Krishnamurti - What is wisdom which is not a movement of thought?

Krishnamurti Subtitles

BRGS75CB11 - What is wisdom which is not a movement of thought?
Brockwood Park, UK - 4 October 1975
Conversation with David Bohm 11

0:00	This is the 11th dialogue between J. Krishnamurti and David Bohm, at Brockwood Park, 1975.
0:10	Krishnamurti: What shall we talk about, sir?
0:11	David Bohm: Well, last time, you know, at the end I was suggesting the question of the three qualities – we call them truth, wisdom and intelligence – and their relation, possibly, to experience.
0:25	K: That’s right, we’re going to talk about that. Did you ever hear of Keyserling?
0:36	DB: Is that an economist? No.
0:40	K: No, no, no, he was a philosopher, a German. Keyserling, he started a school of wisdom in Darmstadt or someplace like that. And also in India there was a school of wisdom. And they asked me to go once to it. I said I wouldn’t go because you can’t teach wisdom. Their idea of wisdom was to study a lot of books.
1:14	DB: Well, that’s one idea, to accumulate the wisdom of the ages.
1:18	K: Wisdom, yes, that’s it. What does that word come from?
1:25	DB: Well, I looked it up.
1:26	K: I am sorry, I meant to have looked it up.
1:28	DB: First of all, wisdom has the same root as wit and it has the same root as seeing, like video.
1:36	K: Has it anything to do with vidya, the Sanskrit word?
1:42	DB: Yes, vidya also means see in Sanskrit.
1:44	K: Of course, of course.
1:46	DB: And wit is the same word.
1:49	K: Wit – oh yes.
1:52	DB: Witness probably, and wisdom, and some others I’ve forgotten by now.
2:05	K: Look at that dictionary. First of all, could we... how do you want to approach it? Can wisdom be learnt?
2:16	DB: Well, this is a difficult question. You see, it can’t be learnt in the usual sense. The question is: is there any way in imparting wisdom?
2:26	K: Yes.
2:27	DB: In some sense conveying it or... But one of the definitions that stuck in my mind was that it was ‘a capacity for sound judgement’.
2:49	K: Oh – capacity for sound judgement.
2:53	DB: That’s one of the phases of it. In this area where thought properly functions then thought will be capable of sound judgements. Yes, well, looking at the dictionary, you see, the word wise. Oh, I had made a mistake. Yes, I was right – from a root, Aryan based weid meaning ‘to see’ or ‘to know’.
3:29	K: To know – that’s right. (Inaudible)
3:32	DB: The same root is vide in Latin and idea in Greek. And wisdom, it says: ‘the quality of being wise’. That’s not much help. (Laughter) ‘Sound judgement, sagacity’. Then the second meaning – archaic – is ‘learning knowledge and science, the Wisdom of the Ancients.’ You see, that’s another meaning, the accumulated wisdom, but that’s not what we mean.
3:56	K: Is it a confusion between knowledge and wisdom?
4:00	DB: Well, there has been over the ages such a confusion, you see, but clearly from the root of the word it means, not so much knowledge, but the act of seeing or knowing.
4:09	K: That’s the act of seeing.
4:11	DB: The act of seeing is the basic root, but it has also come to mean, apparently, the capacity to make sound judgements, which depends on perception.
4:22	K: Yes.
4:23	DB: In other words, judgements are not made from thought, but...
4:28	K: ...but from accumulated knowledge.
4:30	DB: No, but from perception. You see, in other words, I think a judgement is merely the expression in thought... a sound judgement is the expression in thought of a perception.
4:44	K: Yes.
4:45	DB: You see, a judgement means originally ‘to divide’, the word judge.
4:49	K: Judge, to divide.
4:50	DB: The German word (inaudible) is the original division, and you make a distinction or a discrimination. You know, a sound judgement should make it according to a perception, not according to knowledge or tradition.
5:07	K: Yes, yes, yes.
5:11	DB: You see, the traditional judgements are to divide between good and evil, right and wrong, true and false, or just simply to divide in a technical way between cause and effect, you know, between relationship and non-relationship. You see, for example, we made the division saying that truth...
5:33	K: ...and reality...
5:34	DB: ...are not related – which is a judgement.
5:36	K: I see.
5:37	DB: The form of thought is a judgement, but if that were just based on knowledge it would have no meaning.
5:42	K: No – quite, quite, quite.
5:43	DB: But if that judgement expressed or communicates a perception.
5:47	K: And also discerning – I mean, discernment – to discern between essential, non-essential, truth and false, and so on.
5:58	DB: That’s right. That’s a perception, in the form of...
6:03	K: Is perception dualistic?
6:07	DB: No, but the way of expressing it is dualistic, you see.
6:11	K: That’s it. That’s it.
6:13	DB: You see, this is a point which is hard to explain, but our language inevitably divides.
6:18	K: Language divides – yes.
6:19	DB: And it must express something which is whole as a judgement, namely as something divided, but nevertheless one.
6:27	K: One – quite, quite.
6:29	DB: This is the way our... You see, there was a way I had in mind... You see, our thought has to give an account of the perception; our words – right? – an intelligible account of perception.
6:45	K: Perception – quite.
6:46	DB: And part of the intelligible account is in the form of judgements. But, as you were saying, the description is not the described, you see, the account is not what is accounted for.
7:00	K: Quite. So what is then, if it is perception and not judgement? I just want to... It is not discernment, but wisdom is perception that... Is wisdom the perception that discernment exists when there is duality? Would that be wisdom?
7:38	DB: Well, when is there duality, you see?
7:43	K: When there is discernment.
7:45	DB: Yes, but then there is a certain area where discernment is called for – is that what you mean to say? – in the area where thought belongs.
7:55	K: Yes, in the area where thought belongs. And to see where thought belongs is wisdom.
8:04	DB: Yes. Yes, that’s the key to wisdom, really.
8:09	K: Yes.
8:10	DB: That is, if thought is aware of where it belongs then it will make sound judgements, correct discernments.
8:20	K: But that’s not wisdom. If thought knows its place – if I can put it – and functions within its own limit then that is the operation of thought.
8:35	DB: Yes, but that...
8:36	K: But that’s not wisdom, is it?
8:38	DB: That’s not wisdom but that is – we have to make it clear that that is taken as one of the signs of wisdom, you see.
8:44	K: I see. I’m glad we’re discussing this.
8:46	DB: Yes. You see, it’s not to say that is the essence of wisdom because that merely is the outward form of an act of a man who is wise.
8:55	K: Quite. Quite. So would you say that wisdom is the perception of the limitation of thought and its operation in the limited area?
9:11	DB: Yes, that’s the essence of wisdom.
9:14	K: That’s the essence of wisdom.
9:15	DB: To perceive the limitation of thought. And then the act of such a man will take the form of sound judgements, you see.
9:25	K: Aha. I see. Yes – quite. Quite, quite. You see, I was... Discernment – you must have heard of Shankara, the Indian philosopher.
9:38	DB: Yes.
9:39	K: I believe he lays a tremendous emphasis on this capacity to discern.
9:46	DB: Yes. The dictionary also says ‘to make sound...’ The question is what is it that makes the judgement or discernment sound?
9:57	K: It can be very logical, sane, clear thinking that can make a sound judgement.
10:03	DB: Yes, but the person won’t have... if his thought goes outside its proper area he won’t have that.
10:09	K: No, no, of course not. But very few realise the limitation of thought.
10:15	DB: Yes. Now that’s the point, that if you merely put it in the outward form it is misleading. You see, the sound judgement is merely the outward manifestation of wisdom, and if you emphasis that then it’s already wrong.
10:28	K: Yes, sir. Quite, quite.
10:30	DB: Then you are treating that as if it were the essence.
10:33	K: Quite.
10:36	DB: But the essence is the perception which allows one to see that thought is limited, you know, and also the readiness of thought to move with that perception, as I said.
10:57	K: Yes.
10:58	DB: The way I put it is to give a correct account of its limits and to take that account into account, you see, and move it. In other words, you see, it seems that – this was something I was observing – let’s say there is a perception, then thought may give an account of that perception, you see, but that is not the perception. But still thought has to give the account.
11:25	K: Yes, yes.
11:26	DB: Right?
11:27	K: Yes.
11:28	DB: You see, in some sense you could compare thought to the witness, you see, the witness of what is observed. But the witness, if he gives a correct account of what he observes, that’s good, but if he puts in his own thought as part of the account it’s wrong, you see. That’s well known in court. The difficulty is that this witness is continually putting in his own conclusions, you know, his own ideas, as if they were perceptions.
11:52	K: Distorting.
11:53	DB: It’s distorting because he’s putting them in, not saying, ‘This is my conclusion,’ but saying, ‘This is what I see.’ (Laughs)
11:58	K: Yes. Quite, quite, quite.
12:00	DB: And that is not wisdom, you see.
12:03	K: And what is the difference then between wisdom and intelligence?
12:09	DB: Well, that’s what we wanted to come to, you see. There are different words and one wonders if there is not some different shade of meaning sometimes, you see. There are three words: wisdom, intelligence and truth, you see.
12:21	K: Yes – wisdom, intelligence and truth. Yes.
12:25	DB: Now, we have discussed intelligence once before and at that time I think we were very nearly treating it as containing wisdom and truth. You see, we were using one word to cover the whole, I think.
12:35	K: Cover the whole. Now we have separated it: truth, wisdom and intelligence.
12:41	DB: Yes. Now, you see, the truth you say is first, and from truth may flow wisdom, and from wisdom intelligence. Is that...
12:52	K: Sir, would a man who perceives truth be foolish?
12:57	DB: No. You see, foolishness is the opposite of wisdom but, you see, there would be no point. Truth would not lead a man into folly, I mean.
13:14	K: No. If one sees what is truth, he acts according to that.
13:21	DB: Yes.
13:22	K: And that action, would it be a wise action?
13:28	DB: Well, it would inevitably be a wise action.
13:31	K: Yes. And therefore not foolish and therefore an intelligent action.
13:36	DB: Yes. But we want to see why we use the two words wise and intelligent. You see, either one of the words is superfluous or there’s a further shade of meaning that we have to explore. Right?
13:46	K: Yes, quite, quite.
13:47	DB: Now, we say there is a difference between truth and wisdom, first. You see, truth is that which is, we said.
13:53	K: Yes.
13:55	DB: Now, wisdom is somewhat more limited, the way we have seen it – it’s the perception... primarily the perception of the limitations of thought. Right?
14:06	K: Yes.
14:07	DB: Right? So that thought does not do anything foolish. If thought does not know its limits then of course...
14:15	K: Then it does...
14:16	DB: ...all sorts of foolish things.
14:17	K: Quite, quite.
14:18	DB: Now, as soon as thought can know its limits then it does not do anything foolish, you see. So perception of that which is, it seems to me, goes far beyond the perception of the limits of thought.
14:26	K: Why have we then divided truth, wisdom and intelligence?
14:30	DB: Well, we don’t know. It may be partly the tradition, you know, of our culture, but there may be some reason behind it. You see, I think we have to...
14:39	K: ...look at it.
14:40	DB: ...look at it.
14:42	K: Quite.
14:43	DB: Now, it seems to me that wisdom emphasises this perception of the limits of thought – do you see? – the true perception of the limits of thought.
14:52	K: Yes.
14:53	DB: Now, what is intelligence, you see, then?
15:00	K: The meaning of that word, according to the dictionary, isn’t it, ‘to read between’.
15:06	DB: There are many meanings.
15:08	K: A dozen.
15:10	DB: Legere means also ‘to pay attention’.
15:11	K: Pay attention – legere.
15:13	DB: Legere. It could mean the same as read or pay attention, and it also means ‘to gather’ and...
15:18	K: Yes – collect.
15:19	DB: To collect, and also it means to choose, you see.
15:23	K: Ah, yes. Aha. You see, we come back to – yes. Yes, I see that. Is choice intelligence? No – is the capacity to choose intelligence?
15:39	DB: Well, no. You see, the point is that we have to say: what is the capacity to choose? Unless somebody would say, ‘If he chooses it is either arbitrary or he must choose intelligently.’
15:51	K: But choice.
15:52	DB: Choice itself, you see, in practical affairs you may choose one thing over another with the help of intelligence. Right?
16:01	K: Yes.
16:02	DB: Now what kind of choice do you have in mind, you see?
16:09	K: Is there, in perception, choice?
16:11	DB: Oh, that’s the question – yes, yes – or in awareness – right?
16:16	K: In awareness. In awareness, in perception, in attention is there any choice?
16:21	DB: You see, that’s the same as saying there is no discrimination.
16:24	K: That’s it. That’s it. Yes.
16:27	DB: You could not choose unless there were discrimination to choose from. Right?
16:31	K: Yes – choose from.
16:32	DB: If there is no discrimination there is no place for choice to operate.
16:36	K: That’s right. That’s right. There is no choice.
16:40	DB: Yes.
16:41	K: So, that’s right.
16:43	DB: So the question is: why is it that the word legere had this range of meanings?
16:47	K: I know.
16:48	DB: You see, there seems to be some deep confusion somewhere. Were people confused between attention and choice? In other words, the same word can mean attention, pay attention, and it can also mean choose. I don’t know why, how that came about.
17:11	K: If there is attention would there be choice?
17:15	DB: No, there wouldn’t be, you see, but people may think that there would be. You see, in other words, there may be in our tradition a widespread belief that attention would contain choice.
17:28	K: I know. Attention, awareness, perception, in that surely there is no choice at all – you just perceive and act according to that perception.
17:38	DB: Yes. But if somebody thought we actually perceived discriminations then he might think that you could choose, that awareness would contain choice. You see, I’m trying to say what mistaken presupposition would allow people to come to this belief that there is choice in awareness, you see. Because I think...
17:56	K: Is it the outcome of the feeling or the idea that because there is choice there is freedom?
18:06	DB: That’s part of it, perhaps. But the idea of, say, choosing between good and evil, let’s say – that’s one of the favourite choices...
18:14	K: Yes, good and evil, take that.
18:16	DB: ...and people felt you are free to choose between good and evil. But you wouldn’t be able to do that unless you could discriminate good and evil. Right? Therefore it is probably assumed that you can discriminate good and evil.
18:28	K: No, but a man who perceives, to him there is no choice.
18:33	DB: No, there is no choice but he also doesn’t discriminate in that perception.
18:37	K: No, no, and therefore he acts according to that perception.
18:45	DB: Yes. Well, that perception contains the whole, as I see it, of good and evil, and the implication of the necessary action, all undivided. Right?
18:54	K: Yes, yes, yes.
18:55	DB: It is not necessary to say, ‘This side is evil; this side is good – I go to this side.’
18:59	K: No, no. (Laughter) Good guys and bad guys – quite.
19:04	DB: So that there is some confusion in our tradition about the nature of perception, you see.
19:15	K: For me, if I may be... perception implies a choiceless action, not discriminating action or a choosing action, just perception.
19:29	DB: Yes, the description may make it look like a choice.
19:34	K: Description, yes.
19:35	DB: Yes. A person may see the whole of good and evil and take the right action, but when described it’s described that he took the good action and avoided the evil action – do you see? But that’s only a description.
19:48	K: But the description is not the described, and so on, and all the rest of it.
19:53	DB: So the point is that in the description we inevitably use the dualistic language. It looks that way. And in order to communicate something that is not dualistic, you see, there is…
20:07	K: So let’s begin. To see is to act, and in that action there is no choice.
20:16	DB: Yes.
20:19	K: And that perception is truth.
20:25	DB: The perception that there is no choice.
20:27	K: Yes, there is no choice – that is the truth.
20:30	DB: Yes.
20:32	K: Now, in translating that into words, does it imply any dualistic...
20:41	DB: No, it doesn’t. The words are dualistic in form but the actuality is not dualistic. You see, the mere statement that that is truth is a kind of... there is dualism in the way you use the words because, you see, it would imply that is not wrong, that is not false, and so on. I’m trying to say that there is a certain background in language...
21:08	K: Of course, of course.
21:09	DB: ...which has dualism built into it.
21:11	K: Yes, quite right. I understand.
21:14	DB: Nevertheless knowing that that is the case it is possible to communicate free of dualism – that’s what I want to suggest.
21:20	K: Quite, quite, quite. Quite. Can I communicate... can one communicate love without the implication of hate, jealousy, anger?
21:32	DB: Yes, as long as we realise that the words, you know, are only the description, you see. That it’s part of the language that love is not hate and so on, you see. Perhaps one could say that one has nothing to do with the other.
21:51	K: Is wisdom the denial, the negation of the opposite?
22:00	DB: No.
22:01	K: Just a minute, sir.
22:03	DB: What is the opposite of wisdom? It’s folly, you see.
22:06	K: Folly.
22:07	DB: No, it can’t be. You see, in one sense it’s not the opposite of folly.
22:12	K: Oh, no.
22:13	DB: No. You see, but wisdom is obviously the denial of folly. But denial does not mean opposition.
22:19	K: Quite, quite.
22:21	DB: I mean, that’s a matter of being careful, because to deny means that the other is not there at all.
22:28	K: Quite.
22:29	DB: Not that it opposes it.
22:33	K: Is intelligence different from perception?
22:45	DB: Well, it can’t be really different from perception.
22:50	K: No. So why has man divided perception – no – truth, wisdom, intelligence, and good and evil and all the rest of it – why has this division... how has this division come about?
23:09	DB: Well, are we really clear that there’s no use to this division at all? You see, intelligence might be a different shade of meaning. I mean...
23:29	K: Would a man who perceives truth have this division in himself?
23:42	DB: There would be no point to it.
23:44	K: No, no point to it. So who has divided this?
23:51	DB: Well, it’s clear that thought has divided it, you see. In thought it appears as divided – we have different words and some sense that they mean something different.
24:04	K: Thought has divided it, or we have been educated to divide this.
24:12	DB: Yes, well, through thought, you see.
24:15	K: Yes.
24:16	DB: I mean, our thought has been conditioned to divide it.
24:18	K: Fragment it.
24:20	DB: To fragment it, you see.
24:21	K: Yes.
24:22	DB: To use different words and give them different meanings and so on, and even to give intelligence the meaning of some sort of skill in thought – do you see?
24:36	K: Skill in thought – (laughs) yes, quite.
24:43	DB: And people talk about artificial intelligence. They talk about computers that would be artificial intelligence.
24:50	K: Artificial intelligence, yes.
24:51	DB: I was talking with a man who worked in computers and he finally saw that it would be artificial thought not artificial intelligence.
25:00	K: Quite. Then what are we trying to do? We are trying to find out what is the relationship between wisdom and truth... between intelligence and wisdom and all...
25:25	DB: Yes. You see, if we could explore, is there any part of the meaning of intelligence that we have not looked at yet, or do we say it is all contained in truth?
25:36	K: I am just beginning to question that.
25:39	DB: What?
25:40	K: Whether in the word truth, whether all those are not included. (Pause) Sir, as we said the other day, we said there is reality and truth. Reality is all that which thought has created, all that which chooses, which discriminates, and functions within that field. We said that is all reality.
26:30	DB: Yes. Well, I would try to put it that it is not merely what thought has done, but there is a certain actuality which thought has brought about, or which thought can describe.
26:39	K: Yes.
26:40	DB: Even the tree may be described as part of reality where thought discriminates, and the tree exists independently of thought but still thought...
26:48	K: Thought is different.
26:49	DB: ...thought knows the tree in that form. Right?
26:53	K: Yes. Thought knows the tree in that form, but the tree is separate or is not thought.
26:58	DB: The tree is not thought, it is an actuality. But still, I say reality is therefore not only what man has produced and what he knows but all the unknown reality which he could know.
27:09	K: Yes.
27:10	DB: Like what’s going on on Mars, or...
27:11	K: Yes, yes, yes, surely.
27:12	DB: You see, which still would be known through thought. Whatever could be known through thought is reality, you see.
27:17	K: Yes, everything that can be known through thought is reality. We went through all this the other day.
27:22	DB: Yes, that’s just to cover everything.
27:23	K: Yes. Yes, that’s right.
27:25	DB: And therefore truth would have to be...
27:28	K: Can a thoughtful man be a wise man?
27:33	DB: Well, what do you mean by thoughtful?
27:36	K: Thoughtful in the sense, who sees the world is degenerating, who sees the various forms of revolution taking place, and through thought says, ‘I must find an answer,’ and relies on thought to find that answer.
28:04	DB: Well, no, you see, aside from all the criticism you could make about lack of perception, you see, the major point is that thought is then moving outside its proper area, you see. If he is going to find an answer without...
28:19	K: No, but he says, ‘I only know thought.’
28:22	DB: Yes, I know.
28:24	K: ‘And I know nothing else. And since thought has created this awful confusion thought will find an answer.’
28:31	DB: Yes, well, that’s outside... You see, that’s one of the points of wisdom, for thought to understand that it cannot possibly...
28:39	K: ...find an answer.
28:40	DB: ...find an answer to that which it itself produces – do you see? When thought produces contradiction it cannot find an answer.
28:46	K: So a thoughtful man is not a wise man.
28:49	DB: Well, if he depends on thought he’s not wise, yes.
28:51	K: Yes, of course, of course. A thoughtful man is not a wise man, nor is he an intelligent man.
28:57	DB: No.
28:59	K: We are condemning the thoughtful man, aren’t we? (Laughs)
29:03	DB: Well, if that’s what you mean by a thoughtful man. But very often thoughtful means just wise or intelligence. You see, the words can be used differently.
29:09	K: I know. But a thoughtful man is not a wise man.
29:13	DB: Well, not the way we have defined it.
29:15	K: Would you take a thoughtful man, even though we didn’t define it, as a wise man?
29:20	DB: Not if he depends on thought, you see. But sometimes by the word thoughtful you mean something different, you see. ‘The person is not thoughtful’, meaning that he was not wise usually, that he was not observing his thoughts.
29:35	K: Yes, yes, yes, yes.
29:36	DB: You see, there is a great deal of ambiguity in the language and the words are used in different senses. But I would say that if a man depends entirely on thought then he cannot be wise.
29:47	K: Let’s limit it to that, yes. A man who depends entirely on thought – rational, logical and dependent on thought – is not a wise man. Then what is wisdom which is not the movement of thought? Has it got a place, a seat? Is it a living thing or is it an accumulated experience?
30:22	DB: Well, yes, I mean it’s clear that it’s a living thing but you see, I think we should discuss then since you’ve brought in the word experience, we must discuss it.
30:31	K: Yes, all right.
30:32	DB: You see, because that is another of these very ambiguous words. The word experience has many meanings, but one of the meanings is ‘to put to the test’, like the same root as peril. And another meaning is ‘to go through’ as in per. But I think... it seems to me there are two aspects of experience. You see, if you are working in some practical domain...
31:00	K: ...you need it, of course.
31:01	DB: ...you need experience to learn, you see.
31:04	K: Of course.
31:06	DB: Now, so we’re saying that experience is thought, basically. There was one interesting definition of experience which was given by some philosopher, Immanuel Kant, who said it’s a combination of sensation and thought, which seemed good to me. You see, that...
31:29	K: Combination of sensation and thought. Quite.
31:32	DB: And these thoughts are the basic categories, the basic discriminations. In other words, you don’t only have sensation but there is an immediate thought too fast, you know, to be seen, in which there is a discrimination or a category, like cause and effect or good and bad and so on, pleasant and unpleasant. And therefore you could say that is experience. In some sense experience, I say, is the contact with reality. I don’t know if that makes sense to you. You see, proper experience in practical affairs is what you mean by something being real.
32:13	K: Can you experience truth?
32:15	DB: No, you can experience reality.
32:17	K: Yes. Quite, quite, quite.
32:19	DB: That’s what I wanted to say. Reality is what can be experienced.
32:22	K: Yes.
32:23	DB: And the sense of reality is important in the experience. You see, the fact that you have a sensation or a contact, you know, sort of a feeling that it is real, I am real and the whole thing is real, you see.
32:36	K: Quite.
32:37	DB: On the other hand, you see, if you try to experience truth or love or beauty or something then it has no meaning, you see, there’s no place. So experience goes wrong when thought tries to go out of its place.
32:56	K: Go out of its limits.
32:57	DB: Out of its limits. You see, the same as... I would say... the way it seems to me, also it’s interesting – you could say you experience pain or pleasure or experience desire.
33:08	K: Yes, yes.
33:11	DB: Experiencing desire, it seems to me, would be a case of thought going out of its limits – right?
33:17	K: Yes. Quite. Now, to see the whole of that – the operation of thought, the limitation of thought, the thought sensation, and thought accumulating knowledge about the future, and so on, all that – and seeing the interrelationship between intelligence, wisdom and truth – seeing the whole of that, would you call that wisdom?
34:01	DB: You could call it wisdom, you could call it truth, you see.
34:06	K: Yes.
34:07	DB: But to me, the notion of intelligence also gets across something more detailed in the sense of meeting the individual situation. In other words, we could say truth, meeting the actual individual situation is intelligence. I don’t know if that makes sense.
34:25	K: Aha. I see what you mean.
34:27	DB: In other words, truth is the universal or the global. Of course, it’s all one but I mean we divide it in our description – our language is dualistic.
34:37	K: Quite.
34:38	DB: But truth is the universal or the global, but when it meets the individual actual situation we call that intelligence – do you see? That’s the way it occurred to me.
34:47	K: Yes.
34:48	DB: In other words, intelligence is what keeps everything in order.
34:56	K: Quite. Yes – quite.
34:59	DB: It is not really different from truth but it is calling attention to a different action, a different way of looking at it, I don’t know, a different way of – not exactly of looking but...
35:09	K: Seeing the whole is wisdom, is truth.
35:15	DB: Seeing the whole is truth. And I think that the actions of a man who sees the whole are wise – that’s the way I would like to put it.
35:23	K: Yes. Yes.
35:26	DB: And then the very root says, you know, they are wise, meaning they are based on seeing, (laughs) since wise means seeing.
35:34	K: Wise means seeing.
35:35	DB: It says so in the dictionary, the original meaning, based on the same root as vide.
35:41	K: Yes, vide.
35:44	DB: And intelligence is also seeing, you see, but I think it’s merely giving names to the action of truth, emphasising the... Intelligence, it seems to me, would involve the ability to deal with every actual case from the seeing.
36:07	K: Yes, from the seeing, that’s right.
36:09	DB: And not from memory or from knowledge.
36:11	K: No, that’s right. Quite.
36:15	DB: You see, people might think that wisdom consisted in accumulating a great deal of knowledge, this tradition, and they get so much knowledge that they would know how to deal with every individual case, and they would think that’s wisdom, you see. But that’s wrong.
36:30	K: The other day, Lord Clark, ‘Civilisation Clark’, was talking about Egypt and he was showing some pictures of Sakkara and Luxor and the Valley of the Kings, and he said, ‘There civilisation began.’
36:48	DB: Yes, well, as far as we know.
36:51	K: I mean, I’m just... As far as we know – but it might be much older.
36:58	DB: Yes.
37:00	K: Is civilisation the product of thought?
37:05	DB: Well, it seems to me it is.
37:08	K: And then culture is also part of thought.
37:12	DB: Yes, the root is ‘to cultivate, to make something grow’.
37:16	K: Cultivate, yes, grow. So our civilisation then is not... is based on thought.
37:27	DB: Yes. I mean, that seems obvious.
37:31	K: Obvious. It is obvious.
37:33	DB: And also Bronowski was making that very clear in his series, you know, in saying the ascent of man was the ascent of his knowledge.
37:42	K: So, knowledge is in the field of reality.
37:51	DB: Yes.
37:52	K: Now you see we are getting at it. Knowledge is in the field of reality and we are operating on knowledge.
37:59	DB: Yes, and then we use experience, you know, to gain knowledge and to apply our knowledge and so on.
38:06	K: All that. Then what... has knowledge any relationship to truth?
38:12	DB: No. You see, at first sight it might have but, you know, it doesn’t actually.
38:17	K: No, actually not. No, sir.
38:20	DB: Thought has no relation. You see, it is a very hard thing to put. This comes to a question which we were considering some time ago, you know: where did thought first go wrong? You see, one idea was, let’s say thought suddenly expanded in man as his brain enlarged and thought, we were suggesting, did not know its limitations, you see. When thought first appeared in man it did not know that it was limited, you see, and it tried to behave as the unlimited. Now, before it could find out that it was limited it had already created so much chaos that it couldn’t do anything. (Laughs) Now, it’s very hard for thought to discover it is limited, not only, you know, for all this chaos but also there’s an inherent difficulty in the language, you know, in thought to express its limitation because there is a paradox, you see. If you try to say thought is limited, you see, thought first of all establishes limits – do you see? – thought is that which makes limits. Right? All the limits come from thought.
39:22	K: Division and so on.
39:23	DB: The very word determine is to terminate, to limit, you see. So if we say all the limits are set by thought, and now we want to say thought itself is limited.
39:36	K: Yes, we do.
39:37	DB: Then that becomes difficult to say not paradoxically, you see, because thought not only makes limits but it transcends every limit that it makes – do you see?
39:48	K: Yes, yes, yes.
39:49	DB: Therefore if thought says, ‘Thought is limited,’ it immediately transcends that limit.
39:53	K: Yes. It draws a line and goes beyond the line.
39:55	DB: That’s right, yes. It is the character of thought to set a limit and transcend the limit. If thought says, ‘I am limited,’ then immediately it transcends the limit.
40:02	K: Yes – quite.
40:03	DB: And therefore it has not done the right thing, you see. Therefore, there is another way to put it, that the whole process of setting limits and transcending them, which is thought...
40:13	K: Which is thought.
40:14	DB: ...not to say, ‘Is it limited?’ because that will get us into that trouble, but rather to say: does it have any bearing whatsoever on truth?
40:22	K: Obviously not.
40:23	DB: No. Not to say it is limited or unlimited or anything, but merely that it has nothing whatsoever to do with it.
40:31	K: That’s right. Thought has no relationship to truth.
40:35	DB: Yes. It has no relevance to truth, no bearing to truth, or anything, you see.
40:40	K: Quite.
40:41	DB: Therefore it cannot even state that truth is unlimited or anything like that.
40:47	K: No, no. Quite.
40:50	DB: And therefore, what thought has to do... You see, when thought sees that then it is obvious that the right action of thought is to not attempt any of those questions where it has no bearing, you see.
41:06	K: Yes. You see, I was looking at those, on the television, the picture of Sakkara where he showed extraordinary buildings, ancient buildings – 3,000, 5,000, I don’t know how old they are. It was put together by thought.
41:32	DB: Yes.
41:34	K: Thought became an instrument of perception.
41:38	DB: Why do you say an instrument of perception?
41:46	K: I’m just... I’m not... The architect who – (inaudible) or whatever you call him – he had an image, or the imagination to see what the buildings should be.
42:06	DB: Yes. Now that brings us back to... last week we were discussing imagination and then you said you don’t imagine anything.
42:12	K: I don’t, personally.
42:13	DB: Yes. Now, you see, if we could just... as long as we are on this, perhaps... Let’s take an architect, and he has plans and he has to visualise what this looks like. What would you say about that? Suppose you wanted to make a building from a drawing, wouldn’t you have to visualise it?
42:31	K: Yes.
42:32	DB: Yes, so that...
42:33	K: No, but I can’t do it. I can only do it if I see some... if an architect draws a plan then I can say, ‘This is not right.’ But I can’t...
42:46	DB: You can’t what?
42:47	K: ...draw it rightly. I can only correct what is...
42:51	DB: Why is that?
42:52	K: I have no visual capacity to see something solid, you know, a drawing.
43:01	DB: In the imagination.
43:03	K: Imagination. I can’t imagine a building.
43:07	DB: Is this just a peculiarity of yourself?
43:09	K: Maybe a peculiarity of myself.
43:11	DB: Or does it reflect... does it mean something more, in the sense that there is something wrong with imagination?
43:17	K: I don’t think imagination plays a part in meditation, in truth, in perception.
43:24	DB: I understand that. I mean, I agree with all that – that’s clear. I say imagination may have certain limited parts to play, let’s say in visualising certain arrangements like a building.
43:35	K: Sure. Yes, yes, of course, of course. A painting.
43:39	DB: You see, one thing that occurred to me was that imagination always contains what I call the imaginer.
43:45	K: Quite.
43:46	DB: The person who seems to be looking.
43:47	K: Looking, yes.
43:48	DB: But he is quite imaginary.
43:49	K: Yes.
43:50	DB: In other words, there is nobody looking. You see, just like in a dream, the dreamer is not there. So the imaginer who is looking at the picture is not there. You see, the imaginer is imagined.
44:02	K: But, talking of dreams, hasn’t it happened to you when you are dreaming there is interpretation of that dream going on?
44:10	DB: Yes, well, that would be another kind of dream, you see. In one kind of dream it seems you are identified with the dreamer, with the one who is dreaming, you see, some character in the dream.
44:22	K: Well, we won’t go into dreams yet – quite.
44:24	DB: Yes. But there might be another kind of dream in which you are not identified, you see.
44:28	K: Yes.
44:29	DB: But couldn’t there be a kind of imagination where you were not identified? You see, I think you use... like when you compared to Columbus discovering America, there is an image there.
44:43	K: Yes.
44:44	DB: Now, there was no image-maker but the image was merely an expression, a visual expression of a certain perception – do you see? Somebody might call that a kind of imagination.
44:54	K: No, that’s a statement. It’s not imagination.
44:56	DB: It’s a statement but there is an image in there, you see – the image of Columbus on his boat going to America.
45:02	K: I didn’t imagine that.
45:03	DB: Yes, all right, but to some extent it communicates that.
45:07	K: I just said that’s a fact. Apparently, Columbus did discover America – if previously it had not been discovered by the Vikings and so on – but apparently Columbus... that’s a fact.
45:20	DB: Yes, it is a fact.
45:22	K: I just stated a fact.
45:24	DB: Yes. But I think it’s a matter of language. You see, there is the kind of imagination which is fancy or fantasy.
45:34	K: Fancy – yes, yes, yes.
45:35	DB: The same thing. And in this it appears that the thing being imagined is being looked at by somebody, and in a way it’s taken as if he actually were looking at something.
45:43	K: Quite. That I understand.
45:45	DB: And that is delusion, you see. All right. But a person can have an image which he knows is an image, you see. These metaphors, you see. Columbus discovering America is a metaphor.
45:58	K: Yes.
45:59	DB: And there are many other metaphors which take the form of images. I can’t remember them now, but I think you have used others. That use of imagery is like the use of language. Do you see what I am driving at?
46:12	K: Quite. That’s simple. That I understand.
46:15	DB: All right, so...
46:16	K: No, wait a minute, sir.
46:17	DB: Yes.
46:18	K: So in the field of reality there is imagination. There is the artist, the musician.
46:26	DB: That’s right. He may use images in a constructive way rather than pure fantasy.
46:30	K: Yes. Yes, and so on. Now, can a musician or an artist see truth?
46:39	DB: No, you see, once again... not as a musician, anyway. You see, he might as a human being see truth, like any human being. There is no reason why being a musician or an artist should make a person more perceptive of truth than anything else.
46:56	K: That’s just it. That’s it.
46:58	DB: Although, of course, among musicians and artists there may be a belief to the contrary.
47:03	K: Yes, quite, quite.
47:04	DB: In fact I think there is.
47:07	K: Yes, that they are superior entities and so on – quite – more sensitive and therefore perhaps capable of seeing truth.
47:16	DB: Yes, because in some way... you see, I have even read that some people regard art as the sacred or art as expressing something deep, and so on. Now, you see, this is a point we have raised before about the culture. The word culture has a tremendous range of meanings too, because anthropologists use it to mean everything, you see.
47:39	K: Everything – yes – quite, quite.
47:41	DB: And now other people use it to mean just music and art and literature and some other things, you see. But...
47:48	K: We are using it in a very... we are using it only in the field of reality.
47:56	DB: Yes. Everybody, even the anthropologist uses it only in the field of reality, you see.
48:02	K: Quite.
48:03	DB: Now, the question is: can the culture bring about a perception of truth? There is a widespread belief that it could.
48:13	K: I know, I know.
48:14	DB: That the culture could put the mind in order, as it were. That by means of a good culture the mind is brought to a certain order which would be helpful.
48:25	K: Which means through time, order.
48:29	DB: Yes, that’s really it. I think it’s a very widespread belief, you see.
48:34	K: Yes, of course. Through evolution, order.
48:38	DB: Yes, or through cultivation, order, and so on.
48:41	K: Yes, yes. Through time bring about order.
48:45	DB: Yes. Even the Egyptians, who thought, you know, more timelessly, nevertheless they believed that through cultivation of the mind they would bring a certain order. I mean, it’s obvious that they did try it. (Laughs) So that I think is a case where thought is going beyond its proper limits, you see.
49:07	K: Yes.
49:08	DB: When thought tries to put the brain in order, as it were, to put the mind in order, thought is trying to do what it could never do.
49:15	K: No. You see, but the whole of the political field and the economic business is to bring about order in the field of reality.
49:28	DB: Yes.
49:30	K: And they can never do it.
49:33	DB: No. You see, it would be important to point out why not though, you see.
49:36	K: Oh, that’s simple. Why not is simple. Because they are...
49:41	DB: …it is too limited, you see.
49:43	K: Too limited, of course. It’s not global.
49:45	DB: It doesn’t go into the deep sources of human action.
49:48	K: Yes, quite. So we are eliminating altogether the artist, the musician, the archaeologist, the politician, the economist.
50:02	DB: Yes. Well, none of these can bring order. Science also cannot bring order in the field of reality because, you know, whatever knowledge it gains it depends on the human being what’s done with it.
50:13	K: Yes. So, only those who perceive truth can bring about order.
50:23	DB: Yes. (Pause)
50:26	K: Quite right.
50:28	DB: But you see, it might be worth saying a few things. It may seem at first sight that one is dismissing everything, you see, in other words, the whole of culture. But at the same time, you know, why would you have a school here to teach people things?
50:46	K: No, that’s a different thing.
50:48	DB: No, but I mean it’s important to make it clear, you see, because sometimes the language can lead you into something that doesn’t communicate properly, by...
50:56	K: Quite, quite. This morning there was an article quoted from the Los Angeles Times, in the Tribune, about the revolutionaries in America. Did you read... did you look at that? I was telling you about it.
51:13	DB: You mentioned it to me.
51:14	K: I mentioned it. They are, all of them are saying the present structure of society is destructive, is not giving man opportunity to be free, to be happy and so on and so on and so on. And all these revolutionaries want to upset what they call capitalism and bring it... bring about a world state or a state in America where big corporations are not in power.
51:59	DB: Yes.
52:01	K: All that is in the field of thought.
52:06	DB: Yes.
52:09	K: And they have tremendous appeal.
52:15	DB: Is that what the article said?
52:18	K: No, no, I am saying. They have tremendous appeal, because what is taking place in India, putting the cap on everything – you know – and dominating, they think that will bring order. The revolutionaries want to bring order, the communists want to bring order. So everybody is trying to bring order in the field of reality.
52:45	DB: Yes.
52:46	K: And we are saying that’s impossible.
52:49	DB: Yes, and that might discourage a lot of people.
52:53	K: No. I mean, that’s a fact.
52:55	DB: It’s a fact, yes.
52:57	K: Would the revolutionary accept this as a fact?
53:00	DB: Well not as he is now. I mean, not now. That is, the revolutionary doesn’t see this fact.
53:07	K: Yes. But then what relationship is the one who perceives truth to the revolutionary who says we must change the world?
53:22	DB: Yes, well, it’s again the same point, that truth has no direct relation to this reality, you see. The only possibility would be to find a way to communicate.
53:33	K: Yes. Therefore you... he... the man who is a revolutionary, he says, ‘You have no place; you are irrelevant.’
53:40	DB: Yes, the revolutionary says you are irrelevant unless you can somehow communicate with him.
53:45	K: Ah, but you can’t communicate with him because he has enclosed himself entirely in the field of reality.
53:53	DB: Yes, you can’t really do much with him.
53:56	K: No. Any more than you can do anything with Brezhnev. I mean, he wouldn’t even tolerate you. So, what place has the man who perceives truth in this world of reality?
54:15	DB: Well, it’s clear he has no place actually, you know, not directly. You know, his perception of truth has no place in this world of reality.
54:23	K: I am not sure.
54:25	DB: Well, let’s see what place he would have other than, you know, communicating to break through this field of reality.
54:38	K: If the man in the world of reality is a real revolutionary – I don’t mean blood and thunder revolutionary, but the feeling that society is corrupt, etc., etc., and he has got a strong feeling that it must changed – could the man who has perceived truth talk to him?
55:06	DB: Yes, well, that’s what I meant – that all he can do is to communicate truth. You are saying the revolutionary is not really completely engulfed in the field of reality, you know, he is still able to listen because he sincerely wants a better society, and therefore if the other man can put it right, put the thing rightly, you know, in the right way...
55:33	K: But, you see, sir, can this man who is a real deep revolutionary ever see truth? Or must he realise the limitation of thought and so on, so on.
55:47	DB: Yes, well, that’s what has to be communicated, I am saying. If this man is still able to listen to something then he may be able to listen to the fact of the limitation of thought, if it’s really put in a way that gets to him.
56:04	K: Yes, I understand.
56:06	DB: Although he may start to resist it very quickly, but that means the other fellow has to be very fast.
56:11	K: Yes.
56:12	DB: (Laughs) And very succinct, and so on.
56:16	K: I think, sir, we are clear. That is, we are saying in the world of reality there is choice, there is... everything is in the field of reality, and a man who perceives truth can only operate or function upon reality.
56:42	DB: Well, we said he can’t actually.
56:45	K: In the sense – wait a minute – in the sense he can communicate.
56:49	DB: Yes, but that’s not... he doesn’t communicate to reality.
56:53	K: No, no – he cannot communicate truth.
56:56	DB: No.
56:57	K: But he can communicate to this man who is in the field of reality to say, ‘Look, let’s move, see the limits of that.’
57:05	DB: Yes, he can communicate first of all showing the inconsistencies and showing the limits and so on. Within the field of reality, a certain... if the man is not totally engulfed, there is a certain area where he can listen.
57:17	K: But why is it that all the leaders of the world are dominating this, this world of reality?
57:33	DB: Well, because nobody has any idea in that world of what to do, you see. You know, I think we have just made it clear nothing can be done, and probably deep down there’s a sense nothing can be done – you know, leave it to somebody to do it. Right? I mean, we don’t know what to do.
57:48	K: (Laughs) Quite, quite.
57:49	DB: (Laughs) If we knew what to do we might try to do it. But the other fellow seems to know what he is doing; perhaps we had better let him get on with it. You know, that’s the sort of thinking that might go on.
57:58	K: One of the revolutionaries says, ‘Order your own life.’
58:03	DB: Yes, but we’re back in the same story. What is going to order it, you see? In my view it would be possible – you see, it’s important to communicate in different ways to see if this thing will come across. My own feeling is that the communication itself has to be very orderly, both verbally and non-verbally.
58:40	K: Non-verbal – quite, quite, quite.
58:43	DB: But the order of the communication itself is part of the communication.
58:47	K: If there is perception of the truth, the truth will bring order in words.
58:57	DB: Yes, that’s it. That brings us to a point that we were discussing before, you see.
59:02	K: Yes, that’s it.
59:03	DB: It will bring order in words and in also the non-verbal action.
59:06	K: Non-verbal action – quite.
59:07	DB: And that order will itself be seen by the man, not only what you say, the content of what you say, but the whole order of it will be seen, and that seeing will already be a bit beyond reality, I mean.
59:23	K: Quite, quite.
59:25	DB: Now, we were discussing words a few times ago, and one question that arose is that it is not clear how words are formed. Remember, we discussed this. You know, you can’t see yourself making the words and you suddenly find yourself saying them without any visible account. You can’t account for how it comes about, you see. One of the questions that occurred to me – you see, I could see there might be two ways of forming words – one way would be from memory, you see, from the habit, or stored-up phrases would just come out from the record and be combined in various ways.
1:00:08	K: Is the English language very confusing?
1:00:12	DB: Well, not when you get to know it, I suppose.
1:00:17	K: Like the word see – seeing with the eyes, seeing with the mind, seeing with the intellect, seeing with feeling – you follow? – seeing.
1:00:27	DB: Yes.
1:00:28	K: And when you use the word see, all these are implied.
1:00:32	DB: Yes, I think in most languages that sort of thing happens.
1:00:35	K: Is it so in Sanskrit, because...
1:00:38	DB: I don’t know Sanskrit.
1:00:39	K: I don’t know either.
1:00:40	DB: But I mean, most of the languages, like French or Italian and so on, probably do much the same.
1:00:43	K: But I believe in Sanskrit there are different words for all this.
1:00:48	DB: Yes. Well, Sanskrit was, as you know, a language constructed specifically for philosophical and religious...
1:00:55	K: Yes, ‘made perfect’ it means. The word Sanskrit means ‘that which has been made perfect’.
1:00:59	DB: But it’s so that our common language – and I think the word (inaudible) just meant the common language...
1:01:05	K: Common language, (inaudible).
1:01:07	DB: (Inaudible) – which is the same as our language here – has all this confusion.
1:01:11	K: Yes.
1:01:12	DB: And we have trouble with this confusion now, trying to see what intelligence means...
1:01:16	K: Yes. (Laughs)
1:01:18	DB: (Laughs) ...and wisdom and truth and so on. But I don’t think the language is the main problem. In other words, this confused language is probably the product of a confused mind.
1:01:29	K: Yes, quite right – language is not the main problem.
1:01:35	DB: But I’m interested, you see, in how language forms. Now, the other idea of words forming is like you once discussed, the drum vibrating to the emptiness. The words could form, as it were, directly from truth. Is that...
1:01:51	K: Yes, yes.
1:01:52	DB: So that you are not thinking the words. And in that case you’re saying something we said before, the truth can act directly on the physical structure of the brain in some way.
1:02:03	K: Yes, that’s right. We’re coming to that.
1:02:05	DB: That is very interesting, you see. Now, one thing that occurred to me is if you say that then you must say that at bottom, you know, in its depths, matter is not mechanical, you see. It may be mechanical in a certain way.
1:02:18	K: Man is not mechanical.
1:02:19	DB: Matter is not mechanical.
1:02:21	K: Matter.
1:02:22	DB: Because truth could not act on matter if it were just mechanical.
1:02:25	K: Quite.
1:02:26	DB: So you would have to say the mechanical aspects of matter are a certain area of matter, you know, which thought can handle, and thought itself is material.
1:02:36	K: You know, there is an old... I think part of the old Indian tradition and Tibetan, in the Eastern tradition, that matter is living.
1:02:43	DB: Yes, well that’s sort of what’s implied in what you say, isn’t it?
1:02:47	K: Yes.
1:02:48	DB: Because, you see, if truth can actually operate in matter then matter must be intelligent in some way, or living, or at least it’s intelligible.
1:02:56	K: That’s what I was saying – if he who perceives truth can operate or... on the consciousness or on the mind or the brain of the man who is caught in the world of reality.
1:03:15	DB: Yes, that’s a very interesting point, you see.
1:03:17	K: Yes, that’s it.
1:03:18	DB: I think we have to see this very clearly.
1:03:19	K: Yes.
1:03:20	DB: You see, first of all, the truth operates in his own brain...
1:03:22	K: Yes, of course.
1:03:24	DB: ...clearing away the confusion.
1:03:27	K: Yes.
1:03:28	DB: Sometimes it occurred to me the analogy of a fog which could be cleared away either by the sun or by the wind or a storm, you see. In other words, rather than trying to arrange everything within the fog...
1:03:39	K: No, no, no – quite.
1:03:40	DB: ...it is all cleared away, you see. So all the questions arising in the fog are irrelevant.
1:03:44	K: Would you say, sir – from that arises – just briefly – suffering, when you remain totally with suffering that’s a storm?
1:03:56	DB: Yes. Yes, that’s the storm that clears the fog.
1:03:59	K: Clears the fog – that’s it.
1:04:01	DB: And it’s a real material storm then it would be... actual or something, genuine.
1:04:08	K: Yes.
1:04:09	DB: But I think that, you know, we should look a little bit at this notion that matter is fundamentally not mechanical, you see.
1:04:17	K: Not mechanical – quite, quite.
1:04:18	DB: But it has a mechanical area.
1:04:20	K: Yes.
1:04:22	DB: Which is also the area that thought can handle. So we could say that that is the right area for thought, which is the mechanical area of matter, and thought itself is part of the mechanical area of matter.
1:04:33	K: That’s right.
1:04:34	DB: Which can bring order within that other mechanical area but it cannot bring order into itself.
1:04:41	K: No. And thought is trying to go beyond it.
1:04:45	DB: Yes, it tries to transcend its limit, you see.
1:04:48	K: Yes.
1:04:49	DB: Because thought... you see, when thought first forms, its very form is to set a limit and transcend it, and thought does not know that there are some areas it can’t go into, and therefore thought tries to transcend those limits too, you see. Now, either it tries to understand the truth or spirit or love or something, or it tries to take hold of the brain matter and keep it in order, but it can’t reach those depths.
1:05:16	K: Quite. So we are saying mind is not mechanical.
1:05:20	DB: Yes, and also matter is not mechanical.
1:05:21	K: Matter is not mechanical.
1:05:22	DB: Although it has a mechanical...
1:05:24	K: ...part.
1:05:25	DB: ...part or side or something.
1:05:27	K: Yes, that’s right. Therefore truth can touch the non-mechanical part in man, in matter.
1:05:34	DB: Yes, in matter. And truth operating in one brain clears that brain.
1:05:38	K: I get it, I get it. That’s right.
1:05:40	DB: And then being communicated it may clear another brain.
1:05:42	K: Another brain – quite, quite.
1:05:43	DB: Now when that brain is clear it can operate in order.
1:05:46	K: Quite.
1:05:47	DB: But you see, then you would say the brain, being material, is both mechanical and non-mechanical.
1:05:55	K: That’s right.
1:05:56	DB: Now the mechanical side will operate in order only if with the truth it keeps it clear. Is that it?
1:06:03	K: That’s right.
1:06:04	DB: In other words, something non-mechanical is needed to keep the mechanical clear.
1:06:06	K: Yes.
1:06:07	DB: Otherwise you accumulate pollution or some fog or mist, you know, smog, from the past.
1:06:15	K: Are you saying that in man or in matter there is intelligence? I’m using...
1:06:26	DB: I am saying it’s implied. You see, I am trying to say that if we proceed from where we started, saying that truth actually operates in the brain – now, if it does then it follows that there must be something like intelligence in matter, you see, at least something non-mechanical.
1:06:49	K: Then we have to be awfully careful because that brings in that God is in you.
1:06:56	DB: Well, no, we don’t say that.
1:06:58	K: That’s what I want to avoid. (Laughs)
1:07:00	DB: Yes, we’ve got to be careful because thought is thereby transcending its proper limits.
1:07:05	K: Yes. Quite, quite. (Laughs) We’ll catch him that way. (Laughter) Quite.
1:07:09	DB: You see, we’re not saying God is anywhere, but merely the question is whether matter is mechanical or not. All we could say is that matter can respond to intelligence, as it were. Whether it is intelligent or not we don’t know, but one view of it is it might be, in the sense that... in some sense, anyway. But I think if we stick to where we are, you see, and what implications are in that then we could say we have got to the point of saying matter is not mechanical, it is capable of responding to intelligence. And whether it has intelligence or not we don’t know, but it has a property that I call intelligibility, which maybe is in some relation to intelligence, also the possibility of being acted on by intelligence.
1:08:04	K: Why has religion been associated with truth?
1:08:11	DB: Well, in a way it’s natural if you think of the deeper meaning of religion, you see.
1:08:16	K: The word religion – yes.
1:08:18	DB: Yes. Apparently the best meaning that this dictionary gives is relegere, meaning ‘to gather together’ or ‘to pay attention to the whole’ or something like that.
1:08:26	K: Yes, that’s right – diligent and negligent and all the rest of it.
1:08:29	DB: So if religion was originally the gathering together of the whole then truth is that too, you see.
1:08:37	K: Yes. That’s what I wanted to make clear. That’s right.
1:08:41	DB: But then when religion became, you know, corrupted by being defined as reality then it went wrong. You could say that if one reads the Bible, the Old Testament, the Hebrews were continually in danger of falling into idolatry, you know, of making God real, you see, of making images which turned truth into reality.
1:09:14	K: Like last night there was a priest, a Roman Catholic priest, who was talking about the devil. He says, ‘I actually believe that there is devil.’
1:09:24	DB: Yes, well, if he believes there God, he must...
1:09:27	K: ‘A devil, who now is having a marvellous time.’ (Laughter)
1:09:31	DB: Yes, well, it’s only natural – if he believes that God is real, he must believe that the devil is real.
1:09:38	K: Sir, we are saying something which is terribly revolutionary.
1:09:47	DB: In what sense?
1:09:49	K: Revolutionary in the sense we are denying evolution. Evolution there is in the field of thought, in the field of reality.
1:09:58	DB: We are denying that evolution has to do with that which is. It may happen in the field of reality.
1:10:04	K: Yes.
1:10:05	DB: You see, I think we could put it carefully, that in the field of reality you may observe evolution taking place – one animal becoming another and so on. But we are saying that that is only the field of reality, it is not even the depths of matter, much less the depths of mind.
1:10:21	K: Yes. We are now saying whatever is in the field of reality, conclusions, and thought moving out of its limit, transcending it, and creating another reality, is still within the field of reality.
1:10:40	DB: Yes.
1:10:41	K: All that we say is unrelated to truth.
1:10:46	DB: Yes.
1:10:47	K: And truth is something which can only be perceived when the mind acts as a whole.
1:10:59	DB: Yes.
1:11:01	K: That’s right. Yes.
1:11:05	DB: But in addition you are saying that truth actually acts to bring about this wholeness by dissolving the mist of reality in the brain, you see, the confusion – whatever we want to call it.
1:11:20	K: That’s right. You know, we were talking the other day about emptiness – at lunch – having great energy.
1:11:30	DB: Yes.
1:11:33	K: You were saying space...
1:11:36	DB: Yes, I said space has – this was a calculation I once made, that according to modern physics empty space is full of a tremendous energy which is inaccessible. People don’t take it very seriously, but if you actually do the calculation it’s an essentially unlimited energy in each part of space.
1:11:56	K: You see, the other night – I am not being personal – the other night – you know, I have a peculiar kind of meditation; I wake up meditating.
1:12:10	DB: Yes.
1:12:12	K: The other night I woke up with this feeling of tremendous energy in emptiness.
1:12:20	DB: Yes.
1:12:22	K: I was – please, when I use the word I, I don’t mean that – this whole brain was completely empty and therefore there was an extraordinary quality of energy.
1:12:37	DB: Yes.
1:12:39	K: And when you said at lunchtime that according to scientists, according to you, in space there is great energy...
1:12:50	DB: Yes, unlimited.
1:12:51	K: ...unlimited energy, I felt the same thing, you see. So, is emptiness, which means nothingness – let me put it – mustn’t there be emptiness for the perception of truth?
1:13:22	DB: Yes. But the point about the energy, that the perception of truth is the action of this energy.
1:13:32	K: Yes, that’s it.
1:13:33	DB: You see, the way – you may find this interesting – the way modern physics treats the atoms and the particles of matter is to say they are created out of empty space and that they dissolve into empty space. And to say that a particle is a sort of manifestation of that energy of the whole – right? – so that it’s a small change, a form, as it were, within that energy – do you see? – which is transient. Do you see what I mean?
1:14:03	K: Yes, I understand.
1:14:04	DB: Now perhaps you could say thought is a similar form – I don’t know, you see – or matter as we know it, you know, the mechanical side of matter. But then there is the energy itself – you see, physics disregards that energy itself. It pays mostly attention to matter, you see.
1:14:22	K: Matter – yes, quite.
1:14:23	DB: And it tries to ignore the rest of the energy. And that’s what thought does, you see, it only...
1:14:30	K: But from this arises a question: how is a man to empty his mind?
1:14:40	DB: Yes, well...
1:14:42	K: How is a human being, who sees the world of reality and knows its limitation and... how can that man perceive this immense thing? They have tried, in the religious field, as little as I know about it, they have tried every method to get to this.
1:15:19	DB: Yes. I mean, one can see the problem of methods, that every method is part of the content of consciousness of thought.
1:15:26	K: Quite.
1:15:27	DB: Therefore in using the method means you are not doing it.
1:15:31	K: No, but that has become – what? – not only the fashion, that seems to have been right from the beginning – do something to get that.
1:15:44	DB: Yes, well it seems to me that again is thought not seeing its... trying to transcend its limit. You see, in other words that is something which is not proper, you know, which thought cannot deal with.
1:15:56	K: How can one help – not help – show or communicate or awaken this extraordinary emptiness and energy – which is truth and so on, all the rest?
1:16:19	DB: Well...
1:16:23	K: If you, as a professor, doctor, scientist, physicist, who has gone into the question of time, space, matter, energy, and if you perceived that truth, how would you communicate to me, both verbally and non-verbally? Not communicate, because I would say – I am fairly intelligent – I’d say, ‘Verbal communication, I can never get it through verbal communication, because the description is not the described and all the rest of it. It is my serious concern and interest to understand that emptiness.’ You would you describe all the limitations of thought and so on, so on, so on, so on. How would you help me to come to that extraordinary emptiness? You see, this has been the problem, one of the problems of a man who sees it and then wants to tell somebody about it.
1:17:55	DB: Yes. Yes, well, somehow... Yes, I see the problem.
1:17:59	K: In telling him, it gets destroyed.
1:18:03	DB: It gets destroyed because thought takes hold of it.
1:18:06	K: Yes, takes over, and the priests get into it, and then the whole thing is gone. (Pause)
1:18:14	DB: You see, the point is to communicate to thought, you know, so that thought does not attempt to move outside its field, you see.
1:18:32	K: But I only know thought.
1:18:34	DB: Yes, I know that, but it’s not entirely so. We just said that – we considered this revolutionary, and we said it may be that he only knows thought, but there is still something in him which...
1:18:45	K: Unless he’s really a profound revolutionary...
1:18:49	DB: Yes. Yes, I’m trying to say that we are considering the profound revolutionary who might still have something in him.
1:18:58	K: Yes, then... I mean, there are very few profound revolutionaries. (Laughs)
1:19:02	DB: Well, I mean...
1:19:03	K: They are all revolutionaries in the sense of changing the environment. And therefore, you see, they say a guru is necessary. You follow?
1:19:28	DB: Yes, but I mean still it’s no use.
1:19:30	K: No, of course not. ‘He will show me or help me to realise that’ – which is impossible. So everything has been so made corrupt, so impossible. So we have now... I mean, if you had that emptiness and you want to show it to me, what do you do with me?
1:20:05	DB: You see, I think maybe we are going a little too fast...
1:20:10	K: All right.
1:20:11	DB: ...in the sense that there is a great deal of things we haven’t gone into yet that may be getting in the way.
1:20:16	K: I have jumped to... Sorry, I jumped to this emptiness.
1:20:18	DB: You see, the point is there is a tremendous movement of thought, of self-deception and so on. You see, the mind does not see the whole... the thought does not handle the whole of what it produces. You see, it produces a whole movement and it tries to stop a little bit of it.
1:20:39	K: Quite, quite.
1:20:40	DB: It is incapable of getting to its own root and stopping at all.
1:20:45	K: And they have said... that’s why they have said control it.
1:20:49	DB: Yes, but then that has no meaning, you see.
1:20:50	K: No meaning to it – quite right.
1:20:57	DB: Then there is the question of time, you see. In other words, we see that chronological time has been invented by thought and it’s useful and correct and, you know, it gives us insight into matter, and then it has been extended to psychological time.
1:21:18	K: That’s right – and psychologically evolve.
1:21:21	DB: Evolve to become better, you see.
1:21:24	K: Better, yes.
1:21:25	DB: Now, that again, you see, thought in the beginning, when it invented time, it did not know that time was limited. You see, it only used it chronologically and it began to just use it psychologically as well because it didn’t know any reason not to, and now the point is that...
1:21:48	K: Sir, would you – may I just add something, probably totally irrelevant – in that emptiness there is no time.
1:21:54	DB: No.
1:21:55	K: No.
1:21:56	DB: There’s no time there, but you see, time appears when the centre is produced and with the memory of the past and the expectation of the future and the attempt to make the future better and so on. Now, there is the belief, due to our whole tradition and background and experience, that this time is a serious reality, it’s a solid, genuine reality. You see, in other words, it appears to be so in matter and therefore extended, it appears to be so, psychologically.
1:22:34	K: Yes, for a tree. For a plant to become a tree it needs time – all that.
1:22:39	DB: Yes. So it seems that psychologically we must also exist in time, you see. The point is though, if we can communicate this, that there is no fact of psychological time, you see, that it’s entirely imagination.
1:22:59	K: Imagination with the work of thought.
1:23:02	DB: The work of thought. A person imagines this whole stretch of time and this imagination produces real results in the brain, which it takes as proof that the thing is there, you see. So, the thing has no ground beyond thought, you see. Its only reality as thought, as the memory – right? – it’s the imprint of the memory. Now, the thing is that this time is not actually observed.
1:23:44	K: Yes, yes.
1:23:46	DB: It is only imagined, and we imagine that we observe it – do you see? That is what I was trying to say – there is an imaginer who imagines that he observes time.
1:23:55	K: The observer imagines...
1:23:57	DB: ...that he observes time, you see. That is, if he didn’t imagine that he observed time then he would see it was only thought. You see, it’s the imagination that we are observing, where some of the confusion arises.
1:24:12	K: Quite. I understand.
1:24:14	DB: You see, if thought is going on, when you realise it’s thought then you evaluate it, you know, and see whether it has its place or not – there’s no problem. But you see, if you think that it’s perception then you take it as truth – do you see? And the same thing happens in experience, that you get an experience of time, you experience the reality of psychological time, (laughs) because the sensations which are supposed to be connected with time are there, but they are imagined to be real and independent of thought – do you see? So you apparently are looking at time, you know, experiencing the reality of time, and apparently have knowledge of the correctness of time, and so on – do you see? But you see that none of this is a fact.
1:25:08	K: None of this is a fact. That’s right. There is no tomorrow, psychologically.
1:25:14	DB: Psychologically, there is no next moment.
1:25:17	K: That’s right.
1:25:18	DB: And there is no past, you see, psychologically – it’s all memory. What is present now is a memory and an expectation in thought.
1:25:30	K: Yes, and all reaction to that is mechanical.
1:25:35	DB: Yes. The memory itself is mechanical because it’s on the brain cells – right? And the difficulty is that that memory is given the importance of something transcendent, I mean, of your very existence, so that the reaction is enormous. You see what I mean?
1:25:54	K: Yes, yes. (Pause) You see, all that, in the world of reality, if there is no relationship between this and truth, to abandon this can only take place through suffering – is that it?
1:26:42	DB: Well, that may be a way. I mean, I can’t say whether it is only possible. In staying with suffering...
1:26:49	K: Yes, that’s what we said.
1:26:50	DB: This whole process creates suffering.
1:26:53	K: Yes, this whole process creates suffering.
1:26:54	DB: And must do so. Now, if you escape suffering you are not actually perceiving the process. So, you see, you have to stay with suffering because...
1:27:08	K: You have to stay with reality.
1:27:10	DB: With reality.
1:27:11	K: That’s it.
1:27:12	DB: And reality is very unpleasant when you stay with it.
1:27:14	K: You have to stay with reality. You have to stay with the limitation of thought and not move from there.
1:27:25	DB: Yes, but suppose you find that you are nevertheless moving, you see.
1:27:29	K: Of course.
1:27:30	DB: Then what?
1:27:32	K: Then you are... then still it is the thought moving.
1:27:36	DB: Yes.
1:27:37	K: So you say... The perception of all that is truth.
1:27:44	DB: Yes.
1:27:45	K: But I can’t... or people can’t perceive that, therefore you have to talk, if you tell that the word is not the thing, and so they say, ‘What the...’ (laughs)
1:27:59	DB: Well, I think that there’s an understanding on a certain level, but the trouble is something like this, that many people are ready to listen and understand up to a point. Now, the difficulty is that the whole of thought produces a movement beyond what thought can be conscious of, and therefore this understanding is applied to some partial consequence of thought. So you try to stop that partial consequence while the whole thing is untouched, you see. In other words, the typical experience people have in listening to you is to say, ‘Yes, it’s very good, very clear, but I can’t... it doesn’t quite work,’ you know.
1:28:40	K: Yes, quite.
1:28:44	DB: (Laughs) You see, I think that there are quite a few people that want, up to a point to...
1:28:54	K: Up to a point.
1:28:55	DB: Yes. But then the question is, you see, if you find that you are only going up to a point...
1:29:01	K: That isn’t good enough.
1:29:02	DB: It isn’t good enough, but the reason is probably that one is probably escaping suffering, you see. In other words, if you went a bit further it might come to the suffering.
1:29:12	K: You see, thought is so extraordinarily subtle that it thinks it is still, it thinks it knows its limitations, but it is always putting out a tentacle, waiting, waiting, waiting.
1:29:35	DB: Yes, it’s ready to transcend its limits.
1:29:39	K: Yes. You see, that’s...
1:29:46	DB: Well, I wonder if you couldn’t look at desire, you see, that there’s a desire in thought to do all this – right?
1:29:58	K: Yes, of course, of course. Desire being a sensation and thought.
1:30:04	DB: Yes, a sensation and thought along with the instructions, you know, to carry out, to achieve. You see, if you get a pleasant sensation then the thought says, ‘That’s pleasant,’ and then a set of instructions to try to get hold of it.
1:30:20	K: Quite.
1:30:21	DB: Or if it says, ‘Unpleasant,’ then get rid of it.
1:30:23	K: Get rid of it.
1:30:25	DB: But of course desire has this sense of longing and craving and yearning and so on, something very powerful which overrides, you know, all the understanding.
1:30:40	K: The other day after the talk a man came up to me and said, ‘If I have no desire I can’t have sex.’
1:30:49	DB: Yes.
1:30:50	K: I said – you follow how... he has related desire as sensation, thought and sex.
1:31:01	DB: Yes. Well, it’s sensation, thought and achieving the satisfaction of the desire.
1:31:07	K: Of course, of course.
1:31:10	DB: Well, that...
1:31:13	K: Sir, is it possible – please, I am putting the most absurd question – not to have desire at all?
1:31:27	DB: Well, that’s what I was sort of coming to, to say what is desire, you know, do we have to have it?
1:31:31	K: That’s what I’m getting at.
1:31:33	DB: You see, I was trying to find out what is the real object of desire, because it is often very hard, you know, it changes.
1:31:42	K: But it is – desire, sensation, thought – is still within that field of reality.
1:31:52	DB: Yes. It seems to me is that what desire is trying to achieve is basically a better state of consciousness – do you see? – more orderliness.
1:32:00	K: More orderly and so on – yes.
1:32:02	DB: Yes. And that is inherently meaningless.
1:32:04	K: Here, in the field of reality.
1:32:05	DB: In the field of reality. That is, it is moving, it is doing something meaningless, as it is trying to do something which is outside, where thought has no place – do you see? You see, thought thinks that it can improve the state of consciousness by some activity – right? That goes back to ancient times when thought didn’t know its limits. So one of the things that thought thinks it can do is to make an improved state of consciousness – do you see?
1:32:36	K: Quite, quite.
1:32:37	DB: You see, because possibly there is a feeling consciousness is the essence of our existence or something. You see, in other words, we may be taking reality as the essence of our existence as our consciousness, and then thought is trying naturally to improve it.
1:32:52	K: Quite – naturally.
1:32:54	DB: And then it experiences desire, I mean, an intense sensation and a wish, a longing to carry out that improvement, which it can never do.
1:33:07	K: Quite. Consciousness is in the field of reality.
1:33:12	DB: Yes, that’s the point we’re trying to say. But usually our tradition is that it is not, you see.
1:33:17	K: No – quite. And truth is not consciousness.
1:33:23	DB: No, truth is not consciousness. And consciousness is not the essence of our existence, you see, of our being – right? But if anything is, truth is – right?
1:33:36	K: Yes, yes. Therefore would you say that the self is the essence of consciousness?
1:33:47	DB: Well, that’s a question, you see. Certainly the consciousness as it is now.
1:33:53	K: As it is now – I am taking it as it is now, not as something glorious or anything – as it is now.
1:33:59	DB: The very word self – I looked up – one of its meanings is quintessence.
1:34:02	K: Quintessence.
1:34:03	DB: The thing itself, the quintessence, the essence of all essences.
1:34:06	K: Yes, quite. It is the essence of consciousness.
1:34:09	DB: Yes.
1:34:11	K: And truth is the essence of non-consciousness.
1:34:16	DB: Well, the essence of that which is – do you see?
1:34:20	K: Yes.
1:34:21	DB: But I mean, why would you say non-consciousness?
1:34:23	K: Self is the essence of consciousness, as we know it.
1:34:33	DB: Yes, as we know it. But we discussed one of the other times another kind of consciousness that might not be conditioned – right?
1:34:40	K: Yes, but is that consciousness... can that ever be conscious of itself?
1:34:46	DB: The other kind?
1:34:48	K: Yes.
1:34:49	DB: I see.
1:34:51	K: If it is, it cannot come to truth
1:34:55	DB: Yes, you see, why is that?
1:34:56	K: I think I am making...
1:34:58	DB: Because in being conscious of itself, well, first of all, it must be dividing itself.
1:35:04	K: Yes – quite, quite, quite – you’ve got it. It’s very interesting.
1:35:09	DB: Yes. Now, we say there is a kind of consciousness which is unconditioned. Would you sometimes even say a kind of thinking that is unconditioned? I don’t know. In some of your writings you even implied that there was another kind of thought, or something like thought.
1:35:26	K: Like thought, perhaps.
1:35:27	DB: Like thought.
1:35:28	K: But it’s not thought.
1:35:29	DB: It’s not thought, but could you call it...
1:35:32	K: Let’s keep to this for a minute, sir, may we?
1:35:34	DB: Yes.
1:35:35	K: The self is the essence of... the word itself is the essence, the essence of consciousness. Consciousness is in the field of reality.
1:35:44	DB: Yes, it’s an activity of the brain, you see.
1:35:47	K: And it is an activity of the brain which has been conditioned.
1:35:52	DB: Yes.
1:35:54	K: With memory and all the rest of it. And we said, that consciousness can never come upon truth.
1:36:06	DB: No, well, first of all, no real structure can ever give truth.
1:36:12	K: Yes, of course. This structure – all right – quite. So, this is nothingness.
1:36:23	DB: Nothingness is truth – yes.
1:36:25	K: Is truth – not a thing. And in that nothingness, which is emptiness, space, there is tremendous energy. It is not identified with any consciousness.
1:36:40	DB: No, not even this other consciousness. You see, we discussed the kind of unconditioned consciousness. Now, I was wondering if – I mean, just to make things clear – we could say that first of all we have thought, which is conditioned operation of the brain – it’s only a very small part of the operation of the brain.
1:37:00	K: Yes.
1:37:01	DB: And then we have the whole operation of the brain, which includes attention and awareness. Now would you say this other consciousness is there?
1:37:08	K: Would you call it consciousness?
1:37:10	DB: Well, you did at one stage.
1:37:12	K: I know. I know, that’s what I want to get... push it a little bit more.
1:37:16	DB: Well, I don’t know, I don’t quite get... I see this much, that there is thought which is only a small part of the operation of the brain, but when it goes out of its sphere it tends to treat itself as everything.
1:37:25	K: Sir, when you said the other day at lunch, ‘In space there is tremendous energy,’ that energy is not conscious of itself.
1:37:38	DB: No, no, it doesn’t know itself.
1:37:40	K: That’s all.
1:37:41	DB: No, but that energy perceives.
1:37:44	K: That energy perceives.
1:37:46	DB: Yes, now...
1:37:47	K: It is not the perception of the self.
1:37:50	DB: Well, yes, now let’s get that clear, you see, because, as I see it, an energy may perceive and that perception is action, and this perception can take its own action into account. Do you see what I mean?
1:38:06	K: Yes, yes, yes.
1:38:07	DB: It does not get confused by that.
1:38:08	K: Yes, yes.
1:38:09	DB: But it does not do that by seeing itself acting.
1:38:10	K: No, it is not self-conscious.
1:38:11	DB: It is not self-conscious but it is conscious... It is not conscious but it is perceptive of action – right? – including its own action.
1:38:19	K: Yes, that’s right. Yes. I don’t want to use the word consciousness here.
1:38:22	DB: No. Now, the self-consciousness, as I see it, it involves the notion that consciousness has an essence – do you see?
1:38:34	K: Yes.
1:38:35	DB: Now that may be a false notion. You see, in other words, when consciousness discovers that it’s rather changeable... You see, the whole of thought works, seeing things change, it says, ‘They are only appearances, there must be some essence beneath it.’ You see, that’s a very basic form of thought, isn’t it?
1:38:50	K: Yes, quite.
1:38:51	DB: So when we see how changeable consciousness is, it’s only natural for thought to think there must be an essence, you know, which produces this consciousness, which is permanent. But then that may be entirely false – do you see? That in other words, this essence would be called the Self – right? Now, what you have said is that consciousness is nothing but its content, and therefore it is not some movement taking place in an essence – do you see? It is not the appearance of an essence.
1:39:21	K: Quite, quite, quite.
1:39:22	DB: And therefore there is nothing but memory acting.
1:39:27	K: Yes.
1:39:28	DB: With no essence behind it – do you see? Which makes it rather a trivial thing. (Laughs)
1:39:33	K: So what is the nature of this energy, which is nothingness, which is emptiness, what is its... has it any consciousness as we know it?
1:39:52	DB: Well, let’s try to put it that there may be... let’s say that consciousness as we know it may begin by being conscious of a certain content, like the book and the microphone and so on, and later it begins to think about itself and begins to think of its own essence. Now, you see, if consciousness did not think of its own essence or did not attempt to think of its own essence then wouldn’t it be another kind of consciousness?
1:40:17	K: Yes, put it that way – yes. I don’t like to use the word consciousness because it implies self-consciousness generally.
1:40:27	DB: Yes, it generally does, but we could say consciousness is its content – right?
1:40:33	K: If there is no content...
1:40:36	DB: ...then there’s no consciousness.
1:40:37	K: ...there is no consciousness as we know it.
1:40:40	DB: As we know it. But then why do you put in the phrase ‘as we know it’ – do you see? That’s what’s puzzling.
1:40:45	K: All right, I’ll remove that phrase.
1:40:47	DB: Because when you put that phrase in it implies there’s another kind.
1:40:50	K: Of course, of course, of course – I’m sorry. All right, when the content is not, there is no consciousness.
1:40:57	DB: Yes. I mean, that is very clear, you see. And any content of something beyond consciousness is still consciousness. When we think of something beyond consciousness that is still...
1:41:12	K: Quite – its content, yes.
1:41:16	DB: You see, when we think of the microphone, that content can bring us into contact with an actuality of the microphone, but when we think of the essence of consciousness there is no actuality. There is nothing but content.
1:41:26	K: Yes, there is nothing but content. Right. You empty that content.
1:41:31	DB: Yes. So now it’s becoming clear why you have to empty the content, you see, because when you first put it, ‘empty the content’ it sounds crazy, you see, because you say, ‘I must have the content to get on with life.’ Now, we’ll say there is the practical content of consciousness, you know, the scientific content, the technical content and so on.
1:41:47	K: Of course, of course, that’s all so...
1:41:49	DB: Now then we say beside that there is the content of the self, the very essence, which includes psychological time – because we think the essence exists in psychological time – right?
1:41:59	K: Yes. We abolish that too.
1:42:01	DB: We abolish the essence – do you see? We say that consciousness may have a content but it has no essence.
1:42:08	K: Quite.
1:42:09	DB: It is nothing but appearance, it is nothing but moving memories, (laughs) with instructions to act and so on, you see.
1:42:20	K: There is nothingness.
1:42:24	DB: Yes.
1:42:27	K: In that nothingness – I’m just asking; I’m not saying – in that nothingness everything is contained.
1:42:37	DB: Yes, now we should go into that a little, you see. In what sense is it contained?
1:42:44	K: Is reality contained in that?
1:42:49	DB: Well, that’s the question, you see.
1:42:51	K: That’s it.
1:42:52	DB: You see, let’s try to put it that in some way it may be – you are saying it may be because you were saying...
1:42:59	K: Ah, no. No, I...
1:43:01	DB: Well, let’s try to put it. You say truth acts in matter – right? – so matter is contained in it.
1:43:06	K: That’s right.
1:43:07	DB: Right. Now then we also have reality...
1:43:09	K: Wait a minute, sir. That’s right, that’s right – keep to that. That’s right.
1:43:14	DB: Yes. Matter is contained in it.
1:43:18	K: In it.
1:43:22	DB: And thought is nothing but a form...
1:43:25	K: ...of matter.
1:43:26	DB: ...a form of matter. It’s an empty form of matter, you see.
1:43:29	K: It’s matter.
1:43:30	DB: It’s a very, very, unsubstantial form of matter.
1:43:33	K: Yes, yes.
1:43:34	DB: And which may be useful in a certain domain, you see.
1:43:41	K: You see, in this there is no division.
1:43:46	DB: Yes. All right, this becomes very clear and also it would tie up, possibly, with scientific ideas even. You see, we say in truth, in emptiness is energy – it is energy – and in this is contained all matter. But of course this energy may well go infinitely beyond matter as we know it.
1:44:05	K: Yes, yes, yes.
1:44:07	DB: Now then, in matter is the brain as well, and in the brain is a form, a very insubstantial form called thought, which is also matter.
1:44:15	K: Thought. Yes, that’s right.
1:44:17	DB: And that is the truth – right?
1:44:18	K: Yes. So in nothingness, everything is.
1:44:21	DB: Yes.
1:44:22	K: But that’s a difficult statement. You follow?
1:44:26	DB: Yes, but I think we can understand that. And we say thought then operates as material in that brain – right?
1:44:35	K: You see, thought thinks it is independent.
1:44:39	DB: Yes, now let’s come... the self-deception, you know, the illusion is that thought thinks it exists independently of matter. When thought began it did not know its relation to matter – that was one of its weak points. So it could easily begin to think it was independent or very nearly so, or something, and eventually it could think it was the very essence of everything. You see, perhaps a young child when he first begins to think, an infant, he may think that he creates everything by thinking, you see, because all the forms of everything appear in consciousness through thought – do you see?
1:45:18	K: Quite, quite.
1:45:20	DB: Now, then later he learns that he doesn’t create everything, but he doesn’t really learn it properly, you see. He sort of denies that idea in some part, but he does not ever get to deny the whole of it.
1:45:33	K: Yes, quite. You see, I have been told by the Indian pundits, Indian scholars, that they have said this.
1:45:43	DB: Said what?
1:45:44	K: When there is nothingness, everything is in that.
1:45:49	DB: Yes.
1:45:50	K: Which is, in God – to put it in the vulgar terms – in God everything is.
1:45:58	DB: Yes.
1:46:00	K: You see, that statement in itself is wrong.
1:46:05	DB: Yes, well let’s try to see exactly what’s wrong with it. You see, I think the trouble with that statement is that it is thought transcending its limit – do you see? – that it is a form of consciousness. In other words, what we do is we make a picture. This is one of the problems which philosophy tends to get into, which is try to make an explanation of everything.
1:46:28	K: Of course.
1:46:29	DB: Which is still only thought – do you see? Therefore, you see, once you take that as an explanation then the thing is wrong – do you see? I mean, then you are saying the essence is just this which I am thinking about.
1:46:51	K: Quite, quite. What time is it?
1:46:56	DB: Yes, it must be getting late. Twenty past five. Well, perhaps we should finish at this stage.
1:47:07	K: At this stage.
1:47:08	DB: Yes. There’s one more.
1:47:10	K: We’ll conclude it later.
1:47:11	DB: I don’t know if it would be worthwhile to try to make a summary during this last one.
1:47:17	K: Yes. Not a summary only, we’ll proceed, we’ll go on.
1:47:20	DB: Proceed, yes. But I meant to sort of just go over the basic ideas and then go on.
1:47:28	K: Yes, we will. You see, when one says, ‘In nothing, everything is,’ that’s a wrong statement even.
1:47:36	DB: Yes. So how would you put it then?
1:47:38	K: You don’t put it. (Laughs)
1:47:41	DB: (Laughs) Well, it’s the same as with the judgement – do you see? The judgement divides what is actually undivided. You see, the perception is undivided but the judgement expresses it as divided – do you see? You see, the judgement always puts a division.
1:47:57	K: Of course, of course. You see, the man listening to that: ‘In nothingness, everything is,’ he says, ‘In me is God; I am God.’
1:48:05	DB: Well, that is because he is thinking that that’s it, you see.
1:48:12	K: Of course. And he has lost it. I think – isn’t it in the Judaic religion? – just don’t name.
1:48:25	DB: Yes, but that didn’t help either, you see.
1:48:28	K: (Laughs) No, of course not. Imagination went rampant.
1:48:33	DB: You see, I think that there is a point here to see the limits of philosophy. You see, every thought is limited and even that thought is limited, you see, and therefore if we take that thought as anything more than a description, you know, as an indication of something, then...
1:48:52	K: Of course. And that’s why it’s very important to see that thought cannot transcend itself.
1:48:59	DB: Yes.
1:49:00	K: That is the basic thing.
1:49:02	DB: But you see, thought has this tremendous impetus to transcend itself.
1:49:06	K: Of course, of course – that’s the root of it.
1:49:10	DB: And thought is trying to reach for the...
1:49:13	K: Reach heaven – yes, quite.
1:49:17	Well, we’d better stop, otherwise we’ll go on sitting here forever!