. So the mind has accepted these
illusions and
says I cannot end that.
B: Then why doesn't the mind end it? Also we have to go
into
the question into saying that there is no meaning to these
illusions.
K: How do you convince me that I am caught in an illusion?
You can't, unless I see it myself. I cannot see it because
my illusion
is so strong. That illusion has been nurtured, cultivated
by religion,
by family and so on and so on, it is so deeply rooted that
I refuse to
let that go.
B: Well then it seems impossible.
K: That is what is happening. That is what is taking place
with a
large number of people. They say, 'I want to do this but I
cannot'.
Now given that situation, what is one to do? Is it
explanations,
logic, all the various contradictions, and logic and so on,
will that
help him? Obviously not.
B: Because it all gets absorbed into the structure.
K: Obviously not. So what is the next thing?
B: Well I would question, if he says, 'I want to change',
there is
also the wish not to change.
K: Of course. The man who says, 'I want to change' has also
at
the back of his mind 'Really, why should I change?' They go
together.
B: So we get a contradiction.
K: That is what I mean, a contradiction. I have lived in
this
contradiction, I have accepted this contradiction.
B: So why should I have accepted it.
K: Because it is a habit.
B: But I meant, when the mind is healthy it will not accept
a
contradiction.
K: But our mind isn't healthy. Our minds are so diseased,
so
corrupt, so confused, that even though you point out all
the dangers
of this, it refuses to see it.
So how do we, suppose I am a man in that position, how do
we
help him to see clearly the danger of becoming? Let's put
it that
way. Psychologically becoming, which implies identification
with
a nation, with all that business.
B: Yes, holding to opinions.
K: Opinions, beliefs, I have had an experience, it gives me
tremendous satisfaction, I am going to hold on to it. I
have had
knowledge - all that. How do you help me, such a person, to
be
free of all that? Your words, you explanations, your logic,
everything says, quite right, but I can't move out of that.
I wonder if there is another factor, another way of
communication, which isn't based on words, knowledge,
explanations and reward and punishment. You follow? Is
there
another way of communicating, which we were talking about
at
table for a brief moment? You see in that too, there is a
danger. I
think there is, I am sure there is, a way of communicating
which is
not verbal, which is not analytical, logical, which doesn't
mean
lack of sanity, but I am sure there is another way.
B: Perhaps there is.
K: Now how do you communicate with me, who is caught in
this trap, non-verbally, so that I grasp it deeply, that
breaks away
everything else? You follow? Is there such a communication?
My
mind has always communicated with another with words, with
explanations, with logic, with analysis, either compulsive,
or with
suggestion and so on. My mind has been caught in all that.
There
must be another element which breaks through all that,
otherwise it
is impossible.
B: It will break through the inability to listen.
K: Yes, the inability to listen, the inability to observe,
to hear
and so on. There must be a different method. You see, I met
a man
once, obviously many men, who have been to a place with a
certain
saint and in his company they say all our problems are
resolved.
Just a minute. And when 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, being quiet,
nonverbal,
in his very presence, they feel quiet. You follow what I am
saying? And they feel their problems are resolved.
B: But it is still from the outside.
K: Of course. Still it is like, 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.
B: Yes, well it communicates what is meant by quietness, I
think, but it gets across the communication which is
non-verbal.
K: No, that is nothing. It is like incense.
B: It is superficial.
K: Utterly superficial, like incense, it evaporates! So we
push
all that aside, then what have we left? Not an outside
agency, a
god, or some saviour, push all that aside, and what have I
left?
What is there that can be communicated, which will break
through
the wall which human beings have built for themselves?
As we said sir, at the lunch table a couple of hours ago,
is it
love? Of course that word is corrupted, loaded, become
dirty; but
cleansing that word, is that the factor that will break
through all
this clever analytical approach, is that the element that
is lacking?
B: Well we have to discuss it, you see maybe people are
somewhat chary of this word.
K: I am chary beyond words!
B: And therefore as people resist listening, they will
resist love
too.
K: Of course. That is why I said it is rather a risky word.
B: We were saying the other day also that love contains
intelligence.
K: Of course.
B: Which is care as well and if we meant by love that
energy
which also contains intelligence and caring, all that.
K: That we went through the other day. Now wait a minute,
you
have that quality and I am caught in my misery, my anxiety
and so
on, and you are trying to penetrate with that intelligence,
this mass
of darkness. How will you do it? Will that act? If not we
human
beings are lost. You follow sir? Therefore they have
invented
Jesus, Buddha, Krishna,
they bring love, you follow? Which has
become so utterly meaningless, superficial and nonsensical.
So what shall I do? I think that is the factor sir.
Attention,
perception, intelligence and love. You bring it to me and I
am
incapable of receiving it. And I say, 'It sounds nice, I
feel it but I
can't hold it,' - I can't hold it because the moment I go
outside this
room I am lost.
B: Well that really is the problem.
K: Yes sir. That is the real problem. Is love something
outside?
You understand what I am saying? Like a saviour is outside,
and
heaven is outside and all that stuff. But is love something
- I am
using that word very carefully - something outside of me,
which
you bring to me, which you awaken in me, which you give me
as a
gift; or it is in my darkness, in my illusion, suffering,
is there that
quality? Obviously not, there can't be.
B: Then where is it?
K: That's just it. It must be there - now wait a minute;
love is
not yours or mine, it is not personal, it is not something
that
belongs to a person, and doesn't to the other; love is
that.
B: This is an important point. Like in one of the
discussions you
were saying, that isolation does not belong to any one
person, it is
something that everybody can look at, and whereas we tend
to
think of isolation as my personal problem.
K: No, no, of course not. It is common ground for all of
us.
B: But it may be a clue because if somebody is looking for
love
and he is saying, this must be my love, you have got it and
I
haven't - that is his way of thinking.
K: No, no. Intelligence is not personal.
B: But again it goes contrary to the whole of our thinking.
K: I know.
B: Everybody says this person is intelligent and that one
is not.
And saying that if I have like intelligence, I must declare
it for
myself.
K: Of course.
B: So this may be one of the barriers to the whole thing,
that
people behind the ordinary everyday thought there is deeper
thought of mankind, which is that these qualities, that we
are all
divided and these various qualities either belong to us or
they don't
belong to us.
K: Quite, quite. It is the fragmentary mind that invents
all this.
B: It has all been invented, we have picked it up verbally
and
non-verbally from childhood and by implication, therefore
it
pervades, it is the ground of our thoughts, of all our
perceptions. So
this has to be questioned.
K: We have questioned it, we have questioned that grief is
not
my grief, grief is human.
B: But how are people to see that because a person who is
caught in grief feels that it is his grief. Doesn't that
seem right?
K: Yes. I think it is partly because of our education,
partly our
society, tradition.
B: But it is also implicit in our whole way of thinking.
K: Yes, quite right. So we come back.
B: Then we have to jump out of that.
K: Yes. But 'jump out of that' becomes a problem and then
what
am I to do?
B: But perhaps we can see that love is not personal, love
does
not belong to anybody any more than any other quality.
K: Earth is not English earth or French earth, earth is
earth.
B: I was thinking of an example in physics: if the
scientist or
chemist is studying an element such as sodium, he does not
say it is
his sodium and somebody else studies theirs and they
somehow
compare notes.
K: Quite. Sodium is sodium.
B: Sodium is sodium universally. So we have to say love is
love
universally.
K: Yes. But you see my mind refuses to see that because I
am
so terribly personal, terribly 'me and my problems' and all
that. I
refuse to let that go. When you say sodium is sodium, it is
very
simple, I can see that. But when you say to me, grief is
common to
all of us - sodium is grief!
B: But this can't be done with time, but it took quite a
while for
mankind to realize that sodium is sodium.
K: That is what I want to find out sir: is love something
that is
common to all of us?
B: Well in so far as it exists it has to be common.
K: Of course, of course.
B: It many not exist but if it does it has to be common.
K: I am not sure it does exist.
B: Yes, right.
K: Like, compassion is not 'I am compassionate' -
compassion is
there, it is something not me, compassion.
B: Well if we say compassion is the same as sodium, it is
universal.
K: Universal.
B: Then every person's compassion is the same.
K: And compassion, love, and intelligence. You can't be
compassion without intelligence.
B: So we say intelligence is universal too.
K: Obviously.
B: But we have methods of testing intelligence in
particular
people.
K: Oh, no!
B: But that is all part of the thing that is getting in the
way, yes?
K: Part of this divisive, fragmentary way of thinking. And
thinking is fragmentary.
B: Well, there may be holistic thinking, we are not yet in
it.
K: Yes. Then holistic thinking is not thinking, it is some
other
factor.
B: Some other factor that we haven't gone into yet.
K: So if love is common to all of us, why am I blind to it?
B: Well, I think partly the mind boggles, it just refuses
to
consider such a fantastic change of concept in a way of
looking.
K: But you said just now that sodium is sodium.
B: But people feel uneasy about transferring - you have got
a lot
of evidence for that in all sorts of experiments.
K: Salt is salt, whether it is English salt or...
B: But that was built up through a lot of work and
experience,
now we can't do that here with love.
K: Oh no. Love isn't knowledge.
B: You can't go into a laboratory and prove that love is love.
K: Why does one's mind refuse to accept a very obvious
factor,
why? Is it the fear of letting my old values, standards,
opinions, all
that, to let go? Again you follow?
B: I think it is probably something deeper. It is hard to
pin down
but it isn't a simple thing. I mean that is a partial
explanation.
K: That is a superficial explanation. I know that. Is, sir,
is it the
deep rooted anxiety, or the longing to be totally secure?
B: But that again is based on fragmentation.
K: Of course, of course.
B: If we accept that we are fragmented 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 even so you could say that in some way you have
often said that that could be reasonable in the sense that
you say
the search for security - the real security is found in
nothingness, is
what you have said.
K: Of course, in nothingness there is complete security.
B: It is not the demand for security which is wrong but the
demand that the fragment be secure. The fragment cannot
possibly
be secure.
K: That is right. Like each country trying to be secure it
is not
secure.
B: But complete security could be achieved if all the
countries
got together.
K: Of course, of course, no tribulation, of course there
would
be.
B: So the way you have put it sounds as if we should live
eternally in insecurity.
K: No, no. We have made that very clear.
B: It makes sense to ask for security but we are going
about it
the wrong way.
K: Yes, that's right. How do you convey that love is
universal,
not personal, to a man who has lived completely in the
narrow
groove of personal achievement?
B: Well it seems the first point is, will he question his
narrow,
his unique personality?
K: They question it - I have discussed this so much - they
question it, they see the logic of it, they see the illogic
of all this,
and yet. You see curiously people who have been very
serious in
these matters, have tried to find the wholeness of life
through
starvation, through torture, through - you know every kind
of way.
The haven't, they imagine they have.
B: That is again...
K: You can't apprehend or perceive or be the whole through
torture. Torture includes discipline, you know, all the
rest of it. So
what shall we do?
I have a brother who refuses to see all this. And as I like
him, as
I have lived with him, I have a great affection for him, I
want him
to move out of it. And I have tried to communicate with him
verbally and sometimes non-verbally, by a gesture, by a
look, but
all this is still from the outside. And perhaps that is the
reason why
he resists. Being my brother, for whom I have a great
affection, if I
can help my brother for whom I have a great affection - I
won't use
the word 'help' - if I can point out that in himself this
flame can be
awakened, which means he must listen to me.
B: Yes, well.
K: Back again. But my brother refuses to listen.
B: It seems that there are some actions which are not
possible. If
a person is caught in a certain thought such as
fragmentation then
he can't change it because there are a lot of other
thoughts behind
it.
K: Of course, of course.
B: Ones he doesn't know. He is not actually free to take an
action there because of the whole structure of thought that
holds
him. So we have to find some place where he is free to act,
to
move, which is not controlled by the conditioning.
K: So how do I - I use the word 'help' with great caution -
help
my brother? He knows my affection for him, he is aware of
my -
and all the rest of it. What is the root of all this? We
said becoming
aware - all that is verbal, all that can be explained in
ten different
ways - the cause, the effect and all the rest of it. After
explaining
all this he says, 'You have left me where I am'. And my
intelligence, my affection, love says 'I can't let him go'.
You
follow? I can't say, 'Well, go to hell' and move off. I
can't let him
go. Which means, am I putting pressure on him? I am not
putting
any kind of pressure, any kind of reward, none of that. I
can't. My
responsibility is that I can't let another human being go.
It is not the
responsibility of duty and all that kind of filthy stuff.
But it is the
responsibility of intelligence which says all that.
B: Well that is clear that the whole thing would have no
meaning if you would let him go.
K: No.
B: Then it would be going back into fragmentation.
K: Sir, there is a tradition in India,
and probably in Tibet,
there
is one called the Maitreya Buddha who took a vow that he
would
not become the ultimate Buddha until he has liberated human
beings too.
B: Altogether?
K: Yes. You see the tradition hasn't changed anything.
How can I - how can one, if he has that intelligence, that
compassion, that love, which is not of a country, or person
or ideal,
saviour and all that nonsense, but has that purity of that
- can that
be transmitted to another? Or living with him, talking to
him - you
see it all becomes mechanical.
B: Well would you say this has never really been solved,
this
question?
K: I should think so sir. But we must solve it. You follow?
It
has not been solved but our intelligence says, solve it.
No, I think
intelligence doesn't say, solve it, intelligence says,
these are the
facts and perhaps some will capture it.
B: Well it seems to me that there are really two factors:
one is
the preparation by reason to show that it all makes sense;
but from
there possibly some will capture it.
K: We have done that sir. You started telling me - you laid
the
map out 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, very, very clear. At the end of
the
chapter I am back at the beginning. Or I have got a glimpse
of it
and that becomes my craving to capture that glimpse and
hold on
to it and not lose it. Then that becomes a memory. You
follow?
And all the nightmare begins.
In your showing me the map very clearly you have also
pointed
out to me something much deeper than that, which is love.
And by
your person, by your reasoning, by your logic, I am
groping,
seeking after that. But the weight of my body, my brain, my
tradition, all that draws me back. So it is a constant
battle. You
follow sir? And I think the whole thing is so wrong.
B: What is wrong?
K: The way we are living, the whole thing is so wrong.
B: Well I think many people must see that by now. At least
a
fair number.
K: I remember we were talking once in Ojai whether man has
taken a wrong turning, entered into a valley where there is
no
escape. That can't be sir, that is too depressing, too
appalling.
B: At least I think some people might object to that. The
very
fact it is appalling does not make it untrue. I think you
would have
to say some stronger reason why you feel that to be untrue.
K: Oh yes.
B: Do you perceive in human nature some possibility of a
real
change?
K: Of course sir, otherwise it would be meaningless, we'd
be
monkeys, machines. You see, and that faculty to a radical
change is
attributed to some outside agency and therefore we look to
that and
get lost in that. If we don't look to anybody and be
completely free
from all that, that solitude is common to all of us. I
don't know if I
am making myself clear?
B: Yes.
K: It is not an isolation, it is an obvious fact that when
you see
all this and say, this is so ugly, unreal, so stupid, you
are naturally
alone. And that sense of aloneness is common.
B: Yes. Of course the ordinary sense of loneliness is in
the
sense that each person feels it is his own loneliness.
K: Loneliness is not solitude, not aloneness, good Lord!
B: I think one could say that all the fundamental things
are
universal and therefore you are saying that when the mind
goes
deep it comes into something universal.
K: Universal, that's right.
B: Whether you call it absolute.
K: And that is the problem: to make the mind go very, very
deeply into itself.
B: Yes, there is one thing that occurred to me. When we
start
with our particular problem it is very shallow, then we go
to
something more general - the word general has the same root
as to
generate.
K: To generate, of course.
B: The genus is the coming generation, so as you go to
something more general you go to the deep, the depth of
what is
generated.
K: That's right, sir.
B: And going from that, still further, the general is still
limited
because it is thought.
K: Thought, quite right. But sir, to go so profoundly it
requires
tremendous, not only courage, but the sense of constant
pursuing
the same stream.
B: Yes, well that is not quite diligence, that is still too
limited,
right?
K: Yes, diligence is too limited - that goes with a
religious mind
in the sense that it is diligent in its action, in its
thoughts, in its
activities and so on, but that is still limited. I think that
is right sir.
If the mind can go from the particular to the general and
from the
general...
B:... to the absolute, to the universal.
K: Move away from that.
B: Well you see many people would say that is all very
abstract
and has nothing to do with daily life.
K: I know. It is the most practical thing. Not that it is
an
abstraction.
B: In fact it is the particular that is the abstraction.
K: Absolutely. The particular is the most dangerous.
B: It is also the most abstract because you only get to the
particular by abstracting.
K: Of course, of course.
B: But I think that may be part of it, you see people feel
they
want something that really affects us in daily life, we
don't just
want to get ourselves lost in talking. Therefore they say
all these
vapid generalities don't interest us.
K: These are abstractions.
B: Instead of getting into the real solid concrete
realities of daily
life. Now I mean it is true that it must work in daily
life, but daily
life does not contain the solution of its problems.
K: No. The daily life is the general life.
B: The general and the particular.
K: And the particular.
B: The problems which arise in daily life cannot be solved
there, as the human problems.
K: From the particular move to the general, from the
general
move away still deeper, and there perhaps is this purity of
that
thing called compassion, love and intelligence. But that
means
giving your mind to this, your heart, your mind, your whole
being
must be involved in this.
We had better stop. Sorry. We have gone on for a long time.
Have we reached somewhere?
B: Possibly so.
K: I think so.
End
(My humble salutations to the
lotus feet of Sri Jiddu Krishnamurti and
gratitude to the great
philosophers and followers of him.)
