The Ending of Time
J. Krishnamurti
and
Dr. David Bohm
THE ENDING OF TIME CHAPTER 1 1ST APRIL
1980 CONVERSATION WITH PROF. DAVID
BOHM 'THE ROOTS OF PSYCHOLOGICAL
CONFLICT'
KRISHNAMURTI: How shall we start? I would like to ask if
humanity has taken a wrong turn.
DAVID BOHM: A wrong turn? Well it must have done so, a
long time ago, I think.
K: That is what I feel. A long time ago... It appears that way -
why? You see, as I look at it, mankind has always tried to become
something.
DB: Well possibly. I was struck by something I once read about
man going wrong about five or six thousand years ago, when he
began to be able to plunder and take slaves. After that, his main
purpose of existence was just to exploit and plunder.
K: Yes, but there is the sense of inward becoming.
DB: Well, we should make it clear how this is connected. What
kind of becoming was involved in doing that? Instead of being
constructive, and discovering new techniques and tools and so on,
man at a certain time found it easier to plunder his neighbours.
Now what did they want to become?
K: Conflict has been the root of all this.
DB: What was the conflict? If we could put ourselves in the
place of those people of long ago, how would you see that conflict?
K: What is the root of conflict? Not only outwardly, but also
this tremendous inward conflict of humanity? What is the root of
it?
DB: Well, it seems that it is contradictory desires.
K: No. Is it that in all religions, you must become something?
You must reach something?
DB: Then what made people want to do that? Why weren't they
satisfied to be whatever they were? You see, the religion would not
have caught on unless people felt that there was some attraction in
becoming something more.
K: Isn't it an avoidance, not being able to face the fact, and
therefore moving to something else - to more and more and more?
DB: What would you say was the fact that people couldn't stay
with?
K: The Christians have said, Original Sin.
DB: But the wrong turn happened long before that.
K: Yes, long before that. Long before that, the Hindus had this
idea of Karma. What is the origin of all this?
DB: We have said that there was the fact that people couldn't
stay with. Whatever it was, they wanted to imagine something
better.
K: Yes, something better. Becoming.
DB: And you could say that they began to make things
technologically better, then they extended this, and said, `I too
must become better.'
K: Yes, inwardly become better.
DB: All of us together must become better.
K: That's right. What is the root of all this?
DB: Well, I should think it is natural in thought to project this
goal of becoming better. That is, it is intrinsic in the structure of
thought.
K: Is it that the principle of becoming better outwardly has
moved to becoming better inwardly?
DB: If it is good to become better outwardly, then why
shouldn't I become better inwardly?
K: Is that the cause of the conflict?
DB: That is getting towards it. It's coming nearer. K: Is it
coming nearer? Is time the factor? Time - as `I need knowledge in
order to do this or that'? The same principle applied inwardly? Is
time the factor?
DB: I can't see that time by itself can be the only factor.
K: No, no. Time. Becoming - which implies time.
DB: Yes, but we don't see how time is going to cause trouble.
We have to say that time applied outwardly doesn't cause any
difficulty.
K: It causes a certain amount - but we are discussing the idea of
time,inwardly.
DB: So we have to see why time is so destructive inwardly.
K: Because I am trying to become something.
DB: Yes, but most people would say that this is only natural.
You have to explain what it is that is wrong about becoming.
K: Obviously, there is conflict, in that when I am trying to
become something, it is a constant battle.
DB: Yes. Can we go into that: why is it a constant battle? It is
not a battle if I try to improve my position outwardly.
K: Outwardly, no. It is more or less all right outwardly, but
when that same principle is applied inwardly it brings about a
contradiction.
DB: And the contradiction is.?
K: Between `what is' and `becoming what should be'.
DB: The difficulty is, why is it a contradiction inwardly and not
outwardly?
K: Inwardly it builds up a centre, doesn't it, an egotistic centre?
DB: Yes, but can we find some reason why it should do so?
Does it build up when we do it Outwardly? It seems it need not.
K: It need not.
DB: But when we are doing it inwardly, then we are trying to
force ourselves to be something that we are not. K: Yes. That is a
fact. Is it that one's brain is so accustomed to conflict that one
rejects any other form of living?
DB: But why have people come to the conclusion that conflict
is inevitable and necessary?
K: What is the origin of conflict?
DB: I think we touched on that by saying that we are trying to
force ourselves. When we are a certain thing that we want to be,
we also want to be something else, which is different; and therefore
we want two different things at the same time. Would that seem
right?
K: I understand that. But I am trying to find out the origin of all
this 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, `I am not I'.?
DB: I think that is getting closer.
K: Yes, that's it. And the `I' - why has mankind created this `I',
which must, inevitably, cause conflict? `I' and `you', and `I' better
than `you', and so on, and so on.
DB: I think it was a mistake made a long time ago, or, as you
call it, a wrong turn, that having introduced separation between
various things outwardly, we then kept on doing it - not out of ill
will but simply through not knowing better.
K: Quite.
DB: Not seeing what we were doing.
K: Is that the origin of all this conflict?
DB: I am not sure that it is the origin. What do you feel?
K: I am inclined to observe that the origin is the ego, the `me',
the`I'.
DB: Yes.
K: If there is no ego, there is no problem, there is no conflict,
there is no time - time in the sense of becoming or not becoming;
being or not being.
DB: But it might be that we would still slip into whatever it was
that made us make the ego in the first place. K: Wait a minute. Is it
that energy - being so vast, limitless - has been condensed or
narrowed down in the mind, and the brain itself has become
narrowed because it couldn't contain all this enormous energy?
You are following what I am saying?
DB: Yes.
K: And therefore the brain has gradually narrowed down to
`me', to the `I'.
DB: I don't quite follow that. I understand that that is what
happened, but I don't quite see all the steps. You say energy was
enormous and the brain couldn't handle it, or decided that it
couldn't handle it?
K: It couldn't handle it.
DB: But if it can't handle it, it seems as if there is no way out.
K: No, just a minute. Go slowly. I just want to enquire, push
into it a little bit. Why has the brain, with all thought, created this
sense of `me', `I'? Why?
DB: We needed a certain sense of identity to function.
K: Yes, to function.
DB: To know where we belong.
K: Yes. And is that the movement which has brought the `me'?
The movement of the outer? I had to identify, with the family, the
house, the trade or profession. All this gradually became the `me'?
DB: I think that this energy that you are talking about also
entered into it.
K: Yes, but I want to lead up to that slowly.
DB: You see, what you say is right, that in some way this sense
of the `me' gradually strengthened, but by itself that 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 should become the focus of the greatest energy; of all the energy.
K: Is that it? That the brain cannot hold this vast energy? DB:
Let's say that the brain is trying to control this - to bring it to order.
K: Energy has no order.
DB: But if the brain feels it can't control something that is going
on inside, it will try to establish order.
K: Could we say that the brain, your brain, his brain, her brain,
has not just been born; it is very, very old?
DB: In what sense?
K: In the sense that it has evolved.
DB: Evolved, yes, from the animal. And the animal has
evolved. So let's say that in a sense this whole evolution is
somehow contained in the brain.
K: I want to question evolution. I understand, say, evolution
from the bullock cart to the jet.
DB: Yes. But before you question, we have to consider the
evidence of man developing through a series of stages. You can't
question that, can you?
K: No, of course not.
DB: I mean, physically it is clear that evolution has occurred in
some way.
K: Physically, yes.
DB: And the brain has got larger, more complex. But you may
question whether mentally evolution has any meaning.
K: You see, I want to abolish time, psychologically. You
understand?
DB: Yes, I understand.
K: To me that is the enemy. And is that the cause, the origin of
man's misery?
DB: This use of time, certainly. Man had to use time for a
certain purpose, but he misused it.
K: I understand that. If I have to learn a language, I must have
time. B: But the misuse of time by extending it inwardly...
K: Inwardly: that is what I am talking about. Is that the cause of
man's confusion - introducing time as a means of becoming, and
becoming more and more perfect, more and more evolved, more
and more loving? You follow what I mean?
DB: Yes, I understand. Certainly if we didn't do that, the whole
structure would collapse.
K: That's it.
DB: But I don't know whether there is not some other cause.
K: Just a minute. I want to go into that a little bit. I am not
talking theoretically, personally. But to me the idea of tomorrow
doesn't exist psychologically - that is, time as a movement, either
inwardly or outwardly.
DB: You mean psychological time?
K: Yes, psychological time, and time outwardly. Now if
psychological time doesn't exist, then there is no conflict, there is
no `me', no `I', which is the origin of conflict. Outwardly,
technologically man has moved, evolved.
DB: And also in the inward physical structure.
K: The structure, everything. But psychologically we have also
moved outward.
DB: Yes, we have focused our life on the outward. Is that what
you are saying?
K: Yes. We have extended our capacities outwardly. And
inwardly it is the same movement as outwardly. Now if there is no
inward movement as time, moving, becoming more and more, then
what takes place? You understand what I am trying to convey?
Time ends. You see, the outer movement is the same as the inward
movement.
DB: Yes. It is going around and around.
K: Involving time. If the movement ceases, then what takes
place? I wonder if I am conveying anything? Could we put it this
way? We have never touched any other movement than the outer
movement. DB: Generally, anyway. We put most of our energy
into the outer movements.
K: And psychological movement is also outward.
DB: Well, it is the reflection of that outward movement.
K: We think it is inward but it is actually outward, right?
DB: Yes.
K: Now if that movement ends, as it must, then is there a really
inward movement - a movement not in terms of time?
DB: You are asking, is there another kind of movement which
still moves, but not in terms of time?
K: That's right.
DB: We have to go into that. Could you go further?
K: You see, that word movement means time.
DB: Well, it really means to change from one place to another.
But anyway there is still the notion of something which is not
static. By denying time you don't want to return to something
static, which is still time.
K: Let's say, for instance, that one's brain has been trained,
accustomed, for centuries to go North. And it suddenly realizes that
going North means everlasting conflict. As it realizes that, the
brain itself changes - the quality of the brain changes.
DB: All right. I can see it will wake up in some way to a
different movement.
K: Yes, different.
DB: Is the word flow any better?
K: I have been going North all my life, and there is a sudden
stoppage from going North. But the brain is not going East or
South or West. Then conflict ceases - right? Because it is not
moving in any direction.
DB: So that is the key point - the direction of movement. When
the movement is fixed in direction, inwardly, it will come to
conflict. But outwardly we need a fixed direction. K: Of course we
do. That's understood.
DB: Yes. So if we say the brain has no fixed direction, then
what is it doing? Is it moving in all directions?
K: I am a little bit hesitant to talk about this. Could one say,
when one really comes to that state, that it is the source of all
energy?
DB: Yes, as one goes deeper and more inward.
K: This is the real inwardness; not the outward movement
becoming the inner movement, but no outer or inner movement...
DB: Yes, we can deny both the outward and the inner, so that
all movement would seem to stop.
K: Would that be the source of all energy?
DB: Yes, perhaps we could say that.
K: May I talk about myself a little bit?
DB: Yes.
K: First about meditation. All conscious meditation is no
meditation - right?
DB: What do you mean by conscious meditation?
K: Deliberate, practised meditation, which is really
premeditated meditation. Is there a meditation which is not
premeditated - which is not the ego trying to become something -
or being able to negate?
DB: Before we go ahead, could we suggest what meditation
should be. Is it an observation of the mind observing?
K: No. It has gone beyond all that. I am using the word
meditation in the sense in which there is not a particle of any sense
of trying consciously to become, to reach a level.
DB: The mind is simply with itself, silent.
K: That is what I want to get at.
DB: Not looking for anything. K: You see, I don't meditate in
the normal sense of the word. What happens is that I wake up
meditating.
DB: In that state?
K: One night in India I woke up; it was a quarter past twelve, I
looked at the watch. And - I hesitate to say this because it sounds
extravagant - the source of all energy had been reached. And that
had an extraordinary effect on the brain. And also physically. I'm
sorry to talk about myself but, you understand, literally, there was
no division at all; no sense of the world, of `me'. You follow? Only
this sense of a tremendous source of energy.
DB: So the brain was in contact with this source of energy?
K: Yes, and as I have been talking for sixty years, I would like
others to reach this - no, not reach it. You understand what I am
saying? All our problems are solved. Because it is pure energy
from the very beginning of time. Now how am I - not `I', you
understand - how is one not to teach, not to help, or push - but how
is one to say, `This way leads to a complete sense of peace, of
love'? I am sorry to use all these words. But suppose you have
come to that point and your brain itself is throbbing with it - how
would you help another? You understand? Help - not words. How
would you help another to come to that? You understand what I am
trying to say?
DB: Yes.
K: My brain - but not mine - has evolved. Evolution implies
time, and it can only think, live in time. Now for the brain to deny
time is a tremendous activity, for any problem that arises, any
question is immediately solved.
DB: Is this situation sustained or is it only for a period?
K: It is sustained, obviously, otherwise there is no point in it. It
is not sporadic or intermittent. Now how are you to open the door,
how are you to help another to say,`Look, we have been going in
the wrong direction, there is only non-movement; and, if
movement stops, everything will be correct'?
DB: Well, it is hard to know beforehand if everything is going
to be correct. K: Let's go back to what we began with. That is, has
mankind taken a wrong turn, psychologically, not physically? Can
that turn be completely reversed? Or stopped? My brain is so
accustomed to this evolutionary idea that I will become something,
I will gain something, that I must have more knowledge and so on;
can that brain suddenly realize that there is no such thing as time?
You understand what I am trying to say?
DB: Yes.
K: I was listening the other day to a discussion on television
about Darwin, his knowledge and what he achieved - his whole
theory of evolution. It seems to me that this is totally untrue
psychologically.
DB: It seems that he has given evidence that all species have
changed in time. Why is that untrue?
K: Of course. It is obvious.
DB: It is true in one respect, although I think it would be untrue
to say the mind evolved in time.
K: Of course.
DB: But physically it seems clear there has been a process of
evolution, and that this has increased the capacity of the brain to do
certain things. For example, we couldn't be discussing this if the
brain had not grown larger.
K: Of course.
DB: But I think you are implying that the mind is not
originating in the brain. Is that so? The brain is perhaps an
instrument of the mind?
K: And the mind is not time. Just see what that means.
DB: The mind does not evolve with the brain.
K: The mind not being of time, and the brain being of time - is
that the origin of conflict?
DB: Well, we have to see why that produces conflict. It is not
clear to say that the brain is of time, but rather that it has developed
in such a way that time is in it.
K: Yes, that is what I meant. DB: But not necessarily so.
K: It has evolved.
DB: It has evolved, so it has time within it.
K: Yes, it has evolved, time is part of it.
DB: It has become part of its very structure.
K: Yes.
DB: However, the mind operates without time, although the
brain is not able to do so.
K: That means that God is in man, and God can only operate if
the brain is quiet, if the brain is not caught in time.
DB: Well, I wasn't meaning that. I see that the brain, having a
structure of time, is not able to respond properly to mind. That's
really what seems to be involved here.
K: Can the brain itself see that it is caught in time, and that as
long as it is moving in that direction, conflict is eternal, endless?
You follow what I am saying?
DB: Yes. Does the brain see it?
K: Has the brain the capacity to see in what it is doing now -
being caught in time - that in that process there is no end to
conflict? That means, is there a part of the brain which is not of
time?
DB: Not caught or functioning in time?
K: Can one say that?
DB: I don't know.
K: That would mean - we come back to the same thing in
different words - that the brain is not being completely conditioned
by time, so there is a part of the brain that is free of time.
DB: Not a part, but rather that the brain is mainly dominated by
time, although that doesn't necessarily mean 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
time. I think I can see this - it is dominated only when you give it
time. Thought which takes time is dominated, but anything fast
enough is not dominated.
K: Yes, that's right. Can the brain - which has been used to time
- can it see in that process that there is no end to conflict? See, in
the sense of realizing this? Will it realize it under pressure?
Certainly not. Will it realize it under coercion, reward or
punishment? It will not. It will either resist or escape.
So what is the factor that will make the brain see that the way it
has been functioning is not correct? (Let's use that word for the
moment.) And what will make it suddenly realize that it is totally
mischievous? What will make it? Certainly not drugs or some kind
of chemical.
DB: None of these outward things.
K: Then what will make the brain realize this?
DB: What do you mean by realize?
K: Realize that the path along which the brain has been going
will always be the path of conflict.
DB: I think this raises the question that the brain resists such a
realization.
K: Of course, of course. Because it has been used to the old
path, for centuries! How will you make the brain realize this fact?
If you could make it realize that, conflict is finished.
You see, people have tried fasting, austerity, poverty, chastity in
the real sense, purity, having a mind that is absolutely correct; they
have tried going away by themselves; they have tried practically
everything that man has invented, but none of these ways has
succeeded.
DB: Well, what do you say? It is clear that people pursuing
these outward goals are still becoming.
K: Yes, but they never realize that these are outward goals. It
means denying all that completely.
DB: You see, to go further, I think that one has to deny the very
notion of time in the sense of looking forward to the future, and
deny all the past. K: That's just it.
DB: That is, the whole of time.
K: Time is the enemy. Meet it, and go beyond it.
DB: Deny that it has an independent existence. You see, I think
we have the impression that time exists independently of us. We
are in the stream of time, and therefore it would seem absurd for us
to deny it because that is what we are.
K: Yes, quite, quite. So it means really moving away - again
this is only words - from everything that man has put together as a
means of timelessness.
DB: Can we say that none of the methods that man uses
outwardly is going to free the mind from time?
K: Absolutely.
DB: Every method implies time.
K: Of course. It is so simple.
DB: We start out immediately by setting up the whole structure
of time; the whole notion of time is presupposed before we start.
K: Yes, quite. But how will you convey this to another? How
will you, or `X', convey this to a man who is caught in time and
will resist it, fight it, because he says there is no other way? How
will you convey this to him?
DB: I think that you can only convey it to somebody who has
gone into it; you are not likely to convey it at all to somebody you
just pick up off the street!
K: So then, what are we doing? As that cannot be conveyed
through words, what is a man to do? Would you say that to resolve
a problem as it arises you have to go into it immediately, because
otherwise you may do the most foolish thing and delude yourself
that you have resolved it? Suppose I have a problem, any
psychological problem - can the mind realize, resolve it
immediately? Not deceive itself, not resist it - you understand? But
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: Of course. Would that activity end time, the psychological time
that we are talking about?
DB: Yes, if we could bring this immediate action to bear on the
problem, which is the self.
K: One is greedy, or envious. To end immediately greed,
attachment, and so on, will that not give a clue to the ending of
time?
DB: Yes, because any action which is not immediate has
already brought in time.
K: Yes, yes. I know that.
DB: The ending of time is immediate - right?
K: Immediate, of course. Would that point out the wrong turn
that mankind has taken?
DB: Yes, if man feels something is out of order psychologically
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 sense of time having no
place inwardly? Which means, doesn't it, that thought has no place
except outwardly?
DB: You are saying that thought is a process which is involved
in time.
K: Wouldn't you say that thought is the process of time?
Because thought is based on experience, knowledge, memory and
response, which is the whole of time.
DB: Let's try to put it that thought, as we have generally known
it, is in time.
K: Thought as we know it now is of time.
DB: Yes. I would agree, generally speaking.
K: Generally speaking, thought is time.
DB: It is based on the notion of time.
K: Yes, all right. But to me, thought itself is time.
DB: Thought itself creates time, right.
K: Does it mean, when there is no time there is no thought? DB:
Well no thought of that kind.
K: No. There is no thought. I want just to go slowly.
DB: Could we say that there is a kind of thought which we have
lived in which has been dominated by time?
K: Yes, but that has come to an end.
DB: But there may be another kind of thought which is not
dominated by time... I mean, you were saying, you could still use
thought to do some things.
K: Of course, outwardly that's so.
DB: We have to be careful not to say that thought is necessarily
dominated by time.
K: Yes. I have to go from here to there, to my house; that needs
time, thought, but I am not talking of that kind of time.
DB: So let's make it clear that you are talking of thought which
is aimed at the mind, whose content is the order of the mind.
K: Yes. Would you say knowledge is time?
DB: Well, yes...
K: All knowledge is time.
DB: Yes, in that it has been known, and may project into the
future, and so on.
K: Of course, the future, the past. Knowledge - science,
mathematics, whatever it is - is acquired through time. I read
philosophy, I read this or that, and the whole movement of
knowledge involves time. See what I mean!
DB: I think we are saying that man has taken a wrong turn and
got caught in this kind of knowledge, which is dominated by time
because it has become psychological knowledge.
K: Yes. So he lives in time.
DB: He lives in time because he has attempted to produce
knowledge of the nature of the mind. Are you 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. When you
end time, in the sense we are talking about, there is no knowledge
as experience.
DB: We have to see what the word `experience' means.
K: Experience, memory.
DB: 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, for example, in one's job, which becomes skill and
perception.
K: Of course, but that is quite different.
DB: But we are saying there is no point in having experience of
the mind, psychological experience.
K: Yes, let's put it that way. psychological experience is in time.
DB: Yes, and it has no point, because you cannot say, `As I
become skilled in my job I will become skilled in my mind, or
skilled fundamentally'.
K: Yes. So where is this leading? I realize that knowledge is
time; the brain realizes it, and sees the importance of time in a
certain direction, and that there is no value in time at all in another
direction. It is not a contradiction.
DB: I would put it 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 knowledge?
You understand.
DB: Without psychological knowledge?
K: Yes, I am talking psychologically.
DB: It is not so much that it is caught in time as that it is
without psychological knowledge to organize itself.
K: Yes.
DB: So we are saying that the brain field must organize itself by
knowing psychologically all about itself.
K: Is then the mind, the brain, disorder? Certainly not. DB: No.
But I think that people being faced with this might feel there would
be disorder.
K: Of course.
DB: I think what you are saying is that the notion of controlling
yourself psychologically has no meaning.
K: So knowledge of the `me' - the psychological knowledge - is
time.
DB: Yes, I understand the totality of knowledge is `me', is time.
K: So then what is existence without this? There is no time,
there is no knowledge in the psychological sense, no sense of `me',
then what is there? To come to that point most people would say,
`What a horror this is.'
DB: Yes, because it seems there would be nothing.
K: Nothing. But if one has come to that point, what is there?
Would you say, because there is nothing, it is everything?
DB: Yes, I would accept that. I know that. That is true, it has
all.
K: No meditation, nothing.
DB: No thing.
K: No thing, that's right.
DB: A thing is limited, and this is not a thing because there are
no limits... At least, it has everything in potential.
K: Wait, Sir. If it is nothing, and so everything, so everything is
energy.
DB: Yes. The ground of everything is energy.
K: Of course. Everything is energy. And what is the source of
this thing? Or is there no source of energy at all? Is there only
energy?
DB: Energy just is. Energy is `what is'. There is no need for a
source. That is one approach, perhaps?
K: No. If there is nothing, and therefore everything, and
everything is energy... We must be very careful because here, the
Hindus have this idea too, which is that Brahman is everything.
You understand? But that becomes an idea, a principle, and then
functioning is once more in the brain. But the fact of it is, there is
nothing, therefore there is everything, and all that is cosmic energy.
But what started this energy?
DB: We are not talking of time.
K: I know we are not talking of time, but you see the Christians
would say, `God is energy and He is the source of all energy.' No?
DB: But the Christians have an idea of what they call the
Godhead, which is the very source of God too.
K: And also the Hindus, the Arabic and the Jewish worlds have
this. Are we going against all that?
DB: It sounds similar in some ways.
K: And yet not similar. We must be careful.
DB: Many things like this have been said over the ages.
K: Then is one just walking in emptiness? Is one living in
emptiness?
DB: Well, that is not clear.
K: There is nothing, and everything is energy. What is this?
DB: Well, is there something within the energy?
K: This is not different from energy. This. But the thing that is
inside says, `I am totally different from that'.
DB: The `I' encloses itself and says, `I am different, I am
eternal.'
K: Why has it done this? Why has the separation arisen? Is it
because outwardly I identify with a house and so on, and that
identification has moved inwardly?
DB: Yes. And the second point was that once we established a
notion of something inward, then it became necessary to protect
that. And therefore that built up the separation.
K: Of course.
DB: The inward was obviously the most precious thing, and it
would have to be protected with all our energy. K: Does it mean
then that there is only the organism - which part of energy? There
is no `me' at all, except the passport name and form; otherwise
nothing. And therefore there is everything and therefore all is
energy?
DB: Yes, the form has no independent existence.
K: No. There is only the form. That's all.
DB: There is also the energy, you say.
K: That is part of energy. So there is only this, the outward
shape.
DB: There is the outward form in the energy.
K: Do you realize what we have said, Sir? Is this the end of the
journey?
DB: No, I should think not.
K: Has mankind journeyed through millennia to come to this?
That I am nothing, and therefore I am everything, and all energy.
DB: Well it can't be the end, in the sense that it might be the
beginning.
K: Wait. That is all I wanted you to begin with. The ending is
the beginning - right? Now I want to go into that. You see, in the
ending of all this - the ending of time, we will call it briefly - there
is a new beginning. What is that? Because otherwise this seems so
utterly futile. I am all energy and just the shell exists, and time has
ended. It seems so futile.
DB: Yes, if we stop there....
K: That's all.
DB: I think that really this is clearing the ground of all the
debris, of all the confusion.
K: Yes. So the ending is a beginning. But what is that?
Beginning implies time also.
DB: Not necessarily. I think we said there could be a movement
which had no time.
K: That is all. I want to make it clear. DB: Yes, but it is hard to
express. It is not a question of being static, but in some sense the
movement has not the order of time. I think we would have to say
that now.
K: Yes. So we will use the word `beginning' and deprive it of
time.
DB: Because ending and beginning are no special time. In fact
they can be any time or no time.
K: No time. Then what takes place? What is happening? Not to
me, not to my brain. What is happening? We have said that when
one denies time there is nothing. After this long talk, nothing
means everything. Everything is energy. And we have stopped
there. But that isn't the end.
DB: No.
K: That is not the end. Then what is going on? Is that creation?
DB: Yes, something like that.
K: But not the art of creating like writing or painting.
DB: Perhaps later we can discuss what we mean by creating.
THE ENDING OF TIME CHAPTER 2 2ND APRIL
1980 CONVERSATION WITH PROF. DAVID
BOHM 'CLEANSING THE MIND OF THE
ACCUMULATION OF TIME'
KRISHNAMURTI: We were saying that psychological time is
conflict, that time is the enemy of man. And that enemy has existed
from the beginning of man. And we asked, why has man from the
beginning taken a `wrong turn', a `wrong path'? And, if so, is it
possible to turn man in another direction in which he can live
without conflict? Because, as we said yesterday, the outer
movement is also the same as the inner movement. There is no
separation between inner and outer. It is the same movement. And
we asked whether we were concerned deeply and passionately to
turn man in another direction so that he doesn't live in time, with a
knowledge only of the outer things. The religions, the politicians,
the educators have failed: they have never been concerned about
this. Would you agree to that?
DAVID BOHM: Yes. I think the religions have tried to discuss
the eternal values beyond time but they don't seem to have
succeeded.
K: That is what I want to get at. To them it has been an idea, an
ideal, a principle, a value, but not an actuality, and most of the
religious people have their anchor in a belief, in a principle, in an
image, in knowledge, in jesus or in something or other.
DB: Yes, but if you were to consider all the religions, say the
various forms of Buddhism, they try to say this very thing which
you are saying, to some extent.
K: To some extent but what I am trying to get at is: why has
man never confronted this problem? Why haven't we said `Let's
end conflict'? Instead we have been encouraged because through
conflict we think there is progress.
DB: It can be a certain source of stimulus to try to overcome
opposition.
K: Yes, Sir, but if you and I see the truth of this, not in
abstraction, but actually, deeply, can we act in such a way that
every issue is resolved instantly, immediately, so that psychological
time is abolished? And as we asked yesterday, when you come
to? that point where there is nothing and there is everything, where
all that is energy - when time ends, is there a beginning of
something totally new? Is there a beginning which is not enmeshed
in time? Now how shall we discover it? Words are necessary to
communicate. But the word is not that thing. So what is there when
all time ends? Psychological time, not time of...
DB: ...time of day.
K: Yes. Time as the `me', the ego, and when that completely
comes to an end, what is there that begins? Could we say that out
of the ashes of time there is a new growth? What is that which
begins - no, that word `begins' implies time too.
DB: Whatever we mean, that which arises.
K: That arises, what is it?
DB: Well, as we said yesterday, essentially it is creation, the
possibility of creation.
K: Yes, creation. Is that it? Is something new being born?
DB: It is not the process of becoming.
K: Oh, no, that is finished. Becoming is the worst, that is time,
that is the real root of this conflict. We are trying to find out what
happens when the `I', which is time, has completely come to an
end. I believe the Buddha is supposed to have said `Nirvana'. And
the Hindus call it Moksha. I don't know whether the Christians call
it Heaven...
DB: The Christian mystics have had some similar state...
K: Similar, yes. But you see, the Christian mystics, as far as I
understand it, are rooted in jesus, in the Church, in the whole
belief. They have never gone beyond it.
DB: Yes, well that seems so. As far as I know anyway.
K: Now we have said belief, attachment to all that is out,
finished. That is all part of the `I'. Now when there is that absolute
cleansing of the mind from the accumulation of time, which is the
essence of the `me', what takes place? Why should we ask what
takes place?
DB: You mean it is not a good question? K: I am just asking
myself, why should we ask that? Is there behind it a subtle form of
hope? A subtle form of saying, I have reached that point, there is
nothing. Then that's a wrong question Wouldn't you consider that
so?
DB: Well, it invites you to look for some hopeful outcome.
K: If all endeavour is to find something beyond the `me', the
endeavour and the thing that I may find are still within the orbit of
`me'. So I have no hope. There is no sense of hope, there is no
sense of wanting to find anything.
DB: What is then moving you to enquire?
K: My enquiry has been to end conflict.
DB: Yes, we have then to be careful. We are liable to produce a
hope of ending conflict.
K: No, no; there is no hope. I end it. The moment I introduce
the word `hope' there is a feeling of the future.
DB: Yes, that is desire.
K: Desire - and therefore it is of time. So I - the mind - puts all
that aside completely; I mean it, completely. Then what is the
essence of all this? Is my mind still seeking, or groping after
something intangible that it can capture and hold? If that is so, it is
still part of time.
DB: Well, that is still desire.
K: Desire and a subtle form of vanity.
DB: Why vanity?
K: Vanity in the sense `I have reached'.
DB: Self-deception.
K: Deception and all forms of illusion arise from that. So it is
not that. I am clearing the decks as we go along.
DB: Essentially it seems that you are clearing the movement of
desire in its subtle forms.
K: In its subtle forms. So desire too has been put away. Then
there is only mind - right? DB: Yes, but then we have to ask what
is meant by nature, if all is mind, because nature seems somewhat
independent.
K: But we have also said that all the universe is the mind.
DB: You mean to say nature is the mind?
K: Part of the mind.
DB: The universal mind?
K: Yes.
DB: Not a particular mind?
K: The particular mind then is separate, but we are talking of
mind.
DB: You see, we have to make it clear, because you are saying
that nature is the creation of universal mind, though nevertheless
nature has a certain reality.
K: That is all understood.
DB: But it is almost as if nature were the thought of the
universal mind.
K: it is part of it. I am trying to grope towards the particular ind
coming to an end; then there is only the Mind, the universal mind -
right?
DB: Yes. We have been discussing the particular mind groping
through desire, and we said if all of that stopped...
K: That is just my point. If all that has completely come to an
end, what is the next step? Is there any next? We said yesterday,
there is a beginning, but that word implies part of time.
DB: We won't say so much beginning, perhaps ending.
K: The ending, we have said that.
DB: But now is there something new?
K: Is there something which the mind cannot capture?
DB: Which mind, the particular or the universal?
K: The particular has ended. DB: Yes. You are saying the
universal mind cannot capture it either?
K: That is what we are finding out.
DB: Are you saying there is a reality - or something - beyond
universal mind?
K: Are we playing a game of peeling off one thing after
another? Like an onion skin, and at the end there is only tears and
nothing else?
DB: Well, I don't know.
K: Because we said there is the ending, then the cosmic, the
universal mind, and, beyond, is there something more?
DB: Well, would you say this `more' is energy? That energy is
beyond the universal mind?
K: I would say yes, because the universal mind is part of that
energy.
DB: That is understandable. In a way the energy is alive, you
are saying?
K: Yes, yes.
DB: And also intelligent?
K: Wait a minute.
DB: In some way... In so far as it is mind.
K: Now if that energy is intelligent, why has it allowed man to
move away in the wrong direction?
DB: I think that that may be part of a process, something that is
inevitable in the nature of thought. You see if thought is going to
develop, that possibility must exist. To bring about thought in
man...
K: Is that the original freedom for man? To choose?
DB: No, that is, thought has to have the capacity to make this
mistake.
K: But if that intelligence was operating, why did it allow this
mistake? DB: Well, we can suggest that there is a universal order, a
law.
K: All right. The universe functions in order.
DB: Yes, and it is part of the order of the universe that this
particular mechanism can go wrong. If a machine breaks down, it
is not disorder in the universe, it is part of universal order.
K: Yes. In the universal order there is disorder, where man is
concerned.
DB: It is not disorder at the level of the universe.
K: No. At a much lower level.
DB: At the level of man it is disorder.
K: And why has man lived from the beginning in this disorder?
DB: Because he is still ignorant, he still hasn't seen the point.
K: But he is part of the whole, yet in one tiny corner man exists,
and has lived in disorder. And this enormous conscious intelligence
has not...
DB: Yes, you could say that the possibility of creation is also
the possibility of disorder. That if man had the possibility of being
creative, there would also be the possibility of a mistake. It could
not be fixed like a machine, always to operate in perfect order. The
intelligence would not have turned him into a machine that would
be incapable of disorder.
K: No, of course not. So is there something beyond the cosmic
order, mind?
DB: Are you saying that the universe, that that mind, has
created nature which has an order, which is not merely going
around mechanically? It has some deeper meaning?
K: That is what we are trying to find out.
DB: You are bringing in the whole universe as well as mankind.
What makes you do this? What is the source of this perception?
K: Let's begin again: there is the ending of the `me' as time, and
so there is no hope; all that is finished, ended. In the ending of it,
there is that sense of nothingness. And nothingness is this whole
universe. DB: Yes, the universal mind, the universal matter.
K: The whole universe.
DB: What led you to say that?
K: Ah. I know. To put it very simply: division has come to an
end. Right? The division created by time, created by thought,
created by this education, and so on - all that. Because it has ended,
the other is obvious.
DB: You mean that without the division then the other is there -
to be perceived?
K: Not to be perceived, but it is there.
DB: But then how does one come to be aware that it is there?
K: I don't think one becomes aware of it.
DB: Then what leads you to say it?
K: Would you say it is? Not, I perceive it, or it is perceived.
DB: Yes. It is.
K: It is.
DB: You could almost say that it is saying it. In some sense,
you seem to be suggesting that it is what is saying.
K: Yes. I didn't want to put it - I am glad you put it like that!
Where are we now?
DB: We are saying that the universe is alive, as it were, it is
mind, and we are part of it.
K: We can only say we are part of it when there is no `I'.
DB: No division.
K: No division. I would like to push it a little further; is there
something beyond all this?
DB: Beyond the energy, you mean?
K: Yes. We said nothingness, that nothingness is everything,
and so it is that which is total energy. It is undiluted, pure,
uncorrupted energy. Is there something beyond that? Why do we
ask it? DB: I don't know.
K: I feel we haven't touched it - I feel there is something
beyond.
DB: Could we say this something beyond is the ground of the
whole? You are saying that all this emerges from an inward
ground?
K: Yes, there is another - I must be awfully careful here. You
know one must be awfully careful not to be romantic, not to have
illusions, not to have desire, not even to search. It must happen.
You follow what I mean?
DB: We are saying the thing must come from that. Whatever
you are saying must come from that.
K: From that. That's it. It sounds rather presumptuous.
DB: You are actually seeing it. It is not that you look at it and
say, that is what I have seen.
K: Oh, no. Then it is wrong.
DB: There isn't a division. Of course, it is easy to fall into
delusion with this sort of thing.
K: Yes, but we said delusion exists as long as there is desire and
thought. That is simple. And desire and thought are part of the `I',
which is time. When desire and time are completely ended, then
there is absolutely nothing, and therefore that is the universe, that
emptiness, which is full of energy. We can put a stop there...
DB: Because we haven't yet seen the necessity for going beyond
the energy. We have to see that as necessary.
K: I think it is necessary.
DB: Yes, but it has to be seen. We have to bring out why it is
necessary.
K: Why is it necessary? Tentatively, there is something in us
that is operating, there is something in us much more - much - I
don't know how to put it - much greater. I am going slowly, slowly.
What I am trying to say is, I think there is something beyond that.
When I say `I think', you know what I mean.
DB: I understand, yes. K: There is something beyond that. How
can we talk about it? You see, energy exists only when there is
emptiness. They go together.
DB: This pure energy you talk about is emptiness. Are you
suggesting there is that which is beyond the emptiness, the ground
of the emptiness?
K: Yes.
DB: Would that be something in the way of a substance? You
see the question is, if it is not emptiness, then what is it?
K: I don't quite follow your question.
DB: Well, you say something beyond emptiness, other than
emptiness. I think we can follow to the energy and the emptiness.
Now if we suggest something other to that, to the emptiness...
K: This something other.
DB: Yes, then that other must be different from the emptiness.
Something other to emptiness, which therefore is not emptiness.
Does that make sense?
K: Then it is substance.
DB: Yes, that is what is implied: if it is not emptiness, it is
substance.
K: Substance is matter, is it not?
DB: Not necessarily, but having the quality of substance.
K: What do you mean by that?
DB: Matter is a form of substance in the sense that it is energy,
but having the form of substance as well, because it has a constant
form and it resists change. It is stable, it maintains itself.
K: Yes. But when you use the word `substance', meaning
beyond emptiness, does that word convey that meaning?
DB: Well, we are exploring the possible meaning of what you
want to say. If you are saying it is not emptiness, then it would not
be substance as we know it in matter. But we can see a certain
quality which belongs to substance in general; if it has that quality,
we could use the word substance, extend the meaning of the word
substance.
K: I understand. So could we use the word `quality'?
DB: The word `quality' is not necessarily the emptiness, energy
could have the quality of emptiness, you see. And therefore it is
something else. Something other might have the quality of
substance. That is the way I see it. And is that what you are trying
to say?
K: There is something beyond emptiness. How shall we tackle
it?
DB: Firstly, what leads you to say this?
K: Simply the fact that there is. We have been fairly logical all
along, we have not been caught in any illusions so far. And can we
keep that same kind of watchfulness, in which there is no illusion,
to find out - or, not find out - that which is beyond emptiness? To
come down to earth. Come down to earth in the sense to be
communicated. You follow what I mean?
DB: Yes. Well we could come back to the question before: why
hasn't it come down?
K: Why hasn't it come down? Has man been ever free from the
`I'?
DB: No. Not generally speaking.
K: No. And it demands that the `I' ends.
DB: I think we could look at it this way: that the ego becomes
an illusion of that substance. You feel the ego is a substance too in
some way.
K: Yes, the ego is substance.
DB: And therefore that substance seems to be...
K: ...untouchable.
DB: But that ego is an illusion of the true substance - it may be
that the mind tries to create some sort of illusion of that substance.
K: That is an illusion. Why do you relate it to the other? DB: In
the sense that if the mind thinks it already has this substance, then
it will not be open...
K: Of course not. Can that thing ever be put into words? It is not
a question of avoiding something, or trying to slither out of some
conclusion. But you see, so far we have put everything into words.
DB: Well, I think that once something is properly perceived,
then after a while the words come to communicate it.
K: Yes, but can that be perceived? And therefore be
communicable? Is this beyond.?
DB: This thing beyond, would you say also it is alive? Life
beyond emptiness, is that still life? Living?
K: Living, yes. Oh, yes.
DB: And intelligent?
K: I don't want to use those words.
DB: They are too limited?
K: Living, intelligence, love, compassion; they are all too
limited. You and I are sitting here. We have come to a point and
there is that thing which perhaps later on might be put into words
without any sense of pressure, and so without any illusion. Don't
you see beyond the wall? - the word, I mean? We have come to a
certain point, and we are saying there is something still more - you
understand? There is something behind all that. Is it palpable? Can
we touch it? Is it something that the mind can capture? You
follow?
DB: Yes. Are you saying it is not?
K: I don't think it is possible for the mind to capture it...
DB: Or grasp it.?
K: Grasp it, understand... for the mind even to look at it. You
are a scientist, you have examined the atom, and so on. Don't you,
when you have examined all that, feel there is something much
more, beyond all that?
DB: You can always feel that there is more beyond that, but it
doesn't tell you what it is. It is clear that whatever one knows is
limited. K: Yes
DB: And there must be more beyond.
K: How can that communicate with you, so that you, with your
scientific knowledge, with your brain capacity can grasp it?
DB: Are you saying it can't be grasped?
k: No. How can you grasp it? I don't say you can't grasp it. Can
you grasp it?
DB: Look, it is not clear. You were saying before that it is
ungraspable by...
K: Grasp, in the sense, can your mind go beyond theories.?
What I am trying to say is, can you move into it? Not move, in the
sense of time and all that. Can you enter it? No, those are all
words. What is beyond emptiness? Is it silence?
DB: Isn't that similar to emptiness?
K: Yes, that is what I am getting at. Move step by step. Is it
silence? Or is silence part of emptiness?
DB; Yes, I should say that.
K: I should say that too. If it is not silence, could we - I am just
asking - could we say it is something absolute? You understand?
DB: Well, we could consider the absolute. It would have to be
something totally independent; that is what `absolute' really means.
It doesn't depend on anything.
K: Yes. You are getting somewhere near it.
DB: Entirely self moving, as it were, self active.
K: Yes. Would you say everything has a cause, and that has no
cause at all?
DB: You see, this notion is already an old one. This notion has
been developed by Aristotle, that this absolute is the cause of itself.
C: Yes.
DB: It has no cause, in a sense. That is the same thing.
K: You see the moment you said Aristotle... it is not that. How
shall we get at this? Emptiness is energy, and that emptiness exists
in silence, or the other way round, it doesn't matter - right? Oh, yes,
there is something beyond all this. Probably it can never be put into
words. But it must be put into words. You follow?
DB: You are saying that the absolute must be put into words,
but we feel it can't be? Any attempt to put it into words makes it
relative.
K: Yes. I don't know how to put all this.
DB: I think that we have a long history of danger with the
absolute. people have put it in words, and it has become very
oppressive.
K: Leave all that. You see, being ignorant of what other people
have said, Aristotle and the Buddha, and so on, has an advantage.
You understand what I mean? An advantage in the sense that the
mind is not coloured by other people's ideas, not caught in other
people's statements. All that is part of our conditioning. Now, to go
beyond all that! What are we trying to do?
DB: I think, to communicate regarding this absolute, this
beyond.
K: I took away that word `absolute' immediately.
DB: Then whatever it is; the beyond emptiness and silence.
K: Beyond all that. There is beyond all that. All that is
something, part of an immensity.
DB: Yes, well even the emptiness and silence is an immensity,
isn't it? The energy is itself an immensity.
K: Yes, I understand that. But there is something much more
immense than that. Emptiness and silence and energy are immense,
really immeasurable. But there is something - I am using the word,
`greater', than that.
DB: I am just considering. I am looking at it. One can see that
whatever you say about emptiness, or about any other thing, there
is something beyond.
K: No, as a scientist, why do you accept - not accept, forgive
me for using that word - why do you even move along with this?
DB: Because we have come this far step by step, seeing the
necessity of each step.
K: You see all that is very logical, reasonable, sane.
DB: And also, one can see that it is so right.
K: Yes. So if I say there is something greater than all this
silence, energy - would you accept that? Accept in the sense that
up to now we have been logical.
DB: We will say that whatever you speak of there is certainly
something beyond it. Silence, energy, whatever, then there is
always room logically for something beyond that. But the point is
this: that even if you were to say there is something beyond that,
still you logically leave room for going again beyond that.
K: No.
DB: Well why is that? You see, whatever you say, there is
always room for something beyond.
K: There is nothing beyond.
DB: Well that point is not clear, you see.
K: There is nothing beyond it. I stick to that. Not dogmatically
or obstinately. I feel that is the beginning and the ending of
everything. The ending and the beginning are the same - right?
DB: In which sense? In the sense that you are using the
beginning of everything as the ending?
K: Yes. Right? You would say that?
DB: Yes. If we take the ground from which it comes, it must be
the ground to which it falls.
K: That's right. That is the ground upon which everything
exists, space...
DB: ...energy...
K: ...energy, emptiness, silence, all that is. All that. Not ground,
you understand?
DB: No, it is just a metaphor. K: There is nothing beyond it. No
cause. If you have a cause then you have ground.
DB: You have another ground.
K: No. That is the beginning and the ending.
DB: It is becoming more clear.
K: That's right. Does that convey anything to you?
DB: Yes, well I think that it conveys something.
K: Something. Would you say further, there is no beginning and
no ending?
DB: Yes. It comes from the ground, goes to the ground, but it
does not begin or end.
K: Yes. There is no beginning and no ending. The implications
are enormous. Is that death - not death in the sense, I will die, but
the complete ending of everything?
DB: You see at first you said that the emptiness is the ending of
everything, so in what sense is this more, now? Emptiness is the
ending of things, isn't it?
K: Yes, yes. Is that death, this emptiness? Death of everything
the mind has cultivated. This emptiness is not the product of the
mind, of the particular mind.
DB: No, it is the universal mind.
K: That emptiness is that.
DB: Yes.
K: That emptiness can only exist when there is death - total
death - of the particular.
DB: Yes.
K: I don't know if I am conveying this.
DB: Yes, that is the emptiness. But then you are saying that, in
this ground, death goes further?
K: Oh, yes. DB: So we are saying the ending of the particular,
the death of the particular, is the emptiness, which is universal.
Now are you going to say that the universal also dies?
K: Yes, that is what I am trying to say.
DB: Into the ground.
K: Does it convey anything?
DB: Possibly, yes.
K: just hold it a minute. Let's see it. I think it conveys
something, doesn't it?
DB: Yes. Now if the particular and the universal die, then that is
death?
K: Yes. After all, an astronomer says everything in the universe
is dying, exploding, dying.
DB: But of course you could suppose that there was something
beyond.
K: Yes, that is just it.
DB: I think we are moving. The universal and the particular.
First the particular dies into the emptiness, and then comes the
universal.
K: And that dies too.
DB: Into the ground, right?
K: Yes.
DB: So you could say the ground is neither born nor dies.
K: That's right.
DB: Well, I think it becomes almost inexpressible if you say the
universal is gone, because expression is the universal.
K: You see - I am just explaining: everything is dying, except
that. Does this convey anything?
DB: Yes. Well it is out of that that everything arises, and into
which it dies.
K: So that has no beginning and no ending. DB: What would it
mean to talk of the ending of the universal? What would it mean to
have the ending of the universal?
K: Nothing. Why should it have a meaning if it is happening?
What has that to do with man? You follow what I mean? Man who
is going through a terrible time. What has that got to do with man?
DB: Let's say that man feels he must have some contact with the
ultimate ground in his life, otherwise there is no meaning.
K: But it hasn't. That ground hasn't any relationship with man.
He is killing himself, he is doing everything contrary to the ground.
DB: Yes, that is why life has no meaning for man.
K: I am an ordinary man; I say, all right, you have talked
marvellously of sunsets, but what has that got to do with me? Will
that or your talk help me to get over my ugliness? My quarrels with
my wife or whatever it is?
DB: I think I would go back, and say we went into this logically
starting from the suffering of mankind, showing it originates in a
wrong turning, that leads inevitably...
K: Yes, but man asks, help me to get past the wrong turn. Put
me on the right path. And to that one says, please don't become
anything.
DB: Right. What is the problem then?
K: He won't even listen.
DB: Then it seems to me that it is necessary for the one who
sees this to find out what is the barrier to listening.
K: Obviously you can see what is the barrier.
DB: What is the barrier?
K: `I'.
DB: Yes, but I meant more deeply.
K: More deeply, all your thoughts, deep attachments - all that is
in your way. If you can't leave these, then you will have no
relationship with that. But man doesn't want to leave these. DB:
Yes, I understand. What he wants is the result of the way he is
thinking.
K: What he wants is some comfortable, easy way of living
without any trouble, and he can't have that.
DB: No. Only by dropping all this.
K: There must be a connection. There must be some
relationship with the ground and this, some relationship with
ordinary man. Otherwise, what is the meaning of living?
DB: That is what I was trying to say before. Without this
relationship...
K: ...there is no meaning.
DB: And then people invent meaning.
K: Of course.
DB: Even going back, the ancient religions have said similar
things, that God is the ground, so they say seek God, you know.
K: Ah, no, this isn't god.
DB: No, it is not god, but it is saying the same. You could say
that `god` is an attempt to put this notion a bit too personally
perhaps.
K: Yes. Give them hope, give them faith, you follow? Make life
a little more comfortable to live.
DB: Well, are you asking at this point: how is this to be
conveyed to the ordinary man? Is that your question?
K: More or less. And also it is important that he should listen to
this. You are a scientist. You are good enough to listen because we
are friends. But who will listen among the other scientists? I feel
that if one pursues this we will have a marvellously ordered world.
DB: Yes. And what will we do in this world?
K: Live.
DB: But, I mean, we said something about creativity...
K: Yes. And then if you have no conflict, no `I', there is
something else operating. DB: Yes, it is important to say that,
because the Christian idea of perfection may seem rather boring
because there is nothing to do!
K: We must continue this some other time, because it is
something that has got to be put into orbit.
DB: It seems impossible.
K: We have gone pretty far.
THE ENDING OF TIME CHAPTER 3 8TH APRIL
1980 CONVERSATION WITH PROF. DAVID
BOHM 'WHY HAS MAN GIVEN SUPREME
IMPORTANCE TO THOUGHT?'
KRISHNAMURTI: What shall we talk about?
DAVID BOHM: One point relating to what we discussed
before; I was reading somewhere that a leading physicist said that
the more we understand the universe, the more pointless it seems,
the less meaning it has. And it occurred to me that in science there
may be an attempt to make the material universe the ground of our
existence, so that it may have meaning physically but not...
K: ...any other meaning. Quite.
DB: And the question that we might discuss is this ground
which we were talking about the other day. Is it any different to
mankind, as the physical universe appears to be?
K: Let's get the question clear.
DB: Not only physicists hut geneticists, biologists, have tried to
reduce everything to the behaviour of man - atoms, genes, you
know, DNA molecules, and so on. And the more they study it, then
the more they feel it has no meaning, it is just going on. Though it
has meaning physically, in the sense that we can understand it
scientifically, it has no deeper meaning than that.
K: I understand that.
DB: And, of course, perhaps that notion has penetrated because
in the past people were more religious and felt that the ground of
our existence was 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 has now gone away. That is
one of the difficulties of modern life, the sense that it doesn't mean
anything.
K: So have the religious people invented something which has a
meaning? DB: They may well have done so. You see, feeling that
life has no meaning, they may have invented something beyond the
ordinary. Something which is eternal...
K: ...timeless, nameless.
DB: ...and independent, absolute.
K: Seeing that the way we live, genetically and all the rest of it,
has no meaning, some clever erudite people said, `We will give it a
meaning'.
DB: Well, I think it happened before that. In the past people
somehow gave meaning to life, long before science had been very
much developed, in the form of religion. And science came along
and began to deny this religion.
K: Quite. I understand that.
DB: And people no longer believe in the religious meaning.
perhaps they never were able to believe in it entirely anyway.
K: So, how does one find out if life has a meaning beyond this?
How does one find out? They have tried meditation: they have
tried every form of self torture, isolation, becoming a monk, a
sannyasi and so on. But they may also be deceiving themselves
thoroughly.
DB: Yes. And that is in fact why the scientists have denied it
all, because the story told by the religious people is no longer
plausible, you see.
K: Quite. So how does one find out if there is something more
than the mere physical? How would one set about it?
DB: We have been discussing the notion of some ground which
is beyond matter, beyond the emptiness.
K: But suppose you say it is so, and I say that is another
illusion.
DB: The first point is, perhaps we could clear this up: you see,
if this ground is indifferent to human beings, then it would be the
same as scientists' ground in matter.
K: Yes. What is the question?
DB: Is the ground indifferent to mankind? You see, the universe
appears to be totally indifferent to mankind. It is immense vastness,
it pays no attention, it may produce earthquakes and catastrophes,
it might wipe things out, it is essentially not interested in mankind.
K: I see what you mean, yes.
DB: It does not care whether man survives or does not survive -
if you want to put it that way.
K: Right. I understand the question.
DB: Now I think that people felt that God was a 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
possibly...
K: ...tremendous energy. Quite.
DB: Now I think the point is, would this ground be indifferent
to mankind?
K: How would you find out? What is the relationship of this
ground to man, and man's relationship to it?
DB: Yes, that is the question. Does man have some significance
to it? And does it have significance to man? May I add one more
point? I was discussing with somebody who was familiar with the
Middle East and traditions of mysticism; he told me that in these
traditions they not only say that what we call this ground, this
infinite, has some significance, but that what man does has
ultimately some significance.
K: Quite, quite. Suppose one says it has - otherwise life has no
meaning, nothing has any meaning - how would one find out?
Suppose you say this ground exists, as I said the other day. Then
the next question is: what relationship has that to man? And man to
it? How would one discover, or find out, or touch it - if the ground
exists at all? If it doesn't exist, then really man has no meaning at
all. I mean, I die and you die and we all die, and what is the point
of being virtuous, what is the point of being happy or unhappy, of
just carrying on? How would you show that the ground exists? In
scientific terms, as well as the feeling of it, the non-verbal
communication of it?
DB: When you say scientific do you mean rational?
K: Yes, rational, logical, sane. DB: So, something that we can
actually touch.
K: Not touch, - better than touch - sense. Many can come to it.
DB: Yes, it is public.
K: It isn't just one man's assertion. But it would be scientific. I
think it can be shown, but with all things one must do it, not just
talk about it. Can I - or you - say the ground exists? The ground has
certain demands: which are, there must bc absolute silence,
absolute emptiness, which means no sense of egotism in any form -
right? Would you tell me that? Am I willing to let go all my
egotism, because I want to prove it, I want to show it, I want to
find out if what you are saying is actually true? So am I willing to
say,`Look, complete eradication of the self'?
DB: I think I can say that perhaps in some sense one is willing,
but there may be another sense in which the willingness is not
subject to one's conscious effort or determination.
K: No, wait. So we go through all that.
DB: We have to see that...
K: It is not will, it is not desire, it is not effort.
DB: Yes, but when you say willingness, it contains the word
`will', for example.
K: Willingness, in the sense, go through that door. Or, am I, are
we, willing to go through that particular door to find that the
ground exists? You ask me that. I say, agreed, I will. I will not in
the sense of exercising will and all that. What are the facets or the
qualities or the nature of the self? We go into that. You point it out
to me and I say, `Right' - can we do it? Not be attached, not have
fear - you follow? - the whole business of it. No belief, absolute
rationality - you know - observation. I think if ten people do it, any
scientist will accept it. But there are no ten people.
DB: I see. We have to have the thing done together publicly...
K: ...that's it...
DB: ...so that it becomes a real fact. K: A real fact, in the sense
that people accept it. Not something based on illusion, belief, and
all the rest of that.
DB: A fact; that which is actually done.
K: Now, who will do this? The scientists want to say that the
thing is all illusory, nonsense. But there are others who say, `It is
not nonsense, there is a ground. And if you do these things it will
be there.'
DB: Yes, but I think that some of the things you say may not in
the beginning entirely make sense to the person you talk with.
K: Yes, quite, because he isn't even willing to listen.
DB: But also his whole background is against it. You see, the
background gives you the notion of what makes sense and what
doesn't. Now, when you say, for example, one of the steps is not to
bring in time...
K: Ah, that's much more difficult.
DB: Yes, but it is fairly crucial.
K: But wait. I wouldn't begin with time, I would begin at the
schoolboy level.
DB: But you are going eventually to reach those more difficult
points.
K: Yes. But begin at the schoolboy level and say `DO these
things.'
DB: Well what are they? Let's go over them.
K: No belief.
DB: A person may not be able to control what he believes, he
may not know what he believes.
K: No, don't control anything. Observe that you have belief, you
cling to the belief, belief gives you a sense of security and so on.
And that belief is an illusion, it has no reality.
DB: You see, I think if we were to talk to scientists like that
they might say they were not sure about it, because they believe in
the existence of the material world.
K: You don't believe the sun rises and sets. It is a fact. DB: Yes,
but the scientist believes. You see, there have been long arguments
about this, there is no way to prove that it exists outside my mind,
but I believe it anyway. This is one of the questions which arises.
Scientists actually have beliefs. One will believe that this theory is
right, and the other believes in a different one.
K: No. I have no theories. I don't have any theories. I start at the
schoolboy level by saying, `Look, don't accept theories,
conclusions, don't cling to your prejudices.' That is the starting
point.
DB: Perhaps we had better say, don't hold to your theories,
because somebody might question you if you say you have no
theories. They would immediately doubt that, you see.
K: I have no theories. Why should I have theories?
QUESTIONER: If I am a scientist, I would also say I don't have
theories. I don't see that the world which I construct for my
scientific theories is also theoretical. I would call it fact.
K: So we have to discuss what are facts? Right? I would say
that facts are what is happening, actually happening. Would you
agree to that?
DB: Yes.
K: Would the scientists agree to that?
DB: Yes. Well, I think that the scientists would say that what is
happening is understood through the theories. You see, in science
you do not understand what is happening, except with the aid of
instruments and theories.
K: Now, wait, wait. What is happening out there, what is
happening here?
DB: Let's go slowly. First, what is happening out there. The
instruments and theories are needed even to...
K: No.
DB: ...have the facts about what is out there...
K: What are the facts out there?
DB: You cannot find out without some kind of theory. K: The
facts there are conflict, why should I have a theory about it?
DB: I wasn't discussing that. I was discussing the facts about
matter, you see, which the scientist is concerned with. He cannot
establish those facts without a certain theory, because the theory
organizes the facts for him.
K: Yes, I understand that. That may be a fact. You may have
theories about that.
DB: Yes. About gravitation, atoms - all those things depend on
theories in order to produce the right facts.
K: The right facts. So you start with a theory.
DB: A mixture of theory and fact. It is always a combination of
theory and fact.
K: All right. A combination of theory and fact.
DB: Now, if you say we are going to have an area where there
isn't any such combination...
K: That's it. Which is, psychologically I have no theory about
myself, about the universe, about my relationship with another. I
have no theory. Why should I have? The only fact is, mankind
suffers, is miserable, confused, in conflict. That is a fact. Why
should I have a theory about it?
DB: You must go slowly. You see, if you are intending to bring
in the scientists, this has to be scientific...
K: ...I will go very slowly...
DB: ...so that we don't leave the scientists behind!
K: Quite. Leave me behind!
DB: Well, let's accept `part company' - right? The scientists
might say yes, psychology is the science with which we look
inwardly, to investigate the mind. And they say various people -
like Freud, and Jung and others - have had theories. Now we will
have to make it clear why it has no point to make these theories.
K: Because theory prevents the observation of what is actually
taking place. DB: Yes, but outside it seemed that the theory was
helping that observation. Why the difference here?
K: The difference? You can discover that, it is simple.
DB: Let's spell it out. Because if you want to bring in scientists
you must answer this question.
K: We will answer it. What is the question?
DB: Why is it 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 theory? The meaning of the word, theory?
DB: Theory means to see, to view, a kind of insight.
K: To view? That's it. A way of looking.
DB: And the theory helps you to look at the outside matter.
K: Theory means to observe.
DB: It is a way of observing.
K: Can you observe psychologically what is going on?
DB: Let's say that when we look at matter outwardly, to a
certain extent we do the observing.
K: That is, the observer is different from the observed.
DB: Not only different, but their relationship is fixed, relatively
at least, for some time.
K: So we can move now, a little.
DB: This appears to be necessary in order to study matter.
Matter does not change so fast, and it can be separated to some
extent. We can then make a fairly constant way of looking. It
changes but not immediately, it can be held constant for a while.
K: Yes.
DB: And we call that theory.
K: As you said, theory means a way of observing.
DB: it is the same as `theatre' in Greek. K: Theatre, yes, that's
right. It is a way of looking. Now, where do we start? A common
way of looking, an ordinary way of looking, the way of looking
depending on the viewpoint of each person - the housewife, the
husband? What do you mean by the way of looking?
DB: The same problem arose in the development of science. We
began with what was called common sense, a common way of
looking. Then scientists discovered that this was inadequate.
K: They moved away from it.
DB: They moved away, they gave up some parts of it.
K: That is what I am coming to. The common way of looking is
full of prejudice.
DB: Yes, it is arbitrary, and dependent on your background.
K: Yes, all that. So can one be free of one's background, one's
prejudice? I think one can.
DB: The question is whether a theory of psychology would be
any help in doing this. The danger is that the theory itself might he
a prejudice. If you tried to make a theory...
K: That is what I am saying. That would become a prejudice.
DB: That would become a prejudice because we have nothing -
we have not yet observed anything to found it on.
K: So the common factor is that man suffers - right? That is the
common factor. And the way of observing matters.
DB: Yes. I wonder whether scientists would accept that as the
most fundamental factor of man.
K: All right. Conflict?
DB: Well, they have argued about it.
K: Take anything, it doesn't matter. Attachment, pleasure, fear.
DB: I think some people might object, saying we should take
something more positive.
K: Which is what? DB: Simply, 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
people were rational they wouldn't be fighting each other.
DB: We have to make this clear. Let's say in the past somebody
like Aristotle might have said rationality is the common factor of
man. Now your argument against it is that men are not generally
rational.
K: No, they are not.
DB: Though they might be, they are not. So you are saying that
is not a fact.
K: That's right.
DB: I think commonly scientists would say that there are many
different human beings and that the common factor of mankind is
that they are all striving for happiness.
K: Is that the common factor? No. I won't accept that - that
many human beings are trying for happiness.
Q: No. Human beings are all different.
K: Agreed. Stay there.
Q: What I am saying is that this is the common theory, which
people believe to be a fact.
K: That is, each person thinks he is totally different from others.
Q: Yes. And they are all independently struggling for happiness.
K: They are all seeking some kind of gratification. Would you
agree to that?
DB: That is one common factor. But the reason I brought up
rationality was that the very existence of science is based on the
notion that rationality is common to man.
K: But each person is seeking his own individuality.
DB: But, you see, science would be impossible if that were
entirely true.
K: Quite. Q: Why?
DB: Because everybody would not be interested in the truth.
The very possibility of scientific discovery depends on people
feeling that this common goal of finding the truth is beyond
personal satisfaction, because even if your theory is wrong you
must accept that it is wrong, though it is not gratifying. That is, it
becomes very disappointing for people, but they accept it, and say,
well, that is wrong.
K: I am not seeking gratification. I am a common man. You
have brought up that scientists take for granted that human beings
are rational.
DB: At least when they do science. They may agree that they
are not very rational in private life, but they say that at least they
are capable of being rational when they do scientific work.
Otherwise it would be impossible to begin.
K: So outwardly, in dealing with matter, they are all rational.
DB: At least they try to be, and they are to some extent.
K: They try to be, but they become irrational in their
relationships with other human beings.
DB: Yes. They cannot maintain it.
K: So that is the common factor.
DB: Yes. It is important to bring out this point - that rationality
is limited, and, as you say, the fundamental fact is that more
generally they cannot be rational. They may succeed in some
limited area.
K: That's right. That is a fact.
DB: That is a fact, though we don't say it is inevitable, or that it
can't be changed.
K: No. It is a fact.
DB: It is a fact that it has been, it has happened, it is happening.
K: Yes. I, as a common human being, have been irrational. And
my life has been totally contradictory, and so on, which is
irrational. Now can I as a human being change that? DB: Let's see
how we could proceed from the scientific approach. This would
raise the question, why is everybody irrational?
K: Because we have been conditioned that way. Our education,
our religion, our everything.
DB: But 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.
DB: But I meant that following that line is not going to answer.
K: Quite. Why are we conditioned that way?
DB: For example, we were saying the othEr day that perhaps
man took a wrong turning, established the wrong conditioning.
K: The wrong conditioning from the beginning. Or, seeking
security - security for myself, for my family, for my group, for my
tribe - has brought about this division.
DB: Even then you have to ask why man sought this security in
the wrong way. You see, if there had been any intelligence, it
would have been clear that this whole thing has no meaning.
K: Of course, you are going back to taking the wrong turn. How
will you show me we have taken a wrong turning?
DB: Are you saying that we want to demonstrate this
scientifically?
K: Yes. I think the wrong turn was taken when thought became
all important.
DB: What made it all important?
K: Now let's work it out. What made human beings enthrone
thought as the only means of operation?
DB: Also it would have to be made clear why, if thought is so
important, it causes all the difficulties. These are the two questions.
K: That is fairly simple. So thought has been made king,
supreme. And that may be the wrong turn of human beings. DB:
You see, I think that thought became the equivalent of truth.
People took thought to give truth, to give what is always true.
There is the notion that we have knowledge - which may hold in
certain cases for some time - but men generalize, because
knowledge is always generalizing. When they got to the notion that
it would always be so, this crystallized the thought of what is true.
This gave thought supreme importance.
K: You are asking, aren't you, why has man given thought such
importance?
DB: I think he has slipped into it.
K: Why?
DB: Because he did not see what he was doing. You see, in the
beginning he did not see the danger...
Q: Just before, you said that the common ground for man is
reason...
K: Scientists say that.
Q: If you can show a person that something is true...
K: Show it to me. It is true I am irrational. That is a fact, that is
truth.
Q: But for that you don't need reason. Observation is sufficient
for that.
K: No. One goes and fights. One talks about peace. One is
irrational. Dr. Bohm is pointing out that scientists say man is
rational but the fact is that everyday life is irrational. Now we are
asking, show us scientifically why it is irrational. That is, show
man in what way he has slipped into this irrationality; why human
beings have accepted this. We can say it is habit, tradition, religion.
And the scientists also, they are very rational in their own field, but
irrational in their lives. (Continued ...)
(My humble salutations to the lotus feet of Sri Jiddu Krishnamurti and
gratitude to the great philosophers and followers of him.)
0 responses to "The Ending of Time - J. Krishnamurti and Dr. David Bohm - 1"