The Ending of Time
J. Krishnamurti
and
Dr. David Bohm
THE ENDING OF TIME CHAPTER 6 15TH
APRIL 1980 CONVERSATION WITH PROF.
DAVID BOHM 'CAN INSIGHT BRING ABOUT A
MUTATION OF THE BRAIN CELLS?'
DAVID BOHM: You have said that insight
changes the brain cells,
and I wonder if we could discuss that?
KRISHNAMURTI: As it is constituted, the
brain functions in
one direction: memory, experience,
knowledge. It has functioned
in that area as much as possible, and most
people are satisfied with
it.
DB: Well, they don't know of anything
else.
K: And also they have placed knowledge in
supreme
importance. If one is concerned with
fundamental change, where
does one begin? Suppose `X' feels he will
go along a certain
direction set by mankind. He has been
going there century after
century, and he asks himself what is
radical change; if it is in the
environment, or in human relationships; if
it is a sense of love,
which is not in the area of knowledge.
Where is it to begin? You
understand my question? Unless there is some
mutation taking
place inside here, inside my mind, the
brain, I may think I have
changed, but it is a superficial change,
and not a change in depth.
DB: Yes. What is implied there is that the
present state of
affairs involves not only the mind but
also the nervous system and
the body. Everything is set in a certain
way.
K: Of course. That is what I meant, the
whole movement is set
in a certain way. And along that pattern I
can modify, adjust, polish
a little more, a little less and so on.
But if a man is concerned with
radical change, where is he to begin? As
we said the other day, we
have relied on the environment or society
and various disciplines to
change us, but I feel these are all in the
same direction.
DB: In so far as they all emanate from
this thing, the way the
mind and body are set, they are not going
to change anything.
There is a total structure involved which
is in the brain, in the
body, in the whole of society. K: Yes,
yes. So what am I to do?
What is `X' to do? And in asking this
question, what is there to
change?
DB: What exactly do you mean by `what is
there to change'?
What is to be changed?
K: Yes, both; what is there to be changed,
and what is there to
change? Basically, what is there to
change? `X' sees that he can
change certain things along this way, but
to go much further than
that, what is one to do? I am sure man has
asked this question. You
must have asked it. But apparently the
mutation hasn't taken place.
So what is `X' to do? He realizes the need
for a radical revolution,
a psychological revolution; he perceives
that the more he changes,
it is the same thing continuing; the more
he enquires into himself,
the enquiry remains the same, and so on.
So what is there to
change; unless `X' finds a way to change
the brain itself?
DB: But what will change the brain?
K: That's it. The brain has been set in a
pattern for millennia! I
think it is no longer `what' should I
change. It is imperative that I
change.
DB: So it is agreed that there must be a
change, but the question
is still, how can the brain change?
K: One must come to that point. If this
question is put to you as
a scientist, or as a human being who is
involved in science, what
would your answer be?
DB: I don't think science can deal with
it, because it doesn't go
far enough. It can't possibly probe that
deeply into the structure of
the brain. Many questions are positing the
relationship of brain and
mind, which science has not been able to
resolve. Some people
would say that there is nothing beyond the
brain...
K: ...Purely materialistic; I understand
all that.
DB: If it is not materialistic, then for
the moment science has
very little to say about it. perhaps some
people would try to, but
science generally has been most
successful, most systematic, in
dealing with matter. Any attempt to do
otherwise is not very clear.
K: So you would tell `X', to change inside
in the brain cells, etc.
My immediate answer to that is, how?
Everybody asks that. It is
not a matter of faith. It is not a matter
of changing one pattern to
another pattern. So you leave me without
any direction - right?
You leave me without any instrument that
can penetrate this.
DB: Except that you are implying there is
something beyond the
brain, in putting that question. We don't
know. The very statement
implies that insight is somehow beyond the
brain, else it couldn't
change the brain.
K: Yes. So how am I to capture it? Maybe I
can't capture it...
DB: ...but how will it come about? You are
saying that
something that is non-material can affect
matter. This is the
implication.
K: I am not sure.
DB: I think that clearing this up, would
make more clear what
your question is. It is somewhat puzzling
if you don't.
K: All that you have said to me is,
insight changes, brings about
mutation in the brain. Now you explain
what insight is, which is
not a result of a progressive knowledge,
not progressive time, not a
remembrance. This insight may be the real
activity of the brain.
DB: All right. Let's put it differently.
The brain has many
activities which include memory, and all these
that you have
mentioned. In addition there is a more
inward activity, but it is still
the activity of the brain.
K: It may be the same.
DB: You see, in putting this, something
seems to be not quite
clear.
K: Yes. We must be very clear that it is
not the result of
progressive knowledge; it is not come by
through any exercise of
will.
DB: Agreed. I think people can generally
see that insight comes
in a flash, it does not come through will.
Those who have
considered it at all can see that. Also,
that chemistry will probably
not bring it about.
K: I think most people who are concerned
see that. But how am
I, as `X', to have this insight? I see
your logic, I see your reason.
DB: In some ways it may disturb people. It
is not clear what the
logic is, what is going to make this
change in the brain. Is it
something more than the brain, or is it
something deeper in the
brain? This is one of the questions.
K: Of course.
DB: It is not quite clear logically.
QUESTIONER: Are you saying that there is a
function of the
brain which acts without reference to its
content?
K: Yes, to the past, to the content.
DB: This is a good question. Is there a
function in the brain
which is independent of the content? Which
is not conditioned by
the content, but that might still be a physical
function?
K: I understand. Is this the question?
Apart from the
consciousness with its content, is there
in the brain an activity
which is not touched by consciousness?
DB: By the content; yes.
K: Content is the consciousness.
DB: Yes, but sometimes we use the word in
another sense.
Sometimes we imply that there could be
another kind of
consciousness. So if we call it `content'
it would be more clear.
K: All right. A part of the brain which is
not touched by the
content.
DB: Yes, this suggests that it may be
possible for the brain to
change. Either the brain is entirely
controlled by its content, or in
some way it is not conditioned.
K: That is a dangerous concept!
DB: But it is what you are saying.
K: No. See the danger of it. See the
danger of admitting to
oneself that there is a part of the
brain...
DB: ...an activity...
K: ...all right, an activity of the brain
which is not touched by
the content. DB: It is a possible
activity. It may be that it has not
been awakened.
K: It has not been awakened. That's right.
Q: But what is the danger?
K: That is simple enough. The danger is
that I am admitting
there is God in me, that there is
something superhuman; something
beyond the content which therefore will
operate on it, or that will
operate in spite of it.
Q: But which part of the brain sees the
danger?
K: Let us go slowly. Which part of the
brain sees the danger?
Of course it is the content that sees the
danger.
Q: Does it?
K: Oh, yes, because the content is aware
of all the tricks it has
played.
DB: This is similar to many of the old
tricks.
K: Yes.
DB: Those tricks we have discussed before
- the assumption of
God within, the imagination of God within.
There is a danger here
obviously.
Q: But could the brain, seeing the danger,
make that statement
nevertheless? Because that statement might
be pointing to the right
direction.
DB: Even though it is dangerous, it may be
necessary to do so;
it may be on the right track.
K: The unconscious, which is part of the
content, may capture
this, and say, `Yes' - so it sees the
danger instantly.
Q: It sees its own trap.
K: Yes, it sees the trap which it has
created. So it avoids that
trap. That is sanity: to avoid a trap is
sanity. Is there an activity
which is totally independent of the
content? Then, is that activity
part of the brain?
DB: Is it a natural activity of the brain?
Material in the brain. K:
Which means what?
DB: Well, if there is such a natural
activity, it could awaken
somehow, and that activity could change
the brain.
K: But would you say it is still material?
DB: Yes. There could be different levels
of matter, you see.
K: That is what I am trying to get at.
Right.
DB: But you see, if you think that way,
there could be a deeper
level of matter which is not conditioned
by the content. For
example, we know matter in the universe is
not conditioned by the
content of our brains generally. There
could be a deeper level of
matter not conditioned in that way.
K: So it would still be matter, refined,
or `super', or whatever; it
would still be the content.
DB: Why do you say that? You see, you have
to go slowly. Do
you say that matter is content?
K: Yes.
DB: Inherently? But this has to be made
clear, because it is not
obvious.
K: Let's discuss it. Let's grip this.
Thought is matter.
DB: Well, thought is part of the content,
part of the material
process. Whether it exists independently
as matter is not so clear.
You can say, water is matter; you can pour
water from one glass to
another, it has an independent substance.
But it is not clear whether
thought could stand as matter by itself,
except with some other
material substance like the brain in which
it takes place. Is that
clear?
K: I don't quite follow.
DB: If you say water is matter, then it is
clear. Now if you say,
thought is matter, then thought must have
a similar independent
substance. You say air is matter - right?
Or water is matter. Now
waves are not matter, they are just a
process in matter. Is it clear
what I mean?
K: Yes. A wave is a process in matter. DB:
A material process.
Is thought matter or is it a process in
matter?
Q: May one ask, is electricity considered
to be matter?
DB: In so far as there are electron
particles it is matter, but it is
also a movement of that, which is a
process.
Q: So it is two things.
DB: Well you can form waves of
electricity, and so on.
Q: Waves would be the matter, but not the
electrical action.
DB: The electrical action is like the
waves, but the electricity
consists of particles.
K: What is the question we are now asking?
DB: Is thought a material substance, or is
it a process in some
other material substance - like the brain?
K: It is a material process in the brain.
DB: Yes, scientists would generally agree
with that.
K: Let's stick to that.
DB: If you say it is matter, they would
become very puzzled.
K: I see.
Q: It doesn't exist apart from the brain
cells. It resides in the
brain.
K: That is, thought is a material process
in the brain. That
would be right. Then can that material
process ever be
independent?
DB: Independent of what?
K: Independent of something that is not a
material process. No,
wait a minute, we must go slowly. Thought
is a material process in
the brain. We all agree about this?
DB: Yes, you would get very wide agreement
on that.
K: Then our question is, can that material
process in the brain
bring about a change in itself?
DB: Yes, that is the question. K: In
itself. And if that material in
itself can change, it would still be a
material process. Right?
DB: Yes. Thought is always apparently
going to be a material
process.
K: And therefore it is not insight. We
must come back to that.
DB: You are saying that insight is not a
material process?
K: Go slowly. We must be careful in using
words. Thought is a
material process in the brain; and any
other movement, springing
from that material process, is still material.
DB: Yes, it has to be.
K: Right. Is there another activity which
is not a material
process?
DB: Of course people have asked that
question for ages. Is there
spirit beyond matter?
K: Spirit, Holy Ghost! Is there some other
activity of the brain
which cannot be related to the material
process?
DB: Well, it cannot depend upon it.
Insight cannot depend on
the material process, as it would then be
just another material
process.
K: Insight cannot depend on the material
process, which is
thought.
DB: But you were putting it the other way
round, that the
material process may depend on insight,
may be changed by
insight.
K: Ah, wait. The material process is
dependent on it, but insight
is not dependent on that process.
DB: Now many people would not see how something
nonmaterial
would affect something material.
K: Yes, quite.
DB: It might be easily agreed that
something non-material is not
affected by matter, but then how does the
operation work the other
way? K: What do you say? The brain
thought, with its content, is a
material process. Any activity from it is
still part of that. Now is
insight part of that too?
DB: We have agreed on its independence of
that; it can't be part
of it. But it can still act within the
material process, that's the
crucial thing.
K: Yes. That's right. Insight is
independent of the material
process, but yet it can act upon it.
DB: Let's discuss that a little. Generally
speaking, in science, if
`A' can act on `B' there is usually
reciprocal action of `B' on `A'.
We don't find situations where `A' acts on
`B', but `B' never acts on
`A'.
K: I see, I see.
DB: This is one of the difficulties you
have raised. We don't
find this elsewhere; in human relations,
if I can act on you, you can
act on me - right?
K: Yes, we see that human relationships
are interaction.
DB: Yes, mutual relationships.
K: And in those relationships there is
response, and so on. Now,
if I don't respond to your action, I am
independent of it.
DB: But you see, science generally finds
that it is not possible
to have a one-sided action.
K: Quite. So we are continually insisting
that the material
process must have a relationship to the
other.
DB: An action, anyway. Relationship is an
ambiguous word
here. If you said action it would be more
clear.
K: All right. The material process must be
able to act on the nonmaterial,
and the non-material must act on the
material.
DB: But that would make them both the
same.
K: Exactly!
Q: Not necessarily. One could envisage
that insight is a much
larger movement than the material process
of the brain, and
therefore that the larger movement can act
on the smaller
movement, but the smaller cannot act on
the larger.
K: Yes, we are saying the same thing.
DB: The small movement has no significant
action on the larger
movement. You can have a situation that if
you drop a rock in the
ocean, the ocean absorbs it with no
significant change.
K: Yes.
Q: So then they would still have a two-way
action but only one
action would be significant.
K: No, no. Don't enter into that too
quickly, let us be careful.
Love has no relationship to hate.
DB: Again there is this word
`relationship'. Would you, for
example, say that hate has no action on
love?
K: They are independent.
DB: Independent, they have no action on
each other.
K: Ah, it is a very important thing to discover
this. Love is
independent of hate. Where there is hate
the other cannot exist.
DB: Yes, they can't stand side by side,
acting on each other.
K: They can't. So when scientists say, if
`A' has a relationship to
`B', then `B' must have a relationship to
`A', we are contradicting
that.
DB: Not all scientists have said that; a
few have said otherwise -
I don't like to bring in Aristotle...
K: Bring him in!
DB: He said there is an unmoved mover,
that God is never
moved by matter; he is not acted on by
matter, but he acts. Do you
see? That is an old idea then. Since
Aristotle's time, science has
thrown out this concept, and said that it
is impossible.
K: If I see clearly that love is
independent of hate, hate cannot
possibly act on love. Love may act on hate,
but where hate is, the
other cannot be.
DB: Well, those are two possibilities.
Which are you saying? K:
What are the two possibilities?
DB: You said, one possibility is that love
may act on hate, and
the other is that they have no action at
all on each other.
K: Yes.
DB: But which?
K: I understand. No, love cannot act on
hate.
DB: Right. They have no relationship. But
perhaps insight
could, you see.
K: We have to be quite clear on this
point. Violence, and being
without violence, are two entirely
different factors. One cannot act
upon the other.
DB: In that case you could say that the
existence of the one is
the non-existence of the other, and there
is no way in which they
can act together.
K: That's right.
DB: They cannot be there together.
K: Absolutely. I'll stick to that. So when
this material process is
in action, the other cannot exist.
DB: What is `the other' this time?
Insight?
K: Yes.
DB: That denies what we were saying
before; that there is an
action from insight on the material
process.
K: Now, steady, yes. Where there is
violence the other - I hate
to use the word `non-violence' - is not.
DB: Peace, or harmony?
K: Where there is violence, peace cannot
exist. But where there
is peace, is there violence? No, of course
not. So peace is
independent of violence.
Q: You have said many, many times that
intelligence can act
upon thought; insight can affect thought,
but it doesn't work the
other way round. You have given many
examples of this. K:
Intelligence can wipe away ignorance, but
ignorance cannot touch
intelligence - right? Where there is love,
hate can never exist. Can
love wipe away hate?
DB: We said that this doesn't seem to be
possible, because hate
appears to be an independent force.
K: Of course it is.
DB: It has its own momentum, you see, its
own force, its own
movement.
Q: I don't quite get this relationship of
love and hate with the
earlier discussion of insight.
DB: There seem to bc two different areas.
Q: Thought is a movement, and insight
seems to be nonmovement,
where everything seemingly is at rest, and
it can
observe movement.
DB: That is what we are trying to get at,
the notion of
something which is not affected by
anything else.
Q: Aren't you then saying, in looking at
love and hate, that there
is good and there is evil, and that evil
is a completely separate,
independent force?
DB: Well, it is independent of good.
Q: But is the process in the mind, or is
it related to insight?
DB: We are coming to that.
Q: Take light and darkness. Light appears,
and the darkness is
gone.
DB: Good and evil; love and hate; light
and darkness - when
one is, the other can't be, you see. That
is all we are saying so far.
Q: Do you mean, in a single brain?
DB: In any brain, yes, or in any group, or
anywhere. Whenever
there is hate going on in a group, there is
not love.
K: Something has just come to my mind.
Love has no cause.
Hate has a cause. Insight has no cause.
The material process, as
thought, has a cause. Right? DB: Yes, it
is part of the chain of
cause and effect.
K: Can that which has no cause ever act
upon that which has a
cause?
DB: It might. We can see no reason why
that which has no
cause might not act on something that has
a cause. There is no
obvious reason. It won't happen the other
way round. What has a
cause cannot act on that, which has no cause,
because that would
invalidate it.
K: That's right. But apparently the action
of insight has an
extraordinary effect on the material
process.
DB: It may for example wipe out some
causes.
K: As insight is causeless, it has a
definite effect on that which
has cause.
DB: Well, it doesn't necessarily follow,
but it is possible.
K: No, no, I don't say it is possible.
DB: I am saying we haven't quite seen why
it is necessary.
There is no contradiction when we say the
word possible.
K: All right, I see. As long as we are
clear on the word possible.
We must be careful. Love is without cause,
and hate has a cause.
The two cannot co-exist.
DB: Yes. That is true. That is why there
is a difference between
love and insight. That is why it doesn't
follow necessarily that if
something has no cause it will act on
something that has a cause.
That is what I was trying to say.
K: I just want to explore a little more.
Is love insight?
DB: As far as we can see it is not the
same. Love and insight are
not identical, are they? Not exactly the
same thing.
K: Why?
DB: Insight may be love, but, you see,
insight also occurs in a
flash.
K: It is a flash of course. And that flash
alters the whole pattern,
operates on it, uses the pattern, in the
sense that I argue, reason, use
logic, and all that. I don't know if I am
making myself clear? DB: I
think that once the flash has operated,
the pattern is different, and
would therefore be more rational. The
flash may make logic
possible, because you may have been
confused before the flash.
K: Yes, yes! Aristotle may have come to
all this by logic.
DB: Well, he may have had some insight! We
don't know.
K: We don't know, but I am questioning it.
DB: We really don't know how his mind
operated because there
are only a few books that have survived.
K: Would you say by reading some of those
books that he had
insight?
DB: I haven't really read Aristotle
directly; very few people
have because it is hard. Most people read
what other people have
said about Aristotle. A few phrases of his
are common, like `the
unmoved mover'. And he has said some
things which suggest that
he was quite intelligent, at least.
K: What I am trying to say is that insight
is never partial; I am
talking of total, not partial, insight.
Q: Krishnaji, could you explain that a
little? What do you mean
by `not partial' insight?
K: An artist can have a partial insight. A
scientist can have a
partial insight. But we are talking about
total insight.
I: You see the artist is also a human
being, so...
K: But his capture of insight is partial.
Q: It is directed to some form of art. So
you mean that it
illuminates a limited area, or subject. Is
that what you mean by
partial insight?
K: Yes.
Q: Then what would be total insight? What
would it
encompass?
K: The total human activity.
DB: That is one point. But earlier on, we
were asking whether
this insight would illuminate the brain,
the activity of the brain. In
that illumination, it seems that the
material activity of the brain will
change. Would that be correct? We must get
this point clear, then
we can raise the question of totality. Are
we saying that insight is
an energy which illuminates the activity
of the brain? And that in
this illumination, the brain itself begins
to act differently.
K: You are quite right. That's all. That
is what takes place. Yes.
DB: We say the source of this illumination
is not in the material
process; it has no cause.
K: No cause.
DB: But it is a real energy.
K: It is pure energy. Is there action
without cause?
DB: Yes, without time. Cause implies time.
K: That is, this flash has altered
completely the pattern which
the material process has set.
DB: Could you say that the material
process generally operates
in a kind of darkness, and therefore it
has set itself on a wrong
path?
K: In darkness, yes. That is clear. The
material process acts in
ignorance, in darkness. And this flash of
insight enlightens the
whole field, which means that ignorance
and darkness have been
dispelled. I will hold to that.
DB: You could say, then, that darkness and
light cannot co-exist
for obvious reasons. Nevertheless the very
existence of light is to
change the process of darkness.
K: Quite right.
Q: But what contributes the flash?
K: We haven't come to that yet. I want to
go step by step into
this. What has happened is that the
material process has worked in
darkness, and has brought about confusion,
and all the mess that
exists in the world. But this flash of
insight wipes away the
darkness. Which means that the material
process is not then
working in darkness. DB: Right. But now
let's make another point
clear. When the flash has gone, the light
continues.
K: The light is there, the flash is the
light.
DB: At a certain moment the flash is
immediate, but then, as
you work from there, there is still light.
K: Why do you differentiate flash from
light?
DB: Simply because the word `flash'
suggests something that
happens in one moment.
K: Yes.
DB: You see, we are saying that insight
would only last in that
moment.
K: We must go slowly.
DB: Well, it is a matter of language.
K: Is it merely a matter of language?
DB: Perhaps not, but if you use the word
`flash', there is the
analogy of lightning, giving light for a
moment, but then the next
moment you are in darkness, until there is
a further flash of
lightning.
K: It is not like that.
DB: So what is it? Is it that the light
suddenly turns on, and
stays on?
K: No. Because when we say `stays on' or
`goes off', we are
thinking in terms of time.
DB: We have to clear this up, because it
is the question
everybody will put.
K: The material process is working in
darkness, in time, in
knowledge, in ignorance and so on. When
insight takes place there
is the dispelling of that darkness. That
is all we are saying. Insight
dispels that darkness. And thought, which
is the material process,
no longer works in darkness. Therefore
that light has altered - no, it
has ended - ignorance.
DB: So we say that this darkness is really
something which is
built into the content of thought. K: The
content is darkness.
DB: That's right. Then that light has
dispelled that ignorance.
K: That's right. Dispelled the content.
DB: But still we have to be very careful,
in case we still have
content in the usually accepted sense of
the word; you know, all
kinds of things.
K: Of course.
DB: So we can't say that the light has
dispelled all the content.
K: It has dispelled the centre of
darkness.
DB: Yes, the source, the creator of
darkness.
K: The self Right? It has dispelled the
centre of darkness which
is the self.
DB: We could say that the self, which is
part of the content -
that part of the content which is the
centre of darkness, which
creates it and maintains it - is
dispelled.
K: Yes, I hold to that.
DB: We see now that this means a physical
change in the brain
cells. That centre, that content which is
the centre, is a certain set,
form, disposition of all the brain calls,
and it in some way alters.
K: Obviously! You see, this has enormous
significance, in our
relationship with our society, in
everything. Now the next question
is, how does this flash come about? Let's
begin the other way
round. How does love come about? How does
peace come about?
Peace is causeless, violence has cause.
How does that causeless
thing come about when my whole life is
causation? There is no
`how' - right? The `how' implies a cause,
so there is no `how'.
Q: Are you saying that since it is without
cause, it is something
that just exists.?
K: No, I don't say that it exists. That is
a dangerous statement.
Q: It has to exist at some point.
K: No. The moment you say it exists, it is
not. DB: You see, the
danger is that it is part of the content.
K: The question you put was about a
mutation in the brain calls.
That question has been put after a series
of discussions. And we
have come to a point when we say that the
flash, that light, has no
cause; that the light operates on that
which has cause, which is the
darkness. That darkness exists as long as
the self is there, it is the
originator of that darkness, but light
dispels the very centre of
darkness. That's all. We have come to that
point. And therefore
there is a mutation. Then I say that the
question of how do I get this
flash of insight, how does it happen, is a
wrong question. There is
no `how'.
Q: There is no `how', but there is
darkness and there is light.
K: Just see first there is no `how'. If
you show me how, you are
back into the darkness. Right?
DB: Yes.
K: It is a tremendous thing to understand
that. I am asking
something else, which is, why is it that
we have no insight at all?
Why is it that this insight doesn't start
from our childhood?
DB: Well, the way life is lived...
K: No, I want to find out. Is it because
of our education? Our
society? I don't believe it is all that.
You follow?
DB: What do you say then?
K: Is it some other factor? I am groping
after this. Why don't we
have it? It seems so natural.
DB: At first, one would say something is
interfering with it.
K: But it seems so natural. For `X', it is
quite natural. Why isn't
it natural for everyone? Why isn't it
possible? If we talk about
blockages, education, etc., which are all
in the realm of causation,
then to remove the blockages implies
another cause. So we keep on
rolling in that direction. There is
something unnatural about all
this.
Q: If you would say that there are
blocks...
K: I don't want to use that; it is the
language of the darkness. Q:
Then you could say that the blocks prevent
the insight from acting.
K: Of course. But I want to move away from
these blockages.
DB: Not exactly blockages, but we used the
words `centre of
darkness', which we say is maintaining
darkness.
K: Why isn't it natural for everybody to
have this insight?
DB: That is the question.
K: Why is love not natural to everybody?
Am I putting the
question clearly?
DB: I think, to make it more clear, some
people might feel that
it is natural to everybody, but being
treated in a certain way they
gradually get caught in hate.
K: I don't believe that.
DB: Then you would have to suppose that
the young child
meeting hate would not respond with hate.
K: Yes, that's right.
DB: Most people would say that it is
natural for the young child
meeting hate to respond with hate.
K: Yes, this morning I heard that. Then I
asked myself why?
Now just a minute. `X' has been put under
all these circumstances,
which could have produced blockages, but
`X' wasn't touched by
them. So why is it not possible for
everybody?
DB: We should make it clear why we say it
would be natural
not to respond to hate with hate.
K: All right. Limit it to that.
DB: Even when one hasn't thought about it.
You know, the
child is not able to think about all this.
Some people would say it is
instinct, the animal instinct...
K: ...which is to hate...
DB: ...well, to fight back.
K: To fight back. DB: The animal will
respond with love, if you
treat him with love, but if you treat the
animal with hate he is going
to fight back.
K: Of course.
DB: He will become vicious.
K: Yes.
DB: Now some people would say that the
human being in the
beginning is like that animal, and later
he can understand.
K: Of course. That is, the human being's
origins were with the
animal, and the animal, the ape or the
wolf...
DB: ...the wolf will respond with love
too.
K: And we are saying, why...
DB: Look, almost everybody feels that what
I said is true, that
when we are very young children, we are
like the animal. Now you
are asking, why don't all young children
immediately fail to
respond to hate with hate?
K: That means, is it the fault of the
parents?
DB: What you are implying is that it is
not entirely that. There
must be something deeper.
K: Yes, I think there is something quite
different. I want to
capture that.
DB: This is something that would be
important.
K: How do we find out? Let's have an
insight! I feel that there is
something totally different. We are
attacking it from a causational
point of view. Would it be right to say
that the beginning of man is
not animal?
DB: Well, that is not clear. The present
theory of evolution is
that there have been apes, developing; you
can follow the line
where they become more and more like human
beings. Now when
you say that the beginning of man is not
animal, it is not clear.
K: If the beginning of man is the animal,
therefore that instinct
is natural and then it is highly
cultivated.
DB: Yes, that instinct is cause and
effect. K: Cause and effect,
and it becomes natural. But someone comes
along and asks `Is it?'
DB: Let's try to get this clear.
K: I mean, scientists and historians have
said that man began
from the ape, and that, as all animals
respond to love and to hate,
we as human beings respond instantly to
hate by hate.
DB: And vice versa, to love by love.
K: At the beginning there were a few
people who never
responded to hate, because they had love.
Those people implanted
this thing in the human mind. Right? That
where love is, hate is
not. And that has also been part of our
inheritance. Why have we
cultivated the response of hate to hate?
Why haven't we cultivated
the other? Or is the other - love -
something that cannot be
cultivated?
DB: It is not causal. Cultivation depends
on a cause.
K: On thought. So why have we lost the
other? We have
cultivated very carefully, by thought, the
concept of meeting hate
by hate, violence by violence, and so on.
Why haven't we moved
along with the other line? With love, that
is causeless? You follow
my question?
DB: Yes.
K: Is this a futile question?
DB: One doesn't see any way of proceeding.
K: I am not trying to proceed.
DB: We have to understand what made people
respond to hate
with hate...
K: ...To `X', the other seems so natural.
So if that is so natural to
him, why isn't it natural to everyone
else? It must be natural to
others!
You know this ancient idea, which is
probably in existence in
the jewish and in the Indian religions,
and so on, that the
manifestation of the highest takes place,
occasionally. That seems
too easy an explanation. Has mankind moved
in the wrong
direction? Have we taken a wrong turn? DB:
Yes, we have
discussed this before, that there has been
a wrong turning.
K: To respond to hate by hate, violence by
violence, etc.
DB: And to give supreme value to
knowledge.
Q: Wouldn't another factor also be the
attempt to cultivate the
idea of love? The purpose of the religions
has been to produce
love, and better human beings.
K: Don't go into all that. Love has no
cause, it is not
cultivatable. Full stop.
Q: Yes, but,the mind doesn't see that.
K: But we have explained all that. I want
to find out why, if it is
natural to `X', it isn't natural to
others. I think this is a valid
question.
DB: Another point is to say that you could
see that the response
of hate to hate makes no sense anyway. So
why do we go on with
it? Because many believe in that moment
that they are protecting
themselves with hate, but it is no
protection.
K: But to go back to that question: I
think it is valid. `X' is
without cause, `Y' is caught in cause.
Why? You understand? Is it
the privilege of the few? The elite? No,
no. Let's look at it another
way. The mind of humanity has been
responding to hate with hate,
violence by violence, and knowledge by
knowledge. But `X' is part
of humanity, and he does not respond to
hate by hate, like `Y' and
`Z'! They are part of `X's' consciousness,
part of all that.
DB: Why is there this difference?
K: That is what I am asking. One is
natural, the other is
unnatural. Why? Why the difference? Who is
asking this question?
The people, `Y' and `Z', who respond to
hate by hate, are they
asking the question? Or is `X' asking the
question?
Q: It would seem that `X' is asking this
question.
DB: Yes, but you see we were also just
saying that they are not
different. We say they are different, but
also that they are not
different.
K: Of course. They are not different. DB:
There is one mind.
K: That's it, one mind.
DB: Yes, and how does it come that another
part of this one
mind says no?
K: That's the whole thing. How does it
come about that one part
of the mind says we are different from
another? Of course, there
are all kinds of explanations, and I am
left with the fact that `A' `B'
and `C' are different from `X' `Y' and
`Z'. And those are facts -
right?
Q: They appear to be different.
K: Oh, no.
Q: They are actually different.
K: Absolutely; not just apparently.
DB: I think the question we want to come
back to is, why do the
people who cultivate hate say that they
are different from those
who don't?
K: Do they say that?
DB: I think they do, in so far as they
would admit that if there
was anybody who didn't cultivate hate,
they must be different.
K: Yes, that is clear - light and
darkness, and so on. But I want
to find out if we are moving in the right
direction. That is, `X' has
given me that gift, and I have not carried
that gift. You follow what
I mean? I have cultivated one response,
but not carried this. Why?
If a father has responded to hate by hate,
why has the son not
responded in the same way?
DB: I think it is a question of insight.
K: Which means that the son had insight
right from the
beginning. You follow what I am saying?
Right from childhood,
which means what?
DB: What?
K: I don't want to enter into this
dangerous field yet!
DB: What is it? Perhaps you want to leave
that. K: There is
some factor that is missing. I want to
capture it. You see, if that is
an exception, then it is silly.
DB: All right. Then we agree that the
thing is dormant in all
human beings; is that what you want to
say?
K: I am not quite sure that is what I want
to say.
DB: But I meant that the factor is there
in all mankind.
K: That is a dangerous statement too.
DB: That is What you were saying.
K: I know, but I am questioning. When I am
quite sure, I will
tell you.
DB: All right. We tried this, and we can
say it seems promising
but it is a bit dangerous. This
possibility is there in all mankind,
and in so far as some people have seen it.
K: Which means God is in you?
DB: No, it is just that the possibility of
insight is there.
K: Yes, partly. I am questioning all this.
The father responds to
hate by hate; the son doesn't.
DB: That happens from time to time.
K: No, consistently from the beginning -
why?
DB: It must depend on insight, which shows
the futility of hate.
K: Why did that man have it?
DB: Yes, why?
K: And why if this seems so terribly
natural to him, is it not
natural to everybody? As water is natural
to everybody.
DB: Well, why isn't insight present for
everybody from the
beginning?
K: Yes, that is what I am asking.
DB: So strongly that even maltreatment
cannot affect it. K:
Nothing can affect it, that is my point.
Maltreatment, beating, being
put into all kinds of dreadful situations
hasn't affected it. Why? We
are coming to something.
THE ENDING OF TIME CHAPTER 7 17TH
APRIL 1980 CONVERSATION WITH PROF.
DAVID BOHM 'DEATH HAS VERY LITTLE
MEANING'
KRISHNAMURTI: Are we saying that human
beings are still
behaving with the animal instincts?
DAVID BOHM: Yes, and that the animal
instincts, it seems,
may be overpowering in their intensity and
speed, and especially
with young children. It may be that it is
only natural for them to
respond with the animal instinct.
K: So that means, after a million years,
that we are still
instinctively behaving like our ancestors?
DB: In some ways. probably our behaviour
is also complicated
by thought; the animal instinct has now
become entangled with
thought, and it is getting in some ways
worse.
K: Far worse.
DB: Because all these instincts of hatred
now become directed
and sustained by thought, so that they are
more subtle and
dangerous.
K: And during all these many centuries we
haven't found a way,
a method, a system - something that will
move us away from that
track. Is that it?
DB: Yes. One of the difficulties, surely,
is that when people
begin to be angry with each other, their
anger builds up and they
can't seem to do anything about it. They
may try to control it, but
that doesn't work.
K: As we were saying, someone - `X' -
behaves naturally in a
way that is not a response to the animal
instinct. What place has
this kind of insight in human society? None
at all?
DB: In society as it is, it cannot be
accommodated, because
society is organized under the assumption
that pain and pleasure
are going to rule. You could say that
friendliness is a kind of
animal instinct too, for people become
friendly for instinctive
reasons. And perhaps they become enemies
for similar reasons.
So I think that some people would say that
we should be
rational rather than instinctive. There
was a period during the 18th
century, the Age of Reason, when they said
man could be rational,
could choose to be rational, in order to
bring about harmony
everywhere.
K: But he hasn't done so!
DB: No, things got worse, leading to the
French Revolution, to
the Terror and so on. But, after that,
people didn't have so much
faith in reason as a way of getting
anywhere, or coming out of
conflict.
K: So where does that lead us? We were
talking really about
insight that actually changes the nature
of the brain itself.
DB: Yes, by dispelling the darkness in the
brain, insight allows
the brain to function in a new way.
K: Thought has been operating in darkness,
creating its own
darkness and functioning in that. And
insight is, as we said, like a
flash which breaks down the darkness. Then
when that insight
clears the darkness, does man act, or
function, rationally?
DB: Yes, man will then function
rationally, and with
perception, rather than by rules and
reason. But there is a freely
flowing reason. You see, some people
identify reason with certain
rules of logic which would be mechanical.
But there can be reason
as a form of perception of order.
K: So we are saying, are we, that insight
is perception?
DB: It is the flash of light which makes
perception possible.
K: Right, that's it.
DB: It is even more fundamental than
perception.
K: So insight is pure perception, and from
that perception there
is action, which is then sustained by
rationality. Is that it?
DB: Yes.
K: That's right.
DB: And the rationality is perception of
order. K: So, would
you say, there is insight, perception and
order?
DB: Yes.
K: But that order is not mechanical
because it is not based on
logic.
DB: There are no rules.
K: No rules; let's put it that way; it's
better. This order is not
based on rules. This means insight,
perception, action, order. Then
you come to the question, is insight
continuous, or is it by flashes?
DB: We went into that, and felt it was a
wrong question, so
perhaps we can look at it differently. It
is not time binding.
K: Not time binding. Yes, we agreed on
that. So now let's get a
little further. We said, didn't we, that
insight is the elimination of
the darkness which is the very centre of
the self, the darkness that
self creates? Insight dispels that very
centre.
DB: Yes. With the darkness, perception is
not possible. It's
blindness in a way.
K: Right, then what next? I am an ordinary
man, with all my
animal instincts, pleasure and pain and
reward and punishment and
so on. I hear you say this, and I see what
you are saying has some
kind of reason, logic and order.
DB: Yes, it makes sense as far as we can
see it.
K: It makes sense. Then how am I to have
reason in my life?
How am I to bring it about? You understand
that these words
which are difficult, are all of them time
binding. But is that
possible?
DB: Yes, without time, you see.
K: Is it possible for man with his narrow
mind, to have this
insight, so that pattern of life is
broken? As we said the other day,
we have tried all this, tried every form
of self-denial, and yet that
insight doesn't come about.
Once in a while there is a partial
insight, but that partial insight
is not the whole insight, so there is
still partial darkness. DB:
Which doesn't dispel the centre of the
self. It may dispel some
darkness in a certain area, but the source
of the darkness, the
creator, the sustainer of it, is still
there.
K: Still there. Now what shall we do? But
this is a wrong
question. This leads nowhere.
We have stated the general plan, right?
And I have to make the
moves, or make no moves at all. I haven't
the energy. I haven't the
capacity to see it quickly. Because this
is immediate, not just
something that I practise and eventually
get. I haven't the capacity,
I haven't the sense of urgency, of
immediacy. Everything is against
me: my family, my wife, society.
Everything. And does this mean
that I eventually have to become a monk?
DB: No. Becoming a monk is the same as
becoming anything
else.
K: That's right. Becoming a monk is like
becoming a
businessman! I see all this, verbally as
well as rationally,
intellectually, but I can't capture this
thing. Is there a different
approach to this problem? I am always
asking the same question,
because I am caught in the same pattern.
So, is there a totally
different way? A totally different
approach to the whole turmoil of
life? Is there a different manner of
looking at it? Or is the old way
the only way?
We have said that as long as the centre is
creating darkness, and
thought is operating in that darkness,
there must be disorder, and
society will be as it is now. To move away
from that, you must
have insight. Insight can only come about
when there is a flash, a
sudden light, which abolishes not only
darkness but the creator of
darkness.
DB: Yes.
K: Now I am asking if there is a different
approach to this
question altogether, although an old
response seems so absolute.
DB: Well possibly. When you say it seems
absolute, do you
want a less absolute approach?
K: I am saying that if that is the only
way, then we are doomed.
DB: You can't produce this flash at will.
K: No, it can't be produced through will,
through sacrifice,
through any form of human effort. That is
out; we know we have
finished with all that. And also we agreed
that to some people - to
`X' - this insight seemed so natural and
we asked why is it not
natural to others?
DB: If we begin with the child, it seems
natural to the child to
respond with his animal instincts, with
great intensity which sweep
him away. Darkness arises because it is so
overwhelming.
K: Yes, but why is it different with `X'?
DB: First of all it seems natural to most
people that the animal
instincts would take over.
K: Yes, that's right.
DB: And they would say the other fellow,
`X', is unnatural.
K: Yes.
DB: So that is the way mankind has been
thinking, saying that if
there are indeed any people who are
different they must be very
unusual and unnatural.
K: That's it. Human beings have been
responding to hatred by
hatred, and so on. There are those few,
perhaps many, who say that
is not natural or rational. Why has this
division taken place?
DB: If we say that pleasure and pain, fear
and hate, are natural,
then it is felt that we must battle to
control these, otherwise they
will destroy us. The best we can hope for
is to control them with
reason, or through another way.
K: But that doesn't work! Are people like
`X', who function
differently, the privileged few, by some
miracle, by some strange
chance event?
DB: Many people would say that.
K: But it goes against one's grain. I
would not accept that.
DB: Well, if that is not the case, then
you have to say why there
is this difference.
K: That is what I am trying to get at,
because `X' is born of the
same parents.
DB: Yes, fundamentally the same, so why
does he behave
differently? K: This question has been
asked many times, over and
over again in different parts of the
world. Now why is there this
division?
QUESTIONER: Is the division really total?
You see, even the
man who responds to hatred with hatred,
nevertheless sees that it
doesn't make sense, is not natural and
should be different.
K: It should be different, but he is still
battling with ideas. He is
trying to get out of it by the exercise of
thought which breeds
darkness.
Q: I just want to say that the division
does not seem to be so
entire.
K: Oh, but the division is entire,
complete.
Q: Well, then, why are people not simply
saying, let's continue
to live that way, and let's enjoy it to
the last moment?
K: Because they can't see anything except
their own darkness.
Q: But they want to get out of it.
K: Now wait a minute. Do they want to get
out of it? Do they
actually realize the state they are in,
and deliberately want to get
out of it?
Q: They are ambivalent about it. They want
to go on getting the
fruits of it, but they have a sense that
it is wrong, and that it leads
to suffering.
DB: Or else they find they can't help it.
You see, when the time
comes to experience anger or pleasure,
they can't get away.
K: They can't help it.
Q: But they want to get out of it,
although they are helpless.
There are forces which are stronger than
their will.
K: So what shall we do? or is this
division false?
DB: That's the point. We had better talk
of a difference between
these two approaches. This difference is
not fundamental.
K: I don't think they have anything in
common. DB: Why? You
say the difference is false, although
fundamentally people are the
same, but a difference has developed
between them. Perhaps most
people have taken a wrong turning.
K: Yes, let's put it that way.
DB: But the difference is not intrinsic,
it is not structural, built
in like the difference between a tree and
a rock.
K: Agreed. As you say, there is a
difference between a rock and
a tree, but it is not like that. Let's be
simple. There are two
responses. They start from the source; one
has taken one direction,
and the other has taken a different
direction. But the source is the
same. Why haven't all of them moved in the
right direction?
DB: We haven't managed to answer that. I
was just saying that
if one understands that, then going back
to the source, one does not
have to take the wrong turn. In a sense we
are continually taking
this wrong turn, so if we can understand
this, then it becomes
possible to change. And we are continually
starting from the same
source, not going back in time to a
source.
K: Just a minute, just a minute.
DB: There are two possible ways of taking
our statement. One
is to say that the source is in time, that
far back in the past we
started together and took different paths.
The other is to say that
the source is timeless, and we are
continually taking the wrong
turn, again and again. Right?
K: Yes, it is constantly the wrong turn.
Why?
Q: This means that there is the constant
possibility of the right
turn.
K: Yes, of course. That's it. If we say
there is a source from
which we all began, then we are caught in
time.
DB: We can't go back.
K: No, that is out. Therefore it is
apparent that we are taking the
wrong turn all the time.
DB: Constantly.
K: Constantly taking the wrong turn. But
why? The one who is
living with insight and the other who is
not living with insight - are
these constant? The man who is living in
darkness can move away
at any time to the other. That is the
point. At any time.
DB: Then nothing holds him, except
constantly taking the
wrong turn. You could say the darkness is
such that he doesn't see
himself taking the wrong turn.
K: Are we pursuing the right direction,
putting the right
question? Suppose you have that insight,
and your darkness, the
very centre of darkness, has been
dispelled completely. And I, a
serious, fairly intelligent human being,
listen to you. And whatever
you have said seems reasonable, rational,
sane. I question the
division. The division is created by the
centre which creates
darkness.Thought has created it.
DB: Well, in darkness, thought creates the
division.
K: From the darkness a shadow is thrown;
it makes a division.
DB: If we have that insight, we say there
is no division.
K: Yes. And man won't accept that, because
in his darkness
there is nothing but division. So we,
living in darkness, have
created the division. We have created it
in our thoughts...
DB: We are constantly creating it.
K: Yes, always wanting to live constantly
in a state in which
there is no division. That movement,
however, is still the
movement of darkness. Right?
DB: Yes.
K: How am I to dispel this continuous,
constant darkness? That
is the only question, because, as long as
that exists, I create this
constant division. You see, this is going
round in circles. I can only
dispel the darkness through insight, and I
cannot have that insight
by any effort of will, so I am left with
nothing. So what is my
problem? My problem is to perceive the
darkness, to perceive the
thought that is creating darkness, and to
see that the self is the
source of this darkness. Why can't I see
that? Why can't I see it
even logically?
DB: Well, it's clear logically. K: Yes,
but somehow it doesn't
seem to operate. So what shall I do? I
realize for the first time that
the self is creating the darkness which is
constantly breeding
division. I see that very clearly.
DB: And the division produces the darkness
anyway.
K: Vice versa, back and forth. And from
all that, everything
begins. I see that very clearly. What
shall I do? So I don't admit
division.
Q: Krishnaji, aren't we introducing
division again, never the
less, when we say there is the man who
needs insight?
K: But man has insight. `X' has insight,
and he has explained
very clearly how darkness has vanished. I
listen to him, and he says
your very darkness is creating the
division. Actually, there is no
division, no division as light and
darkness. So he asks me, can you
banish, can you put away this sense of
division?
DB: You seem to be bringing back a
division by saying that, by
saying that I should do it, you see.
K: No, not `should'.
DB: In a way you are saying that the
thought process of the
mind seems spontaneously to produce
division. You say, try to put
it aside, and at the same time it is
trying to make division.
K: I understand. But can my mind put away
division? Or is that
a wrong question?
Q: Can it put away division as long as it
is divided?
K: No, it can't. So what am I to do?
Listen. `X' says something so
extraordinarily true, of such
immense significance and beauty that my
whole being says
`Capture it'. That is not a division.
I recognize that I am the creator of
division, because I am living
in darkness, and so out of that darkness I
create. But I have listened
to `X', who says there is no division. And
I recognize that is an
extraordinary statement. So the very
saying of that to one who has
lived in constant division has an
immediate effect. Right?
DB: I think that one has to, as you say,
put away the division...
K: I will leave that; I won't put it away.
That statement that ere is
no division - I want to get at that a
little bit. I am getting
somewhere with it.
`X' s' statement from this insight, that
there is no division has a
tremendous effect on me. I have lived
constantly in division, and
comes along and says there is no division.
What effect has it on
me?
DB: Then you say there is no division.
That makes sense. But
on the other hand it seems that the
division exists.
K: I recognize the division, but the
statement that there is no
division has this immense impact on me.
That seems natural,
doesn't it? When I see something that is
immovable, it must have
some effect on me. I respond to it with a
tremendous shock.
DB: You see, if you were talking about
something which was in
front of us, and you said, `No, it is not
that way', then that would,
of course, change your whole way of seeing
it. Now you say this
division is not that way. We try to look
and see if that is so - right?
K: I don't even say, `Is that so? `X' has
very carefully explained
whole business, and he says at the end of
it that there is no
division. And I am sensitive, watching
very carefully, and realizing
that I am constantly living in division.
When `X' makes that
statement it has broken the pattern.
I don't know if you follow what I am
trying to explain? It has
broken the pattern, because he has said
something which is so
fundamentally true. There is no God and
man. Right, Sir, I stick to
that. I see something - which is, where
hatred exists the other is
not. But, hating, I want the other. So
constant division is born out
of darkness. And the darkness is constant.
But I have been listening
very carefully, and `X' makes a statement
which seems absolutely
true. That enters into me, and the act of
his statement dispels the
darkness. I am not making an effort to get
rid of darkness, but `X'
is the light. That's right, I hold to
that.
So it comes to something, which is, can I
listen with my
darkness - in my darkness, which is
constant? In that darkness, can
I listen to you? Of course I can. I am
living in constant division
which brings darkness. `X' comes along and
tells me there is no
division.
Right. Now why do you say you can listen
in the darkness? K:
Oh, yes, I can listen in darkness. If I
can't I am doomed.
DB: But that is no argument.
K: Of course that is no argument, but it
is so!
DB: Living in darkness is not worthwhile.
But now we say that
it is possible to listen in the darkness.
K: He, `X', explains to me very, very
carefully. I am sensitive, I
have been listening to him in my darkness,
but that is making me
sensitive, alive, watching. That is what I
have been doing. We have
been doing it together. And he makes a
statement that there is
absolutely no division. And I know that I
am living in division.
That very statement has brought the
constant movement to an end.
Otherwise, if this doesn't take place I
have nothing - you
follow? I am perpetually living in
darkness. But there is a voice in
the wilderness, and listening to that
voice has an extraordinary
effect.
DB: Listening reaches the source of the
movement, whereas
observation does not.
K: Yes, I have observed, I have listened,
I have played all kinds
of games all my life. And I now see, that
there is only one thing.
That there is this constant darkness and I
am acting in the darkness;
in this wilderness which is darkness;
whose centre is the self. I see
that absolutely, completely; I can't argue
against it any more. And
`X' comes along and tells me this. In that
wilderness a voice says
there is water. You follow? It is not
hope. There is immediate
action in me.
One must realize, that this constant
movement in darkness is my
life. You follow what I am saying? Can I,
with all the experience,
with all the knowledge which I have
gathered over a million years,
suddenly realize that I am living in total
darkness? Because that
means I have reached the end of all hope.
Right? But my hope is
also darkness. The future is out
altogether, so I am left with this
enormous darkness, and I am there. That
means, the realization of
that is the ending of becoming. I have
reached that point and `X'
tells me this is natural.
You see, all the religions have said this
division exists.
DB: But, they say it can be overcome. K:
It is the same pattern
repeated. It doesn't matter who said it,
but the fact is somebody in
this wilderness is saying something, and
in that wilderness I have
been listening to every voice, and to my
own voice, which has
created more and more darkness. Yet, this
is right. That means
doesn't it, that when there is insight
there is no division?
DB: Yes.
K: It is not your insight or my insight,
it is insight. In that there
is no division.
DB: Yes.
K: Which brings us to that ground we spoke
of...
DB: What about the ground?
K: In that ground there is no darkness as
darkness, or light as
light. In that ground, there is no
division. Nothing is born of will,
or time, or thought.
DB: Are you saying that light and darkness
are not divided?
K: Right.
DB: Which means to say there is neither.
K: Neither, that's it! There is something
else. There is a
perception that there is a different
movement, which is
`nondualistic'.
DB: Non-dualistic means what? No division.
K: No division. I won't use
`non-dualistic'. There is no division.
DB: But nevertheless there is movement.
K: Of course.
DB: What does that mean now, without
division?
K: I mean by movement, that movement which
is not time. That
movement doesn't breed division. So I want
to go back, lead to the
ground. If, in that ground, there is
neither darkness nor light, no
God or the son of God - there is no
division - what takes place?
Would you say that the ground is movement?
DB: Well, it could be, yes. Movement is
undivided. K: No. I say
there is movement in darkness.
DB: Yes, but we said there is no division
of darkness and light,
and yet you said there is movement.
K: Yes. Would you say the ground is
endless movement?
DB: Yes.
K: What does that mean?
DB: Well, it is difficult to express.
K: Keep on going into it; let's express
it. What is movement,
apart from movement from here to there,
apart from time - is there
any other movement?
DB: Yes.
K: There is. The movement from being to
becoming,
psychologically. There is the movement of
distance, there is the
movement of time. We say those are all
divisions. Is there a
movement which in itself has no division?
When you have made
that statement that there is no division,
there is that movement
surely?
DB: Well, are you saying that when there
is no division that
movement is there?
K: Yes, and I said, `X' says that is the
ground.
DB: Right.
K: Would you say it has no end, no
beginning?
DB: Yes.
K: Which means again time.
DB: Can one say that movement has no form?
K: No form - all that. I want to go a
little further. What I am
asking is, we said that when you have
stated there is no division,
this means no division in movement.
DB: It flows without division, you see.
K: Yes, it is a movement in which there is
no division. Do I
capture the significance of that? Do I
understand the depth of that
statement? A movement in which there is no
division, which
means no time, no distance as we know it.
No element of time in it
at all. So I am trying to see if that
movement is surrounding man?
DB: Yes, enveloping.
K: I want to get at this. I am concerned
with mankind,
humanity, which is me. `X' has made
several statements, and I have
captured a statement which seems so
absolutely true - that there is
no division. Which means that there is no
action which is divisive.
DB: Yes.
K: I see that. And I also ask, is that
movement without time,
etc? It seems that it is the world, you
follow?
DB: The universe.
K: The universe, the cosmos, the whole.
DB: The totality.
K: Totality. Isn't there a statement in
the jewish world, `Only
God can say I am'?
DB: Well, that's the way the language is
built. It is not
necessary to state it.
K: No, I understand. You follow what I am
trying to get at?
DB: Yes, that only this movement is.
K: Can the mind be of that movement?
Because that is timeless,
therefore deathless.
DB: Yes, the movement is without death; in
so far as the mind
takes part in that, it is the same.
K: You understand what I am saying?
DB: Yes. But what dies when the individual
dies?
K: That has no meaning, because once I
have understood there
is no division...
DB: ...then it is not important.
K: Death has no meaning.
DB: It still has a meaning in some other
context. K: Oh, the
ending of the body; that's totally
trivial. But you understand? I
want to capture the significance of the
statement that there is no
division, it has broken the spell of my
darkness, and I see that there
is a movement, and that's all. Which means
death has very little
meaning.
DB: Yes.
K: You have abolished totally the fear of
death.
DB: Yes, I understand that when the mind
is partaking in that
movement, then the mind is that movement.
K: That's all! the mind is that movement.
DB: Would you say that matter is also that
movement?
K: Yes, I would say everything is. In my
darkness I have
listened to `X'. That's most important.
And his clarity has broken
my spell. When he said there is no
division, he abolished the
division between life and death. I don't
know if you see this?
DB: Yes.
K: One can never say then, `I am
immortal'. It is so childish.
DB: Yes, that's the division.
K: Or, `I am seeking immortality'. Or, `I
am becoming'. We
have wiped away the whole sense of moving
in darkness.
Q: What then would be the significance of
the world? Is there a
significance to it?
K: The world?
Q: With man.
DB: Society, do you mean?
Q: Yes, it seems that when you make that
statement, there is no
division, and life is death - what then is
the significance of man
with all his struggle.?
K: Man in darkness. What importance has
that? It is like
struggling in a locked room. That is the
whole point.
DB: Significance can only rise when the
darkness is dispelled.
K: Of course. Q: The only significance is
the dispelling of the
darkness.
K: Oh, no, no!
DB: Aren't we going to say that something
more can be done
besides dispelling the darkness?
K: have listened very carefully to everything
that you, who have
sight, say. What you have done is to
dispel the centre. In darkness I
could invent many things of significance;
that there is light, here is
God, there is beauty, there is this and
that. But it is still in the area
of darkness. Caught in a room full of
darkness, I can invent a lot of
pictures, but I want to get something
else. Is the mind the one who
has this insight - who therefore dispels
darkness and has
understanding of the ground which is
movement without time - is
that mind itself the movement?
DB: Yes, but it isn't the totality. The
mind is the movement, but
we are saying movement is matter, movement
is mind. And we
were saying that the ground may be beyond
the universal mind.
You said earlier that the movement, that
the ground, is more than
the universal mind, more than the
emptiness.
K: We said that; much more.
DB: Much more. But we have to get this
clear. We say that the
mind is this movement.
K: Yes, mind is the movement.
DB: We are not saying that this movement
is only mind?
K: No, no, no.
DB: That is the point I was trying to get
correct.
K: Mind is the movement - mind, in the
sense, `the ground'.
DB: But you said that the ground goes
beyond the mind.
K: Now just a minute: what do you mean by
`beyond the mind'?
DB: just going back to what we were
discussing a few days ago:
we said we have the emptiness, the
universal mind, and then the
ground is beyond that.
K: Would you say beyond that is this
movement? DB: Yes. The
mind emerges from the movement as a
ground, and falls back to
the ground; that is what we are saying.
K: Yes, that's right. Mind emerges from
the movement.
DB: And it dies back into the movement.
K: That's right. it has its being in the
movement.
DB: Yes, and matter also.
K: So, what I want to get at is, I am a
human being faced with
this ending and beginning. And `X'
abolishes that.
DB: Yes, it is not fundamental.
K: It is not fundamental. One of the
greatest fears of life, which
is death, has been removed.
DB: Yes.
K: You see what it does to a human being
when there is no
death? It means the mind doesn't age - the
ordinary mind I am
talking about. I don't know if I am
conveying this.
DB: Let's go slowly. You say the mind does
not age, but what if
the brain cells age?
K: I question it.
DB: But how can we know that?
K: Because there is no conflict, because
there is no strain, there
is no becoming, no movement.
DB: This is something that it is hard to
communicate with
certainty about.
K: Of course. You can't prove any of this.
DB: But the other, what we have said so
far...
K: ...can be reasoned.
DB: It is reason, and also you can feel
it. But now you are
stating something about the brain cells
that I have no feeling for. It
might be so; it could be so. K: I think it
is so. I won't discuss it.
When a mind has lived in the darkness and
is in constant
movement there is the wearing out, the
darkness and is in constant
movement there is the wearing out, the
decay of the cells.
DB: We could say that this conflict will
cause cells to decay.
But somebody might argue that perhaps even
without conflict they
could decay at a slower rate. Let's say if
you were to live hundreds
of years, for example, in time the cells
would decay no matter what
you did.
K: Go into this slowly.
DB: I can readily accept that the rate of
decay of the cells could
be cut down when we get rid of conflict.
K: Decay can be slowed down.
DB: Perhaps a great deal.
K: A great deal. Ninety per cent.
DB: That we could understand. But if you
say a hundred per
cent, then it is hard to understand.
K: Ninety per cent. Wait a minute. It can
be very, very greatly
slowed down. And that means what? What
happens to a mind that
has no conflict? What is that mind, what
is the quality of that mind
which has no problem? You see, suppose
such a mind lives in pure
unpolluted air, having the right kind of
food and so on, why can't it
live two hundred years?
DB: Well it is possible; some people have
lived for a hundred
and fifty years, living in very pure air,
and eating good food.
K: But you see, if those very people who
have lived a hundred
and fifty years, had no conflict, they
might live very much longer.
DB: They might. There was a case I was
reading of a man in
England who lived to be a hundred and
fifty. And the doctors
became interested in him. They wined and
dined him, and then he
died in a few days!
K: Poor devil!
Q: Krishnaji, you generally say that
anything that lives in time,
also dies in time. K: Yes, but the brain,
which has had insight, has
changed the cells.
Q: Are you implying that even the organic
brain does not live in
time any more?
K: No, don't bring in time yet. We are
saying that insight brings
about a change in the brain cells. Which
means that the brain cells
are no longer thinking in terms of time.
Q: Psychological time?
K: Of, course, that is understood.
DB: If they are not so disturbed, they
will remain in order and
perhaps they will break down more slowly.
We might increase the
age limit from one hundred and fifty to
two hundred years,
provided one also had healthy living at
all levels.
K: Yes, but all that sounds so very
trivial.
DB: Yes, it doesn't seem to make much
difference, although it is
an interesting idea.
K: What if I live another hundred years?
We are trying to find
out what effect this extraordinary
movement has on the brain.
DB: Yes. If we say the brain is in some
way directly enveloped
in this movement; that would bring it to
order. But there is a real
direct flow, physically.
K: Not only physically.
DB: But also mentally.
K: Yes, both. It must have an
extraordinary effect on the brain.
Q: You talked earlier about energy. Not
the everyday energy...
K: We said that that movement is total
energy. Now this insight
has captured, seen, that extraordinary
movement, and it is part of
that energy. I want to come much closer to
earth; I have lived with
the fear of death, fear of not becoming,
and so on. Suddenly I see
there is no division, and I understand the
whole thing. So what has
happened to my brain - you follow?
Let,s see something. See this whole thing,
not verbally, but as a
tremendous reality, as truth. With all
your heart, mind, you see this
thing. That very perception must affect
your brain. DB: Yes. It
brings order.
K: Not only order in life but in the
brain.
DB: People can prove that if they are
under stress the brain cells
start to break down. And if you have order
in the brain cells, then it
is quite different.
K: I have a feeling, Sir - don't laugh at
it; it may be false, it may
be true - I feel that the brain never
loses the quality of that
movement.
DB: Once it has it.
K: Of course. I am talking of the person
who has been through
all this.
DB: So probably the brain never loses that
quality.
K: Therefore it is no longer involved in
time.
DB: It would no longer be dominated by
time. The brain, from
what we were saying, is not evolving in any
sense, it is just a
confusion. You can't say that man's brain
has evolved during the
last ten thousand years. You see science,
knowledge, has evolved,
but people felt the same about life
several thousand years ago as
they do now.
K: I want to find out: in that silent
emptiness that we went
through, is the brain absolutely still? In
the sense, no movement.
DB: Not absolutely. You see, the blood is
going in the brain.
K: We are not talking of that.
DB: What kind of movement are we
discussing?
K: I am talking of the movement of
thought, the movement of
any reaction.
DB: Yes. There is no movement in which the
brain moves
independently. You were saying that there
is the movement of the
whole, but the brain does not go off on
its own, as thought.
K: You see, you have abolished death,
which is a tremendously
significant thing. And so I say, what is
the brain, the mind, when
there is no death. You follow? It has
undergone a surgical
operation. DB: We said the brain normally
has the notion of death
continually there in the background, and
that notion is constantly
disturbing the brain, because the brain
foresees death, and it is
trying to stop it.
K: To stop the ending of itself, and so
on.
DB: It fore sees all that, and thinks it
must stop it, but it can't.
K: It can't.
DB: And therefore it has a problem.
K: A constant struggle with it. So all
that has come to an end.
What an extraordinary thing has taken
place! How does it affect
my daily life, because I have to live on
this earth? My daily life is
aggression, this everlasting becoming,
striving for success - all that
has gone. We will pursue this but we have
understood a great deal
today.
DB: In bringing in the question of daily
life you might bring in
the question of compassion.
K: Of course. Is that movement compassion?
DB: It would be beyond.
K: That's it. That's why one must be
awfully careful.
DB: Then again, compassion might emerge
out of it.
THE ENDING OF TIME CHAPTER 8 19TH
APRIL 1980 CONVERSATION WITH PROF.
DAVID BOHM 'CAN INSIGHT BE AWAKENED
IN ANOTHER?'
KRISHNAMURTI: We were discussing what it
is for the brain to
have no movement. When a human being has
been pursuing the
path of becoming, and has gone through all
that, and this sense of
emptiness, silence and energy, he has
abandoned almost everything
and come to the point, the ground. So how
does this insight affect
his daily life? What is his relationship
to society? What is his
action with regard to war, and the whole
world - a world that is
really living and struggling in darkness?
What is his action? I
would say, as we agreed the other day,
that it is non-movement.
DAVID BOHM: Yes, we said before that the
ground was
movement without division.
K: Without division. Yes, quite.
DB: In some sense it seems inconsistent to
say non-movement,
while you say the ground is movement.
K: Yes, the ground is movement. Would you
say an average,
educated, sophisticated man, with all his
unpleasant activities, is
constantly in movement?
DB: Well, a certain kind of movement.
K: A movement in time.
DB: Yes.
K: A movement in becoming. But we are
discussing the man
who has trodden that path (if I may use
that word), and come to
that point. From there, what is his
action? We said, for the moment,
non-action, non-movement. What does that
mean?
DB: It means, as you said, not taking part
in this process of
becoming.
K: Of course, that is obvious. If he
doesn't take part in this
process, what part does he play? Is it one
of complete non-action?
DB: It is not clear why you should call it
non-action. We might
think that it was action of another kind,
which is not part of the
process of becoming.
K: It is not becoming.
DB: But it may still be action.
K: He still has to live in the world.
DB: In one sense, whatever you do is
action, but his action is
not directed towards the illusory process,
it is not involved in it, but
would be directed towards what underlies
this illusory process. It
would be directed perhaps towards
considering the wrong turning
which is continually coming out of the
ground. Right?
K: Yes, yes. You see, various religions
have described a man
who has been saved, who is illuminated,
who has achieved
something or other. They have described
very clearly, especially in
Hindu religious books, how he walks, how
he looks, how he talks,
the whole state of his being. I think that
is merely a poetic
description which...
DB: You think it is imagination?
K: I think a great deal of it is
imagination. I have discussed this
point with some, and it is not like that,
not imagination. Somebody
who describes it, knows exactly what it is.
DB: Well, how should he know? It is not
clear.
K: So what is a man of that kind? How does
he live in this
world? This is a very interesting
question, if you go into it deeply.
There is a state of non-movement. That is,
the non-movement
which we have gone into.
DB: You see, it is not clear exactly what
you mean by nonmovement.
K: One becomes poetic but I am trying to
avoid that! Although
it would be right, even poetically: it is
like a single tree in a field.
There is no other tree, but that tree,
whatever the name of that tree
is, it is there.
(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 -3"