Hindu Vedic Philosophy (The Paramardha Tattwam): The Ending of Time J. Krishnamurti and Dr. David Bohm

The Ending of Time J. Krishnamurti and Dr. David Bohm - Part 9

3:49 PM | Posted in The Ending of Time J. Krishnamurti and Dr. David Bohm - Part 9

The Ending of Time

J. Krishnamurti

and

Dr. David Bohm

OJAI 6TH CONVERSATION WITH DAVID

BOHM 15TH APRIL, 1980 `THE ENDING OF

TIME'

Dr Bohm: Yesterday I was discussing with some people in San

Francisco and they said you had said that insight changes the brain

cell. They were very interested but I wasn't able to say a lot more. I

wonder if we could discuss that.

Krishnamurti: As it is constituted the brain functions in one

direction, memory, experience, knowledge. And it has functioned

in that area as much as possible. And most people are satisfied with

it.

B: Well they don't know of anything else.

K: Of anything else. And also they have placed knowledge in

the supreme importance, and so on and so on. If one is concerned

with fundamental change, where does one begin? Suppose 'X' feels

he will go along a certain direction set by mankind. And he has

been going there century after century, and when he asks himself

what is radical change, is it in the environment, is it in the human

relationship, is it a sense of love which is not in the area of

knowledge and so on? Where is it to begin? You understand my

question? Unless there is some mutation taking place inside here,

inside my mind, the brain, I may think I have changed, or it may be

a superficial change, but it won't be change in depth.

B: Yes, well I think the first thing is to say that what is implied

there is that the present state of affairs involves not only the mind

but also the nervous system, the body, all is set in a certain way.

K: Of course. Yes that is what I meant, the whole movement is

in a certain way. And along that way I can modify, adjust, polish, a

little more, a little less and so on, but if a man is concerned with a

very radical change, where is he to begin? As we said the other day

we relied on the environment to change us, society to change us,

various forms of disciplines and so on, but I feel they are all the

same direction.

B: Well, yes in so far as they all emanate from this thing, the

way the mind is set, the body is set, they are not going to change

anything. There is a total structure involved which is in the brain,

in the body, in the whole of society.

K: Yes, yes. So what am I to do? What is 'X' to do? And in

asking this question, what is there to change? You understand sir?

B: What do you mean by that, what is there to change? What is

to be changed?

K: Yes, what is to be changed? Both, what is there to be

changed and what is there to change?

B: To make the change, do you mean?

K: To make the change, yes. Not only to make the change but...

B:... to undergo the change?

K: Yes, basically what is there to change? I see, 'X' sees he can

change certain things along this way, but go much further than that

- what is one to do? I am sure man has asked this question. You

must have asked it. But apparently the mutation hasn't taken place.

So what is 'X' to do? He realizes the need for a radical revolution, a

psychological revolution, he perceives the more he changes it is the

same thing continued, the more he enquires into himself the

enquiry is still the same, and so on and so on. So what is there to

change? Unless 'X' finds a way to change the brain itself...

B: But what will change the brain?

K: That's it, that's it. The brain that has been set in a pattern for

millennia. I think it is no longer what should I change, it is

imperative that I change.

B: So in discussing yesterday it was agreed that there must be a

change but the question is how can the brain change?

K: One must introduce, come to that point. If this question is

put to you as a scientist, or as a human being who is involved in

science, what would your answer be?

B: I don't think science can deal with that because it doesn't go

far enough, it can't possibly probe that deeply into the structure of

the brain anyway. Many questions are positing the relationship of

brain and mind, which science has not been able to resolve. Some

people would say that there is nothing beyond the brain.

K: Purely materialistic, I understand all that.

B: If it is not materialistic then for the moment science has very

little to say about it. May be some people would try to but science

generally has been most successful, most systematic, in dealing

with matter, any attempt to do otherwise is not very clear.

K: You tell me - I am 'X' - you tell me, inside change in the

brain cells and so on. My immediate answer to that is, how?

B: Yes, that is what everybody asks.

K: That's it. Everybody asks that. It is not a matter of faith. It is

not a matter of changing the pattern to another pattern. So you

leave me without any direction. Right? You leave me without any

instrument that can penetrate this.

B: Except you are implying that there is something beyond the

brain, it seems clear, in putting that question. We don't know. The

very statement implies that insight is somehow beyond the brain

else it couldn't change the brain.

K: Yes. So how am I to capture it? I can't capture it but...

B:... how will it come about?

K: Yes, how is this to come about?

B: I think one should clear up: are you saying that something

which is non-material can affect matter, this is the implication.

K: I am not sure.

B: I think clearing this up would make it more clear what your

question is. It is somewhat puzzling if you don't.

K: All that you have said to me is, insight changes, brings about

mutation in the brain. Now you explain what insight is, which is

not a result of progressive knowledge, it is not a progressive time,

which is not a remembrance, which may be the real activity of the

brain.

B: All right. Let's put it differently: the brain has many activities

which include memory and all these that you have said, and in

addition there is a more inward activity, but it is still the activity of

the brain.

K: Then it would be the same.

B: Yes that is what is not clear, you see - in putting this thing

something seems to be not quite clear.

K: Yes. We must be very clear that it is not the result of

progressive knowledge, it is not come by through any exercise of

will.

B: Yes. I think people can generally see that insight comes in a

flash, it does not come through will. Those who have considered it

at all can see that. Also that probably chemistry won't bring it

about, drugs, you know.

K: I think most people see that.

B: Those who are concerned.

K: Some people do see it. How am I, 'X', to have this insight. I

see your logic, I see your reason.

B: In some ways it may disturb people, it is not clear what the

logic is, what is going to make this change in the brain, is it

something more than the brain, is it something deeper in the brain?

This is one of the questions.

K: Of course.

B: It is not quite clear logically.

Q: Are you saying sir that there is a function of the brain which

acts without reference to its content?

K: To the past, to the content.

Q: It acts without it. But that this isn't something which is

changing the whole brain, coming into the brain, but it is a

capability of the brain to...

B: That is a good question, yes. It is on the right line as far as I

see it. Is there a function in the brain which is independent of the

content, which is not conditioned by the content, but it might still

be a physical function?

K: Yes, I understand. Sir, is this the question? Apart from the

consciousness with its content, is there in the brain an activity

which is not touched by consciousness?

B: By the content, yes.

K: By the content - content is the consciousness.

B: Yes, but sometimes you use it in another sense. Sometimes

you talk of consciousness, that there could be another kind of

consciousness.

K: Yes, we will leave that.

B: So if we call it content it would be more clear.

K: All right. A part of the brain which is not touched by the

content.

B: All right then. That suggests that it may be possible for the

brain to change. Either the brain is entirely controlled by its

content, or in some way it is not that conditioned, it has some...

K: That is a dangerous thing.

B: But that is what you are saying.

K: You see the danger of it. I am moving away from it. I see the

danger of admitting to myself, and so of trying to tell somebody

else, admitting to myself that there is a part of the brain...

B: An activity.

K:... all right, an activity of the brain which is not touched by

the content.

B: It is a possible activity. It may be that has not been

awakened.

K: It has not been awakened. That's right.

Q: But what is the danger?

K: That is simple enough. The danger is that I am admitting

there is god in me, that there is some super human, something

beyond the content and therefore that will operate on this, or that

will operate in spite of this.

Q: But which part of the brain sees the danger? Is it that part...

K: Slowly, slowly. Which part of the brain that sees the danger -

of course the content sees the danger.

Q: Does it?

K: Oh yes because the content is aware of all the tricks it has

played.

B: It is similar to many of the old tricks.

K: Yes. Go ahead sir.

B: Those tricks we have discussed before - the assumption of

god within and the imagination of god within, therefore the

apparent proof, there is a danger obviously.

Q: But you see could the brain seeing the danger make that

statement nevertheless, because that statement nevertheless might

be pointing to the right direction.

B: The point is that even though it is dangerous it may be

necessary to do so, it may be on the right track.

K: No, no. The danger is that it is not only traditional, not only

that man has thought about it and previous to 'X' said that this thing

exists, therefore the unconscious, which is part of the content, is

capturing that and says, 'Yes' - so it sees the danger instantly.

Q: It sees its own trap.

K: Yes, it sees the trap which it has created. Right sir? So it

avoids that trap. That is sanity: to avoid a trap is sanity. Is there an

activity which is totally independent of the content? That activity,

is it part of the brain?

B: Is it a natural activity of the brain? Material in the brain.

K: Which means what?

B: Well if there is such a natural activity it could awaken

somehow and that activity could change the brain, it could change.

K: But would you say it is still material?

B: Yes. There could be different levels of matter you see.

K: That is what I am trying to get at. Right?

B: Right. But you see, if you think that way, there could be a

deeper level of matter which is not conditioned by the content. For

example we know matter in the universe is not conditioned by the

content of our brains generally. There could be a deeper level of

matter not conditioned in that way which could...

K: So it would still be matter, refined or super or whatever, it is

still - what I am trying to find out is that it would still be the

content.

B: Why do you say that? You see you have to go slowly

because do you say matter is content?

K: Yes.

B: Inherently but that has to be cleared up because it is not

obvious.

K: Let's discuss it. Let's grip this. Thought is matter.

B: Well thought is part of the content, it is part of the material

process. Whether it exists independently as matter is not so clear. If

you say water is matter then you can pour water from one glass to

another, it has an independent substance, but it is not clear whether

thought could stand as matter by itself except with some other

material substance like the brain in which it takes place. Is that

clear?

K: I don't quite follow.

B: If you say water is matter then it is clear. You could take

water and it stands inside whatever it is, in the ocean. Now if you

said thought is matter then thought must have a similar

independent substance.

K: I don't quite follow this. Sorry.

B: You said air is matter. Right? Water is matter. Now waves

are not matter, they are just a process in matter. Is that clear what I

mean?

K: Yes. A wave is a process in matter.

B: A material process. Is thought matter, or is it a process in

matter?

K: Ah!

Q: May one ask, is electricity considered matter?

B: In so far as there are electron particles it is matter but it is

also a movement of that, which is a process.

Q: So it is two things.

B: Well you can form waves of electricity and so on.

Q: Waves would be the matter but not the electrical action.

B: Well the electrical action is like the waves but the electricity

consists of particles.

K: Sir, what is the question you have just asked me?

B: Is thought matter, or is it a process in matter? For example,

in the matter of the brain.

K: Is thought...

B: Is thought a material substance, or is it a process in some

other material substance, like the brain?

K: It is a material process in the brain.

B: Yes, scientists would generally agree with that.

K: Let's stick to that.

B: If you said it was matter they would become very puzzled.

K: I see.

Q: It doesn't exist apart from the brain cells. It resides in the

brain.

K: That is, thought is a material process in the brain. That

would be right. Then is that material process independent - can that

material process ever be independent?

B: Independent of what?

K: Independent of something that is not a material process - no,

wait a minute, I must go slowly. I know what I am trying to

express. I must be careful That's all I know. Right? A material

process in the brain.

B: Yes, OK.

K: To which we all agree.

B: Yes, you would get very wide agreement on that.

K: Yes. Our question is: can that material process in the brain

bring about a change in itself.

B: That is the question, yes.

K: In itself, and if that material in itself can change it would still

be a material process.

B: Yes.

K: Right?

B: Well thought is always going to be apparently a material

process.

K: So it will still be a material process. And therefore it is not

insight. We must come back to that.

B: You are saying that insight is not a material process? That is

what you are saying.

K: Go slow. I must be careful of using the right words. Thought

is a material process in the brain and any other movements

springing from that material process is still material.

B: Yes, it has to be.

K: Has to be, right. And is there another activity which is not a

material process?

B: Well of course people have asked that question for ages. Is

there spirit beyond matter, right?

K: Spirit, Holy Ghost! Is there a material process in the brain, is

there some other activity which - it cannot be related to this, to the

material process.

B: Well it cannot depend on it. Insight cannot depend on the

material process as it would be just another material process.

K: It cannot depend on it. Insight is not dependent on the

material process, which is thought.

B: But you were saying it the other way round: that the material

process may depend on insight, may be changed by insight.

K: Ah, wait, wait. The material process is dependent on it, and

not that dependent on this.

B: Yes, that is what you are saying, isn't it?

K: Yes. Slowly, slowly.

B: Now you see, generally speaking people would not see how

something non-material could affect something material, you see.

K: Yes, quite.

B: It might be easily agreed that something non-material is not

affected by matter but then how does the operation work the other

way?

K: What do you say? The brain, thought is a material process,

with its content. Any activity from that is still part of that. Now is

insight part of that?

B: Well we have agreed it is independent of that. It takes place

independently of that, it can't be part of it.

K: That's right.

B: There's something the other way. But it can still act within

the material process, that's the crucial thing.

K: Yes, That's right. That's right. It is independent of the

material process but yet it can act upon the material process.

B: Well let's discuss that a little. You see...

K: Yes, be careful, we mustn't enter into the Holy Spirit!

B: Generally speaking in science if A can act on B it is usually

reciprocal action of B on A. We don't find situations where A acts

on B and B never acts on A.

K: I see, I see.

B: This is one of the difficulties you have raised.

K: I understand. But B can act on A.

B: But generally we don't find this elsewhere, we generally find

that if B acts on A then A can act on B. In human relations if I can

act on you, you can act on me - right?

K: Yes. But if I don't act - we say human relationships are

interaction.

B: Yes, mutual relationships.

K: Mutual relationship. In that relationship there is response and

so on. Now if I don't respond to your action, I am independent of it.

B: Yes. I think that if we are trying to make this clear in

science: you see science generally finds that this situation is not

possible to have a one-sided action.

K: Quite. I have understood it. So we are continually insisting

that the material process must have a relationship to...

B: Well an action. You see relationship is an ambiguous word

here. If you said action it would be more clear.

K: All right. The material process...

B:... must be able to act.

K:... must be able to act on the non-material, and the nonmaterial

must act on the material.

B: But that would make them both the same.

K: Exactly! Exactly!

Q: Not necessarily. Could one envisage may be that insight is a

much larger movement than the material process of the brain, and

therefore that much larger movement can act on the smaller

movement but the smaller movement cannot act on the larger

movement.

K: Yes, we are saying the same thing.

B: The small movement has no significant action on the larger

movement. You can have a situation that if you drop a rock in the

ocean, you know the ocean absorbs it with no significant...

K: Quite, quite.

Q: Well then they would still have an action amongst

themselves but there is only one action that is significant

K: No, no, be careful. Don't enter into that too quickly. Sir, love

has no relationship to hate.

B: Well, again it is the word 'relationship'. You see would you

say hate has no action on love?

K: They are independent.

B: Independent, they have no action on each other. Right.

K: Ah, this is a very important thing to discover. Love is

independent of hate. Where there is hate the other cannot exist.

Right?

B: Yes.

K: Right?

B: Yes, they can't stand side by side acting on each other.

K: No, they can't. So when you scientists say A must have a

relation to B, B must have a relation to A - right? We are

contradicting that. Love is...

B: Well not all scientists have said that but of course a few have

said otherwise - I don't like to bring in Aristotle, but he said...

K: Bring in Aristotle, both of you.

B:... there is an unmoved mover, you see, he says that god is

never moved by matter, he is not acted on by matter but he acts. Do

you see? So that is an old idea then. Since that time science has

thrown out Aristotle and said that is impossible.

K: If I see clearly that love is independent of hate, hate cannot

possibly act on love, love may act on hate, or where hate is the

other cannot be.

B: Well those are two possibilities, which are you saying?

K: What are the two possibilities?

B: Well you said, one is that love may act on hate, and the other

is that they have no action at all on each other.

K: Yes.

B: Which?

K: I understand. No sir, love cannot act on hate.

B: Right. They have no relationship. But perhaps insight could.

K: Slowly. I am moving, edging my way into it. I want to be

quite clear on this point. Violence and to be without violence are

two entirely different factors. Right?

B: Right.

K: The one cannot act upon the other.

B: Well in that case you could say that the existence of the one

is the non-existence of the other, and there is no way to act

together.

K: That's right.

B: They cannot be there together.

K: Absolutely. I'll stick to that. So where there is this material

process in action, the other cannot exist.

B: Well then you are going to say - what is the other this time,

insight or...

K: Yes.

Q: Well then that sounds as if insight cannot change that

material process.

K: Eh?

B: Well that denies what we were saying before that there is an

action from insight on the material process.

K: Now steady, yes. Where there is violence the other is not.

Right? Non-violence, I hate to use that word, whatever it is.

B: Peace.

K: Peace.

B: Or order, harmony, right?

K: Where there is violence peace cannot exist. But where there

is peace, is there violence? No, of course not. So peace is

independent of the other.

B: Yes.

K: Now we are saying the material process, being independent

of insight...

B: No, we didn't say that. We said it might depend on insight.

K: Suppose for the moment... independent of insight then

insight cannot act on the other.

B: That's true, yes. If that is the case.

K: If that is the case.

Q: Sir you have said many, many times that intelligence can act

upon thought, insight can act, can affect thought, but it doesn't

work the other way round. You have said this in many forms.

K: If intelligence can wipe away ignorance, but ignorance

cannot touch intelligence. Right? Where there is love hate can

never exist. Right?

B: Well as long as there is love.

K: Yes I am saying that. Can love wipe away hate?

B: Well we said that doesn't seem to be possible.

K: It doesn't seem possible.

B: Because hate seems to be an independent force.

K: Of course it is.

Q: Is there a question of volume then?

B: What?

Q: Is there a question of volume, in other words if love can't

wipe away hate, can there be enough units of love to supplant hate?

Are we talking about a physical possibility?

B: Well I think that hate goes on its own independently.

K: I have come back.

B: It has its own momentum, you see, its own force, its own

movement.

Q: I don't quite get this relationship of this love and hate,

independence with this other discussion of insight.

B: That is what we have been trying to get at. There seems to be

two different areas.

Q: It is an exploration really.

Q: Thought is a movement and insight seems to be a nonmovement

where everything seemingly is at rest and it can observe

movement.

B: Yes, that is what we are trying to get at, the notion of

something which is not affected by anything else.

Q: Or anything else can affect it.

Q: Aren't you then saying, if you look at this love/hate thing,

aren't you in essence saying there is good and there is evil, and evil

is a completely separate independent force on its own?

B: Well, it is independent of good.

Q: But isn't the process in the mind, or is it related to insight?

B: Well we are coming to that.

Q: Well take light and darkness, light appears and the darkness

is gone.

Q: Well in a way it is just like the pattern of duality, isn't it?

When you say there is good and there is evil and they are

completely separate, if one is completely independent of the

other...

B: Well when one is the other can't be, you see. That is all that

we are saying so far.

Q: There is no relationship.

Q: Do you mean in a single brain?

B: In any brain, yes, or in a group, or anywhere. Well whenever

there is hate going on in a group there is not love.

K: Sir, I have just thought of something - not thought of it, it

just came to my mind. Love has no cause. Right? Hate has a cause.

Insight has no cause. Right? The material process, as thought, has a

cause.

B: Yes, it is part of the chain of cause and effect, yes.

K: That which has no cause, can it act ever upon that which has

a cause?

B: Well it might. We see that the insight might act to change

the...

K: I just want to go slowly.

B: Yes. We can see no reason why that which has no cause

might not act on what has a cause. There is no obvious reason. It

won't happen the other way round. What has a cause cannot act on

what has no cause because the would deny the whole thing.

K: Yes, that's right. But apparently the action of insight has an

extraordinary effect on the material process.

B: Yes, so as to change the whole causal - it may wipe out some

causes for example.

K: It wipes out - I know what it wipes out, slowly - -as insight is

causeless, which is not born out of cause, that insight has a definite

effect on that which has cause.

B: Yes, well it doesn't follow but it is possible. I mean you put it

as if it followed necessarily but it doesn't follow, so far it doesn't

follow but we say it is possible.

K: No, no I don't say it is possible.

B: I am saying we haven't quite seen why it is necessary.

K: Let's say that it is possible, I can't admit possibility in this.

B: Well we are just saying that there is no contradiction when

we say the word possible, I merely mean that there is no

contradiction in saying that insight acts on...

K: All right, I see. As long as we are clear on the word

'possible'. We must be careful here. Love being without cause, and

hate has a cause, the two cannot co-exist.

B: Yes. That is true. That is why there is a difference between

love and insight. That is why it doesn't follow necessarily that if

something has no cause it will act on something that has a cause.

That is what I was trying to say.

K: I just want to explore a little more. Is love insight?

B: Well as far as we can see it is not the same exactly. Love is

not identically the same as insight, is it?

K: Love is - what is the question?

B: Well you asked is love insight.

K: Yes, I asked that.

B: At first sight we see that they are not necessarily exactly the

same thing.

K: Why?

B: Insight may be love but you see insight also occurs in a flash

for example.

K: It is a flash of course. And that flash alters the whole pattern.

B: That's right.

K: But that flash operates on the whole pattern, uses the pattern

in the sense, argue, reason, logic and all that. I don't know if I am

making myself clear.

B: Well I think once the flash has operated then the pattern is

different and therefore it would be more rational.

K: No, what I am trying to say is: you have a flash but you can

be logical

B: The flash may make logic possible because you may have

been confused before the flash.

K: Ah, yes, yes sir. Aristotle may have come to all this by logic.

B: Well he may have had some insight, we don't know.

K: We don't know but I am questioning it.

B: Well we really don't know how his mind operated because

there are only a few books that survived.

K: Would you say he had insight by reading a few of his books?

B: I haven't really read Aristotle directly, very few people have

because it is hard. Very few people have actually read Aristotle,

what he directly said. Most people read what other people said

about Aristotle. There are a few phrases of Aristotle which are

common - the unmoved mover. And he has seen some things

which suggest that he was quite intelligent, at least.

K: What I am trying to say is that insight is not partial ever. I

am talking of total insight, not partial insight.

Q: Krishnaji, could you explain that a little bit more? What do

you mean by not partial insight?

K: An artist can have a partial insight. A scientist can have a

partial insight. I am talking - 'X' is talking about total insight.

Q: Not an insight bound by a certain area.

K: It is total insight.

Q: You see the artist is also a human being, so...

K: But his capture of insight is partial.

Q: Is that necessarily so?

Q: It is directed to art, painting or whatever the art is. So you

mean an insight that illuminates a limited area, or subject, is that

what you mean by partial insight?

K: Yes.

Q: Yes, it concerns music or whatever. Then what would be

total insight, it would encompass what?

K: The total human activity. Right sir?

B: Well that is one point. But coming back we were discussing

before that this insight would illuminate the brain, the activity of

the brain, and in that illumination it seems that the activity of the

brain, the material activity of the brain will change. Would that be

fair?

K: Let's go slowly.

B: Yes, we must get this point clear, then we could raise the

question of totality. Now we are saying that insight is an energy

perhaps which illuminates the activity of the brain. And in that

illumination the brain itself begins to act differently.

K: That's right sir. That's all. You are quite right. That is what

takes place. Yes.

B: This illumination, we say its source is not in the material

process, it has no cause.

K: It has no cause.

B: But it is a real energy.

K: It is pure energy. That's right, sir.

B: Pure energy. It is like saying - well we know the lightening

flash has a cause but it flashes on the ground which is not

connected with the cause of what is on the ground.

K: Quite, quite.

Q: Iron filings, all halter-skelter, and you put a magnet and

suddenly they are all in order.

B: Well that's a cause, that is the magnetic field acting as a

cause, you see.

K: Yes, sir, that's quite right. Which means is there action

without cause?

B: Yes, without time, cause implies time.

K: Time, of course. That is, this flash has altered completely the

pattern which the material process has set.

B: Yes. Could you say that the material process generally

operates in a kind of darkness and therefore it has set itself in a

wrong path.

K: Darkness, yes. The material process naturally sir, it is quite

simple. That is clear. The material process acts in ignorance, in

darkness. Right? And this flash enlightens the whole field. Which

means ignorance, darkness has been dispelled. Right. I will hold to

that.

B: Well then you could say then in that sense darkness and light

cannot co-exist for obvious reasons.

K: Obviously.

B: Nevertheless the very existence of light is to change the

process of darkness.

K: Quite right. I hold to that. Quite right.

Q: But what contributes the flash?

K: What?

B: What will produce the flash?

K: Wait, I haven't come to that yet. I want to go step by step,

into this, otherwise we will get...

B: Yes. Now we must make it very clear that you are saying

that the process, the material process of the brain can depend on

this flash which has no cause, which therefore is outside the chain

of ordinary material process.

K: Yes, yes.

B: That is as far as we can say.

K: What has happened is that the material process has worked

in darkness and has brought about such confusion and all the rest

of it, the mess that exists in the world. And this flash wipes away

the darkness. Right? Which means what? The material process then

is not working in darkness. Right?

B: Right. Yes. But now let's make another point clear. Here is

the flash but it seems the light will go on.

K: The light goes on.

B: The flash has gone but the light is going on, right?

K: The light is there, the flash is the light.

B: We have to consider, you see you have the flash now, right.

At a certain moment, the flash is immediate but then as you work

from there there is still light.

K: Why do you differentiate flash from light?

B: Well just simply the word 'flash' suggests something that

happens in one moment.

K: Yes.

B: We should clear this up. You see we are saying that your

insight would only last in that moment. Let's clear it up.

K: Yes.

Q: Can we call it sudden light?

K: Just a minute. I must go slowly. What is this sir?

B: Well it is a matter of language.

K: Is it merely a matter of language?

B: Maybe not, but if you use the word 'flash', like a flash of

lightening gives light for that moment but then the next moment

you are in darkness until the next flash of lightening.

K: It is not like that.

B: Right. So what is it? Is it that the light suddenly turns on and

stays on? The other view is to say that the light suddenly flashes on

and stays on.

K: No. Because when we put that question 'stays on and goes

off', you are thinking in terms of time.

B: Yes, well we have to clear this up because it is the question

everybody will put.

K: The material process is working in darkness, in time, in

ignorance and so on, in knowledge, ignorance, all that. When that

insight takes place there is the dispelling of that darkness. That is

all we are saying.

Q: But the material process...

K: Wait, sir, I am coming to it. It dispels that darkness. And

thought, which is the material process, is no longer working in

darkness, therefore that light has altered, has ended, no, has ended

ignorance.

B: So we say this darkness is really something which is built

into the content of thought.

K: The content is darkness.

B: That's right.

K: By Jove.

B: Then that light has dispelled that ignorance.

K: That's right sir. That's right. Dispelled the content.

B: But still we have to be very careful, you still have content in

the usually accepted sense of the word, like you know all kinds of

things.

K: Of course, of course.

B: So we can't say it has dispelled all the content.

K: It has dispelled the centre of darkness.

B: Yes, the source, the creator of darkness.

K: The self. Right? It has dispelled the centre of darkness which

is the self.

B: Well we could say that a certain content, the self is part of

the content and that part of the content which is the centre of

darkness, which creates it and maintains it, is dispelled.

K: Dispelled. Yes. The centre of darkness, which has

maintained the darkness, has been dispelled. I hold to that. Going

on slowly.

B: We say now that means a physical change in the brain cells.

That centre, that content which is the centre is a certain set form,

disposition of all the brain cells and that in some way alters.

K: Of course sir, obviously.

You see sir, this is so, it has enormous significance. Right? That

is in our relationship with our society, in everything.

Now the next question is, which Mrs Lilliefelt put, is: how does

this flash come about? Let's begin the other way round. How does

love come about? How does peace come about? Which is, peace

being causeless, violence is cause, how does that causeless thing

come about when my whole life is causation? There is no 'how'.

Right? There is no 'how'. The 'how' implies a cause, so there is no

'how'. I must stop here a bit.

Q: Are you saying that since it is without cause it is something

that just exists and that...

K: No, I don't say that it exists. That is a dangerous statement.

Immediately.

Q: It has to exist at some point.

K: No. The moment you say it exists it is not.

B: Well you see the danger is that that is part of the content.

K: Be careful in these things.

Q: If you are using it as content. But if you were saying - or if I

can make the next statement: it, say, is, and the mind is blocked,

the brain is blocked from something that is without cause, or

without any time quality, but the brain is blocked.

K: Don't use those words, no. No, no. We have gone through all

that. You are beginning all over again. We have gone through all

that. The question Dr Bohm put, posed, was: why do you say

insight changes, brings about a mutation in the brain cells? That

was the question. That question has been put after a series of

discussions. And we have come to a point when we say that flash,

that light, has no cause, and that light operates on that which has

cause, which is the darkness, which is, that darkness exists as long

as the self is there, is the originator of that darkness, that light

dispels the very centre of darkness. That's all. We have come to

that point. And therefore there is a mutation and so on and so on.

Then the question, when Mrs Lilliefelt put that question how do

I get it, how does it happen. Right? That's all. I say that is a wrong

question. There is no 'how'.

Q: There is no 'how' but there is darkness and there is light.

K: Just see first there is no 'how'. If you show me how you are

back into the darkness. Right.

B: Right.

K: That's a tremendous thing to understand that. I am asking

something else, a question sir, which is: why is it that we have no

insight at all, why is it that it doesn't start from our childhood, this

insight? You follow what I am talking about?

B: Well the way life is lived...

K: No, I want to find. Is it our education? Is it our society? Is it

our - I don't believe it is all that. You follow?

B: What do you say then?

K: Am I making myself clear? It is some other factor. I am

groping after it. I am groping after this, which is why don't we have

it, it seems so natural?

B: Yes, well at first one would say something is interfering with

it.

K: I don't want to go back. It seems so natural. For 'X' it is quite

natural. Why isn't it natural for A, B, C, D, all the twenty six

letters? Why isn't it possible? If we say blockage, education, which

are all causes - right?

B: Yes.

K: Then to remove the blockages implies another cause. So we

keep on rolling in that direction. There is something unnatural

about all this.

Q: If you would say there are blocks...

K: I don't want to use that, that is the language of the darkness.

Q: Then you could say that the blocks prevent the insight from

acting.

K: Of course. But I want to move away from these blockages.

B: Not exactly blockages, but we used the words centre of

darkness, which we say is maintaining darkness, that something is

going on.

K: To 'X' it seems so natural. Why isn't it natural to everybody?

You follow what I am talking about?

B: That is the question.

K: That is the question I am asking. And you say blockages, the

self, the society, environment, genetic inheritance - I say those are

all causes. Now why isn't it natural to everybody? Right sir? Why

is not love natural to everybody? Am I putting the question?

B: Well I think to make it more clear: you see some people

might feel it is natural to everybody, but being treated in a certain

way they gradually get caught in hate.

K: I don't believe that.

B: Well then you would have to ask: suppose you were to say

that the young child meeting hate would not respond with hate.

Why is that not natural?

K: Yes, that's right.

B: Yes, that is your question. Most people would say that it is

natural for the young child meeting hate to respond with hate.

K: Yes, this morning I heard that. Then I asked myself why?

B: If you say it would be natural to meet hate without hate...

K: It seems so natural.

Now just a minute sir. 'X' has been put under all these

circumstances - right - which could have produced blockages,

which could have produced all the rest of it - but 'X' wasn't touched

by it. You follow? Why is it not possible for everybody?

B: We should make it more clear why we say it would be

natural immediately not to respond to hate with hate.

K: All right. Limit it to that.

B: Even thought one hasn't thought about it, you know the child

is not able to think about all this.

K: Is it possible to act - what is it?

B: Is it possible, meeting hate not to respond with hate, even

though a young child, who hasn't thought about it, he doesn't know.

K: Yes right. Interesting this.

B: Because some people would say it would be instinct, the

animal instinct...

K: Which is to hate.

B: Well, to fight back.

K: To fight back.

B: The animal will respond with love if you treat him with love,

but if you treat the animal with hate he is going to fight back.

K: Of course.

B: He will become very vicious.

K: Yes.

B: Now some people would say that the human being in the

beginning is like that animal and later he can understand. Right?

K: Of course. That is, the human being began his origin with the

animal and the animal, the ape or any other animal, the wolf...

B: The wolf will respond with love too.

K: And we are saying: why...

B: Look, almost everybody feels that what I said is true, that we

are like the animal when we are young children. Now you are

saying why didn't the young child, why don't all children respond

immediately, fail to respond to hate with hate?

K: That means, is it the fault of the parents?

B: Well what you are implying is that it is not entirely that, that

there is something deeper.

K: Yes sir. I think there is something quite different. I want to

capture that.

B: This is something that would be important.

K: How do you find out? Let's have an insight! I feel that there

is something totally different. We are attacking it from a

causational point of view. Would it be right sir, just a question

mark, would it be right to say that the beginning of man is not

animal?

B: Well that is not clear, you see. The present theory of

evolution which has been followed, there have been apes,

developing, you can follow the line where they become more and

more like human beings.

K: Yes, I know.

B: Now when you say the beginning of man is not animal, then

it is not clear.

K: I am asking. And therefore if the beginning of man is the

animal therefore we have that instinct highly cultivated and that

instinct is natural.

B: Yes, that instinct is cause and effect.

K: Yes, cause and effect and it becomes natural. And someone

comes along and says, 'Is it?'

B: Right. Let's try to get this clear then. Let's make this clear

because...

K: I mean from all the scientific and historical and all the

archaeologists, they say man began from the ape.

B: Yes, began from other animals.

K: And that as all animals respond to love and to hate, we as

human beings, respond instantly to hate by hate.

B: And vice versa, to love by love.

Q: Could we say that that is a question which cannot possibly

be answered by scientists?

K: We are scientists.

B: It depends what you mean.

Q: I mean it in that sense that you see science tries to explain

things to primary causes, and the biologist would say, well this

kind of instinct has died out, it has died a natural death because

man responded to hate with love.

B: Well that is one view, you could say that it would not have

been helpful for survival to respond to hate with love, that it would

have been a selection of people who responded to hate with hate.

Q: That is why I feel it is not a question of that kind which can

be answered by such an approach.

K: So at the beginning there were people, or there were half a

dozen people who never responded to hate because they had love,

and those people, one or two had implanted this thing in the human

mind also. Right? That where love is the other is not. And that has

also been part of our inheritance. Right? Because those few said

this, that. And why haven't we as human beings cultivated to

respond to hate by hate, why haven't we cultivated the other? And

the other is not cultivatable.

Q: They have tried to cultivate it.

K: No, it is not cultivatable.

B: It is not casual. It cannot be, cultivation depends on a cause.

K: On cause. So why have we lost that? If this is so.

Q: But when you ask why we have lost it, that implies that we

have had it sometime.

K: No, no. You have missed it.

B: Some have had it.

K: Yes. Some, I said that, some 'X', 'Y', 'Z', or A, B, C, when

man began implanted in man this thing, love, which is causeless,

which will not respond to hate. All right. That has been implanted.

And we have cultivated very carefully by thought, respond to hate

by hate, violence by violence, and so on. Why haven't we moved

along with the other line? You follow my question?

B: Yes,

K: Is this a futile question sir?

B: One doesn't see any way of proceeding.

K: I am not trying to proceed.

B: We have to understand what made people respond to hate

with hate, why they didn't...

K: To 'X' the other seems so natural. To 'X' he never even

thought about the other. So if that is so natural to 'X', why isn't it

natural to 'Y' and so on? If he is a freak then there is no answer.

That is a stupid way of pushing him off. If it is natural to 'X' it must

be natural to others, why isn't it natural? You follow my question?

Why?

You know this ancient idea which is probably in existence in

the Jewish religion and in the Indian religions and so on, that the

manifestation of the highest takes place, occasionally. That seems

too easy an explanation. Have we moved in the wrong direction?

B: What do you mean by that?

K: We have taken the wrong turn.

B: You mean mankind? Yes, we have discussed that before, that

there has been a wrong turning.

K: To respond to hate by hate, violence by violence and so on.

B: And giving supreme value to knowledge.

Q: Wouldn't another factor also be the attempt to cultivate the

idea of love?

K: Who says that?

Q: Well people in literature, people have always tried to really

produce love and better human beings.

B: That is the purpose of religion.

Q: It is the purpose of religion.

K: Wipe it out by one - if it is cultivatable, by what, thought?

Thought is a material process. Don't go into all that. Love has no

cause, it is not cultivatable, full stop.

Q: Yes, but you see the mind doesn't see that.

K: But we explained all that sir. I want to go into something,

forgive me, not that, I want to find out if it is natural to A, B, C,

why isn't it natural to 'X' 'Y'? I think this is a valid question. Right?

B: Even another point is to say that you could see that the

response of hate to hate just makes no sense anyway, why do we

go on with it? Because people may believe in that moment that

they are protecting themselves with hate, but it is no protection.

K: Oh, please give me some insight! It is a very good question

sir. I think it is valid. A, B, C, are born without cause and 'X', 'Y',

'Z' are caught in cause. They walk along that way and those don't

walk along that way. So why not 'X' 'Y' 'Z'? You understand? I

keep on. Is it the privilege of the few? The elite? No, no. Let's

begin the other way round sir. I hope it doesn't bore you.

B: No, go ahead.

K: 'X's' mind is the mind of humanity. We have been through

that. The mind of humanity has been responding to hate with hate,

violence by violence, knowledge by knowledge and so on. And A,

B, C are part of humanity, but A, B, C do not respond to hate by

hate, they are part of me, they are part of 'X's' conscience, part of

all that. Please.

B: Why is there this difference?

K: Yes sir, that is what I am asking. One is natural, the other is

unnatural. Why? Why the difference? Who is asking this question?

Just a minute. Who is asking this question? The people, 'X' 'Y' 'Z'

who respond to hate by hate, are they asking the question? Or A, B,

C are asking the question.

Q: It would seem that A, B, C are asking this question.

B: It appears that way, that A, B, C have asked the question.

K: A, B, C are asking the question, yes.

B: But you see we were also just saying that they are not

different.

K: They are not different.

B: We say they are different but also they are not different.

K: Of course. They are not different. Just a minute, just a

minute. 'X', 'Y', 'Z' say A, B, C are different. A, B, C say they are

not different. Right? We are not different. Which means what?

How do you respond to it? Don't think about it. A, B, C, 'X', 'Y',

'Z'. 'X', 'Y', 'Z' don't put this question, only A, B, C put this

question. And A, B, C say we are part of you.

B: There is one mind.

K: That's it, one mind.

B: Yes and how does it come that another part of this one mind

says, no?

K: That's the whole thing. How does it come about that one part

of the mind says we are different from A, B, C? Of course there are

all kinds of explanations - Karma, reincarnation, blah, blah, blah.

Remove all those explanations, what am I left with, the fact that A,

B, C are different from 'X', 'Y', 'Z'. And those are facts. Right?

Q: They appear to be different.

K: Oh no, they are absolutely different, not appear.

B: There is a contradiction because you said before that A, B, C

are saying they are not different.

K: I must be clear. A, B, C do not respond to that.

B: I think the question we wanted to be sure we come back to

is: why do the people who cultivate hate say that they are different

from those who don't.

K: Do they say that?

B: I think they do in so far as they would admit that there was

anybody who didn't cultivate hate, then they would say they must

be different.

K: Yes, because that is clear - light and darkness and so on. But

I want to find out are we moving in the right direction? That is, A,

B, C have given me that gift and I have not carried that gift. You

follow what I mean? I have carried the other gift but not this -

why?

Q: Did you say sir that it is implanted in all of us?

K: Of course. If man began there, with the animal, somebody

there must have said, look.

Q: But in A, B, C it is natural and in the others it is latent but

has never come out, is that it?

K: I am asking that. Right sir?

B: Right.

K: My father - I am talking respectfully - was responding to

hate by hate, why has the son not responded in the same direction?

B: I think it is a question of insight.

K: Which means what? He had insight right from the beginning.

You follow what I am saying. Right from childhood, which means

what?

B: What?

K: That - I don't want to enter into this dangerous field yet.

B: What is it? Perhaps you want to leave that.

K: There is some factor that is missing sir. I want to capture it.

You see if that is an exception then it is silly.

B: All right then we agree that the thing is dormant in all human

beings - is that what you want to say?

K: I am not quite sure that is what I want to say.

B: But I meant that the factor is there in all mankind.

K: That is a dangerous statement too.

B: That is what you were saying.

K: I know, but I am questioning, when I am quite sure I will tell

you.

B: All right. We tried this and we can say it seems promising

but it is a bit dangerous. This possibility is there in all mankind and

in so far as some people have seen it.

K: Which means god is in you?

B: No, it is just that the possibility of insight is there.

K: Yes, partly. I am questioning all this sir. The father responds

to hate by hate, the son doesn't.

B: Yes, well that happens from time to time.

K: No, consistently from the beginning - why?

B: Well it must depend on insight which shows the futility of

hate.

K: Why did that chap have it?

B: Yes, why?

K: And he says this seems so terribly natural, what is natural it

must be to everybody. Water is natural to everybody.

B: Yes, well why isn't insight present for everybody from the

beginning?

K: Yes, that is all I am asking.

B: So strong that even maltreatment cannot affect it.

K: Nothing can affect it, that is my point. I am getting at it

slowly. Maltreatment, beating, being put into all kinds of

situations, it hasn't affected it. Why? You follow sir? Wait a

minute. We had better stop. We are coming to something.

OJAI 7TH CONVERSATION WITH DAVID

BOHM 17TH APRIL, 1980 `THE ENDING OF

TIME'

Krishnamurti: Shall we start from where we left off?

Dr Bohm: All right.

K: Or something new?

B: What do you suggest?

K: I don't know.

Are we saying sir that human beings are still behaving with the

animal instincts?

B: Yes, I think we were discussing that the other day and the

animal instincts, it seems, may apparently be overpowering in their

intensity and speed, and especially with young children. It may

seem that it is only natural for them to respond with the animal

instinct.

K: So that means that we are still, after a million years or ten

million years, or whatever years, we are still instinctively behaving

like our ancestors?

B: Well in some ways. Probably it is complicated by thought,

the animal instincts have now become entangled with thought and

it is getting in some ways worse.

K: In some ways far worse.

B: Because all these instincts of hatred now become directed by

thought and sustained by thought so that they are more subtle and

more dangerous.

K: And during all these many, many centuries we haven't found

a way, a method, a system or something that will move us away

from that track. Is that it?

B: Well that is one point, yes. That is one of the difficulties,

surely. When people begin to get angry with each other, their anger

builds up and they can't seem to do anything about it. They may try

to control it but then that doesn't work.

K: 'X', as we were saying, behaves, let's suppose, naturally,

which is not responding to the animal instincts. What place has

such insight, we will call it, in human society?

B: Yes, well...

K: None at all?

B:... in the society as it is it cannot be accommodated because

society is organized under the assumption that pleasure and pain

and fear are going to rule, except when you control it. Say,

friendliness is a kind of animal instinct too, people that become

friendly for instinctive reasons.

K: People have become?

B: Friendly sometimes for reasons similar to animal instinct and

may become enemies for similar reasons. So I think that some

people would say that we should be rational. If we want to answer

your question you see there is a period during the 18th century, the

age of reason, when they said man could be rational, he could

choose to be rational, bring about harmony everywhere.

K: But he hasn't.

B: But it got worse, it led to the French revolution and to the

terror and so on. But after that people didn't have so much faith in

reason as a way of getting anywhere, coming out of it.

K: So where does that lead us? We were talking really about

insight, that it actually changes the nature of the brain itself.

B: Yes, we discussed that yesterday: by dispelling the darkness

in the brain, it allowed the brain to function in a new way.

K: Yes. Thought has been operating in darkness, creating its

own darkness and functioning in that. And insight is like, as we

said, a flash which breaks down the darkness. And then that

insight, clearing the darkness, then does it act, function, rationally?

B: Yes we went into that: man will then function rationally in a

sense of perception - we discussed - rather than by rules and

reason. But there is a freely flowing reason. You see some people

identify reason with certain rules of logic which would be

mechanical.

K: Which would be mechanical, yes.

B: But reason as a form of perception of order.

K: So we are saying, are we, that insight is perception?

B: It is even the flash of light which makes perception possible.

K: Right, that's right.

B: It is even more fundamental than perception.

K: So insight is pure perception and from that perception there

is action, which is then sustained by rationality. Is that it?

B: Yes.

K: That's right.

B: The rationality being perception of order, I would say.

K: So would you say: insight, perception and order?

B: Yes.

K: That order is not mechanical.

B: Yes.

K: Because it is not based on logic.

B: There are no rules.

K: No rules, let's put it that way, it's better. It is not based on

rules. Then that means insight, perception, action, order. Then you

come to the question: is insight continuous, or is it by flash?

B: We went into that and said it was a wrong question.

K: Yes.

B: We have to look at it differently.

K: So it is not time...

B:... not time-bound.

K: Not time binding, yes we said that. So now let's get a little

further. That means we said, didn't we, insight is the elimination of

darkness which is the very centre of the self, which is the self

creates this darkness. Right? And so insight dispels that very

centre.

B: Yes, with the darkness perception is not possible.

K: Quite.

B: It's blindness in a way.

K: Right, then what next? How - no! I am an ordinary man with

all my animal instincts, pleasure and pain and reward and

punishment and so on, I hear you say this, and I see what you are

saying has some kind of reason, logic, and order.

B: Yes, it makes sense as far as we can see. Right?

K: It makes sense. Then how am I to have it in my daily life?

How am I to bring about - you understand these are words which

are difficult, all these words are time-binding - but is that possible?

B: Yes, without time, you see.

K: Is it possible for me, with my narrow mind, with my etc., to

have this insight so that pattern of life is broken? As we said, sir,

the other day, we have tried all this; every form of self-denial and

yet that insight doesn't come about. I may have once in a while a

partial insight, but the partial insight is not the whole insight so

there is still partial darkness.

B: If it doesn't dispel the centre of the self, it is not adequate. It

may dispel some darkness in a certain area but the source of the

darkness, the creator, the sustainer of it is still there.

K: Yes, still there. Now what shall I do? This is a wrong

question. This leads nowhere.

So we have stated the general plan. Right? And I have to make

the moves, or make no moves at all. I haven't the energy. I haven't

the capacity to see it quickly. Because this is immediate, not just

something I practise and get it. Right? I haven't the capacity, I

haven't got that sense of urgent immediacy. Everything is against

me: my family, my wife, society, everything. And does it mean

that I eventually have to become a monk?

B: No. Becoming a monk is the same as becoming anything

else.

K: That's right. So becoming a monk is as becoming a

businessman. Quite. That's rather good! I see all this, verbally as

well as rationally, intellectually, but I can't capture this thing. And

you don't help me. You, 'X' doesn't help me, I am just left. Is there

a different approach to this problem? I am always asking the same

question because I am caught in the same pattern. So I am asking

myself is there a totally different way - I am using that word for the

moment - a totally different way of moving, or approaching, the

whole turmoil of life? You follow sir?

B: Yes.

K: Is there a different manner of looking at it? Or is this the

only way? You follow?

B: Yes.

K: We are saying as long as the centre is creating darkness, and

thought is operating in that darkness, there must be disorder, there

must be everything as society now is. And to move away from that

you must have insight. Insight can only come about when there is a

flash, a sudden light which abolishes not only darkness but the

creator of darkness.

B: Yes.

K: Now I am asking - that seems so absolute. Right? - and I am

asking myself is there a different approach to this question

altogether?

B: Well possibly. When you say it seems absolute, do you want

a less absolute approach?

K: It is so.

B: It is so, but I mean, it was not clear what you meant by it

seems so absolute.

K: I mean there is no other.

B: There is no other way.

K: Yes, there is no other way.

B: But you say maybe there is another way. Are you suggesting

that there is another way?

K: I am asking if that is the only way, then I am doomed.

B: You can't produce this flash at will.

K: Oh, we have been through that, it can't be produced through

will, through sacrifice, through every form of human effort. That is

out, we have finished with all that. We finished with all that two or

three weeks ago.

And also we came to a point, to 'X' this insight seemed so

natural and why is it not natural to others? That was one of the

points we raised.

B: Yes.

K: Why is it natural to 'X' and not so to others? If we could find

that sir.

B: Yes. Well let's say that if you begin with the child, it seems

natural to the child to respond with his animal instincts, with great

intensity which sweep him away. Darkness arises because it is so

overwhelming.

K: Yes, but why is that with 'X'?

B: First of all it seems natural to most people that this would

happen, that the animal instincts would take over.

K: Yes, that's right. That seems so natural.

B: Very natural and they would say the other fellow is

unnatural.

K: Yes.

B: Right. And therefore that is the way mankind has been

thinking, saying that if there are indeed any other people they must

be very unusual and unnatural.

K: That's it. That is, human beings have been acting according

to this pattern, one pattern, responding to hatred by hatred and so

on. There are those few, perhaps many, who say that is not. Why

has this division taken place? If this is natural, that is, hate, what is

one battling against?

B: Yes, if you say pleasure and pain, fear and hate, are natural,

then the people say we must battle to control it because it will

destroy us. You see they say the best we can hope for is to control

it with reason or with another way.

K: But that doesn't work.

B: We have gone into all that.

K: So I must...

B: Now you say, someone else says the other way is natural.

K: If that is natural, are the few, the privileged, by some

miracle, by some strange chance event?

B: Yes, some people, many people say that, many people would

say that they are unusual in some way.

K: No, that goes against one's grain. I wouldn't accept that.

B: Yes, well if that is not the case then you have to say why is

there this difference.

K: Yes, that is what I am trying to get at. Because 'X' is born of

the same parents.

B: Yes, you say they are fundamentally the same but why do

they behave differently?

K: Differently, yes. This question has been asked many times,

over and over again in different parts of the world. Now why? Why

is there this division? I can't find out.

Q: Is the division really total? You see because even that man

you say responds to hatred with hatred, he nevertheless sees that it

doesn't make sense. He also sees that it is wrong. But even so he

says it is natural, he at the same time say it is not natural, it should

be different.

K: It should be different but he is still battling with ideas, with

thought.

Q: That's right but it is not entirely natural. If it were entirely

natural he would say, 'OK, that's just the way we live'. He wouldn't

even try to get out of it. You see what I am saying?

K: Yes, I understand that. But he is trying to get out of it by the

exercise of thought which breeds darkness.

Q: But he doesn't understand that.

K: And we have explained to him.

Q: Well I just want to say that the division does not seem to be

so entire. You see.

K: Oh yes sir, the division is entire, complete. We talked about

this the other day.

Q: Well why are people not saying 'Well look here, let's live

that way, let's kill each other and let's enjoy it to the last moment'?

K: Because they can't see anything except their own darkness.

Q: But they want to get out of it.

K: Now wait a minute sir. Do they want to get out of it?

Q: At least they say so.

K: Do they actually realize the state they are in and deliberately

want to get out of it?

Q: I think so.

Q: They are ambivalent about it. They want to go on getting the

fruits of it but they have a sense it is wrong, that it leads to

suffering for them.

B: Or else they find they can't help it. You see when the time

comes to get angry, or pleasure, they can't get away.

K: They can't help it. We have been through it.

Q: But they want to get out of it, they can't help it. They are

helpless, there are forces which are stronger than even their will.

K: So what shall we do? Or this division is false.

B: That's the point. We had better call it a difference between

these two. This difference is not fundamental. One idea is to say it

is a difference which is absolute, there is nothing in common.

K: I don't think there is anything in common.

B: Why? But if you say the difference is false, or the division is

false, you say fundamentally they are the same, but a difference

has developed between them. It would mean if you say the division

is false, yet you say fundamentally, you mean fundamentally they

are the same, but a difference has developed between them.

Perhaps one has taken a wrong turning.

K: Let's put it that way, yes.

B: But the difference is not intrinsic, it is not structural, you

know, built in like the difference between a tree and a rock.

K: Right. Yes.

B: A tree cannot become a rock.

K: Yes, as you say there is a vast difference between a rock and

a tree but it is not like that. Then what? Are we trying to find out

sir, let's be simple, are we trying to find out: there are two, they

start from the source and one has taken one direction and the other

has taken another direction. Right? But the source is the same.

Why haven't all of them moved in the right direction?

B: Yes, we haven't answered that. We haven't managed to

answer that.

K: Yes, we are trying to answer that. Let's get back to that.

B: I was just saying that if you understand that, then going back

to the source you do not have to take the wrong turn. In some sense

we are continually taking the wrong turn, so if we can understand

this wrong turn, then it becomes possible to change.

K: Yes sir. That is, we start from the same source. 'A' takes one

turn...

B: We are continually starting from the same source, not going

back in time to a source.

K: Just a minute, just a minute.

B: There are two possible ways of taking your statement. One is

to say the source is in time, far back in the past, we started together

and we took different paths. The other is to say the source is

timeless and we are continually taking the wrong turn, again and

again. Right?

K: Yes. We cut out time, therefore it is constantly the wrong

turn.

B: Constantly the wrong turn, yes.

K: Why?

Q: Which means there is the constant possibility of the right

turn.

K: Yes, of course. That's it. We are getting a little more clear.

That is if we say the source from which we all began, then we are

caught in time.

B: You can't go back.

K: You can't go back. That is out. Therefore it is we apparently

are taking the wrong turn all the time.

B: Constantly.

K: Constantly, let's put it that way. Constantly taking the wrong

turn, why? The one - I am just going into it a little bit - the one who

is not operating, the one who is living with insight and the other

not living with insight, these are constant. And the man who is

living in darkness can move away at any time to the other. That is

the point: at any time.

B: Yes.

K: Right?

B: Then nothing holds him, except taking the wrong turn

constantly. You could say the darkness is such that he doesn't see

himself taking the wrong turning.

K: Is this right sir? Are we pursuing the right direction, right

question? You have that insight, suppose you have that insight, and

your darkness, the very centre of darkness has been dispelled

completely. And I listen to you. I am a serious, fairly intelligent,

not neurotic, human being, I listen to you. And whatever you have

said seems so reasonable, rational, sane. I question the division sir,

you follow? I question the division. The division is created by the

centre which creates darkness. Right?

B: Yes. It is the same as the other divisions, it is thought.

K: Thought has created this division. The other man says there

is no division. I don't know if I am?

B: Yes, well in the darkness thought creates this division.

K: You say, you who have the insight, etc., you say there is no

division.

B: From the darkness a shadow is thrown, it makes a division.

K: Yes. And I won't accept that because in my darkness there is

nothing but division. So I, living in darkness, have created the

division. I think that is right. As I have created it in my thoughts...

B: I am constantly creating it.

K: Yes, constantly creating division, that's right, constantly

creating division and so I am always wanting to live constantly in a

state in which there is no division. Right?

B: Yes.

K: But that movement is still the movement of darkness. Right?

B: Yes.

K: How am I to dispel this continuous, constant darkness? That

is the only question because as long as that exists I create this

constant division. Right?

B: Yes.

K: You see, this going round and round in circles. Which is, I

can only dispel the darkness through insight, and I cannot have that

insight by any effort, will and so on and so on, so I am left with

nothing. Right? So what is my problem? My problem is to perceive

the darkness, to perceive the thought that is creating darkness and

to see that the self is the source of this darkness. Why can't I see

that? Why can't I see it even logically?

B: Well it's clear logically.

K: Yes but somehow that doesn't seem to operate. So what shall

I do? I realize sir, for the first time that the self is creating the

darkness which is constantly breeding division. I see that very

clearly.

B: Yes and the division produces the darkness anyway.

K: Vice versa, back and forth. And from all that everything

begins. Now I see that very clearly. What shall I do? So I don't

admit division. Right sir?

Q: Krishnaji, aren't we introducing division again, nevertheless,

when we say there is the man who needs insight?

K: He has insight. 'X' has insight and he has explained to me

very clearly how darkness is banished. I listen to him and he says,

your very darkness is creating the division. Actually there is no

division, no division as light and darkness. So can you, he asks me,

can you banish, can you put away this sense of division?

B: You seem to be bringing back a division by saying that, by

saying that I should do it, you see.

K: No, not 'should'.

B: In a way you are saying that the thought process of the mind

seems to spontaneously produce division, you say try to put it

aside, at the same time it is trying to making division.

K: No sir. I understand that question. But can my mind put

away division? Or is that a wrong question?

Q: Can it put away division as long as it is divided?

K: No, it can't, so what am I to do?

Q: We are introducing division again.

K: No, no, no. Listen: he says something so extraordinarily true,

which has immense significance and beauty and my whole being

says 'Capture it'. It is not a division.

Q: The division seems to be immediate, you know when I feel

there is something which I want to capture.

K: No, no. I recognize that I am the creator of division. Right

sir? Because I am living in darkness and so out of that darkness I

create. But I have listened to 'X' who says there is no division. And

I recognize that is an extraordinary statement. So in saying that to

me, who has lived in division, constant division, that very saying

has an immediate effect on me. Right?

B: I think that one has to - well if you say, put away the

division...

K: I will leave that, I won't put it away. That statement...

B: Which statement?

K: That there is no division.

B: That there is no division, yes. No division, right.

K: Yes.

B: And therefore there is no need to think division.

K: No. No. I want to get at this a little bit. I am getting

somewhere with it.

Your statement that there is no division, because you have this

insight, etc., etc. That very statement has a tremendous effect on

me. I have lived constantly in division and you come along and

say, after discussing, you say there is no division. What effect has

it on me? You understand my question? It must have some impact

on me otherwise what is the good of talking, you are saying

anything.

B: But then you say there is no division. That makes sense. And

on the other hand it seems that the division exists.

K: I recognize the division, but your statement that there is no

division has a tremendous impact on me. That seems so natural,

isn't it? When I see something that is immovable, it must have

some effect on me. When you say, 'It is so' - you follow sir, what I

am trying to get at? I respond to it with a tremendous shock. I

wonder if I am conveying anything.

B: You see if you were talking about something which was say

in front of us and you said, 'No, it is not that way' and then you see

we would look at it and say, 'No, it's not that way', you see, and

then that would, of course, change your whole way of seeing it.

Now you say this division is not that way. We try to look and see if

that is so. Right?

K: I don't even say, 'Is that so?' You who have very carefully

explained the whole business, and you say at the end of it that there

is no division. You understand? And I am sensitive, watch very

carefully and all the rest, realize I am constantly living in division,

when you make that statement it has - I think it has broken the

pattern. I don't know if you follow what I am trying to explain.

Q: You say at least for that moment it breaks the pattern.

K: It has broken the pattern, because he has said something

which is so fundamentally true: there is no god and man. Right sir,

I stick to that. I see something in that. Which is, we said the other

day where hate exists the other is not. Right? But hating I want the

other. Right? So constant division - division is born out of

darkness. And the darkness is constant. And you come along and

tell me, because I have been very carefully listening to you, I am

not just a casual listener, I'm not just a person who just says, 'I have

come this afternoon, tell me all about it' - it has been my life time.

And you make a statement which seems so absolutely true. You

follow sir? That enters into me therefore this act has dispelled

darkness. The act of his statement dispels the darkness. I wonder if

I am capturing something. I think it does. I am not making an effort

to get rid of darkness but you are the light. That's right sir, I hold to

that.

So it comes to something which is: can I listen with my

darkness, in my darkness, which is constant, in that darkness can I

listen to you? Of course I can.

Q: Krishnaji, is it then still darkness?

K: No, no don't bother. I am living in constant division which

brings darkness. Somebody, 'X', comes along and tells me there is

no division old boy, look at it.

B: Right. Now why do you say you can listen in the darkness?

K: What?

B: You have just said you can listen in the darkness.

K: Yes sir.

B: Right. That needs some...

K: Oh yes, I can listen in darkness. If I can't I am doomed.

B: But that is no argument.

K: Of course that is no argument but that is so. If I am

constantly living darkness...

B: That's clear. We have gone into it, constantly living in

darkness is not worthwhile. But now we say that it is possible to

listen in the darkness.

K: Yes sir. Yes sir. Listen. It isn't that - of course sir.

Q: This holds with what you say that there is no division.

K: Listening is not division.

Q: Right. If that were I could not listen.

K: But I am in division. No, sir, you are missing the point. He

says there is no division. He is the flag to me. I wonder if I am

making it clear? Oh no.

Q: Can we make it a little bit more clear?

K: He, 'X', says insight, he explains very, very carefully to me

what insight is - I won't go into all that over and over again. He

explains to me very, very carefully. I am sensitive, I have been

listening to him in my darkness but that is making me sensitive,

alive, watching. That is what I have been doing. We have been

doing that together. And he makes a statement: there is absolutely

no division. And I know that I am living in constant division. That

very statement has put the constant movement to an end. I wonder.

Yes sir.

Otherwise if this doesn't take place I have nothing. You follow?

I am perpetually living in darkness. A man, a voice in the

wilderness and listening to that voice has an extraordinary effect in

wilderness.

B: Listening reaches the source of the movement, whereas

observation does not.

K: Yes sir, I have observed, I have listened, I have played all

kinds of things all my life. And I have done everything that human

beings have invented, or is inventing. And I now see there is only

one thing, that there is this constant darkness and I am acting in the

darkness, in this wilderness which is darkness, whose centre is the

self. I see that absolutely. I mean absolutely, completely, you can't

argue against it any more. And you come along and tell me this.

Sir, see what happens? Yes, sir. In that wilderness a voice says

there is water. You follow? It is not hope, there is immediate action

in me. Yes. Which is, sir, would you say one must realize,

understand, any word, that this constant movement in darkness is

my life. Would I admit that sir? You follow what I am saying? Can

I realize with all my experience, with all my knowledge, with all

my etc., of a million years, suddenly realize that I am living in total

darkness? Nobody will admit that. Because that means I have

reached the end of all hope. Right? My hope is also darkness. You

have cut the future altogether. You understand? So I am left with

this enormous darkness and I am there. No, sir. That means, the

realization of that is the ending of becoming. Right? And I have

reached that point and 'X' tells me, naturally sir.

You see all of them, all the religions have said this division

exists. God and son of god.

B: Yes, well they say it can be overcome.

K: It is the same pattern repeated.

B: Yes. I don't know whether the Indian religions haven't said

this.

K: I wouldn't know but I have discussed with some pundits, I

doubt it. No, no, I doubt it very much. It doesn't matter who said it

but the fact is somebody in this wilderness is saying something and

in that wilderness I have been listening, listening to every voice.

Right sir? And my own voice, which has created more and more

darkness. Yes, this is right. That means sir, does it: when there is

insight there is no division.

B: Yes.

K: It is not your insight or my insight, it is insight. In that there

is no division.

B: Yes.

K: Which means sir, do I understand this, that the ground,

which we talked about...

B: What about the ground?

K: In that ground there is no darkness as darkness, no light as

light. What is that? On that ground, or in that ground, there is no

division and so it is not - we have been through all that, just

recapture it - it is not born of will or time, or thought and all that.

So in that ground...

B: Are you saying light and darkness are not divided?

K: Right.

B: Which means to say that there is neither.

K: Neither, that's it, that's it. There is something else. You see,

you come along and tell me this extraordinary fact. To me it is an

extraordinary fact. I realize it with all my being that what you say

is true - true not merely verbally but it is so. And I see - not I see -

there is a perception that there is a different movement which is

non-dualistic.

B: Non-dualistic means what? No division?

K: No division. I won't use non-dualistic - they use that in India.

There is no division.

B: But nevertheless there is movement.

K: Movement, of course.

B: What does that mean, now without division?

K: Movement, I mean by that movement that it is not time. That

movement doesn't breed division. So I want to go back to the

ground. Lead to that.

If there is neither darkness nor light, which is really a

tremendous division. Right? On that ground there is no division.

That ground is not god, or the son of god, there is no division. So

what takes place? Would you say sir, that the ground is movement?

B: Well it could be, yes. Movement that is undivided, without

division.

K: No. I say there is movement in darkness.

B: Yes but we said there is no division of darkness and light,

and yet you said there is movement.

K: Yes. Would you say the ground is endless movement?

B: Yes.

K: What does that mean?

B: Well, it is not clear - it is difficult to express.

K: I think one can go into it, let's express it. I am off somewhere

else, just a minute, come back.

What is movement sir, apart from here to there, apart from time,

is there any other movement?

B: Yes.

K: There is. The movement from being to becoming,

psychologically. There is the movement of distance, there is the

movement of time. We say those are all divisions. Is there a

movement which is non-divisive - no, which in itself has no

division? There is when you have said that statement. You follow

sir? When you have made that statement that there is no division, it

is that movement surely? Right?

B: Well, you are saying that when there is no division then that

movement is there. Right?

K: Yes. And I said, 'X' says that is the ground.

B: Right.

K: Would you say - these are words - it has no end, no

beginning?

B: Yes.

(Continued ...)

(My humble salutations to the lotus feet of Sri Jiddu Krishnamurti and

gratitude to the great philosophers and followers of him.)

Category: The Ending of Time J. Krishnamurti and Dr. David Bohm - Part 9

��

Comments

0 responses to "The Ending of Time J. Krishnamurti and Dr. David Bohm - Part 9"

Hindu Vedic Philosophy (The Paramardha Tattwam)

The Ending of Time J. Krishnamurti and Dr. David Bohm - Part 9

Comments

Post a Comment

About Me

Followers

map

Blog Archive

visitors

visitors

About Me

Labels

Blog Archive