The intelligence of love
The ending of time
12th Dialogue Brockwood Park
September 16, 1980
Krishnamurti: This is a dialogue which we have had in Ojai, California. There we had eight dialogues between Dr Bohm and myself, and two here, and one the day before yesterday. So may we continue with that dialogue. Should anybody join this or not at all? We're asking if anybody feels like joining this, unless it is very, very serious, would they join, or if they don't want to, it's all right. So it's a conversation between Dr Bohm and myself. Let's get on with it.
We were saying the other day, man, a human being, who has worked his way through all the problems of life, both physical and psychological, and has really grasped the full significance of freedom from psychological memories and conflicts and travails, he comes to a point where the mind finds itself free but hasn't gathered that supreme energy to go beyond itself. That's what we were discussing the other day. Can we start, go on from there?
Bohm: If you like, yes.
K: Right, sir?
K: Can the mind really, mind, brain, the whole psychological structure, ever be free from all conflict, from all shadow of any disturbance?
K: Self-disturbance, and all that. Can it ever be free? Or the idea of complete freedom is an illusion.
B: Yes, well, that's one possibility.
K: One possibility.
B: Yes. Then some people may say we could have partial freedom.
K: Yes, partial freedom. Or human condition is so determined by the past, by its own conditioning, it can never free itself from it, like some of those intellectual philosophers have stated this.
B: Well, some people feel that's the case.
K: And really the deep non-sectarian religious people, if there are, there must be some who are totally free from all organised religions and beliefs, rituals, dogmas - they have said it can be done. Very few have said this.
B: Well, of course there are those who have said it is done through reincarnation.
B: And in addition, that group says it will take a very long time.
K: Yes, they say it will take a very long time. You must go through various lives and suffer and go through all kinds of miseries and ultimately you come to that. But we are not thinking in terms of time. We're asking, a human being granting, knowing or aware that he is conditioned, deeply, profoundly, so that his whole being is that, can it ever free itself? And if it does, what is beyond? That's what we were coming to.
K: Would that question be reasonable or valid, unless the mind has really finished with it, finished all the travail of life? As we said, yesterday, the other day, our minds are man-made. And is there a mind which is not man-made? Right, sir? That's what we came to. How shall we find this out. We all know the man-made mind, with its consciousness, with all its content and so on. Need we go through that?
B: We've done that already.
K: Already. It's a man-made mind. It is possible that it can free itself from its own man-made mechanical mind.
B: I think there's this kind of a tangle, a difficult thing to express there, which is, that if this mind is totally man-made, totally conditioned, then in what sense can it get out of it? This is the kind of thing to say, if you said that it had at least the possibility of something beyond ...
K: Then it becomes a reward, a temptation, a thing to be ...
B: I think the question is, being able to put this consistently, logically, there seems to be an inconsistency in saying that the mind is totally conditioned and yet it's going to get out. I mean, I'm not saying it is inconsistent but it may appear to be inconsistent.
K: I understand that question, but if you admit, if one admits that there is a part which is not conditioned, then we enter into quite another ...
B: Yes, well, that's another inconsistency.
K: Yes, into another inconsistency. We, in our discussions, we've said, the mind being deeply conditioned, it can free itself through insight - that is the real clue to this. Would you agree to that?
K: That insight we went into: what it is, the nature of it, and can that insight uncondition the mind completely, wipe away all the illusions, all the desires and so on, can that insight completely wipe it out? Or is it partial?
B: Well, I think the first point is, if we say, mind is not static, when one says it's totally conditioned it suggests something static, which would never change.
B: Now, if we say the mind is always in movement, then it seems in some way it becomes impossible to say what it is at this moment, we could say it has been totally conditioned.
K: No, let's say - suppose I'm totally conditioned, it's in movement, but the movement is within a border.
B: It's within a border, yes.
K: Within a certain field.
K: And the field is very definitely marked out, it can expand it and contract, but the field is, the boundary is very, very limited, definite.
B: Yes. And also this whole, this whole structure can die away, you see. If we try to move within that structure, then we stay in the same boundary.
K: Now, it is always moving within that limitation. Can it die away to that?
B: That's the point, that's another kind of movement, I mean, it's a kind of ...
B: In another dimension, I think you've said.
K: Yes. And we say it is possible through insight, which is also a movement, a totally different kind of movement.
B: Yes, but now we say that movement does not originate in the individual - did we say that?
B: Nor in the general mind.
K: It is not - quite right, yes. That's what we discussed the other day. It is not an insight of the particular, or the general. We are then stating something quite outrageous.
B: Yes, I think that, looking at that, it rather violates most of the sort of logic that people have been using, that either the particular and the general should cover everything, in terms of ordinary logic.
B: Now if you're saying there's something beyond both, this is already a question which has not been stated, at least. And I think it has a great importance.
K: How do we then state it, or how do we then come to it?
B: Yes, well, I've been noticing that I think people divide themselves roughly into two groups, one group feels the most important thing, the ground is the particular, concrete particular daily activity. The other group feels that the general, the universal is the ground.
B: You see, the one is the more practical type, and the other the more philosophical type.
B: And in general this division has been visible throughout history, also in everyday life, wherever you look.
K: But, sir, is the general - we can discuss a little bit - separate from the particular?
B: It's not, but I think most people agree with that, but the question is what is it that's going to be given primary value? People tend to give emphasis to one or the other. That some people give the main emphasis to the particular.
K: Or to the ...
B: They say the general is there but if you take care of the particular the general will be all right.
B: The others say the general is the main thing and the universal and getting that right you'll get the particular right.
B: So there's been a kind of unbalance to one side or the other, a bias in the mind of man. Now what's being raised here is the notion: neither the general nor the particular.
K: That's right. That's just it. Can we discuss it or have a conversation about it logically? Using your expertise, your scientific brain and all the rest of it; and there is this man who is not all that, so can't we have a conversation to find out if the general and particular are the one, not divided at all.
B: Also that there's to be no bias to one or the other.
K: One or the other, quite. And not laying emphasis on one or the other. Then if we don't do that, then what is, what is there? I don't know if I'm ...
B: Well, then we have no easy way to talk about it.
K: Yes, yes.
B: But we did discuss I think in California the ground. The question was we could say the particular mind we said, dies to the general universal mind or to the emptiness, then saying that ultimately even the emptiness and the universal die into the ground.
K: That's right, we discussed that.
B: I think that's the kind of lead into.
K: Would an ordinary person, fairly intelligent, agree to all this? See all this?
B: I'm not sure.
K: Or would he say, 'What nonsense all this is.'
B: Well, if it were just thrown at him, he would reject it as nonsense - it would require very careful presentation and some people might see it, I think. But if you just say it to anybody ...
K: Of course, of course.
B: they would say, whoever heard of that.
K: So where are we now? Wait. We are neither particular nor the general.
K: That's a statement which hardly reasonably can be accepted.
B: Well, it can, it's reasonable in the sense that if you take thought to be a movement, rather than a content ...
K: Thought to be a movement - quite, we agree to that.
B: then the thought is the movement between the particular and the general.
K: But thought is the general, thought is the particular.
B: But thought is also the movement.
B: So in the movement it goes beyond being one or the other, that is, in movement.
K: Does it?
B: Well, it can, I said that ordinarily it does not, because ordinarily thought is caught on one side or the other.
K: That's the whole point, isn't it? Ordinarily the general and the particular are in the same area.
B: Yes, and either you fix on one or the other.
K: Yes, but in the same area, in the same field. And thought is the movement between the two.
K: Or thought has created both.
B: Yes, it has created both and moves between.
K: Between and around it.
B: Around and in that area.
K: Yes, in that area. And it has been doing this for millennia.
B: Yes, and most people would feel that's all it could do.
K: All it can do. Now, we say, we are saying, that when thought ends, that movement which thought has created also comes to an end, therefore time comes to an end.
B: We should go more slowly here, because ...
B: you see it's a jump from thought to time, which we've gone into before but it's still a jump.
K: Right. Because first, sir, let's see. Thought has created the general and the particular, and thought is a movement that connects the two, thought moves round it, so it is still in the same area.
B: Yes, and doing that it has created time, which is part of the general and the particular, time is a particular time and also a general time.
K: General time.
B: All time, for ever. And that sees that this particular time and the whole of time.
K: Yes, but you see, thought is time.
B: Well that's another question, you were saying, thought is about, we were discussing thought has a content which is about time, and besides that we said thought is a movement which is time, that it could be said to be moving from the past into the future. Right?
K: But, sir, thought is based on time, thought is the outcome of time.
B: Yes, but then does that mean that time, that time exists beyond thought? If you say thought is based on time, then time is more fundamental than thought - is that what you want to say?
B: So we have to go into that. You could say that time is something which was there before thought, or at least it's at the origin of thought.
K: Time was there when there is the accumulation of knowledge.
B: Well, that has come out of thought to some extent.
K: No, I act and learn.
K: Right? That action is based not on previous knowledge, but I do something, and in the doing I learn.
B: Yes, well then, that learning is registered in the memory.
K: In the memory and so on. So is not thought essentially the movement of time?
B: Well, we have to say in what sense is this learning the movement of time. You can say, when we learn it is registered. Right? And then that same learning operates in the next experience, what you have learned.
K: Yes. The past is always moving to the present.
K: All the time.
B: Yes, and mixing, fusing with the present.
B: And the two together are again registered as the next experience.
K: So are we saying, time is different from thought, or time is thought.
B: Yes, well, this movement of learning and the response of memory into experience and then re-registering, we say that is time, and that is also thought. Is that
K: Yes, that is thought. Is there a time apart from thought?
B: Well, that's another question. Would we say that physically or in the cosmos that time has a significance apart from thought?
K: Physically, yes, I understand that.
B: Yes. Right. So then we're saying, in the mind or psychologically.
K: Psychologically, as long as there is psychological accumulation as knowledge, as the 'me' and so on, there is time.
B: Yes, well we say ...
K: It is based on time.
B: ... wherever there is accumulation there is time.
K: Yes, that's the point. Wherever there is accumulation there is time.
B: Which turns the thing around because usually you say time is first and in time you accumulate.
K: No, I would put it round the other way, personally.
B: Yes. But it's important to see that it's put the other way. Then we'd say suppose there is no accumulation, then what?
K: Then - that's the whole point - there is no time. And as long as I am accumulating, gathering, becoming, there is the process of time. But if there is no gathering, no becoming, no accumulation, where does psychological time exist?
B: Yes. Well, probably you could say even physical time must depend on some kind of physical accumulation.
K: Of course, that's quite a different matter.
B: That we are not denying.
B: We're denying the significance of the psychological accumulation.
K: That's right. So thought is the outcome of psychological accumulation, and that accumulation, that gathering, gives it a sense of continuity, which is time.
B: Well, it seems it's in movement, that whatever has been accumulated is responding to the present, with the projection of the future
K: Of course.
B: and then that is again registered. Now the accumulation of all that's registered is in the order of time, I mean, one time, the next time and all that.
K: That's right. So we're saying, thought is time.
B: Yes, or time is thought.
K: Oh, yes, time is thought. Or, one way or the other.
B: But the movement of time is thought.
K : Movement of time ...
B: Psychological time.
K: Movement - what are you saying, sir?
B: Movement of psychological time, which is that accumulation.
K: Is time.
B: That's time but that's also thought. Right - that the two mean the same thing
K: So psychological accumulation is thought and time.
B: Yes, we're saying that we happen to have two words when really we only need one.
K: One word. Quite right.
B: But because we have two words we look for two things.
K: Yes. There is only one movement, which is time and thought, time plus thought, or time/thought. Now can the mind which has moved for millennia in that area, all the time, free itself from that?
B: Yes, now why is the mind bound up? Let's see exactly what's holding the mind.
B: Yes, but I meant that's going in a circle. Why does the mind continue to accumulate?
K: I think that is fairly clear because in accumulation there is safety, there is security - apparent security.
B: I think that needs a little discussion - you see, in a certain area that is even true, that the accumulation of physical food may provide a certain kind of security.
K: Of course, of course.
B: And then since no distinction was made between the outer and the inner, there was the feeling that one could accumulate inwardly either experiences or some knowledge of what to do.
K: Are we saying the outward necessity of physical accumulation for security is necessary?
K: And that same movement, same idea, same urge moves into the field of psychological thought.
K: There you accumulate hoping to be secure.
B: Yes, inwardly hoping you can accumulate present memories, or ...
K: Yes, all that.
B: ... relationships, or ...
B: things you could count on, principles you could count on.
K: So accumulation, psychological accumulation is safety, protection, security.
B: The illusion, anyway.
K: All right, the illusion of security and in this illusion it has lived.
B: Yes, so it does seem that the first mistake was that man never understood the distinction between what he has to do outside and what he has to do inside, right?
K: Yes, we said that. It is the same movement, outer and inner.
B: But man carried the movement, that procedure which was right outwardly he carried inwardly, without knowing, perhaps entirely ignorant, entirely not knowing that that would make trouble.
K: So where am I now - where are we now? I, a human being, realises all this, has come to the point when he says, 'Can I really be free from this accumulated security and thought and time, psychological time?' Right?
K: Is that possible?
B: Well, if we say that it had this origin, then it should be possible to dismantle it, if it were built into us, nothing could be done.
K: Of course not, it is not certainly built into us.
B: But most people act as though they believe it were.
K: Of course, that's absurd.
B: If it's not built into us, then the possibility exists for us to change. Because in some way we said it was built up in the first place through time.
K: If we say it is built in, then we are in a hopeless state.
B: Yes, and I think that's one of the difficulties of people who use evolution, they are hoping by bringing in evolution they hope to get out of this static boundary.
K: Boundary, quite, quite.
B: But they don't realise the evolution is the same thing, that it's even worse, it's the very means by which the trap was made.
K: Yes. So I have come to that point, as a human being, I realise all this, I'm fully aware of the nature of this, and my next question is: can this mind move on from this field altogether, and enter, perhaps, into a totally different dimension? And we said, the means, the way - it can only happen when there is insight - that we've been through.
B: Yes, and it seems that insight arises when one questions this whole thing very deeply.
K: The whole thing - yes.
B: One sees it doesn't make sense.
K: Now having had insight into it and seen its limitation and therefore go beyond it, what is there beyond? This we talked about a little bit, not only at Ojai, also here.
B: Yes. I think we felt that, you know, it's very difficult to even bring this into words, but I think we said something has to be done on this line, right?
K: Yes. I think it has to be put into words.
B: Could you say why because many people might feel we should leave this entirely non-verbal.
K: Can we say, the word is not the thing.
B: That's clear, yes.
K: Whatever the description is not the real, is not the truth, however much you embellish or diminish it, just the word is not that, recognising that, then what is there beyond all this. Can my mind be so desire-less, so it won't create an illusion, something beyond?
B: Yes, well, then that's a question of desire, you see desire must be in this time process.
K: Of course, desire is time.
B: Yes, now that is a thing we might try to see - since there are very subtle forms of desire, as well as the obvious forms ...
K: Sir, after all desire, being, becoming is based on desire.
B: Yes. They are one and the same, really.
K: Yes, they're one and the same. Now, when one has an insight - I hate to use that word over and over again - into that whole movement of desire, and its capacity to create illusion, it's finished.
B: Yes, but you see I think we should perhaps, since this is a very crucial point, we should try to say
K: Elaborate it a little more.
B: a little more about desire, how it's intrinsic in this accumulating process, how it comes out in many ways. For one thing you could say that as you accumulate there comes a sense of something missing.
K: Of course.
B: I mean, you feel you should have more, something to finish, complete it, right. Whatever you have accumulated is not complete.
K: Sir, could we go into the question of becoming first, then desire comes into it. Why is it that all human beings right through the world have this urge to become?
B: Well, I ...
K: Outwardly understand that, simple enough.
B: Well, we have to become stronger and stronger.
K: Physically develop your muscle and ...
B: Yes, your language, your logic.
K: And all that, and also a better job, more comfort and so on. But why is there this seed in the human mind of trying to become enlightened - let's use that word for the moment - trying to become more good, more or better.
B: Well, there must be a sense of dissatisfaction with what's in there already, that's one thing.
K: Is it dissatisfaction?
B: Well, you know, a person feels he would like it to be complete. You see suppose for example he has accumulated memories of pleasure, but these memories are no longer adequate ...
B: ... and he feels something more is needed.
K: Is that it?
B: Well, to get more, that's one of the questions - eventually he feels that he must have the whole, the ultimate.
K: I'm not at all sure whether the word 'more' is not the real thorn.
B: The word 'more'?
K: Yes, more. More, I will be more, I will have more, I will become - you follow? - this whole movement of moving forward, moving, gaining, comparing, advancing, achieving - psychologically.
B: I see the word 'more' is just implicit in the whole meaning of the word 'accumulate'.
K: Of course, or course.
B: So if you're accumulating you have to be accumulating more, there's no other way to do it.
K: So why is there this seed in the human mind.
B: Well, he doesn't see that this more is wrong, inwardly. Right? Now if he started outwardly to use the term 'more'
K: That's simple.
B: but then he carried it inward, now for some reason he didn't see how destructive it was.
K: Why? Why? Why have fairly intelligent philosophers and religious people who have spent a great part of their life in achieving, you know - why haven't they seen this very simple thing, the great intellectuals and the so-called evolutionary concept and so on, why haven't they seen this simple fact that where there is accumulation there must be more.
B: Yes, well, they've seen that but they don't see any harm in it.
K: Wait, no, I'm not sure they see it.
B: No, they've seen, they are trying to get more, you see they're saying, we are trying to get a better life - you see. During the nineteenth century it was the century of progress ...
K: Progress, I understand.
B: ... improving all the time.
K: All right, but progress outwardly.
B: But they felt inwardly too that man would be improving himself inwardly.
K: But why haven't they ever questioned this?
B: Well, what would make them question it?
K: Obviously this constant struggle for the more.
B: But they thought that was necessary for progress.
K: But is that progress?
B: Well, can we make it clear, suppose you had to answer one of the nineteenth century optimists
K: Not to me.
B: that man is progressing all the time, to be better inwardly as well as outwardly.
K: Yes, let us admit outwardly.
B: Yes, he could do that.
K: Outwardly. Has that same outward urge to be better moved into the psychological realm?
B: Yes. Now, can we make it clear why it does harm in the psychological realm.
K: The harm is - wait a minute, let's think it out - the harm. What is the harm in accumulating, psychologically? Oh yes, it divides.
B: What does it divide, then?
K: The very nature of accumulation brings about a division between you and me and they and so on.
B: Could we make that clear, because it is a crucial point. I mean, I can see one thing, that suppose you are accumulating in your way and I accumulate in my way.
K: That's just it. And he, she, accumulates in another way.
B: And then we try to impose a common way of accumulating and ...
K: Which is impossible, that never takes place.
B: that's conflict. They say everybody should be more ...
K: Yes. I have accumulated psychologically as a Hindu. Right?
K: And another has accumulated as a Muslim.
B: There are thousands of divisions.
K: Thousands of divisions.
B: Because you could say in one profession or in another.
K: Thousands of divisions.
B: To live in one place or another.
K: Therefore accumulation in its very nature divides people.
B: Because each accumulates ...
K: And therefore conflict.
B: Each person accumulates in his particular way - right? - which is different from someone else; you cannot make a common way of accumulating.
K: Can't we? So let's all accumulate.
B: Well, it doesn't work. Because everybody already has a different ...
K: Of course.
B: ... relationship, no matter what you do.
K: So can we say then, in accumulation man has sought psychological security, and that security with its accumulation is the factor of human division.
B: Yes, any attempt to accumulate will divide. I think, even that at present some sociologist, like Carl Marx has said that it was this accumulation of capital by some people which divided them from other people, that started tremendous conflict.
K: So, we said that's why human beings have accumulated, not realising its consequences. And realising that, is it possible not to accumulate?
K: I mean, that's tremendous.
B: Yes, because it seems the human mind automatically accumulates.
K: I know, I know. Why? For the very clear and simple reason, in accumulation, as outwardly, it feels safe, secure.
B: Yes. Well perhaps you could say that having gotten into this trap it was very hard for the mind to get out, because it was already occupied, the mind was filled with this process of accumulation and ...
B: ... it becomes very hard to see anything.
K: Yes, suppose my mind is filled with this process of occupation, which is psychological knowledge, all that, can it end?
K: Of course it can.
B: But if the mind will get to the root of it.
K: Of course it can, which is that it is an illusion that in accumulation there is security.
B: Well, now, one can see this at a certain level, let's say, one discusses this, I don't, intellectually, but I would prefer to say as a map, that one has drawn a map of this whole process. Then the question is, when you have a map you must now be able to look at the country.
B: See what's on the map, right.
K: Yes. When you are looking at the map you don't see the country.
B: No, the map may be useful but it's not quite enough. Right?
B: But now we are saying, that desire is what keeps people going on with it.
K: Not only desire but this deep-rooted instinct to accumulate.
B: Like the squirrel.
K: What? Like the squirrel, yes. For the future, for safety. That and desire go together. Right?
B: Well, it builds up into intense desire.
K: Of course. So desire plus accumulation is the factor of division, conflict and all the rest of it.
B: You can say desire really, really the word means need, a person feels he must accumulate more because he needs more.
K: Needs, yes. Now, I'm asking, can that end. If it ends through an action of will, it is still the same thing.
B: Well, that's part of desire.
K: Of course. If it ends because of punishment or reward, it's still the same thing. So the mind, one's mind sees this and puts all that aside. Right? But does the mind become free of accumulation?
B: Yes, I think that ...
K: Yes sir, I think it can, it does. That is, have no psychological knowledge at all, knowledge is accumulation, and so on and so on.
B: Yes, I think that we have to consider that knowledge goes very much further than is ordinarily meant.
K: Of course.
B: Not just ...
K: Book knowledge.
B: ... book knowledge or ...
K: Experience - of course.
B: But, I think that in accumulating, for example if you're getting knowledge of this microphone, then you build up an image, a picture of the microphone and everything goes into that and one expects it to continue. Right?
K: Of course.
B: So if you have knowledge of yourself, it builds up a picture of yourself.
K: Can one have knowledge of oneself?
B: No, but if you think you have, I mean, if one thinks that there is knowledge about what sort of person you are, that builds up into a picture, with the expectation.
K: But after all, if you have knowledge of yourself, you have built an image already.
B: That's right, yes, but that's the same, that the tendency is to say that there's a transfer of what you do with the outside, saying, as you observe this microphone you build up knowledge, that enters into your picture of it, your perception of it, then you say I do the same with myself. That I know the sort of person I should be or I am and it builds up, there's a lot of accumulation that builds up in forms that we don't ordinarily call knowledge, for example, preferences ...
K: Yes, I understand.
B: ... likes and dislikes.
K: But once you realise psychological accumulation as knowledge is an illusion and destructive and causes infinite pain and misery, when you see, it's finished.
B: I was trying to say that, when you say that, then the question is very often the word knowledge does not convey all that has to be included.
K: Of course, of course.
B: I could say, OK, I know certain things in knowledge and it's foolish to have that kind of knowledge about myself, but then there may be other kinds of knowledge which I don't recognise as knowledge, I say that's ...
K: What kind, what other kinds of knowledge does one have? Preferences, like and dislike.
B: Habits, yes.
K: Habit. All that is in the image that one has created.
B: Yes. Now, man has developed in such a way that that image seems extraordinarily real.
B: And therefore its qualities don't seem to be knowledge.
K: All right, sir. So we have said, accumulation is time and accumulation is security, and where there is psychological accumulation there must be division. And thought is the movement between the particular and the general, and thought is also born out of the image of what has been accumulated.
K: Right? All that is one's inward state. That is deeply imbedded in me.
B: Yes, physically and mentally.
K: All round. I recognise physically it is necessary, somewhat.
B: Yes, but it is overdone physically.
K: Of course, one can overdo anything. But psychologically to realise that, how do I set about it? How do I, who has accumulated, accumulated for millennia, general and particular, that has been the habit, and how do I, not only recognise the habit, and when I do recognise the habit, how does that movement come to an end? That is the real question.
K: Where does intelligence play a part in all this? You follow what I mean?
B: Yes. Well, there has to be intelligence to see this.
K: Is it intelligence? Is it so-called ordinary intelligence, or some intelligence is something entirely different?
B: Well, yes, I don't know what people ordinarily mean by intelligence, but if they mean just merely the capacity to ...
K: To discern, to distinguish.
B: And all that, yes.
K: To solve
B: To use logic.
K: technical problems, economic problems and so on. I wouldn't call that - I would call that partial intelligence because it is not really.
B: Yes, you could call that skill in thought.
K: Skill in thought, all right, skill in thought. But intelligence - now wait a minute, that's what I'm trying to find out. I realise this, accumulation, division, security, the general and particular, thought. I can see the reason of all that, the logic of all that. But logic, reason and explanation doesn't end the thing. Another quality is necessary. Is that quality intelligence? I'm trying to move away from insight for a while.
B: Yes, not to repeat the word. Not to repeat the word too much.
K: Too much. Is intelligence associated with thought?
B: We don't know what you mean by the word 'associate'.
K: Is it related, is it part of thought, is it the outcome of very clear, precise, exact, logical, conclusions of thought.
B: No, that would still be more and more skill.
K: Skill, I agree. Yes.
B: Yes, but we have to say intelligence, at least we suggest intelligence is a different quality.
K: Yes. Is that intelligence related to love?
B: I'd say they go together.
K: Yes, I'm just moving, slowly into that. You see, I've come to - I realise all that we have discussed this morning, and I've come to a blank wall, solid wall, I can't go beyond. And in observing, looking, fishing around, I come upon this word 'intelligence'. And I see the so-called intelligence of thought, skill and all that, is not intelligence. So I'm asking further, is this intelligence associated or related, or part of love? You cannot - one cannot accumulate love. Right?
B: No, people might try.
K: It sounds silly! (laughs)
B: People do try to guarantee love.
K: That is all romantic nonsense, cinema stuff, all that. You cannot accumulate love, you cannot associate it with hate, all that. So it's something entirely different, that love. And has that love intelligence? Which then operates - you follow? - which then breaks down the wall. I don't know if I'm ...
B: Yes. (Pause)
K: All right, sir - let's begin again. I don't know what that love is. I know all the physical bit, all that, that I realise, pleasure, desire, accumulation, remembrance, pictures, is not love. All that, I've realised long ago. But I've come to the point where this wall is so enormous that I can't even jump over it. So I'm now fishing around to see if there is a different movement which is not a man-made movement. And that movement may be love. I'm sorry to use that word, but we'll use it for the time being, because that word has been so spoilt and misused.
B: Yes, you are saying love is a movement, you see, not just a feeling?
K: Oh, no.
B: It may involve feeling, but it's not feeling.
K: Yes, it's nothing to do with So is that love, with its intelligence, is that the factor that will break down or dissolve or break up this wall? Not, I love you, or you love me. Right? It's not personal or particular, it's not general or particular, it is something beyond. Right?
B: Yes, that's a point that - of course, it's hard - you know, that it has been another part of the background: a man tends to make love particularised, a particular thing or individual, but ...
K: I think when one loves with that intelligence it covers the whole, it's not the particular or general - it is that, it's light, it's not particular light. All right. Then if that is the factor that'll break down the wall which is in front of me, then I don't know that love. As a human being, having reached a certain point, I can't go beyond it to find that love - what shall I do? What is - not do or not do - but what is the state of my mind when I realise any movement this side of the wall is still strengthening the wall? Right? So I realise that, through meditation or whatever you do, there is no movement, but the mind can't go beyond it.
But you come along and say, 'Look, that wall can be dissolved, broken down, if you have that quality of love with intelligence.' And I say, 'Excellent, but I don't know what it is.' What shall I do? I can't do anything, I realise that. Whatever I do is still within this side of the wall. Right?
So am I in despair? Obviously not, because if I am in despair or depressed, I'm still moving in the same field. So all that has stopped. Realising that I cannot possibly do anything, any movement, what takes place in my mind? You follow, sir, what I'm asking? Is that right? I think that's fairly logical. I realise I cannot do a thing. Right? So what has happened to the quality of my mind, which has always moved either to accumulate, to become, all that has stopped. The moment I realise this, no movement. Right? Is that possible? Or am I living in an illusion? Or have I really gone through all this to come to that point. Or I suddenly say, I must be quiet. I don't know if I am conveying it.
B: Yes, I understand, that's part of the same process.
K: Same process.
B: To project from the past.
K: So has my mind - is there in my mind a revolution? Revolution in the sense that movement has completely stopped. And if it has, is love something beyond the wall?
B: Well, it wouldn't mean anything.
K: Of course, it couldn't be.
B: The wall itself is the product of the process which is illusion.
K: Exactly, I realise - you follow? - I'm realising the wall is this movement. So when this movement ends, that quality of intelligence, love and so on, is there. That's the whole point.
B: Yes, could one say the movement ends, the movement sees that it has no point.
K: It is like, it is so-called skilful, skill to see a danger.
B: Well, it could be.
K: Yes. Any danger demands a certain amount of awareness.
K: But I have never realised as a human being, the accumulated process is a tremendous danger.
B: Yes, because that seems to be the essence of security.
K: Of course, and all the rest of it. You come along and point it out to me, and I'm listening to you very carefully and I see, and I actually perceive the danger of that. And perception is part of love, isn't it?
K: I'm getting at it.
B: But, you're suggesting that love is a kind of energy which is not specific or general and that it may momentarily envelop certain things.
K: So perception without any motive, without any direction, etc., perception of the wall which has been brought into being by this movement of accumulation, the very perception of that is intelligence and love. Right? We'd better stop - it's half past twelve.
K: Should we go on?
B: How do you feel? Maybe it's best to stop.
K: Best - no, better stop. We've come to a point. When do we meet again?
B: It's on Thursday, in two days.
K: Thursday. Right, sir.