The Ending of Time
J. Krishnamurti
and
Dr. David Bohm
DB: But why do you say, `non-movement'?
K: It is non-moving. DB: The tree stands
of course.
K: A tree is a living, moving thing. I
don't mean that.
DB: The tree in a sense is moving, but in
relation to the field it
stands. That is the picture we get.
K: You see, someone comes to you, because
you have gone
from the beginning to the end. And now you
are at the end with a
totally different kind of movement, which
is timeless, and all that.
You are in that. I come to you and ask,
`What is that state of mind?
What is the state of your mind, that has
walked on that path and
ended something, that has totally moved
out of darkness?'
DB: If you say it is non-movement, are you
implying that it is
constant?
K: It must be... But what do you mean by
constant?
Continuous?
DB: No, no.
K: Do you mean that it is.?
QUESTIONER: ...static?
K: Oh, no!
DB: To stand firm, to stand together as a
whole. That is really
its literal meaning.
K: Is that it?
DB: That is the picture you have got of
the tree as well. That is
the picture which the tree in the field
suggests.
K: Yes, I know. That is too romantic and
poetic, and it becomes
rather deceptive. It is a nice image, but
let's move from it. What is
that mind? The quality of that mind that
has started from
beginning, and pursued the becoming, and
gone through all that
centre of darkness which has been wiped
away? That mind must be
entirely different. Now what does such a
mind do, or not do, in the
world which is in darkness?
DB: Surely the mind does not do a thing;
it does not enter into
the movement of that world.
K: Agreed. DB: And in a sense we say that
it is constant - not
fixed, but it does not move.
K: Is it static?
DB: No, it's not static. It is constant -
which in a sense is also
movement. There is a constancy which is
not merely static, which
is also, at the same time, movement.
K: We said that movement was not the
becoming movement.
DB: Yes, but the ground movement which is
completely free.
K: What has happened to that mind? Let's
go into it a little bit. It
has no anxiety and no fear. You see the
words `compassion' and
`love' are beyond that. Right?
DB: But they may emerge out of this
ground.
K: The mind being nothing, not a thing,
and therefore empty of
knowledge, would it always be acting in
the light of insight?
DB: It would be pervaded, if not always,
by the quality of
insight.
K: Yes, that is what I mean.
DB: Well `always' brings in time, you see.
K: Remove the word.
DB: I would use `constantly'.
K: Yes, constantly; let's use the word
`constant'.
DB: It is a bit better, but not good
enough.
K: Yes. Let's use that word. It is acting
constantly in that light,
in that flash of insight. I think that is
right. So what does that mean
in one's daily life? How does one earn a
livelihood?
DB: That, surely, would be another point.
You would have to
find a way to stay alive.
K: Stay alive. So that is why I am saying
this: as civilization
grows, begging is not allowed.
DB: Is criminal. You have to find some way
to stay alive.
K: So what will he do? He has no
profession, no special skill,
no coin with which he can buy. DB: Well,
wouldn't it be possible
for this mind to earn enough to get what
is needed to stay alive?
K: How?
Q: Why has he no skill to earn a
livelihood?
K: Why should he have skill? Why must one
have skill to earn a
livelihood? You say that, and another man
says, `Why should I
have skill of any kind?' I am just
discussing, enquiring into this.
DB: Suppose you had to take care of
yourself, you would need a
certain skill. If you were by yourself in
a cave, you know...
K: Ah, I don't want a cave!
DB: I know. But, whoever it is, he has to
live somewhere; he
needs some skill to find the food which he
needs. You see, if
everybody were to say no skill is needed
then the human race
would perish.
K: I am not sure.
DB: Well, what would happen then?
K: That is what I am coming to. Skill
implies, as we said,
knowledge; from knowledge, comes
experience, and gradually one
develops a skill. And that skill gives one
an opportunity to earn a
livelihood, either meagre or rich. But
this man says, there may be a
different way of living and earning. We
are used to a pattern, and
he says, `Look, that may be totally
wrong'.
DB: It depends what you mean by skill. For
example, suppose
he has to drive a car, surely that takes
some skill?
K: Yes.
DB: Is he going to do without that?
K: I had better go carefully into the word
`skill'.
DB: Yes. I mean skill could have a bad
meaning - like being
very clever at getting money.
K: So this man is not avaricious, he i;
not money-minded, he is
not storing up for the future, he hasn't
any insurance. But he has to
live. When we use the word `skill' to mean
driving a car... DB: ...or
being a carpenter... If all those skills
were to vanish, life would be
impossible.
K: The whole thing would collapse.
DB: Yes.
K: I am not sure. Do we mean that kind of
skill must be denied?
DB: It couldn't mean that.
K: No. That would be too silly.
DB: But then people become very skilful at
getting other people
to give them money, you see!
Q: Is it that now we have made a division
between living and
skill, skill and working, living and
earning a livelihood?
K: That's it! I need to have food, I need
to have clothes, and
shelter.
Q: But is the division necessary? As
society is built now, we
have a division between living and
working.
K: We have been through all that. We are
talking of a man who
has been through all this, and has come
back to the world, and
says, `Here I am'. What is his relationship
to society, and what is he
to do? Has he any relationship to society?
DB: Well, not in a deep or fundamental
sense, although there is
a superficial relationship that he has to
have.
K: All right. A superficial contact with
the world.
DB: He has to obey the laws, he has to
follow the traffic signals.
K: Quite. But I want to find out, what is
he to do? Write? Talk?
That means skill.
DB: Surely that kind of skill need not be
harmful?
K: I am just asking.
DB: Like the other skills; like carpentry.
K: Yes. That kind of skill. But what is he
to do? I think if we
could find out the quality of a mind that
has been through all that
from the beginning to the end, all that we
have talked of in our
recent discussions; that man's mind is
entirely different, yet he is in
the world. How does he look upon it? You
have reached and come
back - these are approximate terms - and I
am an ordinary man,
living in this world. So what is your
relationship to me? Obviously
none, because I am living in a world of
darkness and you are not.
So your relationship can only exist when I
come out of it - when
darkness ends.
DB: Yes.
K: Then there is only that; there is not a
relationship. But now
there is division between you and me. And
I look at you with my
eyes, which are accustomed to darkness and
to division. But you
are not. And yet you have to have some
contact with me. You have
to have, however superficial, however
slight, a certain relationship
with me. Is that relationship compassion,
and not something
translated by me as compassion? From my
darkness I cannot judge
what compassion is. Right?
DB: Yes. That follows from that.
K: I don't know what your love is, what
your compassion is
because my only love and compassion has
been this. And so, what
do I do with you?
DB: Who are we talking about now? It is
not clear to me whom
we are discussing!
K: You or `X', have been through all that,
and come back.
DB: Then why hasn't `Y' done so?
K: `Y' has not. `Y' asks, `Who are you?
You seem so different.
Your way of looking at life is different.'
And what will `Y' do with
`X'? That is the question. Not what will
`X' do to `Y'. I don't know
if I am making it clear.
DB: Yes, I understand. What will `Y' do
with `X'?
K: Our question until now has been what
will `X' do with `Y',
but I think we were putting the wrong
question. What will `Y' do
with `X'? I think what would happen
generally is that `Y' would
worship, kill or neglect him. Right?
DB: Yes.
K: If `Y' worships `X' then everything is
very simple. He has
the goodies of the world. But that doesn't
answer my question. My
question is not only what will `Y' do to
`X', but what will `X' do
with `Y'? `X's' demand is, `Look, walk out
of this darkness; there is
no answer in the darkness, so walk out.'
It doesn't matter, whatever
phrase we use - walk out, dispel it, get
rid of it, etc. And `Y' then
says, `Help me, show me the way', and is
back again in darkness -
you follow? So what will `Y' do to `X'?
DB: I can't see that `Y' can do very much,
except what you
mentioned - to worship, or to do something
else.
K: To kill or neglect `X'.
DB: But if compassion works in `X'...
K: Yes, `X' is that. He won't even call it
compassion.
DB: No, but we call it that. Then `X' will
work to find a way to
penetrate the darkness.
K: Wait! So `X's job is to work on darkness?
DB: To discover how to penetrate darkness.
K: In that way he is earning a living.
DB: Well, possibly.
K: No. I am talking seriously.
DB: It depends on whether people are
willing to pay him for it.
K: No joking. Seriously.
DB: It is possible.
K: Probably `X' is the teacher. `X' is out
of society. `X' is
unrelated to this field of darkness and
saying to the people who are
caught in it, `Come out'. What's wrong
with that?
DB: Nothing is wrong with that.
K: That is his means of livelihood.
DB: It's perfectly all right as long as it
works. Of course, if there
were a lot of people like `X', there would
have to be some limit.
K: No, Sir. What would happen if there
were lots of people like
`X'? DB: That is an interesting question.
I think there would be
something revolutionary.
K: That's just it.
DB: The whole thing would change.
K: Yes. If there were lots of people like
that, they would not be
divided. That is the whole point, right?
DB: I think that even if ten or fifteen
people were undivided
they would exert a force that has never
been seen in our history.
K: Tremendous! That's right.
DB: Because I don't think it has ever
happened, that ten people
have been undivided.
K: That is `X's' job in life. He says that
is the only thing. A
group of those ten `X's' will bring a
totally different kind of
revolution. Will society stand for that?
DB: They will have this extreme
intelligence, and so they will
find a way to do it, you see.
K: Of course.
DB: Society will stand for it, because the
`X's' will be intelligent
enough not to provoke society, and society
will not react before it
is too late.
K: Quite right. You are saying something
which is actually
happening. Would you say then that the
function of many `X's' is to
awaken human beings to that intelligence
which will dispel the
darkness? And that this is `X's' means of
livelihood?
DB: Yes.
K: Then there are those people who in
darkness cultivate this
and exploit people, but there are `X's'
who don't exploit. All right.
That seems very simple, but I don't think
it is all that simple.
DB: Right.
K: Is that the only function of `X'?
DB: Well it is really a difficult
function. K: But I want to find
out something much deeper than mere
function.
DB: Yes function is not enough.
K: That's it. Apart from function, what is
he to do? `X' says to
`Y', `Listen; And `Y' takes time, and
gradually, perhaps, at some
time he will wake up and move away. And is
that all `X' is going to
do in life?
DB: That can only be an outcome of
something deeper.
K: The deeper is all that; the ground.
DB: Yes, the ground.
K: But is that all he is to do in this
world? just to teach people to
move out of darkness?
DB: Well, that seems to be the prime task
at the moment, in the
sense that, if this doesn't happen, the
whole society will sooner or
later collapse. We could ask whether he
needs to be in some sense
more deeply creative.
K: What is that?
DB: Well, it is not clear.
K: Suppose `X' is you, and you have an
enormous field in which
to operate, not merely teaching me but
having this extraordinary
movement which is not of time. That is,
you have this abounding
energy, and you have produced all that to
teach me to come out of
darkness.
DB: That can only be a part of it.
K: So what does the rest do, you follow? I
don't know if I am
conveying this.
DB: Well, this is what I tried to suggest
by talking of some
creative action, beyond this, taking
place.
K: Yes, beyond this. You may write, you
may preach, you may
heal, you may do this and that, but all
those activities are rather
trivial. But you have something else. Have
I reduced you, `X', to
my pettiness? You can't be so reduced. My
pettiness says, `You
must do something. You must preach, write,
heal, do something to
help me to move.' Right? You comply to the
very smallest degree,
but you have something much more than
that, something immense.
You understand my question?
DB: Yes. So what happens?
K: How is that immensity operating on `Y'?
DB: Are you saying that there is some more
direct action?
K: Either there is more direct action, or
`X' is doing something
totally different to affect the
consciousness of man.
DB: What could this be?
K: Because `X' is not `satisfied' with
merely preaching and
talking. That immensity which he is must
have an effect, must do
something.
DB: Are you saying `must' in the sense of the
feeling of needing
to do it, or are you saying `must' in the
sense of necessity?
K: It must.
DB: It must necessarily do so. But how
will it affect mankind?
You see, when you say this, it would
suggest to people that there is
some sort of extrasensory effect that
spreads.
K: That is what I am trying to capture.
DB: Yes.
K: That is what I am trying to convey.
DB: Not merely through the words, through
the activities or
gestures.
K: Let's leave the activity alone. That is
simple. It is not just
that, because that immensity must...
DB: ...Necessarily act? There is a more
direct action?
K: No, no. All right. That immensity
necessarily has other
activities.
DB: Other activities at other levels?
K: Yes, other activities. This has been
translated in the Hindu
teachings as various degrees of
consciousness.
DB: There are different levels or degrees
of acting. K: All that
too is a very small affair. What do you
say, Sir?
DB: Well, since the consciousness emerges
from the ground,
this activity is affecting all mankind
from the ground.
K: Yes.
DB: You see many people will find this
very difficult to
understand.
K: I am not interested in many people. I
want to understand
you, `X' and me, `Y'. That ground, that
immensity, is not limited to
such a petty little affair. It couldn't
be.
DB: The ground includes physically the
whole universe.
K: Yes, the whole universe, and to reduce
all that to...
DB: ...these little activities...
K: ...is all so silly.
DB: I think that raises the question of
what is the significance of
mankind in the universe, or in the ground?
K: Yes, that's it.
DB: Because even the best of these little
things that we have
been doing have very little significance
on that scale. Right?
K: Yes, this is just opening the chapter.
I think that `X' is doing
something - not doing, but by his very
existence...
DB: ...he is making something possible?
K: Yes. When you read of Einstein, he has
made something
possible, which man hadn't discovered
before.
DB: We can see that fairly easily because
it works through the
usual channels of society.
K: Yes, I understand that. What is `X'
bringing apart from the
little things? Putting it into words makes
it sound wrong. `X' has
that immense intelligence, that energy,
that something, and he must
operate at a much greater level than one
can possibly conceive,
which must affect the consciousness of
those who are living in
darkness. DB: Possibly so. The question
is, will this effect show in
any way? You know, manifestly.
K: Apparently not. If you hear the
television or radio news, and
know what is happening all over the world,
apparently it is not
doing so.
DB: That is what is difficult, and a
matter of great concern.
K: But it must have an effect. It has to.
DB: Why do you say it has to?
K: Because light must affect darkness.
DB: perhaps `Y' might say that, living in
darkness, he is not
sure that there is such an effect. He
might say perhaps there is, but
I want to see it manifest. Not seeing
anything and still being in
darkness, he then asks, what shall I do?
K: I understand that. So are you saying
that `X's' only activity is
just writing, teaching etc?
DB: No. Merely that it may well be that
the activity is much
greater, but it doesn't show. If only we
could see it!
K: How would it be shown? How would `Y',
who wants proof
of it, see it?
DB: `Y' might say something like this:
many people have made
a similar statement, and some of them have
obviously been wrong.
But one wants to say it could be true. You
see, until now, I think
the things we have said make sense, and
they follow to a certain
extent.
K: Yes, I understand all that.
DB: And now you say something which goes
much further.
Other people have said things like that
and one feels that they were
on the wrong track, that they, or at least
some of these people, were
fooling themselves.
K: No. `X' says, we are being very
logical.
DB: Yes, but at this stage logic will not
carry us any further.
K: It is very reasonable! We have been
through all that. So `X's,
mind is not acting in an irrational way.
DB: You could say that,
having seen the thing was reasonable, so
far, `Y' may have some
confidence that it could go further.
K: Yes, that is what I am trying to say.
DB: Of course, there is no proof.
K: No.
DB: So could we explore?
K: That is hat I am trying to do.
Q: What about the other activities of `X'?
We said he has the
function of teaching, but also that `X'
has other activities.
K: He must have. Necessarily must.
Q: But what?
K: I don't know; we are trying to find
that out.
DB: You are saying that somehow he makes
possible an activity
of the ground in the whole consciousness
of mankind which would
not have been possible without him.
K: Yes.
Q: His contact with `Y' is not only
verbal. `Y' listens but there is
some other quality...
K: Yes, but `X' says all that is a petty
little affair. That is, of
course, understood, but `X' says there is
something much greater.
Q: The effect of `X' is perhaps far
greater than can be put in
words.
K: We are trying to find out what that
greater is that must
necessarily be operating.
Q: Is it something that appears in the
daily life of `X'?
K: Yes. In his daily life `X' is
apparently doing fairly small
things - teaching, writing, book-keeping,
or whatever. But is that
all? It seems so silly.
DB: Are you saying that in the daily life
`X' does not look so
different from anybody else?
K: No, apparently not. DB: But there is
something else going on
which does not show. Right?
K: That's it. When `X' talks it may be
different, he may say
things differently but...
DB: ...That is not fundamental, because
there are so many
people who say things differently from
others.
K: I know. But the man who has walked
through all that right
from the beginning! If such a man has the
whole of that energy to
call upon, to reduce it all to these petty
little things seems
ridiculous.
DB: Let me ask a question: Why does the
ground require this
man to operate on mankind? Why can't the
ground, as it were,
operate directly on mankind to clear
things up?
K: Ah, just a minute, just a minute. Are
you asking why the
ground demands action?
DB: Why does it require a particular man
to affect mankind?
K: Oh, that I can easily explain. It is
part of existence, like the
stars.
Q: Can the immensity act directly on
mankind? Does it have to
inform a man to enter the consciousness of
mankind?
K: We are talking about something else. I
want to find out if `X'
says, I am not going to be reduced only to
writing and talking; that
is too small and petty. And the other
question is, why does the
ground need this man? It doesn't need him.
DB: But when he is here, the ground will
use him.
K: That is so.
DB: Well, would it be possible that the
ground could do
something to clear this up?
K: That is what I want to find out. That
is why I am saying, in
different words, that the ground doesn't
need the man, but the man
has touched the ground.
DB: Yes. K: So the ground is using him,
let's say employing
him. He is part of that movement. Is that
all? Do you follow what I
mean? Am I asking the wrong questions? Why
should he do
anything? Except this?
DB: Well, perhaps he does nothing.
K: That very doing nothing, may be the
doing.
DB: Doing nothing makes possible the
action of the ground. It
may be that. In doing nothing which has
any specified aim...
K: That's right. No specified content
which can be translated
into human terms.
DB: Yes, but still he is supremely active
in doing nothing.
Q: Is there an action which is beyond
time, for that man?
K: He is that...
Q: Then we cannot ask for a result from
that man.
K: He is not asking for results.
Q: But `Y' is asking for a result.
K: No. Perhaps `X' says, I am concerned to
talk, etc., which is a
very small thing. But there is a vast
field which must affect the
whole of mankind.
DB: There is an analogy which may not be
very good but we
can consider it. In chemistry, a catalyst
makes possible a certain
action without itself taking part, but
merely by being what it is.
K: Yes, is that what is happening? Even
that is a small affair.
DB: Yes.
Q: And even there `Y' would say it isn't
happening, because the
world is still in a mess. So is there a
truth in the world for the
activity of that man?
K: `X' says he is sorry, but that is no
question at all I am not
interested in proving anything. It isn't a
mathematical or a technical
problem to be shown and proved. `X' says
that he has walked from
the beginning of man to the very end of
man, and that there is a
movement which is timeless. The ground
which is the universe, the
cosmos, everything. And the ground doesn't
need the man, but the
man has come upon it. And he is still a
man in the world, who says,
`I write and do something or other,' not
to prove the ground, not to
do anything. `X' does that just out of
compassion. But there is a
much greater movement which necessarily
plays a part in the
world.
Q: Does the greater movement play a part
through `X'?
K: Obviously, `X' says that there is
something else operating
which cannot possibly be put into words.
He asks, `What am I to
do?' There is nothing which a man like `Y'
will understand. He will
iMmediately translate it into some kind of
illusory thing. But `X'
says there is something else. Otherwise it
is all so childish.
DB: I think the general view which people
are developing now
is that the universe has no meaning, that
it moves any old way,
things just happen, and none of them has
any meaning.
K: None of them has meaning for the man
who is here, but the
man who is there, speaking relatively,
says it is full of meaning,
and not invented by thought.
All right, let's leave the vastness, and
all that. `X' says, perhaps
there will be ten people with this insight
and that might affect
society. It will not be communism,
socialism, this or that political
reorganization. It will be totally
different, and based on intelligence
and compassion.
DB: Well, if there were ten, they might
find a way to spread this
much more.
K: That's what I am trying to get at.
DB: What do you mean?
K: `X' brings the universe, but I
translate it into something
trivial.
DB: Are you saying that if the whole of
mankind were to see
this that would be something different?
K: Oh, yes, of course!
DB: Would it be new...
K: ...It would be paradise on earth.
DB: It would be like an organism of a new
kind. K: Of course.
But you see, I am not satisfied with this.
DB: Well, what is it?
K: I am not `satisfied' in leaving this
immensity to be reduced to
some few words. It seems so stupid, so
incredible. You see man,
`Y', is concerned with concepts like `show
me', `prove it to me',
`what benefit has it?', `will it affect my
future?' You follow? He is
concerned with all that. And he is looking
at `X' with eyes that are
accustomed to this pettiness! So, he
reduces that immensity to his
pettiness, and puts it in a temple and has
therefore lost it
completely. But `X' says, I won't even
look at that; there is
something so immense, please do look at
it. But `Y' is always
translating it by wanting demonstration,
proof or reward. He is
always concerned with that. `X' brings
light. That's all he can do.
Isn't that enough?
DB: To bring the light which would allow
other people to be
open to the immensity?
K: Is it like this? We only see a small
part, but that very small
part extends to infinity?
DB: That small part of what?
K: No. We see immensity only as a very
small thing. And that
immensity is the whole universe. I can't
help but think that it must
have some tremendous effect on `Y; on
society.
DB: Certainly the perception of this must
have an effect, but it
seems that this is not in the
consciousness of society at the
moment.
K: I know.
DB: But you are saying still the effect is
there?
K: Yes.
Q: Are you saying that the perception of
even a small part is the
infinity?
K: Of course, of course.
Q: Is it in itself the changing factor?
DB: Do you think it is possible that a
thing like this could divert
the course of mankind away from the
dangerous path it is taking?
K: Yes, that is what I think. But to
divert the course of man's
destruction somebody must listen. Right?
Somebody - ten people -
must listen!
DB: Yes.
K: Listen to that immensity calling.
DB: So the immensity may divert the course
of man. The
individual cannot do it.
K: Yes. The individual cannot do it,
obviously. But `X' who is
supposed to be an individual, has trodden
this path, and says,
`Listen'. But man does not listen.
DB: Well, then, is it possible to discover
how to make people
listen?
K: No, then we are back!
DB: What do you mean?
K: Don't act; you have nothing to do.
DB: What does it mean not to do a thing?
K: I realize, as `Y', that whatever I do -
whether I sacrifice,
practise, renounce - whatever I do, I am
still living in that circle of
darkness. So `X' says, `Don't act; you
have nothing to do.' You
follow? But that is translated by `Y', who
does everything except
wait and see what happens. We must pursue
this, Sir, otherwise it
is all so hopeless from the point of view
of `Y'.
THE ENDING OF TIME CHAPTER 9 1ST JUNE
1980 CONVERSATION WITH PROF. DAVID
BOHM 'SENILITY AND THE BRAIN CELLS'
KRISHNAMURTI: I would like to talk over
with you, and perhaps
with Narayan [Mr G. Narayan, Principal of
the Rishi Valley School
in India.] too, what is happening to the
human brain. We have a
civilization that is highly cultivated,
and yet at the same time
barbarous, with selfishness clothed in all
kinds of spiritual garbs.
Deep down, however, there is a frightening
selfishness. Man's
brain has been evolving through millennia
upon millennia, yet it
has come to this divisive, destructive
point, which we all know. So
I am wondering whether the human brain -
not a particular brain,
but the human brain - is deteriorating?
Whether it is just in a slow
and steady decline? Or whether it is
possible in one's lifetime to
bring about in the brain a total renewal
from all this; a renewal that
will be pristine, original, unpolluted? I
have been wondering about
this, and I would like to discuss it.
I think the human brain is not a
particular brain; it doesn't
belong to me, or to anyone else. It is the
human brain which has
evolved over millions of years. And in
that evolution it has
gathered tremendous experience, knowledge
and all the cruelties,
vulgarities and brutalities of selfishness.
Is there a possibility of its
sloughing off all this, and becoming
something else? Because
apparently it is functioning in patterns.
Whether it is a religious
pattern, a scientific, a business, or a
family pattern, it is always
operating, functioning in small narrow
circles. Those circles are
clashing against each other, and there
seems to be no end to this.
So what will break down this forming of
patterns, so that there is
no falling into other new patterns, but
breaking down the whole
system of patterns, whether pleasant or
unpleasant? After all, the
brain has had many shocks, challenges and
pressures upon it, and if
it is not capable of renewing or
rejuvenating itself, there is very
little hope. You follow?
DAVID BOHM: You see, one difficulty might
present itself. If
you are thinking of the brain structure,
we cannot get into the
structure, physically. K: Physically we
cannot. I know, we have
discussed this. So what is the brain to
do? The brain specialists can
look at it, take the dead brain of a human
being and examine it, but
it doesn't solve the problem. Right?
DB: No.
K: So what is a human being to do, knowing
it cannot be
changed from outside? The scientist, the
brain specialist and the
neurologist explain various things but
their explanations, their
investigations, are not going to solve
this.
DB: Well, there is no evidence that they
can.
K: No evidence.
DB: Some people who do bio-feedback think
that they can
influence the brain, connecting an
instrument to the electrical
potentials in the skull and being able to
look at them; you can also
change your heart beat and blood pressure
and other things. These
people have raised the hope that something
could be done.
K: But they are not succeeding.
DB: They are not getting very far.
K: And we can't wait for these scientists
and bio-feedbackers -
sorry! - to solve the problem. So what
shall we do?
DB: The next question is whether the brain
can be aware of its
own structure.
K: Can the brain be aware of its own
movement? And can the
brain not only be aware of its own
movement, but itself have
enough energy to break all patterns and
move out of them?
DB: You have to ask to what extent the
brain is free to break
out of patterns?
K: What do you mean?
DB: Well, you see, if you begin by saying
that the brain is
caught in a pattern, it may not be so.
K: But apparently it is.
DB: As far as we can see. It may not be
free to break out. It may
not have the power.
K: That is what I have said: not enough
energy, not enough
power. DB: Yes, it may not be able to take
the action needed to get
out.
K: So it has become its own prisoner. Then
what?
DB: Then that is the end.
K: Is that the end?
DB: If that is true, then that is the end.
If the brain cannot break
out then perhaps people would choose to
try some other way to
solve the problem.
NARAYAN: When we speak of the brain, in
one sense it is
connected to the senses and the nervous
system; the feedback is
there. Is there another instrument to
which the brain is connected
which has a different effect on the brain?
K: What do you mean by that? Some other
factor?
N: Some other factor in the human system
itself. Because,
obviously, through the senses the brain
does get nourishment, but
still that is not enough. Is there some
other internal factor which
gives energy to the brain?
K: You see, I want to discuss this. The
brain is constantly
occupied with various problems, with
holding on, attachment, and
so on. It is constantly in a state of
preoccupation. That may be the
central factor. And, if it is not in
occupation, does it go sluggish? If
it is not occupied, can it maintain the
energy that is required to
break down the patterns?
DB: Now the first point is that if the
brain is not occupied,
somebody might think that it would just
take things easy.
K: Become lazy and all that! I don't mean
that.
DB: If you mean not occupied, but still
active...
K: Of course. I mean that.
DB: Then we have to go into what is the
nature of the activity.
K: Yes. This brain is so occupied with
conflicts, struggles,
attachments, fears and pleasures. And this
occupation gives to the
brain its own energy. If it is not
occupied, will it become lazy,
drugged, and so lose its elasticity, as it
were? Or will that
unoccupied state give the brain the
required energy to break the
patterns? DB: What makes you say this
might happen? We were
discussing the other day that when the
brain is kept busy with
intellectual activity and thought, it does
not decay and shrink.
K: As long as it is thinking, moving,
living.
DB: Thinking in a rational way; then it
remains strong.
K: Yes. That is what I want to get at too.
Which is, as long as it
is functioning, moving, thinking
rationally...
DB: ...it remains strong. If it starts
irrational movement, then it
breaks down. Also if it gets caught in a
routine it begins to die.
K: That's it. If the brain is caught in
any routine - the meditation
routine, or the routine of the priests.
DB: Or the daily life of the farmer...
K: ...the farmer, etc., it must gradually
become dull.
DB: Not only that, but it seems to shrink.
K: To shrink physically.
DB: Perhaps some of the cells die?
K: To shrink physically, and the opposite
to that is the eternal
occupation with business - by anyone who
does a routine job...
thinking, thinking, thinking! And we
believe that that also prevents
shrinking.
DB: Surely experience seems to show that
it does, from
measurements that have been made.
K: Yes, it does. That's it.
DB: The brain starts to shrink at a
certain age. Now that is what
they have discovered, and just as when the
body is not being used
the muscles begin to lose their
flexibility...
K: So, take lots of exercise!
DB: Well, they say exercise the body and
exercise the brain.
K: Yes. If it is caught in any pattern,
any routine, any directive,
it must shrink.
DB: Could we go into what makes it shrink?
K: That is fairly
simple. It is repetition.
DB: Repetition is mechanical, and doesn't
really use the full
capacity of the brain.
K: One has noticed that people who have
spent years and years
in meditation are the most dull people on
earth. And also with
lawyers and professors there is ample
evidence of all that.
N: It is suggested that rational thinking
postpones senility. But
rational thinking itself can sometimes
become a pattern.
DB: It might. Rational thinking pursued in
a narrow area might
become part of the pattern too.
K: Of course, of course.
DB: But is there some other way?
K: We will go into that.
DB: But let's clear up things about the
body first. You see, if
somebody does a lot of exercise for the
body, it remains strong, but
it can become mechanical.
K: Yes.
DB: And therefore it would have a bad
effect.
N: What about the various traditional
religious instruments -
yoga, tantra, kundalini, etc?
K: I know. Oh, they must shrink! Because
of what is happening.
Take yoga for example. It used not to be vulgarized,
if I may use
that word. It was kept strictly to the
very few, who were not
concerned about kundalini and all that,
but who were concerned
with leading a moral, ethical, so-called
spiritual life. You see, I
want to get at the root of this.
DB: I think there is something related to
this. It seems that
before man was organized into society, he
was living close to
nature, and it was not possible to live in
a routine.
K: No, it was not.
DB: But it was completely insecure. K: So
we are saying that
the brain itself becomes extraordinarily
alive - is not caught in a
pattern - if it lives in a state of
uncertainty? Without becoming
neurotic!
DB: I think that is more clear when you
say not becoming
neurotic - then certainty becomes a form
of neurosis. But I would
rather that the brain lives without having
certainty, without
demanding it, without demanding certain
knowledge.
K: So are we saying that knowledge also
withers the brain?
DB: Yes, when it is repetitious and
becomes mechanical.
K: But knowledge itself?
DB: Well, we have to be very careful
there. I think that
knowledge has a tendency to become
mechanical. That is, it gets
fixed, but we could always be learning,
you see.
K: But learning from a centre, learning as
an accumulative
process!
DB: Learning with something fixed. You
see, we learn
something as fixed, and then you learn
from there. If we were to be
learning without holding anything
permanently fixed...
K: Learning and not adding. Can we do
that?
DB: Yes, I think to a certain extent we
have to drop our
knowledge. You see, knowledge may be valid
up to a point, and
then it ceases to be valid. It gets in the
way. You could say that our
civilization is collapsing because of too
much knowledge.
K: Of course.
DB: We don't discard what is in the way.
N: Many forms of knowledge are additive.
Unless you know the
previous thing, you can't do the next
thing. Would you say that
kind of knowledge is repetitive?
DB: No. As long as we are learning. But if
we hold some
principle, or the centre, fixed, and say
it cannot change, then that
knowledge becomes mechanical. But, for
example, suppose you
have to make a living. People must
organize society, and so on,
and they need knowledge.
K: But there we add more and more. DB:
That's right. We may
also get rid of some.
K: Of course.
DB: Some gets in the way, you see. It is
continually moving
there.
K: Yes, but I am asking, apart from that,
about knowledge itself.
DB: Do you mean knowledge without this
content?
K: Yes; the knowing mind.
DB: Which merely wants knowledge, is that
what you are
saying? Knowledge for its own sake?
K: Yes. I want to question the whole idea
of having knowledge.
DB: But again, it is not too clear,
because we accept that we
need some knowledge.
K: Of course, at a certain level.
DB: So it is not clear what kind of
knowledge it is that you are
questioning.
K: I am questioning the experience that
leaves knowledge, that
leaves a mark.
DB: Yes, but what kind of mark? A
psychological mark?
K: Psychological, of course.
DB: You are questioning this, rather than
knowledge of
technique and matter, and so on. But you
see, when you use the
word knowledge by itself, it tends to
include the whole.
K: We have said that knowledge at a
certain level is essential;
there you can add and take away and keep
on changing. But I am
questioning whether psychological
knowledge is not in itself a
factor of the shrinking of the brain.
DB: What do you mean by psychological
knowledge?
Knowledge about the mind, knowledge about
myself?
K: Yes. Knowledge about myself, and living
in that knowledge,
and accumulating that knowledge.
DB: So if you keep on accumulating
knowledge about yourself
or about relationships... K: ...yes, about
relationships. That's it.
Would you say such knowledge helps the
brain, or makes the brain
somewhat inactive, makes it shrink?
DB: Brings it into a rut.
K: Yes.
DB: But one should see what it is about
this knowledge that
makes trouble.
K: What is this knowledge that makes so
much trouble? In
relationship, that knowledge creates
trouble.
DB: Yes, it gets in the way because it
fixes.
K: If I have an image about someone, that
knowledge is
obviously going to impede our
relationship. It becomes a pattern.
DB: Yes, the knowledge about myself and
about him and how
we are related, makes a pattern.
K: And therefore that becomes a routine
and so it loses its
energy.
DB: Yes, and it occurred to me that
routine in that area is more
dangerous than routine in, say, the area
of daily work.
K: That's right.
DB: And if routine in ordinary work can
shrink the brain, then
in that area it might do some worse thing,
because it has a bigger
effect.
K: Can the brain, in psychological
matters, be entirely free from
this kind of knowledge? Look! I am a
businessman, and get into
the car, bus, taxi or tube train, and I am
thinking about what I am
going to do, whom I am going to meet in
connection with business.
My mind is all the time living in that
area. Then I come home;
There is my wife and children; sex and all
that. That also becomes
a psychological knowledge from which I am
acting. So there is the
knowledge of my business, and also the
knowledge with regard to
my wife and my reactions in relationship.
These two are in
contradiction, unless I am unaware of
them, and just carry on. If I
am aware of these two, it becomes a
disturbing factor. DB: Also
people find that this is a routine. They
get bored with it, and they
begin to...
K: ...divorce, and then the whole circus
begins!
DB: They may hope that by becoming
occupied with something
else they will get out of their boredom.
K: Yes, by going to church, etc. Any
escape is an occupation.
So I am asking whether this psychological
knowledge is not a
factor of shrinkage of the brain?
DB: Well, it could be a factor.
K: It is.
DB: If knowledge of your profession or
skill can be a factor,
then this psychological knowledge is
stronger.
K: Of course. Much stronger.
N: When you say psychological knowledge
you are making a
distinction between psychological
knowledge and, let us say,
scientific knowledge or factual knowledge?
K: Of course, we have said that.
N: But I am a little wary of the claim
that scientific knowledge
and other types of factual knowledge help
to extend the brain, to
make it bigger. That in itself doesn't
lead anywhere. Though it
postpones energy.
K: Dr. Bohm makes this very clear. Rational
thinking becomes
merely routine; I think logically, and
therefore I have learned the
trick of that, but I keep on repeating it.
N: That is what happens in most forms of
rational thinking.
K: Of course.
DB: I think that there is a dependence on
being faced with
continual problems.
K: Of course.
DB: You see, lawyers may feel that their
brains will last longer,
because they are presented with constantly
different problems, and
therefore they cannot think entirely
according to routine! K: But,
just a minute! They may have different
clients with different
problems, but they are acting from fixed
knowledge.
DB: They would not say entirely, they have
got to find new
facts, and so on.
K: They are not functioning entirely in
routine but the basis is
knowledge - precedence and book knowledge
and experience with
various clients.
DB: But then you would have to say that
some other more
subtle degeneration of the brain takes
place, not merely shrinkage.
K: That's right. That's what I want to get
at.
DB: You see, when a baby is born, the
brain cells have very few
cross connections; these gradually
increase in number, and then, as
a person approaches senility, they begin
to go back. So the quality
of those cross connections could be wrong.
If, for example, we
repeated them too often, they would get
too fixed.
N: Are all the brain functions confined to
rational forms, or are
there some functions which have a
different quality?
DB: Well, it is known that a large part of
the brain deals with
movement of the body, with muscles, with
various organs and so
on, and this part does not shrink with
age, although the part that
deals with rational thought, if it is not
used, does shrink. Then there
may be other functions that are totally
unknown; that is, very little
is actually known about the brain.
K: What we are saying is that we are only
using one part of the
brain. There is only partial activity,
partial occupation, either
rational or irrational. But as long as the
brain is occupied it must be
in that limited area. Would you say that?
DB: Then what will happen when it is not
occupied? We can
say that it may tend to spend most of the
time occupied in the
limited set of functions which are
mechanical, and that this will
produce some subtle degeneration of the
brain tissue, since
anything like that will affect the brain
tissue.
K: Are we saying that senility is the
result of a mechanical way
of living? Of mechanical knowledge, so
that the brain has no
freedom, no space? DB: That is the
suggestion. It is not necessarily
accepted by all the people who work on the
brain. They have
shown that the brain cells start to die
around the age of thirty or
forty at a steady rate, but this may be a
factor. I don't think their
measurements are so good that they can
test effectively how the
brain is used. You see, they are merely
rough measurements, made
statistically. But you want to propose
that this death or
degeneration of the brain cells comes from
the wrong way of using
the brain?
K: That's right. That is what I am trying
to get at.
DB: Yes, an there is a little bit of
evidence from the scientists,
although I think that they don't know very
much about it.
K: You see, scientists, brain specialists,
are, if I may put it
simply, examining things outside, but not
taking themselves as
guinea-pigs, and not going into that.
DB: Mostly, you see, except for those who
do bio-feedback,
they are trying to work on themselves in a
very indirect way.
K: Yes, but I feel we haven't time for all
that.
DB: It is too slow, and it isn't very
deep.
K: So let's come back to the realization
that any activity which
is repeated, which is directed in the
narrow sense, any method, any
routine, logical or illogical, does affect
the brain. We have
understood that very clearly. Knowledge at
a certain level is
essential, but psychological knowledge
about oneself, one's
experiences, etc. becomes routine. The
images I have about myself
also obviously become routine, and all
that helps to bring about a
shrinkage of the brain. I have understood
all that very clearly. And
any kind of occupation, apart from the
mechanical... no, not
mechanical...
DB: ...physical.
K: ...apart from physical occupation,
brings about shrinkage of
the brain. Now how is this process to
stop? And if it does stop, will
there be a renewal?
DB: I think that some brain scientists
would doubt that the brain
cells could be renewed, and I don't know
that there is any proof one
way or the other. K: I think they can be
renewed. That is what I
want to get at.
DB: So we have to discuss that.
N: Are you implying that mind is different
from the brain, that
mind is distinct from the brain?
K: Not quite.
DB: You have spoken of universal mind.
N: Mind, in the sense that one has access
to this mind, and it is
not the brain. Do you consider that a
possibility?
K: I don't quite follow this. I would say
that the mind is allinclusive.
When it is all-inclusive, of brain,
emotions - all that;
when it is totally whole, not divisive in
itself, there is a quality
which is universal. Right?
N: One has access to it?
K: Not one: no, you can't reach it. You
can't say, I have access
to it.
N: I am only saying access. One doesn't
possess it, but...
K: You can't possess the sky!
N: No, my point is, is there a way of
being open to it and is
there a function of the mind through which
the whole of it can
become accessible?
K: I think there is. We may come to that
presently if we can
stick to this point: We are asking now,
can the brain renew itself,
rejuvenate, become young again without any
shrinkage at all? I
think it can. I want to open a new chapter
and discuss this.
psychologically, knowledge that man has
acquired is crippling it.
The Freudians, the Jungians, the latest
psychologist, the latest
psychotherapist, are all helping to make
the brain shrink. Sorry! I
don't mean to give offence....
N: Is there a way of forgetting this
knowledge then?
K: No, no. Not forgetting. I see what
psychological knowledge
is doing and I see the waste; I see what
is taking place if I follow
that line. It is obvious. So I don't
follow that avenue at all. I discard
analysis altogether. That is a pattern we
have learnt, not discard
analysis altogether. That is a pattern we
have learnt, not only from
the recent psychologists and
psychotherapists but also through the
tradition of a million years of analysis,
of introspect, or of saying,
`I must', and `I must not', `This is right
and that is wrong'. You
know the whole process. I personally don't
do it, and so I reject that
whole method.
We are coming to a point, which is direct
perception and
immediate action. Our perception is
generally directed by
knowledge, by the past, which is knowledge
perceiving, and with
action arising, acting from that. This is
a factor of shrinking of the
brain, of senility.
Is there a perception which is not time
binding? And so action
which is immediate? Am I making myself
clear? That is, as long as
the brain, which has evolved through time,
is still living in a
pattern of time, it is becoming senile. If
we could break that pattern
of time, the brain has broken out of its
pattern, and therefore
something else takes place.
N: How does the brain break out of the
pattern of time?
K: We will come to that, but first let's
see if we agree.
DB: Well, you are saying that the brain is
the pattern of time,
and perhaps this should be clarified. I
think that what you mean by
analysis is some sort of process based on
past knowledge, which
organizes our perception, and in which we
take a series of steps to
try to accumulate knowledge about the
whole thing. And now you
say that this is a pattern of time, and we
have to break out of it.
K: If we agree that this is so, the brain
is functioning in a pattern
of time.
DB: Then we have to ask, what other
pattern is possible?
K: But wait...
DB: What other movement is possible?
K: No. First let's understand this, not
merely verbally, but let's
actually see that it is happening. That
our action, our way of living,
our whole thinking, is bound by time, or
comes with the
knowledge of time.
DB: Certainly our thinking about
ourselves, any attempt to
analyse ourselves, to think about
ourselves, involves this process.
K: This process, which is of time. Right?
N: That is a difficulty:
when you say knowledge and experience,
they are a certain
cohesive energy or force that binds you.
K: Which means what? Time binding!
N: Time binding and...
K: ...and therefore the pattern of
centuries, of millennia, is being
repeated.
N: Yes. But I am saying that this has a
certain cohesive force.
K: Of course, of course. All illusions
have an extraordinary
vitality.
N: Very few break through.
K: Look at all the churches and what
immense vitality they
have.
N: No, apart from these churches, one's
personal life, it has a
certain cohesive force that keeps one
back. One can't break away
from it.
K: What do you mean, it keeps you back?
N: It has a magnetic attraction, it sort
of pulls you back. You
can't free yourself of it unless you have
some instrument with
which you can act.
K: We are going to find out if there is a
different approach to
the problem.
DB: When you say, a different instrument,
that is not clear. The
whole notion of an instrument involves
time, because if you use
any instrument, it is a process which you
plan.
K: Time; that's just it.
N: That is why I use the word `instrument;
I mean, it is
effective.
K: It has not been effective. On the contrary,
it is destructive. So
do I see the very truth of its
destructiveness? Not just the theory,
the idea, but the actuality of it. If I
do, then what takes place? The
brain has evolved through time, and has
been functioning, living,
acting, believing in that time process.
But when one realizes that
all this helps to make the brain senile,
when one sees that as true
then what is the next step?
N: Are you implying that the very seeing
that it is destructive is
a releasing factor?
K: Yes.
N: And there is no need for an extra
instrument?
K: No. Don't use the word instrument.
There is no other factor. We are concerned
to end this shrinkage
and senility and in asking whether the
brain itself, the cells, the
whole thing, can move out of time? I am
not talking about
immortality, and all that kind of stuff
Can the brain move out of
time altogether? Otherwise deterioration,
shrinkage and senility are
inevitable, and even when senility may not
show, the brain cells
are becoming weaker, and so on.
N: If the brain cells are material and
physical, somehow or other
they have to shrink through time; indeed
it can't be helped. The
brain cell, which is tissue, cannot in
physical terms be immortal.
DB: perhaps the rate of shrinkage would be
greatly slowed
down. If a person lives a certain number
of years, and his brain
begins to shrink long before he dies, then
he becomes senile. Now
if the deterioration would slow then...
K: ...not only slow down, Sir.
DB: ...Well, regenerate...
K: ...be in a state of non-occupation.
DB: I think Narayan is saying that it is
impossible for any
material system to last for ever.
K: I am not talking about lasting for ever
- though I am not sure
if it can't last for ever! No, this is
very serious, I am not pulling
anybody's leg.
DB: If all the cells were to regenerate in
the body and in the
brain, then the whole thing could go on
indefinitely.
K: Look, we are now destroying the body,
through drink,
smoking, overindulgence in sex and all
kinds of things. We are
living most un-healthily. Right? If the
body were in excellent
health, maintained right through - which
means no heightened
emotions, no strain, no sense of
deterioration, the heart functioning
normally - then why not!
DB: Well...
K: ...which means what? No travelling, and
all the rest of it....
DB: No excitement.
K: If the body remains in one quiet place
I am sure it can last a
great many more years than it does now.
DB: Yes, I think that is true. There have
been many cases of
people living for a hundred and fifty
years in quiet places. I think
that is all you are talking about. You are
not really suggesting
something lasting for ever?
K: So the body can be kept healthy, and
since the body affects
the mind, nerves, senses and all that,
they also can be kept healthy.
DB: And if the brain is kept in the right
action...
K: ...yes, without any strain.
DB: You see the brain has a tremendous
affect on organizing
the body. The pituitary gland controls the
entire system of the body
glands; also all the organs or the body
are controlled by the brain.
When the mind deteriorates, the body
starts to deteriorate.
K: Of course.
DB: They work together.
K: They go together. So can this brain -
which is not `my' brain
- which has evolved through millions of
years, which has had all
kinds of destructive or pleasant
experiences...
DB: You mean it is a typical brain, not a
particular brain,
peculiar to some individual? When you say
`not mine', you mean
any brain belonging to mankind, right?
K: Any brain.
DB: They are all basically similar.
K: Similar: that is what I said. Can that
brain be free of all this?
Of time? I think it can. DB: Perhaps we
could discuss what it
means to be free of time. You see, at
first the suggestion that the
brain be free of time might sound crazy,
but, obviously, we all
know that you don't mean that the clock
stops.
K: Science fiction and all that!
DB: The point is, what does it really mean
to be psychologically
free of time?
K: That there is no tomorrow.
DB: But wp know there is tomorrow.
K: But psychologically...
DB: Can you describe better, what you mean
when you say `no
tomorrow'?
K: What does it mean to be living in time?
Let's take the other
side first, because then we come to the
other. What does it mean to
live in time? Hope; thinking and living in
the past, and acting from
the knowledge of the past; images,
illusions, prejudices - they are
all an outcome of the past. All that is
time, and that is producing
chaos in the world.
DB: Well, suppose we say that if we are
not living
psychologically in time, we may still
order our actions by the
watch. The thing that is puzzling is if
somebody says, I am not
living in time, but I must keep an
appointment. You see?
K: Of course; you can't sit here for ever.
DB: So you say, I am looking at the watch,
but I am not
psychologically extending how I am going
to feel in the next hour,
when I have fulfilment of desire, etc.
K: I am just saying that the way we are
living now is in the field
of time. And there we have brought all
kinds of problems and
suffering. Is that right?
DB: Yes, but it should be made clear why
this necessarily
produces suffering. You are saying that if
you live in the field of
time suffering is inevitable.
K: Inevitable.
DB: Why? K: It is simple. Time has built
the ego, the `me', the
image of me sustained by society, by
education, which has built
through millions of years. All that is the
result of time. And from
there I act.
N: Yes.
DB: Towards the future psychologically;
that is, towards some
future state of being.
K: Yes. Which means that the centre is
always becoming.
DB: Trying to become better.
K: Better, nobler, or anything else. So
all that, the constant
endeavour to become something
psychologically, is a factor of
time.
DB: Are you saying that the endeavour to
become produces
suffering?
K: Obviously. It is simple. All that is
divisive. It divides me
from others, and so you are different from
me. And when I depend
on somebody, and that somebody is gone, I
feel lonely and
miserable. All that goes on.
So we are saying that any factor of
division, which is the very
nature of the self, must inevitably cause
suffering.
DB: Are you saying that through time the
self is set up, and then
the self introduces division and conflict
and so on? But that if there
were no psychological time, then perhaps
this entire structure
would collapse, and something entirely
different would happen?
K: That's it. That is what I am saying.
And therefore the brain
itself has broken up.
DB: Well, that is the next step - to say
that the brain has broken
out of that rut, and perhaps could then
regenerate. It doesn't follow
logically, but still it could be so.
K: I think it does follow logically.
DB: Well, it follows logically that it
would stop degenerating.
K: Yes.
DB: And are you adding further that it
would start to
regenerate? K: You look sceptical?
N: Yes, because the whole human
predicament is bound to time.
K: We know that.
N: Society, individuals, the whole
structure.
K: I know, I know.
N: It is so forceful that anything feeble
doesn't work here.
K: What do you mean - `feeble'?
N: The force of this is so great that what
has to break through
must have tremendous energy.
K: Yes.
N: And no individual seems to be able to
generate sufficient
energy to be able to break through.
K: But you have got hold of the wrong end
of the stick, if I may
point this out. When you use the word
`individual', you have
moved away from the fact that our brain is
universal.
N: Yes, I admit that.
K: There is no individuality.
N: That brain is conditioned this way.
K: Yes, we have been through all that. It
is conditioned this way
through time. Time is conditioning -
right? It is not that time has
created the conditioning, time itself is
the factor of conditioning.
So can that time element not exist? (We
are talking about
psychological time, not the ordinary
physical time.) I say it can.
We have said that the ending of suffering
comes about when the
self, which is built up through time, is
no longer there. A man who
is actually going through agony might
reject this. But when he
comes out of the shock of it, if somebody
points out to him what is
happening, and if he is willing to listen,
to see the rationality, the
sanity of it, and not to build a wall
against it, he is out of that field.
The brain is out of that time-binding
quality.
N: Temporarily.
K: Ah! There again when you use the word
`temporary', it
means time. N: No, I mean that the man
slips back into time.
K: No, he can't. He can't go back if he
sees that something is
dangerous, like a cobra, or any other
danger, he cannot go back to
it.
N: That analogy is a bit difficult,
because the structure itself is
that danger. One inadvertently slips into
it.
K: When you see a dangerous animal, there
is immediate action.
It may be the result of past knowledge and
experience, but there is
immediate action for self-protection. But
psychologically we are
ware of the dangers. If we become as aware
of these dangers as we
are aware of physical dangers, there is an
action which is not timebinding.
DB: Yes, I think you could say that as
long as you could
perceive this danger you know you would
respond immediately.
But you see, if you were to use that
analogy of the animal, it might
be an animal that you realize is
dangerous, but he might take
another form that you don't see as
dangerous!
K: Yes.
DB: Therefore there would be a danger of
slipping back if you
didn't see this. Or illusion might come in
some other form.
K: Of course.
DB: But I think the major point you are
making is that the brain
is not belonging to any individual.
K: Yes, absolutely.
DB: And therefore it is no use saying that
the individual slips
back.
K: No.
DB: Because that already denies what you
are saying. The
danger is rather that the brain might slip
back.
K: The brain itself might slip back,
because it has not seen the
danger.
DB: It hasn't seen the other forms of the
illusions. K: The Holy
Ghost taking different shapes! All this is
the real root of time.
DB: Time, and separation as individuality,
are basically the
same structure.
K: Of course.
DB: Although it is not obvious in the
beginning.
K: I wonder if we see that.
DB: It might be worth discussing that. Why
is psychological
time the game illusion, the same structure
as individuality?
Individuality is the sense of being a
person who is located here
somewhere.
K: Located and divided.
DB: Divided from the others. He extends
out to some periphery,
his domain extends out to some periphery,
and also he has an
identity which extends over time. He
wouldn't regard himself as an
individual if he said `Today I am one
person, tomorrow I am
another'. So it seems that we mean by
individual somebody who is
in time.
K: I think that this idea of individuality
is a fallacy.
DB: Yes, but many people may find it hard
to be convinced that
it is a fallacy. There is a common feeling
that, as an individual, I
have existed at least from my birth if not
before, and go on to
death, and perhaps later. The whole idea
of being an individual is
to be in time. Right?
K: Obviously.
DB: To be in psychological time, not just
the time of the clock.
K: Yes, we are saying that. So can that
illusion that time has
created individuality be broken? Can this
brain understand that?
DB: I think that, as Narayan said, there
is a great momentum in
the brain, which keeps rolling, moving
along.
K: Can that momentum stop?
N: The difficulty comes here. The genetic
coding is intrinsic to
a person. He seems to function more or
less unconsciously, driven
by this past momentum. And suddenly he
sees, like a flash,
something true. But the difficulty is that
it may operate only for a
day - and then he is again caught in the
old momentum.
K: I know that. But it says the brain will
not be caught. Once
the mind or the brain is aware of this
fact, it cannot go back. How
can it?
N: There must be another way of preventing
it from going back.
K: Not preventing: that means also time.
You are still thinking
in terms of prevention.
N: Prevention, in the sense of the human
factor.
K: The human being is irrational. Right?
And as long as he is
functioning irrationally, he says of any
rational factor, `I refuse to
see it'.
N: You are suggesting that the very seeing
prevents you from
slipping back. This is a human condition.
DB: I wonder if we should go further into
this question about
prevention. It may be important.
N: There are two aspects. You see the
fallacy of something, and
the very seeing prevents you from slipping
back, because you see
the danger of it.
DB: In another sense you say you have no
temptation to slip
back, therefore you don't have to be
prevented. If you really see it,
there is no need for conscious prevention.
N: Then you are not tempted to go back.
K: I can't go back. If for example I see
the fallacy of all the
religious nonsense, it is finished!
DB: The only question which I raise is
that you may not see this
so completely in another form.
N: It may come in different shapes...
DB: ...and then you are tempted once
again.
K: The mind is aware, it is not caught.
But you are saying that it
is.
N: Yes, in other shapes and forms. K: Wait
Sir. We have said
that perception is out of time, is seeing
immediately the whole
nature of time. Which to use a good old
word, is to have an insight
into the nature of time. If there is that
insight, the very brain cells,
which are part of time, break down. The
brains cells bring about a
change in themselves. You may disagree,
you may say, `prove it.' I
say this is not a matter of proof, it is a
matter of action. Do it, find
out, test it.
N: You were also saying the other day,
that when the
consciousness is empty of its content...
K: ...the content being time...
N: ...that leads to the transformation of
the brain cells.
K: Yes.
N: When you say consciousness is empty of
the content there...
K: ...there is no consciousness as we know
it.
N: Yes. And you are using the word
insight. What is the
connection between the two?
DB: Between what?
N: Consciousness and insight. You have
suggested that when
consciousness is empty of its content...
K: Be careful. Consciousness is put
together by its content. The
content is the result of time.
DB: The content also is time.
K: Of course.
DB: It is about time as well, and it is
actually put together by
time, also it is about time. But if you
have an insight into that, the
whole pattern is gone, broken. The insight
is not of time, not of
memory, is not of knowledge.
N: Who has this insight?
K: Not `who'. Simply, there is an insight.
N: There is an insight and then the
consciousness is empty of its
content...
K: No, Sir. No. N: You are implying that
the very emptying of
the content is insight?
K: No. We are saying time is a factor
which has made up the
content. It has built it up, and it also
thinks about it. All that bundle
is the result of time. Insight into this
whole movement, which is not
`my' insight, brings about transformations
in the brain. Because
that insight is not time-binding.
DB: Are you saying that this psychological
content is a certain
structure, physically, in the brain? That
in order for this
psychological content to exist, the brain
over many years has made
many connections of the cells, which
constitute this content?
K: Quite, quite.
DB: And then there is a flash of insight,
which sees all this, and
that it is not necessary. Therefore all
this begins to dissipate. And
when it has dissipated, there is no
content. Then, whatever the
brain does is something different.
K: Let us go further. Then there is total
emptiness.
DB: Well, emptiness of the content. But
when you say total
emptiness, you mean emptiness of all this
inward content?
K: That's right. And that emptiness has
tremendous energy. It is
energy.
DB: So could you say that the brain,
having had all these
connections tangled, has locked up a lot
of energy?
K: That's right. Wastage of energy.
DB: And when they begin to dissipate, that
energy is there.
K: Yes.
DB: Would you say that it is as much
physical energy as any
other kind?
K: Of course. Now we can go on in more
detail, but is this
principle, the root of it, an idea or a
fact? I hear all this physically
with the ear, but I may make it into an
idea. If I hear it, not only
with the ear, but in my being, in the very
structure of myself, what
happens then? If that kind of hearing
doesn't take place, all this
becomes merely an idea, and I spin along
for the rest of my life
playing with ideas.
If there was a scientist here,
bio-feedback or another brain
specialist, would he accept all this?
Would he even listen to it?
DB: A few scientists would, but obviously
the majority would
not.
K: No. So how do we touch the human brain?
DB: All this will sound rather abstract,
to most scientists, you
see. They will say, it could be so; it is
a nice theory, but we have
no proof of it.
K: Of course. They would say it doesn't
excite them very much
because they don't see any proof.
DB: They would say, if you have some more
evidence we will
come back later, and become very
interested. So you see, you can't
give any proof, because whatever is
happening, nobody can see it
with their eyes.
K: I understand. But I am asking, what
shall we do? The human
brain - not `my' brain or `your', the
brain - has evolved through a
million years. One biological `freak' can
move out of it, but how do
you get at the human mind generally to
make it see all this?
DB: I think you have to communicate the
necessity, the
inevitability of what you are saying. Say
if a person sees something
happening before his eyes he says, `That's
so'. Right?
K: But it requires somebody to listen,
somebody who says, `I
want to capture it, I want to understand
this, I want to find out.'
You follow what I am saying? Apparently
that is one of the most
difficult things in life.
DB: Well, it is the function of this
occupied brain - that it is
occupied with itself and it doesn't
listen.
N: In fact one of the things is that this
occupation starts very
early. When you are young it is very
powerful, and it continues all
through your life. How can we, through
education, make this clear?
K: The moment you see the importance of
not being occupied -
see that as a tremendous truth - you will
find ways and methods to
help educationally, creatively. No one can
be told, copy and
imitate, for then he is lost.
DB: Then the question is, how is it possible
to communicate to
the brain, which rejects, which doesn't
listen? Is there a way?
K: Not if I refuse to listen. You see, I
think meditation is a great
factor in all this. I feel we have been
meditating although ordinarily
people wouldn't accept this as meditation.
DB: They have used the word so often...
K: ...that its meaning is really lost. But
true meditation is this:
the emptying of consciousness. You follow?
DB: Yes, but let's be clear. Earlier you
said it would happen
through insight. Now are you saying that
meditation is conducive
to insight?
K: Meditation is insight.
DB: It is insight already. Then is it some
sort of work you do?
Insight is usually thought of as the
flash, but meditation is more
constant.
K: We must be careful. What do we mean by meditation?
We
can reject the systems, methods,
acknowledged authorities, because
these are often merely traditional
repetitions - time-binding
nonsense.
N: Do you think some of them could have
been original, could
have had real insight, in the past?
K: Who knows? Now meditation is this
penetration, this sense
of moving without any past.
DB: The only point to clear up is that
when you use the word
meditation, you mean something more than
insight, you see.
K: Much more. Insight has freed the brain
from the past, from
time. That is an enormous statement...
DB: Do you mean that you have to have
insight if you are going
to meditate?
K: Yes, that's right. To meditate without
any sense of becoming.
DB: You cannot meditate without insight.
You can't regard it as
a procedure by which you will come to
insight. K: No. That
immediately implies time. A procedure, a
system, a method, in
order to have insight is nonsensical.
Insight into greed or fear frees
the mind from them. Then meditation has
quite a different quality.
It has nothing to do with all the gurus'
meditations. So could we
say that to have insight there must be
silence?
DB: Well, that is the same; we seem to be
going in a circle.
K: For the moment.
DB: Yes, my mind has silence.
K: So the silence of insight has cleansed,
purged, all that.
DB: All that structure of the occupation.
K: Yes. Then there is no movement as we
know it; no
movement of time.
DB: Is there movement of some other kind?
K: I don't see how we can measure that by
words, that sense of a
limitless state.
DB: But you were saying earlier that
nevertheless it is necessary
to find some language, even though it is
unsayable!
K: Yes - we will find that language.
(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 -4"