Krishnamurti - Seeing 'what is' is action

Krishnamurti Subtitles

BRGS75CB2 - Seeing 'what is' is action
Brockwood Park, UK - 24 May 1975
Conversation with David Bohm 2

0:00	This is the second dialogue between J. Krishnamurti and David Bohm which includes Dr Parchure, at Brockwood Park, 1975.
0:15	Krishnamurti: Where do we start, sir? How do we start?
0:21	David Bohm: Well, do you have any idea?
0:22	K: Lots of them – I’ve talked about it. Sir, if truth is something totally different from reality, then what place has action in daily life, in relation to truth and reality? Would that convey it? DB: Yes.
1:13	K: Can we talk about that? DB: Yes.
1:22	K: One would like, or one should, or one must – not in the future – one has to act in truth. And we said, the action of reality is entirely different from the action of truth.
1:48	DB: Yes.
1:48	K: Now, what is the action of truth?
1:55	DB: Yes, well...
1:58	K: Is that action unrelated to the past, unrelated to an idea, an ideal, therefore out of time? Right, sir? DB: Yes.
2:33	K: And is there an action ever out of time? Or action is always involved in time.
2:44	DB: Well, can you say that the truth acts in reality? I mean, because we were saying the last time that although reality may have no effect on truth, truth has some effect on reality.
3:01	K: Yes. But one would like to find out if one lives in truth. Not the truth of reality but that truth which is not related to reality. Reality being what we said the other day – a process of thought – think about something that’s real or reflected upon or distorted, which is illusion, and so on – we went into all that. So what is action in truth? If it is not related to reality, if it is not an action in the movement of time, then what is action then? Is there such action? You follow, sir, what I mean? Can my mind disassociate itself from the past and idea of I shall be or will be or must be or should be – a projection of my own desires, and so on – is there an action which is totally separated from all that? Am I kind of putting the question rightly or am I...
5:07	DB: Well, perhaps we’re going, you know, very fast.
5:09	K: Yes, a little too fast, perhaps.
5:14	DB: Because, you see, I think ordinarily action is related to the fact, you see, to...
5:20	K: Yes. Fact is, as we said, what which is being made or that which is being done now.
5:27	DB: Or, more important, there’s another meaning: that which is actually perceived. You see, that which is actually established by perception or by experience...
5:36	K: Which is now. DB: Now – yes.
5:39	K: That is, the seeing is the doing. DB: Yes.
5:43	K: Perceiving is the acting, in the present. And the present, is it a continuous movement of the past through the present to the future, or is the present a thing that is whole, that’s complete, that is sane, healthy, holy and everything in that word ‘whole’? I don’t know if I’m... Because I think this is rather important to find out. Because if a man wants to live in truth, this is his first demand. What is action in relation to truth? I know the action in relation to reality, which is based on memory, which is based on environment, circumstances, adaptation, or an action: ‘I will do something in the future’.
7:13	DB: Is there a separation between truth and action?
7:17	K: That’s it.
7:19	DB: Is there a relationship, or is it that truth acts?
7:22	K: Yes, yes. Or – that’s right – is truth action?
7:27	DB: Truth is action. K: Yes. Or is truth... acts unrelated to time.
7:38	DB: Yes, unrelated to time, but it is action itself.
7:41	K: Action itself. As we said, perceiving is the doing.
7:44	DB: Yes. I mean, truth is what establishes the fact then.
7:49	K: Yes. And the fact, you said too, is not only what is being done, what is being made, but the actuality of the moment.
7:59	DB: Yes, it’s the actual act of perception.
8:04	K: Perception.
8:05	DB: Which establishes the fact. K: Yes, that’s right. So is perception a movement of time, a thing that comes from the past to the present and the future, or is perception unrelated?
8:27	DB: I should say it’s unrelated. K: Unrelated, yes. So we are saying – is this, sir, what we are saying? that perception is action, and action is truth, and that truth is the perception of the actual, the what is, the moment.
8:48	DB: Yes. You see, there’s a peculiar history of that because, you know, some people have said – the pragmatists – that truth is either that which works, or the truth works. That doesn’t mean quite the same thing.
9:00	K: Yes, yes. Quite, quite. No.
9:01	DB: Because you have a moment of time between the truth and how it works, you see, in that view.
9:06	K: That’s wrong. DB: And that’s wrong.
9:09	K: Oh, yes. The moment you have a gap you...
9:11	DB: Yes. So the truth is action itself.
9:17	K: So can a human being let truth operate?
9:29	DB: Would you say that the action or operation of truth in reality is intelligence?
9:37	K: Yes, it must be, of course.
9:42	DB: Because in some sense, intelligence is an action of truth. Right?
9:48	K: An action of truth. It is not cultivable.
9:51	DB: No.
9:54	K: By Jove, we are saying a lot of things, sir. I don’t know... We are saying a lot of things. We may...
9:58	DB: It’s very difficult to establish. I mean, if we want to take it as a fact, then...
10:01	K: That’s just it. DB:...it has to be established. But because we discussed intelligence before, and in some way we seem to be discussing truth in the role that we were previously giving intelligence...
10:21	K: Intelligence – quite, quite.
10:22	DB: You see, it’s very hard to make these words clear.
10:24	K: Yes. What is the root meaning of that word ‘truth’?
10:29	DB: Well, I looked that up. We discussed it last time, but I’ll repeat because I’ve looked more carefully since then. The English word ‘true’ has the root meaning, meaning honest and faithful, and the Latin word ‘verus’ means that which is.
10:44	K: That which is. That which is.
10:46	DB: So I think both meanings are relevant.
10:48	K: Yes.
10:49	DB: In saying that reality must be honest and faithful to that which is, you see.
10:55	K: Quite.
10:55	DB: Like the machine that runs true. You see, the word ‘true’ in English does not have quite the same meaning as ‘verus’ in Latin. It may have, but it has other shades of meaning.
11:07	K: Quite. Verus – that which is. Of course.
11:09	DB: That which is. There’s an English word ‘sooth’ which means that which is. It has gone out of usage. K: Quite.
11:14	DB: It comes from ‘esse’. K: Essere.
11:16	DB: Yes, from the Latin word.
11:23	K: Sir, what I’m trying to get at is: Can a human being live only in the present – in the sense that we are talking of the present? Which is, live with what is all the time and not with what should be or what has been.
12:03	DB: Yes, well, I think the principle question arises whether we can be clear on all the other things, you know, on that which is not. K: Yes, that which is not – quite.
12:13	DB: But which appears to be that which is.
12:18	K: Appears that which is – quite. Therefore, we should go back, shouldn’t we, sir? What is perception? If I can perceive clearly what is reality, and all the illusions and the sanity of reality, the reasonableness of reality and the unreasonableness of reality, the illusion and the actual – if I see that clearly, then can I look... can there be a perception of what is, which we say is truth? And that very perception is action in which there is no operation of thought. Is that what we’re trying to say?
13:25	DB: Yes. When we say perception of what is, that implies a separation again.
13:30	K: Ah, no, of course. I mean perception.
13:33	DB: Perception that is. K: Yes.
13:34	DB: I mean, what is... K: It is not... there is no observer and the observed, there is only the...
13:43	DB: Yes. I mean, it’s very hard in our language to avoid this, you see, because as I see it the perception or the fact is what is. The act is what is. Right? K: Yes, yes.
13:59	DB: But we have to get clear what we mean by this whole word then.
14:02	K: Yes, sir. Yes, yes. Are you saying, sir, the what is has its own action?
14:14	DB: Yes, or it is its...
14:16	K: Ah, that’s it. It is its own action.
14:18	DB: Yes. K: Yes.
14:21	DB: You see, the language continually tends to put in separations.
14:25	K: Of course, sir, that’s...
14:30	DB: You see, I thought that... You see, since last time I’ve looked up a number of things which are connected with what we said. And I went over this question of reality again, you see, and one important point about reality is the notion of substance, you see, because we tend to think that things are real and have some substance.
14:53	K: Yes.
14:55	DB: That is, that they exist in themselves. You see, the word ‘substance’ is just sub-stands – it stands under. K: Stands under – quite.
15:03	DB: The very meaning of the word is that it’s the reality which underlies the world – no, the appearances of the world, you know, the permanent reality which underlies the appearances of the world, the notion of substance. So this is part of our idea of reality. It’s a kind of essence, you see. K: Essence.
15:25	DB: Substance is a sort of essence, a permanent reality which would underlie all the appearances.
15:31	K: Quite, quite.
15:33	DB: And I think that’s part of the notion of reality. You see, part of the problem is this: that we think of reality not merely as things or appearances but as some substance which underlies all the appearances, in which, therefore, is what is. In other words, our thought implicitly tells us that reality is what is and that truth is about reality, you see.
15:59	K: I don’t get it.
16:01	DB: We tend to think that what is is reality.
16:07	K: No. Ah, I understand that, sir. Right.
16:09	DB: And truth would only be to know correctly about reality.
16:11	K: Quite, quite.
16:13	DB: Now what we’re proposing here is to turn it around and say truth is what is and reality as a whole is nothing but appearances, you see, is what’s being proposed, as I see it. A kind of appearance, which may be a true appearance or a correct appearance, you see, or it may be wrong, you know, it may be illusion. But there is a tremendous habit of saying that reality is what is, you see.
16:42	K: Quite, quite, quite. Yesterday the doctor and I were looking at a Sanskrit dictionary. Maya is not only measure but also illusion.
16:59	DB: Yes. Yes. You see, in other words... I mean, I understand this doctrine of maya now, to say that... you could take it to mean that the reality that we see is illusion. But I don’t like the word ‘illusion’ because...
17:17	K: No, neither do I. I don't like it either.
17:19	DB: The word ‘illusion’ implies that there is another reality.
17:21	K: Yes, yes. Quite, quite.
17:22	DB: In other words, perhaps that atman might be the reality, or brahman.
17:25	K: Yes, that’s it, that’s it, that’s it.
17:27	DB: And therefore what’s been said here is not that but that reality, no matter in what form, is not illusion but it’s an appearance which, you know, may, you know, may be a true appearance, as it were, or it may be false.
17:42	K: Quite, quite.
17:44	DB: But appearance has its function, you see – it’s necessary. But men have always searched for that which underlies the permanent reality which underlies appearances. The appearances are always changing – you can’t trust them.
17:58	K: Sir, that motor, that car, is a reality.
18:02	DB: Yes. But we have to say that this reality is not that which is – do you see? In that sense, it’s a kind of appearance but it is also a fact, you see. Because we can say that it’s an actual fact because either it actually functions or we actually perceive it, or something, you see. In other words, to say that the motor car is a reality, there’s a sort of an implied statement in the way you’re talking that it’s an actual fact as well, you see.
18:40	K: Yes, quite right. Yes. DB: Not merely a reality.
18:43	K: It is an actual fact. It is there.
18:45	DB: Yes. Whereas, reality might be something very abstract, you see, like saying that...
18:53	K: An idea...
18:54	DB: An idea might be taken as real. K: A reality – quite.
18:58	DB: You see, or even walking on a road on a dark night, some shape may be real to you, but it’s...
19:03	K:...it’s illusion – quite. Not illusion, it’s a fantasy.
19:06	DB: It’s not an actual fact. K: Yes, it’s not... Quite.
19:08	DB: So this is the... I’m saying that there is an unconscious thought process. Thought is not only conscious in the ordinary unconscious but there’s a sort of a deeper unconscious which is just that movement by which we invest everything we see with the shapes of thought. Do you know what I mean? K: Quite, quite. We give it words, thought...
19:33	DB: Yes, and it goes faster than... K:...form...
19:36	DB: Form comes in faster than you are aware of.
19:39	K: Quite.
19:40	DB: And that seems to be part of the reality.
19:42	K: Quite. DB: It is part of the reality.
19:44	K: It is part of reality – quite.
19:48	Dr Parchure: Is desire a fact?
19:51	K: Ah, no, don’t let’s go into that yet. I want to be clear for myself...
19:55	DP: You said about the object, like a car, but if we go into the abstract things which are not within the scope of our senses, but their validity, whether they are facts or not, is to be decided, like...
20:17	K: Sir, we said, if I understood it rightly, we said it is a fact and it’s also non-fact, as a reality. I must be careful here. Just let me get it clear. We said reality is a projection of thought – think about, reflect upon – and anything that thought creates or makes is a reality, either as a distortion or an actuality. Now, we have said that. And we were trying to find out what is the relationship between truth and reality. We’re going over what we talked about the other Sunday. Is there any reality, is there any connection between the two? That’s one point. And the other is: Is there an action which is different from the action of reality and the action of truth? Not action and truth – truth acting. Whereas, there is a division in reality.
21:49	DB: A division in what?
21:51	K: Between the observer and the observed.
21:53	DB: Oh, yes, yes. The observer is one reality observing the other reality.
21:58	K: Another reality. Ah, we’re getting... I get it.
22:05	DB: But truth is indivisible. K: Indivisible. So is there an action in one’s life which is indivisible? Because if I can’t... if the mind cannot find that indivisible action, it must be always in time, in conflict, in sorrow, and all the rest of it must follow.
22:42	DB: You see, you could – and I was looking at it the other day – that one could think there is one field, reality as a field – would that be reasonable? – which contains all the things, you know, that might be there, and it contains the me, it contains thought, that thought is real, and all these things react to each other and reflect on each other.
23:05	K: Interrelated – quite.
23:06	DB: They interrelate by reaction and reflection. So my thought is no different from all the interrelation.
23:13	K: Thought has created them; they are all interrelated. Quite.
23:15	DB: They are all interrelated. You see, and if we look at nature, let’s say. I mean, from one point of view nature is real, but there seems to be implied something beyond that.
23:42	K: No, I would... That is... That tree is.
23:48	DB: Yes. K: Therefore it is truth. But I can distort it.
23:54	DB: Yes, that’s the point I was trying to get at, you see. You see, if we say that the tree is that which is, is truth, then we are coming to a point of view, a way of putting it, to say that reality is not a substance. But we are in a way saying truth is the substance.
24:17	K: Aha. I see. Yes.
24:18	DB: In other words, the role which we were previously assigning... the role of substance is to underlie, to stand under.
24:25	K: Under – yes.
24:26	DB: And, you know, it may be the word ‘understand’ is related to that, you see, to stand under.
24:33	K: Yes, yes.
24:34	DB: Right? K: Yes, sir.
24:35	DB: Now, because... Well, we could discuss that. But, you see, we are seeking in some way a substance, something that stands under the appearances – right? – and we seek it in reality, you see. This has been the age-long habit.
24:56	K: Quite.
24:58	DB: Looking for some solid reality, a permanent reality that underlies all the changes, you know, that explains, you know, so we understand. Now, we hope to understand that way – right? – to stand under.
25:10	K: Right. DB: Right? But it may be that, you see, to say that the whole of reality is no substance – it does not have independent existence. Do you see what I mean? K: Yes.
25:23	DB: It is a field and what stands under this reality is truth, you see. Would that make sense to you?
25:32	K: But that would lead us to a great danger.
25:35	DB: There’s a danger in there, but I’m trying to say is there any way, you know, of making this point clearly?
25:40	K: I understand that. That is, under the substance... under...
25:45	DB: Or within or something. K: Yes – inner, outer... The inner is the truth. Are you saying that?
25:56	DB: Not exactly, no, but I mean... I’m saying... we’re saying that truth is action. You see, they are...
26:07	K: Yes, let’s stick... Truth is action.
26:10	DB: It’s the actuality, and so on.
26:12	K: Perception is action. Seeing is action.
26:15	DB: Now, if you say the tree is truth, the actuality of the tree is the action.
26:18	K: Yes. DB: And so...
26:21	K: Yes, the seeing is the action of that...
26:26	DB:...of the tree. But, you see, this turns it around. You see, it’s very hard from our use of language because one gets confused quickly. One turns it around the other way. One tends to think the tree is the reality and I see it, you see. Do you see the problem? K: Aha. Quite, quite, quite – yes.
26:41	DB: Now, you have to get hold of this very subtle new thing, new approach – right? – of language. You say the seeing of the tree is the truth.
26:54	K: Is the action. DB: Is the action. Would you say it’s the tree then?
26:58	K: Would you say...
26:59	DB:...that the seeing is the tree?
27:01	K: Sir, in seeing the tree is the action.
27:05	DB: Yes, seeing is the action. Now, does the tree have any action in itself?
27:10	K: Obviously – it is growing or it is dying.
27:12	DB: It is growing, and so on. But that’s the point we’re trying to get at. Because if you only talk about the seeing as the action, always the question is in the back of your mind, ‘What about the rest of the action?’ K: Quite.
27:21	DB: You see, that’s where the notion of the substance comes in.
27:24	K: Ah, yes, I understand.
27:25	DB: In other words, you see, we’re trying to understand this, and I see a problem. I say seeing the tree is action. That’s very clear.
27:37	K: Yes, yes.
27:38	DB: But then I begin to think the tree has its own action, even when I don’t see it.
27:41	K: Of course. Of course – which I don’t see.
27:43	DB: Yes. And I say, ‘What about that?’ How do I consider that, you see?
27:48	K: Why should I consider it? I’m just asking – why should I consider it?
27:52	DB: Well, to understand. You see, for example, you think the tree is growing, you know, and so on.
27:57	K: No, then that becomes the process of thought.
28:00	DB: Yes.
28:01	K: How to feed it, how to help it to grow better, and shelter it, and so on, so on, so on.
28:06	DB: Yes. But, you see, we tend to get into this situation, to say that only what we see at this moment...
28:16	K: Ah, I see, yes.
28:18	DB:...has any significance, you see? And I want to put it so that we do justice to the other thing, you know, without contradicting any of this. And I don’t know how, you see.
28:39	K: Now, let’s begin again a little bit. Would you... I mean, we say seeing is action.
28:47	DB: Yes. There’s no doubt about that.
28:49	K: No doubt. Seeing that tree is action. But the tree, the actuality, has its own activity.
29:03	DB: Its own activity. And other people have their own action or activity when I don’t see them.
29:08	K: Yes. That tree has its own activity.
29:10	DB: Yes.
29:11	K: Now, thought can come along and help it to grow properly, feed it, and all the rest of it. Why should there be a division between seeing, acting, and the tree growing? Why should there be division?
29:33	DB: Well, the trouble is the way we put it, it sounds like there is one, so far, you see. I’m not saying there should be.
29:44	K: Sir, we said, too, earlier: Seeing, acting, is intelligence.
29:51	DB: Yes. Well, I think the way I put it was that truth acting in reality. That is, I proposed as a guess it is intelligence.
30:00	K: Truth acting in reality... DB: In the field of reality.
30:03	K:...in the field of reality, is intelligence.
30:07	DB: Yes.
30:07	K: Wait a minute, let me get this clear.
30:09	DB: Maybe it won’t be right. You see...
30:10	K: No, I’m not quite... I’m not sure it is right. I want to question it. Truth acting in the field of reality is intelligence. But truth is intelligence. DB: That’s another way... Now you want to propose that, that truth is intelligence.
30:27	K: Yes, because truth is... The seeing is the acting, and the acting... and that action is whole, and therefore it is intelligence. Any action that is whole must be intelligent.
30:48	DB: Now, why do we use two words at all then, you see? I mean, wouldn’t that be... K: No, I want to... I don’t want to get stuck with one word.
30:57	DB: No, but I mean if you use two words, it suggests you’re looking at it somewhat differently from the other word. K: Yes, differently – that’s all.
31:03	DB: But it’s not clear what the difference is, you see.
31:11	K: Sir, would it be right if I said: seeing is the doing and therefore it is intelligence, and that intelligence is the essence of truth, and that intelligence operates in all the field?
31:28	DB: All right. Intelligence operates in all the field. But if you say intelligence is the essence of truth, it’s not clear, you see.
31:35	K: Ah – essence of truth in the sense the seeing is the doing. The seeing what is is action. That action operates through intelligence.
31:58	DB: But now we’ve made a kind of distinction, you see.
32:00	K: Ah. Yes, I know. DB: You see, it’s not very clear.
32:02	K: I know. I’m trying to go in...
32:05	DB: You see...
32:06	K: Sir, I want to find out – that’s what I want to get at – I want to find out: Is it possible to live entirely in truth? If we could start from there, perhaps we can enlarge... go into it. That is, he is functioning only with what is.
32:42	DB: Yes, I mean, that’s... Let’s look at that.
32:51	K: He is not bringing into operation his memories, his remembrances, his personal reactions and all that, but acting... let the fact act.
33:05	DB: Yes. The fact as I see it includes also the action of memory and reality, as long as you see that that is part of the fact.
33:14	K: Fact – yes. DB: That memory is actual. Memory can be an actuality. K: Yes, of course it is.
33:21	DB: And therefore we can see memory as an actuality, and that is still, you know, acting in truth. You see, because, you know, we have to be able to act in truth even when we are using memory, let’s say, engaging in some relation with the tree, you see, to make it grow.
33:48	K: Sir, would you say – if one was living in truth and therefore living with that capacity of intelligence – just a minute – and that intelligence operates in the field of reality?
34:12	DB: And also beyond it.
34:15	K: Because it is beyond it, because it is outside reality.
34:19	DB: Yes. Intelligence is the action of truth but it can operate in the field of reality.
34:24	K: Yes, that’s all we are saying. DB: Yes. You see, suppose we are saying the field of reality is a field – we don’t commit ourselves to... You know, we were discussing last time it should be true in the sense of being straight and healthy and sane, and so on, and not...
35:06	K: Good old word – holistic. DB: Yes. Now, you see, we don’t know what this field of reality is. I propose that it’s in some sense it is not a substance – it doesn’t stand by itself – but truth can operate in that field.
35:27	K: Yes – intelligently. DB: Intelligently. And thus far we have no problem. K: Yes.
35:34	DB: I mean, it’s when we try to say, ‘Does the tree have its own action when we are not looking at it?’ it may begin to produce a problem.
35:46	K: Of course – not looking at it, it is going on.
35:48	DB: Yes, it’s going on, but then we have to say that’s part of the field of reality.
35:53	K: Yes.
35:53	DB: You see, we accept the field of reality as operating.
36:00	K: Quite, sir. You live in truth and your actions in reality are guided by intelligence.
36:15	DB: Yes.
36:16	K: Wait a minute, wait a minute – guided by intelligence. And I observe you as an observer and the observed – two different entities. I observe you and I want to find out how to live in the same way. Which means you have no contradictions, you have no... you are living always with what is. Just a minute. How am I to come to that? Because I see an enormous possibility in what you are. I don’t know if I am making myself clear.
37:07	DB: Yes.
37:11	K: I see that is real creative way of living. And whatever you do, whatever you say, whatever you write has got that quality. Now, not that I am greedy or that I am envious of you – I say, ‘What a marvellous thing it is to have that capacity’. Now, how am I, who always thought in duality – the observer and the observed, truth is – you follow? – all that business – how am I to come to that? Because if it is something unique to you, then I have lost interest.
37:59	DB: Yes. Well, it can’t be unique otherwise it won’t be true. Right?
38:07	K: No, that’s just it. That’s just it. So how am I – not how; not the method, system, all that silly stuff – how to get that thing? I want to live the way you do. Not ambitious, greedy or all that silly stuff. I see that. I can’t imitate you. You’re not my example, but I would like... but there must be that same perfume in me as you have it. Now what am I... You follow, sir? I understand very clearly the field of reality – now I’m beginning to understand, from your discussion, the field of reality, and truth which is the seeing of what is and the operation of seeing what is, which is... That is, that intelligence can operate in this area of reality. And because it is intelligent, it will never distort that reality.
39:35	DB: Yes.
39:36	K: It will never go off into nationalism, whatever, distorting activity. So I see that very clearly – understand it verbally, perhaps, intellectually, and I feel a little emotionally attracted to it. What am I... how am I to come to that?
40:11	DB: Well, see that truth is indivisible, which means that...
40:19	K: Truth is indivisible, but I have... I am divided, I am fragmented, I am broken up – you follow? – I am living in reality only.
40:32	DB: Well, I have to see the falseness of that. You see, as truth arises one...
40:46	K: You see, then you give me – not hope or anything, then I’m lost – you follow? – I haven’t got the ground to stand on. I know how to operate in reality because I have been trained, conditioned and, you know, all that – I know what to do there. Either I do it badly or excellently, rising above all that, but I haven’t got this other thing.
41:25	DP: Does it become another part of your reality as a projection of the state in which...
41:29	K: Ah, no, I will tell you, sir. I only know the reality. I have observed that reality being distorted. I have observed the energy of reality, operating rationally and irrationally. I’m quite familiar with that.
41:55	DP: But then your observing is doing.
41:57	K: No. He tells me that. No, keep it to strict... He tells me that. I don’t know what that means. I understand it intellectually. I understand the verbal communication. But the fact of it...
42:16	DB: Well, when you say you don’t understand the... when you say that you see that reality is distorted, for example...
42:23	K: Yes.
42:25	DB:...that seems therefore that something is beyond reality, in seeing that.
42:29	K: That’s why I said I begin to see what distortion is.
42:34	DB: Yes, and to see that requires truth.
42:36	K: No, wait a minute. Does it require truth? That’s what I want to...
42:39	DB: Well, let’s look into it. It would seem...
42:41	K: That’s what I want to get at, slowly.
42:42	DB: If there’s no truth, then I don’t see anything.
42:44	K: I want to get at that. DB: Yes.
42:47	K: Is that the beginning or the quality of reality? You follow, sir?
42:57	DB: Of truth. K: Of truth – sorry – of truth. Seeing in the field of reality the distorting factors.
43:08	DB: Yes, seeing what’s false. The false...
43:12	K: False, neurotic, and all the rest of it – is that the seed of the other?
43:23	DB: Well, it has to be. K: That’s what I...
43:26	DB: Because, you see, if you see it, then... But if it’s only reality seeing reality, then it has no meaning.
43:32	K: No meaning – quite.
43:38	DP: That comes in the field of intelligence.
43:39	K: Ah, no, sir. No, no, don’t jump to anything. I want to see... I want to find out... one wants to find out, having operated in the field of reality all my life, and seeing the distortions in that field, the seeing of that distortion is truth. That’s what I want to... DB: Yes.
44:16	K: Seeing the fact. DB: It has to be truth.
44:19	K: Truth. That’s it.
44:21	DP: But you said the man living in reality only verbally understands this. K: No, no, no. No, no, no. The man lives in reality. I live in reality – reality being all the things thought has put together, all the things... all the activity of thought, thinking about something or reflecting upon, thought distorting, thought rational, straight thread – all that. I have lived in that. And here comes along a doctor and says, ‘Look, truth is that which is’, and he says, ‘When you see the distortion, that is the truth, that is action’.
45:23	DP: Such a person will not act, ask the question.
45:26	K: No, no. No, no, no, just listen – don’t discuss with me yet. Don’t discuss with me yet. He says the seeing that – in the field of reality – the seeing a distortion, which is the fact, that fact which is – that is reality, that is truth. I’ve got it. Right, sir? So you have told me, ‘When you see without the observer, when you see the observer and the observed is one, that is reality’. DB: That is truth, you mean.
46:18	K: Ah, sorry! I’m mixing up each time. That is truth.
46:23	DB: But we made a jump between seeing the distortion and seeing the observer and the observed is one.
46:29	K: That’s it. One – that’s right. DB: Now, ordinarily... You see, I would say that I have seen that reality is distorted, but at that moment I still don’t see the observer and the observed is one.
46:42	K: Not yet. DB: There seems to be a jump. Right?
46:43	K: I jumped – yes. DB: Now...
46:48	K: Sir, how do I see distortion? Is the seeing of the distortion a rational, a thoughtful – you follow? – reasoned process, or is it...
47:06	DB: It’s instantaneous. It’s without time.
47:09	K: Yes, without time.
47:10	DB: And there’s a sense of distortion without...
47:12	K: Yes.
47:14	DB: But later we may express it rightly.
47:17	K: That’s right. That’s right. The seeing is out of time.
47:22	DB: Yes, now, perhaps we should go slowly on that, because...
47:25	K: Sorry. Yes.
47:26	DB: Yes, because, you see, sometimes one feels that it comes in a flash, or sometimes the seeing comes so gradually, as it were, that you don’t know when it comes. It would seem both of those are just different ways of experiencing what is out of time. You see, you don’t really... K: No. Can it come gradually? DB: It just seems to, you see? I’m not saying it does. K: Ah, that’s right.
47:47	DB: In other words, when you think it over and you ask...
47:49	K: Ah, that’s a different matter.
47:50	DB: Because you never know exactly how it comes.
47:52	K: That’s... Yes. Yes.
47:54	DB: Sometimes when you think it over, it seems that it came in a flash, or sometimes it came in so gradually. You see, sometimes you think, ‘When did I understand something?’ and you say, ‘I don’t know exactly when’, you see? You see, so being out of time means we don’t try to put it in a flash or...
48:13	K: Ah, just a minute, sir, just a minute, I want to see this. The seeing is the doing. DB: Yes.
48:22	K: I see and do. The seeing is the doing.
48:25	DB: Yes.
48:26	K: Therefore, there is no gradual wave.
48:30	DB: No, there’s no gradual wave, but I think if you say it’s a flash, you also bring in time.
48:34	K: Ah, no, of course. DB: I mean if it’s sudden. You see, if you say it’s sudden, you bring in time and if you say it’s gradual, you bring in time.
48:40	K: Of course, of course. DB: So you can’t say either.
48:44	K: Would you put it – the seeing is the doing – it has already been done and you want to find reasons for...
48:53	DB: You want to explain it in terms of reality.
48:56	K: Yes, that’s right. That’s right. I’ve got it – that’s right.
48:58	DB: You see, you’re slipping back into the notion that reality is what is... K: Quite right.
49:04	DB: ...and truth is merely explaining... you know, it’s information about reality. Now, in the moment of seeing distortion, the action takes place and the distortion will then vanish. But I think here’s where the problem comes in, in the usual situation. Somebody sees distortion but he later finds out that he’s still not free of it. K: Yes.
49:33	DB: And therefore time has... you know, all this has come in.
49:39	K: Then he is not seeing.
49:43	DB: Yes.
49:44	K: If I am not free of my distortions, though I have seen it, I haven’t seen it. DB: Yes. Well, the way one might look at it: One hasn’t seen the whole of it. Which doesn’t mean one hasn’t seen it.
50:02	K: Yes, put it... Yes. The seeing, sir, is the whole. DB: It is the whole. But, you see, I think this point needs to be worked on very carefully because what generally happens is one sees, let us say, not the whole, and somebody... you see, now I ask you, ‘What am I to do in that situation?’ K: Quite.
50:27	DB: I say, ‘I saw the distortion’, but still it seemed that it came back.
50:34	K: No, then you’re...
50:35	DB: So how shall I see the whole of it so it won’t come back?
50:38	K: You can’t see the whole of it.
50:39	DB: But how shall I see so that it won’t come back?
50:41	K: Quite, quite.
50:45	DB: You see, this is where the...
50:50	K: Sir, I think the catch is in this – if we can put it: Is seeing, doing, a thought process?
51:05	DB: No, of course not. K: If you say it is not, and the thought process only comes in in explaining, all the rest of it – the seeing is the doing, which means seeing the whole. Must be, otherwise it’s not seeing. Right? DB: Yes.
51:30	K: And if the mind sees the whole, then the distortion can never come back.
51:37	DB: Yes, but I have to see the whole field of reality because that’s where the distortion is.
51:41	K: Yes, yes, yes.
51:42	DB: You see, perhaps I’d say, ‘I have seen the distortion occurring in certain activities’, you see, of my own. Right? I say, ‘In certain cases I see that I distort’. But that is not yet seeing the whole field of reality.
51:57	K: No, no.
51:58	DB: Because I begin to think that I distort in this way or that way, you know? In other words, I... But then... so I have to see the whole field of reality, you see. That’s what it looks like. K: I think you do, sir. When you see, and the doing, you must see the whole.
52:22	DB: Yes. What I mean by whole is the essence of this field, you see, not every little detail.
52:27	K: No, no, of course not. DB: But the essence.
52:30	K: Yes. Can you... can one free... can one say what that act of intelligence be in the field of reality?
53:06	DB: I didn’t get the question. I didn’t quite understand it.
53:10	K: Can one pre-state – what is it? – predicate?
53:17	DB: Predicate? K: Yes. Can one tell another verbally what that intelligence will do in the field of reality? I don’t know if I’m making myself clear.
53:36	DB: You have to communicate there.
53:37	K: Communicate or state beforehand what it will do. You see, sir, I’m trying to find out. I see this truth operating in the field of reality is intelligence. Now, what will that intelligence do under these circumstances? Can one say that, ask that question, or it is a distorted question?
54:17	DB: Well, it’s somewhat distorted. K: Isn’t it?
54:19	DB: Yes. K: Yes.
54:23	DB: Because it presupposes that intelligence is one reality and also operating in another... K: Yes, yes. Sir, that’s what we are doing all the time: ‘Tell me what that intelligence will do in the field of reality and I will follow that’. You have that intelligence and I request to you or ask you, pray to you, to tell me how that intelligence operates in this.
55:00	DB: That makes no sense.
55:03	K: How that truth operates, intelligence.
55:05	DB: Even to say that somebody has the intelligence makes no sense. I mean, I think you could say – perhaps we could try – that intelligence may be operating in the actions of one man, let’s say. I don’t know if that would be fair to say that. Right?
55:20	K: Yes. Let’s suppose. DB: Yes. And rather than saying he has the intelligence.
55:23	K: Yes – quite.
55:30	DB: And it seems to me that if I could see that there really is no distinction of one man and the other man...
55:36	K: Quite, quite. DB:...that would be the key.
55:42	K: Sir, what place has love in truth?
55:58	DB: Well, that’s a difficult question. I mean, it’s difficult to know exactly what the question means.
56:04	K: The question means this: What is generally called love, is it always in the field of reality?
56:17	DB: Well, I don’t think it could be basically in the field of reality.
56:23	K: But we have reduced it to that.
56:24	DB: Yes. It could operate in the field of reality.
56:26	K: Yes. So what is love and truth? Is truth love? Love – that word again, what it means – love to be... What does it mean, sir? You know. DB: I don’t know. I mean, the meanings are very unclear when you look it up in the dictionary, but aside from pleasure, and so on, which is the basic root, actually...
57:00	K: That’s all reality, of course.
57:02	DB: Yes. The nearest I could get to it was goodwill and benevolence to all, or something.
57:08	K: Compassion.
57:09	DB: Compassion, goodwill, benevolence. But most of the meanings go back to various forms of pleasure.
57:17	K: Pleasure – quite right. All right. Is pleasure in the field of reality?
57:33	DB: Well, it seems it is, yes. K: It is. Then that pleasure has no relation to truth.
57:47	DB: Well, you could say that in genuine enjoyment there’s a kind of pleasure which...
57:54	K: Is enjoyment pleasure?
57:56	DB: Well, it depends on how you use the word.
57:58	K: I know, that’s what I want to...
57:59	DB: If you want, you can establish a distinction of the words and say it is not. But there may be an apparent similarity of the two.
58:10	K: I enjoy... There is enjoyment – not I – there is enjoyment in seeing that tree. Not that I am enjoying the tree, but there is... the seeing of that tree is a joy. The seeing, therefore the acting. Seeing is the doing and the doing is joy.
58:41	DB: Yes. Yes, so far – yes, good.
58:54	K: Right. Then is compassion... what place has compassion in the field of reality? If we say compassion is love, truth...
59:16	DB: Then that’s all part of the action of truth, isn’t it? I mean, it’s all in the action of truth.
59:22	K: All in the action of truth. Right. This becomes very difficult, this.
59:33	DB: The words are difficult. K: That’s just it.
59:37	DB: You see, if you say love is in the action of truth, that the action of truth includes at the very least, let’s say, benevolence and compassion...
59:49	K: Compassion. Sir, it’s all one, isn’t it? Seeing, doing, compassion – it’s all one. Not seeing then doing then compassion. Seeing, as we said, and the doing, is the whole. And when there is that seeing as the whole, in that, there is compassion.
1:00:24	DB: Yes. I wouldn’t like to say that that is the necessity of it. Because the truth is whole, indivisible, you see, the lack of compassion could only arise from the division, couldn’t it? In other words, sense of division.
1:00:41	K: Yes, lack of compassion.
1:00:43	DB: In other words, if man feels divided from other people or from nature, and then he will not have compassion.
1:00:49	K: Lack of compassion – yes.
1:00:51	DB: So if there is no division...
1:00:55	K:...that is compassion. DB:...compassion is inevitable.
1:00:57	K: Yes. So, this is all one. DB: Yes. Which means, if you say there is love for a particular...
1:01:14	K:...person. DB:...person or feature of reality, then that implies division.
1:01:21	K: Or would you say, sir... Again: seeing, doing, truth, love. All that is love – let’s call it for the moment. I may love you. In that love, because I feel compassionate, in that sense, I love you. You don’t become a particular thing; I love you.
1:02:00	DB: Let’s make it more clear, you see, because there’s the tremendous tendency to particularise. You see...
1:02:15	K: When I separate you, in that separation, love cannot exist.
1:02:27	DB: Yes. Now what do you mean by me without separation?
1:02:36	K: When thought process operates in me as mine and not mine – when there is that sense of duality, in that sense, is there love, is there compassion?
1:03:01	DB: No, because, you know, there’s an inherent separation.
1:03:04	K: We said not. Yes, we said not. Then when there is the perception of the whole, which is love, then I love you. And also I have the same feeling for that, for the other.
1:03:22	DB: Well, what meaning do we give to different people in this whole way, you see, or to different things?
1:03:30	K: I have known you for years, and the others for years.
1:03:35	DB: Yes.
1:03:38	K: Sorry, it sounds sentimental. Forgive me if I go into it. I love you. It doesn’t mean I exclude the others.
1:03:49	DB: Well, it seems... I mean, I’m trying to understand this.
1:03:53	K: I live with you, I cook for you or you’re my wife or I’m this or whatever it is – but the others are not excluded. DB: I understand that. But it seems there is some truth to distinguishing certain people, different people, even if we don’t exclude, you see. That is...
1:04:21	K: Of course, there must be.
1:04:22	DB:...we made a distinction with no exclusion. Right?
1:04:24	K: Yes.
1:04:26	DB: You see, I’m trying to get at something because...
1:04:33	K: I wonder if I’m getting it across.
1:04:35	DB: Well...
1:04:39	K: Go ahead, sir... Because this is one of the problems, sir.
1:04:47	DB: Yes.
1:04:50	K: If I love you, we have made that love as an exclusive process – you are mine, I am yours, with all the dependency – you know, all that business. When I see dependency – see – then I see the whole structure of dependency as a whole, and therefore the seeing is the doing – it is finished.
1:05:33	DB: Yes. But are you and I realities?
1:05:38	K: Of course.
1:05:39	DB: All right. Is that what you mean to say, that to a certain extent you and I are realities...
1:05:44	K: Of course.
1:05:45	DB:...and I may have love for you and something in reality. In other words, it seems there is an action of truth – that love is an action of truth in reality.
1:05:56	K: Reality – that’s what we said.
1:05:57	DB: Yes, that’s just coming back to it to be clear.
1:06:01	K: Yes. But I’m trying to... That is, when I see that I depend on you – which I call love – and I see the whole nature of dependency, all the intricacies, then it’s finished. Therefore, I no longer depend. Which doesn’t mean – all the rest of it – you know, callousness, and all that. And the seeing of that is compassion. Therefore, I love you though I don’t depend on you.
1:06:47	DB: Yes.
1:06:51	K: Are we getting...
1:06:52	DB: Yes. So the seeing that is necessary for compassion – or if we say it is compassion.
1:07:00	K: It is compassion, of course. But as long as I depend on you the other thing is not.
1:07:09	DB: Yes, well... If I depend on you, there is something false.
1:07:23	K: Of course, of course. So what are we are saying, sir? I’m trying to find out, really, what is the relationship between – no, no, sorry – what is a man who lives in reality and observes the rational and the irrational in that field? Seeing the irrational is the truth. DB: Yes.
1:08:09	K: Because he sees the whole of the irrationality of that field.
1:08:18	DB: Yes, its essence. Yes.
1:08:24	K: And because he sees it, his action is... the seeing is the doing, therefore that is the truth. So he lives in truth in the field of reality.
1:08:42	DB: Yes.
1:08:49	K: Yes, sir, I’m beginning to... Right?
1:08:51	DB: Yes. You see, I think the basic thing that’s false is that – let’s say, when one person depends on another one – he is seeing the field of reality as something more than a field. In other words, he is seeing it as that which is and giving it overwhelming importance.
1:09:09	K: Importance – quite.
1:09:10	DB: And therefore everything is distorted.
1:09:31	K: So, in a school or in an educational business, or a man who is trying to communicate, how do we, how does he communicate truth to the student? Because the student only lives... you know? How does he communicate it to him? To the world, sir. How do you communicate this thing to a businessman, to a priest? To him, living in reality, he has created the image of God or Jesus or whatever it is, and that is distortion. He won’t see that.
1:10:49	DB: Well, isn’t it possible to communicate the fact of distortion?
1:10:52	K: Yes, you can, but it is... DB: He tends to resist.
1:10:55	K: There is such tremendous conditioning. I mean, that’s what happens with most of the students.
1:11:07	DB: Yes, with anybody. K: I’m taking... with anybody. How do you break down that resistance? Through compassion?
1:11:18	DB: I think it’s necessary. It’s necessary to have it.
1:11:23	K: No, you are compassionate... DB: It’s not enough, I mean.
1:11:27	K: Wait, sir. You are compassionate and I am terribly conditioned. I believe deeply. You might be very kind, gentle.
1:11:44	DB: I don’t mean only that. I mean that I don’t depend on you and I understand...
1:11:49	K: No, no, you are out of it.
1:11:50	DB: I understand some of your, you know...
1:11:52	K: Yes, yes. How do I... how do you react on me? How do you make me break this thing?
1:12:16	DB: Well, I mean, I think that what’s needed, you know, is simply not just compassion but, I mean, an energy.
1:12:29	K: That’s what I was coming to. DB: Passion itself.
1:12:31	K: Passion itself. Which means, one has that tremendous energy which is born of passion, compassion, and all the rest of it. Does that energy – wait a minute – does that energy create, bring about a new consciousness in the other, a new – not consciousness – a new... Let me put it that way, sir. Sorry, I’m trying to... Are we adding to the consciousness a new content?
1:13:29	DB: No. I shouldn’t think so. I mean, if you add a new content, wouldn’t it be the same story?
1:13:35	K: Same thing. That’s what I’m... I mean, that’s... You see? I have listened to the Buddha, I have listened to the Christ or Jesus or what the priests call it, I’ve listened to Judaism, I’ve listened to various things, and all these are the contents of my consciousness. And you come along and add some more to it, another. Wait, wait. Because you are energetic, you are full of this thing, burning, and I absorb that and add another candle to it in my consciousness. And you say, ‘Don’t do it’. But I have already done it because that’s my habit, my conditioning, that I add, add, add, carry on burden after burden. How do I receive you? You understand? How do I listen to you? How do I... What are you to do with me, sir? You understand?
1:15:07	DB: Well...
1:15:09	K: After all, this is a problem... you have this problem in your university. How are you to convey something to them, to a student who is – you know what they are, I don’t have to – this sense of truth? And you are burning with it; you are full of it. It must be a problem to you. DB: Yes.
1:15:47	K: Not a problem – it must...
1:15:50	DB: Well, it’s...
1:15:52	K: You are beating your head against a wall. Fortunately, I’m not in that position because I don’t care if they listen.
1:16:04	DB: You don’t care?
1:16:06	K: I care if... I mean, I don’t care. I won’t say, ‘Do listen’. If they don’t listen, they don’t listen. I won’t go...
1:16:11	DB: Well, that’s more or less what I do too, I suppose. But I mean, if you really want to – as I see it, there may be a few who are ready to listen to some extent.
1:16:25	K: Or do you bring a new quality to the consciousness? You understand? I don’t know if I... You see, sir, look, Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, the priests in the name of Jesus, the Hindus with their priests, and so on – they have affected consciousness.
1:17:00	DB: But not in this fundamental way.
1:17:04	K: Not in this fundamental way, no, but they have affected it. Because they are priests, they have talked, they have influence, they have monetarily and physically tortured – they have influenced it. Here, are you influencing them? Are you adding another chapter to that consciousness?
1:17:34	DB: That’s the danger of...
1:17:36	K: Or are you saying, ‘Look – out – get out of all that’? You see, that’s just it, sir – there is no seeing without freedom. Right, sir? DB: Yes.
1:18:33	K: So freedom is the essence of seeing – freedom from prejudice, and all the rest of it.
1:18:42	DB: Yes.
1:18:43	K: Therefore, a mind that is free can see, does see. The seeing is the doing.
1:18:52	DB: Yes, back again. We’re back. But of course the lack of freedom is in the lack of seeing. I mean, that’s a... K: Of course.
1:19:02	DB: I mean, we always, you know, go round in the circle. You see, the lack of freedom is the reality... is the instrument of reality. K: Yes – of reality, quite. A communist would say there is no such thing as freedom.
1:19:30	DB: Well, I mean we could discuss that. I think that many communists are aiming at... like Karl Marx aimed at ultimate freedom but they thought they could achieve freedom through reality. By changing reality... K: Reality – yes.
1:19:43	DB:...they would eventually arrive at freedom. I think this is closer to it, you see. There may be many communists who are as you say, but I’m taking those who really understood it, like Karl Marx.
1:19:52	K: Of course, they said that. Of course, Marx said... Change the environment...
1:19:57	DB: Yes, change the reality of man and man will be free.
1:20:00	K: Yes – free.
1:20:02	DB: And of course the man who is not free cannot change his reality.
1:20:06	K: Of course. So you see, that’s the danger. Yes.
1:20:16	DB: But we have to step out of the whole thing.
1:20:18	K: That’s right – step out of the whole thing. And that needs energy. DB: Yes.
1:20:34	K: As long as I live in the field of reality, which has its own energy, that energy will not free me. DB: No.
1:20:51	K: But the seeing of the distortion in that field of reality will give that energy.
1:20:58	DB: Yes, I think I would say the seeing of the necessary and inevitable distortion, you see? Because one might see distortion and hope to…
1:21:07	K: No, no, no, no. The seeing of the distortion is energy.
1:21:12	DB: Yes. I mean, the seeing the distortion cannot be avoided in that field, you see. There can be no way out of distortion in the field of reality.
1:21:24	K: Wait a minute. Are you saying in the field of reality, distortion is inevitable?
1:21:29	DB: As long as we stay in that field.
1:21:31	K: Of course, of course. Quite, quite.
1:21:38	DB: You see, I think that many people would say – it’s just occurred to me – many people would say, ‘Yes, I agree with you, I distort’, but at the back of my mind there is the hope I can do something about it.
1:21:47	K: Quite. The very desire to stop it is another form of distortion.
1:21:54	DB: That’s right – it’s another form but not obvious at that moment.
1:21:57	K: Of course, of course.
1:21:59	DB: You see, so I have to see that there’s no way out in that field.
1:22:10	K: There is no way out in that field – quite. Wait, sir, no. Wait a minute, wait a minute. In that field of reality, there are distortions.
1:22:23	DB: Yes.
1:22:24	K: The seeing of the distortion – seeing in the sense, the whole... DB: The essence of the whole.
1:22:31	K: The whole of distortion. The seeing brings that energy. Of course, it must. Which is, I cannot see if there is no freedom of that distortion.
1:22:49	DB: Yes. The seeing of the distortion. But it is energy. Now, you see...
1:22:59	K: Yes.
1:23:00	DB: You see, I think... couldn’t we say that the feeling that there is no energy is also a distortion?
1:23:06	K: Of course, sir, of course. No, we said in that field of reality, reality has its own energy.
1:23:16	DB: It has a kind of energy. K: A kind of energy.
1:23:18	DB: And I think then, let’s say, that energy includes desire.
1:23:22	K: Includes desire, includes the whole lot of it.
1:23:25	DB: All the forms of energy.
1:23:27	K: Yes. DB: Will.
1:23:28	K: And also the energy of distortion.
1:23:31	DB: Yes. Now...
1:23:36	K: Now, to see that distortion, the mind must be free.
1:23:42	DB: Yes.
1:23:45	K: Must be... look at it, must put it outside it, as it were, and look at it.
1:23:51	DB: Well, could we look at it like this, that the whole field of reality is permeated with distortion.
1:23:59	K: Yes.
1:24:01	DB: Now you’re proposing that we can look in some way at this whole field of reality. You’re saying we can see, and in some sense put a distance, a separation. Is that what you’re saying? K: Yes.
1:24:12	DB: Although on the one hand, we have to be very clear because we’re also saying there’s no division, you see?
1:24:17	K: No division – quite, quite. The observer is the observed, and all that.
1:24:21	DB: Yes. There seems to be a contradiction here so we have to try to clear that up. But I think there’s a difference between a kind of a... would you say a kind of a space or an empty, something empty between – I don’t know what – between might be a wrong word – but this reality...
1:24:46	K: This reality is empty. DB: Yes.
1:24:50	K: Quite. This reality is nothing. DB: It’s nothing, yes. There was some point which we could just mention. You see, if we said it was no thing – you see, the word ‘nothing’ means no thing. You see, so nothingness is no-thingness, which is not reality. You see, reality is to be some thing.
1:25:09	K: Quite, quite, quite.
1:25:11	DB: So if we say nothingness doesn’t mean unreal – neither real nor unreal – but it is entirely out of that field.
1:25:19	K: Out of that field – quite.
1:25:21	DB: And ultimately reality is nothing – no thing. But now we’re saying – let’s see if we get this clear, you see – that there has to be a kind of space of emptiness or nothingness, in which the thing can be seen. Because seeing is truth, which is no thing or nothingness.
1:25:39	K: No thing – that’s right. Yes, that’s right.
1:25:41	DB: And seeing can only take place in nothingness.
1:25:44	K: That’s right, sir. DB: Which is energy.
1:25:47	K: That is, when the mind is empty, when the mind is nothing, not a thing, in that, there is perception. DB: Yes, and energy.
1:26:01	K: Energy.
1:26:06	DB: The mind is nothing and reality is no thing – ultimately, although the reality is a thing for us.
1:26:14	K: Yes, I know, that’s what...
1:26:15	DB: In essence, it's nothing. Right? Which means... You see, could I look at it like this – that there is nothingness, but in nothingness, there is a sort of form which is reality, you see.
1:26:29	K: Reality – that’s right. DB: But a form which is nothing.
1:26:32	K: Quite. But, sir, that presupposes that there is nothing.
1:26:43	DB: Well, that’s only an image too.
1:26:45	K: Of course – that’s what I want to get at.
1:26:47	DB: Yes. I mean, it’s an image too. Because then you would turn nothing into a thing.
1:26:55	K: Again begins the whole thing – quite.
1:27:02	DB: But let’s say the mind in some way steps back, as you say, is not closely connected with this reality – would you say? – to see. You say there’s a space.
1:27:17	K: There must be space between – not between – there must be space. DB: A space. I feel that reality is in the space, you see.
1:27:26	K: Yes.
1:27:28	DB: And in some way therefore when you say space, it means that there’s room. K: Distance.
1:27:33	DB: Distance – that the thing is not closely connected. I mean, that’s the way I... In other words...
1:27:40	K: Sir, isn’t there space when the observer is the observed?
1:27:48	DB: Yes. We have to get it clear. At first sight, it sounds wrong, you see. To have a space sounds like a separation.
1:27:53	K: Of course. We are using this... I mean, we are not using the word ‘space’ as a division, as a dividing factor.
1:28:03	DB: Yes. So can we make it clear? K: Of course. I mean, the space when I see something, that candle – there is a space. DB: Yes.
1:28:17	K: Verbal space, a space of distance, time, and all the rest of it. But the seeing has no space.
1:28:30	DB: Well, then why do you say there is... The seeing has no space. K: Yes.
1:28:35	DB: But before, you said...
1:28:36	K: Before, I said... people, when they say, ‘I see’, there is a division.
1:28:44	DB: Yes, but you said that we should be able to have some space between us and reality.
1:28:48	K: Ah. We said there should be some space in the sense, not a division.
1:28:52	DB: Yes, well we have to say there are two kinds of space then – that one is dividing and the other is not.
1:28:56	K: That’s right. That’s right.
1:28:59	DB: Now, one is inclusive.
1:29:01	K: One is dividing, the other is not.
1:29:02	DB: Is including – would that be right? – to say this space includes everything.
1:29:06	K: Yes. To see, and the doing – in that, there is no division. Where there is division, there is a so-called space of time and distance, and all the rest of it. In this, there is no division and therefore there is... it is... – what shall we say? – it is in space. I don’t know if I am making... I am not.
1:29:48	DB: Well, everything is in space. K: Of course.
1:29:50	DB: Would you say that space includes everything?
1:29:53	K: Yes. Yes, of course – I exist, you exist.
1:29:55	DB: That space is not a division, but rather you could almost call it the ground, or the...
1:30:02	K: Yes, sir. Yes.
1:30:06	DB: Or the underlying substance, you know, in the sense I was...
1:30:09	K: Yes. The space I create when I dislike you or like you is different from the space... from the freedom of space, of this space.
1:30:29	DB: Of this room, let’s say. K: Yes.
1:30:32	DB: Yes. If we see this space, the room as one whole space, it goes into the outer space, and every object is in that space. K: In that space – yes.
1:30:43	DB: In that, we’re all in some sense united, all one.
1:30:46	K: Yes.
1:30:49	DB: All right.
1:30:50	K: Without space we couldn’t exist. Yes. I wonder if we are talking of the same thing.
1:30:58	DB: I don’t know. Are you thinking... are you discussing a space of the mind as well?
1:31:04	K: Yes, space in the mind as well.
1:31:09	DB: As there’s the visual space which we can sense as one, and the space in the mind. K: Space in the mind.
1:31:19	DB: And can we say that reality is in the space in the mind?
1:31:23	K: Reality is the space... DB: Is it within?
1:31:28	K: I can artificially create it.
1:31:29	DB: Yes, but I mean, when we say we have to see the whole of reality from a space, with a space...
1:31:39	K: Yes, sir. Yes.
1:31:41	DB: Now, is this whole of reality within the space of the mind?
1:31:48	K: Aha. Let’s get this clear. Sir, look – to see and act. Seeing is acting. In that, there is no space as division.
1:32:09	DB: Yes.
1:32:11	K: I think that’s clear. Therefore, that space is the freedom of nothingness. We said that.
1:32:28	DB: Yes, well, nothingness is the same as freedom because as soon as a thing is a thing, it’s not free.
1:32:33	K: Yes, that’s right. All that, we say that.
1:32:35	DB: Yes.
1:32:40	K: Therefore, truth is nothingness – not a thing. Right. The action of nothingness, which is intelligence, in the field of reality, that intelligence, being free, and all the rest of it, operates in reality without distortion.
1:33:18	DB: Yes.
1:33:21	K: That’s one factor. And in the mind, in one’s mind, if there is no space but crowded with problems, with images, with remembrances, with knowledge, with all that, such a mind is not free and therefore cannot see – and seeing, acting. DB: Yes.
1:33:54	K: Right, sir? Because my mind is crowded, it cannot... it’s not free. Because in the mind it is so crowded there is no space.
1:34:14	DB: Yes. Now, when there is no space, then the mind is controlled by all these things.
1:34:22	K: Yes, controlled by environment, distortions.
1:34:27	DB: The influences that make distortions.
1:34:31	K: That’s right.
1:34:34	DB: Yes.
1:34:38	K: So a mind that is empty, nothing, is capable – or the seeing of it is the doing and the doing is truth – and so on, so on, so on. And is that space limited because of the mind?
1:35:05	DB: What do you mean by that?
1:35:06	K: Limited in the sense – of course, it’s not limited, it can’t be. Right.
1:35:14	DB: Now, the thing... You see, when the mind...
1:35:18	K: It is not created by thought, therefore it’s not limited.
1:35:22	DB: Yes. But this space can see the thing of reality and act in relation to that thing. Right?
1:35:36	K: Yes, yes. That’s right.
1:35:39	DB: So in some sense, the thing can be absorbed into or assimilated into that space. Is that what you mean? In other words, since the space can relate to the thing...
1:35:55	K: I don’t quite follow you, sir. DB: You see...
1:36:03	K: Perhaps I am vague – I don’t know. Are you saying, sir, in this space, in the space of the mind, does reality exist? DB: That’s what I’m saying. Perhaps there’s no reality in the space, but in some sense, there is the essence... K: That’s right. That’s right, sir. There is no reality.
1:36:36	DB: Yes, but there is some essence. In other words, when you contact the thing. You see, the thing is thought – right? – as we were saying – what we think about.
1:36:48	K: Yes, that’s right.
1:37:01	DB: Well, this thought is understood, I mean, in some way. You see, I don’t know exactly how to put it, but...
1:37:11	K: Are we saying, sir – I’m just... – are we saying: When there is space in the mind, what has reality... what place has reality?
1:37:32	DB: Yes. Yes.
1:37:38	K: What place has reality? Which is, reality is that which is the thing which is thought about. What place has thought in that reality, in that truth, in that emptiness, in that space?
1:37:54	DB: Yes.
1:37:54	K: What place has reality in that space? Has it any place? Has thought any place in that space, in that spacelessness? (Pause in recording)
1:38:35	DB:...which ends the distortion. I am trying to discuss that in some way the space seems to contact this field of thought. You see, this is what is concerning me. K: Yes, I understand.
1:38:50	DB: It takes action in that field and brings it toward... K: Yes, sir, I understand. Make it much simpler for myself. What place has thought in that space?
1:39:03	DB: Well, it may have no place but then...
1:39:06	K: What is the relationship...
1:39:08	DB:...between that space and thought?
1:39:09	K: And thought – let’s put it that way. What is the relationship between that space and thought? If thought created that space, then it would have relationship, but thought has not created that space.
1:39:26	DB: No. You see, we were saying at the end of last time that truth can act in reality but reality not in truth.
1:39:33	K: Yes. That’s right. DB: So, if we say...
1:39:35	K: That’s right.
1:39:36	DB: Therefore, this space can act in thought...
1:39:39	K:...in reality. DB:...in reality or in thought.
1:39:41	K: Yes.
1:39:43	DB: Although it doesn’t go the other way.
1:39:44	K: Yes, it’s a one-way ticket.
1:39:50	DB: And it acts primarily, as I see it, to straighten it out.
1:39:54	K: Quite.
1:39:55	DB: Then if it’s straight, then thought can move on its own.
1:39:59	K: That’s right. Yes. So what is the relationship of that space to thought?
1:40:04	DB: Well, not to the content of thought – it has none – but if we consider in some sense, thought is also within that which is – do you see? In other words, if we said thought is a reality. You see, when we say thought is not working right...
1:40:21	K: Ah. Are you saying this, sir? When thought is operating straight, rational, sane, healthy, holy – that has a relationship to this space.
1:40:37	DB: Yes, I’m implying that. K: Yes. That’s it.
1:40:39	DB: In some way, they are then parallel.
1:40:41	K: Parallel.
1:40:44	DB: But this space can also act within thought.
1:40:48	K: Yes, we said that, we said that. DB: To help make it parallel.
1:40:51	K: Yes, yes – we said that. DB: Yes.
1:40:57	K: It’s a one-way relationship.
1:41:01	DB: Yes, it’s one-way. I mean, I’m trying to make a distinction – it’s very hard to make. If we take the content of thought, which is consciousness, then that has no action on the space, but I’m trying to say that the distortion of thought goes beyond... to see that goes beyond content. K: Yes.
1:41:24	DB: Right? K: Yes.
1:41:25	DB: To... I don’t know. K: Why do you say beyond content?
1:41:27	DB: Well, not exactly. To the way it’s working – do you see? Well, you could say they are the same. You see, what is the action of truth within thought? That’s really the question. K: Yes, what is the action of – yes.
1:41:49	DB: Right. I mean, in general you can see it’s to straighten it out, you know, to remove all this distortion, to see it better.
1:42:01	K: Sir, wait a minute. Seeing is the doing.
1:42:05	DB: Yes. K: Let’s stick to that.
1:42:06	DB: Yes.
1:42:09	K: The seeing of distortion is the ending of distortion.
1:42:13	DB: Yes.
1:42:17	K: The ending of that distortion – it is ended because there is that energy of seeing.
1:42:25	DB: Yes, which acts somehow within thought then, on thought. Right? K: Wait a minute. I see a distortion outside of me and inside me.
1:42:37	DB: Yes.
1:42:37	K: And the seeing of that – to see that there must be freedom. That freedom implies energy. And the seeing...
1:42:47	DB:...is the doing. K:...pushes it away, clears it.
1:42:51	DB: Yes.
1:42:53	K: Now, there is rational, sane thinking.
1:42:58	DB: Yes.
1:43:00	K: What relationship has that... what is the relationship of that to this space in the mind?
1:43:07	DB: Well, that only arises when the space has cleared the thought.
1:43:12	K: Yes, that’s... We have cleared...
1:43:14	DB: From then on it may be moving parallel to truth, in some...
1:43:17	K: Yes, that’s what I want to find out. Is it parallel or is there harmony between the two?
1:43:25	DB: Or harmony, or whatever the word. In some way, it is in harmony with that which is, we’ll say. But I wanted to also say in some sense thought is also that which is, you see. K: Yes, yes.
1:43:36	DB:...but in another sense it’s not.
1:43:38	K: Quite, quite, quite.
1:43:41	DB: Therefore, thought which is within that which is, is in harmony with the whole of – I don’t know, this is a poor way of putting it – with that which is – do you see? K: Quite. I understand, sir.
1:43:52	DB: Now, if there is disharmony that is also that which is, and the truth of it is that which is.
1:44:00	K: Can we put it this way, sir? For the moment, we’re just... Thought is measure, time. That measurement can be distorted or rational. That’s clear. DB: Yes.
1:44:16	K: So thought is a movement in the field of time.
1:44:22	DB: Yes.
1:44:25	K: And we say truth is not related to that.
1:44:29	DB: Well, in a sense, one-way. K: One-way.
1:44:33	DB: That is, truth does not depend on thought, but thought may depend on truth. K: Yes. Thought may depend...
1:44:39	DB: Thought may be acted on by truth.
1:44:41	K: Yes, yes – thought can act upon truth.
1:44:44	DB: No, the other way round.
1:44:45	K: I mean – sorry – truth can act upon thought. That’s understood. Now, wait a minute – that’s clear – then what is the problem? Then they are all in the same field, aren’t they, in the same space within the mind. DB: Yes.
1:45:18	K: Therefore, there is no division between... there is no division as thought... DB:...and truth.
1:45:27	K:...and truth. DB: Yes. The division is the result of this thought which is not straight.
1:45:34	K: Distortion. That’s right. So as it is in the same field...
1:45:39	DB: So therefore thought is also within – I don’t know how to put it – thought is also within truth. I mean, it moves in harmony with truth, you see.
1:45:49	K: No, just a minute, sir, just a minute. I’m not quite sure of this. Thought, we said, is of time.
1:45:53	DB: It’s of time but it may in some way...
1:45:59	K: I want to... DB: Yes.
1:46:00	K: Thought is time, measure, and all the rest of it.
1:46:03	DB: Yes.
1:46:04	K: We said truth is not that. DB: Yes.
1:46:11	K: Then what is the relationship of thought to truth? When that is... when it is... when that question is put, thought is looking to truth. DB: Yes.
1:46:29	K: And therefore it has no relationship. But when truth looks at thought, it says, ‘I have a relationship’.
1:46:37	DB: Yes.
1:46:39	K: In the sense – use a quick phrase – I use time, I function in the field of time.
1:46:48	DB: Yes, and that’s the same as the field of reality, isn’t it?
1:46:53	K: Yes, I function in the field of reality. Now, is there... do they run parallel all the time, or there is no division at all? There is no division when truth is looking.
1:47:20	DB: Yes, when truth is looking... K: It’s only the division...
1:47:27	DB:...from thought. K:...when thought. That’s right.
1:47:29	DB: When thought tries to reflect truth within itself, you see.
1:47:31	K: Yes. Yes, that’s right. That’s right.
1:47:33	DB: I think that is where the trouble arises. I mean, maybe the whole trouble, that thought tries to reflect truth in itself and calls that reality, and calls that independent.
1:47:42	K: Yes, that’s right. Now we’ve got it. That is, when thought considers, reflects upon truth, then there is a division.
1:47:55	DB: Yes. I mean, thought intrinsically divides itself from truth, but that is false because thought is only reflecting.
1:48:02	K: Reflecting – quite. But when truth regards reality, there is no division.
1:48:12	DB: No, there is no division in reality as...
1:48:25	K: Because, sir, we said when truth operates in the field of reality, it is operating with intelligence. DB: Yes. Reality is the necessary field for truth to operate in.
1:48:41	K: Ah, I see. Quite. DB: You see what I am driving at? And truth and reality are really, seen from the side of truth, then they are really terms, you see, in this whole operation, if you see what I mean. The difficulty is in ordinary... when thought, as you were saying, when we start from thought, when thought starts and tries to reflect on truth and regards... therefore it produces the notion of a reality and the truth about that reality. K: Yes, and therefore it’s divided.
1:49:12	DB: That’s all divided. K: Fragmented, yes.
1:49:15	DB: And also it gives this reality the significance of that which is, so it must distort, you see, it must...
1:49:22	K: Yes, yes.
1:49:29	DB: Now, if we don’t... the basic thing that goes wrong is that when reality is given the significance of that which is.
1:49:38	K: Yes, sir, and therefore that becomes real for truth, for reality. Yes, quite, quite.
1:49:44	DB: But if reality is simply an action, a function.
1:49:48	K: Yes, yes, of... DB:...of intelligence.
1:49:50	K: Intelligence, then it’s... Quite.
1:49:52	DB: Then it’s all part of the one, you see.
1:49:55	K: Yes, sir. When intelligence operates in the field of reality, it is one.
1:50:03	DB: Yes. K: It doesn’t divide.
1:50:05	DB: The reality is merely a field, it is not that which is or an independent substance.
1:50:10	K: Yes, sir. That is something we have discovered.
1:50:14	DB: Yes. And then there is the space, it seems – to say that the field of reality is in the...
1:50:30	K:...in this space. DB:...in this space.
1:50:33	K: Field of reality in this space. Wait a minute. That means thought is in this space.
1:50:39	DB: Yes. Could I try to explain it a little? You see, when I start from thought and reality that which is, then I think this is a substance which is just by itself, and here is another one, and they are separated by space, you see.
1:50:52	K: Space – quite.
1:50:54	DB: But if I look at it another way and I say there is a truth or this space acts, and reality is merely a function of that action, it is not an independent set of substances.
1:51:10	K: I see. I understand that, sir. DB: You see what I’m driving at? That it stands, each one by itself separate from all the others. You see, it’s not that which is, you see.
1:51:20	K: Yes, yes. Truth – are you saying, sir? – truth, when it operates in reality, then in that, there is no division.
1:51:42	DB: No, because we don’t think reality just stands by itself and truth is somewhere else out there.
1:51:47	K: Yes, yes, quite. DB: But rather reality is a function within the operation of truth. K: Of truth, yes. So truth has a need for reality. DB: Well, as its function.
1:51:58	K: Quite. Quite. When the function becomes all-important, then... etc., etc.
1:52:05	DB: Yes. When the function is given the value of that which is, then it must become all-important, you see, because that which is is what is all-important.
1:52:13	K: Quite.
1:52:17	DB: And then the whole thing must distort.
1:52:28	K: So you are telling me: Don’t be concerned with truth, be concerned with reality and its distortions.
1:52:42	DB: Yes. One has to observe them. K: Yes. I’m beginning... Don’t bother about reality; it’s not your function.
1:52:50	DB: You mean truth. K: Don’t be concerned with truth. You don’t know what it means. Be concerned only with reality and its distortions. Reality is thought, and all the rest of it. And you say to me, ‘Be free of distortions’. And to be free of distortions, just observe the distortion – not resist it, push it away – just observe the distortions. That observance needs freedom. DB: Yes.
1:53:37	K: And therefore that freedom and the observance will give you energy to push away the distortion. Right. And the seeing of that distortion is the truth.
1:53:55	DB: Yes.
1:53:59	K: So, the truth is not something separate from seeing and the doing; they are all one. And this is intelligence, which operates in the field of reality without distortion.
1:54:22	DB: Yes.
1:54:30	K: And truth then is – I have gone far; I have freed myself from distortions therefore I’m asking the question – then truth is seeing and the doing and the operation of that intelligence in the field of reality. That’s all I know, actually. DB: Yes.
1:55:03	K: So I have in my consciousness a great many distorting factors. Do I wipe them all out with one seeing, observation, or am I to take one by one?
1:55:28	DB: You can’t take them one by one.
1:55:30	K: You can’t take it one by one. Therefore, seeing is the whole.
1:55:34	DB: It’s the whole. K: That’s it. Therefore, when you see the whole, that is the truth.
1:55:39	DB: That is the truth – to see the whole of the field of reality and its distortion.
1:55:43	K: Yes, I’ve got it. And therefore to see that, the mind must have space.
1:55:55	DB: Could you say that means the mind is not occupied with all the details...
1:55:58	K: Of course, of course. Occupation implies corruption.
1:56:04	DB: You see that. The word ‘emptiness’ means not occupied.
1:56:08	K: Not occupied. So it is not occupied, it is empty. It is empty because it has no problems. It has no mine and yours – it’s empty. Therefore, the emptying of the mind of its content is meditation – you know, all the rest of it. I’ve got it – yes, sir.
1:56:36	DB: There’s just one point that occurred to me. You see, it seems that something that comes close to the essence of this distortion is – the whole field of the reality – is the tendency to take that field as that which is, you see.
1:56:52	K: Sir, if I – just a minute, I’ve just thought – if the mind discards and puts away all distortion, what is the necessity of thought, except as a function?
1:57:13	DB: Well, as a rational function. K: Function – that’s all.
1:57:15	DB: Yes. Yes. Well, I think that, you see, many people might feel that thought ought to be a rational function, you know, but they can’t make it so. K: No. No. If thought is left – what shall I say? If thought – wait a minute; just a minute, sir. If there is no – I’m asking – if there is no controller of thought – just a minute – then it’ll create all kinds of distortions.
1:58:06	DB: No, not if truth is operating. K: That’s it. Therefore, thought itself is a distorting factor if the truth is not operating. DB: Yes. I mean, I think that’s quite right. You see, that if truth is not operating, then thought moves in all sorts of fortuitous ways. It’s like the wind and the waves, you know.
1:58:31	K: Of course.
1:58:32	DB: The waves come in and they go this way and that way and criss-cross...
1:58:36	K: Quite.
1:58:38	DB:...and whatever happens, will just shape thought, make it go all around and distort.
1:58:52	K: Would you say thought in itself is divisive – understood – is in itself distorting, it is creating distortions?
1:59:05	DB: Well, as a matter of fact it is, or are you trying to say it necessarily does so? You see, there are two possibilities: one is to say thought without the truth necessarily distorts, or the other is to say no matter what happens thought is distorting. I don’t think we want to say that thought...
1:59:20	K: No, no, no.
1:59:21	DB: The other one – right? K: The other one.
1:59:22	DB: So we say thought without truth is a divisive process.
1:59:26	K: That’s right, sir. Thought without the capacity, without that quality of seeing, is a distorting factor.
1:59:35	DB: Yes. K: Yes.
1:59:37	DB: You see, I was trying to look at it this way, that thought contains two factors – to react and to reflect, you see. K: Yes – react and reflect.
1:59:50	DB: And it’s this immediate reactive factor which makes it seem so real. And it may react so fast that you don’t realise it’s thought, you see. The thing you know enters into what you see.
2:00:01	K: Yes, sir.
2:00:05	DB: Now, the difficulty arises when you lose track of the reflection – do you see? – and then it becomes an illusion.
2:00:11	K: Quite, quite.
2:00:12	DB: As if a reflection has occurred and thought loses track of it, and then the reflected thing will be taken as real.
2:00:20	K: As real – quite. DB: As genuinely real.
2:00:21	K: We must be awfully careful here that the word ‘maya’ doesn’t, you know – illusion and thought.
2:00:28	DB: No. I think that’s a mistranslation into English. The word ‘maya’ probably originally meant...
2:00:34	K: Is to measure. DB:...to measure. And that measurement considered as that which is would be illusion, but measurement considered in itself is a function is rational.
2:00:47	K: How... DB: Oh, I think we’re just...
2:00:49	K: How long have we talked?
2:00:50	DB: Too long already – it’s five-thirty.
2:00:51	K: Oh, my Lord! DB: I mean, what time did we start?
2:00:55	DB: That’s too long. K: We’d better stop. That’s a reality.
2:01:06	Shall we do this every Saturday, sir? Would it be convenient for you? DB: Fine, yes.
2:01:11	K: Not Sunday? That’s too much for you.
2:01:13	DB: Yes. Next Saturday would be all right. The Saturday after that we’re having the scientists conference.
2:01:17	K: Of course – we won’t be able to. DB: Right.