Krishnamurti Subtitles

Is there an action not touched by thought?

Brockwood Park - 11 June 1983

Conversation with David Bohm 1

0:16 Krishnamurti: I thought
we were going to talk about
0:21 the future of man.
David Bohm: Yes.
0:38 K: Really,
when we talk about man
0:40 we are talking about humanity.
DB: The whole of mankind, yes.
0:44 K: Not the British or the French
or the Russian or the American,
0:49 but the whole of human beings.
0:52 DB: The future is interlinked
now, anyway.
0:57 K: As things are,
from what one observes,
1:04 the world has become
tremendously dangerous.
1:07 DB: Yes.
1:12 K: Terrorists, wars,
1:15 and the national divisions
and racial divisions,
1:20 some dictators who want
to destroy the world, and so on.
1:25 And also religiously,
there is tremendous separation.
1:29 DB: And I think
there is the economic crisis
1:32 and the ecological crisis.
1:34 K: Yes, ecological
and economic problems,
1:40 problems have seem to be
multiplying more and more.
1:45 So, what is the future of man?
1:50 What is the future of not only
the present generation
1:56 but the coming generation?
1:58 DB: Yes, the future looks very grim.
K: Very grim.
2:04 If you were quite young
and I was quite young,
2:09 what would we do
knowing all this,
2:14 what would be our reaction,
2:16 what would be our life,
2:22 our way of earning livelihood
and so on?
2:27 DB: Well, I have often
thought of that.
2:30 For example, I have asked myself,
would I go into science again,
2:35 and I am not at all certain now,
2:37 because science does not seem
to be relevant to this crisis.
2:42 K: No. On the contrary,
they are helping.
2:45 DB: It makes it worse.
It might help but in fact it isn't.
2:50 K: So what would you do?
2:53 I think I would stick
to what I am doing.
2:56 DB: Well,
that would be easy for you.
2:57 K: For me quite easy.
3:00 DB: But there are several problems,
of course,
3:02 I don't know if you want
to discuss them.
3:04 If a person is just starting out,
he has to make a living, right?
3:07 K: Of course.
3:10 DB: There are very few
opportunities now,
3:12 and most of these are in jobs
which are very limited.
3:19 K: And unemployment
right throughout the world.
3:24 I wonder what we would do,
3:26 knowing that the future is grim,
3:34 very depressing, dangerous,
3:38 and so uncertain.
3:43 Where would you begin?
3:46 DB: Well, I think
one would have to stand back
3:51 from all these particular
problems of my own needs
3:55 and the needs
of the people around me.
3:58 K: Are you saying one should really
forget oneself for the time being?
4:02 DB: Yes.
4:05 K: Even if I did forget myself,
4:11 and when I look at this world
in which I am going to live,
4:16 and have some kind of career
or a profession,
4:25 and the unemployment,
what would I do?
4:28 This is a problem that I think
most young people are facing.
4:33 DB: Yes, it is clear.
4:40 Well, have you something
that you would suggest?
4:44 Is there something
you could suggest?
4:55 K: I don't think
in terms of evolution.
4:59 DB: Yes, I understand that.
5:00 That is the point that I was
expecting we would discuss.
5:03 I was expecting
we would discuss that.
5:05 K: Yes. I don't think there is
psychological evolution at all.
5:10 DB: Yes. Now, we have
discussed this quite often,
5:13 so I think I understand
to some extent what you mean.
5:16 But I think the people
who are new to this,
5:19 or viewing this tape,
are not going to understand.
5:22 K: Yes, we will discuss it,
5:25 But I want to discuss
this whole question, if you will.
5:31 Why are we concerned
about the future?
5:35 Or only the whole future
is now?
5:41 DB: Yes, in some sense
the whole future is now,
5:44 but we have to make that clear.
5:47 This goes very much against
the whole way of thinking,
5:50 of the tradition of mankind
that all of us have been exposed to.
5:54 K: Mankind thinks in terms of
evolution, continuance, and so on.
5:59 DB: Maybe we could approach it
another way, that is,
6:01 evolution seems in the present era
to be the most natural way to think.
6:08 So, I would like to ask you
6:09 what objections do you have
to thinking in terms of evolution?
6:13 Could I explain a point: it has many
meanings, this word 'evolution.'
6:17 K: Of course.
6:21 We are talking psychologically.
6:23 DB: Yes. The first point is,
let's dispose of physical evolution.
6:26 K: I mean, an acorn
will grow into an oak.
6:31 DB: Also,
the species have evolved.
6:33 For example, from the plants
to the animals and to man.
6:37 K: Yes, we have taken
a million years to be what we are.
6:40 DB: You have no question
that that has happened, right?
6:43 K: No, that has happened.
DB: And it may continue to happen.
6:46 K: Yes. That is evolution.
DB: Now, that is a valid process.
6:50 K: Of course.
That is a valid natural process.
6:52 DB: Yes. It takes place in time.
K: Yes.
6:55 DB: And therefore, in that region
6:57 the past, present, and future
are important, right?
7:00 K: Yes, obviously.
7:02 I don't know a certain language,
I need time to learn it.
7:06 DB: Well, also it takes time
to improve the brain.
7:09 If the brain started out
small with this,
7:11 and then it got bigger and bigger,
that took a million years.
7:14 K: Yes, and become
much more complex, and so on.
7:19 So, all that needs time.
7:21 All that is movement
in space and time.
7:25 DB: Yes,
so you will admit physical time
7:28 and neurophysiological time.
7:30 K: Neurophysiological time,
7:31 Of course,
any sane man would.
7:33 DB: Yes, but most people
also admit psychological time,
7:37 what we call mental time.
7:39 K: Yes, that is what
we are talking about.
7:41 Whether there is such a thing
as psychological tomorrow,
7:46 psychological evolution.
DB: Or yesterday.
7:50 DB: Now, at first sight
I am afraid this will sound strange.
7:54 It seems,
I can remember yesterday,
7:57 and there is tomorrow,
I can anticipate,
7:59 and it has happened many times,
days have succeeded each other.
8:04 So, I do have
the experience of time,
8:09 from yesterday to today
to tomorrow.
8:11 K: Of course.
That is simple enough.
8:14 DB: Now, what is it
you are denying?
8:17 K: I deny
that I will be something,
8:22 become better.
8:24 DB: Now, there are two ways
of looking at that.
8:27 One way is: will I intentionally
become better because I am trying,
8:31 or secondly:
some people feel that evolution
8:33 is a kind of natural
inevitable process
8:36 in which we are being
swept along like in a current,
8:38 and we are, perhaps
becoming better or worse,
8:41 or something is happening to us.
8:44 K: Psychologically.
8:46 DB: Psychologically,
which takes time,
8:48 which may not be the result
of my trying to become better.
8:53 It may or may not be. Some people
may think one way, some another.
8:57 But are you denying also
8:58 that there is a sort of natural
psychological evolution
9:01 as there was a natural
biological evolution?
9:03 K: I am denying that, yes.
9:06 DB: Now, why do you deny it?
9:13 K: Because, first of all,
9:16 what is the psyche?
9:17 DB: Yes.
9:20 K: The me, the ego and so on,
what is it?
9:23 DB: Yes, the word 'psyche'
has many meanings.
9:25 It may mean the mind,
for example.
9:27 Now, do you mean by that
the ego is the same thing?
9:30 K: The ego.
I am talking of the ego, the me.
9:33 DB: Now, some people who are
thinking of evolution are thinking
9:37 there will be an evolution
in which the me is transcended.
9:41 That is, that it will rise
to a higher level.
9:46 K: Yes,
does transition need time?
9:48 DB: A transcendence, a transition.
K: Yes.
9:51 That is my whole question.
DB: Yes.
9:53 So, there are two questions:
one is, will the me ever improve?
9:56 That is one argument.
And another argument is:
9:58 even if we suppose
we want to get beyond the me,
10:02 can that be done in time?
10:04 K: That cannot be done in time.
10:06 DB: Yes, now we have
to make it clear why not.
10:09 K: Yes, I will.
We will go into it.
10:13 What is the me?
10:17 If the 'psyche' has such
different meanings,
10:21 the me is the whole movement
10:26 which thought has brought about.
10:32 DB: Why do you say that?
10:34 K: The me is the consciousness,
10:40 my consciousness.
10:41 The me is my name, form,
10:44 and all the various experiences
that I have had,
10:47 remembrances, and so on.
10:50 The whole structure of the me
is put together by thought.
10:56 DB: Yes, well,
that again would be something
10:58 which some people
might find it hard to accept.
11:02 K: Of course,
we are discussing this.
11:04 DB: But I mean also
to try to bring it out.
11:06 Now, the first experience,
11:10 the first feeling
I have about the me
11:11 is that the me is there
11:14 and that the me is thinking.
11:16 K: Is the me independent
of my thinking?
11:20 DB: Well, my own first feeling
11:21 is the me is there
independent of my thinking,
11:23 and it is the me
that is thinking.
11:26 Like,
I am here and I could move,
11:27 I could move my arm or I could think
or I could move my head.
11:30 K: Yes.
11:32 DB: Now, is that an illusion?
11:37 K: No.
DB: Why?
11:43 K: When I move my arm,
11:46 there is the intention
to grasp something,
11:50 to take something,
to put something.
11:54 First, it is the movement
of thought,
11:59 and that makes the arm move,
and so on.
12:05 My contention is
12:07 – and I am ready to accept it
as false or true –
12:12 that thought is the basis
of all this.
12:16 DB: Yes.
Your contention is that
12:19 the whole sense of the me
and what it is doing
12:21 is coming out of thought.
12:23 Now, what you mean
by thought though,
12:24 is not merely
intellectual thought.
12:26 K: No, of course not.
DB: But what more?
12:29 K: Thought is the movement
of experience, knowledge,
12:35 memory, and thought.
12:37 It is this whole movement.
12:38 DB: It sounds to me as if you mean
the movement of consciousness
12:41 as a whole.
K: As a whole, that is right.
12:48 DB: You are saying that
that the movement is the me, right?
12:52 K: The whole content
of that consciousness is the me.
12:58 That me is not different
from my consciousness.
13:07 DB: I think one could say
that I am my consciousness,
13:10 because if I am not conscious
I am not here, right?
13:13 K: Of course.
DB: Now,
13:14 is consciousness nothing but,
say, what you have just described,
13:18 which includes thought,
feeling, intention?
13:22 K: Intention, aspirations.
DB: Memories.
13:24 K: Memories, beliefs, dogmas,
the rituals that I perform,
13:31 like the computer
that is being programmed.
13:36 DB: That certainly
is in consciousness,
13:38 everybody would agree,
but some people would feel,
13:41 or many people would feel
that there is more to it than that,
13:43 that consciousness
may go beyond that.
13:45 K: Let's go into it.
13:48 It is,
13:50 the content of our consciousness
13:55 makes up the consciousness
– the content.
13:58 DB: Yes, I think that requires
some understanding:
14:02 the ordinary use of the word
'content' is quite different.
14:05 If you say that
the content of a glass is water,
14:10 so the glass is one thing
and the water is another.
14:15 The glass contains the water,
or the word 'content'
14:17 would suggest that something
contains it. K: All right.
14:21 Consciousness is made up
of what it has remembered:
14:27 beliefs, dogmas, rituals,
14:30 the nationalities, fears,
pleasures, sorrow.
14:35 DB: If all that were absent,
would there be no consciousness?
14:42 K: Not as we know it.
14:43 DB: But there would still be
a kind of consciousness?
14:45 K: A totally different kind.
14:47 DB: Then I think
you really mean to say
14:49 that consciousness, as we know it,
is made up...
14:51 K: I said that. Consciousness,
as we know it, is all that.
14:55 DB: As we generally know it.
K: Yes.
14:58 And that is the result
of multiple activities of thought.
15:08 K: Thought has put all this together
which is my consciousness:
15:12 the reactions, the responses,
15:18 the memories,
the remembrances,
15:23 extraordinarily complex
intricacies, subtleties.
15:29 All that makes up consciousness.
15:36 DB: As we know it, right?
15:38 K: I have said that.
As we know it.
15:44 Whether that consciousness
has a future?
15:48 DB: Yes.
Does it have a past?
15:51 K: Of course,
its remembrances.
15:53 DB: Why do you say
it has no future then?
15:56 K: If it has a future it will be
exactly the same kind of thing,
15:59 moving.
16:01 The same activities,
same thoughts, modified,
16:08 but the pattern will be repeated
over and over again.
16:14 DB: Are you saying that
thought can only repeat?
16:17 K: Yes.
DB: But there is a feeling that
16:19 thought can develop new ideas,
for example.
16:23 K: But thought being limited,
because knowledge is limited.
16:30 If you admit that knowledge
will always be limited.
16:38 DB: Yes, well, that again
might require some discussion.
16:42 K: Of course,
we must discuss it.
16:45 DB: Now, why do you say
knowledge is always limited?
16:48 K: Because you, as a scientist,
16:52 you are experimenting,
adding, searching,
16:57 so you are adding,
17:02 and after you
some other person will add more.
17:05 So knowledge, which is born
of experience, is limited.
17:10 DB: Yes, some people
have said it isn't.
17:12 They would hope
to obtain perfect knowledge,
17:14 or absolute knowledge
of the laws of nature.
17:20 K: The laws of nature is not
the laws of the human being.
17:25 DB: Well, would you want
to restrict the discussion
17:27 to knowledge about the human being?
K: Of course,
17:29 that is what
we are talking about.
17:31 DB: Even there you could question
whether that knowledge of nature
17:32 is possible, too.
17:34 K: We are talking about
the future of man.
17:37 DB: All right,
so we are saying that
17:39 man cannot obtain
unlimited knowledge of the psyche.
17:44 Is that what you mean?
K: Yes, that is right.
17:46 DB: There is always more
that is unknown.
17:48 K: Yes, there is
more and more unknown.
17:54 K: So, if once we admit
that knowledge is limited,
17:58 then thought is limited.
18:00 DB: Yes, thought
depends on knowledge,
18:04 and the knowledge
does not cover everything,
18:08 therefore thought will not be able
to handle everything that happens.
18:12 K: That is what the politicians
and all the other people are doing.
18:16 They think thought
can solve every problem.
18:19 DB: You can see
in the case of politicians
18:21 that knowledge is very limited,
18:24 in fact it is almost
18:30 Therefore when you lack
the adequate knowledge
18:32 of what you are dealing with,
you create confusion. K: Yes.
18:36 So then,
as thought is limited,
18:44 our consciousness,
18:48 which has been put together
by thought, is limited.
18:53 DB: Can you make it clear?
18:55 That means we can only repeat,
stay in the same circle.
18:58 One of the ideas might be,
if you compare with science,
19:01 that people might think
though my knowledge is limited,
19:03 I am constantly discovering.
19:05 K: But what you discover
19:09 is added to,
but is still limited.
19:13 DB: It is still limited.
That is the point.
19:16 I think one of the ideas behind
a scientific approach is that,
19:20 though knowledge is limited,
19:22 I can discover and keep up
with the actuality.
19:25 K: But that is also limited.
DB: My discoveries are limited.
19:30 And there is always the unknown,
which I have not discovered.
19:33 K: That is why I am saying,
the unknown, the limitless,
19:36 cannot be captured
by thought.
19:39 DB: Yes.
19:41 K: Because thought
in itself is limited.
19:47 If you and I agree to that,
19:51 not only agree,
but it is a fact.
19:56 DB: Perhaps we should
bring it out still more.
19:57 That is, thought is limited
even though
20:01 one may easily verbally admit
thought is not limited,
20:04 there is a very strong
20:07 K: Feeling.
DB: A tendency to feel that way,
20:10 that thought can do anything.
20:13 K: It can't.
20:14 See what it has done
in the world.
20:16 DB: Well, I agree that
it has done some terrible things,
20:18 but that doesn't prove
that it is always wrong.
20:21 Maybe you could always blame it on
the people who have used it wrongly.
20:25 K: I know,
that is a good old trick!
20:27 But thought in itself
is limited,
20:32 therefore whatever it does
is limited.
20:35 DB: Yes, and it is limited
in a very serious way,
20:38 is what you are saying.
20:40 K: That is right. Of course,
in a very, very serious way.
20:44 DB: Could we bring that out,
say what that way is?
20:46 K: That way is
what is happening in the world.
20:50 DB: All right.
Let's look at that.
20:51 K: The totalitarian ideals
20:55 – it is the invention
of thought.
20:58 DB: We could say that
the very word 'totalitarian'
21:02 means they wanted to cover
the totality, but they couldn't.
21:05 They couldn't,
the thing collapsed.
21:07 K: It is collapsing.
21:09 DB: But then there are those
who say they are not totalitarians.
21:14 K: The democrats, etc.
21:16 The republicans and the democrats
and the idealists and so on,
21:20 all their thinking is limited.
21:23 DB: Yes.
But it is limited in a way...
21:27 K: That is very destructive.
21:28 DB: That is very serious
and destructive.
21:30 In what way
could we bring that out?
21:33 I could say,
ok, my thought is limited,
21:35 but it may not be
all that serious.
21:38 You see,
why is it so important?
21:40 K: That is fairly simple.
21:43 Because whatever action
is born of limited thought
21:47 must breed conflict
– inevitable.
21:53 Like dividing humanity
21:57 geographically into nationalities
and so on and so on,
22:02 religiously,
has created havoc in the world.
22:06 DB: Yes, now let's connect that
with the limitation of thought.
22:09 That is, my knowledge is limited.
K: We said that.
22:13 DB: How does that lead me
to divide the world...
22:21 K: Aren't we seeking security?
DB: Yes.
22:25 K: And we thought there was
security in the family,
22:30 security in the tribe,
22:33 security in nationalism.
22:37 So we thought there is
security in division.
22:40 DB: Yes. Now it has come out.
22:43 Take the tribe, for example,
say one may feel insecure,
22:47 one then says,
with the tribe I am secure.
22:51 That is a conclusion.
22:52 And I think I know enough
to be sure that is so, but I don't.
22:55 Other things happen
that I don't know,
22:58 which make that very insecure.
Other tribes come along.
23:00 K: No, the very division
creates insecurity.
23:04 DB: It helps to create it, yes,
but I am trying to say,
23:06 I don't know enough
to know that.
23:10 I don't see that.
23:12 K: But one doesn't see it
23:15 because one has not
thought about anything,
23:17 looked at the world as a whole.
23:22 DB: The thought
which aims at security
23:24 attempts to know
everything important.
23:28 It assumes it knows
everything important
23:30 and then it says,
this will bring security.
23:32 Now, not only there are a lot
of things it doesn't know,
23:34 but one thing it doesn't know
23:35 is that this very thought
itself is divisive.
23:38 K: Divisive, yes.
23:41 DB: Because I define an area
which is secure,
23:44 divided from another area.
23:45 K: Because in itself it is limited.
DB: Yes.
23:49 K: Anything that is limited
must inevitably create conflict.
23:56 DB: Well, you mean
any thought that is...
23:59 K: If I say, I am an individual,
it is limited.
24:03 DB: Yes.
24:05 K: I am concerned with myself,
that is very limited.
24:08 DB: Yes,
we have to get this clear.
24:10 If I say, this is a table,
which is limited,
24:12 it creates no conflict, right?
24:14 K: No.
There is no conflict there.
24:16 DB: When I say, this is me,
that creates conflict.
24:19 K: Yes.
The me is a divisive entity.
24:23 DB: Let's see more clearly why.
24:27 K: Because it is separative,
24:30 it is concerned with itself.
24:35 The me identifying
with the greater nation
24:39 is still divisive.
24:42 DB: Yes, well, I define myself
in the interest of security,
24:46 so that I know what I am
as opposed to what you are,
24:49 and I protect myself.
24:51 Now, this creates a division
between me and you.
24:57 K: We and they, and so on.
25:00 Now, that comes from my limited
thought because I don't understand
25:03 that we are really closely related
and connected.
25:06 K: That we are human beings.
DB: Yes, we are all human beings.
25:09 K: All human beings have
more or less the same problems.
25:13 DB: No, I haven't understood that,
my knowledge is limited,
25:17 I think that we can
make a distinction
25:19 and protect ourselves, or me,
and not the others.
25:22 K: Yes, that is right.
25:23 DB: But in the very act
of doing that, I create instability.
25:27 K: Yes, that is right.
DB: Insecurity.
25:33 So, if we see that,
25:38 not merely intellectually
or verbally but actually feel it,
25:42 that we are
the rest of humanity,
25:47 then the responsibility
becomes immense.
25:50 DB: Yes, well, how can you do
anything about that responsibility?
25:54 K: Then I either contribute
to the whole mess
25:58 or keep out of it.
26:01 That is to be at peace,
26:05 to have order in oneself.
26:09 DB: I didn’t understand.
K: I will come to that.
26:11 I am going too far.
26:15 DB: I think we have touched
on an important point
26:17 that we say the whole of humanity,
of mankind is one,
26:21 and therefore to create
division there is destructive.
26:25 K: Is dangerous.
26:27 Now, whereas to create division
between me and the table
26:30 is not dangerous, because
in some sense we are not one.
26:33 K: Me and the trees, of course.
26:35 DB: That is only in some very
general sense that we are one.
26:38 Now, mankind doesn't realise
that it is all one.
26:42 K: Why?
DB: Well, let's go into that.
26:46 This is a crucial point.
26:47 It is clear it doesn't
because there are so many divisions,
26:50 and not only nations and religions
but from one person to another.
26:53 K: I know.
Why is there this division?
26:56 DB: The first was the feeling,
at least in the modern era,
26:59 that every human being
is an individual.
27:03 This may not have been
so strong in the past.
27:05 K: That is what I question.
27:06 I question altogether
whether we are individuals.
27:12 DB: Yes, well,
that is a big question.
27:14 K: Of course.
27:16 We said just now,
27:22 the consciousness,
which is me,
27:26 is similar
to the rest of mankind.
27:30 They all suffer,
27:34 they all have fears,
27:37 they are all insecure,
27:39 they have their own
particular gods and rituals,
27:43 all put together by thought.
27:46 DB: Yes, well,
27:50 there are two questions here:
27:51 one is, not everybody feels
that he is similar.
27:54 Most people feel they have
some unique distinction.
27:59 K: What do you mean
unique distinction?
28:02 Distinction in doing something?
28:04 DB: There may be many things.
For example,
28:06 one nation may feel
that it is able
28:08 to do certain things
better than another.
28:10 One person has some special things
he does, or qualities. K: Of course.
28:17 You are more intellectual
than I am.
28:20 You are somebody else,
better, this and that.
28:22 DB: He may take pride in his own
special abilities or advantages.
28:28 K: But when you put that away,
basically we are the same.
28:32 DB: Yes. We have to say
what does it mean.
28:34 You are saying that these things
which you have just described...
28:37 K: Are superficial.
28:39 DB: Now, the things
that are basic are what?
28:41 K: Is fear, sorrow, pain,
anxiety, loneliness,
28:46 and all the human travail.
28:49 DB: Many people might feel
that the basic things
28:52 are the highest achievements
of man,
28:55 the highest achievements
of mankind are not these.
28:57 K: What has he achieved?
DB: Let's discuss it.
29:03 DB: I understand
that we discussed this often,
29:05 but I think we must
bring it out.
29:09 K: Yes, let's go into it.
29:12 What have we achieved?
29:13 DB: Well, for one thing
29:14 people may feel proud of
the achievement of man
29:17 in science, in art,
in culture, in technology.
29:20 K: We have achieved in all those
directions, certainly we have.
29:23 Vast technology,
29:28 travel, medicine, surgery
29:33 has advanced tremendously.
29:35 DB: Yes, it is really remarkable
in many ways.
29:38 K: There is no question about it.
29:42 What have we
psychologically achieved?
29:46 DB: Yes, one point is to say,
29:47 none of this has affected us
29:50 and the psychological question
29:51 is more important
than any of the others,
29:53 because if the psychological
question is not cleared up,
29:56 the rest is dangerous.
29:59 K: Quite right.
30:00 If we psychologically
are limited,
30:04 then whatever we do
will be limited,
30:06 and the technology will then
be used by our limited...
30:10 DB: Yes, the master
is this limited psyche
30:13 and not the rational structure
of technology.
30:20 And in fact technology then becomes
a dangerous instrument.
30:27 So that is one point, that the
psyche is at the core of it all,
30:31 and if the psyche is not in order
then the rest is useless.
30:39 Now, the second question is
– although we are saying that
30:44 there are certain basic disorders
in the psyche, or lack of order,
30:47 which is common to us all,
30:49 we may all have a potential
for something else –
30:54 but the second point is:
are we all one, really?
30:59 That is, even though
we are all similar,
31:01 that doesn't say we are
all the same, we are all one.
31:03 K: We said, in our consciousness
31:10 we have the same ground
on which we stand.
31:13 DB: Yes.
31:16 From the fact, I would say
the human body is similar,
31:19 it doesn't prove
they are all the same.
31:21 K: Of course, not.
Your body is different from mine.
31:23 DB: Yes, we are in different places,
and different entities and so on.
31:26 I think you are trying to say
31:28 that the consciousness is not
an entity which is individual.
31:32 The body is an entity
which has a certain individuality.
31:35 K: That is right.
That is all seems so clear.
31:39 DB: It may be clear.
But I think...
31:43 K: Your body
is different from mine.
31:46 DB: Yes.
31:48 K: I have a different name
than you.
31:50 DB: Yes,
well we are so different,
31:51 though similar material,
it is different, we can't exchange.
31:55 K: No, we can't.
DB: Because the proteins in one body
31:58 may not agree
with those in the other.
31:59 Now, many people feel that way
about the mind,
32:01 saying that there is a chemistry
between people
32:04 which may agree or disagree.
32:05 K: But actually,
if you go deeper into the question,
32:11 consciousness is shared
by all human beings.
32:15 That is my whole point.
32:17 DB: Yes. Now, the feeling is that
the consciousness is individual
32:21 and that it is communicated
as it were, that it is...
32:26 K: I think that is an illusion
32:27 because we are sticking
to something that is not so.
32:33 DB: Do you want to say that there
is one consciousness of mankind?
32:36 K: It is all one. DB: It is all one,
and that is important
32:39 because whether it is many
or one is a crucial question.
32:43 Now, it could be many
which are then communicating
32:46 and building up a larger unit.
32:50 Or you are saying, from the very
beginning it is all one?
32:52 K: From the very beginning
it is all one.
32:54 DB: And the sense of separateness
is an illusion, right?
32:58 K: That is what I have said
over and over again.
33:03 That seems so logical, sane.
33:07 The other is insanity.
33:12 DB: One doesn't immediately feel
33:13 that the notion of
separate existence is insane,
33:17 because one extrapolates
from the body to the mind.
33:20 One says, it is quite sensible to
say my body is separate from yours
33:23 and inside my body is my mind.
33:26 K: Of course.
33:27 DB: Now, are you saying
the mind is not inside the body?
33:30 K: Now, that is quite
a different question.
33:33 Let's finish
with the other first.
33:36 If each one of us thinks that we are
separate individuals, psychically,
33:45 what we have done in the world
is a colossal mess.
33:49 DB: If we think we are separate
when we are not separate,
33:51 then it will clearly be
a colossal mess.
33:53 K: That is what is happening.
33:56 Each one thinks he has to do
what he wants to do,
33:59 fulfil himself.
34:07 So he is struggling in his
separateness to achieve peace,
34:13 to achieve security,
34:14 which that security and that peace
is totally denied.
34:19 DB: The reason it is denied
is because there is no separation.
34:22 If there were really separation
34:24 it would be a rational thing
to try to do.
34:26 K: Yes, actual.
34:27 DB: But if we are trying to separate
what is inseparable
34:30 the result will be chaos.
K: That is right.
34:32 DB: Now, that is clear,
34:34 but I think that it will not be
clear to people immediately
34:37 that the consciousness of mankind
is one inseparable whole.
34:42 K: Yes, sir,
34:44 inseparable whole,
absolutely right.
34:49 DB: Many questions will arise
if you once even consider the notion
34:52 – I don't know if we have gone
far enough into this yet.
34:57 One question is,
why do we think we are separate?
35:00 K: Why?
35:04 Why do I think I am separate?
35:06 That is my conditioning.
35:08 DB: Yes, but how did we ever adopt
such a foolish conditioning?
35:13 K: From childhood
– it is mine, my toy, not yours.
35:18 DB: Yes,
but the first feeling you get is:
35:20 I say, it is mine,
because I feel I am separate.
35:25 It isn't clear how the mind,
which was one,
35:28 came to this illusion that it is
all broken up into many pieces.
35:33 K: I think it is again
the activity of thought.
35:37 Thought in its very nature,
35:40 thought is divisive,
35:43 and therefore
I am a fragment.
35:50 DB: Thought will create
a sense of fragments.
35:54 You could see, for example, that
once we decide to set up a nation
36:00 then we will think we are separate
from the other nation,
36:01 and all sorts of consequences
36:06 which make the whole thing
seem independently real.
36:09 You have all sorts of
separate language, separate laws,
36:13 and you set up a boundary.
36:15 And after a while you see
so much evidence of separation,
36:18 that you say
you forget how it started,
36:21 and you say that was there always,
and we are merely
36:24 proceeding from
what was there always.
36:27 K: That is why I feel if once
we grasp the nature of thought,
36:34 the structure of thought,
how thought operates,
36:39 what is the source of thought,
36:41 and therefore it is always limited
– if we really see that.
36:47 DB: The source of thought is what
– is it memory?
36:49 K: Memory.
DB: Yes.
36:50 K: Memory is the remembrance
of things past, which is knowledge,
36:57 and knowledge
is the outcome of experience,
37:01 and experience
is always limited.
37:04 DB: Thought includes, of course,
also the attempt to go forward,
37:07 to use logic,
37:10 to take into account
discoveries and insights.
37:15 K: As we are saying some time ago,
thought is time.
37:18 DB: Yes, alright.
37:21 Thought is time.
37:24 That requires
more discussion too,
37:26 because the first experience
is to say time is there first,
37:29 and thought is
taking place in time.
37:33 For example, if we say
that movement is taking place,
37:38 the body is moving,
and this requires time.
37:42 K: To go from here to there
needs time.
37:45 To learn a language needs time.
37:47 DB: Yes, to grow a plant
needs time.
37:50 K: To paint a picture
takes time.
37:52 DB: We also say to think
takes time.
37:55 K: So we think in terms of time.
37:57 DB: Yes, the first point
that one would tend to look at
38:01 is to say just as everything
takes time, to think takes time.
38:06 But you are saying something else,
which is that thought is time.
38:11 That is, psychically speaking,
psychologically speaking.
38:14 K: Of course.
38:15 DB: Now, how do we
understand that?
38:22 K: How do we understand what?
38:26 DB: Thought is time.
You see, it is not obvious.
38:29 K: Oh, yes.
38:35 Would you say
thought is movement,
38:39 and time is movement?
38:45 DB: Time is a mysterious thing,
people have argued about it.
38:48 We could say
38:51 that time requires movement.
38:54 I could understand that we cannot
have time without movement.
38:58 K: Time is movement.
39:01 Time is not separate
from movement.
39:03 DB: I don't say it is separate
from movement,
39:06 but to say time is movement
39:09 – if we said time and movement
are one.
39:11 K: Yes, I am saying that.
DB: Yes.
39:13 Now, they cannot be separated.
K: No.
39:16 DB: Because that seems
fairly clear.
39:19 Now, there is physical movement,
which means physical time.
39:24 There is the heart beat
and so on.
39:25 K: Hot and cold,
and also dark and light.
39:28 DB: The seasons.
K: Sunset, sunrise, all that.
39:32 Then we have
the movement of thought.
39:33 Now, that brings in the question
of the nature of thought.
39:39 Is thought nothing but a movement
in the nervous system, in the brain?
39:43 Would you say that? K: Yes.
DB: Some people have said
39:46 it includes the movement
of the nervous system
39:48 but there might be
something beyond.
39:53 K: What is time, actually?
39:58 Actually, what is time?
40:03 Time is hope.
40:05 DB: Psychologically.
K: Psychologically.
40:07 I am talking entirely
psychologically for the moment.
40:09 DB: One tends to
keep on thinking.
40:11 K: Of course.
We have understood that.
40:15 K: Hope is time.
Becoming is time.
40:21 Achieving is time.
40:25 Now, take the question
of becoming:
40:31 I want to become something,
40:38 I want to become non-violent
– take that for example.
40:45 That is altogether a fallacy.
40:53 DB: We understand
it is a fallacy
40:58 but the reason it is a fallacy is
that there is no time of that kind.
41:03 K: No.
41:08 Human beings are violent,
41:10 and they have been
talking a great deal
41:12 – Tolstoy, and in India –
of non-violence.
41:17 The fact is we are violent.
41:20 DB: Yes.
41:22 K: And the non-violence
is not real.
41:28 But we want to become that.
41:30 DB: Yes, but it is again an
extension of the kind of thought
41:33 that we have with regard
to material things.
41:36 If you see a desert,
the desert is real,
41:39 and you say the garden
is not real
41:41 but in your mind is the garden,
41:43 which will come
when you put the water there.
41:46 So we say,
we can plan for the future
41:48 when the desert
will become fertile.
41:54 Now, we have to be careful
– we say we are violent,
41:58 but we cannot by similar planning
become non-violent.
42:02 Why is that?
42:04 K: Why?
Because the non-violent state
42:09 cannot exist
while there is violence.
42:13 DB: Yes.
42:15 K: That is an ideal.
42:19 DB: One has to make it more clear,
because in the same sense
42:22 the fertile state and the desert
don't exist together either.
42:26 I think that you are saying
that in the case of the mind,
42:31 when you are violent,
it has no meaning.
42:35 K: That is the only state.
DB: That is all there is.
42:38 K: Yes, not the other.
42:39 DB: The movement towards
the other is illusory.
42:45 K: So all ideals are illusory,
42:49 psychologically.
42:52 The ideal of building
a marvellous bridge is not illusory,
42:57 you can plan it,
42:59 but to have
psychological ideals.
43:05 DB: Yes, if you are violent
and you continue to be violent
43:09 while you are trying
to be non-violent...
43:11 K: It is so obvious.
DB: It has no meaning.
43:13 K: There is no meaning,
43:15 and yet that has become
such an important thing.
43:23 So, the becoming,
43:26 which is either
becoming 'what is'
43:30 or becoming away from 'what is.'
43:34 DB: Yes, 'what should be.'
43:38 K: I question both.
43:44 DB: If you say
there can be no sense to becoming
43:47 in the way of self-improvement.
43:51 K: Self-improvement
is something so utterly ugly.
43:57 So we are saying that
44:02 the source of all this
is the movement of thought as time.
44:10 When once we admit time
44:15 all the other ideals,
44:19 non-violence, achieving some
super state and so on,
44:24 become utterly illusory.
44:28 DB: Yes. Now, when you talk
of the movement of thought as time,
44:31 it seems to me that
44:34 that time which comes from movement
of thought is illusory. K: Yes.
44:41 DB: We sense it as time,
but it is not a real kind of time.
44:44 K: That is why we asked,
what is time? DB: Yes.
44:49 K: I need time
to go from here to there.
44:53 If I want to learn
some engineering,
44:58 I must study it, it takes time.
45:00 That same movement
is carried over into the psyche.
45:06 I say, I need time to be good.
45:13 I need time to be enlightened.
45:16 DB: Yes, that will always
create a conflict
45:18 between one part of you
and another.
45:21 So, that movement in which you say,
I need time,
45:25 also creates a division
in the psyche
45:28 between, say,
the observer and the observed.
45:32 K: That is right. We are saying
the observer is the observed.
45:35 DB: Yes, and therefore
there is no time is what is meant,
45:38 psychologically.
45:40 K: The experiencer, the thinker,
is the thought.
45:46 There is no thinker
separate from thought.
45:50 DB: Yes. All that you are saying
seems very reasonable.
45:54 I think that it goes so strongly
against the tradition,
45:57 or what we are used to,
45:59 that it will be
extraordinarily hard for people
46:02 to really,
generally speaking, to...
46:05 K: Most people, they want
a comfortable way of living.
46:10 Let me carry on as I am,
for God's sake, leave me alone.
46:15 DB: Yes, but that is the result
of so much conflict
46:18 that people are worn out
by anything.
46:24 K: But in escaping from conflict
or not resolving conflict,
46:28 conflict exists,
whether you like it or not.
46:34 That is the whole point.
46:35 Is it possible to live a life
without conflict?
46:40 DB: That is all implicit
in what has been said.
46:43 K: That is right.
46:44 DB: That the source of conflict
is thought, or knowledge,
46:47 or the past.
46:49 K: So, then one asks:
is it possible to transcend thought?
46:55 DB: Yes.
46:58 K: Or is it possible
to end knowledge?
47:03 I am putting it psychologically.
47:08 DB: We say ordinary knowledge
of objects,
47:11 of material objects
and things like that,
47:12 knowledge of science,
will continue.
47:15 K: Absolutely.
That must continue.
47:18 DB: But what you call
47:19 is what you are asking to end,
isn't it? K: Yes.
47:23 DB: On the other hand people
have said self-knowledge
47:25 – even you have said –
self-knowledge is very important.
47:28 K: Self-knowledge is important
47:29 but if I take time
to understand myself,
47:37 that is, I will understand
myself eventually,
47:42 by examination, analysis,
and so on,
47:46 watching my relationship
with others,
47:51 all that involves time.
47:56 And I say there is another way
48:00 of looking at the whole thing
without time.
48:04 Which is, when the observer
is the observed.
48:09 In that observation
there is no time.
48:13 DB: Could we go into that
48:16 For example,
if you say there is no time,
48:19 but still you feel
that you can remember
48:22 an hour ago
you were somewhere else.
48:24 In what sense can we make it
that there is no time?
48:30 K: Time is division,
48:36 as thought is division,
that is why thought is time.
48:39 DB: Time is a series of divisions
of past, present, future.
48:44 K: So, thought
is also that divisive.
48:47 So time is thought,
or thought is time.
48:53 DB: It doesn't exactly follow
from what you said,
48:57 but we have explained it.
K: Let's go into it.
49:06 DB: At first sight,
one would think
49:09 that thought makes
divisions of all kinds,
49:11 with the ruler
and with all kinds of things,
49:13 it also divides up intervals of time
– past, present and future.
49:17 Now, it doesn't follow
from just that
49:20 that thought is time.
49:23 K: Look, we said time is movement.
DB: Yes.
49:28 K: Thought is also
a series of movements.
49:31 So both are movements.
49:33 DB: So thought
is a movement, right?
49:35 A movement, we suppose,
of the nervous system.
49:41 K: You see, it is a movement
of becoming.
49:46 I am talking psychologically.
49:49 DB: But whenever you think,
49:50 something is also moving
in the blood,
49:52 in the nerves and so on.
49:55 Now, when we talk of
a psychological movement,
49:58 do you mean
just a change of content?
50:03 K: Change of content?
50:05 DB: What is the movement,
what is moving?
50:07 K: Look, I am this,
50:11 and I am attempting to become
something else psychologically.
50:15 DB: So that movement
is in the content of your thought.
50:18 K: Yes.
50:20 DB: So if you say, I am this and
I am attempting to become that,
50:22 then I am in movement, right?
K: Yes.
50:25 DB: At least, I feel
that I am in movement.
50:27 K: No, but I am –
50:30 say, for instance, I am greedy.
50:33 Greed is a movement.
50:36 DB: What kind of
a movement is it?
50:38 K: To get what I want.
DB: To get more, yes.
50:40 K: More, more, more.
50:43 It is a movement,
50:47 and I find that movement
painful, suppose,
50:55 and I try not to be greedy.
50:59 The attempt not to be greedy
is a movement in time,
51:04 is becoming.
51:06 DB: Yes, but even the greed
was becoming.
51:08 K: Of course.
51:11 K: So, is it possible
– that is the real question –
51:14 is it possible
51:18 not to become,
51:21 psychologically?
51:25 DB: It seems that that would require
that you should not be anything
51:30 psychologically.
51:31 That is, as soon as you define
yourself in any way, then...
51:36 K: No, we will define it
in a minute or two.
51:38 DB: But I meant,
if I define myself as greedy,
51:42 or I say I am greedy,
or I am this or I am that,
51:45 then either I will want
to become something else
51:47 or to remain what I am.
51:49 K: Now, can I remain what I am?
51:54 Can I remain not with non-greed
but with greed?
52:00 And greed is not different
from me,
52:04 greed is me.
52:08 DB: Yes.
52:13 The ordinary way of thinking
is that I am here,
52:15 and I could either be greedy
or not greedy,
52:19 as these are attributes
which I may or may not have.
52:21 K: But the attributes are me.
52:24 DB: Yes. That again goes
very much against
52:26 our common language and experience.
K: Of course, sir.
52:29 DB: Instead of saying that
I am my attributes,
52:31 which suggests that the thought
of attribution creates the me.
52:36 The sense of me.
52:40 K: All the qualities,
the attributes, the virtues,
52:43 the judgements and conclusions
and opinions, is me.
52:50 DB: Well, it seems to me that
this would have to be perceived
52:52 immediately as obvious.
K: That is the whole question.
52:58 To perceive the totality
of this whole movement,
53:02 instantly.
53:05 Then we come to the point
– perception.
53:10 Whether it is possible
to perceive
53:13 – it sounds a little odd,
and perhaps a little crazy,
53:17 but it is not –
53:18 is it possible to perceive
without all the movement of memory?
53:24 To perceive something directly,
53:28 without the word,
without the reaction,
53:31 without the memories
entering into perception.
53:38 DB: That is a very big question
53:39 because memory has
constantly entered perception.
53:42 K: Of course.
53:47 DB: It would raise the question:
53:48 what is going to stop memory
from entering perception?
53:51 K: Nothing can stop it.
53:53 But if I see the reason,
53:57 the rationality of the activity
of memory, which is limited,
54:04 the very perception
that it is limited,
54:09 you have moved out of it
into another dimension.
54:16 DB: It seems to me
that you have to perceive
54:18 the whole of the limitation
of memory.
54:19 K: Yes, not one part.
54:21 DB: You can see in general
that memory is limited,
54:25 but there are many ways
in which this is not obvious.
54:31 For example, many of our reactions
that are not obvious
54:35 may be memory, but we don't
experience them as memory.
54:38 Like you say, I experience me
as being there presently
54:42 and not memory.
That is the common experience.
54:46 Suppose I say
I want to become less greedy.
54:50 So, I experience greed
54:53 and I experience the urge to become
as actuality
55:00 and not merely
the result of memory.
55:01 But I say, I can remember
that I have been greedy,
55:04 but the me
is the one who remembers,
55:07 not the other way around.
55:09 That memory creates me.
55:15 K: All this really
comes down to:
55:17 can man live,
humanity live without conflict?
55:23 That really basically
comes to that.
55:27 Can we have peace
on this earth?
55:32 And the activities of thought
will never bring it about.
55:37 DB: It seems clear
from what has been said
55:39 that the activity of thought
cannot bring about peace.
55:45 Psychologically, it inherently
brings about conflict.
55:48 K: Yes, if we once really see
or acknowledge that,
55:52 our whole activity
would be totally different.
56:02 DB: Are you saying
there is an activity
56:04 which is not thought then,
which is beyond thought?
56:07 K: Yes.
56:09 DB: And which not only
is beyond thought
56:10 but which does not require
the co-operation of thought?
56:14 K: Certainly not.
56:16 DB: That is, that it is possible
for this to go on
56:18 when thought is absent?
56:23 K: That is the real point.
We have often discussed this,
56:29 whether there is anything
beyond thought.
56:34 Not something holy, sacred
– I am not talking of that.
56:36 I am talking: is there an activity
which is not touched by thought?
56:47 We are saying there is.
56:50 And that activity
is the highest form of intelligence.
56:59 DB: Well, now we have
brought in intelligence.
57:01 K: I know,
I purposely brought it in.
57:05 So, intelligence is not the activity
of cunning thought.
57:15 There is intelligence
to build a table.
57:19 DB: Intelligence can use thought,
as you have often said.
57:23 K: Intelligence can use thought,
57:25 DB: Or thought can be
the action of intelligence,
57:27 would you put it that way?
K: Yes.
57:30 DB: Or it could be
the action of memory?
57:33 K: That is it.
Either the action is born of memory,
57:36 and therefore memory is limited,
therefore thought is limited,
57:40 and it has its own activity
which then brings about conflict.
57:44 DB: Yes, I think this would
connect up
57:46 with what people are saying
about computers.
57:49 Every computer must eventually
depend on some kind of memory
57:53 which is put in
or else programmed
57:58 and that must be limited.
K: Of course.
58:03 DB: Therefore when we
operate from memory,
58:06 we are not very different
from a computer,
58:08 the other way around, perhaps,
58:09 the computer
is not very different from us.
58:13 K: A Hindu
has been programmed
58:15 for the last 5000 years
to be a Hindu,
58:18 or in this country you are
being programmed as British,
58:25 or as a Catholic
or a Protestant.
58:28 So we are all programmed
up to a certain extent.
58:32 DB: Then we could say there
58:33 you are bringing in the notion
of an intelligence
58:35 which is free of the programme,
58:37 which is creative, perhaps.
K: Yes, that is right.
58:41 That intelligence has nothing to do
with memory and knowledge.
58:45 DB: Yes, it may act
in memory and knowledge,
58:47 but it has nothing to do
with it in its origin.
58:49 K: It may act
through memory, etc.
58:51 That is right.
58:57 How do you find out
whether it has any reality,
59:00 not just imagination
and romantic nonsense,
59:04 how do you find out?
59:07 To come to that
one has to
59:12 go into the whole question
of suffering,
59:15 whether there is an ending
to suffering,
59:19 and as long as suffering and fear
and the pursuit of pleasure exist
59:23 there cannot be love.
59:26 DB: Well, there are
many questions there now.
59:30 The first point is suffering
including pleasure, fear,
59:35 and I suppose we could include anger
and violence and greed in there.
59:41 We are saying first of all,
59:44 that all those
are the response of memory.
59:48 They are nothing to do
with intelligence.
59:50 K: They are all
part of thought and memory.
59:52 DB: And that as long as
they are going on,
59:54 it seems to me, that intelligence
cannot operate in thought,
59:59 or through thought.
1:00:00 K: So there must be
freedom from suffering.
1:00:04 DB: Yes,
that is a very key point.
1:00:06 K: That is really a very serious
and deep question.
1:00:13 Whether it is possible
to end suffering,
1:00:16 which is the ending of me.
1:00:22 DB: Yes, again,
it may seem repetitious but
1:00:26 the feeling is that I am there,
and I either suffer or don't suffer.
1:00:29 That is, I either enjoy things
or suffer.
1:00:32 K: Yes, I know that.
DB: Now,
1:00:37 I think you are saying that
suffering arises from thought,
1:00:41 DB: it is thought.
K: Identified.
1:00:45 Attachment.
1:00:48 DB: So what is it that suffers?
1:00:49 There is this feeling –
1:00:51 it is really the opposite of the
feeling of pleasure it seems to me.
1:00:57 Memory may produce pleasure
and then when it doesn't work,
1:01:02 when it is frustrated,
it produces pain and suffering.
1:01:05 K: Not only that – suffering
is much more complex, isn't it?
1:01:14 What is suffering?
1:01:19 The meaning of that word
is to have pain,
1:01:26 to have grief,
1:01:29 to feel utterly lost, lonely.
1:01:33 DB: It seems to me
that it is not only pain,
1:01:35 but a kind of a total pain,
1:01:38 very pervasive.
1:01:42 K: Suffering
is the loss of someone.
1:01:46 DB: The loss of something
very important.
1:01:48 K: Yes, of course.
Loss of my wife or loss of my son,
1:01:52 brother,
or whatever it is,
1:01:55 and the desperate sense
of loneliness.
1:02:01 DB: Yes, or else
just simply the fact that
1:02:07 the whole world
is going into such a state.
1:02:09 K: Of course.
I mean, all the wars.
1:02:12 DB: It makes everything
1:02:14 K: What a lot of suffering
the Falklands War has created.
1:02:18 DB: Yes, all these wars.
1:02:20 K: And wars have been going on
for thousands of years.
1:02:26 We are carrying on
with the same pattern
1:02:31 of the last 5000 years
or more, of wars.
1:02:38 DB: One can easily see
that the violence and hatred in wars
1:02:41 will interfere with intelligence.
K: Obviously.
1:02:44 DB: It is not quite so obvious.
1:02:46 I think some people have felt that
by going through suffering
1:02:50 DB: people become –
K: Intelligent?
1:02:52 DB: purified like metal
being refined in the crucible.
1:02:57 K: I know.
That through suffering you learn.
1:03:02 DB: Or you are purified in some way.
K: You are purified.
1:03:05 This is, through suffering
your ego is banished.
1:03:11 DB: Yes, dissolved, refined.
1:03:14 It doesn't.
People have suffered immensely.
1:03:21 How many wars,
how many tears,
1:03:25 and the destructive
nature of governments?
1:03:30 DB: Yes, they have suffered
any number of things.
1:03:33 K: Multiply them –
unemployment, ignorance, all that.
1:03:37 DB: Disease, pain, everything.
1:03:40 But, you see,
what is suffering really?
1:03:44 Why does it destroy intelligence,
or interfere, prevent it?
1:03:48 Why does suffering
prevent intelligence?
1:03:50 What is going on really?
1:03:51 K: Suffering is a shock,
1:03:57 I suffer,
1:04:00 I have pain,
1:04:02 it is the essence of the me.
1:04:05 DB: Yes, the difficulty
with suffering is that
1:04:08 it is the me that is there
that is suffering.
1:04:10 And this me is really
being sorry for itself in some way.
1:04:14 K: My suffering is different
from your suffering.
1:04:16 DB: It isolates itself, yes.
1:04:18 And it creates an illusion
of some kind.
1:04:21 K: We don't see that suffering
is shared by all humanity.
1:04:26 DB: Yes, but suppose we see
it is shared by all humanity?
1:04:30 K: Then I begin to question
what suffering is.
1:04:34 It is not my suffering.
DB: Yes, that is important.
1:04:36 In order to understand
the nature of suffering
1:04:38 I have to get out of this idea
that it is my suffering,
1:04:41 because as long as I believe
it is my suffering
1:04:43 I have an illusory notion
of the whole thing.
1:04:46 K: And I can never end it.
1:04:49 DB: If you are dealing with an
illusion you can do nothing with it.
1:04:53 Now, we have to come back.
1:04:55 Why is suffering
the suffering of humanity?
1:04:57 At first,
I feel pain in the tooth,
1:05:01 or else I have a loss,
or something has happened to me,
1:05:04 and the other person
seems perfectly happy.
1:05:07 K: But also he is suffering too
in his own way.
1:05:10 DB: Yes.
At the moment he doesn't see it,
1:05:12 but he has his problems too.
1:05:14 K: So suffering is common
to all humanity.
1:05:16 DB: But the fact that it is common
is not enough to make it all one.
1:05:20 K: It is actual.
1:05:22 DB: Yes, but I want to say,
1:05:23 are you saying that the suffering
of mankind is all one, inseparable?
1:05:27 K: Yes.
That is what I have been saying.
1:05:29 DB: As is the consciousness
of mankind.
1:05:31 K: Yes, that is right.
1:05:32 DB: That when anybody suffers,
the whole of mankind is suffering.
1:05:37 K: If one country kills hundreds
and thousands of human beings...
1:05:47 The whole point is:
we have suffered
1:05:53 from the beginning of time
we have suffered,
1:05:57 and we haven't solved it.
1:06:00 DB: That is clear
that it hasn't been solved.
1:06:02 We haven't solved it.
1:06:03 K: We haven't ended suffering.
1:06:06 DB: The thing you said, which is,
the reason we haven't solved it
1:06:09 is because we are treating it
as personal or as in a small group.
1:06:14 That is an illusion.
1:06:15 Any attempt to deal with an illusion
cannot solve anything.
1:06:20 We would like to make it
very clear.
1:06:22 K: Thought cannot solve anything,
1:06:27 DB: You can say that
the thought itself divides.
1:06:31 Thought is limited
and it is not able to see
1:06:33 that this suffering is all one.
1:06:37 And therefore it divides it up
as mine and yours and theirs,
1:06:40 and that creates illusion
which only multiplies suffering.
1:06:47 It seems to me that the statement
that suffering of mankind is one,
1:06:51 is inseparable
from the statement
1:06:53 that consciousness
of mankind is one.
1:06:55 K: We said that. Suffering
is part of our consciousness.
1:07:01 DB: But one doesn't get
the feeling immediately
1:07:03 that this suffering belongs
to the whole of mankind.
1:07:08 K: The world is me,
I am the world.
1:07:10 DB: Yes, you have often said that.
K: Yes.
1:07:14 But we have divided it as
British earth and French earth, etc.
1:07:18 DB: Do you mean by the world,
the physical world
1:07:19 or the world of society?
1:07:21 K: The world of society,
1:07:24 the psychological world chiefly.
1:07:27 DB: So, we say the world of society,
of human beings, is one.
1:07:33 When I say I am that world,
what does that mean?
1:07:37 K: The world is not different
from me.
1:07:39 DB: The world and I are one,
and we are inseparable. K: Yes.
1:07:45 That is real meditation,
1:07:48 you must feel this,
not just a verbal statement,
1:07:52 it is an actuality.
1:07:59 I am my brother's keeper.
1:08:05 DB: Many religions
have said that.
1:08:07 K: That is just
a verbal statement,
1:08:10 and they don't keep it,
they don't do it in their hearts.
1:08:13 DB: Perhaps some may have done it
but in general it is not being done.
1:08:17 There may have been a few.
1:08:20 K: We human beings
haven't done it.
1:08:22 Our religions actually
have prevented it.
1:08:25 DB: Because of division,
every religion has its own beliefs
1:08:28 and its own organisation.
K: Of course.
1:08:30 Its own gods
and its own saviours.
1:08:37 So, from that,
is that intelligence actual,
1:08:46 or is it some kind of
fanciful projection,
1:08:51 hoping that will solve
our problems?
1:08:59 It is not to me.
It is an actuality.
1:09:03 Because the ending of suffering
means love.
1:09:10 DB: Before we go onto that,
we may clear up a point about 'me'.
1:09:13 You said, it is not to me.
1:09:15 In some sense it seems that you are
still defining an individual.
1:09:21 K: Yes.
DB: Is that right?
1:09:23 K: When I say 'I'
1:09:25 I am using the word 'I'
as a means of communication.
1:09:31 DB: What does it mean?
1:09:35 In some way, let's say that
there may be two people,
1:09:39 A who is the way you say,
and B who is not.
1:09:42 K: Yes.
1:09:44 DB: Now, that seems to create
a division between A and B.
1:09:48 K: That is right.
1:09:49 But B creates the division.
1:09:52 So what is the relationship
between the two?
1:10:01 DB: B is creating the division
by saying, I am a separate person,
1:10:05 but it may confuse B further when
A says, it is not that way to me.
1:10:09 K: Yes, that is the whole point,
isn't it, in relationship?
1:10:15 You feel that
you are not separate,
1:10:22 and that you really have
this sense of love and compassion,
1:10:28 and I haven't got it.
1:10:31 I haven't even perceived
or gone into this question.
1:10:36 What is your relationship to me?
1:10:44 That is what I am saying:
1:10:46 you have a relationship with me,
1:10:48 but I haven't any relationship
with you.
1:10:51 DB: I think one could say
that the person who hasn't seen
1:10:56 is almost living in
a world of dreams, psychologically,
1:10:59 and therefore
the world of dreams
1:11:01 is not related to
the world of being awake.
1:11:04 But the fellow who is awake
1:11:05 can at least perhaps awaken
the other fellow.
1:11:08 K: You are awake, I am not.
1:11:11 Then your relationship
with me is very clear.
1:11:17 But I have no relationship
with you, I cannot.
1:11:23 I insist on division,
and you don't.
1:11:29 DB: Yes,
in some way we have to say
1:11:31 the consciousness of mankind
has divided itself,
1:11:34 it is all one, but it has
divided itself by thought.
1:11:38 K: That is what
we have been through.
1:11:40 DB: Yes, and that is why
we are in this situation.
1:11:43 K: That is why all the problems
that humanity has now,
1:11:47 psychologically
as well as in other ways,
1:11:52 is the result of thought.
1:11:54 And we are pursuing
the same pattern of thought,
1:11:58 and thought will never solve
any of these problems.
1:12:03 So there is another
kind of instrument,
1:12:07 which is intelligence.
1:12:10 DB: That opens up
an entirely different subject.
1:12:13 K: Yes, I know.
1:12:16 DB: And you also
mentioned love as well.
1:12:19 K: Yes, I said that.
DB: Or compassion.
1:12:22 K: Without love and compassion
there is no intelligence.
1:12:29 And that you cannot
be compassionate
1:12:31 if you are attached
to some religion,
1:12:36 if you are tied to a post
1:12:38 like an animal tied to a post,
1:12:41 and it can think
it is compassionate.
1:12:45 DB: As soon as
your self is threatened,
1:12:49 then it all vanishes.
1:12:51 what you really think
is important.
1:12:52 K: The self hides behind...
DB: Other things, noble ideals.
1:12:57 K: Yes, it has immense capacity
to hide itself.
1:13:07 So what is the future
of mankind?
1:13:16 From what one observes
it is leading to destruction.
1:13:19 DB: Well, that is the way
it seems to be going, yes.
1:13:21 K: Very gloomy, grim, dangerous.
1:13:27 And if one has children,
1:13:31 what is their future?
To enter into all this?
1:13:40 And go through
all the misery of it all?
1:13:45 So education becomes
extraordinarily important.
1:13:50 But now education is merely
the accumulation of knowledge.
1:13:56 DB: Yes, every instrument
that man has invented
1:14:00 or discovered or developed
has been turned toward destruction.
1:14:03 K: Yes. Absolutely.
1:14:06 They are destroying nature,
1:14:11 there are very few tigers now.
1:14:14 DB: Very few? K: Tigers.
They are destroying everything.
1:14:17 DB: They are destroying forests
and agricultural land.
1:14:22 Overpopulation.
1:14:25 Nobody seems to care.
1:14:29 DB: There are two things,
one is,
1:14:31 people are immersed
in their own problems.
1:14:33 K: Immersed in their own
little plans to save humanity.
1:14:38 DB: Most people are just immersed
in their plans to save themselves.
1:14:42 Those others have plans
to save humanity.
1:14:47 But I think also
there is a tendency toward despair
1:14:50 implicit in what
is happening now,
1:14:51 in that people don't think
anything can be done.
1:14:54 K: Yes.
1:14:56 And if they think
something can be done
1:14:58 they form little groups
and little theories.
1:15:03 DB: There are those who are very
confident in what they are doing
1:15:06 and those who lack confidence.
1:15:08 K: Like most prime ministers
are very confident.
1:15:12 They don't know
what they are doing really.
1:15:14 DB: But then most people
haven't much confidence
1:15:16 in what they are doing.
K: I know.
1:15:18 If you have
tremendous confidence
1:15:20 I accept your confidence
and go with you.
1:15:22 DB: Yes,
but since thought is limited...
1:15:29 K: That is, the future of man,
mankind, the future of humanity,
1:15:38 I wonder if anybody
is concerned with it.
1:15:44 Or each person, or each group,
1:15:46 is only concerned
with its own survival?
1:15:51 DB: I think the first concern is,
and almost always has been,
1:15:55 with survival in either
the individual or the group.
1:15:58 That has been
the history of mankind.
1:16:00 K: Therefore perpetual wars,
1:16:03 perpetual insecurity.
1:16:06 DB: Yes, but this is, as you said,
the result of thought,
1:16:08 which makes the mistake
on the basis of being incomplete,
1:16:12 to identify the self
with the group, and so on.
1:16:17 K: You happen to listen to all this.
You agree to all this.
1:16:21 You see the truth of all this.
1:16:23 Those in power
will not even listen to you.
1:16:28 DB: No.
1:16:30 K: They are creating
more and more misery,
1:16:32 more and more the world
becoming dangerous.
1:16:37 What is the point of you and I
agreeing, seeing something true?
1:16:42 This is what people are asking:
what is the point of you and I
1:16:47 seeing something to be true,
and what effect has it?
1:16:52 DB: Yes, well,
it seems to me that
1:16:56 if we think in terms of the effects
we are bringing in time.
1:16:59 K: Yes, and also
it is a wrong question.
1:17:02 DB: We are bringing in
1:17:03 the very thing
which is behind the trouble.
1:17:08 That is,
the first response would be:
1:17:10 we quickly must get in
and do something
1:17:11 to change the course of events.
1:17:13 K: Therefore form a society,
foundation, organisation, etc.
1:17:17 DB: But our mistake is, to do that
we must think about something,
1:17:20 and that thought is incomplete.
1:17:22 We don't really know
what is going on,
1:17:24 and people have made theories
about it, but they don't know.
1:17:27 K: Come down to it:
1:17:30 if that is a wrong question,
1:17:32 then as a human being,
1:17:38 who is mankind,
1:17:41 what is my responsibility?
1:17:47 Apart from effect, etc.
1:17:49 DB: Yes, we can't look
towards effects.
1:17:52 But it is the same as with A and B,
that A sees and B does not.
1:17:56 Now, suppose A sees something
1:18:00 and most of the rest
of mankind does not.
1:18:06 One could say mankind
is in some way dreaming, asleep.
1:18:12 K: He is caught in illusion.
1:18:14 DB: And the point is that,
1:18:19 if somebody sees something
then his responsibility
1:18:21 is to help awake the others up.
1:18:25 To get out of the illusion.
1:18:28 K: That is just it.
1:18:32 This has been the problem.
1:18:37 That is why the Buddhists
have projected
1:18:39 the idea of the Bodhisattva
who is compassionate,
1:18:44 and is the essence
of all compassion,
1:18:50 and he is waiting
to save humanity.
1:18:55 It sounds nice.
1:18:57 It is a happy feeling that
there is somebody doing this.
1:19:02 But in actuality
1:19:08 we won't do anything that is
not comfortable, satisfying, secure,
1:19:14 both psychologically
and physically.
1:19:21 DB: That is the source
of the illusion, basically.
1:19:25 K: How does one
make another see all this?
1:19:31 They haven't time,
they haven't the energy,
1:19:33 they haven't even the inclination,
they want to be amused.
1:19:36 How does one make 'X' see this
whole thing so clearly that he says,
1:19:42 All right, I have got it,
I will work.
1:19:46 I am responsible, etc.
1:19:53 I think that is the tragedy
1:19:55 of those who see
and those who don't.