Jiddu Krishnamurti The Future Of Humanity Conversations With David Bohm

Jiddu Krishnamurti

The Future Of Humanity
Conversations With David Bohm   2
Table Of Content
Foreword By David Bohm ………………………………………………………………………………….3
Chapter 1 1st Conversation With David Bohm………………………………………………………6
Chapter 2 2nd Conversation With David Bohm …………………………………………………..39
– Longer, Unedited Versions -……………………………………………………………………………69
Brockwood Park 1st Conversation With Prof D Bohm …………………………………………69
Brockwood Park 2nd Conversation With Prof D Bohm………………………………………112   3
Foreword By David Bohm
The two dialogues which appear in this book took place three years after a
series  of  thirteen  similar  dialogues  between  Krishnamurti  and  myself,  which
appeared in the book «The Ending of Time.» [Harper & Row, 1985.] Therefore
they  were  inevitably  profoundly  affected  by  what  had  been  done  in  these
earlier dialogues. In a certain sense, therefore, the two books deal with closely
related questions. Of course, «The Ending of Time» can, because of its much
greater length, go into these questions in a more thorough and extensive way.
Nevertheless, the present book stands by itself; it approaches the problems of
human life in its own way, and provides important additional insights into these
problems. Moreover, I feel that it is an easier book to follow, and may therefore
usefully serve as an introduction to «The Ending of Time.»
The starting point for our discussions was the question: «What is the future
of humanity?» This question is by now of vital concern to everyone, because
modern science and technology are clearly seen to have opened up immense
possibilities of destruction. It soon became clear as we talked together that the
ultimate  origin  of  this  situation  is  in  the  generally  confused  mentality  of
mankind, which has not changed basically in this respect throughout the whole
of recorded history and probably for much longer than this. Evidently, it was
essential to inquire deeply into the root of this difficulty if there is ever to be a
possibility  that  humanity  will  be  diverted  from  its  present  very  dangerous
course.
These dialogues constitute a serious inquiry into this problem, and as they
proceeded,  many  of  the  basic  points  of  Krishnamurti’s  teachings  emerged.
Thus, the question of the future of humanity seems, at first sight, to imply that
a solution must involve time in a fundamental way. Yet, as Krishnamurti points
out,  psychological  time,  or  «becoming,»  is  the  very  source  of  the  destructive
current that is putting the future of humanity at risk. To question time in this
way,  however,  is  to  question  the  adequacy  of  knowledge  and  thought,  as  a
means  of  dealing  with  this  problem.  But  if  knowledge  and  thought  are  not
adequate, what is it that is actually required? This led in turn to the question of   4
whether mind is limited by the brain of mankind, with all the knowledge that it
has  accumulated  over  the  ages.  This  knowledge,  which  now  conditions  us
deeply,  has  produced  what  is,  in  effect,  an  irrational  and  self-destructive
programme in which the brain seems to be helplessly caught up.
If mind is limited by such a state of the brain, then the future of humanity
must  be  very  grim  indeed.  Krishnamurti  does  not,  however,  regard  these
limitations as inevitable. Rather, he emphasizes that mind is essentially free of
the  distorting  bias  that  is  inherent  in  the  conditioning  of  the  brain,  and  that,
through insight arising in proper undirected attention without a centre, it can
change the cells of the brain and remove the destructive conditioning. If this is
so, then it is crucially important that there be this kind of attention, and that we
give  to  this  question  the  same  intensity  of  energy  that  we  generally  give  to
other activities of life that are really of vital interest to us.
At this point, it is worth remarking that modern research into the brain and
nervous  system  actually  gives  considerable  support  to  Krishnamurti’s
statement that insight may change the brain cells. Thus, for example, it is now
well known that there are important substances in the body, the hormones and
the  neurotransmitters,  that  fundamentally  affect  the  entire  functioning  of  the
brain  and  nervous  system.  These  substances  respond,  from  moment  to
moment, to what a person knows, to what he thinks, and to what all this means
to him. it is by now fairly well established that in this way the brain cells and
their functioning are profoundly affected by knowledge and thought, especially
when these give rise to strong feelings and passions. it is thus quite plausible
that insight, which must arise in a state of great mental energy and passion,
could change the brain cells in an even more profound way.
What has been said here necessarily gives only a brief outline of what is in
the  dialogues,  and  cannot  show  the  full  scope  and  depth  of  the  inquiry  that
takes  place  within  them  into  the  nature  of  human  consciousness  and  of  the
problems that have arisen in this consciousness. Indeed, I would say that the
result  has  been  a  concise  and  easily  readable  book,  which  contains  the   5
essential  spirit  of  the  whole  of  Krishnamurti’s  teachings,  and  throws  an
important further light on them.
David Bohm.    6
Chapter 1 1st Conversation With David Bohm
Brockwood Park 11th June 1983
DAVID BOHM: There are several problems that we might discuss. One is,
when a person is just starting out he has to make a living. There are very few
opportunities now, and most of these are in jobs which are extremely limited.
J.  KRISHNAMURTI:  And  there  is  unemployment  throughout  the  world.  I
wonder  what  he  would  do,  knowing  that  the  future  is  grim,  very  depressing,
dangerous, and so uncertain. Where would you begin?
DB:  Well  I  think  one  would  have  to  stand  back  from  all  the  particular
problems of one’s own needs and the needs of people around one.
JK: Are you saying one should really forget oneself for the time being?
DB: Yes.
JK: Even if I did forget myself, when I look at this world in which I am going
to live, and have some kind of career or profession, what would I do? This is a
problem that I think most young people are facing.
DB: Yes. That’s clear. Well, have you something that you would suggest?
JK: You see I don’t think in terms of evolution.
DB: I understand that. That’s the point I was expecting we would discuss.
JK: I don’t think there is psychological evolution at all.
DB:  We  have  discussed  this  quite  often  so  I  think  I  understand  to  some
extent  what  you  mean.  But  I  think  that  people  who  are  new  to  this  are  not
going to understand.
JK:  Yes,  we  will  discuss  this  whole  question,  if  you  will.  Why  are  we
concerned about the future? Surely the whole future is now.
DB: In a sense the whole future is now, but we have to make that clear. It
goes  very  much  against  the  whole  way  of  thinking,  of  the  tradition  of
mankind….
JK: I know. Mankind thinks in terms of evolution, continuance, and so on.    7
DB:  Perhaps  we  could  approach  it  in  another  way?  That  is,  evolution
seems in the present era to be the most natural way to think. So I would like to
ask  you  what  objections  you  have  to  thinking  in  terms  of  evolution.  Could  I
explain a point? This word evolution has many meanings.
JK: Of course. We are talking psychologically.
DB: Now the first point is, let’s dispose of it physically.
JK: An acorn will grow into an oak.
DB:  Also  the  species  have  evolved:  for  example,  from  the  plants  to  the
animals and to man.
JK: Yes, we have taken a million years to be what we are.
DB:  You  have  no  question  that  that  has  happened?  JK:  No,  that  has
happened.
DB: It may continue to happen.
JK: That is evolution.
DB: That is a valid process.
JK: Of course.
DB: It takes place in time. And, therefore, in that region the past, present,
and future are important.
JK: Yes obviously. I don’t know a certain language, I need time to learn it.
DB: Also it takes time to improve the brain. You see, if the brain started out
small, and then it got bigger and bigger, that took a million years.
JK: And it becomes much more complex, and so on. All that needs time. All
that is movement in space and time.
DB: Yes. So you will admit physical time and neurophysiological time.
JK: Neurophysiological time, absolutely. Of course. Any sane man would.
DB: Now most people also admit psychological time, what they call mental
time.    8
JK: Yes, that is what we are talking about. Whether there is such a thing as
psychological tomorrow, psychological evolution.
DB: Or yesterday. Now at first sight I am afraid this will sound strange. It
seems I can remember yesterday. And there is tomorrow; I can anticipate. And
it has happened many times, you know days have succeeded each other. So I
do have the experience of time, from yesterday to today to tomorrow. JK: Of
course. That is simple enough.
DB: Now what is it that you are denying?
JK: I deny that I will be something, become better.
DB:  I  can  change…  but  now  there  are  two  ways  of  looking  at  that.  One
approach  is,  will  I  intentionally  become  better  because  I  am  trying?  Or  is
evolution a natural, inevitable process, in which we are being swept along as if
in a current, and perhaps becoming better, or worse, or finding that something
is happening to us.
JK: Psychologically.
DB: Psychologically, which takes time, which may not be the result of my
trying to become better. It may or may not be. Some people think one way,
some  another.  But  are  you  denying  also  that  there  is  a  kind  of  natural
psychological evolution as there was a natural biological evolution?
JK: I am denying that, yes.
DB: Now why do you deny it?
JK: Because, first of all, what is the psyche, the me, the ego, and so on?
What is it?
DB:  The  word  psyche  has  many  meanings.  It  may  mean  the  mind,  for
example. Do you mean that the ego is the same thing?
JK: The ego. I am talking of the ego, the me.
DB: Yes. Now some people think there will be an evolution in which the me
is transcended, that it will rise to a higher level.
JK: Yes, will the transition need time?    9
DB: A transcendence, a transition.
JK: Yes. That is my whole question. DB: So there are two questions: one is,
will the me ever improve? And the other is, even if we suppose we want to get
beyond the me, can that be done in time?
JK: That cannot be done in time.
DB: Now we have to make it clear why not.
JK: Yes. I will. We will go into it. What is the me? If the psyche has such
different meanings, the me is the whole movement which thought has brought
about.
DB: Why do you say that?
JK: The me is the consciousness, my consciousness: the me is my name,
form, and all the experiences, remembrances, and so on that I have had. The
whole structure of the me is put together by thought.
DB: That again would be something which some people might find it hard to
accept.
JK: Of course. We are discussing it.
DB: Now the first experience, the first feeling I have about the me is that it
is there independently and that the me is thinking.
JK: Is the me independent of my thinking?
DB:  Well  my  own  first  feeling  is  that  the  me  is  there  independent  of  my
thinking. And that it is the me that is thinking, you see.
JK: Yes.
DB:  Just  as  I  am  here,  and  I  could  move;  I  could  move  my  arm,  I  could
think, or I could move my head. Now is that an illusion?
JK: No. DB: Why?
JK:  Because  when  I  move  my  arm  there  is  the  intention  to  grasp
something,  to  take  something,  which  is  first  the  movement  of  thought.  That   10
makes the arm move, and so on. My contention is – and I am ready to accept it
as false or true – that thought is the basis of all this.
DB: Yes. Your contention is that the whole sense of the me and what it is
doing is coming out of thought. Now what you mean by thought is not merely
intellectual?
JK: No, of course not. Thought is the movement of experience, knowledge,
and memory. It is this whole movement.
DB: It sounds to me as if you mean the consciousness as a whole.
JK: As a whole, that’s right.
DB: And you are saying that that movement is the me?
JK:  The  whole  content  of  that  consciousness  is  the  me.  That  me  is  not
different from my consciousness.
DB: Yes. I think one could say that I am my consciousness, for if I am not
conscious I am not here.
JK: Of course.
DB: Now is consciousness nothing but what you have just described, which
includes thought, feeling, intention?..
JK: …intention, aspirations…
DB:  …memories…  JK:  …memories,  beliefs,  dogmas,  the  rituals  that  are
performed. The whole, like the computer that has been programmed.
DB: Yes. Now that certainly is in consciousness. Everybody would agree,
but  many  people  would  feel  that  there  is  more  to  it  than  that;  that
consciousness may go beyond that.
JK:  Let’s  go  into  it.  The  content  of  our  consciousness  makes  up  the
consciousness.
DB: Yes, I think that requires some understanding. The ordinary use of the
word content is quite different. If you say that the content of a glass is water,
the glass is one thing and the water is another.    11
JK:  Consciousness  is  made  up  of  all  that  it  has  remembered:  beliefs,
dogmas, rituals, fears, pleasures, sorrow.
DB: Yes. Now if all that were absent, would there be no consciousness?
JK: Not as we know it.
DB: But there would still be a kind of consciousness? JK: A totally different
kind. But consciousness, as we know it, is all that.
DB: As we generally know it.
JK: Yes. And that is the result of multiple activities of thought. Thought has
put all this together, which is my consciousness – the reactions, the responses,
the  memories  –  extraordinary,  complex  intricacies  and  subtleties.  All  that
makes up consciousness. DB: As we know it.
JK: But does that consciousness have a future?
DB: Yes. Does it have a past?
JK: Of course. Remembrance.
DB: Remembrance, yes. Why do you say it has no future then?
JK: If it has a future it will be exactly the same kind of thing, moving. The
same activities, the same thoughts, modified, but the pattern will be repeated
over and over again.
DB: Are you saying that thought can only repeat?
JK: Yes.
DB: But there is a feeling, for example, that thought can develop new ideas.
JK: But thought is limited because knowledge is limited.
DB: Well, yes, that might require some discussion.
JK: Yes, we must discuss it.
DB: Why do you say knowledge is always limited?    12
JK: Because you, as a scientist, are experimenting, adding, searching. And
after  you  some  other  person  will  add  more.  So  knowledge,  which  is  born  of
experience, is limited.
DB: But some people have said it isn’t. They would hope to obtain perfect,
or absolute, knowledge of the laws of nature.
JK: The laws of nature are not the laws of human beings.
DB: Well, do you want to restrict the discussion then to knowledge about
the human being? JK: Of course, that’s all we can talk about.
DB:  Even  there,  it  is  a  question  of  whether  that  knowledge  of  nature  is
possible too.
JK: Yes. We are talking about the future of humanity.
DB: So are we saying that man cannot obtain unlimited knowledge of the
psyche?
JK: That’s right.
DB: There is always more that is unknown.
JK: Yes. There is always more and more unknown. So if once we admit
that knowledge is limited, then thought is limited.
DB:  Yes,  thought  depends  on  knowledge,  and  the  knowledge  does  not
cover everything. Therefore thought will not be able to handle everything that
happens.
JK: That’s right. But that is what the politicians and all the other people are
doing. They think thought can solve every problem.
DB:  Yes.  You  can  see  in  the  case  of  politicians  that  knowledge  is  very
limited, in fact it is almost nonexistent! And, therefore, when you lack adequate
knowledge of what you are dealing with, you create confusion.
JK: Yes. So then as thought is limited, our consciousness, which has been
put  together  by  thought,  is  limited.  DB:  Now  can  you  make  that  clear?  That
means we can only stay in the same circle.    13
JK: The same circle.
DB: You see, one of the ideas might be, if you compare with science, that
people  might  think,  although  their  knowledge  is  limited  they  are  constantly
discovering,
JK: What you discover is added to, but is still limited.
DB: It is still limited. That’s the point. I can keep on; I think one of the ideas
behind  a  scientific  approach  is  that,  though  knowledge  is  limited,  I  can
discover and keep up with the actuality.
JK: But that is also limited.
DB: My discoveries are limited. And there is always the unknown which I
have not discovered.
JK:  That  is  what  I  am  saying.  The  unknown,  the  limitless,  cannot  be
captured by thought.
DB: Yes.
JK: Because thought in itself is limited, You and I agree to that; we not only
agree but it is a fact.
DB: Perhaps we could bring it out still more. That is, thought is limited, even
though we might intellectually consider that thought is not limited. There is a
very  strong  predisposition,  tendency,  to  feel  that  way  –  that  thought  can  do
anything.
JK: Anything. It can’t. See what it has done in the world.
DB:  Well,  I  agree  that  it  has  done  some  terrible  things,  but  that  doesn’t
prove  that  it  is  always  wrong.  You  see,  perhaps  you  could  blame  it  on  the
people who have used it wrongly.
JK: I know, that is a good old trick! But thought in itself is limited, therefore
whatever it does is limited.
DB: Yes, and you are saying that it is limited in a very serious way.
JK: That’s right. Of course in a very, very serious way.    14
DB: Could we bring that out? Say what that way is?
JK: That way is what is happening in the world.
DB: All right, let’s look at that.
JK: The totalitarian ideals are the invention of thought.
DB:  The  very  word  totalitarian  means  that  people  wanted  to  cover  the
totality, but they couldn’t.
JK: They couldn’t.
DB: The thing collapsed.
JK: It is collapsing.
DB: But then there are those who say they are not totalitarians.
JK: But the democrats, the republicans, the idealists, and so on, all their
thinking is limited.
DB: Yes, and it is limited in a way that is…
JK: …very destructive.
DB:  Now,  could  we  bring  that  out?  You  see  I  could  say,  «All  right  my
thought is limited, but it may not be all that serious.» Why is this so important?
JK: That is fairly simple: because whatever action is born of limited thought
must inevitably breed conflict.
DB: Yes.
JK: Like dividing humanity religiously, or into nationalities, and so on, has
created havoc in the world.
DB: Yes, now let’s connect that with the limitation thought. My knowledge is
limited: how does that lead me to divide the world into…
JK: Aren’t we seeking security?
DB: Yes.
JK:  And  we  thought  there  was  security  in  the  family,  in  the  tribe,  in
nationalism. So we thought there was security in division.    15
DB: Yes. Now it has come out. Take the tribe, for example: one may feel
insecure, and one then says «With the tribe I am secure.» That is a conclusion.
And  I  think  I  know  enough  to  be  sure  that  is  so  –  but  I  don’t.  Other  things
happen that I don’t know, which make that very insecure. Other tribes come
along.
JK: No, no! The very division creates insecurity.
DB: Yes, it helps to create it, but I am trying to say that I don’t know enough
to know that. I don’t see that.
JK: But one doesn’t see it because one has not thought about anything, not
looked at the world, as a whole.
DB: Well the thought which aims at security attempts to know everything
important.  As  soon  as  it  knows  everything  important  it  says,  «This  will  bring
security.» But there are a lot of things it still doesn’t know, and one is that this
very thought itself is divisive.
JK: Yes. In itself it is limited. Anything that is limited must inevitably create
conflict. If I say I am an individual, that is limited.
DB: Yes.
JK: I am concerned with myself, that is very limited.
DB: We have to make this clear. If I say this is a table which is limited, it
creates no conflict.
JK: No, there is no conflict there.
DB: But when I say, this is «me,» that creates conflict.
JK: The «me» is a divisive entity.
DB: Let us see more clearly why.
JK: Because it is separative; it is concerned with itself. The «me» identifying
with the greater nation is still divisive.    16
DB: I define myself in the interest of security so that I know what I am as
opposed  to  what  you  are,  and  I  protect  myself.  Now  this  creates  a  division
between me and you.
JK: We and they, and so on.
DB: Now that comes from my limited thought, because I don’t understand
that we are really closely related and connected.
JK:  We  are  human  beings,  and  all  human  beings  have  more  or  less  the
same problems.
DB: No, I haven’t understood that. My knowledge is limited; I think that we
can make a distinction and protect ourselves, and me, and not the others.
JK: Yes, that’s right.
DB: But in the very act of doing that I create instability.
JK:  That’s  right,  insecurity.  So  if  not  merely  intellectually  or  verbally  but
actually,  we  feel  that  we  are  the  rest  of  humanity,  then  the  responsibility
becomes  immense.  DB:  Well,  how  can  you  do  anything  about  that
responsibility?
JK: Then I either contribute to the whole mess, or keep out of it.
DB: I think we have touched upon an important point. We say the whole of
humanity, of mankind, is one, and therefore to create division is…
JK: …dangerous.
DB:  Yes.  Whereas  to  create  division  between  me  and  the  table  is  not
dangerous, because in some sense we are not one.
JK: Of course.
DB: That is, only in some very general sense are we at one. Now mankind
doesn’t realize that it is all one.
JK: Why?
DB: Let’s go into it. This is a crucial point. There are so many divisions, not
only between nations and religions but between one person and another.    17
JK: Why is there this division?
DB: The feeling is, at least in the modern era, that every human being is an
individual. This may not have been so strong in the past.
JK:  That  is  what  I  question.  I  question  altogether  whether  we  are
individuals.
DB: That is a big question….
JK:  Of  course.  We  said  just  now  that  the  consciousness  which  is  me  is
similar to the rest of mankind. They all suffer, all have fears, are insecure; they
have their own particular gods and rituals, all put together by thought. DB: I
think  there  are  two  questions  here.  One  is,  not  everybody  feels  that  he  is
similar to others. Most people feel they have some unique distinction….
JK:  What  do  you  mean  by  «unique  distinction»?  Distinction  in  doing
something?
DB: There may be many things. For example, one nation may feel that it is
able  to  do  certain  things  better  than  another;  one  person  has  some  special
things he does, or a particular quality….
JK: Of course. Somebody else is better in this or that.
DB: He may take pride in his own special abilities, or advantages.
JK: But when you put away that, basically we are the same.
DB: You are saying these things which you have just described are…
JK: …superficial.
DB: Yes. Now what are the things that are basic?
JK: Fear, sorrow, pain, anxiety, loneliness, and all the human travail.
DB:  But  many  people  might  feel  that  the  basic  things  are  the  highest
achievements  of  man.  For  one  thing,  people  may  feel  proud  of  man’s
achievement in science and art and culture and technology.    18
JK:  We  have  achieved  in  all  those  directions,  certainly.  In  technology,
communication,  travel,  medicine,  surgery,  we  have  advanced  tremendously.
DB: Yes, it is really remarkable in many ways.
JK:  There  is  no  question  about  it.  But  what  have  we  psychologically
achieved?
DB: None of this has affected us psychologically.
JK: Yes, that’s right.
DB:  And  the  psychological  question  is  more  important  than  any  of  the
others,  because  if  the  psychological  question  is  not  cleared  up  the  rest  is
dangerous.
JK:  Yes.  If  we  are  psychologically  limited,  then  whatever  we  do  will  be
limited, and the technology will the be used by our limited…
DB: …yes, the master is this limited psyche, and not the rational structure of
technology. And in fact technology then becomes a dangerous instrument. So
that is one point, that the psyche is at the core of it all, and if the psyche is not
in  order  then  the  rest  is  useless.  Then,  although  we  are  saying  there  are
certain  basic  disorders  in  the  psyche  common  to  us  all,  we  may  all  have  a
potential  for  something  else.  The  next  point  is  are  we  all  one  really?  Even
though we are all similar that doesn’t mean we are all the same, that we are
one.
JK: We said, in our consciousness basically we all have the same ground
on which we stand.
DB: Yes, from the fact that the human body is similar, but that doesn’t prove
they are all the same.
JK:  Of  course  not.  Your  body  is  different  from  mine.  DB:  Yes,  we  are  in
different places, we are different entities, and so on. But I think you are saying
that the consciousness is not an entity which is individual….
JK: That’s right.
DB: The body is an entity which has a certain individuality.    19
JK:  That  all  seems  so  clear.  Your  body  is  different  from  mine.  I  have  a
different name from you.
DB: Yes, we are different. Though of similar material we are different. We
can’t exchange because the proteins in one body may not agree with those in
the other. Now many people feel that way about the mind, saying that there is
a chemistry between people which may agree or disagree.
JK: Yes but actually if you go deeper into the question, consciousness is
shared by all human beings.
DB:  Now  the  feeling  is  that  the  consciousness  is  individual  and  that  it  is
communicated….
JK: I think that is an illusion, because we are sticking to something that is
not true.
DB: Do you want to say that there is one consciousness of mankind?
JK: It is all one.
DB:  That  is  important,  because  whether  it  is  many  or  one  is  a  crucial
question.
JK: Yes.
DB: It could be many, which are then communicating and building up the
larger unit. Or are you saying that from the very beginning it is all one?
JK: From the very beginning it is all one.
DB: And the sense of separateness is an illusion? JK: That is what I am
saying,  over  and  over  again.  That  seems  so  logical,  sane.  The  other  is
insanity.
DB: Yes, but people don’t feel, at least not immediately, that the notion of
separate existence is insane, because one extrapolates from the body to the
mind. One says, it is quite sensible to say my body is separate from yours, and
inside my body is my mind. Now are you saying that the mind is not inside the
body?    20
JK: That is quite a different question. Let’s finish with the other first. Each
one of us thinks that we are separate individuals psychically…. What we have
done in the world is a colossal mess.
DB: Well if we think we are separate when we are not separate, then it will
clearly be a colossal mess.
JK: That is what is happening. Each one thinks he has to do what he wants
to do; fulfil himself. So he is struggling in his separateness to achieve peace,
to achieve security, and that security and peace are totally denied.
DB:  The  reason  they  are  denied  is  because  there  is  no  separation.  You
see, if there were really separation it would be a rational thing to try to do. But
if we are trying to separate what is inseparable the result will be chaos.
JK: That’s right.
DB:  Now  that  is  clear,  but  I  think  that  it  will  not  be  clear  to  people
immediately that the consciousness of mankind is one inseparable whole.
JK: Yes, an inseparable whole.
DB: Many questions will arise if we consider the notion, but I don’t know if
we have gone far enough into this yet. One question is, why do we think we
are separate?
JK: Why do I think I am separate? That is my conditioning.
DB: Yes, but how did we ever adopt such a foolish conditioning?
JK: From childhood, it is mine, my toy, not yours.
DB: But the first feeling I get of «it is mine» is because I feel I am separate.
It  isn’t  clear  how  the  mind,  which was one, came to this illusion  that  it  is  all
broken up into many pieces.
JK: I think it is again the activity of thought. Thought in its very nature is
divisive, fragmentary, and therefore I am a fragment.
DB: Thought will create a sense of fragments. You could see, for example,
that once we decide to set up a nation we will think we are separate from other
nations,  and  all  sorts  of  consequences  follow  which  make  the  whole  thing   21
seem  independently  real,  We  have  separate  language,  a  separate  flag,  and
we  set  up  a  boundary.  And  after  a  while  we  see  so  much  evidence  of
separation that we forget how it started, and say it was there always, and that
we are merely proceeding from what was there always.
JK:  Of  course.  That’s  why  I  feel  that  if  once  we  grasp  the  nature  and
structure of thought, how thought operates, what is the source of thought – and
therefore it is always limited – if we really see that, then…
DB: Now the source of thought is what? Is it memory?
JK:  Memory.  The  remembrance  of  things  past,  which  is  knowledge,  and
knowledge is the outcome of experience, and experience is always limited.
DB:  Thought  also  includes,  of  course,  the  attempt  to  go  forward,  to  use
logic, to take into account discoveries and insights.
JK: As we were saying some time ago, thought is time.
DB: All right. Thought is time. That requires more discussion too, because
the  first  response  is  to  say  time  is  there  first,  and  thought  is  taking  place  in
time.
JK: Ah, no.
DB: For example, if movement is taking place, if the body is moving, this
requires time.
JK: To go from here to there needs time. To learn a language needs time.
DB: Yes. To grow a plant needs time.
JK: To paint a picture takes time.
DB: We also say that to think takes time.
JK: So we think in terms of time.
DB: Yes, the first point that one would tend to look at is whether just as
everything  takes  time,  to  think  takes  time?  Are  you  saying  something  else,
which is that thought is time?
JK: Thought is time.    22
DB: That is psychologically speaking.
JK: Psychologically, of course.
DB: Now how do we understand that?
JK: How do we understand what? DB: Thought is time. You see it is not
obvious.
JK: Oh yes. Would you say thought is movement, and time is movement?
DB:  That’s  movement.  You  see,  time  is  a  mysterious  thing:  people  have
argued  about  it.  We  could  say  that  time  requires  movement.  I  could
understand that we cannot have time without movement.
JK: Time is movement. Time is not separate from movement.
DB: I don’t say it is separate from movement…. You see, if we said time
and movement are one…
JK: Yes, we are saying that.
DB: They cannot be separated?
JK: No.
DB: That seems fairly clear. Now there is physical movement, which means
physical time.
JK: Physical time, hot and cold, and also dark and light…
DB: …the seasons…
JK: …sunset and sunrise. All that.
DB: Yes. Now then we have the movement of thought. That brings in the
question of the nature of thought. Is thought nothing but a movement in the
nervous system, in the brain? Would you say that?
JK: Yes.
DB:  Some  people  have  said  it  includes  the  movement  of  the  nervous
system, but there might be something beyond.
JK: What is time, actually? Time is hope. DB: Psychologically.    23
JK:  Psychologically.  I  am  talking  entirely  psychologically  for  the  moment.
Hope is time. Becoming is time. Achieving is time. Now take the question of
becoming:  I  want  to  become  something,  psychologically.  I  want  to  become
nonviolent. Take that, for example. That is altogether a fallacy.
DB: We understand it is a fallacy, but the reason it is a fallacy is that there
is no time of that kind, is that it?
JK: No. Human beings are violent.
DB: Yes.
JK:  And  they  have  been  talking  a  great  deal  –  Tolstoy,  and  in  India  –  of
nonviolence. The fact is we are violent. And the nonviolence is not real. But we
want to become that.
DB: But it is again an extension of the kind of thought that we have with
regard to material things. If you see a desert, the desert is real and you say the
garden is not real, but in your mind is the garden which will come when you
put the water there. So we say we can plan for the future when the desert will
become  fertile.  Now  we  have  to  be  careful,  we  say  we  are  violent  but  we
cannot by similar planning become nonviolent.
JK: No.
DB: Why is that?
JK: Why? Because the nonviolent state cannot exist when there is violence.
That’s just an ideal.
DB: One has to make this more clear, in the same sense the fertile state
and  the  desert  don’t  exist  together  either.  I  think  you  are  saying  that  in  the
case of the mind, when you are violent, nonviolence has no meaning.
JK: Violence is the only state.
DB: That is all there is.
JK: Yes, not the other.
DB: The movement towards the other is illusory.    24
JK:  So  all  ideals  are  illusory,  psychologically.  The  ideal  of  building  a
marvellous  bridge  is  not  illusory.  You  can  plan  it,  but  to  have  psychological
ideals…
DB: Yes, if you are violent and you continue to be
violent while you are trying to be nonviolent, it has no meaning.
JK:  No  meaning,  and  yet  that  has  become  such  an  important  thing.  The
becoming, which is either becoming «what is» or becoming away from «what
is.»
DB: Yes. «What should be.» If you say there can be no sense to becoming
in the way of self-improvement, that’s…
JK: Oh, self-improvement is something so utterly ugly. We are saying that
the source of all this is a movement of thought as time. When once we have
made time, psychologically, all the other ideals, nonviolence, achieving some
super state, and so on, become utterly illusory.
DB: Yes. When you talk of the movement of thought as time, it seems to
me that that time which comes from the movement of thought is illusory.
JK: Yes. DB: We sense it as time, but it is not a real kind of time.
JK: That is why we asked, what is time?
DB: Yes.
JK:  I  need  time  to  go  from  here  to  there.  I  need  time  if  I  want  to  learn
engineering. I must study it; it takes time. That same movement is carried over
into the psyche. We say, I need time to be good. I need time to be enlightened.
DB: Yes, that will always create a conflict. One part of you and another. So
that  movement  in  which  you  say,  I  need  time,  also  creates  a  division  in  the
psyche. Between the observer and the observed.
JK: Yes, we are saying the observer is the observed.
DB: And therefore there is no time, psychologically.    25
JK: That’s right. The experiencer, the thinker, is the thought. There is no
thinker separate from thought.
DB: All that you are saying seems very reasonable, but I think that it goes
so  strongly  against  the  tradition  we  are  used  to  that  it  will  be  extraordinarily
hard for people, generally speaking, really to understand.
JK: Most people just want a comfortable way of living: «Let me carry on as I
am, for God’s sake, leave me alone!»
DB: But that is the result of so much conflict, that people are warned off by
it, I think. JK: But conflict exists, whether we like it or not. So, that is the whole
point, is it possible to live a life without conflict?
DB: Yes, that is all implicit in what has been said. The source of conflict is
thought, or knowledge, or the past.
JK: So then one asks: is it possible to transcend thought?
DB: Yes.
JK: Or is it possible to end knowledge? I am putting it psychologically….
DB: Yes. We say that knowledge of material objects and things like that,
knowledge of science, will continue.
JK: Absolutely. That must continue.
DB: But what you call self-knowledge is what you are asking to end, isn’t it?
JK: Yes.
DB: On the other hand people have said – even you have said – that self-
knowledge is very important.
JK: Self-knowledge is important, but if I take time to understand myself, I
will  understand  myself  eventually  by  examination,  analysis,  by  watching  my
whole  relationship  with  others  and  so  on  –  all  that  involves  time.  And  I  say
there is another way of looking at the whole thing without time. Which is, when
the observer is the observed.
DB: Yes.    26
JK: In that observation there is no time.
DB: Could we go into that further? I mean, for example, if you say there is
no  time,  but  still  you  feel  that  you  can  remember  an  hour  ago  you  were
someone else. Now in what sense can we say that there is no time?
JK: Time is division. As thought is division. That is why thought is time.
DB: Time is a series of divisions of past, present, future.
JK: Thought is divisive. So time is thought. Or thought is time.
DB: It doesn’t exactly follow from what you said….
JK: Let’s go into it.
DB:  Yes.  You  see,  at  first  sight  one  would  think  that  thought  makes
divisions of all kinds, with the ruler and with all kinds of things, and also divides
up intervals of time: past, present and future. Now it doesn’t follow, from just
that, that thought is time.
JK: Look, we said time is movement.
DB: Yes.
JK: Thought is also a series of movements. So both are movements.
DB: Thought is a movement, we suppose, of the nervous system and…
JK: You see, it is a movement of becoming. I am talking psychologically.
DB: Psychologically. But, whenever you think, something is also moving in
the  blood,  in  the  nerves,  and  so  on.  Now  when  you  talk  of  a  psychological
movement, do you mean just a change of content? JK: Change of content?
DB: Well what is the movement? What is moving?
JK:  Look,  I  am  this,  and  I  am  attempting  to  become  something  else
psychologically.
DB: So that movement is in the content of your thought?
JK: Yes.    27
DB: If you say «I am this and I am attempting to become that,» then I am in
movement. At least, I feel I am in movement.
JK: Say, for instance, that I am greedy. Greed is a movement.
DB: What kind of a movement is it?
JK: To get what I want, to get more. It is a movement.
DB: All right.
JK: And I find that movement painful. Then I try not to be greedy.
DB: Yes.
JK: The attempt not to be greedy is a movement of time, is becoming.
DB: Yes, but even the greed was becoming.
JK:  Of  course.  So,  is  the  real  question,  is  it  possible  not  to  become,
psychologically?
DB:  It  seems  that  would  require  that  you  should  not  be  anything
psychologically. As soon as you define yourself in any way, then…
JK: No, we will define it in a minute or two.
DB: I meant, if I define myself as greedy, say that I am greedy, or I am this,
or  I  am  that,  then  either  I  will  want  to  become  something  else  or  to  remain
what I am.
JK: Now can I remain what I am? Can I remain not with non-greed but with
greed? Greed is not different from me; greed is me.
DB: The ordinary way of thinking is that I am here, and I could either be
greedy or not greedy.
JK: Of course.
DB: As these are attributes which I may or may not have.
JK: But the attributes are me.
DB:  Now  that  again  goes  very  much  against  our  common  language  and
experience.    28
JK:  All  the  qualities,  the  attributes,  the  virtues,  the  judgments,  the
conclusions, and opinions are me.
DB: It seems to me that this would have to be perceived immediately….
JK:  That  is  the  whole  question.  To  perceive  the  totality  of  this  whole
movement, instantly. Then we come to the point – it sounds a little odd, and
perhaps  a  little  crazy,  but  it  is  not  –  is  it  possible  to  perceive  without  all  the
movement  of  memory?  To  perceive  something  directly  without  the  word,
without the reaction, without the memories entering into perception.
DB: That is a very big question, because memory has constantly entered
perception. It would raise the question of what is going to stop memory from
entering perception?
JK:  Nothing  can  stop  it.  But  if  we  see  the  reason,  the  rationality  of  the
activity of memory which is limited – in the very perception that it is limited, we
have moved out of it into another dimension.
DB: It seems to me that you have to perceive the whole of the limitation of
memory.
JK: Yes, not one part.
DB:  You  can  see  in  general  that  memory  is  limited,  but  there  are  many
ways in which this is not obvious. For example, many of our reactions that are
not  obvious  may  be  memory,  but  we  don’t  experience  them  as  memory.
Suppose I am becoming: I experience greed, and I have the urge to become
less greedy. I can remember that I am greedy but think that this `’me» is the
one who remembers, not the other way around, not that memory creates «me»
– right?
JK: All this really comes down to whether humanity can live without conflict.
It basically comes to that. Can we have peace on this earth? The activities of
thought never bring it about.
DB:  It  seems  clear  from  what  has  been  said  that  the  activity  of  thought
cannot bring about peace: it inherently brings about conflict.    29
JK:  Yes,  if  we  once  really  see  that,  our  whole  activity  would  be  totally
different.
DB: But are you saying then that there is an activity which is not thought?
Which is beyond thought?
JK: Yes.
DB: And which is not only beyond thought but which does not require the
cooperation of thought? That it is possible for this to go on when thought is
absent?
JK: That is the real point. We have often discussed this, whether there is
anything beyond thought. Not something holy, sacred – we are not talking of
that. We are asking, is there an activity which is not touched by thought? We
are saying there is, and that that activity is the highest form of intelligence.
DB: Yes, now we have brought in intelligence.
JK: I know, I purposively brought it in! So intelligence is not the activity of
cunning thought. There is intelligence to build a cable….
DB:  Well,  intelligence  can  use  thought,  as  you  have  often  said.  That  is,
thought can be the action of intelligence – would you put it that way?
JK: Yes.
DB: Or it could be the action of memory?
JK:  That’s  it.  Either  it  is  the  action  born  of  memory  and  memory  being
limited,  therefore  thought  is  limited,  and  it  has  its  own  activity  which  then
brings about conflict….
DB:  I  think  this  would  connect  with  what  people  are  saying  about
computers. Every computer must eventually depend on some kind of memory
which is put in, programmed. And that must be limited.
JK: Of course.
DB:  Therefore  when  we  operate  from  memory  we  are  not  very  different
from  a  computer;  the  other  way  around  perhaps,  the  computer  is  not  very
different from us. JK: I would say a Hindu has been programmed for the last   30
five  thousand  years  to  be  a  Hindu;  or,  in  this  country,  you  have  been
programmed  as  British,  or  as  a  Catholic  or  a  Protestant.  So  we  are  all
programmed to a certain extent.
DB: Yes, but you are bringing in the notion of an intelligence which is free
of the program, which is creative, perhaps….
JK: Yes. That intelligence has nothing to do with memory and knowledge.
DB: It may act in memory and knowledge but it is has nothing to do with
it….
JK: That’s right. I mean, how do you find out whether it has any reality and
is not just imagination and romantic nonsense? To come to that, one has to go
into the whole question of suffering, whether there is an end to suffering. And
as long as suffering and fear and the pursuit of pleasure exist there cannot be
love.
DB:  There  are  many  questions  there.  Suffering,  pleasure,  fear,  anger,
violence, and greed – all of those are the response of memory.
JK: Yes.
DB: They are nothing to do with intelligence.
JK: They are all part of thought and memory.
DB:  And  as  long  as  they  are  going  on  it  seems  that  intelligence  cannot
operate in thought, or through thought.
JK: That’s right. So there must be freedom from suffering.
DB: Well that is a very key point. JK: That is really a very serious and deep
question. Whether it is possible to end suffering, which is the ending of me.
DB: Yes, it may seem repetitious but the feeling is that I am there, and I
either suffer or don’t suffer. I either enjoy things or suffer. Now I think you are
saying that suffering arises from thought; it is thought.
JK: Identification. Attachment.    31
DB:  So  what  is  it  that  suffers?  Memory  may  produce  pleasure  and  then
when it doesn’t work it produces the opposite of the feeling of pleasure – pain
and suffering.
JK: Not only that. Suffering is much more complex, isn’t it?
DB: Yes.
JK: What is suffering? The meaning of the word is to have pain, to have
grief, to feel utterly lost, lonely.
DB: It seems to me that it is not only pain, but a kind of total, very pervasive
pain….
JK: But suffering is the loss of someone.
DB: Or the loss of something very important.
JK: Yes, of course. Loss of my wife, my son, brother, or whatever it is, and
the desperate sense of loneliness.
DB: Or else just simply the fact that the whole world is going into such a
state.
JK: Of course…. All the wars.
DB: It makes everything meaningless, you see.
JK: What a lot of suffering wars have created. And wars have been going
on for thousands of years. That is why I am saying we are carrying on with the
same pattern of the last five thousand years or more….
DB: One can easily see that the violence and hatred in wars will interfere
with intelligence.
JK: Obviously.
DB:  But  some  people  have  felt  that  by  going  through  suffering  they
become…
JK: …intelligent?
DB: …Purified, like going through the crucible.    32
JK: I know. That through suffering you learn. That through suffering your
ego is vanished, dissolved.
DB: Yes, dissolved, refined.
JK: It is not. People have suffered immensely, how many wars, how many
tears,  and  the  destructive  nature  of  governments?  And  unemployment,
ignorance…
DB:…ignorance of disease, pain, everything. But what  is suffering really?
Why does it destroy intelligence, or prevent it? What is going on?
JK: Suffering is a shock; I suffer, I have pain, it is the essence of the «me.»
DB:  The  difficulty  with  suffering  is  that  it  is  the  me  that  is  there  that  is
suffering.
JK: Yes.
DB: And this me is really being sorry for itself in some way.
JK: My suffering is different from your suffering.
DB: Yes, it isolates itself. It creates an illusion of some kind.
JK: We don’t see that suffering is shared by all humanity.
DB: Yes, but suppose we do see it is shared by all humanity?
JK: Then I begin to question what suffering is. It is not my suffering.
DB: That is important. In order to understand the nature of suffering I have
to get out of this idea that it is my suffering because as long as I believe it is
my suffering I have an illusory notion of the whole thing.
JK: And I can never end it.
DB: If you are dealing with an illusion you can do nothing with it. You see
why – we have to come back. Why is suffering the suffering of many? At first it
seems  that  I  feel  pain  in  the  tooth,  or  else  I  have  a  loss,  or  something  has
happened to me, and the other person seems perfectly happy.
JK: Happy, yes. But also he is suffering in his own way.    33
DB: Yes. At the moment he doesn’t see it, but he has his problems too.
JK: Suffering is common to all humanity.
DB: But the fact that it is common is not enough to make it all one.
JK: It is actual.
DB: Are you saying that the suffering of mankind is all one, inseparable?
JK: Yes, that is what I have been saying.
DB: As is the consciousness of man? JK: Yes, that’s right.
DB: That when anybody suffers, the whole of mankind is suffering.
JK: The whole point is, we have suffered from the beginning of time, and
we haven’t solved it. We haven’t ended suffering.
DB:  But  I  think  you  have  said  that  the  reason  we  haven’t  solved  it  is
because we are treating it as personal, or as in a small group… and that is an
illusion.
JK: Yes.
DB: Now any attempt to deal with an illusion cannot solve anything.
JK: Thought cannot solve anything psychologically.
DB: Because you can say that thought itself divides. Thought is limited and
is unable to see that this suffering is all one. And in that way divides it up as
mine and yours.
JK: That’s right.
DB:  And  that  creates  illusion,  which  can  only  multiply  suffering.  Now  it
seems  to  me  that  the  statement  that  the  suffering  of  mankind  is  one  is
inseparable from the statement that the consciousness of mankind is one.
JK: Suffering is part of our consciousness.
DB: But one doesn’t get the feeling immediately that this suffering belongs
to the whole of mankind, you see.    34
JK:  The  world  is  me:  I  am  the  world.  But  we  have  divided  it  up  into  the
British earth, and the French earth, and all the rest of it!
DB: Do you mean by the world, the physical world, or the world of society?
JK: The world of society, primarily the psychological world.
DB: So we say the world of society, of human beings, is one, and when I
say I am that world, what does it mean?
JK: The world is not different from me.
DB: The world and I are one. We are inseparable.
JK: Yes. And that is real meditation; you must feel this, not just as a verbal
statement: it is an actuality. I am my brother’s keeper.
DB: Many religions have said that.
JK: That is just a verbal statement and they don’t keep it; they don’t do it in
their hearts.
DB: Perhaps some have done it, but in general it is not being done?
JK: I don’t know if anybody has done it. We human beings haven’t done it.
Our religions actually have prevented it.
DB:  Because  of  division?  Every  religion  has  its  own  beliefs  and  its  own
organization.
JK: Of course. Its own gods and its own saviours.
DB: Yes.
JK: So from that, is that intelligence actual? You understand my question?
Or is it some kind of fanciful projection, hoping that it will solve our problems?
It is not to me. It is an actuality. Because the ending of suffering means love.
DB: Before we go on, let’s clear up a point about «me». You see you said it
is  not  to  me.  Now  in  some  sense  it  seems  that  you  are  still  defining  an
individual. Is that right?
JK: Yes. I am using the word «I» as a means of com- communication.    35
DB:  But  what  does  it  mean?  In  some  way,  let’s  say  there  may  be  two
people, let’s say «A,» who is the way you see, and «B» who is not eh?
JK: Yes.
DB: So «A» says it is not – that seems to create a division between «A» and
«B.»
JK: That’s right. But «B» creates the division.
DB: Why?
JK: What is the relationship between the two?
DB: «B» is creating the division by saying, «I am a separate person» but it
may confuse «B» further when «A» says «It’s not that way to me» – right?
JK: That is the whole point, isn’t it, in relationship? You feel that you are not
separate, and that you really have this sense of love and compassion, and I
haven’t got it. I haven’t even perceived or gone into this question. What is your
relationship  to  me?  You  have  a  relationship  with  me  but  I  haven’t  any
relationship with you.
DB: Well I think one could say that the person who hasn’t seen is almost
living a world of dreams, psychologically, and therefore the world of dreams is
not related to the world of being awake.
JK: That’s right.
DB:  But  the  fellow  who  is  awake  can  at  least  perhaps  awaken  the  other
fellow.
JK: You are awake; I am not. Then your relationship with me is very clear.
But I have no relationship with you; I cannot have one. I insist on division, and
you  don’t.  DB:  Yes,  we  have  to  say  that  in  some  way  the  consciousness  of
mankind has divided itself, it is all one but it has divided itself by thought. And
that is why we are in this situation.
JK: That is why. All the problems that humanity has now, psychologically,
as well in other ways, are the result of thought. And we are pursuing the same   36
pattern  of  thought,  and  thought  will  never  solve  any  of  these  problems.  So
there is another kind of instrument, which is intelligence.
DB:  Well  that  opens  up  an  entirely  different  subject.  And  you  mentioned
love as well. And compassion.
JK: Without love and compassion there is no intelligence. And you cannot
be compassionate if you are attached to some religion, if you are tied to a post
like an animal….
DB: Yes as soon as the self is threatened, then it cannot….
JK: You see, self hides behind…
DB: …other things. I mean, noble ideals.
JK:  Yes,  it  has  immense  capacity  to  hide  itself.  So  what  is  the  future  of
humanity? From what one observes it is leading to destruction.
DB: That is the way it seems to be going.
JK:  Very  gloomy,  grim,  and  dangerous.  If  one  has  children,  what  is  their
future? To enter into all this? And go through the misery of it all. So education
becomes  extraordinarily  important.  But  now  education  is  merely  the
accumulation  of  knowledge.  DB:  Every  instrument  that  man  has  invented,
discovered, or developed has been turned toward destruction.
JK: Absolutely. They are destroying nature; there are very few tigers now.
DB: They are destroying forests and agricultural land.
JK: Nobody seems to care.
DB: Well, most people are just immersed in their plans to save themselves,
but others have plans to save humanity. I think also there is a tendency toward
despair, implicit in what is happening now, in that people don’t think anything
can be done.
JK: Yes. And if they think something can be done they form little groups
and little theories.
DB: There are those who are very confident in what they are doing….    37
JK: Most Prime Ministers are very confident. They don’t know what they are
doing really!
DB: Yes but then most people haven’t much confidence in what they are
doing themselves.
JK:  I  know.  And  if  someone  has  tremendous  confidence  I  accept  that
confidence  and  go  with  them.  What  is  the  future  of  mankind,  the  future  of
humanity? I wonder if anybody is concerned with it? Or whether each person,
each group, is only concerned with its own survival?
DB: I think the first concern almost always has been with survival in either
the individual or the group. That has been the history of mankind.
JK: Therefore, perpetual wars, perpetual inse- curity.
DB: Yes, but this, as you said, is the result of thought, which makes the
mistake on the basis of being incomplete of identifying the self with the group,
and so on.
JK: You happen to listen to all this. You agree to all this, you see the truth
of all this. Those in power will not even listen to you.
DB: No.
JK: They are creating more and more misery, the world is becoming more
and  more  dangerous.  What  is  the  point  of  our  seeing  something  to  be  true,
and what effect has it?
DB: It seems to me that if we think in terms of the effects we are bringing in
the very thing which is behind the trouble – time! Then the response would be
to get in quickly and do something to change the course of events.
JK: And therefore form a society, foundation, organization, and all the rest
of it.
DB: But you see our mistake is to feel that we must think about something,
although  that  thought  is  incomplete.  We  don’t  really  know  what  is  going  on,
and people have made theories about it, but they don’t know.    38
JK: If that is the wrong question, then as a human being, who is mankind,
what is my responsibility, apart from effect, and all the rest of it?
DB: Yes, we can’t look toward effects. But it is the same as with «A» and
«B,» that «A» sees, and «B» does not. JK: Yes.
DB:  Now  suppose  «A»  sees  something  and  most  of  the  rest  of  mankind
does  not.  Then,  it  seems,  one  could  say  mankind  is  in  a  sense  dreaming,
asleep.
JK: It is caught in illusion.
DB:  Illusion.  And  the  point  is  that,  if  somebody  sees  something,  his
responsibility is to help awaken the others out of the illusions.
JK: That is just it. This has been the problem. That is why the Buddhists
have  projected  the  idea  of  the  Bodhisattva,  who  is  the  essence  of  all
compassion,  and  is  waiting  to  save  humanity.  It  sounds  nice.  It  is  a  happy
feeling that there is somebody doing this. But in actuality we won’t do anything
that is not comfortable, satisfying, secure, both psychologically and physically.
DB: That is basically the source of the illusion.
JK:  How  does  one  make  others  see  all  this?  They  haven’t  time,  they
haven’t the energy, they haven’t even the inclination. They want to be amused.
How does one make «X» see this whole thing so clearly that he says, «All right,
I have got it, I will work. And I see I am responsible,» and all the rest of it. I
think that is the tragedy of those who see and those who don’t.   39
Chapter 2 2nd Conversation With David Bohm
Brockwood Park 20th June 1983
J. KRISHNAMURTI: Are all the psychologists, as far as we can understand,
really concerned with the future of humanity? Or are they concerned with the
human being conforming to the present society? Or going beyond that?
DAVID  BOHM:  I  think  that  most  psychologists  evidently  want  the  human
being to conform to this society, but I think some are thinking of going beyond
that, to transform the consciousness of mankind.
JK: Can the consciousness of mankind be changed through time? That is
one of the questions we should discuss.
DB: Yes. We have discussed it already and I think what came out was that
with regard to consciousness time is not relevant, that it is a kind of illusion.
We discussed the illusion of becoming.
JK:  We  are  saying,  aren’t  we,  that  the  evolution  of  consciousness  is  a
fallacy.
DB: As through time, yes. Though physical evolution is not.
JK: Can we put it this way, much more simply? There is no psychological
evolution, or evolution of the psyche?
DB:  Yes.  And,  since  the  future  of  humanity  depends  on  the  psyche,  it
seems then that the future of humanity is not going to be determined through
actions  in  time.  And  then  that  leaves  us  the  question:  what  will  we  do?  JK:
Now let’s proceed from there. Shouldn’t we first distinguish between the brain
and the mind?
DB: Well that distinction has been made, and it is not clear. Now of course
there are several views. One that the mind is just a function of the brain – that
is the materialists’ view. There is another view which says mind and brain are
two different things.
JK: Yes, I think they are two different things.    40
DB: But there must be…
JK: …a contact between the two.
DB: Yes.
JK: A relationship between the two.
DB: We don’t necessarily imply any separation of the two.
JK: No. First let’s see the brain. I am really not an expert on the structure of
the  brain  and  all  that  kind  of  thing.  But  one  can  see  within  one,  one  can
observe from one’s own activity  of  the  brain,  that  it  is  really  like  a  computer
which has been programmed, and remembers.
DB: Certainly a large part of the activity is that way, but one is not certain
that all of it is that way.
JK: No. And it is conditioned.
DB: Yes.
JK: Conditioned by past generations, by the society, by the newspapers, by
the  magazines,  by  all  the  activities  and  pressures  from  the  outside.  It  is
conditioned.
DB: Now what do you mean by this conditioning?
JK: The brain is programmed; it is made to conform to a certain pattern; it
lives entirely on the past, modifying itself with the present and going on.
DB:  We  have  agreed  that  some  of  this  conditioning  is  useful  and
necessary.
JK: Of course.
DB:  But  the  conditioning  which  determines  the  self,  you  know,  which
determines the…
JK: …the psyche. Let’s call it for the moment the psyche. The self.
DB: The self, the psyche, that conditioning is what you are talking about.
That may not only be unnecessary but harmful.    41
JK: Yes. The emphasis on the psyche, on giving importance to the self, is
creating great damage in the world, because it is separative and therefore it is
constantly in conflict, not only within itself but with the society, with the family,
and so on.
DB: Yes. And it is also in conflict with nature.
JK: With nature, with the whole universe.
DB: We have said that the conflict arose because…
JK: …of division….
DB:  The  division  arising  because  thought  is  limited.  Being  based  on  this
conditioning, on knowledge and memory, it is limited.
JK: Yes. And experience is limited, therefore knowledge is limited; memory
and thought. And the very structure and nature of the psyche is the movement
of thought.
DB: Yes.
JK: In time.
DB: Yes. Now I would like to ask a question. You discussed the movement
of thought but it doesn’t seem clear to me what is moving. You see, if I discuss
the movement of my hand, that is a real movement. It is clear what is meant.
But now, when we discuss the movement of thought, it seems to me we are
discussing something which is a kind of illusion, because you have said that
becoming is the movement of thought.
JK: That is what I mean, the movement is becoming.
DB: But you are saying that movement is in some way illusory, aren’t you?
JK: Yes, of course.
DB: It is rather like the movement on the screen which is projected from the
camera. We say that there are no objects moving across the screen, but the
only real movement is the turning of the projector. Now can we say that there
is  a  real  movement  in  the  brain  which  is  projecting  all  this,  which  is  the
conditioning?    42
JK: That is what we want to find out. Let’s discuss that a bit. We both agree,
or see, that the brain is conditioned.
DB:  We  mean  that  really  it  has  been  impressed  physically,  and
chemically….
JK: And genetically, as well as psychologically.
DB: What is the difference between physically and psychologically?
JK: Psychologically the brain is centred in the self – right?
DB: Yes. JK: And the constant assertion of the self is the movement, the
conditioning, an illusion.
DB:  But  there  is  some  real  movement  happening  inside.  The  brain,  for
example,  is  doing  something.  It  has  been  conditioned  physically  and
chemically.  And  something  is  happening  physically  and  chemically  when  we
are thinking of the self.
JK: Are you asking whether the brain and the self are two different things?
DB: No, I am saying that the self is the result of conditioning the brain.
JK: Yes. The self is conditioning the brain.
DB: But does the self exist?
JK: No.
DB: But the conditioning of the brain, as I see it, is the involvement with an
illusion which we call the self.
JK:  That’s  right.  Can  that  conditioning  be  dissipated?  That’s  the  whole
question.
DB:  It  really  has  to  be  dissipated  in  some  physical  and  chemical  and
neurophysiological sense.
JK: Yes.
DB:  Now  the  first  reaction  of  any  scientific  person  would  be  that  it  looks
unlikely that we could dissipate it by the sort of thing we are doing. You see,
some scientists might feel that maybe we will discover drugs or new genetic   43
changes or deep knowledge of the structure of the brain. In that way we could
perhaps help to do something. I think that idea might be current among some
people.
JK: Will that change human behaviour? DB: Why not? I think some people
believe it might.
JK:  Wait  a  minute.  That  is  the  whole  point.  It  might,  which  means  in  the
future.
DB: Yes, it would take time to discover all this.
JK: In the meantime man is going to destroy himself.
DB: They might hope that he will manage to discover it in time. They could
also  criticize  what  we  are  doing,  saying  what  good  can  it  do?  You  see,  it
doesn’t  seem  to  affect  anybody,  and  certainly  not  in  time  to  make  a  big
difference.
JK: We two are very clear about it. In what way does it affect humanity?
DB: Will it really affect mankind in time to save…
JK: Obviously not.
DB: Then why should we be doing it?
JK: Because this is the right thing to do. Independently. It has nothing to do
with reward and punishment,
DB: Nor with goals. We do the right thing even though we don’t know what
the outcome will be?
JK: That’s right.
DB: Are you saying there is no other way?
JK: We are saying there is no other way; that’s right.
DB:  Well  we  should  make  that  clear.  For  example,  some  psychologists
would  feel  that,  by  enquiring  into  this  sort  of  thing,  we  could  bring  about  an
evolutionary transformation of consciousness.    44
JK:  We  come  back  to  the  point  that  through  time  we  hope  to  change
consciousness. We question that.
DB: We have questioned that, and are saying that through time, inevitably
we are all caught in becoming and illusion, and we will not know what we are
doing.
JK: That’s right.
DB:  Now  could  we  say  that  the  same  thing  would  hold  even  for  those
scientists who are trying to do it physically and chemically or structurally; that
they themselves are still caught in this, and through time they are caught in
trying to become better?
JK: Yes. The experimentalists and the psychologists and ourselves are all
trying to become something.
DB:  Yes,  though  it  may  not  seem  obvious  at  first.  It  may  seem  that  the
scientists  are  really  just  disinterested,  unbiased  observers,  working  on  the
problem. But underneath one feels there is the desire to become better on the
part of the person who is enquiring in that way.
JK: To become. Of course.
DB: He is not free of that.
JK: That is just it.
DB: And that desire will give rise to self-deception and illusion, and so on.
JK:  So  where  are  we  now?  Any  form  of  becoming  is  an  illusion,  and
becoming implies time, time for the psyche to change. But we are saying that
time is not necessary.
DB: Now that ties up with the other question of the mind and the brain. The
brain is an activity in time, as a physical, chemical, complex process.
JK: I think the mind is separate from the brain.
DB: What does separate mean? Are they in contact?
JK: Separate in the sense that the brain is conditioned and the mind is not.    45
DB: Let’s say the mind has a certain independence of the brain. Even if the
brain is conditioned…
JK: …the other is not.
DB: It need not be…
JK: …conditioned.
DB: On what basis do you say that?
JK: Let’s not begin on what basis I say that.
DB: Well, what makes you say it?
JK: As long as the brain is conditioned, it is not free.
DB: Yes.
JK: And the mind is free.
DB: Yes, that is what you are saying. But you see, the brain not being free
means that it is not free to enquire in an unbiased way.
JK:  I  will  go  into  it.  Let’s  enquire  what  is  freedom?  Freedom  to  enquire,
freedom to investigate. It is only in freedom that there is deep insight.
DB: Yes, that’s clear, because if you are not free to enquire, or if you are
biased, then you are limited, in an arbitrary way.
JK:  So  as  long  as  the  brain  is  conditioned  its  relationship  to  the  mind  is
limited.
DB: We have the relationship of the brain to the mind, and also the other
way round.
JK: Yes. But the mind being free has a relationship to the brain.
DB: Yes. Now we say the mind is free, in some sense, not subject to the
conditioning of the brain.
JK: Yes.
DB: What is the nature of the mind? Is the mind located inside the body, or
is it in the brain?    46
JK: No, it is nothing to do with the body or the brain.
DB: Has it to do with space or time?
JK: Space – now wait a minute! It has to do with space and silence. These
are the two factors of the..,
DB: But not time?
JK: Not time. Time belongs to the brain.
DB: You say space and silence; now what kind of space? It is not the space
in which we see life moving.
JK: Space. Let’s look round at it the other way. Thought can invent space.
DB: In addition, we have the space that we see. But thought can invent all
kinds of space.
JK: And space from here to there.
DB: Yes, the space through which we move is that way.
JK: Space also between two noises, two sounds.
DB: They call that the interval, the interval between two sounds.
JK: Yes, the interval between two noises. Two thoughts. Two notes.
DB: Yes. JK: Space between two people.
DB: Space between the walls.
JK: And so on. But that kind of space is not the space of the mind.
DB: You say it is not limited?
JK: That’s right. But I didn’t want to use the word limited.
DB:  But  it  is  implied.  That  kind  of  space  is  not  in  the  nature  of  being
bounded by something.
JK: No, it is not bounded by the psyche,
DB: But is it bounded by anything?    47
JK:  No.  So  can  the  brain,  with  all  its  cells  conditioned,  can  those  cells
radically change?
DB:  We  have  often  discussed  this.  It  is  not  certain  that  all  the  cells  are
conditioned. For example, some people think that only some or a small part of
the cells are being used, and that the others are just inactive, dormant.
JK: Hardly used at all, or just touched occasionally.
DB:  Just  touched  occasionally.  But  those  cells  that  are  conditioned,
whatever they may be, evidently dominate consciousness now.
JK: Yes. Can those cells be changed?
DB: Yes.
JK: We are saying that they can, through insight; insight being out of time,
not  the  result  of  remembrance,  not  an  intuition,  nor  desire,  nor  hope.  It  is
nothing to do with any time and thought.
DB: Yes. Now is insight of the mind? Is it of the nature of mind? An activity
of mind? JK: Yes.
DB: Therefore you are saying that mind can act in the matter of the brain.
JK: Yes, we said that earlier.
DB: But, you see, this point, how mind is able to act in matter, is difficult.
JK: It is able to act on the brain. For instance, take any crisis, or problem.
The root meaning of problem is, as you know, «something thrown at you.» And
we meet it with all the remembrance of the past, with a bias and so on. And
therefore the problem multiplies itself. You may solve one problem, but in the
very solution of one particular problem, other problems arise, as happens in
politics, and so on. Now to approach the problem, or to have perception of it
without any past memories and thoughts interfering or projecting…
DB: That implies that perception also is of the mind….
JK: Yes, that’s right.
DB: Are you saying that the brain is a kind of instrument of the mind?    48
JK: An instrument of the mind when the brain is not self-centred.
DB: All the conditioning may be thought of as the brain exciting itself, and
keeping  itself  going  just  from  the  programme.  This  occupies  all  of  its
capacities.
JK: All our days, yes.
DB:  The  brain  is  rather  like  a  radio  receiver  which  can  generate  its  own
noise, but would not pick up a signal.
JK: Not quite. Let’s go into this a little. Experience is always limited. I may
blow up that experience into something fantastic, and then set up a shop to
sell my experience, but that experience is limited. And so knowledge is always
limited.  And  this  knowledge  is  operating  in  the  brain.  This  knowledge  is  the
brain. And thought is also part of the brain, and thought is limited. So the brain
is operating in a very, very small area.
DB: Yes. What prevents it from operating in a broader area? In an unlimited
area?
JK: Thought.
DB:  But  it  seems  to  me  the  brain  is  running  on  its  own,  from  its  own
programme.
JK: Yes, like a computer.
DB:  Essentially,  what  you  are  asking  is  that  the  brain  should  really  be
responding to the mind.
JK: It can only respond if it is free from the limited; from thought, which is
limited.
DB:  So  the  programme  does  not  then  dominate  it.  You  see  we  are  still
going to need that programme.
JK: Of course. We need it for…
DB: …for many things. But is intelligence from the mind?
JK: Yes, intelligence is the mind.    49
DB: Is the mind.
JK:  We  must  go  into  something  else.  Because  compassion  is  related  to
intelligence, there is no intelligence without compassion. And compassion can
only be, when there is love which is completely free from all remembrances,
personal jealousies, and so on.
DB: Is all that compassion, love, also of the mind?
JK: Of the mind. You cannot be compassionate if you are attached to any
particular experience, or any particular ideal.
DB: Yes, that is again the programme.
JK:  Yes.  For  instance,  there  are  those  people  who  go  out  to  various
poverty-ridden countries and work, work, work. And they call that compassion.
But  they  are  attached,  or  tied  to  a  particular  form  of  religious  belief,  and
therefore their action is merely pity or sympathy. It is not compassion.
DB:  Yes,  I  understand  that  we  have  here  two  things  which  can  be
somewhat  independent.  There  is  the  brain  and  the  mind,  though  they  make
contact. Then we say that intelligence and compassion come from beyond the
brain. Now I would like to go into the question of how they are making contact.
JK: Ah! Contact can only exist between the mind and the brain when the
brain is quiet.
DB: Yes, that is the requirement for making it. The brain has got to be quiet.
JK: Quiet is not a trained quietness. Not a self-conscious, meditative, desire
for silence. It is a natural outcome of understanding one’s own conditioning.
DB: And one can see that if the brain is quiet it could listen to something
deeper?
JK: That’s right. Then if it is quiet it is related to the mind. Then the mind
can function through the brain.
DB:  I  think  that  it  would  help  if  we  could  see  with  regard  to  the  brain
whether it has any activity which is beyond thought. You see, for example, one
could ask, is awareness part of the function of the brain?    50
JK: As long as it is awareness in which there is no choice.
DB: I think that may cause difficulty. What is wrong with choice?
JK: Choice means confusion.
DB: That is not obvious….
JK: After all, you have to choose between two things.
DB: I could choose whether I will buy one thing or another.
JK: Yes, I can choose between this table and that table.
DB: I choose the colours when I buy the table. That need not be confused.
If I choose which colour I want, I don’t see why that has to be confused.
JK: There is nothing wrong. There is no confusion there.
DB:  But  it  seems  to  me  that  the  choice  about  the  psyche  is  where  the
confusion is.
JK: That’s all; we are talking of the psyche that chooses.
DB: That chooses to become.
JK: Yes. Chooses to become. And choice exists where there is confusion.
DB:  Are  you  saying  that  out  of  confusion  the  psyche  makes  a  choice  to
become one thing or another? Being confused, it tries to become something
better?
JK: And choice implies a duality.
DB: But it seems at first sight that we have another duality which you have
introduced, which is the mind and the brain.
JK: No, that is not a duality.
DB: What is the difference?
JK:  Let’s  take  a  very  simple  example.  Human  beings  are  violent,  and
nonviolence has been projected by thought. That is the duality – the fact, and
the non-fact.    51
DB:  You  are  saying  there  is  a  duality  between  a  fact,  and  some  mere
projection which the mind makes.
JK: The ideal and the fact.
DB: The ideal is non-real, and the fact is real.
JK: That’s it. The ideal is not actual.
DB: Yes. Now then you say the division of those is duality. Why do you give
it that name?
JK: Because they are divided.
DB: Well at least they appear to be divided.
JK:  Divided,  and  we  are  struggling.  For  instance,  all  the  totalitarian
communist  ideals,  and  the  democratic  ideals,  are  the  outcome  of  thought
which is limited, and this is creating havoc in the world.
DB: So there is a division which has been brought in. But I think we were
discussing in terms of dividing something which cannot be divided. Of trying to
divide the psyche.
JK: That’s right. Violence cannot be divided into non-violence.
DB:  And  the  psyche  cannot  be  divided  into  violence  and  nonviolence.
Right?
JK: It is what it is.
DB: It is what it is; so, if it is violent, it can’t be divided into a violent and a
nonviolent part.
JK: So can we remain with «what is,» not with «what should be,» «what must
be,» not invent ideals, and so on?
DB: Yes, but could we return to the question of the mind and the brain?
Now we are saying that is not a division.
JK: Oh no, that is not a division.
DB: They are in contact, is that right?    52
JK:  We  said,  there  is  contact  between  the  mind  and  the  brain  when  the
brain is silent and has space.
DB: So we are saying that although they are in contact and not divided at
all, the mind can still have a certain independence of the conditioning of the
brain.
JK:  Now  let’s  be  careful!  Suppose  my  brain  is  conditioned,  for  example,
programmed as a Hindu, and my whole life and action are conditioned by the
idea  that  I  am  a  Hindu.  Mind  obviously  has  no  relationship  with  that
conditioning. DB: You are using the word mind; not «my» mind.
JK: Mind. It is not ‘mine’.
DB: It is universal or general. JK: Yes. And it is not ‘my’ brain either.
DB: No, but there is a particular brain, this brain or that brain. Would you
say that there is a particular mind?
JK: No.
DB: That is an important difference. You are saying mind is really universal.
JK: Mind is universal – if you can use that ugly word.
DB: Unlimited and undivided.
JK: It is unpolluted; not polluted by thought.
DB:  But  I  think  for  most  people  there  will  be  difficulty  in  saying  how  we
know anything about this mind. We only know that my mind is the first feeling –
right?
JK:  You  cannot  call  it  your  mind.  You  only  have  your  brain,  which  is
conditioned. You can’t say, ‘It is my mind.’
DB: But whatever is going on inside I feel is mine, and it is very different
from what is going on inside somebody else.
JK: No, I question whether it is different.
DB: At least it seems different.    53
JK: Yes. I question whether it is different, what is going on inside me as a
human being, and you as another human being. We both go through all kinds
of  problems:  suffering,  fear,  anxiety,  loneliness,  and  so  on.  We  have  our
dogmas, beliefs, superstitions. And everybody has this.
DB: We can say it is all very similar, but it seems as if each one of us is
isolated from the other. JK: By thought. My thought has created the belief that I
am  different  from  you,  because  my  body  is  different  from  yours,  my  face  is
different from yours. We extend that same thing into the psychological area.
DB: But now if we said that division is an illusion, perhaps?
JK: No, not perhaps! It is.
DB: It is an illusion. All right. Although it is not obvious when a person first
looks at it.
JK: Of course.
DB: In reality even brain is not divided, because we are saying that we are
all not only basically similar but really connected. And then we say beyond all
that is mind, which has no division at all.
JK: It is unconditioned.
DB: Yes, it would almost seem to imply, then, that in so far as a person
feels he is a separate being he has very little contact with mind.
JK: Quite right. That is what we said.
DB: No mind.
JK:  That  is  why  it  is  very  important  to  understand  not  the  mind  but  our
conditioning. And whether our conditioning, human conditioning, can ever be
dissolved. That is the real issue.
DB: Yes. I think we still want to understand the meaning of what is being
said. You see, we have a mind that is universal; that is in some kind of space,
you say, or is it its own space?
JK: It is not in me or in my brain.    54
DB: But it has a space. JK: It is, it lives in space and silence.
DB: It lives in a space and silence, but it is the space of the mind. It is not a
space like this space?
JK: No. That is why we said space is not invented by thought.
DB: Yes, now is it possible then to perceive this space when the mind is
silent, to be in contact with it?
JK:  Not  perceive.  Let’s  see.  You  are  asking  whether  the  mind  can  be
perceived by the brain.
DB: Or at least the brain somehow be aware… an awareness, a sense.
JK: We are saying, yes; through meditation. You may not like to use that
word.
DB: I don’t mind.
JK: You see, the difficulty is that when you use the word «meditation» it is
generally  understood  that  there  is  always  a  meditator  meditating.  Real
meditation is an unconscious process, not a conscious process.
DB:  How  then  are  you  able  to  say  that  meditation  takes  place  if  it  is
unconscious?
JK: It is taking place when the brain is quiet.
DB:  You  mean  by  consciousness  all  the  movement  of  thought?  Feeling,
desire, will, and all that goes with it?
JK: Yes.
DB: There is a kind of awareness still, isn’t there?
JK: Oh yes. It depends what you call awareness. Awareness of what?
DB: Possibly awareness of something deeper, I don’t know.
JK: Again, when you use the word ‘deeper,’ it is a measurement. I wouldn’t
use that.    55
DB:  Well,  let’s  not  use  that.  But,  you  see,  there  is  a  kind  of
unconsciousness which we are simply not aware of at all. A person may be
unconscious of some of his problems, conflicts.
JK: Let’s go at it a bit more. If I do something consciously, it is the activity of
thought.
DB: Yes, it is thought reflecting on itself.
JK:  Right,  it  is  the  activity  of  thought.  Now  if  I  consciously  meditate,
practise, do all that, which I call nonsense, then I am making the brain conform
to another series of patterns.
DB: Yes, it is more becoming.
JK: More becoming, that’s right.
DB: You are trying to become better.
JK: There is no illumination by becoming. One can’t be illumined, if I can
use that word, by saying that one is going to be some sort of guru.
DB:  But  it  seems  very  difficult  to  communicate  something  which  is  not
conscious.
JK: That’s it. That’s the difficulty.
DB:  It  is  not  just  being  knocked  out.  If  a  person  is  unconscious,  he  is
knocked out, but you don’t mean that.
JK: Of course not!
DB: Or under anesthetic or…
JK:  No,  let’s  put  it  this  way:  conscious  meditation,  conscious  activity  to
control thought, to free oneself from conditioning, is not freedom. DB: Yes, I
think that is clear, but it becomes very unclear how to communicate something
else. JK: Wait a minute. You want to discuss what lies beyond thought.
DB: Or when thought is silent.
JK: Quite, silent. What words would you use?
DB: Well, I suggested the word awareness. What about the word attention?    56
JK: Attention for me is better. Would you say, in attention there is no centre
as the me?
DB: Well, not in the kind of attention you are discussing. There is the usual
kind, where we pay attention because of what interests us.
JK: Attention is not concentration.
DB: We are discussing a kind of attention without this ‘me’ present, which is
not the activity of the conditioning.
JK: Not the activity of thought. In attention, thought has no place.
DB: Yes, but could we say more? What do you mean by attention? Now
would the derivation of the word be of any use? It means stretching the mind –
would that help?
JK: No. Would it help if we say concentration is not attention? Effort is not
attention. When I make an effort to attend it is not attention. Attention can only
come into being when the self is not.
DB:  Yes,  but  that  is  going  to  get  us  in  a  circle,  because  usually  we  are
starting when the self is.
JK: No, I used the word carefully. Meditation means measure. DB: Yes.
JK:  As  long  as  there  is  measurement,  which  is  becoming,  there  is  no
meditation. Let’s put it that way.
DB: Yes. We can discuss when there is not meditation.
JK: That’s right. Through negation the other is.
DB:  Because  if  we  succeed  in  negating  the  whole  activity  of  what  is  not
meditation, the meditation will be there.
JK: That’s right.
DB: That which is not meditation, but which we think is meditation.
JK: Yes, that is very clear. As long as there is measurement, which is the
becoming, which is the process of thought, meditation or silence cannot be.
DB: Is this undirected attention mind?    57
JK: Attention is of the mind.
DB: Well, it contacts the brain, doesn’t it?
JK: Yes. As long as the brain is silent, the other has contact.
DB: That is, this true attention has contact with the brain, when the brain is
silent.
JK: Silent, and has space.
DB: What is space?
JK: The brain has no space now, because it is concerned with itself, it is
programmed, it is self-centred and it is limited.
DB: Yes. The mind is in its space; now does the brain have its space too?
Limited space?
JK:  Of  course.  Thought  has  a  limited  space.  DB:  But  when  thought  is
absent, does the brain have its space?
JK: Yes. The brain has space.
DB: Unlimited?
JK: No. It is only mind that has unlimited space. My brain can be quiet over
a problem which I have thought about, and I suddenly say, ‘Well I won’t think
anymore about it,’ and there is a certain amount of space. In that space you
solve the problem.
DB: Now if the brain is silent, if it is not thinking of a problem, then still the
space is limited, but it is open to…
JK: …to the other.
DB: …to the attention. Would you say that, through attention, or in attention,
the mind is contacting the brain?
JK: When the brain is not inattentive.
DB: So what happens to the brain?    58
JK: What happens to the brain which is to act? Let’s get it clear. We said
intelligence  is  born  out  of  compassion  and  love.  That  intelligence  operates
when the brain is quiet.
DB: Yes. Does it operate through attention?
JK: Of course.
DB: So attention seems to be the contact.
JK: Naturally. We said too that attention can only be, when the self is not.
DB: Now you say that love and compassion are the ground, and out of this
comes  the  intelligence,  through  attention.  JK:  Yes,  it  functions  through  the
brain.
DB: So there are two questions: one is the nature of this intelligence, and
the second is, what does it do to the brain?
JK:  Yes,  let’s  see.  We  must  again  approach  it  negatively.  Love  is  not
jealousy, and all that. Love is not personal, but it can be personal.
DB: Then it is not what you are talking about.
JK: Love is not my country, your country, or ‘I love my god.’ It is not that.
DB: If it is from universal mind….
JK: That is why I say love has no relationship to thought.
DB: And it does not start in the particular brain, does not originate in the
particular brain.
JK:  When  there  is  that  love,  out  of  it  there  is  compassion  and  there  is
intelligence.
DB: Is this intelligence able to understand deeply?
JK: No, not ‘understand.’
DB: What does it do? Does it perceive?
JK: Through perception it acts.
DB: Perception of what?    59
JK: Now let’s discuss perception. There can be perception only when it is
not  tinged  by  thought.  When  there  is  no  interference  from  the  movement  of
thought,  there  is  perception,  which  is  direct  insight  into  a  problem,  or  into
human complexities.
DB: Now this perception originates in the mind?
JK:  Does  the  perception  originate  in  the  mind?  Yes.  When  the  brain  is
quiet.
DB: But we use the words perception and intelligence, now how are they
related, or what is their difference?
JK: The difference between perception and intelligence?
DB: Yes.
JK: None.
DB: So we can say intelligence is perception.
JK: Yes, that’s right.
DB:  Intelligence  is  perception  of  ‘what  is’?  And  through attention there is
contact.
JK: Let’s take a problem, then it is easier to understand. Take the problem
of  suffering.  Human  beings  have  suffered  endlessly,  through  wars,  through
physical  disease,  and  through  wrong  relationship  with  each  other.  Now  can
that end?
DB: I would say the difficulty of ending that is that it is on the programme.
We are conditioned to this whole thing.
JK: Yes. Now that has been going on for centuries.
DB: So it is very deep.
JK: Very, very deep. Now can that suffering end?
DB: It cannot end by an action of the brain.
JK: By thought.    60
DB: Because the brain is caught in suffering, and it cannot take an action to
end its own suffering.
JK:  Of  course  it  cannot.  That  is  why  thought  cannot  end  it.  Thought  has
created it.
DB: Yes, thought has created it, and anyway it is unable to get hold of it.
JK: Thought has created the wars, the misery, the confusion. And thought
has become prominent in human relationship.
DB: Yes, but I think people might agree with that and still think that just as
thought can do bad things, it can do good things.
JK: No, thought cannot do good or bad. It is thought, limited.
DB: Thought cannot get hold of this suffering. That is, this suffering being in
the  physical  and  chemical  conditioning  of  the  brain,  thought  has  no  way  of
even knowing what it is.
JK: I mean, I lose my son and I am….
DB: Yes, but by thinking, I don’t know what is going on inside me. I can’t
change the suffering inside because thinking will not show me what it is. Now
you are saying intelligence is perception.
JK: But we are asking, can suffering end? That is the problem.
DB: Yes, and it is clear that thinking cannot end it.
JK: Thought cannot do it. That is the point. If I have an insight into it…
DB:  Now  this  insight  will  be  through  the  action  of  the  mind;  through
intelligence and attention.
JK: When there is that insight, intelligence wipes away suffering.
DB: You are saying, therefore, that there is a contact from mind to matter
which removes the whole physical, chemical structure that keeps us going on
with suffering.
JK: That’s right. In that ending there is a mutation in the brain cells.    61
DB: Yes, and that mutation just wipes out the whole structure that makes
you suffer.
JK:  That’s  right.  Therefore  it  is  as  if  I  have  been  going  along  a  certain
tradition; I suddenly change that tradition and there is a change in the whole
brain, which has been going North. Now it goes East.
DB: Of course this is a radical notion from the point of view of traditional
ideas in science, because, if we accept that mind is different from matter, then
people would find it hard to say that mind would actually,..
JK: Would you put it that mind is pure energy?
DB: Well, we could put it that way, but matter is energy too.
JK: But matter is limited; thought is limited.
DB: But we are saying that the pure energy of mind is able to reach into the
limited energy of matter?
JK: Yes, that’s right. And change the limitation. DB: Remove some of the
limitation.
JK:  When  there  is  a  deep  issue,  problem,  or  challenge  which  you  are
facing.
DB:  We  could  also  add  that  all  the  traditional  ways  of  trying  to  do  this
cannot work….
JK: They haven’t worked.
DB: Well, that is not enough. We have to say, because people still might
hope it could, that it cannot, actually.
JK: It cannot. DB: Because thought cannot get at its own physical, chemical
basis in the cells, and do anything about those cells.
JK: Yes. Thought cannot bring about a change in itself.
DB:  And  yet  practically  everything  that  mankind  has  been  trying  to  do  is
based on thought. There is a limited area, of course, where that is all right, but
we cannot do anything about the future of humanity from that usual approach.    62
JK: When one listens to the politicians, who are so very active in the world,
they are creating problem after problem, and to them thought, ideals are the
most important things.
DB: Generally speaking nobody knows of anything else.
JK: Exactly. We are saying that the old instrument which is thought is worn
out, except in certain areas.
DB: It never was adequate, except in those areas.
JK: Of course.
DB: And, as far as history goes, man has always been in trouble.
JK: Man has always been in trouble, in turmoil, in fear. And facing all the
confusion of the world, can there be a solution to all this?
DB: That comes back to the question I would like to repeat. It seems there
are  a  few  people  who  are  talking  about  it,  and  think  perhaps  they  know,  or
perhaps  they  meditate,  and  so  on.  But  how  is  that  going  to  affect  this  vast
current of mankind?
JK: Probably very little. But why will it affect this? It might, or it might not.
But then one puts that question: what is the use of it?
DB: Yes, that’s the point. I think there is an instinctive feeling that makes
one put the question.
JK: But I think that is the wrong question.
DB:  You  see,  the  first  instinct  is  to  say,  ‘What  can  we  do  to  stop  this
tremendous catastrophe’?
JK: Yes. But if each one of us, whoever listens, sees the truth that thought,
in its activity both externally and inwardly, has created a terrible mess, great
suffering, then one must inevitably ask is there an ending to all this? If thought
cannot end it, what will?
DB: Yes.    63
JK: What is the new instrument that will put an end to all this misery? You
see, there is a new instrument which is the mind, which is intelligence. But the
difficulty is also that people won’t listen to all this. Both the scientists and the
ordinary  laymen  like  us,  have  come  to  definite  conclusions,  and  they  won’t
listen.
DB: Yes, well, that is what I had in mind when I said that a few people don’t
seem to have much effect.
JK:  Of  course.  I  think,  after  all,  few  people  have  changed  the  world,
whether good or bad – but that is not the point. Hitler; and also the communists
have  changed  it,  but  they  have  gone  to  the  same  pattern  again.  Physical
revolution has never psychologically changed the human state.
DB: Do you think it is possible that a certain number of brains coming in
contact with mind in this way will be able to have an effect on mankind, which
is beyond just the immediate, obvious effect of their communication?
JK: Yes, that’s right. But how do you convey this subtle and very complex
issue  to  a  person  who  is  steeped  in  tradition,  who  is  conditioned,  and  won’t
even take time to listen, to consider?
DB: Well, that is the question. You see, you could say that this conditioning
cannot be absolute; cannot be an absolute block, or else there would be no
way  out  at  all.  But  the  conditioning  may  be  thought  to  have  some  sort  of
permeability.
JK:  I  mean,  after  all,  the  Pope  won’t  listen  to  us,  but  the  Pope  has
tremendous influence.
DB:  Is  it  possible  that  every  person  has  something  he  can  listen  to,  if  it
could be found?
JK: If he has a little patience. Who will listen? The politicians won’t listen.
The  idealists  won’t  listen.  The  totalitarians  won’t  listen.  The  deeply  steeped
religious  people  won’t  listen.  So  perhaps  a  so-called  ignorant  person,  not
highly  educated  or  conditioned  in  his  professional  career,  or  by  money,  the
poor man who says, ‘I am suffering, please let’s end that.’…    64
DB: But he doesn’t listen either, you see. He wants to get a job.
JK: Of course. He says, ‘Feed me first’, We have been through all this for
the last sixty years. The poor man won’t listen, the rich man won’t listen, the
learned won’t listen, and the deeply dogmatic religious believers don’t listen.
So perhaps it is like a wave in the world; it might catch somebody. I think it is a
wrong question to say, does it affect?
DB: Yes, all right. We will say that that brings in time, and that is becoming.
It brings in the psyche in the process of becoming again.
JK: Yes. But if you say… it must affect mankind…
DB:  Are  you  proposing  that  it  affects  mankind  through  the  mind  directly,
rather than through…
JK: Yes. It may not show immediately in action.
DB: You said that the mind is universal, and is not located in our ordinary
space, is not separate….
JK: Yes, but there is a danger in saying this, that the mind is universal. That
is what some people say of the mind, and it has become a tradition.
DB: One can turn it into an idea, of course.
JK: That is just the danger of it; that is what I am saying.
DB: Yes. But really the question is, we have to come directly in contact with
this to make it real, Right?
JK: That’s it. We can only come into contact with it when the self is not. To
put it very simply, when the self is not, there is beauty, silence, space; then
that intelligence, which is born of compassion, operates through the brain. It is
very simple.
DB:  Yes.  Would  it  be  worth  discussing  the  self,  since  the  self  is  widely
active?
JK: I know. That is our long tradition of many, many centuries. DB: Is there
some aspect of meditation which can be helpful here when the self is acting?   65
You see, suppose a person says, ‘all right, I am caught in the self, but I want to
get out. But I want to know what I shall do?’
JK: No.
DB: I won’t use the words ‘what shall I do?’ But what do you say?
JK: That is very simple. Is the observer different from the observed?
DB: Well, suppose we say, ‘Yes, it appears to be different; then what?
JK: Is that an idea or an actuality?
DB: What do you mean?
JK:  Actuality  is  when  there  is  no  division  between  the  thinker  and  the
thought.
DB:  But  suppose  I  say,  ordinarily  one  feels  that  the  observer  is  different
from the observed. We begin there.
JK: We begin there. I’ll show you. Look at it. Are you different from your
anger, from your envy, from your suffering? You are not.
DB: At first sight it appears that I am, that I might try to control it.
JK: You are that.
DB: Yes, but how will I see that I am that?
JK:  You  are  your  name.  You  are  your  form,  your  body.  You  are  the
reactions and actions. You are the belief, the fear, the suffering and pleasure.
You are all that.
DB:  But  the  first  experience  is  that  I  am  here  first,  and  that  those  are
properties of me; they are my qualities which I can either have or not have. I
might be angry, or not angry, I might have this belief, or that belief.
JK: Contradictory. You are all that.
DB: But you see, it is not obvious. When you say I am that, do you mean
that I am that, and cannot be otherwise?
JK: No. At present you are that. It can be totally otherwise.    66
DB: All right. So I am all that. You are telling me that this unbiased observer
is the same as the anger he is looking at?
JK: Of course. Just as I analyze myself, and the analyzer is the analyzed.
DB: Yes. He is biased by what he analyzes.
JK: Yes.
DB: So, if I watch anger for a while, I can see that I am very biased by the
anger, so at some stage I say that I am one with that anger?
JK: No, not ‘I am one with it; I am it.
DB: That anger and I are the same?
JK: Yes. The observer is the observed. And when that actuality exists you
have really eliminated altogether conflict. Conflict exists when I am separate
from my quality.
DB: Yes, that is because if I believe myself to be separate, then I can try to
change it, but since I am that, it is trying to change itself and remain itself at
the same time.
JK: Yes, that’s right. But when the quality is me, the division has ended.
Right?
DB: When I see that the quality is me, then there is no point in trying to
change.
JK: No. When there is division and the quality is not me, in that there is
conflict,  either  suppression  or  escape,  and  so  on,  which  is  a  wastage  of
energy.  When  that  quality  is  me,  all  that  energy  which  has  been  wasted  is
there to look, to observe.
DB: But why does it make such a difference to have that quality being me?
JK: It makes a difference when there is no division between the quality and
me.
DB: Well then there is no perception of a difference….
JK: That’s right. Put it round differently.    67
DB: …the mind does not try to fight itself.
JK: Yes, yes. It is so.
DB: If there is an illusion of a difference, the mind must be compelled to
fight against itself.
JK: The brain.
DB: The brain fights against itself.
JK: That’s right.
DB: On the other hand, when there is no illusion of a difference, the brain
just stops fighting.
JK: And therefore you have tremendous energy.
DB: The brain’s natural energy is released?
JK: Yes. And energy means attention.
DB: The energy of the brain allows for attention….
JK: For that thing to dissolve.
DB: Yes, but wait a minute. We said before that attention was a contact of
the mind and the brain. JK: Yes.
DB: The brain must be in a state of high energy to allow that contact.
JK: That’s right.
DB: I mean, a brain which is low energy cannot allow that contact.
JK:  Of  course  not.  But  most  of  us  are  low  energy  because  we  are  so
conditioned.
DB: Well essentially you are saying that this is the way to start.
JK: Yes, start simply. Start with ‘what is,’ what I am. Self-knowledge is so
important.  It  is  not  an  accumulated  process  of  knowledge,  which  one  then
looks at; it is a constant learning about oneself.
DB:  If  you  call  it  self-knowledge,  then  it  is  not  knowledge  of  the  kind  we
talked about before, which is conditioning.    68
JK: That’s right. Knowledge conditions.
DB: But you are saying that self-knowledge of this kind is not conditioning.
But why do you call it knowledge? Is it a different kind of knowledge?
JK: Yes. Knowledge conditions.
DB: Yes, but now you have this self-knowledge.
JK: Which is to know and to comprehend oneself. To understand oneself is
such a subtle, complex thing. It is living.
DB:  Essentially knowing yourself  in the very moment  in  which  things  are
happening.
JK: Yes, to know what is happening.
DB: Rather than store it up in memory.
JK: Of course. Through reactions, I begin to discover what I am.    69
– Longer, Unedited Versions –
Brockwood Park 1st Conversation With Prof D Bohm
11th June 1983 The Future Of Mankind
J.Krishnamurti: I thought we were going to talk about the future of man.
Dr.David Bohm: Yes.
JK:  I  mean,  really,  when  we  talk  about  man,  were  are  talking  about
humanity.
DB: The whole of mankind.
JK: The whole of mankind. Not the British or the French or the Russian or
the American but the whole of human beings.
DB: The future is all inter linked anyway.
JK:  As  things  are,  from  what  one  observes  the  world  has  become
tremendously dangerous.
DB: Yes.
JK: Terrorists, wars, and the national divisions and racial divisions, some
dictators  who  want  to  destroy  the  world  and  so  on  and  so  on.  And  also
religiously there is tremendous separation.
DB: Yes, I think there is the economic crisis and the ecological crisis.
JK: Yes. Ecological and economic problems. Problems seem to multiplying
more and more. So, what is the future of man? What is the future of not only
the present generation but the coming generations?
DB: Yes, well, the future looks very grim..
JK: Very grim. If you were quite young and I was quite young, what would
we do knowing all this. What would be our reactions? What would be our life,
our way of earning a livelihood and so on.
DB:  Yes,  well,  I  have  often  thought  of  that.  For  example,  I  have  asked
myself,» Would I go into science again?»    70
JK: Yes.
DB: And, I am not at all certain now because science does not seem to be
relevant to this crisis.
JK: No. No. No. On the contrary they are helping.
DB: It makes it worse. Yes.
JK: Yes, they are helping.
DB: It might help but in fact it isn’t.
JK: So, what would you do? I think I would stick to what I am doing.
DB: Well, that would be easy for you.
JK: For me, quite easy.
DB: But, several problems – of course I don’t know if we want to discuss
them – if a person is just starting out, he has to make a living, right?
DB: But there are several problems. Of course I don’t know the point of this
discussion. If a person is just starting out he has to make a living – right?
JK: Of course.
DB: Now there are very few opportunities now, and most of these are in
jobs which are very limited.
JK: Limited and unemployment right throughout the world. I wonder what
he would do, knowing that the future is grim, very depressing, dangerous and
so uncertain. Where would you begin?
DB: Yes, well I think one would have to stand back from all these particular
problems of my own needs and the needs of other people around me.
JK: Are you saying one should really forget oneself for the time being?
DB: Yes.
JK: Even if I did forget myself and when I look at this world in which I am
going  to  live,  and  have  some  kind  of  career  or  a  profession,  and  the   71
unemployment.  What  would I do? This is a problem that I think most young
people are facing.
DB: Yes. That’s clear. Well have you something that you would suggest?
JK: Eh?
DB: Is there something which you could suggest?
JK: You see I don’t think in terms of evolution.
DB:  Yes  I  understand  that.  That’s  the  point  I  was  expecting  we  would
discuss.
JK: Eh?
DB: I was expecting we would discuss that.
JK: Yes. I don’t think there is psychological evolution at all.
DB: Yes. Now we have discussed this quite often so I think I understand to
some extent what you mean. But I think that people who are new to this, who
are viewing this tape, are not going to understand.
JK: Yes, we will discuss it. But I want to discuss this whole question, if you
will: Why are we concerned about the future? Only the whole future is now.
DB: Yes, in some sense the whole future is now but we have to make that
clear. This goes very much against the whole way of thinking of the tradition of
mankind and all of us.
JK:  Yes,  I  know.  It  goes  –  I  know.  Mankind  thinks  in  terms  of  evolution,
continuance and so on.
DB: Maybe we could approach it in another way. That is, evolution seems
in the present era to be the most natural way to think. So I would like to ask
you  what  objections  do  you  have  to  thinking  in  terms  of  evolution.  Could  I
explain a point: this has many meanings, this word.
JK: Of course, of course. We are talking psychologically.
DB: Yes, now the first point is let’s dispose of it physically.
JK: I mean an acorn will grow into an oak.    72
DB: Yes. Well also the species have evolved for example from the plants to
the animals and to man.
JK: Yes, we have taken a million years to be what we are.
DB: You have no question that that has happened?
JK: No, that has happened.
DB: It may continue to happen.
JK: That is evolution.
DB: That is a valid process.
JK: Of course. That is a valid natural process.
DB: It takes place in time. And therefore in that region the past, present and
future are important.
JK: Yes obviously. I don’t know a certain language, I need time to learn it.
DB: Well also it takes time to improve the brain. You see if the brain started
out small with this, and then it got bigger and bigger, that took a million years.
JK: Yes, and becomes much more complex and so on. All that needs time.
All that is movement in space and time.
DB: Yes. So you will admit physical time and neurophysiological time.
JK: Neurophysiological time, absolutely. Of course. Any sane man would.
DB: Yes. Now most people also admit psychological time, what they call
mental time.
JK: Yes, that is what we are talking about. Whether there is such a thing as
psychological tomorrow, psychological evolution.
DB: Or yesterday. Yes, now at first sight I am afraid this will sound strange.
It seems I can remember yesterday, and there is tomorrow, I can anticipate.
And it has happened many times, you know days have succeeded each other.
So  I  do  have  the  experience  of  time,  from  yesterday  to  today  to  tomorrow  –
right?    73
JK: Of course. That is simple enough.
DB: That is simple enough. Now what is it you are denying?
JK: I deny that I will be something, become better.
DB: I can change… but now there are two ways of looking at that. You see
one way is will I intentionally become better because I am trying? Or, secondly
some  people  feel  that  evolution  is  a  kind  of  natural,  inevitable  process,  in
which  we  are  being  swept  along  like  in  a  current,  and  we  are  perhaps
becoming better, worse, or something is happening to us.
JK: Psychologically.
DB: Psychologically, yes, which takes time which may not be the result of
my trying to become better. It may or may not be. Some people may think one
way,  some  another.  But  are you denying also that there is a kind of natural
psychological evolution as there was a natural biological evolution?
JK: I am denying that, yes.
DB: Yes. Now why do you deny it?
JK: Because first of all, what is the psyche?
DB: Yes.
JK: The me, the ego, and so on, what is it?
DB: Yes, now the word psyche has many meanings. It may mean the mind
for example. Now do you mean by that the ego is the same thing?
JK: The ego. I am talking of the ego, the me.
DB: Yes. Now some people who are thinking of evolution are thinking there
will be an evolution in which the me is transcended. That is that it will rise to a
higher level.
JK: Yes, will the transition – does transition need time?
DB: A transcendence, a transition.
JK: Yes. That is my whole question.    74
DB: Yes. So there are two questions: one is will the me ever improve? That
is one argument. And another argument, is even if we suppose we want to get
beyond the me, can that be done in time?
JK: That cannot be done in time.
DB: Yes now we have to make it clear why not.
JK: Yes. I will. We will go into it. What is the me? If the psyche has such
different meanings, the me is the whole movement which thought has brought
about.
DB: Now why do you say that? That…
JK: The me is the consciousness, my consciousness, the me is my name,
form and all the various experiences that I have had, remembrances and so
on. The whole structure of the me is put together by thought.
DB: Yes, well that again would be something which some people might find
it had to accept.
JK: Of course, of course. We are discussing it.
DB: Yes but I mean also to try to bring it out. Now the first experience, the
first feeling I have about the me is that the me is there independently and that
the me is thinking.
JK: Is the me independent of my thinking?
DB:  Well  my  own  first  feeling  is  that  the  me  is  there  independent  of  my
thinking, and is the me that is thinking, you see.
JK: Yes, yes.
DB: Like I am here and I could move, I could move my arm, I could think, or
I could move my head.
JK: Yes, yes.
DB: Now is that an illusion?
JK: No.
DB: Why?    75
JK: Because the me – when I move my arm there is the intention to grasp
something,  to  take  something,  to  put  something,  which  is  also  first  it  is  the
movement of thought, and that makes the arm move and so on. My contention
is – and I am ready to accept it as false or true – that thought is the basis of all
this.
DB: Yes. Your contention is that the whole sense of the me and what it is
doing is coming out of thought. Now what you mean by thought though is not
merely intellectual?
JK: No, no, of course not.
DB: But what more, you see?
JK:  Thought  is  the  movement  of  experience,  knowledge,  memory  and
thought. It is this whole movement.
DB: It sounds to me as if you mean the consciousness as a whole.
JK: As a whole, that’s right.
DB: And you are saying that that movement is the me – right?
JK: The whole content of that consciousness is the me.
DB: Yes, well there are quite a few…
JK: That me is not different from my consciousness.
DB: Yes. Well someone might feel – well I think one could say that I am my
consciousness for if I am not conscious I am not here.
JK: Of course.
DB: Now is consciousness nothing but say what you have just described,
which includes thought, feeling, intention…
JK:…intention, aspirations…
DB:…memories…
JK:…memories, beliefs, dogmas, the rituals that are performed, the whole,
like the computer that has been programmed.    76
DB: Yes. Now that certainly is in consciousness. Everybody would agree
but some people would feel, or many people would feel that there is more to it
than that. That consciousness may go beyond that.
JK: Let’s go into it. Let’s go into it.
DB: Yes.
JK:  The  content  of  our  consciousness  makes  up  the  consciousness,  the
content.
DB: Yes, I think that requires some understanding. The ordinary use of the
word content is quite different. If you say that the content of a glass is water –
right?
JK: Yes.
DB: So the glass is one thing and the water is another.
JK: No.
DB:  The  glass  contains  the  water,  otherwise  the  word  content  would
suggest that something contains it – right?
JK:  All  right.  Consciousness  is  made  up  of  all  what  is  has  remembered,
beliefs, dogmas, rituals, the nationalities, fears, pleasures, sorrow.
DB: Yes, now if all that were absent would there be no consciousness?
JK: Not as we know it.
DB: But there would still be a kind of consciousness?
JK: A totally different kind.
DB:  Well  then  I  think  you  really  mean  to  say  that  consciousness,  as  we
know it, is made up…
JK: I said that.
DB: Oh, yes.
JK: Consciousness as we know it is all that.
DB: As we generally know it.    77
JK: Yes. And that is the result of multiple activities of thought. Thought has
put all this together, which is my consciousness – the reactions, the responses,
the  memories,  the  remembrances,  extraordinary  complex  intricacies,
subtleties, all that is the – makes up consciousness.
DB: As we know it.
JK: We said that.
DB: Yes.
JK: As we know it.
DB: Yes. Now…
JK: Is – whether that consciousness has a future.
DB: Yes. Does it has a past?
JK: Of course. Remembrance.
DB: Remembrance, yes. Why do you say it has no future then?
JK: If it has a future it will be exactly the same kind of thing, moving. The
same activities, same thoughts, modified but the pattern will be repeated over
and over again.
DB: Yes. Are you saying that thought can only repeat?
JK: Yes.
DB: But there is a feeling that thought can develop new ideas for example.
JK:  But  thought  being  limited  because  knowledge  is  limited,  if  you  admit
that knowledge will always be limited.
DB: Well yes, that again might require some discussion.
JK: Of course, we must discuss it.
DB: Now why do you say knowledge is always limited?
JK: Because you as a scientist, you are experimenting, adding, searching,
so  you  are  adding,  and  after  you  some  other  person  will  add  more.  So
knowledge, which is born of experience, is limited.    78
DB: Yes, well some people have said it isn’t. They would hope to obtain
perfect knowledge, or absolute knowledge of the laws of nature.
JK: The laws of nature is not the laws of human being.
DB: Well do you want to restrict the discussion then to knowledge about the
human being?
JK: Of course, that’s all we can talk about.
DB: Even there there is the question of whether that knowledge of nature is
possible too.
JK: Of course. We are talking about the future of man.
DB: All right. So we are saying that man cannot obtain unlimited knowledge
of the psyche? Is that what you are saying?
JK: Yes, that’s right.
DB: There is always more that is unknown.
JK: Yes, that’s right. There is always more and more unknown. So if once
we admit that knowledge is limited then thought is limited.
DB: Yes, knowledge – thought depends on knowledge and the knowledge
does not cover everything.
JK: That’s right.
DB: Therefore thought will not be able to handle everything that happens.
JK:  That’s  right.  That  is  what  the  politicians  and  all  the  other  people  are
doing. They think thought can solve every problem.
DB:  Yes.  You  can  see  in  the  case  of  politicians  that  knowledge  is  very
limited,  in  fact  it  is  almost  non-existent!  But,  therefore  when  you  lack  the
adequate knowledge of what you are dealing with you create confusion.
JK: Yes. So then as thought is limited our consciousness, which has been
put together by thought, is limited.
DB:  Yes.  Now  why  does  that  mean  we  –  can  you  make  that  clear?  That
means we can only stay in the same circle.    79
JK: The same circle.
DB: You see one of the ideas might be, if you compare with science, that
people  might  think  although  my  knowledge  is  limited  I  am  constantly
discovering.
JK: But what you discover is added to, but is still limited.
DB: It is still limited. That’s the point. I can keep on – I think one of the ideas
behind a scientific approach is that though knowledge is limited I can discover
and keep up with the actuality.
JK: But that is also limited.
DB: My discoveries are limited. And there is always the unknown which I
have not discovered.
JK:  That  is  what  I  am  saying.  The  unknown,  the  limitless,  cannot  be
captured by thought.
DB: Yes.
JK: Because thought in itself is limited. If you and I agree to that, not only
agree but it is a fact.
DB: Yes, well perhaps we could bring it out still more.  That is thought is
limited even though we verbally – one may easily verbally admit thought is not
limited,  there  is  a  very  strong  predisposition,  feeling,  tendency,  to  feel  that
way, that thought can do anything.
JK: Anything. It can’t. See what it has done in the world.
DB: Well I agree that is has done some terrible things but that doesn’t prove
that  it  is  always  wrong.  You  see  maybe  you  could  always  blame  it  on  the
people who have used it wrongly, you see.
JK: I know, that is a good old trick! But thought in itself is limited, therefore
whatever it does is limited.
DB: Yes, and it is limited in a very serious way is what you are saying.
JK: That’s right. Of course in a very, very serious way.    80
DB: Well could we bring that out, say what that way is I mean?
JK: That way is what is happening in the world.
DB: All right, let’s look at that.
JK: The totalitarian ideals, it is the invention of thought.
DB:  Yes,  well  we  could  say  that  the  people  –  the  very  word  totalitarian,
means they wanted to cover the totality but they couldn’t.
JK: They couldn’t.
DB: They couldn’t, the thing collapsed.
JK: It is collapsing.
DB: Collapsing. But then there are those who say they are not totalitarians.
JK:  But  the  democrats  and  all  the  rest  of  it,  the  republicans  and  the
democrats, and the idealists and so on, all their thinking is limited.
DB: Yes, but it is limited in a way that is…
JK:…very destructive.
DB:…that is very serious and destructive. Now in what way – could we bring
that out? You see I could say, «OK my thought is limited but well it may not be
all that serious». You see why is it so important?
JK: That is fairly simple: because whatever action is born of limited thought
must breed conflict, inevitably.
DB: Yes.
JK: Like dividing humanity into geographically – into nationalities and so on
and so on and so on, religiously, has created havoc in the world.
DB:  Yes,  no  let’s  connect  that  with  the  limitation  of  thought.  That  is  my
knowledge is limited – right?
JK: We said that.
DB: Now how does that lead me to divide the world into…
JK: Aren’t we seeking security?    81
DB: Yes.
JK: And we thought there was security in the family, security in the tribe,
security in nationalism. So we thought there is security in division.
DB: Yes. That seems now it has come out – take the tribe for example, say
one may feel insecure because one then says, «With the tribe I am secure.»
That is a conclusion. And I think I know enough to be sure that is so but I don’t.
Other things happen that I don’t know which make that very insecure. Other
tribes come along.
JK: No, no, the very division creates insecurity.
DB: Yes it helps to create it but I am trying to say that I don’t know enough
to know that – right? I don’t see that.
JK:  But  one  doesn’t  see  it  because  one  has  not  thought  about  anything,
looked at the world as a whole.
DB:  Yes,  well  the  thought  which  attempts  to,  you  see  the  thought  which
aims at security attempts to know everything important. As soon as it knows
everything important it says, «This will bring security» – not only there are a lot
of things it doesn’t know but one thing it doesn’t know is that this very thought
itself is divisive.
JK: Divisive, yes.
DB: Divisive. It’s going to, because I define an area which is secure, divided
from another area.
JK:  Because  in  itself  it  is  limited.  Anything  that  is  limited  must  inevitably
create conflict.
DB: Well you mean any thought that is…
JK: If I say I am an individual, it is limited.
DB: Yes.
JK: I am concerned with myself, that is very limited.    82
DB: Yes, we have to get this clear. You see if I say this is a table which is
limited, it creates no conflict – right?
JK: No, there is no conflict there.
DB: Now when I say this is me that creates conflict.
JK: The me is a divisive entity.
DB: Let’s see more clearly why.
JK: Because it is separative, it is concerned with itself. The me identifying
with the greater nation, is still divisive.
DB: Yes, well I define myself in the interest of security so that I know what I
am as opposed to what you are and I protect myself – right? Now this creates a
division between me and you.
JK: We and they and so on.
DB: We and they. Now that comes from my limited thought because I don’t
understand that we are really closely related and connected.
JK: We are human beings.
DB: Yes we are all human beings.
JK: All human beings have more or less the same problems.
DB: No, I haven’t understood that. My knowledge is limited, I think that we
can make a distinction and protect ourselves and me and not the others.
JK: Yes, that’s right.
DB: But in the very act of doing that I create instability.
JK: That’s right. You create…
DB:…insecurity.
JK: Insecurity. So if we see that, not merely intellectually, or verbally, but
actually  feel  it,  that  we  are  the  rest  of  humanity,  then  the  responsibility
becomes immense.
DB: Yes, well how can you do anything about that responsibility?    83
JK: Then I either contribute to the whole mess, or keep out of it. That is not
to be – to be at peace, to have order in oneself. I will come to that. I am going
too fast.
DB:  You  see  –  now  let’s  come  –  well  I  think  we  have  touched  upon  an
important  point.  We  say  the  whole  of  humanity,  of  mankind,  is  one,  and
therefore to create division there is…
JK:…is dangerous.
DB:  Yes.  Whereas  to  create  division  between  me  and  the  table  is  not
dangerous because in some sense we are not one.
JK: Me and the tree – of course.
DB:  That  is  only  in  some  very  general  sense  that  we  are  at  one.  Now
mankind doesn’t realize that it is all one.
JK: Why? Why?
DB:  Well  let’s  go  into  that.  This  is  a  crucial  point.  It  is  clear  it  doesn’t
because  there  are  so  many  divisions  and  not  only  nations  and  religions  but
from one person to another.
JK: No. Why is there this division?
DB: Well the first is, at least in the modern era, that every human being is
an individual. This may not have been so strong in the past.
JK:  That  is  what  I  question.  I  question  altogether  whether  we  are
individuals.
DB: Yes, well that is a big question because…
JK: Of course. We said just now the consciousness which is me is similar to
the rest of mankind. They all suffer, they all have fears, they are all insecure,
they have their own particular gods and rituals, all put together by thought.
DB: Yes, well I think this calls for some – you  know, it is – there are two
questions here. One is, not everybody feels that he is similar – most people
feel they have some unique distinction, at least they…    84
JK:  What  do  you  mean  «unique  distinction»?  Distinction  in  doing
something?
DB: Well there may be many things. For example one nation may feel that
it is able to do certain things better than another, one person has some special
things he does, a quality, or…
JK:  Of  course.  You  have  better  –  you  are  more  intellectual  than  I  am.
Somebody else is better in this or that.
DB: He may take pride in his own special abilities, or advantages.
JK: But when you put away that basically we are the same.
DB: We have to say what is it then – you are saying these things which you
have just described which are…
JK:…superficial.
DB: Yes. Well now the things that are basic are what?
JK: Is fear, sorrow, pain, anxiety, loneliness, and all the human travail.
DB: Yes well many people might feel that the basic things are the highest
achievements of man.
JK: The?
DB: The highest achievements of mankind are not these.
JK: What has he achieved?
DB: Well let’s discuss it.
JK: Yes, yes.
DB: I mean many people – well I understand, we have discussed this often
but I think we must bring it out.
JK: Yes Sir, let’s go into it.
DB: Now the…
JK: What have we achieved?    85
DB: Well for one thing people may feel proud of the achievement of man in
science and art and culture and technology.
JK: We have achieved in all those directions, certainly we have.
DB: Yes.
JK: Vast technology, communication, travel, medicines, surgery…
DB: Yes.
JK:…have advanced tremendously.
DB: Yes, I mean it is really remarkable in many ways.
JK: There is no question about it.
DB: Yes. Now you are saying…
JK: What have we psychologically achieved?
DB: One point is to say none of this has affected us psychologically.
JK: Yes, that’s right.
DB:  And  the  psychological  question  is  more  important  than  any  of  the
others  because  if  the  psychological  question  is  not  cleared  up  the  rest  is
dangerous.
JK: Yes. Quite right. If we psychologically are limited, then whatever we do
will be limited, and the technology will then be used by our limited…
DB:…yes, the master is this limited psyche and not the rational structure of
technology.
JK: Sane, rational.
DB: And in fact technology then becomes a dangerous…
JK:…instrument.
DB:…instrument. Now, so that is one point that the psyche is at the core of
it all, and if the psyche is not in order then the rest is useless.
JK: If the house is in order…    86
DB: Then the second question is: although we are saying there are certain
basic disorders in the psyche, or lack of order which is common to us all, we
may all have a potential for something else, but the second point is are we all
one really, you see? Even though we are all similar that doesn’t say we are all
the same, we are all one.
JK: We said in our consciousness basically we all have the same ground
on which we stand.
DB: Yes. Well, you see from the fact let’s say the human body is similar it
doesn’t prove they are all the same.
JK: Of course not. Your body is different from mine.
DB: Yes we are in different places, different entities and so on. But I think
you  are  trying  to  say  that  the  consciousness  is  not  an  entity  which  is
individual…
JK: That’s right.
DB:…the body is an entity which has a certain individuality.
JK: That all seems so clear.
DB: It may be clear. But I think…
JK: Your body is different from mine. I have a different name than you.
DB: Yes, well we are different – though similar material it is different, we
can’t exchange because the proteins in one body may not agree with those in
the other. Now many people feel that way about the mind, saying that there is
a chemistry between people which may agree or disagree.
JK: Yes but actually if you go deeper into the question. Consciousness is
shared by all human beings. It may…
DB: Yes. Now the feeling is that the consciousness is individual and that it
is communicated as it were…
JK: I think that is an illusion because we are sticking to something that is
not true.    87
DB:  Yes,  well  do  you  want  to  say  that  there  is  one  consciousness  of
mankind?
JK: It is all one.
DB: It is all one. That is important because whether it is many or one is a
crucial question.
JK: Yes, yes.
DB: Now it could be many which are then communicating and building up
the larger unit. Or you think from the very beginning it is all one?
JK: From the very beginning it is all one.
DB: And the sense of separateness is an illusion – right?
JK: That is what I am saying over and over again. That seems so logical,
sane. The other is insanity.
DB: Yes, now people don’t feel, at least one doesn’t immediately feel that
the notion of separate existence is insane because one extrapolates from the
body to the mind, one says it is quite sensible to say my body is separate from
yours, and inside my body  is  my  mind.  Now  are you saying the mind is not
inside the body?
JK: That is quite a different question. Now just a minute. Let’s finish with the
other first. If each one of us thinks that we are separate individuals psychically,
we have done – what we have done in the world is a colossal mess.
DB: Well if we think we are separate when we are not separate then it will
clearly be a colossal mess.
JK: That is what is happening. Each one thinks he has to do what he wants
to do, fulfil himself. So he is struggling in his separateness to achieve peace,
to achieve security, which that security and that peace is totally denied.
DB: Well the reason it is denied is because there is no separation. You see
if there were really separation it would be a rational thing to try to do.
JK: Actual.    88
DB: But if we are trying to separate what is inseparable the result will be
chaos.
JK: That’s right. That’s right.
DB:  Now  that  is  clear  but  I  think  that  it  will  not  be  clear  to  people
immediately that the consciousness of mankind is one inseparable whole.
JK: Yes Sir, inseparable whole. absolutely right.
DB: Many questions will arise if you once even consider the notion, but I
don’t know if we have gone far enough into this yet. One question is why do
we think we are separate?
JK: Why? Why do I think I am separate? That is my conditioning.
DB: Yes but how did we ever adopt such a foolish conditioning?
JK: From childhood it is mine, my toy, not yours.
DB: Yes but the first feeling you get is I say it is mine because I feel I am
separate. Now it isn’t clear how the mind which was one came to this illusion
that it is all broken up into many pieces.
JK:  I  think  it  is  again  the  activity  of  thought.  Thought  in  its  very  nature
thought is divisive, fragmentary and therefore I am a fragment.
DB: Yes well thought will create a sense of fragments. You could see for
example that once we decide to set up a nation we will be separate, think we
are separate from the other nation and all sorts of things, consequences follow
which  make  the  whole  thing  seem  independently  real.  You  have  all  sorts  of
separate language and a separate flag and a separate this and you set up a
boundary. And after a while you see so much evidence of separation that you
forget  how  it  started  and you  say  that  was  there  always  and  we  are  merely
proceeding from what was there always.
JK: Of course. That’s why, Sir, I feel if once we grasp the nature of thought,
the structure of thought, how thought operates, what is the source of thought,
and therefore it is always limited, if we really see that then…
DB: Now the source of thought is what? Is it memory?    89
JK:  Memory.  Memory  is  the  remembrance  of  things  past,  which  is
knowledge  and  knowledge  is  the  outcome  of  experience  and  experience  is
always limited.
DB: Yes well thought includes, of course, also the attempt to go forward, to
use logic, to take into account discoveries and insights, you know.
JK: As we were saying some time ago, thought is time.
DB:  Yes.  All  right.  Thought  is  time.  That  requires  more  discussion  too,
because you see the first experience is to say time is there first, and thought is
taking place in time.
JK: Ah, no.
DB:  For  example  if  we  say  that  movement  is  taking  place,  the  body  is
moving, and this requires time.
JK: To go from here to there needs time.
DB: Yes, yes.
JK: To learn a language needs time.
DB: Yes. To grow a plant needs time.
JK: You know, the whole thing. To paint a picture takes time.
DB: We also say to think takes time.
JK: So we think in terms of time.
DB: Yes. You see the first point that one would tend to look at is to say just
as everything takes time, to think takes time – right? Are you saying something
else, which is thought is time.
JK: Thought is time.
DB: That is psychically speaking, psychologically speaking.
JK: Psychologically, of course.
DB: Now how do we understand that?
JK: How do we understand what?    90
DB: Thought is time. You see it is not obvious.
JK: Oh yes. Would you say thought is movement and time is movement.
DB: That’s movement. Now these are… you see time is a mysterious thing,
people  have  argued  about  it.  We  could  say  that  time  requires  movement.  I
could understand that we cannot have time without movement.
JK: Time is movement.
DB: Time is movement. Now…
JK: Time is not separate from movement.
DB: Now I don’t say it is separate from movement, but you see to say time
is movement, you see if we said time and movement are one.
JK: Yes we are saying that.
DB: Yes. They cannot be separated – right?
JK: No.
DB:  Because  that  seems  fairly  clear.  Now  there  is  physical  movement
which means physical time – right?
JK: Physical time, hot and cold, and also dark and light…
DB:…the seasons…
JK:…sunset and sunrise. All that.
DB: Yes. Now then we have the movement of thought. Now that brings in
the  question  of  the  nature  of  thought.  You  see  is  thought  nothing  but  a
movement in the nervous system, in the brain? Would you say that?
JK: Yes, yes.
DB:  Some  people  have  said  it  includes  the  movement  of  the  nervous
system but there might be something beyond.
JK: What is time, Sir, actually? Actually, what is time? Time is hope.
DB: Psychologically.
JK: Psychologically. I am talking entirely psychologically for the moment.    91
DB: But one tends to keep on thinking…
JK:  Of  course.  We  have  understood  that.  Time  –  I  mean  hope  is  time.
Becoming  is  time.  Achieving  is  time.  Now  take  the  question  of  becoming:  I
want  to  become  something,  psychologically.  I  want  to  become  non-violent,
take that for example. That is altogether a fallacy.
DB: Yes, well we understand it is a fallacy but the reason it is a fallacy is
that there is no time of that kind, is that it?
JK: No. No Sir. Human beings are violent.
DB: Yes.
JK:  And  they  have  been  talking  a  great  deal,  Tolstoy  in  India,  of  non-
violence. The fact is we are violent.
DB: Yes, but…
JK: Wait a minute, let me. And the non-violence is not real. But we want to
become that.
DB: Yes but you see it is again an extension of the kind of thought that we
have with regard to material things. You see if you see a desert, the desert is
real and you say the garden is not real, but in your mind is the garden which
will come when you put the water there. So we say we can plan for the future
when the desert will become fertile. Now we have to be careful, we say we are
violent but we cannot by similar planning become non-violent.
JK: No.
DB: Now why is that?
JK:  Why?  Because  the  non-violent  state  cannot  exist  when  there  is
violence.
DB: Yes.
JK: That’s an ideal.    92
DB: Well one has to make it more clear because in the same sense the
fertile state and the desert don’t exist together either. You see I think that you
are saying that in the case of the mind when you are violent it has no meaning.
JK: That is the only state.
DB: That is all there is.
JK: Yes, not the other.
DB: The movement towards the other is illusory.
JK: Illusory.
DB: Yes.
JK:  So  all  ideals  are  illusory,  psychologically.  The  ideal  of  building  a
marvellous bridge is not illusory.
DB: No that…
JK: You can plan it but to have psychological ideals…
DB:  Yes,  if  you  are  violent  and  you  continue  to  be  violent  while  you  are
trying to be non-violent…
JK:…it is so obvious…
DB:…it has no meaning.
JK: No meaning and yet that has become such an important thing. So the
becoming, which is either becoming ‘what is’ or becoming away from ‘what is’.
DB: ‘What should be’, yes.
JK: I question both.
DB: Yes, well if you say there can be no sense to becoming in the way of
self-improvement, that’s…
JK: Oh, self-improvement is something so utterly ugly. So we are saying,
Sir, that the source of all this is a movement of thought as time. When once we
made time psychologically all the other ideals, non-violence, achieving some
super state and so on and so on become utterly illusory.    93
DB: Yes. Now when you talk of the movement of thought as time, it seems
to me that to say that that movement of thought, that time which comes from
the movement of thought is illusory, is it?
JK: Yes.
DB: We sense it as time but it is not a real kind of time.
JK: That is why we asked: what is time?
DB: Yes.
JK: I need time to go from here to there. I need time if I want to learn some
engineering, I must study it, it takes time. That same movement is carried over
into the psyche. We say I need time to be good. I need time to be enlightened.
DB: Yes, that will always create a conflict.
JK: Yes.
DB:  One  part  of  you  and  another.  So  that  movement  in  which  you  say  I
need time also creates a division in the psyche.
JK: Yes, that’s right.
DB: Say between the observer and the observed.
JK: Yes, that’s right. We are saying the observer is the observed.
DB: And therefore there is no time.
JK: That’s right.
DB: Psychologically.
JK: The experience, the thinker, is the thought. There is no thinker separate
from thought.
DB: All that you are saying, you know, seems very reasonable, but I think
that it goes so strongly against the tradition that we are used to…
JK: Of course, of course.
DB:…that  it  will  be  extraordinarily  hard  for  people  to  really,  generally
speaking, to…    94
JK: No, most people Sir don’t want – they want a comfortable way of living:
«Let me carry on as I am, for God’s sake leave me alone.»
DB: Yes but that is the result of so much conflict…
JK: So much conflict.
DB:…that people are warned off by it I think.
JK:  But  in  escaping  from  conflict,  or not resolving conflict, conflict exists,
whether you like it or not. So is it, that is the whole point, is it possible to live a
life without conflict?
DB: Yes, well that is all implicit in what has been said.
JK: That’s right.
DB: The source of conflict is thought or knowledge, or the past.
JK: So then one asks: is it possible to transcend thought?
DB: Yes.
JK: Or is it possible to end knowledge? I am putting it psychologically not…
DB: Yes. We say knowledge of objects and material objects and things like
that, knowledge of science, will continue.
JK: Absolutely. That must continue.
DB: But what you call self-knowledge is what you are asking to end, isn’t it?
JK: Yes.
DB:  Well  on  the  other  hand  people  have  said,  even  you  have  said,  self-
knowledge is very important.
JK: Self-knowledge is important but if I take time to understand myself, that
is, I will understand myself eventually by examination, analysis and so on and
so on and so on, watching my whole relationship with others and so, all that
involves time.
DB: Yes, well…    95
JK:  And  I  say  there  is  another  way  of  looking  at  the  whole  thing  without
time. Which is, when the observer is the observed.
DB: Yes.
JK: In that observation there is no time.
DB: Could we go into that further? I mean for example if you say there is no
time but still you feel that you can remember an hour ago you were someone
else.
JK: Of course, that would be crazy.
DB: Now in what sense can we make it that there is no time?
JK: Time is division – right? As thought is division. That is why thought is
time.
DB: Time is a series of divisions of past, present, future.
JK: Thought is also that divisive. So time is thought. Or thought is time.
DB: Yes, well I mean it doesn’t exactly follow from what you said. I mean
we have explained it.
JK: Let’s go into it.
DB: Yes. You see at first sight one would think that thought makes divisions
of  all  kinds,  with  the  ruler  and  with  all  kinds  of  things,  and  also  divides  up
intervals of time, past, present and future. Now it doesn’t follow from just that
that thought is time. You see…
JK: Look, we said time is movement.
DB: Yes.
JK: Thought is also a series of movements.
DB: Yes, all right.
JK: So both are movements.
DB: Thought is a movement, right, movement, we suppose, of the nervous
system and…    96
JK: You see it is a movement of becoming. I am speaking psychologically,
not…
DB:  Psychologically.  But  I  mean  whenever  you  think  something  is  also
moving in the blood, in the nerves and so on. Right. Now when we talk of a
psychological movement, do you mean just a change of content?
JK: Change of content?
DB: Well what is the movement? You see what is moving?
JK:  Sir,  look:  I  am  this,  and  I  am  attempting  to  become  something  else
psychologically.
DB: So that movement is in the content of your thought, do you see.
JK: Yes.
DB: So if you say I am this and I am attempting to become that, then I am
in movement – right?
JK: Yes.
DB: At least I feel I am in movement.
JK: Yes. No, but I am, say for instance I am greedy. Greed is a movement.
DB: What kind of a movement is it?
JK: To get what I want.
DB: To get more, yes.
JK: To get more, more. It is a movement.
DB: All right.
JK: And I find that movement painful, suppose. And I try not to be greedy.
DB: Yes.
JK: The attempt not to be greedy is a movement of time, is becoming.
DB: Yes but even the greed was becoming.
JK: Of course. So is it possible, that is the real question, is it possible not to
become? Psychologically.    97
DB: Well it seems that that would require that you should not be anything
psychologically. That is, as soon as you define yourself in any way then…
JK: No, we will define it in a minute or two.
DB: I meant if I define myself as greedy, or say I am greedy or I am this, or
I am that, then either I will want to become something else or to remain what I
am – right?
JK: Now can I remain what I am? Can I remain not with non-greed but with
greed. And greed is not different from me, greed is me.
DB: Yes. That will require – the ordinary way of thinking is that I am here
and I could either be greedy or not greedy.
JK: Of course.
DB: As these are attributes which I may or may not have. Now…
JK: But the attributes are me.
DB: Yes. Now that again goes very much against our common language
and experience.
JK: Of course Sir.
DB: But instead of saying that I am my attributes which suggests that the
thought of attribution creates the me, right? The sense of me. You see…
JK:  All  the  qualities,  the  attributes,  the  virtues,  the  judgements,  the
conclusions and opinions, is me.
DB: Well it seems to me that this would have to be perceived immediately
as obvious.
JK:  That  is  the  whole  question.  To  perceive  the  totality  of  this  whole
movement  instantly.  Then  we  come  to  the  point,  perception:  whether  it  is
possible to perceive – it sounds a little odd, and perhaps a little crazy, but it is
not,  is  it  possible  to  perceive  without  all  the  movement  of  memory?  To
perceive something directly without the word, without the reaction, without the
memories entering into perception.    98
DB: Yes, well that is a very big question because memory has constantly
entered perception.
JK: Of course. That is the whole…
DB: You see it would raise the question of what is going to stop memory
from entering perception?
JK: Nothing can stop it. But if I see the reason, the rationality of the activity
of  memory  which  is  limited,  the  very  perception  that  it  is  limited,  you  have
moved out of it into another dimension.
DB:  Well  it  seems  to  me  that  you  have  to  perceive  the  whole  of  the
limitation of memory.
JK: Yes, not one part.
DB: You can see in general that memory is limited but there are many ways
in which this is not obvious. For example many of our reactions that are not
obvious may be memory but we don’t experience them as memory, you see.
Like you say I experience me as being there presently and not memory. That
is  the  common  experience.  Say,  suppose  I  say  I  am  becoming.  I  want  to
become  less  greedy,  so  I  experience  greed  and  I  experience  the  urge  to
become as an actual…
JK:…actuality.
DB:…actuality, it may be the result of memory but I say I can remember that
I am greedy but this me is the one who remembers, not the other way around,
that memory creates me – right?
JK: Sir, all this really comes down to: can man live, humanity live without
conflict? That really basically comes to that. Can we have peace on this earth?
DB: Yes, well… go on.
JK: And the activities of thought never bring it about.
DB: Yes, well it seems clear from what has been said that the activity of
thought cannot bring about peace, it is inherently, psychologically it inherently
brings about conflict.    99
JK: Yes, if we once really see or (?) that, our whole activity would be totally
different.
DB: But are you saying there is an activity which is not thought then?
JK: Which is not?
DB: Which is beyond thought?
JK: Yes.
DB: And which is not only beyond thought but which does not require the
cooperation of thought?
JK: Certainly not.
DB: That it is possible for this to go when thought is absent?
JK: That is the real point. We have often discussed this, whether there is
anything beyond thought. Not something holy, sacred – I am not talking of that.
I  am  talking:  is  there  an  activity  which  is  not  touched  by  thought?  We  are
saying there is. And that activity is the highest form of intelligence.
DB: Yes, now we have brought in intelligence.
JK: I know, I purposively brought it in! So intelligence is not the activity of
cunning thought. There is intelligence to build a table.
DB: Yes well intelligence can use thought, as you have often said.
JK: Intelligence can use thought.
DB: Yes, that is thought can be the action of intelligence – would you put it
that way?
JK: Yes.
DB: Or it could be the action of memory?
JK: That’s it. Either it is the action born of memory and therefore memory is
limited, therefore thought is limited and it has its own activity which then brings
about conflict.    100
DB:  I  think  this  would  connect  up  with  what  people  are  saying  about
computers. You see every computer must eventually depend on some kind of
memory, on memory, which is put in, or…
JK:…programmed…
DB:…programmed. And that must be limited – right?
JK: Of course.
DB:  Because  the  –  therefore  when  we  operate  from  memory  we  are  not
very different from a computer; the other way around perhaps, the computer is
not very different from us.
JK:  I  would  say  once  a  Hindu  has  been  programmed  for  the  last  five
thousand years to be a Hindu, or in this country you have been programmed
as British, or as a Catholic or as a Protestant. So we are all programmed up to
a certain extent.
DB: Yes, now then we could say there – you are bringing in the notion of an
intelligence which is free of the programme, it is creative perhaps and…
JK: Yes, that’s right. That intelligence has nothing to do with memory and
knowledge.
DB: Yes. It may act in memory and knowledge but it is has nothing to do
with it…
JK: Yes it can act through memory, etc. That’s right. I mean how do you
find out whether it has any reality, not just imagination and romantic nonsense,
how do you find out? To come to that one has to go into the whole question of
suffering, whether there is an ending to suffering, and as long as suffering and
fear and the pursuit of pleasure exists there cannot be love.
DB:  Yes,  well  there  are  many  questions  there.  Now  the first  point  is  say
suffering, or including pleasure, fear, suffering and I suppose we could include
anger and violence and greed in that.
JK: Of course, otherwise…
DB: We could say first of all that all those are the response of memory.    101
JK: Yes.
DB: They are nothing to do with intelligence.
JK: They are all part of thought and memory.
DB:  And  as  long  as  they  are  going  on  it  seems  to  me  that  intelligence
cannot operate in thought.
JK: That’s right.
DB: Through thought.
JK: So there must be freedom from suffering.
DB: Yes, well that is a very key point. Now…
JK: That is really a very serious and deep question. Whether it is possible
to end suffering, which is the ending of me.
DB: Yes again, it may seem repetitious but the feeling is that I am there and
I either suffer or don’t suffer. I either enjoy things or suffer.
JK: Yes I know that.
DB:  Now  I  think  you  are  saying  that  suffering  arises  from  thought,  it  is
thought.
JK: Identified.
DB: Yes. And that…
JK: Attachment.
DB: So what is it that suffers? You see there is this feeling – it is really the
opposite  of  the  feeling  of  pleasure,  it  seems  to  me,  that  whatever  pleasure,
memory  may  produce  pleasure  and  then  when  it  doesn’t  work  it  produces  –
and when it is suppressed it produces pain and suffering.
JK: Not only that. Suffering is much more complex, isn’t it?
DB: Yes.
JK: Suffering – what is suffering?
DB: Yes, that is…    102
JK: The meaning of the word is to have pain, to have grief, to feel utterly
lost, lonely.
DB: Well it seems to me that it is not only pain but a kind of a total pain, a
very pervasive…
JK: But suffering is the loss of someone.
DB: Or the loss of something very important.
JK: Yes, of course. Loss of my wife, or loss of my son, brother, or whatever
it is, and the desperate sense of loneliness.
DB: Or else just simply the fact that the whole world is going into such a
state.
JK: Of course Sir. I mean all the wars.
DB: It makes everything meaningless you see.
JK: What a lot of suffering the Falkland wars have created.
DB: Well all these wars.
JK: And wars have been going on for thousands of years. That is why I am
saying  we  are  carrying  on  with  the  same  pattern  of  the  last  five  thousands
years or more, of wars.
DB: Yes now one can easily see that the violence and hatred in wars will
interfere with intelligence.
JK: Obviously.
DB: Now it is not quite so obvious, I think, you see some people have felt
that by going through suffering people become…
JK:…intelligent?..
DB:…purified, like going through the crucible – right?
JK: I know. That through suffering you learn.
DB: Or you are purified in some way.    103
JK:  You  are  purified.  This  is  through  suffering  your  ego  is  vanished,
dissolved.
DB: Yes dissolved, refined.
JK:  It  doesn’t.  People  have  suffered  immensely.  How  many  wars,  how
many tears and the destructive nature of governments?
JK: Multiply them – unemployment, ignorance…
DB:…ignorance of disease, pain, everything. But you see what is suffering
really?  Why  does  it  destroy  intelligence,  or  prevent  it?  Why  does  suffering
prevent intelligence? What is going on really?
JK: Suffering is only concerned – is a shock, is – I suffer, I have pain, it is
the essence of the me.
DB: Yes the difficulty with suffering is that it is the me that is there that is
suffering.
JK: Yes.
DB: And this me is really being sorry for itself in some way.
JK: My suffering is different from your suffering.
DB: It isolates itself, yes.
JK: Yes.
DB: It creates an illusion of some kind.
JK: We don’t see suffering is shared by all humanity.
DB: Yes, but suppose we see it is shared by all humanity?
JK: Then I begin to question what suffering is. It is not my suffering.
DB:  Yes,  well  that  is  important.  In  order  to  understand  the  nature  of
suffering I have to get out of this idea that it is my suffering because as long as
I believe it is my suffering I have an illusory notion of the whole thing.
JK: And I can never end it.    104
DB: If you are dealing with an illusion you can do nothing with it. You see
why – we have to come back. Why is suffering the suffering of many? At first it
seems  that  I  feel  pain  in  the  tooth,  or  else  I  have  a  loss,  or  something  has
happened to me, and the other person seems perfectly happy.
JK: Happy, yes. But also he is suffering too in his own way.
DB: Yes. At the moment he doesn’t see it but he has his problems too.
JK: Suffering is common to all humanity.
DB: Yes but the fact that it is common is not enough to make it all one.
JK: It is actual.
DB: Yes, but I want to – are you saying that the suffering of mankind is all
one, inseparable?
JK: Yes Sir. That is what I have been saying.
DB: As is the consciousness of man?
JK: Yes, that’s right.
DB: That when anybody suffers the whole of mankind is suffering.
JK: If one country kills hundreds and thousands of human beings – no, the
whole point is we have suffered from the beginning of time we have suffered,
and we haven’t solved it.
DB: No, it is clear that it hasn’t been solved. We haven’t solved it.
JK: We haven’t ended suffering.
DB: But I think you have said something, and the thing you said is that the
reason we haven’t solved it because we are treating it as personal or as in a
small group where it cannot – that is an illusion.
JK: Yes.
DB: Now any attempt to deal with an illusion cannot solve anything. Now
the – we would like to make it very clear…
JK: Thought cannot solve anything psychologically.    105
DB: Well yes because you can say that the thought itself divides. Thought
is limited and is not able to see that this suffering is all one – right? And that
way divides it up as mine and yours.
JK: That’s right.
DB:  And  that  creates  illusion  which  can  only  multiply  suffering.  Now  it
seems  to  me  that  the  statement  that  suffering  of  mankind  is  one,  is
inseparable from the statement that consciousness of mankind is one.
JK: We said that. Suffering is part of our consciousness.
DB: But one doesn’t get the feeling immediately that this suffering belongs
to the whole of mankind, you see.
JK: Sir, the world is me, I am the world.
DB: You have often said that.
JK:  Yes.  But  we  have  divided  it  up  into  the British  earth  and  the  French
earth and all the rest of it.
DB: Do you mean by the world, the physical world, or the world of society,
or?
JK:  The  world  of  society,  the  world  –  the  psychological  world  primarily,
chiefly.
DB: So we say the world of society, of human beings, is one and when I
say I am that world, what does it mean?
JK: The world is not different from me.
DB: The world and I are one – right? We are inseparable.
JK: Yes. And that requires – that is real meditation, you must feel this, not
just verbal statement, it is an actuality. I am my brother’s keeper.
DB: Yes, now many religions have said that.
JK: That is just a verbal statement and they don’t keep it, they don’t do it in
their hearts.    106
DB: Perhaps some have done it but in general it is not being done – right? I
mean there may have been a few.
JK: I don’t know if anybody has done it – we human beings haven’t done it.
Our religions actually have prevented it.
DB:  Because  of  division,  every  religion  has  its  own  beliefs  and  its  own
organization?
JK: Of course. Its own gods and its own saviours.
DB: Yes.
JK: So from that, is that intelligence actual? You understand my question?
Or is it some kind of fanciful projection, hoping that it will solve our problems?
It is not to me. It is an actuality. Because the ending of suffering means love.
DB: Yes now before we go on, let’s clear up a point about me. You see you
said it is not to me. Now in some sense it seems that you are still defining an
individual – is that right?
JK: Yes, yes. When I say I am really – I am using the word «I» as a means of
communication.
DB: Yes but what does it mean? You see in some way let’s say there may
be two people, let’s say ‘A’ who is the way you see and ‘B’ who is not, eh?
JK: Yes.
DB: So ‘A’ says it is not – that seems to create a division between ‘A’ and
‘B’.
JK: That’s right. But ‘B’ creates the division.
DB: Why?
JK: So what is the relationship between the two?
DB: Yes. You see ‘B’ is creating – yes well ‘B’ is creating the division by
saying, «I am a separate person» but it may confuse ‘B’ further when ‘A’ says
«It’s not that way to me» – right?    107
JK: Yes. Sir, that is the whole point, isn’t it, in relationship. You feel that you
are not separate and that you really have this sense of love and compassion,
and I haven’t got it. I haven’t even perceived or gone into this question. What is
your relationship to me?
DB: Yes, well…
JK:  That’s  what  I  am  saying:  your  relationship  to  me  –  you  have  a
relationship with me but I haven’t any relationship with you.
DB:  Yes,  well  I  think  one  could  say  that  the  person  who  hasn’t  seen  is
almost  living  a  world  of  dreams  psychologically  and  therefore  the  world  of
dreams is not related to the world of being awake.
JK: That’s right.
DB:  But  the  fellow  who  is  awake  can  at  least  perhaps  awaken  the  other
fellow.
JK: You are awake, I am not. Then your relationship with me is very clear.
But I have no relationship with you, I cannot. I insist on division and you don’t.
DB: Yes, in some way we have to say the consciousness of mankind has
divided itself, it is all one but it has divided itself…
JK: Of course, of course.
DB:…by thought – right?
JK: That’s is what we have been through.
DB: Yes and why we are in this situation.
JK: That is why – all the problems that humanity has now, psychologically
as well in other ways, is the result of thought. And we are pursuing the same
pattern  of  thought,  and  thought  will  never  solve  any  of  these  problems.  So
there is another kind of instrument, which is intelligence.
DB: Yes, well that opens up an entirely different subject.
JK: Yes, I know.
DB: And you also mentioned love as well.    108
JK: Yes.
DB: And compassion.
JK: Without love and compassion there is no intelligence. And you cannot
be  compassionate  if  you  are  attached  to  some  religion,  some  post,  you  are
tied to a post like an animal tied to a post, and it can think it is compassionate.
DB:  Yes  well  as  soon  as  your  self  is  threatened  then  it  cannot  –  it  all
vanishes, you see.
JK: Of course. But you see, self hides behind…
DB:…other things. I mean noble ideals.
JK: Yes, yes. It has immense capacity to hide itself. So what is the future of
mankind? From what one observes it is leading to destruction.
DB: That is the way it seems to be going, yes.
JK:  Very  gloomy,  grim,  dangerous  and  if  one  has  children  what  is  their
future?  To  enter  into  all  this?  And  go  through  all  the  misery  of  it  all.  So
education becomes extraordinarily important. But now education is merely the
accumulation of knowledge.
DB:  Yes  well  every  instrument  that  man  has  invented,  discovered,  or
developed has been turned toward destruction.
JK:  Yes  Sir.  Absolutely.  They  are  destroying  nature,  there  are  very  few
tigers now.
DB: Very few?
JK: Tigers. They are destroying everything.
DB: They are destroying forests and agricultural land.
JK: Over population. Nobody seems to care.
DB: I think people – there are two things: one is people are immersed in
their own problems – right?
JK: They are immersed in their own little plans to save humanity!    109
DB:  Well  some,  most  people  are  just  immersed  in  their  plans  to  save
themselves  but  those  others  have  plans  to  save  humanity,  but  I  think  also
there is a tendency toward  despair implicit in what is happening now in that
people don’t think anything can be done.
JK: Yes. And if they think something can be done they form little groups
and little theories.
DB: Yes, well there are those who are very confident in what they are doing
and those who…
JK: Most Prime Ministers are very confident. They don’t know what they are
doing really.
DB: Yes but then most people haven’t much confidence in what they are
doing.
JK:  I  know,  I  know.  If  you  have  tremendous  confidence  I  accept  your
confidence and go with you.
DB: Yes. Since thought is limited…
JK: Ah, then we… No Sir, what is the future of man, mankind, the future of
humanity – I wonder if anybody is concerned with it? Or each person, or each
group is only concerned with its own survival?
DB:  Well  I  think  the  first  concern  almost  always  has  been  with  survival
either  the  individual  or  the  group.  You  see  that  has  been  the  history  of
mankind.
JK: Therefore perpetual wars, perpetual insecurity.
DB:  Yes,  but  this,  as  you  said,  is  the  result  of  thought  which  makes  the
mistake on the basis of being incomplete to identify the self, you know, with
the group and so on.
JK: You happen to listen to all this. You agree to all this, you see the truth
of all this. Those in power will not even listen to you.
DB: No.    110
JK: They are creating more and more misery, more and more – the world
becoming  dangerous,  how  do  you  then  –  what  is  the  point  of  you  and  I
agreeing, seeing something true? This is what people are asking: what is the
point of you and I seeing something to be true and what effect has it?
DB: Yes, well it seems to me if we think in terms of the effects…
JK: Yes, also it is a wrong question.
DB: We are bringing in the very thing which is behind the trouble, time. That
is the first response would be we must quickly get in and do something…
JK:…do something.
DB:…to change the course of events.
JK: Therefore form a society, foundation, organization and all the rest of it.
DB: But you see our mistake is to do that we must think about something,
and  that  thought  is  incomplete.  We  don’t  really  know  what  is  going  on  and
people have made theories about it but they don’t know.
JK: No, but come down to it: if that is the wrong question, then as a human
being, who is mankind, what is my responsibility?
DB: Well I think it is the same…
JK: Apart from effect and all the rest of it.
DB: Yes, we can’t look toward effects. But is the same as with ‘A’ and ‘B’,
that ‘A’ sees, and ‘B’ does not – right?
JK: Yes.
DB: Now suppose ‘A’ sees something and most of the rest of mankind does
not. Then it seems, one could say mankind is in some way dreaming, asleep.
JK: It is caught in illusion.
DB: Illusion. And the point is that to somehow, if somebody sees something
then his responsibility is to help awake the others up – right? To get out of the
illusion.    111
JK:  That  is  just  it.  I  mean  this  has  been  the  problem.  That  is  why  the
Buddhists have projected the idea of the Bodhisattva, who is compassionate
and  is  the  essence  of  all  compassion,  and  is  waiting  to  save  humanity.  It
sounds  nice.  It  is  a  happy  feeling  that  there  is  somebody  doing  this.  But  in
actuality we won’t do anything that is not comfortable, satisfying, secure, both
psychologically and physically.
DB: Yes, well that is the source of the illusion, basically.
JK:  How  does  one  make  another  see  all  this?  They  haven’t  time,  they
haven’t the energy, they haven’t even the inclination. They want to be amused.
How does one make ‘X’ see this whole thing so clearly that he says, «All right, I
have got it, I will work. And I see I am responsible, I won’t be…» and all the rest
of it. I think that is the tragedy of those who see and those who don’t.
Is that over? Is it over Sir?
DB: I think it depends on how far we want to go.
JK: We have talked an hour.
DB: An hour and a half.
JK: We will wait now, sit quietly. Finished Sir?    112
Brockwood Park 2nd Conversation With Prof D
Bohm
20th June 1983 The Future Of Mankind
J.Krishnamurti: Sir, last time we were talking about the future of man. All
the psychologists, as far as I can understand, are they really concerned with
the future of man? Or are they concerned with the human being conforming to
the present society, or going beyond that?
David Bohm: Well I think that most psychologists evidently want the human
being to conform to this society, but I think some psychologists, some of whom
will  be  listening  to  us,  are  thinking  of  going  beyond  that  to  transform  the
consciousness of mankind.
JK: Can the consciousness of mankind be changed through time? That is
one of the questions we should discuss this evening.
DB: Yes. We have discussed it actually last time and I think that what came
out was that with regard to consciousness time is not relevant, that it is a kind
of illusion. We discussed the illusion of becoming.
JK:  We  are  saying,  aren’t  we,  let’s  be  clear,  that  the  evolution  of
consciousness is a fallacy.
DB: As through time, right. Though physical evolution is not.
JK: Can we put it this way, much more simply: there is no psychological
evolution, or the evolution of the psyche?
DB: Yes. And since the future of mankind depends on the psyche it seems
then that the future of mankind is not going to be determined through actions
in time.
JK: Time, that’s right.
DB: And then that left us the question: what will we do?
JK: Now let’s proceed from there. Shouldn’t we first distinguish between the
brain and the mind?    113
DB:  Yes,  well  that  distinction  has  been  made  and  it  is  not  clear.  Now  of
course there are several views. One view is say that the mind is just a function
of the brain – that is the materialists’ view. There is another view which says
mind and brain are two different things.
JK: Yes, I think they are two different things.
DB: But there must be…
JK: …a contact between the two.
DB: Yes.
JK: A relationship between the two.
DB: We don’t necessarily imply any separation of the two.
JK: No, first let’s see the brain. I am really not an expert on the structure of
the  brain  and  all  that  kind  of  thing.  But  one  can  see  within  one,  one  can
observe one’s own activity of the brain, that it is really like a computer that has
been programmed and remembers.
DB:  Well  certainly  a  large  part  of  the  activity  is  that  way,  but  one  is  not
certain that all of it is that way.
JK: No. And it is conditioned.
DB: Yes.
JK: Conditioned by past generations, by the society, by the newspapers, by
the  magazines,  by  all  the  activities  and  pressures  from  the  outside.  It  is
conditioned.
DB: Yes, now what do you mean by this conditioning?
JK:  It  is  programmed,  it  is  made  to  conform  to  a  certain  pattern,  lives
entirely on the past, modifying itself with the present and going on.
DB: Yes, now we have agreed that some of this conditioning is useful and
necessary.
JK: Of course. We discussed that last time.    114
DB:  Yes  and  now  –  but  the  conditioning  which  determines  the  self,  you
know, which determines the…
JK: …the psyche.
DB: …the psyche – you call it the psyche.
JK: Let’s call it for the moment the psyche.
DB: The psyche.
JK: The self.
DB: The self, the psyche, that conditioning is what you are talking about.
That may not only be unnecessary but harmful.
JK: Yes. That’s what we were discussing too.
DB: Yes.
JK:  The  emphasis  as  the  psyche,  as  we  are  doing  now,  and  giving
importance  to  the  self,  is  creating  great  damage  in  the  world  because  it  is
separative and it is – therefore it is constantly in conflict, not only within itself
and with the society, with the family and so on and so on.
DB: Yes. And it is also in conflict with nature.
JK: With nature, with the whole universe – if you can call it.
DB: I think we discussed last time that the conflict arose because…
JK: …of division…
DB: …the division arising because thought is limited…
JK: …thought is limited. That’s right.
DB:  Being  based  on  this  conditioning,  on  knowledge  and  memory,  it  is
limited.
JK: Limited, yes. And experience is limited, therefore knowledge is limited,
memory and thought. Thought is limited. And the very structure and the nature
of the psyche is the movement of thought.
DB: Yes.    115
JK: In time.
DB:  Yes.  Now  I  would  like  to  ask  a  question.  When  you  discussed  the
movement of thought, it doesn’t seem clear to me what is moving. You see I
discussed the movement of my hand, that is a real movement. It is clear what
is meant. But now when I discuss the movement of thought it seems to me we
are  discussing  something  which  is  a  kind  of  illusion  because  you  have  said
becoming is the movement of thought.
JK: Becoming is entirely.
DB: Therefore if you say…
JK: That is what I mean, the movement in becoming.
DB: But that movement you are saying is in some way illusory, aren’t you?
JK: Yes, of course, of course.
DB: It is rather like the movement on the screen which is projected from
the…
JK: …from the screen, from the camera…
DB: …from the camera. We say that there are no objects moving across the
screen but the only real movement is the turning of the projector. Now can we
say that there is a real movement in the brain which is projecting all this, which
is the conditioning?
JK:  Sir,  that  is  what  I  want  to  find  out.  Let’s  discuss  that  a  bit.  We  both
agree, or see, that the brain is conditioned.
DB: We mean by that that really it has been impressed physically.
JK: Physically as well as…
DB: And chemically…
JK: …genetically as well as psychologically.
DB: Well what is the difference of physically and psychologically?
JK: Psychologically it is centred in the self – right?    116
DB: Yes.
JK:  And  the  constant  assertion  of  the  self  is  the  movement,  is  the
conditioning.
DB: Yes, but in so far as we experience it that is an illusion-right?
JK: We said that that is an illusion.
DB: But there is some real movement happening inside, say the brain, for
example,  is  doing  something.  It  has  been  conditioned  physically  and
chemically…
JK: …chemically, yes.
DB: And something is happening physically and chemically when we are
thinking of the self – right?
JK: Are you saying, are you asking rather: the brain and the self are two
different things?
DB: No, I am saying the self is the result of conditioning the brain.
JK: Yes. The self is conditioning the brain.
DB: Yes. But does the self exist, you see?
JK: No, no.
DB: But the conditioning of the brain, as I see it, is involving with an illusion
which we call the self.
JK: That’s right. That’s right. Can that conditioning be dissipated?
DB: Yes.
JK: That’s the whole question.
DB:  It  really  has  to  be  dissipated  in  some  physical  and  chemical  and
neurophysiological sense.
JK: Yes.
DB:  Now  the  first  reaction  of  any  scientific  person  would  be  that  it  looks
unlikely that we could dissipate it by the sort of thing we are doing. You see   117
some scientists might feel that maybe we will discover drugs or new genetic
changes or deep knowledge of the structure of the brain. In that way we could
perhaps help to do something. I think that idea might be current among some
people.
JK: Will that change the human behaviour?
DB: Well why not? You see I think some people believe it might.
JK:  Wait  a  minute,  that  is  the  whole  point.  It  might,  which  means  in  the
future.
DB: Yes. It would take time to discover all this.
JK: To discover all this. In the meantime man is going to destroy himself.
DB: Well then they might hope that he will manage to do it in time. You see
because  they  could  also  criticize  what  we  are  doing,  the  same  point  saying
what good can it do? You see it doesn’t seem to affect anybody and certainly
not  in  time  to  make  a  big  difference.  You  see  that  is  a  question  that  would
arise. Suppose for the sake of argument…
JK: …we two are very clear about it. In what way does it affect humanity?
DB: Now will it affect mankind in time to really save…
JK: Certainly not. Obviously not.
DB: Then why should we be doing it?
JK: Because this is the right thing to do.
DB: Independently.
JK: Independently. It has nothing to do with reward and punishment.
DB: Nor with goals.
JK: Yes.
DB: You do the right thing even though we don’t know what the outcome
will be – right?
JK: That’s right.    118
DB: Are you saying there is no other way – right?
JK: We are saying there is no other way, that’s right.
DB: Yes, well we should make that clear. For example some psychologists
would  feel  that  by  enquiring  into  this  sort  of  thing  we  could  bring  about  an
evolutionary transformation of consciousness – right?
JK:  We  come  back  to  that  point  that  through  time  we  hope  to  change
consciousness. We question that.
DB: We have questioned that and are saying that time will inevitably involve
– we are all caught in becoming and illusion and we will not know what we are
doing.
JK: That’s right. That’s right.
DB: Now could we say the same thing would hold even for those scientists
who are trying to do it physically and chemically or some structurally, that they
themselves are still caught in this and through time they are caught in trying to
become better?
JK: Yes, that’s right. That’s right.
DB: They will not know what they are doing really.
JK: Both experimentalists and the psychologists and ourselves, they are all
trying to become something.
DB: Yes, though it may not seem obvious at first. It may seem that they are
really  just  disinterested,  or  unbiased  observers,  you  know,  working  on  the
problem, but underneath you feel there is the desire to become better on the
part of the person who is doing it.
JK: To become, of course, of course.
DB: He is not free of that.
JK: That is just it. They are not free of that.
DB: And that desire will give rise to self deception and illusion, and so on.    119
JK: So where are we now? That any form of becoming is an illusion, and
becoming implies time. Time for the psyche to change, we are saying time is
not necessary.
DB: Yes, now that ties up with the other question of the mind and the brain.
You see the brain clearly to be understood is an activity in time, as a physical
chemical complex process.
JK: I think the mind is separate from the brain.
DB: Well what does it mean separate? That is it is in contact.
JK: Separate in the sense the brain is conditioned and the mind is not.
DB: Well let’s say the mind has a certain independence of the brain is what
you are saying. Even if the brain is conditioned…
JK: …the other is not.
DB: It need not be…
JK: …conditioned.
DB: Now how – on what basis do you say that?
JK: No, let’s begin not on what basis do I say that.
DB: Well what makes you say it, right?
JK: As long as one’s brain, or the brain is conditioned, it is not free.
DB: Yes.
JK: And the mind is free.
DB: Yes, that is what you are saying. Now you see the brain not being free
means it is not free to enquire in an unbiased way.
JK: I will go into it. Let’s enquire: what is freedom?
DB: Yes.
JK: Freedom to enquire, as you point out, freedom to investigate, and it is
only in freedom there is deep insight.    120
DB: Yes, that’s clear because if you are not free to enquire – or if you are
biased then you are limited.
JK: Limited.
DB: In an arbitrary way.
JK:  So  as  long  as  the  brain  is  conditioned  its  relationship  to  the  mind  is
limited.
DB: Yes, now we have the relationship of the brain to the mind, and also
the other way round.
JK: Yes, yes. But the mind being free has a relationship to the brain.
DB: Yes. Now we say the mind is free in some sense, not subject to the
conditioning of the brain.
JK: Yes.
DB:  Now  one  could  ask  a  question:  what  is  the  nature  of  the  mind?  For
example I could ask is the mind located inside the body, or is it in the brain?
JK: No, it is nothing to do with the body or the brain.
DB: Has it to do with space or time?
JK: Space – just a minute – space – now wait a minute. It has to do with
space and silence. These are the two factors of the…
DB: But not time, right?
JK: Not time. Time belongs to the brain.
DB: You say space and silence, now what kind of space? It is not the space
in which we see life moving.
JK: Space. Let’s look round at it the other way. Thought can invent space.
DB: Well in addition we have the space that we see and thought can invent
all kinds of space.
JK: And space from here to there.
DB: Yes, the space through which we move is that way.    121
JK: Space also between two noises.
DB: Between two sounds.
JK: Sounds.
DB: Well that is the interval, they call that the interval. That would be called
the interval between two sounds.
JK: Yes, interval between two noises.
DB: Two noises, eh.
JK: Two thoughts.
DB: Two thoughts.
JK: Two notes.
DB: Yes.
JK: Space between two people.
DB: Space between the walls.
JK: And so on. But that kind of space is not the space of the mind.
DB: You say it is not limited.
JK: That’s right. I didn’t want to use the word limited.
DB:  But  I  mean  it  is  implied,  it  is  not  in  the  nature  of  being  bounded  by
something.
JK: No, it is not bounded by the psyche.
DB: By the psyche. But is it bounded by anything?
JK: No.
DB: Now you say the psyche is bounded because we have said it is limited
and so on. Right no?
JK:  So  can  the  brain,  that  is  what  I  want  to  find  out,  discuss  rather,  talk
over,  –  can  the  brain,  with  all  its  cells  conditioned,  can  those  cells  radically
change?    122
DB: Yes, well we often discussed this, it is not certain that all the cells are
conditioned. For example some people think that only some, or a small part of
the cells are being used, and the others are just rather being inactive, dormant.
JK: Used at all, or just touched occasionally.
DB:  Just  touched  occasionally.  But  those  cells  that  are  conditioned,
whatever they may be, evidently dominate consciousness now – right?
JK: Yes, can those cells be changed?
DB: Yes.
JK: We are saying that they can through insight.
DB: Yes, now…
JK: Insight being out of time, it is not the result of remembrance, it is not an
intuition, or desire, or hope, it is nothing to do with any time and thought.
DB: Yes, now you say insight, is it of the mind, is it of the nature of mind –
right? – activity of mind?
JK: Yes.
DB: Therefore you are saying mind can act in the matter of the brain.
JK: Yes, we said that earlier.
DB: Yes but we have to… but you see this is a difficult point, you see, how
mind is able to act in matter.
JK: It is able to act on the brain, say for instance, take any crisis, or any
problem. Problem – the root meaning of it is, as you know, is something thrown
at you. And we meet it with all the remembrance of the past, with a bias and so
on. And therefore the problem multiplies itself. You may solve one problem, in
the  very  solution  of  one  problem,  of  that  particular  problem,  other  problems
arise,  as  they  are  doing  in  politics  and  so  on  and  so  on.  Right?  Now  to
approach the problem or to have perception of the problem without any past
memories and thoughts interfering, or projecting in perception of the problem.
DB: Yes. Now that implies that perception also is of the mind, that it is not…    123
JK: Yes, that’s right.
DB: Are you more or less saying that the brain is a kind of instrument of the
mind? Is that what is being said?
JK: Instrument of the mind when the brain is not self-centred.
DB: Yes, well you see if we think of all this conditioning, the conditioning
may be thought of as the brain exciting itself and keeping itself going just from
the programme. This occupies all of its capacities.
JK: All our days, yes.
DB: The whole capacity of the brain. It is rather like a radio receiver which
can  generate  its  own  noise,  it  would  not  pick  up  a  signal.  Now  would  this
analogy be at all…
JK: Not quite.
DB: It is not very good but…
JK: Not very. You see Sir, would you go into this a little bit. Experience is
always limited – right? I may blow up that experience into a kind of fantastic
affair  and  then  set  up  a  shop  to  sell  my  experience,  but  that  experience  is
limited. And so knowledge is always limited. And this knowledge is operating in
the brain. This knowledge is the brain. Right? And thought is also part of the
brain and that thought is limited. So the brain is operating in a very, very small
area.
DB: Yes. What prevents it from operating in a broader area?
JK: What?
DB: What is preventing it from operating in an unlimited area?
JK: Thought.
DB: Thought. But the brain it seems to me is running on its own, from its
own programme.
JK: Yes, like a computer that is running on its own programme.    124
DB: Now essentially what you are asking is that the brain should really be
responding to the mind.
JK: That it can only respond if it is free from the limited – from the thought
which is limited.
DB: Yes so the programme does not dominate it. You see we are going to
still need that programme.
JK: Of course. We need it for…
DB:  …for  many  things.  Yes  but  the  intelligence  –  is  intelligence  from  the
mind then?
JK: Yes, intelligence is the mind.
DB: Is the mind.
JK:  Because  now  that  comes  into  –  we  must  go  into  something  else.
Because compassion is related to intelligence. There is no intelligence without
compassion.  And  compassion  can  only  be  when  there  is  love  which  is
completely free from all remembrances, personal jealousies and all that kind of
thing.
DB: Now is all that compassion, love, also of the mind?
JK:  Of  the  mind.  Not  –  and  you  cannot  be  compassionate  if  you  are
attached to any particular experience, or any particular ideal.
DB: Yes, well that is again the programme that is…
JK:  Yes.  Say  for  instance,  there are those people who go out to various
poverty ridden countries and work, work, work, and they call that compassion.
But  they  are  attached,  or  tied  to  a  particular  form  of  religious  belief  and
therefore that is merely pity, sympathy but it is not compassion.
DB:  Yes,  well  I  understand  that  we  have  here  two  things  which  can  be
somewhat  independent.  There  is  the  brain  and  the  mind,  though  they  make
contact. Now then intelligence and compassion we say come from beyond the
brain. Now then I would like to go into the question of how they are making
contact, you see.    125
JK: Ah! Contact can only exist between the mind and the brain when the
brain is quiet.
DB:  Yes,  that  is  the  condition  for  making  it,  that  is  the  requirement  for
making it. Now then the brain has got to be quiet.
JK: Sir, quiet is not a trained quietness. Not a self-conscious, meditative,
desire  for  silence.  It  is  a  natural  outcome  of  understanding  one’s  own
conditioning.
DB: Yes and one can see that if the brain is quiet then you could almost
say it could listen to something deeper – right?
JK: Deeper, that’s right. Then if is quiet it is related to the brain. No, to the
mind. Then the mind can function through the brain.
DB: Now I think that it would help if we could see with regard to the brain
whether it has any activity which is beyond thought. You see, for example, one
could ask is awareness part of the function of the brain?
JK: As long as awareness in which there is no choice – I am aware and in
that awareness I choose.
DB: Yes, well I think that may cause difficulty. You see what is wrong with
choice?
JK: Choice means confusion.
DB: It is not obvious just from the word. You see…
JK: After all you have to choose between two things.
DB: Now I could choose whether I will buy one thing or another.
JK: Yes, I can choose between this table and that table.
DB: I choose the colours when I buy the table.
JK: This is a better table.
DB: Apparently that need not be confused. If I choose which colour I want I
don’t see why that has to be confused.
JK: There is nothing wrong. There is no confusion there.    126
DB: But the choice, the choice about the psyche it seems to me is where
the confusion is.
JK: That’s all, about the psyche.
DB: One tends – you now the language tends to carry one away.
JK: We are talking of the psyche that chooses.
DB: That chooses to become really.
JK:  Yes.  Chooses  to  become,  and  also  choice  exists  where  there  is
confusion.
DB: Yes. Well you are saying out of confusion the psyche makes a choice
to  become  one  thing  or  another  –  right?  Being  confused  it  tries  to  become
something better.
JK: And choice implies a duality.
DB: Yes but now it seems at first sight we have another duality which you
have introduced, which is the mind and the brain.
JK: No, that is not a duality.
DB: That is important to get clear.
JK: That is not a duality.
DB: Yes, what is the difference?
JK:  All  right,  let’s  take  a  very simple  example.  Human beings are violent
and this has been – non-violence has been projected by thought and that is the
duality – the fact and the non-fact.
DB: Well you are saying there is a duality between a fact and some mere
projection which the mind makes.
JK: The ideal and the fact.
DB: Yes. The ideal is non-real and the fact is real.
JK: That’s it. The ideal is non, not actual.    127
DB: Yes, that is it. Not actual. Now then you say the division of those two
you call duality. Why do you give it that name?
JK: Because they are divided.
DB: Well at least they appear to be divided.
JK: Divided, and we are struggling as all, say for instance the totalitarian
communist ideals and the democratic ideals, they are the outcome of thought
and so on, which is limited and this is creating havoc in the world.
DB: Yes. So there is a division which has been brought in but I think we
were discussing in terms of dividing something which cannot be divided. We
are trying to divide the psyche.
JK: That’s right. Violence cannot be divided into non-violence.
DB: Yes. And the psyche cannot be divided into violence and non-violence
– right?
JK: It is what it is.
DB: It is what it is, so if it is violent it can’t be divided into a violent and a
non-violent part.
JK: That’s right. So – that is very good! So can we remain with ‘what is’, not
with ‘what should be’, ‘what must be’ and invent ideals and all the rest of it?
DB: Yes but could we return to the question of the mind and the brain. Now
we are saying that is not a division.
JK: Oh no, that is not a division.
DB: They are in contact, is that right?
JK:  We  said  there  is  contact  between  the  mind  and  the  brain  when  the
brain is silent and has space.
DB: Yes, so we are saying that although they are in contact and not divided
at  all,  there  can  be  an  independent  –  the  mind  can  still  have  a  certain
independence of the conditioning of the brain.    128
JK:  Now  careful  Sir,  careful,  careful!  Let’s  see.  Suppose  my  brain  is
conditioned, being programmed as a Hindu, and I function, act, my whole life
is  conditioned  by  the  idea  that  I  am  a  Hindu.  Mind  obviously  has  no
relationship with that conditioning.
DB: You are using the word mind, it means it is not my mind.
JK: Oh, mind, it is not mine.
DB: Universal or general.
JK: Yes. It is not my brain either.
DB: No, but there is a particular brain, this brain or that brain. Would you
say there is a particular mind?
JK: No.
DB: That is an important difference. You are saying mind is really universal.
JK: Mind is universal – if you can use that word, ugly word.
DB: Unlimited and undivided.
JK: It is unpolluted, not polluted by thought.
DB: But I think for most people there will be a difficulty in saying how do we
know anything about this mind. We only know that my mind is the first feeling –
right?
JK:  You  cannot  call  it  your  mind.  You  only  have  your  brain  which  is
conditioned. You can’t say, «It is my mind».
DB:  Yes,  well  whatever  is  going  on  inside  I  feel  is  mine  and  it  is  very
different from what is going on inside somebody else.
JK: No, I question whether it is different.
DB: At least it seems different.
JK: Yes. I question whether it is different, what is going on inside me as a
human being and you as another human being, we both go through all kinds of
problems, suffering, fear, anxiety, loneliness, suffer, and so on and so on. We
have our dogmas, beliefs, superstitions, and everybody has this.    129
DB: Well we can say it is all very similar but it seems as if each one of us is
isolated from the other.
JK:  By  thought.  My  thought  has  created  that  I  am  different  from  you,
because my body is different from you, my face is different from you, so we
carry that same – we extend that same thing into the psychological area.
DB: We have discussed that. But now if we said all right that division is an
illusion perhaps.
JK: No, not perhaps, it is.
DB: It is an illusion, all right. Although it is not obvious when a person first
looks at it.
JK: Of course, of course.
DB: Now then, we say mind – in reality even brain is not divided because
we are saying that we are all not only basically similar but really connected –
right? And then we say that beyond all that is mind which has no division at all.
JK: It is unconditioned.
DB: Yes, it would almost seem to imply then that in so far as a person feels
he is a separate being he has very little contact with mind – right?
JK: Quite right. That is what we said.
DB: No mind.
JK:  That  is  why  it  is  very  important  to  understand  not  the  mind  but  my
conditioning.  Then  whether  that,  my  conditioning,  human  conditioning,  can
ever be dissolved. That is the real issue.
DB: Yes. I think I mean still the mind, we won’t call it the mind but a human
being considers always what is the meaning. I think we want to understand the
meaning of what is being said. You see we have a mind that is universal, that
is in some kind of space you say, or is it its own space?
JK: It is not in me or in my brain.
DB: But it has a space.    130
JK: It is, it lives in space and silence.
DB: It lives in a space and silence, but it is the space of the mind. It is not a
space like this space?
JK: No. That is why we said space is not invented by thought.
DB: Yes, now is it possible then to perceive this space when the mind is
silent, to be in contact with it?
JK: Not perceive. Let’s see.
DB: When the brain is…
JK:  Let’s  see.  You  are  asking  a  question  whether  the  mind  can  be
perceived by the brain.
DB: Or at least somehow be aware, an awareness, a sense.
JK: Yes. We are saying yes, through meditation. You may not like to use
that word.
DB: Well I don’t mind.
JK: I think it is possible to bring about – you see Sir that is the difficulty.
When you use the word meditation it is generally understood there is always a
meditator meditating. Meditation is really an unconscious process, it is not a
conscious process.
DB:  How  are  able  to  say  that  meditation  takes  place  then  if  it  is
unconscious?
JK: It is taking place when the brain is quiet.
DB: Well you mean by consciousness all the movement of thought.
JK: The movement of thought.
DB: Feeling, desire, will and all that goes with it, right?
JK: Yes.
DB: There is a kind of awareness still, isn’t there?
JK: Oh yes. Depends what you call awareness.    131
DB: Yes.
JK: Awareness of what?
DB: Possibly awareness of something deeper, I don’t know.
JK: You see again, when you use the word deeper it is a measurement – oh
no Sir, I wouldn’t use that.
DB: Well let’s not use that. But let’s say that some kind of – you see there is
a kind of unconsciousness which we are simply not aware of at all. A person
may be unconscious of some of his problems, conflicts.
JK: Let’s go at it. Let’s go at it a bit more. If I do something consciously it is
the activity of thought.
DB: Yes.
JK: Right?
DB: Yes, it is thought reflecting on itself.
JK: Yes, it is the activity of thought. Now if I consciously meditate, practise,
do all this kind of what I call nonsense, then you are making the brain conform
to another series of patterns.
DB: Yes, it is more becoming.
JK: More becoming, that’s right.
DB: Yes, you are trying to become better.
JK: There is no – you can’t – there is no illumination by becoming. You can’t
be illumined, if I can use that word, by saying I am going to be a cheap guru.
DB: But now it seems very difficult to communicate something which is not
conscious, you see.
JK: That’s it. That’s the difficulty.
DB: Still it is not just being knocked out, or if a person is unconscious he is
knocked out too, but you don’t mean that.
JK: Of course not, good lord!    132
DB: Or under anaesthetic or…
JK:  No,  let’s  put  it  that  way:  conscious  meditation,  conscious  activity  to
control thought, to free oneself from conditioning, is not freedom.
DB:  Yes,  I  think  that  is  clear,  but  now  it  becomes  very  unclear  how  to
communicate what else.
JK: Wait a minute. How can I tell – you want to tell me what lies beyond
thought.
DB: Or when thought is silent.
JK: Quite, silent. What words would you use?
DB: Well I suggested the word awareness. What about the word attention?
JK: Attention is better for me.
DB: Yes.
JK: Would you say attention, in attention there is no centre as the me?
DB: Well in the kind of attention you are discussing. There is a kind, which
is the usual kind, where we pay attention because of what interests us.
JK: Attention is not concentration.
DB:  Yes  that  is  concentration.  But  we  are  discussing  a  kind  of  attention
without this me present which is not the activity of the conditioning.
JK: Not the activity of thought.
DB: Yes.
JK: In attention thought has no place.
DB:  Yes,  but  could  we  say  more:  what  do  you  mean  by  attention?  Now
would the derivation of the word be of any use? It means stretching the mind –
would that help?
JK: No, no. Would it help if we say concentration is not attention – right?
Effort is not attention. When I make effort to attend it is not attention. Attention
can only come into being when the self is not.    133
DB: Yes but that is going to get us in a circle because we are starting when
the self is. So there is a person who says meditation is necessary, it begins
with the self, he says, «I am here».
JK: No, I used the word carefully. Meditation means measure.
DB: Yes.
JK:  As  long  as  there  is  measurement,  which  is  becoming,  there  is  no
meditation. Let’s put it that way.
DB: Yes. We can discuss when there is not meditation.
JK: That’s right. Through negation the other is.
DB:  Because  if  we  succeed  in  negating  the  whole  activity  of  what  is  not
meditation the meditation will be there.
JK: That’s right. That’s right.
DB: That which is not meditation but which we think is meditation.
JK: Yes, that’s right. That is very clear. As long as there is measurement,
which is the becoming, which is the process of thought, meditation or silence
cannot be.
DB:  You  see  in  this  undirected  attention,  this  attention  is  it  of  the  mind,
or…?
JK: Attention is of the mind.
DB: Well it contacts the brain, doesn’t it?
JK: Yes. We said that. As long as the brain is silent, the other has contact.
DB: That is this true attention has contact with the brain when the brain is
silent.
JK: Silent and has space.
DB: What is the space?
JK: The brain has no space now because it is concerned with itself, it is
programmed, it is self-centred and it is limited.    134
DB: Yes, now would you say the brain in addition, the mind is in its space,
now does the brain have its space too?
JK: Limited.
DB: Limited space?
JK: Of course. Thought has a limited space.
DB:  But  still  this  –  but  when  thought  is  absent  does  the  brain  have  its
space?
JK: That’s right. That’s right. The brain has space, yes.
DB: Unlimited?
JK: No. It is only mind that has unlimited.
DB: Unlimited.
JK: My brain can be quiet over a problem which I have thought about and I
suddenly  say,  «Well  I  won’t  think  any  more  about  it»  and  there  is  a  certain
amount of space. In that space you solve the problem.
DB: Yes, now if the mind is silent, is not thinking of a problem, then still the
space is limited, but it is open to…
JK: …to the other.
DB: …to the attention. Would you say that the mind through attention, or in
attention, the mind is contacting the brain?
JK: When the brain is not inattentive.
DB: So what happens to the brain?
JK: What happens to the brain? Which is to act. Right? Which is to – wait –
let’s get it clear. We said intelligence is the – is born out of compassion and
love. That intelligence operates when the brain is quiet.
DB: Yes, does it operate through attention?
JK: Of course, of course.
DB: So attention seems to be the contact.    135
JK: Contact, attention naturally. Attention, we said too, can only be when
the self is not.
DB: Yes. Now you say that love and compassion are sort – the ground, and
out of this comes the intelligence through attention.
JK: Through, yes, functions through the brain.
DB: And this intelligence – so let’s say, there are two questions: one is the
nature of this intelligence, and the second is what does it do to the brain, you
see?
JK: Yes. Sir, let’s see. That is we must again approach it negatively. Love is
not jealousy and all that. Love is not personal, but it can be personal.
DB: Then it is not what you are talking about.
JK: Yes. Love is not my country, your country, I love my god, it is not that.
DB: Well if it is from universal mind…
JK:  That  is  why  I  say  love  is  something  not  –  it  has  no  relationship  to
thought.
DB: Yes and to particular – it does not start in the particular brain, originate
in the particular brain.
JK: Yes, it is not my love.
DB: Yes.
JK: When there is that love, out of that there is compassion and there is
intelligence.
DB:  Now  this  intelligence,  the  nature  of  this  intelligence,  that  is  –  this
intelligence is able to, if I could use the word, understand deeply.
JK: No, not understand. Let’s look at it.
DB: What does it do? Does it perceive?
JK: Through perception it acts.
DB: Yes. Perception of what?    136
JK: Perception – now let’s discuss perception. There can be perception only
when it is not tinged by thought.
DB: When it is not?
JK: Tinged or a hint of – when there is no interference from the movement
of  thought  there  is  perception,  which  is  direct  insight  into  a  problem,  or  into
human complex.
DB: Yes, now this perception originates in the mind?
JK: Does the perception originate in the mind? Let’s look at it. Yes. When
the brain is quiet.
DB: Yes, but we used the words perception and intelligence, now what –
how are they related, or what is their difference?
JK: Between perception and intelligence?
DB: Yes.
JK: None.
DB: So we can say intelligence is perception.
JK: Yes, that’s right.
DB:  Intelligence  is  perception  of  ‘what  is’  –  right?  And  through  attention
there is contact.
JK: Sir, let’s take a problem, it is probably easier to understand.
DB: Yes.
JK: Take  a  problem of suffering. Human beings have suffered endlessly,
through  wars,  through  every  kind  of  disease,  physical  disease,  and  through
wrong relationship with each other. Man has suffered a great deal. Now can
that end?
DB: Yes. Well I would say that the difficulty of ending that is that it is on the
programme. We are conditioned to this whole thing – right?
JK: Yes, to this whole thing.    137
DB: And it is physically and chemically…
JK: We are conditioned. Now that has been going on for centuries.
DB: Yes, so it is very deep, somewhat.
JK: Very, very deep. Now can that suffering end?
DB: Yes and it cannot end by an action of the brain.
JK: By thought.
DB: Because the brain is caught in suffering and it cannot take an action to
end its own suffering.
JK:  Of  course  it  cannot.  That  is  why  thought  cannot  end  it.  Thought  has
created it.
DB: Yes, thought has created it and anyway it is unable to get hold of it.
JK:  Yes,  thought  has  created  the  wars,  the  misery,  the  confusion,  and
thought has become prominent in human relationship.
DB: Yes, you see I think people might agree with that and still think that
thought – that as thought can do bad things, it can do good things.
JK: No, thought cannot do good or bad. It is thought, limited.
DB: Thought cannot get hold of this suffering. That is this suffering being in
the  physical  conditioning  of  the  brain,  and  chemical,  thought  has  no  way  of
knowing what it is even.
JK: I mean I lose my son and I am…
DB: Yes but I mean by thinking I don’t know what is going on inside me. I
can’t change the suffering inside because thinking will not show me what it is.
Now you are saying it is intelligence.
JK: But after all we are asking can suffering end? That is a problem.
DB: Yes, and it is clear that thinking cannot do it.
JK: Thought cannot do it.
DB: No. All right. Now because…    138
JK: That is the point. If I have an insight into it…
DB: Yes, now this insight will be through the action of the mind, intelligence,
and attention.
JK: When there is that insight intelligence wipes away suffering.
DB:  Yes,  now  you  are  saying  therefore  there  is  a  contact  from  mind  to
matter which removes the whole physical chemical structure which keeps us
going on with suffering.
JK:  That’s  right.  In  that  ending  there  is  a  mutation  in  the  brain  cells.  We
discussed this some years ago.
DB: Yes and that mutation just wipes out the whole structure that makes
you suffer.
JK: Yes. Therefore it is like I have been going along a certain tradition, I
suddenly change that tradition there is a change in the whole brain, which has
been going North, now it goes East.
DB: Of course this is a radical notion from the point of view of traditional
ideas in science because if we accept that mind that is different from matter
then people would find it hard to say that mind would actually…
JK: Mind is after all, Sir… would you put it mind is pure energy?
DB: Well we could put it that way, but say matter is energy too.
JK: Therefore matter is limited, thought is limited.
DB: But we are saying that the pure energy of mind is able to reach into the
limited energy of man.
JK: Yes, that’s right. And change the limitation.
DB: Yes to remove some of the limitation.
JK: When there is a deep issue, or a problem, or a challenge which you are
facing.
DB:  Yes,  so  we  have  thought  –  we  could  also  add  that  all  the  traditional
ways of trying doing this cannot work because…    139
JK: It hasn’t worked.
DB: Well that is not enough. We have to say, because people still might
hope it could, it cannot actually.
JK: It cannot.
DB: Because thought cannot get at the basis of its own physical, its own
physical chemical basis in the cells, and do anything about those cells.
JK: Yes Sir, we have said that very clearly. Thought cannot bring about a
change in itself.
DB:  And  yet  practically  everything  that  mankind  has  been  trying  to  do  is
based on thought. There is a limited area, of course, where that is all right but
we  cannot,  therefore,  as  we  said,  we  were  discussing  before,  do  anything
about the future of mankind from the usual approach.
JK: Sir, look that is what – when you listen to the politicians who are so very
active  in  the  world,  they  are  creating  problem  after  problem  and  to  them
thought is the most important thing, ideals.
DB: Well generally speaking nobody knows they can know of anything else.
JK: Exactly. We are saying the old instrument which is thought is worn out,
except in certain areas.
DB: Well it never was adequate except in those areas.
JK: Of course, of course.
DB: And man has always been in trouble as far as history goes.
JK: Yes Sir, man has always been in trouble, in turmoil, fear. We mustn’t
reduce all this to an intellectual argument. But as human beings, facing all the
confusion of the world, can there be a solution to all this?
DB:  Yes,  that  comes  back  to  the  question  I  would  like  to  repeat  that  it
seems here there are a few people who are talking about it, and think perhaps
they know, and perhaps meditating and so on, but how is that going to affect
this vast current of mankind?    140
JK: Probably very little. But why will it affect? It might, or it might not.
DB: It might not. It might or it might not.
JK: But then one puts that question: then what is the use of it?
DB: Yes, that’s the point. I think there is an instinctive feeling that makes
one put the question.
JK: Yes. I think that is the wrong question.
DB: But that is the wrong question. You see the first instinct is to say, «What
can we do to stop this tremendous catastrophe?»
JK: Yes. But if each one of us, whoever listens, sees the truth of this that
thought in its activity both externally and inwardly has created a terrible mess,
great suffering, then one must inevitably ask is there an ending to all this? If
thought cannot end it what will?
DB: Yes.
JK: What is the new instrument that will put an end to all this misery? You
see there is a new instrument which is the mind and so on and so on.
DB: Yes.
JK:  Which  is  intelligence.  But  you  see  the  difficulty  is  also  people  won’t
listen to all this. They have  come  to  definite  conclusions, both the scientists
and the ordinary layman like us, they won’t listen.
DB: Yes, well that is the sort of point I had in mind when I said a few people
don’t seem to have much affect.
JK:  Of  course,  of  course.  I  think  after  all  few  people  have  changed  the
world. Hitler was a – whether good or bad, that is not the point.
DB: Well he didn’t change it fundamentally.
JK:  No,  change  the  world  superficially  if  you  like.  The  revolution  of  the
Bolsheviks,  the  communists,  has  changed,  but  they  have  gone  to  the  same
pattern  again.  Physical  revolution  has  never  changed  psychologically  the
human state.    141
DB:  Well  do  you  think  it  is  possible  that  say  a  certain  number  of  brains
coming  in  contact  with  mind  in  this  way  will  be  able  to  have  an  affect  on
mankind  which  is  beyond  just  the  immediate  obvious  effect  of  their
communication?
JK: Yes, that’s right. That’s right.
DB: I mean obviously whoever does this may communicate in the ordinary
way and it will have a small effect but now this is a possibility of something
entirely different – right?
JK:  You  see  how  do  you  –  I  have  often  thought  about  it  –  how  do  you
convey to all this rather subtle and very complex issue, how do you convey all
this to a person who is steeped in tradition, who is conditioned and won’t even
take time to listen, to consider?
DB: Yes, well that is a question. You see one point you could say is that
this conditioning cannot be absolute, you know an absolute block or else there
would be no way out at all. But the conditioning may be thought to have some
sort of permeability.
JK:  I  mean  after  all  the  Pope  won’t  listen  to  us,  but  the  Pope  has
tremendous influence.
DB: Is it possible that every person has something he can listen to if it could
be found?
JK: If he takes a little patience. Who will listen? The politicians won’t listen.
The  idealists  won’t  listen.  The  totalitarians  won’t  listen.  The  deeply  steeped
religious people won’t listen. So perhaps Sir that is the whole point, a so-called
ignorant  person,  not  highly  educated  and  conditioned  in  his  professional
career, money, the poor man who says, «I am suffering, please let’s end that.»
DB: Well but he doesn’t listen either, you see. He wants to get a job.
JK: Of course. He says, «Feed me first». We have been through all this for
the last sixty years. The poor man won’t listen, the rich man won’t listen, the
learned won’t listen and the deeply dogmatic religious believers don’t listen. So   142
perhaps it is like a wave in the world it might catch somebody. I think it is a
wrong question to say, does it affect?
DB: Yes all right. We will say that that brings in time and that is becoming, it
brings in the psyche in the process of becoming again.
JK: Yes. But if you say… it must affect mankind.
DB: Well are you proposing that it affects mankind through the mind directly
rather than through…
JK: Yes, yes.
DB: We are taking this very seriously this…
JK: It may not show immediately in action.
DB:  Yes.  You  are  taking  very  seriously  what  you  said  that  the  mind  is
universal and is not located in our ordinary space, is not separate…
JK: Yes. You see Sir there is a danger in saying this, the mind is universal,
that is what some people say of the mind, and it has become a tradition.
DB: You can turn it into an idea of course.
JK: Of course, that is just the danger of it, that is what I am saying.
DB:  Yes.  But  what  you  are  saying  is  –  really  the  question  is  we  have  to
come directly in contact with this to make it real – right?
JK: Of course, that’s it. They can only come into contact with it when the
self is not. To put it very, very simply, and therefore when the self is not there
is  beauty,  there  is  silence,  space,  then  that  intelligence  which  is  born  of
compassion operates through the brain. It is very simple.
DB: Yes. Would it be worth discussing the self – the question of – you see
since the self is active widely…
JK: I know, but that is our long tradition of many, many centuries.
DB:  Now  is  there  some  aspect  of  meditation  which  can  be  helpful  here
when the self is acting. You see suppose a person says, «OK I am caught in
the self but I want to get out. But I want to know what shall I do.»    143
JK: Ah! You see that is…
DB: I won’t use the words what shall I do, but what do you say?
JK: That is very simple. Is the observer different from the observed?
DB: Well suppose we say, «Yes, it appears to be different», then what?
JK: Is that an idea or an actuality?
DB: What do you mean?
JK:  Actuality  is  when  there  is  no  division  between  the  thinker  and  the
thought.
DB: But suppose I say ordinarily one feels the observer is different from the
observed. I say we begin there.
JK: We begin there. I’ll show you. Look at it. Are you different from your
anger, from your envy, from your suffering? You are not.
DB: At first sight it appears that I am, you see that I might try to control it.
JK: You are that.
DB: Yes, how will I see that I am that?
JK: You are your name. You are your form, body. You are all the reactions
and  actions.  You  are  the  belief,  you  are  the  fear,  you  are  the  suffering  and
pleasure. You are all that.
DB: Yes but the first experience is that I am here first and that those are
properties of me, they are my qualities which I can either have or not have. I
might be angry or not angry, I might have this belief or that belief.
JK: Contradictory. You are all that.
DB: But you see it is not obvious. When you say I am that, do you mean
that I am that and cannot be otherwise?
JK: No. At present you are that. It can be totally otherwise.
DB: Yes, OK. So I am all that. Rather than saying as I usually do that I am
looking at those qualities – at least that I the observer, I admit that I am anger,   144
but I feel that I as the observer, am not angry but an unbiased observer who is
looking at anger.
JK: Of course.
DB: But you are telling me that this unbiased observer is the same as the
anger he is looking at?
JK: Of course. Like I analyse myself and the analyser is the analysed.
DB: Yes. He is biased by what he analyses.
JK: Of course.
DB: So if I watch anger for a while I can see that I am very biased by the
anger, so at some stage I say that I am one with that anger – right?
JK: No, not I am one with it, you are it.
DB: But that anger and I are the same, right?
JK:  Yes.  The  observer  is  the  observed.  And  when  there  is  that  actuality
exists you have really eliminated altogether conflict. Conflict exists when I am
separate from my quality.
DB: Yes that is because if I believe myself to be separate then I can try to
change it but since I am that it is not trying to change itself and remain itself at
the same time, right?
JK: Yes, that’s right. But when the quality is me, the division has ended.
Right?
DB: Yes, well when I see that the quality is me then there is no point to the
whole thing.
JK: No, no. What happens before the quality is not me, then in that there is
conflict, either suppression, escape and all the rest of it, which is a wastage of
energy. When that quality is me I am – there is, all that energy which has been
wasted is there to look, to observe.
DB: But why does it make such a difference to have that quality being me?
JK: I am showing it to you.    145
DB: Yes.
JK: It makes a difference when there is no division between the quality and
me.
DB: Yes, well then there is no perception of a difference…
JK: That’s right. Put it round differently.
DB: …the mind does not try to fight itself.
JK: Yes, yes. It is so.
DB: If there is an illusion of a difference the mind must be compelled to fight
against itself.
JK: The brain.
DB: The brain fights against itself.
JK: Yes, that’s right.
DB: On the other hand when there is no illusion of a difference the brain
just stops fighting.
JK: Fighting, and therefore you have tremendous energy.
DB: Yes. The brain’s natural energy is released, eh?
JK: Yes, yes. And which means – energy means attention.
DB: Yes. Well you see the energy of the brain allows for attention…
JK: For that thing to dissolve.
DB: Yes, well wait a minute because we said before attention was a contact
of the mind and the brain.
JK: Yes Sir.
DB: The brain must be in a state of high energy to allow that contact.
JK: That’s right.
DB: I mean a brain which is low energy cannot allow that contact.        JK:  Of  course  not.  But  most  of  us  are  low  energy  because  we  are  so
conditioned.
DB: Well essentially you are saying that this is the way to start.
JK: Yes Sir. Start simply.
DB: Yes.
JK:  Start  with  ‘what  is’,  what  I  am.  That  is  why  self  knowledge  is  so
important. Self knowledge is not an accumulated process of knowledge, which
then looks at, it is a constant learning about oneself.
DB: Yes, well if you call it self knowledge then it is not knowledge of the
kind we talked about before, which is conditioning.
JK: That’s right. Knowledge conditions.
DB: But you are saying that self knowledge of this kind is not conditioning.
But why do you call it knowledge? Is it a different kind of knowledge?
JK: Yes, yes. Knowledge conditions.
DB: Yes but now you have this self knowledge.
JK:  Self  knowledge,  which  is  to  know  and  to  comprehend  oneself,  to
understand, oneself is such a subtle complex thing, it is living.
DB:  Essentially knowing yourself  in the very moment  in  which  things  are
happening.
JK: Yes, to know what is happening.
DB: Rather than store it up in memory.
JK: Of course. That can only be in – through reactions I begin to discover
what I am, and so on and so on.
I think we had better stop. Right?

Σχολιάστε

Εισάγετε τα παρακάτω στοιχεία ή επιλέξτε ένα εικονίδιο για να συνδεθείτε:

Λογότυπο WordPress.com

Σχολιάζετε χρησιμοποιώντας τον λογαριασμό WordPress.com. Αποσύνδεση / Αλλαγή )

Φωτογραφία Twitter

Σχολιάζετε χρησιμοποιώντας τον λογαριασμό Twitter. Αποσύνδεση / Αλλαγή )

Φωτογραφία Facebook

Σχολιάζετε χρησιμοποιώντας τον λογαριασμό Facebook. Αποσύνδεση / Αλλαγή )

Φωτογραφία Google+

Σχολιάζετε χρησιμοποιώντας τον λογαριασμό Google+. Αποσύνδεση / Αλλαγή )

Σύνδεση με %s