The liberation of insight
The ending of time
11th Dialogue, Brockwood Park
September 14, 1980
Krishnamurti: Dr Bohm and I started these dialogues between himself and myself at Ojai in California at the beginning of this year. And we had eight dialogues there and two here, if I remember rightly, so we have had altogether ten dialogues this year, with Dr Bohm and I. And so we are continuing that dialogue.
We talked about - it's rather difficult to remember. I've no memory of it. I think we asked, if I remember rightly, what is the origin of all this, of all human movement. Is there an original source, a ground? Is that right, sir? A ground from which all this sprang: nature, man, the whole universe. Was it bound by time? Was it in itself complete order, and beyond which there is nothing more?
And, Dr Bohm reminded me yesterday, we talked about order, whether the universe is based on time at all. I don't know if you are interested in all this. And whether man can ever comprehend and live in that supreme order. That's right, sir? I think that's rather vaguely where we stopped. I don't know if you are interested in all this. But Dr Bohm and I wanted to investigate, not merely intellectually but also profoundly, how to comprehend or live from that ground, move from that ground, the ground that is timeless, there is nothing beyond it. And I think we had better begin from there.
Dr Bohm: Begin from the ground.
K: Sir, I don't know if you will agree as a scientist of eminence, whether there is such a ground, whether man can ever comprehend it, live in it - live in the sense, not as something, he living in it, but that living in it, that itself living - and whether we can as human beings come to that. That is more or less, if I remember, what we talked about.
B: Yes, well, I don't know if science as it is now constituted can say much about that.
K: Science doesn't talk about it. But you as a scientist, would you give your mind to the investigation of that?
B: Yes. Well, I think, implicitly science has always been concerned with trying to come to this ground, by how we discussed in Ojai, studying matter to the greatest possible depth. But of course, that is not enough.
K: Is this too abstract?
B: It's hard to say.
K: Didn't we ask, sir, if I remember rightly - it's so long ago - as a human being, living in this world, which is in such turmoil, whether I can have that whether there can be that absolute order first, as the universe is in absolute order, and comprehend an order which is universal.
K: I don't know if I am making my question clear. I can have order in myself, by careful observation, self-study, self-investigation, and understand the nature of disorder, and the very understanding, the very insight of it dispels that disorder. And that's one level of order.
B: Yes, well, that's the level that most of us have been concerned with until now, you see. We say, we see this disorder going on in the world, and in ourselves, and we say it is necessary to be aware, observe all that, to be aware of it and as you say, to dispel it.
K: Yes, but that's a very small affair.
B: Yes, we discussed that in Ojai but I feel that, you know, people generally don't feel it as a small affair. We've discussed it at great length, but at first people feel that clearing up the disorder in themselves and the world would be a very big thing. And perhaps all that's necessary.
K: No, but, I mean, fairly intelligent and knowledgeable and fairly cultured human beings, cultured in the sense civilised - he can, with a great deal of enquiry and investigation, come to the point when in himself he can bring order.
B: Yes, and then some people would now begin to say if only we could bring that order into the whole of society.
K: We will, if human beings, if all of us in this room, if we are all tremendously in that inward sense orderly, we'll perhaps create a new society. But that again is a very small affair.
B: Yes, I understand that. I feel that, you know, one should go into it carefully because it is not, you know, people commonly don't see it as small, although a few have, you know, seeing that there's something much beyond that.
K: Much more beyond that, that's what I want, I mean, I don't know if others are following this.
B: Perhaps the thing that what might be worth thinking about would be, why is it that it is not enough to go into this order of man and society. You see, why just produce orderly living - let's put it that way.
K: Yes, orderly living.
B: In what sense is that not enough? You feel it's very small but...
K: I mean what because we live in chaos, to bring order, we think that's a tremendous affair.
B: Yes, that's agreed, it looks very big. From the present state of this, it looks very big.
K: Yes, very enormous, but in itself it isn't.
B: Yes, could you make it a little more clear why it isn't.
K: Oh dear.
B: I think it's important now to...
K: All right. Because I can put my room in order, so that it gives me certain space, certain freedom. And I know where things are, I can go directly to them. That's a physical thing. Can I, as a human being, put things in myself in order, which is, not to have conflict, not to have comparison, not to have any sense of me and you and they, you know, all that, which brings about such division, and out of that division grows conflict. That's simple.
K: If I'm a Hindu and you are a Muslim, and we are eternally at war with each other.
B: Yes, and in every community people fall apart in the same way.
K: Yes, the same way, the whole society breaks up that way.
K: So if one understands that, and profoundly realises it, that's it finished.
B: Yes. Then suppose we say we have achieved that, then what?
K: That's what I want to get at. I don't know if you are interested in this.
B: You see, I think some people might say it's so far away that it doesn't interest us - wait till we achieve it before we worry about the other.
K: All right - let us - no. You and I, this was a dialogue between you and me, not with...
B: Yes, but I meant, just for the sake of trying to make sure everybody here sees it, before we go on to see what the question is.
K: All right, sir, let's start. I'm in disorder, physically, psychologically and around me the society in which I live is also utterly confused, there is a great deal of injustice - a miserable affair. And I can see that, very simply. I can see my generation, past generations and generations, have contributed to this. And I can do something about it. That's simple. I can say, 'Well, I'll put my house in order' - myself is the house, my house must be in order before I can move further.
B: Well, would you say that this question, suppose somebody says, 'My house is not in order, so before I worry about that I'll put my house in order'.
K: All right, my house is in disorder.
K: Let me put that into order, which is fairly simple. If I apply my mind and my heart to the resolution of that, of that question, it's fairly clear. But we don't want to do that.
B: Well, that's another question.
K: Yes, we find it tremendously difficult, we are so bound to the past or to our habits and to our attitudes, we don't seem to have the energy, the courage, the vitality, to move out of it.
B: Yes, well, that's what's doesn't seem to be so simple as what will produce that energy and courage, you know, what will change all this.
K: I think what will change all this, as we discussed at Ojai, is to have this insight into all this.
B: Yes, I think that really is the key point, that without insight, nothing can change.
K: Nothing can change.
B: So even if we try to bring order in daily life, without this much broader insight into the very root of it...
K: That's right.
B: ... or into the ground of it.
K: Now, will that insight really alter my whole structure and nature of my being. That is the question. Isn't it?
B: Yes. Then it seems to me that, what was implied was that if we look at a rather small question like the order of daily life, it will not involve your whole being.
K: No, of course not.
B: And therefore the insight will be inadequate.
K: Yes. So what is insight - we discussed that too, a great deal, and we talked about it at the gathering here and at Saanen. But do we go through that?
B: Well, just sum it up, I think, I mean, because I think it would make it more intelligible.
K: Could we start with being tied to something. Being tied to a belief, to a person, to an idea, to some habit, some experience, which inevitably must create disorder. Because being tied implies dependence, the escape from one's own loneliness, fear, and all that. Now to have total insight into this attachment, that very insight clears away all attachment.
B: Yes. I think we were saying that the self is the centre of darkness, it could be considered like a centre creating darkness in the mind, or clouds, and the insight penetrates that, it would dispel the cloud so that there would be clarity and therefore this problem would vanish.
K: Vanish, that's right.
B: But it would take a very strong, intense insight.
K: Yes, but that needs...
B: A total insight.
K: That's right, but are we willing to go through that? Or my attachment to, or my tie to, something is so strong, that I'm unwilling to let go.
B: Yes, but then what?
K: And that is what most people are.
K: It's only, I think, unfortunately, it's only very few who want to do this kind of thing.
Now, we are discussing the nature of insight, whether that insight can wipe away or banish, dissolve this whole movement of being tied, attached, dependent, lonely, all that, with one blow, as it were. I think it can. I think it does when there is profound insight into this thing. That insight is not mere memory, the movement of memory, knowledge, experience, which is totally different from all that movement.
B: Well, it seems that it's insight into the whole of disorder, into the source of disorder.
B: Of all disorder of a psychological nature, not just say, attachment or greed.
K: Yes, yes, all that.
B: Yes, so that with that insight then the mind can clear up and then it would be possible to approach the cosmic order.
K: That's what I want to get at.
K: That's much more interesting than this, because this is all rather immature - sorry, forgive the word - any serious man must have must put his house in order. Right? And that must be complete order, not order in a particular direction, but order in the wholeness of man. If that can be done, and if that is necessary, because society as it is disintegrating and it's destructive and all the rest of it, and it destroys human beings. It's a machine that is destructive in itself and if a human being is caught in it, it destroys him. Right. And realising that, any ordinary human intelligence says, 'I must do something about it', not just sit back and talk about it.
B: Well just to finish things, you see most people might feel doing something about it consists of solving particular problems like attachment or removing disagreements between people, or something.
K: The particular resolution of a particular problem, and its resolution, is not the resolution of the whole.
B: That's the key point that if you find the source that generates this, which generates this whole, then getting at this source, at this root is the only way.
K: Yes, that's right.
B: Because if we try to deal with a particular problem, it's still always coming from the source.
K: The source is the 'me', understood.
K: The source, apart from the great source, the little source, little pond, the little stream, must dry up.
B: Yes, the little stream confuses itself with the great one, I think.
K: Yes, we're not talking about the great stream, the immense movement of life, we're talking about the little me with the little movement, little apprehensions and so on and so on that is creating disorder. And as long as there is that centre which is the very essence of disorder, unless that is dissolved there is no order. So at that level it is clear. Can we go on from there?
B: Yes, I think so.
K: Now, I'd like to ask, is there another order totally different from this? This is man-made disorder, and therefore man-made order. Right?
B: Yes, both.
K: The chaos and the cosmos is man-made.
B: Well, not the real cosmos.
K: No, I beg your pardon - cosmos is not. No, the real thing.
B: I mean, the order which we see in this room, the microphone, see the television is man-made, which is a high degree of order, and also we see all the fighting going on.
K: It's man-made.
B: Man made the terrible programmes put on this orderly television system.
K: Yes. So realising that, seeing disorder which the human mind can bring about in itself, order, then it begins to ask, is there an order which is totally different, of a dimension which is necessary to find, because this is so small an affair.
K: I put my house in order. All right. Then what? And if perhaps, many of us do it, we'll have a better society, better etc., etc. But yes, that is admitted, that is relevant, that is necessary, But that has its limitation.
B: Yes, eventually people won't be able to be satisfied with that, so they'll be bored with that.
K: It's not.
B: But as you say, we have to have it.
K: Yes. Now how do we find, how does a human being who has really deeply understood disorder, disorder made by human beings, and therefore effecting society and all that, he says, 'Is there an order that's beyond all this?'
B: Yes, and how do we get into that question?
K: Yes, how do we? The human mind isn't satisfied by merely having physical, social order, it has its limitations, it has its boundaries, and says, 'Yes, I've understood that, let's move.'
B: Yes, or even say in science men are seeking the order of the whole universe, looking to, what they feel to be the end or the beginning.
B: Or to the depth of its structure, not noted to get useful results but because the question fascinates them.
K: Yes, this is not a fascinating question.
B: No, but I'm saying it does
B: It interests them, let's put it that way. And I think that, perhaps I was thinking that men have been seeking the absolute and the word 'absolute' means to be free of all limitation, of all dependence, of all imperfection.
K: Yes, of all motives and all the rest of it - absolute.
B: Yes, so the absolute has been the source of tremendous illusion, of course because the limited self seeks to capture the absolute.
K: Of course, I mean, that's impossible.
B: But that's the common...
K: Of course, of course.
B: But supposing we recognise that the absolute is a very dangerous concept, when the mind tries to grasp it, and yet it seems to be in some sense what is necessary, you see, that, in the sense of freedom, freedom could only mean the same as absolute, you see.
B: Because anything that is dependent in any way is not free.
K: So how do we approach this, how do we answer this question? As a scientist, would you say there is an order which is beyond all human order and disorder?
B: Yes, well, I would say it. I don't think that a scientist is particularly significant in the sense that science is not may be seeking this sort of thing, but it really has no more to say on it, it is not able to say anything on this question because any order discovered by science is relative.
K: Of course. Because their own egotism...
B: Not only that but also the information we have is limited.
K: Limited, quite.
B: And we can only say it goes so far.
K: So are we moving to a world of either illusion, because demanding it may create illusion.
B: I feel it does create illusion, that if man demands the absolute and tries to...
K: Of course, of course.
B: ...satisfy it, in thought that's illusion.
K: I'm not asking that question, from that point of view.
B: But not knowing what to do, men have felt the need for the absolute and not knowing how to get it they have created the illusion of it in religion and in science or in many other ways.
K: So what shall I do? As a human being, a human being who is the totality of human beings, there is order in my life. That order is naturally brought about through insight and so perhaps it will effect society. We move from that. The enquiry then is, is there an order which is not man-made. Let's put it that way. I won't even call it absolute order, or any kind of...
B: At least it's free of man's construction.
B: And now we have the order of nature, the cosmos which we don't really know in its depth but we could consider that to be that sort of order.
K: I mean, the very word 'cosmos' means order.
B: Yes, it's the Greek word for order.
K: Yes. Nature is in order. Unless man interferes with it, nature is order, has its own order. We won't say
B: Yes, it has its own order and even when we're told disorder in nature is part of the order.
K: Part of the order.
B: It's not really disorder.
K: No, no. We call it disorder but in itself it is not disorder. All right. Finished with that. Now let's move to something else.
Man has sought a different dimension and perhaps used the word 'order'. He has sought a different dimension, because he has understood this dimension. He has lived in it, he has suffered in it, he has gone through all kinds of mess and misery, he says, 'I've come to the end of all that.' I mean not verbally - actually come to the end of all that. And you may say there are very few people who do that, but this question must be put.
B: Yes, I could ask what is the significance of this question to say the vast number of people who have not gone through that?
K: I don't quite follow.
B: Well, we're putting this question, you say that the man who has gone through that may put this question. But then is it of any interest to one who hasn't gone through it?
K: I think it is.
B: All right, what is it?
K: Because he sees even intellectually, he may see the limitations of it.
B: Yes, it's important for him to see even before he has finished up with it.
B: It's important to see this point, not to say wait until I clear it up and then...
K: Of course not - that would be too stupid. So how does the mind approach this problem? (pause) I think man has struggled to find this out, sir. I mean, all religious people, you know, so-called religious people have attempted to grasp this - the mystics, the saints, with their illusions, all the rest of it, but they have tried to understand something which is not all this. Does it come about through, if I may use the word, meditation as measure?
B: Well, we've discussed that here in Brockwood, that the original meaning of the word 'meditation' is to measure, to ponder, to weigh the value and significance.
K: Weigh means to measure.
B: Yes, but I think meditation would mean to measure in some deeper sense then just with a ruler but...
K: No, no, of course not.
B: ...even so, perhaps that may have meant that such a measurement would only have significance for seeing that there is disorder.
K: That's what I would say - measurement can exist only where there is disorder.
B: Yes, but by looking at the measurement, at the way things are out of proportion in the mind, you can see there is disorder.
B: That is not the order, of course.
K: No. So we are using the word meditation not as measure or even to ponder or think over, but a meditation that is the outcome of having kept, bringing about order in the house, and moving from there.
B: Right. So I think that people may have used the word meditation in the distant past to indicate that by looking at measure you can see disorder as being out of proportion, but they may have meant to go on from there.
K: Yes, but they don't seem to, somehow.
B: People don't generally do it.
K: Yes, let's try to do it.
K: Rather. Perhaps a preposterous statement but let's see.
B: So if we see things are in disorder in the mind, then what is meditation.
K: Yes. But first the mind must be free of measurement.
K: Otherwise it can't enter into the other.
B: Well, that's an important point, to say that. Almost the instinctive reaction of seeing this disorder, this disorder is itself a disproportionate measurement and therefore the instinctive tendency is to try to make the measure come right, to correct it.
K: Correct it, quite. But we said...
B: And that might be a fundamental mistake.
K: We said that. I mean all effort to bring order into disorder is disorder.
B: Yes, and in that way this is very different from what almost everybody has been saying.
B: Over the whole of history.
K: History - I know, I know. We are, perhaps we are exceptional.
B: Well, maybe there are a few who have implied it. I think it's implicit in what a few have said but...
B: ...it's never been said explicitly to my knowledge.
K: All right, let's explicitly say it.
B: So we say that it is the attempt to control, as you've said, that is wrong, you see that it has no meaning.
K: No meaning, yes.
B: And now we say there's no control, what do we do?
K: No, no, no. If I have an insight into the whole nature of control.
B: Control is measure, you see...
K: Of course, control is measure - that liberates the mind from that burden.
B: Yes. Could you sort of explain the nature of this insight, what it means.
K: We said that. Insight implies it is not a movement from knowledge, from thought, and therefore remembrance and all the rest of it, but the cessation of all that and to look at it, look at the problem with pure observation, without any pressure, without any motive, all that - to observe this whole movement of measurement.
B: Yes, I think we can see that measurement is the same as becoming and...
K: Of course, all that.
B: The attempt of the mind to measure itself, to control itself, to set itself a goal...
K: Compare itself and all the rest of it - yes.
B: ...is the very source of the disorder.
K: That is the very source of disorder.
B: And in a way that was the wrong way of looking at it, this wrong turning, that man extended measurement from the external sphere into the mind.
B: But now we say, I think the first reaction would be if we don't control this thing it will go wild, you see. That's what somebody might fear.
K: Yes, but you see, if I have an insight into measurement, that very insight not only banishes all movement, measurement, there is a different order.
B: Yes, it does not go wild because...
K: It doesn't go wild, on the contrary.
B: ...it has begun in order. That is really the attempt to measure it that makes it go wild.
K: Yes, that's right. The measurement is 'wild-ing'
K: is confusion. Right? Now let's proceed, after establishing all this, can this mind through meditation - we're using the word meditation without any sense of measurement, comparison, all the rest of it - can that mind find an order, a state where there is no - let's be more positive - where there is something which is not man-made. Because I've been one has been through all the man-made things. Right? And they are all limitation, there is no freedom in it, there is chaos, there is mess and all that.
B: Well, when you say you've been through man-made things, what are they?
B: Like religion.
K: Like religion, science, worship, prayers, anxieties, sorrow, attachment, detachment, loneliness and suffering and confusion and ache and anxiety, loneliness, all that.
B: It's also all the attempts to by revolution, and by...
K: Of course, physical revolution, psychological, all that. Those are all man-made. And so many people have put this question, obviously, must have. And therefore they say, god.
K: Which is another concept, and that very concept creates disorder.
B: Well, that's clear that man has invented god and given him the power of the absolute.
K: Yes, quite.
B: Which is himself.
K: Which then becomes himself.
B: Yes, and therefore it becomes dead.
B: It dominates him.
K: Yes. Of course. Now, one has finished with all that. Right? Now then the question is, is there something beyond all this, which is never touched by human thought, mind?
B: Yes, now, that makes a difficult point, not touched by the human mind, but mind might go beyond thought.
K: That's what I want - yes.
B: Then what do you mean - do you mean by the mind only thought, feeling, desire, will, or something much more?
K: No, that's for the time being, we have said the mind, the human mind is all that.
B: But it's not, the mind is now considered to be limited.
K: No. As long as the human mind is caught in that, it is limited.
B: Yes, the human mind has potential.
K: Tremendous potential.
B: But it is not realised now, it is caught in thought, feeling, desire, will, and that sort of thing.
K: That's right.
B: Then we'll say that which is beyond this is not touched by this limited sort of mind.
K: Yes. (pause)
B: Now what will we mean by the mind which is beyond this limit?
K: First of all, sir, is there such a mind?
B: Yes, that's the first question.
K: Is there such a mind that is actually, not theoretically or romantically, all the rest of that nonsense, actually said, 'I've been through this'?
B: You mean, through the limited stuff.
K: Yes. And being through it means finished with it. Is there such a mind? Or because it has finished with it, or it thinks it has finished with it, therefore creates the illusion that there is something else.
K: I won't accept that. As a human being, one person, or 'X' says, 'I have understood this, I have seen the limitation of all this, I have lived through it, and I have come to the end of it.' And this mind, having come to the end of it, is no longer the limited mind. And is there a mind which is not which is totally limitless?
K: You follow what I mean?
B: Yes, now that raises the question of how the brain is able to be in contact with that mind, you know.
K: Which mind?
B: What is the relation between that unlimited mind and the brain?
K: I'm coming to that. First of all, I want to be clear on this point, it's rather interesting, if we go into it. This mind, brain, the whole of it, the whole nature and the structure of the mind, includes the emotions, the brain, the reactions, the physical responses and all that, this mind has lived in turmoil, in chaos, in loneliness and has understood, has had a profound insight into all that. And having such a deep insight, cleared the field. This mind is no longer that mind.
B: Yes, it's no longer the original limited mind.
K: Yes. Not original, no longer the limited mind.
B: That you began with.
K: Damaged mind. Let's use that word damaged.
B: Damaged mind, also damaged brain, that this damaged mind has been the same, working has damaged the brain.
K: Yes, all right.
B: So we have thought the damaged mind...
K: Damaged mind means damaged emotions, damaged brain, damaged...
B: The cells themselves are not in the right order.
K: Quite. But when there is this insight and therefore order, the damage is undone.
B: Yes. We discussed that the previous time.
K: Previous time. I don't know it you agree to that even.
B: Yes, I see, certainly you see it's possible, by reasoning you can see it's quite possible, because you can say the damage was done by disorderly thoughts and feelings, which over-excite the cells and disrupt them and now with the insight, that stops and a new Process is set up.
K: Yes, it's like a person going for fifty years in a certain direction and realises suddenly that that's not the direction, the whole brain changes.
B: It changes at the core and then the wrong structure is dismantled and healed, that may take time.
K: That's right.
B: But the insight which...
K: ...is the factor that changes.
B: Yes, and that insight does not take time.
K: Time, that's right.
B: But it means that the whole process has changed the origin.
K: Again, that mind, the limited mind with all its consciousness and its content, all the rest of it, says, it's over, that part. Now is that mind which has been limited, and having had insight into this limitation, and therefore moved away from that limitation, is that an actuality, a something that is really tremendously revolutionary? You follow? And therefore it is no longer the human mind. Forgive me for using that word.
B: Well, I think we should clear that up, what we mean by the human mind.
K: Human mind with its consciousness, which is limited.
B: Yes, that limited consciousness which is conditioned and not free.
K: That is ended.
B: Yes, so that is the general consciousness which has been the case, I mean, not just in individuals but it has been all round.
K: All, of course not, I'm not talking of an individual, that's too silly.
B: Yes. But I think we discussed that, that the individual is the outcome of the general consciousness.
B: Particular outcome, rather than an independent thing. You see, that's one of the difficulties.
K: That's one of the confusions.
B: The confusion is we take the individual mind to be the concrete actuality.
B: We've been discussing, it's necessary to consider this general mind to be the actuality from which the individual mind has formed.
K: Yes. That's all very clear.
B: And now you are saying but now we say we move away even from that general mind, but what does it mean?
K: Yes, the general and the particular mind.
B: And the particular mind.
K: Now, if one has totally moved away from it, then what is the mind?
B: Yes, and what is the person, what is the human being? Right?
K: What is a human being then. And then what is the relationship between that mind, which is not man-made mind, and the man-made mind?
K: I don't know if I'm making myself clear.
B: Yes, well, did we agree to call it universal mind, or would you prefer not to?
K: I don't like that word universal mind, lots of people used it. Let's use a much simpler word.
B: Well, it's the mind which was not made by man.
K: I think that's simpler, keep it to that. A mind which is not made by man.
B: Neither individually nor in general.
K: Generally or individually, it's not made by man. Sir, can one observe, really, deeply, without any prejudice, and all the rest, does such a mind exist? You follow what I'm trying to say?
B: Yes, let's see what that means to observe that. You see I think there are some difficulties of language here, because you see, we say one must, a person must observe things like that, whereas...
K: I observe it. I observe.
B: Yes, who observes it, you see, that's one of the problems that comes up.
K: We've been through all that. There is no division in observation. Not, I observe, but there is only observation.
B: Observation takes place.
B: Would you say it takes place in a particular brain, for example, or a particular brain takes part in the observation? Because
K: I know the catch in this. No, sir, it doesn't take in a particular brain.
B: Yes, but it seems that a particular brain may respond.
K: Of course, it is not K's brain.
B: I don't mean that, what I mean by the word particular brain, you see, we could say that given the particulars of where a certain human being is in space and time or whatever his form is, not giving him a name, is distinguished from another one which might be there, there.
K: Look, sir, let's get clear on this point. We live in a man-made world, man-made mind, man-made and all that, we are the result of man-made minds - our brains and so on. Brain with all its responses not the actual.
B: Well, the brain itself is not man-made but it has been conditioned. Man-made conditioning.
K: Conditioned by man, right, that's what I mean. Now, can that mind uncondition itself so completely that it's no longer man-made?
B: Yes, that's the question.
K: That is the question - let's keep it to that simple level. Can that mind, man-made mind as it is now, can it go to that extent, to so completely liberate itself from itself.
B: Yes, of course that's a somewhat paradoxical statement.
K: Of course. Paradoxical but it's actual, it is so. I mean I can see wait, let's begin again. I can, one can observe the consciousness of humanity is its content. And its content is all the man-made things - anxiety, fear, and all the rest of it. And it is not only particular it is the general. Having had an insight into this, it has cleansed itself of that.
B: Well, that implies that it was always potentially more than that but that insight enabled it to be free of that. Is that what you mean?
K: That insight - I won't say it is potential.
B: Yes, well, there is a little difficulty of language, that if you say the brain or the mind had an insight into its own conditioning and then almost you're saying it became something else.
K: Yes, I am saying that, I am saying that.
B: Right. OK.
K: The insight transforms the man-made mind.
B: Yes. So but then it's no longer the man-made mind.
K: It's no longer. That insight means the wiping away of all the content of consciousness. Right? Not bit by bit by bit, the totality of it. And that insight is not the result of man's endeavour.
B: Yes, but then that seems to raise the question of where does it come from.
K: All right. Where does it come from? Yes. In the brain itself, in the mind itself.
B: Which, the brain or the mind?
K: Mind, I'm saying the whole of it.
B: We say there is mind, right?
K: Just a minute, sir. Let's go slowly - it's rather interesting, let's go slowly. The consciousness is man-made, general and particular. And logically, reasonably one sees the limitations of it. Then the mind is gone much further. Then it comes to a point when it says, 'Can all this be wiped away at one breath, one blow, one movement.' And that movement is insight, the movement of insight. It is still in the mind. But not born out of that consciousness. I don't know if I'm making myself clear.
B: Yes. Then you are saying the mind has the possibility of potential, of moving beyond the consciousness.
B: But we haven't actually done much of it.
K: Of course. It must be a part of the brain, a part of the mind.
B: The brain, mind can do that, but it hasn't generally done it.
K: Yes. Now, having done all this, is there a mind which is not not only man-made, man cannot conceive, cannot create this, it is not an illusion, is there such a mind? I don't know if I am making myself clear.
B: Well, I think what you are saying is, having freed itself the mind has...
K: General and particular.
B: ...freed it from the general and particular structure of consciousness of mankind, from its limits, and now this mind is now much greater. Now you say this mind, is it raising a question, right?
K: It is this mind raising the question.
B: Which is what?
K: Which is, first, is that mind free from the man-made mind?
K: That's the first question.
B: It may be an illusion.
K: Illusion - that's what I want one has to be very clear. No, it is not an illusion, because he sees measurement is an illusion, he knows the nature of illusions, born of where there is desire there must be etc., illusions. And illusions must create limitation, and so on and so on. He's not only understood it, he's over it.
B: He's free of desire.
K: Free of desire. That is the nature. I don't want to put it so brutally. Free of desire.
B: It is full of energy.
K: Yes. So this mind, which is no longer general and particular, and therefore not limited, and this limitation has been broken down through insight, and therefore the mind is no longer that conditioned mind. Right?
K: Now, then what is that mind? Being aware that it is no longer caught in illusion.
B: Yes, but you were saying it was raising a question about whether there is some much greater
K: Yes, that's why I'm raising the question.
K: Yes. Is there a mind which is not man-made? And if there is, what is its relationship to the man-made mind?
K: This is very difficult. It is half past twelve, do we go on?
B: If you feel like it.
K: I can go on, it's fun. Go up to a quarter to one.
B: Quarter to one, yes that's good, yes.
K: You see every form of assertion, every form of verbal statement is not that. Right? So we're asking, is there a mind which is not man-made. And I think that can only be asked when the other, when the limitations are ended, otherwise it's just a foolish question.
B: That'll be the same...
K: Just a waste of time, then. I mean, that becomes theoretical, nonsensical.
B: Part of the man-made structure.
K: Of course, of course. So one must be absolute - I'm using the word - one must be...
B: I think the word 'absolute' can be used there if we are very careful.
K: Very carefully, yes. Absolutely free of all this. Then only can you put that question. When you put that question, not you - when that question is raised, is there a mind that is not man-made, and if there is such a mind, what is its relationship to the man-made mind. Now, is there such a mind, first. Of course there is. Of course, sir. Without being dogmatic or personal or all that business, there is. But it is not god.
B: Right, well.
K: Because god - we've been through all that.
B: It is part of the man-made structure.
K: Which has created chaos in the world. There is. Then, the next question is, what is, if there is such a mind, and someone says there is, then what is the relationship of that to the human mind, man-made mind?
B: Yes, to the general.
K: Particular and general. Has it any relationship?
B: Yes, the question's a difficult one because you could say that the man-made mind is pervaded with illusion, most of its content is not real.
K: No. So this is real.
B: Actual or whatever.
K: We'll use the word 'real' in the sense actual, and that is measurable, confused. What is this what is ithas this relationship to that? Obviously not.
B: Well, I would say a superficial one in the sense that the man-made mind has some real content at a certain level, a technical level, let's say, the television system and so on.
B: So in that sense in that area there could be a relationship but as you were saying that is a very small area. But fundamentally...
K: No, as we discussed - you remember, sir?
K: The man-made mind has no relationship to that.
K: But that has a relationship to this.
B: Yes, but not to the illusions in the man-made mind.
K: Wait a minute, wait a minute, let's be clear. My mind is the human mind. It has got illusions, desires and all the rest of it. And there is that other mind which is not which is beyond all limitations. This illusory mind, the man-made mind, is always seeking that.
B: Yes, that's its main trouble.
K: Yes, that's its main trouble. It is measuring it, it is advancing, am I getting nearer, farther, all the rest of it. And this mind, the human mind, the mind that's made by human beings, human mind, the man-made mind is always seeking that, and therefore it's creating more and more mischief, confusion. This man-made mind has no relationship to that.
B: Yes, because from...
K: Obvious, obvious.
B: Any attempt to get that is the source of illusion.
K: Of course, of course, obvious. Now has that any relationship to this?
B: Well, what I was suggesting was, that it would have to have, that if we take the illusions which are in the mind such as desire and fear and so on, it has no relationship to that, because they are figments anyway.
K: Yes, understood.
B: Now but that can have a relationship to the man-made mind in understanding its true structure.
K: Are you saying, sir, that that mind has a relationship to the human mind the moment it's moving away from the limitation?
B: Yes, but in understanding those limitations it moves away.
K: Yes, moves away. Then that has a relationship.
B: Then it has a genuine relationship to what this other mind, to what this limited mind actually is, not to the illusions as to what it thinks it is.
K: Let's be clear.
B: Well, we have to get the words right - the mind which is not limited, right, which is not man-made, cannot be related to the illusions which are in the man-made mind.
K: No, agreed.
B: But it has to be related to as it were, to the source, to the real nature of the man-made mind, which is behind the illusion.
K: Which is, the man-made mind is based on what?
B: Well, on all these things we have said.
K: Yes, which is its nature.
K: Therefore how can that have a relationship to this, even basically?
B: The only relationship is in understanding it, so that some communication would be possible, which might end, might communicate to the other person.
K: No, I'm questioning that.
B: Yes. Because you were saying that the mind that is not man-made may be related to the limited mind and not the other way round.
K: I even question that.
B: Yes, all right, you are changing that. Why are you questioning it?
K: Yes. No, I'm just pushing it a little.
B: It may or may not be so, is that what you're saying, by questioning it.
K: Yes, I'm questioning it.
K: What is the relationship then of love to jealousy? It has nothing.
B: Not to jealousy itself, no, which is an illusion, but...
B: ...to the human being who is jealous, there may be.
K: I'm taking love and hatred - two words, love and hatred, love or hatred have no relationship to each other.
B: No, not really.
K: None, not really.
B: Except I think that love might understand the origin of hatred, you see.
K: Ah, it might - yes, yes.
B: In that sense I would think a relationship.
K: I see, you're using the word - I understand. You're saying, love can understand the origin of hatred and how hatred arises and all the rest of it. Does love understand that?
B: Well, I think in some sense that it understands its origin in the man-made mind, you see, that having seen the man-made mind and all its structure and moved away...
K: Are we saying, sir, that love - we use that word for the moment - that love has relationship to non-love?
B: Only in the sense of dissolving it.
K: I'm not sure, I'm not sure, we must be awfully careful here. Or the ending of itself...
B: Which is it?
K: The ending of hatred, the other is, not the other has relationship to the understanding of hatred.
B: Yes, well, we have to ask how it gets started then, you see.
K: That's very simple.
B: No, but I mean, if suppose we say we have hatred, right?
K: I have hatred. Suppose I have hatred. I can see the origin of it. Because you insulted me
B: Well that's a superficial notion of the origin, I mean, to say why does one behave so irrationally is the deeper origin. You see, there's no real - if you merely say you've insulted me, and I say why should you respond to the insult.
K: Because all my conditioning is that.
B: Yes, that's what I mean by it, then you're understanding the origin of...
K: I understand that, but does love help me to understand the origin of hatred?
B: No, but I think that someone in hatred, moving, understanding this origin and moving away.
K: Moving away.
K: Then the other is. The other cannot help the movement away.
B: No, but the question is, suppose one person, if you want to put it that way, one human being has this love and the other has not - right? - and can the first one communicate something which will start the movement in the second one?
K: That means, A can influence B.
B: Not influence but simply to I mean, one could raise the question for example, why should anybody be talking about any of this, you see why should I talk about it?
K: That's a different matter - that's a different matter. No, the question, sir, which is, is hate dispelled by love?
B: No, not that, no.
K: Or the understanding of hatred and the ending of it, the other is.
B: That's right, but now, if we say that here in A the other now is - right? A has reached that.
B: The other is, love is for A and he sees B, C, D...
K: B has got the other.
B: Now we're saying, what is he going to do, you see, that's the question.
K: What is the relationship between the two?
B: That's the same question.
K: Same question, yes.
B: Say, what is he going to do is another way of putting it. Right?
K: I think - just a minute, sir. I hate, another loves. My wife loves and I hate. She can talk to me, she can point it out to me, the unreasonable and so on, so on, so on but her love is not going to transform the source of my hatred.
B: That's clear, yes, except the love is the energy which will be behind the talk.
K: Behind the talk, yes.
B: The love itself doesn't sort of go in there and dissolve the hate.
K: Of course not, of course not, that becomes romantic and all that business. So the man who hates, the source of it, the cause of it, the movement of it, having an insight and ending it, has the other.
B: Yes, but I think that if we say A is the man who has seen all this and he now has the energy to put it to B - it's up to B what happens.
K: Of course, of course, of course. I think we had better pursue this. Quarter to one. It's over, the circus!