Krishnamurti_EN_OJBR80CB12

Krishnamurti Subtitles

The intelligence of love

Brockwood Park - 16 September 1980

The Ending of Time 12

0:29	K: This is a dialogue
	which we have had in Ojai, California.

0:37	We had there eight dialogues,
	Dr Bohm and myself,

0:45	and two here, and one
	day before yesterday.

0:53	So may we continue
	with that dialogue.

1:03	Should anybody join this
	or not at all?

1:20	We’re asking if anybody
	feels like joining this,

1:23	unless it is very, very serious,

1:27	would they join, or if they
	don’t want to, it’s all right.

1:31	So it’s a conversation
	between Dr Bohm and myself.

1:35	Let’s get on with it.

1:49	We were saying the other day,

1:52	a human being,
	who has worked his way

2:02	through all the problems of life,

2:08	both physical and psychological,

2:11	and has really grasped
	the full significance of freedom

2:20	from psychological memories
	and conflicts and travails,

2:27	he comes to a point where
	the mind finds itself free

2:45	but hasn’t gathered that supreme
	energy to go beyond itself.

2:50	That’s what we were
	discussing the other day.

2:54	Can we go on from there? Right, sir?
	B: Yes.

3:05	K: Can the mind really – mind, brain,
	the whole psychological structure –

3:12	be ever free from all conflict,

3:19	from all shadow
	of any disturbance?

3:27	B: Self-disturbance.

3:30	K: Self-disturbance.
	Can it ever be free?

3:34	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

3:56	is so determined by the past,
	by its own conditioning,

4:02	it can never free itself
	from it –

4:06	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 –

4:24	there must be some
	who are totally free

4:28	from all organised religions
	and beliefs, rituals, dogmas –

4:33	they have said it can be done.
	Very few have said this.

4:39	B: Those who have said
	it is done through reincarnation.

4:43	And in addition, that group says

4:45	it will take a very long time.

4:47	K: Yes, they say it will
	take a very long time.

4:50	You must go through
	various lives and suffer

4:53	and go through
	all kinds of miseries,

4:56	and ultimately,
	you come to that.

4:58	But we are not thinking
	in terms of time.

5:07	We’re asking,
	a human being, granting,

5:16	knowing or aware
	that he is conditioned,

5:19	deeply, profoundly, so that
	his whole being is that,

5:26	can it ever free itself?

5:30	And if it does, what is beyond?

5:35	That’s
	what we were coming to.

5:40	Would that question
	be reasonable or valid,

5:47	unless the mind
	has really finished with it,

5:52	finished
	all the travail of life?

5:56	As we said the other day,
	our minds are man-made.

6:05	And is there a mind
	which is not man-made?

6:10	Right, sir?
	That’s what we came to.

6:15	How shall we find this out?

6:22	We all know the man-made mind,

6:26	with its consciousness,
	with all its content and so on.

6:31	Need we go through that?
	No.

6:33	B: We’ve done that already.

6:35	K: It’s a man-made mind.

6:42	It is possible that it can
	free itself from its own

6:48	man-made mechanical mind.

6:51	B: There is a difficult thing
	to express there, which is,

6:55	if this mind is totally man-made,
	totally conditioned,

7:00	then in what sense
	can it get out of it?

7:05	This is the kind
	of thing to say,

7:07	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

7:24	to be able to put this
	consistently, logically:

7:28	there seems to be
	an inconsistency in saying

7:31	the mind is totally conditioned
	and yet it’s going to get out.

7:37	I’m not saying
	it is inconsistent

7:39	but it may appear
	to be inconsistent.

7:44	K: I understand that question,
	but

7:49	if one admits that there is a part
	which is not conditioned,

7:55	then we enter into
	quite another...

7:56	B: Yes, that’s
	another inconsistency.

8:01	K: Yes,
	into another inconsistency.

8:05	In our discussions, we’ve said,

8:10	the mind, being deeply
	conditioned, it can free itself

8:14	through insight
	– that is the real clue to this.

8:19	Would you agree to that?
	B: Yes.

8:22	K: That insight – we went into
	what it is, the nature of it –

8:29	can that insight

8:40	uncondition the mind completely,

8:43	wipe away all the illusions,
	all the desires and so on,

8:51	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 –

9:03	if one says
	it’s totally conditioned

9:05	it suggests something static,
	which would never change.

9:10	Now, if we say the mind
	is always in movement,

9:14	then it seems in some way
	it becomes impossible to say

9:17	what it is at this moment,

9:21	and to say it has been
	totally conditioned.

9:24	K: No, suppose
	I’m totally conditioned,

9:29	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,

9:41	it can expand it and contract,

9:43	but the boundary is very, very
	limited, definite.

9:51	B: Yes. And also

9:55	this whole structure
	can die away.

9:58	If we move within that structure,
	then we stay in some boundary.

10:03	K: Now, it is always moving
	within that limitation.

10:09	Can it die away to that?

10:12	B: That’s
	another kind of movement,

10:15	in another dimension,
	I think you’ve said. K: Yes.

10:26	And we say it is possible
	through insight,

10:32	which is also a movement,

10:35	a totally different kind
	of movement.

10:38	B: Yes, but now we say that
	movement does not originate

10:41	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,

10:50	that’s what we discussed
	the other day.

10:52	It is not an insight of the
	particular, or the general.

11:00	We are then stating something
	quite outrageous!

11:06	B: Yes, looking at that,
	it rather violates

11:09	most of the sort of logic
	that people have been using,

11:14	that either the particular
	and the general

11:15	should cover everything,
	in terms of ordinary logic.

11:19	Now if you’re saying
	there’s something beyond both,

11:23	this is already a question

11:25	which has not been stated,
	at least,

11:29	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

11:43	that I think people divide themselves
	roughly into two groups

11:47	one group
	feels the most important thing,

11:49	the ground, is the particular,

11:51	concrete particular daily activity.

11:54	The other group feels
	that the general,

11:57	the universal is the ground.
	K: Quite.

12:00	B: One is the more practical type,

12:01	and the other the more
	philosophical type.

12:05	And in general this division
	has been visible

12:08	throughout history, also in
	everyday life, wherever you look.

12:15	K: But, is the general
	– we can discuss a little bit –

12:20	separate from the particular?

12:22	B: It’s not, most people agree with
	that but the question is

12:24	what is it that’s going
	to be given primary value?

12:28	People tend to give emphasis
	to one or the other.

12:32	Some people give the main
	emphasis to the particular.

12:35	They say the general is there

12:37	but if you take care
	of the particular

12:39	the general will be all right.
	K: Yes.

12:41	B: The others say
	the general is the main thing,

12:44	the universal,
	and in getting that right

12:47	you’ll get the particular right.
	K: Quite,quite.

12:50	B: So there’s been
	a kind of unbalance

12:54	to one side or the other,
	a bias in the mind of man.

13:02	Now what’s being raised
	here is the notion:

13:05	neither the general
	nor the particular.

13:10	K: That’s right. That’s just it!

13:17	Can we discuss it, have a
	conversation about it, logically?

13:29	Using your expertise,
	your scientific brain

13:36	and there is this man
	who is not all that,

13:41	so can’t we have a
	conversation to find out

13:47	if the general and
	particular are one,

13:51	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.

13:58	Not laying emphasis
	on one or the other.

14:06	Then, if we don’t do that,
	then what is there?

14:14	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.

14:28	The question was
	we could say the particular mind

14:31	dies to the general universal
	mind or to the emptiness,

14:35	then saying that ultimately
	even the emptiness

14:37	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,

14:49	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.

14:58	It would require very
	careful presentation

15:01	and some people might see it.

15:03	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.

15:15	We are neither particular
	nor the general.

15:19	That’s a statement which
	hardly reasonably can be accepted.

15:28	B: Well, it’s reasonable
	in the sense that

15:33	if you take thought
	to be a movement,

15:38	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

15:45	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,

15:58	that is, in movement.

16:01	K: Does it?

16:03	B: Well, it can, I said
	that ordinarily it does not,

16:05	because ordinarily thought is caught
	on one side or the other.

16:08	K: That’s the whole point,
	isn’t it?

16:10	Ordinarily the general
	and the particular

16:13	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.

16:25	And thought is the movement
	between the two.

16:29	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.

16:45	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,

16:55	when thought ends,

17:02	that movement which thought
	has created also comes to an end,

17:07	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,

17:15	we’ve gone into it before
	but it’s still a jump.

17:18	K: Right. Because first, let’s see.

17:22	Thought has created the
	general and the particular,

17:26	and thought is a movement
	that connects the two,

17:31	thought moves round it,
	so it is still in the same area.

17:38	B: Yes, and doing that
	it has created time,

17:40	which is part of
	the general and the particular,

17:43	time is a particular time
	and also a general time.

17:46	All time, for ever.

17:49	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

18:01	thought has a content
	which is 'about' time,

18:04	and besides that, we say that thought
	is a movement which 'is' time,

18:09	it could be said to be moving

18:12	from the past
	into the future. Right?

18:15	K: But, sir,
	thought is based on time,

18:19	thought is
	the outcome of time.

18:22	B: Yes,
	but then does that mean

18:24	that time exists beyond thought?

18:26	If you say thought
	is based on time,

18:28	then time is more
	fundamental than thought

18:31	is that what you want to say?
	K: Yes, yes.

18:33	B: So we should go into that.

18:36	You could say that
	time is something

18:38	which was there before thought,

18:42	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,

19:11	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.

19:23	So is not thought essentially
	the movement of time?

19:30	B: In what sense is this learning
	the movement of time?

19:39	You can say, when we learn
	it is registered. Right?

19:43	And then that same learning
	operates in the next experience,

19:47	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

20:00	as the next experience.

20:02	K: So are we saying, time
	is different from thought,

20:08	or time is thought.

20:12	B: This movement of learning and the
	response of memory into experience

20:20	and then re-registering,
	we say that is time,

20:22	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,

20:38	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,

20:53	as long as there is
	psychological accumulation –

20:56	as knowledge, as the ‘me’,
	there is time.

21:00	It is based on time!

21:03	B: Wherever there is accumulation
	there is time.

21:06	K: Yes, that’s the point.

21:07	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.

21:22	Suppose there is
	no accumulation, then what?

21:25	K: Then – that’s the whole point –
	there is no time!

21:30	And as long as I am
	accumulating, gathering, becoming,

21:38	there is the process of time.

21:41	But if there is no gathering,
	no becoming, no accumulation,

21:46	where does
	psychological time exist?

21:53	B: Probably you could say
	even physical time

21:56	must depend on some kind
	of physical accumulation.

22:00	That we are not denying.

22:01	We’re denying the significance

22:03	of psychological accumulation.

22:06	K: That’s right. So thought...

22:11	...is the outcome of
	psychological accumulation,

22:15	and that accumulation,
	that gathering,

22:20	gives it a sense of continuity
	– which is time.

22:25	B: Well, it seems
	it’s in movement,

22:27	that whatever
	has been accumulated

22:29	is responding to the present,

22:31	with the projection
	of the future.

22:33	And then
	that is again registered.

22:36	Now, the accumulation
	of all that’s registered

22:38	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.

23:11	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.

23:24	Because we have two words
	we look for two things.

23:29	K: Yes. There is only
	one movement,

23:31	which is time and thought,
	time plus thought, time/thought.

23:38	Now can the mind, which has
	moved for millennia in that area

23:45	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

24:05	in accumulation there is safety,

24:08	there is security
	– apparent security.

24:11	B: That needs a little discussion.

24:13	In a certain area that is even true,
	the accumulation of physical food

24:18	may provide a certain kind
	of security.

24:21	K: Of course.

24:22	B: And then since no
	distinction was made

24:25	between the outer and the inner,
	there was the feeling

24:27	that one could accumulate
	inwardly either experiences

24:32	or some knowledge
	of what to do...

24:35	K: Are we saying
	the outward necessity

24:38	of physical accumulation
	for security is necessary?

24:43	And that same movement,
	same idea, same urge

24:48	moves into the field of
	psychological thought.

24:51	There you accumulate
	hoping to be secure.

24:54	B: Yes, inwardly hoping
	you can accumulate

24:56	present memories,
	or relationships,

25:01	things you could count on,
	principles you could count on.

25:07	K: So accumulation,
	psychological accumulation

25:11	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

25:31	that man never understood
	the distinction between

25:33	what he has to do outside and
	what he has to do inside, right?

25:37	K: Yes, we said that.

25:39	It is the same movement,
	outer and inner.

25:42	B: But man carried the movement,

25:44	that procedure which was right
	outwardly he carried inwardly,

25:47	without knowing, perhaps
	entirely not-knowing

25:49	that
	that would make trouble.

25:53	K: So where are we now?

25:57	A human being realises
	all this.

26:02	He has come to the point
	when he says,

26:04	‘Can I really be free from
	this accumulated security

26:12	and thought and time?'
	Psychological time, right?

26:17	Is that possible?

26:21	B: If we say
	that it had this origin,

26:23	then it should be
	possible to dismantle it,

26:26	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,

26:37	then the possibility
	exists for us to change.

26:41	Because in some way
	we said it was built up

26:43	in the first place through time.

26:50	K: If we say it is built in,

26:55	then we are in a hopeless state.

26:58	B: That’s one of the difficulties
	of people who use evolution,

27:03	by bringing in evolution

27:06	they hope to get out
	of this static boundary.

27:09	They don’t realise that
	evolution is the same thing,

27:13	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,

27:26	I realise all this,

27:29	I’m fully aware
	of the nature of this.

27:37	And my next question is:

27:41	can this mind move on
	from this field altogether,

27:48	and enter, perhaps, into a
	totally different dimension?

27:57	And we said...

28:02	It can only happen
	when there is insight

28:05	– that we’ve been through.

28:08	B: Yes, and it seems
	that insight arises

28:11	when one questions
	this whole thing very deeply.

28:16	One sees
	it doesn’t make sense.

28:20	K: Now having had insight into it

28:23	and seen its limitation
	and therefore go beyond it –

28:27	what is there beyond?

28:36	This we talked about a little bit,

28:38	not only at Ojai, also here.

28:59	B: We felt that it’s very difficult
	to even bring this into words,

29:04	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

29:15	we should leave this
	entirely non-verbal.

29:26	K: Can we say,
	the word is not the thing,

29:32	whatever description
	is not the real,

29:36	is not the truth, however much
	you embellish or diminish it,

29:40	just the word is not that.

29:44	Recognising that, then
	what is there beyond all this?

29:51	Can my mind be so...
	desireless

29:59	so it won’t create an illusion,
	something beyond?

30:03	B: Then, in that question
	of desire,

30:05	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,

30:14	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.

30:31	Now, when one has an insight –

30:32	I hate to use that word
	over and over again –

30:36	into that
	whole movement of desire,

30:40	and its capacity to create
	illusion, it’s finished!

30:51	B: Yes,
	I think perhaps we should,

30:56	since this is a very crucial
	point, we should try to say

31:00	a little more about desire,

31:02	how it’s intrinsic
	in this accumulating process,

31:07	how it comes out in many ways.

31:12	For one thing you could say
	that, as you accumulate,

31:17	there comes a sense of
	something missing.

31:19	You feel
	you should have more,

31:21	something to finish,
	to complete.

31:23	Whatever you accumulated
	is not complete.

31:28	K: Sir, could we go into the
	question of becoming first,

31:31	then desire comes into it.

31:34	Why is it that all human beings,
	right through the world,

31:39	have this urge to become?

31:44	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.

32:02	But why is there
	this seed in the human mind

32:08	of trying to become...
	enlightened –

32:13	let’s use that word
	for the moment –

32:15	trying to become
	more good... or better.

32:22	B: There must be a sense
	of dissatisfaction

32:24	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.

32:34	Suppose he has accumulated
	memories of pleasure,

32:37	but these memories
	are no longer adequate,

32:41	he feels
	something more is needed.

32:44	K: Is that it?

32:46	B: To get more,
	that’s one of the questions,

32:50	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’

33:03	is not the real thorn.

33:06	B: The word ‘more’?
	K: Yes, more.

33:10	More, I will be more,
	I will have more,

33:14	I will become
	– this whole movement

33:18	of moving forward, gaining,

33:23	comparing, advancing,
	achieving – psychologically.

33:27	B: The word ‘more’ is just implicit

33:30	in the whole meaning of
	the word ‘accumulate’.

33:33	If you’re accumulating
	you have to be accumulating more,

33:36	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.

33:50	If he started outwardly
	to use the term ‘more'

33:53	but then he carried it inward,

33:54	he didn’t see
	how destructive it was.

33:58	K: Why? Why? Why ?

34:01	Why fairly intelligent philosophers
	and religious people

34:05	who have spent a great part
	of their great life in achieving,

34:11	why haven’t they seen
	this very simple thing!

34:17	The great intellectuals
	and the so-called...

34:22	evolutionary concept,
	why haven’t they seen

34:26	this simple fact that
	where there is accumulation

34:31	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,

34:40	they are trying to get
	a better life.

34:42	The nineteenth century
	was the century of progress,

34:46	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

35:20	one of the nineteenth century
	optimists

35:23	that man
	is progressing all the time,

35:25	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'

35:39	has it moved into
	the psychological realm?

35:44	B: Can we make it clear

35:45	why it does harm
	in the psychological realm?

35:50	K: The harm is – wait a minute,
	let’s think it out.

35:55	What's the harm in accumulating,
	psychologically? Oh yes!

36:03	It divides.

36:09	B: What does it divide?

36:11	K: The very nature of accumulation

36:16	brings about a division
	between you and me and they.

36:21	B: Could we make that clear,
	it is a crucial point.

36:24	I can see one thing: suppose

36:26	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

36:35	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.

36:46	I have accumulated,
	psychologically, as a Hindu.

36:53	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!

37:05	Therefore accumulation, in its
	very nature, divides people.

37:12	And therefore conflict.

37:15	B: Each person accumulates
	in his particular way

37:17	which is different
	from somebody else.

37:20	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:

37:38	in accumulation man has sought
	psychological security,

37:43	and that security,
	with its accumulation,

37:48	is the factor of human division.
	Psychologically.

37:52	B: Yes, any attempt to accumulate
	will divide.

37:57	At present, some sociologists
	like Carl Marx

38:00	has said that it was
	this accumulation of capital

38:04	by some people which divided them
	from other people –

38:08	that started tremendous conflict.

38:13	K: So, we said that's why
	human beings have accumulated,

38:20	not realising its consequences.

38:27	And realising that, is it
	possible not to accumulate?

38:34	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,

38:48	in accumulation, as outwardly,
	it feels safe, secure.

38:57	B: Perhaps you could say that
	having gotten into this trap

39:00	it was very hard for the mind
	to get out, it was already occupied,

39:05	the mind is filled with this
	process of accumulation,

39:08	it becomes very hard
	to see anything.

39:11	K: Suppose my mind is filled
	with this process of occupation

39:16	which is psychological knowledge,
	all that, can it end?

39:21	Of course it can!

39:24	B: If the mind
	will get to the root of it.

39:27	K: Of course it can!

39:29	Which is:
	that it is an illusion

39:33	that in accumulation
	there is security.

39:37	B: One can see this
	at a certain level,

39:40	one discusses this,
	not intellectually,

39:43	I would prefer to say
	as a map,

39:46	one has drawn a map
	of this whole process.

39:50	Then the question is,
	when you have a map

39:52	you must now be able
	to look at the country.

39:56	See what’s on the map.

39:58	K: Yes. When you are
	looking at the map

39:59	you don’t see the country.

40:02	B: No, the map may be useful
	but it’s not enough.

40:09	But now we are saying,

40:12	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.

40:33	That and desire go together.
	Right?

40:38	B: It builds up
	into intense desire.

40:42	K: So desire plus accumulation

40:47	is the factor of division,
	conflict, etc.

40:53	B: You can say really
	the word desire means need,

40:58	a person feels he must accumulate
	because he needs.

41:01	K: He needs, yes.
	Now, I’m asking, can that end?

41:08	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.

41:25	So one’s mind sees this
	and puts all that aside. Right?

41:34	But is the mind...

41:41	free of accumulation?

41:50	Yes sir, I think it can,
	he does.

41:55	That is, have no
	psychological knowledge at all.

42:03	Knowledge is accumulation.

42:10	B: We have to consider

42:13	that knowledge goes
	very much further

42:16	than is ordinarily meant.

42:18	Not just... K: Book knowledge,
	experience – of course!

42:23	B: But, in accumulating...
	For example,

42:30	having knowledge of this microphone,
	you build up an image of it,

42:35	and everything goes into that,
	and one expects it to continue.

42:40	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,

42:50	if one thinks
	that there is knowledge

42:53	about what sort of person
	you are,

42:55	that builds up into a picture,
	with the expectations...

42:59	K: But after all, if you
	have knowledge of yourself,

43:02	you have built an image already!

43:05	B: That’s the same,
	the tendency is,

43:07	there’s a transfer of
	what you do with the outside,

43:10	as you observe this microphone
	you build up knowledge,

43:14	that enters into your picture,
	your perception of it,

43:18	then you say I'll do the same
	with myself.

43:21	I know the sort of person
	I should be or I am

43:24	and it builds up,
	a lot of accumulation builds up

43:28	in forms that we don’t
	ordinarily call knowledge,

43:32	for example, preferences,
	likes and dislikes.

43:38	K: But once you realise
	psychological accumulation

43:46	as knowledge is an illusion,
	and destructive,

43:50	and causes
	infinite pain and misery,

43:56	when you see, it’s finished!

43:58	B: I'm trying to say,
	very often the word knowledge

44:04	does not convey
	all that has to be included.

44:09	I could say, OK, I know
	certain things in knowledge

44:14	and it’s foolish to build up
	that knowledge about myself,

44:18	but then there may be
	other kinds of knowledge

44:20	which I don’t recognise as
	knowledge...

44:23	K: What other kinds of knowledge
	that one has?

44:28	Preferences, like and dislike,

44:31	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

44:49	that image seems
	extraordinarily real.

44:52	And therefore its qualities
	don’t seem to be knowledge.

45:00	K: All right, sir.
	So we have said,

45:04	accumulation is time
	accumulation is security,

45:10	and where there is
	psychological accumulation

45:13	there must be division,

45:17	thought is the movement between
	the particular and the general,

45:22	and thought is also born
	out of the image

45:25	of what has been accumulated.

45:29	All that is one’s inward state.

45:39	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.

45:56	But psychologically to realise that,

46:03	how do I set about it?

46:07	How do I, who has accumulated,
	accumulated for millennia –

46:12	general and particular,
	that has been the habit –

46:17	and how do I, not only
	recognise the habit,

46:21	and when I do
	recognise the habit,

46:24	how does that movement
	come to an end?

46:32	That is the real question.
	B: Yes.

46:43	K: Where does intelligence
	play a part in all this?

46:50	You follow what I'm saying?

46:51	B: There has to be intelligence
	to see this.

46:55	K: Is it intelligence?

46:58	Is it so-called
	ordinary intelligence,

47:01	or intelligence is something
	entirely different?

47:05	B: I don’t know what people
	ordinarily mean by intelligence,

47:10	but if they mean
	just merely the capacity to...

47:12	K: To discern, to distinguish,

47:16	To solve...
	B: To use logic.

47:18	K: ...technical problems,
	economic problems –

47:21	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.

47:31	But intelligence – wait a minute,
	that’s what I’m trying to find out.

47:36	I realise this:
	accumulation, division, security,

47:46	the general and particular,
	thought.

47:53	I can see the reason of all that,
	the logic of all that.

47:59	But logic, reason and
	explanation doesn’t end the thing.

48:06	Another quality is necessary.
	Is that quality intelligence?

48:14	I’m trying to move away
	from insight for a while.

48:19	B: Not to repeat the word so much.
	K: Too much.

48:31	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,

48:46	is it the outcome of
	very clear, precise, exact,

48:53	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.

49:25	I’ve come to... I realise all that
	we've discussed this morning,

49:32	and I’ve come to a blank wall,
	a solid wall, I can’t go beyond.

49:41	And in observing,
	looking, fishing around,

49:46	I come upon this word
	‘intelligence’.

49:52	And I see the so-called
	intelligence of thought,

49:57	skill and all that,
	is not intelligence.

50:01	So I’m asking further,

50:03	is this intelligence associated,
	or related, or part of love?

50:22	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.

50:40	You cannot accumulate love,

50:45	you cannot associate it
	with hate, all that.

50:52	So it’s something entirely
	different, that love.

50:57	And has that love intelligence?
	Which then operates – you follow? –

51:06	which then breaks down the wall.
	I don’t know if... B: Yes.

51:36	K: All right, let’s begin again.

51:38	I don’t know what that love is.

51:44	I know all the physical bit,
	I realise that

51:49	pleasure, desire, accumulation,
	remembrance, pictures,

51:53	are not love. All that,
	I’ve realised long ago.

52:00	But I’ve come to the point

52:03	where this wall is so enormous
	that I can’t even jump over it.

52:09	So I’m now fishing around,

52:15	to see if there is
	a different movement

52:19	which is not
	a man-made movement.

52:23	And that movement may be love –

52:27	I am sorry to use that word,
	we’ll use it for the time being.

52:34	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

52:59	that will break down or dissolve,
	or break up this wall?

53:12	Not, 'I love you' or 'you love me'.
	Right?

53:18	it’s not general or particular,
	it is something beyond. Right?

53:25	B: Yes, that’s a point...

53:28	Another part
	of the background of man

53:31	is to make love particularised,
	to particular things or individuals...

53:40	K: I think when one loves
	with that intelligence

53:43	it covers the whole,
	it’s not particular or general –

53:48	it is that!

53:50	It is light,
	it’s not particular light.

53:59	All right.
	Then, if that is the factor

54:04	that will break down the wall
	which is in front of me,

54:12	then...
	I don’t know that love.

54:20	As a human being,
	having reached a certain point,

54:26	I can’t go beyond it to find
	that love. What shall I do?

54:33	What is...
	– not do or not do –

54:40	but what is
	the state of my mind

54:44	when I've realised
	any movement this side of the wall

54:52	is still strengthening the wall
	– right?

54:56	So I realise that, and,
	through meditation, etc.,

55:03	there is no movement.
	But the mind can’t go beyond it.

55:09	But you come along and say, ‘Look,

55:14	that wall can be dissolved,
	broken down,

55:20	if you have that quality
	of love with intelligence.’

55:25	And I say, ‘Excellent,
	but I don’t know what it is!’

55:31	What shall I do? I can’t do anything,
	I realise that.

55:38	Whatever I do is still within
	this side of the wall, right?

55:45	So, am I in despair?

55:54	Obviously not, because
	if I am in despair or depressed,

55:58	I’m still
	moving in the same field.

56:04	So all that has stopped.

56:08	Realising that I cannot
	possibly do anything,

56:15	any movement,
	what takes place in my mind?

56:20	You follow, sir, what I’m asking?

56:23	Is that right?
	I think that’s fairly logical.

56:27	I realise
	I cannot do a thing!

56:34	So what has happened
	to the quality of my mind,

56:39	which has always moved
	to accumulate, to become...

56:47	all that has stopped.

56:50	The moment I realise, I can't...
	No movement, right?

56:57	Is that possible?
	Or am I living in an illusion?

57:06	Have I really gone through all this

57:10	to come to that point?
	Or I suddenly say, I must be quiet –

57:16	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...

57:39	Is there in my mind a revolution?

57:43	Revolution in the sense

57:46	that movement
	has completely stopped.

58:01	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

58:16	which is illusion.

58:18	K: Exactly.
	So I’m realising

58:21	the wall is this movement.

58:25	So,
	when this movement ends,

58:28	that quality of intelligence,
	love and so on, is there!

58:34	That’s the whole point.

58:45	B: Yes, could one say
	the movement ends,

58:48	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.

59:14	But I have never realised,
	as a human being,

59:17	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,

59:34	and I’m listening to you
	very carefully

59:38	and I actually perceive
	the danger of that.

59:50	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

1:00:02	which is not specific or general

1:00:06	and that it may momentarily
	envelop certain things.

1:00:13	K: So perception without any motive,
	without any direction, etc.,

1:00:20	perception of the wall
	which has been brought into being

1:00:24	by this movement of accumulation,

1:00:29	the very perception of that
	is intelligence and love. Right?

1:00:40	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.

1:01:02	When do we meet again?
	B: Thursday, in two days.

1:01:10	K: Right, sir.