Krishnamurti Subtitles home


BR76CTM1 - Are we aware that we are fragmented?
Brockwood Park, UK - 17 May 1976
The Transformation of Man 1



0:14 K: What shall we talk about? What do you think is the most important thing... that we 3 can talk about?
0:28 S: Well, the one thing, I've had an idea lately... that has been on my mind... and I've been getting it from when we talked before... there is the feeling you've been conveying that... life comes first and not thought or work... something like that, in other words, that I find in myself... and I find that most people... are caught up in the fact that... you know, you said once we live second-hand lives. If we could talk about that, I think... the second-handness of our life.
1:07 K: What do you say?

B: Well, in relation to that... I perhaps would like to talk about the question of wholeness.
1:18 K: Shall we talk about that first, and then include yours.
1:21 S: Sure. I think this is part of it. I see that the second-handedness is not wholeness.
1:27 K: Quite. I wonder how we can approach this question... knowing that most people are fragmented... broken up and not whole. How do we tackle or approach this question?
1:56 S: Through direct awareness of the fragmentation.
1:59 K: No, I would like to... - I'm just asking it because... Are we discussing it theoretically?
2:08 S: No.
2:10 K: Verbally, or taking ourselves... - you, we 3- taking ourselves as we are... and examining what we mean by fragmented. And then work from there, what is the whole... not theoretically or verbally. Then I think that has vitality, that has some meaning.
2:34 S: Well, If we see the fragmentation... the wholeness is there.
2:39 K: Ah, no, don't assume anything.

S: Right.
2:42 B: That's too fast.

K: Then we are off to theory.
2:45 S: OK. Right.
2:50 K: We have been talking... with a lot of students here, this question. Dr. Bohm was there too. And whether we can ever be aware of ourselves at all. Or we are only aware of patches... not the totality of fragmentations. I don't know if I'm conveying this.
3:27 S: Go ahead.
3:31 K: Can one be aware, conscious, know... the various fragments... examining one by one by one by one... and who is the examiner... is he not also a fragment... who has assumed an authority? So when we talk about being aware of fragments... socially, morally, ethically, religiously, business, art... the whole activity is fragmented. Can one, is one aware of the movement... of these fragments... or do you take one fragment and examine it... or say 'Yes, I am aware of that', and not the many. You follow what I am saying?
4:36 S: I am following you. I think you are mostly aware of... when I think of what you are saying, I seem to be aware... of a kind of many fragments.

K: Are you?
4:48 S: One at a time, spread out like that, like a machine-gun.
4:54 K: Yes. So you're really aware one by one.
4:57 S: Right. And caught up by the movement of the fragments.
5:01 K: One by one. Is that so? Are you sure that it is so?
5:11 S: Yes, I think, it seems to be that… Well, then sometimes you can take a step back... or you seem to take a step back... or I seem to take a step back, and I'm aware of these many.
5:25 K: No, when Dr. Bohm asked 'can't we talk over together... this question of wholeness'... which implies holiness, health, sanity and all that... I wonder from what source he's asking that question.
5:46 S: Yes. You mean if he's coming from a fragmented position... or he's coming from a whole position.
5:51 K: No, no. If he's asking from the whole position, there is no question. So, I would like to, if one may ask... Are we aware of the fragments as a whole... a collection of fragments... or are we aware one fragment at each time? What do you say, sir?
6:24 B: Generally, the thing presents itself... first as primarily one fragment…
6:29 K: One fragment at a time.

B: …with a background... of all the other fragments perhaps dimly present in it. I mean, in the beginning... that one fragment seems to take emphasis... or pre-eminence in awareness.
6:46 S: Doesn't that one fragment fragment out... quickly into many little fragments? I have an idea and then that idea is in contrast to another idea... so I'm immediately caught up into two fragments there... and then I have another idea... which is the repetition of that first idea... so I'm caught up in a movement of fragments rather than... my attitude is fragmented, my relationship is fragmented... my very substance of movement is a feeling of fragmentation. I don't have any centre when I'm fragmented. I'm not...
7:28 K: I'm not sure about that.

S: That is the question.
7:32 K: I'm not at all sure... that there is no centre when you're fragmented.
7:37 B: I think definitely there is a centre. That is the major fragment you are aware of.
7:41 K: That's right.
7:43 S: Then let's go into that more.
7:48 B: Well, I just think that there is a centre... which you may sense anywhere... say here or here... that seems to be the centre of everything... that is connected to everything, right?
8:04 S: I see what you are saying, but I feel that... when the fragmentation is going on... it's like the centre is looking for itself... it feels like it's not a centre.
8:13 K: Are you aware of the fragmentation? Not, 'fragmentation is going on'.
8:18 S: No, I am not.
8:20 K: Then what are we aware of?
8:24 S: I think - that's a terrific question - because I think... when there is fragmentation what we are aware of... is like being sucked forward into more fragments. There is a kind of movement of more fragmentation... more fragmentation, which is what we are aware of. What you have talked of in terms of pleasure. It's like pleasure is pulling us forward into more fragments... this would give me pleasure, that would give me pleasure... And it's that feeling of pieces.
8:56 K: Before we go into the question of pleasure... Are we aware, actually... from a centre, which says 'I am fragmented'? That is the question, isn't it?
9:15 B: Yes.

S: That's the question.
9:18 B: We are both aware of a centre and from a centre...
9:21 K: That's it.
9:23 B: This centre seems to be, as you say, the fragment... that is dominating, or attempting to dominate.
9:30 K: That centre is the dominating factor.
9:32 B: Yes. In other words...
9:34 K: Which is in itself a fragment.
9:36 B: Yes, I mean this centre is... Well, it seems to be the centre of your being... as it were the centre of the ego or the self... which one might think is the whole.
9:48 K: Quite, quite.
9:50 B: Because it's in contact with everything. In other words…
9:55 K: Would you say... having a centre is the very cause of fragmentation?
10:01 B: I would say that, although at first sight... it seems quite different.
10:05 S: At first sight... - I think that's important. The difference between - at first sight it doesn't seem that way.
10:11 B: At first sight it seems that... the centre is what is organising... everything into a whole.

K: Yes.
10:16 B: One feels one wants a centre... to bring everything to a whole, to stop the fragmentation.
10:22 K: Yes, try to bring about integration... try to make wholeness and all that.
10:27 S: Right. If you feel the fragmentation... then you centre here and say... 'I can see all the fragmentations' - but that's still centre.
10:34 K: No, but I am asking whether when there is a centre... doesn't it make for fragments?
10:41 S: That I see. I see what you are saying. But I'm trying to take it from... What is the experience when there is fragmentation?. There doesn't seem to be a centre.

K: Contradiction.
10:54 S: Right. But it doesn't feel like a centre.
10:58 K: No. Contradiction. When there are fragments... I am aware of the fragments... because of contradiction.

S: Right.
11:06 K: Because opposing factors.
11:09 B: You mean by contradiction also conflict…
11:12 K: Conflict. Out of contradiction there is conflict. Then I am aware that there are fragments. I am working in an area of fragments.
11:23 S: Right. But then, yes, then I'm not aware of the fact... that I have in fact got a centre. That's the self-deception, right there.
11:36 K: No - don't you think, if I may suggest... that where there is conflict... then only you are aware of a conflict, of contradiction. That is, one is aware only when there is conflict. Right? And then the next awareness, the next movement is… conflict arises out of fragmentation... opposing elements... opposing desires, opposing wishes, opposing thoughts.
12:25 B: But are you saying that... these oppose first before one is aware... and then suddenly you are aware through the unpleasantness... or the pain of the opposition that the conflict is unpleasant?
12:38 K: Yes, conflict is unpleasant and therefore one is aware...
12:42 B: ...that something is wrong.

K: Wrong. Yes.
12:46 B: Something is wrong, not just simply wrong... but wrong with the whole thing.
12:51 K: Of course. Sir, after all, self-consciousness... You are aware of yourself only... when there is pain or intense pleasure... otherwise you are not aware of yourself. So fragmentation with its conflict brings this sense of... I'm aware, I'm in conflict - otherwise there's no awareness.
13:29 S: Yes... you are saying that the very fragmentation itself... breeds the centre.

K: Breeds the centre.
13:38 S: And the centre has bred the fragmentation, so it's like a...
13:41 K: Yes, back and forth.

S: Right.
13:44 B: Would you say that thought in itself before there is a centre... breeds conflict? Or is there thought before a centre?
13:52 K: Oh, thought before the centre.
13:56 B: Yes. One view is to say that the centre and thought... are always co-existent and one breeds the other.
14:02 K: One breeds the other, quite.
14:04 B: The other view is to say that there might be thought first... and that produces conflict and then that produces a centre.
14:11 K: Let's go into that a little bit.

B: Yes.
14:13 S: (Laughs) That's a good one.
14:19 K: Does thought exist before conflict?
14:23 B: Before a centre.

K: Before the centre. One is aware of the centre only when there is conflict.
14:30 B: Yes, because that comes in apparently... to try to bring about wholeness again... to take charge of everything.
14:36 K: The centre tries to take charge, or try to create wholeness.
14:41 B: Yes, to bring all the factors together.
14:43 K: But centre itself is a fragment.
14:46 B: Yes, but it doesn't know that.
14:48 K: Of course, it doesn't know but it thinks it can bring... all the fragments together, make it a whole. So Dr. Bohm is asking the question which is... Did thought exist before the centre... or the centre existed before the thought?
15:05 B: Or the two together?

K: Or the two together.
15:09 S: Right. He's also asking, does thought create the centre?
15:13 K: Thought creates the centre…
15:14 S: That would be the action, the very creation... a sort of an after-effect of the thought. In other words, is the organism - is the production of thought... the very cause of a centre? That I think carries it because then...
15:32 K: Yes, let's be clear on this point too. Are we asking, did thought create the centre?
15:41 B: Yes, and was there a kind of thought before a centre?
15:44 K: Yes. Thought before the centre. That's it.
15:47 B: Which came into contradiction.
15:49 K: Yes, thought created the centre... or the centre existed before the thought…
15:55 B: Or else the centre was... - that's a view which is common... people think the centre is me who was first.
16:02 K: Me is the first.
16:03 B: And then I began to think, right?
16:06 K: No, I think thought exists before the centre.
16:10 S: Yes, then we have to ask the question... maybe not at this minute... of why is there thought, what is thought?
16:20 K: Oh, that's a different matter. Do we go into that?
16:23 B: That might be a long story.
16:25 S: Yes, I don't think that's for now. But we have to get at that.

K: No…
16:28 S: Let's stay with what we started with.
16:32 K: Yes, we started out asking... Can we talk about the wholeness of life? How can one be aware of... that wholeness if one is fragmented? That's the next question. You can't be aware of the whole... if I'm only looking through a small hole.
16:58 S: Right. But on the other hand, in actuality you are the whole.
17:04 K: Ah! That is a theory.
17:08 S: Is it? That's where…
17:09 B: A supposition, yes.

K: Of course when you are fragmented... how can you assume that you are the whole?
17:16 S: Well, that's a wonderful… That's an issue because... How am I to know I'm fragmented?
17:25 K: That's what we are asking.

S: Yes.
17:27 K: When are you aware that you are fragmented? Only when there is conflict.
17:33 S: Right, that's right.
17:36 K: When there are two opposing desires... opposing elements of movements... then there is conflict... then you have pain or whatever it is... and then you become conscious.
17:51 S: Right, but at those moments... it often times happens that you don't want... to let go of the conflict. You feel your fragmentation...
17:57 K: No, that's a different matter.

S: Right.
18:00 K: What we are asking is... Can the fragment dissolve itself... and then only it's possible to see the whole. You cannot be fragmented and then wish for the whole.
18:17 S: Right. All you really know is your fragmentation.
18:21 K: That's all we know. Therefore let's stick to that... and not beat round the bush and say... 'Let's talk about the whole' and all the rest of it.
18:34 B: The supposition that... there's a whole may be apparently reasonable... but as long as you are fragmented you could never see it. It would be just an assumption.
18:44 S: Right, right.
18:45 B: You may think you have experienced it once... but that's also an assumption... because that's gone already...
18:50 K: Absolutely. Quite right.
18:53 S: I wonder if there's not a tremendous pain... or something that goes on... when I'm aware of my fragmentation. That's the loneliness somehow…
19:04 K: Look sir, can you be aware of your fragments? That you are an American... that I am a Hindu, you are a Jew, Communist... you just live in that state. You don't say, 'Well, I know I'm a Hindu'. It's only when you are challenged... it's only when, say 'What are you?', then you say... 'Yes, I'm an Indian', or a Hindu, or an Arab.
19:35 B: When the country is challenged then you have to go to war.
19:39 K: Of course.

S: Right. So you are saying that I'm living totally reactively.
19:49 K: No, you are totally living in a kind of - what? miasma, confusion.
19:56 S: From one piece to the next... from one reaction to the next reaction.
20:01 K: Reward and punishment, in that movement. So, can we be aware, actually now... now! - of the various fragments? That I'm a Hindu, that I'm a Jew... that I'm an Arab, that I'm a Communist... that I'm a Catholic, that I'm a businessman, I'm married... I have responsibilities, I'm an artist, I'm a scientist... you follow? - this various sociological fragmentation.
20:37 S: Right.
20:38 K: As well as psychological fragmentation.
20:41 S: Right. That's exactly what I started with. This feeling that I'm a fragment, this feeling that… that's where I get absorbed, this being a fragment...
20:52 K: Which you call the individual.
20:54 S: That I call important! not just the individual.
20:57 K: You call that important.

S: Right. That I have to work.
21:02 K: Quite.

S: That it's significant.
21:05 K: So can we now in talking over together... be aware that I'm that? I'm a fragment and therefore... creating more fragments, more conflict... more misery, more confusion, more sorrow... because when there is conflict... it affects everything.

S: Right.
21:31 K: Can you be aware of it as we are discussing?
21:39 S: I can be aware as we are discussing it a little.
21:42 K: Aha, not a little.

S: That's the trouble. Why can't I be aware of it?
21:51 K: No, sir. You are only aware of it when there is conflict. It is not a conflict in you now.

S: Yes.
21:59 B: Is it possible to be aware of it without conflict?
22:02 K: That's the next thing, yes. That requires quite a different…
22:07 B: How will we consider this different approach?
22:10 K: Quite a different approach.
22:13 B: I was thinking of looking at one point that... the importance of these fragments is that... when I identify myself and say 'I'm this'... I'm that', I mean the whole of me. In other words, the whole of me is rich or poor... American, or whatever... and therefore it's all-important because it's the whole. I think it seems that the trouble is that... the fragment claims that it's the whole... and makes itself very important.
22:40 S: Right, takes up the whole life. This is life.
22:43 B: Then comes a contradiction... and then comes another fragment saying it's the whole.
22:48 K: Look what is happening... in Northern Ireland, the Arab world... the Middle Eastern world, the Muslim and the Hindu... this whole world is broken up that way... outside and inside.
23:06 S: Me and you.
23:07 K: Me and you, we and they, and all the rest of it.
23:12 B: But I mean that's the difference between saying... we have a lot of different objects... in the room which are separate and so on... which we can handle.

K: That's a different thing.
23:22 B: There's no problem there. But if we say... 'I'm this, I'm wholly this'... then I also say 'I'm wholly that and I'm wholly that'.
23:29 S: You are bringing in something different there... that's exactly how it is... that we come to believe in these fragments. Because we look at objects and we say... 'they are separate things, therefore I'm a separate thing'.
23:42 K: I question that, sir. Say, for instance, the Arab and the Israeli... Are they aware that they are… I'm an Arab, I want to fight... that somebody else who is not? Or I have an idea - you follow? - idea.
24:03 B: What do you mean? An idea that I'm an Arab?
24:05 K: Yes.
24:06 B: But the idea is that that's very important as well. I'm totally an Arab.
24:11 K: Yes, I'm totally an Arab.
24:13 B: It's all-important. That's the form of the idea, isn't it?
24:16 K: Yes.
24:17 B: And now somebody else has the idea... I'm a Jew, that's all important... therefore they must destroy each other.
24:24 K: Impossible to... Quite. And I think the politicians... the religious people, are encouraging all this.
24:34 B: But they are also running by fragments…
24:36 K: Because they are fragmented themselves. You see, that's the whole point. People who are in power, being fragmented... sustain the fragmentations.
24:48 S: Right. The only way to get into power is to be fragmented.
24:51 K: Of course!
24:54 B: he says 'it's all-important that I should be a politician... successful and so on'…

K: Of course.
25:02 S: This movement into fragmentation almost... it seems to be caused by something. It seems to be...
25:17 K: Is this what you are asking... What is the cause of this fragmentation?
25:23 S: Right. What is the cause of the fragmentation, what breeds it?
25:28 K: That's very simple.

S: What sucks us into it?
25:32 K: No, what brings about fragmentation?
25:40 S: Now, you know... what brings it about, when the mother and child... when the child separates from the mother. Right?
25:51 K: Biologically.

S: No, psychologically.
25:53 K: Biologically as well as…
25:55 S: The child starts being able to walk... and the child can walk away and then... he runs back, and then he runs back... and he looks back, he says 'is she still there?' gradually moves away. Now the mother that's not able to let go says... 'Hey, come back here!' Then scares the child to death... because the child thinks I can't do it... if she says I can't do it, I can't do it.
26:19 K: Quite. No, we are asking something very important, which is... What is the cause of this fragmentation?
26:27 S: Yes. That's why I was getting into that... - there's some cause there... it begins there this 'I have got to hold on to something'.
26:36 K: No. Just look at it, sir. What has brought fragmentation in you?
26:46 S: My immediate response is the need to hold on to something.
26:50 K: No, much deeper than that. Much more. Look at it. Let's go slowly at it. Not immediate responses. What brings this conflict which indicates... I'm fragmented, and then I ask the question... what brings this fragmentation? What is the cause of it?
27:20 B: Are you saying there is a conflict... and there something happens... that causes fragmentation, in the conflict?
27:27 S: No, he's saying the fragmentation causes the conflict.
27:30 B: Is the cause of the conflict. Then what is the cause of the fragmentation? Right. That's important.
27:36 K: Why are you and I and the majority of the world fragmented? What is the source of it?
27:46 B: It seems we won't find the cause by... going back in time to a certain happening.
27:51 S: I'm not looking for genetics... I'm looking for right this second. I come upon a... it seems to do that... there is a focussing or... a holding on to something inside my movement.
28:11 K: Sir, look at it as though not from... Dr. Shainberg's point of view, just look at it. Put it on the table and look at it objectively as it were. What brings about this fragmentation?
28:29 S: Fear.

K: No, no, much more.
28:34 B: Maybe the fragmentation causes fear.
28:36 K: That's it, that's it. Why am I a Hindu? if I'm, I'm not a Hindu... I'm not an Indian, I have no nationality... but suppose I call myself a Hindu. What makes me a Hindu?
28:56 S: Well, conditioning would make you a Hindu.
29:01 K: Which is, what is the background... what is the feeling... or what is it that makes me say 'I'm a Hindu'? Which is a fragmentation, obviously. What makes it? My father, my grandfather, generations and generations... after ten thousand or five thousand years, said... 'You are a Brahmin'. And I say 'All right, I'm a Brahmin'.
29:31 S: You don't say 'All right, I'm a Brahmin' - you say 'I'm a Brahmin'.
29:35 K: I'm a Brahmin.
29:36 S: Right. That's quite different. You say 'I'm a Brahmin'... because it's like you... they work on you that way.
29:42 K: I'm a Brahmin like you saying 'I'm a Christian'.
29:44 S: Right.
29:46 K: Which is what?
29:48 S: That's tradition, conditioning, sociology, history... culture, climate, everything.
29:57 K: But behind that, what is that?
30:00 S: Behind that is man's...

K: No, no, don't theorise. Look at it in yourself.
30:10 S: That gives me a place... an identity, I know who I'm then, I have my little niche.
30:18 K: Who made that niche?
30:21 S: I made it and they helped me make it. In other words, I'm co-operating in this very...
30:25 K: You are not co-operating. You are it.
30:28 S: I'm it! Right, but I mean - that's right... the whole thing is moving toward putting me in a hole.
30:35 K: So what made you, the great great great... arrieres, grandparents... created this environment, this culture, this whole structure... of human existence, with all its misery... and with all the mess it's in... who, what has brought it about? Which is the fragmentation with all the conflict and all the…
31:02 S: The same action then is now.
31:05 K: Now. That's all I'm asking.
31:07 S: Yes. The same action that makes man now, right now.
31:09 K: The Babylonians, the Egyptians, the ancients... we are exactly the same monkeys now.
31:15 S: Right. This is what I was getting at in the beginning. This all gives me my second-hand existence.
31:28 K: Yes. Proceed. Let's go into it. Let's find out why man has bred... or brought about this state... and which we accept - you follow? gladly and... or unwillingly.

S: Love it. Love it.
31:50 K: I'm willing to kill somebody because he's a Communist... or a socialist, or whatever it is. Exactly what's going on in Northern Ireland, in the Middle East.
32:02 S: Well, everywhere, you know, doctors, lawyers...
32:05 K: Of course, of course. The same problem.
32:33 S: My sense of it is that it stops me, it closes me off... it keeps the movement, you know... it's like, the tree doesn't get in. If I know who I'm then I don't look at the tree.
32:53 K: Yes sir, but you are not answering my question.
32:58 S: I have some answers, but…
33:03 K: Is it the desire for security... biological as well as psychological security?
33:14 S: You could say yes.
33:17 K: If I belong to something... to some organisation, to some group... to some sect, to some ideological community... I'm safe there.
33:31 B: That's not clear because you may feel safe but…
33:34 K: I feel safe there. But it may not be safety.
33:37 B: Yes, but why don't I see that I'm not really safe?
33:40 K: Because I'm so - what? It's coming, you go into it, it's coming.
33:49 S: I don't see it.

K: Just look. I join a community…
33:53 S: Right. I'm a doctor.

K: Yes, you are a doctor.
33:55 S: I got all these ideas.
33:58 K: You are a doctor, you have a special position in society.
34:02 S: Right. And I got a lot of ideas of how things work.
34:05 K: You have a special position in society... and there you are completely safe - safe.
34:10 S: Right.
34:11 K: You can malpractice and all the rest of it... but you are very protected... by other doctors, the other organisations… a group of doctors… - You follow?
34:21 S: Right.

K: You feel secure.
34:24 B: But it's essential that I shouldn't... enquire too far to feel secure, isn't it? In other words, I must stop my enquiry at a certain point.
34:33 K: I'm a doctor - finished.
34:34 B: I don't ask many questions about it... but if I started to ask questions...
34:38 K: ...then you are out!
34:40 B: Then people say 'don't ask questions, that's…
34:43 K: If I begin to ask questions about my community... and my relationship to that community... my relationship with the world... my relation to my neighbour... I'm finished. - I'm out of the community. I'm lost.
34:57 S: That's right.
34:59 K: So to feel safe, secure, protected, I belong.
35:06 S: I depend.

K: I depend.
35:08 S: Right.
35:10 B: I depend wholly in some sense. If I don't have that then I feel the whole thing is sunk.
35:16 S: This is good. You see, not only do I depend but... every problem that I now have... is with reference to this dependency. I don't know from nothing about the patient, I only know about... how the patient doesn't fit into my system.
35:35 K: Quite, quite.

S: So that's my conflict.
35:37 K: (Laughs) He is your victim.
35:40 S: That's right, my victim. (laughs). He loves that…
35:46 B: It's still not clear why I should go on with it. As long as I don't ask questions I can feel comfortable... but I feel uncomfortable and I do ask... questions, very deeply uncomfortable... because the whole of my situation is challenged. But then if I look at it more broadly... I see the whole thing has no foundation... it's all dangerous. In other words... this community itself is in a mess, it may collapse. Or even if the whole of it doesn't collapse... you see, you can't count on... the academic profession anymore... they may not give money for universities...
36:25 K: Quite (laughs).
36:26 B: Everything is changing so fast... that you don't know where you are. So why should I go on with not asking questions?
36:35 K: Why don't I ask questions? Because fear.
36:38 B: Fear, but that fear is from fragmentation.
36:40 K: Of course. So is it... the beginning of this fragmentation takes place... when one is seeking security?
36:55 S: But why…
36:56 K: Both biologically as well as psychologically. Primarily psychologically, then biologically.
37:05 B: But isn't the tendency to seek... security physically built into the organism?
37:09 K: Yes, that's right. It is. I must have food, clothes, shelter. It's absolutely necessary.

S: Right.
37:21 K: And when that is threatened - say if I questioned... the Communist system altogether... living in Russia... I'm a non-person.
37:38 S: But let's go a little bit slower here. You are suggesting there that... in my need for security biologically... I must have some fragmentation.
37:51 K: No, sir. Biologically fragmentation takes place... the insecurity takes place when psychologically I want security. I don't know if I'm making myself clear. Wait a minute. If I don't psychologically belong to a group... then I'm out of that group.
38:23 S: and then I'm insecure.

K: I'm insecure. And because the group gives me security, physical security... I accept everything they give me, say to me.
38:41 S: Right.

K: But the moment I object... psychologically to the structure... of the society or the community, I'm lost. This is an obvious fact.
38:53 S: Right.

B: Yes.
38:56 S: You're suggesting then that... the basic insecurity that we live in... is being conditioned... the response to this, the answer to this... is a conditioned fragmentation.
39:12 K: Partly.

S: Partly. And that the movement of fragmentation is the conditioning.
39:19 K: Sir, look. If there was no fragmentation, both historically... geographically, nationally... no nations, we would live perfectly safely. We would all be protected, we would all... have food, we would all have - you follow? houses, there would be no wars, would be all one. He is my brother. I'm him, he is me. But this fragmentation prevents that taking place.
39:54 S: Right. So you're even suggesting more there... you are suggesting that we would help each other.
40:03 K: Naturally I would help... - obviously!
40:07 B: We're going around in a circle though still, because you say...
40:10 K: I'm not going in circles... I want to get back to something which is... if there were no nationalities... no ideological groups, and so on and so on... we would be perfectly… I mean, we would have everything we want... instead of spending on armaments... all the rest of it, proper education, all that. That's prevented because... I'm a Hindu, you are an Arab, he is a Russian... you follow? - all that's prevented. We are asking... why does this fragmentation take place? What is the source of it?
41:06 K: Is it knowledge? Yes, sir!
41:20 S: It is knowledge, you think…
41:23 K: Is it knowledge? I'm sure it is (laughs)... but I'm putting it as a question.
41:32 S: It certainly seems to be...
41:34 K: No, no - look into it. Let's find out.
41:41 S: What do you mean by knowledge? What are you talking about there?
41:45 K: The word 'to know'. Do I know you? Or... I have known you. I can never say... 'I know you' - actually. It would be an abomination to say 'I know you'. I have known you. Because you in the meantime are changing, you have... all your - you follow? there is a great... deal of movement going on in you.
42:36 K: And to say 'I know you', means... I'm acquainted or intimate... with that movement which is going on in you. It would be impudence on my part to say, 'I know you'.
42:49 S: That's right. Because not only that... that would be denying your effect on me... which is causing me, which is a change... from knowing you, from being with you...
42:57 K: So knowing, to know, is the past. Would you say that…
43:04 B: Yes, I mean what we know is the past…
43:06 K: Knowledge is the past.

B: I mean the danger is that... we call it the present. Is that it? The danger is that we call knowledge the present.
43:15 K: That's just it.

B: In other words if we said... the past is the past, then... wouldn't you say it needn't fragment?
43:25 K: What is that? Sorry.

B: If we said, if we recognised... or we acknowledged that the past is the past, it's gone... therefore what we know is the past... then that would not introduce fragmentation.
43:35 K: That wouldn't, quite right.

B: But if we say what we know... is what is present now... then we are introducing fragmentation.
43:42 K: Quite right, quite.
43:44 B: Because we are imposing this partial knowledge on the whole.
43:49 K: So would you say... knowledge is one of the factors of fragmentation? Sir, that's saying an awful - you follow? It's a large pill to swallow!
44:03 B: But also you are implying there are other factors.
44:05 K: Yes. (Laughs) And that may be the only factor.
44:12 B: But I think we should look at it... this way, people have hoped... through knowledge to overcome fragmentation…
44:17 K: Of course.
44:18 B: …to produce a system of knowledge... that will put it all together.
44:21 K: Like in Bronowsky's Ascent of Man... through knowledge, emphasising knowledge, knowledge... Is that not one of the major factors, or perhaps... the factor of fragmentation? 'My experience tells me that I'm a Hindu... my experience tells me I know what god is'.
44:49 B: Wouldn't we better say that... confusion about the role of knowledge... is what is the cause fragmentation? In other words, knowledge itself... if you say knowledge is always the cause…
44:59 K: No, I said, we began by asking...
45:02 B: Let's make it clear.
45:03 K: Of course. Sir, that's what we said yesterday in our talk... art is putting things in its right place. So I put knowledge in its right place.
45:13 B: Yes, so we are not confused about it any more.
45:15 K: Of course.

S: Right, right. You know, I was just going to bring in... this interesting example... a patient of mine was teaching me something the other day... She said, I have the feeling that as a doctor... the way you operate is, there is a group of doctors... who have seen certain kinds of patients... and if they do 'X' to them... they will get certain kind of effects... and they achieve things. She says 'you are not talking to me... you are doing this to me hoping you will get this result'.
45:44 K: Quite.

S: That's what you are saying.
45:48 K: No, a little more than that. We are saying, both Dr. Bohm and I... we are saying, knowledge has its place.
45:58 S: Let's go into that.
45:59 K: Like driving a car, learning a language and so on.
46:02 B: We could say, why is that not fragmentation? We could make it clear... in other words, if we drive a car using knowledge... that is not fragmentation.
46:10 K: But when knowledge is used psychologically...
46:14 B: One should see more clearly what the difference is. The car itself, as I see it, is a part, a limited part... and therefore it can be handled by knowledge.
46:22 S: You mean, it's a limited part of life.
46:25 B: Of life, yes. But when we say 'I am so and so'... I mean the whole of me... therefore I'm applying a part to the whole. I'm trying to cover the whole by a part.
46:33 K: When knowledge assumes it understands the whole...
46:37 B: Yes.
46:38 K: ...then begins the mischief.

B: But it's very tricky... because I'm not explicitly spelling out... that I understand the whole, but it's implicit by saying... 'I, everything is this way, or I'm this way'.
46:48 K: Quite.
46:49 B: It implies that the whole is this way. The whole of me, the whole of life, the whole of the world.
46:53 S: What Krishnaji was saying, like 'I know you'... that's how we deal with ourselves. We say 'I know this about me'... rather than being open to the new event. Or even being aware of the fragmentation.
47:06 B: Yes, about you then I shouldn't say I know all... because you're not a limited part like a machine is... that's what's implied. The machine is fairly limited and we can know all... that's relevant about it, or almost all anyway... sometimes it breaks down.
47:19 K: Quite, quite.
47:21 B: But when it comes to another person that is... immensely beyond what you could really know. The past experience doesn't tell you the essence.
47:34 K: Are you saying, Dr. Bohm, that... when knowledge spills over... into the psychological field...
47:46 B: Well, also in another field... which I call the whole in general. Sometimes it spills over into the philosophical field... when man tries to make a metaphysical view... of the whole universe.

K: That's, of course... that's purely theoretical... and that has no meaning to me personally.
48:03 B: But I mean that's one of the ways in which it does that. It goes wrong. Some people feel that... when they are discussing metaphysics... of the whole universe that's not psychological... it probably is but... the motives behind it are psychological... but some people may feel... that they are making a theory of the universe... not discussing psychology. I think it's a matter of getting the language.
48:26 K: Language, quite.
48:28 S: Well, you see this… what you are saying, or what he is saying... can be extended to the way people are... They have a metaphysics about other people... 'I know all other people are not to be trusted'.
48:40 K: Quite.

B: You have a metaphysics... about yourself saying, I'm such and such a person.
48:44 S: Right. I have a metaphysics that life... is hopeless and I must depend on these…
48:49 K: No, all that we can say is… we are fragmented... that's a fact - and I'm aware of those fragments… fragmented mind... there is an awareness of the fragmented mind... because of conflict.
49:07 S: That's right.
49:10 B: You were saying before, we have got to have an approach... where we are not aware just because of that.
49:15 K: Yes. That's right.

B: Are we coming to that?
49:17 K: Coming, yes. So from there, conflict. I say, what is the source of this conflict? The source is fragmentation, obviously. Now, what brings about fragmentation? What is the cause of this? Behind it. We said, perhaps knowledge. Knowledge, psychologically I use knowledge. 'I know myself'... when I really don't know, because I'm changing, moving. Or I use knowledge for my own satisfaction. For my position, for my success... for becoming a great man in the world. I'm a great scholar... I've read a million books and I can tell you all about it. It gives me a position, a prestige, a status. So is that it... fragmentation takes place when there is a desire... for security, psychological security... which prevents biological security.
50:42 S: Right.
50:45 K: You say, right. And therefore... security may be one of the factors. Security in knowledge used wrongly.
50:56 B: Could you say that some sort of mistake has been made... man feels insecure biologically, and he thinks... what shall I do, and he makes a mistake... in the sense that he tries to obtain... a psychological sense of security by knowledge.
51:15 K: By knowledge, yes.

S: By knowing.
51:20 B: Yes.

S: By repeating himself... by depending on all of these structures.
51:27 K: One feels secure in having an ideal.
51:30 S: Right. That's so true.
51:32 B: You see, but... I always ask... why a person makes this mistake. In other words, if thought… or if the mind had been absolutely clear... it would never have done that. Isn't that right?
51:45 S: If the mind had been absolutely clear... but we've just said... that there is biological insecurity. That's a fact.
51:53 B: But that doesn't imply that you have to delude yourself.
51:56 K: Quite right.
51:58 S: But that implies that the organism... No, that's right, but it implies that that has to be met.
52:04 B: Yes, but the delusion doesn't meet it.
52:07 S: Right. That's the nub of the issue.
52:10 K: Go on further, you can see...
52:11 S: I mean there's that biological fact... of my constant uncertainty. The biological fact of constant change.
52:20 K: That's created through psychological fragmentation.
52:27 S: My biological uncertainty?
52:29 K: Of course. I may lose my job... I may have no money tomorrow.
52:36 B: Now, let's look at that... I may have no money tomorrow. You see, that may be an actual fact, now... but the question is what happens. What would you say... if the man were clear, what would be his response?
52:49 K: You would never be put in that position.
52:52 B: He wouldn't get there in the first place. But suppose he finds himself without money.
52:58 K: He would do something.
52:59 B: He will do something. His mind won't just go to pieces.
53:02 K: Go in nightmarish circles.
53:04 S: He won't have to have all the money he thinks he has to have.
53:07 B: But aside from that he won't go into this well of confusion.
53:09 K: No, absolutely.
53:11 S: I mean the problem 99% of the time, is that... we all think we need more... we have this ideal of what we should have.
53:18 K: No, sir. We are trying to stick... to one point, which is... What is the cause of this fragmentation?
53:26 K: We said knowledge spilling over... into the field where it should not enter.
53:33 B: But why does it do so?
53:34 K: Why does it do it? It's fairly simple.
53:37 B: Why?
53:39 K: We've got another 5, 6 minutes more. It's fairly simple. Go on, sir.
53:49 S: My sense of it is, from what we've been saying, it does it... It does it in a delusion of security. It thinks that there is… thought creates the illusion that there is security there.
54:06 B: Yes, but why doesn't intelligence show... that there is no security, it's not clear.
54:10 S: Why doesn't intelligence show it?
54:13 K: Can a fragmented mind be intelligent?
54:16 B: Well, it resists intelligence.
54:18 K: It can pretend to be intelligent.
54:21 B: Yes. But are you saying that once... the mind fragments then intelligence is gone?
54:25 K: Yes.

B: But now that...
54:27 S: He said 'yes'.
54:29 B: But now you are creating a serious problem... because you are also saying that... there can be an end to fragmentation.
54:37 K: That's right.
54:39 B: At first sight that would seem to be a contradiction. Is that clear?

K: It looks like that but it's not.
54:45 S: All I know is fragmentation. That's what I have got.
54:49 K: Let's stick to it and see if it can end. We go through it.
54:53 S: I'm…
54:54 B: But if you say the fragmented mind cannot... intelligence cannot operate there.
55:01 K: No

S: I feel like one answer... to your question is that, we've talked about it... in terms of conditioning. I feel like I'm a victim... or I'm caught by this offering. You offer me, you tell me 'Look, old boy... I think this can help you, here is a fragment, come along'. And I feel like thought does that, you know. My mother or... my father says 'Look, it's good to be a doctor'... or this one says it's good to go to do this.
55:36 K: Is psychological security more important... than biological security?
55:43 S: That's an interesting question.

K: Go on, don't make it… We've got five minutes - come to it.
55:49 S: No, well, one thing... we are convinced somehow, I think the society...
55:53 K: No, I'm asking - don't move away from the question - I'm asking... Is psychological security... much more important than physical security... biological security?

S: It isn't but it feels like it is.
56:05 K: No, no, don't move away from it. I'm asking you. Stick to it. To you.
56:10 B: Are you asking, what is the fact…
56:12 K: What is the fact.
56:13 S: I would say yes, that psychological security seems...
56:17 K: Not, now don't…

B: What is actually true?
56:20 S: Actually true, no. Biological security is more important.
56:25 K: Biological - are you sure?
56:30 S: No. I've turned it around. I think psychological security is what actually I worry about most.
56:37 K: Psychological security.
56:39 S: That's what I worry about most.
56:41 K: Which prevents biological security.
56:43 S: Right. I forget about biological security.
56:46 K: No, no. Because I'm seeking psychological security in ideas... in knowledge, in pictures, in images... in conclusions, all the rest of it... which prevents me from having... biological, physical security for me... for my son, for my children, for my brothers. I can't have it. Because psychological security says I'm a Hindu... a blasted little somebody in a little corner.
57:21 S: No question. I do feel that psychological...
57:24 K: So, can we be free of the desire to be psychologically secure?
57:36 S: That's right. That's the question.
57:39 K: Of course it is.
57:41 S: That's the nub of it.
57:46 K: Last night I was listening to some people about Muggeridge… one of them was holding, who was the chairman... and they were all talking about Ireland, various things. Each man was completely convinced, you know.
58:06 S: That's right. I sit in on meetings every week. Each man thinks his territory is the most important.
58:14 K: So, we have given… man has given more importance... to psychological security than to biological, physical security.
58:25 B: Yes, but it's not clear why he should delude himself in this way.
58:29 K: He has deluded himself... Why? The answer is there. Why? We've got two minutes more. We will have to stop…
58:39 S: Images, power…
58:40 K: No, sir, much deeper. Why has he given importance?
58:45 S: He seems to think that - we, not he - we seem to think... that's where security is, that that's most important.
58:53 K: No. Look more into it. The 'me' is the most important thing.
59:07 S: Right. That's the same thing.
59:10 K: No, no - me! my position, my happiness... my money, my house, my wife - me.
59:19 S: Me.
59:21 B: Yes. And isn't it that each person... feels he is the essence of the whole. The 'me' is the very essence of the whole. I would feel that if the 'me' were gone... the rest wouldn't mean anything.
59:30 K: That's the whole point! The 'me' gives me complete security, psychologically.
59:36 B: It seems all-important.

K: Of course.
59:38 S: All-important.

B: Yes, because people say... if I'm sad then the whole world has no meaning. Right?
59:43 S: It's not only that, but it's... I'm sad if the 'me' is not important.
59:50 K: No, I don't… We are saying the 'me'… in the 'me' is the greatest security.
1:00:00 S: Right. That's what we think.
1:00:03 K: No, not we think. It is so.
1:00:06 B: What do you mean, it is so?
1:00:07 K: In the world what is happening.

B: That's what is happening. But it's a delusion, which is happening, right?
1:00:12 K: We'll come to that later.

B: Yes.
1:00:14 S: I think that's a good point. That it's so that the 'me' is... I like that way of getting at it... - the 'me' is what is important. That's all that is!

K: That's all, psychologically.
1:00:25 S: Psychologically.
1:00:28 K: Me, my country; me, my god; me, my house, and so on...
1:00:31 S: It's very hard to let that in, you know…
1:00:33 K: So, it's twelve o'clock, we had better stop.
1:00:35 S: (Laughs) At least we have got your point.
1:00:37 B: Right.