Krishnamurti Subtitles home


BRGS75CB10 - Truth does not belong to an individual
Brockwood Park, UK - 27 September 1975
Conversation with David Bohm 10



0:00 This is the 10h dialogue between J. Krishnamurti and David Bohm, at Brockwood Park, 1975.
0:12 Krishnamurti: Well, sir, let’s start.
0:14 David Bohm: Well, shall we start? The point is, I think we have this session and one more, you know, this discussion and one more, and I thought...
0:23 K: Yes, one more next week. Yes, we can have one more. I don’t know, we can have another.
0:29 DB: Well, that would be rather close to your day of leaving.
0:30 K: I leave on Wednesday.
0:32 DB: Wednesday, oh, not… I see, so we might have another.
0:34 K: We will three more – two more after this.
0:38 DB: Yes. Now, it occurred to me that one thing we should try to do is to wind the discussion up by answering the questions that are outstanding, you know, that will be raised in the mind, and I have looked into some of those questions. It’s just my plan. And then at the very end I thought we might – if you think it is a good idea – I might prepare a summary and you would comment on it.
1:07 K: Good, good, let’s...
1:08 DB: And then we would have it right there, you see.
1:11 K: Quite, quite.
1:13 DB: Now let me see, I have… if you don’t mind I will just take these out and refer to them, so that... I mean, I won’t actually read them or anything. Just to refresh my memory. Now…
1:27 K: Can you read that handwriting? (Laughs)
1:31 DB: Oh yes. Yes. Now, I think one of the points we discussed at several of our discussions was what you called the process. It was called this.
1:43 K: Ah, you are on to that.
1:44 DB: Yes. I would like to clear up a few points on that which have arisen in talking with several people. I mean, I think you made it clear that each person has his own suffering, but he must stay with that until the end, you see; that everybody will be different. Is that what you meant to say? In other words, it was not necessary for other people to repeat the particular process you went through. But in saying that, some points arose which are not clear. Now, let me bring them up one by one. Now the first point is – yes – you made the analogy of Columbus discovering America, and saying it is not necessary to repeat that discovery, but now you can buy an aeroplane ticket and go to America. Now, I feel this analogy may be a little misleading because it suggested everything has been made very easy.
2:56 K: (Laughs) Yes.
2:59 DB: What would you say?
3:00 K: No, I am afraid it isn’t like that. (Laughter) The analogy is rather misleading, as you say. How shall we begin this thing properly?
3:15 DB: Yes. Let me bring up one more question connected with this. Yes, there are two more questions then, you see, along the lines of what I have just been saying. In one of the discussions you said, comparing with the discovery of America, you said that others can carry on with your discovery to discuss something more. Right? That is what you said. But still in a later dialogue you seemed to deny this analogy. You see, I brought up the analogy of the scientists – let me explain it again. Take Newton and Einstein. Now, Newton made discoveries and Einstein, learning from Newton, you know, went deeper. It doesn’t mean that he built entirely on Newton, because he had to deny a great deal of what Newton said, but still he went further.
4:07 K: I understand.
4:08 DB: Now, in some way you seem to deny that approach in this field.
4:12 K: I think that is right, sir. I deny that, that’s right.
4:16 DB: Although in one of the dialogues you seemed to affirm it, because you said others can carry on to discover something more. So in some way it seems complex.
4:30 K: Let’s go into this. First of all, sir, I really don’t know basically what is happening.
4:50 DB: In what context?
4:53 K: About this process.
4:54 DB: About the process.
4:55 K: That was your first question.
4:59 DB: Yes.
5:02 K: First of all, whether it is imaginative, an induced state, a traditional acceptance of something which has been said, or ill health, or something that is natural. So these are the points. I have gone into this question of whether it is imaginative very carefully, because I don’t like, personally, to imagine anything, about myself or about anybody. I can’t… I have no visual imaginative powers.
6:16 DB: Well, I am not sure. I mean, some of your descriptions...
6:20 K: Ah – I see it and write it.
6:22 DB: Yes.
6:23 K: That is quite different from imaginative in the sense… Let me explain. I don’t like to imagine about myself.
6:39 DB: But would you ever imagine about something else? Do you use the imagination to help you to figure something out? Well, for example, suppose you were working in science, you might find it useful to imagine a certain state of affairs.
6:55 K: Might be, but I am not a scientist.
6:57 DB: Yes. But I meant would you ever do such a thing?
6:59 K: I imagine, you mean?
7:01 DB: Not about yourself, but imagine how a certain… For example, if you wanted…
7:06 K: No, no, no. I’ve got it. I wouldn’t do that.
7:09 DB: Even say rearrange the furniture in the room, would you imagine a new state?
7:12 K: No, no, say for instance, we were discussing this afternoon about rearranging the dining room. It wasn’t imaginative. It was all so crowded and we said, ‘Suppose we put it in parallel, straight,’ you know.
7:24 DB: But isn’t that a form of imagination?
7:26 K: Is that an imagination?
7:27 DB: Well, it is because, you see, you have already imagined the parallel state of affairs.
7:31 K: No, no, I was describing to her how I would put that furniture, to see if there was more room. That is not imagination, is it?
7:40 DB: Well, it is a very difficult point. You see, many people would call it imagination.
7:44 K: I wouldn’t call it imagination. I would say, ‘Look, would it be more comfortable to put that chair there or here?’
7:56 DB: Yes, but would you imagine what it would look like there in doing that?
8:02 K: Ah, no, no, no.
8:03 DB: You don’t?
8:04 K: I can’t do that.
8:06 DB: I see.
8:08 K: So, I have really gone into this question whether I have imagined the whole thing, an illusion which I have perpetuated to give me importance, to give a feeling there is something abnormal – not only in the religious sense or in the abstract sense, something abnormal because I have had an odd life. I don’t know if I am making myself clear. So, I have gone into this. I don’t think it is imagination. And I don’t think it is a traditional acceptance of, you know, this whole question of Kundalini and all that. And I don’t think it is ill health, because I am very well when it happens.
9:07 DB: Yes, well let me comment on that because, you see, some people thought it could be a form of ill health, because they say some people in ill health report some similar happenings.
9:18 K: No, on the contrary. With me, it only begins when I am completely rested, when all the environment is right, when there is quietness, when my body is completely relaxed.
9:35 DB: Yes, well, this is for the sake of, you know, a complete account.
9:39 K: Go on, go on. Of course.
9:41 DB: I regard this partly as a good opportunity to make the thing entirely clear. Right?
9:45 K: Yes, yes, yes. Yes, I would really like to discuss this with you and, say, like Shainberg, and go into it.
9:53 DB: Yes, now Shainberg has said that some of the patients he observes have to go through some sort of thing like what you describe, in being cured, you see. I mean, not exactly, perhaps, but… and then other people say that, you know, some of the things you describe might have been symptoms which mentally disturbed people have undergone.
10:16 K: Mentally…
10:18 DB: Well, Shainberg works with people who are somewhat disturbed.
10:22 K: Yes. I may be mentally deranged.
10:24 DB: No, I am not saying that. I am only saying that I think we should make it clear, you know, what the difference is.
10:31 K: Yes – quite, quite, quite
10:35 DB: Now, what I said about the difference was this, you see, when I was asked, was that there may be some similarity in some of the things that happen, but the mentally disturbed people do not come out with any perception of truth, you see. That difference is more important than the similarity. (Laughs)
10:51 K: Yes, quite! (Laughs) They end up in a hospital and I don’t.
10:55 DB: Yes, and they say things that are rather stupid, or else confused. They may get an occasional flash of insight but on the whole they are very confused, you see.
11:07 K: Yes, I understand that.
11:08 DB: And so I say that there must be a fundamental difference.
11:13 K: I think there is. From mentally sick people and from this person, I think there is a great deal of difference. Not difference – a totally different thing altogether.
11:27 DB: Yes, well that is what I meant, that it is fundamentally different.
11:29 K: Fundamentally different.
11:30 DB: But there are some superficial similarities of behaviour of physical…
11:34 K: You see, the other day, after the gathering, and everything was quieted down, the whole house was quiet, and I went to bed, and it began, very acute.
11:49 DB: Yes. It still goes on as before – right?
11:53 K: Yes. Very acute, and I told that morning that my whole thing was disturbed, physically.
12:02 DB: Would you say it’s as acute as it has been when it’s…
12:09 K: Yes. Oh, very acute.
12:11 DB: Very acute – yes.
12:12 K: I told this to Maria, and I went back, and it gradually disappeared. Because it demands – sorry to go into all this – it can only happen when the body is perfectly relaxed, when it is in very good health, and when the environment is right, in the sense quiet, not disturbed; it must have a certain sense of beauty, and all the rest of it. So I have gone into this question whether I have imagined, whether it is a traditional acceptance of something I have been told in childhood – you follow? – all that, and whether it is illness, a form of mental illness or a disease.
13:13 DB: Or at least a disturbance.
13:16 K: Yes. I don’t think it is. And if you ask me what it is actually, I couldn’t tell you.
13:26 DB: But do you feel that it is likely that other people would have this? You don’t know. Or would have to have it?
13:35 K: When… people have come to me and said, ‘We have had exactly the same thing as you.’ I said, ‘What do you mean?’ and they said, ‘Well, our Kundalini is being awakened.’
13:50 DB: Well, that is a word, of course.
13:54 K: Of course. I must go into that; I’ll tell you in a minute. And, ‘We are doing this practice, that practice.’ I said then, ‘It is not the same.’
14:06 DB: Well, let’s take another case where David Shainberg says… he says the word is unimportant, whether you call it Kundalini, but that...
14:13 K: Yes, the word is unimportant.
14:15 DB: But possibly some of his patients in the process in which they are being healed may be going through something a bit similar.
14:28 K: I wouldn’t know.
14:32 DB: It is hard to know.
14:34 K: I wouldn’t know. Say for instance, there was a man who came to see me at Gstaad, who said he has had similar experiences. And I watched him very carefully, as I generally do, and he was rather a coarse man, rather vulgar, and tremendous self-importance. When he left he said – I told him, I said, ‘I am very glad to have met you.’ He said ‘Is that all?’ He gave me the impression that he was... You follow? I don’t think – let me put it this way – I think this can happen when there is really no self in the matter.
15:31 DB: But you have no idea why there should be such pain or such acute…
15:36 K: I couldn’t tell you that. There are various theories about it, but I wouldn’t indulge in those theories. I really don’t know.
15:48 DB: Yes. I mean, the only thing I could think of is: is there is some sort of intensity of energy which strains the nerves beyond some point?
15:56 K: That may be it.
15:59 DB: And if you are ready to stay with that pain then it will go on, but if you were to avoid the pain then perhaps…
16:05 K: I never avoided it.
16:06 DB: Yes, I understand that. But I am saying that the general conditioning is to avoid pain which is very intense, and if you could have avoided it then perhaps the whole perception would not happen.
16:20 K: Yes, that’s right. I wouldn’t do anything to hinder it or to invite it.
16:25 DB: To invite it or to hinder it. But let’s say it may turn out to be an inevitable by-product of a very intense perception.
16:34 K: It may be a by-product of… This is what happens – you want to know all about it?
16:41 DB: The point is to get… no, you see, since this is intended eventually for publication it should be clear so that people will not have questions left in their minds.
16:51 K: You see, I wake up in the middle of the night, very often, meditating. It is a peculiar form of meditation because it is totally unimaginative, something pre-unmeditated. (Laughs) I couldn’t have imagined such a thing existed. I don’t know. I can’t imagine – not imagine...
17:26 DB: Well, you say you wake up in a state of meditation – is that it?
17:31 K: Yes.
17:32 DB: But would you assume or think that it was going before – right?
17:34 K: Wait a minute, I’ll going to tell you. That comes before or after this thing.
17:42 DB: Yes. Yes, well, would you think that that state might be in your sleep as well?
17:47 K: Yes. Oh, definitely.
17:49 DB: So the state is in your sleep, then you wake up – I think you mentioned that somewhere.
17:56 K: Oh, definitely. Oh, yesterday morning it happened.
17:58 DB: Yes. And then that may either be before or after this acute pain – right?
18:03 K: Yes, that’s right.
18:05 DB: Yes.
18:06 K: I never talked about all this.
18:09 DB: No. And does this state imply anything near a loss of consciousness or anything like that, would you say?
18:15 K: A little bit.
18:16 DB: A little bit. Not quite the ordinary kind. The ordinary consciousness is somewhat reduced.
18:19 K: Yes. Not quite, no. No.
18:22 DB: No. What would you say? It is not quite normal, is that what you mean?
18:28 K: It is not unconscious.
18:29 DB: No, but I meant that it is not as… in some way it is not quite the ordinary state of consciousness.
18:39 K: No, it is not.
18:41 DB: Maybe in some way a little less attention to all the things of reality, or something. Is that what I mean?
18:49 K: I don’t quite get your…
18:52 DB: Well, no. Perhaps I am putting it wrongly. But I am saying, would it be something that somebody could think of as in some way a tendency to loss of consciousness, or losing it?
19:07 K: I have lost consciousness.
19:08 DB: Yes, well that’s the sort of…
19:10 K: I was unconscious I believe for three weeks.
19:15 DB: When was that?
19:17 K: At Ojai, right at the beginning of... (inaudible)
19:21 DB: Yes, but after that you didn’t?
19:24 K: If, given the right environment and no work, no talks, no writing letters, perhaps it might happen again.
19:33 DB: Yes. In other words… what I was trying to get at is, being involved in what we call reality helps hold you into what we call consciousness.
19:41 K: Yes, that’s right, that’s right, that’s right.
19:43 DB: Therefore, not being involved in reality you might sort of drift away from this consciousness.
19:47 K: Drift away. That’s right. Oh, it happens. Another peculiar thing happens. Do you want to know?
19:52 DB: I don’t particularly want to know myself, it is just I think that if we have gone this far we should make it very clear.
20:00 K: I used to go for very long walks at Ojai, and I would go on. I had deliberately to make an effort to turn back and go home. I was completely lost with – you know. And it happens here, several times. I go for a walk and I have to be very careful.
20:27 DB: Yes, you might sort of lose track of some ordinary reality.
20:32 K: Yes, I have to be very careful to say, ‘I must go back home.’ Otherwise I would go on.
20:36 DB: You see, I think we have to make this very clear, partly to see the nature of the thing and partly because some people may say that people whose minds are disturbed may do the same, you see. But that may be the difference.
20:49 K: It is quite different.
20:50 DB: It is quite different, still, because, as I said before, the disturbed mind does not produce anything interesting. But still, the point I wanted to make is that when a person is seriously disturbed psychologically, he may find the ordinary equilibrium of reality broken up.
21:10 K: Quite, quite.
21:11 DB: And going into this may also break it up, in a very different way.
21:14 K: In a different way – quite.
21:15 DB: And you may have to face something which people would superficially think is like a breakdown of the mind, but it is really not.
21:20 K: Quite.
21:21 DB: I mean, that is the point I was trying to get at, really.
21:24 K: I understand.
21:25 DB: But it might be that people approaching this might have gotten a bit frightened, thinking that their mind is breaking down – do you see?
21:32 K: Quite. No, I have no fear.
21:34 DB: No, but it could very readily induce fear.
21:37 K: Yes, yes. After all these years, I am pretty sane, physically very normal. I have got plenty of energy, and so on. I think it is not… it’s something out of the ordinary, without being abnormal.
22:10 DB: Yes. Well, I think we can understand that. We were discussing reality and saying that is based on thought, our consciousness of reality. If we very seriously stir it up, we are bound to have that sort of thing, you see.
22:23 K: Quite.
22:24 DB: Even if it is stirred up violently because of psychological disturbance, but it may be necessary to stir it up in an orderly way.
22:33 K: Yes.
22:34 DB: Before we can get outside of our present mode of consciousness.
22:39 K: You see, also, if I allowed myself I can read people’s thoughts – which I don’t like to do because it’s like reading a private letter. And I can very easily become clairvoyant. And I have done a great deal of healing, you know, quietly, without telling anybody. So it is involved in all that. Which is not an abnormal state. I don’t know if I am putting…
23:17 DB: No, I don’t want to say… It is not an ordinary state.
23:19 K: Yes, it is not an ordinary state.
23:21 DB: It may be neither normal or abnormal, but it is not ordinary.
23:25 K: Right. We accept the word ordinary…
23:27 DB: Ordinary means everyday, the sort of thing people are used to, you see.
23:32 K: Yes. But also I wouldn’t like to say it is abnormal.
23:37 DB: No. No, in principle it might be that anybody who has got free of the conditioning could get into that area.
23:45 K: And gone into it very deeply, might. Might get it.
23:47 DB: Might.
23:48 K: Might – that’s right.
23:49 DB: Yes, well I think… Let’s come back then to this question of suffering. I wanted to suggest the question: what is suffering?
24:05 K: You see, sir, I don’t think… I wouldn’t call it suffering.
24:11 DB: No, that’s just the point I was going to consider here. You see, there might be that there is a certain total intensity and pervasiveness of pain that penetrates the consciousness and stills it – I put down here – and I ask: what is the relationship of this physical suffering to passion? If we stay with this energy that fills consciousness then that may be the step to emptiness, if you see what I mean.
24:40 K: Yes.
24:41 DB: Now I wanted to say one more point. Let’s say that there is an intense pain that fills consciousness. Now, that may come because somebody is suffering, because he sees that his world is broken, you know, that it has no meaning – right?
24:55 K: No, no.
24:56 DB: But I mean, could you say that there is a pain which would come… to say that… seeing that the world has no meaning would be in the beginning a perception of truth, and that this perception of truth acts as pain. You see, you have suggested that sort of thing, by saying it is a sort of thorn.
25:16 K: Yes, yes.
25:18 DB: You see, and then the person starts to escape it and then it goes wrong. In other words, the perception of truth may be something painful in certain cases. You see, otherwise I would like to know why this total suffering takes place. You see…
25:45 K: Wait a minute, sir. There is a physical pain.
25:51 DB: Yes.
25:52 K: That is, I can get hurt – you know, accident, physical pain.
25:55 DB: Or there might be a very intense physical pain under certain conditions.
25:59 K: Under certain… which is not an accident.
26:02 DB: No. What do you mean it is not an accident?
26:06 K: It is not a toothache, an incident, a physical incident that might induce suffering.
26:13 DB: Yes. Well, let me say – well, we come to this point, that if somebody dies, you see, who is close to you, and the person, seeing this, might suffer some intense pain. Right?
26:27 K: That is a different pain.
26:28 DB: What kind is it?
26:32 K: Suppose my brother dies.
26:36 DB: Yes.
26:37 K: That is quite a different kind of psychological suffering than this pain which happens.
26:46 DB: I understand that, yes. You see, what I was suggesting was that this pain that happens may fill your consciousness.
26:53 K: May?
26:54 DB: Fill consciousness and that insofar as you don’t avoid it...
26:58 K: I don’t avoid it, I don’t invite it.
27:01 DB: Yes. Now insofar as you don’t do anything about it, this is what is meant by not escaping the fact – right?
27:10 K: Yes, yes, that’s right.
27:11 DB: So the mind stays in order and has a tremendous energy.
27:14 K: It has got that.
27:16 DB: Because it has to stay with that very intense pain.
27:18 K: That’s right. That’s right.
27:20 DB: And therefore it may go very deep.
27:21 K: Yes.
27:22 DB: Whereas, if it began to escape it in some way…
27:24 K: Of course, then it is gone. Agreed.
27:26 DB: All right. So I think we understand this situation, you see. Now let’s consider the other one: somebody dies. Now, the way I would look at it is to say a person perceives the fact of death and the loss, the sense of loss which he has, and this may produce for the moment a very intense pain – right?
27:42 K: Yes.
27:43 DB: And generally he does not stay with the pain but he tries to escape it.
27:46 K: That’s right. That’s right.
27:48 DB: But this first pain, I was wondering if we couldn’t call it the action of truth – do you see?
27:53 K: Aha.
27:54 DB: In that way it would have some similarity.
27:58 K: I see, I see. I understand. Facing death without escape and therefore remain with the totality of that suffering, which brings a different kind of energy, which is passion.
28:18 DB: Yes.
28:19 K: That I understand. There is this uninvited… pain in the head is… I really couldn’t tell you. It may be… You see, then we get into guesswork.
28:49 DB: Yes. You see, the thing that interests me is: why does suffering of this kind ordinarily produce such a total involvement of the consciousness? We remarked on that before, that with suffering people are generally very totally involved – right?
29:08 K: Totally involved – yes.
29:09 DB: Even more than with pleasure and even more than with fear.
29:12 K: Yes, much more, much more.
29:15 DB: Now, it seemed to me…
29:16 K: You see, when that happens they escape.
29:19 DB: Yes. I wanted to ask… the first question is: why is it so total – do you see?
29:23 K: That is I think fairly simple.
29:25 B: Why?
29:26 K: Because it paralyses your whole nervous…
29:29 DB: But why does it do that – do you see?
29:35 K: Ah – why it does. I think I know. It’s like receiving a great shock.
29:44 DB: Yes, but the shock has to do with something of total significance to you.
29:49 K: Yes, it is of total significance. You lose somebody whom you love, on whom you depended – you follow? – the whole involvement with that person.
30:01 DB: All right. So you have an intense shock.
30:03 K: Intense shock.
30:04 DB: Well, could we compare that intense shock to the intense… you know, whatever the pain?
30:09 K: Yes, I understand.
30:10 DB: I don’t know.
30:11 K: I don’t think so.
30:12 DB: You don’t think so.
30:14 K: I don’t think so. Oh, no.
30:17 DB: No.
30:18 K: Definitely it is not the same. The two are totally different.
30:23 DB: Right. All right, so it is good to clear that up. But anyway, in the course of ordinary suffering there is this intense shock, and a person begins to escape by thinking all sorts of ideas which are more pleasant. But then he has to keep on running away. Now, if he doesn’t run away then this will give him energy.
30:41 K: Yes, something… Yes.
30:43 DB: But there seems to be a similarity in the sense that maybe you not avoiding this pain also gives energy, I mean. Or do you think otherwise?
30:57 K: This, if you don’t escape from it, gives you a great energy.
31:04 DB: Which?
31:05 K: Losing, the death of somebody. There it becomes passion and all the rest of it. I understand that. Now we are talking about the other, which is pain. Does that give you great energy?
31:24 DB: Not to escape this pain, or any intense pain.
31:27 K: Anything. Does it give to you… Oh no.
31:30 DB: No, it does not.
31:31 K: No, no. It only happens when you have physical energy.
31:34 DB: I didn’t understand.
31:37 K: When the body is rested, has its own vitality, its own health, then only it happens. And in that happening it is not a further energy.
31:57 DB: I see. It is part of the same energy.
32:01 K: Yes.
32:02 DB: Yes. So we can’t regard that as a form of suffering.
32:07 K: That’s why… I think that’s why I divided the two.
32:10 DB: It’s becoming clear, yes.
32:11 K: It certainly is not suffering.
32:12 DB: All right. So, anyway, now, if anything it might be a by-product, as I suggested, of some intense energy. So let’s go on then to this question of suffering. You said that when your brother died you had intense suffering for some time.
32:30 K: Now, I’ll tell you. That was, he died in... about fifty years ago he died. I don’t remember a single incident of it. But a man who was there with me in the cabin and who watched over, all that, he told me the whole incident.
32:52 DB: Who told you?
32:54 K: Shiva Rao, that man who was in the cabin with me when the telegram came. Dr Besant told him to remain with me, not to leave me, and so on. So he described to me what happened; otherwise, I don’t remember. But he did say one thing, that when it happened – all kinds of things happened – at the end of it he told me he [K] never asked any help from anybody. You follow? He just remained with that, with that fact…
33:40 DB: With the fact, for some time – yes.
33:44 K: …with that suffering, with that pain, or whatever it was, with the total fact. And I think that’s one of the things that played probably an important part. So I think that suffering, which human beings generally go through, but when they are faced with that total fact they seem to be incapable of remaining with it. They run off, they escape, they avoid, they do all kinds of things.
34:28 DB: Yes, and that is really part of a deep conditioning.
34:31 K: That is part of the deep conditioning.
34:33 DB: Yes. Now that brings us to this point that… You see, we have to get very clear about this depth of conditioning, because you said that for various reasons you were not deeply conditioned. And we said deep conditioning might be conditioning to self-deception, to run away from sorrow, which is also self deception, and so on. But of course you had some conditioning, including the conditioning that caused you to experience this sorrow at the death of your brother – right?
35:10 K: Oh yes, surely.
35:12 DB: But you would still say that was not deep.
35:14 K: No, I wouldn’t call it… It is like if I am very fond of you, that is not conditioning.
35:20 DB: No, but I meant the feeling of sorrow which comes.
35:22 K: Ah, no, wait a minute, sir. If I am very fond of you, in which there is no sense of dependency or attachment – I am really fond of you, and when that physical entity ends there is a shock.
35:38 DB: There is a shock. Why is there a shock? I mean, let’s get it very clear.
35:47 K: Because you are part of me, part of my life, part of my existence.
35:53 DB: All right.
35:54 K: That is not conditioning.
35:56 DB: All right.
35:58 K: And when that ends there is a tremendous feeling of, you know – not loss, a sense of total aloneness, let’s put it, total isolation – which is not conditioning, surely?
36:17 DB: Yes. If there were any sorrow after that…
36:21 K: Ah, that’s it.
36:22 DB: …then there would be conditioning.
36:24 K: Yes, that’s it. A remembrance and the whole business.
36:27 DB: Yes. And would you say there was absolutely none, or…
36:31 K: No, I wouldn’t say there was absolutely none, because when I went back I felt he wasn’t there and he used to be.
36:38 DB: So there was still some.
36:41 K: But very quickly the whole thing was over.
36:44 DB: Yes. Well, let’s say there was some conditioning but not…
36:46 K: …very deep.
36:47 DB: You see, ordinarily it is so deep that a person inevitably escapes it for years, or, you know.
36:54 K: Because, you see, sir, when that happened he could have become very bitter; he could have accepted reincarnation, all kinds of things. But he didn’t become any of those things, he didn’t accept any of them. On the contrary, he didn’t accept the whole system which they had built round him. It doesn’t matter, that’s...
37:23 DB: Yes. Well, anyway, that… So we have this young man or this boy who was not deeply conditioned, and we said before that we had explanations for it but they are inadequate and that...
37:38 K: I don’t think they are adequate.
37:39 DB: Yes, so that fundamentally it is a mystery, and we said it might be a hidden destiny that allowed this boy not to be conditioned.
37:46 K: Yes.
37:47 DB: Which will be at the beginning, you know, possible.
37:50 K: After all, like Mozart, Beethoven or Einstein, it was their – you know. Or it might be yourself.
38:00 DB: Yes, so... Now, let’s come, you know, to clear up the thing, one more point then, just for the sake of the record. I think we once said that all the story of the Masters you did not actually take seriously, except for this kind of fairy tale that would have this little core of something right, namely that there is some hidden destiny.
38:25 K: No, sir, I think it is fairly simple, a simple explanation. Here was a young boy, rather vague, moronic, uncertain, totally not all there, if I can put it. He was told something; he repeated it.
38:48 DB: It was like a child being told a fairy story.
38:49 K: Yes, quite simple.
38:50 DB: But sometimes in a fairy story there is some – although the story is wrong, there is some sort of thing right in the moral – right?
38:56 K: (Laughs) Yes, yes. But you see, I think to go into the question of Masters, you know the whole theosophical idea.
39:08 DB: Oh yes.
39:09 K: Not really theosophical, it is really Westernised Hindu, Tibetan tradition. They made it so, especially Leadbeater, made it so materialistic. They lived in such and such a house, they ate… you know, all that kind of idiotic details. I think there is something like… I never talked about it; may we two go into it? Would you accept that there is ‘evil’ – in quotes – exists in the atmosphere, in the air, in the…
40:15 DB: Well I don’t quite understand that. I mean, unless you say it exists in the environment or society.
40:21 K: No, no, that’s is why I am careful. All right, let’s put it this way. This constant killing, this constant violence, the brutality, it must leave… it is part of the environment.
40:51 DB: That is a view you can take. I mean, you have to realise it is rather different from the commonly accepted view in the West now. But one might say that because of subtle properties of matter not known to us all this could somehow be recorded in the environment.
41:08 K: Yes, recorded in the environment.
41:10 DB: Yes.
41:11 K: As goodness can be recorded in the environment.
41:14 DB: Yes. I mean, that is a speculation. I mean, would you say it is more than a speculation?
41:17 K: I think it is more than a speculation.
41:18 DB: Why do you say so?
41:19 K: I don’t know if you have noticed if you go into ancient temples – I have been to several of them – during the day – I have tested this out. Sorry to go into all this. During the day you go there, there are pilgrims, worship, and all the noise, garlands, incense, cockroaches, (laughs) all the thing goes on – there is quite a different atmosphere. And you go there when there is nobody. Then there is a totally different atmosphere, a sense of danger, a sense of, if you can call it ‘evil’.
42:22 DB: Evil.
42:23 K: I put it in quotes. A sense of threat. This has happened very often to me when I go into woods by myself, among trees.
42:38 DB: Yes. Why should woods have that sense?
42:40 K: I don’t know, there is a feeling…
42:41 DB: You think because of what people have done?
42:43 K: It may be. There is that feeling of ‘we don’t want you here’. And after a few days of going there, that feeling goes away, then it is a welcome. This may sound superstitious. I have tested it out very often. Now, there is that – quote – ‘evil’ in the air, in the atmosphere, in the environment, in the…
43:11 DB: Well, yes. People often write of this metaphorically in literature, saying there is a sense of dark foreboding in the atmosphere, and so on.
43:19 K: Yes, yes – foreboding.
43:20 DB: Usually we take that to mean that’s the way it struck him – do you see?
43:26 K: Yes. Now if that thing is constantly added to, it becomes something real.
43:34 DB: Well, that is provided that there is in matter some way of recording it, you see.
43:41 K: Yes.
43:42 DB: I mean, would you also say that maybe what we call spirit phenomena, if somebody lived in a house for a long time and there were passions…
43:48 K: Exactly the same.
43:49 DB: …they would be recorded in the house?
43:50 K: Yes, recorded in the house.
43:52 DB: And somebody else would pick them up.
43:54 K: Yes, that’s right.
43:56 DB: Yes.
43:57 K: So there must be in the house, in two different houses, the recording of violence, brutality and selfishness, and in another house the recording of goodness. And the people who come describe both these things as physical.
44:20 DB: Yes. Well, they are part of the physical environment.
44:27 K: Yes. And reduce it to all kinds of things.
44:30 DB: So how is that related to the Masters?
44:32 K: That is what I am saying – they reduced it to that. Goodness was represented by the Masters.
44:38 DB: I see. And evil?
44:40 K: Evil, by the whole… of all those who are basically selfish.
44:51 DB: Yes. Now, but they…
44:55 K: Sir, you must have come across it – I have seen it in Indian villages in the old days, and I have seen it when I go – they take clay, mould it into the shape of man, with a head and arms, crude, and they put pins into it.
45:13 DB: I have heard of that, yes.
45:17 K: You have heard of that.
45:19 DB: They call it, you know, a hex or something.
45:21 K: Yes – voodooism, all kinds of things. In that clay they take part of the human being who has hurt you, or who is bad, or whatever it is – his hair, his nails, or his skin and put it in that, and then affect that human being. This is one of the traditions, one of the superstitions. It may be real, it may not be real.
45:54 DB: Yes. But I think, you see, part of the story of the Masters was that at some stage some person comes who is going to be the Teacher – right? – the World Teacher and so on. And you see, I wonder if you couldn’t say that in the story of the Masters there was a great deal which was fanciful, and possibly some core, you know, which is right, you see, which became very distorted.
46:21 K: I agree. I think it is very distorted.
46:24 DB: Possibly it gets more distorted as time goes on and people change it, and eventually it comes out very confused. But the core which might be right is – we were discussing this, you know, in Saanen – that somebody appears who is not deeply conditioned, for reasons that are too difficult to probe, and he becomes the core or the nucleus of the world transformation.
46:51 K: Yes, yes, yes. Yes, that is the Indian tradition, that there is a manifestation of that goodness – let’s call it that – which happens very rarely.
47:12 DB: What do you feel about that tradition?
47:15 K: (Laughs) What do I feel about that tradition? I don’t know what that tradition implies, but I feel there is such a thing happening.
47:35 DB: Yes, but it doesn’t necessarily come either from the Masters or from the goodness and beauty in matter, by good acts of the past or anything.
47:45 K: No, no.
47:46 DB: But it may come from some source that is totally unknowable.
47:48 K: I think, sir, that is what I feel.
47:50 DB: Yes, that it’s beyond what we can fathom, you see.
47:53 K: Yes. You see, because I have tried to go into it myself, by talking with you or talking with others, especially in India who have known K from the beginning – 50, 60 years. I can’t get to the root of it, so I have given it up. I don’t even attempt to penetrate it.
48:13 DB: Yes. Well, I think the only thing I wanted to do here was to clear up some impressions that people have, you know, one gets about it.
48:22 K: Yes, yes.
48:23 DB: I think we have been more or less doing that. And now one other point, you see, really to come back to what I said. When it comes to other… let us say in the case of one individual, he is not deeply conditioned for reasons that we cannot probe, and he could communicate this to others, the truth – right? – the truth works, the truth operates.
48:46 K: Yes – quite.
48:47 DB: And now the point is, this analogy of the discovery of America. It’s not as easy as taking an aeroplane ticket.
49:01 K: No, no, no. (Laughs)
49:03 DB: So let’s go into it carefully, you see, because you might get the impression there is nothing left for us to do at all.
49:11 K: (Laughs) But you can run analogies to death.
49:14 DB: No, but you said in one of the discussions here.
49:18 K: Yes, yes.
49:23 DB: The point is, what would you say, is there something creative for each individual to discover?
49:32 K: You see, when you use the word each individual, it is so personal.
49:37 DB: All right. Good. We are getting to the point of it, you see. You see, in other words, we put the question wrongly to say that it was this individual to whom it happened – right? – and then it will eventually happen to another and another.
49:51 K: I think that’s…
49:52 DB: That’s the wrong way of putting it.
49:54 K: Yes.
49:55 DB: I mean, it assumes things that are not correct.
49:57 K: That’s right.
49:58 DB: Therefore, let’s try to see if we can put it another way, that the truth does not belong to an individual.
50:13 K: Ah, absolutely not.
50:15 DB: But in a communication there may be truth acting – right? Is that right?
50:22 K: Yes, yes, yes. If it doesn’t belong to you and you have seen it, you can communicate it to me, verbally or non verbally, and I have to work at it. I can’t say, ‘Well, I have got it.’
50:42 DB: Yes. Well, good, that’s what we want to get hold of, you see, because the second person… You see, there are two people, one has seen the truth and he communicates it, the other has got to listen to the very end, you see.
50:54 K: Yes – quite.
50:55 DB: And then he has got to work while he...
50:58 K: He has got to live it.
50:59 DB: Live it – yes.
51:00 K: Otherwise it is just words.
51:05 DB: Right. So he has got to perceive in his own life all that is implied – right?
51:14 K: Yes, sir, that’s right.
51:18 DB: Now, you see, I am here trying to answer another question that David Shainberg raised.
51:24 K: No, just a minute, wait, before we go to Shainberg.
51:29 DB: Yes.
51:30 K: You perceive, I don’t. I come to listen to you – read or listen, it doesn’t matter. I listen to you. I have a feeling that what you say is the absolute truth, is something real – more than real, it is so clear, obvious and so penetrating. I feel that. And then what happens generally is I want to work out in my life.
52:08 DB: Yes.
52:09 K: What I have heard you say, I want to work it out. I think that is wrong.
52:18 DB: All right.
52:19 K: I hear you, and I see what you say is truth, and I have to work it out in my life, not...
52:34 DB: It’s not clear yet. I mean, it seems like a contradiction, because you said…
52:40 K: I know. I hear you. What you say is truth. But it becomes truth to me only when I have washed away my selfishness. Let’s put it that way. It’s not I accept. It is not I become your truth.
53:07 DB: Yes, well let’s get it. My own self-structure has to wash away – right?
53:13 K: Wash away, that’s right.
53:15 DB: But then in some way the truth will do that, won’t it? You see, what do I have to do is the question.
53:24 K: Aha, I understand. Oh yes, I see what you mean. I hear you, and that truth is so penetrating. And as I am a serious man, that truth washes away my selfishness. That’s one point. I hear you and I see what you say is true, but I am selfish. Will the hearing of you, seeing the truth of what you have said help me to wash away my selfishness? Or, does truth reveal my selfishness? I don’t know.
54:35 DB: Right. If truth reveals my selfishness then what?
54:43 K: Then if I stay with that, then it is washed away, naturally.
54:47 DB: Yes. Well, then what each person has to do is to stay with it.
54:51 K: Stay with it.
54:53 DB: Yes, so…
54:54 K: Stay with – not the word, not the description, not the person – but stay with that penetrating truth.
55:05 DB: Well, it is the same as with sorrow then.
55:07 K: Exactly. That is what was going to come – it is the same thing.
55:13 DB: Yes, and then we will have to come to the question of why he doesn’t, and so on, later, you see.
55:19 K: Ah, that is fairly simple, why he doesn’t. Too much…
55:22 DB: What’s too much?
55:23 K: The world is too much with him. His wife nags him, he’s got his appetites. You follow? He sees it for the moment and can’t remain with it.
55:31 DB: Yes, but we can… You see, let me try to put something that has occurred to me. Say there are two people, one sees the truth and the other is listening.
55:40 K: Yes.
55:41 DB: You see, the person who listens, his responsibility is to stay with it until the end – right?
55:45 K: That’s right. That’s right.
55:47 DB: And the person who sees the truth, his responsibility is to communicate it even in spite of the resistance.
55:53 K: Of course, of course.
55:54 DB: So that he can’t accept that the other person…
55:56 K: (Laughs) No, no, no, no.
55:57 DB: …runs away from it. (Laughs)
56:01 K: It is very interesting, this. Right? If one stays with suffering, as we talked, then it brings quite a different kind of passion to that. If another stays with the perception of that truth…
56:24 DB: But isn’t that suffering, you see? Because, you see, if the truth shows that the entire structure is false…
56:29 K: Ah, if truth shows me that the entire structure is false, does it bring suffering?
56:36 DB: Not in the beginning. No, I am trying to say unless there is escape.
56:43 K: If I see completely what you say is true, I have no suffering. It is so.
56:52 DB: I understand that. You see, but let’s try to develop it another step.
56:55 K: Yes.
56:56 DB: Which is, now it may happen that I don’t see. I see it quite far, but there is a movement of escape. Right?
57:04 K: Yes, there is a movement of escape.
57:05 DB: Now, that movement of escape will bring about suffering.
57:07 K: Of course.
57:09 DB: And then the truth will act like a thorn.
57:11 K: Truth will act like a poison, like a thorn – yes.
57:15 DB: Producing suffering. Right? Well, in combination with the escape, suffering comes about.
57:21 K: Yes, that’s right. I see what you have said is truth but my selfishness is much too vibrant, much too alive. And that perception is embedded in my consciousness, and that is poking at me all the time.
57:46 DB: And the consciousness is resisting, and then that produces suffering.
57:52 K: Yes.
57:53 DB: Now, the point is, that if that is the case, then to stay with that suffering is what is needed.
57:58 K: Of course, of course.
57:59 DB: You see, generally our whole tradition is that we should not stay with suffering, we should find a way out of it, you see, and seek happiness. That is something which perhaps also could be compared – see the similarity and difference. The Christians have emphasised the importance of suffering, but there are probably some important differences.
58:23 K: Yes.
58:24 DB: I don’t quite understand the Christian doctrine of suffering, but it seems that they regard it as necessary too, you see, but not in exactly the same way.
58:36 K: What exactly is the Christian doctrine about suffering?
58:39 DB: The only thing I can gather from it is that Christ, Jesus Christ saved mankind through his suffering, you see.
58:48 K: How can you, somebody, save me from my… What?
58:53 DB: I don’t know. Let me try to put it the way I think it means, you see. What I think it means is that, first of all, that he being essentially free of it, you know, faced all this pain – right? – without running away from it, and that in doing that…
59:16 K: …he has shown me the way to do it?
59:22 DB: Not exactly. In a way some people say, ‘Yes, you must live in the imitation of Christ, or in the…’ I probably have missed some of it, but... (laughs)
59:32 K: Quite right. It is too slick! (Laughs) No, no.
59:39 DB: (Laughs) But anyway, it seems that people… I have talked to many people who felt very deeply, at least, that Christ had suffered to save them, and...
59:48 K: Save me from what?
59:50 DB: From sin, you know, from whatever it is – from the state of man which we have just been discussing. You know, from this wrong state of evil...
59:57 K: Which is… You see the truth and you are that. You convey it to me. If I can remain with that, without any movement...
1:00:14 DB: Yes. I mean, I see it is very different from the Christian doctrine.
1:00:18 K: Yes, so do I.
1:00:19 DB: But it is important to at least try to make it clear, because you see there are some superficial similarities in saying both are emphasising the importance of suffering, but in some sense...
1:00:31 K: Has the Christian idea of sin got anything to do with it?
1:00:36 DB: Well, it is not clear, you see, what is meant by sin in the Christian doctrine, but they may say sin was the cause of this suffering.
1:00:43 K: Yes.
1:00:44 DB: It is not clear what is meant exactly by sin, but they would probably say the original sin was Adam, probably.
1:00:50 K: (Laughs) Meeting Eve – sex.
1:00:53 DB: Well, eating the apple – I don’t know.
1:00:57 K: (Laughs) Knowledge.
1:00:59 DB: Now, beyond that…
1:01:02 K: First you invent sin and then somebody else comes along and saves you from that sin.
1:01:09 DB: Well, you could say sin was the wilful… or some kind of going away from the right… from the correct action, and therefore man suffers, and then man had no way out of that suffering.
1:01:24 K: That’s just it – quite.
1:01:25 DB: And then Christ came to redeem man. It was only when Christ came that there was a way out, you see. That is what I understand by what is said. I can’t say that I understand it deeply. (Laughs) But I think one can see there are, you know, very important points of difference, very basic.
1:01:42 K: Quite.
1:01:44 DB: Because, you see, what you are saying is that by staying with suffering...
1:01:51 K: Yes, that’s right, sir.
1:01:55 DB: But, you see, the similarity I was trying to get in mind. You see, you are saying that you were in a special role, not because you are a special individual but merely you came first, in a sense.
1:02:07 K: Yes, that’s right.
1:02:08 DB: And you communicate a certain point. One of the points you communicate is the importance of staying with suffering, you see.
1:02:13 K: Yes.
1:02:14 DB: Now, they say Christ also, he came, you know, at a certain moment in time and he was able to communicate his nature, let’s say, to the people. Now, that is the similarity. The difference is that we don’t know exactly what Christ said – or whether in fact he lived; but perhaps he did – but at least from what’s written, which may be very different, it was not made very clear the importance of staying with suffering, you see.
1:02:46 K: No, no.
1:02:47 DB: That is, in some way the idea has gotten across that merely by going through suffering you are improved.
1:02:52 K: Yes, yes. (Laughs) Quite.
1:02:55 DB: But it may be that some of the early people saw this point and it has been lost – I don’t know. Well, anyway, I think that makes most of the points clear. There is something for each person to do – you know, it is not a case of just…
1:03:18 K: …sit and be quiet…
1:03:20 DB: …sitting and listening, you see, and being told.
1:03:23 K: No, but would you say if I listened to you, if a human being listened to another, the other being who has seen truth, if I listened so completely to you, the miracle takes place in me?
1:03:44 DB: Yes. Yes, that’s the point. That if the listening were total there would be no need for anything, you see.
1:03:48 K: That’s right.
1:03:49 DB: Now, it would be exactly the same as with the first person – there was no need for anything, it just happened.
1:03:55 K: That’s right.
1:03:56 DB: Now, if one listens totally then you could say it just happens – it is the same miracle as the first one.
1:04:01 K: That’s right.
1:04:02 DB: It is just a part of the same thing, you see.
1:04:04 K: Yes, quite right.
1:04:05 DB: Because it didn’t happen because of anything the first one did, and it wouldn’t happen because of anything the second one did.
1:04:10 K: Quite. That is perfectly true.
1:04:13 DB: Now, on the other hand, because there is resistance, you know, and selfishness and so on, then comes the suffering and then comes the need to stay with it – do you see?
1:04:23 K: Yes – quite, quite. The need to stay with it or escape from it, and keep on endlessly suffering.
1:04:32 DB: Yes.
1:04:34 K: Would the Christian doctrine say this endless suffering is put to an end by believing in Christ as the Son of God who is truth?
1:04:51 DB: Well, I think… I mean, I can’t speak for the Christian doctrine, but my impression is that they often say if you believe in Christ you will be saved – do you see? – which means more or less that. Now, on the other hand I have talked with some people who say that is only the official doctrine but there were other saints and mystics who…
1:05:11 K: Who didn’t believe in Christ.
1:05:13 DB: Well, who didn’t think that the belief in Christ was the important point, you see. Therefore you can’t actually define this thing at all very well, you know, there are so many different versions of it.
1:05:25 K: But, sir, if one lived in some village, far away from all Christian missionaries, he would have the same problem.
1:05:34 DB: Yes.
1:05:35 K: Must he believe?
1:05:37 DB: The only point about Christ is to say that Christ communicated the truth. Perhaps some people looked at it that way, you know, for all we know. (Laughs)
1:05:46 K: Yes – for all we know. Quite.
1:05:48 DB: And therefore perhaps that would have been all right, you see.
1:05:50 K: Quite.
1:05:51 DB: I don’t know.
1:05:52 K: The priests didn’t come into it.
1:05:54 DB: Yes. The only weak point of it is that all the information we have about Christ comes through other people and over the ages and we don’t know how accurate it is.
1:06:03 K: I know.
1:06:04 DB: And therefore, you know, that makes the whole thing a little doubtful. Now, the… Yes, a few questions then. I think that more or less, you know, it clears up the… Just simply to say, to make sure the thing is done, that we don’t think that this, whatever it is that we are talking about, is some individual creative act.
1:06:41 K: No, no, no, no. No.
1:06:44 DB: This is important – do you see?
1:06:46 K: Absolutely. It is totally impersonal, totally non-national. It has nothing to do with any human being.
1:07:01 DB: But it does put us in this position. Let’s say there are two people, you know, the person who sees and the other who doesn’t. Now, the person who doesn’t see, he feels there is some truth in it but he cannot begin with faith that there is truth – do you see? – but he must, you know, see for himself. Is that right?
1:07:26 K: Not seek it for himself.
1:07:28 DB: See. Not seek, but see.
1:07:30 K: See it for himself.
1:07:31 DB: See it for himself. You see, in other words, let’s say the person who doesn’t see has to listen, to live the whole thing, to listen completely, and he should not begin with belief or faith.
1:07:42 K: Oh no, that destroys it.
1:07:45 DB: You see, that would be totally wrong. But in other words, I say, ‘Here is something that looks very interesting, it may be the truth, it sounds good, it sounds right.’
1:07:52 K: Yes, yes. ‘Now let me listen.’
1:07:54 DB: Now let me listen and then if I see whether it is the truth or not. If it is not the truth I must drop it, and if it is the truth then I must stay with it – right?
1:08:01 K: Yes, of course.
1:08:02 DB: So it is not a question of faith or belief at all.
1:08:06 K: That’s right.
1:08:09 DB: Right, well I think that, you know, more or less…
1:08:15 K: …stops it for today.
1:08:17 DB: …clears that subject, as far as I can remember. Now, I had another point then. Yes. We once discussed intelligence, and obviously it is in some connection with truth and with wisdom, you see. Now, I think somebody told me you once said that wisdom is the daughter of truth, and intelligence the daughter of wisdom. (Laughs)
1:08:54 K: Yes, yes.
1:08:55 DB: So, you know, it might be good if we could discuss that a while.
1:08:59 K: What time is it?
1:09:01 DB: Oh. Quarter to five. Perhaps it could be another time. It’s a little late.
1:09:05 K: Yes, let’s do it next Saturday.
1:09:09 DB: Right.
1:09:15 K: You see, sir, the other day I received a letter from a man who has been practising Transcendental Meditation. He came to the talk and he wrote a letter saying, ‘You know nothing about Transcendental Meditation. You deny it, but I have experienced what it does.’ And such cases are multiplying all over the world, not only Transcendental Meditation – various forms of going out of the body – you know what they are trying to do. That is, you practise certain states until you can slip out of the body and carry messages astrally from one person to another, and all that kind of stuff. You see, what we are trying to say, isn’t it, truth is not an experience.
1:10:23 DB: Yes, it’s that which is.
1:10:26 K: That’s what… You see, that, I think, is really quite important in this matter.
1:10:33 DB: Yes, I think it is very clear, truth is not an experience. We should discuss sometime what is an experience. I don’t know if we have time now.
1:10:42 K: Yes, we can do that with regard to wisdom and all that.
1:10:44 DB: Yes. But truth is an actuality, an action – right?
1:10:48 K: Yes, an action. Quite.
1:10:50 DB: It’s in some sense more real than reality, if you want to put it that way.
1:10:58 K: Yes. I think the communists said, ‘Anybody who is not with us is a reactionary.’
1:11:10 DB: Yes.
1:11:11 K: I feel anybody who is not with truth is a reactionary. (Laughs) (Pause)
1:11:24 DB: I mean, truth is something which does not belong to an individual, it is not particular. It acts, you see, it does not – we don’t have such a good word for it, but I would like to say also that… you put it global. I mean, it’s global and universal, and of the essence. And I think you put it somewhere there is, you know, the perception of the essence of the world.
1:12:04 K: Yes, that’s right, sir.
1:12:06 DB: And it is both perception and action. In a way you could say it is both that which is and that which perceives that which is.
1:12:16 K: Yes. We will discuss this when we talk.
1:12:20 DB: We’ll discuss that. You see, I think we should get clear on truth, wisdom. I feel myself the question of wisdom is very important.
1:12:29 K: Very important – quite. What does wisdom mean?
1:12:34 DB: In the dictionary…
1:12:35 K: I must look it up.
1:12:37 DB: I’ve looked it up. I think the main meaning in the dictionary is ‘the capacity for sound judgment’, but I would add to that ‘clear perception’. And the third point that I would add is the ability of thought to know its own nature and take its own nature into account, you see.
1:12:58 K: Quite.
1:12:59 DB: In other words that the judgment which is thinking is sound only when the judgment can know its own…
1:13:06 K: …its own limitation.
1:13:07 DB: Its own limitations.
1:13:08 K: Quite, quite, quite.
1:13:10 DB: But you see, we need sound judgment in every phase of life, but within that limited area where judgment applies.
1:13:17 K: Did I ever tell you of that man I met once in India? He was a judge, and one morning he woke up – he was married and all the rest of it – one morning he woke up and he said, ‘I am passing judgment on people, sending them to jail, punishing them, doing this and that and the other thing. I really don’t know what truth is. If I don’t know what truth is, how can I judge?’
1:13:46 DB: Yes.
1:13:47 K: So he called his family and he said, ‘I am finished with all this, I am going to disappear and find out what truth is.’ This is a fact, sir, this all this happened to him. He had been away for 25 years. He must have been an old man when he came to see me, some years ago. Somebody brought him to the talk and I talked about meditation and so on. The next morning, he came to see me and he said, ‘You are perfectly right. I have been for 25 years mesmerising myself into a state, thinking that would reveal truth.’ You know, for a man to acknowledge after 25 years that he was deceiving himself.
1:14:34 DB: Yes.
1:14:35 K: And therefore he said, ‘I must wipe away from my mind every idea of what truth is.’ You follow? And all the rest of it. And I have never seen him again.
1:14:58 Finished.