Krishnamurti - Can the brain free itself from all self-delusion?

Krishnamurti Subtitles

BRGS75CB12 - Can the brain free itself from all self-delusion?
Brockwood Park, UK - 11 October 1975
Conversation with David Bohm 12

0:00	This is the 12th dialogue between J. Krishnamurti and David Bohm, at Brockwood Park, 1975.
0:12	Krishnamurti: You said you would sum up the whole thing.
0:14	David Bohm: Oh, well, I don’t know if we should do that exactly, but I could try it a little bit.
0:19	K: What shall we do then?
0:20	DB: Well, we’ll start out something. You see, I would say the essential point about what we have been discussing is that thought tends to move out of its proper area, which is in some way limited though you can’t express its limits precisely. But, roughly, thought should not try to get into the area which is called spiritual or truth or beauty or love, or the attempt to control the equilibrium of the brain, you see, the nervous system. But it would be difficult of course to define it exactly beyond that. Now, we said at one stage that perhaps the trouble began when man began to have an increased capacity to think and thought did not know that it was limited in this way, and therefore it began to try to think beyond its proper limits, for example, to try to control the brain, to make it always happy, or you know, to...
1:23	K: Do you think they didn’t know? Or they wanted to find something more than thought.
1:32	DB: Well, it was both, but thought didn’t know it could not find something more than thought, you see.
1:37	K: Quite.
1:38	DB: But possibly thought also thought that it could control the state of the brain – do you see?
1:43	K: Yes.
1:44	DB: In other words, the brain gets disturbed at times in various ways.
1:46	K: But they also have said, haven’t they, sir, that meditation is a form of silence which comes when thought is completely under control.
2:02	DB: Yes, well, that came later. You see, what I had in mind was thinking of man evolving and at some stage his brain must have suddenly become much larger. Let’s say there was the monkey and the chimpanzee.
2:12	K: Yes.
2:13	DB: Now, at some stage, maybe at a hundred thousand years, man appeared and he had a new brain, but he didn’t know how to use it, you see.
2:20	K: Quite. I understand. I see.
2:23	DB: That is probably where the trouble began. That’s my view.
2:25	K: Quite.
2:26	DB: And he still hasn’t learnt how to use it, you see. (Laughter) And then perhaps, you know, what we are discussing now is really the question of how man should... how the brain should operate, in a way.
2:39	K: Yes, quite, quite.
2:41	DB: Now, this question of meditation seems to have come much later when man tried to deal with all these things.
2:47	K: Deal with all that.
2:48	DB: And they got the idea of trying to control the brain or control the mind. But thought didn’t know – we also said another important point, that thought didn’t know that it was a material process.
2:59	K: Quite.
3:00	DB: Only recently have we come to know that fairly reliably. Some people may have suspected it a long time ago but there was no firm knowledge. And therefore thought could think it was a spiritual thing which contained truth. For example, if we go into the question of good and evil, thought could think that it could try to be good and avoid evil, you see. And there is the story... you know, everybody knew that the mind was in disorder but they explained it, for example, by saying that Adam had disobeyed God and eaten the fruit of knowledge, and knowledge of good and evil in particular, and you know, therefore he was driven out of paradise. And therefore you could say that was the sin, you see, and thought had, as it were, sinned in some spiritual sense – I mean, chosen evil instead of good. And that explanation, you see, would tend to mislead people because then they would say, ‘Your problem is to choose good instead of evil,’ and you can never do it, of course.
4:08	K: But, sir, as far as I understand – I am not a Hindu scholar or anything of that kind – but they said thought can control matter.
4:20	DB: Well, that would put it as a spiritual principle beyond matter, again.
4:24	K: Yes.
4:25	DB: Now, we were discussing the other day that thought is...
4:27	K: ...matter.
4:28	DB: ...a form – not only matter, but a form on matter, on the matter of the brain – do you see?
4:33	K: Yes, yes, yes.
4:34	DB: And we said even matter itself is in a form in the emptiness, which has infinite energy and so on. Therefore we could say thought is an extremely tenuous thing because matter itself is only within the emptiness and thought is a very tenuous form within matter. And therefore it would be hopeless to think that thought could completely control matter, you see.
4:53	K: Yes.
4:54	DB: It might control it in some ways. You know, scientifically we can control matter in certain ways, you know, producing energy, atomic energy. But thought cannot control the matter of the brain. You see, that was the point I wanted to get across.
5:06	K: Quite, quite. I understand it.
5:08	DB: In other words, thought may be able to control aeroplanes and spaceships and atomic power plants, but it cannot control the brain matter, you see. It may think it can but, first of all, thought cannot control it directly by trying to use willpower. You see, thought may think by willpower it could control the brain, but it can’t.
5:28	K: I wonder if some of the traditional orthodox Hindus would accept that.
5:36	DB: Well, I don’t know, you see. But I wanted to finish this point, then we could discuss it.
5:40	K: Yes, yes. The other side is the scientific side. Some scientists are studying the structure of the brain. Now, they might imagine that for scientific knowledge we could bring the brain to order, but I think that also is hopeless because you could say fundamentally we’ve seen the trouble is the brain seeks its self-deception instead of correct thought. Now, if you say some electrical pattern in the brain represents the thought – a pattern that you could measure – how could you find in that pattern the difference between truth and falseness?
6:13	K: Quite. I understand.
6:15	DB: You see, there would be no hope scientifically of making that distinction. And therefore all the avenues by which thought might hope to control the brain matter are impossible.
6:26	K: Quite, quite. I understand.
6:29	DB: But I mean, I just wanted to finish that point. Now, of course, the Christians and the Hebrews didn’t probably even imagine that thought was material – they thought it was spiritual and they had the problem of original sin.
6:40	K: They had no problem – no.
6:41	DB: Well, they had a problem only in original sin, why man chose the wrong thing.
6:46	K: Yes, yes, yes.
6:47	DB: But I mean, now you come to the Hindus – they have another view, I don’t know it exactly.
6:54	K: I am afraid I couldn’t say very well with regard to the Hindus, except pre-Buddha, I was told, and I may be totally mistaken, there was a system of philosophy which denied everything, even thought, and so there was nothingness.
7:19	DB: Yes, well that was quite a... I mean, in that sense you would agree with them, wouldn’t you?
7:27	K: Yes, yes, a little bit.
7:28	DB: To some extent.
7:29	K: To some extent, yes.
7:31	DB: But of course there must be some difference between what you say and what they say.
7:37	K: I’m afraid I don’t know fully what they say, but I was told that Buddha followed that system of going beyond all thought and nothingness. It is called Sankhya philosophy or something or other – I’ve forgotten the name of it, even. So what we are saying is this, sir: that the brain itself produces incorrect thought.
8:22	DB: Yes, the brain produces incorrect thought and perhaps the trouble is that thought began by not knowing its own behaviour, you know, its own nature.
8:33	K: Yes.
8:34	DB: And if thought could see its own nature and give a proper account of its own nature it might think correctly. That’s the proposal, you see.
8:42	K: Yes.
8:43	DB: But since it began not seeing its own nature it began to go off the correct action and it got more and more confused and tangled up.
8:51	K: Yes. So the brain itself cannot see correct action.
8:56	DB: Well, let’s say it has not yet been able to see it.
9:00	K: Yes, yes. Or see what is delusion. Or it can deceive itself.
9:08	DB: The brain engages in self-deception in order to try to make itself feel better. That’s basically what happens, you see.
9:15	K: Quite, quite, quite.
9:16	DB: You see, the brain somehow moves, makes itself... creates a disturbance as it operates, and it wants to feel better, and it does not know how, and finally it ends up in self-deception.
9:27	K: Quite.
9:28	DB: And that of course only creates more disturbance and it gets worse.
9:33	K: And can this self-deception come to an end?
9:37	DB: Yes, that’s really the question.
9:38	K: That’s really the question, we are...
9:41	DB: Yes. Now, I mean, I don’t know if any of us can say much about how far the Ancients arrived at this – do you see? Perhaps there were some people among the ancient Hindus who understood this, but the whole thing is so poorly documented that we can never say.
9:55	K: I know, I know. Yes.
9:57	DB: And even with regard to Christ one can never say exactly what he said, and so on.
10:03	K: Of course.
10:04	DB: But we also said that at the present time we have at least one point in our favour: there’s a very clear knowledge that thought is material process. We said that sometime in the past.
10:15	K: Yes.
10:16	DB: Which is something very firm, you know, to remove the speculation that thought might be all sorts of things.
10:25	K: Quite, quite.
10:28	DB: Now, that’s one point.
10:32	K: You see, according to what Buddha had taught is right thinking.
10:38	DB: Yes. Well, that’s somewhat ambiguous.
10:41	K: Yes, yes.
10:42	DB: Because it could mean just a prescription for the right way to think. I mean, everybody says we want right-thinking people, you know.
10:50	K: Yes, of course.
10:51	DB: What they mean is people who think like us. (Laughs)
10:55	K: (Laughs) Like ourselves – quite.
10:58	DB: But Buddha perhaps didn’t mean exactly that.
11:01	K: I shouldn’t think so, no. (Laughter) He was much too alive, much too...
11:09	DB: But you see, what we...
11:12	K: Is this the question we are asking: can the brain free itself from all self-delusion?
11:22	DB: Yes, and also self-centredness, you know, selfishness – that’s all involved – right?
11:28	K: Yes, all that is involved.
11:30	DB: You see, now I thought – I am still on the summary. I am summarising in a way by presenting the situation. You see, going on from there we said that thought, trying to hold the brain in order, you know, and also trying to reach the highest principle, mistakenly, began to try to hold the brain in order by organising a centre. You see, that was a point we made.
11:59	K: Yes, that’s right.
12:00	DB: Just as it organises a centre to hold a family in order, the tribe in order, so thought holds the brain in order – do you see?
12:05	K: Quite, quite.
12:06	DB: Perhaps that even came before the family. Perhaps even an animal has that to some extent. Now, one of the points that occurred to me in considering that was there may be a sort of a functional centre which we have which is temporary, you know, which comes into operation when we have to do something and then it retires. Does that make sense to you?
12:28	K: It can be dormant.
12:30	DB: Dormant, you see, a functional centre which operates from time to time as needed.
12:37	K: And the rest of the time it’s dormant? And what happens when it is dormant?
12:45	DB: Well, I don’t know what happens, you see.
12:47	K: Wait. That’s what...
12:49	DB: Yes, but I meant let’s consider how that went wrong, first. You see, when thought tried to organise a centre to control itself then it first of all formed the image of a centre inside – which might be felt in the solar plexus or the head or somewhere – and also the sense of some broad expanse outside. That is, one gets the impression that there is some sort of a periphery and a centre, and the two in some way are related, you see – what happens in one happens in the other.
13:22	K: Quite.
13:23	DB: Now, as if it were a being which had an outside and inside – right? – sort of like a mental being. Just as we have our physical being, the body is seen and we also have our visual perception which sees the body, and we know that what happens in the visual perception happens to the body. You know, they are the same though we describe them as different. So there was a kind of extension of that to form a sort of mental body and a mental I, but that got tied up with this temporary centre in a way, it seems to me. In other words, this little game about the centre, you know, producing the image of the centre was tied up with the actual functional centre. So when we think of this centre it starts to operate the functional centre.
14:17	K: In our relationship we create a centre...
14:24	DB: An artificial centre.
14:26	K: An artificial centre.
14:27	DB: An imaginary centre.
14:28	K: Yes, a centre which is imaginary or made of images.
14:32	DB: It’s made of images, yes.
14:35	K: Which is necessary to live happily together.
14:42	DB: Which we think is necessary.
14:43	K: We think that is necessary.
14:45	DB: But in addition there is another centre which works... we said a functional centre which works and retires. But now, this image centre will now call up the action of the functional centre to do what the image says should be done. Do you see what I am driving at? And therefore the image centre obtains an apparent reality, an effectiveness, as if it were a real being, by taking control of the functional centre. I don’t know if that makes sense. That is the way it appeared to me. If it was only an image we would soon discover that it was really quite weak and empty.
15:20	K: Would you say, as all life is relationship, thought creates the image for convenience?
15:39	DB: In the beginning, for convenience of function, yes.
15:43	K: Function. And that creates the centre.
15:52	DB: Well, that calls up the centre of activity.
15:55	K: Of activity, yes.
15:56	DB: Yes, there is the image of the centre which calls up the activity, which becomes central.
16:03	K: Yes. So there is the image in relationship and the image which calls upon other series of images to function.
16:13	DB: Well, it may even call on actual brain centres to function.
16:17	K: (Inaudible) Yes, yes, yes.
16:18	DB: In other words, there are centres in the brain such as the mechanical centre, movement and so on, and it may call on all those – do you see?
16:24	K: Yes.
16:25	DB: Now, let’s say that this image may be useful functionally or technically. You see, if I have to go from one place to another then I form the image of myself being here and the place being there and that image helps to direct my function and my activity of going. But then this gets extended to the image which tries to control the whole state of mind or which tries to control human relationships.
16:49	K: Yes, I understand. But, sir, if there was no self-deception would there be an image at all, except the pattern of action?
17:04	DB: Yes, but there is a kind of image even in the pattern of action – the pattern, insofar as it’s conscious, if you can think about it.
17:12	K: Why should there be image in action?
17:16	DB: Well, let’s say you... Well, try to put it – maybe there should or there shouldn’t – but I’ll say why it seems there should. Say there’s a very simple action. Imagine a man who wants to make a tool, you see, or who wants to take a journey. So he imagines the tool which he wants to make or he imagines the journey which he wants to make and he makes his preparations and then he carries it out. Now, let’s say to make this journey he must make quite a series of preparations and so on.
17:45	K: I know it. I know it, unfortunately.
17:47	DB: (Laughs) Now, he may form the image of that journey in his mind, you know, a series of pictures of what it’s like.
17:53	K: No, wait a minute.
17:54	DB: He may be wrong, but I am saying that what he probably does. I am not saying it’s right – we are exploring.
17:59	K: Quite, quite – we are exploring. I understand.
18:01	DB: Now, therefore he begins to function that way by thinking of the image of what he is going to do and carrying out according to that image.
18:10	K: Would you call it image or the necessity of doing something? Of doing, preparing. I have to... I am leaving the day after tomorrow. I have to pack, get all the things together and so on. There is no image-forming at all.
18:28	DB: Well, look, suppose...
18:31	K: It has to be done, these things.
18:33	DB: Yes, but when the time comes to decide what has to be done. You see, let’s say a man has to take a journey – go back to a primitive man – he has to take a long journey in strange places and he thinks of where he is going and what he is likely to need and so on, you see. Now, some images may appear there, you see, saying, ‘I expect such and such a countryside. I need such and such clothing,’ and so on. You see, that’s the way...
18:59	K: Why do you call it image-making? That’s what I’m...
19:02	DB: Well, really because, for example, even a photograph is an image – do you see? Suppose, for example, you were to refer to a photograph of the place you were going to go to and that would help your preparation – right?
19:13	K: No, just a minute, I would like to see. I am going to California.
19:17	DB: Yes, well, you know it already and other people know it, and so on.
19:20	K: I know. But I know what I need and there is no image-forming.
19:24	DB: But suppose you had never been to California.
19:27	K: Then somebody tells me, ‘You have to take this, this, this.’
19:30	DB: Yes, but suppose nobody knows exactly. You see, if you are an explorer, for example, you have to try to prepare for your exploration – right?
19:40	K: Yes, yes.
19:41	DB: And you don’t know exactly what to expect, but people may imagine what is the nature of the country which they are likely to encounter, and they will prepare accordingly. Or else they may have photographs of that country which would give them some idea of what to expect. Right?
19:57	K: I see. The word image – I understand.
19:59	DB: The word image has this general meaning, you see.
20:02	K: Quite. I understand.
20:04	DB: It is merely based on the same word as imitation and so on.
20:07	K: Yes.
20:08	DB: Then I say there are different kinds of images – a photograph is an image, the television is an image and so on.
20:15	K: I understand.
20:16	DB: Now, some images have a factual content and some images do not – do you see? That’s the way it seems to me.
20:21	K: Yes. The images that have factual content we can leave those aside.
20:28	DB: That’s right. However, technically we get to using images quite frequently which have factual content and the mind, I think, begins to extend this image-making faculty into other areas where there is no factual content.
20:42	K: Yes, quite. So we come back to the question. If we can leave the factual content with their images and so on – that’s fairly simple and clear.
20:55	DB: Yes, but the image of the self seems to have factual content but we are saying it has none, you see.
21:01	K: It has none.
21:02	DB: Yes, but if you ask people they would think it has – do you see?
21:05	K: Of course, of course, of course.
21:06	DB: So we have to understand how did this confusion and self-deception come about? You see, it was one of the basic things where mankind got caught, was to form this image of the self, which had no factual content, but which was very important. And once that was formed then...
21:26	K: Why has the self become important?
21:28	DB: Yes, that’s our question.
21:29	K: That is the basic question, yes.
21:31	DB: Yes. I think the beginning was to form the centre which would try to take control of the whole process, and an image was basic in forming the centre.
21:42	K: Or would you say the self was formed because of everything being in flux, everything being in movement, uncertainty.
21:54	DB: But what’s wrong – let’s go ahead slowly – what’s wrong with... You see, the movement involves uncertainty – that’s the question.
22:00	K: Yes.
22:01	DB: Now the question is: why is thought unwilling to stay with uncertainty? Why doesn’t it accept the fact of uncertainty? You see, that’s already a distortion or a self-deception.
22:12	K: There begins the deception.
22:15	DB: Yes, but let’s say why does it get caught in the deception? You see, let’s say there may be thought which is functional, which is correct and so on.
22:24	K: That’s simple.
22:25	DB: All right. Now, if the thought is functioning correctly then if there is a fact that there’s uncertainty then it just says, ‘Yes, it’s uncertain,’ you see, it doesn’t try to make an image of certainty.
22:33	K: But I can’t live in... one can’t live in uncertainty.
22:38	DB: All right, well, let’s go slowly, you see, because, first of all, my knowledge is uncertain – right?
22:43	K: Yes.
22:44	DB: And secondly, I can’t live in uncertainty.
22:46	K: That’s right.
22:47	DB: But now there is some confusion there, you see, because you are also saying you have to live in uncertainty in some way.
22:54	K: Of course. But...
22:56	DB: But wait – why did thought come to this false conclusion – do you see? You see, if it was functioning correctly...
23:03	K: Because wouldn’t you say in that there is great fear?
23:07	DB: Yes, I understand that, but the fear, where did it arise, you see? Because if thought were functioning correctly it would not produce...
23:20	K: But it is not functioning correctly.
23:21	DB: Yes, but we are trying to say it was already off. It was off because it was going into wrong areas – do you see?
23:28	K: Yes, that’s it.
23:29	DB: We are trying to get it very clear, you see.
23:30	K: Very clear – that’s right.
23:31	DB: You see, in other words, thought began not knowing its limits so it was already trying to do things which it has no place to do – right? – it was trying to provide security.
23:39	K: Which is, would you say, it entered into the wrong direction, incorrect direction when desire, sensation, thought, all that, became prominent.
23:53	DB: Yes, that’s just the point I wanted to come to.
23:56	K: Aha. Sorry, sorry.
23:58	DB: Well, that’s good. The point is that thought was moving into a wrong area in trying to provide a kind of security that it cannot provide. Now, the question is: what was the motive power for this incorrect action? You see, I think the point was that there arose this question of desire. You see, let’s try to put it that thought moving in a correct area might project a possible goal and then you would try to achieve it. So it would also project another goal which was a better state of mind – do you see? – to feel better.
24:41	K: Better – quite.
24:42	DB: Now, saying, ‘I feel bad,’ it would seem natural: ‘I should feel better, and what can I do to feel better?’ And of course if you are ill you can go to a doctor and so on, but if you feel bad psychologically, with sorrow and so on, it’s not so clear. So thought said, ‘I want to feel better,’ it anticipated some sort of better feeling and tried to achieve it, you see, and that was desire.
25:13	K: I understand. I understand – desire.
25:15	DB: Now, it seems to me that desire is the basic source of self-deception.
25:19	K: Yes, of course, obviously.
25:21	DB: It’s very clear because, you see, thought cannot actually do anything to the brain matter to make it feel better. But of course it can do something to disturb it and not make it feel better. Now, when thought tries to make the brain matter feel better all it can do is to influence thought, you know, to look for thoughts that make you feel better.
25:45	K: Quite.
25:46	DB: So thoughts are accepted as correct which are incorrect, and so you begin to go into distortion and self-deception, because it makes the brain feel better.
25:56	K: That is, if desire is sensation and thought, then that very desire is the distorting factor.
26:06	DB: Yes, because that sensation coupled with the thought is a move to make the brain a better sensation.
26:12	K: Yes, yes, yes.
26:13	DB: And it distorts thought to try to make it better, inevitably, you see.
26:17	K: Yes.
26:18	DB: And then of course, since nothing can satisfy fully that desire, because of its contradictory nature, so it changes from one to another, or else eventually several different desires are there together, you see. I have observed one thing, that when another desire comes in it does not know how to stop the first desire.
26:38	K: But, sir, isn’t all desire the same, but the objects of desire change?
26:47	DB: Yes. There’s a superficial change of object but the basic process is one and the same.
26:52	K: The same – that’s all.
26:53	DB: It’s confused and contradictory and self-deceptive.
26:58	K: Yes.
27:00	DB: And then desire includes belief and hope, you see. That is, belief amounts to accepting something as correct because you desire it to be so – because otherwise you have no proof, you see – and hope is just simply the belief that what you desire is going to be realised – do you see? So all three are one and the same. I think belief is in some ways more deceptive than plain desire.
27:25	K: Plain desire – quite.
27:26	DB: And hope is equally...
27:30	K: So can desire be totally understood and therefore there is no distortion taking place?
27:43	DB: Well, that’s the point we want to look into because, you see, desire is so self-deceptive that it deceives itself about its own existence. You know, there may even be a desire to believe that there is no problem, and so on, you see.
28:03	K: Yes. But haven’t all religions – I don’t know about Christianity, certainly the Hindu religion has said control your desire, because that is the very root of...
28:19	DB: Yes. I understand that all religions have implied or said control desire, you see, because they have all understood that desire is destructive, very correctly. But the desire cannot be controlled.
28:32	K: Of course not.
28:33	DB: Because the attempt to control desire is merely one desire resisting another.
28:37	K: As it cannot be controlled they said, ‘Identify yourself with something greater.’
28:45	DB: Yes, but that’s still desire.
28:47	K: Of course, of course.
28:49	DB: I mean, that becomes self-deception – I believe that I am the same as something greater because I feel better.
28:56	K: Quite. Now the problem then arises: can desire, which cannot be controlled because the controller is part of desire...
29:09	DB: Yes, well, that’s a key point – perhaps it should be brought out. You see, as you try to control desire, the point is desire in itself is not just an object, it is a movement, a set of instructions to the brain to try to get something, and the one who tries to control it is himself controlled by those instructions – do you see?
29:31	K: Quite, quite.
29:32	DB: And therefore there is no separation between the controller and the controlled. It is not the same as some external object which can be separated from the brain, you see, but desire cannot, it is the very movement.
29:43	K: And as desire breeds illusion, can the mind or the brain relegate desire to the activity of the first activity, which is functional activity?
30:11	DB: Well, it’s not clear that it can because if the desire is self-deceptive then...
30:16	K: No, that’s what I want to get at.
30:18	DB: You see, it is not clear that we can keep desire in its place.
30:22	K: I think it can. Let’s go into it.
30:27	DB: I thought that perhaps one point could be added. You see, desire may often be confused with passion.
30:32	K: Ah, no, of course.
30:34	DB: They are obviously quite different.
30:35	K: Different – of course.
30:36	DB: But that’s... one of the ways by which desire maintains itself, you see, is to create the self-deception of saying it’s the same as passion. But now, if you say...
30:49	K: You heard last night. You heard on the television last night, the Conservative Party was passionate! (Laughter)
30:57	DB: Now, let’s look into the functional area. Would you say there is a place for desire there?
31:08	K: I doubt it.
31:10	DB: Yes but you seemed to imply it was so before – it’s not clear.
31:14	K: I know, but I have just brought it out, because I question it altogether.
31:18	DB: Yes. You see...
31:20	K: I think where... if one can understand the whole movement of desire and see whether it can be dissipated.
31:30	DB: Yes.
31:32	K: And therefore at the functional centre there is no desire.
31:38	DB: Good. You see, that would make more sense. You see, the functional centre would operate without desire but just carrying out what it has to do, rationally and so on.
31:47	K: Yes. I mean, I have to go to California – finished.
31:50	DB: Yes. Because I think if desire enters anywhere it’s going to produce self-deception and it will spread everywhere.
32:00	K: That’s the whole... Yes, yes. So the question is, sir, whether desire can be totally dissolved so that there is no possible deception at any level – at the functional centre and psychological, and all the rest of it.
32:29	DB: Yes.
32:31	K: Otherwise, one lives in a fool’s paradise. I mean, it’s just... You can... You believe in heaven or in hell or something or other, totally unreal.
32:42	DB: Yes. I mean, the point is that we can’t go on with desire. I mean, if we do our society will be destroyed.
32:50	K: As the world... Quite, quite, quite.
32:55	DB: The way it’s moving.
32:58	K: So can desire have no place in action?
33:04	DB: No place anywhere, really.
33:06	K: I mean, no place anywhere – we admit that. But how can this desire be dissolved? What is the action, what is the process, what is the insight or intelligence that will dissolve this desire? Can the brain see the nature of desire or the truth of desire and therefore...
33:55	DB: Yes, you mean the actual fact of desire.
33:57	K: Fact of desire. I mean, I have watched it several times, sir. I like cars, fast cars, their shape and the whole business of it. There is the sensation, thought, desire arising.
34:25	DB: Yes.
34:26	K: Now, just a minute, can there be only sensation, thought, and no desire?
34:36	DB: That’s the question, you see. Let’s say we can see the sense, it’s rational to say we sense something and we think from that and see what to do.
34:45	K: Yes.
34:46	DB: But desire arises when that thought includes the thought of the self with something that the self needs, that something is missing.
34:54	K: Yes – possess, power, sensation, all the rest of it.
34:58	DB: Yes. You see, once that thought extends to the thought of the self, which would be the essence of your consciousness, then it creates some sort of overwhelming power, you know, which we call longing or yearning or craving and hankering, and so on, you see. In other words...
35:17	K: That’s all... the root of all that is desire.
35:21	DB: That is the one thing, given different names, but the root... the question is that I think there’s a mistake... the root of it is a certain mistake of thought which is in the wrong area, you see, which is that it is trying to think of the essence of consciousness – do you see? – or it is trying to think that it can do something in that area.
35:44	K: Yes, yes, yes. But we said the other day – didn’t we, sir? – that the content of consciousness is consciousness.
35:53	DB: Yes, but then one mistake is that thought tends to think it is not – do you see?
35:57	K: Ah, well. Quite.
35:59	DB: You see, in other words, thought tends to think that consciousness is a manifestation of a being or an entity who is deeper.
36:05	K: Yes.
36:07	DB: Who is not only thinking, but thinking correctly, more or less, and who is also seeing, who is perceiving, his thinking is describing his perception, and who is also experiencing, you see. I think that’s important. That gives a sense of reality that this being is the experiencer who is experiencing the sensations.
36:30	K: Quite.
36:31	DB: And all that makes the thing very real, a reality independent of thought. If all that were not present then the sensations would not be regarded as all that important by thought.
36:45	K: Aha.
36:47	DB: You see, thought is now trying to produce a better set of sensations in order to make you feel better, you see, the state of...
36:54	K: Yes – better sensation, more sensation.
36:57	DB: More and better. It doesn’t want worse, you see. (Laughs)
37:01	K: (Laughs) Yes.
37:02	DB: Now, you see, that’s an inherently crazy activity, you see, because the only point or function of the sensations is to give you some factual information. And if thought tries to make them better it can no longer give you any information, you see. And the whole thing anyway is self-contradictory because that very attempt cannot be kept under control, and so on.
37:28	K: So we come back to the point: the content of one’s consciousness is the products of desire.
37:40	DB: Well, in general.
37:41	K: Yes, apart from the knowledge, functional knowledge. The rest of it is the movement and the accumulation of sensations and desires.
37:52	DB: Yes, it’s some sort of imprints which contain the records of all that and the instructions to produce them again.
37:59	K: Yes, yes – again. Memory.
38:01	DB: Yes. It gets stronger and stronger.
38:03	K: Yes. Now, can that movement of desire come to an end?
38:09	DB: Yes.
38:11	K: Should it come to an end?
38:15	DB: Well, it seems from what we have said that it should.
38:17	K: But vast... I mean, all the religions though they say this, yet they become monks in order to identify – you follow?
38:28	DB: But I think that’s the self-deceptive nature of desire. You see, one thing that happens when the brain begins to see the destructive nature of desire, it begins to think, ‘I would rather not have desire.’
38:39	K: Yes.
38:40	DB: But it begins to desire a state of non-desire, you see.
38:42	K: Yes, that’s right, that’s right, that’s right. Desires a state of non-desire.
38:46	DB: And therefore the whole thing is silly, you see.
38:47	K: Of course.
38:48	DB: And desire has this self-deceptive nature – I can desire not to be conscious that I have desire, you see, and therefore that will vanish from my consciousness and I will have no desires. (Laughs)
39:01	K: So our question is: can desire, which brings illusion, self-deception, and all the complications of objective, changing desires – can the root of the desire be dissipated? I think it is only then that you see what is truth.
39:26	DB: Well, I mean, that is very clear to me. As long as there is desire nothing can be done.
39:32	K: Nothing can be done – absolutely. You see, sir, but it’s very difficult because most people think desire is necessary to live.
39:44	DB: Yes, I know that. That’s part of our tradition.
39:47	K: Part of our tradition. As the other boy said to me one day after the talk here, he said, ‘I like sex, but without desire how can I have sex?’ So our conditioning is so strong that desire is part of our necessity to live.
40:11	DB: Yes, otherwise you might just become a vegetable.
40:17	K: Vegetable, yes. Now let’s see. Now, is it possible to eliminate altogether desire?
40:29	DB: Just simply to finish the other point, you see, we have distinguished desire and passion. Without desire then there is room for real passion.
40:37	K: Passion, of course.
40:38	DB: And there is no being a vegetable, but rather there’s far more energy because desire wastes tremendous energy because of its contradictory nature.
40:46	K: Contradictions, of course.
40:47	DB: It is always in many directions and it is wasting energy.
40:49	K: I think this is the... Sir, I was talking once to a monk and he said, ‘I have totally rid myself of all worldly desires.’
41:07	DB: Well, what other kind has he got left? (Laughs)
41:11	K: Wait, wait, wait. ‘And therefore I have taken to calling myself a different name, put on a robe and I have one meal a day and so I am completely... the worldly desire is out of my system. But I do desire God,’ or whatever it is.
41:31	DB: Yes.
41:32	K: He said, ‘You cannot take that away from me. You cannot take that away because that is my life, that is the very root of my essence.’
41:48	DB: Yes, well, that’s what we were saying before that thought is going in the wrong sphere and it tries to guarantee its essence in some way by thinking. You see, desire is the attempt of thought to make the essence right.
42:05	K: Quite. When I desire, I am.
42:08	DB: Yes. I mean, desire...
42:10	K: You follow, sir?
42:11	DB: That’s clear, you see. Rather than Descartes saying, ‘I think therefore I am,’ it would be more accurate, ‘I desire therefore I am.’
42:17	K: I desire therefore I am.
42:18	DB: But desire is thought, of course. But I don’t think Descartes had that kind of thought in mind. (Laughter)
42:26	K: You see, when you deny desire I am not.
42:30	DB: Yes, but it seems... you know, there was one remark you made once in some talk that desire is the bedrock of the ego, you see.
42:39	K: Yes, yes, absolutely.
42:40	DB: It seems very, very solid and firm, something which is not all that easy to break up.
42:47	K: Yes. Now how is this desire, which is the rock on which all our civilisation, all our individual aspirations, all our racial, etc., etc., on which everything is based – how can that be dissolved? Without control – because then the controller is the controlled.
43:12	DB: That’s just desire.
43:13	K: Without any effort – because effort implies desire. Without any goal – which implies also a desire. Without any ideal. (Pause) Would you... the very question that the self is based on the rock of desire and therefore self-deception and all the rest of it, suffering and the whole thing follows, which if you deny... if there is no desire there is nothing.
44:13	DB: Yes.
44:17	K: And therefore that nothingness is a frightening thing.
44:28	DB: Well, I would try to put it slightly differently: desire is already implicitly fear.
44:36	K: Yes, of course, of course.
44:38	DB: Because desire is the sense that I need something for my essence and if it’s not there it will be very frightening, you see.
44:44	K: That’s what I mean.
44:46	DB: The very existence of desire is fear, it is sorrow and it is violence.
44:52	K: It is fear, it is...
44:53	DB: Because if I don’t get what I need I can become violent, you see.
44:57	K: Yes, sir. How am I to dynamite, explode this tremendous rock which society, tradition – everything supports it, sustains it, makes that rock more solid? If – not if – when one says desire is ideal, desire implies conflict, desire implies duality, desire is in itself fragmentation – when one sees that factually, is there desire?
45:58	DB: Yes, well, what you say is correct. The difficulty is in seeing this because it is such a fast, violent process, you see. You see, desire has been built up by our tradition to such an extent that it pervades every moment of consciousness.
46:21	K: Oh, yes, sir. Desire God, desire to be good, desire – you follow? – everything.
46:30	DB: Desire for the highest, you know, desire for this, for that.
46:35	K: Yes, sir.
46:36	DB: Desire for security is probably the major one.
46:42	K: Would you say it’s security? Knowing there is no security, the desire is to find security somewhere else.
46:51	DB: Well, the desire is to find security in some fancy area.
46:55	K: That’s it, yes.
46:56	DB: You see, desire works entirely through fancy and imagination.
46:59	K: Yes.
47:00	DB: And that gives it the apparent perception of the thing desired, you see, which we have to reach. You see, without imagination I don’t think there would be desire – without fancy and imagination.
47:13	K: The other day on television they were saying, ‘The host, this is my blood and flesh – eat of it.’ That’s pure imagination.
47:23	DB: Yes, it’s fancy.
47:26	K: Fancy. And yet millions accept it.
47:29	DB: Yes, because... that’s belief. You see, you believe what suits your fancy. Whatever makes you feel better you believe, you see. Every different person has a different...
47:41	K: So can we narrow it down? Realising all this, examining, exploring all this, can we narrow it down and ask whether it is at all possible to live without desire?
47:58	DB: Yes, well, I’d say it is absolutely necessary.
48:04	K: It is, but now we come to the point. We said we both agree – not agree – we both see it is essential that we exist without desire.
48:19	DB: Yes.
48:20	K: But it is the very structure of my brain cells that desires to live, desires to be happy, desires to get rid of fear, desires to get – all the rest of it. How can that brain, which is conditioned by desire, uncondition itself? Do we ever ask this question? And if we ask it, will it not be another form of desire to get rid of it?
49:15	DB: There is the danger of that trap.
49:17	K: That trap – of course. Do we have to go through all this process?
49:25	DB: Well, no, it seems as if it won’t get us anywhere.
49:33	K: No. What prevents one from having an insight, real insight? That is, seeing the truth of desire and therefore end it. Is it that we have never asked this question? Or we daren’t ask this question – whether it is possible to live totally without desire. I think it’s a marvellous question, sir.
50:16	DB: Yes, well...
50:19	K: Wait. That needs tremendous intelligence, because I desire a pair of shoes. I need a pair of shoes – I won’t call it desire – I need a pair of shoes. I need a dozen pairs of shoes for various reasons and so on. And is need and desire – can they be kept separate?
50:50	DB: Well, there’s genuine need, you see.
50:53	K: I’m talking genuine need.
50:54	DB: And desire is a fancied need in itself, you see.
50:58	K: No, there comes the pride of possession.
51:01	DB: Well, that again is imagination.
51:03	K: Vanity.
51:04	DB: It’s still imagination.
51:05	K: Of course. So can need and desire be separate?
51:12	DB: I think they can, you see.
51:15	K: No, they can, but that requires intelligence.
51:17	DB: Yes, that requires...
51:19	K: No, that requires the intelligence which says, ‘Desire has no place.’
51:24	DB: Yes.
51:25	K: I wonder if I’m...
51:27	DB: Yes, it’s...
51:29	K: Would you say the essence of intelligence is to be without desire?
51:34	DB: Yes, it could be put that way.
51:38	K: Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
51:40	DB: We could say that it’s at least the essential requirement of intelligence.
51:42	K: Yes.
51:43	DB: I wouldn’t say it’s the essence as a whole but the essential requirement for intelligence is the non-desire.
51:52	K: Yes, yes. So a man caught up in desire, however crude, however subtle, however noble, is unintelligent.
52:06	DB: Not basically intelligent.
52:09	K: Of course. Now – this is very interesting – can my need, my needs, one’s needs be absolutely correct, never desire touching them?
52:30	DB: Well, that means no thought of the self, you see, doesn’t it.
52:36	K: Of course, of course. So consciousness becomes something totally different, doesn’t it?
52:47	DB: Yes, well, that’s... let’s go into that a bit, when there is no thought of the self.
52:53	K: No thought of the self...
52:55	DB: ...through desire.
52:57	K: ...which is desire.
52:58	DB: Well, the origin of the thought of the self is desire, you see. It’s at least the sustaining force, anyway.
53:04	K: Yes. And therefore what is the nature of consciousness which is not put together by desire?
53:17	DB: Well, it’s still a kind of action of knowledge, isn’t it? In other words...
53:26	K: Of course. Function – we keep that.
53:28	DB: That’s function, yes.
53:29	K: That’s separate. We have understood that and we have locked it up – don’t let’s...
53:33	DB: But are you asking for beyond that?
53:38	K: Yes, of course.
53:44	DB: Yes. Well, could you say it’s the whole function of the brain?
53:47	K: Sir, what is the function of the brain if there is no desire? Except function – we’ll leave that.
54:02	DB: Yes.
54:05	K: What happens to the brain if there is no desire? Does it receive a shock, this question? Is it something startling?
54:37	DB: Well, not exactly startling, I mean, but surprising.
54:44	K: Yes, surprising, startling. Therefore it is facing something totally new.
54:50	DB: Yes.
54:51	K: New in the sense it has not put this question to itself, ever. Others may have. I am putting it to ourselves, you and I. So, what happens to the movement of the brain when there is no desire at all? Sir, we are asking something which may be incorrect or something illusory, because unless we understand the function and leave it totally, this question may be terribly disturbing to the brain. I don’t know if I’m making...
55:45	DB: You mean the brain can’t handle it?
55:48	K: Yes, can’t... it is too...
55:49	DB: Too what?
55:51	K: Too immense.
55:53	DB: Well, the brain tends to leave it go, you see, just simply, it can’t really deal with it.
56:00	K: You see, you were saying the other day at lunch – if I may repeat it again – that in space there is tremendous energy.
56:11	DB: Yes.
56:12	K: Now, we said desire wastes energy.
56:16	DB: Yes, that’s correct.
56:18	K: Now, when the brain has no desire...
56:21	DB: ...it will have all that energy.
56:25	K: That’s just what I’m trying to get at.
56:26	DB: Yes, I have observed that if you keep on watching desire carefully you find energy goes up, you see.
56:32	K: Yes, yes.
56:33	DB: The major waste of energy... (inaudible)
56:36	K: But you see, unless... this is the danger: energy going up, therefore control desire, watch desire – just a minute – and make that into industry.
56:48	DB: Well, to keep it up, yes.
56:50	K: Keep it up, and gain twenty million dollars out of it. I don’t know if you saw it the other day, The Tribune, The Herald Tribune – the Transcendental Meditation is a twenty million dollar industry. You follow? This is what’s going to happen.
57:07	DB: What does the industry produce?
57:11	K: (Laughs) Don’t ask. More cars! It’s very interesting this.
57:20	DB: No, I think that it’s only useful to observe, you know, that this does happen but not to pursue it indefinitely.
57:27	K: I’m not... Wait a minute, sir. I functioned right. That means a life that is really orderly, righteous, virtuous, unselfish, all that. Then only I can put this question legitimately. Otherwise, I’ll use that watching desire, the arising of that energy, use it for mischievous purposes. The army will accept this – marvellous! – and the politicians will play with it... havoc with it. Therefore I think it is essential to say you must have a really religious, orderly, virtuous life, otherwise you can’t come to the other. Would you say that?
58:28	DB: Yes.
58:29	K: Then we can say now – then let’s find out what happens to the brain when there is no desire whatever. My God! Which means no self-deception, no striving, no achievement, no going or coming – you follow? – nothing, totally no desire. Therefore, if it has no desire there is no content except this.
59:22	DB: Except the functional content.
59:23	K: Functional – we’ll keep on repeating that. There is no content, therefore it is empty, and therefore, as we said the other day, then tremendous energy. Then what is the point of all this?
59:44	DB: Well, we can’t define the point.
59:46	K: No, wait a minute. No, I am just asking. What is the point of my having no desire?
59:51	DB: Because then I am free of self-deception.
59:54	K: Yes, and then what?
59:55	DB: Well, then we have to discover...
59:57	K: All right, I am free of self-deception – then what?
1:00:00	DB: Well, I think that’s not the end of the matter.
1:00:04	K: That’s just it.
1:00:06	DB: I mean, that’s sort of the revolution. Freedom from self-deception is the revolution, isn’t it, the essence of revolution of consciousness.
1:00:17	K: Revolution of consciousness. Would an actual revolutionary in here...
1:00:28	DB: In where?
1:00:29	K: ...in the function, accept this kind of revolution? Which is not... which brings tremendous energy to operate here.
1:00:47	DB: Yes. Well, ordinarily most revolutionaries would not because they don’t accept that they are caught in self-deception.
1:00:54	K: Yes.
1:00:55	DB: On the contrary, they feel they know exactly what has to be done – right?
1:01:00	K: Of course, of course – you heard the... So, sir, at the end of it, what is the point of all this?
1:01:16	DB: Well...
1:01:19	K: Say one has come to this point.
1:01:22	DB: Yes.
1:01:23	K: No desire whatsoever.
1:01:25	DB: And tremendous energy.
1:01:27	K: No, not only tremendous energy – it is something, you know...
1:01:33	DB: Yes – extraordinary.
1:01:35	K: Incredibly wide, without limitation, without frontiers, without – it is infinite.
1:01:41	DB: Yes.
1:01:42	K: If I can use that word without being limited by that word. You have it, one has it – then what place has it? What is the point of it?
1:02:00	DB: Well, it has no place in the present order of things. I mean, except possibly to help to transform it.
1:02:11	K: You and I – suppose you and I have come to this. Not Dr Bohm and K, but...
1:02:23	DB: ...but two people have come to it.
1:02:25	K: ...two people have come to it. Then what is their relationship to the world? The world which is the world of reality, we will call it, the world of function, the world of relationship, and so on and so on – all that.
1:02:46	DB: It is really the world of self-deception, you see, of desire.
1:02:48	K: Yes. What is its relation?
1:02:50	DB: Well, you see, if you define that as the world then there is no relation, you see, except to communicate, to get through that.
1:02:59	K: But, sir, to come to this is – you follow? You must... as we have spent hours at this.
1:03:07	DB: Yes.
1:03:08	K: Not just casually. You have read it, I have worked at it, and so on and so on, so on. To come to this we have to live right – you follow? And then will any... What is the point of this, is what I want to get at. Who will listen?
1:03:30	DB: Well, I think that different people, some are inclined to listen and some are not.
1:03:38	K: No, but that means going into oneself at great – you follow? – great depth.
1:03:48	DB: Yes.
1:03:50	K: I mean watching everything like...
1:03:53	DB: Yes, I can see that most people won’t want to do that. I mean, they may feel they haven’t the time.
1:03:58	K: Therefore they say to me, ‘That’s only for the elite, so get the hell out of here.’
1:04:07	DB: Yes, but they haven’t answered the question: what will you do about self-deception?
1:04:12	K: They say, ‘That’s man’s nature, it has to go on.’
1:04:16	DB: Yes, but then what will he do with his self-deception, you see?
1:04:20	K: We build one... Communists have that thesis, antithesis, synthesis – that is, deception and gradually improve.
1:04:26	DB: No, but they don’t admit it’s deception, you see. If somebody once admits it’s deception, I think that he cannot go on with this – do you see? At least the way I see it is that if it can be made so clear that it is deception, that the person can’t get out of it...
1:04:42	K: Yes, sir. I was talking once to a Catholic on a train in India, and he said to me, ‘Oh, you are a Hindu.’ I said, ‘I am sorry, I am not Hindu, but take it I am a Hindu.’ ‘Oh, you have got such absurd beliefs, in Krishna, in Rama, you know, all the rest of it – such...’ – I have forgotten the words he used – ‘Superstitious nonsense, and all that.’ I said, ‘What about yourself, sir, your belief in Christ?’ ‘Ah, that’s real.’ You follow? That’s what I want to get at – if two people have got this mind, this sense of a brain that has no desire... What a marvellous thing that is – I’ve just...
1:05:32	DB: Yes.
1:05:35	K: Then what can they do? What is the point of it? It’s like living, you know, in a desert. (Laughs)
1:05:53	DB: Well, you see, I think we’ve discussed something relevant to this before...
1:05:56	K: Yes, I know.
1:05:57	DB: ...when you said you compared, shall we say, the young man, Krishnamurti, to some sort of nucleus, you see, which would help to transform the consciousness of mankind.
1:06:13	K: Yes – mankind – quite right.
1:06:15	DB: Any person who is without desire is that nucleus. Isn’t that right?
1:06:19	K: I think – that’s what I want to get at – I think it does affect consciousness here.
1:06:25	DB: Yes, because let’s say if there is one, it has an effect; if there are two, it has more effect.
1:06:32	K: Of course, of course.
1:06:33	DB: But consciousness is all one. You see, the idea that it is all separate is wrong. It is flowing like a stream.
1:06:38	K: Of course. I mean, that’s obvious.
1:06:40	DB: And every person has some mixture, you see, of consciousness. I think we once used the word idiosyncrasy, which I’ve looked up. It means ‘private mixture’.
1:06:50	K: Private... ha!
1:06:51	DB: And everybody is his own private mixture of the general consciousness. He draws various things out of the consciousness.
1:06:59	K: Private mixture – that’s good! (Laughter)
1:07:02	DB: So there is no such thing as an ego which is individual, you see. Every individual is its private mixture of all the ingredients of the general consciousness.
1:07:11	K: Quite.
1:07:13	DB: But that means that consciousness is continually flowing in a stream, into and out of each individual. And if there is truth – you see, truth, as I see it, is truth in action – that flows into the other person and it acts.
1:07:32	K: Yes. So the point is that it affects the total consciousness of man.
1:07:39	DB: Yes. At first only potentially and later actually, you see.
1:07:44	K: Yes. It affects man.
1:07:46	DB: It affects mankind.
1:07:47	K: Mankind – yes.
1:07:48	DB: You see, obviously if that one man were entirely isolated it wouldn’t actually affect other people, but once he is in contact that potential effect becomes actual.
1:08:03	K: A man who is here, in the world of reality, listens to you who says, ‘As long as there is desire there is deception and therefore no solution to society, all the rest of it.’
1:08:33	DB: Or the individual – yes.
1:08:35	K: ‘And it is only possible that when the brain... when there is no desire whatsoever then there is a total revolution, and that will affect consciousness of man.’
1:08:51	DB: Yes.
1:08:52	K: Now, he is here in the world of reality. He listens to you and he says, ‘All right, I accept the logic, I see the logic of it, the reason of it, the explanation of it – I see it. Now, how am I to move from the world of reality to this?’
1:09:08	DB: Yes.
1:09:10	K: So he says systems – you follow? – all the rest of it – all the traps which desire has created.
1:09:18	DB: Yes. Well, we’ll have to go into that and point out that every system is still...
1:09:22	K: But they haven’t time – you follow, sir? – they won’t.
1:09:26	DB: They haven’t time.
1:09:27	K: They haven’t time. They want everything in – meditation, you know – everything quick, in a pill.
1:09:36	DB: Well, it seems to me that the whole thing can be presented in such a way that it is transparently obvious that no system is relevant, you see, that it is all self-deception.
1:09:47	K: You see, for the man in the world of reality everything is against him.
1:09:53	DB: Yes.
1:09:55	K: His education, his upbringing, his family – everything in against him.
1:10:05	DB: But couldn’t we say that no man is entirely in the field of reality, you see, it’s always some mixture again? I mean, in other words, he has some...
1:10:17	K: That would lead us into another illusion: ‘Yes, I’ve got this thing.’
1:10:23	DB: Well, no, not to say that, but the way it seems to me is that somebody may get a moment of perception and then as thought comes in it begins to tangle it up, you know.
1:10:34	K: That means even the moment of perception...
1:10:36	DB: ...is wrong.
1:10:38	K: ...maybe wrong. And the moment of perception there must be leisure.
1:10:42	DB: Yes.
1:10:43	K: There must be, you know, have a time to listen, time to read, time to look.
1:10:49	DB: Right. Well, you seem to be presenting an impossible problem then.
1:10:53	K: But this is what is happening.
1:10:55	DB: I know it’s the fact. I mean, it is the fact but we seem to have reached an impasse.
1:11:01	K: I mean, a man will give all his life to climb Mount Everest.
1:11:05	DB: Yes. But very seldom he’ll do this.
1:11:08	K: He’ll go through hell to come there, but... (laughs)
1:11:11	DB: Well, that’s again the same story because Mount Everest is in the field of desire. (Laughs)
1:11:18	K: Of course. So, sir, I think the man who is without desire affects the total consciousness of human beings.
1:11:28	DB: But is there any possibility that this effect is going to bring about the revolution of consciousness? You can’t say – right?
1:11:39	K: After all, in a school, like here at Brockwood, or everywhere, this is the basic thing that students are fighting. It is all very well to agree, but how am I to earn my livelihood?
1:11:57	DB: Yes.
1:11:58	K: How am I to have any kind of relationship with another if I consider that?
1:12:05	DB: Yes, if I am free of desire then what will I do?
1:12:11	K: So they say, ‘Well, take little by little’ – you follow, sir?
1:12:20	DB: Yes.
1:12:21	K: ‘Don’t swallow the whole thing, take a little bit of it.’ And they are lost. They are dead by the time they have taken, collected all the little bits.
1:12:36	DB: Yes, well, that can’t be done because...
1:12:38	K: That can’t be done. But that’s the priests and the gurus supplying the little bits. (Pause) We never put this question, really. What an extraordinary thing it is, to be without desire, for the brain to be without desire.
1:13:08	DB: Well, I mean, have you put it?
1:13:10	K: I have never put it, but it’s there.
1:13:15	DB: It is implicit.
1:13:18	K: I see I have no desire, literally. I am not deceiving myself. I am not trying to pretend to be something – I have a horror of all that. So, putting that very question has broken something – you follow? – opened something, which was there probably. So the passion of desire and the passion of non-desire are two different things.
1:13:56	DB: Yes. Could you say that the passion of desire is some twisting up of the brain energy, but the other energy is entirely different?
1:14:05	K: Yes.
1:14:06	DB: I mean, not the brain energy, which we discussed the other day, of truth.
1:14:16	K: You see, here intelligence has been the tool of desire.
1:14:23	DB: Well, how can intelligence be...
1:14:26	K: We will call it intelligence.
1:14:28	DB: Well, let’s call it the brain function.
1:14:30	K: Yes. There we say that is... he is an intelligent man, he works intelligently, etc. So, desire is identified with intelligence and activity, here. But if there is no desire at all that intelligence can function here.
1:14:52	DB: Yes. Well, we discussed the other time, for example, that when one is speaking the intelligence may directly function in producing the word, you see, rather than having it come from desire.
1:15:10	K: Yes. Sir, if I may ask – I am not being personal; I am not being impudent – when you heard that statement, ‘Can the brain be totally without desire?’ what effect had that question on you?
1:15:35	DB: Well, it’s hard to remember, you see. I think that question was there implicitly. The question was there implicitly but it sort of opens up the brain in some way.
1:15:50	K: Yes, that’s what I wanted to find out.
1:15:53	DB: I mean, to make it explicit. (Pause) Because in some way I think you’re right to say that our tradition is such that we would be very unlikely to ever put this question.
1:16:14	K: Yes.
1:16:16	DB: Even if you have it implicitly it is very unlikely to put it explicitly.
1:16:21	K: Yes. You see, they have always said control desire.
1:16:27	DB: Yes. Well, I think that... I mean, our modern age says don’t even control it.
1:16:39	K: Of course – the modern age. You see, sir, I think this has to do with the ‘process’.
1:16:54	DB: Your process, the one we discussed the other time?
1:16:57	K: Yes, because I was watching it the last few days, because I’ve been going to bed very early and been quiet and so on.
1:17:11	DB: Yes.
1:17:12	K: The intensity of the movement without desire, is going on, changing the whole nature inside. I don’t know if...
1:17:26	DB: The nature of what?
1:17:28	K: The brain.
1:17:29	DB: I mean...
1:17:30	K: I don’t know – it all sounds ridiculous.
1:17:33	DB: Well, I wouldn’t say ridiculous, but... You see, if we say desire originates from the conditioning – the conditioning is some imprint, you know, in the brain cells – could you say that this movement is changing that imprint or wiping it out, or something more?
1:17:48	K: No, no, it’s something entirely different, much more.
1:17:49	DB: Much more than that – yes.
1:17:51	K: Oh, much more.
1:17:52	DB: Yes, that’s what I wanted... In other words, it’s doing something to the deeper structure of the brain, not merely the memory.
1:17:58	K: Yes. Yes, yes.
1:18:00	DB: You feel that but you couldn’t prove it, I mean.
1:18:04	K: No, I... (laughs) This can’t be proved.
1:18:11	DB: What?
1:18:13	K: A brain without desire.
1:18:18	DB: Yes. (Pause) Well, I have been reading, perhaps something relevant, you know, what you call the Scaravelli manuscript, what happened over six or seven months while you were travelling around the world, with this process and, you know, what happens along with it.
1:18:43	K: I think this is what it is, sir. You see, you know, you can take purgatives to cleanse the body.
1:18:54	DB: Yes.
1:18:56	K: Various herbs and so on, to purify the body, the organism. Now, is there a movement, an action that keeps the brain pure all – you follow? – uncontaminated?
1:19:14	DB: Yes. Now you’re saying that is this process.
1:19:16	K: I think it has to do with the process. And it has to do with this.
1:19:20	DB: What is this?
1:19:21	K: The brain without desire.
1:19:22	DB: The brain without desire.
1:19:24	K: We are entering into something. You see, if there is no desire then what is the function of the brain, except this?
1:19:41	DB: Except the ordinary function.
1:19:42	K: Yes.
1:19:43	DB: Would you say there is another function?
1:19:44	K: Why should it function?
1:19:47	DB: Well, let’s say it doesn’t function – then what happens? You see, let me bring up another point. You see, in this Scaravelli manuscript you brought in, very frequently, this perception of otherness, you see, which you call otherness, blessedness.
1:20:12	K: Yes.
1:20:13	DB: And saying it left an imprint on the brain or something. Why do you call it ‘other’? Is it other to thought? Is that what you mean?
1:20:26	K: Yes, other than...
1:20:27	DB: Other than ordinary reality, but it doesn’t imply a separation.
1:20:29	K: Of course, of course. I have to use words, sir, you know.
1:20:33	DB: Yes.
1:20:34	K: Sir, I mean, when you hear a statement of that kind – brain without desire – does the brain undergo a revolution, a transformation? (Pause) You see, like compassion, which is a mystery – that very word compassion, it is a very... it’s a word that has got tremendous vitality. I don’t know...
1:21:31	DB: Yes.
1:21:33	K: And that, when you hear words like that, does that affect your whole organism as well as the brain and so on?
1:21:43	DB: Well, it may have, you see. I think that we use the words so frequently that they cease to affect us.
1:21:52	K: I know, I know. And I think that’s why it is such a mystery.
1:21:58	DB: Why?
1:21:59	K: The word compassion.
1:22:00	DB: Why is it such a mystery?
1:22:01	K: It is a mystery because it is so changing, so... I mean, it’s so... it’s never the same.
1:22:14	DB: Yes.
1:22:16	K: It’s really timeless, and therefore it is an extraordinary mystery. What time is it, sir?
1:22:35	DB: It’s five minutes to five.
1:22:41	K: We have talked a great deal, haven’t we?
1:22:51	DB: Yes. (Pause)
1:22:55	K: Aren’t children supposed to – some of them at least – only see facts?
1:23:08	DB: I wasn’t aware of that. I didn’t know about that.
1:23:12	K: I was told that.
1:23:14	DB: Well, maybe there are some but in general they have a great deal of fantasy.
1:23:20	K: Of course. It’s encouraged, all that. (Pause)
1:23:30	When do you go back, tomorrow?
1:23:31	DB: In the afternoon.
1:23:34	K: I must return your dictionary; it is there. I think we’d better stop, don’t you, sir?
1:23:40	DB: Yes. (Long pause)
1:24:12	K: I want to ask a totally different thing, sir. People have heard, like Wilhelm, heard these tapes.
1:24:18	DB: Yes.
1:24:20	K: They are greatly moved and they want copies of it. Or could we – lots of people hear it?
1:24:27	DB: Yes.
1:24:28	K: So it is up to you – what do you say? I know nothing of it; I am leaving.
1:24:33	DB: Well, I think we can leave it to whoever is arranging these things. Well, we should see each other in California – right?
1:24:46	K: We can continue there.
1:24:48	DB: I just wanted to say that, you know, when you raise this question about the mind without desire, I think it does start to open up the whole thing.
1:25:05	K: No, to put a thing in words like that does something.
1:25:23	DB: You see, at first it may seem like an insignificant change but actually it is very significant.