OJBR80CB12 - The intelligence of love
Brockwood Park, UK - 16 September 1980
The ending of time - Conversation 12
0:29 | K: This is a dialogue which we have had in Ojai, California. We had there eight dialogues, Dr Bohm and myself, and two here, and one day before yesterday. So may we continue with that dialogue. Should anybody join this or not at all? We’re asking if anybody feels like joining this, unless it is very, very serious, would they join, or if they don’t want to, it’s all right. So it’s a conversation between Dr Bohm and myself. Let’s get on with it. |
1:49 |
We were saying the other day,
a human being, who has worked his way
through all the problems of life,
both physical and psychological,
and has really grasped the full significance of freedom
from psychological memories and conflicts and travails,
he comes to a point where the mind finds itself free
but hasn’t gathered that supreme energy to go beyond itself.
That’s what we were discussing the other day.
Can we go on from there? Right, sir? B: Yes. |
3:05 | K: Can the mind really – mind, brain, the whole psychological structure – be ever free from all conflict, from all shadow of any disturbance? |
3:27 | B: Self-disturbance. |
3:30 | K: Self-disturbance. Can it ever be free? Or the idea of complete freedom is an illusion. |
3:41 | B: Yes, that’s one possibility. |
3:44 | K: One possibility. |
3:48 | B: Some people may say we could have partial freedom. |
3:51 | K: Yes, partial freedom. Or human condition is so determined by the past, by its own conditioning, it can never free itself from it – some of those intellectual philosophers have stated this. |
4:12 | B: Some people feel that’s the case. |
4:16 | K: And really the deep non-sectarian religious people – there must be some who are totally free from all organised religions and beliefs, rituals, dogmas – they have said it can be done. Very few have said this. |
4:39 | B: Those who have said it is done through reincarnation. And in addition, that group says it will take a very long time. |
4:47 | K: Yes, they say it will take a very long time. You must go through various lives and suffer and go through all kinds of miseries, and ultimately, you come to that. But we are not thinking in terms of time. We’re asking, a human being, granting, knowing or aware that he is conditioned, deeply, profoundly, so that his whole being is that, can it ever free itself? And if it does, what is beyond? That’s what we were coming to. |
5:40 | Would that question be reasonable or valid, unless the mind has really finished with it, finished all the travail of life? As we said the other day, our minds are man-made. And is there a mind which is not man-made? Right, sir? That’s what we came to. How shall we find this out? We all know the man-made mind, with its consciousness, with all its content and so on. Need we go through that? No. |
6:33 | B: We’ve done that already. |
6:35 | K: It’s a man-made mind. It is possible that it can free itself from its own man-made mechanical mind. |
6:51 | B: There is a difficult thing to express there, which is, if this mind is totally man-made, totally conditioned, then in what sense can it get out of it? This is the kind of thing to say, if you said that it had at least a possibility of something beyond... |
7:14 | K: Then it becomes a reward, a temptation, a thing to be... |
7:21 | B: I think the question is to be able to put this consistently, logically: there seems to be an inconsistency in saying the mind is totally conditioned and yet it’s going to get out. I’m not saying it is inconsistent but it may appear to be inconsistent. |
7:44 | K: I understand that question, but if one admits that there is a part which is not conditioned, then we enter into quite another... |
7:56 | B: Yes, that’s another inconsistency. |
8:01 |
K: Yes, into another inconsistency.
In our discussions, we’ve said,
the mind, being deeply conditioned, it can free itself
through insight – that is the real clue to this.
Would you agree to that? B: Yes. |
8:22 | K: That insight – we went into what it is, the nature of it – can that insight uncondition the mind completely, wipe away all the illusions, all the desires and so on, can that insight completely wipe it out? Or is it partial? |
8:58 | B: The first point is, if we say mind is not static – if one says it’s totally conditioned it suggests something static, which would never change. Now, if we say the mind is always in movement, then it seems in some way it becomes impossible to say what it is at this moment, and to say it has been totally conditioned. |
9:24 | K: No, suppose I’m totally conditioned, it’s in movement, but the movement is within a border. |
9:33 | B: It’s within a border, yes. |
9:35 |
K: Within a certain field. B: Yes. |
9:37 | K: And the field is very definitely marked out, it can expand it and contract, but the boundary is very, very limited, definite. |
9:51 | B: Yes. And also this whole structure can die away. If we move within that structure, then we stay in some boundary. |
10:03 | K: Now, it is always moving within that limitation. Can it die away to that? |
10:12 |
B: That’s another kind of movement,
in another dimension, I think you’ve said. K: Yes. And we say it is possible through insight, which is also a movement, a totally different kind of movement. |
10:38 |
B: Yes, but now we say that movement does not originate
in the individual – did we say that? K: Yes. |
10:46 | B: Nor in the general mind. |
10:48 | K: It is not – quite right, yes, that’s what we discussed the other day. It is not an insight of the particular, or the general. We are then stating something quite outrageous! |
11:06 | B: Yes, looking at that, it rather violates most of the sort of logic that people have been using, that either the particular and the general should cover everything, in terms of ordinary logic. Now if you’re saying there’s something beyond both, this is already a question which has not been stated, at least, and I think it has a great importance. |
11:33 | K: How do we then state it, or how do we then come to it? |
11:41 |
B: I’ve been noticing
that I think people divide themselves roughly into two groups
one group feels the most important thing,
the ground, is the particular,
concrete particular daily activity.
The other group feels that the general,
the universal is the ground. K: Quite. |
12:00 | B: One is the more practical type, and the other the more philosophical type. And in general this division has been visible throughout history, also in everyday life, wherever you look. |
12:15 | K: But, is the general – we can discuss a little bit – separate from the particular? |
12:22 |
B: It’s not, most people agree with that but the question is
what is it that’s going to be given primary value?
People tend to give emphasis to one or the other.
Some people give the main emphasis to the particular.
They say the general is there
but if you take care of the particular
the general will be all right. K: Yes. |
12:41 |
B: The others say the general is the main thing,
the universal, and in getting that right
you’ll get the particular right. K: Quite,quite. |
12:50 | B: So there’s been a kind of unbalance to one side or the other, a bias in the mind of man. Now what’s being raised here is the notion: neither the general nor the particular. |
13:10 | K: That’s right. That’s just it! Can we discuss it, have a conversation about it, logically? Using your expertise, your scientific brain and there is this man who is not all that, so can’t we have a conversation to find out if the general and particular are one, not divided at all. |
13:54 | B: Also that it has to be no bias to one or the other. |
13:57 | K: One or the other, quite. Not laying emphasis on one or the other. Then, if we don’t do that, then what is there? I don’t know if I’m... |
14:16 | B: Then we have no easy way to talk about it. |
14:20 | K: Yes. Yes. |
14:24 | B: But we did discuss, I think in California, the ground. The question was we could say the particular mind dies to the general universal mind or to the emptiness, then saying that ultimately even the emptiness and the universal die into the ground. |
14:40 | K: That’s right, we discussed that. |
14:42 | B: I think that this kind of lead into... |
14:45 |
K: Would an ordinary person, fairly intelligent,
agree to all this? See all this? B: I’m not sure. |
14:53 | K: Or would he say, ‘What nonsense all this is.’ |
14:55 | B: If it were just thrown at him, he would reject it as nonsense. It would require very careful presentation and some people might see it. But if you just say it to anybody... |
15:05 | K: Of course. |
15:07 | B: ...they'd say, whoever heard of that. |
15:10 | K: So where are we now? Wait. We are neither particular nor the general. That’s a statement which hardly reasonably can be accepted. |
15:28 | B: Well, it’s reasonable in the sense that if you take thought to be a movement, rather than a content... |
15:41 | K: Thought to be a movement – quite, we agree to that. |
15:44 | B: ...then thought is the movement between the particular and the general. |
15:48 | K: But thought is the general, thought is the particular. |
15:51 |
B: But thought is also the movement. K: Yes. |
15:54 | B: So in the movement it goes beyond being one or the other, that is, in movement. |
16:01 | K: Does it? |
16:03 | B: Well, it can, I said that ordinarily it does not, because ordinarily thought is caught on one side or the other. |
16:08 | K: That’s the whole point, isn’t it? Ordinarily the general and the particular are in the same area. |
16:15 | B: Yes, and either you fix on one or the other. |
16:18 | K: Yes, but in the same area, in the same field. And thought is the movement between the two. Or thought has created both. |
16:32 | B: Yes, it has created both and moves between. |
16:34 | K: Between and around it. |
16:36 | B: Around and in that area. |
16:38 | K: Yes, in that area. And it has been doing this for millennia. |
16:48 | B: And most people would feel that’s all it could do. |
16:52 | K: Now, we are saying, when thought ends, that movement which thought has created also comes to an end, therefore time comes to an end. |
17:09 |
B: We should go more slowly here... K: Sorry. |
17:11 | B: ...it’s a jump from thought to time, we’ve gone into it before but it’s still a jump. |
17:18 | K: Right. Because first, let’s see. Thought has created the general and the particular, and thought is a movement that connects the two, thought moves round it, so it is still in the same area. |
17:38 | B: Yes, and doing that it has created time, which is part of the general and the particular, time is a particular time and also a general time. All time, for ever. That sees this particular time in the whole of time. |
17:54 | K: But, you see, thought is time! |
17:57 | B: That’s another question, we were discussing that thought has a content which is 'about' time, and besides that, we say that thought is a movement which 'is' time, it could be said to be moving from the past into the future. Right? |
18:15 | K: But, sir, thought is based on time, thought is the outcome of time. |
18:22 |
B: Yes, but then does that mean
that time exists beyond thought?
If you say thought is based on time,
then time is more fundamental than thought
is that what you want to say? K: Yes, yes. |
18:33 | B: So we should go into that. You could say that time is something which was there before thought, or at least it’s at the origin of thought? |
18:45 | K: Time was there when there is the accumulation of knowledge. |
18:53 | B: That has come out of thought to some extent. |
18:58 |
K: No, I act and learn. B: Yes. |
19:01 | K: That action is based, not on previous knowledge, but I do something, and in the doing I learn. |
19:16 | B: That learning is registered in the memory. |
19:19 | K: In the memory, and so on. So is not thought essentially the movement of time? |
19:30 | B: In what sense is this learning the movement of time? You can say, when we learn it is registered. Right? And then that same learning operates in the next experience, what you have learned. |
19:50 | K: Yes. The past is always moving to the present, all the time. |
19:55 |
B: Yes, and mixing, fusing with the present. K: Yes. |
19:57 | B: And the two together are again registered as the next experience. |
20:02 | K: So are we saying, time is different from thought, or time is thought. |
20:12 | B: This movement of learning and the response of memory into experience and then re-registering, we say that is time, and that is also thought. Isn't? |
20:25 | K: Yes, that is thought. |
20:30 | Is there a time apart from thought? |
20:34 | B: Would we say that, physically or in the cosmos, time has a significance apart from thought? |
20:42 | K: Physically, yes, I understand that. |
20:45 | B: Right. So then we’re saying, in the mind, or psychologically. |
20:49 | K: Psychologically, as long as there is psychological accumulation – as knowledge, as the ‘me’, there is time. It is based on time! |
21:03 | B: Wherever there is accumulation there is time. |
21:06 | K: Yes, that’s the point. Wherever there is accumulation there is time. |
21:10 | B: Usually you say time is first and in time you accumulate. |
21:15 | K: No, I would put it round the other way, personally. |
21:18 | B: It’s important to see that it’s put the other way. Suppose there is no accumulation, then what? |
21:25 | K: Then – that’s the whole point – there is no time! And as long as I am accumulating, gathering, becoming, there is the process of time. But if there is no gathering, no becoming, no accumulation, where does psychological time exist? |
21:53 | B: Probably you could say even physical time must depend on some kind of physical accumulation. That we are not denying. We’re denying the significance of psychological accumulation. |
22:06 | K: That’s right. So thought is the outcome of psychological accumulation, and that accumulation, that gathering, gives it a sense of continuity – which is time. |
22:25 | B: Well, it seems it’s in movement, that whatever has been accumulated is responding to the present, with the projection of the future. And then that is again registered. Now, the accumulation of all that’s registered is in the order of time: one time, the next time... |
22:43 | K: So we’re saying, thought is time! |
22:47 |
B: Or time is thought. K: Oh, yes, one way or the other. |
22:51 | B: But the movement of time is thought. |
22:54 |
K: Movement of time... B: Psychological time. |
22:59 | K: Movement... what are you saying, sir? |
23:02 | B: The movement of psychological time, which is that accumulation. |
23:06 |
K: Is time. B: That’s time but that’s also thought. the two mean the same thing. |
23:14 | K: So, psychological accumulation is thought and time. |
23:20 | B: Yes, we have two words when really we only need one. Because we have two words we look for two things. |
23:29 | K: Yes. There is only one movement, which is time and thought, time plus thought, time/thought. Now can the mind, which has moved for millennia in that area all the time, free itself from that? |
23:50 | B: Why is it bound up? Let’s see exactly what’s holding the mind. |
23:54 | K: Accumulation. |
23:56 | B: Yes, but why does the mind continue to accumulate? |
24:02 | K: I think that is fairly clear, because in accumulation there is safety, there is security – apparent security. |
24:11 | B: That needs a little discussion. In a certain area that is even true, the accumulation of physical food may provide a certain kind of security. |
24:21 | K: Of course. |
24:22 | B: And then since no distinction was made between the outer and the inner, there was the feeling that one could accumulate inwardly either experiences or some knowledge of what to do... |
24:35 | K: Are we saying the outward necessity of physical accumulation for security is necessary? And that same movement, same idea, same urge moves into the field of psychological thought. There you accumulate hoping to be secure. |
24:54 | B: Yes, inwardly hoping you can accumulate present memories, or relationships, things you could count on, principles you could count on. |
25:07 | K: So accumulation, psychological accumulation is safety, protection, security. |
25:17 | B: The illusion, anyway. |
25:19 | K: The illusion of security and in this illusion it has lived. |
25:28 | B: So it does seem that the first mistake was that man never understood the distinction between what he has to do outside and what he has to do inside, right? |
25:37 | K: Yes, we said that. It is the same movement, outer and inner. |
25:42 | B: But man carried the movement, that procedure which was right outwardly he carried inwardly, without knowing, perhaps entirely not-knowing that that would make trouble. |
25:53 | K: So where are we now? A human being realises all this. He has come to the point when he says, ‘Can I really be free from this accumulated security and thought and time?' Psychological time, right? Is that possible? |
26:21 | B: If we say that it had this origin, then it should be possible to dismantle it, if it were built into us, nothing could be done. |
26:29 | K: It is not certainly built into us! |
26:32 |
B: Most people act as though they believe it were. K: That’s absurd! |
26:35 | B: If it’s not built into us, then the possibility exists for us to change. Because in some way we said it was built up in the first place through time. |
26:50 | K: If we say it is built in, then we are in a hopeless state. |
26:58 | B: That’s one of the difficulties of people who use evolution, by bringing in evolution they hope to get out of this static boundary. They don’t realise that evolution is the same thing, it’s even worse,it’s the very means by which the trap was made. |
27:21 | K: So I come to that point, as a human being, I realise all this, I’m fully aware of the nature of this. And my next question is: can this mind move on from this field altogether, and enter, perhaps, into a totally different dimension? And we said... It can only happen when there is insight – that we’ve been through. |
28:08 | B: Yes, and it seems that insight arises when one questions this whole thing very deeply. One sees it doesn’t make sense. |
28:20 | K: Now having had insight into it and seen its limitation and therefore go beyond it – what is there beyond? This we talked about a little bit, not only at Ojai, also here. |
28:59 | B: We felt that it’s very difficult to even bring this into words, but I think we said something has to be done on this line, right? |
29:09 | K: I think it has to be put into words. |
29:12 | B: Could you say why because many people might feel we should leave this entirely non-verbal. |
29:26 | K: Can we say, the word is not the thing, whatever description is not the real, is not the truth, however much you embellish or diminish it, just the word is not that. Recognising that, then what is there beyond all this? Can my mind be so... desireless so it won’t create an illusion, something beyond? |
30:03 | B: Then, in that question of desire, desire must be in this time process. |
30:08 | K: Of course, desire is time. |
30:11 | B: Since there are very subtle forms of desire, as well as the obvious forms... |
30:19 | K: After all, being, becoming is based on desire. |
30:26 | B: They are one and the same, really. |
30:28 | K: Yes, they’re one and the same. Now, when one has an insight – I hate to use that word over and over again – into that whole movement of desire, and its capacity to create illusion, it’s finished! |
30:51 | B: Yes, I think perhaps we should, since this is a very crucial point, we should try to say a little more about desire, how it’s intrinsic in this accumulating process, how it comes out in many ways. For one thing you could say that, as you accumulate, there comes a sense of something missing. You feel you should have more, something to finish, to complete. Whatever you accumulated is not complete. |
31:28 | K: Sir, could we go into the question of becoming first, then desire comes into it. |
31:34 | Why is it that all human beings, right through the world, have this urge to become? Outwardly I understand that, simple enough. |
31:46 | B: We have to become stronger and stronger. |
31:48 | K: Physically develop your muscle... |
31:51 | B: Your language, your logic... |
31:53 | K: And also a better job, more comfort and so on. But why is there this seed in the human mind of trying to become... enlightened – let’s use that word for the moment – trying to become more good... or better. |
32:22 | B: There must be a sense of dissatisfaction with what’s in there already, that’s one thing. |
32:27 | K: Is it dissatisfaction? |
32:29 | B: A person feels he would like it to be complete. Suppose he has accumulated memories of pleasure, but these memories are no longer adequate, he feels something more is needed. |
32:44 | K: Is that it? |
32:46 | B: To get more, that’s one of the questions, and eventually he feels that he must have the whole, the ultimate. |
32:59 | K: I’m not at all sure whether the word ‘more’ is not the real thorn. |
33:06 |
B: The word ‘more’? K: Yes, more. More, I will be more, I will have more, I will become – this whole movement of moving forward, gaining, comparing, advancing, achieving – psychologically. |
33:27 | B: The word ‘more’ is just implicit in the whole meaning of the word ‘accumulate’. If you’re accumulating you have to be accumulating more, there’s no other way to do it. |
33:38 | K: So why is there this seed in the human mind? |
33:42 | B: He doesn’t see that this 'more' is wrong, inwardly. If he started outwardly to use the term ‘more' but then he carried it inward, he didn’t see how destructive it was. |
33:58 | K: Why? Why? Why ? Why fairly intelligent philosophers and religious people who have spent a great part of their great life in achieving, why haven’t they seen this very simple thing! The great intellectuals and the so-called... evolutionary concept, why haven’t they seen this simple fact that where there is accumulation there must be more. |
34:33 | B: They’ve seen that but they don’t see any harm in it. |
34:35 | K: No, I’m not sure they see it. |
34:37 | B: They’ve seen they are trying to get more, they are trying to get a better life. The nineteenth century was the century of progress, improving all the time. |
34:48 | K: All right, but progress outwardly. |
34:50 | B: But they felt that man would be improving himself inwardly. |
34:56 | K: But why haven’t they ever questioned this? |
34:59 | B: What would make them question it? |
35:05 | K: Obviously, this constant struggle. For the more. |
35:11 | B: But they thought that was necessary for progress. |
35:15 | K: But is that progress? |
35:17 | B: Can we make it clear, suppose you had to answer one of the nineteenth century optimists that man is progressing all the time, to be better inwardly as well as outwardly. |
35:28 |
K: Let us admit outwardly. B: He could do that. |
35:34 | K: Outwardly. That same outward urge to be 'better' has it moved into the psychological realm? |
35:44 | B: Can we make it clear why it does harm in the psychological realm? |
35:50 | K: The harm is – wait a minute, let’s think it out. What's the harm in accumulating, psychologically? Oh yes! It divides. |
36:09 | B: What does it divide? |
36:11 | K: The very nature of accumulation brings about a division between you and me and they. |
36:21 | B: Could we make that clear, it is a crucial point. I can see one thing: suppose you are accumulating in your way and I accumulate in my way... |
36:29 | K: And he, she, accumulates in another way. |
36:33 | B: And then we try to impose a common way of accumulating and that’s more conflict. |
36:37 | K: Which is impossible! That never takes place. |
36:40 |
B: They say everybody should be more... K: Yes, yes, yes. I have accumulated, psychologically, as a Hindu. And another has accumulated as a Muslim. |
36:57 | B: There are thousands of divisions. |
36:59 | K: Thousands of divisions. |
37:00 | B: You could say in one profession or in another. |
37:02 | K: Thousands of divisions! Therefore accumulation, in its very nature, divides people. And therefore conflict. |
37:15 | B: Each person accumulates in his particular way which is different from somebody else. You cannot make a common way of accumulating. |
37:23 | K: Can’t we? So let’s all accumulate! |
37:25 | B: It doesn’t work, because everybody already has a different... |
37:29 | K: Of course. |
37:31 | B: ...relationship, no matter what you do. |
37:34 | K: So, can we say then: in accumulation man has sought psychological security, and that security, with its accumulation, is the factor of human division. Psychologically. |
37:52 | B: Yes, any attempt to accumulate will divide. At present, some sociologists like Carl Marx has said that it was this accumulation of capital by some people which divided them from other people – that started tremendous conflict. |
38:13 | K: So, we said that's why human beings have accumulated, not realising its consequences. And realising that, is it possible not to accumulate? I mean, that’s tremendous! |
38:38 | B: Yes, the human mind automatically accumulates. |
38:43 | K: Why? For the very clear and simple reason, in accumulation, as outwardly, it feels safe, secure. |
38:57 | B: Perhaps you could say that having gotten into this trap it was very hard for the mind to get out, it was already occupied, the mind is filled with this process of accumulation, it becomes very hard to see anything. |
39:11 | K: Suppose my mind is filled with this process of occupation which is psychological knowledge, all that, can it end? Of course it can! |
39:24 | B: If the mind will get to the root of it. |
39:27 | K: Of course it can! Which is: that it is an illusion that in accumulation there is security. |
39:37 | B: One can see this at a certain level, one discusses this, not intellectually, I would prefer to say as a map, one has drawn a map of this whole process. Then the question is, when you have a map you must now be able to look at the country. See what’s on the map. |
39:58 | K: Yes. When you are looking at the map you don’t see the country. |
40:02 | B: No, the map may be useful but it’s not enough. But now we are saying, that desire is what keeps people going on with it. |
40:16 | K: Not only desire but this deep-rooted instinct to accumulate. |
40:23 |
B: Like the squirrel. K: Like the squirrel. For future, for safety. That and desire go together. Right? |
40:38 | B: It builds up into intense desire. |
40:42 | K: So desire plus accumulation is the factor of division, conflict, etc. |
40:53 | B: You can say really the word desire means need, a person feels he must accumulate because he needs. |
41:01 | K: He needs, yes. Now, I’m asking, can that end? If it ends through an action of will, it's still the same thing. |
41:14 | B: That’s part of desire. |
41:17 | K: If it ends because of punishment or reward, it’s still the same. So one’s mind sees this and puts all that aside. Right? But is the mind... free of accumulation? Yes sir, I think it can, he does. That is, have no psychological knowledge at all. Knowledge is accumulation. |
42:10 |
B: We have to consider
that knowledge goes very much further
than is ordinarily meant.
Not just... K: Book knowledge, experience – of course! |
42:23 | B: But, in accumulating... For example, having knowledge of this microphone, you build up an image of it, and everything goes into that, and one expects it to continue. If you have knowledge of yourself, it builds up a picture of yourself. |
42:46 | K: Ah! Can one have knowledge of oneself? |
42:48 | B: No, If you think you have, if one thinks that there is knowledge about what sort of person you are, that builds up into a picture, with the expectations... |
42:59 | K: But after all, if you have knowledge of yourself, you have built an image already! |
43:05 | B: That’s the same, the tendency is, there’s a transfer of what you do with the outside, as you observe this microphone you build up knowledge, that enters into your picture, your perception of it, then you say I'll do the same with myself. I know the sort of person I should be or I am and it builds up, a lot of accumulation builds up in forms that we don’t ordinarily call knowledge, for example, preferences, likes and dislikes. |
43:38 | K: But once you realise psychological accumulation as knowledge is an illusion, and destructive, and causes infinite pain and misery, when you see, it’s finished! |
43:58 | B: I'm trying to say, very often the word knowledge does not convey all that has to be included. I could say, OK, I know certain things in knowledge and it’s foolish to build up that knowledge about myself, but then there may be other kinds of knowledge which I don’t recognise as knowledge... |
44:23 |
K: What other kinds of knowledge that one has?
Preferences, like and dislike,
prejudice. B: Habits. |
44:33 | K: Habit. All that is in the image that one has created. |
44:45 | B: Yes. Man has developed in such a way that that image seems extraordinarily real. And therefore its qualities don’t seem to be knowledge. |
45:00 | K: All right, sir. So we have said, accumulation is time accumulation is security, and where there is psychological accumulation there must be division, thought is the movement between the particular and the general, and thought is also born out of the image of what has been accumulated. All that is one’s inward state. That is deeply embedded in me. |
45:43 | B: Yes, physically and mentally. |
45:45 | K: All round. I recognise physically it is necessary, somewhat. |
45:50 | B: But it's overdone, physically. |
45:53 |
K: One can overdo anything.
But psychologically to realise that,
how do I set about it?
How do I, who has accumulated, accumulated for millennia –
general and particular, that has been the habit –
and how do I, not only recognise the habit,
and when I do recognise the habit,
how does that movement come to an end?
That is the real question. B: Yes. |
46:43 | K: Where does intelligence play a part in all this? You follow what I'm saying? |
46:51 | B: There has to be intelligence to see this. |
46:55 | K: Is it intelligence? Is it so-called ordinary intelligence, or intelligence is something entirely different? |
47:05 | B: I don’t know what people ordinarily mean by intelligence, but if they mean just merely the capacity to... |
47:12 |
K: To discern, to distinguish,
To solve... B: To use logic. |
47:18 | K: ...technical problems, economic problems – I'd call that partial intelligence, it is not really... |
47:26 | B: You could call that skill in thought. |
47:27 | K: Skill in thought, all right, skill in thought. But intelligence – wait a minute, that’s what I’m trying to find out. I realise this: accumulation, division, security, the general and particular, thought. I can see the reason of all that, the logic of all that. But logic, reason and explanation doesn’t end the thing. Another quality is necessary. Is that quality intelligence? I’m trying to move away from insight for a while. |
48:19 |
B: Not to repeat the word so much. K: Too much. Is intelligence associated with thought? |
48:39 | B: We don’t know what you mean by the word ‘associated’. |
48:42 | K: Is it related, is it part of thought, is it the outcome of very clear, precise, exact, logical conclusions of thought. |
48:56 | B: No, that would still be more and more skill. |
48:59 | K: Skill, I agree. Yes. |
49:02 | B: At least we're suggesting intelligence is a different quality. |
49:11 | K: Is that intelligence related to love? |
49:18 | B: I’d say they go together. |
49:21 | K: Yes, I’m just moving slowly into that. I’ve come to... I realise all that we've discussed this morning, and I’ve come to a blank wall, a solid wall, I can’t go beyond. And in observing, looking, fishing around, I come upon this word ‘intelligence’. And I see the so-called intelligence of thought, skill and all that, is not intelligence. So I’m asking further, is this intelligence associated, or related, or part of love? One cannot accumulate love. Right? |
50:28 | B: People might try. |
50:30 | K: It sounds silly! |
50:32 | B: People do try to guarantee love. |
50:35 |
K: That is all romantic nonsense, cinema stuff.
You cannot accumulate love,
you cannot associate it with hate, all that.
So it’s something entirely different, that love.
And has that love intelligence? Which then operates – you follow? –
which then breaks down the wall. I don’t know if... B: Yes. |
51:36 | K: All right, let’s begin again. I don’t know what that love is. I know all the physical bit, I realise that pleasure, desire, accumulation, remembrance, pictures, are not love. All that, I’ve realised long ago. But I’ve come to the point where this wall is so enormous that I can’t even jump over it. So I’m now fishing around, to see if there is a different movement which is not a man-made movement. And that movement may be love – I am sorry to use that word, we’ll use it for the time being. Because that word has been so spoilt and misused. |
52:39 |
B: You're saying love is a movement, not just a feeling. K: Oh, no, no! |
52:45 | B: Though it may involve feeling, but it’s not feeling. |
52:51 | K: So that love with its intelligence, is that the factor that will break down or dissolve, or break up this wall? Not, 'I love you' or 'you love me'. Right? it’s not general or particular, it is something beyond. Right? |
53:25 | B: Yes, that’s a point... Another part of the background of man is to make love particularised, to particular things or individuals... |
53:40 | K: I think when one loves with that intelligence it covers the whole, it’s not particular or general – it is that! It is light, it’s not particular light. All right. Then, if that is the factor that will break down the wall which is in front of me, then... I don’t know that love. As a human being, having reached a certain point, I can’t go beyond it to find that love. What shall I do? What is... – not do or not do – but what is the state of my mind when I've realised any movement this side of the wall is still strengthening the wall – right? So I realise that, and, through meditation, etc., there is no movement. But the mind can’t go beyond it. |
55:09 | But you come along and say, ‘Look, that wall can be dissolved, broken down, if you have that quality of love with intelligence.’ And I say, ‘Excellent, but I don’t know what it is!’ What shall I do? I can’t do anything, I realise that. Whatever I do is still within this side of the wall, right? |
55:45 | So, am I in despair? Obviously not, because if I am in despair or depressed, I’m still moving in the same field. So all that has stopped. Realising that I cannot possibly do anything, any movement, what takes place in my mind? You follow, sir, what I’m asking? Is that right? I think that’s fairly logical. I realise I cannot do a thing! So what has happened to the quality of my mind, which has always moved to accumulate, to become... all that has stopped. The moment I realise, I can't... No movement, right? Is that possible? Or am I living in an illusion? Have I really gone through all this to come to that point? Or I suddenly say, I must be quiet – I don’t know if I am conveying it. |
57:19 | B: Yes, that’s part of the same process. |
57:21 |
K: Same process. B: To project from the past. |
57:27 | K: So has my mind... Is there in my mind a revolution? Revolution in the sense that movement has completely stopped. And if it has, is love something beyond the wall? |
58:09 | B: It wouldn’t mean anything. |
58:11 | K: Of course, it couldn’t be. |
58:13 | B: The wall itself is the product of the process which is illusion. |
58:18 | K: Exactly. So I’m realising the wall is this movement. So, when this movement ends, that quality of intelligence, love and so on, is there! That’s the whole point. |
58:45 | B: Yes, could one say the movement ends, the movement sees that it has no point. |
58:56 | K: It is so-called skilled to see a danger. |
59:05 | B: Well, it could be. |
59:07 | K: Yes. Any danger demands certain amount of awareness. But I have never realised, as a human being, the accumulated process is a tremendous danger. |
59:23 | B: Because that seems to be the essence of security. |
59:28 | K: You come along and point it out to me, and I’m listening to you very carefully and I actually perceive the danger of that. And perception is part of love, isn’t it? Ah.. I’m getting at it. |
59:59 | B: You’re suggesting that love is a kind of energy which is not specific or general and that it may momentarily envelop certain things. |
1:00:13 |
K: So perception without any motive, without any direction, etc.,
perception of the wall which has been brought into being
by this movement of accumulation,
the very perception of that is intelligence and love. Right?
We’d better stop, it’s half past twelve. B: Right. |
1:00:55 | K: Should we go on? |
1:00:57 | B: How do you feel? Maybe it’s best to stop. |
1:00:59 |
K: Better stop. We've come to a point.
When do we meet again? B: Thursday, in two days. |
1:01:10 | K: Right, sir. |