Krishnamurti Subtitles home


BRGS75CB1 - What is truth and what is reality?
Brockwood Park, UK - 18 May 1975
Conversation with David Bohm 1



0:00 This is the first dialogue between J. Krishnamurti and David Bohm, which includes Dr Parchure, at Brockwood Park, 1975.
0:23 Krishnamurti: You’re the intimidators! Saral Bohm: Well, let’s say we’re the representatives of the others they’d all like to be out here.
0:40 David Bohm: Are we ready to start?
0:42 K: No, sir, a little...

DB: Have a rest?
0:51 K: How shall we start this thing?
1:02 Shall we plunge into it?
1:07 DB: Do you want to start it?

K: All right, sir. You see, while I was in California, at Ojai, I was thinking about this question: What is truth and what is reality?
1:24 Have they any relationship or are they separate, eternally divorced, or are they projections of thought?
1:43 And if thought didn’t operate, would there be reality? All that’s involved.
1:57 I thought that reality – as one knows – comes from res, thing, and anything that thought operates on or fabricates or reflects about is reality.

DB: Yes.
2:30 K: A distortion of reality, thought thinking in a distorted, conditioned manner is illusion, is deception, is distortion.
2:49 I left it there, because one can... I didn’t want to...
2:58 I wanted to let it come rather than my pursuing it.
3:02 DB: I see.

K: I left it there.
3:03 DB: Well, do you want to pursue it further now?
3:05 K: Yes, that’s why...

DB: Well, yes, of course that’s...
3:09 K: We talked about it with the analysts and the therapeutics.
3:14 DB: Yes, I heard it on the tape, actually.
3:15 K: Oh, you’ve got the tape?

DB: Well, we got a copy from George.
3:19 K: And there is the doctor – you’ve seen that Shainberg has written…
3:24 DB: Yes.

K: Now it’s your turn. You have the floor.

DB: Well, yes. Well, now of course the question of thought and reality and truth, you know, has occupied philosophers over thousands of years – it’s a very difficult one.
3:45 For example, I mean, I think that what you say is true, basically, but it has a lot of points to be ironed out.
3:54 K: Of course, of course.

DB: Now...
3:57 K: You see, in Sanskrit – I wish there were a Sanskrit scholar here – Dr Parchure is a Sanskrit scholar.
4:07 I think they would interpret it probably in a different way, I’m not quite sure.
4:15 DB: No. Yes, well, do you know anything of the Sanskrit word for ‘true’ and ‘real’? Is there any similarity?
4:19 K: I think, yes I do, but I may misquote it. I don’t want to enter into it. Satyam is truth.
4:29 DB: Yes.
4:31 K: I don’t know what is reality. Could we ask him? Not you. Do you think it’s worth having Dr Parchure?
4:41 SB: Shall I go down and find him?

K: What do you say?
4:44 DB: It’s hard... Well, I mean… Mary Zimbalist: Do you want to? S

B: It would be interesting to...
4:49 K: Ask him – I don’t care. Let’s ask him, shall we? All right. I don’t know if you could... Audience member: Mary, I can tell him. Would he be...
5:00 K: I have a feeling in this matter that not having read philosophies is a tremendous advantage, because then you can start as though you know nothing and begin to inquire.
5:17 But if you... if one begins to translate in Sanskrit, and what the Sanskrit scholars talk about it, and the Latin scholars and the philosophers and all the rest of it, then we get lost.
5:35 DB: Well, let’s say, you see, one of the questions that arises is if we say reality is thought, what thought thinks about, really I would have extended it to say reality is something reflected in consciousness.
5:51 I don’t know what you think of that. To say it goes beyond...
5:58 K: Are the contents of consciousness reality?
6:02 DB: That’s the question, yes.

K: Yes.
6:05 DB: And now thought – we can use thought as equivalent to consciousness, you know, it’s not the basic form.

K: Basic form, yes.
6:12 DB: Or whether it should include, I mean just for the sake of completeness, feeling and desire and will and reaction, and so on – you know?
6:20 I feel that if we thought that we’re exploring the connection between reality and consciousness and truth...
6:31 K: Would you separate consciousness with its content, reality, and truth – the three things?
6:41 DB: The three things. No, I think that I would agree that truth goes beyond the other two.
6:46 K: The other two, yes.
6:48 DB: And it has been, although we needn’t tie ourselves down to what philosophers have done, it has been an old question for philosophers as to what is the relation between...
6:56 K: This has been a question, has it?

DB: A very long-standing question.
6:59 K: How do they answer it?

DB: In hundreds of ways. I mean, you see we couldn’t...

K: Oh, good Lord – of course.
7:05 DB: We might bring up one or two of the ways as we go along, but philosophers have argued about this in any number of ways.
7:16 But one of the points I’d like to bring up is, you see, we think there is the thought or there is our consciousness and there is the thing of which we are conscious – and even you have often said, you know, the thought is not the thing.

K: Yes, quite, quite.
7:30 DB: And we have to get it clear because in some sense the thing has some kind of reality independent of thought. We can’t go so far as to deny all that.
7:38 K: Of course. Quite, quite.
7:41 DB: Now, some philosophy has, you know, in some sense, people like Bishop Berkeley have said it is all mind.
7:50 I mean, people have taken every possible position.
7:52 K: Every possible position – quite.

DB: Now, we have... You see, I thought of a distinction that would be useful between that reality which is largely created by our own thought or by the thought of mankind, and that reality which you can regard as independent, existing independently of that thought.
8:12 For example, would you say nature is real?
8:15 K: It is, yes.
8:16 DB: And it is not just our own thoughts.
8:19 K: No, obviously not. A tree...
8:23 DB: A tree, or the whole earth, the stars...
8:27 K: Of course – the cosmos and the whole thing.
8:43 Pain is real.
8:44 DB: Yes. Well, you know, I was thinking the other day, illusion is real – in the sense that it is really something going on.
8:53 A person in a state of illusion, something is going on.
8:56 K: To him it is real.
8:58 DB: To him it is real, but there really is... also, to us it is real because his brain is in a certain state of electrical and chemical movement, and he acts from his illusion in a real way.
9:09 K: Yes, in a real way – a distorted way.
9:11 DB: Distorted but real.

K: Real. Quite, quite.
9:14 DB: Now, therefore it occurred to me that one could say that even the false is real but not true.
9:20 K: Ah, I understand.
9:22 DB: You see, that this is the thing which might be important, that...
9:29 K: You see, take for instance – I don’t know – is Christ real?
9:44 DB: Yes, well, he is real certainly in the minds of people who believe in him, in the sense we have been talking.
9:51 K: Yes, who created him.

DB: Who created him. Besides, there may have been a real person who...
9:57 K: A Jesus, let’s...

DB: Jesus, yes.
10:01 K: Even that, there is a doubt about all that business.
10:03 DB: There is a doubt, yes.
10:06 K: Jesus was real, a human – if one believed he existed – and the thought created Christ.

DB: Yes.
10:21 K: Then Christ is an illusion.
10:27 DB: Yes, but at the same time the illusion is a real...
10:30 K:...a real thing to the man who... Quite.
10:32 DB: And also to the people who must suffer the actions of that man.
10:36 K: Of course, of course.
10:39 DB: So...

K: You see, that’s what... I mean, the Buddha, as a person, there was historical existence, proof, and all the rest of it – it was real.
10:50 What he said outside the field of thought is truth.
10:56 DB: Yes.
11:06 K: Have you got him?

MZ: Yes.
11:10 K: He can have my chair.
11:12 K: No, get a chair, please. Get a chair.
11:15 MZ: I can sit on the floor. Krishnaji, we’re out of chairs – come. Please...
11:18 K: He can have my chair.
11:20 SB: I don’t want a chair, sir, I like the floor. This is much more comfortable.
11:26 K: You know Sanskrit well. We want to find out the distinction between truth and reality.
11:39 We said – may I repeat to him what we said? – we said – anything that thought thinks about, whether unreasonably or reasonably, is a reality.
11:56 It may be distorted or reasoned clearly – it is still a reality.
12:03 That reality has nothing to do with truth. Now, we want to know, in Sanskrit, if there is such a difference. Dr Parchure: There is.
12:15 K: Then what is reality in Sanskrit?
12:18 DP: The idea that you are wanting to represent to the world ‘reality’, is brought out in literature as maya.
12:27 K: Ah, maya? Maya means illusion.
12:33 DP: Yes, but it appears like truth, therefore it is called maya.
12:39 K: Aha. Sir, ‘maya’ means also to measure.
12:44 DP: No, this word doesn’t arise from that.
12:49 DB: Many people have said so.
12:52 DP: That is why they have all the time been saying that the world is a dream. But while you are in the dream, you take it as truth.
13:00 K: As real. D

P: Yes.
13:02 K: No, not as truth.
13:04 DP: As real. While you are in the dream. So that idea is represented by the word ‘maya’. That we live in the state of maya, taking all the time the unreal as real.
13:17 K: As real.
13:19 DB: What is truth then?
13:21 K: What is truth? D

P: Truth, that is satyam.
13:25 K: Satyam. What is the relationship between satyam and maya? Maya in the sense we are using it.
13:34 DP: Yes. Satyam is negative. When the cloud of maya disappears, what remains is satyam.
13:43 K: Ah, same thing. Then what is the difference between ma – to measure – and maya?
13:57 DP: The word ‘ma’ that you are using is in many other words.
14:10 I don’t think I know the root of ‘maya’, the word.
14:15 K: You don’t know. D

P: I don’t know.
14:27 K: You see, in the sense you are using ‘maya’, an illusion which is taken for a reality.
14:34 DP: Yes, for reality – what we explained today.
14:36 K: Yes.

DB: Yes.
14:38 K: That is reality.
14:39 DP: Which is the opposite of what you first think. You have... you don’t see the truth at all and therefore what appears to you is a projection only, which you call reality.

K: Reality, yes.
14:51 And do they say – the relationship between truth and maya, there is no relationship between the two?
15:00 DP: No relationship.
15:01 K: That’s what... we’re coming to the same thing.
15:02 DB: But is ‘maya’ then the same word as ‘reality’?
15:04 DP: That’s why we have described the four stages of human existence as wakefulness, sleep, dream, and that stage where... that maya is over. Turiya, also.
15:30 K: So let’s continue. You don’t mind if we go on?
15:33 DP: Yes, sir.

K: Listen to it and if... Sir, I’m ignorant of Sanskrit. I know a little bit – every Brahmin knows a little bit, but I’m out of it all. And he doesn’t know Sanskrit, either. So, what we’re trying to find out is: What is reality?
15:55 DP: I do not understand why you call it a reality when it is not real.
16:01 K: A tree is a reality. Nature is a reality. A whale in the sea is a reality.
16:10 DP: Yes, but you’re calling reality to the opposite of what is true.
16:16 K: Ah, I disassociate truth from reality. Not I – I mean...
16:22 DP: No, you are calling violence as reality… non-violence as reality, violence as truth.
16:30 K: No.
16:30 DP: There is not the opposite of it. That’s right.
16:34 K: Violence is a reality, because you hit me, and that...
16:40 DP: Yes. ...the opposites are reality – it’s not that one is reality and the other is the opposite of it.
16:45 K: Yes. That’s what we’ve come... Right, sir?
16:56 No, the opposite is not a reality, it’s an illusion...
17:01 DP:...of truth.
17:03 K: Not of truth. D

P: Not of truth.
17:07 K: I’m violent, which is a fact – you hit me, I hit you.
17:12 DP: So where does the discrimination come between a fact and truth?
17:21 K: Between a fact and truth.
17:28 Ask him – pump him a little bit while I think about it.
17:32 DB: Well, perhaps...
17:34 K: Not think about it – see what happens.
17:39 DB: You see, the question of a fact is another – it’s related, but, you see, the fact is what is made, literally speaking, what is done, that which actually happens.
17:50 K: That’s what I want... Fact means that which is done.
17:53 DB: Yes, that which actually happens.
17:55 K: Actually happens.
17:56 DB: Now, that is not the same as truth, you see. You see, I think that if we distinguish between reality and truth...
18:06 DP: Is it the content of the fact, truth?
18:09 K: You discuss – he’s saying something.
18:12 DB: You see, if we distinguish between reality and truth, we can no longer say that a certain content is the truth about the thing, about something, because the content may be real or unreal.
18:33 You see, it’s a different way of using language than the ordinary way, which is being proposed. Right?
18:40 K: Yes, yes.
18:41 DB: Now, in the ordinary way of talking, we may say, ‘This is the truth about that thing’. Right?
18:49 K: Yes, in the ordinary way, this is the truth about that thing.
18:52 DB: But now we should maybe say this is correct information about that thing, you see?
18:55 K: Yes.
18:56 DB: But truth, I think, is now something which, you know, is an entirely different order.
19:02 K: Dimension, order – yes.
19:04 DB: And now we’re saying that illusion is a kind of reality because it is something...
19:12 it is a fact, it is actually taking place in the person’s brain.
19:16 DP: Is reality a fact?
19:20 K: Yes. A tree is a fact. I have done – I hit you – it’s a fact.
19:30 And you hit me back – it’s a fact. And therefore it’s real.
19:35 DP: So that by equation, if reality is a fact, a fact has truth.
19:42 K: We must understand what we mean by fact. Fact means, according to the dictionary, that which is done.
19:51 DP: Yes.
19:52 K: Or that which has happened, or that which we will do – fact.
20:01 DP: I think from what has happened, we deduce reality.
20:10 K: No, be careful. No, no. No, go slow.
20:14 DP: I hit you and you call that as a fact, and we call it as violence – which is the reality.
20:23 Arising out of this act of hitting has arisen the reality of violence.
20:32 K: I don’t understand. Do you understand what he’s saying?
20:34 DB: No.

K: No.
20:35 DP: You give me a happening, an instant, an event.
20:41 K: No, we said fact is something that is being done.
20:46 DP: Yes.

K: Right? That’s all.
20:48 DB: Or that actually happens.

K: Actually happening.
20:52 DP: Yes.

DB: Yes. The reality is...
20:54 DP: You name that happening.
20:56 K: Wait, wait, wait – listen slowly. D

P: I see.
20:59 DB: The reality is the thing. Now, it’s a different way of sensing it. You see, I can describe a fact or say it is something actually happening. Now, if we say it’s real, we see it as a thing, you see, which stands independently of thought, you see – that’s all.
21:18 You see, suppose, you’re walking on a dark road. You may see something. It may be real, it may not be real. You feel it’s real one moment and the next moment it’s not real. And I think we’re using words to say that when there is a thing, we say that thing is real, or it may be illusory, unreal.
21:41 The fact is the actual act. That’s what the dictionary says. It’s something which is actual.
21:49 K: Which is actual, yes.

DB: Which is done.
21:51 DP: Can I say that this initial impression that one gets is real?
21:56 K: Yes.
21:58 DP: Hearing, seeing, touching. You see something, you hear something – that is a fact.
22:02 K: Don’t reduce it yet to details. Don’t reduce it to examples, details. First, let’s get the broad outline. We are saying that anything that thought thinks about or reflects upon or projects, that is reality.
22:30 And that reality has nothing to do with truth. The two are eternally separate.
22:43 DP: But has it anything to do with fact?
22:45 K: Wait. You can’t come from reality to truth.
22:48 DP: Right.

K: No, no, no.
22:51 DP: No, but I am saying...
22:52 K: No, sir, do listen a minute, find out. You see, when you say – the Hindus scholars or whatever they are – say: Remove the illusion, maya, then reality is.
23:10 DB: This implies something very different.
23:12 K: Very. That’s what I’m saying.
23:14 DB: That’s the point. You could say that... suppose, we say that the Hindu philosophy is that maya is illusion, it’s not the real thing – right? – therefore it implies that when you remove that, you’ll have the real thing.

K: Real thing.
23:26 DB: But we’re saying there is no real thing.
23:28 DP: No, they don’t say that – it is not real thing. Because as long as maya is there, whatever appears is real.
23:36 DB: Yes, but then when you remove maya, if maya is illusion…
23:40 DP: Yes, but in maya you don’t know that what you are seeing is real or unreal. You take it as real.

DB: Yes, but...
23:48 K: No, go further, sir – move, move.

DB: It’s the question of...
23:51 DP: I understand this, that from maya or from reality you cannot come to truth, because...

K: No, no. No.
24:01 I can remove maya, by whatever means.
24:07 DP: By thought.
24:07 K: Wait. No. By whatever means. We won’t use... Truth may not exist.
24:17 DP: Then reality has not gone.
24:20 K: Therefore, I must be very clear. It is not a question of removing. Seeing reality it’s where it belongs.
24:36 I mean, that’s the art of seeing. Would you agree, sir?
24:43 The art of seeing is to place reality where it is, and not move that in order to get truth.
24:57 You can’t get truth. I don’t know...
25:04 You can’t move from here to there and call that truth.
25:11 Am I...
25:15 DP: You are saying the art of seeing, but that state of mind which has that art, in what state is that?
25:27 K: It just sees. I just see those birds on the wall, and I know that is created by thought – because those birds are painted, they are wallpaper, but they are the product of thought.
25:47 It’s real. I can’t call that illusion, any more than I can call your hitting me violence. It is violence.
26:05 It’s a reality, not an illusion.
26:15 Right, sir? I want to...
26:24 This point, sir, to go with this point: Can I move from reality to truth, or there is no movement?
26:43 Movement means time, movement means – all that.

DB: Yes.
26:48 K: So can... is there a stop to time, which is thought?
26:55 Am I going all right?
26:58 DB: Well, maybe we’re, you know, we’re sort of jumping.
27:00 K: Yes. A little bit slower, yes.
27:08 DB: You see, the thing is, if we come back to reality, which is the thing.
27:16 You see, the thing is the... the root of the word ‘thing’ is fundamentally the same as in German ‘bedingen’ – to condition, to set the conditions or determine.
27:27 You see, a thing is necessarily conditioned.
27:30 K: Yes.
27:30 DB: And any form of reality...
27:32 K:...is conditioned.

DB:...is conditioned. Now...
27:35 K: Let’s accept that.
27:36 DB: This is the key point, you see.

K: Chief point. What is that?
27:38 DB: Any form of reality is conditioned.
27:41 K: Is conditioned.

DB: Right.
27:42 K: That’s what we were saying, in fact, this afternoon.
27:44 DB: That’s right. There may... Now, the illusion is still a form of reality, which is conditioned, because the man... The distortion is real, there will be, for example, the man’s blood has a different constitution if he’s not in a balanced state and he’s distorting, he may be too excited.
28:10 And now, so every thing is determined by conditions, and it also conditions every other thing.
28:17 K: Yes, quite.
28:18 DB: So all things are interrelated in a web of a mutual inter-conditioning, which we could influence.
28:25 You see, everything influences everything. In physics, that’s very clear – the planets all influence each other, the atoms influence each other, and I wanted to suggest that maybe we could think about thought and consciousness as part of this whole chain of influence.
28:42 K: Yes. Yes, quite right.
28:44 DB: So that the whole... everything can influence consciousness and it can work back and influence things.
28:50 K: Yes, quite, quite.
28:51 DB: It can shape some things, make objects. And in fact, then you could say that this is all reality, that therefore thought is also real.
29:08 K: Thought is real – quite.
29:11 DB: And there is one part of reality influencing another part of reality.
29:17 K: One part of illusion influences the other part of illusion.
29:21 DB: Yes, but now we have to be careful because we can say there is that reality which is not made by man, you know, by mankind, but that’s still limited because the cosmos, for example, as seen by us, is still...
29:40 K:...limited.
29:40 DB:...influenced by our own thinking.
29:42 K: Quite.

DB: And our own experience. And everything that we see, we see it through our own experience, through our own background.
29:51 Right? So that reality is not totally... it cannot possibly be totally independent of man.
29:58 K: No, no, no.
29:59 DB: It may be relatively independent.
30:01 K: Yes. Quite, quite.
30:02 DB: The tree is relatively independent but it’s me that abstracts the tree.
30:08 K: Are you saying that man’s reality is the product of influence and conditioning?
30:23 DB: Yes. Mutual and...
30:25 K:...and react – yes.

DB: A reaction.
30:27 K: Reaction. And all his illusions are also his product.
30:33 DB: Yes. Yes, they are all together, inseparable.
30:35 K: Yes, yes. And then, what is the difference between a sane, rational, healthy, holy man – whole – holy man, to reality, and to truth?
30:59 DB: Yes. You see, I think that... I was going to look at this question of truth. You know, I looked at it a bit and, you see, I think the derivation of words is very useful. The word ‘true’ in Latin, which is ‘verus’, means ‘that which is’. The same as the English ‘was’ and ‘were’, in the German, ‘wahr’, and there may be a Sanskrit word, I don’t know, but...
31:24 K: You can ask him, he’ll tell you. What is the Sanskrit word to ‘what is’?
31:33 DP: Sat.
31:33 K: Sat – that’s it.

DB: Sat – right. Well, anyway, truth is the same idea then.
31:37 K: Yes, you see, sir – satyam, sat…
31:41 DB: Yes. So it’s the same notion as in Latin. Now, in English the word ‘true’ means honest and faithful, in Anglo-Saxon. I thought the two notions go together.
31:50 K: Yes.
31:51 DB: You see, we can often say that a line is true or a machine is true. There was a story I read which had a title The Thread That Ran So True, where it was using the image of the spinning wheel with the thread running straight.
32:06 K: Straight – quite.
32:07 DB: And now we could say that our thought or our consciousness is true to that which is, if it is running straight, you see, if the man is sane and healthy.
32:21 And otherwise, it is not, you see.

K: Quite.
32:24 DB: Otherwise, it is false. So the falseness of consciousness is not just wrong information but it is actually running falsely as a reality.
32:33 K: Quite, quite. I understand, yes. So you’re saying as long as man is sane, healthy, whole, holy, and rational, his thread is always straight.
32:49 DB: Yes, his consciousness is on a straight thread, you see, and therefore his reality...
32:55 K: So his reality is different from the reality of a man whose thread is crooked.

DB: Very different.
33:03 K: Yes – who is irrational, who is neurotic...
33:09 DB:...and perhaps even insane.

K: Insane.
33:11 DB: You can see with insane people how different it is – they cannot even sometimes see the same reality at all, you know?
33:17 K: Yes. And the sane, healthy, whole, holy man, what is his relationship to truth?

DB: Yes.
33:36 Well, you see, if you come to the meaning of the word, again I think that’s the clue, because if you say truth is that which is, as well as being true to that which is, then you have to say that he is... that which is, is.
33:54 In other words, what people intend by the word ‘the whole of reality’ is actually comprehended in the word ‘truth’.
34:01 K: Yes, yes, yes. So would you say the man – we said holy – is truth?
34:08 DB: He is truth, yes. Another way of putting it: He is of the truth. I like that better. Would you say he is truth or he is of the truth?
34:17 K: Quite, quite.
34:18 DB: I mean, like the water – the drop of water is of the ocean, it’s the same quality.
34:22 K: It’s the same quality – quite.
34:23 DB: I don’t know which usage is better.
34:25 K: Sir – you understand? – they have got this in Sanskrit, I’m pretty sure. You understand the question? D

P: Yes.
34:33 K: The man who is rational, sane, healthy, whole, not fragmented, and therefore holy, because he’s that, that is truth.
34:48 Or he is a part of it. Which means, can truth be divided?
34:57 DB: Well, it’s not a division, you see? You see, like we say, ‘The whole truth’.
35:04 K: No, that’s a colloquial thing – the whole truth and swear by God, and all the rest of it.
35:11 But if that man has this straight thread, he’s the whole, he’s not a fragment.
35:22 DB: No, I didn’t mean to say he was fragmented. But, you see...
35:29 K: It’s very interesting, this.
35:31 DB: I wanted to try to suggest something like this, that, you see, if we are to think, let’s say, of the cosmos, the whole of reality, but we say that is really nothing, you see, that is still thought.
35:43 I mean, it may be something but, you know, it’s conditioned, because whatever we think of must be conditioned.
35:49 K: That’s right.

DB: Therefore...
35:51 K: So thought is conditioned, therefore whatever we think of...
35:54 DB:...is conditioned.

K: Quite.
35:55 DB: Now, I say truth must be unconditioned, and I think everybody feels that.

K: Yes.
36:00 DB: Now, then whatever we would have meant by the whole of the cosmos must be meant by truth.

K: Yes.
36:07 DB: You see, the truth I say is not only what we usually mean by it, but it is also the very substance which underlies what we call reality.
36:19 K: Quite.
36:26 You see, sir – may I ask him? – The Hindus talk about Samadhi.
36:34 Samadhi being, not trance, I don’t mean trance and all those tricks they are playing, but reaching a state where you are direct...
36:46 mind is that, brahman. When that mind is that, that is truth. Is that right?
36:58 DP: Yes, sir. That is samadhi’s definition.
37:01 K: Now, are we saying the same thing?
37:04 DB: Well, I should think so, yes.
37:07 DP: I would like to clarify here that when you take a person as wholly sane, rational...
37:14 K:...and holy. D

P: Yes, whole.
37:17 K: No, holy, h-o-l-y, sacred. D

P: Yes. So he is in reality.
37:26 K: Ah! Ah! You see?

DB: No, it’s the other way round.
37:31 K: The other way round.

DB: The reality is in him.
37:37 K: No, that’s...

DB: He comprehends reality.
37:40 K: Yes. You see, sir...
37:42 DP: He is unfragmented, so the thought that...
37:44 K: No, no, you must get the picture right. You haven’t got the picture right. A man who is rational, sane, which means healthy, which means holy, whole, which is brahman, whole, and such a man is truth.
38:08 DP: No, you asked the question...
38:09 K: Wait, wait. No. We said such man is truth. Not of truth, not belonging to truth, or lives in truth – he is that, because that which is is truth.
38:33 Right, sir?

DB: Yes.
38:34 DP: But your question was – you asked him first – what is the relationship of such a man with reality and with truth?
38:43 K: Yes. D

P: So...
38:46 K: Ah, I put a wrong question.
38:50 DP: Because if you ask a relationship with truth, that means you establish duality.
38:54 K: Ah, I put a wrong question. Such a man is truth, and he may think certain things, which would be reality, but he is truth.
39:13 He can’t think irrationally.
39:18 DB: Well, I wouldn’t go quite that far. I’d say that he can make a mistake...
39:22 K: Of course, of course.
39:23 DB:...but he doesn’t persist in it. You see, in other words...
39:28 K: Yes, sir, quite right.
39:30 DB:...there’s the difference between the man who has made a mistake and can...
39:33 K:...and acknowledges it, changes it.
39:34 DB: And there’s the man who has made a mistake but his mind is not running true and therefore he twists it up.
39:53 But we have to come back to this question. You see, if we say nature is real, it seems to imply that truth must go beyond this man, you see.
40:04 That’s what I’m trying to say.

K: Yes.
40:06 DB: It includes other men, and it includes nature. Right?
40:10 K: Includes everything that is.

DB: All that is, yes. So the truth is one.
40:15 K: That’s why satya... you see?

DB: Right.
40:20 DP: Sir, to a person who is truth, to him reality is also truth. There is no difference between truth…
40:28 K: No, wait. No, no, be careful – no. This becomes difficult.
40:32 DB: You see, reality is always conditioned and the man...
40:35 DP: He sees, and it’s...

DB: He sees the conditioning.
40:38 K: No, sir, look. You explain, sir.
40:41 DB: You see, the man who... this man, he sees all the things in reality, and each thing is conditioned, the whole of reality is conditioned.
40:51 The truth of this is that it is conditioned...
40:54 DP: But there is no conditioning for him.
40:56 DB: No, no, it’s not so.

K: No, no, no.
40:59 DB: All things are conditioned. He’s not conditioned, but all things remain conditioned. You see, this table depends on conditions of temperature and pressure and many other conditions; the body depends on conditions to exist, you see.
41:14 Everything influences everything – that remains a fact. The mutual influence of everything on everything is a fact, but this man sees the truth of that fact.
41:29 DP: What is the relation to the reality?
41:32 K: He’s explaining, sir.

DB: He comprehends reality.
41:37 K: Yes, he comprehends reality. That is, sir, he may say something which is mistaken, and sees it’s a mistake and changes it, doesn’t pursue it, where the irrational man doesn’t know it’s a mistake.
41:54 Even if he’s told it’s a mistake, he insists on pursuing that.
42:02 DP: He comprehends this.

K: Comprehends.
42:06 DB: Yes, and really exactly what the word says – to hold it all together, you see.
42:10 K: Comprehend, hold together.
42:18 He comprehends reality. D

P: Yes, sir.
42:22 K: He doesn’t separate...
42:26 DP: Yes.
42:27 K: Ah, wait, sir. He doesn’t separate reality; he says, ‘I comprehend it, I hold it, I see it’.
42:41 DB: Yes, it’s all one reality, himself and everything, but it has things in it which are conditioned and he comprehends the conditions.
42:54 K: And because he comprehends conditioning, he’s free of conditioning. Of course.
43:12 DB: Yes. I think it’s important to get straight the question of objective reality.
43:17 K: Yes – objective reality.
43:18 DB: Because that has been one of the most frequently discussed points over the ages.
43:25 K: What is that, sir?
43:26 DB: Well, now, there’s the notion – you see, let me put the notion, which wouldn’t agree with the notion we’ve just said right now – the idea is that the world consists of the whole of objective reality.
43:38 Objective means that it stands independently and total – right? – and that we are part of it, you see? You see the view?
43:50 K: I understand. We are part of objective reality.
43:56 DB: Now, the view about truth does not... I mean, if we say... then we say that the mind knows the truth about objective reality, in that view – right?

K: Yes.
44:07 DB: And therefore if we knew the whole of the truth about... if we knew all about objective reality, we would have the truth, the whole truth.
44:14 K: Quite. The whole truth – quite.
44:17 DB: And therefore it would be up to us to get more and more knowledge of objective reality. A great deal of that spirit is behind the scientific, modern approach.
44:25 K: Yes.
44:32 DB: Now, the person who held that view might criticise this view as saying that, you know, that you are making reality, nature depend on us, you know.
44:42 It doesn’t make sense, you know. That’s the kind of...
44:44 K: No, I don’t hold to anything – suppose I don’t hold to anything.
44:48 DB: Right, but then how do you... Suppose such a man comes along – I will represent him – what do you say?
44:56 K: As I don’t hold to anything, I only see that thought, being conditioned, whatever it thinks about is conditioned, therefore it’s a reality.

DB: Yes.
45:09 K: And so it’s a reality – that’s all he states. And truth is independent, not influenced, and all the rest of it.
45:15 DB: In that sense, truth is absolute.
45:17 K: That’s right.
45:18 DB: But in the other sense there is no absolute knowledge of reality.
45:24 K: You can learn more and more and more and more.
45:26 DB: Yes, and much of it may be wrong, and so on.
45:28 K: Of course, of course. That’s all I know.
45:32 DB: Yes. And I think if we could say that this notion of objective reality cannot stand up, in the sense that all that we know is reality, as it is for us.
45:41 K: Yes.
45:41 DB: You see, there may be more reality but... we could learn some more, but it’s intrinsic in the notion of any object, that there is an object for a subject.
45:52 K: Yes – quite. And would you say knowledge is a reality?
45:59 DB: That’s true, yes.
46:00 K: And that knowledge is not truth.

DB: Yes.
46:03 K: Ah, I’m getting it.

DB: Knowledge is part of reality.
46:05 K: Yes, yes.
46:06 DB: Knowledge, the base in reality is in our brains. You know, some scientists say that chemicals are deposited in the brain which contains that memory, or there may be another process.

K: Yes.
46:19 DB: But it seems clear that knowledge is actually a part of reality.
46:25 K: Part of reality – quite.

DB: Now...
46:29 K: Now, sir, another question.

DB: Yes.
46:33 K: I am a scholar – suppose I am a scholar – I’m full of knowledge.
46:40 How am I to comprehend, in that sense, hold together, truth?
46:48 DB: Well, I don’t think you can comprehend truth.
46:51 K: Therefore, what am I... You see, I have studied all my life. I’ve devoted all my life to knowledge, which is a reality.
47:02 DB: Yes, and it is also about a bigger reality.
47:05 K: About a bigger reality, and so on, so on, so on. And you come along and say, ‘That is not... truth is somewhere else, it’s not there’. My instinct is, right... I accept you, because you show me. So I say, ‘Please help me to move from here to that’.
47:24 DB: Yes.
47:30 K: Because once I get that, I comprehend this. If I live here, then my comprehension is always fragmented.
47:43 DB: Yes.
47:46 K: Therefore my knowledge says to me, ‘For God’s sake, this is a reality but it is not truth’.
47:54 And you come along and say, ‘Yes, it is not’. And please tell me how to move from here to that.
48:03 DB: Well, we’ve just said that we can’t move.
48:05 K: I’m using a quick word. What am I to do?
48:12 DB: Well, I think I have to see the falseness of this whole structure of knowledge.
48:21 K: Sir, would you... The content of my consciousness is knowledge.
48:27 DB: Yes. Yes.
48:31 K: How am I to empty that consciousness and yet retain knowledge – otherwise I couldn’t function – and reach a state, or whatever it is, which will comprehend reality?
48:52 I don’t know if I’m...

DB: Yes.
48:54 K: Because, after all, man is doing, trying to do that all the time.
48:58 DB: Yes. Well, but, you see, the point that’s implied here is that knowledge includes time.
49:05 K: Of course. How am I to put a stop to time?
49:08 DB: Yes. But knowledge is itself time, psychological time, and therefore as long as I’m in knowledge, I’m moving from one form of knowledge to another.
49:23 Now, you see...
49:26 K: You see, the Hindus have books... ...cleverly. They say, ‘Yes, tread that path and you’ll get it’.
49:35 DP: No, sir.

K: I must be... Yes, you correct me.
49:40 DP: They have realised this, as you said, that they are in reality, and they see through the fragmentary structure of the mind that this is reality.
49:57 And when you ask the question, ‘How am I to move?’, they ask, ‘How am I to enlighten or liberate?’ or something.
50:05 Then they say, ‘But while you are a part of this, you cannot see this, as long as you’re fragmented’.
50:12 K: Yes – how am I to get out of it?
50:14 DP: So they say that you exist by sakshi.
50:21 K: Sakshi.

DB: What does that mean?
50:23 DP: Sakshi means you become an outsider.
50:26 K: Observer. D

P: Observer.
50:28 DB: To look at it from the outside.

K: You follow? The tricks they play in all this.
50:34 DP: So if you are in it...
50:37 K:...you can’t see. D

P:...you can’t see.
50:39 K: Therefore, go outside it.
50:40 DP: You are not mind, you are not body, so you are not all that these two create.
50:50 K: Yes. You see, sir? No, you see, I have – suppose – I have worked always with knowledge – that has been my field.
51:08 And you come along and tell me, ‘Knowledge is always a movement in time, knowledge is always conditioned, fragmented, and knowledge is always within the area of time and thought’.
51:25 That’s obvious. And I realise that. Now, I say to myself, ‘I must find truth, which will then comprehend knowledge’.
51:45 DP: How do you know?

K: Wait, wait. Of course.
51:49 DP: The moment you say...
51:50 K: No. I know it because I realise this is a fragment.
51:57 As long as I’m living in a fragment, I cannot comprehend anything, I cannot hold anything.
52:07 DP: Then you will project truth.
52:08 K: No, I don’t project. I realise this. I realise that window is not the door. Which doesn’t mean I project it.
52:28 DB: You use the word ‘realise’, which means to bring it to reality.
52:31 K: To reality.
52:32 DB: You see, the crucial thing is something you do in reality, which will end the, you know, the reality not running true, and see there’s nothing you can do about truth.
52:47 K: No, you can’t do anything about truth. You see, that is the whole point.
52:53 DB: But there is something that can be done about reality, perhaps.
52:56 K: Yes.

DB: Now, the way I would see this – like this: that reality is not running true, you know, it’s mixed with illusion.
53:12 You know, it may be something’s right and something wrong – it’s not all wrong. Now, if I come to this notion of reflection, which... you know, saying that consciousness is a reflection. Right?
53:24 K: Of what?
53:25 DB: Well, that’s the question, you see.
53:27 K: Ah!
53:28 DB: You see, if we said it was a reflection of reality – which is what people usually say – we’d be going around a circle. Now, I want to propose – I mean, see what you think of it – of another kind of reflection. You see, if you take a mirror, the light comes from the object and it is bent by the mirror into your eye.
53:47 Now, that’s external reflection. But the ancient peoples very often had the idea that light came from the eye, and came back.
53:56 K: Yes.
53:57 DB: You see, and in fact, for the bat, the sound comes from the bat, and for the dolphin, so he sees the world, he sees it as a reflection of himself. Right?
54:11 Or, not himself, but you know, an energy. So I want to say that our perception of reality is our experience. You see, we experience reality, we don’t – I wanted to suggest – and it is of that nature that we act and the reflection of the action gives rise to an image which is consciousness.
54:34 You see, the reflection may be from the outside, you see. If you act and touch something and handle it and the reflection gives it a sense of reality, you see.
54:45 K: Yes.
54:46 DB: Or it may reflect back from something inside, from the memory or from...
54:50 K: Sir, would – I mean, that is clear – but what I’m asking, to further it along, consciousness, my consciousness, human consciousness is its contents, which is knowledge.

DB: Yes.
55:10 K: And irrational knowledge, all the rest of it, it’s a messy, conglomeration of...
55:18 DB: Yes, well, this leads to some confused reflection.
55:21 K: Yes. And can that consciousness comprehend or bring in to it, truth?
55:38 DB: No, it can’t.

K: No, it can’t. Therefore, can this go to that? It can’t either.

DB: No.
55:48 K: Then what? Because this has been the religious...
55:55 DB: Truth... there can be a perception of the truth of... you know, this falseness in consciousness. You see, the consciousness is false, in the sense it does not run true. Right?
56:11 K: Consciousness is false because it does not run...
56:14 DB:...true. Because of the confused content, it does not run true.
56:17 K: Yes, yes. Contradictory, yes.
56:19 DB: It muddles things up, you see?

K: Yes.
56:20 DB: Now, I think the...
56:23 K: It’s not muddles things up – it is a muddle.
56:26 DB: It is a muddle, yes, in the way it moves. Now, then one of main points of the muddle is that when consciousness reflects on itself.
56:37 K: Yes, yes.
56:39 DB: And as I see it, the reflection has this character, that it’s as if there were a mirror, consciousness was looking at itself through a mirror, and the mirror were reflecting consciousness as if it were not consciousness but an independent reality.
56:56 K: Yes.

DB: Do you see what I mean?
56:58 K: Yes.
56:58 DB: Now, therefore the action which consciousness takes is wrong, because it tries to improve that independent reality, and in fact, it destroys its own action.
57:10 K: You see, all that is maya.

DB: Yes.
57:17 Now, you see, when you see that, then what happens is that...
57:28 You see, I would like to put it that the whole of consciousness, you know, reflection, is somehow... is an instrument, let’s say, which is connected up to the energy of, you know, the deeper energy. Right?
57:42 K: Aha.

DB: Now... as long as the consciousness is connected in that way, then it is fed energy and it maintains this maya.
57:53 K: Aha.

DB: Right?
57:54 K: Yes.
57:55 DB: Now, so, on seeing that this consciousness is reflecting itself wrongly, as independent of thought, therefore what is needed is to disconnect the energy from consciousness.
58:10 K: Ah, I follow.

DB: Do you understand?
58:11 K: Yes, I understand. I understand now.
58:12 DB: You know, the whole of consciousness has to be disconnected so it would, as it were, lie there without energy.
58:21 K: Aha. You’re saying – don’t feed it.
58:27 DB: Yes.
58:31 K: Let me... in my own way, I’m putting it. My consciousness is a muddle.

DB: Yes.
58:38 K: Confused, contradictory, and all the rest of it. And its very contradiction, its very muddle gives its own energy.
58:51 DB: Well, the energy is really coming not from consciousness, but consciousness... as long as the energy is coming, consciousness keeps the muddle going. Do you see?
59:02 K: From where does it come?

DB: Well, we’d have to say... I would say that perhaps it comes from something deeper – I don’t know. You see...
59:10 K: Which means – wait a minute, sir – this leads us to complications.
59:15 DP: Complications.

DB: All right.
59:18 K: If it comes from something deeper, universe or whatever it is, from truth.
59:29 DB: Yes.

K: Wait.
59:31 DB: Well, that’s...

K: Ah, that’s just it.
59:33 DB: It isn’t truth yet, you see...

K: That’s just it. If it comes from something deeper, then we enter into the whole field of gods and outside agency and truth and...

DB: No, I would say it comes from...
59:48 I would prefer to say it comes from me in some sense, you see.
59:51 K: From you.

DB: Yes.
59:53 K: The ‘me’ is this consciousness.

DB: Yes.
59:56 K: So the content is creating its own energy. Would you...
1:00:04 DB: Well, in some sense, but you see, it must be impossible for this content to create its own energy.
1:00:11 You see, that would say that reality was able to create its own energy.
1:00:15 K: Which is the content.

DB: Yes, it is, but...
1:00:17 K: So it is creating its own energy.

DB: Yes.
1:00:20 K: Sir, look, I’m in contradiction.

DB: Yes.
1:00:24 K: And that very contradiction gives me vitality.
1:00:32 DB: Yes, well, when...
1:00:35 DP: This in ordinary sense doesn’t make...
1:00:39 K: Sense? D

P: Yes.
1:00:41 K: No, wait, sir, wait. D

P: It...
1:00:42 K: No. I have got opposing desires.
1:00:49 Opposing desires. When I have opposing desires, I have energy, I fight.
1:00:55 DP: You don’t have to have opposing desires. Desire is energy.
1:00:59 K: Yes, desire is energy, but when it is made opposite...
1:01:07 DP:...then only you…

K:...dissipate. So my content of my consciousness is desire, with all its contradictions.
1:01:18 DB: I see.
1:01:21 K: Therefore, that desire is creating the energy – not God is creating the energy, or something...
1:01:32 profound unconscious desires are – it is still desire. I don’t know if I’m...
1:01:42 Because if I – this is the trick that they’ve all played – if they say there is an outside agency, deeper energy, etc., etc., then I’m back into the old field.
1:01:59 But if I realise the energy of contradiction, energy of desire, energy of will, energy of pursuit of pleasure, fear, all that energy, which is knowledge, which is the content of my consciousness – which is consciousness – it is creating its own energy.
1:02:26 Reality is this. Reality is creating its energy.
1:02:31 DB: All right.
1:02:34 K: It may say, ‘I derive my energy deep down’, but it’s a reality.
1:02:43 DB: Yes, well, suppose we accept that, but the point is that in truth, seeing the truth of this...
1:02:51 K: That’s what I want to... Is this energy – that’s what I want to get at – is this energy different from the energy of truth?
1:02:59 DB: Yes. Yes.

K: It is different.
1:03:01 DB: Yes, but let’s try to put it... Reality may have – let’s try to even say reality may have many levels of energy.
1:03:08 K: Yes, yes.
1:03:09 DB: But a certain part of the energy has gone off the straight line.
1:03:14 K: Yes, yes.
1:03:16 DB: And if that part of the energy is, you know, is withdrawn...
1:03:23 You see, even if we say that – let’s say the brain is a reality and it feeds energy to all the thought process, which is another reality.

K: Yes, quite.
1:03:33 DB: And now, if somehow the brain did not feed energy to the thought, to the confused thought process, then, you know, the thing might just straighten out.
1:03:42 K: That’s it. That’s it. That’s it.

DB: Right?
1:03:44 K: If this energy runs along the thread, it is a reality without contradiction – it’s a reality, it’s an energy which is endless, because it has no friction, etc., etc.
1:04:07 Now, that energy is different from the energy of truth.
1:04:10 DB: Yes.

K: We are getting on, sir.
1:04:13 DB: Although they are different, but, you know, as we once discussed, there must be a deeper common source. But...
1:04:24 K: I’m not sure – I’m just questioning – I’m not sure they both spring out of the same root.
1:04:36 DB: Yes, well that’s what I suggest. But for the moment there is the energy of truth, which can comprehend the reality.

K: Yes.
1:04:47 DB: Now when...

K: The other way it cannot.
1:04:49 DB: No, it cannot. But there appears to be some connection in the sense that when truth comprehends reality, reality goes true and straight, you see.
1:04:57 So there appears to be a connection, at least one way.
1:05:02 K: That’s right, one way connection. Yes. Truth loves this; this doesn’t love truth.
1:05:12 DB: But once it’s straightened out, you see, once the connection has been made, then this runs true, and does not waste energy or make confusion.
1:05:21 K: Yes, yes, yes. Now, what is the energy of truth?
1:05:28 DP: Does it answer this question? You asked first that a person who is living in relation with reality sees that he’s fractionated and says, ‘How am I to...

K:...come from this to that’.
1:05:48 He cannot. No, sir. To realise that he cannot, is truth.
1:05:57 DP: So...

K: Ah, wait, wait, wait, wait. To realise I’m blind, that is truth.
1:06:13 To realise from knowledge, all that, I cannot come to that. To see it, to feel it, to realise it, to vibrate with it – this thing cannot.
1:06:28 DP: So he negates reality?
1:06:29 K: Ah, not negate.

DB: No, no. He preserves it at the same time, because he negates its independence, but reality is still there. But you see, could you look at it like this, that when we have seen up to a certain point, the principle barrier to the thing straightening out is the attempt of the brain to straighten itself out?
1:06:52 K: Sir, can we do this every weekend?
1:06:55 DB: Yes, that would be a good idea.

K: Good.
1:06:58 DB: Do you want to finish now?
1:06:59 K: What is the time?

DB: It’s twenty minutes to five.
1:07:04 K: Can we do this every weekend?

DB: Yes.
1:07:06 K: Till the end of June?

DB: Yes.
1:07:08 K: Good.
1:07:16 Phew!
1:07:28 You see, sir, that’s where I think meditation comes in.
1:07:42 You see, generally, meditation is from here to there, practice, all the rest of it – move from this to that.
1:07:54 DB: You move from one reality to another.
1:07:57 K: Yes. That’s right, one reality to another reality – quite right.
1:08:06 And meditation is really seeing what is.
1:08:17 I’m trying to put... we’ll discuss this another time. That’s enough.
1:08:21 DB: Right.
1:08:25 K: Let’s do this every Sunday – it’ll be fun.
1:08:27 DB: All right.
1:08:47 K: Yes, the movement from one reality to another is generally the meditation.
1:09:04 We’d better stop.