Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Experimenter's Corner | moderated by John Raica

Holistic Education


Displaying posts 271 - 273 of 273 in total
Thu, 26 Mar 2020 #271
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 492 posts in this forum Offline

7-th ( unedited) K-DB Dialogue on Truth & Reality

K: Where shall we start out ?

DB : Well, last time we began by discussing the action of truth and then you broke off for short and raise the question of 'mystery'...

K: Oh, yes...

DB : I told you yesterday about a quotation from Einstein : "The most beautiful experience that we could have is the experience of mystery" That's how he put it...

K: Right... All the religions – not the 'orthodox' saints or the 'orthodox' priests- they all said there is something mysterious -something so vast that the human mind can't grasp...

DB : And as I was saying last time, this quotation of Einstein shows this is behind the deepest part of the scientific research...I just remember that when I was in Berkley, California they were setting up a huge magnet to study the nucleus of the atom – in other words, they were probing something very mysterious, and a friend of mine came along and said : Every piece of iron of that must eventually turned into a battleship...( laughter) Which it did, as it became part of the Manhattan Project for the atomic bomb...

K: I wonder if there is anything mysterious -I'm just exploring, I don't say there is or there isn't... First of all, as a thing 'desirable', it is very inviting...

DB : I looked up at the word 'mystery', and it means basically hidden or secret – so some of the religions have some 'mysteries' at their center...

K: Yes, the Greeks had it, the Egyptians had it, and of course, the Hindus...

DB : Now the dictionary also says that 'mystery' is something beyond human understanding – which is not exactly the same. The first one was secret, but perhaps you could be initiated into the mystery- there was some understanding involved, but the Christians said : you can never understand it...

K: Understand it in the sense of 'experiencing ' it ?

DB : Well, to be comprehended rationally...

K: If one sets about to experience That, or to 'come into' That...

DB : I think that they used to say ' to participate in it'...

K: Participate in it. What is the nature of the mind that can 'participate' into something that is totally... mysterious ?

DB : And what is the nature of the participation ?

K: Yes, that's just it. You see, you were talking the other day, having read that Biography...I think we missed a point there...

DB : What was the point ?

K: The explanations which we gave, the reincarnation, the illness & all that ...I think that doesn't cover the ground totally...Because I've always felt there was 'something' so vast that all their mysteries, & initiations, had nothing to do with it. See, it can be either be so romantically idiotic, or it is something that ' is there'.... I don't know how to convey all this... Sir, how does science investigate this question of mystery  ?

DB : Well, I think that most scientists deny it...You see, it begins with some interest in something mysterious, with the hope of probing into the mystery, but gradually this slides over into another attitude in which people explain something and they begin gradually to replace the mystery by the structure they have explained, implying that that is all there is. All the scientists are always saying that a tremendous amount is unknown , but they generally imply that the unknown...

K: ... can be 'known' ?

DB : It can be known and set into the same kind of framework. But in the begining- I remember talking with Einstein and with other scientists that in the beginning there was something 'mysterious' . I mean, that was part of the energy that was behind our work...

K: Right....If as a scientist, you want to 'participate in it', how would you set about it ?

DB : You see, the ordinary way of going about it, - one way is to is to set up equipment which can probe the mystery- a telescope or a microscope... I know, I'm just explaining – like this tremendous magnet which particles have very high energy – the idea was that with very high energy particles one can probe the mysterious structure beneath...

K: I can see that...

DB ; Of course there is also the theoretical probe – with the theoretical insight or the imagination, speculation....But it seems that essentially those are the instruments science has used. Now, it's not clear to me how Einstein thought of it, because on one hand he was looking for a total explanation- but it seems to me there's a contradiction here -that science is committed to a total explanation and at the same time , if there is an explanation, there's no mystery.

K: Right, what is explained is not mystery...

DB : And if Einstein says that ''the most beautiful experience is the mystery'', if it is explained, it seems to me that all beauty will vanish, you see ? Perhaps he didn't believe that it can be explained...

K: Suppose you 'have participated' in that mystery and you want to tell me about it, or you want to help me, or guide me or 'push me' towards it : what would you do ? Would you say : settling all these things are necessary first ?

DB : Well, what are they ?

K: I don't want to use 'preparatory things' , but like a very sensitive body -not emotional, not sentimental, not mental, not neurotic, but 'sensitive', in the sense of having a quick insight and a quick comprehension – not a tremedous lot of explanations, auick grasp of something which is true. Would you say that would be necessary ?

DB : Well that would be necessary, but obviously it would be necessary for anything...

K: No... but that means a very sensitive neurological system and a 'psychological' clarity.

DB : Right...

K: Now, how does one have 'psychological' clarity? If we grant that these two are essential -a quick mind, a quick insight, a perception that is correct ; and suppose I haven't got it, then is there a method, a system, a practice, a way of washing out, purging all that ? Or there is no way at all ? Or, only the act of totally listening to what you say ?
For instance, when you say there is a mystery, to you it is the truth, the actuality, it 'is' . And if I haven't got the 'ears' to listen to you, I'll never capture it and I won't 'participate in it'...And my longing is to participate in it , because intellectually I see how important it is.

DB : But the longing is of no use...

K: Longing is of no use, but I 'perceive it', I 'see' with all my being how important it is to 'participate' in that mysterious thing which will give an enormous sense of beauty and all that. I see all this , but any effort I make will spoil it -any desire, any action, any volition is still within the field of reality. So, how am I to 'participate' into something which is so actual ? What would you as a scientist say to it ?

DB : Well, my science has not really confronted that...

K: I know...after all sir, they are looking at 'saucers', but that's not mysterious

DB : Well, they hope it is. It has been called a 'mysterious universe'...

K: Would you call that 'mysterious' ?

DB : Well, not as long as it's still part of the same structure of reality...

K: Reality, yes that's right.

DB : But when you say there is a 'mystery', we have truth and we have reality which don't mix, although reality can become aware of the action of truth...

K: Yes...Reality can bring about order into itself...

DB : ...so that it responds to the action of truth.

K: It might.

DB : Now something that occurred to me is that this cannot be the last word- they cannot be entirely separated, you see ? In other words that you could divide existence into two...

K: Reality and truth...Why not ?

DB : Well, I don't know why not, but simply, this division...

K: Ahh ! Is there a division ?

DB : Well, that's the question, but the way we put it it sounds like there is...

K: I know, but I'd like to question and find out whether division exists at all ?

DB : Yes, but in the beginning you insisted that they are 'separate' …

K: I know, but we are usually seeing them as two separate things...

DB : And what does the word 'separate' means ?

K: Divided.

DB : Can we say one is not related to another ?

K: We said that...

DB : Yes, which implies division and separation...and at a certain level that appears tho be the case...

K: Let's accept that for the moment.

DB : Once before, in a discussion on intelligence we raised the question whether there cannot be a source that underlies both, you see ?

K: Yes, yes, quite...

DB : And in that source there's no separation as truth and reality...

K: It's a common bed...

DB : A common ground or however you'd like to call that...

K: For the moment we're not talking about that...

DB : Now one could say that possibly this source is a mystery...because if you once once begin to characterise it, it either becomes truth or reality.
And another point where I was going wrong is that reality, although it is fragmented and incomplete, has a tendency to become complete, which in some ways is good, because it helps to organise reality in a more orderly way...
But then, in the attempt of thought to cover the whole...it goes wrong...

K: Of course...

DB : But thought is always trying to cover the whole – always trying to say 'this is the whole'- and in that way it is establishing a 'conclusion', a 'closure'...and that of course, becomes false... We were saying the other time that thought must acknowledge its own fragmentary nature, its limited nature, and at the same time it has the impulse to expand – and that's quite good as long as thought is not trying to 'capture' the whole...

K: Quite, quite...I understand all that …

DB : Now it occurred to me that thought, in trying to capture the whole, is a barrier in trying to seeing this mystery...

K: Would you say, if thought is aware of its own limitations – not expand, not trying to include the whole – sees its limitation and therefore moves beyond that limitation ?

DB : Yes and we were also saying the other time that thought doesn't stay within its limitations ordinarily – if it finds its limitation then it tends to be out of it already...

K: We are saying thought is aware, attentive, totally aware of its limitation...

DB : Let's put it this way, thought is aware that there is something beyond the limited …

K: Ah, I would question it...

DB : Thought knows that it is limited but it is already implied that...

K: No, I can't make it ; this room is full...

DB : In the very structure of the word 'limit' it is implied something beyond that...

K: Thought is aware that it is fragmented, broken, limited ; it cannot move beyond its frontiers.

DB : Yes, thought cannot capture the whole...

K: Let's put it this way, yes. And it stays there, it doesn't try to 'capture' the whole or say 'I am the whole'...

DB : Yes, but then there are so many subtle ways in which thought is trying to capture it, not only by concepts, but also by feelings...and we have to watch them all...

K: I watch them all- feeling, desire, thought...and I won't move from there , because the moment I move it is still the same thing…

DB : Yes, I wonder why thought is trying to 'capture' the whole ?

K: Because it is aware of its own limited capacity as a 'fragmented' thing...

DB : Yes, but why does it want to go beyond that ?

K: Because of pain, suffering, or wanting greater experiences.

DB : But that's no explanation, because the suffering may be due to the desire to go beyond...My own feeling is that suffering comes when thought is trying to 'capture' the whole...

K: Aha ! I see what you're saying.

DB : Because that being impossible...

K...therefore it suffers ? No, I wouldn't put it that way....

DB : Why ?

K: Because suffering is produced by thought – not because it wants to capture something and therefore it suffers.

DB : Yeah...But that's one cause of suffering -if thought tries to achieve something which it cannot achieve.

K: But If thought cannot achieve why should it suffer ? If I can't become the Queen of England, then that's the end of it...
Is it possible for the thought that is operating in me – to say ''I am totally limited ? I'm limited, fragmented, broken up and any movement I make is still in the same area ''? Is that not possible ?

DB : Yes, well.... we'll have to be very clear...

K: 'I' am confined in this prison with its ache and I cannot get out...all that I include.

DB : But also, perhaps thought has seen that 'wholeness' is good and has got into the habit of trying to 'achieve wholeness'...In other words, thought has seen it's not wholeness and it is looking for wholeness...

K: That too, when I use the word 'limited' I include all that...

DB : And we can see why thought is in fact limited- because it is limited to 'reaction' and 'reflexion' – and it cannot reflect on the 'mystery', it can only reflect on reality …

K: That's right ! Reflect what is going on in reality...

DB : Yes, it can reflect and define and determine and measure...

K: And if thought realises this, there is no movement within that field...

DB : Yes, well, but still it may be because a lot of lifetime unconscious movements...

K: Allright...Let's go into that ! My unconscious desire for the whole - I watch it ! That's why I said I'm very sensitive to everything that is going on in me...conscious as well as unconscious.

DB : Now, being sensitive of the 'unconscious' – let's discuss that a little- because if you're totally unconscious you couldn't be sensitive to it. So we must be clear that it's 'relatively' unconscious. In other words, 'unconscious' may be only dimly aware of those movements...

K: Dimly aware.

DB : But not absolutely, totally unaware...

K: No, no...dimly aware.

DB : And therefore by being sensitive to all the hints and implications...

K:...dreams, to everything. To me the 'unconscious' is not really important...

DB : I don't think it is important, except that it may do things that may make a bigger fact...

K: My mind is very aware of all this – aware of the intimations of the 'unconscious' of the hints, the hidden motives, which if one is alert one can very easy to find out...

DB : All the various senses of pleasure and pain...

K: All that.

DB : But I think the 'unconscious' has the tendency to make the mind dull, to make itself less sensitive to all these things...

K: Quite, quite ! The 'unconscious' tries to make the 'conscious' not so active.

DB : It tries to anesthetise, to tranquilise it...

K: That's right ; therefore when I see all that I'm fully aware of the whole movement – the hidden motives, the desires, will & all that. That is, thought totally realises its own boundaries, that it cannot go beyond it.
You see, that's what the 'orthodox' meditation people do - trying to control thought - they don't realise the 'controller' is the 'controlled'- they're trying to control thought so that it has no movement.

DB : Yes, we've discussed that, but that implies some movement in the field of reality to control thought which may usually involve concentration, contemplation...

K: But it's still a 'movement' of thought...

DB : Now they have the assumption that there are certain 'movements' of thought which will bring quietness...

K: From what I've understood, they say ''thought must be controlled''...

DB : I'm not even sure all of them say this- some, like Maharishi, say it must be quiet- he doesn't call it 'control' – by concentrating on a word, and then drop the word and so on...

K: But it's still the movement of thought !

DB : Yes, but I think his assumption is that there is a certain movement of thought that can make thought silent and then the 'mystery' might participate. I'm not saying I accept this...

K: From what I've heard – not from Maharishi & his disciples- is that sound has a peculiar effect on the brain. And those sounds are given only to people who have lived with the master for a number of years, and the master has studied them -seen their character, their tendency & all the rest of it. Then, they give a certain mantra....

DB : Yes, who would be suited to that person...

K: To that person and to nobody else !

DB : Yes ; now assuming they do that, that 'sound' is still thought...

K: Yes.

DB : That's because it's defined in some way...

K: No, there's something much deeper. At first you repeat it aloud, then you repeat it silently...

DB : Yeah...

K: Then, you listen to the sound only.

DB : Hmm...And they believe that would be beyond thought ?

K: Yes...

DB : And you say it's not beyond ?

K: It's not beyond....

DB : Because the sound is produced from memory...

K: Yes. It's all part of the structure of thought – which is, a desire to achieve tranquility.

DB : Yes, so in the whole process is implicit the desire to achieve – it would be there even if it's 'dimly aware' …

K: Yes.

DB : And that desire would produce a distortion, a self-deception...

K: An illusion. So, being aware of that, any desire of 'achievement' must always produce an illusion. Thought then says 'there is no movement'.

DB : Yes, but when it says that, there is already a 'movement'

K: No....I mean, it realises, it knows, or it is aware it 'is' so ! That is the truth. Right ? The moment thought has said ' I cannot move' , that's the fact !

DB : Yes...that sounds a little troublesome, because you seem to be saying that thought has the truth...

K: No, no ! The moment it stops 'moving' then that 'is' so !

DB : Truth 'is', right ?

K: Yes. It isn't that thought has created truth. Thought comes to an end – as a movement beyond its limits...I wonder if I'm making it clear...

DB : Yes...when thought comes to an end...

K: Not as a means of achieving something, not by volition, by desire for tranquility, or for experiencing peace...None of that !

DB : That is, when thought is 'consciously aware' of its own limitation  it comes to an end when there's no need for it.

K: Yes. That's all I am saying.

DB : And that is truth, or would you say that truth 'is' ?

K: Yes... Then truth 'is', meditation 'is'. Can I put it the other way ? Can the mind, which is consciousness with its thought -all that we have discussed- can that 'empty' itself ?

DB : Now, what does that mean 'empty itself' ?

K: Empty itself of the 'things' that thought has created.

DB : What are these 'things' ?

K: Like achievement, desire, will, attachment...

DB : ...the 'center' ?

K: The 'center'...

DB : ...and 'time' ?

K: That's it ! Can there be an 'emptying' of all that?

DB : But when you say 'emptying', what you mean by that ?

K: I mean by 'emptying', seeing the 'reality' of thought - thought which is fragmented, broken up and whatever it does it is still limiting & so on...That's my consciousness – that is the 'field of reality' and thought is always active there.

DB : Yes, but I think that the traditional thought is always seeking to go beyond the field of reality...We pick up this tradition from the society. Now do you say that your thought is entirely without a 'center' ?

K: Yes...'center' being desire, achievement...

DB : But there is also the sensation of the 'center'...

K: ...sensation as 'being', in the solar plexus or in the heart.... No 'center', that is definite !

DB : I can see that the concept of the 'center' produces a reaction, produces a feeling – in other words the feeling of the 'center' is produced by the concept of the center, so it has no independent reality...

K: Quite...

DB : And it seems that that center is one of the basic causes of illusion, because once the 'center' is established, the next thought atributes itself to the center, therefore it becomes the 'truth'. In other words, thought then seems to have gotten itself beyond reality, into Truth...

K: If I see very clearly the 'world of reality' which thought has created...

DB : ...which includes the 'center', the concept...

K: Of course, and the concept feeding the 'center' and the 'center' feeding the concept...all that is the movement of thought.

DB : You see, just a matter of clarifying something : when I see something which is called 'objective reality'- is it correct to say that it is independent of thought ? For instance, the microphone, although made by thought is an objective reality. Now there is another 'reality' which is created and sustained by thought – the 'center'.

K: The 'center', that's right ! The 'center is created by thought...

DB : And sustained by thought. And it doesn't have the same kind of 'reality' as the mountain...

K: Of course...

DB : So, part of the confusion comes from our inability to make a clear distinction between that which is sustained independently of thought and that which is thought-sustained. And it occurred to me that when something happens, thought thinks something and the root of thought is not perceived, and suddenly the content appears as having a certain reality, which is then taken by the next thought as an existing independently...And we lose track of that, you see ?
Now I was going to say that if I didn't loose track of this, I would see that the whole of thought is one and there will be no illusion, no ?

K: That's right.

DB : So, as I've been watching all this for a while, I saw that I have a natural tendency of 'loosing track' and later it is built up systematically by the thought which goes beyond reality - the thought of the 'center'...

K: I think from what you said just now, that thought has created this...

DB : Yes, but it's still existing...

K: ...independent of thought. And the 'center' is created by thought...

DB ...but it doesn't exist independent of thought...

K: It is sustained by thought all the time. So, those are two factors.

DB : That's right. Now, I've asked myself how one could confuse one with the other and the answer is that thought -when it creates the 'center' - is not aware of itself creating the 'center' and suddenly the 'center' is there as is this microphone...

K: That's it...And takes that as reality !

DB : It takes that as independent reality. And after that it begins to atribute pleasure and pain to the 'center' and in the hope to maintain the pleasure it does not want to give up the 'reality' of the center. Because to give up the 'reality' of the center you would loose the possibility of pleasure from thought...

K: Quite. Let's get it clear : thought has created this...

DB : Yes, but I would like to make it complete : it measures and defines and determines, you see ? For example it might determine the mountain although it hasn't created the mountain ; it determines the mountain as an objective reality -which was there without thought ; the next step is that thought has made the microphone – which is put there with thought, but it still exists independently, then the third step is : thought has created a 'center' which does not exist independently of thought at all, but thought thinks that it does exist...

K: ...independently, and sustains that 'independence' through pleasure & so on...

DB : And then this becomes a trap, because the same mechanism that was thought to attribute reality to the 'center'- which then it seems to be something genuine and real, as if it were some objective reality, independent of thought. But then once thought has attributed pleasure to the 'center', it cannot avoid to attribute pain to the center and that creates suffering …

K: Quite, that's simple enough. So we got the picture clear. Now, one is totally aware of this - and therefore no movement as time and measure outside this. Because thought, as we said, cannot comprehend or apprehend the whole, and it is not a verbal acceptance, but an 'actuality' – thought sees as objectively as that.

DB : Yes, I understand, but I think there is still a slight residue, almost a physical movement which thought seems still to go on  ..

K: I don't quite understand...

DB : Well, I can't explain, but there are still waves...

K: Aha... ! No sir, that's what I want to get at : when there is the realisation, or the comprehension, that thought is a movement in time & measure, how thought creates the center and sustains the center – thought created this as something objective, independent of thought...

DB : Yes, and thought recognises the objective independence of the mountain...

K: I am 'aware' of all that ! And thought has no movement 'beyond' – in which is included consciousness, semi-conscious, dimly conscious – everything. Because you know, - we have talked a little bit of this yesterday : thought is movement in time, action is without time...

DB : Yes, but that may be the point that remains to be looked at...

K: I don't want to bring it in yet, but when one is only living in 'acting' and not in the movement of time...

DB : And yet, the movement of 'time' is going on. You see, this is the point which we ought to discuss and try to make it very clear, because many years ago in chalet Tanegg we reached this point in our discussion – we were discussing the 'center' and being free of the 'center' and then came to the question of the 'timeless'. Now one of the things that were puzzling me at that time came to the question of 'time'. The thing that puzzled me at the time was that as I'm talking to you in time, you say you're not in time. Probably then there was a feeling that everything exists in time ; you see, this is something which is in every tradition and is very deeply ingrained...

K: Yes, everything is in time...

DB : Now suppose that one can reach the stage to see that the 'center' is nothing but a creation of thought ; but then there seems to be a movement – which almost seems to be an universal movement – the feeling that all over there's is a movement in which you exist. And that's probably communicated to us in a very subtle way by tradition – it's handed down...

K: Wait a minute ! I have no tradition …

DB : But supposing you have ?

K: I'll come to that lately....I have no tradition  - I'm not a sclave to society – psychologically - I have no burden of the thousand yesterdays – so there is no conscious or unconscious movement.

DB : I think tradition is the source of all this movement.

K: That's it !

DB : And the tradition – how it's handed down – I've looked up in the dictionary – that it's not only handed down verbally, but also by example, and that's much more difficult.... The point is that when the child sees the parents or the other children behaving in a certain way - which implies a certain way of thinking – the child begins to think that way...

K: Quite, quite, quite...

DB :...and it seems that he's picking it up as it were an independent reality, because it's not his thought, it's somebody else's thought – he doesn't see that all thought is one - it doesn't matter whose thought it is...But you see, when you learn from tradition somebody is guided by thought, but h's implying that it's not thought but it's the way things have always been necessarily & objectively so...

K: I don't know if you've seen that tradition has the same root as 'betrayal' …

DB : Yes, I was thinking that we need two words - there was something you were saying the other day- that you discovered something like Columbus did, and that other people might learn and not start from the same experience- so in some sense you are also passing something over , but not in the same way...

K: Not in the same way...

DB : In science it's the same way : you shouldn't hand it over traditionally, but rather, from somebody else's discovery you move on - although unfortunately, this has also become a tradition...

K: You see, sir, wait a minute ! Here there is no 'moving on' !

DB : Yes, but that's implied in what you said the other day : you are like Columbus - you discovered that ''Truth is a pathless land'' and you went through all sorts of painful experiences, which you say are not necessary for other people to live. Now let's say that somebody else can learn from your discovery, then the question is : what happens ? So, you're saying ''no moving on''... ?

K: No ! There's no movement beyond that.

DB : Yes, all right...Let's try to make it clear ; in science – as it has been practised- if there is a discovery and it's done right, then one learns and discovers something else...And that makes a series of discoveries which make a kind of progress...

K: Progress and knowledge, accumulate all sorts of knowledge & all the rest of it...

DB : Now let's try to make it clear : how you propose to do it differently ?

K: Here when you say 'truth is a pathless land' , it is final, it is so !

DB : Yes, all right , but you still said that when somebody may learn from your discovery , he can make his own discovery...

K; Someone says : 'Truth is a pathless land' , it is so ! There is nothing more to be said. There's no movement of somebody else coming over & saying 'Yes !'

DB : We'll have to make it clear : Let's say that in science someone makes a discovery- say, Einstein made a discovery; now somebody else may learn from that discovery -it doesn't mean that he'll repeat, but having learned from Einstein he may now discover something deeper...

K: Deeper, quite...

DB : Now is there any similarity ?

K: No !

DB : No similarity... Let's try to make it clear : there seems to be an intrinsic difference between science and what you're talking about, because I can't imagine science except by one discovery leading to another, otherwise it would be pointless...

K: Quite, quite...

DB : So here is not the case of one discovery leading to another – I learn that Truth is a 'pathless land' because of what you said...

K: It 'is' so !

DB Right, it is so , and that acts ?

K: Right...

DB : But now you say there is a 'mystery' and we're not going to discover deeper into the mystery ?

K: No. When thought has no movement beyond its limitations, beyond its 'reality'...

DB ; When you say there is no movement – this requires some clarification... You say that you have no tradition, but I come from tradition …

K: Let's move on, that doesn't matter.

DB : Now, let's say that over many many years with my parents and friends and so on, I was communicated 'non-verbally' and by example, that I live in time, that time is the essence - in everything time is the most important and your life depends on time and time is flying and so on...

K: ...'time is money'...

DB : And you have only a limited time to live so make good use of it...

K: Quite, quite...

DB : So everybody has communicated in millions of ways how important time is from very early. And that communication was picked up as it were an objective reality, not what somebody told me as an idea, and therefore I experience it as an objective reality...

K: Quite, quite...

DB : It's the same as the 'center' which is experienced as an independent reality and theredore it is 'time'- because of that tradition...

K; Quite, quite...

DB : Now, that experience of the 'center' may not be so permanently strong, there is a sense of some movement going on all over - especially in the body- in other words, there is a 'stream of movement' in which I exist....Now, it seems to me that being free of that is much more than being free of the 'center'...

K: I see what you're leading at.

DB : Because I think this was the point, many years ago, when we had a discussion here in Gstaad, and now I think we've reached the bottom of that...

K: Aha ! Sir, forgive me if I talk about myself - I've never thought about time. Time has not entered into my being. I know there is time, I know that if I order something it would take 5 or 10 days...But the 'psychological' factor of time has never played any part ; that is, there was never been a question of 'becoming' something...

DB : Well, it's not maybe a question of 'becoming', but time comes under different forms, And I feel that through time one loses track of the oneness of thought. When you say 'All thought is one, and it's all limited', I understand that, but the 'actuality' of that gets lost...

K: Quite, quite ...

DB : And I can see at least one reason – it gets lost through time. Let's say that at one moment I am aware of what is taking place, the next moment comes along and suddenly it's another moment that is different – and therefore what appears the connexion between what is here and therefore the connexion what was done a moment before and what is done now is lost, you see ? Have I made it clear ?

K: Not quite...

DB : Let's try to make it clear : I think time introduces fragmentation, because time is one moment, and then another & another...Let's say that what is happening in thought now is one process and what has happened before is continuous and made us what we are now - in the whole of thought...

K; Yes, yes...

DB : Let's say that I have a sense of the 'center' now, but that was due to a concept I had a moment ago, and it takes a moment for the concept to produce a wave...

K: And also the 'ending' of it !

DB : Yes, but there's a sudden feeling that the connexion between the 'center' which exists now and the concept which I had a moment ago is lost, you see ? Lost to awareness, anyway...

K: I haven't got your meaning yet...

DB : Well, it's almost like saying : I understand certain things about thought, and there is a sudden feeling that this is a different moment - when it is not really different, you see ?

K: A-ha...

DB : For example if something surges up very fast and is very intense, there is an implicit thought- anything beyond a certain speed and a intensity is 'reality' and not thought.

K: So, what are you trying to say ?

DB : I'm only trying to say that this question of 'time' is more than just 'becoming' – it includes this sense of becoming something better & so on – but it also for me it has a tendency to loose track of the connexion. If I could see that all thought is one, I would not loose track of the connexion. You see, I've understood what you said that 'all thought is limited' but at one moment my brain looses track of that and says : ''OK, all thought is limited'', but this isn't thought - you see ?

K: Yes, quite...

DB : And therefore this is allowed to go on in a limited way...

K: I see, or I perceive that 'all thought is one'. Therefore it is not 'my' thought or 'your' thought...

DB : Yes, but it has all sort of means by which thought is trying to present itself as non-thought...

K: I know, that's delusion and all the rest of it...

DB : Yes, and I think time is involved in all that.

K: Sir, wouldn't you say that if you perceived not verbally, if you really had an insight into thought – everything else in relation to thought is explained ? That is, desire, will, unconnected moments of thought...

DB : ...suffering and also pleasure and fear. I'll have to see the whole thing, but my point is that all my sense of time -which includes the separation of moments of time-
and when I say 'now' this is also a moment of though and therefore thought introduces a separation which is false, because the moment before has flowed continuously into this moment...

K: So, the word separates...

DB : ...the sensation separates...

K: There are intervals between thoughts which separates...

DB : ...and also changes in thought that separate...

K: All that is the movement of thought.

DB : Yes... But the point I was trying to make was that the movement of thought is very deceptive and has many aspects of which one has to be aware...

K: Of course, of course...

DB : Now, one of the things that arises is that when one is trying to do something, or when you're in relation with somebody, thought rises to such intensity that it will mistake itself for a reality that is independent of thought...

K: Quite, quite...

DB : And therefore it looses track at that moments. You see, everything you say was understood, more or less, but at a certain stage thought looses track of what thought is.

K: Quite...I understand this...

DB : And one has somehow to keep the awareness of the connexion...

K: I'm not sure, sir, that all these things arise when you are really experiencing an insight into thought as 'movement in time'.

DB : Yes, I am sure that is so, but I'm trying to say...

K: An insight into the whole of that - what is implied ? Do we really 'see' the whole movement of thought as a 'movement' - have an insight into it and then describe all the details of it ? With me - I don't know if I am odd or peculiar - I 'see' and then explain ; not the explanation and then 'see'.

DB : Hmm...

K: Sir, are we saying there is always time, there is no ending to time ; it is a constant steady moving...

DB : That's the way it appears...

K: ...in which we live ; which expresses itself as yesterday, today & tomorrow, which expresses itself as the 'center' and acting from the center and the intervals between thoughts and the thought changing from yesterday's thought...

DB : ... as gradual change ?

K: All that is the movement of 'time' : attachment, detachment, all that is the movement of time. Now, can thought see that and stop ? Can 'time', in the sense of (thought's) movement, stop ? Time must have a stop...
You see, if there is no ending for thought there is no radical revolution. Right ? Then we just go on changing patterns and all the rest of it. That is, you see the truth that time must have a stop. Like 'truth is a pathless land', you see the truth that thought must have a stop. You are trying to convey to me, verbally, the movement of thought, 'center' and all that. And I listen to all your explanation and yet my mind is groping after the stoping of that 'time'...

DB : Hmm...

K: Because the fact that 'time must have a stop' is an extraordinary thing and I'm grasping after that. Unconsciously I want it. I realise I am becoming totally conscious of the whole content of my consciousness.

DB : Yes, let's try to put it like this : one can see the necessity of this - that time must have a stop. Once again we come back to dealing with the 'unconscious', because I see there are layers and they move in time...

K: A tremendous block !

DB : You see, in our whole tradition there are instincts in that direction and you are implying there are not...

K: For me they never were a major factor...

DB : Hmm....yes.

K: I'm not saying this with any...

DB : Yes... you also said that any explanations of you being ill and all we gave before were inadequate, so what else would you ask ?

K: You see, all those explanations did actually reveal something about 'that which was strange' -in the sense of mysterious...

DB : You mean, from the beginning ?

K: From the beginning...There are thousands of boys frail, vague and then gat conditioned and drop off, millions of them : this boy, why it didn't happen to him ? You follow, sir ?

DB : Yes...

K: I can give you half a dozen explanations, but I say, all those explanations are satisfying at a certain level but it is not a complete explanation. There is something totally mysterious and totally 'sacred' in this -if I can use that word without too much sentimentality or religiosity - that was taking place in him.

DB ; Even before he was discovered by (CWL ?)

K: I think the 'seed' of it was already operating, because when I saw that picture of the two brothers - the taller one holding the hand of the other one – I felt that there was something uncontaminated, something extraordinay that was happening to him already... I don't want to create a 'mystery' about all this – I have horror of it- but the explanations of what took place, I don't think they give a clue to it...

DB : Then could we say there were 'favorable' conditions to this thing, but they do not... ?

K: They were not favorable !

DB : They were not 'favorable', but the fact of being ill allowed him not to be affected by the conditioning...So you could say that a little later the mind was not so impressionable to be affected by it. But you say, that's not enough...

K: That's not enough ; there are millions of boys like that...

DB : But on the other hand, that tendency might have been fully favorable. So you can't just say, this is particularly good compared with that...

K: No, but I feel... Look, there's something more simple : millions of boys go through this illness - malaria, recover, being conditioned and go off -in the sense that they become ordinary, become normal or whatever you'd like to call it. Here was a boy who had that illness, who had malaria – quinine, doctor & all the rest of it, so mentally he was retarded, therefore he was unconditioned.

DB : Yes...until he was less impressionable. But I mean, beyond a certain age the conditioning doesn't hold ; for instance, children who don't learn a language until the age of seven may find it later more difficult to learn ; they are very easily conditioned up to a certain age...

K: That's right.

DB : And beyond that age they are not so easily conditioned ; therefore if a boy can escape conditioning in the first number of years...

K: Till fourteen, fifteen...

DB : ...then beyond that point his brain is resistent to conditioning - it doesn't take it...

K: Doesn't take - not 'resist' !

DB : ...doesn't take the conditioning, whereas at an early age impressions are made much more easily and they hold...

K: Let's take that.

DB : I mean, that's just one explanation, but as you say that might be slightly favorable...Now, can you say anymore ?

K: (Laughs) Can we talk simply, frankly ?

DB : Yes...We'd better record it, unless you don't want to... ?

K: He felt that he was 'protected'.

DB: I see...by what ?

K : Just a minute ; he felt always 'protected'.

DB : But I think many children feel protected...

K: Non, no, much later - I'm told.

DB : How old ?

K: Oh, till age twenty, thirty...

DB : And would that feeling continue ?

K: Yes.

DB : But I mean, what sort of protection ?

K: ( silent pause)...'protected' in the sense you protect a tree to grow straight -against the wind and...

DB : Hmm...But why does (it protect) this one... ?

K: I don't know, but I wouldn't enquire into it...

DB : You think it's better not to ?

K: Yes ; I've gone into this very much with people like Lady Emily who's known me and others in India who know me and with Mrs Zimbalist & others - and for a certain number of years. When it comes to a certain point I feel I can't enquire. It sounds too damn silly to say there's something the mind, thought cannot penetrate. But the thing is there !

DB : Would you then say that somewhere within this 'mystery' there is an 'order' which involves all that ?

K: Yes !

DB : Which would imply the destiny of 'that' which is coming to mankind ?

K: Yes...

DB : And you don't feel it is wise to enquire ?

K: No.

DB : But of course – I mean, I'm not questioning it - but say, many people may have that feeling and they can be wrong...

K: Oh, I've gone into that ; many people can have it, of course... You see, sir, take that boy – ill, discovered, trained - in the sense to be clean - in those days in India at that time -not having a mother- the boys were trained to wash properly, all that - not 'psychologically' trained – because they said 'he is the vehicle of the Lord', therefore you can't interfere - psychologically. You follow, sir ? Now, he never went through all the things he talks about...

DB : What do you mean ?

K: Jealousy, never attached to property, money & all that. Never, never ! thought of a position , a status, a hyerarchical outlook...except when I get into Mrs Simmons ' 'roundover' I can look down and that is it, I have no feeling of looking up or looking down. Now, how does it all happen, without cultivating, or wanting it ?

DB : Yes, well, this idea has been common that there is such a destiny ; in fact the theosophists believed that this whole thing didn't happen by accident, but there is a hidden order, a mysterious order...

K: They would say there is the whole hyerarchical principle and the highest principle is the Lord Maitreya, etc etc...

DB : Let's say we discard the idea that some 'Principle' is ruling, but having discarded that you're nevertheless proposing that there is a ( higher) 'order' and things didn't happen by accident to this boy...

K: Yes, I'm trying to imply that, to be truthful (laughing) Truthful !

DB : Yes, and in some sense this 'order' is a mystery...

K: Yes. I think not a mystery in the sense of a ' Great Mystery'...

DB : Not secret or anything ?

K: Not 'secret'...

DB : But something which you cannot penetrate – in other words, you couldn't find the ultimate explanation of it...

K: Yes.

DB : But I mean, even if you could, it would only lead to another mystery, I suppose

K: I can't. Let me put it a little more simply : neither I want to, or can I.

DB : But you see, this raises another question : if you don't want to, would that be enough to show that you couldn't ? So it doesn't prove it can't be done – it only proves that you can't do it...

K: It proves that I can't do it and I don't want to.

DB ; But this may be the other way around : is it you can't because you don't want to, or you don't want to because you can't ?

K: I think I can, but I don't want to...

DB : I see, that's it...And your feeling is you can't explain that ?

K; No. I think it is something 'mysterious' in the sense we are talking, which you cannot penetrate by thought.

DB : Yes, but does that mean it cannot be penetrated in some other way ?

K: Maybe...but I don't think so.

DB : Probably not ...

K: After all, the Catholic church says there is a mystery and you cannot understand it and various religions have put it in different ways. But here we've come to a point : here is a man who sees all that and it's like picking up a flower, looking at the flower and tear it into pieces...and there is no flower at the end of it.

DB : I see... so you're saying that 'thing' of what we're talking about is not capable of analysis...

K: That's it !

DB : It is a 'whole' which is not analysable...But are you also implying that thought can only analyse ?

K: Of course !

DB : Yes...so if you don't analyse, all you can do is to participate in it...

K: And also there is the enormous danger of deceiving oneself.

DB : Yes, because so many people had this idea...

K: I've been through all that !

DB : I mean you could argue that the fact that so many people had thought this way doesn't necessarily prove it is wrong ; it may be that people get a glimpse of it and then they go astray because desire gets hold of it and...

K; No ! If they go astray I question whether they 'see' it.

DB : I didn't say they see it- but that they can get a glimpse of it...

K: I don't think they can 'get a glimpse' of it ! They 'think' they have a glimpse .

DB : Let's put it this way : that thought is not satisfied with the 'known' and therefore projects the 'mysterious'.

K: That's it !

DB : And at the same time if some people have perhaps seen it, that becomes part of tradition and so on...

K: You see, sir, that's why, in a way, I'm glad that Mary (Lutyens) has written that book, because while one is living, one can correct it - you know, answer these questions, that he wasn't neurotic, that he wasn't mentally disturbed ot drugged- you know all that kind of things...But the 'fact' remains that there is 'something' which cannot be explained.

DB : Yes, let's try to put it this way : these explanations involve some kind of analysis and this will escape analysis, or else, it will be destroyed by analysis...

K: It cannot be 'destroyed' ! Analysis can't touch it.

DB : It can't be touched by analysis...So the 'flower' is destroyed, but all that is possible is to 'participate'...

K: That's all I was going to say. If you have this thing, this 'mystery', I will 'participate' when I listen to you completely. You follow ? When you say, for instance : 'Truth is a pathless land' - it 'is' so for me ! Therefore no guru, no... the whole thing goes. The moment I 'hear' it, it's finished !
(Long silence...) What time is it ?

DB : About five o'clock...

K: I have never gone into these things as deeply as we have done... I have never told you that incident : I was staying in Bombay and I don't speak any Indian language. There's a knock on the door and there are three sannyasi who asked if they can come in, and Mrs Jayakar brought them into the room- I was in my room- and she brought in the three sannyasi who want to meet you. One was a very old man, he had lived eleven years by himself in the Himalayas and he was making a pilgrimage going south to the various temples. And he was so...I held his hand and he began to cry – because probably nobody held his hand. And we sat around and he said in Hindi to her : 'We were passing by, and we felt that there was a great man here and we wanted to meet him'. Whether he had been totd or whether it was a fact, I don't know....I'm skeptical about this kind of things... So we spoke to the various people in the room telling them the truth about themselves. Then he said : ''May I wash my hands, please ?'' So they brought him a basin and a jug of cold water from the ice box and towel and he washes his hands. Then after cleaning his hands the same water he washed himself he poured it into his hands and passed it to the others – that's the Hindu tradition that when a sannyasi offers his blessings, he does it that way - who touched it with the tongue and it went all around. And then he said again, may I wash my hands and again he passed it around and I tasted it because I was the last. The first time it was tasting like water, but the second time it tasted sweet. I said, is he playing a trick on us ? I haven't seen anything. And he left - but before he said to Sunanda : ''you're not married, you have no children. You want children ? If you do, take this''. And he gave her something, a nut. And he left. And after he left I asked the others : ''Did you taste that water , because it tastes like coconut water, or some sweet water''
And the others said 'yes' and I said, ''this poor old man he couldn't have put in it some sacharine or sugar...'' You understand, sir ? How did it happen ? Probably he was unaware of it himself ! There are strange things in the world, sir …

DB : Yeah...

K: When I used to live in the theosophical society compound because I was one of the heads there , there were several of us in the room and a man comes, a sannyasi, a so called 'religious' man comes along and talks to us of all kind of things and we were all sitting like this, and he suddenly levitates, flows across and sits over there. There were no strings, no ropes...

DB : Well, there are a lot of people talking of strange things... I think that our understanding of nature is limited anyway. But I think there are two kinds of 'mysterious' things : I mean, that ( levitation) thing may be a mysterious thing but it might be...

K: I don't think it is 'mysterious'...

DB : ...something unknown to us now, but it might be understandable later.

K: They explain thay by leading a certain kind of life, discipline...

DB : But I meant that it violates certain laws of nature - in that the laws of nature could be different. But that could still not be mysterious...

K: That's what I mean, that's not 'mysterious'.

DB ; Although it's strange...

K: That's why I want to differentiate the 'mystery' from the 'strange' … I have also seen a man sitting in the middle of a rose bed there (in India) and he asked for a newspaper , he said 'put it down at your feet' – he was sitting right across- and he said 'watch it, I'm not going to mesmerise you because you're a religious man, but watch it ' And you saw the paper smaller and smaller and disappear...

DB : Hmm...

K: I don't see the point of it...

DB : I mean, that's something strange, but which might be explained...

K: They explain it...

DB : But I meant there are different kinds of explanations...

K: I'm only saying this to show that 'strangeness' is not the Other...

DB : You're saying that what happened to this boy was not of that nature ?

K; Yes, that's all ! I don't know what happened but it's not of that nature.

DB : Is it your feeling that whatever happened there was behind it some destiny or order which was aimed at the transformation of man ? Hmm ?

K: Probably...we'd better stop...

DB : Right...

K: I go for a walk now...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
1 day ago #272
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 492 posts in this forum Offline

8-th ('reader-friendly' edited) K dialogue with David Bohm ( cca 1975)

David Bohm: I had a letter from David Shainberg, and he raised one major (experiential) question : "If thought is fragmented , inherently fragmented and yet thought has to be consciously aware of its own fragmentation, then could we ask whether the thought which is aware of its own fragmentation, is also fragmented?"

Krishnamurti: Shall we start with that ?

DB : Yes.

K: What is the real, basic reason for thought to be fragmented ? Why is ( the self-centred process of) thought limited, broken up ?

DB: Now, I've been considering for some time the nature of thought and one point about thought is that it is beginning as a 'reaction' and ( later on it is ?) becoming a 'reflection'. And on the basis of ( one's past ) memory thought creates an 'imitation' of certain actual things that happen independently of thought. For example it may imitate in your imagination the appearence of a feeling, or a sound, or something else. Now, it is not possible for a reflection to capture the whole of what is reflected, so that there is no need to create an abstraction ?

K: Yes, generally there is an 'abstraction', I can see that, but you haven't answered my question : why is it fragmented ?

DB: Any abstraction is bound to be a fragment, you see ?

K: You're saying : thought reflects memory...

DB : Yeah...It reflects the content of memory...

K: And therefore, as it reflects, it is ( making it into ) an abstraction... ?

DB : Because it doesn't reflect all...

K: ...and therefore it's fragmentary.

DB : Yes, it selects some things to reflect (upon) , and other things are not reflected...

K: Would you put the question this way : “Can thought see the whole?”

DB: Well, ''Does thought 'see' ?'', that's another question that David Shainberg raised : does thought actually 'see' anything ? We discussed the other time that thought can become 'consciously aware' of something, let's say there is an awareness which involves perception, but everything we’re aware of may go on into memory, is that right?

K: Yes...

DB : Now, when that (self-centred) memory responds we have thought...

K: Right.

DB: So, as I see it, this 'conscious awareness' is an awareness recorded in memory and then reflected, right ?

K: Right...So memory is fragmented therefore its reflexion as thought is fragmented.

DB: It's not the whole experience, and as some ( less obvious?) things are not contained in ( our already saturated ) memory - the essence of it may be left out...

K: Left out...I understand, now let's dig deeply into it : why is thought 'fragmented '?

DB: Partly because its an 'abstraction' as you’ve just said. But I think there is another (deeper) reason : thought is not fully aware of its own operation. Perhaps we can begin this way : the brain has no 'sense organs' to tell itself that it is thinking.

K: Quite...

DB: You see, if you move your hand, there is a sense organ that tells you that it is moving. If you move your head, the image moves but it is corrected so that the world
doesn’t spin unless something is wrong with your balance. On the other hand there are no such sense organs in the brain. You see, if you do an operation on the brain, once you pass through the skull there is no sensation- people may be conscious while they are operated, but it does not disturb them. And now, let's say ( an activity of ) thought is recorded, it's held in memory, in the cells of the brain, and the cells of the brain react to produce some image, a (mental) 'imitation' (of the actual reality) . Now, while they first react, there is no ( direct) sensation that they are reacting, but a little later you may sense the result of the reaction.

K: Yes, I understand that...

DB: But then, when thought becomes conscious of that result it may not realise that it has produced that result. And therefore it will atribute to that 'result' an independent existence.

K: So, thought is a reflection of memory, that's one point. The brain has no feeling apart for the sensory organs of the body, and therefore the brain stores up memory, and memory is partial, and therefore thought is partial.

DB: Yes, but also the process of thought is not fully aware of itself.

K: Now, is all that the 'complete' answer?

DB: Well I don’t know...

K: I don’t know (either) - we’re investigating .

DB: But to finish what I was saying, there is an inherent fragmentation here, because thought (the thinking brain) not being aware of itself (thinking) , and then suddenly becoming aware of its result further down the line, it attributes that to something which is independent, and also it 'fragments' itself because one part of thought has produced this result and another part of thought comes along and says ''this is something else''.

K: It's like this, quite...

DB: And therefore, thought has broken up into two parts ( the 'thinker' and 'its thinking'?) which are contradicting each other.

K: Yes, but I think there is something more, isn't there ? Why is thought fragmented? You can see what thought has done, all what it has reflected upon, what it has thought about,
what it has put together - are all 'fragments' (of one's total consciousness)...

DB: But that's (resulting ) from (processing our) experience - if we reflect upon our personal experience we see the fragmentary nature of the activity of thought.

K: Yes. Is there any deeper reason for why is thought fragmented? I was thinking about it the other day while walking, why is it fragmented? What is the nature of thought ?
What is thought? Not just the words, symbols, reflexions of memory, but what is actually the substance of thought? Isn't it a material process, a chemical process...?

DB: Well, I would say, yes...

K: All right, if it is a material process, why should it be fragmented? Isn't thought's (verbally assisted?) perception a fragmentary process?

DB: Why should it be fragmentary ?

K: If ( one's direct) perception is ( controlled by) the activity of thought, then ( this 'safe-mode' ) perception cannot see the whole.

DB: You see, thought contains some kind of 'imitation of perception', which we call 'reflection'...

K: Yes, so thought 'imagines' that it perceives .

DB: It 'contains' it, yes...

K: Or it supposes that ( it is knowledgeable what?) it sees .

DB: It produces a certain ( self-projected?) result which it supposes it 'sees'.

K: But yet, why is it broken up? I understand all these, but there must be a deeper cause , isn’t there? Isn't thought ( whether consciously or not?) seeking a result?

DB: Well, it may be seeking a result...

K: A (desirable) 'end' to be achieved, to be gained, something which it (hopes ?) can fulfil itself and feel satisfied...And why has civilisation, mankind given such terrific importance to thought?

DB: When you talked yesterday, you pointed out the issue of security. I mean, the security that thought gives in many senses - not only in the sense of psychological security, but also of material security.

K: Yes. But thought in itself is not secure

DB: Well thought cannot be secure – it is a reflection..

K: Therefore as it cannot be secure in itself, and seek security outside.

DB: But, why does it seek security, you see?

K: Oh, because in itself it is fragmentary.

DB: Yes but it is not well explained why something which is fragmentary should seek security ; we'll have to go more slowly...

K: Go slowly, yes. Why does thought seek security? Because thought is constantly changing. Constantly moving.

DB: Well nature is moving too.

K: Ah , but, nature is different.

DB: I know, but we have to see the difference – why nature doesn’t seek security as far as we can tell.

K: Nature doesn’t, but why does ( the self-centred process of?) thought seek security? Is it in itself uncertain, insecure, in itself is in constant movement.

DB: But that doesn’t explain why its not satisfied to just be that...

K: Why, because it sees its own perishable nature.

DB: But why should it want to be 'imperishable' ?

K: Because that which is 'imperishable' gives it security.

DB: So if thought were content just to say 'I’m impermanent', then it would be like nature. It would say : well I’m here today, and tomorrow I'll be something different, right ?

K: Ah, but it is not satisfied with that.

DB: Well, why not?

K: Is it because there is an   'attachment'?

DB: But then, , what is this 'attachment', you see? I mean, why should thought 'attach' itself to anything? Why shouldn’t it say ''well I’m just thought'' I’m just a reflection...

K: But your're giving to thought, considerable intelligence if you say ''I’m like nature I just come & go in a constant flux, you follow ?

DB: So, now you're saying thought is mechanical and that's why it is doing this ; but then we have to see why the mechanical process should necessarily seek security? I mean a machinery doesn’t seek anything in particular, you see, we can set up the machinery and it just goes on...

K: Of course, as long as there is energy it goes on working.

DB: And then it breaks down and that's the end of it.

K: Quite... so, why does thought seek security?

DB: Why should any ( biological?) mechanism want to be secure?

K: But does thought realise that it is mechanical ?

DB: No, but you see, now comes the point that thought has made a mistake, something incorrect in its content, which is, thought does not know it is (just a survival-oriented?) 'mechanical' (process) ; thought even thinks that it is not 'mechanical'...

K: Now wait a minute, let's come back : do I think I’m a 'mechanical' (entity ) ?

DB: I think in general thought does not think its mechanical, but does it definitely think that it is beyond the mechanism, does it think it is 'intelligent' in other words ?

K: Sir, a (purely) 'mechanical' thing doesn’t get hurt . It just functions. It may stop working, but that doesn’t mean it is hurt. Whereas thought ( is taking its own existence very 'personally' and...?) gets hurt.

DB: And thought has the factor of pleasure, pain and all the rest of it.

K: It gets hurt, lets stick to one thing. It gets hurt. Why does it get hurt? Because of the (identification with the self-) 'image' and all the rest of it. It has created the 'image' and in (its) continuity it is seeking security, isn’t it ?

DB: Yes, but it's not clear why it ever began to seek that kind of security, you see ? If it began as a ( survival-oriented mental ?) mechanism there was no reason.

K: Ah, but it never realised that it was mechanical.

DB: Yes, all right, but a mechanism doesn’t know that it is mechanical either, you see ? I mean, like a tape recorder : it just functions mechanically, you see, it 'doesn’t want to be hurt'...

K: A rather interesting (experiential question) : why does thought not realise that it is 'mechanistical'?

DB: Yes...

K: Why does it suppose that it's something different from a ( programmable 'thinking ) machine'?

DB: Because it may feel it is a living thing, rather than 'mechanical' ?

K: I think that's the root of it, isn’t it ? It 'thinks' it is a living thing and therefore it attributes to itself, the quality of 'non-mechanical' existence.

DB: Now , if a computer has been programmed with the (identitary) information that it was living....

K: Yes, it would say that 'I’m living'.

DB: And then it might try to react, or to respond accordingly, but why thought doesn’t do that ?

K: Thought is (a much more?) clever (process) , giving itself qualities which it basically has not.

DB : But to some extent you did not consider David’s question ; you were just saying that thought somehow can realises it's mechanical, which would imply that it had some intelligence, you see ?

K: Now let's see, does ( the self-centred process of?) thought realise that it is 'mechanical', or ( brain's holistic ?) perception sees that it is mechanical?

DB: All right, but then that would seem to be a change from what you said the other day...

K: I’m just investigating.

DB: So, if we say there is ( an insightful) perception which sees the mechanical & fragmentary nature of thought, I could say that any machine is in some sense fragmentary, it's not alive... It is made of parts that are put together and so on, now, if there is a perception that (the process of) thought is mechanical, then that means that some ( holistic) Intelligence is (implicit ) in the (very act of) perception .

K: Are we saying, sir, that thought ( or the thinking brain?) has in itself the quality of intelligence, perception, and therefore it perceives itself as mechanical ?

DB: Yes, that would seem strange...

K: Or, there is a ( global?) perception and that perception says 'thought is mechanical' ?

DB: Yes, and we can call that (perception) 'truth', isn't it ?

K: Yes, but here are two things involved, aren’t there ? Either (a) thought in itself has the sense of perception, a sense of intelligence and therefore realises it is 'mechanical'. Or (b) there is a (time-free quality of ) perception, which is 'truth'. And that perception says 'thought is mechanical'.

DB: Now, the first idea seems to be a contradiction.

K: Yes : can thought realise that (psychologically-wise?) it is (predominantly?) 'mechanical' (repetitive & predictable?) ?

DB: Well that's the question. But the answer is not clear, you see.... The other time you were saying there would be first a 'conscious awareness' of the nature of thought and thought would then come to realise it.

K: I want to go back to something: the 'things' that contains ( our time-bound ) consciousness, are put together there by (an ages old self-centred activity of?) thought. All the (psychologically active?) 'content' of that consciousness is the product of thought, in fact, ( one's self-) consciousness 'is' ( created by ) thought.

DB : Yes, it is ( generating ?) the whole process.

K: Does thought 'see' all this, or there is a pure ( insighful ? ) perception without thought which then says says : 'thought is mechanical'.

DB : But then, how does thought know what to do ? We were discussing also the other day that when there is a perception of truth...

K: ...action takes place.

DB: Action takes place, and thought becomes aware of that action.

K: Yes, that's right, that's right....Lets get at it.

DB: But in becoming aware of this (timeless) action (of insight) , is thought still mechanical ?

K: No, 'thought' (the holistically friendly activity of the brain?) then is not mechanical.

DB : You’d have to say then that thought changes its nature ?

K: Its nature, yes.

DB: Well that's the point (the experiential aspect ? ) we have to get hold of : that thought does not have a fixed (a 100% programamble?) nature, is that the point?

K: Yes, sir.

DB: Because in much of this ( intellectual ?) discussion one tends to imply that the word 'thought' has a fixed nature, but now, (you're saying that) thought can change ?

K: Yes, thought does change.

DB: But I mean, can it change fundamentally ?

K: Let's get at it ( by starting again from 'square one'?) : we said that total perception is 'truth', and that (this time-free?) perception operates in the field of reality, and therefore...

DB: Well, we didn’t say that the 'perception of truth' operates directly in the 'field of reality', we said the other day that it operates in ( the intermediary field of) 'actuality'...

K: Wait a minute, there is perception which is truth, and that can only act in that which is 'actual'...

DB: Yes...

K: 'Actual' being (an intelligent & compassionate?) 'care' in one's action in the field of reality, isn’t it ? Look sir, let's put it on the other way : ( suppose that) one perceives something totally, which is not the (result of the self-centred ? ) action of thought....

DB: Yes, that is a 'direct act'.

K: Yes, that is a direct perception, then that 'perception' acts.

DB: Acts directly ?

K: Directly.

DB: Without thought ?

K: That's what we have to find out (for meditation homework ?) ...

DB: Well, it begins without ( the interference of the self-centred process of ? ) thought, and that 'perception' acts directly ; as you said, the ( clear) perception of (an imminent?) danger acts immediately without thought. But later on thought may become aware of the act..

K: Thought then becomes aware of the ( insight's ) action and translates it into words...

DB: And into further ( mental ?) structures... ?

K: Right, we're getting at it slowly... (To recap:) there is a total perception which is 'truth' and that perception acts in the field of reality ; so, this action is not the product of thought. And because it is an 'action of the whole', thought has undergone a change.

DB: All right, now we have it : if there is an action in the perception of the whole (process of) thought (as being) part of the whole, therefore (the quality of one's thought) is being changed - is that what you're saying ?

K: No, no... when it sees the whole, that's the truth....

DB: So, thought's whole action is ( now qualitatively ) different ?

K: Because that perception is not 'fragmented'.

DB: ... it's one whole ?

K: One whole ('all-one'?) , yes, and it acts. That action is not put together by thought ; so then what is the relationship of thought to this ( newly achieved clarity of ) action?

DB: Well, there are several points, you see, one thing is to say that thought is a material process, based in the brain cells. Now, the action of perception will somehow act on the brain cells won’t it?

K: That's the point, it does...

DB: Therefore one's thinking must be different ?

K: Different, quite right. When there is a total perception and action, it must affect the ( functioning of the ) brain cells.

DB: Right, and in affecting the brain cells it may change the nature of thought ?

K: It is a shock, do you follow ? It's something totally 'new' to the brain.

DB: Yes. And therefore this perception which is being 'total', penetrates the physical structure of the brain ?

K: Let's be simple about it : if you see that (thinking in terms of?) 'division' (or living inwardly in the field of ?) 'fragmentation' is a tremendous ( existential) danger, doesn’t it affect your whole way of thinking?

DB: Yes, but this brings us to the next question, that thought has developed a way of preventing this 'affect' from taking place. ..

K: That's it ! That’s what I want to get at : thought resists.

DB: But you see, a ( purely mechanistic thinking ) would not resist....

K: No, because it has (created for itself a self-protecting screen of ) habits and it remains ( enjoying life?) in that groove, until another ( critical ?) 'perception' comes along and shakes that.

DB: Yes and then ( the process of) thought tries again to re-stabilise itself – by 'holding' ( or getting attached?) to another fixed point.

K: To greed, or to whatever it is...

DB: If we look at it this way, namely that thought hasn’t got a fixed nature, it may also be intelligent and…

K: No, I wouldn’t give that word 'intelligence' to thought, for the moment.

DB: But we were saying before, that thought may not have a fixed nature and needn’t be mechanical...

K: But ( the ongoing activity of ) thought 'is' mechanical, it functions in ( repetitive) grooves, it lives in habits, memories...

DB : Yes...

K: And a total perception ( of its time binding condition ) does affect this whole structure…..

DB: Yes, that's right, and as a result of this perception, ( the inner activity of?) thought is different, right ?

K: Yes, thought is different because...

DB: ... the ( timeless light of this) 'perception' has penetrated the physical structure of thought and made it different ?

K: That's right.

DB: Now, you don’t want to say it is ( becoming universally?) 'intelligent', but let us say that if thought were just a ( survival-programmed thinking ?) machine, it would not cause trouble, but for some odd reasons thought is trying to do more than behave like a machine

K: Yes, thought is trying to do more than a machine.

DB : And now, if we could look at it again, if there’s perception and awareness and this may be recorded in thought, there are two things : (a) if (a totally insightful?) perception affects the physical structure of the brain, and this 'affect' is somehow recorded in the content of memory and the memory takes hold of it, any such recording is a kind of 'imitation'. You see, every recording machine is (producing ) a kind of 'imitation', so, (the deeper problem) is not mainly that thought is mechanical, but it contains a process of imitation, to record information you see, like a tape recorder records some sort of 'imitation' by storing the structure of sound in a magnetic form, which again is recreated as ( the reproduced) sound is imitating the original sound.
You see, thought has the ( instinctive ) capacity to imitate whatever happens, because of this 'recording', right ?

K: Yes, that's right... But I want to go back a little bit : Suppose that you perceive totally something - like this total perception of greed, let's take this for the moment, and because of that total perception, your (thinking) activity is (becoming) 'non-mechanical' ; (Hint:) the 'mechanical' ( aspect ) being the ( blind) pursuing of greed as (a psychologically rewarding support for ?) thought. And if you perceive the ( time-binding ?) nature and the structure of greed there is the (actual possibility of) 'ending' of it.

DB: But isn’t there another part of thought which is mechanical, but which is necessary (for mankind's survival) , like for example, ( processing & using the ?) practical informations contained by thought ?

K: I’m just coming to that : what place has thought then?

DB: Well, it still has a mechanical place...

K: But you're not 'greedy' anymore. That 'momentum' (of greed) , that mechanical habit is over. Then, what place has thought?

DB: Well, thought has some place – like if you want to find your way home ?

K: I use it when I need (to buy a 'taylor made' new ?) coat - I get it, but there's no ( personal element of) greed involved.

DB: So if thought has not identified itself with greed, you have an (objective) thinking which is rational.

K: I don’t quite follow...

DB: Well, you see, 'greed' is a form of irrational (self-centred?) thought.

K: Yes 'greed' is irrational.

DB: But now there’s a 'rational' ( aka : a holistically minded ) thinking, like for example, if you want to figure out something, you know....

K: But when you perceived ( the whole truth about the self-centred movement?) of greed, something has also happened to 'you' (to the 'one who perceives'?)

DB: Yes... ? Are you saying there is no more thought?

K: But ( for the insightful perception ) thought is not necessary.

B: Well, then how do you find your way home ? How do you use memory?

K: ( For starters, inwardly?) I’m no longer greedy...( and secondly) I have no need for thought in the field of (direct ) perception and therefore thought doesn’t enter into it at all (QED...?)

DB: Not into perception, but it still has its place apparently. For example if you want to know the way from here to wherever you want to go…

K: I’m taking of 'greed'  - where there is a total perception thought has no place.

DB: In the perception ?

K: Not only in that perception, but ( the self - cetred activity of) thought doesn’t exist any more with regard to that (greed) . Or if you perceive that all (the psychologically motivated action of ?) 'belief' is irrational , there is a perception of this total structure of belief, and it's out - ( such) 'belief' has no place in your thinking , in your brain.

DB: But isn't there a ( subliminal) tendency that thought may interfere (again?) ...

K: No, it won't ; if I perceive the total nature of belief, then it's over. Then where does thought come into that ( psychologically active structure?) which thought has created? Look sir, if I perceive totally the nature of belief, with ( the related ) fear, all the rest of it involved ; because there is a total perception, ( the actual need for such psychologically motivated ?) 'belief' doesn’t exist in my thought, in my brain, nothing ! So, where does thought come into it ?

DB: Well, not at that part....

K: It's finished ! So thought has no place when there’s a total perception, Same thing with ( seeing the whole nature of) 'greed' or of 'fear'... Then thought operates only when there’s an (actual) necessity for 'food, clothes, shelter'. What do you say to that?

DB: Yes, that may be right... But let's look at what we started with , which was to understand why thought has done what it has done. In other words, when there is a total perception then there's no place for thought. You just 'see'. But when we come to practical affairs (in the real world?) , you could say that we don’t have a 'total perception' - we depend on the information which has been previously accumulated, and so on...and therefore we need ( to use ) thought.

K: There, yes. I need it to build a house, I need to…

DB: So, you depend on the accumulated information, you see ? You cannot directly 'perceive' how to build a house, right ? But for 'psychological' matters...

K: That's it. When there is a total perception, thought doesn’t enter (anymore) into the psychological process.

DB: Yes, it has no place in the psychological domain . Now, I’d like to come back to the other question raised by David Shainberg, which is: “Why has thought gone wrong, why has it done all these things, why has it pushed itself where it has no place”?

K: Could we say that thought creates 'illusion' (self-delusion) ?

DB: Why would it want to do this ? And even more deeply, what makes it happen, you see?

K: Because ( after millenia of survival-oriented experience?) thought has taken the place of ( direct) perception...
So, does it happen, sir, that when there is a total perception that perception having no ( need to rely on) thought and all that, such an (holistically friendly?) mind uses thought only where it is actually necessary and otherwise it is ( remaining) 'empty' ?

DB: I wonder if we could put it differently : such a mind when it uses thought, it realises that this is (just) thought, it never supposes it is not thought, is that right?

K: Yes, that's right, that it is thought and nothing else...

DB: But I think the danger is that the mind does not realise that this is just thought ; suppose someone has an experience of joy and enjoyment, but slightly later there comes thought which 'imitates' it by remembering it, and then – since it is a very subtle imitation, it treats it as the same (authentic experience) and therefore it begins to get caught in is own ( mental pursuit of) pleasure which it mistakes for ( authentic) joy and enjoyment.

K: Quite...

DB: Now after a while, it becomes a habit and when the pleasure is not there there's a reaction of fear and so on, and all this psychological trouble starts. So at some stage , there is this mechanical ( image-making) process which thought does not acknowledge, not knowing that it is mechanical...

K: Yes...Could we say that man never realised until recently, that thought is a 'physio-chemical' (brain) process and therefore it assumed a tremendous importance?

DB: Well, in general that is certainly true, it's only recently that science has shown the physical & chemical properties of thought. Now, if we go back to the past, would you say, that nobody realised it , or perhaps some people understood this, but in general most people did not ?

K: Did not. All the 'saints' functioned ( based ) on thought....

B: Well, what about Buddha?

K: Again, according to the Buddhist tradition, there’s the 'eightfold noble path', there’s 'right thinking'...

DB: Ah, but he may have meant 'thinking non-mechanically'…

K: That's it ! You can’t take ( the example of) anybody in the past.

DB: Why, because we can’t be sure...?

K: Can't be sure of what they ( actually ) meant.

DB: That was interpreted ( by countless generations of followers) and so on, and we can’t go and ask him what he meant...

K: (Laughing)… So, is that the reason, because thought said ''I’m the only important thing'' ?

DB: Yes, but how did it come to say that, you see?

K: Because there was no ( direct inward?) perception.

DB: No, but why wasn’t it there?

K: Man didn’t realise, or thought wasn’t told that it was just a physio-chemical process.

DB: Yes, well thought does not know it's a material process therefore thought mistook itself for the actual 'intelligence'. But suppose there's ( a timeless moment of pure ) enjoyment, and ( later on) thought creates from memory an imitation of all that...

K: But it didn’t realise it was 'imitating' !

DB: That's what I’m trying to say, it didn’t know it was imitating.

K: That's just it.

DB: Perhaps it was too subtle for thought to realise it was just an imitation.

K: That's it... And also because thought from the beginning said I’m the only 'god' .

DB: I wonder if that didn't come a little later, you see ? At first thought mistook itself for (both the provider & beneficiary of) joy and intelligence , goodness and so on..

K: Yes, yes...

DB: Then it realised its own impermanence and then it took the idea that there is a ( Higher ) Self which is always there, which produces (mindfulness) and truth, and perception and so... You can give as a (trivial) example : enjoying the sunset and there may be a small ( verbal) 'accompaniment' of thought which seems harmless in itself....

K: Yes, it 'flutters around', quite...

DB: Flutters around, but now, as it builds up by habit, by repetition , it gets stronger, and it becomes comparable in intensity to the original experience , and then thought does
not see this as an imitation and it treats it as genuine.

K: Are we saying that man has never been told, or he never realised that thought is just a 'physio-chemical' process ?

DB: That realisation is not enough, because science has been saying it long ago - that thought is physical and mechanical, but that ( scientific discovery) in itself hasn’t changed anything.

K: No, no, but if you 'perceive' (the inward truth of?) that… ?

DB: Yes, but it was not enough for science to know that thought is a just a mechanical process...

K: That's right, it's only recently... so the ( cultural) conditioning and the ( safe mentality created by ? ) habit has been to consider thought as the primary thing ( value) in life.

DB: Yes, and even when it was called 'non-thought' it was still thought, you see ? There was some indication that thought created ( very realistic ) 'imitations' of the primary things in life and then it said that itself is the primary thing.

K: That's right, yes...

DB: So, thought never knew that it was just a mechanical process and therefore never had any reason to suspect that what it created was not the 'primary thing' in life, because even if it could see itself creating it, it would not know there was anything wrong with it.

K: Quite, quite. So what are we saying now? Thought never realised it was limited. Thought never realised that which it created was a 'physio-chemical' thing. Is that what we are saying?

DB: Part of it, yes.

K: And we are saying also, where there is a total perception, a ( qualitative) change in thought takes place.

DB: And what happens to thought then ?

K: Thought doesn’t try to interfere, there is no 'psychological' entity which thought can use.

DB: Let's try to clear this up a little bit. Let's say there is a new invention - which we discussed before, and something new comes into thought, into the field of reality, but we say that might be a perception. And because of that perception thought is functioning differently, it remains mechanical but different.

K: Yes, that's exactly what we are saying.

DB: Yes, therefore the creativity is not in thought itself but in the perception.

K: Lets get it clear, thought has created the 'me' ( a virtual 'thinker' entity?) and this 'me' has become independent of thought, apparently.

DB: Apparently ...

K: And the 'me' being still part of the thought, is the 'psychological' structure, while ( the true ) perception can only take place when there is no 'me'.

B: Well we could try to go (deeper) into this and make it more clear. You see, the 'me', this imaginary structure, we know it's 'real', as the 'me' involves some sort of 'centre' doesn’t it ? This 'centre' is a very old form of thought, it is one of the most fundamental forms (of survival oriented thinking ) , it probably goes to the behaviour of the animals, most probably.

K: Yes sir, the family centre and so on...

DB: Yes, also the geometric centre, when people use the centre with the rays emanating out, it's a very powerful symbol, you see, the sun with its rays (etc) so the ( pseudo- holistic?) concept of a 'centre' has a tremendous affect on thought, you see...

K: Yes sir...

DB: And this 'centre' has the meaning of totality, you see, one point touches everything. In other words the 'centre' is a symbol of the contact with the whole, you see, and I think
that's how the 'self' 's considered in thought. It perceives , the self is perceiving everything. The self is determining everything...

K: So there is an (all-controlling?) 'centre', but is this centre independent of thought?

B: Well the centre 'is' thought, it is a basic structure in thought, we think in terms of 'centre', you see ? In physics for example each atom is (thought of as?) a 'centre'.

K: That's why thought is fragmented.

B: Because we think through the 'centre' ?

K: We think through the centre. Ah, we're ( finally?) getting at it !

DB: Well let's get it more clear : you see , one of the basic theories of physics is to think that the world is made of atoms, each atom is a 'centre', a force which connects to
all the other atoms, and of course the opposite view is that there is a continuous field and no 'centre', those are the two views studied and are pursued in two different forms. Now, if you 'think through the centre', there is going to be fragmentation. You'll say the atomic view is fragmentary ?

K: Must be ! You see, what were getting at is that the basic reason of fragmentation is that we function from a 'centre' .

DB: Yes, we must think in terms of 'centre' because that may be useful the sun is at the centre to the solar system. But psychologically (inwardly) we also function from a centre. You see, physically we are forced to function from a centre, because the body is the centre of our field of sensory perception. But psychologically we form an imitation of that, we have the thought at the centre which is probably I think Jung called an 'archetype', it may be millions of years old, going back to the animals.

K: Yes, to the animals, quite....

DB : Now that form is useful physically, but then it was extended psychologically, right ?

K: That's right, that's why ( consciousness-wise?) thought is fragmentary.

DB: Well, is there a thought which does not function from the centre?

K: It has to... Because thought is from a centre of memory.

DB: Well, let's explore why does thought have to be from a centre, you see, why couldn’t there be a (non-personal response of) memory without a centre ?

K: How can there be, just 'memory' like a computer?

B: Its not clear to me why there cannot be memory, you see, just as information. You see, its not clear to me why thought had to form a centre, and why 'psychologically' it gave this 'centre' such importance?

K: Because thought never acknowledged to itself that it is mechanical.

DB: Thought was unable to acknowledge that it's mechanical, but, why does that call for a 'centre'?

K: But thought has created the 'centre'...

DB: Yes, but the 'centre' was there just for practical purposes anyway, but thought used that idea, 'psychologically' for itself....now, why was it doing that?

K: For a very simple reason : thought said : I can't be (just a) mechanical (function) , I must be something much more.

DB: How does the ( concept of the) 'centre' make it more then?

K: Because that gives ( the thinking process?) a sense of permanency, as the 'me' ...

DB: Well, we should make that more clear : why ( thought's identification with?) this 'centre' gives it a sense of permanency.

K: Why? Thought has created this microphone, that is apparently permanent, relatively, and 'in here' thought created the 'me' as a permanent entity.

DB: Yes, but why did it pick up the 'centre' to be permanent?

K: Perhaps it picked it up ( from the empirical observation that?) the Sun is the centre of the universe, and this ( life-giving) 'centre' joins everything.

DB: Yes, it joins everything and gives a sense of unity.

K: Unity, the family/tribe/nation and so on, but ( inwardly-wise) this 'centre' (aka the 'observer' ) becomes totally unnecessary when there is a 'complete' perception.

DB: But it seems to be necessary, when there is no such 'complete perception'.

K: It is not 'necessary', but that's what is happening in the world...

DB: So, not being able to realise it is mechanical, thought began to create its own products and seeing their instability, knowing their impermanence, it tried to establish something permanent and it found the ( concept of an identitary) 'centre' useful for trying to do that, because this 'centre' made a connection with everything.

K: Yes, that's right...

DB: in other words, you see, if it is a 'form' around which everything can be put together, and even if everything is 'falling apart' in one's life, thought can ( ASAP?) establish a stable 'centre' which holds it all together ?

K: That's right : 'my' family, 'my' house, 'my' country...

DB: And that's 'permanent' ; in other words, thought has hit on the idea of a permanent centre to hold everything together and in fact that's what we do all the time to organise our existence by having a centre around which everything can be organised.

K: That's right, like a company executive...

DB: That's what we do all the time to have a permanent 'centre' to hold it all together...

K: Now when one ( endeavours to) perceive something totally, this (all-controlling) 'centre' is non - existent and doesn't that ( transpersonal ?) perception includes everything?

DB: Right, but lets go slowly here...

K: Isn’t that the 'central thing' that holds, that connects everything?

DB: I see it differently : that the act of perception unites everything. And thought is imitating that by ( inventing the concept of ) a 'centre' that unites everything.

K: That's right...

DB: And thought attributes the actual perception to this 'centre'

K: That's right, to the 'observer' and so on..

DB: And also the 'thinker' attributes its own origin to that (virtual) 'centre' and attributes truth to itself.

K: That's right. Now, is there sir, a ( non-personal) perception of greed, of fear, or a total perception which includes everything ? So it isn’t just a ( fragmentary) perception of 'greed', perception of 'belief' (& so on) but the ( global) perception of all these things.

DB: Let's say there’s a ( holistic) perception of 'that which is', right ? And right now there is the related question which we might clear up, because we said truth is (the perception of?) 'that which is', right?

K: Yes...(when) there is only perception, not the 'perceiver'.

DB: There is no 'perceiver', but only the perception of 'that which is', isn’t it?

K: Yes, and the 'perceiver' is the (thought created) centre.

DB: Yes, thought attributes to the 'centre' the quality of being a 'perceiver', as well as a 'thinker' or an 'actor'. So, I think that it might be helpful to see that one of the functions of thought is to refer, or attribute, and thought can attribute anything to any 'thing'...

K: Yes, quite right...

DB: Therefore when thought has 'invented' the centre, then it may attribute various qualities to that 'centre', such as thinking, feeling , pain or pleasure, therefore it becomes 'alive'. Could we say that suffering arises there, when pain is attributed to the centre?

K: Of course, as long as there is a 'centre', there must be suffering...

DB: Because when there no 'centre' the ( psychologically motivated frustration & ) pain is merely in thought.

K: Merely physical...

DB : Either physical or in memory ...But if the memory of pain is attributed to the 'centre' then it becomes something big.

K: So, we are 'seeing' something : if there is a total perception, thought has no place in that perception.

DB : And yet, that perception 'acts' and thought might be its action. That's what we were saying the other day...

K: Yes...let's get this clear. When there is a total perception in that there is no thought and that perception 'is' ( generating its own simultaneous ?) action.

DB: Yes, and that (holistic perception?) will change the quality of thought, by changing the brain cells.

K: And so on.... we've been through all that. Thought has only a mechanical function.

DB: By 'mechanical' you mean more or less, 'not intelligent' ? In the dictionary it's given more or less the opposite thing. So, thought is not creative, it's not intelligent ?

K: No. It's purely mechanical. So if it is merely mechanical, then it can operate mechanically in everything, without (identifying itself with?) any 'psychological' centre.

DB: Well then it would be like this computer that...

K: Yes, like the computer, but if the computer is to hold all this as your (perceptive mental ?) 'bucket' ... and we said it's not your 'bucket', it has no emotional (content)

DB: Well it's merely contradictory information.

K: Merely contradictory information ; similarly here. So we are giving tremendous importance to thought.

DB: Well, thought is giving importance to itself...

K: Thought is giving to itself tremendous importance ; when perception takes place, and therefore thought becomes mechanical.

DB: Well, and when thought acknowledges it is mechanical...

K: When it acknowledges it is mechanical, then there is no (psychologically generated ?) problem.

DB: Yes, this was one point ; and the other was to understand fully how thought went along the 'wrong track'.

K: Yes sir, I can see how it's gone on the wrong track : the 'centre'.

DB: Well, I think even from the beginning, there was in the beginning thought mistook itself for something living and creative, and then it established the 'centre' in order to
make that (assumption) permanent....

K: Yes.

DB: ... and then that gave it tremendous importance, you see, the combination of the two.

K: The combination of… ?

DB: One, that thought mistook itself for something intelligent and higher.

K: That's right...

DB: And its own imitations, for enjoyment and for intelligence, and love and so on and then seeing this was impermanent, seeing it naturally wanted to make it permanent,
and therefore it found the 'centre' as the way to try to do it , because the centre was actually the practical way of trying to organise things 'permanently'.

K: Quite right sir, so now we have answered (David Shainberg's question ) ''why thought is fragmentary ?''

DB: Yes, but let's make it more clear, why is it 'fragmentary'? I mean it's gone wrong, but why is this fragmentation  still going on ?

K: Because thought has separated itself from the thing it has created.

DB: Yes, thought has a created centre which is separate from itself, whereas in fact it is the centre, it has created the centre and it is the centre.

K: It 'is' the centre.

DB: Yes, that's right, but it thinks of itself, attributes to itself, that centre, the property of thought, 'I am real' and so on, and that is a fragmentation.

K: That's the basic thing.

DB: And from there follows the necessity for the rest of the fragmentation of life, because in order to maintain that those two are different, thought must then break up everything to
fit that, do you see ?

K: Of course.

DB: It only introduces confusion, you see, either it separates things that are not separate, or it puts together things that are different in order to maintain that fiction that the 'centre'
is separate from thought and everything else has to be cut to fit that.

K: ... cut to fit that centre.

DB: Yes, you see for example, if somebody attributes to the 'centre' of being from a certain nation, he must then distinguish another nation, not belonging to the centre, he
fragments something that's one mankind in order to hold the centre together.

K: Quite right sir, that's very clear now.

DB: And therefore the entire world is fragmented, indefinitely shattered into fragments.

K: I want to get to something else to. Is perception from time to time, from moment to moment ?

DB: From moment to moment ?

K: I perceive the nature of belief, its finished, there’s a
total perception of fear, that's finished, and there is total perception of greed, that's finished, is that perception one after the other, or is there total perception of the whole ?

DB: Well let's go into that slowly, you see, if there’s total perception of the whole thing, then what would there be left to do ? See, this raises the second question that David
Shainberg brought in. He says: you put it in the last discussion at Brockwood, that it was like Columbus discovering America, that someone else doesn’t have to discover it again. But then, what does one do that is creative, that is corresponding to what you did, you see?

K: Now, just a minute , just wait a minute, first let me answer this question. “Is perception whole”?

DB: A whole, there's only one perception.

K: ….therefore it's cleared the field.

DB: The entire field is cleared. Then what does he do ?

K: Wait, wait, let's see that is so, he hasn’t got to go through greed, belief, fear, pleasure...the whole things cleared the deck.

DB: Well you're saying man may perceive the whole nature of thought, is that what you are saying, or is it beyond that?

K: Beyond, a little more... Let's take that perception which sees the nature of thought, and because it perceives the nature of thought, it sees all this, all the fragments.

DB: All the fragments are in there.

K: All the fragments.

DB: And that brings up the question I wanted to ask for some time, You see, in the Indian book, Tradition and Revolution, you mention towards the end of it, the notion of
'essence' – pointing out that (a totally insightful?) perception distills the 'essence - do you remember that?

K: No, I don’t remember, sorry, it doesn’t matter...

DB: In some way there is a notion that there is a total perception being ( the direct action of) intelligence, and out of that came the (spiritual) 'essence', distilled like ( perfume distilled from ) the flowers.

K: Yes, yes...

DB: Is that 'essence' anything like this 'wholeness '?

K: That's what that is, of course. Now wait a minute, I want to get this clear. Would you say there's is no perception of fear, greed, envy, belief but a total perception, of everything that thought has put together, and of the 'centre'?

DB: Well there is a phrase that people sometimes use, ''to perceive the essence and the totality'', does that seem appropriate ?

K: Hmm… I’m hesitating on (using) the word 'essence'...

DB: Well, let's say you 'perceive the totality' ?

K: Leave the word 'essence' for the moment. There is no (point in a ) partial perception of greed, envy and all that, there is a 'total' perception of all the things that thought has put together, and made itself separate, the 'centre'.

DB: Well now, we have to talk about 'total perception', we have to make it more clear, because 'total' may mean 'all these things', or it may mean something else... ?

K: To me is means something else.

DB: Well let's make that more clear.

K: Would a 'total' perception mean seeing thought attributing to itself certain qualities, thought creating the centre and giving to that centre certain attributes, and all the things from the 'centre' – the 'psychological' centre.

DB: Well that's the whole structure of thought.

K: The whole structure.

DB: Yes, that is part of total perception, seeing the whole structure.

K: The whole of that.

DB: The entire structure, that's what we call the 'essence', the basic structure.

K: Yes, all right, if you call that 'essence', I agree.

DB: Yes, and that structure which is universal, would you agree that its not just this thought or that thought or this problem or that problem or …

K: It is universal, quite. Now wait a minute, is such a perception possible? You said that is (a totally insightful?) 'perception' - nothing else - because you tell me ''I see that, I feel that, I see the truth of what you're saying, it is the truth, not mine or yours, it is the truth''.

B: Yes ; now if you say it's the truth, it is 'that which is'...

K: That which is, the 'actual'.

DB: Yes, well it's both... I’m trying to get it a little more clear, when we say there is 'truth' and there is 'actuality', the way we ordinarily use the word 'actual', is really the right way we use the word 'individual', it would seem to me that the (perception of) actuality is 'individual', you see, undivided.

K: Ah yes, quite, 'individual' is undivided, quite...

DB: Actuality is undivided, but there is one moment of actuality and there may be another moment of actuality and so on, but now, when we 'see the essence', we see the
totality, or the 'universal'. So, what is necessary is 'seeing the universal', right, then this (global perception) includes all that, right ?

K: All that, that's right...

DB: So the ( perception of) truth goes beyond that 'individual' actual fact because it 'sees the whole', it sees what is universal and the totality of the nature of thought.

K: The totality of the nature of thought, that's it.

DB: Right, so that every individual (particular) example of thought is in there.

K: That's right ; and when that is seen, thought is then seen as merely 'mechanical'.

DB: Then thought acknowledges that it is mechanical ?

K: No, no thought doesn’t have to acknowledge it... It 'is' mechanical !

DB: Thought has changed, so it ceases to attribute to itself the 'non-mechanical'.

K: Yes, that's right. I think that's what actually took place...

DB: When ?

K: Probably from the beginning of this boy ….

DB: Yes... ?

K: It was there...

DB: It was 'implicit' ?

K: Implicit, or whatever you’d like to say...

DB: Well all right, perhaps it was implicit in everybody when he’s born but …then it gets the position it takes ?

K: I question whether it was implicit with everybody...

DB: Well, now let's get this clear ; that's what we were discussing the other day here ; so we could take the two views and consider them both : one view is, that it's implicit in everybody, and then the conditioning takes hold in most people, then it's lost, right ?

K: That's a very dangerous view !

DB: Why is it 'dangerous' ?

K: Dangerous, because then you 'assume' there is something in you, which is unconditioned. It is an assumption to say that somebody was born like that, from the very beginning...

DB: All right, so to assume there is in the child something unconditioned, that may be 'false' ?

K: I think that is false...

DB: You are suggesting that the average child is born with some conditioning, perhaps hereditary... ?

K: ...the genes and the hereditary, and the society, it's already there,

DB: And then it gets added to ?

K: Added to, encrusted, and it 'thickens'.

DB: All right, so that's one view and you feel it is wrong ?

K: I wouldn’t accept it, because that's a theory !

DB: Now, the other view is that (in the case of ) this boy, as you were saying last week, that there was some destiny, some hidden mysterious order ?

K: Something much more, much more than the theosophists explanation of reincarnation, than the Maitreya, and the Brahmanical tradition of ''mustn’t kill, mustn’t do harm'' or (good) karma...

DB: Yes... ?

K: I think it's much more, something else...

DB: Yes, you say there was something else, now of course this idea has also occurred to people in the past, you see, there are people who also felt that some mysterious force was working in them, and they may have been fooling themselves, right ?

K: Absolutely...

DB: Yes, like, if you take Alexander the Great he thought he was a ( Greek?) 'god' and many people felt his ( charismatic) energy so much, that they were ready to do anything with him...

K: But his energy was spent in conquering !

DB: That's right, in conquering, so it was obviously false...

K: False, obviously, Napoleon felt that.

DB: Yes, Napoleon felt it, perhaps Hitler felt it, you know...

K: Exactly, Mussolini and Stalin...

DB: Yes, and first I wanted to put it, just to try to make it clear, that that feeling may liberate a tremendous energy either falsely or not.

K: Yes.

DB: Therefore it has a 'danger' ( of self-delusion?) in it, you see, which we must recognise, right ?

K: That's right, that's right...

DB: Yes, but nevertheless you cannot just discard that because this energy may still be necessary inspite of the ( potential) danger in it. In other words if we recognise that there is danger in this notion, it doesn’t prove that the notion is false....

K: Oh no, of course not... It may be misused, quite...

DB: But suppose now that we look at it from the other side, when you say that something mysterious happened, and which cannot be explained, which is beyond the order we can include in thought...

K: Beyond all explanation...

DB: So, it may be that thought cannot grasp...

K: Thought did not create a 'centre'...

DB: Yes, it did not create a centre, but let us say thought is ordinarily conditioned to create a 'centre', over the ages...

K: Yes, perfectly...

DB: A person may be born according to you with the tendency to create the 'centre' ?

K: Yes...

DB: But now, in this case, thought did not create the 'centre', is that what you say?

K: Yes, that's right.

DB: And you cannot say 'why' it did not, beyond this 'mysterious' action ?

K: No, I wouldn’t know...

DB: So, in some sense you say the boy was protected - it's what you said last time...

K: Protected, guarded, they did everything to guard him, first of all...

DB: Well, there was a combination of circumstances which helped, which were conducive to that...

K: Conducive, but it doesn’t explain …

DB: Now, there are several points that we could go on from there. You see, one point is to say : if ( an average) man is born conditioned then there is no way out of it, if that's all there is to it, in other words, from this conditioned mind there can be no way out. Therefore the only 'way out' is for somebody to come into existence who is not conditioned...

K: Yes, proceed...

DB: Therefore if there is such a person, we could say he does not have any 'personal' significance, that it's just part of the universal order.

K: Yes, that's right.

DB: And if I can give you an example in physics : in order to crystallise something that is (present) in a saturated solution - the sollution may be cooled far beyond the point
of crystallisation unless there is a small 'nucleus', around which it can ( start to) crystallise, otherwise it may remain in that solution uncrystallised, indefinitely.

K: Yes...

DB: And that 'particular nucleus' has no special significance other than, it was the place around which crystallisation took place.

K: Quite, absolutely !

DB: So you could say that perhaps ( the whole consciousness of?) mankind has reached a stage where it is ready, or has been ready for a change, right?

K: Yes, that's what they say...

DB: Many people have said that. Then this ( first 'crystal') would be necessary, you see, it cannot change from the conditioned state...

K: There must be a catalyst, ( like the enlightened presence of?) somebody, a nucleus...

DB: A 'nucleus', which is unconditioned.

K: Yes, quite, quite...

DB: I mean whether it's true or not, we'll have to discuss. Another question that a number of people began to ask is that until recently, you have not been talking in these (totally holistic?) terms, but rather emphasising a ( gradual?) 'awareness' of the conditioning and so on, while now it seems you are saying something more and different ; could you say why is it this time ?

K: Oh, I wouldn’t know, sir...

DB: I mean, why didn’t you discuss this point before ? This is what I’m getting at...

K: Ah, ( laughing evasively ) 'No lo so' ('Don't know' in Italian) ..... Sir, I am just going back, if there is total perception of the nature of thought and all it's activities, and therefore the total perception of the content of consciousness that used to be the 'centre'...

DB: Well, I think that the 'centre' is the (unifying mental) form around which all these things are placed. You see ?

K: Yes...

DB: They are attributed to the 'centre'

K: Yes, attributed to the 'centre'... Now, when the 'centre' is not (interfering ?) in a total perception – and total perception can only exist when the 'centre' is not (around?) , then ( the quality of human) consciousness must be totally different.

DB: All right, and what would you say about its nature then?

K: What would be its nature... ? See sir, the 'centre' as you pointed out, is the ( mental) factor of unification...

DB: This is what's attempted...The (empirical) way in which people have always tried to unite...

K: ...but it has never succeeded ; when the 'centre' is not, which is ( the result of a time-free ?) perception of the totality of thought, one's consciousness must be something quite different.

DB: But you see, the word 'consciousness' would ordinarily involve the idea that is it still ( a creation of) thought...

K: There’s no thought, can’t be !

DB: Then why do you call it 'consciousness' ?

K: I said : it must be 'something totally different'. The (self-centred model of?) consciousness which we have now is ( subliminally identified?) with this 'centre' and with all the ( psychologically active ) content, with all the process of thought, with all its (time-binding) movement, and when there is a total perception of (all) this, this ( centre) is not !

DB: The 'centre' is not, and the whole order ( of the brain?) is different ?

K: Different.

DB: Yes... And there is something I was going to ask  about what you were mentioning the other time : that it might involve the brain cells working in a different way?

K: I don’t know ( exactly how?) but I think (the brain) works differently...

DB: Yes.

K: Sir, may we discuss what is Compassion? Is the 'centre' (the self-identified consciousness?) capable of Compassion?

DB: Well, I’d say this ( self-conscious) 'centre' is not capable of anything 'real'...

K: No, but can't the 'centre' attribute this quality to itself and 'be compassionate'?

DB: It certainly can do that, yes...

K: ( Laughs) It can, yes, but if there is no such attribution at all, then what is compassion? Is the total perception ( the intelligent action of) compassion?

DB: Well, it has to be, and include the 'feeling for all'...

K: I should think one of the qualities of total perception is Compassion.

DB: Hmm... If the 'centre' can have feelings ( of empathy), which are generally attributed to it, so it would also have compassion for whatever it got identified with...

K: Of course....''I love you'' and... ''I don’t love others''...or, ''I love others'' but... ''I don’t love you'' ( both are laughing heartedly ) ..

DB: Anyway, it would have no (self-) understanding and therefore it would have no ( holistic) meaning.

K: Very interesting this... Ah, we have got somewhere ! How would you convey all this to somebody attending in this (1975 Saanen Gatherings ) camp? (S)He’s sentimental, romantic, wanting illusions, myths, fanciful imaginations, has problems of sex , of fear & so on, and you're telling him ( about this ) 'something', and he won’t even listen.... Here we’ve got (the necessary space of ) leisure, we want to go into it, we want to find out, because are ( trying to be) totally objective of oneself…. I think that's where ( the holistic Intelligence of?) Compassion operates.

DB: That's why it ( the true spirit of dialogue) is necessary...

K: That's right...

DB: Now considering what we were saying yesterday about the 'stream of human thought' and whatever is going wrong there - it is universal, it belongs to everybody, right?

K: Yes.

DB: So, one may see that something is going wrong, and generally thought attributes it to somebody else, but (as a holistic 'rule of thumb'?) whenever something is going wrong, it's going wrong ( primarily) in thought.

K: Yes, that's right...

DB: And therefore it's ( going wrong) in everybody, right ?

K: Yes.

DB: But there is no such thing as 'my' thought, 'your' thought, it's thought, and it cannot stop ; you see, the minute you are thinking, even if there is not by a (non-verbal) 'extra sensory' communication of thought, just by ordinary communication. The structure of your thought is communicated to me, and if it's the wrong structure, then I’m in the wrong structure of thought...

K: Yes, of course !

DB: Then my brain, my thought attributes the wrong structure to 'you', to another 'centre'....

K: Quite !

DB : ( Assuming that ) this centre is all right, or we’ll try to make it all right, and the other centre is wrong, so there can be no ( intelligent perception of) compassion, then I’m becoming hostile, thinking I must fight the other 'centre'... This centre is resisting the other centre, the 'good' is in this centre, and the 'bad' is in the other ( person's) 'centre' and therefore there can be no compassion.

K: Yes sir.

DB: But you see, if it's an 'all one' ( a holistically integrated) thought process, one Stream, then one cannot attribute this to a particular person and therefore, it seems you understand the nature of that (other person's) thought and that is Compassion...

K: Exactly. Quite right...

DB: Because you see that anyone thinking that way must be suffering. (Silent pause)

K: Yes sir.... We were going to talk, or discuss rather, about the mystery? What is the 'mysterious' ? You see sir, all religions, have made the cathedrals dark, the temples are dark, implying that God is ( something) mysterious, that there is something so mysterious that you cannot understand, and there have been secret societies, special initiations, you know all that which you went through in order to come upon the 'mysterious'. All that is not ( truly?) 'mysterious'.

DB: Well, that is just an imitation...

K: Imitation which thought, etc, etc. So, if there was no invention of the ( artificial) 'mysteriousness' created by thought, is there an (actual) 'mystery'?

DB: Well, if 'mystery' is that which cannot be explained, or grasped by thought, then…

K: Yes, and also the myths...

DB: Well, myths are an attempt to grasp it by thought, by poetic thought...

K: And apparently man has lived with those myths...

DB: Yes... again it's the same point we were discussing before that thought is attributing to itself, something 'mysterious'...

K: Mysterious … ?

DB: Not 'mystery-like' but the ultimate mystery, it produces something which then says it's not ( the invention of) thought but, the ultimate mystery.

K: Quite...

DB: In some (scholastic?) way people have said that myths were poetic means by which people grasped something true but at the same time, if you use (the term 'mystery' ) once ( in a while) as a metaphor, then (probably?) it could be helpful, while when you repeat it, then it becomes an (intellectual routine ?) - perhaps it would remain true in saying, '' That which is cannot be grasped in thought''.

K: That's right, anything but the 'mystery' of it !

DB: Yes...

K: We must discuss that ( educational aspect?) some other time.

DB: Well perhaps there isn’t time now, it's a quarter past five ...

K: We’d better stop ! We can go on this friday....

DB : It doesn't bother you as you have another (Saanen Group) discussion in the morning ?

K: The  (free) discussions don't tire me so much as (the thought?) 'sustained talk'... Maybe we can leave it open ?

DB : Right, but we'll have to be leaving Sunday or Monday, you see ?

K: Then we can do it on Sunday afternoon at 3 : 30. Bene !

This post was last updated by John Raica 1 day ago.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
7 hours ago #273
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 492 posts in this forum Offline

9-th ('reader-friendly' edited) K-DB Dialogue on Truth & Reality

DB : Perhaps we should go on with what we wee discussing the other time and clarify some of these points. We were discusssing the action of truth and if I could sum up: in one discussions we were discussing whether the thought process – if it is 'straight & healthy' - may become aware of the action of truth and move in harmony with that ; and on the other hand, the thought process, when it is distorted and conditioned may not do that...

K : Yes, that's right...

DB : … but 'truth' connects physically in the brain cells to bring it back ....

K: Sir, would that (assumption?) be accurate ?

DB : You see, we're trying to go into it and perhaps we should discuss it a little while because it is a quite important point and is quite contradictory to the traditional scientific knowledge...

K: Nowadays, after reading that article on parapsychology...

DB : Perhaps not after reading 'psychology', because the scientific knowledge is changing too; but anyway, we could say the brain is material but it has an 'actuality' apart from thought altough we don't 'know' all of it ; in other words, the complete depths of matter are unknown to us and perhaps they'll never be known – you see, we can only know more & more about it , but we can never follow the depths from which thought arises, right ? And thought has become conditioned through the ages, partly from heredity and partly from tradition & culture...

K: ...tradition, culture, environment...

DB : ...environment & so on. And it has been conditioned to self-deception, to 'falsifying' from the start. And this is in the material structure of the brain. And one can say that this conditioning constitutes a subtle kind of brain damage...

K: That's right...

DB : You see, if we take a piece of delicate electronic equipment – such as an amplifier or a computer - if that (e-mechanism ) is overloaded there is distortion and if you keep overloading it, you may break down the parts, and therefore it will distort more. So we could say that the kind of conditioning we're talking about – the conditioning which gives the greatest importance to thought and to the 'center' - overloads & gradually damages the brain in a way that is perhaps too subtle to be detected by the scientific instruments – except when it's gone very far...

K: Ah, yes...

DB : ...but still it's there, you see ?

K: Yes... Are you saying, sir, that when the brain is 'overloaded' ( saturated ?) – by environment, by economic conditions, socially...

DB : And also by fear & sorrow...

K: ...sorrow and all the things that are going on in human beings, it does damage the brain cells ?

DB : Yes...

K: I think that is so ; that can be accepted...

DB : Yes, there is a physical & chemical damage to the brain cells and those damaged brain cells produce a thought that is really distorted ; therefore, as thought tries to correct that damage, because it is distorted it must make it worse.

K: Right, it makes it worse. Now from there, can there be a total perception which heals completely  ?

DB : Yes, that heals the brain cells... ? Now, one point is that the brain doesn't recognise this "brain damage" primarily, but atributes it to something else – for exmple it may atribute it to feeling uneasy due to some external circumstances...

K: It blames...

DB : ...it on anything else ; and I think that this kind of brain damage occurs in ( our cultural) tradition, you see ? It occured to me tradition is a form of brain damage...

K: Quite, quite...I agree.

DB : ...because any tradition – good or bad- what it does is gets people to accept a certain structure of reality, very subtly, without realising they are doing it by imitation or by example, or just by ( authoritative) statements – so very subtly the child builds up an approach in which the brain atributes the things from the tradition to a 'reality' that is there independent of this tradition...

K: Certainly...

DB :... and gives it a tremendous importance.

K: Yes, you can see this in the oldest cultures, like in India, this distortion & damage due to tradition.

DB : I think that's happening in every culture ; I was just reading about the people who originally lived in Australia, the aborigenes, and they have a very different tradition, which they call 'dream time' , while in that dreaming there is also another time, which is also before being born or after dying...

K: I see...

DB : ...and they have a tradition of getting in the 'dream time' by means of a series of initiations and rituals at a certain age of adolescence ; and in that 'dream time' they can function very differently, like they can go into the desert and live there under conditions intolerable to ordinary people. So you see, tradition has real effects of all sorts, which may be valuable in some way, but at the same time it conditions the brain to a certain view of reality which is fixed. They even say – I read somewhere- that people who don't share this 'dream time' are 'unreal' – you see ?

K: Quite, quite...(both laugh)

DB : Now the same thing happens in our culture – and that is the point I want to come : we'll have to discuss culture at great lenght- now in our culture we get a conditioning which may be different, but it is basically similar in structure : what is to be real and necessary and right ; what you have to make of your life, what is the kind of person you should be, what's the right thing to do, and so on. And all this is picked up (by the human brain) in tiny little indications that don't seem to be thought, but seem to be the perception of reality...

K: Quite...

DB : ...and therefore the brain is beginning to treat thought as some reality which is independent of thought, so that a person may look at it and say 'that's reality, I've got to keep my feet on the ground', but this 'ground' is created by tradition, by thought...

K: ...by thought, quite !

DB : But you see, that's (only a virtual) 'ground' – it has nothing under it at all !

K: Quite, quite...

DB : And is sustained by this ( very subtle) brain damage ; that is, it is nourished, sustained by this damaged brain which is unable to get out of this circle. But still, our culture also has valuable...

K: ...certain values...

DB : ...which cannot be discarded ; and one of the dangers that can arrive ( to the blind follower) is an un-critical look at what you say : that somebody wants to discard culture because that is not clear...

K: Sir, what does that word 'culture' mean ? To cultivate...

DB : The basic meaning of 'cultivate' is 'to cause to grow'...

K: Yes, that's what it is...

DB : So therefore we've got to be clear about the meaning of creation ; you see, there is a tendency to consider culture as a creation (of thought) ...And yet we cannot just discard culture and drop it.

K: No, you're quite right, I understand...

DB :...but there is some confusion around it.

K: So, what do we mean by 'culture' ? That which grows, that which is capable of growth...

DB : ...and which is passed on. You see, 'that which grows' is passed on from a generation to another. And the word 'nature' is the same root in Greek -the word is 'fysis', which means to grow ; so these are very deep concepts which were very general...

K: And the evolution from the savage living in a cave to the modern man, is called 'growth'...

DB : Yes, but the savage himself has his own 'growth' and some anthropologists say his culture is as valid as ours...

K: Yes, yes...What (existential ) benefits has culture ?

DB : Well, let's look at several aspects of culture – science, art, music, literature, technology...At the very least every culture has a certain technology with which it approaches reality – certain methods have been developped to grow things, or to approach reality...

K: Has thought created culture ? Of course it has …

DB : It has, yes. And some culture might be necessary for man to survive...

K: Yes...I wonder if (psychologically?) it is necessary.

DB : It isn't, but it appears to be.

K: It appears to be...Let's question it !

DB : Yes, but I wanted to go a little bit further ; you see, we take science as part of our culture, art is part of our culture, like music...Even you have often said (in private?) that you enjoy listening to good music – and that is part of our culture ...

K: Yes, sir...But I think there's a ( potential) danger of using it as a means to 'go beyond' or to penetrate into something else.

DB : Let's try to make that clear : let's take the example of music- Mozart or Beethoven, would you say that there was necessary some insight, or something beyond the mechanism of thought to create that ?

K: Yes, sir, I thought about it too...Now wait a minute ; suppose you're a musician...

DB : Well, let's say a composer, a person who creates new music.

K: A composer, and all the composition – putting (on paper) all the notes of music is the work of thought, isn't it ?

DB : Yes, anybody can do that...

K: That's what I meant- so that is the result of thought. And does he 'listen' to that music before he puts it down ?

DB : Well , I don't know what kind of ( artistic) imagination he's got... Beethoven was deaf, but I think he could imagine some of the music he wrote...

K: But he must have 'heard' it !

DB : He heard it when he was not deaf, but he also made new music when he was deaf – he never heard it...

K: So, you're saying the 'hearing' (with the mind's ear?) is not necessary ?

DB : Perhaps in the beginning it was, but …

K: In the beginning he heard it. And when he became deaf, he no longer 'heard' it ? Therefore, how did he capture it ?

DB : I don't know... it went through some kind of inner perception, which we usually call ' (artistic) imagination' or
he may have heard it 'inwardly'...

K: Wait a minute, let's go slowly...When you are speaking now, do you think it out and then speak ?

DB : No, you don't.

K: No. Why ?

DB : It's clear that there is a ( mental) formation of the meaning first. In other words, whatever I mean to say comes first...

K: How does that happen ?

DB : Well, I don't know if we could say exactly how... ?

K: I mean, when I get on the platform - fortunately or unfortunately - I ( just) talk , I don't 'think' – if I thought it out it would all go wrong...I've done that before – write down enormous notes and then make a resumé of it and then I would read it when they're written down...

DB : But sometimes it's valuable to make very rough notes...

K: No, wait a minute, and Dr Besant said to me  : 'Why do you bother with it ? Just say what you want to say...' First time I got really dithering about it and then gradually...Is there actually a 'thinking' when one speaks ?

DB : No, as a rule, the speech comes before thought...

K: The speech comes first...A-ha ! Let's see that- but the speech, the words...

DB : There is some scientific evidence of that as a matter of fact. People have watched what kind of mistakes they made : most mistakes are made when the whole paragraph or sentence is formulated at once...

K: Say for instance, Dr Besant was a great orator ; she said she used to 'see' the phrases (mentally displayed) in front of her.

DB : Well, that's one way, but...

K: Now, I'm questioning whether the speech comes before thought. I use English to tell you something – the use of English is ( based on) memory...

DB : Oh, yes, yes...

K: And I use that 'memory' in talking...

DB : You see, it's the same as learning to walk – to a certain extent that learning becomes part of you ; so in the same way, the speech becomes part of you...

K: So, you're saying that speech comes before thought ?

DB : Well, there is some evidence that it may...or else thought itself may be different from what we know – it may have a different structure from what is generally attributed to it...

K: So, we are talking about culture ; culture is growth – from childhood to manhood & so on. The expression of one's feeling must be through thought – putting down the words, notes & everything- and when you deliver a lecture you write it out or you express ( your ideas) as you go along...

DB : Yeah...

K: That means it must have been stored up inside.

DB : Well, not necessarily...That particular order in which it appears may be the result of a perception which you have at that moment...

K: Yes, that's what I want to get at...

DB : I mean, some of the material must have been ( mechanically) stored up, but the way it comes out depends on perception.

K: Perception of what ?

DB : That's what we want to find out...

K: If I may be a little 'personal', when I talk, I 'think' by talking from ( a state of inner) emptiness. I have talked for so many years – it comes now through long practice and the whole thing flows out. But if I think about it previously, it doesn't 'flow out'.

DB : But you may think a little, for example : at breakfast you have told me about 'thinking about something this morning'...

K: Yes, an idea happens – something you 'see' ; but if I think about it previously and store it ( as in Letters to the Schools?) then it goes somehow ( mechanical ) & messes up. But I 'see' something, then let it 'come out' as I talk. So, is there not a state when thought is not in operation & all the rest of it where perception is going on - that's where (truth's intelligent ) action takes place. Now, would you call it (direct ) 'perception' ?

DB : Insight 'is' perception. When you understand something you 'perceive' the meaning?

K: Sir, is it possible to say something without the operation of thought - except the (mechanical) usage of words... ?

DB : Wouldn't it be possible that the movement of words might be just another movement ? You see, when you perceive an object and you start to move toward or away from it, it needn't involve thought except the storing up of information about the object, but it needn't fundamentally to think about it...

K: No.

DB : Could we say that when we talk the vocal chords respond in a similar way as it might to perceive the object ?

K: But it must be much more than that...

DB : Yes, it's more than that, but the action...

K: Either you 'see' the words and you read them...

DB : I don't do that...

K: You don't do that... Or, when you have talked for so long, as I have talked for so long, it becomes a ( 'copy-paste' memory) habit...

DB : It becomes a skill ; there's a certain skill in it, but the whole thing takes place without a 'conscious' (premeditated) direction.

K: Yes, but that doesn't answer it...

DB : Yes...It may be more relevant if we come to the 'unconscious' mind as well, since a part of this process seems to be 'unconscious' ? I mean, it may be just that 'unconscious' ( subliminal activity of the?) mind which must be only dimly lit or suppressed ? You have said at one time that you're 'sticking with the unconscious'...

K: Yes...

DB : ...which is a different kind of 'unconscious' ? And I just remind you something that perhaps you already know, that people studying the brain have found that the two sides- the left and the right- primarly one side is merely 'verbal' – I think it's the right hand side - and the other side is primarily 'non-verbal' - and they call that 'unconscious' ...When they are properly 'cut' ( separated?) one side doesn't know what the other side is doing and one person might say in words that he doesn't know anything about this, while the other side might see something & respond to it, which is 'the un-conscious movement' – but if you ask him he would say that he doesn't know anything about it...

K: Quite, quite...

DB : And so they have said that perhaps that part of the brain is 'unconscious' while the other side - the verbal side - is 'conscious'. But then, obviously there is a still deeper part of the brain, the 'base' , which is common to both ; that's the part where the 'feelings' are, and that's the center of attention and the center of emotion and so on, which probably connects both sides...

K: Right...

DB : Now, would you say that perhaps there is an 'unconscious' mind which is not really 'forgot' or 'repressed' and which works when you talk ?

K: Look : you make notes and you read them – that's one way- and if you have done that for a number of years, you get a certain ( 'holistic' oratoric?) skill – that's one skill ; then, the skill in talking...but we said that is not the answer...What takes place ?

DB : You see, whatever you say does not purely come from the 'verbal' part of the brain...from the trivial ; now whatever may come, must come from the deeper part, of which you are not conscious...For instance there was this case when ( a part of the pacient's) brain was cut out and they say that the perception of music is in the other side – which is the opposite of the word or the perception of visual things & so on...and there seems to be a function of the brain which is non-verbal. Now, that may be still a 'thought' of some kind, which is much less defined, a 'non-verbal' thought, that can be conditioned and memory may be still in it...Now, what we are doing is to make a connexion of these two, so that the words can also express the 'non-verbal' (perceptions)

K: Sir, is there in the human brain - a part untouched by culture, by anything ?

DB : Well, that is a question which science at present cannot consider and which is beyond what anybody could do (in that field) , because we don't know what that would mean from the material point of view... In other words, in the present material structure of the brain there is no way in which we could tell – the present way of looking at it is too 'crude', you see ?

K: If I say something about it, would you 'listen' - not discard it, or throw it out ?

DB : Yes... ?

K: We said consciousness 'is' ( directly influenced by its psychological ) content and if that content be 'emptied' - in the sense of being no longer conditioned - is there a part of the brain which nothing has touched – nothing has made an imprint on it ?

DB : You're talking of a particular part of the brain ?

K: Not only of a particular part of the brain, but of a (time-free ) part of consciousness which is not this consciousness...

DB : Another (dimension of?) 'consciousness' ?

K: Another consciousness.

DB : Which may be another function or in another part of the brain ?

K: No... let's look at it : my brain is conditioned – by tradition, culture, heredity...

DB : Would that mean it's damaged ?

K: Damaged, and it has healed itself completely...

DB : So, you're saying that it was damaged but it has 'healed' itself ?

K: I'm taking my brain ; it healed itself (holistically) , and is now 'unconditioned'.

DB : Yes, but the question is : how can it heal itself ?

K: Healed itself through having an insight, a ( non-verbal inner) perception which is not a perception of the damaged brain …

DB : I understand ; so, you're saying that the human brain is not totally damaged, and there's still a ( deeper) function that is not damaged, right ?

K: That's right. And, is there a (creative dimension of human ) consciousness which is totally different from this (time-bound) consciousness - which ( may also ) function or operate when I am a great composer – and has that perception ?

DB : You see, let's discuss the case of the (inspired?) 'composer' – for instance Bethoven has that perception although he is deaf - his brain is damaged , and also he's disturbed mentally...

K: Disturbed mentally, poor chap !

DB : Yes, and we say that there is a part of his brain that could work anyway, despite that damage...

K: Despite that damage...If it was really damaged he couldn't have been a musician !

DB : Not damaged deeply. So you're saying that in general this damage – even if it's only 'cultural' - is not that deep ? It may appear 'deep' but in fact it isn't ?

K: Yes, I think it is not too deep. Would you say that ?

DB : Yes, I mean it works only at a certain level...

K: Of course, even if my brain is damaged in (following a particular ) tradition, I can 'step out' of it ! The ( holistically friendly?) brain says : rubbish !

DB : Yes...then the damage is only in certain 'functions' of the brain which are based on memory ?

K: Yes...and you can put it aside.

DB : So it is not in a really deep function of the brain ?

K: No.

DB : But it may appear, or present itself, as 'deep' ?

K: That's right !

DB : It attributes it to itself as being 'deep' …

K: If I am a ( mildly conditioned?) Catholic and you talk with me & show all the... it's finished, I'm out !

DB : Well, in principle, I think it's right, a person may see this, but then a part of this (psychological) damage attributes to itself the property of being very deep and beyond thought, therefore it escapes this 'insight', you see ?

K: Quite... right, right !

DB : You see, it doesn't mean that the damage is deep, but the damaged part attributes to itself a great 'depth'...

K: Yes, quite.

DB : So afterwards, a person who is a 'Catholic' you might explain it to him and he might see ( the inward truth of) it at that moment, but...

K: Ah, wait a minute ! Suppose for instance that I'm attached to my wife or to something else and because I respect you and I listen, I am fairly sensitive to what you are saying, then it's finished ! It's over - I'm never attached anymore !

DB : Well, it doesn't commonly happen that way, you see...

K: Why ?

DB : Well, that's what we want to find out ( as introspective homework?) ...Supposing one reason is that this conditioning attributes to itself some significance which is very deep and not merely ( at the level of) your memory and thought. You see, suppose I am a Catholic, and I have grown up in the Catholic tradition I've been exposed to it non-verbally & subtly, it has left a mark and when I become a little bit frightened ( of life challenges?) - it all seems so real, you see ? And therefore I simply 'forget' what you said …

K: Of course, of course...But that's too easy...

DB : But this is what actually happens...

K: But I think there's something deeper than that ; let's go into it a little bit. If I 'listen' to you – because you are serious, you have 'detached' yourself and you show it to me, and you say : Look, listen ! And because I respect you, because I listen to you, because I'm attentive, what you say has a tremendous meaning and it is (actually seen as) true, the (inward) truth of what you're saying acts.

DB : Yes, even if there is a tremendous conditioning in this tradition to resist that truth... ?

K: Ah, I'm not resisting it ! Because, first of all, I want this transformation - that's a basic necessity for me, as a human being...

DB : Yes, but then there is another basic necessity of ( material) security, you see ?

K: You show it to me that through this transformation there is ( the actual possibility of ) a tremendous security ; you point out to me that if I transform myself totally, then you will be eternally safe, secure & all the rest of it, because you have 'seen' it, because you have got it. And when you say that to me it's a shock- I 'see' it ! But if I haven't (the actual desire to be ) transformed, if inwardly I am a 'phoney' (or simply a... 'jerk'?) , then whatever I say...

DB : Right... But then how do you account for the fact that you've been talking for so many years and it has had so little (transformational impact) ?

K: I think that basically, people won't 'listen'.

DB : Yes, and then it comes to 'why not?'...

K: Why not ? Because I don't see they're ( vitlly) interested. Why should they be interested ?

DB : Well, because life is such a mess...

K: Ah, but they have those 'little harbours' where they are sheltering themselves...

DB : Yes, but that's a (very realistic?) 'illusion'.

K: You say it's an illusion, but to them it's not !

DB : I know, but why does the brain resist seeing this illusion ? You see, very often people would get shocked when shown that something is wrong, but then...

K: ...they go back.

DB: They go back ; so we still have to go into this (natural) tendency ( of the human brain?) to 'go back,' because whatever the 'shock' may be, the brain will go back, even if -let's say- we listen to the person who 'sees' and there is a shock but then the brain will go back later (to its psychologically safe habits?) ...

K : You are asking : why does it go back ?

DB : Yes...

K: Oh, that's because of ( the inertial force of?) habit, this tremendous years of tradition & all that...Habit !

DB : Yes, but then that's still within the same circle. You see, the only answer which is adequate is the one which will stop it. As I see it, an explanation which doesn't end this thing is not a full explanation...

K: I said 'habit' , but that ( 'holistical' statement?) doesn't get us anywhere...

DB : No...

K: So what brings about to the damaged brain a total...

DB : ...not going back ?

K: To not go back. Hmm... ? A man sees that any 'spiritual movement' is useless and he drops it instantly – never goes back to it, never cultivates it, never organises it – now what has taken place in that man ? He perceives the truth of it, hmm ?

DB : Yes, but let me say something : you said that this young man was not deeply conditioned in the first place. But we'll have to consider another man who was deeply conditioned in the first place. You see, the man who was not deeply conditioned in the first place has seen the truth & dropped it – so for him that was fairly easy because he was not deeply conditioned...

K: Yes. But the other man is conditioned...

DB : Yes, much stronger...

K: ...much stronger and he may temporarily 'see' it and then goes back to it ?

DB : Perhaps unconsciously he 'slips back' ?

K: Can that man be ( psychologically?) 'shocked' ? I'm not talking about electric shocks... Can you 'shock' me psychologically ?

DB : Well at other times you said 'shock' is no use...

K: I know, I'm just asking...I can shock you but you may go back...

DB : It will only work for a while...

K: I know...Now, what is this thing that makes me 'see' (the whole truth of it?) end it and not go back ? See sir, because we have not been able to do this we say ''it's only for the few''...

DB : Perhaps the brain has been damaged too much... ?

K: Too much.. I don't quite agree with that – it's too easy (an explanation)  ! ( both laugh)
( To recap:) You 'see' ( the falseness of?) something and it's finished ; I don't 'see' it, but you point it out and then for a few months or days, I 'see' it...And then suddenly ( the perceptive clarity of?) it disappears and I'm back (in thought's time-proven 'self-protected' mode ) ...

DB : I think that it's better to say that it 'slips out'...

K: Slips out... ?

DB : Slipping into the old habit...

K: Old habit...Now, what is the thing that makes it (not slip out )  ? Sir, is 'attention' a conscious process ?

DB : Well, apparently we can say it's not...

K: Yes...

DB : That may be the 'un-conscious' ( action) that we talked about ?

K: If it's not a process of time, not a conscious or unconscious process of thought, is there another kind of (holistically friendly?) attention which 'acts' and it's over ? I'm just trying to find out...

DB : Would you say, as we said the other time, that it's something beyond this 'attention' that acts ?

K: Yes, that's what we're trying to get at...If you explain me rationally, logically my attachment, I listen to it, but it's still within the field of thought. And within the field of that thought, whatever thought does cannot produce a radical transformation. Right ?

DB : Yes...

K: Now you say, ''That is not enough ; you won't change if you remain there, you'll go back to it'' And you point out to me, 'Don't control, don't resist, just 'listen' ! In this (transpersonal?) 'listening' you're not appealing to the normal rational process ; you are appealing to something that is beyond thought, beyond my usual (temporal) consciousness. You're appealing to something much deeper in me ; you are 'touching' something - which has nothing to do with the (self-centred?) movement of thought. Would that be right ? You are appealing to me at a level of which I am not 'conscious'. You are appealing to me at a level which may be called ( the holistic intelligence of?) 'compassion', which is not at the level of thought. If you appeal to me at that level (and I am actually listening?) I can't go back to thought, to my habits – I can't go back ! Is that possible ?
Sir, is Love the factor of profound change ?

DB : Hmm... ? Is it (the holistic action of?) 'Truth' ?

K: Truth.

DB : But is there a distinction ?

K: No, of course not...It's (part of?) the whole thing. Truth 'is' love and compassion, everything. I just want to see if that is so. Can you, out of your compassion, out of your love , touch something in me (within my psyche?) that transforms me ? Because to you that is the Truth ; you see truth and you live in the feeling of all that...And from 'that' you speak.
As you just said : 'You've tried to do it for fifty years and you haven't done it'...And to that the ordinary answer is : perhaps the average human brain is too damaged  (too coarse?) ; therefore there are very few brains that are not ( psychologically) 'damaged' and perhaps you can affect them...But ( obviously?) that is not the complete (final ?) answer...Therefore we go back to the (good-) old thing : ''it's only for a few''...

DB : Well, one ( constructive ) view of this is that these 'few' will spread it (further) ... But you are not accepting that ?

K: That ( implies going ) back to the whole 'bussiness of tradition'...And there you are (getting further) damaged... This is what actually takes place.

DB : Are you saying that if we are using ( the conventional channels of) culture to bring ( a holistic ) order to the mind, then this will further damage the brain ?

K: Yes.

DB : But then for what can we use ( the achievements of mankind's ) culture ? Can we use it technically, or you can 'enjoy' it - you said that you are 'enjoying the music'... ?

K: Just a minute, sir : what shall we do ? You speak out of the depths of that 'immense something'. And I listen to you and you affect me at that level, but it's only a temporal affair...And then I go back to my own (psychological ) 'damage'. You 'heal' me – not completely, but partially - and then the old damage takes over, or can you 'heal me' by talking to me at such depth that your very listening is ( doing ?) the whole thing.

Now...why doesn't it happen ? You tell me very clearly 'Don't be attached' ; you explain it to me, and your explanation is out of that compassion, out of the perception of truth and I 'see' it, I have an insight into it, but I loose that (the inner clarity of that ) insight...

DB : You see, I think that maybe there is some clue in the nature of this 'brain damage' – the whole thing depends of a correct perception, right ?

K; Yes...

DB : Now, this brain damage can produce what appears to be an (insightful) perception, but the (experiential) difficulty is that it comes in slowly and perhaps...'unconsciously' …

K: But you are appealing to something much greater (within my psyche) and I respond to it for a few days or for a few months and then... it's gone...Or I say : ''Please remind me of it (more often) '' or ''Let me read (all your) books & keep on (diligently processing) all that''...You follow ? And I loose (the living spirit of) it ! Is it sir, that my brain refuses to see anything 'new', because whatever you say might lead me to such (psychological) 'danger' ?

DB : Well, the brain may project (an actual or an imaginary ?) danger into that situation...

K: So, you talk about fear, you're talk about (thought's endless pursuit of) pleasure, you talk about (the ending of ) 'suffering' … And you say, ''for God's sake please listen to this out of your heart !' And I ( really try to) listen to you, but...I go back !

DB : You see, (thought may choose to) continue within ( the familiar field of) your 'culture', which brings it back . You see, in any relation within that cultural frame of 'reality' that ( subliminal continuity of?) thought ( aka: 'time'?) is already there...

K: Quite, quite... every 'thing' is already there. I wonder how this operates.. ? Are you talking to my 'conscious' (temporal) consciousness ? In that 'consciousness' there is no answer. Or are you (simultaneously?) 'talking to me' at a much deeper level ? And it may be that I am not used to (listen at ) that level ?

DB : Yes, that could well be the case ...

K: I think, sir, that it is more like it. I have always gone to the Well ( of Truth ?) with a little bucket and you say : ''Look, that little bucket won't do anything ( on the long term) - it will quench your thirst only momentarily !'' So, you're not talking to me at the level which I'm used to ; you are talking to me at a deeper level which I'm not used to. And I may get used to it while you're talking to me. But the moment you 'stop talking' to me...it's gone !

DB : It's already (brought back in the field) time – either at that moment or later...

K: Is it, sir, that I – the brain - wants to reduce everything into 'habit' ? What you say I see it at a deep level, but I have reduced that into a (time-proven?) habit and therefore I lose it...And although you tell me that at that deep level there is no time, there is no habit and you can't capture it by your brain – your brain will ( try to) make it into a new habit, into an (updated form of) tradition, into another damage. So you said  : Don't do that !

DB : ( As a simple 'rule of thumb'?) thought seems to accompany everything that happens, by making a (very realistic) imitation of everything that happens, which later builds up and... that ( 100% 'fool proof' mental ?) habit becomes the same as the original (if not... better?) ...

K: Right... but you tell me (as parting words?)  : 'See the whole structure of thought, be tremendously aware of it !'

DB : And it seems to be part of our tradition that there should be some ( continuity of) thought, in other words, don't let thought stop...

K: Yes, yes !

DB : ...and in fact every tradition does demand that thought doesn't stop.

K: Yes, of course, quite ! The tradition is that.

DB : I was thinking that when young children are brought up into tradition you can see that when they follow it they say 'Yes, that's right, you're good & so on' and when they don't follow it, ' You shouldn't do this, it's bad' – so that the child begins to feel very secure in tradition - he feels he's a good boy...

K: ...good boy !

DB : ...and when he's not following it he's a 'bad boy' ... Therefore there may be a ( whole mentality of ) habit in going on with the tradition – either with the momentary one, or with the old one ; and also thought becomes disturbed of moving out of the tradition – the security of belonging to a community which decides what is 'real', is much deeper than any personal gaining...

K: Of course, of course...

DB : Because the community gives a ( particular) 'meaning' to what is true and right and good and when you're in it, you feel it's all settled & safe and therefore getting out of it might mean 'inviting chaos' , you see ? And I think it's not generally realised how ( spiritually) significant it is to be out of tradition – people may say 'I'm free of tradition, I'm not a Catholic anymore !' but tradition goes back to that feeling of belonging to a family and being 'approved of' because you are not only doing what you're supposed to do, but 'believing' in what you're supposed to do, or in believing what is 'real'...You see, this 'tradition' includes the belief that we have a 'correct consensus' as to what is real – in other words, that we don't create our 'reality'...

K: Yes, quite, I understand all that...

DB : ...but in fact we do, you see ? Now all of that (psychological damage) goes against what we were to talk at the deep levels...

K: Yes, it goes against all that !

DB : ...and this ( momentum of tradition?) works in very subtle ways and when you start working you got to reach all of that...

K: Sir, just a minute  - you, the speaker, are talking to me from that (timeless) depth and I have an insight into it, I feel it, I know it... Can you 'help' me to sustain it ?

DB : You see, there is no tradition of 'mystery', or of 'rationality' ; in other words, man's old tradition was one of mystery, but then came the modern tradition of 'rationality' and no...

K: ...no mystery...

DB : But to be free of all tradition...

K: Yes, sir, that's what you are asking me ( as contemplative homework)  ! You say, look at every form of tradition...

DB : But at first sight you my feel that your (traditional) culture gives you the chance to look at these things...

K: ...it also gives you the safety, the security, a place in your community...

DB : And also an order of the mind & so on...Now the point is that all this is causing some ( subliminal) 'damage & distorsion' into the brain, you see ?

K: Yes, you've explained to me all that as clear verbally, intellectually -in every way you've made it perfectly clear to me, hmm ? Fear is involved, pleasure is involved, security is involved, tradition , if I leave it...

DB : Yes, and all this (ongoing) distortion is making me believe in whatever would make me feel better...

K: Yes, all that....And you say : I'm not talking to that ( level) because if I talk to that, you'll merely go all around in circles...You are not talking to me at that level at all. You're talking to me at that ( transpersonal?) level which is not this...

DB : So, you're saying there is a function, or a part of the brain, that is not conditioned to this ?

K: There is a 'depth' ( of human consciousness?) which is not touched by the 'traditional brain', by the 'damaged' brain, by the brain which is conditioned & all the rest of it...A depth, a dimension which is not touched by thought. All that you've said about tradition – everything is a process of thought and that process of 'time' has not touched this...
You talk to me, and if there is an action of that, the brain cannot be damaged again.

DB : Hmm...

K: It may be that your talking to me at that level 'heals' the brain completely.

DB : You were saying last time that there is a 'direct action' on the matter of my brain.

K : …of my brain...I think there is something in it...

DB : Now, is this the only way ? You see, this seems to depend on someone who is not conditioned...

K: If you are 'healthy' you can talk to me.

DB : Yes, but I mean, if there are only conditioned people, they will never find a way out …

K: Absolutely no ; how could a damaged brain... ?

DB : You see, this goes against the modern tradition that we must observe and discover and find the way out. Now if it's a brain that is not damaged, it could do that, but if it is damaged , then it cannot do it … ?

K: Ah, that's it ; you realise that you cannot do it ! Therefore you stop.

DB : You stop, but it needs one that is not damaged to communicate this...

K: Yes, yes....but wait...I realise by listening to your talk that whatever action a damaged (psychologically conditioned?) brain would do, whatever it does, will still be in that area...

DB : Yeah...But there is also the tendency in this (psychologically?) damaged brain to come to conclusions and present them as 'facts'...

K: Therefore I realise all the tricks that the 'damaged' brain does.

DB : Yes, and one of the (favourite?) 'tricks' is to say that nothing can be done...

K: Yes! Quite, quite...

DB : ...or else, I'll keep on working at it...You see, there is also the feeling that even if the brain has been physically damaged you can't do anything, but we actually don't know, right ?

K: We don't know...but if it's completely damaged, you can't do anything...But here we are talking of a fairly 'not too damaged' brain...

DB : But even then, we cannot know whether the 'damage' can be healed or not...

K: Yes … so you explain all this and you say : whatever the (psychologically) 'damaged' brain – which is the result of tradition & all the rest of it- whatever it does will produce further damage. So because you pointed out that, I realise that. That is the first necessity – and I realise it. Then after I realised it, you talk to me at a depth which thought has not touched. You see, you planted a seed (of Truth) – and my question is : if I have an insight into that depth, I perceive that depth, can I ever go back to the other ? Will not your 'seeing' act as a tremendous jolt ?

DB : Well, there is this point which we have been discussing, that a damaged brain can get used to any shock or jolt ?

K: Yes, I know, therefore you have to be very, very clear of the structure of thought & all that. Absolutely clear ! Otherwise the 'depth' becomes the ( new mental) habit !

DB : Yeah...

K: So, in your pointing out to me the whole activity of thought – because I'm very seriously concerned- thought does stop. And the 'feeling of the depth' can never become a habit. Because when this 'depth' is becoming a (mental concept ) it becomes tradition & all the rest of it- fear of losing it & all that. Now, is that 'depth' within ( the temporal) consciousness ?

DB : You said before that there is another kind of 'consciousness'...

K: That's it ! It is not in that ( ego-centric ?) consciousness. That's what I want to get at.

DB : Perhaps we could say it's neither in the left side of the brain, nor in the right ?

K : I don't know about the 'right' or 'left', but it's not in the area of thought.

DB : Hmm...

K: Thought cannot 'capture' it !

DB : Now, if you say this is another consciousness, is it still another function of the brain ? Something that it's going on in the brain ?

K: Now, if you said 'brain' in the sense that it is a product of time...

DB : Well, I don't know it's a product of time, or not...

K: ...a product of evolution, the product of great...

DB : You see, we still haven't made some of these points clear ... If we said nature is continuously growing then wouldn't you say there is a ( work of ) Creation in nature as well ?

K: Yes...

DB : Now, would you say nature is the product of time ?

K: It is and it's not...

DB : That's what I'm saying... Because the brain is also part of the 'natural' things...

K: Aha ! Yes, yes...

DB : So, if we take the natural evolution of all sort of living things & animals, that seems to happen in time, no ?

K: Yes...

DB : One animal is born it dies, and the next one and the next one ? So you have growth...

K: Generation after generation of instinct, growth...

DB : But there is also 'change', there is a mutation and another growth occurs & so on... Now, wouldn't you say that's also a (work of) Creation ? I mean, by 'creation' we mean what causes to grow...

K: Yes, creation in the sense of 'cultivate & growth'...Then what are you trying to say ?

DB ; That the brain has also grown as a result of in such a process...You see, we have to get clear about this 'time', because there were these various mutations in monkeys & other animals and there apeared creatures with bigger & bigger brains producing finally the modern man. Now, all this has taken ( a long span of) time, you see...

K: Yes. Yes, it seems to have taken time...

DB : I don't know if you would agree on that ? You seem to say that it has and it hasn't...

K: I'm just asking myself, because in one sense it has ...

DB : Yeah...

K: The brain is not only the product of culture in time, but is there also a part of the brain, or maybe outside of that, which is not of time ?

DB : Well, that's the thing we want to come to, because you see, there is a ( mental) structure of the brain that has evolved in time...

K: ...in time, I grant it.

DB : And that structure may go beyond thought, you see ? For example it may involve attention, awareness...

K: Aha ! I see what you're trying to say. You're saying the brain evolves in time, and in that time there is a growth in its capacity for awareness, attention...

DB...beyond thought …

K: But it is still in that area of time.

DB : Yes, as all sort of species have appeared in nature ; so in some sense it seems like some sort of Creation does exists in nature, which appears to involve time...

K: Yes.

DB : Although perhaps in a very long time...

K: Yes, I understand this. Now, is attention...

DB : At least, the brain which can give attention to it, took time to evolve, right ?

K: Aha...

DB : That is, the brain which is able to have attention. You see, let's take a much smaller brain, of a smaller animal ; now its attention is somewhat less than it's possible to man. Would you agree ?

K: Of course...

DB : Now, the difference between these two - it took time to evolve...

K: Yes.

DB : So, the capacity for attention depended on time.

K: Yes, yes...But is there an attention that is not of time ?

DB : Now, is there, you see  ? The attention itself may not be dependent on time...

K: Yes, attention itself is not of time.

DB : ...but the ability of the brain to have attention is dependent on time...

K: Yes, the capacity, but the attention itself is not of time.

DB : But it may be taking place in the brain, not outside of it ...

K: That's right ! Attention itself is out of time, but the capacity to have attention involves time...

DB : ...it involves growth, culture...

K: Yes...

DB : And also you have also said that as the brain grows older, it gets more mature – so its capacity, in some way, improves – so, in some way, time is involved in producing the capacity...

K: Capacity means time...

DB : Yeah...But now, something might happen within that capacity which is not of time...

K: Yes, that's right : attention in itself is not time. But the (development of brain's ) capacity to have attention may involve time...

DB : It depends on growth – the young child may have a different capacity...

K: Right... so, we are saying : growth is time, time is necessary, but attention is not, right ?

DB : Yes, truth is not in time...And if that (intelligence of 'compassion' ) 'or' truth may operate on the material structure of the brain – its time behaviour is changed physically ...

K: Yes...

DB : So, something new is introduced into time...

K: Yes, that's right.

DB : But I mean, while we are at it, we should get more clear on 'creation', because 'creation' means 'to cause to growth'...Now you say, 'perception is creation'? - is that right ?

K: Perception is a 'cause to growth' ? No...

DB : No, but I'm trying to get it clear - you say that creativity is perception...

K: Yes...

DB : But we have to be clear about it ; because the ordinary meaning of the word 'creation' is 'to cause to growth' – you see, nature is 'created' because it causes new species to grow & so on...

K: Yes...

DB : Now, in what sense is man 'creative' ? Let's say Beethoven had an 'insight' which gave rise to a new music , so in that sense, it caused a new music to grow...

K: Right...

DB : But I want to be more clear about Creation...

K: But sir, the 'depth' which produced that music, that 'depth' is not of time...

DB : No, and perhaps we could say that the nature of what produced that depth is not about time . The mechanical exploration of nature is limited it doesn't cover everything...

K: Agreed...

DB : So the creation of new forms in nature must also be beyond time...

K: Yes, it may be...

DB : May be, we don't know, but...

K: But in the human mind one can see for oneself that ( the perceptive Intelligence of) Compassion is out of time, Truth is out of time...

DB : Yes...

K: And the depth from which comes that Compassion is out of time.

DB : Yes...

K: And therefore it's not 'cultivable'.

DB : No; it cannot be 'made to grow'...so we say that the origin of Creativity does not grow – is that what you're saying ?

K: That's right.

DB : But this 'creativity' may cause something to grow in the field of time...

K: Yes, that's quite right.

DB : Because that's what we have in mind that a new perception should cause the growth of a new ( human) society, of a 'new' man...

K: Of a 'new' man, quite...

DB : But creativity itself, in essence doesn't grow, right ?

K: In essence, no...

DB : It is not 'created' …

K: (laughing) Yes, it is not 'created' ! That's right...But out of 'that which is not created', there can be a 'new man' , a new society.

DB : Yes, I mean, this creates a 'new' brain that is not damaged...

K: Sir, to go back to the point : Why do I 'loose it' ? I have an insight into that profound thing and it's lost after a few days or a few months...Or it is not lost at all, but it comes empty because all my ( cultural) tradition says : Hold on to it, make into a habit & all the rest of it...How subtle all this is !  

DB : Yes and that's why it's made into another tradition...

K: That's right, sir... 'Die' to all things that thought has built as 'creation'. ( long pause...)
Now, you speak from that 'depth' and I listen to you, and you explain all the movements of thought as 'time' – and that I understand very easily - and you say ( the process of psychological) 'time' must have a stop, otherwise there is no ( truly creative ) depth. So I hunger after that & all the rubbish ; but if I see the truth of what you say – the ( timeless action of) 'truth' being the 'total perception' of what you say - I can only do that against all the pressures of tradition, and of everything that says 'Don't do this !'...

DB : Or which also says 'Do it !' but absorbs it into the (field of reality ?) ...

K: 'Do it, in order to get something else !' - so I'm back...
What you tell me, I have to understand the subtlety, the depth of that actuality - that thought is...etc... But you see, I won't 'listen' to you when you go to such extreme - you follow ?

DB : Yes, it's hard to listen if you propose the banning of all tradition, all culture, of everything...

K: Exactly !

DB : And the brain may say 'All right' , but it still rejects it...

K: Or 'For God's sake, stop it !'...Yes, sir...

DB : You see, the ancient Chinese are reputed to have said 'All the barbars that came in, they all become Chinese '…

K: (laughing ) Yes...

DB : All the new things become tradition, you see ?

K: That's what the Hindus did with the Moguls...

DB : And I think that's the most subtle feature – that the tradition absorbs the 'non-tradition'...

K: But you see, sir, I have to 'listen' to you or 'read you', or 'be entirely with you' on this, but...'I can't because my wife is getting angry' or...you follow ? Everything is against this ! I have no ( time for contemplative ?) leisure...

DB : And also to communicate about this with people who use the traditional mental frame...which takes over...

K: It struck me this morning when I read that article on 'parapsychology'...

DB : Yes, I have read it the other day...

K: That's a new game they are going to go into...

DB : Yes, but it has already been absorbed into the 'new tradition'...

K: 'New tradition' – I was thinking of that this morning !
You know, sir, how can you tell these (hapless?) students all this, so that they will absorb the ( living spirit of ?) truth of what you're saying ? I'm probably a teacher there and I see the absolute truth of what you're saying and I want to tell them about it. I want them to be 'non-traditional' in the (holistic) sense... They come here conditioned, ('psychologically) damaged' and the teachers are also 'damaged' - so...what can you do ?

DB : You see, the student, or the child lives in a society with its own traditions and which determines its own 'reality' and perhaps it's ( thinking) like this Australian student for whom what you're saying was 'unreal' …

K: ( Laughing ) Yes...the 'tradition of reality', quite right !

DB: To him the 'real thing' is what he's doing with his friends and how they're getting together, their relationships and what he is going to do afterwards in ( the real) society, so probably this must have seemed 'unreal' to him when he came first...It doesn't fit his 'reality' …

K: Of course, but that's my ( educational ?) 'job' : to see that they understand this ! Everything is against it ! Sex, pleasure, money...everything !

DB : All those things which people think are really important in life and so on... You see, it may seem to someone who first listens to all this, that it is some sort of abstraction that is very distant from ( the everyday) reality...

K: Of course...

DB : Unless he feels really unhappy with this 'reality'...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 271 - 273 of 273 in total
To quote a portion of this post in your reply, first select the text and then click this "Quote" link.

(N.B. Be sure to insert an empty line between the quoted text and your reply.)