Krishnamurti - Perceiving without the perceiver

Krishnamurti Subtitles

BRGS75CB6 - Perceiving without the perceiver
Brockwood Park, UK - 28 June 1975
Conversation with David Bohm 6

0:00	This is the sixth dialogue between J. Krishnamurti and David Bohm, at Brockwood Park, 1975.
0:17	Krishnamurti: C’est a vous!
0:22	David Bohm: Well, there are several points we could raise. You see, one question is, we were discussing last week the question that truth does not make any contact with reality.
0:37	Right? K: Yes. DB: And now, I think we should perhaps clear that up a bit. One point is that since reality is thought and the activity of thought, that if thought ceases, that would suggest that reality ceases. In other words, we... that’s not clear.
1:25	K: I was saying to somebody the other day, in London, when I went to the dentist, He asked me what we were talking about. I said, ‘About reality and truth’. He said, ‘What is reality?’ I said, ‘Everything, in which is included the activity of thought. And truth is nothing to do with that’. He said, ‘That seems so obvious’. And he said, ‘Why do philosophers make so much fuss about it?’ Sir, if reality is the activity of thought, and with the cessation of thought, will truth be apparent, will truth appear? I don’t think so, quite. First of all, can thought be stopped or put an end to or naturally cease? And can thought be stopped through various media, through various systems, and so on, so on, so on? And we are asking, if that takes place, can truth exist?
3:53	DB: Yes, truth, the actual. Can truth be actual?
4:00	K: Actual. Yes – truth be actual. For the moment, I don’t think it happens that way. Let’s examine, go into it. Thought is so cunning. It can mesmerise itself or hypnotise itself and think it is very quiet. That’s one point. And there are various systems, including Zen and the Hindu forms of quietening thought and control – it’s still not ending thought because one thought superimposes upon the other, and so on. Can then thought ever be silent? If it is not through meditation, in the ordinary accepted sense of that word, if it is not through any system, if it has not induced itself very subtly to be silent, and if none of these can bring about a real silence of the mind, and if there is something that can silence the mind, then is truth actual? No. I think something else has to take place. DB: Well, what is it?
6:17	K: That’s what we’ll go into. What do you... DB: Well, let’s try another question. You see, if I recall, we also made a distinction between thought which is inherently, by its nature twisted and, you know, the ability to make a mistake.
6:52	K: And correct it and make... DB: Correct it, which is due to wrong information. K: Yes. Yes, yes, yes. DB: All right. But, you see, perhaps also if we could clarify this a little further and went into it further. you see, sometimes it’s not clear the distinction between, say, a simple mistake and the kind of confusion that thought gets into. Right? Because, well, let’s say that somebody does something foolish, you see, and he may not know exactly why he does it, and perhaps eventually he sees it and he ceases to do it.
7:29	K: I mean, something out of ignorance. DB: Not necessarily ignorance but just simply unawareness. You see... K: Yes, unawareness. DB: And then one wonders what is the source of the unawareness. You see, as I see it, there are two kinds of unawareness: some simple failure to be aware – I don’t know how to put it – and another unawareness which is due to thought which has a systematic tendency to suppress awareness. In other words, the ignorance of thought is not merely the lack of knowledge but it ignores in order to be more comfortable, in order to have more pleasure – right? – more security. K: Quite, quite. Right. It wants to remain in its own stable. Quite.
8:13	DB: Yes. It doesn’t want to disturb the equilibrium of its operation because it’s frightened that if it does, everything will go to pieces.
8:21	K: Pieces – that’s right. DB: And therefore that kind of ignorance is thought positively ignoring... K: Quite.
8:29	DB: And there’s another kind of ignorance which is negative, which is in the simplest case lack of information. But then it may sometimes seem rather hard, you know, to distinguish if somebody does something foolish, whether it’s due to thought ignoring or whether it’s due to further lack of information of a subtle nature.
8:50	K: Quite. Are we trying to find out whether truth can ever make a mistake? DB: Yes, in a way. In other words, is there some... other than lack of information, of course. You see, I said last time something like the computer given wrong information gives the wrong answer – that’s necessary. K: Of course. DB: And now, if you were to take the analogy of the computer a little further, you could say some things might begin to go wrong with the computer and it would give wrong answers for a different reason.
9:30	K: For a different reason – quite. DB: And that’s the sort of question we are into, you see. K: Yes. So what is it we are asking, sir? DB: Well, I think it becomes, you see, a little ambiguous. You see, if one could be clear to say... it seems truth could not become involved in any form of deception.
10:03	K: Yes. Truth cannot deceive itself – do you mean? DB: Yes. K: Obviously not.
10:10	DB: Yes. That would have to be thought. Now, is it possible, say, in your case, for example, that thought would go on for a certain period of time and then you would see something, you know, see it and it would end? I mean, I’m just trying to find out. Or is it instantly, or...
10:39	K: Sir, I think we have to consider, haven’t we, how does it happen, or when does truth manifest itself?
10:55	DB: Well, last time we said it didn’t, you see. Last time I think we said that truth does not manifest.
11:01	K: Manifest in the sense... DB: In reality, anyway. K: Yes. No, let’s get this clear. I’m not... let’s get it clear. We are saying there is reality and truth. We know the activities of thought in that field. And we say the field of reality has no relationship, no connection with truth. And then we say: how does truth appear? Is that it?
11:38	DB: Yes.
11:54	K: Is truth an abstraction? DB: Well, no, it had better not be. I mean, it wouldn’t make much sense if it were an abstraction. K: No. So it is not an abstraction. DB: No. That would be thought.
12:05	K: I mean, it would still be the form of thought calling itself truth. All right, it’s not an abstraction. It must be out of time. DB: Yes. K: It must be... it must have no continuity, so it must have no relationship to the past or to the future. DB: Yes, which implies, like we said last time, there is no relationship to thought. K: Thought. DB: Now... K: I’m just... DB: Yes. That seemed in some way fairly clear. Except now, you see, it’s now a question of the totality of it. If you say there’s an action of truth which is always right...
13:19	K: Which is always total, whole. DB: Total in an external sense, yes. K: We agree – yes. DB: And this is not necessarily continuous though.
13:27	K: It cannot be. DB: No. But it may happen from moment to moment. K: Yes. DB: Right? K: Yes. DB: And in between, there may be incomplete awareness then.
13:36	K: In between... Oh, I see, I see. DB: Lack of complete attention. You see, I’m trying to get a clear...
13:42	K: Yes, I understand. We have to go into this a little bit more.
14:17	DB: Yes. If I could say one more point, which is, you know, we say that in some sense thought is not present when truth operates.
14:26	K: Yes, yes. DB: And now, nevertheless, you see, at one stage we were saying that thought is inherently twisted and I raised the question whether we could even do without it, you know, do all the functions which we do, without it, but it’s not clear whether we can or not. K: We can or not... DB:...do without thought in between.
14:45	K: Quite, quite, quite. DB: Or is there something like, you know, another function which will do the function of thought without being twisted? Or the other possibility is that thought works still – it gets a bit twisted and truth comes in a flash. You see, these are... K: Yes, yes, yes. Shouldn’t we approach it – I’m just asking for the moment – What is action? DB: All right.
15:12	K: Could we come through it that way? We know the activities of thought – changing patterns, Each pattern creating its own disorder, its own mischief, its own pain, and moving always within that area. We know the activity. So what is action which is not of that area... in that... of that field? It must be without a motive, it must be without conformity, without imitation, following a pattern, and so on. So it must be totally free from memory. Would you... DB: Yes, well that’s this action, the action of truth.
16:36	K: The action of truth must be total. That is a tremendous... Yes, that’s right, I’ll stick to that. DB: Yes, but still there is also the action of memory, you see. I mean, or is there? You see, now...
16:50	K: Wait, wait, I just want to capture it a little bit. Truth... the action of truth is free from all memory.
17:00	DB: But it may use memory. Or perhaps it doesn’t.
17:12	K: If it acts instantly, it must be. DB: Then it uses no memory. K: No memory. DB: Yes, all right. In other words, memory is another activity, of a different order. K: Yes. But – wait a minute. Wait, I am beginning to see something. Wait a minute, let’s go into it a little bit. Perceiving without the perceiver, which means there is only perception. And the action of perception is instantaneous and therefore it is true. In that case, memory is not necessary.
18:01	DB: No, not at that moment. K: Not at that moment, at that second or whatever it is – At that moment memory is not necessary. When is memory necessary? To carry out that action? To carry out that perception?
18:20	DB: Well, it could be. You see, memory might be necessary in all the various activities in which you are doing, for example, moving around. K: Yes, yes, yes.
18:32	DB: Now, I’m not sure That the perception is carried out – do you see?
18:39	K: No, then if it is not carried out, then it’s not truth. DB: It has to be. But is it carried out in reality?
18:53	K: Is it carried out in the field of reality? Just let me think. Is it carried out in the field of reality? Now, just a minute. There is perception. Perception, which is, to see things as they are actually, see what is, what is actual, without the interpretation of the perceiver with all his background, and so on. Right.
19:31	DB: So we see what is actual. That actuality may include, as I see it, The actuality of our thought, you know, that it’s false.
19:41	K: Yes, yes. Yes, but I’m... For the moment, we are considering what is the action of truth and what is... and has it any relationship to memory in action, in carrying out? No. Oh, no. I mean, we say truth is from moment to moment, and the action of truth is from moment to moment. And that action is totally unrelated to memory. Finished. DB: Right. Now, let’s then consider the action of memory, you see.
20:57	K: That’s quite different. DB: It’s a different one but I want to consider it. K: Yes, quite. We can go into that.
21:03	DB: Besides that, we have the action of memory. K: Yes, the action of memory. DB: In order to find your way around you need it, in order to do various jobs. K: Yes, all that. DB: All right. That action of memory, insofar as it’s thought, May become twisted. K: Yes.
21:24	DB: Confused. K: No, sir, I don’t think it can get twisted if there is total integrity.
21:31	DB: Well, now we have to come... Because that again brings up the question of apparent relation between truth and thought.
21:37	K: Yes, but I want... DB: let’s consider it.
21:42	K: If there is complete integrity in thought itself. DB: Yes, all right, but that’s a kind of truth in thought then. I mean, it’s almost the same as talking of truth in thought. K: Ah, no, no, no. DB: What is the distinction between integrity and truth?
21:57	K: Oh, Lord. DB: have we got to... K: Yes. What is integrity? DB: Well, it really means wholeness, you see, oneness. K: Is integrity wholeness?
22:10	DB: It’s oneness, you see – it really means that. K: Yes, I see. DB: It means it’s not divided, not fragmented, not contradiction, not confused. You see, it’s integral. K: All right, sir. One can be totally integrated, living a life of non-fragmentation, living a life whole, in the ordinary sense. Now, will that... is that man living a life of truth?
22:56	DB: Well, I don’t think he could actually be truly integral without living a life of truth. You see, I think he would be deceiving himself. K: No, what I’m trying to say is: Can thought ever be totally integral?
23:21	DB: Well, that’s the question I’m raising, you see, because you seemed to imply a minute ago that it could, you see.
23:36	K: Can’t it, sir? DB: All right. K: Can’t thought see its own fragmentation, and...
23:53	DB: Very well, perhaps it could, but, you see, why does thought then generally disintegrate, fail to be integral? Why does thought fail to be integral – I would put it – to disintegrate? K: Because it is not aware of its – awareness – it is not... It doesn’t – aware – I use the word in the ordinary sense – It is not aware of its fragmentary character.
24:17	DB: Yes, well... K: When it becomes aware of its fragmentary character, is that truth? DB: Well, that is the truth of thought, isn’t it, That it is fragmentary? K: That is the truth of thought? DB: The truth of the nature of thought.
24:35	K: Truth of the nature of thought. DB: Right? K: Right. Right. But that is not truth, is it? DB: No, well, what is the distinction between the truth of something and truth? We have to get that clear, you see. K: Yes, that’s it. We are getting nearer: What’s the distinction between the nature of... DB:...the truth of the nature of thought and truth itself, you see.
25:01	K: The truth of the nature of thought. I can see my thought being fragmentary and thought then realises the actuality of its movement. Right?
25:30	DB: But when it realises the actuality of its movement, it’s aware of it.
25:35	K: Is that truth? DB: That in itself, no. K: No. DB: But it is the truth of... K: It is the truth of... It is the truth in the false. DB: Yes, the truth in the false. That’s what I meant, yes. K: Yes, it is the truth in the false. DB: Yes. K: But that truth is not the truth.
25:56	DB: Yes, well, truth itself we’ll say is beyond what we could describe, you see.. K: Yes, yes, yes.
26:02	DB: But we’re still in this area which is unclear, as to whether truth apparently has a relation to thought, in the sense that we’ve discussed the truth of the nature of thought – do you see? K: Truth and nature of thought – yes.
26:14	DB: The truth of the falseness of the nature of thought, you see. K: Yes, yes, yes. DB: And that seems to establish a relationship again.
26:23	K: No, I... no, let’s... I see the truth in the false. DB: Yes.
26:33	K: And also I say that truth is not the truth. DB: No. But now we... I’m not very clear about what the distinction is.
26:42	K: Yes, we’re trying to verbally make it clear. I see my thoughts are crooked. I see... because I see my thoughts are crooked, the seeing is the truth that the thought is crooked.
27:12	DB: Yes. K: That’s all. DB: But that is a truth – right? K: No. DB: But you just said so. K: Ah, no.
27:19	DB: Yes, but I mean you said it was the truth. K: It was the truth in the false. DB: Yes, the truth in the false. Now, we want to get clear what...
27:26	K: Yes, there is a division.
27:31	DB: With the truth in the false. K: Yes. DB: What is the division? K: The false and the true. DB: Yes.
27:45	K: In truth, the truth has no division. In that, there is no false. DB: Yes, all right, but you see, it has been suggested by some people that we should not use the word ‘true’ and ‘false’ as opposite but rather correct and incorrect.
28:07	K: Yes, correct – all right – correct and incorrect. We can use any word. Right. DB: I mean, it will avoid the difficulty.
28:13	K: I understand – correct and incorrect. DB: So you could say that what is correct about... The correctness of thought is... It is correct to see its incorrectness – I don’t know – to see its twistedness. K: Yes, thought sees... DB:...its twistedness correctively.
28:32	K: Yes. The thought sees its incorrectedness... DB:...correctly. K: Correctly. Yes. Yes – thought sees itself as incorrect, correctly.
28:47	DB: Yes. K: Right. Yes. And the seeing correctly of the incorrectness of thought, you are saying, is truth. DB: Well, no, I’m ready to drop that now because it’s a different language, you see.
29:11	K: I see. All right. DB: In other words, I think that part of the trouble may have been some confusion about the use of words. You know, the same word for different things, you see. K: Or incorrect... now, truth has nothing to do... DB: No, now it’s clear. In this language, it’s clear that truth has nothing to do with it, you see. K: Clear – right. DB: But I wanted to clear up one more point. When you say thought sees, I thought we could put it like this, that we not only have awareness but conscious awareness, as we call it. You see, there is a kind of awareness, you know, which is the awareness which goes with thought. K: Yes, like a good business – quite, quite.
29:47	DB: Yes, conscious awareness. K: Yes. DB: And it’s that conscious awareness which sees the properties of thought. K: Yes.
29:52	DB: So it’s not an inconsistency to say that thought sees something – do you see? K: Yes, I see. Thought sees the incorrectness...
30:00	DB: Yes, the thought is consciously aware of the incorrectness of its mode of operation.
30:06	K: Yes, yes, yes. Right. The mode of its operation – correct and incorrect. Now, that’s simple enough. DB: Yes. K: Then what is the question?
30:18	DB: Well, then you see, I think then there’s no question, because we say truth is really something different. K: Different.
30:24	DB: You see, part of the trouble is because we are using... K: That is so: it is entirely different.
30:29	DB: Yes. The word true has been used in several different senses. K: Different – quite. Correct and incorrect. Right. Then what is the problem? DB: Yes, well, let’s try to put it now. You see, I’ll change the... I’ll bring in a few more points, if you don’t mind. I’ve been reading Mary Lutyens’ book about you. K: Oh, you have... too bad! DB: Which I find quite interesting.
30:59	K: Oh, Lord! DB: Well, I assume you wanted it read, because... K:...it’s published.
31:04	DB: You seem to approve of its publication. K: No, I asked her to... the facts are these. Rajagopal asked – what’s his name? – Alan Watts and someone else If they would help him to write the biography. Knowing what Rajagopal is – knowing in quotes – I said that must never happen because then it’ll be... It all will be one-sided and not complete. So I asked Mary, and she said, ‘I’ll try and do it’. I asked – no – Shiva Rao in India had collected during many years a whole... All the events that took place, And he was going to do it but his eyesight failed. And then I said to him, ‘Could I ask Mary Lutyens?’ He said, ‘Delighted’. He knows her. He said, ‘If she does it, I’ll accept it’. And that’s how it happened. DB: Right. Well, I think it’s, you know, a very well written book; It’s quite interesting. K: By Jove, do you mean to say you’ve got hold of the book already and read it? DB: Yes, well, it holds your attention. Now... Saral Bohm: Mary gave us a copy. DB: She gave us a copy.
32:38	K: Of course, of course, of course, of course – she said that – that’s right.
32:43	K: Quite right – sorry. DB: You see, that raises... You know, this book discusses some process you went through, some transformation, and it always raises the question of the difference between, you know, the state of truth and the ordinary state.
33:02	K: Yes. DB: Which really, I think, would help us if we got it very clear. Now – let’s see how I could put it – you see, it’s never clear whether this transformation is sudden or gradual or whether it ever took place at all, and... K: I think, sir, there are several points there involved. We talked about last time when we were here, or rather downstairs, a mind that’s unconditioned. It may be because such a mind was unhealthy at the beginning, weak, couldn’t retain, couldn’t be impressed upon.
34:17	DB: That was the theory we considered last week, yes. K: One of the theories. And another theory – reincarnation. Another theory is goodness personified in a person called Maitreya – if you accept that – and manifests, and so on. That’s one thing. Then there is this whole idea which exists in the East and has been written about and gone into, and several people have – serious people, not charlatans – been through it. That is the Hindu tradition and they say that there is – what do they call it? – serpent fire. DB: Kundalini. K: I didn’t want to call it kundalini. DB: Well, I mean it was referred to in the book as well.
35:44	K: Right – if it is referred to in the book, I must take it up! That kundalini can be awakened and a different kind of energy comes into being. These are the two points. And transformation, I’m beginning to question whether there was any transformation at all. DB: Well, that’s what I felt on reading the book, you see.
36:19	K: Oh, you felt that? DB: Yes. K: Oh, then we are... DB: Well, at least... K:...we are coming together. DB: I couldn’t see any particular place where it would have happened, you see. K: Yes, yes. I think, sir, something... I can tell you one thing. I don’t know how to put this. In that book, the brother dies. DB: Yes.
36:53	K: Actually, I’ve no memory of that. It’s not a pretentious forgetful, but actually I’m fairly truthful with regard to these matters, I’ll...
37:08	DB: Yes, I understand that.
37:15	K: Either he could have gone into cynicism, bitterness, unbelief, and threw the whole thing out – which he didn’t do – or he could have taken comfort in reincarnation, in meeting the brother elsewhere – which he didn’t do either. So what actually took place? You follow? If we could penetrate that, then perhaps we can understand the transformation never took place.
38:06	DB: Yes. And I think, you see, what’s also interesting is that finally, toward the end the step was made, you know, that the truth is a pathless land. K: Yes, yes. DB: In other words, you were saying more or less the same thing about truth then that we are saying right now, you see, and therefore... K: Right. Yes, yes.
38:27	DB: I mean, I was struck by the similarity, almost identity.
38:33	K: Oh, I didn’t know that.
38:40	DB: You didn’t discuss reality then – at that time you were still using the word in its ordinary sense – but truth was... K: Yes, yes. I think then if neither reincarnation and all the comfort involved in it, nor the cynicism and becoming... throwing all that and becoming worldly and, you know, just disappearing in worldliness – worldliness being, not money, and all that, because that wouldn’t have interested him – just disappearing into some kind of idiocy. Those did not take place. I think what probably happened – because it was so long ago, I have no recollection – is facing the truth of death.
39:40	DB: Do you feel that was the crucial step then? K: No, I think there – that’s it; we are coming to something – I don’t think that was a crucial step. DB: No. K: Though others have said that is the crucial step.
39:59	DB: Yes, in the book it didn’t appear that, you know, You could call it a crucial step, though it seems important.
40:05	K: No. No. But facing the truth of death.
40:13	DB: Yes. But now we have to come back to this question of truth. Would you say the correctness or the truth here?
40:22	K: Wait a minute, wait a minute. Yes, yes, yes. Facing the actuality... DB: The actuality of death. K: Yes, that’s better. Facing the actuality of death freed him from the reality of thought. I think there’s something in that. Sir, could we put it, this thing, differently? Can the mind be totally detached – from its body... Wait a minute, I must go slowly. I’m quick. Is there a state when the mind is wholly free from all detachment?
41:51	DB: All attachment. K: All attachment. Attachment is incorrect. DB: Yes.
42:16	K: A mind... a thought can see the incorrectedness of attachment.
42:23	DB: Yes. Or say it can be aware of it – yes. K: Yes, consciously aware of the implications of attachment.
42:37	DB: Yes, I prefer that word because seeing is perception. K: Yes, let’s... thought can be conscious or...
42:47	DB:...consciously aware. K: Consciously aware of all the implications of attachment. And says... thought can say, ‘Well, I won’t touch it anymore’. DB: Yes. But now let’s try to go slowly into this. You like to refer to the fellow as ‘that boy’. K: That boy – yes. DB: He was a young man, I suppose. K: Yes, yes. No, as a matter of fact, sir... I’ve read it, I read the book off and on, a few chapters, a few pages of it, really – I haven’t gone right through it. I think – it’s very difficult to talk about this because...
43:49	DB: It might help to get it clear. K: If you talk to me a little bit about it, I’ll... DB: Yes, I’ll try to talk a little. K: Yes, right.
43:54	DB: You see, let’s say we go back to that boy or the young man who was to a certain extent attached to some of the things about the theosophical... the beliefs of the... not exactly the beliefs but... K: I question it. I question it. DB: Oh, well, was there any attachment at all?
44:12	K: I question it. That’s what I’m questioning. DB: But at least there appeared to be. K: No – whether he was just making noise out there.
44:23	DB: Well, for example, there were letters he wrote in which, you know, he seems to accept it all. K: Yes, yes. Because he was just repeating what... there was no conditioning but at the peripheral state he was repeating things which was told to him. DB: Yes. K: I think that would be accurate. It would be correct.
44:50	DB: Right. The other point is, which would suggest some form of conditioning, is this process, as Mary Lutyens calls it, in which there was so much suffering. She describes a process which took many years off and on.
45:04	K: Yes. DB: And she said there was a great deal of suffering and it was not clear what was happening then, you see. I mean, whether it has any part in the transformation or not. Did it have any part in the transformation, or not? You see, it might be very... K: I don’t think so. DB: Yes. I wanted to say, just for the sake of making it clear, that it might be very discouraging for people if it did.
45:26	K: No, I don’t think so. DB: Because they would say, ‘How could we ever do it?’ K: No, I think, sir, there are two answers to that. DB: Yes.
45:37	K: You know, the theosophical conception that Maitreya – whether you believe it or not that’s not the point – the theosophical conception at that time, and probably still is, or the tradition in India and in Tibet, that there is a Maitreya, who is the essence of goodness – let’s talk... He, that goodness has to manifest in the world when the world is in a state of collapse – that’s what the tradition says – in the state of evil, in the state of destroying itself. What are we talking about? I’m a little... DB: Well, you see, I’ll come back to it, that we’re trying to get clear whether this young man was really attached and conditioned or not. Now, you see, I wanted to finish. Let’s say, aside from the letters and the relationships, which you say very superficial, then it seemed there was something deeply involved in this suffering which involved, at least on first sight, some form of attachment, say, to the image of the mother or something, you see, or... K: No, no – no attachment.
47:17	DB: No. But do you have any idea what was involved there?
47:24	K: Attached to the mother? DB: Well, you see, as I can remember reading about this thing which took place over a period of years, I mean some of the phenomena were, you know, intense pain in the head or in the neck or the spine, but there appeared to be periods when he called for his mother. K: Because I think that’s merely physical reaction to... because when you suffer somebody wants – you know, that’s all. That’s nothing. DB: Yes. It was not very significant.
47:54	K: No, no, no. DB: Right. But then you have no... K: I’m glad to have all this out now.
48:02	DB: Well, I think it helps to clear things up, you see, because it will enable us to see the essential point.
48:07	K: Yes, sir, quite right. DB: Now, the other... But then, do you have any idea or any explanation of what the trouble was about – do you see? Or was it just something you don’t know anything about? K: I’m afraid I don’t know actually anything about it.
48:25	DB: No, it could have had any reason. K: No – it could have any reason – now, wait a minute. What we started out saying: must everybody go through this?
48:36	DB: Yes, if so, it looks very unpromising. K: Yes, it looks terrible. DB: Well, most people won’t have the time for it anyway.
48:48	K: Columbus discovered America. Must everybody go... become Columbus to discover America?
48:56	DB: No. K: No. DB: No. All right, so this was the fortuitous way in which this thing came about with you – right?
49:02	K: Yes. DB: For reasons that are, you know, peculiar to your own situation. I mean, why you went through this process is something peculiar to you then.
49:14	K: No. You see, if you have gone into the question of kundalini, the whole idea there – as far as I’ve been told by others, and some who have been through it – it is a form of awakening or releasing energy, through various centres in the body. DB: Yes. K: And those centres have been dormant, or not fully in operation.
49:52	DB: Yes. K: And therefore when this energy is in movement, it passes through these centres, so-called, then there is certain amount of trouble, certain amount of pain.
50:06	DB: Disturbance. K: Disturbance. And that is probably it. DB: But that is not necessary for the transformation that you discussed. K: No, no, no. DB: No, definitely not. K: Definitely not.
50:19	DB: But in that sense, it was sort of a side issue. K: No, no, I wouldn’t put it a side issue.
50:26	DB: Well, let’s see. How was it connected then?
50:41	K: I haven’t thought about this; I must go into it. All right, sir, let’s go into it. DB: Yes.
50:53	K: There was that young man or a boy, vague, mentally not up to his age.
51:08	DB: He had suffered malaria, which was very disturbing. K: Malaria, a great deal of malaria, and therefore they had given him a great deal of quinine probably and so there was a little dullness. And in that... to that dull mind nothing could enter. Therefore, we say that may be one of the reasons why he was unconditioned. DB: Yes. K: Why he was not conditioned. That’s one point.
51:37	DB: Not deeply. K: Not deeply conditioned. The other point is: Why had he to go through all this suffering? Has it any relation to transformation? I say it hasn’t.
52:01	DB: Yes. K: Wait a minute, I must go slowly. DB: Yes, go slowly.
52:07	K: If I admit that it is part of transformation, every human being has to go through it, which is nonsense.
52:15	DB: Yes. That would really be impossible. K: I mean, that’s out. DB: Yes. K: I won’t even... that’s out – throw it out of the window. Then it’s like Columbus discovering America – everybody has to go back and take... – that’s absurd. So, then why had he to go through it? What relationship has that? I think I’ve got the answer. I think it releases a certain quality of energy. DB: Yes, the suffering. K: Yes. The physical pain of that kind brings about a certain quality of energy.
53:15	DB: Yes, but that would imply that those who don’t go through it may not have it. K: Ah, no, no. No, no. DB: Well, what is the point then?
53:25	K: Which means again – I think I’ve got it – just let’s go slowly, sir – this is rather difficult. If we admit that everybody has to go through it, this process, all the rest of it, I rule it out because that would be too...
53:45	DB: Well, it’s impractical, I mean. K: It would be absurd. Don’t let’s... DB: Yes. K: But what takes place? Sir, you’re a scientist. You discover something. You see something totally new and you state that thing verbally and actually. And another scientist picks it up from there and goes on with it. DB: Yes.
54:44	K: Here – I think I’m beginning to see light – here, this man or this boy or this young fellow saw the truth. He discovered something new. As scientists discover something new, it... And that thing, that new thing, enters into human consciousness.
55:27	DB: Yes. I mean, would you say it’s totally new, it never had been before? K: I don’t know. DB: You don’t know. At least for him it was new. K: Of course.
55:34	DB: Yes, all right, just to get it clear. K: I mean, somebody else might have said it. DB: Yes. It could happen that different scientists could simultaneously discover the same thing, you see. K: Yes, yes, yes. But what he discovered, what he saw, was something new. DB: Yes, to him – yes. K: To him. No, wait a minute. DB: Well, it was new, but I mean we have to be careful. K: Be careful here – not to him. DB: It was new...
55:59	K: Full stop. DB: But then you have to be careful that it does not imply that it was not discovered before, you see.
56:05	K: Ah, then... DB: Perhaps it wasn’t – do you see?
56:11	K: I don’t know. I don’t know. DB: Perhaps that particular thing was never discovered before.
56:16	K: Yes. DB: Right? K: Yes. DB: Perhaps something like it may have been discovered. K: That’s better. DB: Right? K: Right. So that discovery of something new, stated, and others can carry on with that newness and discover something more. DB: Yes, but what was the role of the suffering in discovering this new thing? Was that to release the energy? K: Probably. DB: Probably. But others may release energy in some other way. Is that what you are implying? K: Yes. Probably, yes. DB: Perhaps.
57:04	K: Perhaps. Wait a minute. This energy is not the energy of thought.
57:25	DB: No, the kundalini as so-called. K: Because I’m rather shy of that word, because a lot of superstition is associated with it, a lot of charlatans and people have been playing with it. There has now become... A man has written a book and is going around Europe and America forming groups who are awakening kundalini. There are several people, I saw a film on the TV, a whole group of Americans, directed by some Punjabi dressed in white, doing certain exercises to awaken kundalini, and all that. I think that’s all absurd.
58:23	DB: But in the case of the young man you think it had a place. K: Yes, that’s what I’m coming to. There, the release of that energy is something that must come out of suffering. I’m just exploring, sir. I mean, change the whole thing, please. DB: Yes. I mean, but is that in general or for that particular case?
59:03	K: I think in general. DB: In general, the energy comes from suffering. K: Yes.
59:08	DB: And are you implying that there may be some other form of suffering? K: That’s it. DB: But not exactly the same form.
59:13	K: That’s it. We are slowly getting it. If in the world of reality – yes, in the world of reality – if I don’t escape from suffering, if a human being doesn’t escape from suffering through various means, and so on, that very suffering brings about a great energy.
59:41	DB: Yes. K: I think this is so. The very word ‘suffering’ has its root in passion, and all the rest of it. So that is so. Here, in this case, it was not a suffering of attachment, it was not a suffering of losing somebody, it’s not a suffering of... physical suffering – because he was pretty healthy in those days and still is – because he used to walk miles and miles and miles – so there was not all that. So there was no actual psychological suffering except when the brother died. And then he looked at it and... finished with it. But the energy of another kind, if we can go into it a little bit, is different.
1:01:00	DB: Yes, but it doesn’t necessarily get awakened by the way it did with this young man – in other words, through the spine, and so on. Or is that...
1:01:09	K: That’s what I’m trying to convey. I think that energy is completely different. DB: From what? K: From this kind of energy.
1:01:17	DB: From the ordinary kind. K: From the ordinary kind. And if you say, ‘Must everybody go through this in order to get that energy?’ I say, ‘No, certainly not’. DB: No. But you are implying that everybody may have to go through some kind of suffering. K: No, no – everybody does suffer.
1:01:30	DB: He does suffer, but if he doesn’t escape his suffering. K: Then he has got... DB: Then he has got the energy.
1:01:35	K:...energy of that kind. DB: Yes. Now, does it matter then whether the suffering is the suffering of attachment or some other kind, you see?
1:01:47	K: No, that doesn’t matter. DB: It doesn’t matter. K: Suffering of attachment, suffering of losing your wife, one’s wife, suffering of... physical suffering, psychological suffering. There are a great many varieties of suffering. And if you can understand... face it and not escape from it, that has quite a different energy, the release of a certain kind of energy. DB: But it wouldn’t necessarily take the form of the spine...
1:02:14	K: No, of course not. DB:...some process of the spine. K: Of course not, of course not. DB: Right. So the kundalini may be a very special idea, I mean, a very limited approach. K: A limited approach. Wait a minute – limited in what way? DB: Well, when somebody purposely tries to awaken kundalini, he has in mind something happening in the spine in a certain order. K: I don’t think, sir, it can be done purposely.
1:02:40	DB: No. Well, let’s say it happens. K: Look, that’s what they are trying to do now, to...
1:02:47	DB: Yes, but that would be a mistake. K: Right. They are doing it through methods purposely, with the – thought is trying to create it. DB: But wouldn’t it be better to say that there is an energy which is released by suffering, by not escaping suffering? K: Yes, yes.
1:03:03	DB: Which doesn’t necessarily show itself or reveal itself in various sensations in the spine or in the neck or in certain places.
1:03:11	K: No, no, that’s right, that’s right. That’s right. I mean, a man who has faced suffering and has certain – he has a quality in him. He has got that kind of physical drive, physical energy, physical passion. Not sexual passion – that kind of psychological passion. DB: Yes, now, with that energy... of course that is still not the whole thing. K: No, that’s not the whole. DB: That’s not all.
1:03:41	K: No, certainly not all. Now we are getting clear. DB: Yes. And we need this quality of energy, to really see truth.
1:03:56	K: Yes. DB: With the ordinary energy we cannot actually have truth.
1:04:06	K: No, with the ordinary... DB: With the ordinary sort of energy.
1:04:11	K: No, no. We said truth is unrelated to reality.
1:04:19	DB: Reality is the ordinary energy then – couldn’t we say that? K: Yes, that’s right. That’s right. I mean, like an ambitious man has got tremendous energy. DB: Yes.
1:04:32	K: And his energy operates in reality as correct and incorrect.
1:04:40	DB: Yes. Now let’s say this man comes to a certain point where he sees the incorrectness of the whole operation of thought.
1:04:49	K: Yes. DB: But before anything more happens, he needs a much higher energy. K: What happens?
1:04:54	DB: Before, you know, the whole perception can work, it would seem he needs the kind of energy you were talking about. K: Aha. Yes, yes.
1:05:13	DB: So, now, you see, it almost seems from what you say that in some sense you could say nobody is going to be transformed. In other words, the issue of transformation is irrelevant.
1:05:30	K: No. DB: No, but then we have to see why. Because you say in the case of that young man there was no transformation. K: No.
1:05:36	DB: Right? Now what does it mean? K: It shows that in the book, you said. DB: Well, I couldn’t see any place where you would say there was one, you see. K: Yes, good. I’m glad. DB: I wouldn’t say that it shows it, you know, positively, but in some negative... in an implicit sense.
1:05:50	K: Yes, yes. But, sir, there must be a transformation or a radical or basic change in the field of reality.
1:06:04	DB: Well, what will become of the field of reality then? K: Then there will be order in that. DB: Yes, all right. So this transformation will bring about order in the field of reality. K: In the field of reality. DB: Yes. K: Transformation, which is order, and so on, in the field of reality.
1:06:19	DB: Then we’d say in some sense there would still be thought, but it is not twisted – right? K: Yes, that’s right. It will be correct thought. DB: Correct thought.
1:06:28	K: Yes. Logical, sane, healthy, and all the rest of it. That has nothing to do with truth. We said that. Right. Now, sir, I think there are – we went into this too, a little bit the other day – the energy of truth and the energy of reality are two different things unrelated to each other.
1:07:04	DB: Yes. I mean could we say that in actuality, the two... You see, now truth works and operates in actuality and in some sense reality also is actual. K: Yes, that’s right. DB: Right. Now, could we say that reality is a function of actuality, I mean? K: Reality is... DB:...a function within actuality.
1:07:27	K: Reality is... DB:...a function within actuality. You see, a function, a certain function taking place within actuality of a rather limited kind.
1:07:37	K: Yes. Yes. What are we trying to get at? I’m lost a bit. DB: Well, you see, one point is to try... we want to understand, you see, get really clear what reality means. K: I think we are clear what reality... DB: We are fairly clear there, but I just wanted to... I think it helps to clear it up to say it is a function within actuality, a function which includes thought and conscious awareness.
1:08:10	K: In actuality. DB: In actuality, in various actions which are taking place. K: Yes, yes, that is...
1:08:16	DB: The energy, as you say, of the ambitious man as the extreme case. K: It’s all within the field of reality. DB: The field of reality which is part of actuality.
1:08:22	K: Part of actuality, yes – what is going on actually. DB: What is actually going on. K: What is actually going on. That’s clear.
1:08:30	DB: That’s clear. So... K: That is, reality is the movement of actuality.
1:08:38	DB: It’s part of the movement. K: Part of the movement. DB: Because there’s a much bigger movement of actuality. K: Yes. Yes, that’s right.
1:08:44	DB: You see, but of course one of our mistakes, incorrectnesses of thought, is to take reality as the whole of actuality.
1:08:51	K: Yes, quite. DB: Now, then we say truth also operates or acts in actuality.
1:09:00	K: Yes. DB: You see, the way it seems to me is that – I would now propose, for your... – that truth has no direct connection with reality, in some sense through actuality, insofar as it acts in actuality, there may be a connection, you see. You see, we want to try to say... otherwise, what is this truth – do you see? You see, there is actuality and then there is truth. Right?
1:09:33	K: Yes, there is actuality... DB:...which is, you know, all action inside and outside. K: Yes, yes.
1:09:39	DB: And it includes perception and the action of truth, whatever that may be.
1:09:45	K: The action of... Now, go slowly, sir. Now wait a minute. Actuality in reality... in – yes.
1:09:53	DB: No, reality is a part of the field of actuality. K: Reality is part of the field of actuality.
1:10:01	DB: Or don’t call it a field – part of actuality. K: Reality is part of actuality. DB: Yes, a small part.
1:10:06	K: Wait a minute, let me get... Actual – what is actually going on. DB: Yes, so reality is part of what’s actually going on.
1:10:13	K: That’s better. DB: That includes consciousness. K: Yes, all that. Reality is seeing what is actually going on.
1:10:26	DB: Well, no, I think that, you see... K: I’m sorry, I’m not... DB: Yes. You see, reality is a certain part of what is actually going on – that part which we think about. You see, we said reality is what we think about. That was the way we started the whole thing. Right?
1:10:44	K: Yes, that’s right – reality is what we think about. DB: But it’s also an actuality. K: Yes, agreed.
1:10:50	DB: Because we take action from what we think about. K: Yes, that’s right. Actuality – yes, that’s right. DB: And that actuality spreads out like a wave making objects, it may go out into the environment and come back, you see. So that if we look at the tree as something we think about, then it becomes part of our reality and we may do something to the tree.
1:11:11	K: But it is actual. DB: It is actual, yes. K: That’s right. That’s clear, that’s clear, that’s clear.
1:11:16	DB: Yes, yes. And in addition, we say there might be some actuality to the tree beyond what we think about.
1:11:23	K: Yes. DB: Right? K: Right. DB: Or in general actuality goes beyond what we think about. Actuality is all action. K: Is all action – I understand. But when it goes beyond reality – actuality – is that truth?
1:11:43	DB: Well, we don’t know that, you see. K: That’s what we are trying to find out. DB: At least it does seem that truth does act in that total action. Or doesn’t it act at all?
1:12:02	K: Sir, wait a minute. That man or that boy, that youth, saw truth was a pathless land and no organisation could lead to it, anybody. DB: Yes. K: So he dissolved the organisation. DB: Yes.
1:12:21	K: That’s the action of truth. DB: Yes. K: He talked to various people, naturally, but the perception and the realisation that path is... truth is a pathless land – and dissolved it. DB: Yes, I see that. So let’s look at that for a little while.
1:12:40	K: Yes, that’s what I... DB: There was a perception not involving time that truth has no organisation. K: That’s right. There was no time; he just saw it. DB: Yes, and that was an action. K: Yes. DB: And from then on in the field of reality, he was taking actions, talking to people, and so on, and finding a way to act, you know, finding a way to carry out what that meant, you see. In other words, it took some time before he dissolved the organisation. K: Because – that was simple enough – because he had to – you know.
1:13:15	DB: Well, it was a matter of finding the right way. K: He had to dissolve the... right way, and how not to hurt people, and give the land...
1:13:21	DB: Yes – not to create chaos. K: That’s nothing. DB: All right. But it took a certain amount of time...
1:13:27	K:...to carry it out. DB:...to carry it out. Now – so let’s try to say – in that sense it seemed that in some way the reality was affected by truth, you see. K: Ah, ah. DB: Now, well, let’s see it.
1:13:39	K: No. No, sir. He saw truth is a pathless land and an organisation was formed around him, and he says, since he saw that the truth is a pathless land, he said, ‘Out – finished’. DB: Yes. K: But because he was surrounded by an organisation...
1:14:04	DB: Well, look, does thought become consciously aware of the implications of truth – do you see? In other words, it seems thought... K: No. DB: It doesn’t. But you see, look... K: Ah, no.
1:14:18	DB: It’s not very clear what happened, you see. Here is the young man and his actions have changed, you see, his thought has changed because at one stage he was thinking, ‘I’m working together with these people’, and at a later stage, he was thinking, ‘I’m dissolving the organisation’. K: No, no, not thinking. DB: No, but he was taking the steps in thought necessary to dissolve it. Right? K: Yes. No, but he saw... DB: I know he saw that the organisation has to be dissolved.
1:14:45	K:...that truth was the pathless land and no organisation can... DB: No organisation. K: That is finished.
1:14:52	DB: But to implement that, it was necessary to... K: No, the implementation of that took thought. DB: Yes. I’m trying to understand how thought becomes aware that it has to implement this – do you see? K: Ah, I see, I see, I see, I see. I don’t think that’s very difficult, is it? If you see something and that is true... I mean, that is the truth, then you get rid of your things quickly or slowly – finished.
1:15:27	DB: Yes. Yes, but thought is aware that... you see, you have to think how to do it.
1:15:33	K: No. DB: Well, you did, because you thought I must... you know, not to create chaos, not to harm people, and so on.
1:15:40	K: Yes, but that’s all irrelevant. DB: Well, it may be irrelevant to the main point but, you see, it’s relevant to something I’m trying to understand. K: You are asking that question – I understand – You’re asking...
1:15:51	DB: It was not relevant to that young man at the moment to think about all this, but I’m saying in order to understand what we’re trying to do now, it may be relevant. K: You’re asking: How did thought capture or become aware of that truth?
1:16:13	DB: Yes, or the implications of it. K: Implications of that truth. DB: Not necessarily the truth itself. K: No – implications of the truth. Which is, he said, ‘Truth is a pathless land; no organisation necessary. No guru is necessary, basically’.
1:16:28	DB: Yes.
1:16:36	K: He saw it, acted – for him that was over.
1:16:44	DB: Yes, I understand it that far, you know, with him it was dead, you see. K: Wait, wait. It was dead, yes. But he was surrounded by organisation. DB: And by all his friends. K: By all the implications of it – Dr Besant who had built it up and, I mean, all that involved. DB: He didn’t want to harm any of these people.
1:17:06	K: Harm, hurt her. DB: Hurt her. He didn’t want to hurt her but that was, you know, partly her way, her manner of thinking.
1:17:13	K: Yes, yes – he didn’t want to hurt her so he told her before. DB: Yes. And thought had to be aware somehow of the implications of truth to do that. K: Yes, yes. I understand. I understand the question very well. What’s the difficulty? What’s the difficulty here, I don’t quite see it. DB: Well, because, you see, previously we said that truth does not act at all in the field of thought or consciousness or reality. K: No, no. DB: But in some way consciousness becomes aware of the implications of truth, you see. There seems to be a difficulty there. K: Yes, yes, I understand. I must go slowly with this. He saw, acted. To him it was dead, it’s finished.
1:18:07	DB: Yes. K: Finished means completely ended – no regrets – you follow?
1:18:15	DB: Yes, it had no meaning. K: No meaning anymore. But he was surrounded by all this. How did truth give its intimation to thought?
1:18:34	DB: Yes. K: Is that it? DB: Yes, that’s it.
1:18:40	K: How did truth convey what it saw to thought?
1:18:45	DB: Yes. At least, not all of it but... K: Yes, yes, just a little. How did he do it? How did truth intimate it to thought? Was there an intimation? DB: Maybe not. You see, then what did happen? K: That’s just it. Was there an intimation? Logically thought saw this.
1:19:24	DB: Yes. K: The action which he took – acted, finished – thought saw it; it was correct. DB: Yes. But how did thought see the action – do you see? What action did thought see? K: What happened?
1:19:43	DB: What happened? K: What happened was: He’s saying, ‘Truth is a pathless land; no organisation’.
1:19:51	DB: Right, so let’s go ahead. But the perception was acted, the perception of truth, in the actions of the man – right? – is that what you’re saying – directly?
1:20:04	K: What is that? DB: Thought is not able, we said, to actually see what truth does.
1:20:09	K: No. DB: But truth may take an action. K: Truth took action. DB: Took action, and thought can be aware of that action. Is that what you’re saying? K: Thought can be aware of that – that’s right. DB: All right. It’s coming more clear. Truth takes a direct action in actuality.
1:20:25	K: Yes, that’s right, that’s right. DB: And that action now comes to consciousness, conscious awareness. Right? K: Yes, that’s right. And sees the correctness of it. DB: And sees the correctness and then it goes on to think what to do to implement it.
1:20:38	K: That’s right, sir. That’s right. DB: All right. So it’s becoming more clear. K: That’s right. That’s actually what took place. DB: Yes.
1:20:44	K: Because he put it in words. DB: Yes, the action was to put it in words.
1:20:50	K: That’s right. DB: But first, there was an action before that, some other action which thought could become consciously aware of, perhaps, and then it put it in words.
1:21:02	K: No, no. DB: Or immediately put it in words. K: Yes, truth put it into words. DB: Yes. The truth can act in words without thought then. Right? K: Yes. Wait a minute. No, wait, careful, careful. I understand. The description is not the described. DB: Yes.
1:21:24	K: The word is not the thing. DB: Yes, we understand that. K: He used the word to describe that.
1:21:31	DB: Yes, but who used it, you see? Was it truth or was it the...
1:21:36	K: He saw. DB: He saw. Now, how did the word come from that? K: Wait. He saw. DB: Yes.
1:21:42	K: And the seeing is the acting. DB: Yes, the mind was not... that was all dead. The action was that the entire structure was dead right away.
1:21:51	K: Dead – yes – the whole thing was dead. DB: Yes. K: By saying truth was a pathless land...
1:22:02	DB: But before he even said a word there must have been a perception. K: Of course, of course, there was perception. DB: And that was all dead. K: Dead.
1:22:08	DB: And then it came out: ‘Truth is a pathless land’. Right? K: Then he put it into words. DB: But I mean, ‘Truth is a pathless land’, is words, isn’t it?
1:22:15	K: That is merely the description. DB: The description. Oh, wait a minute, now we’ve left out a step – so we’re coming... K: Yes, yes. DB: Right.
1:22:22	K: Now we are getting it. DB: All right. So the whole thing was dead, then came a perception without the word: Truth is a pathless land. K: That was perception. DB: That was perception but we are merely describing it.
1:22:36	K: Yes, describing it. DB: All right. Now, then how did that come to the word?
1:22:45	K: We say the word is not the thing, description is not the described. So I tell you, ‘Look at that tree’. DB: Yes.
1:22:54	K: You actually look. DB: Yes. K: And the word is not the tree, so you see the tree.
1:23:00	DB: I see the tree. But then I become aware of the tree. K: Yes. And then you tell me. DB: Yes – consciously aware, that is.
1:23:07	K: Yes, consciously. DB: So thought became consciously aware of the perception. K: Yes, that’s right.
1:23:13	DB: Of the truth which we describe by the words: ‘Truth is a pathless land’. K: Yes, yes, yes, that’s right.
1:23:19	DB: Good. K: Now we are getting on. DB: All right. So we have a perception. It acts immediately. The structure is dead. And it also contains kind of a generalisation or is something universal – I mean, a perception: Truth is a pathless land.
1:23:34	K: Therefore you are saying truth is universal. DB: Yes. K: That’s one thing.
1:23:40	DB: Yes. K: Yes. DB: So, therefore... K: Global – yes. DB: It was two things which could not be... we were only separating in words, you see. One was the ending of... the entire structure was dead, and the other is this universal: Truth is a pathless land. Right? We are merely describing it in words, but it is not what it is. K: Quite right.
1:24:00	DB: Now, that is an action. K: Yes, that’s right. DB: And now that action, thought can become consciously aware of that action. K: Yes. DB: Right? K: Yes.
1:24:12	DB: So awareness is a kind of link between thought and something. K: No, no, no.
1:24:18	DB: No, it is not, but at least conscious awareness is what enables thought to pick that up. You see, I’m looking at the tree. I’m both aware of the tree and conscious of the tree, or consciously aware of it. K: Yes. But you telling me about the tree is the description.
1:24:33	DB: That’s the description. K: You telling me, using the word, and you say, ‘The word is not the thing’.
1:24:39	DB: Yes. K: So I have to look. DB: Yes. You would look. And then that looking has an action.
1:24:46	K: Yes. DB: And that action, then thought can become consciously aware of it. K: That’s right.
1:24:52	DB: Right. And then it can come out as words and pictures. K: That’s right. Phew! That’s right. So truth has nothing whatsoever to do with thought.
1:25:04	DB: Yes, but thought can be aware of the action of truth. K: Yes, yes, yes.
1:25:10	DB: All right, now we’re coming... K: Yes – thought can be aware of the action of truth.
1:25:17	DB: Consciously aware. K: The action of truth. DB: Yes, the action of truth. K: It can become conscious of it. Right, I’ve got it. That’s right.
1:25:25	DB: It’s conscious awareness, you see. K: That’s right. Quite right. DB: All right. Well, just for the sake of... K: By Jove! Go slow, sir, go slow, go slow, I’m just... I’m getting a little bit... Yes, quite right. DB: Now, it just occurred to me to ask a question about awareness. You know, I’ve discussed conscious awareness, now, you see. Now, is there any other awareness that is not conscious, or would we say that’s meaningless? K: Yes, there is another awareness. DB: Right, that is not conscious.
1:25:52	K: Yes. DB: Right. K: That is not in the field of reality. DB: That’s the same thing. K: Yes. Of course, I’ve just... DB: Yes. All right, so we are distinguishing conscious awareness from awareness in general, the universal. K: Yes.
1:26:06	DB: And in fact, awareness would be hard to distinguish from attention or something. I mean, these words are very hard to define.
1:26:12	K: I know, I know. Sir, would you put it this way? The centre, which is the me, the observer, can be aware of itself, conscious of itself and operate within that field. DB: Yes. K: That awareness, that consciousness is limited, is enclosed. DB: Yes.
1:26:51	K: But there is a consciousness – no, we shouldn’t... DB: An awareness. K: An awareness, some other state which is not this.
1:26:58	DB: Yes. And that also includes attention, the other state? The other state includes attention and awareness.
1:27:04	K: Attention? DB: Yes. There is awareness and attention in this other state, or... No. K: No. DB: But you said there is awareness in the other state. K: No. DB: Oh, you see, it’s not very clear.
1:27:19	K: I must – let’s go slowly. DB: Yes.
1:27:24	K: That boy must go back. Pathless land – he sees it non-verbally, because there is no perception – sees it – that is the truth that acts. It’s finished. DB: Yes. K: As far as truth is concerned, it’s over.
1:27:47	DB: Yes. K: Then the wave takes on the words...
1:27:56	DB: Yes, it’s the conscious awareness. K: Conscious awareness, and describes it, and the description is not that.
1:28:02	DB: Yes.
1:28:07	K: Now, in the field of reality, there is all the conscious awareness, which is limited – with its attention, with its awareness – it’s limited.
1:28:23	DB: Yes. K: That perception of truth is limitless.
1:28:32	DB: Yes. But would you say that it contains any awareness or not – do you see?
1:28:37	K: Oh, it’s... no awareness. DB: No awareness – yes, that’s what we want to... K: That’s it. DB: Right. That’s what we said last time, that there’s some nothingness... nothing.
1:28:44	K: It is nothingness. It’s over. Perception, it’s over. DB: Yes, which, you know, really is not even... it’s beyond attention, beyond awareness. K: Oh, yes. DB: Although attention and awareness are themselves not verbal or not just thought. Right? K: Yes, yes. Yes, that’s right. Although they are not verbal, they are not shaped by thought, that attention, that awareness is not that. Quite right. DB: Yes. So could we say the attention and awareness are still part of the physiological structure? K: Physiological – that’s right. DB: But beyond thought. K: Beyond – yes. DB: There’s thought as a small part of the physiological structure.
1:29:21	K: That’s right, sir. DB: And there is attention and awareness far beyond that. But then this truth is universal, it’s beyond that.
1:29:27	K: Yes, it’s beyond that. DB: Yes. K: At last we are getting it. DB: And there is the attention...
1:29:34	K: You see, now... It is said – I’m not saying it is so – it is said the awakening of kundalini – now we are familiar with that word... DB: But the kundalini would be part of the physiological structure. K: No, but there is, according to them, there is an energy which is not physical.
1:30:01	DB: Yes. I see, it’s awakened in the physical. K: No, no, we must go through it very carefully, if you want to know. It goes through various centres. DB: Yes, but these are physical centres. K: Physical centres, like the solar plexus is the main centre, and below that. And there is a centre at the thorax and centre in the back of head, centre in front of the... oh, is there one at the centre of the... near the heart? – and one in the middle of the forehead. Ultimately there is a... it goes through the top of the head. That’s their... they say when it goes through the top of the head, that energy is entirely different. DB: Yes. K: It is not physical any more. DB: No more. Yes, now what do you feel about that explanation?
1:31:00	K: No, I wouldn’t say what I feel. I would say the energy of truth is entirely different from the energy of reality. DB: Yes. But the kundalini might or might not be the energy. It is not the energy of truth – right? – kundalini. K: No, no. Wait a minute, careful. DB: Yes, well, is it...
1:31:28	K: We said that the energy in reality is both physiological as well as psychological and therefore it is always limited. And we say truth is global. DB: Yes.
1:31:51	K: And it has its energy which is global, which is not personal, and all the rest of it. That’s right. DB: Yes. I mean, wouldn’t you say kundalini is a side issue? In other words, my own feeling is that once you consider truth, then kundalini must be something more limited. K: Oh, of course, of course. DB: It cannot be the same as truth. K: Of course, of course, of course.
1:32:13	DB: But it might be a combination of physical and psychological energy. K: Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
1:32:18	DB: Which you say the young man found helpful. K: Yes, yes, yes. DB: Right. All right. Now... But it might not be absolutely necessary. In other words, you’re saying truth...
1:32:31	K: Yes, sir. I think that’s right. Truth is global and this is limited.
1:32:37	DB: Yes. K: Yes. And nobody need go through all this business to see this.
1:32:46	DB: Yes.
1:32:51	K: Columbus discovered America – that’s a good example. DB: Now, if we take the truth, you know, the energy of truth, which is universal, not personal... K: By Jove, I’m so... my body’s... Just a minute, I must take a little... DB: All right, we’ll take it easy. K: Because you are... I have never talked about this. And my body becomes a little tense. I must... Phew! May I get up for a few minutes? DB: Of course.
1:33:39	K: I’ll come back, sir. Give me two minutes. DB: I’ll just stretch my legs. Right? K: It’s not finished yet. DB: No, I’m just stretching my legs. K: Yes, so am I. Sorry, I must get out a little and... You see, sir, there’s something much more than all this. DB: Yes.
1:34:17	K: Would you accept the word ‘mystery’?
1:34:22	DB: Well, yes, I should say so.
1:34:39	K: There is something which you cannot talk about. Not... Which you cannot talk about. Which doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
1:34:53	DB: No.
1:35:10	K: I think truth is that. Every religion has talked about that mystery – Judaism said the nameless, Hindus have called it brahman, others, Christians, haven’t gone very deeply into that matter, they called it God. But there is something really tremendously mysterious. And we are trying to articulate it in words.
1:35:55	DB: Well, not really, you know. I think we’re trying just to clear up... K: I know. DB:...some of the difficulty of people, of what has to be said.
1:36:03	K: Oh, they’re going to have lots of difficulties. If they read this book, they’re going to have lots of difficulties.
1:36:12	DB: I feel that if we... I don’t believe that anything we’ve done clears up this. I mean...
1:36:17	K: We have cleared up a great deal. DB: Yes, I mean, it doesn’t touch this mystery, as you say. K: No, it can’t. DB: It’s merely so that we can communicate more effectively.
1:36:25	K: Yes. No, but if you, as a scientist, accept that there is something mysterious.
1:36:33	DB: Yes, I mean, I should say, you know, that our reason can only... K:...go so far. DB:...go, you know, some limited way – yes.
1:36:40	K: Yes. DB: I mean, it cannot be limited in any particular way but it can never be the whole. K: Go beyond it – quite. You see, when you touch that mystery, I mean, things are totally different. Sorry, my body’s just absolutely shaking with it. It’s calmed down. You see... So reality can never... thought can never touch that. Then what is it that is aware of that? Not conscious of it or... How do you... why do you say there is a mystery?
1:37:56	DB: Well, it’s hard to explain, but I mean, partly because I can see that the whole thing could never be explained, you know, by any thought. In other words...
1:38:12	K: Thought cannot touch it. Then who... then how... what is it that says there is a mystery? You follow my point, sir? You see, the Christians say there is a mystery which you cannot go beyond, which you cannot touch. The saints have said this. I haven’t read them, but from talking to some of the people who have read about the saints, like Aldous Huxley, they say there is a mystery which you cannot... I am not sure they touched that mystery, because they were Christians, they were worshippers of a certain form. I don’t... DB: Yes, well, you may say there is a mystery because you don’t want to penetrate. You see, let’s try to put it like this – the way I’ve seen it, that... K: Yes, that’s right. DB: You see, I think that to a certain extent the ego works on a sort of a parody of this mystery. You see, the ego makes itself so mysterious... K: Mysterious – quite. DB:...in order to protect itself from being seen.
1:39:24	K: Quite, quite, quite. DB: Therefore, in a way the ego presents itself to itself as a God – do you see? – or as the ultimate mystery. K: Yes. DB: And therefore, if it’s identified with Christian or some other teaching, it will make these teachings very mysterious too, you see. You see, it may be – the way I look at it is perhaps thought somehow becomes dimly... hinted... conscious of something. K: Yes. DB: And it tries to imitate or to capture it for itself by imitation.
1:39:59	K: Quite, quite. Now, would you as a scientist – trained logically in reason, usage of words, and so on – admit there is such a thing as mystery? DB: Yes. You see, I don’t think even our thought will stand up when probed all the way. It always dissolves, you see. K: Quite. It cannot probe beyond – yes.
1:40:30	DB: It may extend and extend and extend but eventually it comes to some horizon, you know.
1:40:36	K: Where it cannot... DB: Yes. K: Yes. I think... Begin again. Because that boy was unconditioned, was not conditioned – though at the peripheral existence he was, but basically he was not.
1:41:03	DB: Well, can we go slowly here because that raises the question of others who are basically conditioned and could we understand a little of what that means, you see? K: Conditioned means with greed, envy, you know, all the – conditioned. DB: Yes, but it’s not clear what the difference is, you see.
1:41:28	K: Aha – what is the difference. I think there is a difference. You see, really, if you read that book, he didn’t really wake up till about when he was – what? – quite late.
1:41:52	DB: Yes. Well, I don’t know exactly when, but... K: Quite late. DB: He already had been picked up by the Theosophists.
1:41:58	K: Quite late. DB: Yes. K: One of Dr Besant’s suffering or misery was... she said to me – I don’t know if it’s put in that book – she said, ‘You are now 33 or so and you are not interested in anything – not in women, not in what I am doing, about the work – you are only interested, apparently, in clothes and cars. And what is going to happen?’ DB: Yes. K: You follow, sir? It was a tremendous problem to her because she had invested everything in that boy. So this conditioning with the ordinary people – not ordinary, I’m sorry – I’m ordinary.
1:42:59	DB: Well, the ordinary conditioning.
1:43:04	K: That’s good! The ordinary conditioning goes very deep. Right?
1:43:15	DB: Yes, but it’s not clear what makes it go so deep. K: What makes it go deep? His education, his environment, his parents, his society – everything makes him... makes ordinary conditioning, makes for ordinary conditioning.
1:43:41	DB: Yes, but which somehow... K:...this didn’t happen to that boy.
1:43:47	DB: Yes. Could I put it like this, that the really deep conditioning is the conditioning which allows for falsification, for self-deception. You see, in other words, if somebody is conditioned to deceive himself in order to fit better into society, that is the thing we have in mind.
1:44:05	K: Yes, all right. DB: That’s the really deep conditioning. K: Deep conditioning – let’s take... DB: It’s as deep as anything else.
1:44:11	K: Yes, let’s take that for the moment – deceiving himself in order to fit into the society – that’s the deep conditioning for the moment, we say. This didn’t take in that boy or in that young man. So he never wanted... there was no self-deception. Right?
1:44:36	DB: Yes. You see, there was false information, let’s say, wrong information, which he accepted from the older people.
1:44:44	K: Yes, yes, yes – all that. DB: Yes.
1:44:50	K: And so there was never a conscious effort to see truth. Does that convey anything? DB: We have to go slowly. Yes, I mean we want to... I think we skipped a few steps there? K: Oh, yes.
1:45:08	DB: That implies that a person who is caught in self-deception feels impelled consciously to seek truth, to overcome.
1:45:16	K: Yes, but he – no. DB: No, you see, that was not clear.
1:45:21	K: No, no. A human being deceiving himself in order to fit into society – that is, we say for the time being, deep conditioning. DB: Yes.
1:45:45	K: In this case, it didn’t take place. DB: Yes. K: Why didn’t it take place? Because he was...
1:45:54	DB: He wasn’t absorbing the... you say he was somewhat dulled by his illness, and so on. K: By environment, by ill-health. That’s one of the reasons.
1:46:04	DB: And possibly others. K: Other reasons. So, there was never any moment where there was no self-deception taking place.
1:46:21	DB: What do you mean? I don’t get that. K: Here, self-deception in order to fit into society. There...
1:46:28	DB:...no self-deception. K:...no self-deception. And so because there was no self-deception, because there was no conditioning, he saw directly truth as a pathless land. DB: Yes.
1:46:49	K: Right? DB: Yes.
1:46:55	K: He stated it in words, and words are not the thing, and so the word being thought, thought then operated, functioned.
1:47:03	DB: Yes. I mean, that’s all worked out now very clearly. K: But that perception is gone, finished. Not gone, it is dead what he saw. So truth is timeless from moment to moment.
1:47:19	DB: Yes. K: It has no continuity. DB: Yes. K: Right. Then suffering in the field of reality has a meaning in the sense that it can give – if he doesn’t escape, if a human doesn’t escape – it gives him certain quality of energy. DB: Yes. Now let me go slowly on the suffering. You see, a suffering – either it might be physical suffering or if it’s psychological... K: Psychological suffering – no, physical suffering mustn’t affect the psychological. DB: That’s right. K: That’s right.
1:48:01	DB: But now let’s take the case of psychological suffering, which may be due to this contradiction. You see, let’s say fundamentally a person is conditioned to deceive himself to fit into society so his mother and father and his friends will accept him – he is frightened they won’t – and then he starts to suffer because he knows in some way that it is not true, you see. K: Yes. DB: And he begins to cover it up.
1:48:27	K: And so there is contradiction in him. DB: There is contradiction. K: And that’s part of suffering. DB: Yes. K: Now, if he faces that suffering and therefore doesn’t deceive himself, then there is a certain kind of energy. DB: Yes. Now let’s come to why the young man would have suffered, if he didn’t deceive himself. You see, I understand why somebody who deceives himself would suffer. K: I understand. That’s understood. He suffered physically, apparently. DB: Yes, because he’d been ill. K: Ill. And also all this kundalini business was physical suffering.
1:49:07	DB: Yes. K: Then what is the question? DB: Well, I’m trying to find why... yes – was that the origin of the suffering? K: Physical suffering? DB: Yes.
1:49:20	K: I think so. DB: Yes. And therefore the energy was released because he stayed with the physical suffering and did not escape psychologically. Right? K: Yes, that’s right. That’s part of it, that’s part of it – part of it. So what next? DB: Yes, I think we’ve...
1:49:47	K: You see, sir, I don’t know, to me, all this is so simple, because I think when you see truth and act, everything becomes logical.
1:50:04	DB: Yes, well, you did raise the question: What is it that sees? K: Yes – what is it that sees? DB: Sees this whole... How does thought become aware? You see, we were discussing last time or even this time also, that thought becoming consciously aware of its incorrectness will behave differently. Right? K: Yes, yes.
1:50:30	DB: But what is it that... K: No, wait a minute, sir. He sees truth is a pathless land. Sees it. And he comes and tells you what he has seen, which is the expression of what he has seen through thought and word.
1:50:58	DB: Yes. K: What he has seen is not the word nor the thought and...
1:51:05	DB: Yes. It may communicate a similar perception – right? – or it may not. But now there also may be a resistance to this perception in thought. You see, let’s say that most people who heard this either didn’t understand or rejected it. K: Yes, of course, of course.
1:51:23	DB: Yes, now... K: Because in him, in that chap, there was no resistance.
1:51:29	DB: Yes. K: He saw it and he said, ‘Finished’. DB: Yes, but now we have to consider the person who has resistance.
1:51:36	K: Then he says, ‘Oh, I must have...’ DB: And he’ll reject it. K: He rejects it. DB: Yes. But now, since the whole world has resistance...
1:51:44	K: So they reject it. DB: Yes, but then the question is: Is there a way beyond this resistance?
1:51:52	K: If I resist what you are saying, what can you do with me?
1:51:57	DB: Nothing, you see. But the only question is whether you can try another communication. K: Wait a minute, sir, I’m not sure. Wait a minute, wait a minute. DB: You can try another communication.
1:52:03	K: No. Wait a minute. You say to me, ‘Truth is a pathless land’, and I’m attached to my guru.
1:52:11	DB: Well, basically attached to what’s false, you are afraid of. K: What is false – all right. DB: Afraid of it.
1:52:17	K: Yes. But what you have said, which is truth, has entered my consciousness. DB: Yes. K: It is a seed that is operating in me and that seed is going to do something. DB: It may do something. K: No. DB: Are you saying that for everybody who hears this it’s going to do something? K: Must. DB: It must. I mean, that’s the way you feel. K: Like Lenin said something – it has affected the world.
1:52:48	DB: Yes, but the effect was not exactly... K: No, no. No, of course not. I mean, he treated human beings as insects – and so on, so on. If the – that’s it – if the seed of truth is planted in me, because you have said it, it must operate, it must grow, it must function, it must – it has a life of its own. DB: Well, then how do you... I mean, we have to understand some things. You see, many millions of people may have read or heard what you say.
1:53:28	K: Yes. DB: It may seem that a large number of them haven’t understood. Now, do you feel that they... K: No, but it’s going on. DB: It’s still going on.
1:53:33	K: They are worrying about it, they are saying, ‘What does he mean by this?’ DB: Yes.
1:53:38	K: They are still... it is functioning, it is growing. It isn’t dead. So, you can operate something false... I mean, you can say something false and that operates too.
1:53:51	DB: Yes. But now we have a struggle between those two. K: That’s just it.
1:53:58	DB: And we cannot foresee, can you, the outcome of the struggle. K: Of course. DB: I mean, therefore we can’t be sure of this outcome.
1:54:09	K: No, sir, just a minute, just a minute. DB: Right. K: You plant in me the seed that truth is a pathless land. He comes along and plants in my consciousness the seed, a seed that says... DB:...there is a way to truth.
1:54:25	K: There is a way to truth – follow me. DB: Yes.
1:54:31	K: Now, both are – one is false, one is true – they are embedded in my consciousness. So, in that, there is a struggle going on. Now, what is true? What is false? So the things are operating, which causes more confusion, more misery and a great deal of suffering, if I am sensitive enough.
1:55:05	DB: Yes. K: That suffering, if I don’t escape from it, what takes place?
1:55:16	DB: Yes, if you don’t escape, then it’s clear what will take place. I mean, then you will have the energy to see what is true,
1:55:22	K: That’s right. DB: But now let’s take the people who do escape, who seem to be a large number.
1:55:29	K: They outnumber – quite right – millions. So but still the struggle is going on inside.
1:55:34	DB: Yes, but creating confusion. K: Confusion. That’s what they’re all doing. DB: Yes. But then we don’t know the outcome of that.
1:55:42	K: Oh, yes, we do. DB: What? K: Dictatorship. DB: Yes, I know, it gets worse.
1:55:49	K: Deterioration. DB: Yes, but now we want to get it clear. Let’s say, in a few people who face the suffering the energy comes, you know, to perceive the truth. Right? K: Yes. DB: And in a large number who escape, you know, it gets worse.
1:56:05	K: And they rule the world. DB: They rule the world. Now what is the way out of that?
1:56:12	K: And so they say there is no answer to that, so get away from it.
1:56:18	DB: Well, that also won’t do. K: So... People have. DB: I know – yes.
1:56:23	K: They said, ‘You can’t solve this problem. Go away into the mountains or become a monk’. That doesn’t solve this. DB: No. K: I mean, all that one can do is go on shouting.
1:56:37	DB: Yes. But I mean, then we have to say we don’t know the outcome of the shouting.
1:56:44	K: If you shout in order to get an outcome, it is not the right kind of shouting.
1:56:49	DB: Right. Yes, I mean that’s the situation. K: Yes. You just talk. You just point out. If nobody wants to pay attention, it’s their business. You just go on. No, I would like to get, sir, further along. DB: Yes. K: I see now. We see this very clearly. You see, there is a mystery. I want to get back to that, if you don’t mind. Thought cannot touch it, and so on, so on – that’s simple enough. What’s the point of it? DB: Of what, the mystery? K: Yes.
1:58:10	DB: Well, I think the point – it’s very hard to put it, but you could see it like this. If you look into the field of thought and reason, and so on, and you see finally it has no clear foundation, it dissolves away at the borders. Therefore, you say that what is must be beyond that. You see, what is is the mystery. Right? K: I understand. I understand all that.
1:58:35	DB: I mean, you can’t live in this field of reality and thought because of all that we said.
1:58:48	K: Yes. I live in the field of reality. That’s my life. DB: Yes.
1:58:55	K: There, I’m consciously aware and struggle and keep going in that field. And I can never touch that. DB: Yes. K: It’s not, ‘I can touch it’. There is no I to touch it when you really touch it. And you say to me, ‘There is a mystery which passes all understanding’. Because I am caught in this, I’d like to get that. I’m using ordinary... When you say there is a mystery, because to you it’s an actuality, not an invention, not a superstition, not a self-deceived projection, and so on – it is truth to you – and you impress tremendously on me what you say. Because when you say it, because your integrity is that. You point out to me. And I’d like to get it, because I say, ‘Somehow I must get it’. What is your responsibility to me? You understand my position, sir? You say, ‘Words cannot touch it, thought cannot touch it, no action can touch it. Only the action of truth perhaps will give you a feeling of that’. And I, because I am a miserable human being, I’d like to get some of that. And you say, ‘Truth is a pathless land. Don’t follow anybody’, and I’m left. I realise, I am consciously aware the limitation of thought, and all the confusion, misery, logic – all the rest of it. I can’t, somehow, get out of it. Is your compassion going to help me? You’re compassionate, because part of that extraordinary mystery is compassion. Will your compassion help me? Obviously not. So what am I to do? I have a consuming desire for that. And you say, ‘Don’t. Don’t have any desire. You can’t have that. It isn’t your personal property’. So, all that you say to me is, ‘Put order in the field of reality’.
2:02:32	DB: Yes. And not escape suffering.
2:02:40	K: Put order in the field. Then something will take place if you really put order. And then you tell me, ‘It must be done instantly. There is no... order is not...’ Or is that mystery, sir, everybody knows? Knows in the sense there is something mysterious. DB: Yes.
2:03:23	K: Not the desire that creates mystery. There is something mysterious in life apart from my suffering, apart from my death, apart from my jealousies, anxiety, and all that. Apart from all that, there is a feeling that there is a great mystery in life. Is that it? That there is a mystery which each one knows?
2:03:57	DB: Well, I should think that in some sense everybody knows it, yes. Probably one is born with that sense and it gradually gets dimmed through the conditioning.
2:04:14	K: And he hasn’t got the vitality or the intensity to put away all that. DB: Yes. K: You see, there is also that... That mean there is always God within you. You see, that’s the danger of it. DB: Well, not exactly that, no. But there is some sort of, you know, intimation left... K: Intimation.
2:04:41	DB:...of this thing, you see. I think probably children have it more strongly when they’re young.
2:04:58	K: Do you think the modern children have that? DB: I don’t know about them, you see, but probably less. You see, getting into the modern city must have a bad effect.
2:05:12	K: Of course, of course. DB: There are many things. One is lack of contact with nature. K: Nature.
2:05:17	DB: I think any contact with nature gives that sense of mystery. K: Quite. DB: If you look at the sky at night, for example.
2:05:24	K: I know. But, you see, the scientists are explaining the stars.
2:05:32	DB: Yes, I understand that. K: And Cousteau is explaining... DB:...the ocean – yes. K:...the ocean. The ecologists are explaining. So everything is being explained away.
2:05:45	DB: Yes, well, that’s part of it. We’ve created that sense that, we could in principle know everything.
2:05:58	K: So knowledge is becoming the curse. You see, sir, perception has nothing to do with knowledge. Right? DB: Yes. K: Truth and knowledge don’t go together. Therefore, knowledge cannot contain the immensity of mystery.
2:06:36	DB: Yes. You see, I think if we start with a little child, he may place the mystery in some part that he doesn’t know, you see, for example, some place. He could put it at the bottom of the ocean or somewhere else. K: Yes, yes, yes – outside.
2:06:48	DB: Outside, far away from where he is, and then he learns, you know, people have been everywhere and therefore the whole thing is made to appear non-existent.
2:07:01	K: Yes, everything becomes so superficial – quite, quite. DB: Yes. And that’s the danger of our modern age, that it gives the appearance, you know, some sort of appearance that we know more or less...
2:07:13	K: We know everything. DB:...everything. At least we have a general idea of the scheme, if not the details.
2:07:19	K: The other night I was listening to Bronowski. DB: Yes. K: No, several nights I’ve been listening to The Ascent of Man. He explains everything.
2:07:34	DB: Yes.
2:07:40	K: So explanations are becoming my...
2:07:45	DB: You see, the original impulse was to penetrate into this mystery. That was the impulse of science. K: Science – quite right.
2:07:51	DB: And somehow it has been diverted, gone astray, you see, to give the appearance of explaining it.
2:07:58	K: Sir, if I may ask something directly – I hope you don’t mind. Being a scientist, trained, and all the rest of it – in talking, do you get the feeling of this mystery?
2:08:18	DB: Well, I think so, yes. But I think I’ve always had some of it, you see. K: Yes. No, no, no. I know, but in talking now, do you get more intensity of it? Not because I feel intense – you follow? – that’s a totally different thing. That then becomes influence, and all that silly nonsense. But in talking about something, we open a door.
2:08:55	DB: Yes. Yes, well, you see, I think that my particular conditioning has a great deal to resist this notion of mystery. K: Of course.
2:09:09	DB: Although I think that, you know, science is now going in a wrong direction.
2:09:16	K: But even the scientists admit something of that mystery. DB: Yes, to some extent, you see. But the general view is that that could be eventually cleared up. In other words... K: Yes – quite, quite, quite. Cleared up in the sense explain it away.
2:09:30	DB: Explained – yes. K: Yes. DB: I mean, since... My own feeling is, you know, that every particular scientific explanation will be a certain part of this field of reality, and therefore will not clear away this mystery. K: No, no. No, but it clears it away because I listen to you explaining everything and I just say, ‘Yes, there is nothing’. DB: Yes, well, that’s the main point of distinguishing between truth and reality then, you see, because we could say in the field of reality we may explain more and more broadly, without limit, you see.
2:10:08	K: You see, what the communists – I mean the present day communists – that’s what they’re doing.
2:10:14	DB: Yes, well not merely the – who do you say? – the communists. K: Communists. DB: Well, not only the communists. K: Of course, of course – I’m taking that...
2:10:20	DB: Yes. You see, I think you can say anything in the field of reality can be explained, you see – we can penetrate more deeply and broadly and there is limitless progress possible there. But the essence is not explained, you see.
2:10:41	K: No, I’m asking a different question, sir. I’m asking you: In talking like this, though you have an intimation of that mystery being a scientist, serious, and all the rest of it – you had an intimation, perhaps long ago – in talking now, do you... it’s no longer an intimation but a truth. Sorry to corner you. DB: Well, yes, it is a truth, this.
2:11:29	K: So it’s no longer an intimation? DB: I think it’s been a truth for a while in fact, you see, because it’s implied in what we’ve been doing here.
2:11:37	K: Yes – quite, quite. You see – something interesting – being – how shall we say it? – the truth of that mystery makes the mind completely empty. Just a minute. Completely – it’s like something silent. It’s completely silent. Or because it is silent, it sees it. Not sees – it’s aware of it. Because it is silent the truth of that mystery is. I don’t know if I am conveying anything. When the mind is completely silent, – not induced, not meditated upon – you follow? – all that – when it is... because it has put order in reality, therefore it is free from that confusion, there is a certain silence. But that silence is not real silence because it is just moving away from confusion, but that’s not silence. Realising that that is not silence, and not moving away from realisation. Am I conveying something? In the sense, realising that and staying there, saying, ‘This is not real silence’. Which means negating that which order has produced.
2:14:20	DB: Yes. You say first you produce order. Why is it necessary to produce the order first and then negate it? K: Because, obviously, otherwise it’s like... DB: All right. Yes, well, first you produce the order, then you negate. K: No, negate the silence... DB:...which is in that order.
2:14:39	K:...of that order. DB: Right. K: Because when I have no disorder, there is a certain mathematical order, and because of that order my mind is quiet.
2:14:56	DB: You say that’s not a true silence. K: No. Realising that is not true silence, I negate the false silence for the moment. So in the negation of that silence I don’t have any other silence, I don’t want any other silence. There is no movement for greater silence. Would that be right? DB: Yes. K: Then that total silence is – I don’t know – opens the door to that. That is, when the mind, with all the confusion, is nothing, not a thing, then there is... then perhaps there is the other. So you are coming to Saanen? DB: Yes. K: We’d better stop now. DB: Yes.
2:16:27	K: Can we have some more there? DB: Yes, that would be good. I mean, what do you suggest? K: We’ll see. DB: We’ll see when we get there. Yes, I think that we... K: We must continue with this. DB: We must continue. We’ve got somewhere.
2:16:43	K: Sir, could we continue by taking actualities one after the other? DB: What do we mean by actualities? K: Actuality in the field of reality. I mean – yes, sorry. Suffering, death. Really go into it, very, very deeply. DB: Fear. K: Fear, pleasure – you know, the various things – and take... penetrate as deeply as we can. Would that be worthwhile? DB: We could try that, yes. K: We can do that.