The Ending of Time
J. Krishnamurti
and
Dr. David Bohm
THE ENDING OF
TIME CHAPTER 10 7TH JUNE
1980
CONVERSATION WITH PROF. DAVID
BOHM 'COSMIC
ORDER'
KRISHNAMURTI: We left off the other day by
saying that when
the mind is totally empty of all the things
that thought has put
there, then real meditation begins. But I
would like to go more
deeply into that matter, to go back a bit,
and find out if the mind,
the brain, can ever be free from all
illusion and forms of deception.
Also whether it can have its own order -
an order not introduced by
thought, effort or any endeavour to put
things in their proper place.
And also, however much damaged the brain
is by shock and all
kinds of situations, whether it can heal
itself completely.
So first let's begin by asking if there is
an order which is not
made by man or by thought - which is not
the result of calculated
order out of disturbance, and therefore
still part of the old
conditioning?
DAVID BOHM: Are you referring to the mind?
I mean, you
can say the order of nature exists on its
own.
K: The order of nature is order.
DB: Yes, it is not made by man.
K: But I am not talking of such. I am not
sure that it is that kind
of order. Is there cosmic order?
DB: Well, that is still the same thing, in
a sense, because the
word `cosmos' means order, but the whole
order, which includes
the order of the universe and the order of
the mind.
K: Yes. What I am trying to find out is
whether there is order
which man can never possibly conceive?
DB: Well, how are we going to discuss it?
K: I don't know. What is order?
NARAYAN: There is mathematical order, the
highest kind of
order known to any discipline. K: Would
the mathematicians agree
that mathematics is complete order?
N: Yes, mathematics itself is order.
DB: I think it depends on the
mathematician. But there is a wellknown
mathematician called Von Neumann who
defined
mathematics as the relationship of
relationships. Really he meant,
by relationship, order. It is order
working within the field of order
itself, rather than working on some
object.
K: Yes, that is what I am trying to get
at.
DB: So the most creative mathematicians
are having a
perception of this, which may be called
pure order; but of course it
is limited, because it has to be expressed
mathematically, in terms
of formulae or equations.
K: Of course. Is order part of disorder,
as we know it?
DB: What we mean by disorder is another
question. It is not
possible to give a coherent definition of
disorder, because it
violates order. Anything that actually
happens has an order, but
you can call a certain thing disorder if
you like.
K: Are you saying that anything that
happens is order?
DB: Has an order. If the body is not
functioning rightly, even if
cancer is growing, there is a certain
order in the cancer cell; it is
just growing according to a different
pattern, which tends to break
down the body. Nevertheless the whole
thing has a certain kind of
order.
K: Yes, yes.
DB: It has not violated the laws of
nature, although relative to
some context you could say it is disorder,
because, if we are talking
of the health of the body, then the cancer
is called disorder. But in
itself...
K: Cancer has its own order.
DB: Yes, but it is not compatible with the
order of the growth of
the body.
K: Quite. So what do we mean by order? Is
there such a thing as
order? DB: Order is a perception; we can't
get hold of order.
N: I think that generally when we refer to
order it is in relation
to a framework, or in relation to a
certain field. Order always has
that connotation. But when you say the
order of order, as in the
study of mathematics, we are going away
from this limited
approach to it.
DB: You see most mathematics start with
the order of the
numbers, like 1, 2, 3, 4, and build on
that, in a hierarchy. But you
can see what is meant by the order of the
numbers. There is for
example a series of relationships which
are constant. In the order of
the numbers, you have the simplest example
of order.
N: And a new order was created with the
discovery of zero! Are
mathematical order and the order in
nature, part of a bigger field?
Or are these localized forms?
K: You see the brain, the mind, is so
contradictory, so bruised,
that it can't find order.
DB: Yes, but what kind of order does it
want?
K: It wants an order in which it will be
safe, in which it won't be
bruised, be shocked, or feel physical and
psychological pain.
DB: The whole point of order and
mathematics is not to have
contradiction.
K: But the brain is in contradiction.
DB: And something has gone wrong.
K: Yes, we have said that the brain took a
wrong turn.
DB: You see, if the body is growing
wrongly we have a cancer
cell, which means two contradictory orders
- one being the growth
of the cancer, and the other the order of
the body.
K: Yes. But can the mind, the brain, be
totally free of all
organized order?
DB: You mean by organized order, a fixed
or imposed pattern?
K: Yes. Imposed or self-imposed. We are
trying to investigate
whether the brain can ever be free from
all impositions, pressures,
wounds, bruises and trivialities of
existence which are pushing it in
different directions. If it cannot,
meditation has no meaning. DB:
You could go further, and say that
probably life has no meaning if
you cannot free it of all that.
K: No, I wouldn't say that life has no
meaning.
DB: The pattern goes on indefinitely.
K: If it goes on as it has done,
indefinitely, for millennia, life
has no meaning. But I think there is a
meaning and to find out, the
brain must be totally free.
DB: What is the source of what we call
disorder? It is like a
cancer going on inside the brain, moving
in a way which is not
compatible with the health of the brain.
K: Yes.
DB: It grows as time goes on, it increases
from one generation
to another.
K: Each generation repeats the same
pattern.
DB: It tends to accumulate through
tradition with every
generation.
K: How is this set, accumulated pattern,
to end, to be broken
through?
DB: Could we ask another question? Why
does the brain
provide the soil for this stuff to grow
on?
K: It may be merely tradition or habit.
DB: But why does the brain stay in that?
K: It feels safe. It is afraid of
something new taking place,
because in the old tradition it finds
refuge.
DB: Then we have to question why the brain
deceives itself.
This pattern involves the fact that the
brain deceives itself about
disorder. It doesn't seem able to see it
clearly.
N: In my mind there is intelligence behind
order which makes
use of it. I have a certain purpose for
which I create an order, and
when the purpose is over I set aside that
order or pattern. So order
has an intelligence which works it out.
That is the usual
connotation. But you are referring to
something else. K: I am
asking whether this pattern of generations
can be broken, and why
the brain has accepted that pattern in
spite of all its conflicts and
misery.
N: I am saying the same thing in a
different way. When an order
has served its purpose, can it then be put
aside?
K: Apparently it can't. We are speaking
psychologically. It
can't. The brain goes on, repeating fears,
sorrow, miseries. Is it so
heavily conditioned that it cannot see its
way out of it, because, by
constant repetition, the brain has become
dull?
N: The momentum of repetition is there?
K: Yes. That momentum makes the mind
mechanical. And in
that sluggishness it takes refuge and
says, `It's all right, I can go on.
That's what most human beings do.
DB: That is part of the disorder. To think
in that way is a
manifestation of disorder.
K: Of course.
N: Do you connect order with intelligence?
Or is order
something that exists on its own?
DB: Intelligence involves order; it
requires the perception of
order in an orderly way, without
contradiction. But I think that, in
the terms of this discussion, we ourselves
don't create this; we don't
impose this order, but rather it is
natural.
K: Yes. I am the ordinary man. I see that
I am caught. My
whole way of living and thinking is out of
this enormous length of
time. Time is my whole existence. In the
past, which cannot be
changed, I take refuge. Right?
DB: Well I think that if we were to talk
to the so-called ordinary
man, we would find he doesn't really
understand that time is
something that happens to him.
K: I am saying an ordinary man can see,
after talking over with
another, that his whole existence is based
on time. And the mind
takes refuge in time - in the past.
DB: What does that mean exactly? How does
it take refuge?
K: Because the past cannot be changed. DB:
Yes, but people
also think of the future. It is common to
think that the future can
change. The Communists have said, give up
the past, we are going
to change the future.
K: But we can't give up the past, even if
we think we can.
DB: Then if even those who try not to take
refuge in the past,
can't give it up, it seems that whatever
we do, we are stuck.
K: So the next step is, why does the brain
accept this way of
living? Why doesn't it break it down? Is
it through laziness or that
in breaking it down it has no hope?
DB: That is still the same question, of
going from past to future.
K: Of course. So what is the brain to do?
This is applicable to
most people, isn't it?
DB: We haven't understood why, when people
see that their
behaviour is disorderly or irrational,
they try to give up the past,
but find they cannot.
K: Wait, Sir. If I give up the past, I
have no existence. If I give
up all my remembrances, I have nothing; I
am nothing.
DB: I think some people like the Marxists
would look at it a
little differently. Marx said that it is
necessary to transform the
conditions of human society and that this
will remove the past.
K: But it has not done so. It cannot be
done.
DB: That is because when man tries to
transform it he still
works from the past.
K: Yes, that's what I am saying.
DB: If you say, don't depend on the past
at all, then, as you have
asked, what are we going to do?
K: I am nothing: is that the reason why we
cannot possibly give
up the past? Because my existence, my way
of thinking, my life,
everything, is from the past. And if you
say, wipe that out, what
have I left?
DB: I think you could say that obviously
we have to keep
certain things from the past, like useful
knowledge.
K: Yes, we have been through all that. DB:
But you could ask,
suppose we keep that useful part of the
past, and wipe out all
aspects of the past which are
contradictory?
K: Which are all psychologically contradictory.
Then what is
left? Just going to the office? There is
nothing. Is that the reason
why we cannot give it up?
DB: There is still a contradiction in
that, because if you say,
`what is left', you are still asking from
the past.
K: Of course.
DB: Are you simply saying that when people
talk of giving up
the past, they are just not doing it, but
merely turning this into
another question which avoids the issue?
K: Because my whole being is the past; it
has changed or been
modified, but its roots are in the past.
DB: Now if you said, `All right, give all
that up and in the
future you will have something quite
different, and better', would
people then be attracted to this?
K: But `better' is still from the past.
DB: But people want to be assured of at
least something.
K: That is just it. There is nothing. The
ordinary human being
wants something to which he can cling.
DB: He may feel, not that he is clinging
to the past, but reaching
for something.
K: If I reach something it is still the
past.
DB: Yes, it has its roots in the past, but
that is not often
obvious, because people say it is a big,
new revolutionary situation.
K: As long as I have my roots in the past
there cannot be order.
DB: Because the past is pervaded with
disorder.
K: Yes. And is my mind, my brain, willing
to see that there is
absolutely nothing if I give up the past?
DB: And nothing to reach for.
K: Nothing. There is no movement.
Sometimes people dangle a
carrot in front of me and, foolishly, I
follow it. But I see that there
are really no carrots, no rewards or
punishments. Then how is this
past to be dissolved? Because otherwise I
am still living in the field
of time that is man-made. So what shall I
do? Am I willing to face
absolute emptiness?
DB: What will you tell somebody who is not
willing to face
this?
K: I am not bothered. If somebody says
that he can't do all this,
I say, `Well, carry on'.
But I am willing to let my past go
completely. Which means
there is no effort or reward; nothing. And
the brain is willing to
face this extraordinary and totally new
state of existing in
nothingness. That is appallingly
frightening.
DB: Even these words will have their
meaning rooted in the
past.
K: Of course. We have understood that; the
word is not the
thing. The mind says it is willing to do
that, to face this absolute
emptiness, because it has seen for itself
that all the places where it
has taken refuge are illusions...
DB: I think this leaves out something that
you brought up
earlier - the question of the damage of
scars to the brain.
K: That is just it.
DB: The brain that isn't damaged could
possibly let go the past
fairly readily.
K: Look, can I discover what has caused
damage to the brain?
Surely one of the factors is strong,
sustained emotions, like hatred.
DB: probably a flash of emotion doesn't do
so much damage,
but people sustain it.
K: Of course. Hatred, anger and violence
not only shock but
wound the brain. Right?
DB: And getting excessively excited.
K: Of course; and drugs, etc. The natural
response doesn't
damage the brain. Now the brain is
damaged; suppose it has been
damaged through anger?
DB: You could even say that nerves
probably get connected up
in the wrong way, and that the connections
are too fixed. I think
there is evidence that these things will
actually change the
structure.
K: Yes, and can we have an insight into
the whole nature of
disturbance, so that the insight changes
the cells of the brain which
have been wounded?
DB: Well, possibly it would start them
healing.
K: All right. That healing must be
immediate.
DB: It may take time in the sense that, if
wrong connections
hade been made, it is going to take time
to redistribute the material.
The beginning of it, it seems to me, is
immediate.
K: All right. Can I do that? I have
listened to `X', I have
carefully read, I have thought about all
this, and I see that anger,
violence, hatred - any excessive emotion -
bruises the brain. And
insight into this whole business brings
about a mutation in the
cells. It is so. Also the nerves - the
adjustments, will be as rapid as
possible.
DB: Something happens with cancer cells.
Sometimes the
cancer suddenly stops growing, and it goes
the other way, for some
reason that is unknown. But a change must
have taken place in
those cells.
K: Could it be that the brain cells change
fundamentally, and
the cancer process stops?
DB: Yes. Fundamentally it stops, and
begins to dismantle.
K: Dismantle, yes that is it.
N: You are saying that insight sets into
motion the right kind of
connections, and stops the wrong
connections?
DB: And it even dismantles the wrong
connections.
N: So a beginning is made, and it is made
now.
DB: At one moment.
K: That is the insight.
N: But there is no time involved, because
the right movement
has started now. There is another thing
which I want to ask about
the past: for most people, the past means
pleasure.
K: Not only pleasure but the remembrance
of everything.
N: One starts disliking pleasure only when
it becomes stale, or
leads to difficulties. One wants pleasure
all the time.
K: Of course.
N: It is sometimes difficult to distinguish
between pleasure and
the staleness or the difficulties that it
brings.
K: Pleasure is always the past; there is
no pleasure at the
moment it is happening. That comes in
later, when it is
remembered. So the remembrance is the
past. But I am willing to
face nothingness which means to wipe out
all that!
N: But I am saying that the human being,
even though he
understands what you are saying, is held
back in this field.
K: Because he is not willing to face this
emptiness. Pleasure is
not compassion. pleasure is not love,
pleasure has no place in
compassion. But perhaps if there is this
mutation, compassion is
stronger than pleasure.
DB: Even the perception of order may be
stronger than
pleasure. If people are really concerned
with something, the
pleasure plays no role at that moment.
N: But what happens to a man in whom
pleasure is dominant?
K: We have already discussed this. As long
as he is unwilling to
face this extraordinary emptiness, he will
keep on with the old
pattern.
DB: You see, we have to say that this man
had a damaged brain
too. It is brain damage which causes this
emphasis on pleasure, as
well as the fear and the anger.
K: But the damaged brain is healed when
there is insight.
DB: Yes. But I think many people who would
understand that
hate and anger are products of the damaged
brain would find it
hard to see that pleasure also is the
product of the damaged brain.
K: Oh, yes, but of course it is. DB: Can
we say there is a true
enjoyment, which is not the product of the
damaged brain, which is
confused with pleasure.?
N: If pleasure gives rise to anger, anger
is part of the damaged
brain.
K: And also the demand for pleasure.
So do you have an insight into how very
destructive the past is
to the brain? Can the brain itself see,
have an insight into this, and
move out of it?
N: You are saying that the beginning of
order comes from
insight?
K: Obviously. Let's work from there.
N: May I put it in a different way? Is it
possible to gather a
certain amount of order in a pattern
sense, artificially, so that it
gives rise to a certain amount of insight?
K: Ah! You cannot find truth through the
false.
N: I am asking it purposefully because
many people seem to
lack the energy that is required for
insight.
K: You are tremendously keen to earn a
livelihood, to earn
money, to do anything in which you are
really interested. If you are
interested vitally in this transformation,
etc., you have the energy.
May we go on? I, as a human being, have
seen that this insight
has wiped away the past, and the brain is
willing to live in
nothingness. Right? We have come to this
point several times from
different directions. Now let's go on. Now
there isn't a thing put
there by thought. There is no movement of
thought, except factual
knowledge which has its own place. But talking
psychologically,
there is no movement in the mind or of
thought. There is absolutely
nothing.
DB: You mean no feeling either? You see,
the movement of
thought and feeling is together.
K: Wait a minute. What do you mean here by
feeling?
DB: Well, usually people might say, all
right, there is no
thought, but they have various feelings.
K: Of course we have feelings. DB: These
are sensations. And
also there are the inner feelings.
K: Inner feelings of what?
DB: It is hard to describe them. Those
that can easily be
described are obviously the wrong kind,
such as anger and fear.
K: Is compassion a feeling?
DB: probably not.
K: No, it is not a feeling.
DB: Though people may say they feel
compassionate! Even the
very word suggests it is a form of
feeling. Compassion has in it the
word `passion', which is feeling. This is
a difficult question. We
could perhaps question what we usually
recognize as feelings?
K: Let's go into that a little bit. What
do we mean by feelings?
Sensations?
DB: Well, people don't usually mean that.
You see, sensations
are connected with the body.
K: So you are talking of feelings which
are not of the body?
DB: Yes, or which - in the old days -
would have been
described as of the soul.
K: The soul, of course. That is an easy
escape but it means
nothing.
DB: No.
K: What are the inner feelings? pleasure?
DB: Well, in so far as you could label it,
that description would
not be valid.
K: So what is valid? The non-verbal state?
DB: It may be a non-verbal state...
something analogous to a
feeling which isn't fixed, that can't be
named.
N: You are saying it is not feeling, it is
similar to feeling, but it
is not fixed?
DB: Yes. I am just considering that that
could exist if we say
that there is no thought. I am trying to
clarify this. K: Yes, there is
no thought.
DB: What does that really mean?
K: What it really means is, thought is
movement, thought is
time. Right? In that emptiness there is
not time or thought.
DB: Yes, and perhaps no sense of the
existence of an entity
inside.
K: Absolutely, of course. The existence of
the entity is the
bundle of memories, the past.
DB: But that existence is not only thought
thinking about it, but
also the feeling that it is there; you get
a sort of feeling inside.
K: A feeling, yes. There is no being.
There is nothing. If there is
a feeling of the being continuing...
DB: Yes, even though it doesn't seem
possible to verbalize
this... It would be a state without
desire. How can we know if this
state is real, is genuine?
K: That is what I am asking. How do we
know, or realize that
this is so? In other words, do you want
proof of it?
N: Not proof, but communication of that
state.
K: Now wait a minute. Suppose someone has
this peculiar
compassion, how can he communicate it Lo
me, if I am living in
pleasure and all that? He can't!
N: No, but I am prepared to listen to him.
K: Prepared to listen, but how deeply? The
man says there is no
being. And one's whole life has been this
becoming. And, in that
state, he says there is no being at all.
In other words, there is no
`me'. Right? Now you say, `Show it to me'.
It can be shown only
through certain qualities that it has,
certain actions. What are the
actions of a mind that is totally empty of
being? Actions at what
level? Actions in the physical world?
N: Partly.
K: Mostly that. All right, this man has
got this sense of
emptiness, and there is no being. He is
not acting from self-centred
interests. His actions are in the world of
daily living, and you can
judge whether he is a hypocrite, whether
he says something and
contradicts it the next moment, or whether
he is actually living this
compassion and not just saying, `I feel
compassionate'.
DB: But if one is not doing the same, one
can't tell.
K: That's right. That is what I am saying.
N: We can't judge him.
K: You can't. So how can he convey to us
in words that peculiar
quality of mind? He can describe, go round
it, but he can't give the
essence of it. Dr. Bohm, for example,
could discuss with Einstein;
they were on the same level. And he and I
can discuss. If one has
this sense of not being, of emptiness, the
other can go very close,
but can never enter that mind unless he
has it!
N: Is there any way of communicating, for
one who is open, but
not through words?
K: We are talking of compassion. It is
not, `I feel
compassionate'. That is altogether wrong.
You see, in daily life
such a mind acts without the `me', without
the `ego'. Therefore it
might make a mistake, but it corrects
immediately; it is not
carrying that mistake.
N: It is not stuck.
K: Not stuck. But we must be very careful
here not to find an
excuse for wrong!
So we come to that point that we discussed
earlier; what then is
meditation? Right? For the man who is
becoming, meditation has
no meaning whatsoever. That is a
tremendous statement. When
there is not this being or becoming, what
is meditation? It must be
totally unconscious, totally uninvited.
DB: Do you mean, without conscious
intention?
K: Yes, I think that is right. Would you
say - I hope this doesn't
sound silly - that the universe, the
cosmic order, is in meditation?
DB: Well, if it is alive, then we would
have to look at it that
way.
K: No, no. It is in a state of meditation.
DB: Yes.
K: I think that is right. I stick to that.
DB: We should try to go
further into what is meditation. What is
it doing?
N: If you say that the universe is in
meditation, is the expression
of it order? What order can we discern
which would indicate
cosmic or universal meditation?
K: The sunrise and sunset; all the stars,
the planets are order.
The whole thing is in perfect order.
DB: We have to connect this with
meditation. According to the
dictionary, the meaning of meditation is
to reflect, to turn
something over in the mind, and to pay
close attention.
K: And also to measure.
DB: That is a further meaning, but it is
to weigh, to ponder, it
means, measure, in the sense of weighing.
K: Weighing, that's it. ponder, think
over, and so on.
DB: To weigh the significance of
something. Now is that what
you mean?
K: No.
DB: Then why do you use the word?
N: I am told that, in English, contemplation
has a different
connotation from meditation. Contemplation
implies a deeper state
of mind.
DB: It is hard to know. The word
`contemplate' comes from the
word temple, really.
K: Yes, that's right.
DB: Its basic meaning is, to create an
open space.
K: Is that an open space between God and
me?
DB: That is the way the word arose.
K: Quite.
N: The Sanskrit word Dhyans doesn't have
the same
connotation as meditation.
K: No. N: Because meditation has the
overtones of
measurement, and probably, in an oblique
way, that measurement
is order.
K: No, I don't want to bring in order -
let's leave the word order
out. We have been through that, and beaten
it to death!
DB: Why do you use the word meditation?
K: Don't let's use it.
DB: Let's find out what you really mean
here.
K: Would you say, a state of infinity? A
measureless state?
DB: Yes.
K: There is no division of any kind. You
see we are giving lots
of descriptions, but it is not that.
DB: Yes, but is there any sense of the
mind being in some way
aware of itself?
Is that what you are trying to say? At
other times you have said
that the mind is emptying itself of
content.
K: What are you trying to get at?
DB: I am asking whether it is not only
infinite, but if something
more is involved?
K: Oh, much more.
DB: We said that content is the past which
is making disorder.
Then you could say that this emptying of
content in some sense is
constantly cleaning up the past. Would you
agree to that?
K: No, no.
DB: When you say the mind is emptying
itself of content...
K: Has emptied itself.
DB: All right, then. When the past is
cleaned up, then you say
that is meditation.
K: That is meditation; no,
contemplation...
N: Just a beginning.
K: Beginning?
N: The emptying of the past. K: That
emptying of the past,
which is anger, jealousy, beliefs, dogmas,
attachments, etc., must
be done. If that is not emptied, if any
part of that exists, it will
inevitably lead to illusion. The brain or
the mind must be totally
free of all illusion, illusion brought by
desire, by hope, by wanting
security, and all that.
DB: Are you saying that when this is done,
it opens the door to
something broader, deeper?
K: Yes. Otherwise life has no meaning; it
is just repeating this
pattern.
N: What exactly did you mean when you said
that the universe
is meditation?
K: I feel that way, yes.
DB: Could we say first of all that the
universe is not actually
governed by its past? You see, the
universe creates certain forms
which are relatively constant, so that
people who look at it
superficially only see that, and it seems
then to be determined from
the past.
K: Yes, it is not governed by the past. It
is creative, moving.
DB: And then this movement is order.
K: Would you, as a scientist, accept such
a thing?
DB: Well as a matter of fact I would!
K: Are we both crazy? Let's put the
question another way: is it
really possible for time to end - the
whole idea of time as the past -
chronologically, so that there is no
tomorrow at all? There is the
feeling, the actual reality,
psychologically, of having no tomorrow.
I think that is the healthiest way of
living - which doesn't mean that
I become irresponsible! That would be too
childish.
DB: It is merely a question of physical
time, which is a certain
part of natural order.
K: Of course; that is understood.
DB: The question is whether we have a
sense of experiencing
past and future or whether we are free of
that sense.
K: I am asking you, as a scientist, is the
universe based on time?
DB: I would say no, but you see the
general way...
K: That is all I want. You say no! And can
the brain, which has
evolved in time.?
DB: Well, has it evolved in time? Rather
it has become
entangled in time. Because the brain is
part of the universe, which
we say is not based on time.
K: I agree.
DB: thought has entangled the brain in
time.
K: All right. Can that entanglement be
unravelled, freed, so that
the universe is the mind? You follow? If
the universe is not of
time, can the mind, which has been
entangled in time, unravel itself
and so be the universe? You follow what I
am trying to say?
DB: Yes.
K: That is order.
DB: That is order. And would you say that
it is meditation?
K: That is it. I would call that
meditation, not in the ordinary,
dictionary sense of pondering, and all
that, but a state of meditation
in which there is no element of the past.
DB: You say the mind is disentangling
itself from time, and
also really disentangling the brain from
time?
K: Yes, would you accept that?
DB: Yes.
K: As a theory?
DB: Yes, as a proposal.
K: No, I don't want it as a proposal.
DB: What do you mean by theory?
K: Theory - when somebody comes along and
says, this is real
meditation.
DB: All right.
K: Wait. Somebody says, one can live this
way; life has an
extraordinary meaning in it, full of
compassion, etc., and every act
in the physical world can be corrected
immediately, and so on.
Would you, as a scientist, accept such a
state, or say that the man
who talks of it is cuckoo?
DB: No, I wouldn't say that. I feel it is
perfectly possible; it is
quite compatible with anything that I know
about nature.
K: Oh, then that's all right. So one is
not an unbalanced cuckoo!
Of course putting all this into words is
not the thing. Right? That is
understood. But can it be communicated to
another? Now can s me
of us get to this, so that we can
communicate it, actually?
THE ENDING OF
TIME CHAPTER 11 18TH
SEPTEMBER 1980
CONVERSATION WITH
PROF. DAVID BOHM
'THE ENDING OF
`PSYCHOLOGICAL'
KNOWLEDGE'
KRISHNAMURTI: What makes the mind always
follow a certain
pattern? Always seeking? If it lets go of
one pattern it picks up
another; it keeps on functioning all the
time like that. One can give
explanations why it does so - for
protection, for safety, from
indifference, certain amount of
callousness, a disregard of one's
own flowering, etc.
But it is really very important to explore
deeply why our minds
are always operating in a certain
direction.
We said that one comes, after going
through travail,
investigation, and insight, to a blank
wall. And that blank wall can
only wither away, or be broken down, when
there is love and
intelligence. Before we go into that, I
would like to ask why human
beings, however intelligent, however
learned, however
philosophical and religious, always fall
into this groove of pattern
seeking.
DAVID BOHM: Well, I think the groove is
inherent in the
nature of the accumulated knowledge.
K: Are you saying then that knowledge must
invariably create a
groove?
DB: perhaps it is not inevitable but it
seems to develop this way
in mankind, if we are referring to
psychological knowledge, that is
to say...
K: Obviously we are talking of that. But
why does the mind not
become aware of it - see the danger of
this mechanical repetition,
and the fact that there is nothing new in
it? See how we keep on
doing it?
DB: It seems to me that the groove, or the
accumulated
knowledge, seems to have a significance
far beyond what its
significance is. If we say that we have
knowledge of some object,
like the microphone, that has some limited
significance. But
knowledge about the nation to which you
belong seems to have
immense significance. K: Yes. So is this
attribution of significance
the cause of the narrowing down of the
mind?
DB: Because this knowledge seems to have a
tremendous value
beyond all other values, it makes the mind
stick to that. It seems
the most important thing in the world.
K: In India, there is this philosophy that
knowledge must end -
you know it, of course, the Vedanta. But
apparently very, very, few
people do end knowledge and talk from
freedom.
DB: You see, knowledge generally seems to
be extremely
important, even when a person may say
verbally that it should
end...
K: You mean I am so stupid that I don't
see that this
psychological knowledge has very little
significance, and so my
mind clings to it?
DB: I wouldn't quite put it that a person
is that stupid, but rather
say that his knowledge stupefies the
brain.
K: Stupefied, all right. But the brain
doesn't seem to extricate
itself.
DB: It is already so stupefied that it
can't see what it is doing.
K: So what shall it do? I have been
watching for many years
people attempting to become free from
certain things. This is the
root of it, you understand? This
psychological accumulation which
becomes psychological knowledge. And so it
divides, and all kinds
of things happen around it and within it.
And yet the mind refuses
to let go.
DB: Yes.
K: Why? Is that because there is safety or
security in it?
DB: That is part of it, but I think in
some way that knowledge
has taken on the significance of the
absolute, instead of being
relative.
K: I understand all that, but you are not
answering my question.
I am an ordinary man, I realize all this,
and the limited significance
of knowledge at different levels, but
deeper down inside one, this
accumulated knowledge is very destructive.
DB: The knowledge
deceives the mind, so that the person is
not normally aware that it
is destructive. Once this process gets
started, the mind is not in a
state where it is able to look at it
because it is avoiding the
question. There is a tremendous defensive
mechanism or escape
from looking at the whole issue.
K: Why?
DB: Because it seems that something
extremely precious might
be at stake.
K: One is strangely intelligent, capable
or skilled in other
directions but here, where the root is of
all this trouble, why don't
we comprehend what is happening? What
prevents the mind from
doing this?
DB: Once importance has been given to
knowledge, there is a
mechanical process that resists
intelligence.
K: So what shall I do? I realize I must
let go the accumulated,
psychological knowledge - which is divisive,
destructive and petty
- but I can't. Is this because of lack of
energy?
DB: Not primarily, though the energy is
being dissipated by the
process.
K: Having dissipated a great deal of
energy, I haven't the energy
to grapple with this?
DB: The energy would come back quickly if
we could
understand this. I don't think that is the
main point.
K: No. So what shall I do, realizing that
this knowledge is
inevitably forming a groove in which I
live? How am I to break it
down?
DB: Well, I am not sure that it is generally
clear to people that
this knowledge does all that; or that the
knowledge is knowledge.
You see, it may seem to be some `being',
the `self', and `me'. This
knowledge creates the `me', and the `me'
is the experience as an
entity, which seems not to be knowledge
but some real being.
K: Are you saying that this `being' is
different from knowledge?
DB: It appears to be; it feigns a
difference.
K: But is it? DB: It isn't, but the
illusion has great power.
K: That has been our conditioning.
DB: Yes. Now the question is, how do we
get through that to
break down the groove, because it creates
the imitation, or a
pretension, of a state of being?
K: That is the real point, you see. This
is man's central
movement. It seems so utterly hopeless.
And realizing the
hopelessness I sit down and say I can't do
anything. But if I apply
my mind to it, the question arises, is it
possible to function without
psychological knowledge in this world? I
am rather concerned
about it; it seems the basic issue that
man must resolve, all over the
world.
DB: That is right. But you may discuss
with somebody, who
thinks it seems reasonable. But perhaps
his status is threatened, and
we have to say that that is psychological
knowledge. It doesn't
seem to him that it is knowledge, but something
more. And he
doesn't see that his knowledge of his
status is behind the trouble.
At first sight knowledge seems to be
something passive, which you
could use if you wanted to, and which you
could just put aside if
you wished, which is the way it should be.
K: I understand all that.
DB: But then the moment comes when
knowledge no longer
appears to be knowledge.
K: The politicians and the people in power
wouldn't listen to
this. And neither would the so-called
religious people. It is only the
people who are discontented, who feel they
have lost everything,
who will listen. But they don't always
listen so that it is a real
burning thing.
How does one go about this? Say, for
instance, I have left
Catholicism and protestantism, and all
that. Also I have a career
and I know that it is necessary to have
knowledge there. Now I see
how important it is not to be caught in
the process of psychological
knowledge, and yet I can't let it go. It
is always dodging me; I am
playing tricks with it. It is like hide
and seek. All right! We said
that is the wall I have to break down. No,
not I - that is the wall
that has to be broken down. And we have
said that this wall can be
broken down through love and intelligence.
Aren't we asking
something enormously difficult?
DB: It is difficult.
K: I am this side of the wall, and you are
asking me to have that
love and intelligence which will destroy
it. But I don't know what
that love is, what that intelligence is,
because I am caught in this,
on this other side of the wall. I realize
logically, sanely, that what
you are saying is accurate, true, logical,
and I see the importance of
it, but the wall is so strong and dominant
and powerful that I can't
get beyond it. We said the other day that
the wall could be broken
down through insight - if insight does not
become translated into
an idea.
DB: Yes.
K: When insight is discussed, there is the
danger of our making
an abstraction of it; which means we move
away from the fact, and
the abstraction becomes all important.
Which means, again,
knowledge.
DB: Yes, the activity of knowledge.
K: So we are back again!
DB: I think the general difficulty is that
knowledge is not just
sitting there as a form of information,
but is extremely active,
meeting and shaping every moment according
to past knowledge.
So even when we raise this issue,
knowledge is all the time
waiting, and then acting. Our whole
tradition is that knowledge is
not active but passive. But it is really
active, although people don't
generally think of it that way. They think
it is just sitting there.
K: It is waiting.
DB: Waiting to act, you see. And whatever
we try to do about
it, knowledge is already acting. By the
time we realize that this is
the problem, it has already acted.
K: Yes. But do I realize it as a problem,
or as an idea which I
must carry out? You see the difference?
DB: Knowledge automatically turns
everything into an idea,
which we must carry out. That is the whole
way it is built.
K: The whole way we have lived. DB:
Knowledge can't do
anything else.
K: How are we to break that, even for a
second?
DB: It seems to me that if you could see,
observe, be aware - if
knowledge could be aware of itself at
work... The point is that
knowledge seems to work unawares, simply
waiting, and then
acting, by which time it has disrupted the
order of the brain.
K: I am very concerned about this because
wherever I go this is
what is happening. It is something that
has to be resolved. Would
you say the capacity to listen is far more
important than any of this,
than any explanations, or logic?
DB: It comes to the same problem.
K: No, no. It doesn't. I want to see if
there is a possibility that
when I listen completely to what you are
saying, the wall has
broken down. You understand? Is there - I
am trying to find out,
Sir - I am an ordinary man and you are
telling me all this, and I
realize what you are saying is so. I am
really deeply involved in
what you are saying, but somehow the flame
isn't lit; all the fuel is
there, but the fire is not. So what shall
I do? This is my everlasting
cry!
DB: The brain has the capacity to listen;
we have to question
whether the ordinary man is so full of
opinions that he can't listen.
K: You can't listen with opinions; you
might just as well be
dead.
DB: I think knowledge has all sorts of
defences. Is it possible
for, say, the ordinary man to have this
perception? That is really
what you are asking, isn't it?
K: Yes. But there must be a communication
between you and
that man, something so strong that the
very act of his listening to
you, and you communicating with him,
operates.
DB: Yes, then you have to break through
his opinions, through
the whole structure.
K: Of course. That is why this man has
come here - for that. He
has finished with all the churches and
doctrines. He realizes that
what has been said here is true. When you
communicate with him,
your communication is strong and real,
because you are not
speaking from knowledge or opinions. A
free human being is
trying to communicate with this ordinary
man. Now can he listen
with that intensity which you, the
communicator, are giving him?
He wants to listen to somebody who is
telling the truth, and in the
very telling of it, something is taking
place in him. Because he is
so ardently listening, this happens.
It is rather like you as a scientist,
telling one of your students
something. You are telling him about
something which must be
enormously important, because you have
given your life to it. And
has given up much just to come here. Is it
the fault of the
communicator that the listener does not
receive it instantly? Or is
the listener incapable of hearing it?
DB: Well, if he is incapable of listening,
then nothing can be
done. But let's say there is somebody who
comes along who has
got through some of these defences,
although there are others that
he is not aware of - that is something
less simple than what you
have described.
K: I feel it is dreadfully simple somehow.
If one could listen
with all one's being, the brain would not
be caught in the groove.
You see, generally, in communication, you
are telling me
something and I am absorbing it, but there
is an interval between
you telling and my absorbing.
DB: Yes.
K: And that interval is the danger. If I
don't absolutely absorb,
listen with all my being, it is finished.
Is listening difficult because
in this there is no shadow of pleasure?
You are not offering any
pleasure, any gratification. You are
saying this is so; take it. But
my mind is so involved in pleasure that it
won't listen to anything
that is not completely satisfactory or
pleasurable.
I realize too the danger of that. Of
seeking satisfaction and
pleasure, so I put that aside too. There
is no pleasure, no reward, no
punishment. In listening, there is only
pure observation.
So we come to the point, is pure
observation, which is actually
listening, love? I think it is.
Again, if you state this, then my mind
says `Give it to me. Tell
me what to do.' But when I ask you to tell
me what to do,I am back
in the field of knowledge. It is so
instantaneous. So I refuse to ask
you what to do. Then where am I? You have
referred to perception
without any motive or direction. Pure
perception is love. And in
that perception love is intelligence. They
are not three separate
things, they are all one thing. You
pointed all this out very
carefully, step by step, and I have come
to that point that I have a
feeling for it. But it goes away so
quickly. Then the question
begins, `How am I to get it back?' Again,
the remembrance of it,
which is knowledge, blocks.
DB: What you are saying is that every time
there is a
communication, knowledge begins to work in
many different
forms.
K: So you see it is enormously difficult
to be free of knowledge.
DB: We could ask, why doesn't knowledge
wait until it is
needed?
K: That means to be psychologically free
of knowledge, but,
when the need arises, to act from freedom,
not from knowledge.
DB: But knowledge comes in to inform your
action, although it
is not the source.
K: That is freedom from knowledge. And
being free, it is from
freedom and not from knowledge that one
communicates. That is,
from emptiness there is communication.
When we use words, they
are the outcome of knowledge, but they are
from that state of
complete freedom. Now, suppose I, as an
ordinary human being,
have come to that point where there is
this freedom, and from it
communication takes place - will you, as
an eminent scientist,
communicate with me without any barrier?
You follow what I am
saying?
DB: Yes. There is this freedom from
knowledge when
knowledge is seen to be information. But
ordinarily it seems more
than information, and knowledge itself
does not see that knowledge
is not free.
K: It is never free. And if I am going to
understand myself, I
must be free to look.
How will you communicate with me, who have
come to a
certain point where I am burning to receive
what you are saying, so
completely that psychological knowledge is
finished? Or am I
fooling myself about being in that state?
DB: Well, that is the question: knowledge
is constantly
deceiving itself. K: So is my mind always
deceiving itself? Then
what shall I do? Let's come back to that.
DB: Again I think the answer is to listen.
K: Why don't we listen? Why don't we
immediately understand
this thing? One can give all the
superficial reasons why - old age,
conditioning, laziness, and so on.
DB: But is it possible to give the deep
reason for it?
K: I think it is that the knowledge which
is the `me' is so
tremendously strong as an idea.
DB: Yes, that is why I tried to say that
the idea has tremendous
significance and meaning. For example,
suppose you have the idea
of God; this takes on a tremendous power.
K: Or if I have the idea that I am
British, or French, it gives me
great energy.
DB: And so it creates a state of the body
which seems the very
being of the self Now the person doesn't
experience it as mere
knowledge...
K: Yes, but are we going round and round
and round? It seems
like it.
DB: Well, I was wondering if there is
anything that could be
communicated about that overwhelming power
that seems to come
with knowledge...
K: ...and with identification.
DB: That seems to be something that would
be worth looking
into.
K: Now what is the root meaning of
`identification'?
DB: Always the same.
K: Always the same, that's right. That's
right! There is nothing
new under the sun.
DB: You say the self is always the same.
It tries to be always
the same in essence, if not in detail.
K: Yes, yes. DB: I think this is the thing
that goes wrong with
knowledge. It attempts to be involved with
what is always the
same, so it sticks, you see. Knowledge
itself tries to find what is
permanent and perfect. I mean, even
independent of any of us. It is
like building it into the cells.
K: From this arises the question, is it
possible to attend
diligently? I am using `diligence' in the
sense of being accurate.
DB: Actually it means to take pains.
K: Of course. To take pains, take the
whole of it. There must be
some other way round all this intellectual
business. We have
exercised a great deal of it and that
intellectual capacity has led to
the blank wall. I approach it from every
direction, but eventually
the wall is there, which is the `me', with
my knowledge, my
prejudice, and all the rest of it. And the
`me' then says, `I must do
something about it. Which is still the
`me'.
DB: The `me' wants always to be constant,
but at the same time
it tries to change.
K: To put on a different coat. It is
always the same. So the mind
which is functioning with the `me' is
always the same mind. Good
Lord, you see, we are back again!
We have tried everything - fasting, every
kind of discipline - to
get rid of the `me' with all its knowledge
and illusions. One tries to
identify with something else, which is the
same thing. One then
comes back to the fundamental question,
what will make the blank
wall totally disappear? I think this is
only possible when the man
who is blocked can give total attention to
what the free man is
saying. There is no other means to break
down the wall - not the
intellect, not the emotions, nor anything
else. When somebody who
has gone beyond the wall, who has broken
it down, says, `Listen,
for God's sake listen,' and I listen to
him with my mind empty, then
it is finished. You know what I am saying?
I have no sense of
hoping for anything to happen, or anything
to come back, or
concern with the future. The mind is
empty, and therefore
listening. It is finished.
For a scientist to discover something new,
he must have a
certain emptiness from which there will be
a different perception.
DB: Yes, but only in the sense that
usually the question is
limited, and so the mind may be empty with
regard to that
particular question, allowing the
discovery of an insight in that
area. But we are not questioning this
particular area. We are
questioning the whole of knowledge.
K: It is most extraordinary when you go
into it.
DB: And you were saying the end of
knowledge is the Vedanta.
K: That is the real answer.
DB: But generally people feel they must
keep knowledge in one
area to be able to question it in another.
You see it might worry
people to ask, with what knowledge do I
question the whole of
knowledge?
K: Yes. With what knowledge do I question
my knowledge?
Quite.
DB: In a way, we do have knowledge,
because we have seen
that this whole structure of psychological
knowledge makes no
sense, that it is inconsistent and has no
meaning.
K: From that emptiness that we were
talking of, is there a
ground or a source from which all things
begin? Matter, human
beings, their capacities, their idiocies -
does the whole movement
start from there?
DB: We could consider that. But let's try
to clarify it a little. We
have the emptiness.
K: Yes, emptiness in which there is no
movement of thought as
psychological knowledge. And therefore no
psychological time.
DB: Though we still have the time of the
watch...
K: Yes, but we have gone beyond that;
don't let's go back to it.
There is no psychological time, no
movement of thought. And is
that emptiness the beginning of all
movement?
DB: Well, would you say the emptiness is
the ground?
K: That is what I am asking. Let's go
slowly into this.
DB: Earlier on, we were saying that there
is the emptiness, and
beyond that is the ground.
K: I know, I know. Let's discuss this
further.
THE ENDING OF
TIME CHAPTER 12 20TH
SEPTEMBER 1980
CONVERSATION WITH
PROF. DAVID BOHM
'THE MIND IN THE
UNIVERSE'
KRISHNAMURTI: We talked the other day
about a mind that is
entirely free from all movement, from all
the things that thought
has put there, the past, and the future,
and so on. But before we go
into that I would like to discuss man's
being caught in materialistic
attitudes and values, and to ask, what is
the nature of materialism?
DAVID BOHM: Well, first of all materialism
is the name of a
certain philosophical...
K: I don't mean that. I want to explore
this.
DB: Matter is all there is, you see.
K: That is, nature and all human beings,
react physically. This
reaction is sustained by thought. And
thought is a material process.
So reaction in nature is a materialistic
response.
DB: I think the word `materialistic' is
not quite right. It is the
response of matter.
K: The response of matter; let's put it
that way. That is better.
We are talking about having an empty mind,
and we have come to
that point when the wall has been broken
down. This emptiness
and what lies beyond it, or through it -
we will come to that, but
before doing so, I am asking, is all
reaction matter?
DB: Matter in movement. You could say that
there is evidence
in favour of that, that science has found
a tremendous number of
reactions which are due to the nerves.
K: So would you say that matter and
movement are the
reactions which exist in all organic
matter?
DB: Yes, all matter as we know it goes by
the law of action and
reaction, you see. Every action has a
corresponding reaction.
K: So action and reaction are a material
process, as is thought.
Now, to go beyond it is the issue. DB: But
before we say that,
some people might feel that there is no
meaning in going beyond it.
That would be the philosophy of
materialism.
K: But if one is merely living in that
area it is very, very
shallow. Right? It has really no meaning
at all.
DB: perhaps one should refer to one thing
that people have said
- that matter is not merely action and
reaction, but may have a
creative movement. You see, matter may
create new forms.
K: But it is still in that area.
DB: Yes. Let's try to make it clear. We
have to see that there are
very subtle forms of materialism which
might be difficult to pin
down.
K: Let's begin. Would you consider that
thought is a material
process?
DB: Yes. Well, some people might argue
that it is both material,
and something beyond material.
K: I know. I have discussed this. But it
is not.
DB: How can we say that simply, to make it
clear?
K: Because any movement of thought is a
material process.
DB: Well, we have to amplify this so that
it is not a matter of
authority. As an observation, one sees
that thought is a material
process. Now how are you going to see
that?
K: How could one be aware that thought is
a material process? I
think that is fairly clear. There is an
experience, an incident which
is recorded, which becomes knowledge. And
from that knowledge,
thought arises and action takes place.
DB: Yes. So we say that thought is that.
It is still coming from
the background. So are you saying that
something new coming into
being is not part of this process?
K: Yes, if there is to be something new,
thought, as a material
process, must end. Obviously.
DB: And then it may take it up later. K:
Later, yes. Wait, see
what happens later. So we say all action,
reaction and action from
that reaction is movement of matter.
DB: Yes, very subtle movement of matter.
K: So as long as one's mind is within that
area, it must be a
movement of matter. So is it possible for
the mind to go beyond
reaction? That is the next step. As we
said earlier one gets irritated,
and that is the first reaction. Then the
reaction to that, the second
reaction, is `I must not be'. Then the
third reaction is, `I must
control or justify'. So it is constantly
action and reaction. Can one
see that this is a continuous movement
without an ending?
DB: Yes. The reaction is continuous, but
it seems at a certain
moment to have ended, and the next moment
appears to be a new
movement.
K: But it is still reaction.
DB: It is still the same but it presents
itself differently.
K: It is exactly the same always...
DB: But it presents itself as always
different, always new.
K: Of course. That's just it. You say
something, I get irritated,
but that irritation is a reaction.
DB: Yes, it seems to be something suddenly
new.
K: But it is not.
DB: But one has to be aware of that, you
see. Generally the
mind tends not to be aware of it.
K: We are sensitive to it, alert to the
question. So there is an
ending to reaction if one is watchful,
attentive; if one understands
not only logically, but having an insight
into this reacting process,
it can of course come to an end. That is
why it is very important to
understand this, before we discuss what is
an empty mind, and if
there is something beyond this, or whether
in that very emptying of
the mind there is some other quality.
So is that empty mind a reaction? A
reaction to the problems of
pain and pleasure and suffering? An
attempt to escape from all this
into some state of nothingness? DB: Yes,
the mind can always do
that.
K: It can invent. Now we have come to the
point of asking
whether this quality of emptiness is not a
reaction. Right, Sir?
Before we go further, is it possible to
have a mind that is really
completely empty of all the things that
thought has put together?
DB: So that thought ceases to act.
K: That's it.
DB: On the one hand, perhaps you could say
that reaction is due
to the nature of matter, which is
continually reacting and moving.
But then is matter affected by this
insight?
K: I don't quite follow. Ah, I understand!
Does insight affect the
cells of the brain which contain the
memory?
DB: Yes. The memory is continually
reacting, moving, as does
the air and the water, and everything
around us.
K: After all, if I don't react physically
I am paralysed. But to be
reacting continuously is also a form of
paralysis.
DB: Well, the wrong kind of reaction!
Reaction around the
psychological structure. But assuming that
the reaction around the
psychological structure has begun in
mankind, why should it ever
stop? Because reaction makes another and
another, and one would
expect it to go on for ever, and that
nothing would stop it.
K: Only insight into the nature of
reaction ends psychological
reaction.
DB: Then you are saying that matter is
affected by insight
which is beyond matter.
K: Yes, beyond matter. So is this
emptiness within the brain
itself? Or is it something that thought
has conceived as being
empty? One must be very clear.
DB: Yes. But whatever we discuss, no
matter what the question
is, thought begins to want to do something
about it, because
thought feels it can always make a
contribution.
K: Quite.
DB: Thought in the past did not understand
that it has no useful
contribution to make, but it has kept on
in the habit of trying to say
that emptiness is very good. Therefore
thought says, I will try to
bring about the emptiness.
K: Of course.
DB: Thought is trying to be helpful!
K: We have been through all that. We have
seen the nature of
thought, and its movement, time, and all
that. But I want to find out
whether this emptiness is within the mind
itself, or beyond it.
DB: What do you mean by the mind?
K: The mind is the whole - emotions,
thought, consciousness,
the brain - the whole of that is the mind.
DB: The word `mind' has been used in many
ways. Now you
are using it in a certain way, that it
represents thought, feeling,
desire and will - the whole material
process.
K: Yes, the whole material process.
DB: Which people have called non-material!
K: Quite. But the mind is the whole
material process.
DB: Which is going on in the brain and the
nerves.
K: The whole structure. One can see that
this materialistic
reaction can end. And the next question I
am asking is whether that
emptiness is within or without. (Without,
in the sense of being
elsewhere.)
DB: Where would it be?
K: I don't think it would be elsewhere,
but I am just putting the
question...
DB: Well, any such thing is a material
process.
K: It is in the mind itself. Not outside
it. Right?
DB: Yes.
K: Now what is the next step? Does that
emptiness contain
nothing? Not a thing?
DB: Not a thing, by which we mean anything
that has form,
structure, stability. K: Yes. All that,
form, structure, reaction,
stability, capacity. Then what is it? Is
it then total energy?
DB: Yes, movement of energy.
K: Movement of energy. It is not movement
of reaction.
DB: It is not movement of things reacting
to each other. The
world can be regarded as made up of a
number of things which
react to each other and that is one kind
of movement: but we are
saying it is a different kind of movement.
K: Entirely different.
DB: There is no thing in it.
K: No thing in it, and therefore it is not
of time. Is that possible?
Or are we just indulging in imagination?
In some kind of romantic,
hopeful, pleasurable sensation? I don't
think that we are, because
we have been through all that, step by
step, right up to this point.
So we are not deceiving ourselves. Now we
say that emptiness has
no centre, as the `me', and all the
reactions. In that emptiness there
is a movement of timeless energy.
DB: When you refer to timeless energy, we
could repeat what
we have already said about time and
thought being the same.
K: Yes, of course.
DB: Then you were saying that time can
only come into a
material process?
K: That's right.
DB: Now if we have energy that is timeless
but nevertheless
moving...
K: Yes, not static...
DB: Then what is the movement?
K: What is movement from here to here?
DB: That is one form.
K: One form. Or from yesterday to today,
and from today to
tomorrow.
DB: There are various kinds of movement.
K: So what is
movement? Is there a movement which is not
a movement? You
understand? Is there a movement which has
no beginning and no
end? Unlike thought which has a beginning
and an end.
DB: Except you could say that the movement
of matter might
have a beginning and no ending; the
reactive movement. You are
not speaking of that?
K: No, I am not talking of that. Thought
has a beginning and
thought has an ending. There is a movement
of matter as reaction,
and the ending of that reaction.
DB: In the brain.
K: Yes. But there are various kinds of
movements. That is all
we know. And someone comes along and says
there is a totally
different kind of movement. But to
understand that, we must be
free of the movement of thought, and the
movement of time, to
understand a movement that is not...
DB: Well there are two things about this
movement. It has no
beginning and no end, but also it is not
determined as a series of
successions from the past.
K: Of course. No causation.
DB: But you see, matter can be looked at
as a series of causes; it
may not be adequate. But now you are
saying that this movement
has no beginning and no ending; it is not
the result of a series of
causes following one another.
K: So I want to understand verbally a
movement that is not a
movement. I don't know if I am making it
clear?
DB: Then why is it called a movement if it
is not a movement?
K: Because it is not still, it is active.
DB: It is energy.
K: It has tremendous energy; therefore it
can never be still. But
in that energy it has stillness.
DB: I think we have to say that the
ordinary language does not
convey this properly, but the energy
itself is still, and also moving.
K: But in that movement is a movement of
stillness. Does it sound
crazy?
DB: The movement can be said to emerge
from stillness.
K: That's right. You see, that is what it
is. We said that this
emptiness is in the mind. It has no cause
and no effect. It is not a
movement of thought, of time. It is not a
movement of material
reactions. None of that. Which means, is
the mind capable of that
extraordinary stillness without any
movement? When it is so
completely still, there is a movement out
of it.
DB: I think I mentioned before that some
people, like Aristotle,
had this notion in the past; we discussed
it. He talked about the
unmoved mover, when trying to describe
God, you see.
K: Ah, God, no. I don't want to do that!
DB: You don't want to describe God, but
some sort of notion
similar to this has been held in the past
by various people. Since
then it has gone out of fashion, I think.
K: Let's bring it into fashion, shall we?!
DB: I am not saying that Aristotle had the
right idea. It is
merely that he was considering something
somewhat similar,
though probably different in many
respects.
K: Was it an intellectual concept or an
actuality?
DB: This is very hard to tell because so
little is known.
K: Therefore we don't have to bring in
Aristotle.
DB: I merely wanted to point out that the
concept of a
movement of stillness wasn't crazy,
because other very respectable
people had had something similar.
K: I am glad! I am glad to be assured that
I am not crazy! And
is that movement out of stillness the
movement of creation? We are
not talking of what the poets, writers and
painters call creation. To
me, that is not creation; just capacity,
skill, memory and
knowledge operating. Here I think this
creation is not expressed in
form.
DB: It is important to differentiate.
Usually we think creation is
expressed in form, or as structure. K:
Yes, structure. We have gone
beyond being crazy, so we can go on! Would
you say that this
movement, not being of time, is eternally
new?
DB: Yes. It is eternally new in the sense
that the creation is
eternally new. Right?
K: Creation is eternally new. You see that
newness is what the
artists are trying to discover. Therefore
they indulge in all kinds of
absurdities, but few come to that point
where the mind is
absolutely silent, and out of that silence
there is this movement
which is always new. The moment when that
movement is
expressed...
DB: ...the first expression is in thought?
K: That is just it.
DB: And that may be useful, but then it
gets fixed, and becomes
a barrier.
K: I was told once by an Indian scholar
that before people
began to sculpt the head of a god, or
whatever, they had to go into
deep meditation. At the right moment they
took up the hammer and
the chisel.
DB: Then it came out of the emptiness.
There is another point,
you see. The Australian aborigines draw
figures in the sand, so that
they don't have permanency.
K: That is right.
DB: Perhaps thought could be looked at
that way. You see,
marble is too static, and remains for
thousands of years. So
although the original sculptor may have
understood, the people
who follow see it as a fixed form.
K: What relationship has all this to my
daily life? In what way
does it act through my actions, through my
ordinary physical
responses, to noise, to pain, various
forms of disturbance? What
relationship has the physical to that
silent movement?
DB: Well, in so far as the mind is silent,
the thought is orderly.
K: We are getting on to something. Would
you say that the
silent movement, with its unending
newness, is total order of the
universe? DB: We could consider that the
order of the universe
emerges from this silence and emptiness.
K: So what is the relationship of this
mind to the universe?
DB: The particular mind?
K: No; mind.
DB: Mind in general?
K: Mind. We went through the general and
the particular, and
beyond that there is the mind.
DB: Would you say that is universal?
K: I don't like to use the word universal.
DB: Universal in the sense of that which
is beyond the
particular. But perhaps that word is
difficult.
K: Can we find another word? Not global. A
mind that is
beyond the particular?
DB: Well you could say it is the source,
the essence. It has been
called the absolute.
K: I don't want to use the word
`absolute', either.
DB: The absolute means literally that
which is free of all
limitations, of all dependence.
K: All right, if you agree that `absolute'
means freedom from all
dependence and limitation.
DB: From all relationships.
K: Then we will use that word.
DB: It has unfortunate connotations.
K: Of course. But let's use it for the
moment just for
convenience in our dialogue. There is this
absolute stillness, and in
or from that stillness there is a
movement, and that movement is
everlastingly new. What is the
relationship of that mind to the
universe?
DB: To the universe of matter?
K: To the whole universe: matter, trees,
nature, man, the
heavens. DB: That is an interesting
question.
K: The universe is in order; whether it is
destructive or
constructive, it is still order.
DB: You see, the order has the character
of being absolutely
necessary; in a sense it cannot be
otherwise. The order that we
usually know is not absolutely necessary.
It could be changed; it
could depend on something else.
K: The eruption of a volcano is order.
DB: It is order of the whole universe.
K: Quite. Now in the universe there is
order, and this mind
which is still is completely in order.
DB: The deep mind, the absolute.
K: The absolute mind. So, is this mind the
universe?
DB: In what sense is that the universe? We
have to understand
what it means to say that, you see.
K: It means, is there a division, or a
barrier, between this
absolute mind and the universe? Or are
both the same?
DB: Both are the same.
K: That is what I want to get at.
DB: We have either duality of mind and
matter, or they are both
the same.
K: That's it. Is that presumptuous?
DB: Not necessarily. I mean that these are
just two possibilities.
K: I want to be quite sure that we are not
treading upon
something which really needs a very subtle
approach - which needs
great care. You know what I mean?
DB: Yes. Let's go back to the body. We
have said that the mind
which is of the body - thought, feeling,
desire, the general and the
particular mind - is part of the material
process.
K: Absolutely.
DB: And not different from the body. K:
That's right. All the
reactions are material processes.
DB: And therefore what we usually call the
mind is not
different from what we call the body.
K: Quite.
DB: Now you are making this much greater
in saying, consider
the whole universe. And we ask if what we
call the mind in the
universe is different from what we call
the universe itself?
K: That's right. You see why I feel that
in our daily life there
must be order, but not the order of
thought.
DB: Well, thought is a limited order, it
is relative.
K: That's it. So there must be an order
that is...
DB: ...free of limitation.
K: Yes. In our daily life we have to have
that - which means no
conflict, no contradiction whatsoever.
DB: Let's take the order of thought. When
it is rational it is in
order. But in contradiction the order of
thought has broken down, it
has reached its limit. Thought works until
it reaches a
contradiction, and that's the limit.
K: So if in my daily life there is
complete order, in which there
is no disturbance, what is the
relationship of that order to the never
ending order? Can that silent movement of
order, of that
extraordinary something, affect my daily
life, when I have inward
psychological order? You understand my
question?
DB: Yes. We have said, for example, that
the volcano is a
manifestation of the whole order of the
universe.
K: Absolutely. Or a tiger killing a deer.
DB: The question then is whether a human
being in his ordinary
life can be similar.
K: That's it. If not, I don't see what is
the point of the other - the
universal.
DB: Well, it has no point to the human
being. You see, some
people would say, who cares about the
universe. All we care about
is our own society, and what we are doing.
But then that falls
down, because it is full of contradiction.
K: Obviously. It is only thought which
says that.
So that universe, which is in total order,
does affect my daily
life.
DB: Yes. I think that scientists might ask
how. You see, one
might say, I understand that the universe
is constituted of matter,
and that the laws of matter affect our
daily life. But it is not so
clear how it affects the mind; and if
there is this absolute mind
which affects the daily life.
K: Ah! What is my daily life? Disorderly,
and a series of
reactions. Right?
DB: Well, it is mostly that.
K: And thought is always struggling to
bring order within that.
But when it does that, it is still
disorder.
DB: Because thought is always limited by
its own
contradictions.
K: Of course. Thought is always creating
disorder, because it is
itself limited.
DB: As soon as it tries to go beyond the
limit, that is disorderly.
K: Right. I have understood, I have gone
into it, I have an
insight into it, so I have a certain kind
of order in my life. But that
order is still limited. I recognize that,
and I say that this existence is
limited.
DB: Now some people would accept that, and
say `Why should
you have more?'
K: I am not having more.
DB: But others might say, `We would be
happy if we could live
in a material life, with real order.'
K: I say, let's do it! It must be done!
But in the very doing of it,
one has to realize it is limited.
DB: Yes, even the highest order that we
can produce is limited.
K: And the mind realizes its limitation
and says, let's go beyond
it. DB: Why? Some people would say, why
not be happy within
those limits, continually extending them,
trying to discover new
thoughts, new order? The artist will
discover new forms of art, the
scientists a new kind of science.
K: But all that is always limited.
DB: There is often the feeling that we can
go this far, and
accept that this is all that is possible.
K: You mean the feeling that we must
accept the human
condition?
DB: Well, people would say that man could
do much better than
he is doing.
K: Yes, but all this is still the human
condition, a little
reformed, a little better.
DB: Some people would say enormously
reformed.
K: But it is still limited!
DB: Yes. Let's try to make clear what is
wrong with the
limitation.
K: In that limitation there is no freedom,
only a limited
freedom.
DB: Yes. So eventually we come to the
boundary of our
freedom. Something makes us react, through
reaction we fall back
into contradiction.
K: Yes, but what happens when I see that I
am always moving
within a certain area.?
DB: Then I am under the control of the
forces.
K: The mind inevitably rebels against
that.
DB: That is an important point. You see
the mind wants
freedom. Right?
K: Obviously.
DB: It says that freedom is the highest
value. So do we accept
that, and see it just as a fact?
K: That is, I realize that within this
limitation I am a prisoner.
DB: Some people get used to it and say, `I
accept it.' K: I won`t
accept it! My mind says there must be
freedom from prison. I am a
prisoner, and the prison is very nice,
very cultured and all the rest
of it. But it is still limited, although
it says, there must be freedom
beyond all that.
DB: Which mind says this? Is it the
particular mind of the
human being?
K: Ah! Who says there must be freedom? Oh,
that is very
simple. The very pain, the very suffering
demands that we go
beyond.
DB: This particular mind, even though it
accepts limitation,
finds it painful.
K: Of course.
DB: And therefore this particular mind
feels somehow that it is
not right. But it can't avoid it. There
seems to be a necessity of
freedom.
K: Freedom is necessary, and any hindrance
to freedom is
retrogression. Right?
DB: That necessity is not an external
necessity due to reaction.
K: Freedom is not a reaction.
DB: The necessity of freedom is not a
reaction. Some people
would say that having been in prison you
reacted in this way.
K: So where are we? You see, this means
there must be freedom
from reaction, freedom from the limitation
of thought, freedom
from all the movement of time. We know
that there must be
complete freedom from all that, before we
can really understand
the empty mind, and the order of the
universe, which is then the
order of the mind. We are asking a
tremendous lot. Are we willing
to go that far?
DB: Well, you know that non-freedom has
its attractions.
K: Of course, but I am not interested in
these attractions.
DB: But you asked the question, are we
willing to go that far?
So it seems to suggest that there may be
something attractive in
this limitation.
K: Yes. I have found safety, security,
pleasure in non-freedom. I
realize that in pleasure or pain there is
no freedom. The mind says,
not as a reaction, that there must be
freedom from all this. To come
to that point and to let go without
conflict, demands its own
discipline, its own insight. That's why I
said to those of us who
have done a certain amount of
investigation into all this, can one
go as far as that? Or do the responses of
the body - the
responsibilities of daily action, for
one's wife, children, and all that
- prevent this sense of complete freedom?
The monks, the saints,
and the sannyasis have said, `You must
abandon the world.'
DB: We went into that.
K: Yes. That is another form of idiocy,
although I'm sorry to put
it like that. We have been through all
that, so I refuse to enter again
into it. Now I say are the universe and
the mind that has emptied
itself of all this, one?
DB: Are they one?
K: They are not separate, they are one.
DB: So you are saying that the material
universe is like the
body of the absolute mind.
K: Yes, all right.
DB: It may be a picturesque way of putting
it!
K: We must be very careful also not to
fall into the trap of
thinking that the universal mind is always
there.
DB: How would you put it then?
K: Man has said that God is always there;
Brahman, or the
highest principle, is always present, and
all you have to do is to
cleanse yourself, and arrive at that. This
is also a very dangerous
statement, because then you might say,
there is the eternal in me.
DB: But I think that is projecting.
K: Of course!
DB: There is a logical difficulty in
saying it is always there
because `always' implies time, and we are
trying to discuss
something that has nothing to do with
time. So we can't place it as
being here, there, now or again!
K: We have come to the point that there is
this universal mind,
and the human mind can be of that when
there is freedom.
THE ENDING OF
TIME CHAPTER 13 27TH
SEPTEMBER 1980
CONVERSATION WITH
PROF. DAVID BOHM
'CAN PERSONAL
PROBLEMS BE
SOLVED, AND
FRAGMENTATION
END?'
KRISHNAMURTI: We have cultivated a mind that
can solve
almost any technological problem. But
apparently human problems
have never been solved. Human beings are
drowned by their
problems: the problems of communication,
knowledge, of
relationships, the problems of heaven and
hell; the whole human
existence, has become a vast, complex
problem. And apparently
through out history it has been like this.
In spite of his knowledge,
in spite of his centuries of evolution,
man has never been free of
problems.
DAVID BOHM: Yes, of insoluble problems.
K: I question if human problems are
insoluble.
DB: I mean, as they are put now.
K: As they are now, of course, these
problems have become
incredibly complex and insoluble. No
politician, scientist, or
philosopher is going to solve them, even
through wars and so on!
So why have human beings throughout the
world not been able to
resolve the daily problems of life? What
are the things that prevent
the complete solution of these problems?
Is it that we have never
turned our minds to it? Is it because we
spend all our days, and
probably half the night, in thinking about
technological problems
so that we have no time for the other?
DB: That is partly so. Many people feel
that the other should
take care of itself.
K: But why? I am asking in this dialogue
whether it is possible
to have no human problems at all - only
technological problems,
which can be solved. But human problems
seem insoluble. Is it
because of our education, our deep-rooted
traditions, that we
accept things as they are?
DB: Well, that is certainly part of it.
These problems
accumulate as civilization gets older, and
people keep on accepting
things which make problems. For example,
there are now far more
nations in the world than there used to
be, and each one creates
new problems.
(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 - Part 5"