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 11

9:00 PM | Posted in The Ending of Time J. Krishnamurti and Dr. David Bohm - Part 11

The Ending of Time

J. Krishnamurti

and

Dr. David Bohm

N: And there is no need for an extra instrument?

K: No. Don't use the word instrument.

N: I am putting it because..

K: He keeps on repeating the word instrument. There is no other

factor. You see I am concerned - I am using the word not

personally - I am concerned to end this shrinkage and senility and

asking whether the brain itself, the cells, the whole thing, can move

out of time? Not immortality, I am not talking about all that kind of

stuff. Move out of time altogether, otherwise deterioration,

shrinkage, senility is inevitable. Senility may not show but the

brain cells are becoming weaker and so on.

N: If the brain cells are material and physical, somehow or other

they have to shrink through time, indeed it can't be helped. The

brain cell which is tissue cannot be in physical terms immortal.

B: Perhaps the rate of shrinkage would be greatly slowed down.

If a person say lives a certain number of years and his brain begins

to shrink long before he dies, then he becomes senile. Now if it

would slow down then..

K:.. not only slow down, sir.

B:.. well, regenerate, if you wish.

K: No, be in a state of non-occupation.

B: Well I think Narayan is saying that it is impossible for any

material system to last for ever.

K: I am not talking about lasting for ever. I am not sure if it

can't last for ever. No, this is very serious, I am not pulling

anybody's leg.

B: If all the cells were to regenerate perfectly in the body and in

the brain, then the whole thing could go on indefinitely.

K: Look sir: we are now destroying the body, drink, smoke, sex

- over indulgence in sex, all kinds of things. We are living most

unhealthily. Right? If the body were in excellent health, maintained

right through, which is no heightened emotions, no strain on the

body, no sense of deterioration in the body, the heart functioning

healthily, normally - you know - why not?

B: Well..

K: Which means what? No travelling! No travelling and all the

rest of it.

B: No excitement.

K: If the body remains in one quiet place I am sure it can last a

great any more years than it does now.

B: Yes, I think that is true. There have been cases of people

living say to one hundred and fifty in quiet places. But I think that

is all you are talking about. You are not talking about something

for ever really.

K: So the body can be kept healthy and since the body affects

the mind, nerves, senses and all that, that also can be kept healthy.

B: And if the brain is kept in the right action..

K: Yes, without any strain.

B: You see the brain has a tremendous affect on organizing the

body. The pituitary gland controls the entire system of the body

glands and also all the organs of the body are controlled in that

way and so on. When the mind deteriorates the body starts to

deteriorate.

K: Of course, of course.

B: It works together.

K: They go together. So can this brain which is not my brain,

but the brain which has evolved through millions of years, which

has had all kinds of destructive experiences, pleasant and all the

rest of it, can that brain..

B: You mean it is a typical brain not a peculiar brain, peculiar to

some individual. When you say not mine, any brain belonging to

mankind. Right?

K: Any brain.

B: They are all basically similar.

K: Similar, that is what I said. Can that brain be free of all this,

of time? I think it can.

B: If we could discuss what it means to be free of time, you see

at first sight that might sound crazy because obviously we all know

that you don't mean that the clock stops or anything.

K: Science fiction and all that nonsense.

B: The point is what does it really mean to be psychologically

free of time?

K: That there is no tomorrow.

B: But I mean you know there is tomorrow.

K: But psychologically.

B: Can you describe that better, what do you mean when you

say, no tomorrow?

K: Sir, what does it mean to be living in time? Let's take the

other side first before we come to the other. What does it mean to

live in time? Hope, thinking, living in the past, and acting from the

knowledge of the past, the images, the illusions, the prejudices,

they are all an outcome of the past, all that is time. And that is

producing in the world chaos.

B: Yes, well suppose we say if you are not living

psychologically in time, then you may still order your actions by

the watch but the thing that is puzzling is that suppose somebody

says, 'I am not living in time but I must make an appointment' - you

see.

K: Of course, you can't sit here for ever.

B: So you say I am looking at the watch but I am not

psychologically extending how it is going to feel in the next hour,

when I have fulfilment of desire, or whatever.

K: So I am just saying the way we are living now is in the field

of time. And there we have brought all kinds of problems,

suffering, all that. Right?

B: Yes, it should be made clear why this produces suffering

necessarily. Say, if you live in the field of time you are saying

suffering is inevitable.

K: Inevitable, inevitable.

B: Why?

K: It is simple. Which is, time has built the ego, the 'me', the

image of me, sustained by society, by the parents, by education,

that is built after millions of years, that is the result of time. And

from there I act.

B: Towards the future?

K: Towards the future.

B: Towards the future psychologically, that is towards some

future state of being. Right?

K: Yes. Which is, the centre is always becoming.

B: Trying to become better.

K: Better, nobler, or the other way round. So all that, this

constant endeavour to become something psychologically, is a

factor of time.

B: Are you saying that produces suffering?

K: Obviously. Why? Oh my Lord, why? Because it is simple , it

is divisive. It divides me and so you are different from me, and me,

when I depend on somebody and that somebody is lost, or gone, I

feel lonely, miserable, unhappy, grief, suffering. All that goes on.

So we are saying any factor of division which is the very nature of

the self, that must inevitably suffer.

B: Are you saying that through time the self is set up,

organized, and then the self introduces division and conflict and so

on. But if there were no psychological time then maybe this entire

structure would collapse and something entirely different would

happen?

K: That's it. That is what I am saying. And therefore the brain

itself has broken out.

B: Well, that is the next step to say that the brain has broken out

of that rut and maybe it could regenerate then. It doesn't follow

logically, but still it could.

K: I think it does follow logically.

B: Well, it follows logically that it would stop degenerating.

K: Yes.

B: And you are adding further that it would start to regenerate.

K: Yes. You look sceptical!

N: Yes, because the whole human predicament is bound to time.

K: Yes, we know that.

N: Society, individuals, the whole structure.

K: I know, I know.

N: It is so forceful that anything feeble doesn't work here.

K: What do you mean feeble?

N: The force of this is so great that if you have to break through,

whatever comes must have greater energy.

K: Yes.

N: And no individual seems to be able to generate this energy to

be able to break through.

K: Ah, you have got the wrong end of the stick, if I may point

out. When you use the word 'individual'..

N: A human being.

K:.. then you have moved away from the fact that our brain is

universal.

N: Yes, I admit that.

K: There is no individuality.

N: That brain is conditioned this way.

K: Yes, we have been through all that. It is conditioned this way

through time. Time is conditioning. Right? It is not that time has

created the conditioning, time itself is the factor of conditioning.

So can that time element not exist? - psychologically we are

talking about, not in the ordinary physical time. I say it can. And

we said the ending of suffering comes about when the self, which

is built up through time, is no longer there. For a man who is

actually going through agony, going through a terrible time, he

might reject this, he is bound to reject it, but when he comes out of

the shock of this, and somebody points out to him, and if he is

willing to listen, if he is willing to see the rationality of it, not build

a wall against it, but see for himself the sanity of it, he is out of that

field, the brain is out of that time-binding quality.

N: Temporarily.

K: Ah! There again, when you use the word 'temporary' it

means time.

N: No, he slips back into time.

K: No, you can't. You can't go back, if you see something

dangerous and go back to it, you can't. Like a cobra, like whatever

danger it is, you cannot.

N: But the difficulty is the analogy is a bit difficult because the

structure is that. You inadvertently slip into it.

K: When you see a dangerous animal, there is immediate action.

It may be the result of past knowledge, past experience, but there is

immediate action, self-protection. Psychologically we are unaware

of the dangers. And if we become as aware of the dangers as we

are aware of a physical danger there is an action which is not timebinding.

B: Yes, I think that you could say that as long as you could

perceive this danger you know you will respond immediately. But

you see if you were to use this analogy of the animal, there might

be an animal that you realize is dangerous, but then he might take

another form that you don't see as dangerous.

K: Yes.

B: Therefore there would be a danger of slipping back if you

didn't see. This time illusion might come in in some other form.

K: Of course.

B: But I think the major point is that you are saying that the

brain is not belonging to any individual.

K: Yes, sir, absolutely.

B: And therefore it is no use saying that the individual slips

back, you see.

K: No.

B: That already denies what you are saying. But rather the

danger might be that the brain might slip back.

K: Which is the brain itself might get back because it itself has

not seen the danger.

B: Hasn't seen the other form of the illusions.

K: The Holy Ghost taking different shapes.

B: But you see, yes, well I think that is the point.

K: Sir, that is the real root of it, time.

B: Well you see time and separation as individuality are

basically the same structure.

K: Of course.

B: Although it is not obvious in the beginning.

K: I wonder if you see that.

B: It might be worth discussing that. Why is time the same

illusion, the same structure as individuality? That is psychological

time. You see individuality is the sense of being a person who is

located here somewhere.

K: Located and divided.

B: Divided from the others. He extends out to some periphery,

his domain extends out to some periphery and also he has an

identity which goes over time. He wouldn't regard himself as an

individual unless he had an identity, if he said, today I am one

person, tomorrow I am another. So he has to be, it seems we mean

by individual somebody who is in time.

K: I think that is such a fallacy, this idea of individuality.

B: Yes, on the other hand many people may find that very hard

to be convinced that it is a fallacy.

K: Of course, many people find everything very hard.

B: There is a common feeling that as an individual I have

existed at least from my birth if not before, and go on to death and

perhaps later. The whole idea of being an individual is to be in

time. Right?

K: Obviously, sir, obviously.

B: Therefore to be in psychological time.

K: Of course, we are saying that.

B: Not just clock time.

K: So if that illusion could be broken, that time has created

individuality, which is erroneous.

B: Yes, through time the notion of individuality has arisen.

K: Of course. Can this brain understand that?

B: Well I think that as Narayan said, that say there is a great

momentum in any brain, which keeps rolling, moving along.

K: Can that momentum stop for a minute? Sorry, not a minute.

Can that stop? Not for a minute.

N: The difficulty comes actually in this: it is intrinsic to you, the

genetic coding and you seem to function more or less

unconsciously, you are driven by this kind of past momentum. And

suddenly you see, as it were, like a flash something true. But the

difficulty is it operates for some time in the sense that it may

operate for a day, but then there is the fact we are again caught in

the old momentum. It is a human experience.

K: I know that. But I say it will not be caught.

N: That is why I say this can't be a feeble thing.

K: Don't use the word feeble or strong. Once you see the mind,

or the brain is aware of this fact it cannot go back. How can it?

N: There must be another way of preventing it from going back.

K: Not preventing, that means also time. You are still thinking

in prevention.

N: Prevention in the sense, as a human factor.

K: The human being is irrational. Right? And as long as he is

functioning irrationally any other rational factor he says, 'I refuse

to see it'.

N: From what you are saying you are suggesting that the very

seeing prevents you also from going back, from slipping. This is a

human condition.

B: I wonder if we should ask this question about prevention.

You see it may be a question.

N: It has both the aspects. You see the fallacy of something and

the very seeing prevents you from slipping back. Because you see

the danger of it.

B: In another sense you say you have no temptation to slip back,

therefore you don't have to be prevented. If you really see it there is

no need to be prevented.

N: Then you are not tempted to go back.

K: I can't go back. If I see the fallacy of all the religious

nonsense, it is finished.

B: The only question which I raise is that you may not see it in

another form. You see..

N: It may come in different shapes.

B:.. and then you are tempted once again.

K: The mind is aware, it is not caught. But you are saying it

does.

N: In other shapes and forms, sir.

There is another thing I want to ask: is there a faculty in the

human system which has this function as it were, and so it has

some effect, or some transforming effect on the brain?

K: We have said that.

N: No, we have not said that.

K: Wait sir. We have said that perception is out of time, seeing

immediately the whole nature of time. Which is to have, to use a

good old world, to have an insight into the nature of time. If you

have that insight into the nature of time, not you, if there is an

insight into the nature of time the very brain cells which are part of

time break down. The brain cells bring about a change in

themselves. That is what this person is saying. You may disagree,

you may say prove it. I say this is not a matter of proof, it is a

matter of action. Do it, find it, test it.

N: You were also saying the other day that when the

consciousness is empty of its content..

K: The content is time.

N: You said that leads to the transformation of the brain cells.

K: Yes.

N: When you say consciousness is empty of the content there..

K:.. there is no consciousness as we know it.

N: Yes. And again you are using the word insight. What is the

connection between the two? There is an obvious connection.

B: Between what?

N: Consciousness. When you have suggested that consciousness

is empty of its content..

K: Careful! Consciousness is put together by its content. The

content is the result of time. Now just..

B: The content also is time.

K: Of course.

B: It is about time as well.

K: Of course.

B: It is also actually put together by time.

K: Actually put together by time and also it is about time, as he

pointed out. If you have an insight into that the whole pattern is

gone, broken.

N: Yes, if..

K: The insight, which is not of time, which is not of memory,

which is not of knowledge, etc., etc.

N: Who has this insight?

K: Not me. There is an insight.

N: There is an insight and the word insight has a positive

connotation. You have an insight and then the consciousness is

empty of its content as a negative kind of..

K: No, sir, no.

N: You are implying that the very emptying of the content, the

emptiness of the content, is insight.

K: No, no. We are saying time is a factor which has put the

content, which has made up the content. It has made up and it also

thinks about. All that is a bundle, is the result of time. Now insight

into this whole movement, it is not my insight.

N: No, it is insight.

K: Insight, that brings about transformation in the brain.

Because it is not time-binding, that insight.

B: If you say this content, the psychological content, is a certain

structure physically in the brain, you may say that in order for this

psychological content to exist the brain over many years has made

many connections of the cells, which constitute this content.

K: Quite, quite.

B: And then there is a flash of insight which sees all this and

sees that it is not necessary and therefore all this begins to

dissipate. And when that has dissipated there is no content. Then

you say whatever the brain is doing is something different.

K: Which is, sir, go further, which is then there is total

emptiness. We won't go into it. Which we went into the other day.

B: Yes, well emptiness of that content. But when you say total

emptiness you don't mean you don't see the railway, but you mean

emptiness of all this inward content.

K: That's right. That emptiness has tremendous energy. It is

energy.

B: So could you say that the brain having had all these

connections tangled up has locked up a lot of energy?

K: That's right. Wastage of energy.

B: Then when they begin to dissipate that energy is there.

K: Yes.

B: Would you say that is as much physical energy as any other

kind?

K: Of course, of course.

Now you have heard all this, Narayan, we can go on more in

detail, but you have heard the principle, the root of it: is it an idea

or a fact?

N: An idea has no..

K: No, I am asking you, don't dodge it. Is it an idea or a fact? I

hear all this. I have heard it with the hearing of the ear so I make it

into an idea, but if I hear it, not only with the hearing of the ear but

hear it in my being, in the very structure of myself, I hear this

statement, what happens then? If that doesn't take place it becomes

merely an idea and we can spin along for the rest of one's life

playing with idea. But if that sense of - you know.

So Sir, we are more or less, you and I, and Narayan perhaps,

more or less a captured audience. If there was a scientist, biofeedback

or another brain specialist, would they accept this?

Would they even listen to all this?

B: Maybe a few would but obviously the majority would not.

K: No. So what? You see how do we affect - I am using the

word affect - how do we touch the human brain?

B: Yes. Well, the way it will sound to most scientists is that it

will sound rather abstract, you see. They will say it could be so, it

is a nice theory.

K: Good boy, it is nice.

B: We have no proof of it.

K: Of course, of course.

B: Therefore they would say, OK, it doesn't excite me very

much because I don't see any proof. I think that is the way the more

favourable ones would look at it. Let's say they would say, if you

have some more evidence we will come back later, and become

very interested. So you see you can't give any proof because you

know whatever is happening nobody can see it, with their eyes.

K: Of course. I understand. But I am asking: what shall we do?

Our mind, our brain, is not my brain. Right? It is the human brain

which has evolved through a million years. One freak, or one

biological freak, can move out of it - perhaps, or does - how do you

get at the human mind to make him see this?

B: Well I think you have to communicate the necessity of what

you are saying, that it is inevitable. You have to communicate the

necessity of what you are saying, that it is inevitable. Say if

somebody sees something, you know, you explain it to him and he

sees it happening before his eyes he says, 'That's so'. Right?

K: But sir, that requires somebody to listen.

B: Yes.

K: Somebody who says I want to capture it, I want to

understand this, I want to find out. You follow what I am saying?

Apparently that is one of the most difficult things in life.

B: Well it is the function of this occupied brain that it is

occupied with itself and it doesn't listen.

N: In fact one of the things is that this occupation seems to start

very early. When you are young it is very powerful and it

continues through all your life. How do you through education

make this..

K: Oh, that is a different matter. I would say I would work at it

differently, if you are asking how to set about it I will tell you. The

moment you see the importance of not being occupied, you

yourself see that as a tremendous truth, you will find ways and

methods to help them. That is creative, you can't just be told and

copy and imitate, then you are lost.

B: Well then the question is: how is it possible to communicate

to the brain, which rejects, which doesn't listen?

K: I understand, that is what I am asking.

B: Yes, well is there a way?

K: No. If I refuse to listen, well, go to the pope and tell him all

this he would say..

Sir, I think we had better stop, don't you?

You see, sir, I think meditation is a great factor in all this. I feel

we have been meditating. Ordinary people wouldn't accept this as

meditation.

B: They have used the word so often..

K:.. it is really lost. Sir, that is one of the things. Something real,

made vulgar, common, is gone. Yoga was something

extraordinary, only for the, if I may use the word without being

misunderstood, the very few; now it has become common, a way

of earning a livelihood. It's gone. So meditation is this, sir, the

emptying of consciousness. You follow?

B: Yes, but let's be clear. Before you said it would happen

through insight, you see. Now are you saying meditation is

conducive to insight.

K: Meditation IS insight.

B: It is insight already. Then it is some sort of work you do, you

see insight is usually thought of as the flash.

K: Yes, insight is a flash.

B: But also meditation is a more constant..

K: Now we must be careful. What do we mean be meditation?

B: That's the question, yes.

K: We can reject the systems, the methods, the authorities, the

acknowledged Zen, Tibetan, Hindu, Buddhist, we can reject all

that, because it is obviously merely traditional repetition, timebiding

nonsense. For me it is not..

N: Do you think some of them could have been original, some

of them could have had original insight?

K: If they had they wouldn't belong to Christians, Hindu,

Buddhist, they wouldn't be anything.

N: In the past?

K: Who knows? Now meditation, sir, is this penetration. You

follow? I don't know if I am using the right word. It is this sense of

moving without any past.

B: The only point to clear up is that when you use the word

meditation, you mean something more than insight, you see. It

seems to mean something a bit more.

K: A bit more, much more! Because insight has freed the brain

from the past, from time. That is an enormous statement.

Meditation as we know it is becoming, and any sense of becoming

is still time, therefore there is no sense of becoming.

B: But that seems to mean that you have to insight if you are

going to meditate. Right?

K: Yes, sir, that's right.

B: You cannot meditate without insight.

K: Of course.

B: You can't regard it as a procedure by which you will come to

insight.

K: No. That immediately implies time. A procedure, a system, a

method to have insight sounds so nonsensical. Insight into greed,

into fear, into all that, frees the mind from all that. Then meditation

has quite a different quality. It has nothing to do with all the guru's

meditations. Right? So that is what?

Would we say, sir - it is the wrong word - to have insight there

must be silence?

B: Well, that is the same, we seem to be going in a circle.

K: For the moment.

B: My mind has silence, yes.

K: Silence. So the silence of insight has cleansed - cleansed,

purged, all that.

B: The structure of the occupation.

K: Yes. Then meditation, oh lord, what is it? There is no

movement as we know it - movement means time and all that. It is

not that kind of movement.

B: Some other kind?

K: I don't see how we can measure that by words. You see that

sense of limitless state.

B: But you were saying that nevertheless it is necessary to find

some language, even though it is unsayable.

K: We will find the language. We had better stop, it is too late.

Shall we continue next Sunday?

BROCKWOOD PARK 10TH CONVERSATION

WITH DAVID BOHM 7TH JUNE 1980 'THE

ENDING OF TIME'

Krishnamurti: Let's forget the audience. We are not performing for

your amusement. I think we left off the other day, if I remember

rightly, when the mind is totally empty of all the things that

thought has put there, then begins real meditation - if I remember

rightly. But I would like to go further in that matter - I would like

to go back a bit and find out if the mind, if the brain, can ever be

free, not only from all illusion, any form of deception but whether

it can have its own order - the order not introduced by thought or

make an effort, an endeavour to put things in their proper place.

And also whether the brain, however much damaged it is, and most

brains are damaged by shock, by all kinds of stimulations, whether

that brain can heal itself completely. That is what I would like to

go into.

So first let's begin by asking, if I may ask: is there an order

which is not man-made, which is not the result of calculated order

out of disturbance, an order that is probably very satisfying and so

it is still part of the old conditioning, is there an order which is not

man-made, thought-made?

Bohm: Are you referring to the mind? I mean you can say the

order of nature exists on its own.

K: The order of nature is order.

B: Yes, it is not made by man.

K: But I am not talking of such. I don't think I want to - I am not

sure that it is that kind of order. Is there cosmic order?

B: Well, right that is still the same thing in a sense because the

word cosmos means order, but the whole order.

K: The whole order, I mean that.

B: Which includes the order of the universe and the order of the

mind?

K: Yes. What I am trying to find out is: is there an order which

man can never possibly conceive? You follow? Because any

concept is still within the pattern of thought. So is there order

which is not..

B: Well, how are we going to discuss it?

K: That is what I want to discuss. I think we can. What is order?

Narayan: I thought we were just discussing it..

K: We were discussing what?

N: At the table.

K: At lunch time.

N: At lunch. There is mathematical order. And generally

mathematical order is the order of science, or sort of behind any

particular order. That is the highest kind of order known to any

discipline.

K: Would the mathematicians agree that mathematics is

complete order?

N: Yes, mathematics itself is order.

K: Would they agree to that?

B: Well I think it depends on the mathematician, but there is a

well known mathematician called von Neumann who defined

mathematics as the relationship of relationships, which really he

meant by relationship, order. To say that it is order working within

the field of order itself and not on something else.

K: Order working in the field of order, yes.

B: Rather than working on some object.

K: Yes, yes, that is what I am trying to get at.

B: So the most creative mathematicians are having a perception

of this, which may be called pure order, but of course it is limited

because it has to be expressed mathematically..

K: Of course, of course.

B: In terms of formulae or equations.

K: Is order part of disorder as we know it?

B: Well that is another question, what we mean by disorder. It is

not possible to give a coherent definition of disorder because this

order is inherent.

K: What?

B: You cannot give a coherent account because this order

violates order. Anything that actually happens has an order. Now

you can call a certain thing disorder if you like.

K: Are you saying that anything that happens is order?

B: Has some order.

K: Has some order.

B: You see if you say the body is not functioning rightly, say

cancer is growing, now that is a certain order in the cancer cell, it is

just growing in a certain way.

K: A different pattern.

B: A different pattern which tends to break down the body, but

the whole thing is a certain kind of order.

K: Yes, yes.

B: It has not violated the laws of nature.

K: Yes, yes.

B: But relative to some context you could say it is disorder

because if we are talking of the health of the body then the cancer

is called disorder.

K: Quite, quite.

B: But in itself..

K: Cancer has its own order.

B: But it is not compatible with the order of the growth of the

body.

K: Quite. So what do we mean by order? Is there such a thing as

order?

B: Well order is a perception - we can't get hold of order.

N: I think generally when we say order it is in relation to a

framework or in relation to a certain field. Order always has that

connotation. And when you say order of order, as the study of

mathematics, some aspects of mathematics, we are going away

from the limited approach to order.

B: We are not ordering things any more. You see most

mathematics start with the order of the numbers, like 1, 2, 3, 4, and

builds on that way, in a hierarchy. But then you can see what is

meant by the order of the numbers, there is a series of relationships

which are constant for example. You see in the order of the

numbers you have the simplest example of order.

N: And a new order was created with the discovery of zero, a

new set of order came into being. And is mathematical order and

the order in nature a part of a bigger field? Or it is a localised

form?

K: You see the brain, the mind is so contradictory, so bruised, it

can't find order.

B: Yes, but what kind of order does it want?

K: It wants an order in which it will be safe. It won't be bruised,

it won't be shocked, it won't feel the pain of physical or

psychological pain.

B: The whole point of order is not to have contradiction.

K: That's right.

B: That is the whole purpose of mathematics.

K: But the brain is in contradiction.

B: Yes, and in some ways something has gone wrong, we said it

took a wrong turn.

K: It took a wrong turn, we think, yes.

B: You see you could say that if the body is growing wrongly

we have a cancer cell, which is two contradictory orders: one is the

growing of the cancer and the other is the order of the body.

K: Yes. But I am just asking because I want to go into

something, which is: can the mind, the brain, be totally free of all

organized order?

B: Yes. You have to ask why you want it to be free of organized

order and what you mean by organized order.

K: Then it becomes a pattern.

B: You mean by organized order a fixed order.

K: Yes, a fixed order, or fixed pattern.

B: Imposed.

K: Imposed or self-imposed. Because we are trying to

investigate, at least I am trying to find out whether the brain can

ever be free from all the impositions, pressures, wounds, bruises,

all the trivialities of existence, pushing it in different directions,

whether it can be completely free of all that. If it cannot,

meditation has no meaning.

B: Yes, but you could go further and say probably life has no

meaning if you cannot free it of all that.

K: No, I wouldn't say life has no meaning.

B: It goes on indefinitely.

K: Indefinitely like that, yes. If it goes on as it has done

indefinitely for millennia, life has no meaning. But to find out if it

has a meaning at all, and I think there is a meaning, the brain must

be totally free of all this.

B: Well that is what you call disorder. You see, what is the

source of what we call disorder? We could say it is like a cancer,

almost going on inside the brain. It is moving in a way which is not

compatible with the health of the brain.

K: Yes.

B: It grows as time goes on, it increases from one generation to

another.

B: Now you say..

K: One generation produces the same pattern being repeated.

B: It tends to accumulate from one generation to another

through tradition. Now we say - it is almost the same question to

ask how are we going to stop these cancer cells from taking over.

K: That is what I want to get at. How is this pattern, which has

been set, and which has for generation after generation

accumulated, how is that to end, be broken through? That is the

real question that is at the back of my mind.

B: Could we ask another question: why does the brain provide

the soil for this stuff to go on, to grow?

K: It may be merely tradition, habit.

B: Well, why does it stay in that, you see?

K: It may be that it is so afraid of a new pattern, of something

new taking place because in the old tradition it takes refuge. It feels

safe.

B: Yes, well you see then we have to question why does the

brain deceive itself? It seems that this pattern of disorder involves

the fact that the brain deceives itself about this disorder. It doesn't

seem to be able to see it clearly.

N: When you say order, in my mind there is intelligence behind

order which makes use of it. I have a certain purpose, I create an

order and when the purpose is over I set aside that order. So order

has an intelligence which works it out. In usual parlance that is the

connotation. But you are referring to something else.

K: I am asking whether this pattern of generations can be

broken and why the brain has accepted that pattern in spite of all

the conflicts, misery and goes on in the same way, and is it

possible to break that pattern? That is all I am really asking.

N: Yes, I am saying the same thing in a different way. If an

order has served its purpose can it be put aside because it is no

longer..

K: Apparently it can't.

N:.. it is no longer useful or adequate.

K: Apparently it can't. Psychologically we are talking of, it

can't, it doesn't. Take an ordinary human being like any of us, it

goes on repeating fears, sorrow, misery, all that is part of its daily

meal. And Dr Bohm asked, why does it go on, why doesn't it break

through? And we said is it so heavily conditioned that it cannot see

its way out of it? Or it may be merely the constant repetition so the

brain has become dull.

N: The momentum of repetition is there?

K: Yes. That momentum of repetition makes the mind sluggish,

mechanical. And in that mechanical sluggishness it takes refuge

and says, 'It's all right, I can go on'. That's what most human beings

do.

B: Well that is part of the disorder, to think that way is a

manifestation of disorder.

K: Of course.

N: Do you connect order with intelligence? Or is order

something that exists on its own? Any kind of intelligence.

B: Intelligence certainly involves order, intelligence requires the

perception of order in an orderly way, without contradiction. But I

think that in the terms that we were discussing before that we

ourselves don't create this, we don't impose this order but rather it

is natural.

K: Yes. Sir, let's come back. I am the ordinary man. I see that I

am caught with my whole way of living; my thinking and my

attitudes and so on, beliefs, is the result of enormous length of

time. Time is, as we went into it the other day, my whole existence.

In the past, which cannot be changed, I take refuge. Right?

B: Yes. Well I think that if we were to talk to the ordinary man,

the first thing he would feel is he doesn't really understand that

time is something that happens to him.

K: We went into that. I am saying an ordinary man either sees,

after talking over with you, I see that my whole existence is based

on time. Which is, time is the past and in that the brain takes

refuge.

B: What does that mean exactly? How does it take refuge?

K: Because the past cannot be changed.

B: Yes we agreed that. But then people also think that the

future, you see it is common to think the future can change, the

Communists have said, give up the past, we are going to change.

K: But I can't give up the past. We only think we can give up

the past.

B: Yes, well that is the second point that even those who try to

give up the past, those who don't want to take refuge in the past,

still can't give it up.

K: That is just my point.

B: So it seems which ever way you do it you are stuck.

K: So the next step is: why does the brain accept this way of

living, and why doesn't it break it down? Right? Is it laziness? Is it

that in breaking it down it has no hope?

B: Yes, well that is still the same question.

K: Of course it is the same question.

B: Going from past to future.

K: So what is it to do? I think this is applicable to most people,

isn't it? So what is there to be done?

B: We haven't understood why it does this. It is not clear. Say

this behaviour is disorderly, irrational and so on, and people have

said, 'OK, let's give up the past but we find we can't' - why can't

we?

K: Why can't we give up the past? Wait, sir. If I give up the past

I have no existence.

B: Well you have to clarify that because some people would

say..

K: It is simple: if I give up all my remembrances, all my etc.,

etc., I have nothing, I am nothing.

B: I think some people would look at it a little differently, like

the Marxists. Marx himself said that it is necessary to transform the

conditions of human existence and that will remove this past, you

see.

K: But it has not done this. It cannot be done.

B: Well that is because when he tries to transform it he still

works from the past.

K: Yes, that is what I am saying.

B: If you say, don't depend on the past at all, then as you say,

what are we going to do?

K: I am nothing. Is that the reason why we cannot possibly give

up the past? Because my existence, my way of thinking, my life,

everything is from the past. And if you say, wipe that out, what

have I left?

B: Yes, well I think you could say we obviously have to keep

certain things from the past like useful knowledge and technology.

K: Yes, we went through all that.

B: Now you could ask, suppose we keep that part of the past

and wipe out all the parts of the past which are contradictory.

K: Which are all psychological, contradictory and so on. What

is left? Just going to the office? There is nothing left. Is that the

reason why we cannot give it up?

B: Well there is still a contradiction in that because you see if

you say what is left, you are still asking for the past.

K: Of course, of course, of course.

B: I mean are you saying simply that when people say they are

giving up the past, they just simply are not doing it.

K: They are not doing it.

B: They are merely turning it into another question which

avoids the issue.

K: Because my whole being is the past, modified, changed, but

it has its roots in the past.

B: Now if you told somebody 'Ok, give all that up and in the

future you will have something quite different, better', then people

would be attracted.

K: But 'better' is still from the past.

B: If you say that but you see perhaps it could even be open and

creative. You see people want to be assured of at least something.

K: That is just it. There is nothing. You want to be assured, the

common man, a human being, wants something to which he can

cling to, can hold on to.

B: Reach for.

K: Reach.

B: They feel not that they are clinging to the past but they are

reaching for something.

K: If I reach something it still is the past.

B: The past yes, but that is not often obvious because people say

it is a big new revolutionary situation. But it has its roots in the

past.

K: That is what I am asking. As long as I have my roots in the

past there cannot be order.

B: Because the past is pervaded with disorder?

K: Yes, disorder. And is my mind, my brain, willing to see that

there is absolutely nothing? If I give up the past - you follow, sir?

B: Yes, you say there is nothing to reach for.

K: Nothing, I mean there is no movement, therefore I cannot

possibly give up the past. So people dangle in front of me a carrot

and I, like a silly person, I follow it. So if I have no carrots, nothing

as a reward or punishment, how is this past to be dissolved?

Because otherwise I am still living in the field of time. And

therefore it is still man-made. So what shall I do? Am I willing to

face absolute emptiness? Right, sir?

B: Well, what will you tell somebody who is not willing?

K: I am not bothered. If somebody says, 'I am sorry I can't do all

this nonsense' - you say, 'Well, carry on'. But I am willing to let my

past go completely, which means there is no effort, no reward, no

punishment, no carrot, nothing. And the brain is willing to face this

extraordinary state, totally new to it, of being, of existing in a state

of nothingness. That is appallingly frightening.

B: Even these words will have their meaning rooted in the past.

K: Of course. We have understood that, the word is not the

thing.

B: But that is because of the fear, because from the roots in the

past this notion of nothingness is..

K: My brain says, 'I am willing to do that'. I am willing to face

this absolute nothingness, emptiness because it has seen for itself

all the refuges, the various places where it has taken refuge are

illusions, so it has finished with all that.

B: I think this leaves out something. You have also brought up

the question of the damage of the scars to the brain.

K: That's just it.

B: The brain if it wasn't damaged possibly could do that fairly

readily.

K: Look: can I discover what has caused damage to the brain?

One of the factors is strong emotions.

B: Strong sustained emotions.

K: Strong sustained emotions, like hatred.

B: Probably a flash of emotion doesn't do it but people keep it

up.

K: Of course. Hatred, anger, a sense of violence must

obviously, they are not only a shock but they wound the brain.

Right?

B: Well, excessive excitation too. Getting excessively excited

by other means.

K: Of course, drugs and all that stuff. Excessive excitement,

excessive anger, violence, hatred, all that. The natural response

doesn't damage the brain. Right? Now my brain is damaged,

suppose, it has been damaged through anger.

B: You could even say probably that nerves get connected up in

the wrong way and the connections are too fixed. I think there is

evidence that these things will actually change the structure.

K: The structure, yes, yes. That is, can I have an insight into the

whole nature of disturbance, anger, violence, they are all part of the

same. Can I have an insight into that? And so that insight changes

the cells of the brain which have been wounded.

B: Well possibly it would start them healing, yes.

K: Yes. All right. Start them healing. That healing must be

immediate.

B: In some way it may take time in the sense that if wrong

connections have been made it is going to take time to redistribute

the material. The beginning of it, it seems to me, is immediate.

K: Make it that way, all right. Can I do this? I have listened to

you, I have carefully read, I have thought about all this and I see

that anger, violence, hatred, all those excessive - or any form of

excitement - and so on, does bruise the brain. And the insight into

this whole business does bring about a mutation in the cells. It is

so. And the nerves and all their adjustments will be as rapid as

possible.

B: Something happens with cancer cells. Sometimes the cancer

suddenly stops growing and it goes the other way, for some reason

that is unknown but a change must have taken place in those cells.

K: Would it be, sir - if I may ask, I may be on the wrong track -

when the brain cells change, a fundamental change there, the

cancer process stops?

B: Yes, fundamentally it stops and it starts to dismantle.

K: Dismantle, yes that is it. So.

N: You are saying it sets into motion the right kind of

connections?

B: Yes.

N: And stops the wrong connections?

B: Or even starts to dismantle the wrong connections.

N: So a beginning is made and it is made now.

B: At one moment.

K: That is the insight.

N: But there is no question of time involved because the right

movement has started.

B: Yes.

K: What, what?

N: There is no time involved because the right movement has

started now.

K: Of course, of course.

N: But there is another thing which I want to ask about the past:

for most people the past means pleasure.

K: Not only past pleasures, the remembrance of all the things.

N: One starts disliking pleasure only when it becomes stale, or

it leads to difficulties but one wants pleasure all the time.

K: Of course, of course.

N: Now it is very difficult to distinguish between pleasure and

the staleness or the difficulties it brings in because on wants to

keep the pleasure afresh and not have the staleness or the problems

it brings. I mean the normal human being - I am asking what is

your attitude to pleasure?

K: What do you mean, my attitude?

N: How does one deal with this immense problem of pleasure in

which most people are caught because it is the past.

K: Pleasure is always the past but there is no pleasure at the

moment it is happening. It comes in later when it is remembered.

So the remembrance is the past. And I, as a human being, am

willing to face nothingness, which means wipe out all that.

N: How does one wipe out this tremendous instinct for

pleasure? It almost seems to be an instinct.

K: No, we went into that. Which is: what is the nature of

pleasure? What is pleasure? It is a constant remembrance of things

past which have happened.

B: And also the expectation that it will happen.

K: Of course, always from the past.

B: You have usually made this distinction of pleasure and

enjoyment.

K: Yes, I did.

N: Of course you have made a distinction, but I am saying, still

the human being, even though he understands what you are saying,

he is sort of held back in this field.

K: No, Narayan, because he is not willing to face this

emptiness.

Pleasure is not compassion. Pleasure is not love. But perhaps if

there is this mutation compassion is stronger than pleasure. I don't

know if you see. So pleasure has no place in the compassion.

B: Even the perception of order may be stronger than pleasure.

If people are really concerned about something, the pleasure plays

no role at that moment.

N: Yes, that is what I am trying to imply because it has a certain

strength which can keep that in its place.

K: Compassion has got tremendous strength, an incalculable

strength, pleasure is nowhere in it.

N: But what happens to a man in whom pleasure is dominant?

K: We said that. As long as he is unwilling to face this

extraordinary emptiness he will keep on with the old pattern.

B: You see we have to say that this man had a damaged brain

too. There is a certain brain damage which causes this emphasis on

sustained pleasure as well as the fear and the anger and the hate.

K: But the damaged brain is healed when there is insight.

B: Yes. But I think many people would say, 'I understand that

hate and anger and so on are products of the damaged brain', but

they would find it hard to say that pleasure is the product of the

damaged brain.

K: Oh yes, of course it is.

B: Whereas if you say there is that true enjoyment which is not

the product of the damaged brain, which is confused with

pleasure..

N: That is the difficulty because if pleasure gives rise to anger,

anger is part of the damaged brain.

K: And also the demand for pleasure.

B: Which may give rise to anger and hatred and fear.

K: Of course. If I can't have the pleasure I want I begin to get

annoyed. I feel frustrated and all the rest of it follows. So do I, do

you, as a human being, have an insight into the past, how very

destructive it is to the brain, and the brain itself sees it and has an

insight into it and moves out of that?

N: You are saying the beginning of order comes from insight?

K: Obviously. Let's walk from there.

N: May I put it in a different way? Is it possible to gather a

certain amount of order in a pattern sense, not artificially, so that it

gives rise to a certain amount of insight?

K: Ah! You cannot through the false find truth.

N: I am saying it on purpose because for many people the

energy that is required for insight or the keenness is lacking.

K: You are tremendously keen to earn a livelihood, to earn

money, to do something if you are interested in something. If you

are interested vitally in this transformation, etc., you have the

energy.

May we go on, sir? I, as a human being, I have seen this insight

has wiped away really the past, and the brain is willing to live in

nothingness. We have come to this point several times from

different directions. From there I want to go on; may we? There

isn't a thing which thought has put there. There is no movement of

thought, except thought, knowledge and all that which has its own

place. But we are talking of the psychological state of mind where

there is no movement of thought, there is absolutely nothing.

B: You mean also no feeling, you see the movement of thought

and feeling is together.

K: Wait a minute. What do you mean by feeling there?

B: Well then usually people might say, well, OK, there is no

thought, but they may have various feelings.

K: Of course, I have feelings. The moment you put a pin in to

me..

B: These are sensations. And also the inner feelings.

K: Inner feelings of what?

B: It is hard to describe them, you see, those that can be easily

described are obviously the wrong kind such as anger and fear.

K: Is compassion a feeling?

B: Probably not

K: No, it is not a feeling.

B: Though people may say they feel compassionate.

K: Of course, of course.

B: But even the very word suggests it is a form of feeling.

K: Of course, I feel compassionate.

B: Compassion has the word passion in it which is a feeling. It

can be taken in that meaning. And you see it is a difficult question.

You could say what we usually call feelings anyway, those

things that could be recognized as feelings, you know of a

describable character.

K: Sir, let's go into that a little bit. What do we mean by

feeling? Sensations?

B: Well, people don't usually mean that. You see sensation is

connected with the body.

K: Body, senses.

B: The inner organs of the body.

K: So you are saying feelings which are not of the body.

B: Yes, or which are said to belong - you see in the old days

they would have said they are of the soul, you see.

K: The soul, of course. That is an easy escape but it means

nothing.

B: No.

K: What are the inner feelings? Pleasure?

B: Well in so far as you can label it that way it is clear that it is

not valid there.

K: So what is valid? The non-verbal state.

B: It may be a non-verbal state which includes something that

seems - would it have something analogous to a feeling which

wasn't fixed, you see? That you couldn't name.

N: You are saying it is not a feeling, it is similar to feeling but it

is not fixed?

B: Yes. I am just considering that could exist.

K: I don't follow.

B: If you say that there is no thought, I am trying to clarify it.

K: Yes, there is no thought.

B: Somebody could say, 'OK, I understand, I am not thinking, I

am not talking, I am not figuring out what to do'.

K: Oh, no.

B: We have to go further. What does it really mean?

K: All right. What it really means is: thought is movement,

thought is time. Right? There is no time and thought.

B: Yes, well perhaps no sense of the existence of an entity

inside.

K: Absolutely, of course. The existence of the entity is the

bundle of memories, the past.

B: But that existence is not only thought thinking about it but

also the feeling that it is there, inside, you get a sort of feeling.

K: The feeling, yes. There is no being. Otherwise, you follow,

there is nothing. If there is a feeling of the being continuing..

B: Yes, even though it doesn't seem verbalizable.

K: Of course. I wonder if you are caught in an illusion that there

is such a state.

B: Well it may be. It would be a state without will, without..

K: Of course. All those are gone.

B: Now, how do we know that this state is real, is genuine?

K: That is what I am asking. How do I know, or realize, or state,

that it is so? In other words you want proof of it.

B: Well at least..

N: Not proof, communication of that state.

B: Not proof.

K: Now wait a minute. How can you communicate with me,

suppose you have this peculiar compassion, how can you

communicate to me who is living in pleasure and all that? You

can't.

N: No, but I am prepared to listen to you.

K: Therefore, prepared to listen - how deeply?

N: To the extent my listening takes me to.

K: Which means what?

N: That is all I could say.

K: No, no. It is very simple. You will go as long as it is safe,

secure.

N: No, not necessarily.

K: The man says there is no being. And one's whole life has

been this becoming, being and so on. And in that state he says

there is no being at all. In other words, there is no me. Right sir?

Now you say, 'Show it to me'. It can be shown only through certain

qualities it has, certain actions. What are the actions of a mind that

is totally empty of being? What are the actions? Wait a minute.

Actions at what level? Actions in the physical world?

N: Partly.

K: Mostly that.

N: Not mostly, partly.

K: No, I am asking is that partial where - all right, this mam has

got this sense of emptiness and there is no being, so he is not acting

from self-centred interest. So his actions are in the world of daily

living. That's all, you can judge only there, whether he is a

hypocrite, whether he says one thing and contradicts it the next

moment, or whether he is actually living this compassion - not 'I

feel compassionate'.

B: Well if you are not doing the same you can't tell, you see.

K: That's just it. That's what I am saying.

N: I can't judge you there.

K: You can't. So how can you convey to me in words that

peculiar quality of a mind? You can describe, you know go round

it, but you can't give the essence of it. I mean David, for example,

he can discuss with Einstein, they are on the same level. And he

and I can discuss up to a certain point and if he has this sense of

not being, empty, I can go very close but I can never enter or come

upon that mind unless I have it.

N: Is there any way of communicating but not through words

for one who is open?

K: We said compassion. It is not as David put it just now, it is

not 'I feel compassionate'. That is altogether wrong. You see after

all in daily life such a mind acts without the 'me, without the ego,

and therefore it might make a mistake but it corrects it

immediately, it is not carrying that mistake.

N: It is not stuck.

K: Stuck. We must be very careful here not to find an excuse

for wrong.

So sirs, we come to that point, as we said the other day, what is

then meditation? Right? The becoming man, or the being man, who

meditates, has no meaning whatsoever. That is a tremendous

statement. When there is this not becoming, not being, then what is

mediation? It must be totally unconscious. Right sir? Totally

uninvited.

B: Without conscious intention, is what you mean.

K: Yes, without conscious intention. Yes, I think this is right.

Would you say, sir - it sounds silly but - the universe, cosmic

order, is in meditation?

B: Well if it is alive then you would have to look at it that way.

K: No, no, it is in a state of meditation.

B: Yes.

K: I think that is right. I stick to that.

B: We should try to go over what is meditation, what is it

doing?

N: If you say the universe is in meditation, is the expression of

it order? What order can we discern, which would indicate cosmic

meditation or universal meditation?

K: The sunrise and sunset is order, all the stars, the planets, the

whole thing is in perfect order.

B: We have to connect this with meditation.

K: He is bringing the word 'order'.

B: You see, according to the dictionary the meaning of

meditation is to reflect, to turn something over in your mind and to

pay close attention.

K: And also to measure.

B: That is a further meaning but it is to weigh, to ponder, it

means measure in the sense of weighing.

K: Weighing, that's it. Ponder, think over and so on.

B: To weigh the significance of something. Now is that what

you mean?

K: No.

B: Then why do you use the word, you see?

N: I am told that in English contemplation has a different

connotation from meditation. Contemplation implies a deeper state

of mind, whereas meditation is..

K: To contemplate.

N: That's what I was told.

B: It is hard to know. The word contemplate comes from the

word 'temple' really.

K: Yes, that's right.

B: To make an open space really is its basic meaning. To create

an open space so you can look at it.

K: Is that open space between god and me?

B: That is the way the word arose.

K: Quite.

N: From temple, space?

B: Which means an open space.

N: The Sanskrit word 'dhyana' doesn't have the same

connotation as meditation.

K: Dhyana, no.

N: Because meditation has the overtones of measurement and

probably in an oblique way that measurement is order.

K: No, I don't want to bring in order, leave the word order out,

we have been through that, we have beaten that to death.

B: I just asked why you used the word meditation.

K: Don't let's use the word meditation.

B: Let's find out what you really mean here.

K: Would you say, sir, a state of infinity, a measureless state?

B: Yes.

K: There is no division of any kind. You see we are giving lots

of descriptions, but it is not that.

B: Yes, but is there any sense of the mind being in some way

aware of itself, you see, is that what you are trying to say? At other

times you have said that the mind is emptying itself of content.

K: Yes. What are you trying to get at?

B: Well I am trying to get at that it is not merely infinite but it

seems that something more is involved.

K: Oh, much more.

B: But in this emptying of content, we said that this content is

the past which has become disorder. Then you could say that in

some sense it is constantly cleaning up the past. Would you agree

to that?

K: It is constantly cleaning up the past?

B: Yes.

K: No, no.

B: When you say the mind is emptying itself of content..

K: Has emptied itself.

B: Has emptied itself. All right, then you say when the past is

cleaned up, then you say that is meditation.

K: That is meditation, no, contemplation..

N: Just a beginning. He is at the beginning.

K: Beginning?

N: The emptying of the past.

K: That must be done. Emptying the past which is anger,

jealousy, beliefs, dogmas, attachments, all that is the content. If

any part of that exists it will inevitably lead to illusion. Right? So

we said that. The brain or the mind must be totally free of all

illusion - illusion brought by desire, by hope, by wanting security

and all that.

B: Are you saying when that is done this opens the door to

something broader, deeper?

K: Yes. Otherwise life has no meaning, just repeating this

pattern. I want to go into this. It is five o'clock.

N: What exactly did you mean when you said the universe is in

meditation? You are trying to convey something when you say that

the universe is in meditation.

K: I feel that way, yes. Meditation is a state of 'non-movement

movement'.

B: All right, yes.

N: Is it..

B: Could we say first of all the universe is not actually governed

by its past. That is the first point.

K: Yes, sir, yes sir.

B: It is free and creative.

K: It is creative, moving.

B: And then this movement is an order.

K: Would you, as a scientist, accept such a thing?

B: Yes. Well, as a matter of fact I would!

K: Are we both crazy?

B: You see the universe creates certain forms which are

relatively constant, so that if people who look at it superficially

only see that, it seems to be then determined from the past.

K: Yes. Sir, put the question the other way: is it really possible

for time to end - time being the past, time, the whole idea of time,

to have no tomorrow at all? Of course there is tomorrow, you have

to go to a talk in the morning and I have to, and so on; there is

tomorrow but the feeling, the actual reality of having no tomorrow.

I think that is the healthiest way of living. Which doesn't mean that

I become irresponsible - that is all too childish.

B: It is merely a question of physical time, it is a certain part of

natural order.

K: Of course, that is understood.

B: Which we still have in mind but the question is whether we

have a sense of experiencing past and future or whether we are free

of that sense.

K: Sir, is the universe, as a scientists I am asking you, based on

time?

B: I would say, no, but you see the general way it has been

formulated..

K: That is all I want, you say no.

B: Yes.

K: And can the brain which has evolved in time..

B: Well, has it evolved in time, you see, that is a way of talking

but it has become entangled in time.

K: Entangled, all right.

B: Entangled in time in some way because if you say the

universe is not based on time, the brain is part of the universe.

K: I agree.

B: It can't be based merely on time.

K: No. The brain in the sense, thought.

B: Thought has entangled the brain in time.

K: In time. All right. Can that entanglement be unravelled,

freed, so that the universe is the mind? You follow? If the universe

is not of time, can the mind which has been entangled in time,

unravel itself and so be the universe? You follow what I am trying

to say?

B: Yes.

K: That is order.

B: That is order. Now would you say that is meditation?

K: That is it. Now I would call that meditation. Not in the

ordinary dictionary sense of pondering over and all that, that is a

state of meditation in which there is no element of the past.

B: You say the mind is disentangling itself from time and also

really disentangling the brain from time.

K: Yes, sir. Would you accept that?

B: Yes.

K: As a theory.

B: Yes, as a proposal.

K: No, I don't want it as a proposal.

B: What do you mean by theory?

K: Theory as somebody comes along and says this is real

meditation.

B: All right.

K: Wait. Somebody says one can live this way and life has an

extraordinary meaning in it, full of etc., etc, compassion and so on,

and every act in a world, in the physical world, can be corrected

immediately and so on and so on. Would you, as a scientist, accept

such a state, or say this man is cuckoo?

B: No, I wouldn't say that, no. I feel it is perfectly possible, it is

quite compatible with anything that I know about nature.

K: Oh, then that's all right. So one is not an unbalanced cuckoo?

B: No. Part of the entanglement is that science itself has put

time into a fundamental position which helps to entangle it still

further.

K: We had better stop, sir. Shall we continue some more?

B: When do you want to continue?

K: Next Sunday.

B: I am going to be in America next Sunday.

K: Oh, when do you go to America?

B: Thursday.

K: Well, we can't.

B: Except by television!

K: Yes, very simple.

B: In the autumn, in September?

K: Yes, September. Of course putting it into words is not the

thing. Right? That is understood. But can it be communicated to

another?

B: Yes, well I think that the point about communication of this

is to bring it about.

K: Of course. Now can some of us get to this so that we can

communicate actually?

We had better stop.

BROCKWOOD PARK 13TH CONVERSATION

WITH DAVID BOHM 18TH SEPTEMBER 1980

`THE ENDING OF TIME'

Krishnamurti: May we continue with where we left off the other

other day?

What makes the mind always follow a certain pattern, always

seeking, if it lets go of one pattern it picks up another pattern, and

so on, it keeps on functioning all the time within that, why? One

can give explanations and can see why it does: for protection, for

safety, for slackness, indifference, a certain amount of callousness,

total disregard to one's own flowering and so on. But I think it is

very important to find out why our minds are always operating in a

certain direction. We came to the point when we said that one

comes, after one has been through all kinds of travail,

investigation, and insight, one comes to a blank wall, and that

blank wall can only wither away or be broken down when there is

love and intelligence. That is where we came to the other day. But

before we go into that I would like to ask: why do human beings,

however intelligent, however learned, however philosophical and

religious, they always fall into this groove.

Bohm: Yes, well I think the groove is inherent in the nature of

the accumulated knowledge.

K: Are you saying then that knowledge invariably must create a

groove?

B: Perhaps not 'must', but it has in the way it has developed in

mankind. Knowledge, psychological knowledge that is to say.

K: We are talking of that, obviously.

B: But psychological knowledge I would agree must create a

groove.

K: But why does the mind not be aware of it, see the danger of

it, see its mechanical repetition and therefore there is nothing new

in that, and it keeps on doing it.

B: You see I think when we were discussing this accumulation

of knowledge which really constitutes a groove because..

K: Yes, constitutes a groove, but why?

B: You see I think it is the same question, if you merely think of

the accumulation of knowledge making a groove then you don't see

why a person should stay in it, you see.

K: Yes, that is what I am asking.

B: It seems to me that the groove, or the knowledge

accumulated, has a significance far beyond, seems to have a

significance far beyond, what its real significance is, that carries a

necessity. If we say we have knowledge of some object, like the

microphone, that has some limited significance. Now knowledge

about your nation, the nation to which you belong seems, seems to

have immense significance.

K: Yes, yes. So is this significance the cause of this narrowing

down of the mind?

B: Well, it holds the mind, this knowledge has a tremendous

value beyond all other values. It makes the mind stick to that

because it seems the most important thing in the world.

K: In certain philosophies, certain concepts and so on in India,

there is this philosophy that knowledge must end - you know it, of

course, the Vedanta. But apparently very, very, very few people do

end knowledge and talk from freedom.

B: Well, I would come back to that point, you see knowledge

generally seems to be extremely important, worth holding on to.

You see though a person may verbally say it should end..

K: But..

B: Knowledge about the self.

K: Yes. You mean I am so stupid that I don't see this knowledge

has very little significance essentially, psychological knowledge,

and yet my mind clings to it?

B: Yes, I wouldn't quite put it that a person is that stupid but

rather to say that this knowledge stupefies the brain.

K: Yes, all right, call it that.

B: I mean that the brain being caught in this knowledge

becomes stupefied.

K: Stupefied, all right, but it doesn't seem to extricate itself.

B: Because it is already so stupefied that it can't see what it is

doing.

K: So what shall it do? I have been watching this for many

years, why human beings think or attempt to become free from

certain things, and yet this is the root of it. You understand? This

accumulation, psychological accumulation which becomes

psychological knowledge and so it divides and all kinds of things

happen around it and within it. And yet the mind refuses to let go.

B: Yes.

K: Is it that it doesn't see? Or it has given to knowledge such

immense importance?

B: Yes, that is what I mean, yes.

K: Why? Is that because there is safety in it? Or security in it?

B: Partly. That is part of it but it seems to be a source of

security but you see I think in some way knowledge has taken on

the significance of the absolute, you see, to say that knowledge

should be properly relative. But this knowledge of the mind,

psychological knowledge of the self or the associated knowledge.

K: I understand all that, sir, but you are not answering my

question. I am an ordinary man, I realize all this and I realize the

significance and the value of knowledge in different levels, but

deeper down inside one, this accumulated knowledge is very, very

destructive.

B: That is true, but there is self-deception and the knowledge

deceives the mind so that the person is not normally aware that it is

destructive.

K: Is that why human beings cling to it?

B: Well, they can't really. We don't know exactly how they got

started on it, once it gets started the mind is generally in a state in

which it is not able to look at this because it is avoiding the

question, there is a tremendous defensive mechanism to escape

looking at the whole question.

K: Why?

B: Because it seems something supremely precious might be at

stake.

K: One is strangely intelligent in other directions, capable and

efficient, skilled, having a great deal of skill, but here, where the

root of all this trouble is, why don't we comprehend it fully? What

prevents the mind? You say it has given importance to knowledge.

I acknowledge that, it is so, but yet it holds on. You must know

this.

B: But I think once this has happened there is a mechanical

process that resists intelligence.

K: So what shall I do? What shall I do as an ordinary man, I

realize technological knowledge and all the rest of it, but

knowledge which I have accumulated, which is divisive, which is

destructive, which is rather petty, and yet I hold on to that and I

realize I must let it go but I can't? What shall I do? I think this is

the average person's problem - a problem which arises when we are

a little bit serious about all this. Is it the lack of energy?

B: Not primarily. You see the energy is being dissipated by the

process.

K: Dissipated, I understand that. Having dissipated a great deal

of energy I haven't got the energy to grapple with this.

B: That could come back quickly if we could get out of this.

The energy is constantly being dissipated and a person may be a

little worn down but he could recover if this would stop. I don't

think it is the main point.

K: No, that is not the main point. So what shall I do, as a human

being, realizing that this knowledge is naturally, inevitably forming

a groove in which I live, my next question is: how am I to break it

down?

B: Well, I am not sure that it is clear in general to people that

this knowledge is doing all this, and also that the knowledge is

knowledge. You see it may seem to be some being, the self, the

me, this knowledge is experienced as some entity, this knowledge

creates the me and the me is now experienced as an entity which is

not knowledge, but some real being. Right?

K: Are you saying this being is different from knowledge?

B: It appears to be, it feigns difference.

K: But is it?

B: It isn't but it has a very powerful ability.

K: But that has been my conditioning.

B: That is true. Now the question is, how do we get through that

to break down the groove?

K: That is the real point, you see.

B: Because it creates an imitation or a pretension of a state of

being.

K: Look: there are several hundred million Catholics, thousands

and millions and millions of Chinese. You follow? This is their

central movement. It seems so utterly hopeless. And realizing the

hopelessness I sit back and say, I can't do anything. But if I apply

my mind to it then the question arises: is it possible to function

without psychological knowledge in this world? I am rather

concerned about it because I think wherever one goes, whether it is

California, India, or here or anywhere else, it is this central issue

that must be resolved.

B: That is right. But you see you may discuss this, or tell this to

somebody, and he may say it looks reasonable perhaps, but let's

say that his status is threatened. Now we have to say that is

psychological knowledge. It doesn't seem to him that it is

knowledge but something more.

K: I know all that.

B: Now he does not see that his knowledge of his status is

behind the trouble. Knowledge seems to be at first sight something

passive, something which you know, which you could use if you

wanted to and which you could fail to use if you don't want to, just

put it aside, you see, which is the way it should be.

K: I understand all that.

B: But when the moment comes, knowledge no longer appears

to be knowledge. You see how would you, if you were to talk to

some politician - I think once somebody wanted you to talk to Mao

Tze Tung - you would probably get nowhere.

K: No! The politicians and the people in power wouldn't even

listen to me. The religious people won't listen to you, the so-called

religious people. It is only the people who are discontented, who

are frustrated, who feel they have lost everything, perhaps those

will listen. But they won't listen so that it is a real burning thing.

How does one go about it? Say for instance, I have left Catholicism

and Protestantism and all that nonsense, and also I have a career, I

know it is necessary to have knowledge there, but I have come to a

point, as a human being, living in this world, I see how important it

is not to be caught in the process of knowledge, psychological

knowledge, and yet I can't let it go. It is always dodging me, I am

playing tricks with it. It is like hide and seek.

All right. From there we said that is the wall I have to break

down. We are approaching it differently. That is the wall I have to

break down - not 'I' - that is the wall that has to be broken down.

And we said that wall can be broken down through love and

intelligence. Aren't we asking something enormously difficult?

B: Well, it is difficult.

K: I am behind, this side of the wall, and you are asking me to

have that love and intelligence which will destroy the wall. But I

don't know what that love is, what that intelligence is, because I am

caught in this, on this side of the wall. And I realize what you are

saying is accurate, true, logical, and I see the importance of it, but

the wall is so strong and dominant and powerful that I can't get

beyond it. And we said the other day that the wall can be broken

down through insight - we went into that. That insight becomes an

idea.

B: Yes.

K: It is not an actuality and you say, 'Yes, I understand it, I see

it', but when you describe the insight, whether it is possible, how it

is brought about and so on, I immediately make an abstraction of it,

which means I move away from the fact and the abstraction

becomes all important. Which means knowledge.

B: Yes, well it is the activity of knowledge.

K: So I am back again.

B: Well I think the general difficulty is this: that knowledge is

not just sitting there as a form of information but it is extremely

active, meeting every moment and shaping every moment

according to the past knowledge, so even when we raise this issue

knowledge is all the time waiting and then acting.

K: All the time waiting, yes.

B: One point is that our whole tradition is that knowledge is not

active but passive, it is really active but people don't generally

think of it that way.

K: Of course.

B: They think it is just sitting there.

K: It is waiting.

B: It is waiting to act, you see. And anything you try to do about

it, knowledge is already acting. By the time you realize that this is

the problem it has already acted.

K: Yes. Do I realize it as a problem, or an idea which I must

carry out? You see the difference?

B: Yes, the first point is that knowledge automatically turns

everything into an idea which you must carry out. That is the

whole way it is built. Right?

K: That is the whole way I have lived.

B: Knowledge can't do anything else.

K: How am I to break that even for a second?

B: It seems to me that if you could see, observe, be aware, if

knowledge could be aware of itself at work, the point is that

knowledge seems to work unawares, you see, it is just simply

waiting there and then acts and by that time it has disrupted the

order of the brain.

K: I am very concerned about this because wherever I go this is

what is happening. And it has become a problem, not for me, but it

is something that has to be resolved. Would you say the capacity to

listen is far more important than any of this, any explanations, any

logic, to listen?

B: It comes to the same problem.

K: No, no. It doesn't. I want to see if there is a possibility that

when I listen, listen to what you are saying so completely the wall

has broken down. You understand? I am trying to find out sir. I am

an ordinary man and you are telling me all this, and I realize what

you are saying is so. And I am concerned about it, I am really

deeply involved in what you are saying. And somehow the flame

isn't lit, all the fuel is there but the fire isn't there. So what, as an

ordinary man, what shall I do? This is my everlasting cry.

B: If it is the capacity to listen then we have the question of say

the ordinary man is full of opinions, you see, so he can't listen.

K: You can't listen with opinions, you might be just as well

dead.

B: You see I think knowledge has all sorts of defences. If you

are thinking of trying to spread, make it possible for people, say the

ordinary man, to have this perception, that is really what you are

asking, isn't it?

K: Yes.

B: At least those who are interested. Now I think knowledge has

a tremendous number of defences, it is against perceiving this. It

has evolved in such a way that it resists, is built so as to resist

seeing this, so it has opinions which also act immediately.

K: I understand that, sir. But I want to find, not a drug, not a

medicine, not a way, but there must be a communication between

you and me who is the ordinary man, a communication so that the

communication is so strong that very act of listening to you and

you communicating with me operates.

B: Right.

K: You follow?

B: Yes, then you have to break through this opinion, through the

whole structure.

K: Of course, of course. That is why I have come here. As an

ordinary man I have come for that. I have left all the churches and

all that stuff, I have thrown them miles away, years away, I have

finished with all that. I have just come here and I realize all that

has been said here is true and I am burning to find out. When you

communicate with me your communication is so strong, so real.

You follow? You are not speaking from knowledge, you are not

speaking from opinion and all the rest of it. You are really a free

human being who is trying to communicate with me.

B: Right.

K: And can I listen with that intensity which, you the

communicator, is giving me?

B: Well, we would have to ask, is the ordinary man full of that?

K: No, he is not. He wants the pub. No, I said I am an ordinary

man but I have moved away from all that, I have come here. I have

left all that. I also realize in opinions I can grow, multiply, gather

opinions, which is partly prejudice and all the rest of it, I realize all

that. And I want to listen to somebody who is telling the truth and

in the very telling of it something is taking place in me. I don't

know if you understand. And because I am so ardently listening it

happens. I wonder if I am conveying anything. After all you, a

great scientist, I am one of your students, you want to tell me

something. You are telling me about something which I know must

be enormously important because you have given your life to it,

and as a student I have given up so much just to come here. Is it the

fault of you who are communicating with me that I don't receive it

instantly? You understand? Or is it my fault that I am incapable of

really listening to you?

B: Well, whichever it is, but suppose the difficulty is that I am

incapable of listening,then what can be done?

K: No, nothing can be done. You see that is the difficulty. If I

am incapable of listening because I am full of prejudices, opinions,

and judgements, defences and all the rest of it has built up, and

then, of course, I won't listen to you.

B: Well let's say there is somebody who comes along who has

got through some of these defences and so on, but perhaps there

are others that he is not aware of, you see. There is something not

quite so simple as that.

K: I think it is simple. I feel it is dreadfully simple somehow. I

think it is that if I could listen with all my being, with all my

attention, it takes place. It is as simple as that, I think.

You see, sir, you are telling me something and I am absorbing

it, so there is an interval between my telling and your absorbing. I

don't know if I am conveying it?

B: Yes.

K: And in that interval is the danger. If I didn't absorb it

absolutely, listen to it with all my being, it is finished. Is it because

in this there is no shadow of pleasure? You follow what I am

saying? You are not offering me any pleasure, any gratification.

You are saying, it is so, take it. But my mind is so involved in

pleasure it must be pleasurable to listen. You follow what I mean?

B: Yes.

K: I won't listen to anything that is not completely satisfactory. I

realize too the danger of that.

B: Danger?

K: Of seeking satisfaction and pleasure and all that. I say, 'All

right, I won't, I see what I am doing' - so I put that aside too. No

pleasure, no reward, no punishment, in listening but there is only

pure observation.

So we come back to that point: is pure observation, which is

actually listening, is that pure observation love? I think it is. Again

you have stated it and then my mind says - I am fairly ordinary, I

have come here - my mind immediately says, 'Give it to me. Tell

me what to do'. You see when I ask you, 'Tell me what to do', I am

back in the knowledge, in the field of knowledge. It is so

instantaneous. So I refuse to ask you what to do. Then where am I?

You have told me perception without any motive, direction, pure

perception is love. And in that perception/love is intelligence. They

are not three separate things, they are all one thing. I have a feeling

for it. Because you have lead me very carefully - not lead me - you

have pointed out very carefully step by step, and I have come to

that point, I have a feeling for it. I am sensitive enough by listening

to all this, to come to that point when I have a feeling and say, 'By

Jove, that is so'. But it goes away so quickly. Then begins, 'How

am I get it back?' Again the remembrance of it, which is

knowledge, blocks.

B: Well what you are saying is that every time there is a

communication, knowledge gets to work in many different forms.

K: So you see it is enormously difficult to be free of knowledge.

B: It seems we could ask why doesn't knowledge wait until it is

needed?

K: Ah, that requires, sir - that means to be psychologically free

of knowledge but when the occasion arises you are acting from

freedom, not from knowledge..

B: But knowledge comes in as information.

K: Yes.

B: It informs your action but it is not the source.

K: That is, to put it rather succinctly, freedom from knowledge,

and being free it is from freedom one communicates, not from

knowledge. I wonder if I am making this clear?

B: Yes.

K: That is, from emptiness there is communication. One may

use the word, or language, which is the outcome of knowledge, but

it is from that state of complete freedom.

B: Yes. Knowledge, communication, takes place but it is

concerning the question of knowledge as the irrelevance of

knowledge, of psychological knowledge, that is the

communication.

K: Yes. Now, sir, can I communicate with you from freedom?

Suppose I, as a human being, have come to that point where there

is complete freedom from knowledge and from that freedom a

communication, using words, takes place. Right? Now will you, as

a scientist, of great scientific eminence and all the rest of it, will

you - please, I am being polite - will you communicate with me,

can I communicate with you without any barrier? You follow what

I am saying?

B: Yes.

K: You understand what I am saying, I am not trying to.. Can I

communicate with another - or rather let me put it the other way.

Can that man who is free, totally free from knowledge, but uses

knowledge merely as a means of communication, can I be in such a

state of mind to receive that communication?

B: Yes, well if knowledge is seen to be information, you see

knowledge ordinarily seems more than information, it seems that

knowledge itself does not ordinarily see that knowledge is not free.

K: It is never free.

B: No, but it may seem it at first sight, you are free to use your

knowledge, you see.

K: Of course.

B: But it isn't free and any activity of knowledge is part of the

un-freedom.

K: Of course. If I am going to understand myself I must be free

to look at myself.

B: And knowledge has pressures in it to prevent you.

K: Knowledge prevents me from looking then. That is so

obvious. Sorry!

B: Well I mean it may be obvious at this stage, but I am saying

that generally people don't see that. Let's leave that aside.

K: If I am full of opinions and judgements and evaluations and

to look at myself I must be somewhat free from it to look. It is so

clear.

B: Yes, but I mean probably one tends to say that there are

certain kinds of knowledge which are harmful like prejudice and

then you say there are other kinds which are not harmful.

K: The whole business.

B: The whole thing is one structure, yes. It is impossible to have

prejudice in one part without having it in the other.

K: How will you communicate with me who have come to a

certain point when I am really grasping - not grasp - burning to

receive what you are saying, so completely it is finished? Am I,

having come here, am I in that state really? Or am I fooling

myself?

B: Well that is the question: knowledge is constantly deceiving

itself.

K: Of course.

B: Well I think I would say that knowledge, it is not even that I

am deceiving myself but knowledge has a built-in tendency to

deceive itself.

K: So, sir, is my mind always deceiving itself?

B: The tendency is it's constantly there when knowledge is

operating psychologically.

K: So what shall I do? Come back to that.

B: Well, there is the question of deceiving oneself. Again I

think it is the same point: to listen.

K: Why don't we listen, sir? Why don't we immediately

understand this thing, instantly, immediately, why? One can give

the reasons why but that doesn't - old age, conditioning, laziness,

ten different things.

B: Well that is superficial.

K: Meaningless.

B: But would it be possible to give the deep reason for it?

K: We come back to the same thing. You see I think, sir, is it

that the knowledge which is the 'me'..

B: Yes, that is the point, yes.

K:.. the knowledge which is the 'me' is so tremendously strong

as an idea, not as a fact?

B: Yes, I understand it is an idea. That is what I tried to say, that

the idea has tremendous significance and meaning. For example,

suppose you have the idea of god, this takes on a tremendous

power.

K: Or like I am British, or French, it gives me great energy.

B: And so it creates a state of the body which seems to be the

very being of the self. Now the person doesn't experience it as

mere knowledge but at first feels something very powerful which

doesn't seem to be knowledge.

K: Yes. Are we going round and round and round? It seems like

it.

B: Well I was wondering if there is anything that could be

communicated about that overwhelming power that seems to come

with knowledge.

K: And with identification.

B: With identification. That seems to be something that would

be worth looking into.

K: What does the word - I have forgotten - the root meaning of

identification?

B: Well, always the same.

K: Always the same, that's right. That's it, you see! It is always

the same. There is nothing new under the sun.

B: That is the essence of it. You say the self is always the same.

It tries to be always the same in essence if not in details.

K: Yes, yes.

B: I think this is the thing that goes wrong with knowledge that

knowledge attempts to be knowledge of what is always the same,

you see, so it holds, you see.

K: Of course, it is always the same.

B: And knowledge itself tries to find what is permanent and

perfect and always the same. I mean even independent of any of us

you see. It is built into, like the cells, you see.

K: From this arises a question: is it possible to attend? I am

trying to use the word diligent. Is it possible to diligently attend?

Diligence in the sense of being accurate.

B: Literally it means to take pains.

K: To take pains, of course. To take pain, take the whole if it.

Sir, there must be some other way round all this intellectual

business. We have exercised a great deal of intellectual capacity

and that intellectual capacity has led to the blank wall. I approach it

from every direction and eventually the wall is there, which is the

'me', with my knowledge, my prejudice, and all the rest of it - me.

And the 'me' then says, 'I must do something about it' - which is

still the me. We all know that.

B: Well the 'me' wants to be always the same at the same time it

tries to be different.

K: Put on a different coat. It is always the same. So the mind

which is functioning with the 'me' is always the same mind. Good

Lord, you see, sir, back again!

B: You see, 'always the same' gives a tremendous force. Now is

it possible to leave go of that 'always the same', you know?

K: You see, we have tried everything - fasting, every kind of

thing to get rid of the 'me with all its knowledge, with all its

illusions and so on. One tries to identify with something else,

which is the same. A serious man has done all this and comes back

to the fundamental question: what will make this wall totally

disappear? I think, sir, that it is only possible when I can give my

total attention to what you are saying. There is no other means to

break down the wall - not the intellect, not the emotions, not any of

these things. When somebody who is beyond the wall, has gone

beyond, broken down the wall, says, 'Listen, for god's sake listen'.

Can I listen to you - when I listen to you my mind is empty. So

it is finished. You follow what I am saying?

B: You see I think generally that one would feel OK, it is

finished, but something will happen in its own time.

K: I have no sense of hoping to come back, to have it in the

future, or - it is empty and therefore listening. It is finished.

We had better stop, we have come to a point. Five minutes is

enough.

I would like to go on differently. You are a scientist, to discover

something new, you must have a certain emptiness from which

there will be a different perception.

B: Yes, but I think there is a difference in the sense that usually

the question is limited and so the mind may be empty with regard

to that question.

K: That particular question, yes.

B: Allowing for discovery and insight in that question.

K: But can that mind, which has been specializing, therefore

enquiring into something it becomes empty and rom that emptiness

you discover something new. I understand that. But without any

specialization, does this emptiness hold every other - I don't know.

B: Well, I think one has to ask - we are not questioning this

particular area but rather we are questioning the whole of

knowledge.

K: Knowledge, yes.

B: And..

K: It is most extraordinary when you go into it.

B: As you were saying, the end of knowledge is the Vedanta.

K: That is the real answer.

B: But if a person can take this scientific attitude and question

the whole of knowledge..

K: Oh, of course, of course.

B: But generally people would feel they must keep knowledge

in one area to be able to question it in another. You see this is

something that might worry people to say, with what knowledge do

I question that knowledge?

K: Yes. With what knowledge I question my knowledge? Quite.

B: In a way we do have knowledge because we have seen that

this whole structure, we have gone through it logically and

rationally and seen that the whole structure makes no sense, that it

is inconsistent and has no meaning. The structure of psychological

knowledge has no meaning, it has been done already.

K: Would you then from there, from that emptiness: is there a

ground or a source from which all things begin? Matter, human

beings, their capacities, the whole movement starts from there.

B: We could consider that certainly. But let's try to clarify it a

little. We have the emptiness.

K: Yes, emptiness in which there is no movement of thought as

knowledge, of course.

B: As psychological knowledge.

K: Of course, I understand that.

B: So, well then..

K: And therefore no time.

B: No psychological time.

K: Yes, no psychological time.

B: Though we still have the watch.

K: Yes. We have gone beyond that, don't let's go back to it.

B: The words are often confusing, they carry wrong meanings.

K: Psychological time. There is no psychological time, no

movement of thought. And is that emptiness the beginning of all

movement?

B: Well, would you say the emptiness is the ground then?

K: That is what I am asking. Let's go slowly into this. Shall we

postpone this for another day?

B: Well perhaps it should be gone into more carefully.

K: We had better stop.

B: Well just one thing: in California we were saying there is the

emptiness and beyond that is the ground.

K: I know, I know.

B: We leave it for the time.

K: When do we meet again?

B: It is two days from now, on Saturday.

K: The day after tomorrow.

B: Yes.

K: Right, sir.

(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 11

��

Comments

0 responses to "The Ending of Time J. Krishnamurti and Dr. David Bohm - Part 11"

Hindu Vedic Philosophy (The Paramardha Tattwam)

The Ending of Time J. Krishnamurti and Dr. David Bohm - Part 11

Comments

Post a Comment

About Me

Followers

map

Blog Archive

visitors

visitors

About Me

Labels

Blog Archive