Krishnamurti - What is the substance of thought?

Krishnamurti Subtitles

BRGS75CB8 - What is the substance of thought?
Saanen, Switzerland - 25 July 1975
Conversation with David Bohm 8

0:00	This is the 8th dialogue between J. Krishnamurti and David Bohm, in Gstaad, 1975.
0:09	DB: I’ve had a, you know, a letter from David Shainberg, and we’ve sent the tapes of the Brockwood discussions to David Shainberg.
0:19	K: Oh yes.
0:20	DB: And he had a few questions. I think the major – he finds them very interesting, of course – he raised one question, you know, which I could put like this, you see: If thought is fragmented, inherently fragmented, and yet thought has to be consciously aware of its own fragmentation, then we could ask the question whether the thought which is aware of its own fragmentation is also fragmented?
0:52	K: Good question. Shall we start with that?
1:00	DB: Yes.
1:02	K: Why do we accept that thought is fragmented?
1:09	DB: Yes, well…
1:11	K: Why do we say that thought is broken up, has the faculty of breaking up?
1:18	DB: I think one could go into the… one would have to look deeply into the nature of thought.
1:25	K: Yes.
1:26	DB: I mean, aside from the fact that experience seems to fit it, which is not a very good reason.
1:32	K: No, no, no, that’s a... Experience isn’t a good criterion.
1:36	DB: No. I mean, we do experience thought as fragmentary but that is… we have to understand it.
1:42	K: What is the real, basic reason for thought to be fragmented? Why is thought limited, broken up?
1:55	DB: Yes, well, now, I’ve been looking, considering for some time the nature of thought and, you see, one point about thought is that it forms a kind of… let’s say, it may be a combination, beginning as a reaction and becoming a reflection. Now, thought creates a certain… on the basis of memory, thought creates a certain imitation of some actual thing that happens independently of thought. Right? Is that clear what I mean?
2:32	K: I follow that, I follow that.
2:33	DB: For example, it may imitate the appearance in your imagination or the feeling or the sound or something else. Now, it is not possible in a reflection to capture the whole of what is reflected.
2:49	K: Yes.
2:50	DB: There is always an abstraction.
2:51	K: It is always an abstraction. I agree. I see that.
2:54	DB: Abstract means to take out, you see, so you...
2:55	K: But we haven’t answered my question yet: Why is it fragmented?
3:01	DB: Any abstraction is bound to be a part, to be a fragment, you see.
3:09	K: You’re saying thought reflects memory.
3:13	DB: Yes, memory – it reflects the content of memory.
3:16	K: Content of memory. And therefore as it reflects it is an abstraction.
3:22	DB: It doesn’t reflect all.
3:24	K: Therefore it’s fragmentary.
3:27	DB: Yes.
3:28	K: Yes.
3:30	DB: It selects some things to reflect and others are not reflected.
3:39	K: Would you put the question this way: Can thought see the whole?
3:47	DB: Well, you see, does thought see? You see, that’s another question which David Shainberg raised – does thought actually see anything? Right?
3:55	K: Quite.
3:57	DB: We discussed the other time in Brockwood that there is a conscious awareness – thought can be consciously aware of something. Let’s say that there is an awareness which involves perception. And now thought – I don’t know how you could put it – but everything that we are aware of may go on to the memory. Is that right?
4:18	K: Yes.
4:19	DB: And now when that memory responds we have thought.
4:22	K: That’s what we said – yes.
4:24	DB: Right. So therefore, as I see it, conscious awareness is awareness recorded in memory and then reflected.
4:33	K: Yes, that I understand.
4:35	DB: Right?
4:36	K: So memory is fragmented.
4:39	DB: Memory is inherently fragmented because it selects something.
4:44	K: Yes. Memory is fragmented, therefore its reflection as thought is fragmented.
4:50	DB: It’s not the whole.
4:52	K: Yes.
4:53	DB: The whole experience, for example, is not contained in the memory. Subtle… the essences may be left out. Right?
5:00	K: Left out – quite. I understand. Now, I want to… let’s dig deeper into it.
5:08	DB: Yes.
5:10	K: Why is thought fragmented?
5:16	DB: That’s partly because it’s an abstraction, as we’ve just said. And I think there’s another… possibly you could find another reason that... you see, that in some sense thought is not fully aware of its own operation, you see. Well, we could perhaps begin this way, that the brain has no sense organs inside to tell itself that it’s thinking.
5:43	K: Quite.
5:44	DB: You see, if you move your hand, there is a sense organ that tells you it’s moving. Or if you move your head, you see, the image moves but it’s correcting so that the world doesn’t spin, unless something is wrong with your balance.
5:56	K: Balance – quite.
5:57	DB: On the other hand, there are no such sense organs in the brain. You see, if you do an operation on the brain, once you’ve passed through the skull there’s no sensation and people may be conscious while they are operated on and it does not disturb them.
6:11	K: Yes, yes, I heard...
6:14	DB: And now, so let’s say thought has its… is recorded, it’s held in memory in the cells of the brain, and the cells of the brain react to produce some image or imitation.
6:29	K: Quite, quite.
6:31	DB: And now, while they first react there is no sensation that they are reacting. You see, a little later you may sense the result of the reaction.
6:41	K: Yes, that’s…
6:42	DB: Is that clear?
6:43	K: We’re going… Yes, I understand that.
6:46	DB: But then when thought becomes conscious of that result it may not know that is has produced that result.
6:52	K: Quite.
6:53	DB: And therefore it will attribute to that result an independent existence.
6:57	K: So, thought is a reflection of memory – that’s one.
7:03	DB: Yes.
7:05	K: The brain has no feeling apart from…
7:09	DB: ...apart from the sense organs of the body.
7:12	K: …sensory body. And therefore brain stores up memory, and memory is partial and therefore it is… and thought is partial.
7:22	DB: Yes, and also thought is not fully aware of itself.
7:25	K: Now, is that the complete answer?
7:28	DB: Well, I don’t know, you see.
7:31	K: I don’t know – we’re investigating.
7:34	DB: Yes. But I was going to finish what I was saying, that there was an inherent fragmentation here, because thought not being aware of itself and then suddenly becoming aware of its own result further down the line, attributes that to something which is independent of thought.
7:49	K: Independent – quite.
7:50	DB: And thus it fragments itself, because one part of thought… You see, it introduces two fragments, because one part of thought has produced this result and another part of thought comes along and says that this is something else.
8:02	K: Yes. It’s like this – quite, quite.
8:03	DB: Yes, and therefore the thought has broken up into two parts which are contradicting each other.
8:10	K: Yes. I think there is something more, isn’t there? Why is thought fragmented? You can see what thought has done – all what it has reflected upon, what it has thought about, what it has put together, are all fragments.
8:42	DB: Well, that’s from experience though, you see.
8:46	K: Yes, yes.
8:47	DB: If we reflect upon our experience we see the fragmentary nature of the activity of thought.
8:59	K: Yes, yes. Is there a deeper reason, deeper thing behind it? Why is thought fragmented? I was thinking about it the other day, walking – why is it fragmentary? What is the nature of thought? What is thought? Not words, symbols, reflection of memory, the activity, the thing it has done, but actually what is the substance of thought? Is it a material process, a chemical process?
9:55	DB: Well, yes, it... (inaudible)
9:56	K: All right. If it is a chemical, material process, why should it be fragmented?
10:03	DB: Well, it’s…
10:08	K: Is perception a fragmentary process?
10:18	DB: No. No, perception is not.
10:23	K: No. Why?
10:26	DB: Well, why should it be fragmentary?
10:31	K: If perception is the activity of thought…
10:35	DB: Well, no, we didn’t say that, you see.
10:38	K: I’m just thinking aloud. If perception is the activity of thought then perception cannot see the whole.
10:47	DB: No. I think thought contains a kind of imitation of perception, you see, which we call reflection.
10:54	K: Yes. So thought imagines it perceives.
10:59	DB: It contains… Yes.
11:01	K: It contains or it supposes it sees.
11:04	DB: Yes. It produces a certain result which it supposes it sees.
11:09	K: Yes. But yet why is it broken up? I understand all these, but there must be a deeper thing, isn’t there? There may not be but...
11:26	DB: No.
11:34	K: Is thought seeking a result?
11:49	DB: Well, it may be seeking a result, I mean...
11:51	K: An end to be achieved, an end to be gained, something which it can fulfil itself in and feel satisfied. And – wait a minute, I’m just… I hope you don’t mind – why has civilisation, mankind given such terrific importance to thought?
12:22	DB: Well, I think that, you know, in your talk yesterday, I mean, you pointed out the issue of security.
12:30	K: Yes.
12:31	DB: That thought gives, I mean, security in many senses, not only in the sense you said, of psychological security, also material security.
12:41	K: Yes. Thought in itself is not secure.
12:45	DB: Well, thought can’t be secure, it’s a mirror reflection.
12:48	K: Yes – reflection. Therefore, as it cannot be secure in itself and seeks security outside...
12:57	DB: But why does it seek security, you see?
13:00	K: Oh that’s… because in itself it is fragmentary.
13:02	DB: Yes but we were… you know, we’re going round in a circle.
13:07	K: Going round in a circle.
13:08	DB: (Laughs) And also it does not explain why something which is fragmentary should seek security, you see. We have to go a little more slowly.
13:18	K: More slowly – yes. Why does thought seek security? Because thought is constantly changing, constantly moving.
13:38	DB: Yes. But that doesn’t… you see, nature is always moving too, but you see…
13:42	K: Ah, but nature is different... (inaudible)
13:44	DB: I know, but we have to see the difference, you see.
13:45	K: Yes, yes, yes.
13:46	DB: You see, nature doesn’t seek security, as far as we can tell.
13:51	K: Nature doesn’t, no. Why does thought seek security? Is it in itself uncertain, in itself insecure, in itself is in constant movement?
14:17	DB: But that doesn’t explain why it’s not just satisfied to just be that.
14:22	K: Why, because it sees its own perishable nature.
14:28	DB: But why should it want to be imperishable?
14:32	K: Because that which is imperishable is its security.
14:37	DB: Yes, but I mean, I still feel we’re going around in a circle. You see, it isn’t… let’s say that if thought were content just to say, ‘I’m insecure, I’m impermanent,’ then it would be like nature, you see, it would just say, ‘Well, I’m here today and tomorrow I’m different.’ Right?
14:52	K: Ah, but I am not satisfied with that.
14:55	DB: But why not? You see, that’s the thing.
14:57	K: Because… Is it attachment?
15:02	DB: But what is attachment – do you see? I mean, why should thought attach to anything; you see, why shouldn’t it say, ‘Well, I’m just thought’ – do you see?
15:16	K: Ah, I see what you mean. I see what you mean.
15:19	DB: I’m just a reflection, I don’t… you know, there’s no need...
15:23	K: But you’re giving to thought a considerable intelligence.
15:27	DB: Well…
15:28	K: If you say, ‘I’m like nature, I just go, come’ – you follow? – in a constant flux, constant...
15:38	DB: Well now are you saying that thought is mechanical and that’s why it’s doing this?
15:41	K: Yes.
15:42	DB: But then we have to see why a mechanism should necessarily do this – do you see?
15:45	K: Why should mechanism…
15:47	DB: ...seek security. I mean, a machine doesn’t, you see, seek anything in particular. You see, we can set up a machine and it just goes.
15:56	K: Of course. As long as there is energy, it’ll go on working.
15:58	DB: Yes, and then it breaks down and that’s the end of it.
16:00	K: That’s the end of it – quite. Why does thought seek security?
16:06	DB: Yes. You see, why should any mechanism want to be secure?
16:10	K: But does thought realise that it is mechanical?
16:14	DB: No. But you see, then comes the point, you say thought has made a mistake, you see, something incorrect in its content, which is, thought does not know it’s mechanical. But does that mean that thought thinks it is not mechanical?
16:29	K: Now wait a minute, let’s come back.
16:33	DB: Yes.
16:34	K: Do I think I’m mechanical? Maybe in my thought, all the rest of it.
16:43	DB: But thought may begin by not thinking about itself at all, you see, it just begins to think. And later it may think… it may tend… you know, I think in general thought does not think it’s mechanical. But the other thing is, does it definitely think it is not mechanical, you see, beyond the mechanism? Does it think it’s intelligent, in other words?
17:04	K: Sir, a mechanical thing doesn’t get hurt.
17:08	DB: No, it just functions.
17:10	K: Functions. It doesn’t get hurt. It stops working – that doesn’t mean it is hurt.
17:17	DB: No.
17:19	K: Whereas thought gets hurt.
17:21	DB: Yes, and thought has pleasure.
17:23	K: Yes – pleasure, pain and all the rest of it. It gets hurt – let’s stick to one thing – it gets hurt. Why does it get hurt? Because of the image and all the rest of it. It has created the image, and in the thing that it has created, in that it is seeking security, isn’t it?
17:50	DB: Yes, but why… it is not clear why it ever began to seek that kind of security, you see.
17:57	K: Ah – why it began.
17:59	DB: You see, if it began as a mechanism, there was no reason in a mechanism.
18:02	K: But it never realised it is mechanical.
18:04	DB: Yes, all right, but a mechanism doesn’t know it’s mechanical either, you see. I mean, like, you know, the tape recorder…
18:11	K: Ah, tape recorder doesn’t realise it’s mechanical.
18:14	DB: But it just simply functions mechanically. (Laughs) You see, it doesn’t... (inaudible) to be hurt, you know.
18:25	K: (Laughs) Rather interesting this, isn’t it? Why does thought not realise it is mechanical?
18:45	DB: Yes. You see…
18:46	K: Why does it suppose that it is something different from a machine?
18:52	DB: Yes, it may, in some sense, supposes it has intelligence and feeling and, you know, that it’s a being…
18:58	K: ...is a living thing.
18:59	DB: A living thing, rather than mechanical.
19:00	K: I think that’s the root of it, isn’t it?
19:01	DB: Yes.
19:02	K: It thinks it’s living.
19:05	DB: Yes.
19:07	K: And therefore it gives… it attributes to itself the quality of non-mechanical existence.
19:16	DB: If you could imagine a computer that had been programmed, say to…. with the information that it was living… (laughs)
19:22	K: Yes, it would say, ‘I’m living.’
19:24	DB: And then it might try to react or respond accordingly, you see, but…
19:28	K: Yes. But thought doesn’t do that.
19:30	DB: What?
19:31	K: Thought has its own… Is thought clever, giving itself qualities which it basically has not?
19:43	DB: But why should it do that? You see, a machine doesn’t do it.
19:46	K: Ah, I understand. No, a machine doesn’t do it, but it does it because… Why does it do it?
19:57	DB: Because even to some extent, if we are to take David Shainberg’s question, you were saying that thought somehow can realise it is mechanical, which would imply that it had some intelligence, you see.
20:13	K: Yes. Now wait a minute, just let’s... Does thought realise that it is mechanical, or perception sees that it is mechanical?
20:27	DB: All right then, yes. That would seem to be a change from what you said the other day.
20:32	K: I’m just investigating.
20:33	DB: I can understand if we say there is perception which sees the mechanical, fragmentary nature of thought, you see. Now you see, I could say any machine is in some sense fragmentary, it’s not alive.
20:46	K: Quite.
20:47	DB: It’s made of parts that are put together, and so on. Now, if there is a perception that it is… that thought is mechanical, then the intelligence is in the perception.
21:09	K: Are we saying, sir – let’s get this clear – that thought has a quality… has in itself the quality of intelligence, perception, and therefore it perceives itself mechanical?
21:26	DB: Yes, that would seem strange.
21:28	K: That would… I’m just… Wait a minute.
21:33	DB: Yes. Or…
21:34	K: Or there is perception which… there is perception and that perception says thought is mechanical.
21:42	DB: Yes. I mean, we call that truth... (inaudible)
21:44	K: Yes. But… yes. There are two things, isn’t there – either the thought in itself has this sense of perception, sense of intelligence, and therefore realises that it’s mechanical, or there is perception, which is truth, and that perception says thought is mechanical.
22:11	DB: Yes. Now, the first idea seems to be a contradiction.
22:15	K: Yes, yes – first idea… Let’s… I’m just...
22:19	DB: Yes.
22:20	K: Does this answer it? Does this answer why thought is fragmentary?
22:27	DB: Well, you see, if thought is mechanical then it will have to be fragmentary.
22:35	K: Who realises that it is mechanical?
22:39	DB: Well, if we say perception sees it’s mechanical.
22:43	K: Wait a minute, I just want to explore. Can thought realise that it’s mechanical?
22:50	DB: Well, that’s the question we’re…
22:52	K: That’s what I…
22:54	DB: It’s not clear, you see.
22:58	K: Can thought realise it’s mechanical?
23:01	DB: Because, you see, the other time it seemed you were saying that. You were saying there would be a conscious awareness of the nature of thought and thought would then, you know, come to order.
23:11	K: We must go back to something else then.
23:14	DB: Yes.
23:16	K: The things that contain consciousness are put together there by thought.
23:24	DB: Yes.
23:26	K: And all the content of that consciousness is the product of thought. Consciousness is thought.
23:37	DB: Yes, well, it’s the whole process.
23:42	K: Yes, the whole... We won’t… Right. Does thought see all this? Or there is pure perception without thought, and then says, ‘Thought is mechanical’?
24:07	DB: But then how does thought know what to do, you see? You see, we were discussing also the other day that when there is perception of truth…
24:15	K: ...action takes place.
24:17	DB: …action takes place and thought becomes aware of that action.
24:19	K: Yes. Wait – yes, that’s right. That’s right. Let’s get at it.
24:23	DB: Now, but in becoming aware of that action is thought mechanical, you see?
24:29	K: Yes. No, thought then is not mechanical.
24:33	DB: You have to say that thought changes its nature.
24:36	K: Its nature.
24:37	DB: All right. Well, that’s the point we have to get hold of, you see.
24:38	K: Yes.
24:39	DB: To say thought does not have a fixed nature.
24:40	K: Yes.
24:41	DB: Is that the point?
24:42	K: Yes, sir.
24:43	DB: Because you see, if we once… you see, I think that much of the discussion tends… if you use one word, it tends to imply that that has a fixed nature – the word thought. But now thought can change.
24:54	K: Yes, thought does change.
24:55	DB: Yes, but I mean it can change fundamentally.
24:57	K: Fundamentally. Wait a minute.
24:58	DB: Not just superficially.
25:00	K: Let’s get at this. Let’s get at this. I’m beginning to see something... we’re both beginning to see something. We say perception, total perception is truth. That perception operates in the field of reality, and therefore there…
25:26	DB: Well…
25:27	K: Wait, no. Wait, go slow. I’m sorry, I made a mess.
25:30	DB: No, I’m just saying that we didn’t say that perception or truth operates directly in the field of reality. We said the other day that it operates in actuality.
25:37	K: No – quite right – in actuality. Now wait a minute. There is perception, which is truth. That can only act in actuality, that which is actual.
25:54	DB: Yes.
25:55	K: Actual being care, isn’t it?
25:59	DB: What?
26:00	K: The word actual.
26:02	DB: Acting or to act.
26:05	K: Is act.
26:07	DB: Yes.
26:09	K: The action in the field of reality – isn’t it? Look, sir, put it round the other way. I see something.
26:27	DB: Yes.
26:28	K: I perceive something totally. Which is not the act of thought.
26:35	DB: Yes, so that is a direct act.
26:37	K: Yes, that is direct perception.
26:38	DB: Yes.
26:39	K: Then that perception acts.
26:43	DB: Acts directly.
26:44	K: Directly.
26:45	DB: Without thought.
26:46	K: That’s what I want to find out.
26:50	DB: Yes. To begin, without thought, perception acts directly. As we say, perception of danger acts immediately.
26:56	K: Yes, immediately.
26:58	DB: Without thought.
26:59	K: That’s right.
27:01	DB: And now… but then thought may become aware of the act, of the action.
27:07	K: Thought then can become aware of the act and translate it into words.
27:11	DB: And into further structures.
27:13	K: Further structure.
27:15	DB: Yes.
27:17	K: Right. We’re getting, slowly. That is, there is a total perception, which is truth. That perception acts – acts – in the field of reality. That action is not the product of thought.
27:43	DB: Yes.
27:44	K: But thought, because it is an action of the whole, thought has undergone a change.
27:53	DB: All right. We haven’t… Now, you see, the point is that if there is an action in the whole, and you say thought is part of the whole, thought is contained within the whole – is that what you’re saying? – and therefore it is changed.
28:06	K: No, no. I’m just… I must go back. Sees the whole – that is the truth.
28:15	DB: The whole is different.
28:16	K: I mean... whole is different.
28:18	DB: Because of the perception.
28:19	K: Because of perception. It is not fragmented.
28:22	DB: No, it’s one whole.
28:24	K: One whole.
28:25	DB: But different.
28:26	K: Yes. And it acts.
28:30	DB: Yes.
28:33	K: The action is not the product of thought, is not put together by thought. That’s clear. Then what is the relationship of thought to that act?
28:51	DB: Well it seems, you know, we could say that… you see, there are several points. You see, one thing is to say that thought is a material process based on the brain cells.
29:03	K: Yes.
29:04	DB: Now, the action of perception will somehow act on the brain cells, won’t it?
29:08	K: That’s the point – it does. Quite right, sir.
29:11	DB: And therefore thought must be different.
29:14	K: Different. Quite right. That is, sir, I see there is… You see something totally, and that total perception is different from the fragmentary perception, which has been the nature of the activity of the brain. When there is this total perception and action, it must affect the brain cells.
29:53	DB: Right. Well, suppose we go there. And in affecting the brain cells it may change the nature of thought.
29:59	K: Just... let’s hold a minute. It’s rather tenuous.
30:06	DB: Yes. (Pause)
30:09	K: Yes, yes, yes, yes.
30:14	DB: And now you could say that…
30:17	K: Yes, quite right.
30:19	DB: Now, once…
30:21	K: It is a shock – you follow? – it’s something totally new to the brain.
30:26	DB: Yes. And the brain… therefore perception, being total, penetrates the physical structure of the brain.
30:36	K: Yes – structure of the brain. If you see – let’s be simple about it – if you see – what? – greed or – no – division, fragmentation, is tremendous danger – see it – doesn’t it affect your whole way of thinking?
31:02	DB: Yes, but I think that brings us to the next question, that thought has developed a way of preventing this effect from taking place.
31:10	K: That’s it, that’s what I want to get at.
31:12	DB: It may momentarily happen.
31:14	K: Yes, that’s it, that’s it.
31:19	DB: That thought has…
31:21	K: Thought resists it.
31:23	DB: It resists, but why? You see, a machine would not resist.
31:25	K: No. Because it’s habit.
31:28	DB: But what is habit? We ought to go into that.
31:33	K: Yes, it has become… it is conditioned to that. It is habit, it remains in that groove. And perception comes along and shakes that.
31:49	DB: Yes, but thought stabilises itself, it holds to a fixed form.
31:55	K: To grey... you know, to whatever it is.
31:58	DB: You see...
32:00	K: That’s right.
32:04	DB: You see, I was thinking that, you see, if we look at it this way, that thought hasn’t got a fixed nature – it may be mechanical or it may be intelligent – and the…
32:17	K: No, I wouldn’t give that word intelligence to thought, for the moment.
32:23	DB: Yes, before we were saying that, you see. But I mean, you’re saying... but before we said thought may not have a fixed nature and may… and needn’t be mechanical.
32:31	K: Yes.
32:33	DB: Now…
32:34	K: Thought is mechanical.
32:37	DB: Yes, but…
32:39	K: Thought functions in grooves.
32:41	DB: Yes.
32:42	K: Thought lives in habits, memories.
32:46	DB: Yes.
32:48	K: And a total perception does affect the whole structure...
32:52	DB: That’s right, but after, as a result of this perception thought is different – right?
32:58	K: Yes, thought is – wait a minute – is thought different because of… Yes.
33:05	DB: Yes. The perception has penetrated the physical structure of the thought and made it different.
33:11	K: Yes, different.
33:12	DB: But now you don’t want to say it’s intelligent but, let us say, that if thought were just a machine it would not cause trouble. You see, if thought behaved just like an ordinary machine...
33:22	K: ...an ordinary machine, it would be no trouble at all.
33:24	DB: No trouble, I mean, it would just function. Now, thought for some odd reason is trying to do more than behave like a machine.
33:32	K: Yes, thought is trying to do more than a machine – quite.
33:36	DB: Now, you see, suppose, if we could look at it again, there is perception and awareness and this may be recorded in thought. You see, whatever happens… you see, if perception affects the physical… there are two things – one is perception affects the physical structure of the brain and this effect is somehow recorded in the content of memory. Memory takes…
34:00	K: That’s right, memory takes charge.
34:01	DB: Yes, it holds it. And now that… you see, any such recording is a kind of imitation. You see, every recording machine is a kind of imitation. It’s not merely that thought is mechanical, some sort of… but also that it contains a process of imitation to record information. You see, like the tape recorder records some sort of imitation of the structure of sound, in the magnetic form, which again is recreated a sound, as imitating the original sound.
34:36	K: Original sound – quite.
34:37	DB: Now, you see, thought has the capacity to imitate whatever happens, because of the recording. Right?
34:45	K: Yes, that’s right,
34:46	DB: Is that clear?
34:47	K: Just a minute, sir.
34:48	DB: Yes.
34:49	K: Wait a minute, I want to go back a little bit.
34:50	DB: Yes.
34:51	K: You perceive totally, about something. There is total perception of greed – let’s take for the moment. Because of that total perception your activity is non-mechanical. Just a minute, sir.
35:23	DB: Yes.
35:24	K: The mechanical being the pursuing of greed by thought… as thought
35:31	DB: But isn’t there another part of thought which is mechanical, which is necessary, you see? For example, the information contained by thought.
35:39	K: Wait, wait, I’m just coming… Wait a minute. You perceive totally the nature and the structure of greed and because you perceive it there is the ending of it. Ending of it. What place has thought then?
36:00	DB: Well, it still has a mechanical place.
36:04	K: No, you’ve finished. Wait a minute, sir.
36:05	DB: But thought used in ordinary function still has a place.
36:08	K: No, you’re finished – you’re not greedy.
36:09	DB: Yes, but thought also includes things other than greed, you know, like the practical thought.
36:16	K: Yes. Wait. You’re not greedy. Wait a minute. You are not greedy. That reaction, that momentum, that habit, that mechanical… is over. What place has thought?
36:31	DB: Well, where? You see, well, thought has some place. If you say…
36:38	K: What for? What for?
36:40	DB: You want to find your way.
36:41	K: What for? What for? I’ll get... when I need a coat, I’ll get it, but there is no greed.
36:45	DB: No, but thought is not identified with greed. You have thought which is rational.
36:50	K: I don’t quite follow.
36:56	DB: Well, you see, greed is irrational thought.
37:00	K: Yes – greed is irrational.
37:02	DB: Right.
37:03	K: Right.
37:04	DB: But now there is rational thought. For example, if you want to figure out something or...
37:09	K: No, no. When you see the totality… when you perceive the totality of greed something has happened to you.
37:19	DB: Yes. But are you saying that there’s no more thought – do you see?
37:24	K: Thought is not necessary.
37:26	DB: Well, then how do you find your way?
37:30	K: Find my way?
37:34	DB: How do you use memory?
37:38	K: Look, I’m no longer greed…
37:42	DB: Right.
37:43	K: I’ve no need for thought in the field of perception, and therefore thought doesn’t enter into it at all.
37:53	DB: Not into perception but it still has a place, apparently, you see.
37:58	K: Has it? Has it?
38:00	DB: Well, for example, if you want to know the way from here to wherever you want to go.
38:06	K: No, I’m taking greed. Greed – let’s stick to...
38:08	DB: Yes, it has no place in greed, I mean.
38:10	K: Yes. That’s all I’m sticking to.
38:12	DB: Oh, but I mean, you were saying before it has no place, you see.
38:16	K: No, I’m saying it has no place in greed.
38:18	DB: Right.
38:19	K: Where there is total perception thought has no place.
38:23	DB: In the perception.
38:25	K: Not only in the perception, thought doesn’t exist anymore with regard to that.
38:33	DB: Yes.
38:37	K: You perceive that all belief is irrational… I mean, there is a perception of this total structure of belief, and it’s out – belief has no place in your thought, in your brain. So why do you want thought there?
39:01	DB: We’re not saying I want it but we say that there is a tendency that thought may have.
39:06	K: No, it won’t. Ah, that’s the whole… If I see belief… if I perceive the total nature of belief then it’s over. Then where does thought come into that – which thought has created? I wonder if I’m conveying something. Look, sir, I perceive – I, for the moment I’m using I – I perceive totally the nature of belief, with fear, all the rest of it involved, and because it is total perception belief as such doesn’t exist in my thought, in my brain, nothing, it... Now, where does thought come into it?
40:00	DB: Well, not at that point, that part, no.
40:04	K: It’s finished. Wait. So thought has no place when there is total perception. Same thing with greed, same thing with fear. Thought operates only when there is a necessity for food, clothes, shelter. What do you say to that?
40:31	DB: Yes, well, that may be right. Now…
40:41	K: I want to question it. I want to go into it.
40:45	DB: Yes, but you see, let’s look at the… see what we started with, which was to understand why thought has done what it has done.
40:53	K: Yes.
40:54	DB: In other words, when there is total perception then there is no place for thought, you see. Now…
41:02	K: That’s something, sir. That’s something.
41:04	DB: Yes. Now when we come to practical affairs you could say we don’t have total perception but we depend on information which has been accumulated and so on – right? – and therefore we need thought.
41:16	K: There, yes. I need to build a house.
41:19	DB: And you depend on accumulated information, you see. You cannot just directly perceive how to build a house – do you see? Right?
41:26	K: (Laughs) Quite.
41:27	DB: But, you see, say for psychological matters…
41:31	K: Ah, that’s it, that’s it.
41:34	DB: What?
41:35	K: Psychologically, when there is total perception, thought doesn’t enter into psychological process.
41:43	DB: Yes, it has no place in the psychological perception, although it may have a place in material perception.
41:48	K: That’s right, that’s right.
41:52	DB: But still we would like to come back to answer, you know, the question raised by David Shainberg, which is, why has thought… you see, I think people will always ask why has thought gone wrong, you see, why has it done all these strange… why has it pushed itself where it has no place?
42:10	K: Could we say that thought creates illusion?
42:16	DB: Yes, but why should it, you see, why does it want to?
42:23	K: Why does it want to.
42:25	DB: Even more deeply, you know, what makes it happen, you see?
42:30	K: Because thought has taken the place of perception.
42:35	DB: But why should it?
42:36	K: Why should it? Why should thought assume that it sees the whole?
42:47	DB: Or even that it sees anything. You see...
42:52	K: Yes. Rather interesting – good. Does it happen, sir – let’s look at it a little bit – that when there is total perception, that perception having no movement of thought as time and so on, such a mind uses thought only when necessary?
43:43	DB: Yes.
43:45	K: And otherwise it’s empty, otherwise…
43:50	DB: I wonder if we could put it differently, that such a mind when it uses thought, it realises that this is thought and it never…
44:00	K: Yes, never goes…
44:01	DB: …it never supposes it’s not thought. Right?
44:04	K: Yes, that’s right, that’s right. That it is thought and nothing else.
44:08	DB: If it’s only thought, it’s not… you know, it has only a limited significance…
44:12	K: That’s right, that’s right.
44:13	DB: …and we needn’t consider it that important, you see.
44:16	K: That’s right.
44:17	DB: But, you see, I think the danger is that there is a mind in which... it does not realise that this is thought – do you see? – something happens – you see, thought works. You see, let’s try to put it like this: suppose that somebody... there is joy or enjoyment and now, slightly later there comes thought which imitates it, remembers it. And the difference… you see, then that… it’s a very subtle imitation and therefore it treats it as the same. Do you see what I mean?
44:54	K: Quite, quite.
44:55	DB: And therefore it begins to get caught in its own pleasure, in the pleasure which it mistakes for joy, enjoyment.
45:03	K: Quite.
45:05	DB: And now, after a while it becomes a habit, and then when the pleasure is not there there comes a reaction of pain and fear and so on.
45:14	K: Yes.
45:15	DB: And all this trouble starts. Now, so at some stage, you see, there is this mechanical process which somehow loses… it does not acknowledge or does not know that it is mechanical.
45:32	K: Yes. Sir, would you say also, man never realised until recently – I’m just asking – that thought is physical and chemical, and therefore it assumed tremendous…
45:50	DB: ...importance.
45:51	K: …importance?
45:52	DB: Well, yes, let’s look into that. That is, would you say... In general it is certainly true that people… it’s only recently that science has shown the physical and chemical properties of thought. Now, but suppose we go back to the past – would you say that nobody, or perhaps some people understood?
46:10	K: Maybe.
46:11	DB: But in general most people did not.
46:13	K: Did not. I’d like to say – take people like so-called Jesus.
46:22	DB: Well, yes, but we don’t know whether he even existed, so...
46:25	K: That’s just it. All the saints function on thought.
46:30	DB: What about Buddha, for example?
46:32	K: Wait a minute. Again, according to the tradition, the Eightfold Noble Path, is right thinking.
46:41	DB: But he may have meant... (inaudible) ...thinking mechanically.
46:44	K: Mechanically – that’s it. Therefore, we can’t take anybody in the past.
46:50	DB: Why? – because we can’t be sure what they meant.
46:53	K: Sure what they meant.
46:55	DB: Right. It was interpreted and so on.
46:58	K: Of course, of course.
47:02	DB: And we can’t ask him what he means. (Laughs)
47:07	K: (Laughs) No. Is that the reason, because man thought… man said… thought said, ‘I’m the only important thing’?
47:15	DB: Yes, but how did it come to say that – do you see?
47:19	K: Because there was no perception.
47:20	DB: No, but then why wasn’t there?
47:26	K: No – man… thought didn’t realise or thought wasn’t told that it was physical and chemical.
47:34	DB: Yes, well, thought did not know it’s physical and chemical, therefore thought, when it thought about itself, mistook itself for… you see, I was trying to put it that in some sense thought… when there is intelligence, intelligence acts or when truth acts, then thought must follow that action.
47:57	K: Action – yes.
47:58	DB: Right?
47:59	K: Yes.
48:00	DB: But suppose – or when there is enjoyment, you know, and so on, and joy – but now, suppose thought creates from memory an imitation of all that.
48:10	K: But it didn’t think it was imitation.
48:11	DB: No, that’s what I’m trying to say – it didn’t know it was imitation.
48:13	K: That’s just it.
48:14	DB: It was too subtle for thought to know it was an imitation.
48:16	K: Yes, that’s it. And also because thought from the beginning said, ‘I am the only God.’
48:24	DB: Well, no, I wonder if that didn’t come a little later, you see.
48:26	K: I don’t know how it came.
48:28	DB: No, but I meant that when it… you see, the first thought mistook itself for joy and intelligence and goodness and so on.
48:37	K: Yes, yes.
48:38	DB: And then it realised its impermanence and therefore…
48:41	K: ...began to…
48:42	DB: ...to question, and then it invented the idea that there is a self which is always there...
48:52	K: That’s right.
48:53	DB: …which produces thought, you know, and truth and perception and so on. You see, that… You see, I think, suppose somebody – you often give this example – is enjoying the sunset, and there may be a small accompaniment of thought, you know, which is harmless in itself.
49:12	K: Yes, flutters round – quite.
49:13	DB: It flutters round. But now as it builds up, you know, by habit, you know, by repetition, it gets stronger and becomes comparable to the other one in intensity.
49:25	K: Quite, quite.
49:26	DB: And then thought does not see this imitation and it treats it as the truth, as the genuine.
49:35	K: Yes, yes. So are we saying, sir, are we saying this: that thought never… man has never been told or realised that thought is physical and chemical?
49:51	DB: Well, that is not enough because, you see, science has been saying that thought is physical and mechanical but that in itself hasn’t changed anything.
49:59	K: No, no. But if you perceive that…
50:04	DB: Yes, to perceive it. You see, it was not enough for science to know that thought is mechanical.
50:10	K: No, no.
50:11	DB: Or physical or chemical.
50:12	K: No – that’s right. But it’s only recently.
50:17	DB: Yes.
50:18	K: And the habit has… conditioning and the habit has been: thought is the primary thing in life.
50:27	DB: Yes, well, even when it was called non-thought it was still thought, you see. In other words…
50:30	K: It was still thought – that’s right.
50:32	DB: It was some imitation.
50:34	K: Of course.
50:35	DB: So, that is, thought created imitations of the primary thing in life and then said that’s the primary thing in life, you see.
50:43	K: Yes.
50:44	DB: Now, thought never knew that it was mechanical.
50:47	K: That’s right.
50:50	DB: And therefore never knew that its own process... You see, let’s try to put it slightly differently: Thought never had any reason to suspect that what it created was not the prime thing in life, because even if it could see itself creating it – right? – it would not know there was anything wrong with that.
51:08	K: Quite. So what are we saying now? Thought never realised it was limited. Thought never realised that which it created was a chemical and physical thing. Is that what we are saying?
51:37	DB: Well, that was part of it, yes.
51:40	K: Part of it. And we are saying also, that where there is total perception a change in thought takes place.
51:52	DB: All right. Now, what happens to thought then?
51:57	K: Thought being mechanical, it can only operate mechanically, not… it doesn’t interfere… there is no psychological entity which thought can use.
52:15	DB: Yes. Well, now suppose we clear this up a little bit.
52:19	K: Ah, we are getting… (inaudible)
52:20	DB: Because let’s say that thought… there’s a new invention, you see, which we discussed before, and something new comes into thought, into the field of reality. But we say that might be a perception.
52:32	K: I think it is. Of course.
52:33	DB: But then thought, because of that perception thought is different.
52:36	K: Yes.
52:37	DB: But it remains mechanical but different.
52:38	K: That’s right. That’s exactly what we are saying.
52:41	DB: Yes, it just changes the order of its operation through that perception.
52:45	K: Yes.
52:46	DB: And therefore the creativity is not in the thought itself but in the perception.
52:52	K: Perception. That means thought – wait a minute, sir, let’s get it clear – thought has created the me; the me has become independent of thought.
53:04	DB: Well, apparently.
53:05	K: Apparently, apparently.
53:07	DB: Yes.
53:08	K: And the me being still part of the thought is the psychological structure. And perceptions can only take place when there is no me.
53:31	DB: Yes, well, we could try to go into that, just to make it more, you know, clear.
53:37	K: Yes, yes. I think this is right. Go on, sir.
53:39	DB: Yes, it’s right. You see, the me, this imaginary structure, you know… well, it’s real as well, as we’ve been saying, but you see, the me involves some sort of centre, doesn’t it?
53:53	K: The me, certainly. The me is the centre.
53:54	DB: And the centre, you see, is an old… very old form in thought. It’s one of the most fundamental forms – right? – it probably goes to the… animals probably sense through a centre.
54:03	K: Quite. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Centre – family centre and so on, so on – yes.
54:07	DB: Yes. And also the geometric centre, you see. When people use the centre with the rays emanating out, is a very power symbol, you see. The sun with its rays.
54:17	K: Rays – yes.
54:18	DB: And this had a tremendous…
54:19	K: The centre.
54:20	DB: The centre has a tremendous effect on human thought, you see.
54:22	K: Yes, yes. Yes, sir.
54:23	DB: And this centre has the meaning of totality, you see, that one point touches everything, you see. In other words, the centre is a symbol of the contact with the whole, you see.
54:36	K: Yes, yes.
54:37	DB: And I think that’s the way the self is considered in thought, that it perceives… the self is perceiving everything.
54:43	K: Everything – that’s right.
54:44	DB: The self is determining everything.
54:45	K: Explain it, sir. Would you explain it scientifically? The centre is, as you said just before…
54:52	DB: ...in contact with everything. It radiates into everything, you see.
54:56	K: The centre radiates like the sun.
54:58	DB: Yes.
54:59	K: Of course, they worship the sun, because of this radiation.
55:03	DB: That’s right. The sun was the image of themselves, you see.
55:07	K: Yes, yes, yes.
55:08	DB: Only a bigger one, you see.
55:12	K: Yes, of course. (Laughs) So there is a centre. Is that centre independent of thought?
55:24	DB: Well, it would seem the centre is thought.
55:26	K: Yes, that’s it.
55:27	DB: But it’s a basic structure in thought. We think in terms of centres – do you see?
55:31	K: Centre – that’s right.
55:32	DB: In physics, for example, each atom is a centre.
55:34	K: That’s why it’s fragmented.
55:36	DB: Why? Let’s get it clear.
55:37	K: There it is.
55:38	DB: Because we think through the centre?
55:40	K: Through the centre.
55:41	DB: Well, let’s get it more clear. You see, let’s say, in physics…
55:44	K: Ah, we’re getting it.
55:45	DB: One of the basic theories of physics is to think that the world is made of atoms – each atom is a centre, a force which connects to all the other atoms. Right? And of course the opposite view is there is a continuous field, you see, and no centre. You see, those are the two views that physics has studied and has pursued them in different forms. Now, you were saying that if we think through the centre there’s going to be fragmentation.
56:15	K: That’s right.
56:16	DB: Would you say the atomic view is fragmentary then?
56:18	K: Must be.
56:19	DB: Yes. Although… Yes.
56:20	K: So, sir, you see what we’re getting at?
56:22	DB: Yes.
56:23	K: The basic reason of fragmentation is that we function from a centre.
56:29	DB: Yes. Well, it’s not… we must think in terms of centres because that may be useful.
56:34	K: Yes, that may be…
56:36	DB: Because the sun is at the centre of the solar system.
56:39	K: Yes, of course.
56:41	DB: But we think... we function, we psychologically function, you see, from a centre.
56:48	K: From a centre.
56:49	DB: And you see, physically we are forced to function from a centre because the body is the centre of our field of perception.
56:54	K: Of course, of course. Ah, yes.
56:57	DB: But psychologically we form an imitation of that.
57:00	K: Yes.
57:01	DB: We have the thought of the centre which is probably – I think Jung called it an archetype – it maybe millions of years old – right? – going back to the animals.
57:11	K: The animals – quite.
57:12	DB: And now that form is useful physically, but then it was extended psychologically – right? – to think of...
57:23	K: That’s simple enough.
57:24	DB: Right?
57:25	K: That’s right, sir. That’s why thought is fragmentary.
57:28	DB: Well, is there a thought which does not function from the centre, or it always has to?
57:35	K: Has to, because thought is memory from a centre.
57:40	DB: Well, let’s try to explore that. Why does it have to be from a centre – do you see? Why couldn’t there be memory without a centre?
57:47	K: How can there be?
57:48	DB: Well, that’s…
57:49	K: Just memory? Like a computer.
57:51	DB: Well, why couldn’t there be?
57:52	K: Ah, if it was… But there is the psychological centre.
57:57	DB: But it’s not clear to me why there cannot be memory which is just memory, you see, just information.
58:04	K: Yes, there can be information.
58:08	DB: Yes, but does that have to have a centre?
58:11	K: Why should it have a centre?
58:13	DB: No.
58:14	K: If it’s merely information, why should it have a centre?
58:16	DB: No, there’s no centre. But you see, why does thought… you see, it’s not clear yet to me why thought had to form a centre – do you see? I mean, we knew there was a centre but why it had to psychologically give the centre such importance.
58:33	K: Because thought never acknowledges to itself that it is mechanical.
58:44	DB: Well, let’s try to bring that out. You see, thought was unable to acknowledge that it was mechanical, and now why does that call for a centre?
58:53	K: But thought has created a centre.
58:56	DB: Yes, but why? But it not only creates the centre, but you see, the centre was there, the idea of the centre was there just for practical purposes anyway. But thought used that idea for itself, psychologically for itself.
59:10	K: Yes.
59:11	DB: Now, why was it doing that?
59:13	K: For a very simple reason: thought said, ‘I can’t be mechanical, I must be something much more.’
59:22	DB: How does the centre make it more then?
59:24	K: Ah, because that gives it a permanency, the me, the...
59:30	DB: We should try to make it more clear, you see, that the centre gives this permanency. Now, why?
59:36	K: Why?
59:38	DB: Yes.
59:40	K: Thought has created this...
59:42	DB: Yes, the microphone.
59:44	K: ...microphone. That is permanent – ‘permanent’ in quotes.
59:47	DB: Relatively, yes.
59:48	K: Relatively. And here thought created the me as a permanent entity.
59:56	DB: Yes, but why did it pick on the centre to be permanent?
1:00:02	K: Perhaps it picked it up because the sun is the centre of the universe, and if there is a centre, as you said, it joins everything.
1:00:15	DB: It joins everything, yes. It gives unity.
1:00:17	K: Unity, family and so on, so on. But that centre becomes totally unnecessary when there is complete perception.
1:00:33	DB: It is necessary, you see, when there is not complete perception.
1:00:36	K: That’s what’s happening.
1:00:38	DB: It’s what happening.
1:00:40	K: That’s not necessary but that’s what’s happening.
1:00:43	DB: It’s happening. You see, the thought trying to... not realising it is mechanical, not able to realise it’s mechanical, thought began to treat its own products as living.
1:00:54	K: As living, that’s right. That’s right.
1:00:56	DB: And seeing their instability, you know, their impermanence, it tried to establish something permanent.
1:01:00	K: Permanent – quite right.
1:01:01	DB: And it found the centre useful for trying to do that. Right?
1:01:05	K: Yes.
1:01:06	DB: Because it made a connection with everything.
1:01:07	K: That’s right.
1:01:08	DB: In other words, you see, it’s a form around which everything can be put, held together.
1:01:13	K: The centre, yes – quite.
1:01:15	DB: The centre. So therefore, you see, if everything is falling apart – left to itself thought falls apart – right? – and then you establish a centre, it holds it all together and you say that…
1:01:28	K: My family, my house, my country, my…
1:01:30	DB: And then that’s permanent – right? So you say, ‘I have a permanent centre.’ In other words, thought has hit on the idea of a permanent centre to hold everything together. And in fact that is what we do all the time to organise, to have a centre around which everything can be organised.
1:01:46	K: It’s like an executive, like everything.
1:01:52	DB: Yes.
1:01:53	K: That’s right, sir. So when you perceive something totally, centre is non-existent. And yet you can… Now, wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute – doesn’t it bring in something? When you perceive something doesn’t that include everything?
1:02:16	DB: All right. Let’s go slowly.
1:02:20	K: I mean, isn’t that the central thing that holds, that connects everything?
1:02:30	DB: What, to perceive?
1:02:31	K: Perceive.
1:02:32	DB: The act.
1:02:33	K: The act: ‘This is false.’
1:02:35	DB: Wait, well let’s go... I see it’s something different then, you see, that the act of perception unites everything…
1:02:42	K: Yes, that’s right.
1:02:43	DB: …and thought is imitating that by a centre that unites everything…
1:02:47	K: That’s right, sir.
1:02:48	DB: …and to the centre it attributes perception.
1:02:50	K: Perception – that’s right.
1:02:51	DB: As well as…
1:02:52	K: The observer and so on.
1:02:53	DB: And also the thinker. It also attributes its own origin to that centre, and therefore it attributes truth to itself.
1:03:00	K: That’s right.
1:03:02	DB: And therefore life and so on.
1:03:05	K: Is there, sir, perception of greed, of fear – you know, perception? Or total perception, which includes everything? You follow what I mean?
1:03:30	DB: Well, yes.
1:03:32	K: So it isn’t perception of greed, perception of belief, perception of…
1:03:40	DB: Yes. Well, let’s say there is perception of that which is… of what is. Right?
1:03:45	K: Yes. Perception… there is only perception.
1:03:47	DB: There is perception. Right, now, there’s a question we might clear up, you see, because we said truth is that which is.
1:03:55	K: Yes.
1:03:56	DB: Right.
1:03:57	K: Yes. There is only perception.
1:03:58	DB: Yes.
1:04:00	K: Not the perceiver.
1:04:02	DB: There is no perceiver, but perception is also that which is, isn’t it?
1:04:07	K: Yes. The perceiver is the centre.
1:04:10	DB: Yes, well, the perceiver is… thought attributes to the centre the quality of being a perceiver, as well as a thinker and an actor.
1:04:18	K: Yes – and all the rest of it, experience and so on.
1:04:21	DB: You see, I think that it might be helpful to say that this business... you see, one of the functions of thought is to refer or attribute, you see – that if you have, for example, referred pain, you see, that although the tooth may be decayed on one side, it’s referred to the other, and the gum will swell up on the other side.
1:04:38	K: Yes, yes. Yes, yes.
1:04:39	DB: So the point is that thought can attribute anything to anything, refer anything to anything.
1:04:45	K: Yes, quite, quite.
1:04:46	DB: And that’s part... You see, if we hear a sound we may say it comes from here, there, you know – we may have to correct it, you know, we don’t know exactly how to attribute it. And therefore when thought, say, has invented a centre, and then it may attribute various qualities to that centre, such as thinking, feeling…
1:05:09	K: Yes, that’s right. That’s right, sir, that’s right.
1:05:12	DB: And if there is pain, it will attribute the pain to the centre, or if there’s pleasure… So therefore it becomes alive, you see. So could you say that suffering arises there, when pain is attributed to the centre?
1:05:26	K: Of course, of course. As long as there is a centre there must be suffering.
1:05:29	DB: Yes, because the suffering is not… You see, when there is no centre then the pain is merely in thought.
1:05:35	K: Merely physical.
1:05:36	DB: Either it’s physical or it’s memory – which is nothing.
1:05:40	K: Yes – which is nothing.
1:05:41	DB: But if the memory of pain is attributed to the centre…
1:05:44	K: To the centre – of course, then it…
1:05:45	DB: ...then it becomes real, it becomes something big.
1:05:49	K: So – aha – so, we are seeing something. That is, sir, I’m asking: If there is total perception thought has no place...
1:06:05	DB: ...in that perception.
1:06:07	K: ...in that perception.
1:06:11	DB: And yet thought may… that perception acts and thought may have a place in the action, is what we were saying the other day.
1:06:19	K: Yes. No, let’s get this clear, I’m not quite… Let’s get… There is total perception. In that there is no thought. And that perception is action.
1:06:34	DB: Yes, and that will change the quality of thought by changing the brain cells.
1:06:38	K: Yes, and so on – we’ve been into that. Now, thought has only a mechanical function.
1:06:51	DB: By mechanical we mean more or less not intelligent, you see. In the dictionary they are given as more or less opposites.
1:07:00	K: Yes, thought has…
1:07:02	DB: It’s not creative, not intelligent.
1:07:05	K: No, no, it’s purely mechanical.
1:07:07	DB: Yes. Creative is also taken as the opposite of mechanical.
1:07:12	K: Yes, creative, opposite – quite, quite. So if it is merely mechanical then it can operate mechanically in everything without any psychological centre.
1:07:27	DB: Yes, well, then it would be like this computer that…
1:07:31	K: Yes. But the computer, as we said too, if the computer is told this is your bucket, and later on says it’s not your bucket, it has no emotional…
1:07:42	DB: No, that’s merely contradictory information.
1:07:46	K: Yes, contradictory information, that’s all. Similarly here. So has… You see, we are giving, aren’t we, sir, tremendous importance to thought.
1:08:03	DB: Well, thought is giving importance to itself.
1:08:05	K: Itself – thought giving to itself tremendous importance. When perception takes place and thought becomes mechanical…
1:08:15	DB: Well, when thought acknowledges it’s…
1:08:18	K: Acknowledges it’s mechanical, then there is no problem.
1:08:19	DB: Yes. Yes, you see, I mean, but we were talking with two views in mind – one was with this point in mind and the other was to understand fully how thought got off on the wrong track, you see.
1:08:34	K: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. I can see how it has gone on the wrong track, the centre.
1:08:40	DB: Yes. Well, I think even from the beginning… there was the beginning where thought mistook itself for something living and creative…
1:08:47	K: Yes.
1:08:48	DB: …and then it established the centre in order to make that permanent. Right?
1:08:51	K: Yes.
1:08:52	DB: And then that gave it tremendous importance, you see. You see, the combination of the two…
1:08:57	K: Combination of one…
1:08:58	DB: Well, that thought mistook itself for something intelligent and alive.
1:09:03	K: Yes, that’s right. That’s right, that’s right.
1:09:04	DB: And its own imitations, for enjoyment and for intelligence and love and so on. And then, seeing this was impermanent, you see, it naturally wanted to make it permanent and therefore it found the centre as the way to try to do it.
1:09:21	K: Quite.
1:09:22	DB: Because the centre was actually the practical way of trying to organise things permanently.
1:09:26	K: Quite right, sir, quite right. That’s right. So, now we’ve answered why thought is fragmentary.
1:09:34	DB: Yes, well, let’s make it more clear. Why is it fragmentary, you see? I mean, we have answered why it has gone wrong but let’s… you have to sort of, just to finish it, I mean. Why is it? I mean, to make it… spell it out.
1:09:45	K: Because of the centre.
1:09:47	DB: Yes.
1:09:49	K: The centre thinks – no – thought created the centre as a permanency and that centre forms as a unit to hold everything together.
1:10:03	DB: Yes, everything in the whole world. The whole world is held together by the centre. Because if somebody feels his centre goes, he feels the whole world is going to pieces.
1:10:11	K: Going to pieces – that’s right, that’s right.
1:10:13	DB: So the centre is the same as the world. Right?
1:10:16	K: That’s right. So thought is fragmentary.
1:10:22	DB: Well, the thought is fragmentary. Now, let’s see. Thought is fragmentary… I mean, it’s not quite clear why it’s fragmentary, you see. It’s clear why it’s wrong but… (laughs)
1:10:30	K: No, because it has separated itself from the thing it has created.
1:10:34	DB: Yes, now that’s the point. So let’s make that very clear, you see, that thought has attributed to itself, it cannot separate itself…
1:10:42	K: No, sorry.
1:10:43	DB: It has attributed to itself a centre, which is separate from itself. Whereas in fact it is the centre. It has created the centre and it is the centre.
1:10:53	K: It is the centre.
1:10:54	DB: But it thinks of itself or attributes to that centre the property of being alive and real and so on.
1:11:00	K: That’s right, that’s right. Phew!
1:11:02	DB: Yes. And that is a fragmentation.
1:11:04	K: That’s the basic thing.
1:11:06	DB: And from there follows… you see, we may as well spell it out.
1:11:10	K: Yes, spell it out, sir.
1:11:12	DB: From there follows the necessity for the rest of the fragmentation of life, because in order to maintain that those two are different, thought must then break up everything to fit that – do you see?
1:11:26	K: Of course.
1:11:27	DB: You know, it introduces confusion because, you see, either it separates things that are not separate, or puts together things that are different, you see. In order to maintain that fiction that the centre is separate from thought, everything else has to be cut to fit that.
1:11:43	K: To fit that – all the cloth has to be cut. All existence has to be cut to fit that centre.
1:11:50	DB: Yes, you see, for example, you see, if somebody identifies the centre with, you see, attributes to the centre the quality of being a certain nation, you see, then he must then distinguish another nation as not belonging to the centre, so he fragments something as one, mankind, in order to hold the centre together.
1:12:11	K: Quite right, sir. That’s it, very clear now.
1:12:14	DB: And therefore the entire world is fragmented indefinitely, shattered into fragments.
1:12:20	K: Shattered into fragments. I want to get something else, too, upon this. You see, is perception from time to time?
1:12:38	DB: From moment to moment?
1:12:39	K: Moment to moment – no, no, I’m not – no. I perceive the nature of belief – it’s finished. I perceive totally… there is total perception of fear – that’s finished. And there is total perception of greed – that’s finished. Is that perception one after the other or is there a total perception of the whole thing?
1:13:12	DB: Well, let’s go into that slowly, then. You see, if there were a total perception of the whole thing then what would be there left to do – you see?
1:13:21	K: That’s what I want to find out.
1:13:23	DB: You see, let’s go… You see, this raises the second question. This is more or less the second question that David Shainberg brought in, you see. He was raising this question. He says you... let us say you went through… you put it in the sixth, in the last discussion at Brockwood, that it was like Columbus discovering America, that somebody else doesn’t have to discover America.
1:13:44	K: Go through all the....
1:13:45	DB: But then what does he do that is creative, do you see, that is corresponding to what you did – do you see?
1:13:51	K: Now, just a minute, sir, just a minute. First let me answer this question and we’ll come to it. Is perception...
1:13:56	DB: ...a whole?
1:13:58	K: Whole, therefore…
1:13:59	DB: If there is one perception.
1:14:02	K: ...it’s cleared the field.
1:14:03	DB: The entire field is cleared.
1:14:04	K: Entire field.
1:14:05	DB: And then what is there left to do…
1:14:07	K: Wait a minute, wait a minute, let’s see if that is so.
1:14:09	DB: Yes.
1:14:10	K: So it hasn’t got to go through greed, belief, fear, pleasure – the whole thing is clear, cleared the deck.
1:14:20	DB: Well, you are saying that the mind may perceive the nature… the whole nature of thought – is that what you’re saying, or is it beyond that?
1:14:30	K: Beyond, a little more.
1:14:31	DB: Yes.
1:14:32	K: All right, let’s take that. Thought perceives… perception sees the nature of thought.
1:14:37	DB: Yes.
1:14:39	K: And because it perceives the nature of thought, all this, all the fragments…
1:14:44	DB: All the parts are in there – yes, all right, I get that.
1:14:48	K: That’s clear.
1:14:49	DB: Well, that brings up a question which I wanted to ask for some time, you see, because in the Indian book Tradition and Revolution, you know, you mentioned toward the end of it the notion of essence, that perception distils the essence. Right? Do you remember that?
1:15:04	K: No, I don’t remember.
1:15:05	DB: Oh, well.
1:15:06	K: Sorry. It doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter, sir.
1:15:09	DB: Yes, but I wanted to… You see, so in some way there seemed to be a notion there is perception, you see, total perception being intelligence, and out of that came what you call the essence – it was distilled like the flower, you know.
1:15:22	K: Yes, yes, yes.
1:15:24	DB: Now, is that essence anything like this whole?
1:15:27	K: That’s what… that it is, of course.
1:15:28	DB: Yes.
1:15:29	K: Now, wait a minute, sir, I want to get this clear to myself.
1:15:31	DB: Yes.
1:15:32	K: Would you say there is no perception of fear, greed, envy, belief, but total perception of everything that thought has put together and the centre?
1:15:50	DB: Well, it’s total… you see, there’s a phrase people sometimes use: essence and totality, you see, to perceive…
1:15:58	K: The essence...
1:16:00	DB: ...and totality.
1:16:01	K: Aha. Perceive the essence and totality.
1:16:04	DB: Does that seem appropriate?
1:16:08	K: I’m hesitating, the word essence.
1:16:11	DB: Essence is bothering… Yes, well... so let’s say we perceive the totality.
1:16:18	K: Leave the word essence for the moment.
1:16:20	DB: Yes.
1:16:21	K: There is no partial greed, envy and all that – it is total perception.
1:16:29	DB: Yes.
1:16:30	K: And therefore total perception means all the things that thought has put together and made itself separate, a centre.
1:16:39	DB: Well, we have to… Yes. Now, when we talk about total perception, you see, we have to make it more clear now.
1:16:46	K: Yes.
1:16:47	DB: Because total may just mean, you know, all these things or it may mean something else.
1:16:53	K: To me it means something else.
1:16:54	DB: Yes, now, if you make that more clear.
1:16:58	K: It means, not fragment – no. Not… Total perception. Sir, wouldn’t total perception mean this: thought attributing to itself certain qualities, thought creating the centre and giving to that centre certain attributes, and all the things from the centre, psychological centre.
1:17:32	DB: Well, that’s the whole structure.
1:17:33	K: The whole structure.
1:17:34	DB: Yes. That’s part of total perception, is the whole structure.
1:17:37	K: The whole of that.
1:17:38	DB: The whole entire structure.
1:17:40	K: Yes.
1:17:41	DB: That’s very often what we call the essence, you know, the basic structure.
1:17:43	K: Yes, all right. If you call that essence, I say I agree.
1:17:47	DB: Yes. I mean, that structure which is universal – would you agree that it’s not just this thought or that thought, or this problem or that problem?
1:17:55	K: It is universal – quite, yes. Now wait a minute. Is such a perception possible? You may think – not think – you say that is perception, nothing else. Because you tell me, I see that, I feel that, I recognise, I see the truth of what you’re saying. The truth of what you are saying is the truth – not mine or yours, it is the truth.
1:18:37	DB: Yes, now, you say the truth is... if you say it’s the truth, it’s that which is, you see.
1:18:43	K: That which is, actual.
1:18:44	DB: Yes. Well, it’s both. You see, I’m trying to get a little more clear, that when we say there is truth and there is actuality – now, you see, the way we ordinarily use the word, the actual is really the right way for using the word individual. You see, it would seem to me the individual… actuality is individual, you see, undivided.
1:19:03	K: Yes, undivided. Ah, yes – individual, undivided – quite.
1:19:06	DB: You see, actuality is undivided but there is, you know, one moment of actuality or there may be another moment of actuality and so on, but, now, when we see the essence or when we see the totality or the universal…
1:19:20	K: Yes, yes.
1:19:21	DB: …what is necessary and universal – right? – then that includes all that. Right?
1:19:27	K: All that – that’s right. That’s right, that’s right.
1:19:30	DB: So that the truth goes beyond the individual actual fact…
1:19:37	K: Yes.
1:19:38	DB: …because it sees the total. I mean, it sees what is universal and necessary, the totality of the nature of thought. Right?
1:19:50	K: Totality of the nature of thought. That’s enough.
1:19:52	DB: So that every individual example of thought is in there.
1:19:58	K: That’s right, that’s right. When that is seen, thought is then merely mechanical.
1:20:11	DB: Well, then thought acknowledges…
1:20:13	K: That’s it.
1:20:14	DB: …it is mechanical. You see, thought...
1:20:15	K: No, thought doesn’t have to acknowledge – it is mechanical.
1:20:17	DB: No, no, it is mechanical. Yes, all right. Thought has changed so that it is mechanical and thought no longer attributes to itself – I want to put it that thought ceases to attribute to itself the non-mechanical.
1:20:32	K: Yes, that’s right. I think that’s what actually took place.
1:20:43	DB: When?
1:20:45	K: From the beginning of this boy.
1:20:48	DB: Yes.
1:20:50	K: It was all – what shall we say? – unrealised. You follow?
1:20:59	DB: (Inaudible)
1:21:00	K: Not unrealised – it was there.
1:21:03	DB: It was implicit or...
1:21:04	K: Implicit – yes – whatever you like to say.
1:21:07	DB: Well, all right. Perhaps it was implicit in everybody when he’s born but then it gets… the conditioning takes.
1:21:13	K: I question whether it is implicit with everybody.
1:21:15	DB: All right. Now, let’s get it clear. You see, there are two views. You see, we have to get it…
1:21:21	K: (Laughs) We go from one…
1:21:22	DB: That’s what we were discussing the other day, you know, here. So we could take two views and consider them both, you see.
1:21:31	K: Yes.
1:21:32	DB: One view is that it’s implicit in everybody and then the conditioning takes hold in most people and, you know, it’s lost. Right?
1:21:39	K: That’s a very dangerous…
1:21:40	DB: I know, but that’s one view.
1:21:42	K: I know, I know, that’s one view.
1:21:43	DB: But why is it dangerous?
1:21:44	K: Dangerous, because you then assume there is something in you which is unconditioned.
1:21:50	DB: Well, no, because we say it may be conditioned by now, you see.
1:21:54	K: No, from childhood, from the very beginning.
1:21:57	DB: Yes, that somebody was born unconditioned – it’s an assumption. Right?
1:22:01	K: It’s an assumption.
1:22:02	DB: All right. So you assume there is in the child something unconditioned. You say that may be false. Right?
1:22:07	K: That may… I should think that is false.
1:22:09	DB: All right. So the child, you are suggesting that the child is born with some conditioning, perhaps hereditary.
1:22:14	K: The genes and the heredity and the society, it is already there.
1:22:18	DB: And then it gets added to.
1:22:20	K: Added to, encrusted and thickens.
1:22:23	DB: All right. So that’s one view which you want to… you think is wrong, you feel to be wrong.
1:22:29	K: I won’t even accept it.
1:22:30	DB: You won’t accept that view.
1:22:31	K: Because that’s a theory.
1:22:32	DB: Yes, all right. Now…
1:22:33	K: (Laughs) Sorry.
1:22:34	DB: Now let’s take the other view. All right. Now, you say that this boy was born and…
1:22:40	K: It sounds personal. It is not.
1:22:44	DB: All right. I know. Yes. You see – yes, you were saying last week – right? – that there was some destiny or some hidden mysterious order.
1:22:54	K: Something much more, much more, than disease, than reincarnation, than what the Theosophists, Maitreya…
1:23:09	DB: Yes.
1:23:10	K: ...the Brahmanical tradition of you mustn’t kill, you mustn’t do harm, etc. – karma. I think it’s much more something else. Sorry.
1:23:19	DB: Yes, I mean, you say there was something else. Now, of course this idea has also occurred to people, you know, in the past. You see, there are people who felt that they were… that some mysterious force was working in them, and they may have been fooling themselves. Right?
1:23:35	K: Absolutely.
1:23:36	DB: Yes. Like, you take Alexander the Great, you know, he thought he was a god and he actually… many people felt his energy so much that they were ready to do anything with him.
1:23:44	K: But his energy was spent in conquering.
1:23:47	DB: That’s right, in conquering – it was obviously false.
1:23:49	K: False, obviously. Napoleon felt that.
1:23:52	DB: Napoleon felt it, perhaps Hitler felt it.
1:23:54	K: Exactly – Mussolini and Stalin.
1:23:58	DB: Yes. And you see, let’s say, first I wanted to put it, you see, just to try to make it clear, that that feeling may liberate tremendous energy, either falsely or not.
1:24:08	K: Yes.
1:24:09	DB: Now, it is therefore... has danger in it, do you see, which we must recognise. Right?
1:24:15	K: That’s right, that’s right.
1:24:17	DB: Now, but nevertheless you cannot discard that because this energy may still be necessary in spite of the danger in it. Right? In other words, if we recognise that there is danger in this notion, but it doesn’t prove the notion is false.
1:24:31	K: Oh, no, no, no, of course not.
1:24:34	DB: It doesn’t prove it’s true or false.
1:24:36	K: It may be misused.
1:24:37	DB: It may be misused, you see.
1:24:40	K: Quite.
1:24:41	DB: But suppose now we look at it from the other side, and you say that something mysterious happened, you know, which cannot be explained, which is beyond the order…
1:24:51	K: All the explanation of the Brahmin…
1:24:53	DB: …the order that we can include in thought. You see, let’s try to put it that maybe thought cannot grasp.
1:25:00	K: Thought did not create a centre.
1:25:04	DB: Yes, it did not create a centre but thought cannot grasp why. You see, let’s say thought is ordinarily conditioned to create a centre, over the ages. Right?
1:25:12	K: Yes, yes, perfectly right.
1:25:13	DB: A person may be born, according to you, with the tendency to create the centre.
1:25:17	K: Yes.
1:25:18	DB: But in this case thought did not create the centre – that’s what you’re saying.
1:25:21	K: That’s right.
1:25:22	DB: And you cannot say why it did not, beyond this mysterious action.
1:25:27	K: Yes – I wouldn’t know.
1:25:29	DB: Now, you say in some sense the boy was protected, is what you said last week.
1:25:33	K: Protected, guarded. They did everything to guard him, first of all.
1:25:38	DB: Yes, yes. Well, there was a combination of circumstances which helped, you know, conducive to that.
1:25:45	K: Conducive, but it doesn’t explain.
1:25:46	DB: No, it doesn’t explain.
1:25:47	K: That’s all.
1:25:50	DB: No. Now… Yes, and, well there are several points we could go on from there. You see, one point is to say that if man is... you see, it occurred to me during the week that if, let’s say, man has to transform away from this conditioned existence, and if he is born conditioned then there’s no way out of it, if that is all there is to it. In other words, from this conditioned mind there can be no way out.
1:26:19	K: Quite.
1:26:20	DB: Therefore the only way out would be for somebody to come into existence who is not conditioned.
1:26:27	K: Yes. Proceed, yes.
1:26:29	DB: Right? Now, therefore if there is such a person it would say that does not have any personal significance. Right? If you see what I mean.
1:26:37	K: Yes, yes.
1:26:38	DB: But it’s just a part of the universal order.
1:26:40	K: Yes, that’s right.
1:26:42	DB: You see, I could give you an example from physics, that in order to crystallise something, you see, let’s say something is in solution and it may be cooled far beyond the point of crystallisation or, you know, solidification, unless there is a small nucleus around which it can crystallise, otherwise it may remain uncrystallised indefinitely.
1:27:04	K: Yes.
1:27:06	DB: But that particular nucleus has no special significance other than that it was the place around which crystallisation took place.
1:27:14	K: Yes, quite right. Absolutely.
1:27:19	DB: Now, well, so you could say that perhaps if you were to argue, just for the sake of discussion, that mankind has reached a stage where it is ready or has been ready for a change. Right?
1:27:34	K: Yes, that’s what the… yes.
1:27:35	DB: Many people have said that. But then it would be necessary... you see, it cannot change from the conditioned state.
1:27:41	K: There must be a catalyst, somebody...
1:27:44	DB: ...a nucleus, which is unconditioned. Now, that’s the idea that occurred to me, anyway.
1:27:52	K: Quite, quite, quite.
1:27:53	DB: I mean, whether it’s true or not is another... you know, we have to discuss. But, you know... Now, you see, another question arose. I mean, I think a number of people began to ask it, which is, you see, until now, or until recently, you have not been talking in these terms, you see, but rather emphasising awareness of the conditioning and so on. Now, it seems that now you are saying something more, or different.
1:28:26	K: Yes.
1:28:27	DB: And could you say why at this time, you see, or what?
1:28:32	K: (Laughs) I wouldn’t know. Sir…
1:28:36	DB: I mean, why didn’t you discuss this point before, is really what I’m getting at.
1:28:48	K: Ah. (Inaudible) (Laughs) Sir, you see, I’m just going back. If there is total perception of the nature of thought and all its activities, and therefore the total perception of the content of consciousness – and the content makes consciousness, all the rest of it – that used to be the centre.
1:29:32	DB: What?
1:29:33	K: The content...
1:29:35	DB: Yes, I mean, I think I would look at the centre as a form, an empty form, around which all these things are placed, you see. They are attributed to the centre.
1:29:47	K: Yes, attributed to the centre. Now, when the centre is not – total perception can only exist when the centre is not – then consciousness must be totally different.
1:30:06	DB: All right. Yes, now what would you say about its nature then?
1:30:14	K: What would be its nature? You see, sir, the centre, as you pointed out, is the factor of unification.
1:30:34	DB: Or the attempt.
1:30:37	K: Attempt. Napoleon – you follow? – centre.
1:30:40	DB: It’s the way people have always tried to unite.
1:30:43	K: Unite – but it hasn’t succeeded – never. When the centre is not, which is perception of the totality of thought, and therefore centre is not, consciousness must be something quite different.
1:31:06	DB: But does it involve… You see, the word consciousness ordinarily would involve the idea of thought. Is it still thought?
1:31:14	K: There is no thought; can’t be.
1:31:15	DB: Well, why do you call it consciousness then?
1:31:17	K: Then I said it must be something totally different.
1:31:20	DB: Yes.
1:31:21	K: The consciousness which we have is with the centre, with all the content, with all the thought, with all that movement, and when there is total perception of that, that is not.
1:31:41	DB: The centre is not, yes, and the whole order is different.
1:31:43	K: Different.
1:31:44	DB: Yes, and – something I was going to ask you. Yes. Now, you were also mentioning many times about, say, the brain cells, that it might involve the brain cells working in a different way.
1:32:04	K: Different way. I think so.
1:32:05	DB: Perhaps different brain cells will work, I don’t know.
1:32:09	K: I don’t know. I think it works differently.
1:32:15	DB: Yes.
1:32:16	K: Sir, may we… What is compassion? Is the centre capable of compassion?
1:32:27	DB: Well, I’d say the centre is not capable of anything real, I mean.
1:32:33	K: No. Can the centre attribute to itself as being compassionate?
1:32:38	DB: It certainly can do that.
1:32:41	K: It can. (Laughs) Yes, as God – anything it can attribute. But if there is no attribution at all then what is compassion? Is total perception compassion?
1:33:17	DB: Well, it has to include the feeling for... (inaudible)
1:33:29	K: I should think total… one of the qualities of total perception – it sounds terrible – is compassion.
1:34:04	DB: You see, the centre could only have feelings which are attributed to it, so it would have compassion for whatever it’s identified with.
1:34:12	K: Of course. I love you and I don’t love others.
1:34:19	DB: Yes.
1:34:20	K: Quite. Or I love others but I don’t love you. (Laughs)
1:34:26	DB: (Laughs) Anyway, it would have no understanding and therefore it would have no meaning.
1:34:48	K: It’s very interesting, this. We’ve got somewhere. How would you convey all this to somebody in the tent? He’s sentimental, romantic, wanting illusions, myths, fanciful imaginations, problems of sex, of fear, and you’re telling him something – you follow, sir? – and he won’t even… Here we’ve got leisure, we want to go into it, we want to find out, because we’re totally objective about oneself.
1:35:56	DB: Well, that’s the...
1:36:01	K: I think that’s where compassion operates. Sorry. Operates – you and I. Sorry, I withdraw that word.
1:36:14	DB: I mean, that’s where it’s necessary. It’s necessary there. Well, you mean by that that… You see, if we were considering what you were saying yesterday, now the stream of human thought, you see.
1:36:33	K: Yes, yes, yes.
1:36:34	DB: That every… whatever is wrong there, it’s universal, it belongs to everybody. Right?
1:36:42	K: That’s right.
1:36:43	DB: So, now, you may see something going wrong and you attribute it to somebody. You see, the thought attributes it to somebody else but whenever something is going wrong, it’s going wrong in thought, and therefore it’s in everybody.
1:36:58	K: Yes, that’s right.
1:36:59	DB: That’s right?
1:37:00	K: That’s right, sir.
1:37:01	DB: That there is no such thing as thought, my thought or your thought. It cannot stop. You see, the minute you are thinking it then I am thinking it. Even if there is no extra-sensory thought, it’s just by ordinary communication. The structure of your thought is communicated to me. If it’s the wrong structure then I’m in the wrong structure of thought.
1:37:18	K: Of course.
1:37:19	DB: Then my brain or my thought attributes that wrong structure to you, another centre.
1:37:25	K: Yes, quite.
1:37:27	DB: And says, ‘This centre is all right,’ or it will try to make it all right, ‘and the other centre is wrong,’ and therefore there could be no compassion. Right? Because then I’m hostile, I must fight the other centre.
1:37:37	K: That’s right, sir.
1:37:38	DB: I must resist the other centre. Right? This centre is resisting the other centre. The good is in this centre and the bad is in the other centre. (Laughter) And therefore there could be no compassion.
1:37:53	K: Yes, sir.
1:37:54	DB: But, you see, if it’s all one thought process, one stream, then one cannot attribute this to a particular person, and therefore it seems you understand the nature of that thought, and that is compassion.
1:38:15	K: Quite right. Yes, sir.
1:38:16	DB: Because you must see that anyone thinking that thought must be suffering. I mean...
1:38:27	K: Yes, sir. We were going to talk, discuss rather, about the mystery, what is the mysterious. Perhaps it’s too late now. You see, sir, all religions have made the cathedrals dark.
1:39:15	DB: Yes.
1:39:19	K: The temples are dark, implying that God is mysterious.
1:39:25	DB: Yes.
1:39:27	K: That there is something so mysterious that you cannot understand. And there have been secret societies, special initiations – you know, all that – through which you went in order to come upon the mysterious. All that is not mysterious.
1:40:05	DB: No, well, that’s just imitation.
1:40:08	K: Imitation, which thought – etc., etc.
1:40:11	DB: Yes.
1:40:12	K: If there was no invention of the mysteriousness of… created by thought, is there a mystery?
1:40:26	DB: Well, if you say one sense of the mystery is that it cannot be explained or grasped by thought, I mean...
1:40:37	K: Yes, and also myths.
1:40:39	DB: Myths. Well, myths are an attempt to grasp it by thought. I mean by poetic thought.
1:40:45	K: Yes, poetic thought. And apparently man has lived with those myths.
1:40:51	DB: Yes, again, it’s the same point we were discussing before, that thought is attributing to itself some…
1:41:01	K: The mysterious.
1:41:02	DB: The mysterious – and not merely life but the ultimate mystery.
1:41:05	K: Mystery – yes, that’s right.
1:41:06	DB: In other words, it produces something which it then says is not thought but the ultimate mystery.
1:41:13	K: Quite, quite.
1:41:16	DB: And so in some way, you see, people have said that these myths were poetic means by which people grasped something true. But at the same time it may be that if you use this once as a metaphor then it would be helpful, but when you repeat it then it becomes a… But wouldn’t it remain true that in saying that which is cannot be grasped in thought?
1:41:57	K: That’s right. Anything... but the mystery of it.
1:42:02	DB: Yes.
1:42:03	K: We must discuss that some other time.
1:42:07	DB: Well, perhaps there isn’t really time – it’s quarter past five now.
1:42:12	K: We’d better stop. (Pause) We can go on next Friday.
1:42:42	DB: Go on next time. Friday you want to go on? Is that all right? I mean…
1:43:00	K: Of course
1:43:01	DB: It doesn’t bother you that you have a discussion in the morning?
1:43:04	K: Ah, wait a minute, wait a minute. (Laughs) Discussions don’t tire me so much as a sustained talk…
1:43:15	Mary Zimbalist: (Inaudible) ...two hours, and two hours the next day, and the day before.
1:43:26	K: May we, sir, leave it open?
1:43:28	DB: Right, but… yes, well, we have to be leaving, I think, this Sunday or Monday, you see, so we should try to set... (inaudible)
1:43:30	K: All right. You leave on… you fix your day.
1:43:31	DB: Well, no, I don’t want to put any strain on you. You see, the…
1:43:36	K: No…
1:43:37	Saral Bohm: Krishnaji, we’ve fixed the date...
1:43:38	DB: ...of leaving.
1:43:39	K: When are you leaving?
1:43:40	DB: Well, we haven’t fixed the date exactly but I think we originally planned to leave on Monday, didn’t we?
1:43:44	K: Monday. That would be on the 4th, is it?
1:43:46	DB: Is that it, the 4th?
1:43:47	SB: I think it’s the 4th. We could stay one more night.
1:43:51	DB: We could stay one more day if you really want to have a discussion.
1:43:53	Doris Pratt: The discussions have ended. The 4th is free.
1:43:58	DB: Sunday – the discussions end on Sunday. Now, would you be ready the following day?
1:44:03	K: Or Sunday, because there is no discussion the next day.
1:44:07	DB: Oh, it’s the next day that you’re concerned with.
1:44:09	K: Yes. No, I have discussions, discussions, discussions.
1:44:11	DB: Yes, but when they are finished…
1:44:13	K: On Sunday morning they are finished.
1:44:15	DB: And you feel that you would be able in the afternoon?
1:44:17	K: I can do it on Sunday afternoon
1:44:18	MZ: Four hours talking?
1:44:19	K: Ah, that’s all right, that’s all right.
1:44:22	SB: Otherwise we can stay one more day.
1:44:23	DB: We can wait one more day.
1:44:24	K: No, no, don’t, don’t. We can arrange this. Sunday afternoon at three thirty.