The Ending of Time J. Krishnamurti and Dr. David Bohm - Part 7
0




























The Ending of Time
J. Krishnamurti
and
Dr. David Bohm






K: No, no there is no hope. I end it.
DB: There is no hope.
K: The moment I introduce the word 'hope' there is a feeling of
the future.
DB: Yes, that is desire.
K: Desire, and therefore it is of time. So I - the mind puts all
that aside completely, I mean it, completely. Then what is the
essence of all this? Do you understand my question? What is the -
no, I have put the wrong question, sorry. Is my mind still seeking,
or groping after something intangible that it can capture and hold?
And if that is so, it is still part of time.
DB: Well that is still desire.
K: Desire and a subtle form of vanity.
DB: Why vanity?
K: Vanity in the sense 'I have reached'.
DB: Self deception.
K: Deception, and all forms of illusion arise from that. So it is
not that. I am cleaning the decks as we go along.
DB: Essentially it seems that you are cleaning the movement of
desire in its subtle forms.
K: In its subtle forms. So that too has been put away. Then as
we said the other day, in another discussion, there is only mind.
Right?
DB: Yes, we left the question somewhat unsettled because we
had to ask what is meant by nature, if there is only mind, because
nature seems somewhat independent.
K: But we also said all the universe is the mind.
DB: You mean to say nature is the mind.
K: Part of mind.
DB: The universal mind.
K: Universal mind.
DB: Not a particular mind.
K: The particular mind then is separate but we are talking of
Mind.
DB: You see we have to make it clear because you are saying
that nature is the creation of universal mind which nevertheless
nature has a certain reality.
K: That is all understood.
DB: But it is almost as if nature was the thought of the universal
mind.
K: It is part of it. Sir I am trying to grope after - if the particular
mind has come to an end, then there is only the Mind, the universal
mind. Right?
DB: Right. Yes, well if it has - we have been discussing the
particular mind groping through desire and we said if all of that has
stopped...
K: That is just my point. If all that has completely come to an
end, what is the next step? Is there any next? We said yesterday,
there is a beginning, and that word also implies part of time.
DB: We won't say, so much beginning, perhaps ending.
K: The ending, we have said that.
DB: Ending, right. But now is there something new?
K: Is there something which the mind cannot capture?
DB: Which mind, the particular or the universal?
K: The particular has ended.
DB: Yes. You are saying the universal mind cannot capture it
either?
K: That is what I am finding out.
DB: Are you saying there is a reality beyond universal mind?
Or something?
K: Sir, are we playing a game of peeling off one thing after
another? Like an onion skin and at the end there is only tears and
nothing else?
DB: Well, I don't know.
K: Because we said there is the ending, then the cosmic, the
universal mind, and behind is there something more?
DB: Well would you say this 'more' is energy?
K: We said that.
DB: But you mean the energy is beyond the universal mind?
K: I would say yes because the universal mind is part of that
energy.
DB: I understand that. That is understandable.
K: That is understandable. At last!
DB: Well in a way the energy is alive, you are saying?
K: Yes, yes.
DB: And also intelligent?
K: Wait a minute. Wait a minute.
DB: In so far as it is mind.
K: Now if that energy is intelligent, why has it allowed man to
move away in the wrong direction?
DB: I think that that may be part of a process, something that
was inevitable in the nature of thought. You see if thought is going
to develop that possibility must exist.
K: Oh.
DB: To bring about thought in man...
K: Is that the original freedom for man?
DB: What?
K: To choose?
DB: No, that is, thought has to have the capacity to make this
mistake.
K: But if that intelligence was operating, why did it allow this
mistake?
DB: Well you can suggest anyway that there is a universal
order, a law.
K: All right sir. The universe function in order.
DB: Yes, and this is part of the order of the universe that this
particular mechanism can go wrong. If a machine breaks down it is
not disorder in the universe, it is merely part of universal order.
K: Yes. In the universal order there is disorder, where man is
concerned.
DB: It is not disorder at the level of the universe.
K: No, no. At a much lower level.
DB: At the level of man it is disorder.
K: Disorder. And why has he lived from the beginning of man,
why has he lived in this disorder?
DB: Because he is still ignorant, he still hasn't seen the point.
K: But if he is part of the whole and in one tiny corner man
exists and has lived in disorder. And this enormous conscious
intelligence - not conscious, this enormous intelligence has not...
DB: Yes, well you could say that the possibility of creation is
also the possibility of disorder. That if man had the possibility of
being creative and there would also be the possibility of a mistake
or something. It could not be fixed like a machine, to always
operate in perfect order.
K: No, no.
DB: I mean the intelligence would not have turned him into a
machine.
K: No, of course not.
DB: That would be incapable of disorder.
K: So is there something beyond the cosmic order, mind?
DB: Are you saying that the universe, that that mind has created
nature which has an order that is not merely just going around
mechanically? It has some deeper meaning.
K: That is what we are trying to find out.
DB: You are bringing in the whole universe as well as mankind.
Well what makes you do this? What is the source of this
perception?
K: The source of what?
DB: Of what you said.
K: What?
DB: About the universe and about the mind.
K: We said just now - let's begin again: there is the ending of
the 'me' as time, and so there is no hope, all that is gone, finished,
ended. In the ending of it there is that sense of nothingness, which
is so. And nothingness is this whole universe,
DB: Yes, the universal mind, the universe of matter.
K: Yes, the whole universe.
DB: I am just asking: what lead you to say that?
K: Ah! I know. To put it very simply: division has come to an
end. Right? The division created by time, created by thought,
created by this education and so on and so on, all that, because it
has ended, it is obvious, the other.
DB: You mean without the division then the other is there to be
perceived.
K: Not to be perceived, it is there.
DB: But then how do you come to be aware that it is there?
K: Quite. How do you come to be aware that - I don't think you
become aware of it.
DB: Then what leads you to say it?
K: Would you say it is, not, I perceive it, or, it is perceived.
DB: No. It is.
K: It is.
DB: You could almost say that it is saying it. In some sense you
seem to be suggesting that it is what is saying.
K: Yes.
DB: Right?
K: Yes. I didn't want to put it - I am glad you put it like that!
DB: I mean it is implied in what you are saying.
K: Where are we now?
DB: Well we say that the universe is alive, as it were, it is mind
and we are part of it.
K: We can only say we are part of it when there is no 'I'.
DB: No division.
K: No division.
I would like to push it a little further, which is: is there
something beyond all this?
DB: Beyond the energy, you mean?
K: Yes. We said nothingness and everything, that nothingness is
everything and so it is that which is total energy. It is undiluted
pure uncorrupted energy - right. Is there something beyond that?
Why do we ask it?
DB: I don't know.
K: I feel we haven't touched - I feel there is something beyond.
DB: Could we say this something beyond is, as it were, the
ground of the whole. You are saying that this all emerges from an
inward ground?
K: Yes, there is another - I must be awfully careful here. Sir,
you know one must be awfully careful not to be romantic, not to
have illusions, not to have desire, not even to grope. It must
happen. You follow what I mean?
DB: We are saying the thing must come from that. Whatever
you are saying must come from that.
K: From that. That's it. It sounds rather presumptions.
DB: Without your actually seeing it - it is not that you look at it
and say that is what I have seen.
K: Oh no. Then it is wrong.
DB: There isn't a division or anything. Of course it is easy to
fall into delusion into this sort of thing.
K: Of course. But we said delusion exists as long as there is
desire and thought. That is simple. And desire and thought is part
of the 'I', which is time and all that. When that is completely ended
then there is absolutely nothing and therefore that is the universe,
that emptiness which is full of energy. We can put a stop there for
the time.
DB: Yes, because we haven't yet seen the necessity for going
beyond the energy, you see.
K: Yes.
DB: We have to see that as necessary.
K: I think it is necessary.
DB: Yes but it has to be seen. We have to bring that out, why is
it necessary?
K: Why is it necessary? Tentatively: there is something in us
that is operating, there is something in us much more - I don't know
how to put it - much greater. Let me, sir. I am going slowly,
slowly. What I am trying to say is: wait a minute. I think there is
something, sir, beyond that. When I say 'I think', you know what I
mean.
DB: I understand, yes.
K: There is something beyond that. How can we talk about it?
You see energy exists only when there is emptiness - right?
DB: Yes. Well.
K: Together they go.
DB: This pure energy is emptiness. This pure energy you talk
about is emptiness.
K: Emptiness.
DB: Not filled with something.
K: No. Now beyond that emptiness, not in terms of beyond.
Beyond means more, further, time.
DB: Yes. Inwardly.
K: I don't know how to put it that way.
DB: But are you trying to suggest that there is that which is
beyond the emptiness, the ground of the emptiness?
K: Yes.
DB: Would that be something in the nature of a substance? You
see the question is if it is not emptiness then what is it?
K: I don't quite follow your question.
DB: Well you say something beyond emptiness, you know,
other than emptiness.
K: I said there is emptiness which is energy.
DB: And beyond that.
K: Now, wait a minute. Are you all hanging on my words?
What do you say sir?
DB: I think we can follow to the energy and the emptiness. Now
if we suggest something other to that, to the emptiness...
K: Oh yes, there is something other.
DB: Yes, then that other must be different from the emptiness.
K: Yes sir. I have got it.
DB: Non-emptiness. Is that right?
K: What did you say just now?
DB: I said something other to emptiness, which therefore is not
emptiness, does that make sense?
K: Then it is substance.
DB: Yes that is what seemed to be implied: if it is not emptiness
it is substance.
K: Substance is matter, is it?
DB: Not necessarily but having quality of substance.
K: What do you mean by that?
DB: Well, you see matter is a form of substance in the sense
that it is...
K: Matter is energy.
DB: It is energy but having the form of substance as well
because it has a constant form and it resists change, it is stable, it
maintains itself.
K: Yes. But when you use the word 'substance', beyond
emptiness, does that word have a meaning then?
DB: Well we are exploring the possible meaning of what you
want to say. If you are saying it is not emptiness then it would not
be substance as we know it in matter but we can see a certain
quality which belongs to substance in general, if it has that quality
we could use the word substance, extend the meaning of the word
substance.
K: I understand. So could we use the word 'quality'?
DB: Well the word 'quality' is not necessarily the emptiness,
energy could have the quality of emptiness, you see.
K: Yes I see.
DB: And therefore something other might have the quality of
substance. That is the way I see it. And is that what you are trying
to say?
K: Sir, there is something beyond emptiness. How shall we
tackle it?
DB: Firstly, what leads you to say it? What leads you to say
this?
K: Simply the fact that there is. We have been fairly logical all
along, reasonable and fairly sane. So we have not been caught in
any illusions so far. Right? And can we keep that same kind of
watchfulness in which there is no illusion to find out - not find out
- for that which is beyond emptiness to come down to earth? Come
down to earth in the sense to be communicated. You follow what I
mean?
DB: Yes. Well we could come back to the question before: why
hasn't it come down?
K: Why hasn't it come down? Has man been ever free from the
'I'?
DB: No, well not generally speaking, no.
K: No. And it demands that the 'I' end.
DB: I think we could look at it this way: that the ego becomes
an illusion of that substance. You feel the ego is a substance too in
some way.
K: Yes, the ego is substance, quite right.
DB: And therefore that substance seems to be...
K:... untouchable.
DB: But that ego is an illusion of true substance. You see the
mind tries to create some illusion of that substance.
K: That is an illusion, why do you relate it to the other?
DB: In the sense that if the mind thinks it already has this
substance then it will not be open to it.
K: Of course, of course.
Can that thing ever be put into words? I am not saying I am
avoiding it - you follow? It is not a question of avoiding or trying
to slither out of some conclusion. But you see so far we have put
everything into words.
DB: Yes, well I think that once something can be perceived it
can generally be put into words. If anything can be properly
perceived then after a while the words come to communicate it.
K: Yes, but can that be perceived and therefore communicable?
DB: This thing beyond, would you say also it is alive?
K: Eh?
DB: Is life beyond emptiness, is that still life?
K: Is that still alive?
DB: Living.
K: Living, yes. Oh yes.
DB: And intelligent?
K: I don't want to use those words.
DB: That is too limited?
K: Living, intelligence, love, compassion, it is all too limited.
Sir, you and I are sitting here, we have come to a point and
there is that thing which perhaps later on might be put into words,
without any sense of pressure or intimation, without any sense of
verbal communication, and so without any illusion, don't you see
beyond the wall? You know what I mean? We have come up to a
certain point and we are saying there is something still more - you
understand? There is something behind all that. Is it palpable, you
can touch it, is it something that the mind can capture? You
follow?
DB: Yes. Are you saying it is not?
K: I don't think it is possible for the mind to capture it - capture,
you understand?
DB: Yes, or grasp it.
K: Grasp it, understand, for the mind to look at it even. Sir, you
are a scientist, you have examined the atom and so on and so on,
don't you, when you have examined all that, don't you feel there is
something much more beyond all that?
DB: You can always feel there is more beyond that but it
doesn't tell you what it is.
K: No, no, but you know there is something much more.
DB: It is clear that whatever you know it is limited.
K: Yes.
DB: And there must be more beyond.
K: How can that communicate with you so that you, with your
scientific knowledge, with your brain capacity and so on and so on,
how can you grasp it?
DB: Now are you saying it can't be grasped?
K: No, no. Can you grasp it? I don't say you can't grasp it - can
you grasp it?
DB: Look, it is not clear. You were saying before that it is
ungraspable by...
K: Grasp in the sense, can your mind, highly trained, capable of
perception, you know, beyond theories and so on - what am I
trying to tell you? I am trying to say: can you move into it? Not
move - you understand, move means time and all that. Can you -
what am I trying to say? Can you enter it? No, those are all words.
Sir, what is beyond emptiness? Is it silence?
DB: Isn't that similar to emptiness?
K: Yes, that is what I am getting at, move step by step. Is it
silence? Or is silence part of emptiness?
DB: Yes, I should say that.
K: I should say that too. If it is not silence - just a minute sir, I
am just asking: could we say it is something absolute? You
understand?
DB: Well we could consider the absolute. It would have to be
something totally independent, that is what it really means,
absolute. It doesn't depend on anything.
K: Yes, sir. I am glad. You are getting somewhere near it.
DB: Entirely self moving, as it were, self active.
K: Yes. Would you say everything has a cause and that has no
cause at all?
DB: You see this notion is already an old one. This notion has
been developed by Aristotle, that this absolute is the cause of itself.
K: Yes.
DB: It has no cause in a sense. That is the same thing.
K: You see the moment you said Aristotle, it is not that. How
shall we get at this? Emptiness is energy and that emptiness exists
in silence or the other way round, it doesn't matter - right?
DB: Right.
K: Oh yes, there is something beyond all this. Probably it can
never be put into words.
DB: As far as we can tell anyway.
K: But it must be put into words.
DB: Yes.
K: You follow?
DB: You are saying the absolute must be put into words, and
yet we feel it can't be. Any attempt to put it into words makes it
relative.
K: Yes. I don't know how to put all this.
DB: I think we have a long history of danger with the absolute.
People have put it in words and it has become very oppressive.
K: Leave all that. You see being ignorant of what other people
have said - you follow? - Aristotle and the Buddha and so on - it
has an advantage. You understand what I mean? It is an advantage
in the sense that the mind is not coloured by other people's ideas, it
is not caught in other people's statements. And that is part of our
conditioning and so on, all that. Now to go beyond all that. What
are we trying to do, sir?
DB: Well I think to communicate regarding this absolute, this
beyond.
K: I took away that word immediately.
DB: Then whatever it is, what is beyond emptiness and silence.
K: Beyond all that. There is beyond all that.
DB: The difficulty is...
K: All that is something, part of an immensity.
DB: Yes, well even the emptiness and silence is an immensity,
isn't it? The energy is itself an immensity.
K: Yes, I understand that. But there is something much more
immense than that. Sir, emptiness and silence and energy is
immense, it is really immeasurable. But there is something - I am
using the word 'greater' than that. I can't put it, I don't know. Why
do you accept all this?
DB: Well I am just considering. I am looking at it, I mean, but
one can see that whatever you say about emptiness, or about any
other thing, that there is something beyond.
K: No, as a scientist, why do you accept - not accept, forgive
me for using that word - why do you even move with the other
chap?
DB: Yes, well because we have come this far step by step,
seeing the necessity of each step.
K: You see all that is very logical, reasonable, sane.
DB: And also, one can see that it is so, right.
K: Yes. So if I say there is something greater than all this,
silence, energy, would you accept that? Accept in the sense that up
to now we have been logical.
DB: We will say that anything you say, there is certainly
something beyond it. Whatever you say - carry whatever you say to
silence, energy, whatever, then there is always room logically for
something beyond that.
K: Beyond that, yes.
DB: That is not the final.
K: That is not the end.
DB: But even if you were to say there is something - the point is
this: that even if you were to say there is something beyond that,
but still you logically leave room for going again beyond that.
K: No, no, no.
DB: Well that is the question.
K: That is the point.
DB: Well why is that? You see whatever you say there is
always room for something beyond.
K: Of course, of course. There is nothing beyond.
DB: Yes, well that point is not clear you see because...
K: There is nothing beyond it. I stick to that. Not dogmatically
or obstinately. I feel that is the beginning and the ending of
everything. Sir, just in ordinary parlance, in ordinary
communication, the ending and the beginning are the same. Right?
DB: In which sense?
K: Yes sir, I see something in this.
DB: You mean in the sense that you are using the beginning of
everything as the ending of everything.
K: Yes. Right? You would say that?
DB: Yes, if we take the ground from which it comes it must be
the ground to which it falls.
K: That's right. That is the ground.
DB: All right.
K: Upon which...
DB: Well that is a figure of speech.
K:... upon which everything exists, space...
DB:... energy...
K:... energy, emptiness, silence, all that is on that - not ground,
you understand?
DB: No, it is just a metaphor.
K: There is nothing beyond it.
DB: This ground has no cause.
K: No cause, of course. If you have a cause then you have
ground.
DB: You have another ground.
K: No, no, that is the beginning and the ending.
DB: It is becoming more clear.
K: That's right. Does that convey anything to you?
DB: Yes, well I think that that conveys something.
K: Something. Would you say further: there is no beginning and
no ending?
DB: Yes. It comes from the ground, goes to the ground, but it
does not begin or end, right.
K: Yes, there is no beginning and no ending. Right?
DB: Yes.
K: The implications are enormous. Is that sir, death - not death
in the sense, I will die - is that complete ending of everything?
DB: Yes, well you see at first you would have said that the
emptiness is the ending of everything, so in what sense is this more
now?
K: I am trying to get at thing.
DB: We began with emptiness is the ending of things, isn't it?
K: Yes, yes. Is that death?
DB: What?
K: This emptiness?
DB: Well that...
K: Death of everything the mind has cultivated.
DB: Right, then in what sense is it not then? Why is it not?
K: That emptiness is not the product of the mind, of the
particular mind.
DB: Yes, it is the universal mind.
K: That emptiness is that.
DB: Yes.
K: That emptiness can only exist when there is death of the
particular.
DB: Yes, the particular goes.
K: When there is total death of the particular.
DB: Yes.
K: I don't know if I am conveying this.
DB: Yes that is the emptiness, but then you are saying that in
this ground that death goes further?
K: Oh yes, oh yes.
DB: So you are saying the ending of the particular, the death of
the particular is the emptiness, which is universal. Now are you
going to say that the universal also dies?
K: Yes sir, that is what I am trying to say.
DB: Into the ground.
K: Does it convey anything?
DB: Possibly, yes.
K: Just hold it a minute. Let's see it. I think it conveys
something sir, doesn't it?
DB: Yes, of course it is hard to...
K: Yes.
DB: Now if the particular and the universal die then that is
death, yes?
K: Yes sir. After all, I don't know, I am not an astrologer - not
astrologer - an astronomer, everything in the universe is dying,
exploding, dying.
DB: Yes, but of course you could suppose that there was
something beyond, you know.
K: Yes, that is just it.
DB: I think we are moving. The universal and the particular -
first the particular dies into the emptiness and then comes the
universal.
K: And that dies too.
DB: Into the ground, right?
K: Yes, sir.
DB: So you could say the ground is neither born not dies.
K: That's right.
DB: Well I think it becomes almost inexpressible if you say the
universal is gone because expression is the universal.
K: You see, I am just explaining: everything is dying, except
that. Does this convey anything?
DB: Yes. Well it is out of that that everything arises and into
which it dies.
K: So that has no beginning and no ending.
DB: Yes. Well what would it mean to talk of the ending of the
universal? What would it mean to have the ending of the universal
you see?
K: Nothing. Why should it have a meaning if it is happening?
What has that to do with man? You follow what I mean?
DB: Yes.
K: Man who is going through a terrible time and all the rest of
it, what has that got to do with man?
DB: Well let's call it that man feels he must have some contact
with the ultimate ground in his life otherwise there is no meaning.
K: But it hasn't. That ground hasn't any relationship with man.
DB: Apparently not.
K: No. He is killing himself, he is doing everything contrary to
the ground.
DB: Yes, that is why life has no meaning for man.
K: So I am asking, I am an ordinary man: I say all right you
have talked marvellously, it sounds excellent, what has that got to
do with me? How will that or your talk help me to get over my
ugliness? My wife quarrels with me - or whatever it is. And after
your excellent talk...
DB: Well I think I would go back and say we went into this
logically starting from the suffering of mankind, showing it
originates in a wrong turning and that leads inevitably...
K: Yes but help me, he says, to get to the right turn. Put me on
the right path. And to that you say, please don't become anything.
You see, sir?
DB: Right. What is the problem then?
K: He won't even listen to you.
DB: Yes, well now it seems to me that it is necessary for the
one who sees this to find out what is the barrier to listening.
K: Obviously you can see what is the barrier.
DB: What is the barrier?
K: 'I'.
DB: Yes but I meant more deeply so that...
K: More deeply, all your thoughts, you know, deep attachments
and all that is in your way. If you can't leave that then you will
have no relationship with that. But he doesn't want to leave all that.
DB: Yes, I understand that. But what he wants is the result of
the way he is thinking.
K: What he wants is some comfortable, easy way of living
without any trouble, and he can't have that.
DB: No. Well only by dropping all this.
K: There must be a connection otherwise...
DB: A connection.
K: There must be some relationship with the ground and this,
with ordinary man otherwise what is the meaning of living?
DB: Yes, well that is what I was trying to say before that
without that...
K:... there is no meaning.
DB: And then people invent meaning.
K: Of course. Billy Graham does it everyday.
DB: Well even going back, the ancient religions have said
similar things that god is the ground and they say seek god, you
know.
K: Ah no, this isn't god.
DB: Yes, it is not god but it is playing the same - you could say
that god is an attempt to put this notion a bit too personally
perhaps.
K: Yes. Give them hope, give them faith, you follow? Make life
a little more comfortable to live.
DB: Well are you asking first, at this point: how is this to be
conveyed to the ordinary man? Is that your question?
K: Yes more or less. And also it is important that he should
listen to this.
DB: Yes, I meant exactly that.
K: You are a scientist. You are good enough to listen because
we are friends. But who will listen among your friends? They will
say, what the hell are you talking about? I feel, sir, if one pursues
this we will have a marvellously ordered world.
DB: Yes. And what will we do in this world?
K: Live.
DB: Yes but I mean we said something about creativity.
K: Yes. And then if you had no conflict, no 'I', there is
something else operating.
DB: Yes, it is important to say that because the Christian idea of
having a perfection may seem rather boring because there is
nothing to do.
K: That reminds me of a good joke! You are waiting for the
joke? A man dies and goes to St Peter and St Peter says, 'You have
lived a fairly good life, you have not cheated too much, but before
you enter into this heaven I must tell you one thing: here we are all
bored. We are all awfully serious, god never laughs. And every
angel is moody, oppressed and unless you want to enter this world,
hesitate.' But he says, 'Before you come in perhaps you would like
to go down below and see what it is like. And then come and tell
me. It's up to you.' So St Peter says, 'Ring that bell, the lift will
come up. You get into it and go down.' So the chap rings the bell
and goes down and the gates open. And he is met by the most
beautiful girls etc., etc., etc. And he said, 'By Jove, this is the life.
May I go up and tell Peter?' And so he rings the bell and gets into
the lift and goes up and says, 'Sir it was very good of you to offer
me the choice. I prefer down below.' And Peter says. 'I thought so!'
So he rings the bell and goes down, opens the gate, two people
meet him and beat him up. Push him all around and so on. He said,
'Just a minute, a minute ago I came here, you treated me like a
king.' 'Ah, you were a tourist then!' (Laughter) Sorry. From the
sublime to the ridiculous, which is good too.
Sir we must continue this some other time, because it is
something that has got to be put into orbit.
DB: It seems impossible.
K: We have gone pretty far.
OJAI 3RD CONVERSATION WITH DAVID
BOHM 8TH APRIL, 1980 `THE ENDING OF
TIME'
Krishnamurti: What shall we talk about?
Dr Bohm: Did you have something?
K: I haven't thought about it.
B: One point relating to what we said before on the other days: I
was reading somewhere that a leading physicist said that the more
we understand the universe the more pointless it seems, the less
meaning it has.
K: Yes, yes.
B: And it occurred to me that in science maybe an attempt to
make the material universe the ground of our existence, and then it
may have meaning physically but it does not have meaning...
K:... any other meaning, quite.
B: And the question that we might discuss is this ground which
we were talking about the other day. Is it any different to mankind,
as the physical universe appears to be?
K: A good question. Let's get the question clear. I have
understood it but explain it a little bit more.
B: Well if we go into the background that we were discussing at
lunch. Not only physicists but geneticists, biologists, have tried to
reduce everything to the behaviour of matter - atoms, genes, you
know, DNA. And the more they study it then the more they feel it
has no meaning, it is just going on. Though it has meaning
physically in the sense that we can understand it scientifically, it
has no deeper meaning than that.
K: I understand that.
B: And that, of course, perhaps that notion has penetrated
because in the past people felt the religious people were more
religious and felt that the ground of our existence is in something
beyond matter - in god, or whatever they wished to call it. And that
gave them a sense of deep meaning to the whole of our existence,
which meanwhile has gone away. That is one of the difficulties of
modern life, the sense that it doesn't mean anything.
K: So have the religious people invented something which has a
meaning?
B: They may well have done so. You see, feeling that life has
no meaning, they may have invented something beyond the
ordinary.
K: Yes.
B: Something which is eternal...
K:... timeless, nameless.
B:... and independent, absolute.
K: Seeing the way we live genetically and all the rest of it, has
no meaning, and so some clever erudite people said, 'We will give
it a meaning'.
B: Well I think it happened before that. In the past people
somehow gave meaning to life long before science had been very
much developed in the form of religion. And science came along
and began to deny this religion.
K: Quite. I understand that.
B: And people no longer believe in the religious meaning.
Perhaps they never were able to believe in it entirely anyway.
K: So, how does one find out if life has a meaning beyond this?
How does one find out? They have tried meditation: they have
tried every form of self torture, isolation, becoming a monk, a
sannyasi and so on and so on. But they may also be deceiving
themselves thoroughly.
B: Yes. And that is in fact why the scientists have denied it all
because the story told by the religious people is not plausible, you
see.
K: Quite, quite. So how does one find out if there is something
more than the mere physical? How would one set about it?
B: Yes, well what I was thinking was that we had been
discussing the past two days the notion of some ground which is
beyond, matter beyond the emptiness.
K: Yes, but suppose you say it is so and I say that is another
illusion.
B: Yes but the first point is, perhaps we could clear this up:
would this ground possibly - you see if this ground is indifferent to
human beings then it would be the same as scientists' ground in
matter.
K: Yes. What is the question? Is the ground different...
B: Indifferent.
K: Indifferent.
B: Indifferent to mankind, then you see the universe appears to
be totally indifferent to mankind. It goes in immense vastness, it
pays no attention, it may produce earthquakes and catastrophes, it
might wipe us out, it essentially is not interested in mankind.
K: I see what you mean, yes.
B: It does not care whether man survives or does not survive - if
you want to put it that way.
K: Right. I get the question.
B: Now I think that people felt that god was a ground who was
not indifferent to mankind. You see they may have invented it but
that is what they believed. And that is what gave them possibly...
K:... tremendous energy, quite.
B: Now I think the point would be: would this ground be
indifferent to mankind?
K: Quite. How would you find out? What is the relationship of
this ground to man? What is its relationship with man and man's
relationship to it?
B: Yes, that is the question. Does man have some significance
to it? And does it have significance to man?
K: By Jove, quite, quite.
B: If I may add one more point: that I was discussing once with
somebody who was familiar with the Middle Eastern traditions of
mysticism and he said that in their they not only say that what we
call this ground, this infinite, you know, has some significance.
Remember they feel that what man does has ultimately some
significance.
K: Quite, quite. Join us somebody!
Suppose one says it has, otherwise life has no meaning, nothing
has any meaning, how would one, not prove, how would one find
out? Suppose you say this ground exists, as the other day I said it.
Suppose somebody, you say it, and then the next question is: what
relationship has that to man? And man's relationship to it, how
would you find out? How would one discover, or find out, or touch
it, if the ground exists at all? If it doesn't exist then really man has
no meaning at all. I mean I die and you die and we all die and what
is the point of being virtuous, what is the point of being happy or
unhappy, just carry on. How would you show the ground exists? In
scientific terms as well as the feeling of it, the non verbal
communication of it?
B: Yes, well you say scientific you mean rational?
K: Rational.
B: So something that we can actually touch.
K: Yes. Not touch, sense - better than touch, sense.
Scientifically, we mean by that, rational, logical, sane, many can
come to it.
B: Yes, it is public.
K: Yes. And it isn't just one man's assertion.
B: Yes, I think that is fair.
K: That would be scientific. I think that can be shown. Because
we said from the very beginning that if half a dozen of us actually
freed ourselves, etc., etc., etc. - I think it can be shown but with all
things one must do it, not just verbally talk about it. Can I - or you
say the ground exists and the ground has certain demands: which
are, there must be absolute silence, absolute emptiness, which
means no sense of egotism in any form. Right? Would you tell me
that. Am I willing to let go all my egotism because I want to prove
it, I want to show it, I want to find out if what you are saying is
actually true, so am I willing - all of us, ten of us - willing to say,
'Look, complete eradication of the self'?
B: Yes, I think that I can say that perhaps in some sense one is
willing but there may be another sense in which the willingness is
not subject to your conscious effort or determination.
K: No, wait. So we go through all that.
B: We have to see that...
K: It is not will, it is not desire, it is not effort.
B: Yes but when you say willingness it contains the word 'will'
for example.
K: Willingness in the sense go through that door. Or am I or are
we willing to go through that particular door to find that the ground
exists? You ask me that. I say, agreed, I will. I will in the sense of
not exercising will and all that - what are the facets or the qualities
or the nature of the self? So we go into that. You point it out to me
and I say, 'Right' - Can ten of us do it? Not be attached, not have
fear, not have - you follow? - the whole business of it. Have no
belief, absolute rational - you know - observation. I think if ten
people do it any scientist will accept it. But there are no ten people.
So one man's assertion becomes...
B: I see. We have to have the thing done together publicly...
K:... that's it.
B:... so that it becomes a real fact.
K: A real fact. A real fact in the sense that people accept it. Not
based on illusion, Jesus, belief and all the rest of that.
B: Yes, well a fact. what is actually done.
K: Now, who will do this sir? The scientists want to say that the
thing is all illusory, nonsense, and there are others, 'X' says 'It is
not nonsense, there is a ground.' And 'X' says, 'If you do these
things it will be there.'
B: Yes. Now I think that some of the things that you say may
not entirely in the beginning make sense to the person you talk
with. You see.
K: Yes, quite, because he isn't even willing to listen.
B: Yes, but also his whole background is against it.
K: Of course, of course.
B: You see the background gives you the notion of what makes
sense and what doesn't. Now if you say for example, one of the
steps is not to bring in time, you see.
K: Ah, that's much more difficult.
B: Yes but that is fairly crucial.
K: But wait. I wouldn't begin with time, I would begin at the
schoolboy level.
B: Yes. But you are going eventually reach those more difficult
points.
K: Yes. Begin at the schoolboy level and say, look, do these
things.
B: Well what are they? Let's go over them.
K: No belief.
B: A person may not be able to control what he believes, he
may not know what he believes.
K: No, don't control anything. Observe.
B: Yes.
K: That you have belief, you cling to that belief, belief gives
you a sense of security and so on and so on. And that belief is an
illusion, it has no reality.
B: Yes. You see I think if we were to talk to a scientist like that
he might say, 'I am not sure about that', because he says 'I believe
in the existence of the material world.'
K: Yes, you don't believe the sun rises and sets. It is a fact.
B: Yes, but he believes - you see there have been long
arguments about this, there is no way to prove that it exists outside
my mind but I believe it anyway. This is one of the questions
which arises. You see scientists actually have beliefs. One will
believe that this theory is right, and the other believes in that one.
K: No. I have no theories. I don't have any theories. I start at the
schoolboy level by saying, Look, don't accept theories,
conclusions, don't cling to your prejudices and so on and so on.'
That is the starting point.
B: Yes, well perhaps we had better say don't hold to your
theories you see because somebody might question you if you say
you have no theories, they would immediately doubt that.
K: I have no theories. Why should I have theories.
Q: You see Krishnaji if I am a scientist I would also say I don't
have theories. I don't see that the world which I construct for my
scientific theories is also theoretical. I would call it fact.
K: So we have to discuss what are facts? Right? What are facts?
I would say what are facts, is that which is happening. Actually
happening. Would you agree to that?
B: Yes.
K: Would the scientists agree to that?
B: Yes. Well I think that the scientists would say that what is
happening is understood through theories. You see in science you
do not understand what is happening except with the aid of
instruments and theories.
K: Now, wait, wait, wait. What is happening out there, what is
happening here.
B: All right, but let's go slowly. First what is happening out
there. The instruments and theories are needed to even....
K: No, I am not - no.
B: To have the fact about what is out there...
K: What are the facts out there?
B:... you cannot do it without some kind of theory.
K: The facts there are conflict, why should I have a theory about
it?
B: I wasn't discussing that. I was discussing the facts about
matter, you see, which the scientist is concerned with.
K: Yes. All right.
B: He cannot establish that fact without a certain minor theory.
K: Perhaps. I wouldn't know that.
B: You see, because the theory organizes the fact for him.
Without that it would really fall into...
K: Yes. I understand that. That may be a fact. You may have
theories about that.
B: Yes. About gravitation, atoms - all those things depend on
theories in order to produce the right facts.
K: The right facts. So you start with a theory.
B: A mixture of theory and fact. It is always a combination of
theory and fact.
K: Yes, all right. A combination of theory and fact.
B: Now if you say we are going to have an area where there
isn't any such combination...
K: That's it. Which is psychologically I have no theory about
myself, about the universe, about my relationship with another. I
have no theory. Why should I have? The only fact is mankind
suffers, miserable, confused, in conflict. That is a fact. Why should
I have a theory about it?
B: You must go slowly. You see if you are intending to bring in
the scientists, this is to be scientific...
K: I will go very slowly.
B:... so that we don't leave the scientists behind!
K: Quite. Or, leave me behind.
B: Well let's accept 'part company' - right?
The scientists might say yes, psychology is the science with
which we try to look inwardly, to investigate the mind. And they
say biased people have had theories such as Freud, and Jung and
other people - I don't know all of them. Now we have to make it
clear why it has no point to make these theories.
K: Because theory prevents the observation of what is actually
taking place.
B: Yes, but outside it seemed the theory was helping that
observation. Why the difference here?
K: Yes. The difference? You can do that, it is simple.
B: Well let's spell it out. Because if you want to bring in
scientists you must answer this question.
K: Yes sir. We will answer it. The question is: why should -
what is the question?
B: Why is it that theories are both necessary and useful in
organizing facts about matter, outwardly and yet inwardly,
psychologically they are in the way, they are no use at all.
K: Yes. What is theory?
B: Yes. Well...
K: The meaning of the word, theory.
B: Theory means to see, to view, a kind of insight.
K: To view? That's it.
B: A view, a way of looking.
K: A way of looking.
B: And the theory helps you to look at the outside matter.
K: Well, can you - theory means to observe.
B: It is a way of observing.
K: A way of observing. Can you observe psychologically what
is going on, observe?
B: Yes, now let's say that when we look at matter outwardly to a
certain extent we fix the observing.
K: That is the observer is different.
B: Not only different but their relationship is fixed, relatively at
least, for some time.
K: Yes, that's right. We can move now, a little. Move.
B: This appears to be necessary to study matter. Matter does not
change so fast and it can be separated to some extent, and we can
then make it a fairly constant way of looking at changes but not
immediately, it can be held constant for a while.
K: Yes.
B: And we call that theory.
K: As you said, theory means, the actual meaning of the word,
is a way of observing.
B: It has the same root as theatre in Greek, you see.
K: Theatre, yes, that's right. It is a way of looking. Now what is
- now where do we start? A common way of looking, an ordinary
way of looking, the way of looking depending on each person - the
housewife, the husband, the money-maker - what do you mean the
way of looking?
B: Well the same problem arose in the development of science.
We began with what was called common sense...
K:... common sense
B:... a common way of looking. Then scientists discovered that
this was inadequate.
K: The moved away from it.
B: The moved away, they gave up some parts of it.
K: That is what I am coming to. The common way of looking is
full of prejudice.
B: Yes, it is arbitrary.
K: Arbitrary.
B: Depends on your background.
K: Yes, all that. So can I be free of my background, my
prejudice?
B: Yes.
K: I think one can.
B: You could say that when it comes to looking inwardly - you
see the question is whether a theory of psychology would be any
help in doing this. The danger is that the theory itself might be a
prejudice. If you tried to make a theory...
K: That is what I am saying. That would become a prejudice.
B: That would become a prejudice because we have nothing -
we have not yet observed anything to found it on.
K: So the common factor is that man suffers. Right? That is a
common factor. And the way of observing matters.
B: Yes.
K: Right?
B: I wonder whether scientists would accept that as the most
fundamental factor of man.
K: All right. Conflict?
B: Well they have argued about it.
K: Take anything, it doesn't matter. Attachment, pleasure, fear.
B: I think some people might object saying we should find
something more positive.
K: Which is what?
B: Simply, for example some people might have said that
rationality is a common factor.
K: No, no, no. I won't call rationality a common factor. If they
were rational they wouldn't be fighting each other.
B: We have to make this clear. You see let's say in the past
somebody like Aristotle might have said rationality is the common
factor of man. Now your argument against it is that men are not
generally rational.
K: No, they are not.
B: Though they might be they are not.
K: That's it.
B: So you are saying that is not a fact.
K: That's right.
Q: I think commonly scientists would say that the common
factor for mankind is, that there are many different human beings
and that they are all striving for happiness.
K: Is that the common factor? No. I won't accept that. Many
human beings are striving for happiness.
Q: No. Human beings are all different.
K: Agreed. Stay there.
Q: That is what I am saying. That there is the common theory
which people believe to be a fact.
K: That is, each person thinks he is totally different from others.
Q: Yes. And they are all independently striving for happiness.
K: They are all seeking some kind of gratification. Right?
Would you agree to that.
B: Yes that is one. But the reason I brought up rationality was
that the very existence of science is based on the notion that
rationality is common to man.
K: I know, but that is why I didn't want you to bring that in.
Each person seeking his own individuality.
B: But you see science would be impossible if that were entirely
true, you see.
K: Quite.
Q: Why?
B: Well because everybody would not be interested in the truth,
you see. The very possibility of doing science depends on people
feeling that this common goal of people finding the truth is beyond
personal satisfaction because even if your theory is wrong you
must accept that it is wrong though it is not gratifying. That is, it
becomes very disappointing for people but they accept it, and say,
'Well, that is wrong'.
K: I am not seeking gratification. I am a common man.
Q: Well it is something, for example, which is written into
many Constitutions of many countries, and that is why I brought it
up. It seems to be a common belief.
K: No, I think what Dr Bohm has brought up, which is,
scientists take for granted human beings are rational.
B: When they do science.
K: Science.
B: They may agree that they are not very rational in private life,
but they say that at least they are capable of being rational when
they do scientific work. Otherwise it would be impossible to begin.
K: So outwardly in dealing with matter they are all rational.
B: At least they try to be and they are to some extent.
K: They try to be. They become irrational in their relationship
with other human beings.
B: Yes. They cannot maintain it.
K: So that is the common factor.
B: Yes. O.K. It is important to bring out this point: that
rationality is limited and that you say the fundamental fact is more
generally they cannot be rational. They may succeed in some
limited area.
K: That's right. That's right. Now can I - that is a common
factor. That is a fact.
B: That is a fact though we don't say it is inevitable or that it
can't be changed.
K: No. It is a fact.
B: It is a fact that it has been.
K: That is happening.
B: Yes, it has happened. It is happening.
K: Yes. I, as a common human being, have been irrational. And
my life has been totally contradictory and so on and so on, which is
irrational. Now can I as a human being change that?
B: Yes. Let's see how we could proceed from the scientific
approach. Now this would raise the question, why is everybody
irrational?
K: Because we have been conditioned that way. Our education,
our religion, our everything.
B: Well that won't get us anywhere because it leads to more
questions: how did we get conditioned and so on.
K: We can go into all that.
B: Yes, but I meant that following that line is not going to
answer.
K: Quite. Why are we conditioned that way?
B: For example we were saying the other day that perhaps man
took a wrong turning.
K: Yes.
B: That established the wrong conditioning.
K: The wrong conditioning right from the beginning. Or
seeking security - security for myself, for my family, for my group,
for my tribe, has brought about this division.
B: Yes, but even then you have to ask why man sought this
security in the wrong way. You see if there had been any
intelligence it would have been clear that the whole thing has no
meaning.
K: Of course you are going back to taking the wrong turn. How
will you show me we have taken a wrong turning?
B: Yes. You are saying we want to demonstrate this
scientifically, is that what you are saying? You want to continue
this demonstration?
K: Yes. I think the wrong turn was taken when thought became
all important.
B: Yes, and what made it all important?
K: Now let's think it out. What made thought - what made
human beings enthrone thought as the only means of operation?
Why have they enthroned thought? Right?
B: Yes. Also it would have to be made clear why, if thought is
so important, it causes all the difficulties. These are the two
questions.
K: That is fairly simple.
B: Well we have gone over that but I am saying that if we are
presenting it to somebody else we have to go into that.
K: That is fairly simple. So thought has been made king,
supreme. And that may be the wrong turn of human beings.
B: Yes, you see I think that thought became the equivalent of
truth. You see people took thought to give truth, to give what is
always true. At a certain stage that when there may be the notion
that we have knowledge, which may hold in certain cases for some
time, but men generalize because knowledge is always
generalizing and when they got to the notion that it would be
always so this gave the thought of what is true, you see. This
would give thought this supreme importance.
K: Why has man given - you are asking, aren't you - why has
man given thought such importance? Is that it?
B: I think he has slipped into it.
K: Why?
B: Because he did not see what he was doing. You see, in the
beginning he did not see the danger.
Q: Just before you said that the common ground for man is
reason so...
K: Scientists say that.
Q: Yes. So if you can prove something to be true it is even more
important than you have happiness.
K: I don't quite follow.
Q: If you can show to a person that something is true...
K: Show it to me. It is true I am irrational. That is a fact, that is
true.
Q: Yes, but for that you don't need reason, observation is
sufficient to do that.
K: No. I am irrational. I go and fight. I talk about peace. I am
irrational.
Q: That is all irrational. So why do I say that the reason is so
important when I am not reasonable?
K: No. What Bohm is pointing out is: scientists say man is
rational. The fact of everyday life is irrational. Now we are saying -
he is asking: show me why it is irrational, scientifically. That is,
show me in what way I have slipped into this irrationality, why
human beings have accepted this. We can say it is habit, tradition,
religion; and the scientists also, they are very rational there, in the
scientific field, but very irrational in their lives.
Q: And you suggested that making thought the king is the main
irrationality.
K: Yes. That is right. We have reached that point. I want to be
clear.
B: Yes, but then how did we slip into making thought so
important?
K: Why has man given importance to thought as the supreme
thing? Why? I think that is fairly easy. Because that was the only
thing he knew.
B: It doesn't follow that he would give it supreme importance.
K: Because the thing I know is more important than the things I
don't know - the things thought has created, the images, all the rest
of it.
B: But you see if man were - if intelligence were operating he
would not come to that conclusion. It is not rational to say that all
that I know is all that is important.
K: That is why he is irrational.
B: Yes. It slipped into irrationality to say 'All that I know is all
that is important.' But why should man have made that mistake?
K: Would you say that that mistake is made because he clings to
the known and objects to anything unknown?
B: Well that is a fact but it is not clear why he should.
K: Because that is the only thing that I have.
B: Well you see I am asking why he was not intelligent enough
to see that this...
K: Because we are irrational.
B: Well we are going around in circles.
K: I don't think we are going in circles.
B: Look: every one of these reasons you give is merely another
form of irrationality.
K: That is all I am saying. We are basically irrational. And that
is irrationality has arisen because we have given thought supreme
importance.
Q: But the step before that, isn't that thought has built up the
idea that I exist?
K: Ah, that comes a little later. I don't want to enter into that
because he says you have to go step by step.
Q: Well I felt that that step really comes before because - can I?
K: Yes sir. You say what you like, we are in America.
Q: It is for the 'me', for the 'me' it is the only thing that exists is
thought.
K: Would the scientists accept that?
B: No, scientists feel they are investigating the real nature of
matter, you know, independent of thought, independent ultimately
anyway. He wants to know the way the universe is. He may be
fooling himself but he feels that otherwise it wouldn't be worth
doing unless he believed that he was finding an objective fact.
K: So would you say through matter, through the investigation
of matter he is trying to find something, he is trying to find the
ground.
B: That's exactly it.
K: Wait, wait. Is that it?
B: Precisely, yes.
K: Now the religious man, like 'X', the religious man Mr 'X', he
says you can find it by becoming terribly rational in your life.
Right? Which is, etc., I needn't go into it. He says, 'I don't accept I
am rational' - the religious man starts. 'I am irrational, I contradict'
and so on and so on. So I will have to clear up that first, step by
step, clear up. Or I can do the whole thing at one blow. Right? I
accept I am irrational.
B: Well yes. There is a difficulty: if you accept you are
irrational, you stop because you say how are you going to begin.
Right?
K: Yes.
B: If...
K: If I accept I am irrational - wait a minute - completely, I am
rational!
B: Yes, well you will have to...
K: You understand of course.
B: You will have to make that more clear. You see I think you
could say that man has been deluding himself into believing that he
is already rational.
K: I don't accept that.
B: Yes. Now if you don't accept this delusion then you are
saying that rationality will be there.
K: No, I don't accept it. The fact is I am irrational.
B: Right.
K: And to find the ground I must become terribly rational in my
life. That's all I start with. And irrationality has been brought about
by thought creating this idea of me as separate from everybody
else, etc., etc. So can I, being irrational, find the cause of
irrationality and wipe it out? If I can't do that I cannot reach the
ground which is the most rational.
Would a scientist who is investigating matter, to come upon the
ground, he may not accept the ground exists at all.
B: Well tacitly he is assuming that it does.
K: It does. Mr 'X' comes along and says it does exist. And you,
the scientist, says, 'Show it.' Mr 'X' says 'I will show it to you. First
become rational in your life'. Not there, don't as a scientist meeting
with another scientist, experimenting and all the rest of the be
rational there, and irrational in your life. Begin there rather than
there. What would you say to all that?
B: Right. Well...
K: This must be done without effort, without desire, without
will, without any sense of persuasion, otherwise you are back in
the game.
Q: Krishnaji are you supposing, or are you saying that the
scientist can be rational here?
K: He says they are.
B: They are to some extent.
K: Of course. He says that. Sir when scientists meet about
something they are very rational.
Q: To some extent.
K: To some extent, yes.
B: Well eventually their personal relations come in and so on.
K: That's is. They become irrational because of their jealousies
and ambitions.
B: Well also because they are attached to their theories and so
on.
Q: Also the basic irrationality of them is that they think what
they discover is the truth.
K: No, he doesn't say that. Through the investigation of matter
they hope to come upon the ground.
B: They may be wrong but that is what they hope for.
K: They must otherwise what is the point of investigating
matter?
Q: Maybe there is no point.
B: In addition of course it is important for practical purposes
and so on.
K: Practical purposes, yes for inventing guns and all the rest of
it, submarines and super missiles.
B: Well also new energy sources and so on.
K: Of course, of course, that is only part of it.
B: That is part of it but in addition it may have an interest in
itself but we have to say that - let's try to put it like this: even in
science you could not pursue the science fully unless you were
rational.
K: Yes, somewhat rational.
B: Somewhat rational, but in fact eventually the failure of
rationality blocks science anyway. Scientists alter their theories
and they become jealous and so on.
K: That's it. Or the irrationality overcomes them.
B: They cannot keep the irrationality out.
K: That's it.
B: So then you could say you might as well look at the source
of the whole irrationality.
K: That's it. That is what I am saying.
B: That is the only possibility.
K: Yes.
B: But now you have to make it clear that it really can be done,
you see.
K: Oh yes, I am showing it to you. I say first recognize, see,
observe, be aware - or whatever word - that you are totally
irrational.
B: Well the word 'totally' will cause trouble because if you were
totally irrational you couldn't even begin to talk, you see.
K: No, that is my question. I say you are totally irrational. First
recognize it. Watch it. If the moment that you admit there is some
part of you which is rational - right - who wants to wipe away the
irrationality...
B: It is not that but there must be sufficient rationality to
understand what you are talking about.
K: Yes, of course.
B: Essentially I would rather put it that you are dominated by
your irrationality, that irrationality dominates even though there is
enough rationality to discuss the question.
K: I question that.
B: You see otherwise we couldn't even begin to talk.
K: No, but listen. Just a minute, just a minute. We begin to talk,
you, a few of us begin to talk because we are willing to listen to
each other, we are willing to say 'I'll set aside any conclusion I
have', and so on, we are willing to listen to each other.
B: That is part of rationality.
K: No, with us, but the vast majority are not willing to listen to
us because we are concerned, serious enough to find out if the
ground exists. Right? That gives us rationality to listen to each
other.
B: Yes. Well listening is essential for rationality.
K: What?
B: Listening is necessary for rationality.
K: Of course. Are we saying the same thing?
B: Yes.
K: Because as the scientist - wait a minute - as the scientist
through the examination of matter, the investigation of matter
hopes to reach the ground, we, 'X', 'Y', 'Z', say let us become
rational in our life. Which means you and I and 'X', 'Y', 'Z' are
willing to listen to each other. That's all. The very listening is the
beginning of rationality. Mr Carter, Mr K, they won't even listen to
us, not even the Pope, or anybody. So can we, who are listening, be
rational somewhat and begin? That's all my point. This is all being
terribly logical, isn't it? So can we proceed from there?
Why has man brought about this irrationality in his life, and a
few of us can apparently throw off some part of irrationality and
become somewhat rational, 'X', 'Y', 'Z', and those rational people
say, 'Now, let's start.' Right? Let us start to find out why man lives
this way, both the scientists and me, because he is a man, he is not
just a scientist. Now what is the dominant factor in his life, the
common, dominant factor in all human beings' lives, apart from 'X',
'Y', 'Z' who are rational, including them, what is the dominant
current in his life? Obviously thought.
B: Yes, that is so. Of course many people would, might deny
that and say that it is feeling or something else is the major...
K: Many people might say that but thought is part of feeling.
B: Right. That is not commonly understood.
K: We will explain it. Senses, feeling, if there was no thought
behind it you wouldn't be able to recognize those senses.
B: Yes. I think this is a major difficulty in communication with
some people.
K: Yes, so we begin. Leave the some people, I want the three
'X', 'Y', 'Z' to see this and 'X', 'Y', 'Z', because they listen to each
other, because they have become somewhat rational, therefore they
are listening to each other, can say thought is the main source of
this current.
B: Yes, well we have to say what is thought.
K: I think that is fairly simple.
B: Well, what is it?
K: Thought brings about irrationality.
B: Yes, but what is it? How do you know you are thinking?
What do you mean by thinking?
K: Thinking is the movement of memory, memory which is
experience, knowledge stored up in the brain. Which you and I -
we know all this.
Q: You see Krishnaji at this moment we are also thinking partly
but nevertheless it seems that this kind of thinking is not just
memory.
K: Oh yes, it is memory, sorry. No, no, I don't go further, I stop
just here.
B: Suppose we want to have rationality which includes rational
thought.
K: That is just it.
B: But rationality must include rational thought.
K: Of course.
B: Is rational thought only memory?
K: Rational thought if it is - now wait a minute, careful!
B: Yes. Right.
K: Wait a minute. If we are completely rational there is total
insight. That insight uses thought and then it is rational.
B: Then it is rational.
K: My god, yes.
B: Then thought is not only memory?
K: No, no.
B: Well, I mean since it is being used by insight.
K: No, insight uses thought.
B: Yes, but what thought does is not just due to memory now.
K: Wait a minute.
B: You see, I see it this way.
K: Quite right.
B: Ordinarily thought runs on its own, it runs like a machine on
its own, it is not rational.
K: Quite right.
B: But when thought is the instrument of insight then you see it
would be the difference between...
K: Agreed, agreed. Then thought is not memory.
B: It is not based on memory.
K: No, not based on memory.
B: Memory is used, but it is not based on memory.
K: That's right. Then what? 'X', 'Y', 'Z', who are fairly rational,
who have seen this point that thought being limited, divisive,
incomplete, can never be rational.
B: Without insight.
K: That's right. Now how is 'X', 'Y', 'Z', to have insight? Which
is total rationality. Not the rationality of thought.
B: It is rationality of perception, I should say. I should call it
rationality of perception.
K: Perception.
B: To perceive rational order.
K: Yes, rationality of perception.
B: Then thought becomes the instrument of that, so it has the
same order.
K: Now how am I to have that insight? That is the next
question, isn't it? What am I to do? Or not do, to have this instant
insight, immediate insight, which is not of time, which is not of
memory, which has no cause - right - which is not based on reward
or punishment, it is free of all that. Now how do I in discussing
with 'X', 'Y', 'Z', who want to come upon the ground, how do I,
how does the mind have this insight? When I say, 'I have the
insight', that is wrong. Obviously. So how is it possible for a mind,
which has been irrational, and has somewhat become rational, 'X',
'Y', 'Z', and that 'X','Y' 'Z', asks is it possible to have that insight?
Yes it is possible to have that insight if your mind is free from
time.
B: Right. Let's go slowly, because you see, let me say, that if we
go back to the scientific point of view, even common sense, I think
that implicitly time is taken as the ground of everything in
scientific work.
K: Yes.
B: And common sense. In fact even in ancient Greek mythology
you see Chronus the god of time produces his children and
swallows them. That is exactly what we said about the ground,
everything comes from the ground and dies to the ground. So in a
way mankind began to take time already as the ground.
K: Yes.
B: Long ago, right.
K: Yes, that is right. And you come along and say time is not
the ground.
B: That's right. So up until now even scientists have been
looking for the ground somewhere in time, and everybody else too.
K: Yes sir, that is the whole point.
B: Now you say time is not the ground.
K: Go on, this is very interesting.
B: This of course somebody might say is nonsense but we say
OK, we will stay open to that. Right?
K: No, we, 'X', 'Y', 'Z', are open to it.
B: We are going to be open to it but I am saying some people
might easily dismiss it right away.
K: Of course. Science fiction writers may accept it!
B: Well they may, some of them, yes.
K: I was only joking.
B: Now if you say time is not the ground, this seems to leave us,
well, let us say we don't know where we are.
K: I know where I am. We will go into it.
B: Yes.
Q: Is time the same movement as this thought which we
described first?
K: Yes, time is that. Time is thought.
B: Yes, well, let's go slowly again on that because there is, as
we have often said, chronological time.
K: Of course, that is simple.
B: Yes but in addition we are thinking. You see thinking takes
time chronologically but in addition it projects a kind of imaginary
time...
K:... which is the future
B:... which is the future, the past as we experience it.
K: Yes, that is right.
B: That time which is imagined, which is also a kind of real
process of thinking.
K: Which is a fact.
B: It is a fact. It is taking time physically, to think, but we also
have the time we can imagine the whole past and future.
K: Yes, which are facts.
B: So let's say that this time is not the ground, perhaps not even
physically.
K: We are going to find out. We are going to find out.
B: Yes. But we feel it to be the ground because we feel that we,
as the self, I as the self, exist in time. Without time there could be
no me.
K: That's it.
B: I must exist in time.
K: Of course, of course.
B: Eternally being something or becoming something.
K: Becoming and being are in the field of time. Now can the
mind, which has evolved through time...
Q: That is a strange statement.
K: Why?
Q: What do you mean by mind then?
K: Mind - the brain, my senses, my feeling all that is the mind.
B: The particular mind, you mean?
K: Particular mind, of course, I am talking not the mind which
is - I am talking of 'X', 'Y', 'Z',s' mind. That mind has evolved
through time. Right?
B: Well even its particularity depends on time.
K: Time, of course and all the rest of it. Now we are asking: can
that mind be free of time to have an insight which is totally
rational, which then can operate on thought, which will be rational?
That thought is not based on memory. Right?
B: Right.
K: Now how am I - 'X' - 'X' says how am I to be free of time? I
know I need time to go from here to there, to learn a lesson, a
technique and so on. I understand that very clearly, so I am not
talking about that time. I am talking about the time as becoming.
B: Or as being.
K: Of course, becoming is being. I start from being to become.
B: And being something in myself, you see.
K: Right sir.
B: Being better, being happier.
K: Yes, the whole thing - the more.
B: The more.
K: Now can I, can my brain investigating to find out if the
ground exists, can my brain, can I, can my whole mind be free of
time? Yes. We have now separated time. The time which is
necessary, and the time which is not necessary. That is, can my
brain not function as it has always in time as thought? Right?
Which means can thought come to an end? Right? Would you
accept that?
B: Yes, well could you make that more clear. You see we could
see that the first question is, that can my brain not be dominated by
the function of thought?
K: Yes, which is time.
B: Time. And then if you say thought comes to an end...
K: No, can time as thought come to a stop?
B: Psychological time comes to a stop.
K: Yes, I am talking of that.
B: But we will still have the rational thought.
K: Of course. That is understand. We have said that. We are
leaving that.
B: We are discussing the thought of conscious experience.
Q: Of becoming and being.
B: Of becoming and being.
K: And the retention of memory, you know, the past, as
knowledge. Oh, yes, that can be done.
B: You really mean the memory of experiences?
K: The memory of experiences, hurts, attachments, the whole of
it. Now can that come to an end? Of course it can. Now this is the
point: it can come to an end when the very perception asks, what is
it, hurt?
B: Yes.
K: Damaged psychologically, the perception of it is the ending
of it. Not carrying it over, which is the time. The very ending of it
is the ending of time. Is that? I think that is clear. Or not clear?
All right, I am hurt. 'X' is hurt, wounded from childhood, for
various reasons, you know all that. And he, by listening, talking,
discussing with you, realizes that the continuation of the hurt is
time. Right? And to find out the ground, time must end. So he says
can my hurt end instantly, immediately.
B: Yes, I think there are some steps in that. You say he finds
that hurt is time but the immediate experience of it is that it exists
on its own.
K: I know, of course, of course. We can go into that.
B: That simply is something on its own.
K: Which is, I have created an image about myself and the
image is hurt but not me.
B: What do you mean by that?
K: All right. In the becoming, which is time, I have created an
image about myself. Right?
B: Well thought has created that image.
K: Thought has created an image through experience, through
education, through conditioning, that this image is separate from
me. Wait a minute, I will explain it. This image is actually me.
B: Yes.
K: But we have separated the image and the me, which is
irrational.
B: Right.
K: So in realizing that the image is me, I have become
somewhat rational.
B: Yes, well you see I think that that will not be clear because if
a person is hurt he feels the image is me.
K: The image is you.
B: The person who is hurt feels that way.
K: All right. But the moment you operate on it you separate
yourself.
B: That's the point. Now the first feeling is the image is me, and
the second feeling is I draw back from the image in order to
operate on it.
K: Which is irrationality.
B: Because it is not correct, eh?
K: That's right. Right?
B: And that brings in time because I say it will take time to do
that.
K: Quite right. So by becoming, by seeing that I become
rational and in the act, the act is to be free of it immediately.
B: Yes, well let's go into that. You see, we say we have drawn
back - the first thing is that there has been a hurt. Right? That is the
image but at first I don't separate it. I feel identified with it.
K: I am that.
B: I am that. But then I draw back and say that I think there
must be a me who can do something.
K: Yes, can operate on it.
B: Right. Now that takes time.
K: That is time.
B: That is time, but I mean I am thinking it takes time. Now if I
don't do that, now you see I have to go slowly. That hurt cannot
exist.
K: That's right.
B: But it is not obvious in the experience itself that this is so.
K: First, let's go slowly into it. I am hurt. That is a fact. Then I
separate myself, there is a separation saying 'I will do something
about it'.
B: The 'me' who will do something is different.
K: Is different. Of course.












(Continued ...)




(My humble salutations to the lotus feet of Sri Jiddu Krishnamurti and
gratitude to the great philosophers and followers of him.)



Category:
��

Comments

0 responses to "The Ending of Time J. Krishnamurti and Dr. David Bohm - Part 7"

Post a Comment