Krishnamurti - If thought cannot achieve, why should it suffer?

Krishnamurti Subtitles

BRGS75CB7 - If thought cannot achieve, why should it suffer?
Saanen, Switzerland - 18 July 1975
Conversation with David Bohm 7

0:00	This is the 7th dialogue between J. Krishnamurti and David Bohm, in Gstaad, 1975.
0:21	Krishnamurti: What do we start on?
0:23	David Bohm: Well, maybe you have some suggestion. (Pause)
0:40	K: Where did we leave off?
0:41	DB: Well, now, we discussed… the last time we began by discussing the question of how thought responds to the action of truth. And then you broke off toward the end for a short period, and then you came back and you raised the question of mystery.
1:06	K: Oh, yes. Oh, yes.
1:11	DB: And I told you yesterday that I saw a quotation from Einstein saying that the… of all the experiences we can have, the most beautiful of the experiences we can have is the mysterious, is the way he put it.
1:36	K: Right. (Pause) All the religions – I mean, not the orthodox priest or the orthodox saints – they’ve all said there is something extraordinarily mysterious, something so vast that the human mind can’t grasp.
2:29	DB: And I was saying last time that I think that, as this quotation from Einstein shows, that this is behind the deepest part of scientific research. You see, I think, you know, when I (inaudible) ...I just remembered when I was in Berkeley, California, they were setting up a huge magnet to study the atom, you know, the nucleus, and I felt, you know, they were probing something very mysterious.
2:56	K: Yes.
2:57	DB: But of course, a friend of mine came along, you know, who was also studying physics and he said any piece of iron as big as that must eventually turn into a battleship – which it did, it became part of the Manhattan project for, you know, the atomic bomb.
3:11	K: Atomic bomb – quite. I wonder if there is anything mysterious. I’m just exploring it; I don’t say there is or there isn’t. I wonder if there is anything really mysterious. Or we may... first of all, as a thing desirable, it is very inviting.
3:51	DB: Yes, well, I looked up that word mystery, you see.
3:57	K: Yes.
3:58	DB: It means, basically, hidden or secret, you see. The word mum and mutter… or mumble, rather, is the same word as mysterious – to keep it secret or quiet.
4:06	K: Quiet, yes.
4:07	DB: So, some of the religions had esoteric mysteries at their centre.
4:14	K: Yes. The Greeks had it, the Egyptians had it, and the Hindus of course.
4:19	DB: Yes. But then it says in the dictionary…
4:21	K: Even the Theosophists had it.
4:22	DB: Yes. In the dictionary it says that the Christian concept of mystery is something beyond human understanding, you see – it was not exactly the same. You see, the other one was something secret, but perhaps you could be initiated into the mystery.
4:33	K: Yes, initiated into the mystery.
4:34	DB: Then you would understand it, you see.
4:36	K: Yes, yes.
4:37	DB: But the Christians said you could never understand it.
4:42	K: Understand it in the sense experience it?
4:49	DB: Well, to give it a rational… comprehend it, rationally.
4:52	K: Ah.
4:53	DB: Beyond rational comprehension, you see.
4:55	K: Beyond rational comprehension – yes. If one sets about to experience that, or to come into that – rather than experience, I prefer the word coming into it.
5:28	DB: Yes, I think that they used to say to participate in it.
5:31	K: Participate in it – let’s use that, that’s a better word still – participate in it. What is the nature of the mind, or of the state that can participate into something that is totally mysterious?
5:50	DB: Yes, well… And what is the nature of the participation?
5:55	K: Yes, that’s just it. You see, you were talking about the other day, having read that biography – I think we missed a point there.
6:25	DB: What was the point?
6:28	K: The explanations which we gave – illness, reincarnation, this and that.
6:35	DB: Yes.
6:37	K: I think that that doesn’t cover the ground totally.
6:45	DB: I see.
6:53	K: Because I always felt there was something which was so vast that all their initiations, all their mysteries, all their… had nothing to do with it. See, it can be either so romantically idiotic, or it is something… it’s there. I don’t know if I am…
8:00	DB: Yes.
8:03	K: I don’t know how to convey all this. Sir, how does science answer this question, investigate this question?
8:24	DB: Which question?
8:25	K: The mystery.
8:26	DB: Well, I think that most scientists deny it. You see, it begins with some interest in something mysterious, with the hope of probing into the mystery, but I think gradually it slides over into another attitude in which people explain something, and they begin gradually to replace the mystery by the structure that they have explained.
8:51	K: Yes.
8:52	DB: Implying at least that that is all there is. That sort of thing anyway, is all there is.
8:56	K: Quite.
8:57	DB: You see, they always say there is a great deal that’s unknown. All the scientists are always saying, ‘Yes, it’s a tremendous amount that’s unknown,’ but it’s generally implied that the unknown…
9:05	K: ...it can be known.
9:07	DB: ...it can be known and it fits into that sort of framework.
9:09	K: Yes, quite.
9:10	DB: But in the beginning you can see that, say, somebody like Einstein or in my own experience, probably, I’m sure other people, in talking to other scientists, I can remember in the early days it was implied, without ever saying so, that there was something mysterious, you see.
9:25	K: Something?
9:26	DB: In other words, that it was part of the energy which was behind the work.
9:29	K: Quite.
9:31	DB: Now...
9:32	K: Now if, as a scientist, you want to participate in it, how would you set about it?
9:43	DB: Well, that’s… You see, the ordinary way of going about it is to try to… one way is to set up equipment which can probe the mystery very... you know, a telescope or a microscope or…
9:55	K: Ah. (Laughs)
9:57	DB: I know. I’m just explaining.
9:59	K: Yes – quite, quite.
10:00	DB: Some very high… this tremendous magnet which would create particles of very great energy…
10:03	K: Yes.
10:04	DB: The idea was that with very high energy particles one could probe the mysterious structure beneath.
10:09	K: I understand that.
10:12	DB: Now, of course there’s also the theoretical probe with the theoretical insight, imagination, to…
10:19	K: ...speculation and all the rest...
10:21	DB: ...speculation and so on. But it seems, essentially, that those are the instruments which science has used, you see. Now, I mean, it’s not clear to me, you know, how Einstein actually thought of it because on the one hand he was trying to look for a total explanation. You see, there seems to me a contradiction here somewhere because science seems to be committed to looking for an explanation and at the same time if it’s explained it’s no mystery. (Laughs)
10:52	K: (Laughs) Quite, quite – what is explained is not a mystery.
10:55	DB: And, see, if Einstein says that the most beautiful experience is the mysterious – but if he succeeded in explaining the whole thing, the whole beauty would vanish, you see. That seems the… perhaps he didn’t believe that it would ever be really explained, I don’t know.
11:15	K: Suppose you have participated in that mystery and you want to tell me about it, or you want to help me or guide me or push me towards it – what would you do? Would you say certain obvious things are necessary, first?
11:47	DB: Well, what are the obvious things?
11:49	K: That’s what I mean – would... I don’t like to use preparatory things, but... like a very sensitive body – not emotional, not sentimental, not neurotic, but sensitive, in the sense have a quick insight, have a quick comprehension, not a tremendous lot of explanations, a quick grasp of something which is true. Would you say that would be necessary?
12:39	DB: Well, that would be necessary, obviously for that. I mean, it’s necessary for almost anything, in fact.
12:46	K: I’m just…
12:47	DB: Yes.
12:48	K: No, that means a physical nervous system and a psychological clarity – would you…
13:03	DB: Yes.
13:07	K: Now, how does one have psychological clarity? Because if we grant that these two are essential – a quick mind, a quick insight, a perception that is correct – and I haven’t got it, suppose I haven’t got it – then how… is there a method, a system, a practice, a way of washing out, purging all that, or there is no way at all? Or only the act of total listening to what you say. Say, for instance, when you say there is a mystery, to you it is the truth, the actual, the real – not real; it is. And if I haven’t got the ears to listen to you I will never capture it, I will never participate in it. And my longing is to participate in it, because intellectually I see how extraordinarily important that is.
15:03	DB: Yes, the longing is of no use.
15:05	K: Longing is no use. I perceive it, I see with all my being how extraordinarily important it is to have that… to participate in that mysterious thing which will give me… which will give a whole sense of enormous beauty – you follow? – all that. I see it, but any effort I make will spoil it – any desire, any action, any volition is still within the field of reality. So, how am I to participate in something which is so actual? What would you as a scientist say to it?
16:13	DB: Well, I don’t know. I mean, science has not really confronted that.
16:17	K: Why not? After all, sir, I mean, they look into stars – that’s not mysterious. I don’t know…
16:20	DB: No, well, they hope it will be...
16:25	K: No, no, that is not mysterious.
16:28	DB: It has been called a mysterious universe but…
16:31	K: I know. But you wouldn’t call that mysterious, would you?
16:37	DB: Well, not once you’ve explained it. It’s still part of the same structure of reality.
16:43	K: Of reality – yes, that’s right.
16:44	DB: But would you say that there’s a mystery as to… you see, I was looking at it, we have truth and we have reality, you see, which don’t mix. That is, although reality can become aware of the action of truth. Right?
17:00	K: Yes, reality can bring about order and peace and everything.
17:02	DB: And also it responds to the action of truth, you see.
17:05	K: It might.
17:06	DB: It might.
17:07	K: Yes, it might.
17:09	DB: And, now, you see, one of the things that occurred to me, there is something… it cannot be the last word that these two are entirely separate – do you see? In other words, that all existence is… that you could divide existence into two such distinct…
17:25	K: Reality and truth.
17:27	DB: Yes.
17:28	K: Why not?
17:29	DB: Well, I don’t know why not, but just simply that this division…
17:34	K: Ah, is there a division?
17:37	DB: Well, that’s the question, you see. But the way we’ve put it, it sounds as if there is one.
17:41	K: I know, I’d like to question, to find out whether the division exists at all.
17:52	DB: Yes. Well, in the beginning you insisted on the fact they are separate.
17:56	K: I know. They are separate. But we are using the word separate as two separate things.
18:02	DB: Yes, but…
18:03	K: Two separate states.
18:05	DB: But what does the word separate mean, as distinct…
18:08	K: Divided.
18:09	DB: We say that they are divided, for the moment. I mean, they are different.
18:13	K: Yes.
18:15	DB: You say one does not… is not related to the other.
18:20	K: We said that.
18:22	DB: Yes.
18:23	K: Yes. One is not related to the other.
18:25	DB: Which implies division or separation. You see…
18:28	K: Let’s for the moment accept that. Let’s proceed.
18:32	DB: Yes, at least on a certain level that appears to be the case.
18:36	K: Yes, yes.
18:37	DB: Once before in discussion on intelligence, you know, we raised the question of whether there was not some source, you know, that underlies both, you see.
18:52	K: Yes, yes, quite.
18:54	DB: And in that source there is no separation of truth and reality.
19:00	K: It’s the common bed.
19:03	DB: Yes.
19:04	K: Yes.
19:05	DB: It’s the ground – whatever you want to call it. Now...
19:07	K: For the moment we’re not settling on that. We’ve moved from there for the time being.
19:12	DB: Yes. Now, one could say that possibly, you know, this source is a mystery, because, you know, if you once begin to characterise it, it will either become, you know, truth or reality.
19:29	K: Of course, of course.
19:34	DB: And now the other point that I was going along with was that... you see, I think that thought, or reality that is, has a tendency to try… it knows its fragmented and incomplete, but it has a tendency to try to become complete.
19:48	K: Complete – quite.
19:49	DB: Which in some ways is good because it helps to organise reality in a more orderly way.
19:56	K: I understand. I understand that.
19:58	DB: But then in the attempt of thought to cover the whole, it goes wrong, you see.
20:04	K: Of course. I mean… Of course, of course.
20:07	DB: But thought is always trying to cover the whole. You see, it’s always trying to say this is the whole, and in that way, of course, it closes and establishes a conclusion, a closure. And that of course becomes false. Now, you see, we were saying the other time also, that thought must acknowledge its own fragmentary nature…
20:25	K: Limitation, yes.
20:26	DB: Yes, its limited nature. At the same time, it has the impulse to…
20:29	K: ...to expand.
20:30	DB: To expand. That should be… that’s quite good, as long as we don’t… thought is not trying to capture the whole.
20:36	K: Quite, quite. I understand all that.
20:39	DB: Now... but it occurred to me that thought in trying to capture the whole is the barrier to seeing this mystery. You see, insofar as it does capture anything, it’s no longer mysterious.
20:50	K: Also, would you say if thought is aware of its own limitation – not expand, not try to include the whole – sees its limitation and doesn’t move beyond that limitation.
21:12	DB: Yes. Well, we were also saying the other time that thought does not stay within its limitation, ordinarily. Once it defines a limitation then it tends to be beyond it already.
21:23	K: Yes. We are saying it is aware, attentive, all the rest. It is totally aware of its limitation.
21:32	DB: You see, let’s put it that thought – I was looking at it this morning – thought is aware that there is something beyond – the unlimited.
21:40	K: Ah…
21:41	DB: No, it isn’t.
21:42	K: No, I would question… You see…
21:44	DB: It is not aware of that, no, but thought knows it is limited, but it is already implied in that, that... You know, the word limited already...
21:49	K: No. I’m limited – this room is small.
21:51	DB: Yes, that implies there’s something outside the room.
21:54	K: I’m not even concerned if there is outside.
21:56	DB: Yes, well…
21:57	K: The moment I’m concerned, thought is moving out.
21:59	DB: Yes, well, I’m trying to say it’s in the very structure of the word limit...
22:02	K: I understand that.
22:04	DB: …to imply something beyond.
22:06	K: All right. I am aware… thought is aware that it is fragmented, broken, limited. It cannot move beyond its own frontiers.
22:21	DB: Yes, because there’s... thought cannot capture the whole, you know, and…
22:27	K: Yes, put it – yes. And stays there.
22:30	DB: Yes.
22:31	K: Doesn’t try to capture the whole – says, ‘I am not the whole.’
22:37	DB: Yes. And then there are very many subtle ways in which thought is trying to capture the whole, not merely by concepts but also by its feelings. We have to watch them all.
22:49	K: I watch them all – feeling, thought, desire, everything says, ‘I won’t move from there.’ Because I know the moment it moves it’s still the same thing.
23:05	DB: Yes. I wonder why thought tries to capture the whole. Is that…
23:09	K: Because it is…
23:10	DB: I mean, the mere fact of limitation is not enough to make it do so. That is, it has some belief...
23:14	K: No. Because it sees, it is aware of its own capacity as a fragmented thing.
23:23	DB: Yes, but why does it want to get beyond that?
23:26	K: Because: pain, suffering, wanting greater experience…
23:33	DB: Yes, but that all comes from the…
23:37	K: Exactly.
23:38	DB: But, I mean, that doesn’t… that’s no explanation. You know, that’s begging the question because the suffering may be due to the desire to go beyond. Is thought trying to capture the whole... (inaudible)
23:48	K: No, then I don’t understand your question.
23:49	DB: Oh. My own feeling is that the suffering comes when thought is trying to capture the whole.
23:56	K: Aha, I see what you’re saying.
23:59	DB: Because that, being impossible, that will inevitably produce suffering.
24:02	K: And therefore it suffers.
24:04	DB: Yes.
24:05	K: No, I wouldn’t put it that way.
24:06	DB: You won’t put it…
24:08	K: Ah, no.
24:11	DB: Why?
24:13	K: Because suffering is produced by thought.
24:19	DB: Yes.
24:21	K: Not because it wants to capture something and therefore it cannot, therefore it suffers.
24:28	DB: Yes. But that’s one cause of suffering – if thought tries to achieve something which it cannot achieve.
24:35	K: But if I cannot achieve, if thought cannot achieve, why should it suffer? If I can’t become the Queen of England, that’s the end of it. Sir, just a minute. Is it possible for me, for the thought that is in me, the thought that says, ‘I am totally limited; limited, fragmented, broken up. Any movement I make is still in the same area.’ Is that not possible?
25:32	DB: Yes. Well, we have to be very clear, you see.
25:39	K: Desire, will, the confine in the prison is ache, and wanting to get out – all that I include.
25:50	DB: Yes. And also the… you know, thought perhaps has seen that wholeness is good and it, you know, has gotten into the habit, you know, of trying to achieve wholeness, you see.
26:05	K: Yes, yes – wholeness.
26:06	DB: In other words, thought has seen there is not wholeness, so thought has been looking for wholeness.
26:10	K: Yes, that too I include – everything I include in that. When we use the word limited I include all that.
26:19	DB: And you see that thought is in fact limited and you could see why it is limited – because it is limited to reaction and reflection. At most it could reflect. Now, it cannot reflect the mystery – is that…
26:37	K: Yes.
26:38	DB: It can reflect only on reality.
26:40	K: That’s right, it can only reflect reality – that’s right – reflect what is going on in reality.
26:48	DB: In reality. It can reflect and define and determine and so on, measure.
26:58	K: Yes, yes. And thought realises that. And therefore there is no movement outside that field.
27:10	DB: Yes, well, but still there may be, because of a whole lifetime, a lot of unconscious movement, you see.
27:20	K: All right. Let’s go into that.
27:25	DB: Yes. (Pause)
27:29	K: My unconscious desire for the whole, I watch it, I’m very… that’s why I said I’m very sensitive to everything that’s going on in me.
27:48	DB: Yes, well, I understand that, I mean…
27:51	K: Conscious as well as unconscious.
27:52	DB: Yes. Now, being sensitive of the unconscious – let’s discuss that a little.
27:56	K: Yes, yes.
27:57	DB: Because if it were totally unconscious you couldn’t be sensitive, so we must be clear that it’s relatively unconscious. In other words, unconscious merely means dimly aware.
28:07	K: Dimly aware.
28:09	DB: Not absolutely, totally unaware.
28:10	K: No, no – dimly aware.
28:12	DB: And therefore by being sensitive to the hints and the implications…
28:17	K: Yes, hints and intimations, and the dreams, you know, everything I… To me, unconscious is not very important.
28:25	DB: Well, no, I don’t think it’s important except that it may do things that are…
28:31	K: Yes, but…
28:32	DB: It may make a big effect, though it’s really unimportant.
28:34	K: But therefore I’m… my mind or whatever it is, I’m very aware of all this – aware of the intimations of the unconscious, dimly conscious, the hints, the hidden motives, which are fairly… which if one is alert one can very easily find out.
29:05	DB: And all the various senses of pleasure and pain and…
29:08	K: Yes, all that.
29:10	DB: And then I think the unconscious has a way of making the mind dull itself to make itself less sensitive to all these things.
29:20	K: Yes, because – quite, quite.
29:22	DB: To anaesthetise itself, I used to say.
29:24	K: Yes, the dim and the unconscious tries to make the conscious not so active.
29:31	DB: It tries to anaesthetise, to tranquillise it.
29:35	K: Anaesthetise – quite – tranquillise. I see all that, therefore I… That’s what, when I say I’m fully aware, I include the unconscious movements, the hidden motives, the desires, will – all that. That is, the thought realises totally its boundaries, that it cannot go beyond it. You see, that’s what the orthodox meditation people do – try to control thought. The controller, they never realise the controller is the controlled, but try to control thought so that it doesn’t… it has no movement.
30:38	DB: Yes, well, I mean we’ve discussed that.
30:40	K: Of course.
30:41	DB: But I mean, that implies some movement in the field of reality, to control thought. I mean, is that it? I mean, it’s usually, you know, it may involve concentration or contemplation, you see, and…
30:56	K: Yes. It is still the movement of thought.
30:59	DB: The movement of thought. Now, their assumption is that there are certain movements of thought which will bring thought to quietness.
31:06	K: No. Which is, they say – from what I’ve understood, and I may be wrong – they say thought must be controlled.
31:18	DB: I’m not even sure all of them say exactly that. I think somebody like the Maharishi may say it must be quiet and there’s no one in control.
31:26	K: Which is...
31:27	DB: He doesn’t call it control, even.
31:28	K: But it is the same – quieten the thought…
31:31	DB: ...by concentrating on a word and then drop the word and so on.
31:35	K: But it’s still the movement of thought.
31:38	DB: Yes, but I think his assumption – not that I accept it – but his assumption is that there’s a certain movement of thought which will make thought completely silent and then the mystery might participate in it.
31:51	K: No. I suppose you have gone into this a little bit; I’ve talked to various people about this.
31:58	DB: I’m not saying I accept it, I’m just…
32:00	K: No, of course not. From what I’ve heard and what they’ve told me – not Maharishi and his disciples, others – that sound has a peculiar effect on the brain.
32:14	DB: On the brain, certain sounds.
32:18	K: Certain sounds. And those sounds are given only – mantras – only to people who have lived with the master for a number of years. The master has studied them, seen their character, their tendency and all the rest of it, then they give a certain mantra.
32:41	DB: Yes. It would be suited to that person.
32:46	K: Suited to that person and nobody else.
32:48	DB: Yes. Well, assuming that they do that, now, what would you say? That sound is still thought.
32:56	K: Yes.
32:57	DB: That’s because it’s defined in some way.
32:59	K: No, there is much deeper… First you repeat it loud.
33:03	DB: Yes.
33:04	K: Then you repeat it silently.
33:05	DB: Yes.
33:06	K: Then you listen to the sound only.
33:11	DB: Yes. And they believe that would be beyond thought already.
33:15	K: Yes.
33:16	DB: Now, you say it’s not beyond thought.
33:17	K: No, it is not beyond thought.
33:18	DB: Because the sound is produced from memory.
33:22	K: Yes. It is all structured on thought, which is a desire to achieve tranquillity.
33:32	DB: Yes, so in the whole process it is never separate from an implicit desire to achieve tranquillity.
33:39	K: That’s it, that’s it.
33:40	DB: It will be there even if it’s dimly aware.
33:42	K: Yes, yes.
33:44	DB: And that desire will produce a distortion, you know, self-deception.
33:53	K: Delusion. So, being aware of all that, that desire for an achievement must inevitably create an illusion, delusion, thought then says, ‘There is no movement.’
34:14	DB: Yes, well... I mean, you say, ‘Thought says’ – that already is a movement.
34:24	K: No, I mean, it realises.
34:25	DB: It realises.
34:26	K: It knows or it is aware. It is so. That is the truth. Right? The moment thought has said, ‘I cannot move,’ that is the fact.
34:49	DB: Yes, that sounds, you know, a little troublesome, because you’re saying now thought has the truth – do you see?
34:57	K: No, no. The moment it stops moving, that’s what I mean.
35:01	DB: And then truth...
35:02	K: Then that is so.
35:05	DB: Truth is so – right? – truth is.
35:07	K: Yes. It isn’t thought has created truth. Thought comes to an end, as a movement outside, beyond its limits. I wonder if I’m making…
35:24	DB: Yes. Well, if thought… when thought comes to an end…
35:28	K: Not as a means of achieving something. Not by volition, by desire for tranquillity and peace and experience – none of that.
35:47	DB: Thought is consciously aware of its own limitation.
35:50	K: Yes, that’s all I’m saying.
35:51	DB: It comes to end when there is no need for it, and that is truth. I mean, then – or would you say, then truth is?
36:02	K: Yes, yes – then truth is. Now, then meditation is – may I put it the other way? Can the mind, can this consciousness, which is filled with the things of thought – all that we’ve discussed just now – can that empty itself?
36:48	DB: Now, what does that mean, empty itself?
36:52	K: I’ll tell what I’m… The things that thought has put... has created.
36:58	DB: What things do you mean?
37:02	K: Right. Like achievement, desire, will, attachment.
37:06	DB: Yes, the self, the centre.
37:10	K: The centre.
37:12	DB: Time, is that part of it?
37:14	K: That’s it – all that. Can there be an emptying of all that?
37:21	DB: Now, when you say emptying…
37:24	K: Emptying in the sense… I mean emptying, seeing the reality of thought, and thought which is fragmented, thought which is limited, broken up, and whatever it does is still limited, and so on and so on. That’s my consciousness and thought no more active at all there. I don’t know how to put this.
38:07	DB: Yes.
38:08	K: I’m active in the world of reality.
38:10	DB: Thought is – oh, I see – that thought is always active in the field of reality.
38:15	K: Obviously.
38:16	DB: But it ceases to try to act to capture the whole, to go beyond the field.
38:19	K: Yes, that’s right.
38:20	DB: You see, I think that thought is always trying to go beyond the field of reality.
38:23	K: No, I won’t… my thought won’t allow… thought says…
38:25	DB: No, but I’m saying the traditional...
38:27	K: Yes, yes, traditional thought – quite.
38:29	DB: We pick up the tradition from the society that thought…
38:34	K: Yes, tradition from society, education, all the rest of it.
38:38	DB: Now, do you say that your thought is entirely without a centre?
38:42	K: Yes. Centre being – we must be very clear again.
38:52	DB: Yes, I want to understand that.
38:59	K: Centre being desires, achievement…
39:00	DB: But there’s also the sensation of a centre, anywhere.
39:03	K: Yes, sensation as being.
39:04	DB: As being, a centre, say here, in the solar plexus, anywhere.
39:08	K: Solar plexus, they go in… they have gone into all this.
39:10	DB: Around the eyes or – yes.
39:13	K: Yes – between the eyes, in the solar plexus, in the heart.
39:18	DB: Yes.
39:19	K: No centre.
39:20	DB: Yes. Now, the centre...
39:22	K: I can… that is definite.
39:25	DB: Yes. I mean, I can see that the concept of the centre produces a reaction, it produces a feeling. You see, in other words, the feeling of the centre is produced by the concept of the centre.
39:34	K: Centre – quite.
39:35	DB: So it has no independent reality.
39:38	K: Yes, quite.
39:40	DB: I mean, it seems that that centre is one of the basic causes of illusion, because once the centre is established then the next thought attributes itself to the centre and therefore it becomes the truth – do you see?
39:53	K: Yes, yes.
39:54	DB: In other words, thought then somehow seems to achieve, to have gotten itself beyond reality into truth.
40:01	K: Sir, if I see very clearly the world of reality which thought has created…
40:14	DB: Which includes the centre.
40:16	K: Centre – of course, of course.
40:17	DB: And it includes the concept.
40:19	K: Rituals, concept, and the concept feeding the centre, the centre feeding the concept, and so on, all that – all that is the movement of thought.
40:29	DB: Yes. You see, just a matter of… I found something clarifying, that when I see that there is a concept… I see something which I could call objective reality, if it’s correct to say its activity is independent of thought. Say the microphone, although it was made by thought it is objective reality.
40:52	K: Of course, of course, of course.
40:54	DB: Now, then there is another reality which is sustained and created entirely by thought. That is the centre.
41:00	K: Centre – that’s right. The centre is created by thought.
41:02	DB: And it’s sustained by thought.
41:04	K: Sustained by thought.
41:05	DB: It does not have the kind of reality that the microphone has.
41:08	K: Of course, that’s very clear.
41:09	DB: Or even less, the mountain.
41:10	K: That’s obvious, that’s clear.
41:11	DB: And part of the confusion comes in the inability of thought to make a clear distinction between…
41:19	K: ...the two.
41:20	DB: …between the two – that which is sustained independently of thought and that which thought sustains, you see.
41:25	K: Yes.
41:26	DB: And it occurred to me that... You see, something happens – thought thinks something – the root of thought is not perceived and suddenly the content appears, a certain reality, which is then taken by the next thought as existing independently, an object, you know, either being reality or truth.
41:47	K: Yes.
41:48	DB: You see what I mean?
41:50	K: But, sir, all these…
41:51	DB: And we lose track of that, you see.
41:53	K: Yes.
41:54	DB: Now, I was going to say that if I did not lose track of this process of thought, I would see the whole of thought as one and there would be no illusion. Right?
42:05	K: No, that’s right.
42:06	DB: So I’ve been watching for a while, you see, to say that there’s always… thought seems to… first of all, I have some natural tendency to lose track of this and later it is built up systematically by the thought which goes beyond reality – that is the thought of the centre.
42:19	K: I think what you said just now – thought has created this.
42:25	DB: Yes, but then still it exists independently.
42:27	K: Still exists independent of thought.
42:29	DB: Yes.
42:30	K: And the centre is created by thought.
42:33	DB: But it does not exist independent of thought.
42:35	K: Independent of thought.
42:36	DB: No.
42:37	K: It is sustained by thought.
42:38	DB: Fed and sustained by thought all the time.
42:40	K: All the time. So those are two factors.
42:42	DB: That’s right. Now, I’ve asked myself how one could confuse one with the other, and the answer is that thought when it creates the centre, it does not watch, is not aware of itself creating the centre…
42:52	K: That’s right. Yes.
42:54	DB: ...and suddenly the centre is there, just like as if it were the microphone.
42:55	K: That’s right – and takes that as reality.
42:56	DB: It takes that as independent reality.
42:59	K: Yes – independent – that’s right.
43:00	DB: But after that it begins to attribute pleasure and pain to the centre. In the hope of maintaining pleasure it does not want to give up the reality of the centre, because to give up the reality of the centre you would lose the possibility of pleasure from thought.
43:14	K: Quite, quite, quite – that’s...
43:15	DB: Because pleasure – right, that’s clear.
43:17	K: So, let’s get it clear again. I want it clear. Thought has created this.
43:23	DB: Yes, and thought – but I was going to just make it complete – that thought not only creates it, it measures and it defines and determines, you see. For example, it may determine the mountain though it hasn’t created the mountain. It determines the shape of the mountain…
43:35	K: Shape of the mountain.
43:36	DB: And the mountain is objective reality, which was there without thought. The next step is that thought has made the microphone which was there with thought, but it still exists independently.
43:44	K: Independently – quite right.
43:46	DB: And then the third step is thought has created the centre which does not exist at all independently of thought, but it looks… but thought thinks that it does.
43:55	K: Independent.
43:56	DB: Yes.
43:57	K: Yes. And sustains that independence through pleasure and all the rest of it.
44:01	DB: Through pleasure. And then that becomes a trap, because the same mechanism that allows thought to attribute… you see, pleasure produced only by thought would be too trivial to be sought.
44:10	K: Quite, quite.
44:12	DB: But if it is attributed to the centre then it is felt to be something genuine and real...
44:19	K: Yes.
44:20	DB: …as if it were, you know, of some objective reality, or some reality independent of thought.
44:23	K: It’s very clear, this.
44:24	DB: But then once thought has attributed pleasure to the centre, it cannot avoid attributing pain to the centre.
44:29	K: Quite. This is simple.
44:31	DB: Therefore that creates suffering, you see.
44:32	K: That’s simple enough. So we’ve got the picture clear.
44:37	DB: Yes.
44:38	K: Now, one is totally aware of this, and therefore no movement as time and measure outside this. (Pause) Because thought, as we said, cannot possibly apprehend or comprehend or aware of the whole.
45:21	DB: No.
45:24	K: And it is not a verbal acceptance but an actuality – thought sees as objectively as that.
45:41	DB: Yes. I mean, I understand. You see, I think there’s always a slight residue, almost a physical movement, I mean, which seems thought still…
45:54	K: I don’t quite…
45:56	DB: Well, you see, I can’t explain, but as if there were still waves.
46:03	K: Ah, ah. No, no. No, sir, that’s what I want to… When there is the realisation or comprehension or awareness that thought is a movement in time and measure, thought creates the centre and sustains the centre, thought created this and is an objective... independent of thought…
46:38	DB: Yes, and thought recognises that existing independent of the mountain.
46:42	K: Independent. Now, I am aware of all that. And so thought has no movement beyond it… beyond.
46:56	DB: Yes, I understand, you see, what you are asking.
47:04	K: In which is included conscious, semi-conscious, dim conscious – everything. Because, you know, we were talking a little bit yesterday – thought is movement in time. Action is without time.
47:30	DB: That may be the point that remains to be looked at, you see.
47:36	K: I don’t want to bring it in yet, just now. We can bring it in. But if one is only living in acting and not in the movement of time…
47:54	DB: And yet the movement of time is going on. I mean, you see, this is a point which perhaps we could discuss.
48:00	K: Of course, of course.
48:01	DB: Let’s try to make it very clear, because I think many years ago in Tannegg we reached some such point in a discussion, and one of the things that puzzled me at the time was, you see, having… we were discussing the centre and being free of the centre, and then came the question of the timeless, you see. Now, the thing that puzzled me at the time was that I was saying I’m talking to you in time, you say you’re not in time. But you see, probably then there was a feeling at that time, you see, that everything exists in time. You see, this is something which is in the tradition, is in the… is very deeply ingrained.
48:41	K: Yes – everything is in time.
48:43	DB: Yes, you see, I think that… I was trying to say that suppose one can reach the stage of seeing that the centre is nothing except a creation of thought – do you see? – and it’s almost gone... (inaudible)
48:55	K: Yes. Yes, sir.
48:57	DB: But then there’s a kind of movement which I feel you can’t characterise but it almost seems to be a universal movement, you know, a feeling all over of something moving, in which you exist – do you see?
49:10	K: Something moving in which you exist.
49:15	DB: Well, a movement in which you exist – let’s try to put it.
49:19	K: A movement in which you exist.
49:21	DB: Yes. Now, that’s probably communicated to us by a very subtle tradition that’s handed down.
49:28	K: Now, wait a minute. I have no tradition.
49:33	DB: Yes.
49:34	K: Take – I’m not… I will go into it – suppose I’ve no tradition.
49:38	DB: Yes. But suppose you have.
49:41	K: Wait a minute, I want to approach it the other way – we’ll come to it later. I’ve no tradition. I’m not a slave to society, psychologically. I’m not… I’ve no burden of the thousand yesterdays. So there is no conscious or unconscious movement.
50:07	DB: Yes, but I think tradition is the source of this whole movement.
50:11	K: That’s it.
50:12	DB: And the tradition, I was saying, how its handed down is – I’ve looked it up in the dictionary, anyway – it’s not only handed down verbally but also by example, and that’s much more difficult.
50:20	K: By example – of course.
50:21	DB: And the point is that when the child sees the parents and their friends behaving in a certain way, which implies a certain way of thinking, the child begins to think that way.
50:34	K: Quite, quite, quite.
50:35	DB: And it seems that he’s picking up reality. You see, he’s picking it up as if it were independent reality, independent of thought, because it’s not his thought, it’s somebody else’s thought, but he doesn’t see that all thought is one. It doesn’t matter who’s thought it is.
50:48	K: Whose thought it is.
50:49	DB: But you see, when you learn from tradition, somebody is guided by thought but he’s implying that it is not thought but it’s the way things always were, that they were necessary, objectively so, you see.
51:00	K: And also in the dictionary, I don’t know if you saw, tradition means also betrayal.
51:04	DB: Betrayal – yes, it’s the same root – to hand over. Yes. And you see, I was thinking that we need two words, you see. In other words, there is something you were saying the other day that you had discovered something, like Columbus or so, you know, and that other people might learn and not start from the same place.
51:21	K: Quite.
51:22	DB: So in some sense you are also passing something over, but not in the same way.
51:26	K: Not the same, no.
51:27	DB: But also in science it’s the same – you shouldn’t have science handed down traditionally but rather the discovery… from somebody else’s discovery, you learn.
51:35	K: And move on.
51:36	DB: You move on. Although unfortunately it has become a tradition.
51:39	K: Tradition – quite.
51:40	DB: Now, so we could say…
51:41	K: Ah, you see, sir?
51:42	DB: What?
51:43	K: Wait a minute. Here there is no moving on.
51:45	DB: Yes, well that’s what I’m… but there was implied in what you said before, the other day, you see. Let’s try to get it clear. You see, so you said before you were like Columbus, you had made a discovery many years ago.
51:58	K: Yes, suppose… yes.
51:59	DB: You discovered truth is a pathless land. You went through, you say, all sorts of painful experiences which you say are not necessary for other people to repeat.
52:06	K: No.
52:07	DB: Right. Now, let’s say somebody else being… can learn from your discovery and he… now, then the question is: What happens? So you say there’s no moving on.
52:16	K: No. That is, there is no movement beyond that.
52:20	DB: Yes, all right. Let’s try to make it clear, that in science, at least as it has been practised so far, there is a discovery and if it’s been done right then it’s not a tradition, somebody learns and he may discover something else.
52:34	K: Yes.
52:35	DB: And that makes a series of discoveries which make a kind of progress.
52:38	K: Progress and knowledge accumulated and all the rest of it.
52:41	DB: And so on – yes. Now, let’s try to make it clear how you propose to do it differently.
52:46	K: Yes. Here, when you said, ‘Truth is a pathless land,’ it is final, it is so.
52:53	DB: Yes, all right, but then you still said – you see, it’s not quite clear because you still said somebody may learn from you, what you’re discovering, and then he may go on and make his own discovery.
53:06	K: Ah, no, wait a minute, I know, I want to correct that, I want…
53:07	DB: Yes.
53:08	K: That is, sir, someone says, ‘Truth is a pathless land.’ It is so; there is nothing more to be said.
53:19	DB: Yes, that’s right, but…
53:21	K: There is no movement of somebody else coming along, saying, ‘Yes.’
53:26	DB: Right. Now we have to make it very clear, not to say… No, let’s say in science somebody makes a discovery. Let’s say Einstein made a discovery. Now, somebody else may learn from Einstein. It does not mean that he will repeat what Einstein did or modify it, but rather having learnt from Einstein he may now discover something deeper.
53:44	K: Deeper – quite.
53:45	DB: Of his own. Now, is there any similarity?
53:47	K: No.
53:48	DB: No similarity.
53:49	K: No similarity.
53:50	DB: So we must get it clear. Right.
53:52	K: No.
53:53	DB: Right. All right, so that’s a difference between… that seems to be an intrinsic difference between science and what you’re talking about.
53:57	K: Yes, that’s right.
53:58	DB: Because I cannot imagine science…
53:59	K: I’m glad you brought this out.
54:00	DB: Because I cannot imagine science except by one discovery leading to another, you see. Otherwise there would be no point to it.
54:07	K: Quite, quite.
54:09	DB: Now the… All right, so now we say it’s not a case of one discovery leading to another. Say I learn that truth is a pathless land because of what you’ve said and communicated…
54:22	K: It is…
54:23	DB: It is so – right. And that acts – right?
54:26	K: That’s right.
54:29	DB: But now you say there’s a mystery, you see. But we’re not going to discover deeper into the mystery.
54:35	K: I’m coming… You see… Now, when thought has no movement beyond its limitation, beyond its reality – right, sir?
54:47	DB: Yes, well, we still, you know, that requires a little more… This no movement, you see, is something which… that’s part of the thing but, you see, coming back to the tradition, you say you have no tradition, let’s say I have a tradition…
55:03	K: I have tradition, you have no tradition – let’s move.
55:05	DB: Well, either way.
55:06	K: Doesn’t matter.
55:07	DB: Right. Now, let’s say, you see, over many, many years with my parents and friends and so on, it was communicated non-verbally, you know, and by example that I live in time, time is of the essence, you see, everything... time is the most important, you know, your life depends on time and time is flying and so on and so on, you see, saying don’t waste time…
55:27	K: ...time is money.
55:28	DB: ...time is money, and, you know, you only have a limited time to live and you’d better make use of it, and so on.
55:33	K: Quite, quite, quite.
55:34	DB: Now, so everybody has communicated in millions of ways how important time is, you see, from very early. And that communication was picked up, not... was picked up as if it were objective reality, you see, not as if somebody told me as an idea, and therefore I experience it as objective reality.
55:54	K: Quite, quite – I understand that.
55:55	DB: Right. And it’s the same as the centre – the centre is experienced as objective… as reality, independent reality, and so is time, because of that tradition.
56:05	K: Yes.
56:06	DB: And now that experience, although the centre may not be very, you know, permanent or strong, there is a sense of some movement going on all over, especially in the body, let’s say, or in the… In other words, there’s a stream of movement in which I exist.
56:23	K: Yes. Proceed, sir, I understand.
56:26	DB: Right. Now, it seems to me that being free of that is much deeper than, say, being free of the centre. I don’t know. Or is there no difference?
56:34	K: Ah, I see what you mean. I see what you’re getting at.
56:40	DB: Because, you see, essentially this was the point, I think, many years ago in Gstaad, we had a discussion here, and, you know, I think we reached about there.
56:47	K: Aha. I’ve forgotten – it doesn’t matter. Sir, forgive me if I talk about myself, it’s not… I’ve never thought about time. Time has not entered into my being. I know there is time – I know I have to stop at four or five – you follow?
57:20	DB: Well, the same as the microphone – there is objective time.
57:24	K: Objective. I know if I order something I’ll get it in two, five days, ten days and so on. So, the psychological factor of time has never played any part. That is, there was never a question of becoming something.
57:52	DB: Well, it’s not merely a question of becoming. I’m trying to say there seems – or probably it is very similar – but let’s say time comes in various ways, like saying, now is another moment from before, as a feeling, and the… you see, and I feel that through time one loses track of the oneness of thought. You see, if we could see all thought as one and it’s all limited. You see, I understand all thought is one, it’s all limited, but the actuality of that gets lost.
58:24	K: Ah – gets lost – quite, quite.
58:25	DB: And I see why, at least one reason – through time, you see.
58:28	K: Yes.
58:29	DB: Now, why does it get lost through time? Because, let’s say, in one moment I’m aware of thought taking place, the next moment comes along and suddenly we say it’s another moment and – let’s see how to put it – and that it’s different. And therefore what appears… the connection between what is here and what was done a moment ago which created what is here now is lost – do you see?
58:51	K: Yes.
58:52	DB: Have I made it clear?
58:53	K: Not quite.
58:54	DB: Let’s try to make it clear. I think time introduces, you know, fragmentation because time is one moment, another, another. Now, let’s say what is happening in thought now is one process, what happened before is continuous – it made what exists now – right? – in the whole of thought.
59:14	K: Yes, yes, yes.
59:15	DB: Let’s say I have a sense of a centre now but it was due to a concept I had a moment ago.
59:20	K: Yes.
59:21	DB: It takes a moment for the concept to produce like a wave the whole thing.
59:25	K: Yes, and also the ending of it.
59:30	DB: The ending of it. But I’m trying to go a little further with what goes on. Now, then, insofar as there’s a sudden feeling this moment is different from the other, the connection between the centre which exists now and the concept which made it, is lost – do you see? Lost to awareness, anyway.
59:49	K: I haven’t quite… I haven’t got your meaning yet.
59:53	DB: Oh. Well, it’s almost like saying… let’s say I say I understand certain things about thought and there is a sudden feeling this is a different moment, and this is different, when it’s not really different, do you see?
1:00:07	K: Aha.
1:00:08	DB: For example, if something suddenly surges up very fast and very intense, there is an implicit thought – anything beyond a certain speed and intensity is reality and not thought – do you see?
1:00:19	K: I understand. I see.
1:00:21	DB: You see, suppose I understand what thought is – thought takes time, thought has a certain limited intensity, and so on. Now then, you see, very early probably the brain made a distinction saying thought is not as solid or real as the table, and also it works in time. Now, suppose thought reacts very fast and very intensely.
1:00:42	K: Yes.
1:00:43	DB: And then that thought, the next thought takes that as an independent reality.
1:00:48	K: I see. I understand.
1:00:50	DB: And therefore you have lost track of the connection, which means… and that comes about because we have said this is now another moment, something new has come in there, when in fact it isn’t.
1:00:58	K: No. I’ve got it. So what are you trying to say?
1:01:03	DB: Well, I’m only trying to say that this question of time is more than just becoming, you know, more than just the sense, ‘I want to become’ – although it includes the sense, ‘I want to become better,’ and so on. But it has in it some tendency for me to lose track.
1:01:19	K: Ah, I see. I see. Of course. I see – yes.
1:01:23	DB: To lose track of the connection. You see, if I could see all thought as one, connected, then I think the thing, you know… In other words, say I’ve understood what you’ve said, that all thought is limited – right? Let me try to put it more clearly.
1:01:34	K: Yes, I’ve got it.
1:01:35	DB: I’ve understood that, but now at one moment the brain does not understand, loses track and says, ‘Okay, all thought is limited,’ but this isn’t thought – do you see? (Laughs)
1:01:44	K: (Laughs) Yes, quite, quite.
1:01:45	DB: And therefore the… therefore this is allowed to go on in some unlimited way.
1:01:47	K: But I see, I perceive, or I am aware all thought is one, therefore it is not my thought, your thought…
1:01:59	DB: Yes, yes, but there are all sorts of, you know, means by which thought tries to present itself as not thought – do you see?
1:02:05	K: Aha. I know. That is delusion and all the rest of it.
1:02:08	DB: Yes. And I think time is involved very much in that.
1:02:10	K: Yes, very much – quite. Sir, wouldn’t you say, if you perceived, not verbally and all the rest, really had an insight into thought, everything else is explained in relation to thought? That is, I mean, desire, will, unconnected moments of thought, intervals.
1:02:44	DB: Yes – suffering and pleasure and fear.
1:02:46	K: Yes. Intervals of thought – all that.
1:02:49	DB: Yes, you have to see the whole thing. Now, the point is that the whole sense of time, which includes not only becoming but also the sense of separation of moments, that is, one moment is different…
1:03:02	K: Yes, separation of moment, separation of thought…
1:03:05	DB: One moment…
1:03:06	K: Yes.
1:03:07	DB: You see, if I call this moment now, you see there’s a… when you say, ‘Now,’ you see, thought is involved in there because now is not the moment before – do you see? – and therefore thought introduces a separation which is false.
1:03:20	K: Quite, quite.
1:03:22	DB: Because the moment before has flowed continuously into this moment.
1:03:28	K: So, the word separates.
1:03:33	DB: Yes. The sensation separates.
1:03:38	K: Separates – there are intervals between thoughts, which separates.
1:03:43	DB: Yes. And also changes in thought which separate.
1:03:46	K: Changes in thought.
1:03:48	DB: Yes.
1:03:49	K: All that is the movement of thought.
1:03:52	DB: Yes. I mean, see, I was merely… I think the point I was trying to make was that the movement of thought is very deceptive and has many aspects…
1:04:00	K: Of course, of course.
1:04:01	DB: …which one has to be aware of. And now, you see, this is one of the things that arises, say, that when you actually come to do something or when you are in relation with somebody, you see, the whole thought may arise to such an intensity that it will mistake itself for a reality independent of thought – do you see?
1:04:22	K: Yes – quite, quite, quite.
1:04:23	DB: And therefore that loses track at that moment. You see, in other words, let’s say everything you said was understood, more or less, but at a certain stage thought loses track of what is the difference, you know, what thought is.
1:04:40	K: Quite. I understand this.
1:04:42	DB: And one has to somehow, you know, to keep awareness of the connection.
1:04:47	K: Yes. I’m not sure, sir.
1:04:50	DB: Or it may not be right.
1:04:54	K: I want to question it. I’m not sure that all these things arise when you have really experienced, seen, perceived, or had an insight into thought as movement in time.
1:05:16	DB: Yes, well, I’m sure that’s so. I’m trying to say that this…
1:05:20	K: Whole of that – all that’s implied. Do we see the whole of thought as a movement, have an insight, and then describe the details, or the details and… I don’t know if I’m… With me – I may be odd or peculiar – I see, and then I, you know, explain. But not the explanation then the seeing. (Pause) Sir, are we saying there is always time? Just a minute, I’m just... There is no ending to time, it is a constant steady movement.
1:06:46	DB: That’s the way it appears.
1:06:50	K: Wait. In which we live.
1:06:53	DB: Yes.
1:06:55	K: Which expresses itself as yesterday, today and tomorrow; which expresses itself as a centre and acting from the centre; and the intervals between thoughts; and the thought changing from yesterday’s thought.
1:07:13	DB: Yes – the abrupt or the gradual change.
1:07:16	K: Changes.
1:07:18	DB: Yes.
1:07:20	K: All that is a movement of time.
1:07:26	DB: Yes.
1:07:30	K: Attachment, detachment, all that is a movement of time. Now, can thought see that and stop? Time, in the sense of movement, as thought, stop. Time must have a stop. (Pause) You see, if there is no ending to thought, there is no radical revolution. Right?
1:08:49	DB: Yes.
1:08:50	K: Then we’re just going on, changing patterns, all the rest of it. That is, you see the truth time has a stop – like truth is a pathless land, you see the truth that time has a stop. And you are trying to convey to me, verbally, the movement of thought, centre, all that, and I listen to all your explanation, and yet my mind is groping after the stopping of that time. Because it is... the fact that time has a stop is an extraordinary thing. And I want that, I’m gasping after it. So, unconsciously I want it… I realise – you follow? – I am becoming totally aware of the whole content of my consciousness.
1:10:37	DB: Yes, well, let’s try to put it like this, you see, one can see the necessity that time must have a stop, you see. Now, once again, if we come back to the unconscious, to the habitual layers, you see, I think they still move in time.
1:10:58	K: Play a tremendous part.
1:11:00	DB: Yes – they move in time, and I don’t know… you’re implying, you see... And our whole tradition is that our instincts and so on are in that direction.
1:11:07	K: I know.
1:11:08	DB: But you are implying that they are not.
1:11:12	K: No, for me they have never acted, a major factor.
1:11:15	DB: Yes.
1:11:16	K: I’m not saying this with any…
1:11:18	DB: Yes. Now, you also said that the explanations we gave before were inadequate, you see, the one about… so maybe we... that would… what else would you add?
1:11:31	K: We said the centre...
1:11:36	DB: No, you said having been ill and, you know, having…
1:11:40	K: Ah, you’re going back to the book.
1:11:41	DB: Yes, I’m just saying you said that those explanations for why time...
1:11:45	K: Yes. All those explanations don’t actually reveal something that was strange – let’s put it for the moment – strange in the sense mysterious.
1:12:03	DB: Yes, you mean from the beginning.
1:12:08	K: From the beginning. There are thousands of boys who are ill, vague, and then get conditioned and drop off – millions of them are like that. This boy, why didn’t it happen to him? You follow, sir?
1:12:38	DB: Yes.
1:12:40	K: I’ve given you half a dozen explanations, but I say those explanations, they satisfy at a certain level but it is not a complete explanation. Something totally mysterious and something sacred in this, if I can use that word without too much sentimentality or religiosity, that was taking place in him.
1:13:24	DB: Even before he was discovered by the Theosophists?
1:13:30	K: I should think so. The seed of it was operating already.
1:13:35	DB: Yes.
1:13:36	K: Because when I saw that picture of the two brothers, the taller one holding the hand of the younger one, I felt that there was something uncontaminated – I’m using quick words – something… that extraordinary thing was happening to him already. No, I don’t want to create a mystery about all this, you know – I have a horror of all that – but the explanations and what took place, I don’t think they give the clue to it.
1:14:27	DB: Well, would you say they may discuss conditions that are favourable to this sort of thing but they don’t determine…
1:14:36	K: They were not favourable.
1:14:37	DB: They were not favourable, but I mean not being conditioned, there was some… let’s say being ill and unable to be affected deeply by tradition may have been somewhat favourable.
1:14:47	K: Favourable, somewhat favourable.
1:14:48	DB: Because you could say a bit later the mind is not so impressionable and therefore… Right?
1:14:53	K: Yes. We said that.
1:14:55	DB: Yes, but that’s not enough to…
1:14:56	K: Obviously.
1:14:57	DB: …but it would give some…
1:14:58	K: There are millions of boys like that.
1:14:59	DB: It merely is a tendency. On the other hand, some other tendency might be equally favourable.
1:15:03	K: Yes.
1:15:04	DB: So you can’t just say this was particularly good compared with that.
1:15:08	K: No, no. But I feel… Look, let’s be much more simple. Millions of boys go through this illness, malaria, recover, get conditioned, and go off – go off in the sense they become ordinary, become normal, or whatever you like to call it. Here was a boy who had that illness, who had malaria, who was... quinine, doped, and all the rest of it, so mentally he was retarded, therefore he was unconditioned.
1:15:42	DB: Yes, until he was at a less impressionable age.
1:15:46	K: Yes. Even then he was not very much conditioned.
1:15:49	DB: Yes, but I mean beyond a certain age the conditioning doesn’t hold. You see, I think... See, for example, children who don’t learn a language by the age of seven might find it very hard to learn, because the conditioning… you see, they are very easily conditioned up to a certain age.
1:16:02	K: Up to a certain age – quite right.
1:16:03	DB: And beyond that age they are not so easily conditioned, so therefore… You see, if a boy could escape conditioning for a certain number of years, then…
1:16:09	K: Till 14, 15.
1:16:10	DB: Yes. Then beyond that point his brain is already resistant to conditioning. You know, it doesn’t take it in.
1:16:16	K: No – doesn’t take.
1:16:18	DB: Doesn’t take.
1:16:19	K: Not resistant.
1:16:20	DB: Doesn’t resist, but it doesn’t take the conditioning.
1:16:21	K: Yes.
1:16:22	DB: Whereas, at a very early age it is impressionable; impressions are made easily and they hold.
1:16:27	K: Yes, let’s take that.
1:16:28	DB: Yes, whereas being ill, the impressions were not made.
1:16:30	K: Yes, let’s take that.
1:16:31	DB: That’s one explanation. But, then, as you say, that’s only… that might be slightly favourable, somewhat favourable but…
1:16:39	K: Yes. That isn’t the whole answer.
1:16:41	DB: No. And now let’s… can you say any more? (Laughs)
1:16:50	K: (Laughs) You see, I… Can we talk simply, frankly?
1:17:02	DB: Yes. Well, all right, we’d better record it, unless you don’t want to. (Pause)
1:17:23	K: He felt that he was protected.
1:17:29	DB: I see. By what?
1:17:32	K: Just a minute. He felt always protected.
1:17:35	DB: Well, I think many children may feel…
1:17:37	K: No, no, much later I’m talking.
1:17:40	DB: Oh, how old?
1:17:41	K: Oh, from the age till – what? – 20, 30.
1:17:47	DB: Yes, but did that feeling continue or…
1:17:53	K: Oh yes.
1:17:54	DB: But I mean, what sort of protection?
1:18:00	K: (Laughs) It’s difficult to describe it. You know, you’re protected, in the sense you protect a tree for it to grow straight, against the winds…
1:18:41	DB: Yes, all right, but why just this one?
1:18:42	K: Well, I wouldn’t know. (Laughs)
1:18:45	DB: You wouldn’t know.
1:18:46	K: I would know but I don’t want to inquire into it.
1:18:49	DB: You think it’s better not to.
1:18:51	K: Yes. I’ve gone into this very much with people like Lady Emily who has known me, others in India, and with Mrs Zimbalist and others who I have known for a number of years. When they come to a certain point, I don’t want to inquire. I feel I can’t inquire – let me put it that… I feel it’s something… it sounds too damn silly.
1:19:23	DB: What?
1:19:24	K: It sounds too damn silly to say there is something the mind, thought cannot penetrate, but there is… the thing is there.
1:19:42	DB: Would you say then that somehow in this mystery there is an order which involves all that?
1:19:48	K: Yes.
1:19:49	DB: Which would imply a destiny that was common to mankind or something?
1:19:53	K: Yes.
1:19:54	DB: And there was that… Well, you feel that’s the case but you don’t feel it’s wise to inquire.
1:20:05	K: No.
1:20:06	DB: But of course, I mean, I’m not questioning it, but saying, many people have that feeling and they can be wrong, you know. In other words…
1:20:13	K: Oh, I’ve gone into it very carefully.
1:20:15	DB: Yes.
1:20:16	K: Many people have it – of course, good Lord! You see, sir, take that boy – ill, discovered, trained – trained in the sense to be clean, to… in India in those days, not having a mother the boys were trained to get up early, wash properly, all that – not psychologically trained – because they said, ‘He is the vehicle of the Lord, therefore we can’t interfere, psychologically.’ You follow, sir? Now, he never went through all the things he talks about.
1:21:23	DB: What do you mean?
1:21:28	K: I’ll tell you, I’ll tell you, I’ll tell you, I’ll go into it. Jealousy.
1:21:43	DB: No.
1:21:45	K: Never attached to property, money – you follow? – all that. Never, never thought of a position, status, hierarchical outlook – except when I get into Mrs Simmons’ car, and then I can – you know, what is it? – Land Rover, I can look down – that’s all. Otherwise, I have no feeling of looking up or looking down. Now, how does this all happen? All without cultivating it or wanting it.
1:22:24	DB: Yes, well, you know, but I mean, that’s… this idea’s been common in mankind, that there is such a destiny, you see. In fact the Theosophists believed it themselves, I mean.
1:22:37	K: Oh, sir, what the Theosophists believed was too fantastic.
1:22:40	DB: Yes, but…
1:22:42	K: It may be called the nuthouse, but I mean that’s irrelevant. I’m saying Theosophists have got quite a different… No, I must be careful.
1:22:50	DB: They have a different idea of destiny, but…
1:22:51	K: No, not...
1:22:52	DB: You are trying to say that there’s... you know, that this whole thing didn’t happen by accident.
1:22:57	K: That’s it.
1:22:58	DB: That there’s a hidden order, you know, a mysterious order.
1:23:02	K: No, no, they would say there is the whole hierarchical principle in life.
1:23:15	DB: Yes.
1:23:16	K: And the highest principle, the Maitreya, etc., etc.
1:23:23	DB: He rules the lower, yes. I mean, let’s say you discard the idea that some principle is ruling…
1:23:30	K: Yes.
1:23:31	DB: …in that hierarchical sense. But let’s say, having discarded that, you are nevertheless proposing that there is still an order, that things don’t happen by accident, to this boy. I mean, they didn’t...
1:23:45	K: Yes, I’m trying to imply that, to be truthful. Truthful… (laughs)
1:23:49	DB: Yes.
1:23:50	K: ...not… (laughs) Yes.
1:23:52	DB: And this order is in some sense a mystery.
1:23:56	K: Yes. I think, not a mystery in the sense of great mystery.
1:24:03	DB: Not secret or anything.
1:24:05	K: Not secret.
1:24:06	DB: But something which you cannot penetrate, is it? I mean, you couldn’t find the ultimate explanation of it, or it’s not worth trying, I mean.
1:24:17	K: Yes.
1:24:18	DB: But I mean, if you could, well, it would only lead to another mystery, I suppose, if you…
1:24:23	K: I don’t… it’s like… I can’t. Let me put it a little bit more simply. Neither I want to, or…
1:24:33	DB: ...nor can you. But you see, that raises a question, because if you don’t want to, that would already be enough to be sure you couldn’t, you see.
1:24:42	K: Yes, of course.
1:24:43	DB: So it doesn’t prove it can’t be done, it merely proves that you can’t do it.
1:24:47	K: It proves I can’t do it, and I don’t want to.
1:24:50	DB: Because you don’t… Yes, but it’s maybe the other way round, you see, that you can’t… is it you can’t because you don’t want to, or is it you don’t want to because you can’t?
1:24:59	K: No, on the contrary. I think I can but I don’t want to.
1:25:02	DB: I see – that’s it. Yes, well, and you feel… there’s a feeling you can’t explain that.
1:25:10	K: No, I think it is something – that’s it – it’s something mysterious, in the sense we’re talking, which you cannot penetrate by thought.
1:25:26	DB: Yes. Well, then that also means that you also can’t. I mean... You cannot penetrate it by thought, but does that mean it could be penetrated in some other way?
1:25:36	K: Maybe.
1:25:39	DB: Maybe.
1:25:42	K: But I don’t think so.
1:25:46	DB: Probably not.
1:25:47	K: You know, after all, the church, Catholic Church said there is a mystery – thought cannot… you cannot understand it.
1:25:59	DB: Yes.
1:26:01	K: And the various religions have put it in different ways. But here we come to a point: here is a man who says... all that. And it’s like picking a flower, looking at a flower, and tearing it to pieces. And there is no flower at the end of it.
1:26:27	DB: I see, so you’re saying that the thing is not capable of analysis, what we’re talking about is not capable of analysis; it is a whole which is not analysable. And are you implying that thought must analyse then? You’re implying then thought can only analyse.
1:26:46	K: Thought can only analyse – of course.
1:26:50	DB: Yes. Yes, so that if you don’t analyse it then all that can be possible is to participate in it.
1:27:02	K: And also there’s a tremendous danger of deceiving oneself.
1:27:06	DB: Yes. Yes, because so many people have had similar ideas.
1:27:10	K: I’ve been through all that. (Laughs) I mean, I’ve no desire to be any – you follow? – that doesn’t enter into my being at all.
1:27:17	DB: Yes. I mean, you could argue that the fact that so many people have thought this way may… it doesn’t necessarily prove it’s wrong, it may only say that people get a glimpse of it and then they go astray.
1:27:28	K: They go astray.
1:27:29	DB: Because of desire to get hold of it, and so on.
1:27:32	K: Yes. No, but if they go astray, I question whether they see it.
1:27:37	DB: I didn’t say they see it – they got a glimpse there is some…
1:27:39	K: I don’t think they can get a glimpse of it.
1:27:40	DB: Well, then what happens? But people get an impression.
1:27:43	K: Because they think they have a glimpse of it.
1:27:45	DB: They think they have a glimpse of it. Well, let’s put it this way, that thought is not satisfied with the known…
1:27:49	K: That’s it, that’s it.
1:27:51	DB: …and therefore projects the mysterious.
1:27:52	K: That’s it.
1:27:53	DB: And at the same time, some people who perhaps have seen this and they also have said it – that becomes part of the tradition and suggests it, and so on.
1:28:08	K: You see, sir, that’s why, in a way I’m glad Mary has written that book, because while one is living one can correct it, a little bit, you know, answer these questions, that he wasn’t a neurotic, that he wasn’t a…
1:28:30	DB: ...psychotic or something.
1:28:32	K: …epileptic…
1:28:33	DB: ...epileptic or disturbed – you know, mentally disturbed…
1:28:39	K: ...mentally disturbed, drugged – you know, all that kind of thing. But, the fact remains that there is something which cannot be explained.
1:28:48	DB: Yes, well, you see, let’s try to put it that the… if explanation will involve some kind of analysis, or at least some… and you’re saying this will escape analysis or even would be destroyed by analysis.
1:29:02	K: It cannot be destroyed.
1:29:03	DB: It cannot be destroyed – well, will escape it.
1:29:06	K: Analysis can’t touch it.
1:29:07	DB: It can’t touch it. It cannot be touched by analysis, so the flower analogy is not quite right.
1:29:12	K: Yes.
1:29:13	DB: Because the flower, you see, is destroyed, but all that is possible is to participate…
1:29:19	K: That’s all I’m… That’s all… I was going to say, if you have this thing, this mystery, this thing, I will participate when I listen to you completely – you follow? – when you… Say, for instance, you say truth is a pathless land. I capture… it is so, for me – therefore no guru – you follow? – the whole thing goes. The moment I hear it, it’s finished. (Pause) What time is it?
1:31:28	DB: It’s now five o’clock, I think – five past five. (Pause)
1:31:50	K: Does this table come from outside?
1:31:56	Vanda Scaravelli: Yes.
1:31:57	K: Ah, it was here – yes, that’s right. (Pause) You see, I never discussed this thing… I’ve never gone into this as deeply as we have done. Oh Lord, it’s raining.
1:33:09	DB: Raining a bit. (Pause)
1:33:25	K: Or have I? I may have – I don’t know.
1:33:27	DB: Perhaps. (Pause)
1:33:29	K: I never told you that incident. Probably I’ve told you – Seniora and Mrs Zimbalist. I was staying in Bombay, and I don’t speak any Indian language. There was a knock on the door and Mrs Jayakar, her servant opened the door, and there were three sannyasis, monks. And she asked them in and told Mrs Jayakar. Mrs Jayakar came forward and brought them into the room, and I was in my room, and she brought them and said, ‘There are three sannyasis here, they want to meet you.’ One was a very old man. He had lived by himself for eleven years in the Himalayas, and he was making a pilgrimage, going south, to the various temples. And he was so old, so I was… I felt, you know... and I held his hand, he began to cry – because probably nobody held his hand. And we sat around and he said – in Hindi to her – said, ‘We were passing by and we felt that there was a great man here and we wanted to meet him.’ Whether he had been told or whether it was a fact, I don’t know. (Laughs) I’m sceptical of all that kind of thing.
1:35:14	DB: Yes.
1:35:16	K: So he explained, he talked about various people in the room, telling them truths about themselves. Then he said, ‘May I wash my hands, please?’ So they brought him a basin and a jug of cold water out of the ice box, and washed his hands, and towel and wiped it. Then after cleaning his hands, from the same jug, he poured it into his hand and passed it round. That is the Indian tradition, that when a sannyasi offers his blessing, he does it that way – that you take the water, sip it, touch it with your tongue, and swallow it. It went round the first time. And he said again, ‘May I wash my hands?’ Again, he passed it around, and it came to me – I was sitting next to him – because I was the last. And I tasted it and it’s… the first water was plain water. Second water, second time, was… it tasted very sweet. I said, ‘Good Lord, is he playing a trick on us?’ I didn’t say anything. And he left presently. Oh yes, he said to Sunanda, ‘You have no children. You are married, you have no children. Do you want children? If you do, take this,’ out of his something, ‘you’ll have children.’ He says... (inaudible) (laughs)
1:36:59	DB: She doesn’t want it.
1:37:00	K: I’d rather not! (Laughs) And to Balasundaram. After he left, I asked several of them, ‘Did you taste that water?’ because it tasted like coconut water or some sweet water.’ And they all said yes. And, you know, this poor old man, he couldn’t put saccharine in there, or some kind of sugar twisted in, or something that made the water sweet. You understand, sir? How did it happen? (Laughs) Probably he was unaware of it himself. No, there are strange things in the world, sir.
1:38:05	DB: Yes.
1:38:06	K: When I was a boy I saw – not a boy – when I used to live in the Theosophical Society, because I was one of the heads of the affair, a man comes, there were several of us sitting in the room – a man comes, a sannyasi, a man, a so-called religious man comes, a monk, and talks to us and all kinds of things. And we’re all sitting like this, and he suddenly levitates, floats across, and sits over there. He had no springs, no rope pulling him. (Laughs)
1:38:48	DB: Yes, well, I mean, a lot of people are talking of strange things nowadays. Well, I think... well, one could say that our understanding of nature is very limited anyway, but I think there’s a distinction of two kinds of strange things, you see – that sort of thing might be mysterious in one sense, but it might still be…
1:39:10	K: I don’t think it’s mysterious.
1:39:11	DB: No, well, something unknown to us now.
1:39:14	K: Yes.
1:39:15	DB: But it might be understandable later.
1:39:17	K: No, they explain it.
1:39:19	DB: They explain it – by what?
1:39:20	K: By a special kind of life, discipline, breathing.
1:39:24	DB: But I meant that it violates what we know about the laws of nature.
1:39:28	K: Nature – yes, gravity and so on.
1:39:29	DB: Which may mean that the laws of nature could be different.
1:39:32	K: Yes.
1:39:33	DB: You see, that still need not be mysterious.
1:39:35	K: No, that’s what I mean – that’s not mysterious.
1:39:41	DB: Although it’s strange.
1:39:43	K: Yes. That’s why I want to differentiate the mystery from the strange.
1:39:49	DB: Yes.
1:39:50	K: And also I’ve seen, in front of… there were several of us, a man sitting over there and a rose bed in the middle. He asked for a newspaper, he said, ‘Put it down at your feet.’ We were sitting on steps and he was sitting right across, and he said, ‘Watch it.’ He said, ‘I’m not going to mesmerise you, because you’re a religious man, but watch it.’ And you saw the paper smaller and smaller and disappear. I don’t see the point of it, but I mean…
1:40:31	DB: No, but I mean that’s something strange which might be explained.
1:40:40	K: Oh, they explain it very simply.
1:40:41	DB: No, but I meant there are different kinds of explanations.
1:40:44	K: Yes, yes. I’m only saying this to show that strangeness is not the other.
1:40:53	DB: Yes. But you’re saying that what happened to this boy was not of that nature.
1:40:58	K: Yes, that’s all.
1:40:59	DB: That strange nature, but…
1:41:00	K: I don’t know what happened but that’s not of that nature.
1:41:05	DB: But is it your feeling that whatever happened, that there was behind it some sort of – for want of a better word – destiny or order which was aimed at some transformation of man?
1:41:23	K: Probably. (Pause)
1:41:39	K: We’d better stop.
1:41:40	DB: Right. Okay.
1:41:43	K: We’ll go for a walk or…