The Ending of Time
J. Krishnamurti
and
Dr. David Bohm
K: Which means again time.
Q: Can one say that movement has no form.
K: All that, no form, we are not talking.
I want to go a little
further. What I am asking is; we said when
you have stated that
there is no division, which means no
division in movement.
B: Yes. It flows without division, you
see.
K: Yes. When you accept that you have
pointed out to me
something, it is a movement in which there
is no division.
B: Yes.
K: Do I capture the significance of that?
You understand what I
mean? Do I understand the depth of that
statement? A movement
in which there is no division, which means
no time, no distance as
we know it, no element of time in it at
all. So I am trying to see sir
is that movement, is it pushing man - wait
a minute, I am just using
wrong words - is it surrounding man?
B: Yes, enveloping.
K: Enveloping man. You understand?
B: Yes.
K: I want to get at this. I am concerned
with man, with
mankind, humanity, which is me. You have
made, 'X' - it doesn't
matter - 'X' has made several statements
and I have captured a
statement which seems so absolutely true:
that there is no division.
And which means there is no action which
is divisive.
B: Yes.
K: Right?
B: Yes.
K: I see that. And also I see: is that
movement without time,
etc., it seems that is the world. You
follow?
B: The universe.
K: The universe, the cosmos, the whole.
B: The totality.
K: Totality. You know, isn't there a
statement sir in the Jewish
world, 'Only god can say, I am'?
B: Well that's the way the language goes.
The language is built
that way. It is not necessary to state it.
K: No, I understand. You follow what I am
trying to get at?
B: Yes.
K: What am I trying to say?
B: Well that only this movement is.
K: You see sir, can the mind be of that
movement? Because that
is timeless, therefore deathless.
B: Yes, the movement is without death.
K: Death.
B: In so far as the mind takes part in
that it is the same.
K: You understand what I am saying?
B: Yes. But what dies when the individual
dies?
K: It has no meaning even because then
once I have understood
there is no division...
B: Then it is not important.
K:... death has no meaning.
B: It still has a meaning in some other
context.
K: Oh, the ending of the body, that's
totally trivial. But you
understand? I wanting to capture the
significance of your statement
saying there is no division, has broken
the spell of my darkness,
and I see that there is a movement and
that's all. Which means
death has very little meaning.
B: Yes.
K: You have abolished totally the fear of
death.
B: Yes, I understand that when the mind is
partaking in that
movement then the mind is that movement.
K: That's all. The mind is that movement.
B: Would you say that matter is also that
movement?
K: Yes sir, I would say everything. In my
darkness I have
listened to you. That's most important.
And your clarity has broken
my spell. When you have said there is no
division, you have
abolished the division between life and
death. I don't know if you
see this?
B: Yes.
K: One can never say then 'I am immortal'.
You follow sir? It is
so childish.
B: Yes, that's the division.
K: Or, 'I am seeking immortality'. Or, 'I
am becoming' - you
have wiped away the whole sense of moving
in darkness. I wonder
if you get this? Yes, sir.
Q: What then would be the significance of
the world? Is there a
significance to it?
K: The world?
Q: With man.
B: Society, do you mean?
Q: Yes, it seems that when you make this
statement, there is no
division, and life is death, what then is
the significance of man with
all his struggle, with all his...
K: None. He is in darkness. What
importance has that? It is like
struggling in a locked room. That is the
whole point.
B: Significance can only arise when the
darkness is dispelled.
K: Of course.
Q: The only significance is the dispelling
of the darkness.
K: Oh no, no. No.
B: Aren't we going to say that something
more can be done
besides dispelling darkness?
K: All that you have done to me, who has
listened very
carefully to everything that you, who have
insight, etc., you have
dispelled the centre. So in darkness I can
invent a lot of
significances, that there is light, there
is god, there is beauty, there
is this, that, it is still in the area of
darkness. Caught in a room full
of darkness and I can invent a lot of
pictures. I want to get
something else. Which is: is the mind of
the one who has this
insight, therefore dispelled darkness and
therefore has
understanding of that ground, which is
movement without time and
so on, then that mind itself is that
movement.
B: Yes, but it isn't the totality. The
mind is the movement but
we are saying movement is matter, movement
is mind.
K: Yes sir. Yes sir.
B: And we were saying that the ground may
be beyond the
universal mind. You were saying earlier
that the movement, that
the ground is more than the universal mind
still, more than the
emptiness.
K: We said that, much more.
B: Much more. But it contains - we have
got to get it clear. We
say the mind is this movement.
K: Yes, mind is this movement.
B: We are not saying that this movement is
only mind.
K: No, no, no.
B: That is the point I was trying to get
clear.
K: Mind is the movement - mind in the sense
the ground.
B: But the ground goes beyond the mind, is
what you said.
K: Now just a minute: what do you mean by
beyond the mind?
B: Just going back to what we were
discussing a few days ago:
we said we have the emptiness, the
universal mind and then the
ground is beyond that, yes.
K: Would you say beyond that is this
movement?
B: Yes. The movement from which - the mind
emerges from the
movement as a ground and falls back to the
ground, that is what we
are saying.
K: Yes, that's right. Mind emerges from the
movement.
B: And it dies back into the movement.
K: That's right. It has it being in the
movement.
B: Yes and matter also.
K: Quite. So, sir, what I want to get at
is: I am a human being
faced with this ending and beginning, and
you abolish that.
B: Yes it is not fundamental.
K: It is not fundamental. You have removed
one of the greatest
fears of life which is death.
B: Yes.
K: You see what it does to a human being
when there is no
death? Which means the mind doesn't age,
the ordinary mind I am
talking about. I don't know if I am
conveying this.
B: Let's go slowly. You say the mind
doesn't age, but what if
the brain cells age?
K: I question it.
B: Yes. How can we know that?
K: Because there is no conflict, because
there is no strain, there
is no becoming, movement. You follow?
B: Yes, well this is something that it is
hard to communicate
certainty about.
K: Of course. You can't prove any of this.
B: But the other, what we have said so
far...
K:... can be reasoned.
B: It is reason and also you can feel it yourself.
But now you are
stating something about the brain cells
about which I have no
feeling for. It might be so, it could be
so.
K: I think it is so. I want to discuss it.
Does a mind, which has
lived in the darkness - a mind which has
lived in the darkness is in
constant movement.
B: Yes.
K: Therefore there is the wearing out of
the cells, decay.
B: We could say that this conflict will
cause cells to decay but
somebody might argue that perhaps even
without conflict they
could decay at a slower rate. Let's say if
you were to live hundreds
of years, for example, in time the cells
would decay no matter what
you would do.
K: Go into this slowly.
B: I can readily accept that the rate of
decay of cells could be
cut down when you get rid of conflict.
K: Slowed down.
B: Slowed down.
K: Decay can be slowed down.
B: Perhaps a great deal.
K: A great deal. Ninety per cent.
B: That we can understand. But if you say
a hundred per cent,
then it is hard to understand.
K: Ninety per cent. Wait a minute. It can
be very, very greatly
slowed down. And that means what? What
happens to a mind that
has no conflict, ninety per cent, or
eighty per cent, what is that
mind - mind in the sense of what is the
quality of that mind which
has no problem? You see sir suppose such a
mind lives in pure air,
unpolluted, etc., etc., the right kind of
food and so on and so on,
why can't it live two hundred years?
B: Well it is possible, some people are
said to have lived up to a
hundred and fifty, living in very pure air
and good food.
K: But you see those very people who have
lived a hundred and
fifty years, if they had no conflict they
might live very much
longer.
B: Yes, they might. There was a case I was
reading of a man in
England who lived to a hundred and fifty,
it was recorded. And the
doctors became interested in him, they
invited him to London and
wined and dined him and then he died in
few days.
K: Poor devil!
Q: Krishnaji normally you say that
anything that lives in time
also dies in time.
K: Yes but the brain, which has had
insight has changed the
cells.
Q: Are you implying in a way that even the
organic brain...
K: Yes sir. We said that. We went into
that.
Q:... does not live in time any more.
K: No, don't bring in time yet. We are
saying that insight brings
about a change in the brain cells, we said
that. Which means the
brain cells are no longer thinking in
terms of time. Right sir?
Q: Psychological time?
K: Of course, that is understood.
B: If they are not so disturbed they will
remain in order and
perhaps they will break down more slowly,
we might increase the
age limit from one hundred and fifty to
two hundred provided you
also had healthy living all round.
K: Yes. That all sounds so damn trivial,
all that.
B: Yes, it doesn't seem to make much
difference. It is an
interesting idea.
K: What if I live another hundred years,
what?
B: Yes, well the men who lived to one
hundred and fifty beyond
that there was nothing unusual.
K: What we are trying to find out is: what
effect has this
extraordinary movement on the brain, you
understand sir?
B: Yes. If we say the brain in some way
directly enveloped in
this movement.
K: Yes, it is.
B: That would bring it to order. But there
is a direct flow,
physically.
K: Not only physically.
B: But also mentally, both.
K: Yes, both. It must have an extraordinary
effect on the brain.
Q: You talked earlier about energy,
Krishnaji. An energy, not
the everyday energy but some very...
K: We said that movement is total energy,
we have been saying
all that. Now this insight has captured,
seen that extraordinary
movement and it is part of that energy. I
want to come much closer
to earth, which is I have lived with the
fear of death, fear of not
becoming and so on, suddenly I see there
is no division and I
understand this whole thing. So what has
happened to my brain?
You follow?
Sir, see something. You see this whole
thing as not verbally,
you see it as a tremendous reality, truth,
not just with all your heart,
mind, you see this thing. That very
perception must affect your
brain.
B: Yes. It brings order.
K: Not only order in life but...
B: I mean order in the brain.
K:... in the brain.
B: The brain cells now - people can prove
that if you are under
stress the brain cells start to break
down. It is proved. And if you
have order in the brain cells then it is
quite different.
K: I have a feeling sir, don't laugh at
it, it may be false, it may
be true. I feel that the brain never loses
the quality of that
movement. I don't know if you see.
B: Once it has it.
K: Of course. I am talking of the person
who has been through
all this and so on.
B: So probably it never loses that
quality.
K: Therefore it is no longer involved in
time.
B: It would no longer be dominated by
time. The brain, from
what we were saying, is not evolving in
any sense, it is just
confusion. You can't say that man's brain
has evolved since the last
ten thousand years.
K: What?
B: You can't say there was any real
evolution in the last ten
thousand years of the brain because if you
go back it is the same.
You see science, knowledge, has evolved
but people felt the same
about life several thousand years ago as
they do now.
K: Sir I want to find out: which is in
that silent emptiness what
we went through, is the brain absolutely
still? You understand my
question?
B: Well not absolutely because...
K: In the sense no movement.
B: Yes we have discussed this before. You
see the blood is
flowing inside the brain.
K: Yes, we are not talking of that.
B: What kind of movement are we
discussing?
K: I am talking of the movement of
thought, movement of any
reaction.
B: Yes. There is no movement in which the
brain moves
independently. You were saying there is
the movement of the
whole but the brain does not go off on its
own, like thought, you
see.
K: You see you have done a tremendous act,
which is you have
abolished death, which is a tremendous
thing, in significance, you
follow, sir? And so I say what is the
brain, the mind, the brain,
when there is no death? You follow? It has
undergone a surgical
operation.
B: We talked about the brain normally has
the notion of death
continually there in the background and
now that notion is
disturbing the brain constantly.
K: Yes sir.
B: Because the brain foresees that death
and it is trying to stop
it.
K: The ending of itself and so on and so
on.
B: It foresees all that and says it must
stop it and it can't.
K: It can't.
B: And therefore it has a problem.
K: Constant struggle with it.
B: In the background.
K: So all that has come to an end. What an
extraordinary thing
you have done. You follow what I am
saying. How does that affect
my daily life? Because I have to live on
this earth. How does it
affect my life? My daily life. My daily
life is aggression, this
everlasting becoming, successful, all that
has gone. What an
extraordinary thing has taken place. You
follow sir?
The last day tomorrow, Saturday. We will
pursue this but we
have understood a great deal today.
B: In bringing in this question of daily
life you might bring in
the question of compassion.
K: Of course, of course, all that. You see
sir, is that movement -
you see compassion becomes rather - is
that movement
compassion?
B: It would be beyond.
K: That's it. That's why one must be
awfully careful.
B: Then again compassion might emerge out
of it.
K: Of course if you haven't got that. We
had better stop.
OJAI 8TH CONVERSATION WITH DAVID
BOHM 19TH APRIL, 1980 `THE ENDING OF
TIME'
Krishnamurti: We left off with non
movement.
Dr Bohm: Yes.
K: A human being who has been pursuing the
path of becoming
and has gone through all that and went
through this sense of
emptiness, silence, energy, and abandoned
almost everything and
comes to the point, the ground. And has
this insight, how does all
that affect his daily life? That was what
we came to.
B: Yes, that was the question.
K: What is his relationship to society,
what is his action with
regard to war and the whole world - a
world that is really living in
darkness and struggling in darkness, what
is his action? Right? I
would say, sir, as we discussed the other
day, it is non-movement.
What does that mean?
B: Yes, well we said before that the
ground was movement
without division.
K: Without division, I forgot that, yes,
quite right.
B: In some sense it seems inconsistent to
say non-movement
while you say the ground is movement.
K: The ground is movement, yes. I forgot
all that. Would you
say an ordinary, average man, educated,
sophisticated, with all his
unpleasant activities, he is constantly in
movement. Right?
B: Well a certain kind of movement.
K: I mean a movement in time.
B: Yes.
K: A movement in becoming. And we are
saying the man who
has trodden - if I may use that word -
that path and come to that
point, and from there what is his action?
We said for the moment,
whatever that may mean, non-action,
non-movement. What does
that mean?
B: Well it means, as you said, not taking
part in this process.
K: Yes, that, of course, that is obvious.
If he doesn't take part in
this process, what part does he play?
Would you say a complete
non-action? What does that mean? I see
something but I am trying
to put it into words.
B: Well it is not clear why you should
call it non-action, we
might think that it was action of another
kind which is not part of
the process of becoming.
K: It is not becoming.
B: But it may still be action.
K: He still has to live here.
B: Well there is one sense that whatever
you do is action, his
action is not directed towards the
illusory process, it is not involved
in it, but it would be directed towards
what underlies this illusory
process. It would be directed, like we
were discussing the other day
the wrong turning which is continually
coming out of the ground.
Right?
K: Yes, yes. You see various religions
have described a man
who has been saved, who is illuminated,
who has achieved
something or other. They have described
very clearly what he is,
how he walks, specially in Hindu religious
books, there it is stated
very clearly, I believe, how he looks, how
he walks, the whole state
of his being. I think that is merely a
poetic description of
something which is...
B: You think it is imagination?
K: I'm afraid a great deal of it is
imagination. I have discussed
this point with some and it is not like
that, that is no imagination.
Somebody who described it knew exactly
what it was.
B: Well how should he know? It is not
clear.
K: I don't want to personally, he said
'You are that' - I said 'Buzz
off'. So what is a man of that kind, how
does he live in this world?
It is a very interesting question, this,
if you go into it rather deeply.
I think that is right, sir. There is a
state of non-movement. That is,
the non-movement which we have gone into.
B: You see it is not clear exactly what
you mean by nonmovement.
K: One becomes poetic, I am trying to
avoid that. You see
would it be right sir, even poetically: it
is like a single tree in a
field. There is no other tree but that
tree, whatever the name of that
tree is, it is there.
B: Well why do you say non-movement?
K: It is non-moving.
B: The tree stands of course.
K: A tree is a living, moving thing. I
don't mean that.
B: The tree in some sense is moving but in
relation to the field it
stands. That is the picture we get.
K: You see I come to you, you have gone
from the beginning to
the end. And now you are at the end with a
totally different kind of
movement, which is timeless and all that.
B: I agree.
K: But you are in that, you are that. I
come to you and say,
'What is that state mind of mind' - I
think that is right - 'What is the
state of your mind, that has walked on
that path and ended
something, totally moved out of darkness,
what is the state of that
mind?'
B: If you say it is non-movement are you
implying it is
constant?
K: It must be. Constant in the sense -
what do you mean by
constant?
B: Well it can have many meanings, but...
K: Continuous?
B: No, no.
K: Do you mean that it is...
B:... static?
K: Oh no.
B: To stand firm, to stand together as a
whole, you see. That is
really its literal meaning.
K: Is that it?
B: That is the picture you have got of the
tree as well, you
know. That is the picture which the tree
in the field suggested.
K: Yes, I know. That is too romantic and
poetic and it becomes
rather deceptive. It is a nice image but
let's move from it. What is
the mind sir, what is that mind - I think
we have to go through that
- what is the mind, the quality of that
mind that has started from the
beginning and pursued the becoming, went
through all that, the
centre of darkness has been wiped away,
that mind must be entirely
different. No? Now what does such a mind
do, or not do, in the
world which is in darkness? Sorry, it
sounds...
B: Yes, well the mind does not do a thing,
it does not enter into
the movement of that world.
K: Agreed.
B: And in that sense we say that it is
constant, not fixed but
does not move.
K: Static?
B: No it's not static, it is constant
which in a sense is also
movement. There a constancy which is not
merely static, which is
also at the same time movement.
K: We said that movement, not the becoming
movement.
B: Yes but the ground movement.
K: Yes, let's call it the ground movement.
B: Which is completely free.
K: What has happened to that mind? Let's
go into it a little bit. It
has no anxiety, no fear and all the rest
of it. You see the word
'compassion' and 'love' is beyond that.
Right?
B: Yes, well. That may emerge out of this
ground.
K: The mind being nothing, not a thing,
and therefore empty of
knowledge - sorry all this sounds so...
unless you have followed it
right from the beginning.
B: You have to go through it otherwise it
makes no sense.
K: No sense. Empty of knowledge. Would it
be always acting in
the light of insight?
B: Yes, well, it would be pervaded, well
not always but it
should be of the quality of insight.
K: Yes, that is what I mean.
B: Well 'always' brings in time, you see.
K: Remove the word.
B: I would use constantly.
K: Yes constantly, yes, let's use the word
'constant'.
B: It is a bit better but not good enough.
K: Yes. Let's use the word 'constant'. It
is acting constantly in
that light, in that flash - we will use
that word - in that flash of
insight. I think that is right. So what
does that mean in one's daily
life? Earn a livelihood.
B: Well, I mean that would be another
point. You would have to
find a way to stay alive.
K: Stay alive. So that is why I am saying
this: as civilization
grows, begging is not allowed.
B: Is criminal. You have to find some way
to stay alive.
K: I am just asking: What will you do? He
has no profession.
No skill because - knowledge and all that
- he has no coin with
which he can buy.
B: Well wouldn't it be possible for this
mind to earn enough to
get what is needed to stay alive?
K: How?
Q: Why has he no skill to earn a
livelihood?
K: Why should he have skill?
Q: To earn a livelihood.
K: Why? Why must you have skill to earn a
livelihood? You
say that and another man says, 'Why should
I have skill of any
kind?' - I am just discussing, enquiring
into it - why should I have
any skill to earn a livelihood?
B: Well suppose you had to take care of
yourself anyway, you
would need a certain skill. You see
suppose you were by yourself
in a cave, you know.
K: Ah, I don't want a cave!
B: I know. But whoever it is, you have to
live somewhere, you
need some skill to find the food which you
need, you see if
everybody were to do this then the human
race would perish.
K: I am not sure sir.
B: Well what would happen then?
K: That is what I am coming to.
B: Right, right. At first sight it would
seem that if everybody
would say no skill is needed.
K: No, because skill implies as we said,
knowledge, from that
knowledge experience and gradually develop
a skill. And that skill
gives you an opportunity to earn a
livelihood, meagre or a great
deal. And this man says, there may be a
different way of living and
earning. We are used to that pattern -
right sir? And he may say,
'Look, that may be totally wrong'.
B: It depends what you mean by skill. Say
for example, suppose
he has to drive a car, well that takes
some skill, you see. He may
want to drive.
K: Yes.
B: Is he going to do without that?
K: I had better go carefully into the word
'skill'.
B: Yes. I mean skill could have a bad
meaning by being very
clever at getting money.
K: So this man is not avaricious, he is
not money-minded, he is
not storing up for the future, he hasn't
any insurance, but he has to
live, and when we use the word 'skill', as
driving a car...
B:... or a carpenter - a carpenter has
skill. If all those skills were
to vanish it would be impossible.
K: The whole thing would collapse.
B: Yes.
K: I am not sure - do we mean by that,
that kind of skill must be
denied?
B: No, it couldn't mean that.
K: No. That would be too silly.
B: But then people become very skilful at
getting other people
to give them money, you see!
K: That might be the game. That may be it!
As I am doing!
Q: I wish you were more skilled at that!
K: Sufficient unto the day.
Q: Is it that now we have made a division
between living and
skill, skill and working, living and
earning a livelihood?
K: It is that, it is that. I need to have
food, I need to have clothes
and a shelter.
Q: But is the division necessary?
K: It is not division, I need it.
Q: Yes, but as the society is built now we
have a division
between living and working.
K: We have been through all that. We are
talking of a man who
has been through all this and has come
back - come back - to the
world and says, 'Here I am'. What is his
relationship to society and
what is he to do? Right sir? Has he any
relationship to society?
B: Well not in a deep sense. In a
fundamental sense no,
although there is a superficial
relationship he has to have.
K: All right. A superficial contact with
the world.
B: He has to obey the laws, he has to
follow the traffic signals.
K: Quite. But I want to find out sir, what
is he to do? Write,
talk, that means skill.
B: Well is that the kind you don't think
is necessary? Is that skill
- well that kind of skill need not be
harmful, you see.
K: I am just asking.
B: The same as the other skills,
carpentry.
K: Yes. That belong to that kind of skill.
But what is he to do? I
think if we could find out, sir, the
quality of a mind that has been
through from that from the beginning to
the end, you know the last
five or six discussions we have had, we
went through all that step
by step to the very end, and that man,
that man's mind is entirely
different, and he is in the world. How
does he look upon the
world? You have reached and come back -
these are terms - and I
am an ordinary man, living in this world,
what is your relationship
to me? Obviously none because I am living
in a world of darkness
and you are not. So your relationship can
only exist when I come
out - when darkness ends.
B: Yes.
K: Then there is only that, there is not a
relationship, there is
only that. But now there is division
between you and me. And I
look at you with my eyes which are
accustomed to darkness and to
division. And you don't. And yet you have
to have some contact
with me. You have to have, however superficial,
however slight, a
certain relationship with me. Is that
relationship compassion - not
translated by me as compassion? Not say,
'Oh it shows you are not
compassionate if you don't do this'. So I
am not looking from my
darkness at you who may be compassionate.
So I cannot judge
what your compassion is. Right?
B: That follows from that, yes.
K: I don't know what your love is, what
your compassion is
because my only love and compassion has
been this. And so what
do I do with you?
B: Which one are we talking about now? It
is not clear to me
which one we are discussing.
K: You, 'X', have been through all that
and come back.
B: Yes and 'Y' has not.
K: 'Y' has not. 'Y' says to you, 'Y' asks
- I asked this just now, I
have forgotten it. I would say sir, 'Y'
says, 'Who are you? You
seem so different, your way of looking at
life is different. Who are
you'? And what will 'Y' do with you, 'X'?
That is the question. Not
what you will do to me, but what will I do
with you? I don't know
if I am making it clear.
B: Yes I understand, what will 'Y' do,
what will 'Y' do with 'X',
I mean what will he do?
K: Our question has been what will 'X' do
with 'Y'. On the
contrary, I think we are putting the wrong
question. What will 'Y'
do with 'X'? I think what would happen
generally is I would
worship him, kill him, or neglect him.
Right?
B: Yes.
K: If 'Y' worships 'X' then everything is
very simple. He has the
goods. He has the goodies of the world.
But that doesn't answer my
question. My question is not only what
will 'Y' do to 'X' but will 'X'
do with 'Y'? 'X's' demand is to say,
'Look, walk out of this
darkness, there is no answer in this
darkness so walk out.' - it
doesn't matter, whatever phrase we use,
dispel it, get rid of it, etc.,
etc. And 'Y' then says 'Help me, show me
the way' - I am back
again, you follow? So what will 'Y' do to
'X'?
B: Well I can't see that 'Y' can do very
much except what you
said to worship, or to do something else.
K: Kill him or neglect him.
B: But if 'X' has compassion, if
compassion works in 'X' - right?
K: Yes, 'X' is that. He won't even call it
compassion.
B: No but we call it that, then 'X' will
work to find a way to
penetrate the darkness.
K: Wait: so 'X's' job is to work on
darkness?
B: Well to discover how to penetrate
darkness.
K: In that way he is earning a living.
B: Well possibly.
K: Ah. No, no. I am talking seriously.
B: It depends on whether people are
willing to pay him for it.
K: No, I am taking seriously.
B: Well it is possible.
K: Probably that is. 'X' is the teacher.
'X' is out of society, out of
darkness. 'X' is unrelated to this field
of darkness and 'X' is asking,
teaching, saying to the people of
darkness, 'Come out'. What's
wrong with that?
B: Well nothing is wrong with that.
K: That is his means of livelihood. What's
wrong with that?
B: It's perfectly all right as long as it
works, it is perfectly all
right.
K: It seems to work!
B: Of course if there were a lot of people
like 'X' there would be
some limit.
K: No sir. What would happen if there were
lots of people like
'X'?
B: That is an interesting question, yes.
K: What would happen?
B: Well then I think there would be
something revolutionary.
K: That's just it.
B: The whole thing would change.
K: That is just it. If there were lots of
people like that they
would not be divided. That is the whole
point, right?
B: I think that even if ten or fifteen
people were undivided they
would exert a force that had never been
seen in our history.
K: Tremendous. That's right.
B: Because I don't think it has ever
happened, that ten people
were undivided.
K: That is 'X's' job in life. He says that
is the only thing. A
group of those ten 'X's' will bring a
totally different kind of
revolution. Right? Will society stand for
that?
B: They will have this extreme
intelligence and so they will find
a way to do it, you see.
K: Of course, of course.
B: Society will stand for it because they
will be intelligent
enough to not to provoke society and
society will not react before it
is too late.
K: Quite right, quite right. You are
saying something that is
actually happening. So what happens? Would
you say then that the
function of many 'X's' is to awaken human
beings to that
intelligence which will dispel the
darkness? And that is his means
of livelihood. Right?
B: Yes.
K: Then there are those people who in
darkness cultivate this,
exploit people, and there are 'X's' who
don't exploit people. All
right. That seems very simple. But I don't
think it is all that simple.
B: Right.
K: Is that the only function of 'X'? That
seems very simple,
doesn't it?
B: Well it is a difficult function, it is
not so simple.
K: The function may be complicated but
that can easily be
solved. But I want to find out something
much deeper that mere
function.
B: Yes, well function is not enough.
K: That's it. Apart from function, what is
he to do? 'X' says to
'Y', listen, and 'Y' takes time and all
the rest of it and gradually,
perhaps once, sometime he will wake up and
move away. And is
that all 'X' is going to do in life? - in
life, you understand sir? Is
that all?
B: Well that can only be an outcome of
something deeper.
K: The deeper is all that.
B: What?
K: The ground.
B: The ground and so on, yes.
K: But is that all he has to do in this
world? Just to teach people
to move out of darkness?
B: Well that seems to be the prime task at
the moment, in the
sense that if this doesn't happen the
whole society will sooner or
later collapse anyway. But he needs to be
in some sense creative,
more deeply, I think.
K: What is that?
B: Well that is not clear.
K: Sir, suppose you are 'X' and 'Y' - 'X'
is you and has an
enormous field in which you operate, not
merely teaching me, but
you have this extraordinary movement which
is not time and all
that. That is, you have this abounding
energy and you have
produced all that to teach me - you follow
- to move out of
darkness.
B: Yes, well that can only be a part of
it.
K: So what does the rest do, you follow? I
don't know if I am
conveying this.
B: Well that is what I tried to mean by
some creative action,
beyond this is taking place.
K: Yes, beyond that. You may write, you
may preach, you may
heal, you may do this and that, but all
those are all rather trivial.
Right sir? Trivial, it is a very small
business. But you have
something else. Have I reduced you, 'X',
to my pettiness? You
can't. My pettiness says, 'You must do
something. You must teach,
you must write, you must heal, you must do
something to help me
to move.' Right? You comply to the very
smallest degree, but you
have something much more immense than
that. You understand my
question?
B: Yes. So what?
K: How is that operating on 'Y'?
B: On 'Y'?
K: How is that immensity operating on 'Y'
apart from darkness -
I don't know if I am conveying this?
B: Well are you saying that there is some
more direct action?
K: Either there is more direct action, or
'X' is doing something
totally different to affect the
consciousness of man.
B: Yes, all right. What could this be?
K: Because you are not satisfied, in
quotes, merely preaching,
talking, and all that petty stuff. That
immensity which you are must
affect, must do something.
B: Are you saying that it must in the
sense of a feeling that you
need to do it, or are you saying must in
the sense of necessity?
K: It must.
B: It must necessarily do so. Right? But
how will it affect
mankind? You see when you say this, it
would suggest to people
that there is some sort of extrasensory
effect, you know that it
spreads.
K: That is what I am trying to capture.
B: Yes.
K: That is what I am trying to convey.
B: Not merely through words, through the
activities or gestures.
K: Sir, leave the activity alone. That is
simple. That is peanuts!
B: It is only to make it clear what you
mean to say, that it is not
that.
K: It is not that.
B: Not just that.
K: Not just that. Because that immensity
must - must...
B: Necessarily then, necessarily act?
K: I wonder if you see what I am trying to
get at sir.
B: You are saying that there is a more
direct action.
K: No, no. All right. That immensity
necessarily has other
activities.
B: Yes, other activities in other ways, at
other levels, other...
K: Yes, other activities. Which has been
translated in the Hindu
and perhaps a little bit as, various
degrees of consciousness.
B: There are different levels of acting.
K: Levels.
B: Or degrees.
K: That too is a very small affair. You
follow? What do you say
sir?
B: Well since the consciousness emerges
from the ground that
this activity is affecting all mankind
from the ground.
K: Yes.
B: You see many people will find this very
difficult to
understand, of course.
K: I am not interested in many people. I
want to understand
you, 'X' and I, 'Y', that ground, that
immensity, is not limited to
such a potty little affair. It couldn't.
B: Yes, well the ground includes
physically the whole universe.
K: The whole universe, yes, and to reduce
all that to...
B:... to these little activities.
K: It sounds so silly.
B: Yes, well I think that raises the
question of what is the
significance of mankind in the universe,
or in the ground?
K: Yes, that's it. That's it.
B: Because these little things are very
little, even the best that
we have been doing has very little
significance on that scale.
Right?
K: Yes. I think - think in quotes, this is
just opening the chapter
- I think that 'X' is doing something -
not doing, by his very
existence...
B:... that he is making something
possible?
K: Yes. Einstein, when you were a
scientist, has made
something possible, which man hadn't
discovered before.
B: We can see that fairly easily because
that works through the
usual channels of society.
K: Yes, that I understand. I can see that.
What is this man
bringing apart from the little things?
What is he bringing? Would
you say, sir, - putting it into words it
sounds wrong - 'X' has that
immense intelligence, that energy, that
something and he must
operate at a much greater level than one
can possibly conceive,
which must affect the consciousness of
those who are living in
darkness.
B: Well possibly so. The question is will
this effect show in any
way, you know, manifestly?
K: Apparently it doesn't - if you heard
the morning news! See
television and all the rest of the world,
apparently it is not doing it.
B: Yes, that is what is difficult, it is a
matter of great concern.
K: But it must affect sir.
B: It has to.
K: It has to.
B: Well why do you say it has to?
K: Because light must affect darkness.
B: Yes. Well you say, well perhaps 'Y'
might say he is not sure,
living in darkness he is not sure that
there is such an effect. He
might say maybe there is, I want to see it
manifest. But not seeing
anything and still being in darkness, he
says what shall I do?
K: I understand that. So are you saying:
'X's' only activity is just
that?
B: No. Merely that it may well be that the
activity is much
greater but you know it hasn't shown. If
we could see it.
K: How would it be shown? How would 'Y',
who wants proof
of it...
B: Well not proof but just to be shown.
Let's say 'Y' might say
something like this: many people have made
a similar statement
and some of them have obviously been wrong
and you know one
wants to say it could be true. You see
until now I think the things
we have said make sense and you know they
follow to a certain
extent.
K: Yes, I understand all that sir.
B: And now you are saying something which
goes much further
and other people have said things like
that and one feels they were
on the wrong track, you know, that they
were fooling themselves,
certainly some of these people were.
K: No. No. 'X' says we are being very
logical
B: Yes but at this stage logic will not
carry us any further.
K: It is very reasonable, rational, we
have been through all that.
So 'X's' mind is not acting in any
irrational way.
B: Well you could say that having seen
that the thing was
reasonable so far, 'Y' may have some
confidence that it may go
further.
K: Yes that is what I am trying to say.
B: Of course there is no proof.
K: No.
B: So we could explore.
K: That is what I am trying to do.
B: Yes.
Q: What about the other activities of 'X'?
We said 'X' has a
function, teaching, but we said 'X' has
other activities.
K: May be. Must have. Necessarily must.
Q: Which are what?
K: I don't know, we are trying to find
that out.
B: Well you are saying that somehow he
makes possible - the
way I understand it - an activity of the
ground in the whole
consciousness of mankind which would not
have been possible
without him.
K: Yes.
B: That is what I understand.
K: Yes.
Q: His contact with 'Y' is not verbal,
only verbal. It is not that
'Y' has to listen but some other
quality...
K: Yes but 'X' says that is all a petty
little affair. That is of
course understood but 'X' says there is
something much greater
than all that.
Q: The effect of 'X' is far greater than
perhaps can be put into
words.
K: We are trying to find out what is that
greater that must
necessarily be operating?
Q: Is it something that appears in the
daily life of 'X'?
K: Yes. Daily life of 'X' is apparently
doing the petty little stuff
- teaching, writing, book-keeping, or
whatever it is. Is that all? You
follow what I mean? It seems so silly.
B: Are you saying that in the daily life
'X' does not look so
different from anybody else?
K: No, he apparently is not.
B: But there is something else going on...
K: Yes.
B:... which does not show, right?
K: That's it. When 'X' talks it may be
different, he may say
things differently but...
B:... that is not fundamental because there
are so many people
who say things.
K: I know.
B: Well there are people who say things
differently from other
people.
K: But the man who has walked through that
right from the
beginning to the end, he is entirely
different and when he says
something, that is also different, but I
am not concerned about that.
Let's leave that.
We are asking: such a man has the whole of
that energy to call
upon, and to reduce all that energy to
this petty little place seems
so ridiculous.
B: Yes, well let me ask a question. You
see why does the
ground require this man to operate on
mankind? You see why can't
the ground, as it were, operate directly
in mankind to clear things
up?
K: Ah, just a minute, just a minute. Are
you asking why does
the ground demand action?
B: Why does it require a particular man,
you see?
K: Oh, yes, that I can easily explain. It
is part of existence, like
the stars.
Q: Can the immensity act directly on
mankind? Does it have to
inform a man to enter the consciousness of
mankind?
K: We are talking about something else. I
want to find out, 'X'
wants to say, I am not going to be reduced
to writing, talking, that
is too petty, too small. We will do that,
but leave that alone. And
the question is, as you put, is why does
the ground need this man?
It doesn't need him.
B: Yes but when he is here the ground - if
he is here then the
ground will use him.
K: That is all.
B: Well would it be possible that the
ground could do
something to clear up this...
K: That is what I want to find out. That
is why I am asking in
different words. The man, the ground
doesn't need man but the
man has touched the ground.
B: Yes.
K: So the ground is using him, let's call
it, is employing him. He
is part of that movement. Is that all? Do
you follow what I mean
sir? Am I asking the wrong questions? Why
should he do
anything? Except this?
B: Well perhaps he does nothing.
K: That very doing nothing may be the
doing.
B: Well in doing nothing it makes possible
the action of the
ground. It may be that. In doing nothing
which has any specified
aim...
K: That's right. Specified content which
can be translated into
human terms.
B: Well yes, but still he is supremely
active in doing nothing.
K: Yes. All this sounds...
Q: Is there an action which is beyond time
for that man?
K: He is that.
Q: Then we cannot ask for a result of that
man.
K: He is not asking results.
Q: But 'Y' is asking for a result.
K: No. He says I am not concerned with
'Y'. I am only
concerned, 'X' says I am only concerned to
talk, or do something in
a petty little way, that is a very small
thing and I am not bothered
about that. But there is a vast field
which must affect the whole of
mankind.
B: Well there is an analogy which may not
be very good but we
can consider it. In chemistry a catalyst
makes possible a certain
action without itself taking part.
K: Yes.
B: But merely by being what is it.
K: Yes, what it is. Is that is what is
happening? Even that is a
small affair.
B: Yes.
Q: And even there 'Y' would say it isn't
happening because the
world is still in a mess. So is there a
truth in the world for the
activity of that man?
K: 'X' says he is sorry that is no
question at all. I am not
interested in proving anything. Right? It
isn't a mathematical
problem or technical problem to be shown
and proved. He says this
is so. I have walked from the beginning of
man to the very end of
man and this is there, there is a movement
which is timeless.
Right? The ground which is the universe,
the cosmos, everything.
But the ground doesn't need the man but
the man has come upon it.
Right? And he is still a man in the world.
Right? And that man
says 'I write and do something or other.'
- not to prove the ground,
not to do anything but just out of 'X's'
compassion he does that. But
there is much greater movement which
necessarily must play a part
in the world.
Q: Does the greater movement play a part
through 'X'?
K: Obviously, obviously. If there were ten
'X's' of course it
would be... I think we are pursuing
something which may have no
value at all.
B: What do you mean, no value? Why do you
say no value?
K: Value in the sense - 'X' may only see -
I am not saying this
out of vanity, out of escape - 'X' says
there is something else
operating which cannot possibly be put
into words. That may be a
slight escape but he says 'What am I to
do?' There is nothing which
a man like 'Y' will understand. He will
immediately translate it into
some kind of illusory thing. But 'X' says
there is. Right? Sir, it
must be. Otherwise it is all so childish.
B: Well, I think that 'Y' might say it
doesn't follow that the
universe isn't something childish or
trivial. But if you say it isn't
trivial.
K: No, it is not trivial.
B: No, but I think the general view which
people are developing
now is that the universe has no meaning.
K: Yes, yes.
B: That it moves any old way, all sorts of
things happen and
none of them have any meaning.
K: None of them have meaning for the man
who is here, but the
man who is there, speaking relatively,
says it is full of meaning,
not invented by thought and all that but
it has got - the word
meaning has no meaning there.
All right sir. Leave the vastness and all
that. Which means 'X'
says, the occupation with pettiness and
perhaps there will be ten
people who will join the game, and that
might affect the society -
which will not be communism, socialism,
this, that, the other. It
might be totally different, based on
intelligence, compassion and
all the rest of it.
B: Well if there were ten they might find
a way to spread much
more, you see.
K: That's what I am trying to get at. I
can't get it.
B: What do you mean?
K: Sir you bring the universe and I
translate it into - you
understand sir?
B: Well if the whole of mankind were to
see this, are you saying
then that that would be something
different?
K: Oh, yes sir. Of course.
B: Would it be a new...
K:... it would be paradise on earth.
B: It would be like an organism of a new
kind.
K: Of course. I think we had better stop
there. What time is it?
B: Ten past five
K: I think we had better stop there sir.
You see I am not
satisfied with this.
B: Well what is it?
K: I am not satisfied, in quotes
satisfied, in leaving this
immensity to be reduced to some few words.
You follow? It seems
so stupid, incredible. You see man, 'Y' is
concerned with 'show me,
prove it to me, what benefit it has, will
I get my future...' - you
follow? He is concerned with that. And he
is looking at 'X' with the
eyes that are so accustomed to this
pettiness. So either he reduces
that immensity to his pettiness and puts
it in a temple, and has
therefore lost it completely. But 'X' says
I won't even look at that.
There is something so immense that 'X'
says please do look at this,
and 'Y' is always translating it into
'show it to me', 'prove it to me',
'will I have a better life' - you follow?
He is concerned always with
that.
'X' brings light. That's all he can do.
Isn't that enough? We had
better stop there sir. I would like to
have a go with you at this
sometime, maybe later.
B: To bring the light which would allow
other people to be open
to the immensity.
K: You see, is it like this sir? We only
see a small part but that
very small part extends to infinity. That
means endless.
B: Endless, yes. Small part of what?
K: No. That immensity we see only as a
very small thing. And
that immensity is the whole universe. I
can't help but think that it
must have some immense affect on 'Y', on
society.
B: Yes. Well certainly the perception of
this must have an effect
but it seems that this is not in the
consciousness of society at the
moment.
K: I know.
B: But you are saying still the effect is
there?
K: Yes sir.
Q: Are you saying that the perception of
even a small part is not
the infinity?
K: Of course, of course.
Q: It is in itself the changing factor?
K: I think we had better stop here.
B: Well, I don't want to raise a question
but do you think it is
possible that a thing like this could
divert the course of mankind
away from the dangerous course he is
taking?
K: Yes sir, that is what I am thinking
too. But to divert the
course of man's destruction somebody must
listen. Right?
Somebody - ten people must listen.
B: Yes.
K: Listen to that immensity calling.
B: So the immensity may divert the course
of man, yes. The
individual cannot do it.
K: Yes, the individual cannot do it,
obviously. But the
individual, but 'X', who is supposed to be
an individual, has
trodden this path and says, 'Listen', but
they don't listen.
B: Well then is it possible to discover
how to make people
listen?
K: No, we are back. Sir, we had better
stop.
B: What do you mean?
K: Don't act, you have nothing to do.
B: What does it mean not to do a thing?
K: Sir I realize as 'Y' that whatever I
do, whatever I do,
sacrifice, give up, practise, whatever I
do I am still living in that
circle of darkness. Right? So 'X' says,
'Don't act, you have nothing
to do.' You follow? That is translated.
I'll wait. You do everything
except wait and see what happens. I must
pursue this sir. It is all so
hopeless, hopeless from the point of view
of 'Y', not to 'X'.
BROCKWOOD PARK 9TH CONVERSATION
WITH DAVID BOHM 1ST JUNE 1980 'THE
ENDING OF TIME'
Krishnamurti: Sir, I would like to talk
over with you, and perhaps
with Narayan too, what is happening to the
human brain. I will go
into it a little bit.
You have a highly cultivated civilization
and yet at the same
time barbarous, great selfishness clothed
in all kinds of spiritual
garbs - holy spirit, holy ghost and all
the rest of it, but deeply, deep
down, heightening, frightening
selfishness. And man's brain has
been evolving through millennia upon
millennia and it has come to
this point: divisive, destructive and so
on, which we all know. So I
was wondering whether the human brain, not
a particular brain but
the human brain, is deteriorating? Whether
it is capable of revival,
renewal or it is a slow, steady decline?
And whether it is possible
in one's lifetime to bring about in itself
a total renewal from all this,
a renewal that will be pristine, original,
unpolluted? I have been
wondering about it and I thought we needed
to discuss it.
And I think the human brain is not a
particular brain, it doesn't
belong to me or to anyone else, it is the
human brain which has
evolved ten million, or five million, or
three million years. And in
that evolution it has gathered tremendous
experience, knowledge
and all the cruelties and the vulgarities
and the brutalities of
selfishness. Is there a possibility of it
sloughing off, throwing off
all this and becoming something else.
Because apparently it is
functioning in patterns, whether it is a
religious pattern or a
scientific pattern or a business pattern
or a family pattern, it is
always operating, functioning in a very
small narrow circle. And
those circles are clashing against each
other. And there seems to be
no end to this. You follow?
Bohm: Yes.
K: So what will break down this forming of
patterns, not falling
into other new patterns, but breaking down
the whole system of
patterns, whether pleasant or unpleasant?
After all the brain has
had so many shocks, so many challenges, so
many pressures on it
and if that brain is not capable in itself
to renew, to rejuvenate
itself, there is very little hope. You
follow?
B: You see one difficulty might present
itself that if you are
thinking of brain's structure, we cannot
get into the structure
physically.
K: Physically you cannot. I know, we have
discussed this. So
what is it to do? I mean the brain
specialists can look at it, take a
dead brain of a human being and examine
it, but it doesn't solve the
problem. Right?
B: No.
K: So what is a man, or a human being, to
do knowing it cannot
be changed from outside or the scientist
and the brain specialists,
and the nerve specialist, neurologist and
all that, explain the thing
but it is there, their explanation, their
investigation, is not going to
solve this. Right.
B: Well, yes, there is no evidence that it
can.
K: No evidence, all right. I'll put it a
little more congenially.
B: Some people may have thought so. Some
people who do biofeedback
think that they can influence the brain,
by connecting an
instrument to the electrical potentials in
the skull and being able to
look at them, you can also change your
heart beat and your blood
pressure and various other things. They
have raised the hope that
something could be done.
K: But they are not succeeding.
B: They are not getting very far.
K: But we can't wait for these scientists
and bio-feedbackers -
sorry! - to solve the problem. So what
shall we do?
B: Well then the next question is: whether
the brain can be
aware of its own structure.
K: Yes, that is the first question. Can
the brain be aware of its
own movement? And the other question is:
can the brain, not only
be aware of its own movement, can the
brain itself have enough
energy to break all patterns and move out
of it?
B: Yes, well you have to ask whether the
brain can do that. You
see to what extent is the brain free to
break out of patterns?
K: What do you mean?
B: Well, you see if you begin by saying
the brain is caught in a
pattern, it may not be so.
K: Apparently it is, apparently.
B: As far as we can see. It may not be
free to break out.
K: I understand.
B: It may not have the power.
K: That is what I said, not enough energy,
not enough power.
B: Yes, it may not be able to take the
action needed to get out.
K: So it has become its own prisoner. Then
what?
B: Well then that is the end.
K: Is that the end?
B: If that is true then that is the end.
Say if the brain cannot
break out then perhaps people would choose
to try some other way,
I don't know, to solve the problem.
Narayan: When we speak of the brain in one
sense the brain is
connected to the senses and the nervous
system, the feedback is
there. Is there another instrument to
which the brain is connected
which has a different effect on the brain?
K: What do you mean by that sir? Some
other factor?
N: Some other factor in the human system
itself. Because
obviously through the senses the brain
does get nourishment, but
still that is not enough. Is there some
other internal factor which
gives energy to the brain?
K: You see, sir, I think - I want to
discuss this. The brain is
constantly in occupation, the body's
problems, holding on,
attachment and so on, so it is constantly
in a state of occupation.
That may be the central factor. And if it
is not in occupation does it
go sluggish? That is one factor. If it is
not in occupation can it
maintain the energy that is required to
break down the patterns? I
don't know if I am making myself clear?
B: Yes. Now the first point is that if it
is not occupied
somebody might think that it would just
take it easy.
K: No, of course not, then it becomes lazy
and all that. I don't
mean that.
B: If you mean not occupied but still
active..
K: Of course, I mean that.
B:.. we have to go into what is the nature
of the activity.
K: That's what I want to go into. If this
brain which is so
occupied with conflicts, struggles,
attachments, fears, pleasures,
you know, all that, and this occupation
gives to the brain its own
energy. Right? If it is not occupied, will
it become lazy, drugged
and so lose its elasticity, as it were, or
if it doesn't become lazy and
so on will that unoccupied state give to
the brain the required
energy to break?
B: Yes, well if you ask a question, you
see what makes you say
this will happen? It says something about
the brain - we were
discussing the other day that when the
brain is kept busy with
intellectual activity and thought, then it
does not decay and shrink,
you see.
K: Yes, as long as it is thinking, moving,
living.
B: Thinking in a rational way, then it
remains strong.
K: Yes. That is what I want to get at too.
Which is, as long as it
is functioning, moving, thinking
rationally..
B:.. it remains strong. If it starts
irrational movement then it
breaks down. Also if it gets caught in a
routine it begins to die.
K: That's it. That is, if the brain is
caught in a routine, either the
mediation routine, or the routine of the
priests..
B: Or the daily life of the farmer.
K:.. the farmer and so on and so on, it
must gradually become
dull.
B: Not only that but it seems to shrink.
K: To shrink physically.
B: Perhaps some of the cells die.
K: That is what we were discussing the
other day, yes. To
shrink physically. And the opposite to
that is this eternal
occupation with business - as a lawyer, as
a doctor as a - you
follow? - a scientist, thinking, thinking,
thinking. And we think that
also that prevents shrinking.
B: Well it does. Well at least experience
seems to show it does,
the measurements they made.
K: Yes, it does too. That's it. Excuse the
word 'farmer'.
B: Whatever it is, the routine clerical
worker and anybody who
does a routine job.
K: Anybody.
B: Yes, his brain starts to shrink at a
certain age. Now that is
what they discovered and just as the body
not being used the
muscles begin to lose their..
K:.. so take lots of exercise!
B: Well, they say exercise the body and
exercise the brain.
K: Yes. If it is caught in any pattern,
any routine, any directive
too, it must shrink.
B: It is not clear why. Could you go into
what makes it shrink,
you see.
K: That is fairly simple. It is
repetition.
B: Well repetition is mechanical and
doesn't really use the full
capacity of the brain.
K: One has noticed the people who have
spent years and years
in meditation are the most dull people on
earth. And also those
lawyers and professors and all the rest of
them, you can see them,
there is ample evidence of all that.
N: The only thing that article seems to
say that rational thinking
postpones senility. But rational thinking
itself becomes a pattern at
some time.
B: Well it might. They didn't carry it
that far you see, but
rational thinking pursued in a narrow area
might become part of
the pattern too.
K: of course, of course.
B: But if you say that there is some other
way.
K: We will go into that, I want to go into
that.
B: But let's clear up about the body
first. You see if somebody
does a lot of exercise for the body it
remains strong, but it might
become a mechanical..
K:.. mechanical, of course, of course.
B: And therefore it would have a bad
effect.
K: You see yoga..
N: What about the various, if I may use
the word, religious
instruments - the traditional religious
instruments, yoga, tantra,
kundalini, etc.
K: I know, oh, they must shrink. Because
you see what is
happening, yoga, take for example, it was
not vulgarised, if I may
use that word. It was kept strictly to the
very, very few, who were
not concerned about kundalini and all that
kind of stuff, who were
concerned with leading a moral, ethical
so-called spiritual life, with
ordinary exercise, but not this fantastic
gymnastics. You see I want
to get at the root of this, sir.
B: I think there is something related to
this. It seems that before
men organized into society, he was living
close to nature and it was
not possible to live in a routine.
K: No, it was not.
B: But it was insecure, completely
insecure.
K: So are we saying, that is what I want
to get at - are we saying
the brain becomes extraordinarily - is not
caught in a pattern
because if the brain itself lives in a
state of uncertainty..
B: Well..
K:.. without becoming neurotic.
B: Well I think that is more clear when
you say not becoming
neurotic, then certainty becomes a form of
neurosis.
K: Neurosis, of course.
B: But I would rather say the brain lives
without having
certainty, without demanding it.
K: Yes, without demanding certainty.
B: Yes, without demanding certain
knowledge.
K: So are we saying that knowledge also
withers the brain?
B: Well when it is repetitious and becomes
mechanical, yes.
K: But knowledge itself?
B: Well, yes, we have to be careful there.
K: I know.
B: I think that knowledge has a tendency
to become mechanical.
That is, to get fixed, but we could be
always learning, you see.
K: But learning from a centre, learning as
an accumulation
process.
B: Learning I think with something fixed.
You see you learn
something as fixed and then you learn from
there. If we were to be
learning without holding anything
permanently fixed.
K: That is, learning and not adding. Can
you do that?
B: Yes, well you see I think to a certain
extent we have to drop
our knowledge. Knowledge may be valid up
to a point and then it
ceases to be valid, it gets in the way.
You could say that our
civilization is collapsing from too much
knowledge.
K: Of course.
B: We don't drop what is in the way.
N: Many forms of knowledge are additive.
Unless you know the
previous thing you can't do the next
thing. Would you say that kind
of knowledge is repetitive?
B: No. As long as you are learning. But if
you hold some
principle fixed and say it cannot change,
you see if you hold the
centre fixed or anything fixed then that
knowledge becomes
mechanical. But if you say you have got to
keep on learning.
K: Learning what?
B: Whatever you are doing. Say for
example, suppose you have
to make a living. People must organize the
society and all kinds of
things, they need knowledge.
K: But there you add more and more.
B: That's right. You may also get rid of
some.
K: Of course.
B: Some gets in the way, you see. It is
continually moving
there.
K: Yes, but I am asking apart from that,
knowledge itself.
B: Well yes. Do you mean knowledge without
this content.
K: Yes, the knowing mind.
B: Mind which merely wants knowledge, is
that what you are
saying? - for its own sake.
K: Yes. I want to question, if I may, the
whole idea of having
knowledge.
B: Yes, but again it is not too clear
because you see we accept
that we need knowledge.
K: Of course, at a certain level.
B: It is not clear what kind of knowledge
it is that you are
questioning.
K: I am questioning the experience that
leaves knowledge,
leaves a mark.
B: Yes, but again you say that the
experience of driving a car -
we want to make it clear. What kind, it
leaves a mark
psychologically, you mean?
K: Psychologically, of course.
B: Rather than knowledge of technique and
matter and so on.
But you see when you use the word
knowledge by itself it tends to
include the whole.
K: We have said that knowledge at a
certain level is essential,
there you can add and take away and keep
on changing, moving,
there; but I am questioning whether
psychological knowledge is
not in itself a factor of the shrinking of
the brain.
B: What do you mean by psychological
knowledge? Knowledge
about the mind, knowledge about myself?
K: Yes. Knowledge about myself and living
in that knowledge,
and accumulating that knowledge.
B: So if you keep on accumulating
knowledge about yourself or
about relationships..
K:.. yes, about relationships. Yes that is
it. Would you say such
knowledge helps the brain, makes the brain
somewhat inactive,
makes the brain shrink?
B: Brings it into a rut.
K: Yes.
B: But one should see why, what is it
about this knowledge that
makes so much trouble?
K: What is this knowledge that makes so much
trouble? In
relationship that knowledge does create
trouble.
B: Yes, it gets in the way.
K: In the way, yes.
B: Because it fixes.
K: If I have an image about him and I am
related to him, that
knowledge is obviously going to impede -
it becomes a pattern.
B: Yes, well the knowledge about myself
and about him and
how we are related, it makes a pattern.
K: Yes, and therefore that becomes a
routine and so it loses it..
B: Yes, and it occurred to me you see that
routine in that area is
more dangerous than routine in say the
area of daily work.
K: That's right.
B: And if routine in ordinary work can
shrink the brain then in
that area it might do some worse thing
because it has a bigger
effect.
K: So, can the brain, in psychological
matters, be entirely free
from knowledge, from this kind of
knowledge? That is, sir, look: I
am a businessman and I get into the car,
or bus or a taxi, or the
tube, and I am thinking what I am going to
do, whom I am going to
meet, a business talk, and my mind is all
the time living in that
area. I come home, there is a wife and
children, sex and all that,
that also becomes a psychological
knowledge from which I am
acting. So there is the knowledge of my
business and contacts and
all that, and also there is the knowledge
with regard to my wife,
and myself and my reactions: these two are
in contradiction. Or I
am unaware of these two and just carry on.
If I am aware of these
two it becomes a disturbing factor.
B: Well, also people find that it is a
routine and they get bored
with it and they begin to..
K:.. divorce and then the whole circus
begins.
B: They may hope that by becoming occupied
with something
else they will get out of their..
K:.. yes, go to church, etc., etc. Any
escape is an occupation.
So I am asking whether this psychological
knowledge is not a
factor of the shrinkage of the brain?
Sorry!
B: Well, yes, it could be a factor.
K: It is. It is.
B: If knowledge of your profession can be
a factor, then this
knowledge is stronger.
K: Of course, of course. Much stronger.
N: When you say psychological knowledge
you are
distinguishing, making a distinction
between psychological
knowledge and let us say scientific
knowledge or factual
knowledge?
K: Of course, we have said that.
N: But I am a little wary about this
article and the fact that
scientific knowledge and other types of
factual knowledge helps to
extend or make the brain bigger. That in
itself doesn't lead
anywhere. Though it postpones energy.
K: What?
N: Well exercising rational thinking.
K: Dr Bohm explained very carefully: rational
thinking
becomes merely routine. I think logically
and therefore I have
learned the trick of that and I keep on
repeating it.
N: That is what happens to most forms of
rational thinking.
K: Of course.
B: I think that say they depend on being
continually faced with
unexpected problems. You see as they said
lawyers will beg that
their brains last longer because they are
faced with constantly
different problems and therefore they
cannot make it entirely
routine, you see. Perhaps eventually they
could but it would take a
while.
K: But sir, just a minute, just a minute.
They may have different
clients with different problems, but they
are acting from
knowledge.
B: They would say not entirely, they have
got to find new facts
and so on.
K: Of course, they are not entirely but
the basis is knowledge -
precedence and book knowledge and various
experiences with
various clients.
B: But then you would have to say that
some other more subtle
degeneration of the brain takes place, not
merely shrinkage.
K: That's right. That's what I want to get
at.
B: You see there is also what is known,
that when a baby is
born the brain cells have very few cross
connections, then they
gradually increase in number, then as a
person approaches senility
they begin to go back. So the quality of
those cross connections
could be wrong. As another example but it
would be too subtle to
show up in these measurements but if for
example, if you repeated
them too often, they would get too fixed.
N: Are all the brain functions confined to
rational forms, or are
there some functions which have a
different quality?
B: Well, it is known, for example, that a
large part of the brain
deals with movement of the body and so on,
with muscles and with
various organs, and this part does not
shrink with age, but the part
that deals with rational thought if it is
not used does shrink. Then
there may be other functions that are
totally unknown, that is, very
little is known actually about the brain.
N: Which we don't touch. Is there a
possibility of that sort?
K: Narayan, what we are saying, what I am
trying to explain:
we are only using one part, or very
partially the brain, and that
partial activity is the occupation, either
rational or irrational, or
logical and so still using the part. And
as long as the brain is
occupied it must be in that limited area.
Would you say that?
B: Well, then what will happen when it is
not occupied?
K: We will go into that in a minute.
B: Well we can say that it may tend to
spend most of the time
occupied in that limited set of functions
which are mechanical and
that will produce some subtle degeneration
of the brain tissues
since anything like that will affect the
brain tissue.
K: Are we saying that senility is the
result of mechanical way of
living? Mechanical knowledge and so the
brain has no freedom, no
space, no sense of..
B: Well, that is the suggestion. It is not
necessarily accepted by
all the people who work on the brain. They
have shown that the
brain cells start to die around the age of
thirty or forty at a steady
rate but this..
K: Be careful!
B:.. but this may be a factor but I don't
think their measurements
are so good they can test for effect as to
how the brain is used. You
see they are merely rough measurements
made statistically. And so
you want to propose that this death of the
brain cells, or the
degeneration, will come from the wrong way
of using the brain?
K: That's right. That is what I am trying
to get at.
B: Yes, and there is a little bit of
evidence in favour of this from
the scientists.
K: Thank god!
B: But I think that the brain scientists
don't know very much
about it.
K: Sir, you see scientists, brain
specialists, are, if I may use a
rather easy word, they are going out,
examining things outside, but
not taking themselves as guinea pigs and
going through that.
B: Well mostly you see except for those
who do bio-feedback,
they are trying to work on themselves in a
very indirect way.
K: Yes. Well I feel we haven't time for
all that stuff.
B: Yes, that is too slow and it isn't very
deep.
K: Not very deep.
So let's come back to the point. I realize
that any activity which
is repeated, any action that is directed
in the narrow sense, any
method, any routine, logical or illogical,
does affect the brain and
so on and so on. We have understood that
very clearly. And
knowledge at a certain level is essential,
and also psychological
knowledge about oneself, one's
experiences, all that, also becomes
routine, the images I have about myself
obviously are a routine,
and so that helps to bring about a
shrinkage of the brain. I have
understood all that very clearly. Now I
say to myself, any kind of
occupation apart from the mechanical - not
mechanical..
B: Physical.
K:.. physical occupation, the occupation
with oneself, that
obviously does bring about shrinkage of
the brain. Now how is this
process to stop? And when it does stop
will there be a renewal?
B: Yes, I think again that some brain
scientists would doubt that
the brain cells could be renewed, but I
don't know that there is any
proof one way or the other.
K: I think they can be renewed. That is
what I want to get at.
B: So we have to discuss that.
N: I want to put this question because in
one discussion between
you in Ojai you are implying that mind is
different from the brain,
mind is distinct from the brain.
K: Not quite. Did I?
N: Yes, the possibility of mind as
distinct from the brain.
B: It was universal mind.
N: Mind in the sense that one has access
to this mind and it is
not the brain. Do you consider that
possibility?
K: I don't quite follow this. I would say
that the mind is allinclusive.
N: Yes.
K: When it is all-inclusive, brain,
emotions, all that, when it is
totally whole, not divisive in itself,
there is a quality which is
universal. Right?
N: One has access to it?
K: Not one, you can't reach it, no. You
can't say, I have access
to it.
N: I am saying access, one doesn't possess
it but..
K: You can't possess the sky.
N: No, my only point is: is there a way of
being open to it and is
there a function of the mind, the whole of
it, which is accessible
through education?
K: I think there is. We will come to that
presently if you can
stick to this point. We have reached a
certain point in our
discussion. Don't go back and repeat it
again.
We are asking now, having understood all
that, after this
discussion, can the brain itself renew,
rejuvenate, become young
again without any shrinkage at all? I
think it can. I want to open a
new chapter and discuss it. I think it
can. Psychologically
knowledge that man has acquired is
crippling it. The Freudians, the
Jungians, or the latest psychologist, the
latest psychotherapist, are
all helping to make the brain shrink.
Sorry! I hope there is nobody
here.
N: Is there a way of forgetting this
knowledge then?
K: No, no. Not forgetting. I see what they
are doing and I see
the waste, I see what is taking place if I
follow that line. I see it,
obviously. So I don't follow that avenue
at all. So I discard
altogether analysis. That is a pattern we
have learnt, not only from
the recent psychologists and
psychotherapists but also it is the
tradition of a million years, to analyze,
introspect, say, 'I must' and
'I must not', 'This is right, this is
wrong' - you know the whole
process. I personally don't do it and so I
reject that whole method.
We are coming to a point, which is: direct
perception and
immediate action. Because our perception
is directed by
knowledge - the past perceives and so the
past, which is
knowledge, perceiving and acting from that
is a factor of shrinking,
senility. Shrinking the brain. So is there
a perception which is not
time-binding? Right, sir? And so action
which is immediate. Am I
making myself clear? That is, sir, the
brain has evolved through
time, and it has set the pattern of time
in action. And as long as the
brain is active that way it is still
living in a pattern of time and so
becoming senile. If we could break that
pattern of time, then the
brain has broken out of its pattern and
therefore something else
takes place. I don't know if I am making
myself clear?
N: How does it break out of the pattern?
K: I will come to that but first let's see
if it is so.
B: Yes, well you are saying that the
pattern is the pattern of
time.
K: The pattern of time.
B: Perhaps this should be clarified. I
think that what you mean
by analysis is some sort of process based
on past knowledge which
organizes your perception and you take a
series of steps to try to
accumulate knowledge about the whole
thing. And now you say
this is a pattern of time and you have to
break out of it. You have
to say what is that.
K: If we agree to that, if we say this is
so: the brain is
functioning in a pattern of time.
B: Yes. Now then you have to ask, you see
I think most people
would ask: what other pattern is possible?
K: Wait, wait, wait.
B: What other movement is possible?
K: No. First let's understand this.
B: Sorry.
K: Not merely verbally but actually see
that it is happening.
That our action, our way of living, our
whole thinking, is bound by
time. Or comes with the knowledge of time.
B: Yes, well certainly our thinking about
ourselves, any attempt
to analyze yourself, to think about
yourself, involves this process.
K: Process, which is of time. Right?
N: That is a difficulty: when you say
knowledge and
experience, they have a certain cohesive
energy, force, it binds
you.
K: Which is what, which is what?
Time-binding.
N: Time-binding and..
K:.. and therefore the pattern of
centuries, millennia, is being
repeated.
N: Yes. What I am saying is that this has
a certain cohesive
force.
K: Of course, of course. All illusions
have an extraordinary
vitality.
N: Very few break through.
K: Look at all the churches, what immense
vitality they have.
N: No, apart from these churches, one's
personal life has a
certain cohesive, it keeps you back. You
can't break away from it.
K: And what happens if you do then - what
do you mean it
keeps you back?
N: It has a magnetic attraction, it sort
of pulls you back. You
can't free yourself of it unless you have
some instrument with
which you can act.
K: We are going to find out if there is a
different approach to
the problem.
B: I mean when you say a different
instrument that is not clear.
The whole notion of an instrument involves
time because you use
an instrument - any instrument is a
process which you plan.
K: Time, that's just it.
N: That is why I use the word instrument,
I mean it is effective.
K: This has not been effective.
N: Not been effective, no.
K: On the contrary, it is destructive. So
do I see the very truth of
its destructiveness? Not just theories,
ideas, but the actuality of it.
If I do, then what takes place? The brain,
which has evolved
through time, and has been functioning,
living, acting, believing,
all that in that time process, and when
one realizes that helps to
make the brain senile - I won't go into
all that - now if you see that
as true, then what is the next step?
N: Are you implying that the very seeing
that it is destructive is
a releasing factor?
K: Yes.
(My humble salutations to the
lotus feet of Sri Jiddu Krishnamurti and
gratitude to the great
philosophers and followers of him.)
0 responses to "The Ending of Time J. Krishnamurti and Dr. David Bohm - Part 10"