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?
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,
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:’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.
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 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,
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...
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,
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
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.
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.
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
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,
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
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.
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'.
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.