Krishnamurti: Shall we start from where we left off?

David Bohm: All right.

K: Or something new?

DB: What do you suggest?

K: I don't know.

Are we saying sir that human beings are still behaving with the animal instincts?

DB: Yes, I think we were discussing that the other day and the animal instincts, it seems, may apparently be overpowering in their intensity and speed, and especially with young children. It may seem that it is only natural for them to respond with the animal instinct.

K: So that means that we are still, after a million years or ten million years, whatever years, we are still instinctively behaving like our ancestors?.

DB: Well, in some ways. Probably it was complicated by thought, that the animal instincts have now become entangled with thought and the thing is getting in some ways worse.

K: Some ways far worse.

DB: Because all these instincts of hatred now become directed by thought and sustained by thought so that they are more subtle and more dangerous.

K: And during all these many, many centuries we haven't found a way, a method, a system or something that will move us away from that track. Is that it?

DB: Well, that is one point, yes. That is one of the difficulties, surely. When people begin to get angry with each other, their anger builds up and they can't seem to do anything about it. They may try to control it but then that doesn't work.

K: 'X', as we were saying, behaves, let's suppose, naturally, which is not responding to the animal instincts. What place has such insight we will call it, in human society?

DB: Yes, well...

K: None at all?

DB: ...in the society as it is, it cannot be accommodated because society is organised under the assumption that pleasure and pain and fear are going to rule, except when you control it. Say, friendliness is a kind of animal instinct too, people have become friendly for instinctive reasons.

K: People have become?

DB: Friendly sometimes for reasons similar to animal instinct and they may become enemies for similar reasons. So I think that some people would say that we should be rational. If we want to answer your question you see there was a period during the 18th century, say the age of reason, when they said man could be rational, he could choose to be rational, bring about harmony everywhere.

K: But he hasn't.

DB: But it got worse, you see. It led to the French revolution and to the terror and so on. But after that people didn't have so much faith in reason as a way of getting coming out of it.

K: So where does that lead us? We were talking really about insight, that it actually changes the nature of the brain itself.

DB: Yes, we discussed that yesterday that by dispelling the darkness in the brain, it allowed the brain to function in a new way.

K: Yes. Thought has been operating in darkness, creating its own darkness and functioning in that. And insight is like, as we said, a flash which breaks down the darkness. And then that insight, clearing the darkness, then does it act, function, rationally?

DB: Yes, we went into that, that man will then function rationally in the sense of perception - we discussed - rather than just by rules and reason. But there is a sort of freely flowing reason. You see some people identify reason with certain rules of logic which would be mechanical.

K: Which would be mechanical, yes.

DB: But reason as a form of perception of order.

K: So we are saying, are we, that insight is perception?

DB: It is even the flash of light which makes perception possible.

K: Possible. Right, that's it.

DB: That is even more fundamental than perception.

K: So insight is pure perception and from that perception there is action, which is then sustained by rationality. Is that it?

DB: Yes.

K: That's right.

DB: The rationality being perception of order, I would say.

K: Yes. So would you say: insight, perception and order?

DB: Yes.

K: That order is not mechanical.

DB: Yes.

K: Because it is not based on logic.

DB: No. No rules.

K: No rules, let's put it that way - better. It is not based on rules. Then that means insight, perception, action, order. Then we come to the question: is insight continuous, or is it by flash?

DB: We went into that and we said it was a wrong question in a way.

K: Yes.

DB: That we have to look at it differently.

K: So it is not time...

DB: ...not time-bound.

K: Not time-binding, yes we said that. So now let's get further, a little further. That means we said, sir, didn't we, insight is the elimination of darkness which is the very centre of the self, which is the self creates this darkness. Right? And so insight dispels that very centre

DB: Yes, with the darkness perception is not possible.

K: Quite.

DB: It's blindness in a way.

K: So, then what next? How - no. I am an ordinary man with all my animal instincts: pleasure and pain and reward and punishment and so on. I hear you say this, and I see what you are saying has some kind of reason, logic, and order

DB: Yes, all right, it makes sense as far as we can see. Right?

K: It makes sense. Then how am I to have it in my daily life? How am I to bring about - you understand these are words which are difficult, all these words are time-binding, but is that possible?.

DB: Yes, without time, you see.

K: Yes. Is it possible for me, with my narrow mind, with my etc., to have this insight so that that pattern of life is broken? As we said, sir, the other day, we have tried all this - every form of self-denial. And yet that insight doesn't come about. I may have once in a while a partial insight, but the partial insight is not the whole insight, therefore there is still partial darkness.

DB: Yes, well, if it doesn't dispel the centre of the self, we said it is not adequate. It may dispel some darkness in a certain area but the source of the darkness, the creator, the sustainer of it is still there.

K: Is still there. What shall I do. This is a wrong question. This leads nowhere.

So we have stated the general plan. Right? And I have to make the moves, or make no moves at all. I haven't the energy. I haven't the capacity to see it quickly. Because this is immediate, not just something I practise and get. Right? I haven't got that capacity, I haven't got that sense of urgent immediacy. Everything is against me: my family, my wife, my society, everything. And does it mean that I eventually have to become a monk?

DB: No. It is clear that becoming a monk is the same as becoming anything else.

K: That's right. So becoming a monk is like becoming a businessman.

DB: Yes.

K: Quite. That's rather good! (Laughs) You see sir, I see all this, verbally as well as rationally, intellectually, but I can't capture this thing. And you don't help me. You, the 'X' doesn't help me, I am just left. (Pause) Is there a different approach to this problem? I am always asking the same question because I am caught in the same pattern. So I am asking myself is there a totally different way - I am using 'the way', that word for the moment - a totally different way of moving, or approaching, the whole turmoil of life? You follow sir?.

DB: Yes.

K: Is there a different manner of looking at it? Or is this the only way. You follow?

DB: Yes.

K: We are saying as long as the centre is creating darkness, and thought is operating in that darkness, there must be disorder, there must be everything as society now is. And to move away from that you must have insight

DB: Yes.

K: Insight can only come about when there is a flash, a sudden light which abolishes not only the darkness but the creator of darkness.

DB: Yes.

K: Right. Now I am asking - that seems so absolute (laughs). Right? - and I am asking myself: is there a different approach to this question altogether?.

DB: Well possibly. When you say it seems absolute, do you mean you want a less absolute approach?

K: It is so.

DB: It is so, but, I mean, it was not clear what you meant by it seems so absolute.

K: I mean there is no other.

DB: There is no other way.

K: There is no other way.

DB: Yes. But then you say maybe there is another way. Then you're suggesting maybe there is another way.

K: I am asking if that is the only way, then I am doomed.

DB: You can't produce this flash at will, right?

K: Oh, we have been through that, it can't be produced through will, through sacrifice, through every form of human effort. That is out, we have finished with all that. We finished with all that two or three weeks ago

And also we came to a point - to 'X' this insight seems so natural and why is it not natural to others? That was one of the points we raised.

DB: Yes.

K: Why is it natural to 'X' and not so to others? If we could find that sir.

DB: Yes. Well let's say that if you begin with the child, it seems natural to the child to respond with his animal instincts, with great intensity which sweep him away. Darkness arises because it is so overwhelming.

K: Yes, but why is that with 'X'?

DB: All right, but I mean first of all it seems natural, you say it seems to most people that this would happen, that the animal instincts would take over.

K: Yes, that's right. That seems so natural, the animal instincts.

DB: That seems very natural and they would say the other fellow is unnatural.

K: Yes.

DB: Right? And therefore that is the way mankind has been thinking, saying if there are indeed any such other people they must be very unusual and unnatural in some sense.

K: That's it. That is, human beings have been acting according to this pattern, one pattern, responding to hatred by hatred and so on. There are those few, perhaps many, who say that is not. Why has this division taken place? If this is natural - that is, hate - what is one battling against?

DB: Yes, if you say pleasure and pain, fear and hate, are natural, then the people say we must battle to control it because they will destroy us. You see they say the best we can hope for is to control it with reason or with some other way.

K: But that doesn't get this.

DB: We have gone into all that.

K: So I am now

DB: Yes. Now you say, someone else says the other way is natural.

K: Yes.

DB: And now what, you see.

K: If that is natural, are the few the privileged, by some miracle, by some strange chance event?

DB: Yes, some people, many people say that, many people would say that they are unusual in some way.

K: No, that goes against one's grain. I wouldn't accept that.

DB: Yes, well if that is not the case then you have to say why is there this difference.

K: Yes, that is what I am trying to get at. Because 'X' is born of the same parents.

DB: Yes, we say they are fundamentally the same but why do they behave differently?

K: Differently, yes. This question has been asked many times, over and over again in different parts of the world. Now why? Why is there this division? I can't find out

DB: All right.

Questioner: Is the division really total? You see because even that man who says to respond to hatred with hatred, he nevertheless sees that it doesn’t make sense. He also sees that it is wrong. So even though he says it is natural, he at the same time says it is not natural, it should be different.

K: It should be different but he is still battling with ideas, with thought.

Q: That’s right, but it is not entirely natural. If it were entirely natural he would say, ‘OK, that’s just the way we live’. He wouldn’t even try to get out of it. You see what I am saying?

K: Yes, I understand that. But he is trying to get out of it by the exercise of thought which breeds darkness.

Q: Well, but he doesn’t understand that.

K: And we have explained to him.

Q: Yes. Well I just want to say that the division does not seem to be so entire. You see.

K: Oh yes sir, the division is entire, complete. We talked about this the other day.

Q: But then why are not people just saying ‘Well OK, let’s live that way, let’s kill each other and let’s enjoy it to the last moment’?

K: Because they can't see any other thing except their own darkness.

Q: But they want to get out of it.

K: Now wait a minute sir. Do they want to get out of it?

Q: At least they say so.

K: Do they actually realise the state they are in and deliberately want to get out of it?

Q: I think so.

Mary Zimbalist: They are ambivalent about it. They want to go on getting the fruits of it but they have a hunch it is wrong, that it leads to suffering for them

DB: Or else they find they can't help it, you see that when the time comes to get angry, or pleasure, they can't get away.

K: They can't help it. We have been through it.

DB: Yes.

Q: But they want to get out of it, they can’t help it. They are helpless, there are forces which are stronger than even their will.

K: So what shall we do? Or, this division is false.

DB: Well, that's the point, you see. We better call it a difference between these two. This difference is not fundamental. One idea is to say it is a difference which is absolute, there is nothing in common.

K: I don't think there is anything in common.

DB: What? Yes, but if you say the difference is false, or the division is false, you say fundamentally they are the same is what you mean, but a difference has developed between them. It would mean if you say that this division is false, yet you say fundamentally, you mean fundamentally they are the same, but a difference has developed between them. Perhaps one has taken a wrong turn.

K: Yes, yes, yes. Let's put it that way, yes.

DB: But the difference is not intrinsic, it is not structural, you know, built in, like the difference between a tree and a rock, you know.

K: Right. Yes.

DB: A tree cannot become a rock.

K: Yes, as you say there is a vast difference between a rock and a tree but it is not like that.

DB: Yes.

K: Then what? Are we trying to find out sir, let's be simple, are we trying to find out: they are two they start from the source and one has taken one direction and the other has taken another direction. Right? But the source is the same. Why haven't all of them moved in the right direction?.

DB: Yes, we haven't answered that. We haven't managed to answer that.

K: Yes, we are trying to answer that. Let's get back to that.

DB: I was just saying that if you understand that, then that means going back to the source we do not have to take the wrong turn. In some sense we are continually taking the wrong turn, so if we can understand this wrong turn, then it becomes possible to change.

K: Yes sir. I get it. That is, we start from the same source. 'A' takes one turn...

DB: We are continually starting from the same source, not going back in time to a source, is that right?

K: Just a minute, just a minute.

DB: There are two possible ways of taking your statement. One is to say the source is in time, far back in the past, we started together and we took different paths. The other is to say the source is timeless and we are continually taking the wrong turn, again and again. Right?

K: Yes. We cut out time, therefore it is constantly the wrong turn.

DB: Constantly the wrong turn, yes.

K: Why?

MZ: Which means there is also the constant possibility of the right turn.

K: Yes, of course. That's it, that's it. We are getting a little more clear. That is if we say the source from which we all began, therefore it is finished.

DB: We're back in time.

K: Then we are caught in time.

DB: You can't go back.

K: You can't go back. That is out. Therefore it is we apparently are taking the wrong turn all the time.

DB: Yes. Constantly.

K: Constantly, let's put it that way. Constantly taking the wrong turn, why? (Pause) The one - I am just going into it a little bit - the one who is not operating on thought, the one who is living with insight and the other not living with insight, these are constant. And the man who is living in darkness can move away at any time to the other. That is the point: at any time

DB: Yes.

K: Right?

DB: Yes. Then nothing holds him, except taking the wrong turn constantly. You could say the darkness is such he doesn't see himself taking the wrong turn because it is dark.

K: Of his darkness, yes. (Laughs) Is this right sir? Are we pursuing the right direction, right question? You have that insight, suppose you have that insight, and your darkness, the very source, centre of darkness has been dispelled completely. And I listen to you and I am a serious, fairly intelligent, not neurotic, human being, I listen to you. And whatever you have said seems so reasonable, rational, sane. I question the division that's what I'm

DB: All right, yes, question the division.

K: You follow, sir? I question the division. The division is created by the centre which creates darkness. Right?

DB: Yes. It is the same as the other divisions, it is thought.

K: Yes. Thought has created this division. The other man says there is no division. I don't know if I am

DB: Yes, well in the darkness thought creates this division, sustains this division.

K: You say, you who have the insight, etc., you say there is no division.

DB: Yes, then in the division, from the darkness a shadow is thrown, it makes a division, right?

K: Yes. And I won't accept that because in my darkness there is nothing but division. So I, living in darkness, have created the division. I think that is right. As I have created it in my thoughts

DB: I am constantly creating it.

K: Yes, constantly creating division, that's right, constantly creating division and so I am always wanting to live constantly in a state in which there is no division. Right?

DB: Yes.

K: But that movement is still the movement of darkness. Right?

DB: Yes.

K: How am I to dispel this continuous darkness, constant darkness? That is the only question because as long as that exists I create this constant division. Right?

DB: Yes.

K: You see, this is going round and round in circles. Which is, I can only dispel the darkness through insight, and I cannot get that insight by any effort, will and so on, so on, so I am left with nothing. Right? So what is my problem. My problem is to perceive the darkness, to perceive the thought that is creating darkness and to see that the self is the source of this darkness. Why can't I see that? Why can't I see it even logically?

DB: Well, it's clear logically.

K: Yes but somehow that doesn't seem to operate. So what shall I do. I realise sir, for the first time that the self is creating the darkness which is constantly breeding division. I see that very clearly

DB: Yes and the division produces the darkness.

K: Vice versa, back and forth. And from all that everything begins. Now I see that very clearly. What shall I do? So I don't admit division. Right sir?.

Q: But Krishnaji, aren’t we introducing division again, nevertheless, when we say there is the man who needs insight?

K: He has insight. 'X' has insight and he has explained to me very clearly how darkness is banished. I listen to him and he says, your very darkness is creating the division. Actually there is no division, no division as light and darkness. So can you, he asks me, can you banish, can you put away this sense of division?

DB: Yes but now you seem to be bringing back a division by saying that, by saying that I should do it, you see.

K: No, no, not 'should'. I am just

DB: No, but I mean 'can', see in a way you are saying that suppose we say that the thought process or the mind seems to spontaneously introduce division, you say we'll try to put it aside, at the same time it is trying to making division.

K: No sir. I understand that question. But can my mind put away division? Or is that a wrong question?

MZ: Can it put away division as long as it is divided and in darkness?

K: No, it can't, so what am I to do?

Q: But there we are introducing division again.

K: No, no, no. Listen, it's not division. He says something so extraordinarily true, which has immense significance and beauty and my whole being says 'Capture it'. It is not a division

Q: The division seems to be immediate, you know when I feel there is something which I want to capture.

K: No, no. It is not a division. I recognise that I am the creator of division. Right sir? Because I am living in darkness and so out of that darkness I create. But I have listened to 'X' who says there is no division. And I recognise that is an extraordinary statement. So in saying that to me, who have lived in division, constant division, that very saying has an immediate effect on me. Right?

DB: I think that one has to - well, if you say, put away the division...

K: I will leave that, I won't put away. That statement...

DB: Yes. Which statement?

K: That there is no division.

DB: There is no division, yes. There is no division, right?

K: Yes.

DB: And therefore there is no need to think division.

K: No. No. I want to get at this a little bit. I am getting somewhere with it.

Your statement that there is no division, because you have this insight, etc., etc. That very statement has a tremendous effect on me. Do you understand? I have lived constantly in division and you come along and say, after discussing, you say there is no division. What effect has it on me? You understand my question? It must have some impact on me otherwise what is the good of talking, you are saying anything!

DB: Right. But then you say there is no division, it makes sense. On the other hand it seems that the division exists, you see. I recognise this contradiction.

K: I recognise the division, but your statement that there is no division has a tremendous impact on me. That seems so natural, isn't it? When I see something that is immovable, it must have some effect on me. When you say, 'It is so' - you follow sir, what I am trying to get at? I respond to it with a tremendous shock. I wonder if I am conveying anything

DB: You see if you were talking about something which was, say in front of us and you said, 'No, it is not that way' - right? - and then you see we would look at it and say, 'No, it's not that way', you see, and then that would, of course, change your whole way of seeing it. Now you say this division is not that way. We say yes, we try to look and say is that so. Right?

K: I don't even say, 'Is that so?' You who have very carefully explained the whole business, and you say at the end of it there is no division. You understand my question? And I am sensitive, watched very carefully and all the rest, realise I am constantly living in division, when you make that statement it has - I think it has broken the pattern. I don't know if you follow what I am trying to express

Q: You are saying at least for that moment it breaks the pattern.

K: It has broken the pattern, because he has said something which is so fundamentally true: there is no god and man. Right sir, I stick to that! I see something in that. Which is, we said the other day where hate exists the other is not. Right? But hating I want the other

DB: Yes.

K: Right? So constant division - division is born out of darkness. And the darkness is constant. And you come along and tell me, because I have been very carefully listening to you, I am not just a casual listener, I'm not just a person who just says, 'Well, I have come this afternoon, tell me all about it and I want to' - it has been my life time. And you make a statement which seems so absolutely true. You follow sir? That enters into me therefore this act has dispelled darkness. The act of his statement dispels the darkness. I wonder if I am capturing something. I think it does. I am not making an effort to get rid of darkness but you are the light. That's right sir, I hold to that

So it comes to something which is: can I listen with my darkness, in my darkness which is constant, in that darkness can I listen to you? Of course I can.

Q: Krishnaji, is it then still darkness?

K: No, no don't bother. No, no. I am living in constant division which brings darkness. Somebody, 'X', comes along and tells me there is no division, old boy, look at it

DB: Right. Now why do you say you can listen in the darkness?

K: What?

DB: I say you have just said you can listen in the darkness.

K: Yes sir.

DB: Right. That needs some...

K: Oh yes, I can listen in darkness. If I can't I am doomed!

DB: No, but that is no argument.

K: No, no. Of course that is no argument but that is so. If I am constantly living in darkness...

DB: No, but that's clear. We have gone into it that constantly living in darkness is not worthwhile. But now we say that it is possible to listen in the darkness.

K: Yes sir. Yes sir. Listen. It isn't that - of course sir.

Q: This holds with what you say that there is no division.

K: Listening is not division.

Q: Right. If there were division, I could not listen.

K: But I am in division.

Q: That’s right.

K: No, sir, you are missing the point. He says there is no division. He is the flag to me. I wonder if I am making it clear? Oh no, no!

Q: Can we make it a little bit more clear?

K: He, 'X', says insight, all that, he explains very, very carefully to me what insight is - I won't go into all that over and over again. He explains to me very, very carefully. And I am sensitive, I have been listening to him in my darkness but that is making me sensitive, alive, watching. That is what I have been doing. We have been doing that together. And he makes a statement: there is absolutely no division. And I know that I am living in constant division. That very statement has put the constant movement to an end. I wonder if I am... Yes sir

Otherwise if this doesn't take place I have nothing to You follow? I am perpetually living in darkness. A man, a voice in the wilderness (laughs) and listening to that voice has an extraordinary effect in wilderness. I don't know if I am

DB: Now you're saying that listening reaches the source of the movement, whereas observation does not.

K: Yes sir. I have observed, I have listened, I have played all kinds of things all my life. And I have done everything that human being has invented, or is inventing. And I now see there is only one thing, that there is this constant darkness and I am acting in that darkness, in this wilderness which is darkness, whose centre is the self. I see that absolutely. I mean absolutely, completely, you can't argue against it any more. And you come along and tell me this. Sir, see what happens? Yes, sir. In that wilderness a voice says there is water. You follow? It is not hope, there is immediate action in me. Yes. Which is, sir, would you say - this is again - one must realise, understand - any word - that this constant movement in darkness is my life. Would I admit that sir? You follow what I am saying? Can I realise with all my experience, with all my knowledge, with all my etc., of a million years, suddenly realise that I am living in total darkness? Nobody will admit that. Because that means I have reached the end of all hope. Right? My hope is also darkness. You have cut the future altogether. You understand what I'm saying? So I am left with this enormous darkness and I am there. No, sir. That means, the realisation of that is the ending of becoming. Right?

DB: Yes.

K: And I have reached that point and 'X' tells me, naturally sir

You see all of them, all the religions have said this division exists. God and son of god.

DB: Yes, well they say it can be overcome.

K: It is the same pattern repeated.

DB: Yes. Well, I mean I don't know whether the Indian religions haven't said this.

K: I'm afraid I'm not sure that I don't think, I don't know, I wouldn't know but I have discussed this with some pundits. I doubt it. No, no, I doubt it very much. It doesn't matter who said it but the fact is somebody in this wilderness is saying something and in that wilderness I have been listening, listening to every voice. Right sir? And my own voice, which is creating more and more darkness. Yes, this is right. That means sir, does it, when there is insight there is no division

DB: Yes.

K: It is not your insight or my insight, it is insight. In that there is no division.

DB: Yes.

K: Which means sir, do I understand this, that the ground, which we talked about...

DB: What about the ground.

K: In that ground there is no darkness as darkness, light as light. What is that? On that ground, or in that ground, there is no division and so it is not - we have been through all that, just recapture it - it is not born of will, of time, of thought and all that. So in that ground

DB: Are you saying light and darkness are not divided?

K: Right.

DB: Which means to say that there is neither.

K: Neither, that's it, that's it. There is something else. You see, you come along and tell me this extraordinary fact. To me it is an extraordinary fact. I realise it with all my being that what you said is true - true not merely verbally but it is so. And I see - not I see - there is a perception that there is a different movement which is non-dualistic. Right?

DB: Non-dualistic means what? No division?

K: No division. I won't use 'non-dualistic' - they've used that in India - terrible. There is no division.

DB: But nevertheless there is movement.

K: Movement, of course.

DB: What does that mean, now without division?

K: Movement, I mean by that movement it is not time. That movement doesn't breed division. So I want to go back to the ground. Lead to that

If there is neither darkness nor light, which is really a tremendous division. Right? On that ground there is no division. That ground is not god, or the son of god, there is no division. So what takes place? Would you say sir, that ground is movement?

DB: Well it could be, yes. But we say movement that is undivided, without division.

K: No, no, no.

DB: You were saying before that there is movement, right?

K: I say there is movement in darkness.

DB: Yes but we said that there is no division of darkness and light, and yet you said there is movement.

K: Yes. Would you say the ground is endless movement?

DB: Yes.

K: Yes. What does that mean?

DB: Well, it is not clear - it is difficult to express.

K: I think one can go into it, let's express it. I am off somewhere else, just a minute, come back.

What is movement sir, apart from here to there, apart from time, is there any other movement?

DB: Yes.

K: There is. The movement from being to becoming, psychologically. There is the movement of distance, there is the movement of time. We say those are all divisions. Is there a movement which is non-divisive - no, which in itself has no division? There is, when you have said that statement. You follow sir? When you have made that statement that there is no division, it is that movement surely. Right? I don't know if you are

DB: Yes, well, you are saying that when there is no division then that movement is there. Right?

K: Yes. And I said, we said, 'X' says that is the ground.

DB: Right.

K: You see, again, would you say - these are words - it has no end, no beginning?

DB: Yes.

K: Which means again time.

MZ: Can I ask, can one say that movement has no form (inaudible)

K: All that, no form, I am not talking I want to go a little further. No, no. What I am asking is; we said when you have stated that there is no division, which means no division in movement.

DB: Yes. It flows without division, you see.

K: Yes. When you have said that, you have pointed out to me something, it is a movement in which there is no division.

DB: Yes.

K: Do I capture the significance of that? You understand what I mean? Do I understand the depth of that statement? A movement in which there is no division, which means no time, no distance as we know it, no element of time in it at all. So I am trying to see sir is that movement, is it pushing man - wait a minute, I am just using wrong words - is it surrounding man?.

DB: Yes, enveloping.

K: Enveloping man?

DB: Yes.

K: You understand what I'm saying?

DB: Yes.

K: I want to get at this. I am concerned with man, with mankind, humanity, which is me. You have made, 'X' - it doesn't matter - 'X' has made several statements and I have captured a statement which seems so absolutely true: that there is no division. And which means there is no action which is divisive

DB: Yes.

K: Right?

DB: Yes.

K: I see that. And also I see: is that movement without time, etc., it seems that is the world. You follow?

DB: The universe.

K: The universe, the cosmos, the whole heaven, everything.

DB: The cosmos, all of it. The totality, the whole of it.

K: Totality. You know, isn't there a statement sir in the Jewish world, 'Only god can say, I am'?

DB: Well that's the way the language goes. The language is built that way. It is not necessary to state it.

K: No, no, I understand. You follow what I am trying to get at?

DB: Yes.

K: What am I trying to say.

DB: Well, that only this movement is.

K: You see sir, can the mind be of that movement? Because that is timeless, therefore deathless.

DB: Yes, the movement is without death.

K: Death.

DB: In so far as the mind takes part in that it is the same.

K: Yes, sir. You understand what I am saying?

DB: Yes. But then what dies when the individual dies?

K: It has no meaning even, because when once I have understood there is no division...

DB: Then it is not important.

K: ...death has no meaning.

DB: It still has a meaning in some other context.

K: Oh, the ending of the body, that's totally trivial. But you understand? Your statement - I want to capture the significance of it - your statement saying there is no division has broken the spell of my darkness, and I see that there is a movement and that's all. Which means death has very little meaning

DB: Yes.

K: You have abolished totally the fear of death. I don't know if you

DB: Yes, I understand that. When the mind is partaking in that movement, is part of that movement, then the mind is that movement.

K: That's all. The mind is that movement.

DB: Would you say that matter is also that movement?

K: Yes sir, I would say everything. In my darkness I have listened to you. That's most important. And your clarity has broken my spell. You see when you say there is no division, you have abolished the division between life and death. I don't know if you are

DB: Yes.

K: One can never say then 'I am immortal'. You follow sir? It is so childish.

DB: Yes, that's the division.

K: Or, 'I am seeking immortality'. Or, 'I am becoming' - you have wiped away the whole sense of moving in darkness. I wonder if you get this. Yes sir

Q: What then would be the significance of the world? Is there a significance to it?

K: The world?

DB: The world.

Q: With man.

DB: Society, do you mean?

Q: Yes, it seems that when you make this statement there is no division, and life is death, what then is the significance of man with all his struggle, and his...

K: None. He is struggling in darkness. What importance has that? It is like struggling in a locked room. That is the whole point!

DB: Significance can only arise when the darkness is dispelled.

K: Yes, of course.

Q: Or the only significance is the dispelling of the darkness.

K: Oh no, no. No.

DB: Aren't we going to say that something more can be done besides dispelling darkness?

K: All that you have done to me, who have listened very carefully to everything that you, who have had insight, etc., you have dispelled the centre. Sir, in darkness I can invent a lot of significances, that there is light, there is god, there is beauty, there is this - it is still in the area of darkness. Caught in a room full of darkness and I can invent a lot of pictures. But I want to get something else. Which is: is the mind of the one who has this insight, therefore dispelled darkness and therefore has understanding of that ground which is movement without time and so on, then that mind itself is that movement.

DB: Yes, but it isn't the totality. The mind is the movement but we are saying movement is matter, movement is mind.

K: Yes sir. Yes sir.

DB: And we were saying that the ground may be beyond the universal mind. You were saying earlier that the movement, that the ground is more than the universal mind still, more than the emptiness.

K: More than, oh, we said that, much more!

DB: Much more. But it contains - we have to get it clear. We say the mind is this movement.

K: Yes, mind is this movement.

DB: We are not saying that this movement is only mind.

K: No, no, no. No.

DB: That is the point I was trying to get clear.

K: Mind is this movement - mind in the sense, the ground.

DB: But the ground goes beyond the mind, is what you said.

K: Now just a minute: what do you mean by beyond the mind?

DB: Well, just going back to what we were discussing a few days ago: we said you have the emptiness, and you have the universal mind and then the ground

K: Is that, is beyond that.

DB: is beyond that, yes.

K: Would you say beyond that is this movement?

DB: Yes. The movement from which - the mind emerges from the movement as a ground and falls back to the ground, that is what we were saying, it dies to the ground.

K: Yes. Mind emerges from the movement.

DB: And it dies back into the movement.

K: Into the movement. That's right. It has its being in the movement.

DB: Yes, and matter also.

K: Quite. So, sir, what I want to get at is: I am a human being faced with this ending and beginning, and you have abolished that.

DB: Yes, it is not fundamental.

K: Yes, that is not fundamental. So you have removed one of the greatest fears of life which is death. You've understood?

DB: Yes.

K: You see what it does to a human being when there is no death? Which means the mind doesn't age, the ordinary mind I am talking about. I don't know if I am conveying this

DB: Let's go over it slowly. You are saying the mind doesn't age, but what if the brain cells age?

K: I question it.

DB: Yes. Well, how can we know that?

K: Because there is no conflict, because there is no strain, there is no becoming, moving - you follow?

DB: Yes, well this is something though that you can't it is hard to communicate certainty about that because...

K: Of course. You can't prove any of this.

DB: No, I mean, but the other, what we have said so far...

K: ...can be reasoned.

DB: It is reason and also you can feel it yourself. But now you are stating something about the brain cells which I have no feeling for. It might be so, you know, it could be so.

K: I think it is so. I want to discuss it, we'll discuss it. Does a mind, which has lived in the darkness - a mind that has lived in the darkness it is in constant.

DB: Yes.

K: Therefore there is the wearing out of the cells, decay.

DB: Yes, certainly. We could say that this conflict will cause cells to decay but somebody might argue that perhaps even without conflict they could decay at a slower rate. Let's say if you were to live hundreds of years, for example, in time the cells would decay no matter what you would do.

K: No, I don't, I'd like to question. Go into this slowly.

DB: I can readily accept that the rate of decay of cells could be cut down when you get rid of conflict.

K: Slowed down.

DB: Slowed down a great deal.

K: Decay can be slowed down.

DB: Perhaps a great deal.

K: A great deal. Ninety per cent.

DB: Right. That we can understand. But if you say a hundred per cent, it is hard to understand.

K: Ninety per cent. Wait a minute. It can be very, very, very greatly slowed down.

DB: Yes.

DB: And that means what? What happens to a mind that has no conflict - ninety per cent, or eighty per cent - what is that mind, mind in the sense, what is the quality of that mind which has no problem? You see sir, suppose such a mind lives in pure air (laughs), unpolluted, etc., etc., the right kind of food and so on, so on, so on, why can't it live oh, two hundred years?

DB: Well it is possible, some people are said to have lived up to a hundred and fifty, living in very pure air and good food.

K: But you see those very people who have lived a hundred and fifty years, if they had no conflict they might live very much longer.

DB: Yes, they might. There was a case I was reading of a man in England who lived to a hundred and fifty, it was recorded. And the doctors became interested in him, they invited him to London and wined him and dined him and then he died in few days (laughs).

K: (Laughs) Poor devil!

Q: Krishnaji normally we say that anything that lives in time also dies in time.

K: Yes, but the brain, which has had insight has changed the cells.

Q: So are you implying in a way that even the organic brain...

K: Yes sir. We said that. We went into that.

Q: ...does not live in time any more, not even in chronological time.

K: No, don't bring in time yet. We are saying that insight brings about a change in the brain cells, we said that. Which means the brain cells are no longer thinking in terms of time. Right sir?

Q: That’s psychological time.

K: Of course, that is understood.

DB: If they are not so disturbed they will remain in order and perhaps they will break down more slowly, you see, so might increase the age limit from one hundred and fifty to two hundred provided you also had healthy living all round.

K: Yes. That all sounds so damn trivial, all that (laughs). So what.

DB: Yes, it doesn't seem to make much difference, right? It is an interesting idea.

K: What if I live another hundred years, what?

DB: Yes, well the man who lived to hundred and fifty, there was nothing, beyond that there was nothing unusual.

K: What we are trying to find out is: what effect has this extraordinary movement on the brain, you understand sir?

DB: Yes. If we say the brain in some way directly enveloped in this movement.

K: Yes, it is, then what effect...

DB: That would bring it to order.

K: Yes.

DB: That there is a real, direct flow, physically, the movement.

K: Not only physically.

DB: But also mentally, both.

K: Yes, both. It must have an extraordinary effect on the brain.

MZ: You talked earlier about energy, Krishnaji. An energy, not the everyday energy but some very...

K: We said that movement is total energy, we have been saying all that. Now this insight has captured, seen that extraordinary movement and it is part of that energy. I want to come much closer to earth, which is I have lived with death, fear of death, fear of not being and so on, and suddenly I see there is no division and I understand this whole thing. So what has happened to my brain? You follow sir?

Sir, see something. You see this whole thing as not verbally, you see it as a tremendous reality, truth, not just with all your heart, mind, you see this thing. That very perception must affect your brain

DB: Yes. It brings about order.

K: Not only order in life but...

DB: I mean order in the brain.

K: ...in the brain.

DB: Yes, that's what I mean that the brain cells now - people can prove that if you are under stress the brain cells start to break down. It is proved. And if you have order in the brain cells then it is quite different.

K: Yes. I have a feeling sir, just, don't laugh at it, it may be false, it may be true. I feel that the brain never loses the quality of that movement. I don't know if I am

DB: If it has it. Once it has it.

K: Oh, of course. I am talking of the person who has been through all this and so on.

DB: So probably it never loses that quality, somehow.

K: That quality. Therefore it is no longer evolving in time.

DB: Well, I don't know what that means. It would no longer be dominated by time. The brain, from what we are saying, is not evolving in any sense, it is just confusion. You can't say that man's brain has evolved since the last ten thousand years.

K: What?

DB: You can't say there was any real evolution in the last ten thousand years of the brain because if you go back it is the same. You see science, knowledge, has evolved but people felt the same about life several thousand years ago as they do now.

K: Sir I want to find out, which is, in that silent emptiness what we went through, is the brain absolutely still? You understand my question?.

DB: Well, that's not true absolutely, you see, because

K: I mean absolutely in the sense, no movement.

DB: Yes we have to discuss this before I see. The blood is flowing inside the brain, that is movement.

K: Yes, we are not talking of that.

DB: What kind of movement are we discussing?

K: I am talking of the movement of thought, movement of any reaction - nothing.

DB: Yes. OK. There is no movement in which the brain moves independently. You were saying there is the movement of the whole but the brain does not go off on its own, like thought, you see.

K: No, no, no, no. You see you have done a tremendous act, which is you have abolished death, which is a tremendous thing, in significance, you follow, sir? And so I say what is the brain, the mind, the brain, when there is no death? You follow? It has quite a It has undergone a surgical operation. (Laughs)

DB: Well, let's go in that and see why we talk about the the brain normally has the notion of death continually there in the background

K: In the background, absolutely.

DB: and now that notion is disturbing the brain constantly.

K: Yes sir.

DB: Because the brain foresees that death and it is trying to stop it.

K: Yes, the ending of itself and so on and so on.

DB: It foresees all that and says it must stop it and it can't.

K: It can't.

DB: No, and therefore it has a problem it can't solve.

K: Constant struggle with it.

DB: In the background.

K: Background. So all that has come to an end. What an extraordinary thing you have done! You follow what I am saying? How does that affect my daily life? Because I have to live on this earth. How does it affect my life? My daily life. Oh yes. My daily life is aggression, this everlasting becoming, successful, all that has gone. What an extraordinary thing has taken place! You follow sir?

The last day tomorrow, Saturday. We will pursue this but we have understood a great deal today.

DB: In bringing in the question of daily life you might bring in the question of compassion.

K: Of course, of course, all that. You see sir, is that movement - you see compassion becomes rather - is that movement compassion?

DB: Well, it would be beyond.

K: That's it, that's it. That's why one must be awfully careful.

DB: Yes but again compassion might emerge out of it.

K: Yes. Of course if you haven't got that...

We had better stop.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments