The Ending of Time
J. Krishnamurti
and
Dr. David Bohm
K: Of course.
DB: If you go back in time...
K: ...a tribe becomes a nation...
DB: And then the group must fight its
neighbour.
K: Men use this marvellous technology to
kill each other. But
we re talking about problems of
relationships, problems of lack of
freedom, this sense of constant
uncertainty and fear, the struggle to
work for a livelihood for the rest of
one's life. The whole thing
seems so extraordinarily wrong.
DB: I think people have lost sight of
that. Generally speaking
they accept the situation in which they
find themselves, and try to
make the best of it, trying to solve some
small problems to
alleviate their circumstances. They
wouldn't even look at this
whole situation seriously.
K: But the religious people have created a
tremendous problem
for man.
DB: Yes. They are trying to solve problems
too. I mean
everybody is caught up in his own little
fragment, solving whatever
he thinks he can solve, but it all adds up
to chaos.
K: To chaos and wars! That is what we are
saying. We live in
chaos. But I want to find out if I can
live without a single problem
for the rest of my life. Is that possible?
DB: Well, I wonder if we should even call
these things
problems, you see. A problem would be
something that is
reasonably solvable. If you put the
problem of how to achieve a
certain result, then that presupposes that
you can reasonably find a
way to do it technologically. But
psychologically, the problem
cannot be looked at in that way; to
propose a result you have to
achieve, and then find a way to do it.
K: What is the root of all this? What is
the cause of all this
human chaos? I am trying to come to it
from a different angle, to
discover whether there is an ending to
problems. You see,
personally, I refuse to have problems.
DB: Somebody might argue with you about
that and say that
maybe you are not challenged with
something.
K: I was challenged the other day about
something very, very
serious. That is not a problem.
DB: Then it is a matter of clarification.
part of the difficulty is
clarification of the language.
K: Clarification, not only of language,
but of relationship and
action. A problem arose the other day
which involved lots of
people, and a certain action had to be
taken. But to me personally it
was not a problem.
DB: We have to make it clear what you
mean, because without
an example, I don't know.
K: I mean by a problem something that has
to be resolved,
something you worry about; something you
are questioning, and
endlessly concerned with. Also doubts and uncertainties,
and
having to take some kind of action which
you will regret at the end.
DB: Let's begin with the technical problem
where the idea first
arose. You have a challenge, something
which needs to be done,
and you say that is a problem.
K: Yes, that is generally called a
problem.
DB: Now the word problem is based on the
idea of putting forth
something - a possible solution - and then
trying to achieve it.
K: Or, I have a problem but I don't know
how to deal with it.
DB: If you have a problem and you have no
idea how to deal
with it...
K: ...then I go round asking people for
advice, and getting more
and more confused.
DB: This would already be a change from
the simple idea of a
technical problem, where you usually have
some notion of what to
do.
K: I wonder if we do? Surely technical
problems are fairly
simple. DB: They often bring challenges
requiring us to go very
deeply and change our ideas. With a
technical problem, we
generally know what we have to do to solve
it. For example, if
there is lack of food, what we have to do
is to find ways and means
of producing more. But with a
psychological problem, can we do
the same?
K: That is the point. How do we deal with
this thing?
DB: Well, what kind of problem shall we
discuss?
K: Any problem which arises in human
relationships.
DB: Let's say that people cannot agree;
they fight each other
constantly.
K: Yes, let's take that for a simple
thing. It seems to be almost
impossible for a group of people to think
together, to have the
same outlook and attitude. I don't mean
copying each other, of
course. But each person puts his opinion
forward and is
contradicted by another - which goes on
all the time, everywhere.
DB: All right. So can we say that our
problem is to work
together, to think together?
K: Work together, think together,
co-operate without the
involvement of monetary issues.
DB: That is another question, whether
people will work
together if they are highly paid.
K: So how do we solve this problem? In a
group, all of us are
offering different opinions, and we don't
meet each other at all.
And it seems almost impossible to give up
one's opinions.
DB: Yes, that is one of the difficulties,
but I am not sure that
you can regard it as a problem, and ask,
what shall we do to give
up opinions.
K: No, of course. But that is a fact. So
observing that, and
seeing the necessity that we should all
come together, people still
cannot give up their opinions, their
ideas, their own experiences
and conclusions.
DB: Often it may not seem to them like an
opinion, but the
truth.
K: Yes, they would call it fact. But what
can man do about these
divisions? We see the necessity of working
together - not for some
ideal, belief, some principle or some god.
In various countries
throughout the world, and even in the
United Nations they are not
working together.
DB: Some people might say that we not only
have opinions, but
self-interest. If two people have
conflicting self-interests, there is
no way, as long as they maintain their
attachment to these, that
they can work together. So how do we break
into this?
K: If you point out to me that we must
work together, and show
me the importance of it, then I also see
that it is important. But I
can't do it!
DB: That's the point. It is not enough
even to see that cooperation
is important, and to have the intention of
achieving this.
With this inability there is a new factor
coming in. Why is it that
we cannot carry out our intentions?
K: One can give many reasons for that, but
those causes and
reasons and explanations don't solve the
problem. We come back
to the same thing - what will make a human
mind change? We see
that change is necessary, and yet are
incapable or unwilling to
change. What factor - what new factor - is
necessary for this?
DB: Well, I feel it is the ability to
observe deeply whatever it is
that is holding the person and preventing
him from changing.
K: So is the new factor attention?
DB: Yes, that is what I meant. But also,
we have to consider
what kind of attention.
K: First let's discuss what is attention.
DB: It may have many meanings to different
people.
K: Of course, as usual, there are so many
opinions!
Where there is attention, there is no
problem. Where there is
inattention, every difficulty arises. Now
without making attention
itself into a problem, what do we mean by
it? Can we understand
it, not verbally, not intellectually, but
deeply, in our blood?
Obviously attention is not concentration.
It is not an endeavour, an
experience, a struggle to be attentive.
You must show me the
nature of attention, which is that when there
is attention, there is no
centre from which `I' attend. DB: Yes, but
that is the difficult thing.
K: Don't let's make a problem of it.
DB: I mean that people have been trying
this for a long time. I
think that there is first of all some
difficulty in understanding what
is meant by attention, because of the
content of thought itself When
a person is looking at it, he may think he
is attending.
K: No, in that state of attention there is
no thought.
DB: But how do you stop thought then? You
see, while thinking
is going on, there is an impression of
attention - which is not
attention. But one thinks, one supposes
that one is paying attention.
K: When one supposes one is paying
attention, that is not it.
DB: So how do we communicate the true
meaning of attention?
K: Or would you say rather that to find
out what is attention, we
should discuss what is inattention?
DB: Yes.
K: And through negation come to the
positive. When I am
inattentive, what takes place? In my
inattentiveness, I feel lonely,
depressed, anxious, and so on.
DB: The mind begins to break up and go
into confusion.
K: Fragmentation takes place. And in my
lack of attention, I
identify myself with many other things.
DB: Yes, and it may be pleasant - but it
can be painful too.
K: I find, later on, that what was
pleasing becomes pain. So all
that is a movement in which there is no
attention. Right? Are we
getting anywhere?
DB: I don't know.
K: I feel that attention is the real
solution to all this - a mind
which is really attentive, which has
understood the nature of
inattention and moves away from it!
DB: But first, what is the nature of
inattention? K: Indolence,
negligence, self-concern,
self-contradiction - all that is the nature
of inattention.
DB: Yes. You see, a person who has
self-concern may feel that
he is attending but he is simply concerned
with himself.
K: Yes. If there is self contradiction in
me, and I pay attention
to it in order not to be
self-contradictory, that is not attention.
DB: But can we make this clear, because
ordinarily one might
think that this is attention.
K: No, it is not. It is merely a process
of thought, which says, `I
am this, I must not be that'.
DB: So you are saying that this attempt to
become, is not
attention.
K: Yes, that's right. Because the
psychological becoming breeds
inattention.
DB: Yes.
K: Isn't it very difficult, Sir, to be
free of becoming? That is the
root of it. To end becoming.
DB: Yes. There is no attention, and that
is why these problems
are there.
K: Yes, and when you point that out, the
paying attention also
becomes a problem.
DB: The difficulty is that the mind plays
tricks, and in trying to
deal with this, it does the very same
thing again.
K: Of course. Can the mind, which is so
full of knowledge, selfimportance,
self-contradiction, and all the rest of
it, come to a point
where it finds itself psychologically
unable to move?
DB: There is nowhere for it to move.
K: What would I say to a person who has
come to that point? I
come to you. I am full of this confusion,
anxiety, and sense of
despair, not only for myself but for the
world. I come to that point,
and I want to break through it. So it
becomes a problem to me.
DB: Then we are back; there is again an
attempt to become, you
see. K: Yes. That is what I want to get
at. So is that the root of all
this? The desire to become?
DB: Well, it must be close to it.
K: So how do I look, without the movement
of becoming, at
this whole complex issue of myself?
DB: It seems that one hasn't looked at the
whole. We did not
look at the whole of becoming, when you said,
`How can I pay
attention?' part of it seemed to slip out,
and became the observer.
Right?
K: Psychological becoming has been the
curse of all this. A
poor man wants to be rich, and a rich man
wants to be richer, it is
all the time this movement of becoming,
both outwardly and
inwardly. And though it brings a great
deal of pain and sometimes
pleasure, this sense of becoming,
fulfilling, achieving
psychologically, has made my life into all
that it is. Now I realize
that, but I can't stop it.
DB: Why can't I stop it?
K: Let's go into that. Partly I am
concerned in becoming
because there is a reward at the end of
it; also I am avoiding pain
or punishment. And in that cycle I am
caught. That is probably one
of the reasons why the mind keeps on
trying to become something.
And the other perhaps is deep rooted
anxiety or fear that if I don't
become something, I am lost. I am
uncertain an insecure, so the
mind has accepted these illusions and
says, I cannot end that
process of becoming.
DB: But why doesn't the mind end it? Also
we have to go into
the question of being trapped by these
illusions.
K: How do you convince me that I am caught
in an illusion?
You can't, unless I see it myself I cannot
see it because my illusion
is so strong. That illusion has been nurtured,
cultivated by religion,
by the family, and so on. It is so deeply
rooted that I refuse to let it
go. That is what is taking place with a
large number of people.
They say, `I want to do this but I
cannot'. Now given that situation,
what are they to do? Will explanations,
logic and all the various
contradictions, theories, help them?
Obviously not.
DB: Because it all gets absorbed into the
structure. K: So what
is the next thing?
DB: You see, if they say, `I want to
change', there is also the
wish not to change.
K: Of course. The man who says, `I want to
change', has also at
the back of his mind, `Really, why should
I change?' They go
together.
DB: So we have a contradiction.
K: I have lived in this contradiction, I
have accepted it.
DB: But why should I have accepted it?
K: Because it is a habit.
DB: But when the mind is healthy, it will
not accept a
contradiction.
K: But our mind isn't healthy. The mind is
so diseased, so
corrupt, so confused, that even though you
point out all the dangers
of this, it refuses to see them.
So how do we help a man who is caught in
this to see clearly
the danger of psychological becoming?
Let's put it that way.
psychological becoming implies
identification with a nation, a
group, and all that business.
DB: Yes, holding to opinions.
K: Opinions and beliefs; I have had an
experience, it gives me
satisfaction, I am going to hold on to it.
How do you help me to be
free of all this? I hear your words - they
seem quite right, but I can't
move out of all that.
I wonder if there is another factor,
another way of
communication, which isn't based on words,
knowledge,
explanations and reward and punishment. Is
there another way of
communicating? You see, in that too there
is danger. I am sure
there is a way which is not verbal,
analytical or logical, which
doesn't mean lack of sanity.
DB: Perhaps there is.
K: My mind has always communicated with
another with
words, explanations and logic, or with
suggestion. There must be
another element which breaks through all
that. DB: It will break
through the inability to listen.
K: Yes, the inability to listen, the
inability to observe, to hear,
and so on. There must be a different
method. I have met several
men who have been to a certain saint, and
in his company they say
all problems are resolved. But when they
go back to their daily life,
they are back in the old game.
DB: There was no intelligence in it, you
see.
K: That is the danger. That man, that
saint, being quiet and nonverbal
in the presence of that saint they feel
quiet, and think that
their problems are resolved.
DB: But this is still from the outside.
K: Of course. It is like going to church.
In an ancient church, or
cathedral, you feel extraordinarily quiet.
It is the atmosphere, the
structure - you know; the very atmosphere
makes you feel quiet.
DB: Yes, it communicates what is meant by
quietness, nonverbally.
K: That is nothing. It is like incense!
DB: It is superficial.
K: Utterly superficial; like incense, it
evaporates! So we push
all that aside, and then what have we
left? Not an outside agency, a
god, or some saviour. What have I left?
What is there that can be
communicated, which will break through the
wall that human
beings have built for themselves?
Is it love? That word has become
corrupted, loaded, dirty. But
cleansing that word, is love the factor
that will break through this
clever analytical approach? Is love the
element that is lacking?
DB: Well, we have to discuss it; perhaps
people are somewhat
chary of that word.
K: I am chary beyond words!
DB: And, therefore, as people resist
listening, they will resist
love too.
K: That is why I said it is rather a risky
word.
DB: We were saying the other day that love
contains
intelligence. K: Of course.
DB: Which is care as well; we mean by love
that energy which
also contains intelligence and care; all
that...
K: Now wait a minute: you have that
quality and I am caught in
my misery, anxiety, etc., and you are
trying to penetrate with that
intelligence this mass of darkness. How
will you do it? Will that
act? If not, we human beings are lost. You
follow, Sir? Therefore
we have vented jesus, Buddha, Krishna -
images which have
become meaningless, superficial and
nonsensical.
So what shall I do? I think that is the
other factor. Attention,
perception, intelligence and love - you
bring all this to me, and I
am incapable of receiving it. I say, `It
sounds nice; I feel it, but I
can't hold it'. I can't hold it, because
the moment I go outside this
room, I am lost!
DB: That really is the problem.
K: Yes, that is the real problem. Is love
something outside, as
heaven - and all that stuff is outside. Is
love something outside,
which you bring to me, which you awaken in
me, which you give
me as a gift - or, in my darkness,
illusion and suffering, is there
that quality? Obviously not, there can't be.
DB: Then where is it?
K: That's just it. Love is not yours or
mine; it is not personal,
not something that belongs to anyone; love
is not that.
DB: That is an important point. Similarly
you were saying that
isolation does not belong to any one
person, although we tend to
think of isolation as a personal problem.
K: Of course. It is common ground for all
of us. Also,
intelligence is not personal.
DB: But again, that goes contrary to the
whole of our thinking,
you see.
K: I know.
DB: Everybody says this person is
intelligent, and that one is
not. So this may be one of the barriers to
the whole thing, that
behind the ordinary everyday thought there
is deeper thought of
mankind, but we generally feel divided,
and say these various
qualities either belong to us, or they
don't belong to us.
K: Quite. It is the fragmentary mind that
invents all this.
DB: It has been invented, but we have
picked it up verbally and
non-verbally, by implication, from
childhood. Therefore it
pervades, it is the ground of our thoughts,
of all our perceptions. So
this has to be questioned.
K: We have questioned it - that grief is
not my grief, grief is
human, and so on.
DB: But how are people to see that,
because a person who is
experiencing grief feels that it is his
personal grief?
K: I think it is partly because of our
education, partly our
society and traditions.
DB: But it is implicit in our whole way of
thinking. Then we
have to jump out of that, you see.
K: Yes. To jump out of that becomes a
problem, and then what
am I to do?
DB: Perhaps we can see that love is not
personal.
K: Earth is not English earth, or French
earth, earth is earth!
DB: I was thinking of an example in
physics: if the scientist or
chemist is studying an element such as
sodium, he does not say it is
his sodium, or that somebody else studies
his sodium. And of
course they compare notes, etc.
K: Quite. Sodium is sodium.
DB: Sodium is sodium, universally. So we
have to say that love
is love, universally.
K: Yes. But you see my mind refuses to see
that, because I am
so terribly personal, terribly concerned
with `me and my problems'.
I refuse to let that go. When you say
sodium is sodium, it is very
simple; I can see that. But when you say
to me that grief is
common to all of us, this is difficult.
DB: This can't be done with time, but it
took quite a while for
mankind to realize that sodium is sodium,
you see. K: Is love
something that is common to all of us?
DB: Well, in so far as it exists, it has
to be common.
K: Of course.
DB: It may not exist, but if it does, it has
to be common.
K: I am not sure it does not exist.
Compassion is not `I am
compassionate'. Compassion is there, is
something that is not `me'.
DB: If we say compassion is the same as
sodium, it is universal.
Then every person's compassion is the
same.
K: Compassion, love, and intelligence. You
can't have
compassion without intelligence.
DB: So we say intelligence is universal
too!
K: Obviously.
DB: But we have methods of testing
intelligence in particular
people, you see.
K: Oh, no.
DB: But perhaps that is all part of the
thing that is getting in the
way?
K: Part of this divisive, fragmentary way
of thinking.
DB: Well, there may be holistic thinking,
although we are not in
it yet.
K: Then holistic thinking is not thinking;
it is some other factor.
DB: Some other factor that we haven't gone
into yet.
K: If love is common to all of us, why am
I blind to it?
DB: I think partly because the mind
boggles; it just refuses to
consider such a fantastic change of
concept in a way of looking.
K: But you said just now that sodium is
sodium.
DB: You see, we have a lot of evidence for
that in all sorts of
experiments, built up through a lot of
work and experience. Now
we can't do that with love. You can't go
into a laboratory and prove
that love is love. K: Oh, no. Love isn't
knowledge. Why does one's
mind refuse to accept a very obvious
factor? Is it the fear of letting
go my old values, standards and opinions?
DB: I think it is probably something
deeper. It is hard to pin
down, but it isn't a simple thing,
although what you suggest is a
partial explanation.
K: That is a superficial explanation, I
know. Is it the deep
rooted anxiety, the longing to be totally
secure?
DB: But that again is based on
fragmentation.
K: Of course.
DB: If we accept that we are fragmented,
we will inevitably
want to be totally secure, because being
fragmented we are always
in danger.
K: Is that the root of it? This urge, this
demand, this longing to
be totally secure in our relationship with
everything? To be
certain?
Of course, there is complete security only
in nothingness!
DB: It is not the demand for security
which is wrong, but the
fragmentations. The fragment cannot
possibly be secure.
K: That is right. Like each country trying
to be secure, it is not
secure.
DB: But complete security could be
achieved if all the countries
got together. The way you have put it
sounds as if we should live
eternally in insecurity, you see.
K: No, we have made that very clear.
DB: It makes sense to ask for security,
but we are going about it
the wrong way. How do we convey that love
is universal, not
personal, to a man who has lived
completely in the narrow groove
of personal achievement? It seems the
first point is, will he
question his narrow, `unique' personality?
K: People question it; they see the logic
of what we are
discussing, yet, curiously, people who are
very serious in these
matters, have tried to find the wholeness
of life through starvation,
through torture - you know, every kind of
way. But you can't
apprehend or perceive or be the whole
through torture. So what
shall we do? Let's say I have a brother
who refuses to see all this.
And as I have great affection for him, I
want him to move out of
fragmentation. And I have tried to
communicate with him verbally,
and sometimes non-verbally, by a gesture
or by a look; but all this
is still from the outside. And perhaps
that is the reason why he
resists. Can I point out to my brother
that in himself this flame can
be awakened? It means he must listen to
me, but my brother
refuses to listen.
DB: It seems that there are some actions
which are not possible.
If a person is caught in a certain thought
such as fragmentation,
then he can't change it, because there are
a lot of other thoughts
behind it.
K: Of course.
DB: Thoughts he doesn't know. He is not
actually free to take
this action because of the whole structure
of thought that holds
him.
K: So how do I help - I use that word with
great caution - my
brother? What is the root of all this? We
talk of his becoming
aware - but all that is verbal; it can be
explained in different ways -
the cause, the effect, and all the rest of
it. After I explain all this, he
says, `You have left me where I am'. And
my intelligence, my
affection, says `I can't let him go'.
Which means, am I putting
pressure on him?
I am not using any kind of pressure, or
reward; my
responsibility is that I can't let another
human being go. It is not the
responsibility of duty and all that
dreadful stuff But it is the
responsibility of intelligence to say all
that to him. There is a
tradition in India that one who is called
the Maitreya Buddha took
a vow that he would not become the
ultimate Buddha until he had
liberated other human beings too.
DB: Altogether?
K: Yes. You see, the tradition hasn't
changed anything. How
can one, if one has that intelligence,
that compassion, that love,
which is not of a country, a person, an
ideal or a saviour, transmit
that purity to another? By living with
him, talking to him? You see
it can all become mechanical.
DB: Would you say that this question has
never really been
solved? K: I think so. But we must solve
it, you follow? It has not
been solved, but our intelligence says,
solve it. No, I think
intelligence doesn't say solve it;
intelligence says these are the
facts, and perhaps some will capture it.
DB: Well, it seems to me that there are
really two factors: one is
the preparation by reason to show that it
all makes sense; and from
there possibly some will capture it.
K: We have done that, Sir. The map has
been laid out, and he
has seen it very clearly; the conflicts,
the misery, the confusion, the
insecurity, the becoming. All that is
extremely clear. But at the end
of the chapter he is back at the
beginning. Or perhaps he has a
glimpse of it, and his craving to capture
that glimpse and hold on to
it becomes a memory. You follow? And all
the nightmare begins!
In showing him the map very clearly, can
we also point out to
him something much deeper than that, which
is love? He is groping
after all this. But the weight of body,
brain, tradition - all that
draws him back. So it is a constant battle
- and I think the whole
thing is so wrong.
DB: What is wrong?
K: The way we are living.
DB: Many people must see that by now.
K: We have asked whether man has taken a
wrong turning, and
entered into a valley where there is no escape.
That can't be so; that
is too depressing, too appalling.
DB: I think some people might object to
that. The very fact that
it is appalling does not make it untrue. I
think you would have to
give some stronger reason why you feel
that to be untrue.
K: Oh, yes.
DB: Do you perceive in human nature some
possibility of a real
change?
K: Of course. Otherwise everything would
be meaningless; we'd
be monkeys, machines. You see, the faculty
for radical change is
attributed to some outside agency, and
therefore we look to that,
and get lost in that. If we don't look to
anybody, and are completely
free from dependence, then solitude is
common to all of us. It is
not an isolation. It is an obvious fact
that when you see all this - the
stupidity and unreality of fragmentation
and division - you are
naturally alone. That sense of aloneness
is common, and not
personal.
DB: Yes, but the ordinary sense of
loneliness is personal in the
sense that each person feels it is his
own.
K: Loneliness is not solitude; it is not aloneness.
DB; I think all the fundamental things are
universal, and
therefore you are saying that when the
mind goes deep, it comes
into something universal.
K: That's right.
DB: Whether or not you call it absolute.
K: The problem is to make the mind go very,
very deeply into
itself.
DB: Yes. Now there is something that has
occurred to me.
When we start with a particular problem
our mind is very shallow,
then we go to something more general. The
word `general' has the
same root as `to generate', the genus is
the common generation...
K: To generate, of course.
DB: When we go to something more general,
a depth is
generated. But going on, still further,
the general is still limited
because it is thought.
K: Quite right. But to go profoundly,
requires not only
tremendous courage, but the sense of
constantly pursuing the same
stream.
DB: Well, that is not quite diligence;
that is still too limited,
right?
K: Yes, diligence is too limited. It goes
with a religious mind in
a sense that it is diligence in its action,
its thoughts and so on, but it
is still limited. If the mind can go from
the particular to the general
and from the general...
DB: ...to the absolute, to the universal.
But many people would
say that is very abstract, and has nothing
to do with daily life. K: I
know. Yet it is the most practical thing,
and not an abstraction.
DB: In fact, it is the particular that is
the abstraction.
K: Absolutely. The particular is the most
dangerous.
DB: It is also the most abstract, because
you only get to the
particular by abstracting.
K: Of course, of course.
DB: I think that this may be part of the
problem. People feel
they want something that really affects us
in daily life; they don't
just want to get themselves lost in
talking, therefore, they say, `All
these vapid generalities don't interest
us'.
It is true that what we are discussing
must work in daily life, but
daily life does not contain the solution
of its problems.
K: No. The daily life is the general and
the particular.
DB: The human problems which arise in daily
life cannot be
solved there.
K: From the particular, it is necessary to
move to the general;
from the general to move still deeper, and
there perhaps is the
purity of what is called compassion, love
and intelligence. But that
means giving your mind, your heart, your
whole being to this
enquiry.
We have talked now for a long time, I
think we have reached
somewhere.
OJAI 1ST
CONVERSATION WITH DAVID
BOHM 1ST APRIL,
1980 `THE ENDING OF TIME'
JK: Sir, how shall we start this?
DB: I understand you have something to
say.
JK: On lots of things but I do not know
how to start it.
DB: Oh.
JK: Sir, I would like to ask if humanity
has taken a wrong turn.
DB: A wrong turn? Well it must have done
so, a long time ago,
I think.
K: That is what I feel. A long time ago mankind
must have
turned.
DB: Yes.
K: I am just enquiring.
DB: It appears that way.
K: It appears that way - why? You see, as
I look at it, mankind
has always tried to become something - the
becoming.
DB: Well possibly. You see I think I was
struck by something I
read a long time ago about a man going
wrong when he began to
be able to plunder and take slaves about
five or six thousand years
ago. And then after that his main purpose
of existence was to just
exploit and plunder and take slaves.
K: Yes, but the sense of inward becoming.
DB: Well yes, we should make it clear how
this is connected.
What kind of becoming was involved in
doing that? Instead of
being constructive and discovering new
techniques, and metals,
and so on, they found it easier to plunder
their neighbours and take
slaves at a certain point.
K: Yes, yes, all that.
DB: Now what did they want to become?
K: That is, conflict has been the root of
all this.
DB: What was the conflict? You see if we
could put ourselves
in the place of the people a long time
ago, how would you see that
conflict?
K: What is the root of conflict, not only
outwardly, but also this
tremendous inward conflict of humanity?
What is the root of it?
DB: Well, it seems it would be
contradictory desires.
K: No. Is it that we are all trying, in
all religions it has been that
you must become something? You must reach.
DB: Yes, well what made people want to do
that? Why weren't
they satisfied to be whatever they were?
You see the religion
would not have caught on unless people
felt that there was some
attraction to becoming something more.
K: Isn't it an avoidance or rather, not
being able to face the fact
and change the fact, but rather move to
something else, more and
more and more.
DB: Yes. Well what would you say was the
fact that people
couldn't stay with?
K: What is the fact that people could not
stay with? The
Christians said, the original sin.
DB: Yes, well that is already a long time
- it happened long
before that.
K: Long before that. I am just saying.
Long before that. The
Hindus have this idea of Karma. What is
the origin of all this?
DB: Well we have said that there is a fact
that people couldn't
stay with. But whatever it was they wanted
to imagine something
better.
K: Yes, something better. Becoming more
and more and more.
DB: Yes. And you could say that
technologically they began to
make techniques to make things better
which made sense, and then
they extended this, without knowing it,
and said 'I too must become
better, all of us must'.
K: Yes, inside becoming better.
DB: All of us together must become better.
K: That's right. What is the root of all
this?
DB: Well I should thing it is natural in
thought to project this
goal of becoming better, that it is
intrinsic in the structure of
thought.
K: Is it becoming better outwardly - the
principle of becoming
better outwardly, move to the inside,
trying to become better.
DB: Yes, well that's clear that man didn't
know any reason why
he shouldn't do that.
K: I know, of course.
DB: He say, if it is good to become better
outwardly then why
shouldn't I become better inwardly.
K: Is that the cause of it?
DB: Well, that is getting towards it. It's
coming nearer.
K: It is coming nearer? Is time the
factor? Time as 'I need
knowledge in order to do - it doesn't
matter, whatever it is - I need
time for that'. The same principle applied
inwardly.
DB: It is the same general idea to say
that we project something
better outwardly which requires time and
therefore the same must
be done inwardly.
K: Is time the factor?
DB: Well time by itself I can't see is the
only factor.
K: No, no. Time, becoming which implies
time.
DB: Yes, but one would have to ask a
question here: time by
itself - we don't see how it is going to
cause trouble. We have to
say time applied outwardly causes no
difficulty.
K: It causes a certain amount, but
inwardly the idea of time.
DB: Yes, so we have to see why is time so
destructive inwardly.
K: Because I am trying to become
something.
DB: Yes but if I could say that most
people would say that is
only natural. We have to say what is it
about becoming that is
wrong.
K: In that there is conflict.
DB: Yes. O.K. So we see that then.
K: Obviously in that when I am trying to
become something it
is a constant battle.
DB: Yes. Can we go into that: why it is a
constant battle.
K: Oh, that is fairly simple.
DB: It is not a battle if I try to improve
my position outwardly.
K: Outwardly, no.
DB: It is not obvious. Yes, but it would
be good to bring it out
very much in the open why it is a battle
when we are trying to do
something inwardly.
K: Are we asking why it is that it is more
or less all right
outwardly, but inwardly when that same
principle is applied it
brings about a contradiction.
DB: Yes. And the contradiction is?
K: Between 'what is' and the 'becoming
what should be'.
DB: Yes, but then outwardly it would
appear there is a
contradiction too because we have a
certain situation here and we
try to make it into something else. Now
that seems all right.
K: That seems normal.
DB: The difficulty is why is it a
contradiction inwardly and not
outwardly, or the other way round?
K: Inwardly it builds up, doesn't it, a
centre, an egotistic centre.
DB: Yes, but if we could find some reason
why it should do
that. Does it do it when we do it
outwardly? It seems it needn't do.
K: It needn't do.
DB: Yes. Now when we are doing it inwardly
then we are
trying to force ourselves to be something
that we are not. Right?
K: Yes.
DB: And that is a fight. That is clear.
K: That is a fact.
DB: But it seems outwardly it needn't be a
fight. Because matter
will allow itself to be shaped - you know,
from what is to what it
should be.
K: Is it one's brain is so accustomed to
conflict that one rejects
any other form of living?
DB: Well that must have come later.
K: I understand that, I understand that.
DB: After a while people come to the
conclusion that conflict is
inevitable and necessary?
K: But the origin of conflict, we are
going into it. What's the
origin of conflict?
DB: I think we touched on it by saying we
are trying to force
ourselves, on the one hand I think when we
are a certain thing that
is what we want to be, and then we also
want to be something else,
which is different and therefore we want
two different things at the
same time. Would that seem right?
K: I understand that. But I am trying to
find out the origin of all
this misery, confusion, conflict, struggle
- what is the beginning of
it? That's why I asked at the beginning:
has mankind taken a wrong
turn? Is the origin 'I am not I'?
DB: Well, that might be getting closer. I
think that is getting
closer to separation between 'I am not I'.
K: Yes, that's it. And the 'I' - why has
mankind created this 'I',
which must inevitably cause conflict? 'I'
and you, and me better
and so on and so on and so on.
DB: I think that was a mistake made a long
time ago, or as you
call it a wrong turn, that again having
introduced separation
between various things outwardly we then,
not knowing better,
kept on doing. Not out of ill will but
simply not knowing better.
K: Quite, quite, quite.
DB: Not seeing what they are doing.
K: Is that the origin of all this?
DB: Well it is close. I am not sure that
it is the origin. What do
you feel?
K: I am inclined to observe that the
origin is that, the ego, the
'me', the 'I'.
DB: Yes.
K: If there is no ego there is no problem,
there is no conflict,
there is no time - time in the sense of
becoming, not becoming,
being or not being.
DB: But it might be that we would still
slip into whatever it was
that made us make the ego in the first
place.
K: Is it - wait a minute, wait a minute -
is it energy being so
vast, limitless, has been condensed or
narrowed down in the mind,
and the brain itself has become narrowed
down because it couldn't
contain all this enormous energy - you are
following what I am
saying?
DB: Yes.
K: And therefore gradually narrowed down
to me, to the 'I'.
DB: I don't quite follow that. I
understand that that is what
happened but I don't quite see all the
steps. If you say energy was
very broad, very big, and the brain you
say can't handle it, or it
decided it couldn't handle it?
K: It couldn't handle it.
DB: But if it can't handle it, it seems as
if there is no way out
them?
K: No, no, Just a minute. Wait, wait,
wait. Slowly. I just want to
enquire, push into it a little bit.
Why has the brain, with all thought and so
on, created this sense
of 'me', 'I'? Why? Outwardly, the family,
you follow, outwardly it
had to be that way.
DB: Well we needed a certain sense of
identity to function.
K: Yes, to function. To function, to have
a trade, function.
DB: To know where you belong.
K: Yes, and so on. And is that the
movement that has brought
that in? The movement of the outer, where
I had to identify - the
family, the house and so on gradually
became the me?
DB: Yes, well I think that this energy
that you are talking about
also entered into it.
K: Yes, I want to lead up to it slowly. I
have got an idea inside
I'll show you a little later.
DB: Somehow - you see certainly what you
say is right that in
some way this gradually strengthened but
by itself that wouldn't
explain the tremendous strength that the
ego has. It would only be
a habit then. The ego becoming completely
dominant required that
it become the focus of the highest energy,
you know, the greatest
energy, of all the energy?
K: Is that it? That the brain cannot hold
this vast energy?
DB: Well let's say the brain is trying to
control this, to bring it
to order.
K: Energy has no order.
DB: You see if the brain feels it can't
control something that is
going on inside, it will try to establish
order.
K: Sir, could we say that the brain, your
brain, his brain, her
brain, is not just born, it is very, very
old?
DB: Well, I would have to see what that
means anyway. In what
sense?
K: In the sense it has evolved.
DB: Evolved, yes, from the animal.
K: From the animal and so on.
DB: And the animal has evolved and so
let's say that in the
sense that this whole evolution is somehow
contained in the brain.
K: I want to question evolution. I
understand say, from the
bullock cart to the jet - I understand
that, that evolution.
DB: Yes. But before you question we have
to consider that
there is evidence of the development of a
series of steps, man
developing through a series of stages -
you can't question that, can
you?
K: No, of course not, of course not.
DB: I mean physically it is clear that
evolution has occurred in
some way.
K: Physically, yes.
DB: And the brain has got larger.
K: Quite.
DB: More complex. You may question whether
mentally
evolution has any meaning. I understand
that.
K: You see sir, I want to avoid time.
DB: Right. Go ahead.
K: Psychologically, you understand?
DB: Yes, I understand.
K: To me that is the enemy.
DB: Yes, I understand that very well.
K: You understand that?
DB: Yes.
K: Well that is something! And is that the
cause of it?
DB: I don't know what we mean by cause but
it is one point.
K: No, the origin of man's misery?
DB: Well this use of time certainly. Man
had to use time for a
certain purpose and he misused it.
K: I understand that. I mean if I had to
learn a language I must
have time.
DB: But the misuse of time by extending it
inwardly.
K: Inwardly, that is what I am talking
about.
DB: Yes. To the essence.
K: Is that the cause of this - man's
confusion - introducing time
as a means of becoming, and becoming more
and more perfect,
more and more evolved, more and more
loving? You follow what I
mean?
DB: Well, yes I understand. Certainly if
we didn't do that the
whole structure would collapse.
K: Collapse, that's it.
DB: But whether there is not some other
cause still, I don't
know.
K: Just a minute. I want to go into that a
little bit. If I - no, I am
not talking theoretically, personally. To
me the idea of tomorrow
doesn't exist psychologically.
DB: Right.
K: That is, time is a movement either
inwardly or outwardly.
Right?
DB: You mean psychological time?
K: Yes psychological time and time
outwardly.
DB: Yes. And certain relation between
those two.
K: Now if the psychological time doesn't
exist then there is no
conflict, there is no me, there is no 'I'
which is the origin of
conflict. Do you understand sir what I am
trying to get at?
Outwardly we moved, evolved - this
microphone and so on.
DB: And also in the inward physical
structure.
K: The structure, everything. But
psychologically we have also
moved outwardly.
DB: Yes, we have focused our life on the
outward. Is that what
you are saying?
K: Yes.
DB: We have turned our attention to the
outward.
K: No. I have extended my capacities
outwardly.
DB: Yes we have developed outwardly.
K: And inwardly it is the same movement
outwardly.
DB: Yes, whatever we do outwardly we do
inwardly.
K: Yes. I don't know whether I am
conveying this.
DB: I understand that in order to develop
outwardly in a certain
way through time and mechanism we have to
adopt that inward
structure.
K: Yes, now if there is no inward movement
as time, moving,
becoming more and more, then what takes
place? You understand
what I am trying to convey?
DB: Yes. Well then if we say this whole
movement of time
ceases - whatever that means - the word
'ceases' is wrong because
that is time.
K: Time ends.
DB: Without the movement of time that the
energy is...
K: You see the outer movement is the same
as the inward
movement.
DB: Yes. Whatever you do outwardly you
must do inwardly.
That seems correct.
K: And it is the same movement.
DB: Yes. It is going around and around.
K: Yes, yes, involving time.
DB: Yes.
K: If that movement ceases then what takes
place? I wonder if I
am conveying anything. Are we talking
nonsense? I don't think I
am talking nonsense.
Sir, could we put it this way: we have
never touched any other
movement than the outer movement.
DB: Yes, well generally anyway. We put
most of our energy
into the outward movements.
K: Outward, and psychologically is also
outward.
DB: Well it is the reflection of the
outward movement.
K: We think it is inward but it is actually
outward - right?
DB: Yes.
K: Now if that movement ends, as it must,
then is there a really
inward movement - movement not in terms of
time?
DB: You want to say: is there another kind
of movement?
K: Yes.
DB: It still moves but not in terms of
time.
K: That's right.
DB: We have to go into that. Could you go
further.
K: You see that word movement means time.
DB: Well it means to change place from one
place to another
really. But anyway still you have some
notion which is not static.
By denying time you don't want to return
to something static,
which still is time.
K: You see one's brain has been trained,
accustomed, for
centuries to go North, let's say for
instance. And it suddenly
realizes going North is everlasting
conflict. As it realizes it moves
East. In that movement the brain itself is
changing. Right?
DB: Well something changes, yes.
K: The quality of the brain changes.
DB: All right. Well I can see it will wake
up in some way to a
different movement.
K: Yes, different. A different movement
again - you see.
DB: Is the word flow any better?
K: If I am not going North, and I have
been going North all my
life, and there is a stoppage from going
North, but it is not going
East, or South or West, then conflict
ceases. Right? Because it is
not moving in any direction.
DB: All right. So that is the key point -
the direction of
movement. When the movement is fixed in
direction, inwardly it
will come to conflict. Outwardly we need a
fixed direction.
K: Of course we do. That's understood.
DB: Yes. So if we say it has no fixed
direction then what is it
doing? Is it moving in all directions?
K: I am hesitant to talk about this a
little bit. Could one say
when one really comes to that state, that
is the source of all energy?
DB: Yes, as you go deeper, more inwardly.
K: This is the real inwardness, not the
outward movement
becoming the inner movement but when there
is no outer and inner
movement.
DB: Yes, we can deny both the outward and
the inner, so that it
would seem to stop movement.
K: Would that be the source of all energy?
DB: Yes, well perhaps we could say that.
K: May I talk about myself a little bit?
DB: Yes.
K: It sounds so ridiculous.
DB: No, it doesn't actually. It seems to
make sense so far.
K: First of all conscious meditation is no
meditation. Right?
DB: What do you mean by conscious
meditation?
K: That is deliberate meditation, practice
and deliberate, which
is really premeditated meditation. Right?
Is there a meditation
which is not premeditated? Which is not
the ego trying to become
something, or the ego not trying to negate
negatively or positively.
DB: Yes. Now before we go ahead could we
suggest somewhat
what meditation should be. Is it an
observation of the mind
observing?
K: No, no, no. It has gone beyond all
that.
DB: Yes. So...
K: Sorry!
DB: You used the word meditation.
K: I am using meditation in the sense in
which there is not a
particle of endeavour, a particle of any
sense of trying to become,
consciously reach a level and so on.
DB: The mind is simply with itself,
silent.
K: That is what I want to get at.
DB: Not looking for anything.
K: You don't mind, we two are talking. You
see I don't meditate
in the normal sense of the word. What
happens with me is - I am
not talking personally, please: I wake up
meditating.
DB: In that state.
K: And one morning, one night in Rishi
Valley I woke up - a
series of incidents had taken place,
meditation for some days - I
woke up one night, in the middle of the
night, it was really a
quarter past twelve, I looked at the
watch. And I hesitate to say this
because it sounds extravagant and rather
childish: that the source of
all energy had been reached. And that had
an extraordinary effect
on the brain, and also physically. Sorry
to talk about myself but
you understand. Wait a minute, I don't
mind now I am in it.
And literally any sense of the world and
me and that - you
follow? - there was no division at all
only this sense of tremendous
source of energy. I don't know if I am
conveying it.
DB: So the brain was in contact with this
source of energy?
K: Yes. Now, coming down to earth, as I
have been talking for
sixty years, I'd like to, not help, I'd
like another to reach this - no,
not reach it - you understand what I am
saying? Because all our
problems are resolved, political,
religious, every problem is
resolved because it is pure energy from
the very beginning of time.
Now how am I - not I, you understand - how
is one to - not teach,
not help, not push, pressure - how is one
to say, 'This way leads to
a complete sense of peace, love and all
that'? I am sorry to use all
these words. Sir, you have it sir, suppose
you have come to that
point and your brain itself is throbbing
with it, how would you help
me? You understand? Not words, how would
you help me to come
to that? You understand what I am trying
to say?
DB: Yes.
K: My brain, brain, not mine, the brain
has evolved. Evolution
implies time and it can only think, live
in time. Now for it to deny
time is a tremendous activity of having no
problems. Any problem
that arises, any question is immediately
solved. It has no duration,
of a problem.
DB: Well is this sustained? Is this
situation sustained or is it for
that period?
K: It is sustained, obviously, otherwise
there is no point in it. It
is not sporadic, intermittent and all
that. Now how are you to open
the door, shut, however, how are you to
help me to say, 'Look, we
have been going in the wrong direction,
there is only another nonmovement,
and if that takes place, you follow,
everything will be
correct.' It sounds silly all this.
DB: Well yes. I think I can't know if
everything is going to be
correct. It is hard to know beforehand if
everything is going to be
correct. But the movement would have value
anyway. Certainly it
should make a big difference.
K: Sir, let's go back to what we began
with. That is, has
mankind taken a wrong turn,
psychologically, not physically?
DB: Yes, we went into that - the turn in
various ways.
K: Can that turn be completely reversed?
Or stopped? Say, my
brain is so accustomed to this
evolutionary idea that I will become
something, I will gain something, I must
have more knowledge and
so on and so on, can that brain realize
suddenly there is no such
thing as time? You understand what I am
trying to say?
DB: Yes.
K: I was listening the other day to Darwin
on the television, his
voyage, and what he achieved and so on and
so on, his whole
evolution.
DB: Oh, Darwin, yes.
K: It seems to me that is a wrong thing
psychologically. Totally
untrue.
DB: Once again it seems that he has given
evidence that these
species have changed in time. Now why is
that untrue?
K: Of course it was obvious.
DB: Yes it is true in that regard. I think
it would be untrue to
say the mind evolved in time.
K: Of course.
DB: But physically it seems clear there
has been a process of
evolution and this has increased the
capacity of the brain to do
certain things. But for example we
couldn't be discussing this if the
brain had not grown larger.
K: Of course sir, I understand all that.
DB: But I think you are implying that the
mind is not
originating in the brain. Is that so? The
brain is perhaps an
instrument for it, of the mind?
K: The mind. And the mind is not time.
DB: The mind is not time.
K: Just see what it means. We are getting
nearer.
DB: It does not evolve with the brain.
K: Sounds odd, doesn't it?
DB: It would sound odd to persons not used
to it, In the past
people used to accept this idea quite
easily.
K: The mind not being of time, and the
brain being of time - is
that the origin of conflict?
DB: That may be an important point.
K: You understand sir what that means? The
Hindus say the
Atman, the highest Principle is in man,
which is the mind. I may be
translating wrongly, interpreting it
wrongly. And the brain is of
time. I am putting it, they may not put it
that way. So is that the
origin of conflict?
DB: Well we have to see why that produces
conflict. It is not
clear to say even that the brain is of
time, but rather it has
developed in such a way that time is in
it.
K: Yes, that is what I meant.
DB: But not necessarily so.
K: It has evolved.
DB: It has evolved so it has time within
it.
K: Yes as it has evolved, time is part of
it.
DB: It has become part of its very
structure.
K: Yes.
DB: And that was necessary. And now
however the mind
operates without time, the brain therefore
is not able to.
K: No. You see that means god is in man
and god can only
operate if the brain is quiet, if the
brain is not caught in time.
DB: Well, I wasn't meaning that. I was
saying that the brain
having a structure of time is not able to
respond properly to mind.
That's really what seems to be involved
there.
K: Can the brain itself see that it is
caught in time and as long as
it is moving in that direction conflict is
eternal, endless? You
follow what I am saying?
DB: Yes. Now does the brain see?
K: Yes, has the brain the capacity to see
that what it is doing
now, caught in time, in that process there
is no end to conflict.
DB: Yes. Wouldn't you say the brain is not
totally caught in
time it can awaken to another, to see.
K: That means, is there a part of the
brain which is not of time.
DB: Not caught in time. Some function.
K: Can one say that?
DB: I don't know.
K: That means - we come back to the same
thing in different
words - that the brain, not being
conditioned by time completely,
so there is a part of the brain...
DB: Well not a part but rather the brain
functions dominated by
time but that doesn't necessarily mean
that it couldn't shift. The
general tendency is for time to dominate
the brain.
K: Yes. That is, can the brain dominated
by time not be
subservient to it?
DB: That's right. In that moment it comes
out of time. And it is
dominated only - I think I can see this -
it is dominated only when
you give it time, you see thought which
takes time is dominated
but anything fast is not dominated.
K: Yes, that's right. When the brain which
has been used to
time, can it see that in that process
there is no end to conflict, can it
see this? See in the sense can it realize
it? Will it realize it under
pressure? Certainly not. Will it realize
it under coercion and a
reward, punishment or any of that kind? It
will not. It will either
resist or escape and all the rest of it.
Right? So what is the factor
that will make the brain see the way it
has gone is not correct - let's
use the word for the moment. And what will
make it suddenly
realize that it is totally mischievous?
You follow what I am saying?
What will make it? Drugs?
DB: Well it's clear that won't work.
K: Certainly not drugs. Some kind of
chemical?
DB: None of these, these are all outward
things.
K: Sir, I want to be clear. These are all
outward pressures. Then
what will make the brain realize this?
DB: What do you mean by realize?
K: Realize in the sense, that path which
it has been going on
will always be the path of conflict.
DB: Yes, well I think this raises the
question that the brain is
resisting such a realization.
K: Of course, of course. Because it is
used to that, for centuries.
How will you make the brain realize this
fact? You understand sir?
If you could do that it is finished.
You see they have tried, you must have
talked to many people,
they have tried fasting, no sex,
austerity, poverty, chastity in the
real sense, purity, having a mind that is
absolutely correct; they
have tried going away by themselves; they
have tried everything
practically that man has invented, but none
of them have
succeeded.
DB: Well what do you say? It is clear that
these are all outward
goals, they are still becoming.
K: Yes, but they never realize it is
outward.
DB: Everyone of those is an attempt to
break the process of
becoming.
K: Yes, that's right. So it means denying
completely all that.
DB: You see to go further I think one has
to deny the very
notion of time in the sense of looking
forward to the future, and all
the past.
K: That's just it sir, that's just it.
DB: That is the whole of time and always.
K: Time is the enemy. Meet it and go
beyond it.
DB: To deny that that is an independent
existence. You see I
think we have the impression that time
exists independently of us.
We are in the stream of time and therefore
it would seem absurd
for us to deny it because that is what we
are, you see.
K: Yes, quite, quite. So it means really
moving away - again
words - from everything that man has put
together as a means of
timelessness.
DB: Yes, well we can say that none of the
methods that man
uses outwardly are going to.
K: Absolutely not.
DB: Every method implies time.
K: Of course, of course. It is so simple,
clear.
DB: You start out immediately by setting
up the whole structure
of time, the entire notion of time is
presupposed before you start.
K: Yes, quite.
How will you convey this to me? How will
you or 'X' to a man
who is caught in time and will resist it,
fight it, he says, there is no
other way, and so on, how will you convey
this to him?
DB: I think that you can only - I mean
even though time is not
the point - unless somebody has looked at
this, you know, and gone
into it, you are not likely to convey it
at all to somebody you just
pick up off the street.
K: So, then what are we doing? As that
cannot be conveyed
through words, then what is a man to do?
DB: I think that both the word and beyond
the word, you know,
is part of the communication, conveyance.
K: Would you say sir, to resolve a problem
immediately as it
arises - one has to go into that because
you can resolve it
immediately, you may do the most foolish
thing.
DB: Well you may think you are resolving
it.
K: Yes, yes, I am saying that. You may do
the most foolish
thing or think you have resolved it.
DB: Because you can get the sense of the
immediate from time,
from thought because thought gives the
sense of now.
K: Not allow time. Suppose I have a
problem, any problem, it
doesn't matter, a psychological problem:
can the mind realize,
resolve it immediately? Not deceive
myself, not resist it - you
understand, all that. To face it and end
it.
DB: Well a psychological problem, that is
the only way.
K: I am talking about a psychological
problem.
DB: Otherwise we would be caught in the
very source of the
problem.
K: Of course, of course, of course. Would
that activity end time,
psychological time we are talking about.
DB: If we could bring this immediate
action to bear on what
you call the problem, which is the self.
K: Sir, one is greedy, or envious, to end
it immediately - greed,
attachment, and so on, there are a dozen
things. Sir what I am
trying to convey is: will that not give a
clue to the ending of time?
DB: Yes, because any action which is not
immediate has
already brought in time.
K: Yes, yes. I know that.
DB: The ending of time is immediate -
right?
K: Immediate, of course. Would that point
out the wrong turn
that mankind has taken?
DB: Yes, to bring in time and thought to
mediate
psychologically.
K: Yes, we are talking psychologically,
keep to that.
DB: If man feels something is out of order
psychologically then
he then brings in the notion of time and
the thought of becoming,
and that creates endless problems.
K: Would that open the door - it's a
phrase - would that open the
door to this sense of, time has no place
inwardly? You see, which
means sir, doesn't it, thought has no place
except outwardly.
DB: If you are going to say thought is a
process which is
involved in time...
K: Of course it is.
DB: Yes, I mean not everybody has used
that idea, used it that
way.
K: Wouldn't you say thought is the process
of time? Because
thought is based on experience, knowledge,
memory and response,
which is the whole of time.
DB: Yes, but still we have often discussed
a kind of thought that
would be a response to intelligence. But
thought as we have
generally known it - let's try to put it
that thought as we have
generally known it is in time.
K: Thought as we know it now is of time.
DB: Yes. Well possibly people may have
known it a little
differently from time to time. But I would
say generally speaking.
K: Generally speaking as of now, thought
is time.
DB: Yes, it is based on the notion of
time, time is first.
K: Yes, all right. To me itself is time.
DB: Thought itself creates time, right.
K: Does it mean when there is no time
there is no thought?
DB: Well, no thought of that kind.
K: No, there is no thought - I want to
just go slow, slow.
DB: Because otherwise we may contradict
some other things,
you see.
K: I know all that.
DB: Could we say there is a kind of
thought which has been
dominated by time - you know - which we
have lived in. Right?
K: Yes. It has come to an end.
DB: There may be another kind of thought
which is not
dominated by time, you know, because you
were saying you could
still use thought to do things.
K: Of course sir, that's so.
DB: We have to be careful not to say that
thought is necessarily
dominated by time.
K: No. I have to go from here to there, to
my house, that needs
time, thinking, all the rest of it. I am
not talking of that kind of
time.
DB: So let's make it clear that you are
thinking of thought
which is aimed at the mind, whose content
is the order of the mind.
K: Yes, yes.
DB: And we will say that that thought
clearly is time.
K: Yes. Would you say knowledge is time?
DB: Yes, well knowledge...
K: All knowledge is time.
DB: Well in so far as has been known and
may project into the
future and so on.
K: Of course, the future, past. Knowledge
is time. Through time
it has acquired knowledge - science,
mathematics, whatever it is,
philosophy. I read philosophy, I read this
or that. So the whole
movement of knowledge is involved in time.
Right? See what that
means.
DB: You see, I think again we...
K: Understood that knowledge is how to
make a chair...
DB: Well not only that but I think you say
that man has taken a
wrong turn and got caught in this kind of
knowledge, which is
dominated by time because it is
psychological knowledge.
K: Yes. So he lives in time.
DB: He lives in time because he has
attempted to produce
knowledge of the nature of the mind. Now
you saying that the
mind has no real knowledge of the mind.
Would you put it that
way? There is no knowledge of the mind,
would you put it that
way?
K: The moment you use the word
'knowledge', it implies time.
DB: Yes, you are saying the mind is not of
time.
K: No. When you end time, in the sense we
are talking about
there is no knowledge as experience.
DB: We have to see what the word
'experience' means.
K: Experience, memory, experience.
DB: Well people say, 'I learn by
experience, I go through
something.'
K: Which is becoming.
DB: Well let's get it clear. You see there
is a kind of experience
you get in your job, which becomes skill
and perception.
K: Of course, that is quite different sir.
DB: We are saying there is no point in
having experience of the
mind, of psychological experience.
K: Yes, let's put it that way. That is,
psychological experience is
in time.
DB: Yes, and it has no point because you
cannot say, 'As I
become skilled in my job, I will become
skilled in my mind'.
K: Right.
DB: In a certain way you do become skilled
in thinking but not
become skilled fundamentally.
K: Yes. So you understand, sir, where this
is leading to?
Suppose I realize knowledge is time, the
brain realizes it, and sees
the importance of time in a certain
direction, and no value of time
at all in another direction, it is not a
contradiction. Right?
DB: Yes, well right, O.K. I would put it
that the value of time is
limited to a certain direction or area and
beyond that it has no
value.
K: Yes. So what is the mind or the brain
without knowledge?
You understand?
DB: Without knowledge, psychological
knowledge?
K: Yes, I am talking psychologically.
DB: Yes, it is not so much that it is time
but without
psychological knowledge to organize
itself.
K: Yes.
DB: So we are saying the brain field must
organize itself by
knowing psychologically all about itself.
K: Is then the mind, the brain disorder?
Certainly not.
DB: No. But I think people might feel,
being faced with this,
that there would be disorder.
K: Of course.
DB: You see, I think that what you are
saying is the notion of
controlling yourself psychologically has
no meaning.
K: So knowledge of the 'me' is time.
DB: Yes, well the knowledge...
K: The psychological knowledge.
DB: Yes, I understand that, that knowledge
of 'me', is the whole
totality of knowledge, is 'me', is time.
K: Yes. So then what is existence without
this?
DB: Yes.
K: You understand?
DB: Yes. O.K.
K: There is no time, there is no knowledge
in the psychological
sense, no sense of 'me', then what is
there? To come to that point
most people would say, 'What a horror this
is.'
DB: Yes, well it seems there would be
nothing.
K: Nothing.
DB: It would be rather dull! It is either
frightening or it is all
right.
K: But if one has come to that point what
is there? Again it
sounds rather trite and sloganish but it
is not. Would you say
because there is nothing it is everything?
DB: Yes, I would accept that. I know that.
That is true, it has
all.
K: No, it is nothing, that's right.
DB: No thing.
K: No thing, that's right.
DB: So far as a thing is limited and this
is not a thing because
there are no limits. I mean at least it
has everything in potential.
K: Wait sir. If it is nothing and so
everything, so everything is
energy.
DB: Yes. The ground of everything is
energy.
K: Of course. Everything is energy. And
what is the source of
this thing? Or is there no source at all
of energy? There is only
energy.
DB: Energy just is. Energy is 'what is'.
There is no need for a
source. That is one approach.
K: No. If there is nothing and therefore
there is everything, and
everything is energy - we must be very
careful because here the
Hindus have this idea too, which is
Brahman is everything. You
understand sir? That becomes an idea, a
principle and then carried
out and all that. But the fact of it is,
if there is nothing therefore
there is everything and all that is cosmic
energy. But what started
this energy?
DB: Is that a meaningful question?
K: No. What began?
DB: But we are not talking of time.
K: I know we are not talking of time but
you see the Christians
would say, 'God is energy and He is the
source of all energy.' No?
DB: Yes.
K: And his son came to help the world, all
bla. Now is that...
DB: Well the Christians have an idea of
what they call the
Godhead, which is the very source of God
too.
K: And also the Hindus have this. I mean
the Arabic world and
the Jewish world also have this. Are we
going against all that?
DB: It sounds similar in some ways.
K: And yet not similar. We must be awfully
careful.
DB: Many things like this have been said
over the ages. It is a
familiar notion, yes.
K: Then is one just walking in emptiness?
One is living in
emptiness?
DB: Well that is not clear.
K: There is nothing and everything is
energy. What is this?
DB: Well this is a form within the energy.
K: So this is not different from energy?
This.
DB: The body, yes.
K: But the thing that is inside says, 'I
am different from that'.
DB: You must make that clearer.
K: The 'I' says, 'I am totally different
from all this'.
DB: The 'I' encloses itself and says, 'I
am different, I am
eternal.'
K: Why has it done this?
DB: Well we went into that because it
began, this notion of
separation.
K: Why has the separation arisen, is it
because outwardly I
identify with a house and so on and that
has moved inwardly?
DB: Yes. And the second point was that
once we established a
notion of something inward then it became
necessary to protect
that.
K: To protect that and all the rest of it.
DB: And therefore that built up the
separation.
K: Of course.
DB: The inward was obviously the most
precious thing and it
would have to be protected with all your
energy.
K: I understand sir. Does it then mean
there is only the
organism living, which is a part of
energy? There is no K at all,
except the Passport, the name and form,
otherwise nothing. And
therefore everything and therefore all
energy. You follow sir?
DB: Yes, the form has no independent
existence.
K: No, no. There is only the form, that's
all.
DB: There is also the energy, you say.
K: That is part of energy.
DB: Yes.
K: So there is only this, the outward
shape.
DB: There is the outward form in the
energy.
K: Do you realize what we have said sir?
Is this the end of the
journey?
DB: No, I should think not.
K: Has mankind journeyed through millennia
to come to this:
that I am nothing and therefore I am
everything and all energy?
DB: Well it can't be the end in the sense
that it might be the
beginning.
K: Wait, wait, that is all I am saying.
That is what I wanted you
to begin with. That is the only - the
ending then is the beginning.
Right? Now, I want to go into that a
little bit. You see the ending
of all this, the ending of time we will
call it briefly, is that there is a
new beginning. What is that? Because this
seems so utterly futile
for a moment.
DB: What?
K: I am all energy and just the shell
exists, and time has ended.
I am just taking that. It seems so...
DB: I understand that if you stop there...
K: That's all.
DB: I think that really is clearing the
ground of all the debris, of
all the confusion.
K: Yes. So the ending is a beginning. What
is that? Beginning
implies time also.
DB: Not necessarily. I think that we said
there could be a
movement which had no time.
K: That is why I want to make it clear.
DB: Yes but it is hard to express. It is
not a question of static, of
being static but in some sense the
movement has not the order of
time. I think we would have to say that
now.
K: Yes. So we will use the word
'beginning' and deprive it of
time.
DB: Yes, because ending and beginning are
no special time. In
fact they can be any time or no time.
K: No time.
DB: That's right, no time.
K: What takes place? What happens? What is
then happening?
Not to me, not to my brain. What is
happening?
DB: You mean to energy?
K: Sir, we have said when one denies time
there is nothing.
After this long talk - nothing means
everything. Everything is
energy. And we stopped there. But that
isn't the end. Right?
DB: No.
K: No. That is all. That is not the end.
Then what is going on?
Sir, can we carry on tomorrow. I think we
had better stop. I want to
go on with it but we had better stop.
DB: O.K.
K: Is that creation?
DB: Yes, something like.
K: Not the art of creating, writing.
DB: Yes, well if we discuss what we mean
by creation.
K: We will do it tomorrow.
OJAI 2ND
CONVERSATION WITH DAVID
BOHM 2ND APRIL,
1980 `THE ENDING OF
TIME'
K: I hope you had a good rest. In our dialogue
between yourself
and myself we were saying time is
conflict.
DB: Yes, psychological time.
K: Time is the enemy of man. And that
enemy has existed from
the beginning of man. And we said why has
man from the
beginning taken a wrong turn, a wrong path
- in quotes. And if so
is it possible to turn man in another
direction in which he can live
without conflict? Because, as we said
yesterday, the outer
movement is also the same as the inner
movement, there is no
inner or outer. It is the same movement
carried on inwardly. And if
we were concerned deeply and passionately,
to turn man in another
direction so that he doesn't live in time,
but has a knowledge of the
outer things. And the religions have
failed; the politicians, the
educators, they have never been concerned
about this. Would you
agree to that?
DB: Yes, I think the religions have tried
to discuss the eternal
values beyond time but they don't seem to
have succeeded.
K: That is what I wanted to get at. To
them it was an idea, an
ideal, a principle, a value, but not an
actuality.
DB: Yes, well some of them claim that to
some of them it may
have been an actuality.
K: But you see most of the religious
people have their anchor in
a belief.
DB: Yes.
K: An anchor in a principle, in an image,
in knowledge, in Jesus
or in something or other.
DB: Yes, but if you were to consider all
the religions, say the
various forms of Buddhism, they try to say
this very thing which
you are saying, to some extent.
K: To some extent, but what I am trying to
get at is: why has
man never confronted this problem? Why
hasn't he, all of us, why
haven't we said, let's end conflict? Or
rather we have been
encouraged because through conflict we
think there is progress.
DB: Yes, to overcome opposition.
K: Yes,
DB: It can be a certain source of stimulus
to try to overcome
opposition.
K: Yes sir. And if you and I saw the truth
of this, not in
abstraction but actually deeply, can we
act in such a way that every
issue is resolved instantly, immediately,
so that time is abolished?
DB: Psychological time.
K: We are talking about psychological
time. And as we said
yesterday, when you come to that point
when there is nothing and
there is everything, and all that is
energy, and when time ends, is
there a beginning of something totally
new? That's where we came
up to yesterday.
DB: And if there isn't then the whole
thing falls flat. I mean it
only drives you back into the world.
K: Is there a beginning which is not
enmeshed in time? Now
how shall we discover it? Words are
necessary to communicate.
But the word is not that thing. So what is
there when all time ends?
Psychological time, not the time of...
DB:... time of day.
K: Yes. Time is the 'me', the 'I', the
ego, and when that
completely comes to an end what is there
that begins - could we
say that, out of the ashes of time, there
is a new growth? What is
that? We came to that point yesterday.
What is that which begins -
no, that word 'begins' implies time too.
DB: Whatever we mean, that which arises.
K: That arises, what is it?
DB: Well we were discussing yesterday that
essentially it is
creation, the possibility of creation.
K: Yes, we said creation. Is that it? That
is, is something new
being born each - not time, you see -
something new is taking
place.
DB: It is not the process of becoming, you
see.
K: Oh no, that is finished. Becoming is
the worst, that is time,
that is the real root of this conflict. We
are trying to find out what
happens when the 'I', which is time, has
completely come to an
end. I believe the Buddha is supposed to
have said, Nirvana.
DB: Nirvana?
K: Nirvana. And the Hindus call it Moksha.
I don't know, the
Christians may call it Heaven or whatever
it is.
DB: The Christian mystics have had some
similar...
K: Similar yes. But you see the Christian
mystics as far as I
understand it, they are rooted in Jesus,
in the Church, in the whole
belief. They have never gone beyond it.
DB: Yes, well that seems so. As far as I
know anyway.
K: Say, like a man like Teilhard de
Chardin, he was great, you
know all the rest of it, he was a deep believer.
Now we have said
belief, attachment to all that is out,
finished. That is all part of the
'I'. Now when there is that absolute
cleansing of the mind of the
accumulation of time, which is the essence
of the 'me', what takes
place? Why should we ask what takes place?
DB: You mean it is not a good question?
K: I am just asking myself. Why should we
ask that? Is there
behind it a subtle form of hope? A subtle
form of saying, what, I
have reached that point, there is nothing.
That's a wrong question.
Wouldn't you consider that.
DB: Well it invites you to search out - it
invites you to look for
some hopeful outcome.
K: If all endeavour is to find something
beyond the 'me', that
endeavour and the thing that I may find is
still within the orbit of
'me' - right?
DB: Yes.
K: So I have no hope. There is no sense of
hope, there is no
sense of wanting to find anything.
DB: What then is moving you to enquire?
K: My enquiry has been to end conflict.
DB: Yes, we have to then be careful. You
are liable to produce
a hope of ending conflict. We are liable
to fall into the hope of
ending conflict.
(My humble salutations to the
lotus feet of Sri Jiddu Krishnamurti and
gratitude to the great
philosophers and followers of him.)
0 responses to "The Ending of Time J. Krishnamurti and Dr. David Bohm - Part 6"