A: During the last two days we have been talking about many topics, and what has struck me is that it seems very difficult to penetrate a topic. And I was wondering what does it mean to enquire into something in an intelligent way? And perhaps with that spirit to go into the question of intelligence, what we were talking about yesterday.

K: I thought we did that yesterday. We said, if I remember rightly, that there is the intelligence of thought, and that intelligence is limited. And is there any other kind of intelligence which is not bound to time? And we said that there is. So we went into that, love and compassion, and out of that, that intelligence which is not limited at all. Because we said if love is limited then it is not love. If love has an opposite as hate, anger, jealousy and so on then it is not love. That is what we discussed yesterday.

How would you enquire into that intelligence which is not born of thought?

A: Well it seems to me that if we are using thought then we have to be very hesitant in what we say. Would you?

K: Not only that, but how would you enquire into that intelligence which is not the product of thought? How would you enquire into it? Right, sir? That is what you are saying. How do you enquire into it? Would you enquire into it by saying that which it is not?

A: You mean by what is false?

K: Yes, what it is not. I don't know if I am conveying this. We said hate is not love - right? So is there in our psyche, in the brain - in the skull, I won't even use the brain now because I am a little apprehensive of experts! - in the skull, which is all the enormous activity of human beings, all the activities of human beings are contained in the skull, within the skull, within that sphere. And is love within it, or outside it? We asked that question too, yesterday. How do you enquire into it?

A: Well perhaps we could start by saying what is an action which is not intelligent? For example if we take a machine. A machine you could say that it is repetitive all the time, doing the same thing. And in the same way one could say that the brain is disposed to work according to its condition. And this condition is somehow always the same. For example when I see a person that I don't like, the brain seems to give meaning to that situation and plays itself out. And in that sense I would say that it is the same as a machine, you see a machine has a programme, pre-set.

K: After all we are programmed.

E: Well but also this very same process, I wouldn't call it a machine, is capable of coming up with something which is completely new, creative. So in that sense it is nothing to do with a machine. And precisely the fact that it can up with creative acts...

K: Creation?

E: It means that the process cannot be so simply characterised as being mere repetition, as in a trivial machine. I would make a distinction between what we call a trivial machine, which is a Coca-Cola machine, you know 10 pence going in or 50 pence going in and a Coca-Cola comes out. That is a trivial machine. This is not what life is about.

K: Of course not.

E: So let's not set up a straw man and say what the brain is not. The brain is not that kind of machine.

A: Could we say that this intelligence has not to do with a certain pattern which is repetitive? Would you agree to that? Because somehow intelligence has to do something that's new, out of the pattern.

D: I think what you said is true. We know in brain surgery, when we are studying the brain in the usual way, then we know that for instance that the brain is capable of producing values, constantly it is ordering the whole outer world in a new way. In that sense it produces quite new kind of attention or values. And that is not the same as knowledge, it is just...

K: Is it new, or is it a different aspect of the old?

A: Yes, that is an interesting question.

D: That is a good question.

B: What is the nature of the creative act?

K: Then we must go into what is creation, and what is invention.

E: All right, shall we do that? I don't know.

A: Yes.

E: Not interrupting you?

A: No, no. Yes I mean the question is how does one come about this intelligence?

K: That intelligence, can it be cultivated? All cultivation implies thought, time.

C: Are we acting intelligently now?

K: No, just a minute. Let's finish this. What did I say just now?

E: That all cultivation is in time.

K: Is in time and also it has a motive and a result. Cultivation implies motive, result and time. That is the factor of any cultivation. Is that intelligence which is born of some totally different time, carrying a different state, or whatever you like to call it, is that cultivable?

A: It doesn't seem so.

E: I am not so sure. Well, I would say that the cultivation would come from actually observing that in our life this quality of the new, the flash of the creative, the fresh of perception, for example, the freshness of perception is something that is happening all the time, but we normally tend to obscure it because our mind is too speedy. But it is possible to cultivate a more slow pace of thought and thereby one begins to see constant flashes of this quality of creative insight, or creative intelligence happening all the time. So it seems to me that it can be cultivated, not so much as to cultivate it as such, but to cultivate one's accessibility to it.

A: You mean by a process of observation rather?

E: Well observation is not the word I would use. It is more a quality of taming the raw quality of one's mind.

K: Would you use the word 'attention'?

D: Attention would be good, yes.

E: I am not so happy with attention because it implies something that is too forced somehow.

K: No, awareness - I don't want to go into all that. What are we discussing now, let's be clear.

C: Intelligence.

A: Intelligence, yes.

E: You have asked the question: can this intelligence be cultivated?

K: Can that intelligence which is not born of thought, can that be cultivated? Obviously not.

A: Yes. But somehow there must be...

K: We will come to that in a minute, sir, go slowly. We will get at it. We said any kind of cultivation implies a motive, time and a beginning and an end. Is love cultivable in that sense? I know you don't like that word, it is foreign to you, probably to all of you.

D: If we begin to evaluate things differently then in my brain I am changing my brain also. We know that changes occur which we don't know from where they come. They come there. So I think after all there is some kind of possibility for changing the brain and it is with the values.

K: Sir, that means, doesn't it, a quality of silence.

D: Yes, a quality of silence.

K: The quality of quietness, a sense of everything in abeyance. And then in that tranquillity something happens.

D: Yes, not of thought, being quiet, letting the brain just be.

K: Can that be?

D: Yes.

K: When our brain has been active from childhood: work, work, work, struggle, pain, learn, don't learn, the whole human struggle, human endeavour, can the brain, which has been so conditioned, can it ever be quiet?

D: There exists the possibility but it is difficult. But can you tell us brain researchers what value could it possibly be because we are limited, you see, we know in the brain changes occur and these changes bring about new values, but what are they? We don't know because with knowledge we cannot go into them. We cannot. Can you please tell us something?

K: We both agree that there must be a certain ground of quietness, of tranquillity so that something new can come. Right? Would you agree to that?

E: And that that can be cultivated.

K: Wait sir, question it, go into it.

E: I mean the attitude.

K: No silence is not an attitude.

E: No, but to make yourself available to silence is an attitude.

K: No. Then who is it that is making you available?

E: That which needs, or requires or wants the silence.

C: Desire.

K: Again desire. Again thought.

E: There has to be a desire to make itself available to non-desire.

K: You go back again, you see.

D: Physiologically no because we let the brain be, it is just there.

E: We might go into a very long discussion here when you say the brain stops. I have never seen a brain stop which is not dead.

D: I have seen my brain stop. Be silent.

E: If I put an electrode, as an electro-physiologist you know that if I put electrodes in your brain it will not be inactive. It will be just as active as now. So that doesn't mean anything when you say the brain stops.

K: Would you say the brain - I won't even say that! - that thing which is inside the skull, it has its own rhythm.

D: Yes.

K: And there is the rhythm of thought - right? Can the rhythm of thought be quiet? That is all we are saying.

E: Yes, it can.

K: No. Wait a minute, sir. Quiet, not just temporarily, not off and on but quiet.

E: Once and for all?

K: Yes. Just let me explain. You see you are objecting to this when you say once and for all it means time. You see this is our difficulty. Silence is not once and for all. You want it once and for all. And then when you say, once and for all, you introduce the whole movement of time.

E: Are we in time now? Right now?

K: Of course.

E: So we can only point to what we are not now. We are in time and you are mentioning something which is out of time, how can we do it except by a pointer in time?

K: No. We are asking sir, whether the brain, the thing inside the skull, can ever be quiet apart from its own rhythm? That is the question we are asking.

A: I think this is important to clarify that perhaps quietness doesn't mean that the brain rhythm has to stop.

K: I said that. The rhythm goes on.

E: He is talking about the rhythm of thought, not the rhythm of the brain, which if it stops is dead.

A: Yes.

K: Of course. No oxygen and there is the end of it.

B: This is the old St.Peter experiment, cut off your head there is no life.

D: It is possible for that which is inside, I don't mention brain!, it is possible for it. We know that the thought stops but nevertheless there are functions going on which is not thought. We call it in brain research, consciousness. It is just a being or whatever is inside, that is not the thought, not the sensation, the sensory, not the perception, not action. That we know quite well. And you know that also, I think.

A: But let's come back to the question.

K: This has been a question not only put now but in the most ancient days they put this question: can thought come to an end? Stop?

C: But if we say thought can come to an end, will it be a function of choice?

K: No.

C: You don't think there is any choice?

K: The sun is setting, it is finished. It may come up again tomorrow, but the sun has set.

C: And that is not an act of choice.

K: No, of course not, sir.

E: But it is an event in time.

K: I question that.

E: But the sun setting is not in time?

K: I introduced that, forget the sunset. Silence, quietness, tranquillity, which means the ending of thought - right? Not for a few seconds, but ending. Apart from the realm of...

C: Would you conceive of that as being some sort of event of the brain? Or of thought?

K: No, sir. I am thinking all day long about my problems, my wife, my children, my career, my research, I am at it all day long, and when I go to sleep it is there again going on, all day and all night, ceaselessly. And it is wearing itself out. Now I am just asking can all that movement stop? Stop, not stop for some days, or some hours, stop.

E: It is not my experience. Because...

K: Wait, please.

E: May I something at this point please?

K: When you say it is not my experience then your experience may be very limited.

E: Of course.

K: Therefore that's not...

E: But that is all I have.

K: No, no.

E: I can hear something when you say thought can stop, I can hear it as a possibility but it remains a mere possibility unless it becomes my experience.

K: Would you like to learn about it?

E: Of course.

K: Would you like to find out?

E: Yes, but can I say something before?

K: Yes of course.

E: It seems that there is a third middle way, may I say possibility, which is not thought as ceaseless, neither is thought gone, but there is an intermediate possibility which is close to my own investigation, or experience, which is, thought as being permeable. In other words, thought at the beginning, it seems that thought is a solid thing, that it never stops; upon close investigation one sees that thought has actually lots of gaps. It is like not a solid veil but it has big holes in it. In between the holes there is...

K: An interval between thoughts.

E: No, it is not just intervals, it is like thought is like little glimmers in a much larger space. It is not just a space.

K: But it is still the movement of thought.

E: There is movement of thought but within a vaster context.

K: Yes, yes, it is still thought.

E: Yes but it is in a vaster context which is not the same as ceaseless thought. There is a dramatic change from one to the other. So I want to know whether this is not also part of your experience.

K: I distrust all experience.

E: Including yours?

K: Including mine!

C: Including yours?

K: Yes sir, I am very sceptical about my own experiences, because you can get deceived terribly.

E: So what is the source of the understanding then if it is not your own experience, or my own experience for myself?

K: Let's leave the word 'experience', that is a complicated word.

E: OK. What would you use instead?

K: I don't know, we'll find out. We are asking a very simple question, which is very complex: there is the rhythm of the brain inside - right? You agreed to that.

E: Yes, no problem.

K: Then there is the rhythm of thought. Can that rhythm, not in a vast consciousness, can that rhythm of thought stop? Right? That's all. Not induced, not cultivated.

C: Not chosen.

K: When you choose there is the activity of desire.

C: Right.

K: So is there a cessation of thought?

D: Could it be that if it should not be induced there would exist the possibility that if I devaluate, you understand me, the thoughts, that I don't give any values to thought, could it be possible that then thought ceases?

K: I don't quite know. Just a minute, sir. How do we investigate into this?

E: Fine I hear the possibility now.

K: I don't even know the possibility, I just...

E: Or the question.

K: I just posed that question.

E: All right.

K: No, just a minute, sir. See what happens: if I pose a question, and you reply to it, and then I reply to your question, and we keep this dialogue going until only the question remains and you and I disappear - you follow all this? There is only the question, which then has a tremendous vitality. You understand what I am saying?

E: Absolutely.

K: Are we together in this?

E: Yes.

K: That is we have posed a question. That is, can the rhythm of thought which has been going on from the beginning of one's life until we die, can that rhythm of thought come to an end? You reply and this dialogue goes on. And then you said, look, in that process only the question remains - right? You don't answer, I don't answer. Now when the question remains your brain is quiet, because you are not acting, I am not acting, only the question. Right? And this has been a problem of every human being, to have some quietness inside there, some peace, say, for god's sake stop. Right, sir? And they have invented various methods to stop it - right? Control, suppression - agreed?

E: It seems that history records many, many attempts to do this, yes.

K: Many systems, many methods to say, for god's sake let me have some peace, so that my brain, the thing, is quiet, apart from its own rhythm. Right?

A: Yes but why does the brain do that? This chattering, why did it fall in the dark from the very start?

K: I don't understand

B: Why does it have to be so full of itself?

K: Ah! From childhood, I have been trained that way, we have been educated, all education is work, work, work, learn, learn.

A: You mean it has been conditioned that way?

K: Yes, of course. Right?

E: It doesn't seem complete to put only the two alternatives of either having thought going or stopping it. There is again the middle way possibility of not stopping thought but making so much room for it that it is not bothersome anymore.

K: But it is still thought moving.

E: Yes but this is like having a very wild animal, a wild monkey in a small room. That is very bothersome and very complicated, but if the same monkey gets in a large field it is fine, it doesn't bother anybody.

K: Yes it does, but still give it any amount of space it is still there, the activity of thought.

E: Yes it is the monkey running around.

K: Monkeying around.

E: But it doesn't bother anyone.

K: It is not a question of bother.

E: No, no, but you say, I want some peace. Or men have said, give me some peace.

K: People have asked this question thousands of years ago, saying can thought, however much it may have space, in that space can it be silent.

C: Krishnaji, it could be that the very reason that people experience so much noise is because they are looking for it to be peaceful.

K: No.

C: In other words if you take his position and have a dialogue here with the question, the fact of the matter is that if you give it plenty of space you don't experience the desire to have that peace. The people that experience you know, give me that quiet peace are people who are searching.

K: Are you saying because I live in a city, in a drawer, various drawers, I want space and therefore that is my desire?

C: Yes. Your relationship inside your thought process is the thing that's the matter, not the fact that you have thought. You are so busy trying to get out of thought that you are cramped.

K: So if you are in the country, not in a city's drawer, you then say, my god, how beautiful all this is. You revel in it, you say, it is beautiful. But thought is still going on. That's is all my point. I am not saying...

E: No, no, but you raised the question of stopping thought and that question was, and you yourself implied it and I agreed, it has a motivation which is the desire to be free from that slavery.

K: So, all right.

E: So we are raising the possibility that to be free from that slavery maybe it is not necessary to stop thought but simply to give it space and may be then that state of mystery can come.

K: Would you say thought was a material process?

C: What does that mean?

K: I don't have to tell you that.

E: I am afraid I would have to ask you that because in some sense it is and in some sense it isn't. In the same way that the image on the television screen, is that image a material process? It is because it needs those little chips, but it doesn't, it is not because it is a relationship.

K: Agreed but it is still a material process.

C: Yes but it is a relationship. What is more important a relationship or material process?

K: No, no, I am not saying relationship, I am just stating something. I am not saying, what is the relationship etc.

E: Well if you just put the question so bluntly I would say, no it is not a material process.

K: All right, let's put it more softly! He doesn't want it bluntly, so let's soften it.

C: How do you want to put it softly?

K: What is thought?

C: It's a relationship.

K: With what?

C: It's a relationship that is built like we were saying the other day, it is imminent in the fact that your existence as a human being on this earth.

K: Yes, sir.

C: It emerges out of that.

K: All right. A human being, what is he?

C: He is a relationship in the sense that he is a form that has taken place in all of this energy.

K: All right, do you want to discuss relationship?

C: You can't discuss thought without discussing relationship.

K: Yes, sir. Let's discuss relationship. What is relationship? What do you mean by that word? To be related. I am related to my brother, my father, my mother, my wife, my children. I am related to the world.

C: To the trees.

K: Nature.

C: You are not related. You express the relationship...

K: I express - you see

C: No, I am talking at a very basic level.

K: Yes, sir. So am I. So are we related to nature?

C: By definition yes.

K: Definition, I don't mean definition, it has no meaning. When you see that tree in all those marvellous fields, and flowers, and the animals, are you related to it?

C: Actually yes. You are in actual connection to everything around you.

K: Are you? Sir, don't let's quibble.

C: No, no, I mean actually.

K: That means what? That you will not kill anything.

E: Right, OK.

C: That doesn't necessarily mean that.

K: Oh yes. Because if you kill that you kill yourself.

C: Yes but the fox is in relationship to the rabbit.

K: Yes sir, but kills the rabbit.

C: Yes and it is in relationship to it.

K: So you kill the fox.

C: That's right.

K: And somebody else kills you.

E: That seems to be the way of nature's relationship.

K: Just a minute. This is the accepted way of living.

C: Yes but that's built into nature.

K: Just a minute, sir. I know this game! I have played this game. I know all this.

A: But are we not going a little bit away from the main point?

B: There seems to be tremendous resistance. We have asked can thought stop, can there be an end to it and we won't go into the question. We want to go round in different directions and nobody seems to want to stay with the question.

E: I want to stay with the question but I want also to see that the entire question is dealt with, which is the possibility of thought continuing, the possibility of thought stopping, and the possibility of thought having so much space that it doesn't create the problems that we find it normally creating. I would like the three possibilities to be considered and not discard one off-hand.

C: And therefore relationship becomes an issue.

K: Now which shall we take?

C: I don't know, what do you think? What would you consider an intelligent way to approach this issue since we have said that we want to consider all aspects of thought and we have said thought is relationship, what is the intelligent way to proceed, given this fact?

K: I don't know.

C: That's why we are here!

B: I don t think we have come here for someone to give us the answers.

K: What is the question? Step by step. First question, what is the question? Desire? I am asking. Is it desire? Is it space? Thought being contained in a small space? If it has vast space there would be no problem? Does space prevent thought from having problems?

E: OK that is a perfectly valid question.

K: You are saying yes?

E: I am saying yes because that is something I can explore and it is part of my experience.

K: Yes.

E: But stopping is foreign to my experience.

K: Forget the stopping. Throw it overboard for the moment.

E: If I may say so I would not like to throw it away because I am interested in learning something which is not available for me.

K: We will come to that presently. We said before, yesterday and the other day, that thought is limited. It can have vast space; it is still limited.

E: Yes absolutely the monkey will still be a monkey.

K: It is well known this monkey business!

E: Agreed.

C: All right, OK.

K: Next question: it is still the monkey, then what is the next question? You say there are three possibilities.

E: The three possibilities to me have to do with the fact that when the monkey is, when I discover that I can relate or see the monkey's action in a vaster space...

K: It is still the monkey.

E: ...it is still the monkey but the space around it has a completely new quality.

K: Yes, but it still remains the monkey.

E: The monkey does but not the space around the monkey. That's new.

K: That's it.

B: Francisco, are you saying that somehow you can control thought?

E: No. Precisely not. This is exactly what I am not saying.

C: If you have enough space...

E: Listen to me for a moment. Stopping to me is a synonym of control: instead if I take this wild animal which is uncontrolled thought, and not throw it away, and not hit it on the head and try to kill it, but seem to make room for it, then by itself the wild monkey in the big field simply goes to sleep.

B: Then you think there is enough room in the universe for thought?

E: That is precisely my point that it seems to be the human experience is that it is possible to grow infinitely.

K: Grow? I question that. What is it to grow infinitely? What is growing?

E: That which is around thought.

K: The space. Space can go on.

E: I am not talking about literal physical space. I am talking of that which is where thought lives, the space around thought.

K: Just a minute! You see where he is leading to!

D: I don't understand it.

K: It is speculative.

C: Well, it's speculative to say thought can stop too.

K: No, I am asking a question.

E: It is speculative only to the extent that one is not willing to see the source of the observation. The source of the observation is to remain in silence and see how thought moves.

K: I don't quite follow all this, sorry.

C: I think Krishnaji was having issue there because he wouldn't say, at least I have never heard you say in our previous discussions - he would say staying in silence is an act of control. In other words to stay in silence implies that I am going to think my way into silence. That's just another form of control too.

K: The observer is the observed. We agree to that.

C: That's a real dilemma.

B: You are saying that all these actions begin with some sense of desire, or a goal, or some sense of control. And if you begin with control, can you control thought? Either by giving it a lot of space, or by controlling it, by trying to stop it. I guess we are saying that that doesn't seem possible to begin that way.

K: Sir, you used the word 'space'. I can go to the Himalayas and there is immense space. I have been to one spot in the north where you see three hundred and fifty miles of snow. Tremendous. But the monkey is still there! That's all I am saying.

E: I am not disagreeing with that.

K: And that space doesn't affect the monkey.

E: Oh, yes it does.

K: Somewhat.

E: It makes it tame and it usually just takes a nap, goes to sleep. It is like a monkey in a small cage is all neurotic but once it has all the jungle it is a happy monkey, it goes to sleep.

D: Not always.

K: Please. This isn't quite accurate sir because you give man any amount of space, any amount, both physically - are you talking physical space?

E: No.

K: Psychological space, inward space. Wait. Inward space. Then how does it come about?

E: It doesn't come about.

K: Then human beings haven't got that space.

E: They have it, it is a matter of paying attention to it, of making yourself available to it. It is not that you create it.

K: Available to space.

E: Available to, yes, available to the gaps.

K: Which means what?

E: Which means not speeding so much so that I don't see that it is there all the time.

K: Which means sir, would you say for the skull to have space there must be no self?

E: Yes.

K: That's all.

E: I agree.

D: That's better.

K: Right? That means the self is limited, there should be no activity of the self, no deception, saying I have no self, but I am hiding there. Then the monkey doesn't exist.

E: Well, this is again where I don't see.

K: We said...

E: It continues to exist.

K: No, wait sir, of course I exist, the self I am talking about. 'The me', both the physical, psychological, all 'the me', memory, this vast bundle of memories which is me, if that bundle of memory ceases, then there is infinite space - that's all.

E: Right.

K: Now...

C: Where is the monkey now?

K: There is no monkey.

E: Well, this is what I don't see. The monkey is still there, it is just in a bigger space.

K: Let's define it. You mean the monkey as the body...

E: The monkey as the self, as the body, the thought, the memories, the sense.

K: We said that. Memory, thought, experience, knowledge is limited. Therefore give him any amount of space inwardly it is still limited.

E: One thing is that it is limited, the other thing is that in its limitation it is tame so that it is not the source or the cause of further trouble.

K: But it is still limited. That's all.

E: OK. I sometimes I don't know what you mean by, 'that's all'.

K: I mean it may somehow create, or bring about, or exist, or live in that space. And I say that space, however wide, however extensive, however deep, the monkey, the self is still there. You agree?

E: That's fine.

K: That's all.

E: We are in agreement!

C: That's an agreement. The monkey is there.

K: The monkey is still there. I know all the tricks of the monkey.

E: It doesn't matter.

K: I know all the tricks. I have watched the monkey operating at various levels, it is still the monkey. What is the next question? If the monkey is very satisfied, says, I have got a lot of space, I am happy, I am building my tail and related to everything and blah, blah, blah. You say 'that's the end of it'.

E: Fine. So the next question I would ask myself is: that seems to be the fruition of a process of cultivation which I need to start where I am, which is the monkey is small space, to cultivate the larger space.

K: Now can the space - it comes to the same thing sir - can that space be cultivated?

E: The space itself, no. My attitude to it, yes.

K: Ah! You see!

C: I don't understand you.

E: Well can I put an example. I can say for example, just a metaphor, if I close the curtains of this room it doesn't mean that there is no sky - right? I have to have an attitude to open up the curtains, and say, oh, there is sky. So it is not that I cultivate sky, I cultivate my attitude to make myself available to the perception of sky. It is the same sort of phenomenon.

K: I have an attitude that war is ugly, brutal. I have an attitude but I go on killing.

E: It is a possibility.

K: But sir, that is what...

E: Or the attitude might bring me to say, I won't kill anymore.

K: It is not an attitude. What do you mean by attitude?

D: I wanted to ask what are they? Do they have something to do with values, attitudes?

K: Values are already...

D: Attitudes we are talking about. Can they change?

K: No, I am just asking: how does the monkey create space for itself?

C: That is a big question.

E: That is a great question.

C: That's the great question.

K: I put that question.

C: Yes.

K: And what do you do with that question?

D: It needs a change.

K: Kick it around? Put it this way, that way, and the other way, but the question still remains.

E: How about trying different ways?

K: You have tried it, ten different ways now, this morning. I can see what we have done! You have kicked the monkey from corner to corner, in the same field - right? So what is the next question: can the monkey create the space for itself, which means the monkey has to end? Not as a physical monkey, but the whole inward structure, inward state, inward - right?

E: Well...

K: I am putting it quickly. You can expand it, kick it around. We'll come back to the same thing! Can the monkey create its own space?

C: The question that comes up there is the monkey is caught in the self, the monkey makes small space.

K: The monkey wherever it is will make a small space.

C: Now that monkey is in that small space, it seems to me that there is some understanding of seeing that small space that dissolves it.

K: That's it. Now wait a minute. Keep to that one statement: when the monkey realises, sees, perceives, pays attention, whatever word you like to use, that itself whatever it does is still limited - agree? Whatever it does, prays to god, goes to science - right? Whatever it does it is still the monkey, so it cannot create space.

C: Right.

E: At that moment it makes itself available to it though.

K: No. You see, when you say available, it is still the monkey.

E: Up until the point at which he actually lets go of his being the monkey.

K: Wait a minute, that's the whole point.

E: He has to be monkey, make himself available to drop it before he can actually drop it.

K: He is still the monkey sir whether he can drop it or not - right? It cannot create space. Agree to that? Just a minute.

E: Sorry. It is like going to back to David's point. The monkey to be monkey has to be very smart to create all of the illusions of its own enclosure. That intelligence is so intelligent that he can also see his own trappings.

K: We have said that.

E: Right. That is precisely the interesting thing: that this intelligence is two sided. On the one hand it can create this confusion and on the other hand it can see itself. But when it sees itself it is, in some sense in a limited sense but nevertheless in some sense, its own creation. It's our own undoing.

C: This is important Krishnaji because in our past discussions at this point we usually say that the insight of the monkey into the fact that he is enclosed in a space, is that that in some way brings a stop to the monkey. But the question is, is there more to the stop than the insight?

K: When does the monkey realise its own limitation?

C: When did you say?

K: When.

E: At the moment it sees its own futility.

K: Now when does that happen? Go slowly sir. Go slowly! When does this happen? When you knock it on the head?

D: When it is suffering.

K: Wait. I am coming to it. Let's look into it. When does it see, my god whatever I do will always be limited?

E: When there is a breakdown in its world.

K: When does it break down?

E: All the time there is a breakdown.

K: No, sir. Just. Look, I am the monkey.

B: OK, you lost your wife, or your house burnt down.

K: So it means what? In a crisis.

D: Crisis, suffering.

K: Wait. A crisis. See what you are saying! That it needs a crisis for it to wake up. Right?

E: Yes.

K: I question that.

E: It needs it as a usual first step. But then one realises that the breakdown is happening all the time, right now.

K: No, no, just a minute, sir. I asked just now, when does the monkey realise the fact, the reality, the truth, that it is limited? It can climb trees, it can run, it can swim, it can enter into laboratories and dissect, do everything it wants, it is still the terrible monkey. And when does it realise, when does it say, my god, I am limited - not theoretically.

A: In a crisis, we said.

K: I question that. We have had crises. Every year we have crises, every day we have a crisis. I quarrel with my wife. Governments are cheating us, misruling us. You say one thing, another scientists says another thing. When do I realise that I am limited? I have had suffering - right? Untold suffering, not only me but the world. When I see that D-Day entertainment, I suffer, I have suffered. That hasn't changed the monkey because we have suffered for thousands of years.

D: Why?

K: We have had thousands of pleasures.

E: So you need the convergence to think. The suffering and the possibility of somebody, or something, or some...

K: You are now off again.

E: I am off to say you have to have the combination...

K: When you say off you mean outside agency.

E: No, I am saying, that the outside agency can be a perfect clear manifestation of the inside agency.

K: Yes.

E: But we have to have the combination of the two of saying it is futile and there is an alternative. It is like your example the other day you run into somebody who says, you could go south. It is the same sort of thing.

K: Yes sir. So when does the monkey wake up and say, I am limited? Do you know what that means sir? Any action - you understand? - any action of the monkey is still the monkey. Vertical, horizontal, create space, it is still the terrible little entity called the monkey. So man has invented god, outside agency will help me, he has prayed, he is still the monkey.

D: Can you say what should be done? I am waiting.

K: Right? Just a minute, sir. Have you come to an impasse?

E: In the dialogue, in the conversation? Not at all.

K: No. When I said whatever the monkey does, whatever, it is still the monkey. Agree?

E: Yes, I agree.

K: That means you have come to a stop. It is an impasse, you have come against a wall. Wall. You understand? Don't misunderstand wall. You are stuck there.

E: You come to a realisation.

K: No, you have come to the realisation whatever it does is...

E: ...is limited.

K: Limited. What does that mean? Is it a theory? Is it you say, yes, let's discuss it? Or it is an actuality that you are up against a wall, you can't move? Yes, sirs! There is no escape.

D: But there are people who know that. Also researchers, scientists, know that it is so. We agree.

K: Then what do we do, sir?

D: There are some of us who know that you are right.

K: What do we do?

D: I ask this. I don't know. What should we do? We should do something, we just can't wait.

B: We are stuck in the room now. We are stuck with the question, we can't go out of the room.

K: Look what you are doing sirs, look what you are doing! You don't stop, and say, look I am at an impasse.

C: Let's stop right there. You say, we don't stop. What about that act of stop?

K: You are against a wall, you don't have to stop. The wall prevents you moving. We never come to that point.

D: I have stopped now.

E: I question that.

K: Otherwise you have the answer.

E: Of course.

D: What should we do?

C: Well tell us. We are here now.

E: We have already said. One thing is that we don't know what to do, the other thing is that we don't apply ourselves to do it. We talked about creating space around the monkey, didn't we.

C: Nobody understood that.

B: There is nowhere else to move. We can't talk about it anymore. We are stuck.

E: We are not.

D: Then what should we do?

B: To speak about it is to move away from it. We are stuck there.

D: What should we do? Slowly, tell. I am waiting. Very much in my being at Brockwood I hoped that I would tell something to those people at home who are exactly of the same opinion.

K: Have I said I can't move anymore?

E: No, you have said we can't move anymore.

K: You have said that to yourself.

E: No, sorry, I never said that.

D: What should be done?

E: I don't feel that that is true. There is the realisation of the absolute impossibility, and at the same time there are all the gaps, all the holes, all the space right there.

K: No, there is no hope when you are up against a wall.

E: It is not true. The sudden realisation of the complete limitation brings with it the complete clarity of the space with it. Those things are both true.

K: Is that an actuality to you?

D: I don't understand.

E: Is it not, sir? Why couldn't it be shared?

K: We can share it together if we are both hungry and food is put.

E: But it is here.

K: Yes, sir. Do I realise that whatever I do I am still the monkey? Either in the future, or in the past, whatever I do. It is a tremendous shock to realise that. Right? Shock, both organically and psychologically. Right? Shock. And if you can remain with that shock, not dissipate it - you understand? So that there is no escape, no explanation, no rationalisation, anything I do is still the monkey. See what has happened. There is then a totally different action. Yes, sir.

E: I thought you said there was no hope. This is exactly what I just said.

K: No, it is not a hope. I have no hope.

E: Oh no?

K: No, sir, I have no hope because I am against the wall. If I hope I want to escape.

E: But you have just said there is a totally different action coming out of that.

K: Ah, for me, not for you, maybe.

C: What do you mean, 'For me and not you'?

K: No, sir. Do I realise, you, Shainberg, that whatever you do, whatever you think, whatever you act, whatever you hope, it is still the monkey playing? That means you have come to a complete stop. Have you? I am not asking personally, that is up to you. Have you? Complete stop. No argument!

C: No, no. Let's take it in another sense. How can I put it, the stop - what happens to you in the now. Now we are together in this stop.

K: I asked, sir, has Shainberg...

C: That thing Shainberg.

K: No, no, you are there in front of me. Have you stopped?

C: There is no answer to that question.

K: Yes, sir, there is. Don't dodge it. We have argued for three days - right?

C: Well if I say, I have stopped, that's I and I haven't stopped.

K: No, no. That would be absurd. But you have come to realise, not you sir, forgive me, I am not being impolite or impudent, you have come to realise whatever you do it is still the monkey, and therefore always limited. You understand sir? I will tell you something sir. I met a man, I used to know him, he was a judge. And one day he said, 'I am passing judgement, left and right, about crime and murder, all kinds of things, but I don't know what truth is.' So he said to his family, 'I am going away, I am going to find it.' He spent twenty five years, these are facts, meditating to find out what truth is. So somebody brought him to one of the talks which I was giving, and he came to see me afterwards, he said, 'For twenty five years I have been mesmerising myself, deceiving myself. I haven't found truth.' You understand? There it is. For an old man to realise that he has for twenty five years deluded himself. To admit that.

You see sir, when one actually faces the fact that you cannot do anything, the monkey, the brain, the inside, apart from the rhythm, comes to be quiet, says, right. No tricks any more. Sir this has been the problem of meditation - you know the word? I am not insulting you sir, I am sure you know the word. They have tried every method - you understand? Zen, Buddhist, Tibetan, going off in solitude, following various systems invented by thought, to come up against this and say, 'Look, this is the end'.

He is looking at you.

E: Well maybe he is looking at me because to go back to about half way in our conversation this morning when I said it is not my experience!

C: Yes, but what about right now? Right now in a sense, not in a sense, I mean the stop and now. Now what?

E: Now won't you cultivate that?

C: Is there cultivation?

E: I don't know if it is cultivating according to Krishnaji.

K: No, not according to me, sir. Not according to me. We all said cultivation...

E: I don't know according...

K: We all agreed cultivation implies motive, time, end and effort.

E: Yes absolutely. I don't see that as an intrinsic problem. The problem would be that that motivation would not be cognisant of its limitations. But if a motivation says, 'I know of my lack of vision but it is an attitude that makes it possible to constantly come back to that realisation of limitation', then that is cultivating a meditative action.

K: Therefore...

E: Motivation by itself is not problematic. Motivation is problematic when it is completely devoid of any context of its limitation, when it believes in itself. At least this is as far as you know, any practical way of cultivation.

K: Sir, you, not you sir, the monkey is still active. Yes.

E: I said again I don't see a problem with the monkey acting and being a monkey. The problem is when the monkey is in a little room.

K: Right, sir.

E: I don't have any animosity against...

K: ...against being a monkey.

E: I do have animosity against being constrained.

K: No, no. I am not concerned, sir. What do you mean by that word concerned?

E: Constrained, I said.

K: Constrained. Aren't we constrained.

E: Indeed. That is precisely what needs to be worked on and dealt with. Therefore what really interests me is what are the actual practicalities, the actual practicalities of cultivating that spaciousness? Because the monkey is not the problem, the constraint is what makes the monkey crazy.

K: You see the difference? I say it is not the constraint, it is the monkey constraining himself.

E: It comes to the same thing. The way we cultivate it is to make room for it. Not to hit it on the head.

K: The monkey cannot make room for itself.

E: Oh, I thought we concluded that it can because we said its intelligence can apply to see its limitations.

K: We said whatever it does is limited.

E: Yes, and when it becomes aware of that limitation there is space right there.

K: When it becomes aware that whatever it does...

E: ...is limited, it creates space right there.

K: Yes. All right.

E: Well isn't that a fact?

K: If you say so.

E: I am posing you the question very much in the spirit of hearing what your experience is.

K: I would question myself whether one has - not you sir, I am not trying to be impudent - whether one has really realised the nature of the monkey, the monkey whatever it does is still the monkey, and the depth of that realisation, which may be very superficial, or it may be profound. When it is profound it totally changes one's life. That's all I am saying. I am not saying anything else.

E: I guess I am saying that that is possible but it may not be possible for every human being. Wait a second. My experience, and this is all I have, my experience, I cannot go by your experience...

K: Of course not.

E: ...nor anybody else's, my experience is that those realisations come and go and come in different degrees of depth. Sometimes it is a realisation of a stupid limitation that I have imposed on myself and I can drop it. Sometimes it can be profound, then it is forgotten again. It is not a one-shot deal. It is not like that.

C: I think you are raising another issue. That is the fact Krishnaji is what you seem to be saying is that when the monkey is the monkey, caught up in the monkeyness, in the monkey business, that it has no relationship to the intelligence whatsoever.

K: It is still monkey.

C: It is still monkey. Therefore there is no intelligence involved. And in a way, the brain itself - again coming back to the brain, or some of its functions - when that monkey business is going on it is all monkey business. Now the question is: whether the intelligence comes in and that there is an aspect of the monkey which is intelligent. And therefore the intelligence appreciates the limitations of the monkey and at the same time - yesterday you said, or our discussion took in the statement that the intelligence sees that thought is limited.

K: No, sir. I said let's first define and go into the question of intelligence. The intelligence of thought, and the intelligence of love.

C: And I asked you, or we tried to get at - that's where we ended the other day - what is the relationship between the intelligence of love and the intelligence of thought?

K: What is the relationship - I understand your question - what is the relationship of the man who doesn't hate and the man who hates? There is no relationship.

C: None?

K: No.

E: That's not true. That is not my experience.

K: Not experience. I doubt everybody's experience, including my own. But I am saying let's discuss that, not experience, then you are lost: my experience, your experience, but what is the relationship of the man who loves, in the sense we are talking about, and the man who hates? Just look at it sir. How can there be?

C: I think there is a relationship.

K: All right.

C: I think you think so too. I have seen you embrace people who you know hate.

K: Just a minute, sir. Of course.

C: So what is your relationship when you embrace a man you know who hates?

K: Ah! No. Hate has no relationship to love; but love has a relationship to hate.

C: OK.

K: That's all. That's all. Not the other way round.

C: So then intelligence has a relationship to thought?

K: No, sir.

D: Love has to do with embracing. As I told you the first day, that is a good word, embrace in Finnish, so that I can understand. Not the other way round.

C: What is the relationship between intelligence and thought?

K: We said that, sir.

C: No, we haven't.

K: Thought has its own intelligence - right? We agreed that. Love, compassion, has its own intelligence. The intelligence of thought has no relationship with that intelligence, but that intelligence has a relationship.

C: So, what is the relationship of intelligence to the monkey?

K: None.

C: Not this way?

K: That way, yes, but not the other.

C: OK. Now what is the event of intelligence finding, seeing the limitations of the monkey?

K: Sir, just a minute. It is very simple: you are no longer the monkey. I am the monkey. What is my relationship to you? None.

C: But what is my relationship to you?

K: You have relationship, you have love, compassion, all that. But I have no relationship with you, I am still the monkey. When I cease to be the monkey I don't want you, I am - you are finished. Right. We had better stop.

I am not referring to you gentlemen. Each one is pursuing his own way - right?

E: Is there a way to overcome that?

K: Yes, sir. I want my career, my business, and he says to me, all of us are doing this in the world - right? Creating havoc in the world.

E: So how could it be otherwise? You do what you do, I do what I do?

K: No. Can we all be together?

E: Yes.

K: Where?

E: Cultivate our love.

K: Oh, no. Don't say cultivate love.

E: Why not?

K: Sir, that means what?

E: That means making yourself available to that possibility. Why does it have to be...

K: Just a minute. We have discussed this point, you are going back to that again. That is not cultivatable.

E: Itself it is not, but...

K: All right, sir. This is it. This is what makes us - you stick to your point, another sticks his point. And this world is like that.

D: Beginning again the same round.

E: Well, it is not that. Not because we have different styles I don't appreciate you.

K: The communist sticks to his ideology, won't budge.

E: But Krishnaji I wouldn't harm you because you think differently from myself.

K: I understand, sir. But I am telling you, sir...

E: Not for one minute.

K: Look sir, can we all be together, not physically but inwardly so that you are a light to yourself.

C: For that to happen it seems to me you have to see him as a monkey in your space who has plenty of room to play.

K: Don't go back to that monkey business! No, sirs, this is our difficulty.

C: I think one of our difficulties is that we don't recognise we are different. You do your thing, I do mine, I even love that you are different; I love it.

K: If the love is there, there is no difference.

C: Well that is looking at it at different levels.

K: If I love my wife and I have any difference, no.

C: Yes, you have difference in similarity.

K: No, no, sir. Arguing again. It doesn't lead anywhere. We had better stop.