Krishnamurti Subtitles home


BRGS75CB5 - Attention implies that there is no centre
Brockwood Park, UK - 22 June 1975
Conversation with David Bohm 5



0:01 This is the fifth dialogue between J. Krishnamurti and David Bohm, and includes Dr Parchure at Brockwood Park, 1975.
0:14 Krishnamurti: Well, sir? David Bohm: Everything ready?
0:19 K: He’s always ready!
0:23 DB: I think when we were discussing last time, you know, there were some points, consequences, you know, which I think are interesting, and briefly, it’s this: I think over the years we have seen that thought moves in contradiction, I mean, inevitable contradiction, from one to another.
0:45 K: Yes.
0:47 DB: Then we said let’s try to keep thought in its place – right? – you know, where it’s technically efficient, and so on, but then one discovers thought – or else in the field of reality – but one discovers thought cannot stay in its place.
1:05 K: No, it cannot. Quite.
1:07 DB: Because the minute it defines a place it is already beyond that place, and at the same time it’s still thought. It’s a pure contradiction.
1:13 K: That’s right.
1:17 DB: So, therefore, finally one can see that... You see, until now we’ve been, at least the general tendency of humanity is to say, ‘Yes, there are things wrong with thought, but let us see if we can straighten it out’.
1:29 K: Quite.
1:30 DB: And we’ve been trying to straighten it out and the ultimate straightening out was to keep it in its place. But it won’t stay in its place. Therefore, perhaps – the idea occurred to me that perhaps thought cannot be straightened out, you see. Perhaps by its very nature…

K:...it’s crooked.
1:46 DB: …it’s crooked.

K: Quite. Like a corkscrew.
1:53 DB: Yes. If that’s the case, then it seemed to me that we need some other energy, some other movement…
2:00 K: That’s right.
2:00 DB: …which will carry out some of the functions that are now carried out by thought. In other words, our practical functions.
2:09 K: I don’t quite follow there.
2:10 DB: Well, you see, our thought is crooked now. You can’t keep it in the practical sphere. If you try to use thought, it’s going to go out of that sphere.
2:20 K: Yes, yes.
2:21 DB: But there may be another movement which can carry out those functions without becoming crooked.
2:27 K: Without becoming crooked.

DB: Yes.
2:29 K: Yes.
2:30 DB: But it might be a very different nature, it occurred to me.
2:32 K: Yes, I agree. I see that – yes.
2:35 DB: And that, it seemed to me, would be a good point to start.
2:50 K: Are we saying, sir, that thought, being in itself contradictory, and when it tries to put order in that contradiction, it creates further disorder, and that thought can never have its right place.
3:20 DB: Yes. Even if we were able to start out entirely fresh, we would come to the same thing.

K: Yes, same thing. Then we’re asking: Is there an energy which will carry out, will function without becoming crooked?
3:46 DB: Yes.

K: Is that it? That’s it. Right.
3:50 DB: Because unless there is that, we must return to thought.
3:54 K: Thought – quite. Good point, that. How does one find out? How does one investigate it, or how does one realising the nature, the intrinsic nature of thought, what is the instrument of operation, or the instrument which will discover the new energy?
4:41 DB: Yes, well, we sort of began to look at some of that last time, and we said there’s a very serious trap in this sort of question.
4:49 K: Yes, yes.
4:52 DB: Because thought is always projecting itself into everything.
4:55 K: Right. So we’re asking: Can thought ever be an instrument that can discover something which is not crooked?
5:19 DB: Yes, now, there is one point I could add, you know. You see, you used to discuss negative thinking.
5:25 K: Yes – negative. Yes.
5:27 DB: And this – although you may not like the term, you know – negative thinking is really the discovery of contradiction, isn’t it, in your thought.

K: Yes, yes, yes.
5:41 DB: And I mean, I’ve been studying this for some time, that people have, although it may not be identical with what you say, have gone into this in the form of dialectic, you see.
5:53 K: Yes – dialectic. Yes.
5:55 DB: Which is a kind of dialogue in which you have discussions – as it was in the dictionary – the art of discussion, through question and answer.
6:06 K: And also it means really... doesn’t it also mean offering opinion?
6:11 DB: Not exactly. That’s one form of it, but it’s to start with something which people will accept as reasonable, which may be an opinion, and to move from there logically and demonstrate the inevitable contradiction.
6:25 K: Contradiction – quite. Quite.
6:28 DB: And now, this is very interesting. You see, there are two attitudes to contradiction. The usual attitude is to say drop it and have, you know, something else. You see, the usual attitude is contradiction is just bad. I mean, people don’t like it. And in the…
6:45 K: And also isn’t there in contradiction a synthesis?
6:51 DB: Well, that depends, you see. Now, let’s try to put it that... You see, one of the exponents of dialectic I’ve studied is Hegel, who has carried it quite far. He says that at a certain stage thought reveals its contradiction, then it suspends itself – right? – and one sees the emptiness of the forms of the contradictions. But then he goes on to a new idea, which will resolve the contradiction, and then it moves on and on.

K: Quite.
7:22 DB: Now, in order to stop that movement on and on, Hegel invented what he called the absolute idea which finished it.
7:28 K: Quite.
7:29 DB: But he didn’t notice that that would be another contradiction.
7:31 K: Quite. These clever people get caught in their own web – quite.
7:38 DB: But suppose we say that I think Hegel had some perception and then he got caught in it again.

K: Yes.
7:44 DB: But if we leave that aside, we could say that we pursue the contradiction on and on, and finally we begin to see there’s not much point in repeating the contradiction again and again in another form. And therefore we ask the question... We see that thought is inherently contradictory, and you see, then it comes to the point we just raised, that you try to keep it in its place, and again you can’t, you see. So I think that we have to carry the dialectic further than Hegel did.
8:16 K: Quite.
8:17 DB: In other words... and therefore the dialectical movement or art inevitably leads to the point where we are – namely that thought must end itself.

K: End itself – quite.
8:30 DB: And I don’t think many of the people who used it quite saw that. I was told by Narayan that the Buddha was a great master of dialectic art, and that perhaps he did use it that way. But in general, it was not used that way.
8:50 K: I don’t know. I don’t know Buddhism very well – not very well, I don’t know it at all, except the superficial mutterings of the Buddhist priests, and so on. I think one of the Buddhist scholars, Nagarjuna, I think it was, I was told, he went much further, saying thought... there is nothing. And I don’t know all the trimmings and the depth of what he meant, but he went into this question of thought and ending thought and nothingness. That’s what I was told. We’ve come to the point now, as far as I see, between you and me, what we have discussed: Thought, being contradictory in its very nature, through dialecticism, it can resolve one contradiction and create another contradiction and keep on repeating this, hoping thereby to come to a certain point when thought itself sees its absurdity.
10:32 DB: Yes.
10:33 K: And therefore, thought then, seeing its absurdity, invents a new... or conceives a new pattern. It is still thought.

DB: It is still thought, yes.
10:46 K: So we have reached that point.

DB: Yes.
10:50 K: And we see the movement of thought must always be contradictory, and so on. can that thought end and a new energy operating in the field of reality, and not bring about contradiction in that reality?
11:17 DB: Yes, that’s right. Yes.

K: That’s it. We’ve got it.
11:20 DB: Yes. And I thought we could add one more point to sum up what we’ve been doing. You see, on the intellectual side we see contradiction through dialectic, and on the other side of feeling, it’s through desire.
11:33 K: Yes, through desire – quite.

DB: It comes to the same thing.
11:35 K: Exactly the same, that’s why I don’t... I think it’s quite useless to talk about desire. If you talk about thought, it’s useless to talk about desire. Right? Or shall we go into desire?
11:48 DB: Well, I mean, Dr Parchure thought that we should say a few things about it. I don’t know if we…
11:58 K: Sir, when you use the word ‘desire’, we used in that meaning, feeling, demand, and also the meaning of that very word.
12:10 DB: Longing – yes.

K: Longing, clinging to, seeking ultimate pleasure.

DB: Yes.
12:20 K: Ultimate pleasure in different forms – the highest and the lowest, and so on. Surely, all that is in the field of thought.
12:28 DB: Yes.
12:30 K: Desire is one of the arms, if you can put it, of thought.
12:35 DB: Yes, it’s thought producing feeling.
12:37 K: Feeling – thought producing feeling. Would there be desire, would there be a feeling, if thought didn’t enter into that area?
12:47 DB: Well, that’s the question, you see. In general, in our culture, it’s accepted that there would be one.
12:53 K: Yes, I know, I know.
12:55 DB: But on the other hand, if it were not identified by thought as a certain kind of feeling, it’s hard to say what it would be.

K: Yes, quite. I desire this house, or I desire something or other. In that very desire, is included the longing for that which thought has created. And I want the image, which thought has created as pleasurable, and wanting that pleasure. I mean, I don’t think there is a difference between desire and thought.
13:37 DB: Yes. And the contradiction in desire comes in the same way, that just as there is inherently a contradiction in thought, so there is inherently a contradiction in desire.
13:50 K: A contradiction in desire – inherent. But is there – just a minute, just a minute – I desire when I’m young, a – what? – a woman, I desire a house. I change the objects of desire.

DB: Well, that’s the contradiction.
14:11 K: But desire remains.
14:12 DB: Yes, desire remains but its object is always contradictory. You see, it won’t stay with an object.
14:18 K: No, no, of course not.
14:19 DB: When you get the object, it’s another desire.
14:20 K: Yes.
14:22 DB: Just the same as thought won’t stay but it will move from one to another.
14:27 K: That’s so. I think that’s clear.
14:30 Dr Parchure: I think that a person knows of his ‘I’ through comparison, through thought. If there is no thought, he doesn’t have positive feeling of his ‘I’ or thought. And this comparison is a movement of desire.
14:49 K: A movement of thought.

DP: Movement of thought.
14:52 K: Yes.
14:54 DP: And in that, is incorporated the feeling of desire.
14:58 K: All that is within that area.
15:02 DP: Now, this continuous movement of thought, either pleasure or pain or fear is a continuous projection, and the person doesn’t come to know of this movement. So a continuous chase is there, and his life between the projected image and himself is the expenditure of energy.

K: Quite.
15:31 DP: Now, this is a process of conditioning as it starts from the object as seeing, as sensation, to the state of image-formation. The young child...
15:48 K: What do you mean by conditioning? I don’t quite follow there.
15:50 DP: If we have a young child which has no thinking process started, but feeling process only.
15:59 K: I wonder if there is not thinking. No, I think that’s a dangerous statement to make: Child has no thought but only feeling.
16:07 DB: Yes, I think some psychologists have studied that Piaget, and he says that a child has what he calls pre-verbal thought, sensory motor thought, like an animal.
16:17 K: Yes.
16:18 DB: In other words, he thinks through his images and through his motor activities, but it’s still thinking. And there’s pleasure in it, of course.
16:26 K: Non-verbal.
16:29 DP: Dr Bohm was saying that we have function and knowledge in relation to objects, in which the ‘I’ did not operate.

K: Yes.
16:39 DP: Now, the child is wanting to be secure in the environment, and therefore learns of his environment through objects, and their knowledge. At what stage does this element of using memory for pleasure and pain…
16:55 K: When it becomes mine.
16:58 DP: So is that desire?
16:59 K: It is part of desire. I cling to the toy. This is a toy. You come along and take it away, try to take it away, I hold it. There begins the ‘I’.
17:11 DB: Then there’s the child clinging to his mother, you see.
17:14 K: Of course – child clings to his mother.
17:15 DB: He’s afraid his mother will go away.
17:16 K: The mother goes away – of course, the whole problem is there. So, sir, let’s start. We said desire is in its very nature contradictory, though it appears that the objects may change – desire for – but in essence, desire is contradictory, as thought is contradictory. So, now we say: Is there an energy which operates in the field of reality without becoming crooked?

DB: Yes.
18:07 K: You see, from what... when I have discussed with the pundits in India, scholars and others, they have said this energy is divine – I’m using their words – and therefore it can never operate in the field of reality. And if it does, it can never go contradictory. They invent an energy. I don’t know if I’m making...

DB: Yes, that’s clear.
18:42 K: They presuppose or imagine there is an energy which is unconditioned, which is Brahmin, Soul, God, or whatever it is. If we can erase from our minds that process of invention or imagining – as one must if you want to really find out – then what have we? We have only then thought, desire, in their essence, or in its essence, crooked, in operation, and the result contradictory, everlasting, and we know nothing else. Right, sir? I think that would be a sane position. At least I’d like to start that way. I know nothing other than this crooked nature of thought and desire, which clings and changes its object of longing. Right. And I see in my consciousness – which Pupul raised, which is an interesting point – I see in my consciousness... I’m aware of my consciousness, and in that consciousness, all movement is thought and desire.
20:15 DB: Yes.

K: Right? That consciousness, because it is in constant movement, has never found an energy which is not contradictory, an energy which is not produced by desire and thought.
20:42 DB: Yes.

K: That’s all I... Right? So what shall I do? Then my problem is: Can thought ever see its own movement and the futility of its own movement? Futility in the sense, contradictory, conflicting.
21:20 DB: Well, it would have to see it totally.
21:21 K: Totally – that’s what I mean – totally. Of course, of course. Can thought see totally the movement, its movement in consciousness, can it see it as a whole?
21:39 DB: Yes, well, one can see difficulties there, you see. I mean, why it looks perhaps impossible. You see, the way... ordinarily we think about something, and that very thought separates the thing we think about from the thought.
21:56 K: Quite, quite.
22:02 DB: Now, then it seems as soon as you begin to say, ‘I am that thing that I think about’, then it seems thought cannot be sustained – do you see?
22:11 K: Yes, yes. All right, sir, move from there. My consciousness is myself.

DB: Yes.
22:23 K: There is no separation between myself and the content of my consciousness. The content is me.

DB: Yes.
22:36 K: Now, wait a minute. That I see. Is that seeing within the field of consciousness or outside it? I don’t know if I’m making...

DB: Yes.
22:52 K: When I say, ‘I see the contradictory nature of thought’ – I see – I mean by that word, is it a verbal perception, intellectual comprehension, or is it actual perception? Is it an actuality? Let’s put it that way. Or I imagine I see, or I think I see, or I desire to see, therefore I see. Is seeing – observing, and so on – is seeing, perceiving, a movement of thought? If it is, then I don’t see.

DB: Yes.
23:54 K: There is no seeing. Then when do I say... when does the mind say, ‘I see’?
24:11 DB: Well, when the movement of thought stops.
24:12 K: Obviously. And what made it stop? How has that come about?
24:29 DB: Well, through seeing the contradiction or the absurdity.
24:39 K: Yes, but when you say contradiction and absurdity, is thought seeing, imagines it’s seeing?
24:48 DB: No, no, there is attention to what thought is doing.
24:53 K: There is attention...

DB:...to the actual, actuality.
24:56 K: Yes, to actuality. The actual is being seen.
25:00 DB: Yes.
25:01 K: The actual, which is the creation of thought, desire, and all that, the movement of thought – that’s the actual. And who is it that sees it? How does it happen?
25:20 DB: Yes, well, there’s nobody that sees it. I mean, it’s... There’s nobody that sees it.

K: That’s what I want to get at. Who sees it?
25:27 DP: Would you say that attention is the thing that sees?
25:32 K: I don’t want to go back, I want to start anew. Otherwise I... I can’t think that way, I can’t operate that way – sorry. I’ve got a problem. Dr Bohm has shown me thought is everlastingly moving – moving from pattern to pattern as desire, and contradictory patterns, contradictory desires. When thought does that, there can be no solution or ending to that. And he says there is no ending to sorrow, confusion, misery, conflict – all that. I listen to him because he’s telling me something serious. I’m paying attention to it. I respect what he’s saying. And I say at a given moment, ‘I see it’. What do I see? The verbal pattern? I hear the verbal description and therefore I have caught the colour of the painting of the words, and all that? Or is it an intellectual grasp of what is being said? Or it has nothing to do with any of that, but only perception. I’m just asking. How does that happen?
27:25 DP: The careful attention which…
27:26 K: Ah, I won’t... I’m not going to use your words. I don’t want to use ‘attention’. I’m asking you – I’ve listened to him, I’ve paid attention to him, I respect what he’s saying. To me, it seems logical, sane and actual. That’s all. And then, at a moment I say, ‘By Jove, I see the whole of it’. Not the fragments put together but the whole movement – desire, thought, contradiction, the movement from pattern to pattern, the excuses – all the rest of it – I see it completely as a whole. And my action of seeing it as a whole is totally different from the action of thought-action. Now, how does this happen?
28:33 DB: Yes, well, again, it’s not clear what you mean by ‘how’.
28:38 K: No, I’m sorry, I shouldn’t say ‘how’.
28:46 DB: Well, you see, let me just say something. You see, when I was looking at it and I saw that thought could not be made straight, you see, it seemed I couldn’t describe what happened, but then at that moment I was no longer interested in trying to make thought straight, you see, so I thought that that was seeing.
29:08 K: Yes, I see that. Are you saying: Does thought see itself in movement and contradiction? Is that what you’re saying?
29:18 DB: Well, I’m saying that when there is seeing, then the whole thing no longer continues. You see, something... that the thought, that this movement of contradiction does not…
29:34 K: Does thought see itself?

DB: No, it does not see itself.
29:38 K: No.
29:42 DB: I mean, it seems to me in some vague sense that there’s a bigger movement or space.
29:49 K: That may be imagined by thought.

DB: It may be imagined, yes.
29:53 K: Or, the scientists have said the cosmic energy – you follow? – all that. I don’t know anything about it. All that I know is this. And listening with attention, with respect, with care, at a moment I say, ‘Yes, I see, I understand the whole of it. You don’t have to talk any more about it. I see the whole of it’. What – no – what brought this about? If you say attention – or would you put it: Attention means, attention implies that there is no centre. Centre as thought, which has created the ‘me’ and ‘not me’, and all the rest of it.
30:59 DP: The ancients have presumed that there is a thing like pure desire.
31:08 K: I don’t believe in pure nonsense.
31:11 DP: The process of seeing without centre comes about through the pure desire, which has no objective.
31:20 K: Ah, please, sir. You know, I don’t know what the ancients say. You are moving, you’ve taken me off from something. Which is – does this come about when there is attention, which implies there is no centre which thought has made? And therefore, I receive everything he says without twisting.
31:56 DB: You say when thought makes the centre, that starts the twisting – is that what you’re implying?

K: Yes. Yes.
32:04 DB: Yes, but I wouldn’t say... but is there thought without a centre? Can there be thought before the centre?
32:10 K: Ah, yes, yes...

DB: You see...
32:12 K: Is there a centre…
32:15 DB: Or is thought in the centre? Are thought and the centre more or less the same domain?
32:20 K: Same domain – yes.
32:32 DB: You see, when you think about something, that thing, you think about. You see, the weakness of thought as I see it – maybe this will become... – is that thought inevitably separates itself from what it thinks about – I mean, it creates – right?

K: I follow that.
32:53 DB: But it creates an imaginary ‘other’ which it calls the object, you know, which is still really thought.
33:00 K: Quite. I see all that.

DB: Yes. Now, does that take place before the creation of the centre, or is the centre something else, do you see?
33:13 K: I don’t quite follow.
33:14 DB: You see, if I say thought... the essential feature of thought is to reflect in such a way as to create let’s say, an image of something.
33:23 K: Yes, which becomes the centre from which I operate.
33:26 DB: Now let’s get that straight, you see, because you say the image becomes the centre. Now, it’s not quite clear to me. Let’s say I’m thinking about an image of a tree or something. Now, that which I’m thinking about seems to be separated from me, you see.
33:41 K: Yes.
33:43 DB: It seems the image is over there somewhere, I’m here. Now, therefore it seems that I’ve created two images – one is the tree and the other is me.
33:52 K: Yes.

DB: Is that...
33:53 K: That’s right. There is the ‘me’ with its... The ‘me’ is the image which thought has created.
34:00 DB: And the tree also.
34:01 K: And the tree – tree is an actuality.
34:04 DB: No, but I’m thinking about it now.
34:05 K: Thinking about it – yes.
34:06 DB: You see, I don’t say I’m thinking…
34:08 K: Yes, I understand. The thinking about the tree, and the thinking which has created an image in me, in this mind, as the ‘me’.
34:18 DB: Yes, but it seems that thought presents those two as separated.
34:23 K: Separate – that’s right.
34:25 DB: When in fact that’s one thought.

K: Yes, that’s one thought.
34:29 DB: Now, it would seem from what you say there that there is no thought without the centre.
34:35 K: That’s the point. That’s right. That’s right.
34:38 DB: Well, if something, energy, could take place without the centre, then we wouldn’t have this problem.

K: That’s right.
34:44 DB: Now, once we have the centre and the periphery, then there must be desire and contradiction, and so on.
34:49 K: All the rest of it. Yes, that’s right. Now, Pupul raised a point this morning which was rather interesting.
34:55 DB: I didn’t quite hear her questions.
34:56 K: No. I’ll tell you. I’ll repeat it. Unfortunately, she isn’t here and I hope I’m representing her rightly. Is the seeing within the field of consciousness?
35:15 DB: Yes.
35:19 K: That means, seeing must have space. And is there a space which is not touched by thought in consciousness, and therefore that space says, ‘I see’?
35:38 DB: Yes, well...
35:42 K: Not that space says – from that space arises the total comprehension.
35:50 DB: Yes, but it’s part of consciousness, as she said.
35:53 K: Yes, that’s it. It’s part of the content of consciousness, which has been conditioned by religion, and so on, and so on. All right. Then where does this seeing take place?
36:11 DB: In that case, you mean? In the case you were discussing – when the space is part of consciousness?
36:17 K: Yes. I see that space is part of this consciousness, and therefore it is still within the field of contradiction, still within the field of desire, still in the field of reality which thought has created. I see that. But is there a perception, a seeing as a whole, outside it? And if there is an outside seeing, as it were – if I can use that word – then thought or the centre which thought has created, with its periphery, and all that, comes to an end. Seeing is the ending of thought. Would you say that?

DB: Yes.
37:18 K: Perceiving is not the movement of thought. Perception is not the movement of thought.
37:33 DB: Yes. Even when you perceive a contradiction, then thought stops.

K: Yes. You see the truth outside the field of consciousness. Truth is not within the field of consciousness. If it were, it would be reality, and so on, it would be still... truth would have contradiction – it would be your truth, my truth, his truth – if it is within that field. If it is not, it is truth. Then you see it, and you, because you see it, your action in the field of reality is never crooked. Right?
38:30 DB: Yes. Well, we could raise a question there, just to get it clear because... I mean, is it possible that you might fall back into it – do you see?

K: Into reality.
38:40 DB: Yes, into contradiction.

K: Never, if I see truth.
38:44 DB: I mean, just once is enough?

K: Absolutely. If I see, if there is a perception of truth, how can you go back to it, go back into something which is not truth?
39:01 DB: But then, you see, how do you come to make mistakes, and so on, you see? Would you just say that’s…

K: Are they... Or... Wait, let’s look at it.

DB: Yes.
39:22 K: All action – for the moment, I’m just exploring – all action is in the field of reality. Right? And action of truth in the field of reality can never be contradictory, we say.
39:40 DB: Yes, I mean, that’s what we... Yes, it won’t be...

K: We say... We’ll explore it.

DB: Yes.
40:02 K: And you say there can be mistakes made by truth.
40:09 DB: I don’t know who makes them.
40:11 K: Might be. There might be mistakes.
40:14 DB: There might be mistakes and we want to understand.
40:16 K: Yes. You see truth... there is a perception of truth for you. And you have to act; you are living in the field of reality. And you have realised the field of reality is always contradictory. And since you have seen truth, perceived truth... since there’s been a perception of truth – a little bit more accurate – that truth operates in the field of reality, created by thought. Right. Would it be a mistake when you take the wrong direction of a road... a wrong road?
41:28 DB: Well, it depends on how you use the language. But you could say that…
41:31 K: I’m using language simply. I’m walking along...
41:34 DB: Yes. Well, if you just simply choose one way instead of another and you lacked information...
41:40 K: Yes. So, lacking information, you, looking at it, might say he’s making a mistake. So, in the operation... truth operating in the field of reality and not having sufficient information can take a wrong direction.

DB: Yes.
42:05 K: And you looking at it from there say, ‘Oh, he’s mistaken, therefore he’s never seen truth’.
42:13 DB: Well, that may be one way. You see, it depends. You see, at some stage... You see, one could go to the other extreme and say, ‘What is the sign of a man who has not seen truth?’ – you see.
42:24 K: Yes, of course. What is the sign of a man...
42:27 DB: I mean, not merely that he makes mistakes.
42:27 K: Yes, that's simple enough. He lives a contradictory life.
42:31 DB: Yes. He lives in self-contradiction. Which is, you should be able to distinguish from a mistake then, if you’ve not got wrong information.
42:41 K: Yes, that’s it – wrong information.
42:45 DB: Now…
42:50 K: Now, sir, just a minute, I want to go... Now, what am I to do? There is a perception of truth and you have to act in the field of reality. Do you make a mistake? That’s what I want to question. Mistake being that which is not truthful.
43:13 DB: Yes, well, then we have to be very clear what is truth.
43:15 K: That’s what I mean – exactly. Truth being, we said, is non... thought cannot perceive it, realise it, examine it, express it. Right? Reality can’t.

DB: Yes. There’s no inherent contradiction in the act. You see, in the ordinary act of thought there is inherent contradiction because – the way I see it is because thought cannot keep clear the difference between itself and what is not thought, you see – that it makes a mistake which is not just simply lack of information but a mistake based on some confusion, in which some part of itself is projected as being not thought, but either truth or reality or goodness or logic, and so on.
44:16 K: Logic, truth of logic – no, the reality of logic... or rather, the logic which thought spins out becomes illogical.

DB: Yes, because thought... You see, I would like to put it this way, and this may clear it up. You see, there is actuality and for a certain purpose we’ll divide actuality into two kinds – one is that which is actual and independent of thought, and the other is a certain actuality created by thought, like the microphone.
44:52 K: Yes, yes, yes.
44:53 DB: But then also all sorts of feelings inside of us, images.
44:56 K: Inside of our heads – yes.
44:58 DB: Yes. Now thought loses track of what it has created and then it recognises it again as something which it has not created. Now, that mistake is the cause of contradiction.
45:11 K: Yes.
45:11 DB: But that is not a mistake which is really a mistake, because it can’t be corrected – do you see? In other words, thought has no way of keeping track of that, and therefore it cannot possibly correct that mistake, therefore it’s something going wrong which is inherent in the structure.
45:30 K: Yes, inherent in the structure.
45:32 DB: Whereas a mistake due to something which has gone wrong because of lack of information, it can be corrected when you get right information. Yes.
45:39 K: That’s what I wanted... Quite. Quite.
45:44 DB: So, we could say that in that sense, truth... well, the word ‘mistake’ is somewhat ambiguous, but truth in some sense makes no ‘mistakes’. If we use the word ‘mistake’ in right quotes.
45:56 K: Right quotes – yes. After all, if once you have seen something dangerous, it’s finished.
46:07 DB: Yes.
46:11 K: But thought can create a danger, which becomes unreal, and hold onto that thing as being safe.
46:24 DB: Yes. Well, because thought has lost track of the fact that made it, you see. Thought thinks it’s a solid, safe thing.
46:32 K: We are saying truth cannot make a ‘mistake’ – quotes.
46:37 DB: Quotes – yes.
46:40 K: That’s tremendous, sir, that is...
46:42 DB: Yes. I mean, it can do things wrong because of wrong information only.
46:47 K: And…
46:50 DB: It’s like a good computer. If it’s given wrong information, it will come up with the wrong result, you see, but it has to.
46:56 K: Yes, that’s right. That’s a good simile – yes. You see organised religions have no truth in it. You see it, totally. You can’t go back and organise religious stuff, it’s finished for you. And your action will be totally logical, never contradictory. Right?

DB: Yes. But now one could ask the question – I mean, several people have asked me whether human beings... you know, there’s a feeling that human beings are not capable of this kind of perfection, you see.
48:01 K: It’s not perfection, sir. That’s what I…
48:04 DB: No, in one sense it’s not and in another sense it is, you see.
48:07 K: I don’t see it as perfection.

DB: I know, I realise that.
48:10 K: I see it as a man who is aware, sensitive, attentive, and sees the danger, and therefore don’t touch it... doesn’t touch it.
48:21 DB: Well, I mean, I’ve talked with a few of the scientists, you see, especially one of them, and he – I think he gets some idea of what you mean but he feels... you know, he’s rather dubious that a human being could really, you know, be that sensitive, that ready to drop all his attachments.
48:41 K: I don’t see why.

DB: No, I’m not sure.
48:45 K: Why it should be inhuman – if one can put it that way – why should it be inhuman to see truth?
48:56 DB: Well, I think you’re right that there’s no reason – it’s merely our tradition.

K: That’s it. The thickness of the wall which thought has created.
49:06 DB: Yes. I mean, people have made the tradition of being modest, and so on – ‘It’s only human to err’, and so on.
49:14 K: Quite. It’s not a question of modesty about this. I think one has to have a great sense of humility to see this, to see truth.

DB: Yes.
49:27 K: And expression of it is not humility... is still humility, is nothing to do with me.
49:36 DB: Yes, well, I understand that.
49:39 K: No, sir, let’s go back. The question of Pupulji, says: Is there a space in consciousness – I want to go back a little bit, because... – which is not created by thought? Is there any part of consciousness, a little corner, which thought has not touched?
50:08 DB: Well, I should think it’s impossible.
50:10 K: It’s impossible.
50:11 DB: Because thought is one structure, I mean. Every part of thought touches every other part – in my view anyway.

K: I see that. One thought touches the various other parts.
50:27 DB: Yes, either directly or indirectly.
50:28 K: Quite. All fragments within consciousness…
50:33 DB: They all touch.

K: …are all related.
50:35 DB: Yes. You see, the degree of connection is quite amazing. You see, some scientists have looked into that and, you see, a very simple case of connection – I think I could show it, if I can remember it – you see, you can tell, for example, that a certain word is not in the language, you know, right away.

K: Yes, yes.
50:59 DB: Like the word ‘incliné’ is not in the language though inclination is. And therefore that’s connected immediately to your entire memory.
51:06 K: Quite. Take the word ‘oak’. It doesn’t exist in Sanskrit. Oak tree – it doesn’t exist in Sanskrit, does it, sir? Oak tree, doesn’t exist? No.

DP: No.
51:22 DB: Yes, I mean, somebody can tell that a word is not in the language immediately, which shows that every word is somehow connected to the whole language.
51:29 K: Quite. All words are interrelated, quite naturally. So all fragments are interrelated.

DB: Yes.
51:40 K: And so there is no space, no corner, no hidden spot, where thought has not touched.
51:51 DB: Yes, or where it hasn’t at least the potentiality to touch, you know.
51:55 K: Yes.
51:56 DB: In other words, it probably has touched it, but it could also at least have the potential to touch. It has the potentiality of touching, since it’s connected.
52:03 K: Yes, yes – potentiality of touching. As we said, all thoughts are related, all fragments are related to each other.
52:14 DB: Yes. And that’s part of the contradiction of thought which tries to treat them as unrelated.
52:18 K: Quite, quite.
52:20 DB: That’s one of its basic contradictions.
52:26 K: Right. That being so, then when... where... what brings about the act of perception?
52:43 DB: Well, you know, you frequently ask this sort of question – not always... I say, you frequently ask this kind of question, whose answer is not clear. You see, the...
52:55 K: I think the answer is clear, sir, when we say thought comes to an end.
53:01 DB: Yes, well, that’s what you said before – yes. But I mean, then you ask what brings it to an end, you see.
53:06 K: No, no, I’m coming... Let’s see. What brings thought... Then my first question is – sorry – does – sorry. This is not part of the conversation.
53:30 DB: No.
53:31 K: It’s part of hay fever. My first question is: Does thought see this, see its own movement, and therefore thought itself sees the futility of it and stops?
53:58 DB: Well, I shouldn’t think... You know, it doesn’t seem to me that thought has that power, you know, that…
54:07 G Narayan: Why do you say that?
54:08 DB: Well, since thought deals with fragments, that is, all that thought perceives it perceives in fragments. It might see the futility in a fragmentary way.
54:23 K: Yes, and therefore it can contradict next minute.
54:28 DB: One part will try to stop and the other part keeps on going.
54:37 K: So you’re saying thought cannot see itself as a whole. It is only seeing... it is only a mind that sees the whole, and therefore truth, and to see the whole, thought has come to an end. Now, how does this happen? Not how in the sense, method, system, and all that – what brings this about? You say it is attention. Not quite.
55:29 DB: Not quite. Perhaps you could say a little... why you say it’s not attention, you see. Why do you say it’s not attention?
55:38 K: Because when you’re not attentive, you see things which you’ve never seen before.
55:46 DB: Well, let’s get this clear. You see, you are saying there’s a perception beyond attention.
55:49 K: Beyond attention.

DB: Right. Which comes unexpected.
55:55 K: It cannot be invited.

DB: Yes.
55:57 K: It cannot be... there can be... it’s like my saying, ‘I’ll be attentive in order to receive truth’.
56:05 DB: Well, then it won’t work.

K: That’s tommyrot.
56:07 DB: Well, the word ‘attention’ means stretching toward. The word ‘attention’ means, basically, to stretch yourself towards something, you see.
56:15 K: Stretch yourself. Attendere. Stretch out.
56:17 DB: Now, you’re saying that in some sense when you are not stretched out, something…
56:22 K: That’s why I’m saying when you say attention, I see it’s not quite that.
56:26 DB: It’s not quite that, but is attention thought? I mean, let’s get it... just clear it, for the record. Is attention still connected with thought?
56:38 K: Now, wait a minute. No, concentration is.
56:41 DB: Yes.
56:44 K: Is connected with thought.
56:45 DB: Yes. I mean, but there is an attention, you say, which is not connected with thought, but still it’s not what we want.
56:50 K: No, it’s not quite, not the whole.
56:53 DB: It’s not quite what we need.
56:55 K: So there must be – let’s begin – not must be – there is an awareness which is not concentration, an awareness in which there is no choice, an awareness moves to attention. And attention, in that attention, there is a stretching out, as you say, to capture.
57:18 DB: Yes.
57:20 K: That is not attention, in the theme of ‘capture something’.
57:23 DB: Yes, but now... but what about... Yes, sorry.
57:27 K: I’m coming... To me, that’s not sufficient.
57:37 DB: Yes, well, would you say attention means stretching out from awareness? Right?

K: Yes.
57:43 DB: Then it’s not sufficient.

K: Not sufficient. If we understand by the meaning of the word, stretch out.
57:50 DB: Yes, but you see, ordinarily, you see, suppose I say I am aware of something and I stretch to it, I want to capture it. The very word perceive means to capture, anyway.
58:02 K: Capture – of course.
58:05 DB: And, now, that is not thought.

K: No, no.
58:08 DB: But it’s still... it’s not based on memory.
58:11 K: It’s not quite enough.
58:12 DB: It’s beyond memory but it’s not quite enough. All right. Because we say thought is the movement of memory.
58:17 K: Yes. My goodness! So, there must be a sense of – can we use the word ‘spontaneity’? Not right – no. Then there must be a sense of non-being. There must be – that’s right – a sense of nothingness.
58:41 DB: Nothingness.
58:45 K: You see – all right – concentration, awareness. In awareness, there is choice, then it is not awareness.
58:55 DB: Yes, but we were talking about awareness without choice.
58:58 K: Without choice.
58:59 DB: But still, then we go beyond attention.
59:01 K: Yes. Then attention. And we say attention is still not quite... is not enough.
59:08 DB: What is attention? It’s a kind of energy then, would you say?
59:12 K: Attention is summation of energy.

DB: The summation of energy, which…
59:18 K: But that’s not quite enough.
59:20 DB: It’s the summation of the human energy?
59:23 K: Human energy, as well as the energy... Yes, sir, human energy. That’s not enough, obviously. So, is there... is the mind, going through all this... comes to absolute nothingness. Nothingness being, not a thing in it. And that is more than summation of energy; it is super, super star.
1:00:23 DB: Well, you see, I wanted to say attention is the – I mean, it may be – attention is summation of the energy of the human being, and you’re saying there may be an energy beyond that.
1:00:33 K: That’s right.
1:00:35 DB: Which would be wrong to call cosmic.
1:00:37 K: No, no, that’s...
1:00:38 DB: But still it’s something beyond what we would call the individual.
1:00:40 K: Beyond the human energy. There is a danger in this, because I can imagine that.
1:00:47 DB: Yes. Yes, I mean...
1:00:51 K: So the mind has cut out all that. You follow? Not cut out – it’s seen all that. I’m putting it wrong – sorry.
1:01:15 DB: Now, I’ll just ask you a question: You have gone through discovering all this? In other words, you see, this is a discovery.
1:01:25 K: Which?

DB: What you’re saying now. I mean, were you this way all your life, seeing it this way?
1:01:31 K: I’m afraid so.
1:01:32 DB: Yes, then, right, but then let’s... you know, it brings up another question, you know, which is what we’re doing now, that you are communicating.
1:01:40 K: Yes.
1:01:41 DB: It’s a different – we’ve discussed this once before, but for some odd reason you were that way and the rest of us were not.
1:01:51 K: I wouldn’t... It sounds conceited. I’m not... Yes.
1:01:54 DB: But, I mean, some combination of tendencies and environment.
1:01:58 K: Yes.

DB: Now...
1:02:01 K: Wait, wait. Combination of tendencies and environment...
1:02:05 DB:...makes the person conditioned.
1:02:08 K: Yes, but he had been through all that.
1:02:10 DB: Yes. But what is the difference then?
1:02:17 K: A human being going through all that gets conditioned.
1:02:20 DB: Yes.
1:02:20 K: Another human being going through all that is not conditioned.
1:02:23 DB: Yes, and it’s not clear what the difference is. Why is there a difference?

K: Well, that becomes tremendously…
1:02:30 DB: That’s too difficult.

K: No, not difficult. One has to go into something entirely different, which is: There are two human beings – let’s keep it simple – one gets conditioned and the other doesn’t. Why? How has it happened the other doesn’t get conditioned?
1:02:53 DB: Yes.
1:02:57 K: Is it a lack of good health at the beginning, therefore he was ill, disease…

DB: The wrong circumstances.
1:03:10 K: And therefore he never... he listened to it all, it never penetrated, because the mind wasn’t healthy, the body wasn’t healthy – you follow? – therefore he didn’t receive anything.
1:03:22 DB: I see, and then by the time he could receive he was stronger.
1:03:25 K: Yes. Therefore he never entered it.
1:03:29 DB: It never took hold.

K: The other took hold.
1:03:32 DB: At the stage when it was... Yes, there is this in child development, that children go through stages of tremendous openness to something and at a certain stage that development is no longer possible.
1:03:44 K: Closed. The other human being, it’s open.
1:03:49 DB: Yes, which one?

K: Who is not conditioned.
1:03:53 DB: Yes, he remains open.

K: Open.
1:03:55 DB: Yes, but...

K: How does... I mean, how does this happen? There are several theories about this. May I?

DB: Yes.
1:04:07 K: One is, that entity who is not conditioned has had many previous lives.
1:04:14 DB: Yes. Yes, I am aware of that theory.
1:04:17 K: Theory.

DB: Yes.
1:04:19 K: And the other theory is, if you want to know, is that... Let’s put it round the other way. I won’t use the Asiatic language, I want to avoid that a little bit. Would you say there is the reservoir of goodness?
1:04:55 DB: Well, let’s… I mean...
1:04:57 K: Not reservoir – there is goodness in the world, and there is evil in the world.

DB: Well, let’s... Yes, that’s a point that is not clear to me, you see. That is a point that we could discuss because it’s not clear.
1:05:09 K: Not clear. I mean, there is these two, the evil and the good.
1:05:17 DB: Yes, there is sort of a feeling that the evil doesn’t have the same reality in some sense as the good, you see. Or in some sense, evil is not... you know, is null at the core, is a way to put it. You see, the evil is in some sense based on falseness.
1:05:40 K: Yes, evil is based on... But I’m just saying there is this theory. I’m theory-talking.
1:05:45 DB: Yes, that evil and good – though that’s an ancient view, say, of the Persians, I mean.
1:05:48 K: The Persians had it, Zen... I mean, and so on. The Asiatics have it too, Indians have it. Now, there are these two – what? – states.
1:06:04 DB: Principles.

K: Principles or... No, they won’t call it principle. I wouldn’t call it principle – which would be an idea, which would be a…
1:06:13 DB: Well, then you sound as if you’re calling them substances. They almost sound like substances or energies.
1:06:20 DP: Two forces.

K: Two forces.
1:06:22 DB: Two forces.

K: Let’s keep to that word ‘forces’. There are these two forces, and the Asiatics believe – and the Tibetans, that the good is combined... is with those who have advanced spiritually – they hold it. And the evil is held by these people who are battling with the good.
1:06:50 DB: Yes.
1:06:51 K: You know this, the old... I mean, this exists. Yes. This exists throughout the ages. I mean, this is not something Asiatic – the Egyptians had it, the Romans, the Persians, and so on. That goodness – it sounds ridiculous; I’m just offering it for inspection and destruction – that goodness can penetrate into a human being and so keep him whole.
1:07:33 DB: Yes, to resist the conditioning.

K: To keep him whole – not resist.
1:07:37 DB: No, not resist, but he becomes impervious to the…
1:07:40 K: It doesn’t exist. Yes – impervious.

DB: It doesn’t take – yes.
1:07:43 K: Nothing penetrates. And you can add to that the whole... the Hindu, Tibetan idea of Maitreya, and so on, so on. That’s one thing – reincarnation, the force of goodness holding a certain human being who is – that’s the point – who is not... who has very little selfishness, who has very little self.
1:08:21 DB: Yes, but then that begs the question, you see.
1:08:24 K: Of course. I can spot it too. That’s the idea. You follow? I’m just giving you the idea.
1:08:33 DB: Yes.
1:08:35 K: So there are these two theories. And the other is: From childhood he was ill, not fully... not capable of receiving mentally, retarded, vague.
1:08:59 DB: Who was vague?

K: The unconditioned.
1:09:02 DB: Or the other theory is that the person, the unconditioned one, began not healthy enough to pay much attention to the world.
1:09:08 K: That’s right.
1:09:09 DB: And then by the time he could pay attention he was free of it.
1:09:12 K: That’s it. So you’ve got these three theories.

DB: Yes.
1:09:22 K: Pay your money and take your choice! You see, it has puzzled me, and I have asked, talked with those people who knew this man who was not conditioned when he was a child. They all have said that he was vague and would stand under a tree or watch something for hours on end, went to school and being beaten and put in a corner and would remain there till the teacher said, ‘Go home’, otherwise he’d go on staying there. So all that indicated a certain sense of not being there – moronic, if you like to use that word; vague. And so nothing deeply penetrated. As he grew older, the Theosophical and the European culture, nothing even then penetrated.
1:10:55 DB: Well, anyway, that may be a reasonable theory.
1:10:58 K: Yes. That seems fairly reasonable.

DB: Yes.
1:11:03 K: But that doesn’t give you the whole of it. Please, I’m not saying I’m unconditioned. Please, it would be silly on my part to say it. So there is this. The problem then is: How does this perception which is beyond attention, beyond awareness, beyond concentration – of course, concentration is…
1:11:48 DB:...is out anyway.

K:...completely out... – come about? Must every child become ill, be unhealthy?

DB: Well, no. Anyway, most children who are unhealthy just succumb even to worse things. It would be very fortuitous that it would produce this effect.
1:12:10 K: Yes. Can this be cultivated? Obviously not. Cultivation implies, you know, time, and all the rest of it. So how does this... what brings this about? May we go into it, sir, a little bit?
1:12:36 DB: Yes.
1:12:46 K: There must be awareness, mustn’t there?
1:12:48 DB: Yes.
1:12:49 K: Awareness being sensitive – sensitive not to one’s own desires, which is fairly easy, but sensitive to environment, to other people’s – awareness. And in that awareness, any choice is still the movement of thought.
1:13:10 DB: Yes.
1:13:11 K: So, in awareness, the movement of thought comes to an end, as choice.
1:13:20 DB: Yes, would you say now that choice is the essence of the movement of thought?
1:13:23 K: Choice is – yes.
1:13:25 DB: In other words, that’s the real root of it.
1:13:27 K: Yes, yes. Yes, I think that’s logical, too. Right. From there, attention. I attend, care, affection... there is affection, care and a sense of deep communication. You say something and the mind receives at its depth, not superficial. Couldn’t we say?

DB: Yes.
1:14:06 K: And that is not enough, obviously.
1:14:15 DB: This is all the ordinary, you know, still the human individual, getting into his depth, isn’t it?
1:14:23 K: Yes, yes.
1:14:25 DB: The thought, you could say, is rather superficial, it’s merely a very small part of the operation of the brain, the nerves.
1:14:33 K: Yes.
1:14:35 DB: Now, in awareness and attention, we go much deeper, but still that…
1:14:40 K: Yes, sir, quite right. Quite. So, love in attention is different from the love that exists in the field of reality.
1:15:03 DB: Yes, well, in the field of reality…
1:15:04 K:...it’s not love.

DB: …it’s not love – yes.
1:15:06 K: That’s right. So in attention, there is this quality of love. I love you, therefore I receive you profoundly. I don’t know if I’m... Therefore, our communication is not verbal. And that is not enough.
1:15:32 DB: No, it’s still a depth of the human individual.
1:15:37 K: Yes, yes. Therefore, the next thing is: Can this consciousness – we can go through all this but it’s not enough – can this consciousness be completely empty of its content? Which means there is nothing inside it – nothing created by thought, by circumstances, by temperament, imagination, by tendency, capacity.
1:16:22 DB: Yes. Now, when you are aware of this environment, that’s not what you mean by nothing. You see, in other words, that includes still an awareness of the environment, that nothing – right?

K: Yes, of course, of course.
1:16:32 DB: Right.
1:16:33 K: Here there is nothing. Is that possible? Is one imagining it?
1:16:41 DB: Well, yes.
1:16:49 K: One is not imagining it, because we have seen right from the beginning – thought is contradictory. Part of that thought is desire, which is contradictory. So thought, desire, in their movement, must create contradiction, fragmentation. And we move from there to the sense of one fragment controlling, opposing, resisting other fragments of thought. That is concentration. We see that. Then, awareness, in which thought enters as choice, and that is pushed... Seen that. Then, there is this attention, in which the thing is affection, which didn’t exist in awareness, it didn’t exist in concentration, which didn’t exist in…

DB: Wait a minute. You say it exists in attention but not in awareness?
1:17:54 K: Yes. Attention has this quality of love.
1:17:59 DB: Yes.
1:18:07 K: You might say, ‘What do you mean by it, how do you know?’
1:18:09 DB: Well, I don’t know. But, you see, in some way the words are related because the words for care and attention often have the same root. I mean, you see, the word ‘legere’ means care and attention, like ‘diligent’ means clear and also means attention.

K: Yes – diligent. Yes. Attention – yes. Ah!
1:18:30 DB: So it seems people have had that feeling that they are related. I mean, it doesn’t prove anything but it’s indicative.
1:18:39 K: And that is not enough, still. So the next thing is: Can this consciousness be totally empty, and therefore not consciousness as we know it?
1:19:01 DB: Well, why do you... I mean, would it still be consciousness then?
1:19:04 K: That’s it. That’s it.

DB: I mean, would it?
1:19:06 K: No, it wouldn’t.

DB: It wouldn’t.
1:19:07 K: I say that the consciousness as we know it is its content – the movement, wide or narrow, of thought. In nothingness, there is no movement at all. But it has its own movement as energy, whatever it is, which then can operate in the field of reality.
1:19:48 DB: Yes. I mean, we have to get what you say more clear, because, you see, it has no movement and yet you say it has movement.
1:19:55 K: Yes, I know. The movement which we know is time.
1:19:59 DB: Yes, all right.
1:20:02 K: From here to there, and all the rest of it. Nothingness is not... Can we use emptiness in the sense as a cup is empty?
1:20:29 DB: All right. That means it has the possibility to take content. You may not use it in that sense.
1:20:35 K: No, I’m not using it in that sense.
1:20:37 DB: Then we have to be careful, because…
1:20:38 K: I know, that’s why I withdrew it.
1:20:40 DB: …that’s what it communicates – do you see?
1:20:41 K: I withdraw it.
1:20:42 DB: If you say the cup is empty, it’s something you could fill up.
1:20:44 K: It can be filled up – quite. No, it’s not that. Therefore let’s begin. Nothingness. But it has the movement, which is not the movement of thought.
1:20:57 DB: Or time.
1:20:58 K: Which is not the movement of time.
1:21:00 DB: Yes, so now we have two kinds of movement: there’s time and something other.

K: Yes.
1:21:06 DB: Yes, and time, I mean, it occurs to me also that time is contradiction, that... You see, could we say that thought moves through... you see, when it reaches a contradiction, it jumps to another thought, and another one, and that jump is time, I mean.
1:21:21 K: Time. Right. Right. It’s still movement. Quite.
1:21:23 DB: Yes. Therefore, the movement of thought... the very essence of time, psychological time, is contradiction.

K: Contradiction – I see that. Sir, we’re asking: Is there an energy which is not contradictory, which is not jumping from one pattern to another pattern? A movement which is totally unrelated to that, to time movement.
1:22:06 DB: Yes. Well, let’s get another point clear while we’re at it. You see, one way of looking at it – it may not be right – is that there is that energy, that it reveals itself in the order of reality in time. Now, does that make sense to you?

K: Yes, yes, yes.
1:22:24 DB: It manifests, it reveals itself. Right?
1:22:26 K: Yes. Yes. That’s right. Repeat it once more, sir.
1:22:32 DB: I mean, you see, this is a view which I’ve heard, that there is this movement you talk about, the timeless, and it does not exist in time but it manifests in time or reveals itself in time.
1:22:45 K: Ah. Which is what we are saying in a different way, aren’t we?
1:22:49 DB: Yes. I mean, by saying... several different people have said that, you know, the ancient, peoples, some of the Indians in America.
1:22:58 K: Yes. Yes. And the Asiatic, in India too, they say that it manifests itself in the field of reality.
1:23:08 DB: And time – yes.

K: And time.
1:23:10 DB: Yes, now, is that agreeable, acceptable to you?
1:23:13 K: I don’t quite see it that way yet. I’m beginning to think about it, look at it. Are we saying – differently, putting it in different words – that the human being who perceives truth can function in the field of reality, and therefore his perception is never distorted, even though it functions there?

DB: Yes. But other people watching him will see him functioning in the field of reality, which we could call a manifestation. Right?
1:24:00 K: Yes, manifestation – avatar.
1:24:02 DB: That’s a Sanskrit...

K: A Sanskrit word. Would that be right? Would that be true? That is, you, as a human being, perceive truth, have that perception, and you operate in the field of reality, manifest that truth in the field of reality.
1:24:33 DB: Yes.
1:24:37 K: Therefore, that manifestation must be the essence of intelligence, which cannot be distorted. Can never be distorted. May I put a question this way: Why should truth operate in the field of reality?
1:25:04 DB: Well, that’s the point that’s probably been worrying me, in the back of my mind. You see...
1:25:09 K: I caught you! Why should it operate in the field of reality?
1:25:14 DB: Well, yes. So let’s just put it that it’s generally accepted that it does. Perhaps it doesn’t.
1:25:20 K: That’s what I’m asking. Why should it operate? Why should we take it for granted that it operates?
1:25:27 DB: Well, let’s see. I think that the reason is...
1:25:30 K: I’ve got it!
1:25:31 DB: Yes. I can see why we take it for granted – it doesn’t mean that it’s right.

K: No, I don’t take it as right.
1:25:36 DB: Yes, because we take it for granted because we hope that we will have something in the field of reality to keep us right.
1:25:42 K: Quite. Have a string of hope. This is... Now I’m getting it. At last. We have accepted as a part of tradition, as part of our conditioning, as part of our hope and desire and thought, that the man who... or the human being who perceives truth, can and does operate in the field of reality.
1:26:13 DB: Yes.
1:26:14 K: You and I come along and say, ‘Why should he? Why should it?’
1:26:18 DB: Yes. I mean, perhaps he shouldn’t, you see.
1:26:22 K: He shouldn’t. I think this may be more true.
1:26:27 DB: Yes.
1:26:28 K: Not more – this may be the real, the actuality, rather than the desire which creates the actuality.
1:26:36 DB: Yes. I think perhaps you could say... we have to change it and say the man operates in actuality. You would have to accept that, wouldn’t you?
1:26:46 K: Of course. I’d be cuckoo if I...
1:26:52 DB: But, you see, perhaps if you say the field of reality anyway is twisted and delusory and, you know, it’s never quite right...
1:26:59 K: No, that’s a very dangerous thing, sir.
1:27:00 DB: Why?
1:27:02 K: If truth does not operate in reality, then – no – if truth operates in reality, then there is the assumption that man contains truth, consciousness contains truth.
1:27:27 DB: Well, at least has a link to truth.
1:27:28 K: Link to truth. That is the same thing, differently put. ‘In man, there is the highest principle’.
1:27:37 DB: I think the most subtle way is to say, in man, the highest principle operates, though it may be beyond him.
1:27:43 K: Yes – beyond him, that’s right. I question – you follow?
1:27:46 DB: Yes.

K: I question that. So we’re asking: Why should truth enter into the field of reality at all? Why should the highest principle manifest itself in the field of reality? Put it in ten different ways. Why should it? We want it to operate, because it is a part of our desire, part of our thinking.
1:28:21 DB: Well, we would like the field of reality to be properly ordered.
1:28:24 K: Yes, yes. So we cling to that idea.

DB: Yes.
1:28:34 K: And if I don’t cling to that idea, the next question is: How do I, living in the world of reality, bring order to it?
1:28:42 DB: Yes, but then are you living in the world of reality?
1:28:46 K: I suppose one is, as a human being is living in…
1:28:48 DB: Yes.

K: And he says, ‘I see this terrible mess. How do I bring order?’
1:28:55 DB: Well, it almost follows from what you say that it cannot be done, you see, that...
1:29:00 K: That’s just it. Because in the field... in the world of reality in which human beings live, thought cannot bring order there.
1:29:15 DB: No. Well, thought itself is disorder.
1:29:18 K: Thought itself is disorder. So the people say, ‘Leave that alone, get away from it, join a monastery, go off by yourself, form a community of equals’, and so on, so on – ‘get away from it, because you can’t bring order in this disorder’.
1:29:44 DB: Well, it seems to me, you know, the right approach, you know, is to consider actuality. You see, this reality, as we said in the very beginning, it may be real but it’s false. Right?

K: Quite, quite.
1:30:03 DB: And therefore truth cannot operate in the false.
1:30:07 K: Yes – truth cannot operate in the false. But I am surrounded. I am false.

DB: Yes.
1:30:16 K: You follow, sir? I am false, because I am created, psychologically... the thing thought has created is false.
1:30:26 DB: Yes.
1:30:28 K: And how can truth operate in the false?
1:30:37 DB: Well, it doesn’t. I mean...
1:30:38 K: Obviously, it cannot. But yet, can, in the field of false, can there be order? Because that’s what we need. I need that.
1:30:52 DB: Well, yes, we can have some relative order.
1:30:54 K: So you’re saying order is relative.
1:30:57 DB: Yes. I mean, we cannot fix it.

K: Order is relative. And also there is an order of truth which is supreme order.
1:31:11 DB: Yes, but we say that couldn’t be in the field of reality, is what you are saying.

K: Yes, yes.
1:31:16 DB: I mean, we could bring relative order into our lives, into the field of reality.
1:31:23 K: But that isn’t good enough.
1:31:24 DB: Not good enough.

K: Not good enough. That’s what the politicians are doing. That’s not good enough. Therefore, I introduce an element... human beings introduce an element of divine order, truth, and hope, pray, receive the grace of that divine order, which will put more than relative order in my life. And that isn’t good enough. Sorry! It’s illogical. Even verbally it’s totally unacceptable. So these are the two problems – problems as I see it. I want order here, in the world of reality. I want order, because order means security, order means safety, protection. I must have that. For everybody, I must have that. And thought cannot produce that order, because thought itself has created the disorder, thought itself is fragmentary, therefore... Right, understood. So thought cannot bring the order which is essential for human beings. And if I don’t... if the human being doesn’t invent God or a source of energy, which is truth, which will help man to bring about order – I don’t accept that, because that’s just... thought can project a truth. You follow?
1:33:28 DB: Yes.

K: That’s out. So I don’t accept that. But I need order here. Not relative – we’ve played that game for centuries. I need absolute order here. Why can’t I have absolute order here without evoking or looking to truth? You follow, sir?

DB: Yes, well, let’s go into that. You see, because at first sight you could say what determines the reality is thought – right? – and thought is contradictory. So what is going to make thought non-contradictory?
1:34:07 K: Non-contradictory. And so I introduce something which I hope will bring order.
1:34:14 DB: Non-contradiction – yes.
1:34:15 K: And that is the invention of thought, too.
1:34:18 DB: Yes. But then I don’t see how you can bring about what you would want to have.

K: Yes. It’s all right, sir.
1:34:30 GN: Is there some difficulty when we use words like ‘thought’, ‘reality’, ‘order’? Because, for instance, however much you might say thought and reality, there is a slight difference.
1:34:46 K: No, no, Narayan, we’ve been into this. We say reality is everything that thought thinks about, creates or reflects upon, is the field of reality.
1:35:05 DB: Yes. You see, thought contains a certain actuality which is still part of the field of reality.
1:35:10 K: Of course, there is actual or…

GN: Yes, yes.
1:35:12 K: Illusory or actual.

DB: Yes. For example, the actual construction of the microphone.
1:35:16 K: The microphone. Or the illusory is I believe in God or in Jesus – something. Both are actual. But human beings, intelligent, healthy, normal human beings demand, have the necessity of complete order here.
1:35:39 DB: Yes, now, you see, let’s try to look at that, because we see that the whole world is in almost complete disorder, and we see no obvious way of bringing order into this world. I mean, in other words, people have tried in countless ways and as long as the world is ruled by thought, the disorder will continue.

K: That’s it. Yes. But – wait a minute – can I? – wait. I accept that, because you’ve shown me logically and every way you’ve shown it to me. And I say, ‘All right, that’s good enough. I don’t want anything more’. And I will see, control, shape, thought.
1:36:22 DB: But can you?
1:36:23 K: Thought itself says, ‘I’ll be orderly’. Wait a minute.
1:36:27 DB: Yes.

K: Wait, wait, wait, wait. Because I know I’m disorderly, I know I jump from pattern to pattern, contradiction, and so on, so on, so on. I know all this. I will be very watchful. And that very watchful, self-recollected watchfulness, will have order – without introducing an outside agency which will bring order.
1:37:01 DB: Is it your view that that can be done?
1:37:04 K: I’m asking that because... from the question: Why should truth operate in the field of reality?
1:37:18 DP: Is awareness a product of thought?
1:37:20 K: No, no. No. We said, sir, no. Thought says, ‘I have created this awful mess, and I can’t do anything about it’, therefore abstains from the movement which it is accustomed to. And therefore says, ‘I see this. I won’t operate in that way. I will abstain, I’ll hold... I will be intelligent’. Can that take place?
1:38:05 DB: Well, we have to look into that, because, you see, we have to say what is there in thought that will allow this to take place. You see, is thought somewhat, in some way non-mechanical?
1:38:17 K: I know.
1:38:19 GN: I feel that thought has some element which is not necessarily that mechanical.
1:38:31 K: What? You’re saying thought is not mechanical?
1:38:33 DB: It has some part that is not mechanical.
1:38:35 K: Some parts of it are not mechanical.
1:38:36 GN: Not that mechanical – it can produce some order in itself.
1:38:40 K: So you’re saying thought…

GN: Without appealing to truth.
1:38:45 K: Yes, yes, I understand all that. So thought, parts of it are healthy, parts of it are unhealthy. And we say no, there is no healthy thought. Sorry!
1:39:01 GN: No, no, no, not in the sense that... Take the field of reality.
1:39:09 K: No...
1:39:10 GN: I’m using ‘reality’ as synonymous to thought, because you are using it that way.
1:39:16 K: We are using it that way, bearing it in mind.
1:39:18 GN: In the field of reality, there is enough springs which demand orderliness.
1:39:34 K: In the field of reality, you’re saying, suffering itself says, ‘No more’.
1:39:43 GN: That’s right, because…
1:39:46 K: Wait, wait, wait, let’s look at it. Suffering, which is brought about by thought – right? – and that feeling of intense suffering, brought about by thought says, ‘No more’. But the ‘no more’ is the action of thought.
1:40:21 GN: In a way, yes.

K: Not maybe.
1:40:24 GN: Yes, it is.
1:40:25 K: So it is still in the field of contradiction.
1:40:28 GN: But there is a little order in that. It’s not absolute order.
1:40:32 K: We’ve been that. I don’t want to live in a little order.
1:40:36 GN: Then you cannot talk of total order in the field of reality.
1:40:40 K: Therefore, that’s what we are talking. You’re saying the same thing. In the field of reality, there can only be relative order. That’s what he said. We’ve said that right from the beginning. I’m not satisfied with that. I don’t want relative order in this. I want order.
1:40:59 GN: Yes.
1:40:59 K: Because I see the poor chap who will never know what it is to sleep in a good bed – clean, healthy bed, clean sheets. He’s never had proper food. And I, as a human being, I see that, and I say, ‘This is terrible. There must be order’. Not relative. Relative being we are fed and he’s not fed.
1:41:27 DB: Well, we could have some improvement, you see.
1:41:29 K: Some improvement, but…
1:41:30 DB: Maybe we could have everybody fed, you know.
1:41:32 K: Wait.

GN: I didn’t mean it in that...
1:41:33 K: Wait, wait. Everybody fed. That’s all right. Arrange it in the field of reality that everybody’s fed. Not under that... in that situation, don’t let there be tyranny. By feeding me, don’t you become the tyrant?
1:41:56 DB: Yes.

K: Which will create disorder. So if you say that human beings can be fed without creating tyranny, all the rest of it – all right, that’s order.
1:42:13 DB: Yes, well, I mean, that’s a hope only. That is only a hope.
1:42:18 K: That’s it.
1:42:21 DB: I mean, I think that it has been achieved at times, to have everybody fed, but it was not possible without some other…
1:42:28 K: Without central authority.

DB: Yes.
1:42:30 K: The Incas, they had a marvellous system but the authority was there. The authority of the Pharaoh, it was there. I don’t want that kind of order. My ordinary humanity says, ‘We have been through all that blasted stuff; I don’t want that’. Therefore, you introduce an order brought about by truth. I say truth cannot enter into the world of reality. We demand it to enter but it may not enter. I’m stuck with this. You say truth can enter into the field of reality and operate in that field, and another human says, ‘Sorry, truth is something so absolute it cannot be relative. It cannot be made by thought a relative operation in the field of reality’. Then you say to me, ‘To hell with truth, I’m not interested in it. If it cannot operate and bring order here, what’s the point of it? Then it’s a wild dream, just pleasurable something or other’.
1:44:09 DP: We have said that truth... we have said that there is only one-way action, that truth cannot...
1:44:15 K: We’re investigating. We’ve said truth may have a relationship to reality, but reality has no relationship to truth.
1:44:26 DB: I think we’ve come to... but now we say we deny the point of the investigation.
1:44:29 K: Yes. We are saying it may have no relationship.
1:44:33 DB: You see, I think we could say the spirit of the investigation is what we were talking about, the dialectic – we do something and we explore it and it may reveal contradiction, and we must drop it, you see.
1:44:42 K: Drop it – absolutely.

DB: So that that’s the approach.
1:44:45 K: Yes. Absolutely.
1:44:49 GN: Do you say that in the field of reality there are not sufficient springs to bring order into this field of reality?
1:44:58 K: Maybe.

GN: Do you say that?
1:45:01 K: Wait. I don’t know. Maybe. There may be. In the field of reality, thought itself sees it cannot act anymore.
1:45:19 DB: Yes, well, I understand what you say. Now, that would imply that thought has the possibility of being not entirely mechanical.
1:45:30 K: I don’t accept that.
1:45:31 DB: But you see, how will thought... can the mechanism see it?
1:45:34 K: That’s just it. Yes. Thought is mechanical – absolutely – you can’t go beyond that.
1:45:40 DB: Yes. Well, now, is the mechanism going to see this?
1:45:45 K: Is the computer... see the mistakes it’s making?
1:45:52 DB: Yes. Can you make a computer that will check, you know, that will, you know, take those mistakes into account, I mean.
1:45:59 K: Is it true, sir – I’m asking – can the computer, modern computers, can they see they are making mistakes?
1:46:06 DB: Well, only certain kinds – that they are programmed to see they are making. They are very limited, I mean.

K: They are very limited. Can thought see that it’s making a mistake?
1:46:22 DB: Well, obviously... but then we’ve said with awareness and attention, and so on, it can.
1:46:27 K: Yes. I’m leaving that for the moment aside.
1:46:31 DB: But I meant thought can see it’s made a mistake, but it seems it has to have the help of those…
1:46:38 K:...of those elements.

DB: Of those elements.
1:46:40 K: Quite. So what have I left, what has a human being left? He says, ‘I live in a world of disorder’, and also he says, ‘I must have, not relative order, complete order there, because that’s the only healthy thing... way to live – complete order’. And as I’ve not complete order there, I then move from there to controlling thought – all the rest of it – and thought then says there must be something beyond.

DB: Yes.
1:47:28 K: And that beyond is a contradiction to this.
1:47:33 DB: Yes.
1:47:33 K: Because it’s the projection of thought, therefore it’s a contradiction to reality. Right, sir?

DB: Yes.
1:47:40 K: Therefore, it is still within the realm of reality, the realm of thought.

DB: Yes. Well, now, can we say that... can we find, as it were, a solution to this in the realm of reality? That’s what you’re asking.

K: Yes, yes.
1:47:57 DB: And therefore we may have to, you know, to deny some of the things that we have just been saying, if necessary. I mean, in other words, the…

K: I don’t think it can.
1:48:07 DB: Yes. It can’t. All right. So there is no solution in the field of reality.
1:48:15 K: There is no solution in the field of reality for absolute order.
1:48:21 DB: Yes.
1:48:23 K: And human beings need absolute order.
1:48:25 DB: That’s right. But can thought abstain or, you know, suspend itself to the point where it does not create disorder?
1:48:39 K: Just a minute, sir. I see my life is in disorder – conscious of it. And I realise that disorder has been created by thought.
1:48:54 DB: Yes.
1:48:58 K: And so thought cannot put order, bring about order.
1:49:01 DB: No.
1:49:03 K: I realise that. That’s a fact. That’s an actuality. That is so.
1:49:09 DB: Yes, now if thought assumes that it is the only energy, then it says, ‘I must operate’ – do you see? If it says it covers everything. But if thought says, ‘I abstain from operating…’
1:49:23 K: No, no. Must it say that, or something else takes place?
1:49:27 DB: Yes, what is it?
1:49:30 K: I live in disorder. I see disorder, contradiction, and all the rest of it. And I realise also, see the fact – fact – that thought is bringing this disorder.
1:49:45 DB: Yes.
1:49:48 K: See it, the danger of it. So, when there is the perception of real danger, thought doesn’t act. It is a shock to thought. And therefore, as beauty is a shock to thought, danger is a shock to thought. So, thought holds. And in that holding of thought is order.
1:50:36 DB: Thought holds.
1:50:42 K: Put it this way. We go to Gstaad, see all those mountains, marvellous, and your thought is blown away. Just the beauty of it drives all other movements of thought – not other – drives away all movement of thought. And therefore it is the same when thought sees the tremendous danger.
1:51:28 DB: That’s with the aid of attention and awareness, and so on, but thought sees it.

K: Thought sees it.
1:51:33 DB: Yes.
1:51:34 K: I mean like a car rushing towards me, thoughts sees it, jumps out of the way. The jumping away from the danger is order.
1:51:51 DB: Yes, now, but then, you see, the perception of the danger may not be maintained, you see.
1:51:57 K: Maintained, or one may not see the danger at all.
1:52:00 DB: One may not see it at all.
1:52:02 K: One does not see the anger of nationality. One does not see the danger. Which means most of us are neurotic.
1:52:13 DB: Yes, well…
1:52:14 K: I mean, when you have had ten wars and we still keep on repeating, it’s a neurotic movement.
1:52:24 DB: Yes, well, that’s part of the problem, that thought dulls perception, prevents perception from operating.
1:52:32 K: Yes – dull. Or it is because I’m conditioned.
1:52:37 DB: But I am conditioned to do just that.
1:52:40 K: Now, you come along and educate me to be unconditioned – rather, to see the danger of all this. And as you educate me, I see the danger; I won’t do it. And so, why should truth enter into the field of reality? Sorry, I’m just going back to that.
1:53:11 DB: Well, what does truth do then? What does truth do? I mean, what is its action?
1:53:22 K: What is its function, what does it do, what is its value? Not in the sense of merchandise, or usage, or employable – what is its quality, why should it – what? – what is its nature? You see, one way, truth is supreme intelligence, we say.
1:54:03 DB: Yes.
1:54:11 K: And that intelligence – you see, we’re caught in this! – that intelligence, we’re asking, can that intelligence operate in the field of reality? If it does, then it can bring about absolute order.
1:54:28 DB: Yes.
1:54:29 K: But that truth is not to be achieved or gained or perceived through education, through culture, through the medium of thought. Right, sir?
1:54:49 DB: No. When you say truth does not operate in the field of reality, you see, again it becomes unclear, ambiguous.
1:55:00 K: Truth cannot enter into the field of reality.
1:55:03 DB: It cannot enter in the field of reality. You see, I don’t know if this will help, but you see, I have this way of looking at it – the word ‘understand’, if you remember, we said means ‘to stand under’, the same as substance, and…
1:55:16 K: Stand under?

DB: To stand under. The word ‘substance’ means the same, too. And you see, it’s rather interesting, that’s the English word ‘understand’. The German word ‘verstehen’ does not mean that at all, it means to stand in relation to, to stand in correspondence with. It means reflective in intellect, whereas ‘understanding’ is something different. Now, so, if we say that when we understand something, I could sort of give you a metaphor of truth standing under the thought, as it were, at its very root, and bringing it to order that way, not working inside of reality.

K: It is under.
1:55:56 DB: Under the substance of reality.
1:55:57 K: Substance – quite. Reality – be careful, sir, this leads to all kinds of danger.
1:56:02 DB: I know there’s danger in it, but I’m trying to say it’s merely a metaphor, to see if we can get started.

K: Yes, I know. Truth is under reality. No, reality is... truth is under reality.
1:56:18 DB: Well, let’s say, understanding. Truth, I don’t know where it is, but in the act of understanding, the action stands under reality.
1:56:26 K: Under reality – quite. I understand.
1:56:29 DB: Rather than being in the field of reality.
1:56:33 K: Yes. Reality is the manifestation of thought, and thought stands under the actuality of thought. Reality is under.

DB: No, truth is under reality.
1:57:01 K: I mean...

DB: Yes.
1:57:03 K: Yes.
1:57:03 DB: Understanding is under the reality.
1:57:05 K: Yes, that’s right. What time is it?
1:57:11 DB: It’s six o’clock.

K: Oh, my!
1:57:12 DB: I think we’ve being going on too long.
1:57:17 K: We’re getting somewhere. No, sir, this is all wrong.

DB: Yes?
1:57:29 K: Totally wrong. Sir, what has goodness to do with evil?
1:57:46 DB: Well, nothing.

K: Nothing. Why should we want goodness to operate on evil? Operate, cover it, change it, modify – you follow?
1:58:04 DB: Yes, but I mean, could we say goodness dissolves evil? Would it be right to say that goodness may dissolve evil? It may end even that.

K: Even that...
1:58:17 DB: No.

K: It’s the same thing.
1:58:19 DB: Yes.
1:58:20 K: Operates, dissolves, covers, pushes. Has goodness a relationship with evil? Then it can do something.

DB: Yes.
1:58:39 K: If it has no relationship with evil, it can’t do anything.
1:58:42 DB: Yes, then you ask the question: When will evil come to an end?
1:58:45 K: Wait. When will evil come to an end.
1:58:48 DB: Yes.

K: Evil being created by man.
1:58:51 DB: Yes, by his thought.
1:58:53 K: By his thought, and all the rest of it. Then you come back to the same question: When thought comes to an end.
1:59:03 GN: Has goodness any power over thought?
1:59:08 K: We said that. Goodness has no relationship with thought. Goodness has no relationship to evil. If it has relationship, it is an opposite, and therefore all opposites contain each other. So that’s out. So, goodness has no relationship to evil. And Dr Bohm says, ‘Will it go on?’ Evil will go on because it has no relationship. Of course it will. Until human beings see the evil of thought – sorry – the contradictory nature of thought. So our concern is to show man thought can never solve his problems. Right, sir?
2:00:19 DB: Yes...

K: Not, ‘What will?’
2:00:23 DB: Yes. I mean, if you consider... could you put it like this, that while thought is going on, it would not be possible to consider a solution of the problems.
2:00:38 K: Yes. While there is the movement of thought as time, and so on, evil will go on, misery will go on. That’s a tremendous revelation to me, when you state that. Because to me, thought has been so tremendously important, I function in that. And you come along and say thought…

DB: Yes, it’s very revolutionary because you say, ‘What will I do without thought?’
2:01:16 K: Exactly. It’s a tremendous revelation. And I stop there – I don’t know what’s going to happen. You follow, sir?

DB: Yes.
2:01:27 K: That is the beauty of this. I listen and it is revealed, and no action, I’ve just... I live in that revelation.
2:01:38 DB: And that’s the movement which is beyond attention, is it?
2:01:42 K: Beyond?

DB: Attention.
2:01:44 K: Yes, a little bit, beyond attention. Because I’ve paid attention to him, I’ve listened to him, he has shown me, he has pointed out, I’m full of this extraordinary statement. I don’t know how it will operate, I don’t know how I will live. That’s enough – I’ve seen this thing and it’ll operate. I’m not going to – you follow? – it will do something. I don’t have to do anything. Because before I was accustomed to doing something. Now he says don’t. Yes, sir, quite right. To hurt another is evil. I’m taking that as an example – what do you mean by hurt? – we wouldn’t enter into all that, of course – we know what it means. In the deep sense of that word, to deeply hurt somebody, psychologically, is evil.

DB: Yes.
2:03:08 K: He tells that to me and I receive it without any resistance. Resistance is thought. It has entered into my womb, into my mind, into my whole being. And I don’t... It operates, it functions, it moves – you follow? – it has its own... truth has its own vitality, its own movement.
2:03:47 DB: Yes.
2:03:49 K: If I put... it’s a wrong question for me to put, ‘What place has truth in reality?’

DB: Yes. The point is, it was necessary for us to put it in, to discover that it’s wrong.

K: Of course. I see that.
2:04:03 DB: I mean, not merely to deny the question.
2:04:05 K: Of course. Is it enough?
2:04:09 DB: Well, I should think it’s enough.
2:04:18 K: Shall we get up?