J. Krishnamurti & David Bohm – Brockwood Park 1980 – 11: The liberation of insight

K: Dr Bohm and I
started these dialogues at Ojai in California at the beginning of this year. And we had
eight dialogues there and two here,
if I remember rightly, so we have had altogether
ten dialogues this year, Dr Bohm and I. And so
we are continuing that dialogue. We talked about…
– rather difficult to remember. I’ve no memory of it. I think we asked
– if I remember rightly – what is the origin of all this,
of all human movement. Is there an original source,
a ground – is that right, sir? – a ground from which
all this sprang: nature, man, the whole universe. Was it bound by time? Was it, in itself,
complete order, and beyond which
there is nothing more? And, Dr Bohm
reminded me yesterday, we talked about order, whether the universe
is based on time at all. I don’t know if you are
interested in all this? And whether man
can ever comprehend and live in that supreme order.
That’s right, sir? I think that’s, rather vaguely,
where we stopped. I don’t know if you are
interested in all this. But Dr Bohm and I
wanted to investigate, not merely intellectually
but also profoundly, how to comprehend,
or live from that ground, move from that ground, the ground that is timeless, there is nothing beyond it. And I think we had
better begin from there. B: Begin from the ground. K: Sir, I don’t know if
you will agree as a scientist – of eminence –
whether there is such a ground, whether man can ever
comprehend it, live in it
– live, in the sense, not as something he lives in,
but that itself living – and whether we can,
as human beings, come to that. That is, more or less,
what we talked about. B: I don’t know if science as it is now constituted
can say much about that. K: Science doesn’t talk about it. But you as a scientist,
would you give your mind to the investigation of that? B: I think implicitly science
has always been concerned with trying to come
to this ground – as we discussed in Ojai – by studying matter
to the greatest possible depth. But of course,
that is not enough. K: Is this too abstract?
B: It’s hard to say. K: Didn’t we ask, sir – if I remember rightly
it’s so long ago – as a human being,
living in this world, which is in such turmoil, whether there can be
that absolute order first, as the universe is
in absolute order, and… …comprehend an order
which is universal. I don’t know if I am
making my question clear. I can have order in myself,
by careful observation, self-study,
self-investigation, and understand
the nature of disorder, and the very understanding,
the very insight of it, dispels that disorder.
And that’s one level of order. B: That’s the level that most of us
have been concerned with until now. We see this disorder
going on in the world, and in ourselves,
and we say it is necessary to observe all that, to be aware
of it and – as you say – to dispel it. K: But
that’s a very small affair. B: We discussed that in Ojai,
but I feel that people generally
don’t feel it as a small affair. We’ve discussed it
at great length, but at first people feel
that clearing up the disorder in themselves and the world
would be a very big thing, and perhaps
all that’s necessary. K: A fairly intelligent and knowledgeable and
fairly cultured human being – cultured in the sense
civilised – he can,
with a great deal of enquiry and investigation, come to the point
when, in himself he can bring order. B: Yes, and then some people
would now begin to say if only we could bring that order
into the whole of society. K: We will,
if all of us in this room, if we are all tremendously
– in that inward sense – orderly, we’ll perhaps
create a new society. But that again
is a very small affair! B: Yes, I understand that. One should go into it carefully
because people commonly
don’t see it as small, although a few have seen that
there’s something much beyond that. K: Much more beyond that!
That’s what I want… – I don’t know if others
are following this. B: Perhaps… …what might be worth
thinking about would be, why is it that it is not enough
to go into this order of man and society, just produce orderly living
– let’s put it that way. In what sense is that not enough?
You feel it’s very small but… K: Because we live in chaos,
to bring order, we think
that’s a tremendous affair. B: Yes, agreed,
it looks very big. From the present state of disorder
it looks very big. K: Yes, enormous,
but in itself it isn’t! B: Yes, could you make it a
little more clear why it isn’t. K: Oh dear… B: I think it’s important… K: All right, sir, all right! Because I can put
my room in order, so that it gives me
certain space, certain freedom. I know where things are,
I can go directly to them. That’s a physical thing. Can I, as a human being,
put things in myself in order, which is, not to have conflict,
not to have comparison, not to have any sense
of me and you and they, you know, which
brings about such division, and out of that division
grows conflict. That’s simple. If I’m a Hindu
and you are a Muslim, we are eternally at war
with each other. B: Yes, and in every community,
people fall apart in the same way. K: The same way, the whole society
breaks up that way. So if one understands that, and profoundly realises it,
that’s finished. B: Then suppose we say
we have achieved that, then what? K: That’s
what I want to get on. I don’t know
if theu are interested in this. B: People might say, ‘It’s so far away
that it doesn’t interest us, wait till we achieve it
before we worry about the other.’ K: This was a dialogue
between you and me, not with… B: But just trying to make sure
everybody here sees, before we go on,
to see what the question is. K: All right, sir, let’s start. I’m in disorder,
physically, psychologically and around me the society
in which I live is also utterly confused, there is
a great deal of injustice – a miserable affair. I can see that, very simply.
I can see my generation and past generations
have contributed to this. I can do something about it!
That’s simple. I can say,
‘I’ll put my house in order’ – myself is the house – my house must be in order
before I can move further. B: Suppose somebody says,
‘My house is not in order, so before I worry about that
I’ll put my house in order’. K: All right,
my house is in disorder. Let me put that into order,
which is fairly simple. If I apply my mind and my heart to the resolution of that question,
it’s fairly clear. But we don’t want to do that! B: That’s another question. K: We find it
tremendously difficult, we are so bound to the past
or to our habits and to our attitudes, we don’t
seem to have the energy, the courage, the vitality,
to move out of it. B: It doesn’t seem
to be so simple as what will produce
that energy and courage. What will change all this? K: What will change all this
– as we discussed at Ojai – is to have this…
insight into all this. B: Yes, that really is
the key point. Without insight,
nothing can change – even if we try
to bring order in daily life – without this much broader insight
into the very root of it, or into the ground of it. K: Now, will that insight
really alter my whole structure and nature of my being?
That is the question, isn’t it? B: It seems to me
that if we look at a rather small question
like the order of daily life, it will not involve
your whole being. And therefore the insight
will be inadequate. K: So, what is insight
– we discussed that too, a great deal,
we talked about it at the gathering here
and at Saanen but…
do we go through that? B: Well, just sum it up, it would make it
more intelligible. K: Could we start with
being tied to something. Being tied to a belief,
to a person, to an idea, to some habit, some experience, which inevitably
must create disorder. Because being tied
implies dependence the escape from one’s own
loneliness, fear, and all that. Now, to have total insight
into this attachment. That very insight
clears away all attachment. B: Yes, we were saying
that the self is the centre of darkness, like a centre creating
darkness in the mind, clouds, and the insight penetrates that,
it would dispel the cloud so that there would be clarity,
therefore this problem would vanish. But it would take
a very strong, intense insight, very…Total. K: That’s right, but are we
willing to go through that? Or my attachment to, my tie
to something is so strong, that I’m unwilling to let go. B: Yes, but then what? K: And that’s
what most people are. Unfortunately, it’s only very few who want
to do this kind of thing. Now, we are discussing
the nature of insight, whether that insight
can wipe away or banish, dissolve this whole movement
of being tied, attached, dependent, lonely, all that
– with one blow, as it were. I think it can. I think it does
when there is profound insight into this thing. That insight is not
mere memory, the movement of memory,
knowledge, experience, which is totally different
from all ‘that’ movement. B: It seems
that it’s insight into the whole of disorder,
into the source of disorder. Of all disorder
of a psychological nature, not just attachment or greed. With that insight then,
the mind can clear up and then it would be possible
to approach the cosmic order. K: That’s what I want to get at!
B: Yes. K: That’s much more interesting
than this, because this is all rather
immature – – sorry, forgive the word – any serious man
must put his house in order. Right? And that must be
complete order, not order
in a particular direction, but order
in the wholeness of man. If that can be done,
and that is necessary, because society as it is
is disintegrating, destructive, etc. And it destroys human beings. It’s a machine
that is destructive in itself, and if a human being
is caught in it, it destroys him. And realising that, any
ordinary human intelligence says, ‘I must do something about it’ not just sit back
and talk about it. B: Just to finish things, most people might feel doing
something about it consists of solving particular problems
like attachment or removing disagreements
between people… K: No, the particular resolution
of a particular problem, is not
the resolution of the whole. B: That’s the key point
that if you find the source which generates this whole, then getting at this source,
at this root, is the only way. Because if we try to deal
with a particular problem, it’s still always
coming from the source. K: The source is the ‘me’,
understood. The source, apart from the
great source, the little source, the little pond,
the little stream, must dry up. B: Yes, the little stream
confuses itself with the great one, I think. K: We’re not talking about
the great stream, the immense movement of life.
We’re talking about the little me
with the little movement, with the little apprehensions
and so on, that is creating disorder.
And as long as there is that centre which is
the very essence of disorder, unless that is dissolved
there is no order. So at that level it is clear. Can we go on from there?
B: Yes, I think so. K: Now, I’d like to ask,
is there another order totally different from this? This is man-made disorder, and therefore
man-made order. Right? B: Yes, both. K: The chaos and the cosmos
is man-made. B: Not the real cosmos. K: No, I beg your pardon,
cosmos is not. B: The order
which we see in this room, the microphone,
the television is man-made, which is a high degree of order,
and also we see all the fighting going on.
K: It’s man-made. B: Man made
the terrible programmes put on
this orderly television system. K: Yes. So realising that,
seeing disorder and that human mind
can bring about order in itself, then it begins to ask,
is there an order which is totally different,
of a dimension which is necessary to find, because this is
so small affair. B: Yes. K: I put my house in order.
All right. Then what? And if perhaps, many of us
do it, we’ll have a better society Yes, that is admitted, that is
relevant, that is necessary, but that has its limitation. B: Eventually people won’t be able
to be satisfied with that, so they’ll be bored with that. Although, as you say,
we have to have it. K: Yes. Now how do we find,
how does a human being who has really deeply
understood disorder made by human beings and therefore affecting society,
he says, ‘Is there an order
that is beyond all this?’ B: How do we get
into that question? K: Yes, how do we? The human mind
isn’t satisfied by merely having physical, social order,
it has its limitations, it has its boundaries,
and says, ‘Yes, I’ve understood that,
let’s move.’ B: Say, in science,
men are seeking the order of the whole universe,
looking to what they feel to be
the end or the beginning, or to the depth
of its structure, not in order to get useful
results but because the question fascinates them. K: This is not
a fascinating question! B: No, but I’m saying it does… It interests them. Perhaps, men have been seeking
the absolute and the word ‘absolute’ means
to be free of all limitation, of all dependence,
of all imperfection. K: Yes, of all motives
– absolute! B: So the absolute has been the source
of tremendous illusion, because the limited self
seeks to capture the absolute. K: Of course,
that’s impossible. B: But that’s the common… But supposing we recognise
that the absolute is a very dangerous concept,
when the mind tries to grasp it, and yet it seems to be
what is necessary, in the sense of freedom, freedom could only mean
the same as absolute, you see. Because anything that is
dependent in any way is not free. K: So how do we approach this,
how do we answer this question? As a scientist, would you say
there is an order which is beyond
all human order and disorder? B: I would say it.
I don’t think ‘as a scientist’ is particularly significant. Science may be seeking
this sort of thing, but it really
has no more to say on it, it is not able to say anything
on this question because any order discovered
by science is relative. K: Their own egotism… B: Not only that but also
the information we have is limited. And we can only say,
‘it goes so far’. K: So are we moving
to a world of either illusion – because demanding it
may create illusion… B: I feel
it does create illusion, that if man
demands the absolute and tries to satisfy it in thought,
that’s illusion. K: I’m not asking that question,
from that point of view. B: But not knowing what to do, men
have felt the need for the absolute and not knowing how to get it
they have created the illusion of it in religion and in science
or in many other ways. K: So what shall I do?
As a human being, – a human being who is
the totality of human beings – there is order in my life. That order is naturally
brought about through insight and so perhaps it will affect
society. We move from that. The enquiry then is, is there
an order which is not man-made. Let’s put it that way. I won’t even call it
absolute order, or… B: At least it’s free
of man’s construction. K: Yes. B: And now we have
the order of nature, the cosmos which we don’t really know
in its depth but we could consider that
to be that sort of order. K: I mean, the very word
‘cosmos’ means order. B: Yes, it’s
the Greek word for order. K: Yes. Nature is in order. Unless man interferes with it,
nature is in order, has its own order. B: Yes, it has its own order
and even what we call disorder in nature
is part of the order. It’s not really disorder. K: No, we call it disorder
but in itself it is not disorder. All right. Finished with that.
Now let’s move to something else. Man has sought
a different dimension and perhaps used the word
‘order’. He has sought
a different dimension, because he has understood
this dimension. He has lived in it,
he has suffered in it, he has gone through
all kinds of mess and misery, he says, ‘I’ve come to
the end of all that.’ Not verbally, actually
come to the end of all that. And you may say there are
very few people who do that, but this question
must be put. B: Yes, I could ask
what is the significance of this question to, say,
the vast number of people who have not gone through that? K: I don’t quite follow. B: You say the man
who has gone through that may put this question. Is it of any interest to the one
who hasn’t gone through it? K: I think it is. Even intellectually,
he may see the limitations of it. B: It’s important for him to see, even before
he has finished up with it. not to say,
‘I’ll wait until I clear it up…’ K: That would be too stupid! So how does the mind
approach this problem? I think man has struggled
to find this out, sir. I mean, all religious people, so-called religious people,
have attempted to grasp this – the mystics, the saints
with their illusions – they have tried to understand
something which is not all this. Does it come about, through… – if I may use the word –
meditation as measure? B: We’ve discussed that
here in Brockwood, that the original meaning
of the word ‘meditation’ is to measure, to ponder, to weigh
the value and significance. K: Weigh means to measure. B: Yes, meditation
would mean to measure in some deeper sense
that just with a ruler… But even so,
perhaps that may have meant that such a measurement
would only have significance for seeing
that there is disorder. K: That’s it, measurement can exist only
where there is disorder. B: Yes, but by looking
at the measurement, at the way things are
out of proportion in the mind, you can see there is disorder. But that is not the order,
of course. K: No. We are using the word
meditation not as measure, or even
to ponder, or think over, but a meditation
that is the outcome of… bringing about order in the house, and moving from there. B: Right. People may have used
the word meditation to indicate that,
by looking at measure, you can see disorder
as being out of proportion, but they may have meant
to go on from there. K: But they don’t seem to,
somehow. B: People don’t generally do it.
K: Yes, let’s try to do it. Rather preposterous statement
perhaps, but let’s see. B: If we see things are
in disorder in the mind, then what is meditation? K: First mind must be free
of measurement. Otherwise it can’t enter
into the other. B: That’s an important point. Almost the instinctive reaction
of seeing this disorder, this disorder is itself a
disproportionate measurement and therefore
the instinctive tendency is to try to make the measure
come right, to correct it. That might be
the fundamental mistake. K: We said all effort
to bring order into disorder is disorder. B: Yes,
this is very different from what almost
everybody has been saying. over the whole of history. K: I know.
Perhaps we are… exception. B: Maybe there are a few
who have implied it. It’s implicit
in what a few have said but it’s never been said explicitly
to my knowledge. K: All right, let’s
explicitly say it. B: It is the attempt to control
that is wrong, it has no meaning. And now we say,
there’s no control, what do we do? K: No, no, no. If I have an insight into
the whole nature of control. B: Control is measure, you see…
K: Of course, control is measure – that liberates the mind
from that burden. B: Yes. Could you explain
the nature of this insight, what it means. K: We said that. Insight is not a movement from knowledge,
from thought, and therefore remembrance,
etc., but the cessation of all that
and to look at it, look at the problem
with pure observation, without any pressure,
without any motive, to observe this whole movement
of measurement. B: We can see that: measurement
is the same as becoming and the attempt of the mind
to measure itself, to control itself to set itself a goal,
to compare itself is the very source of the disorder. K: That is the very source
of disorder. B: And in a way
that was the wrong turning when
man extended measurement from the external sphere
into the mind. K: Yes. B: But the first reaction would be
if we don’t control this thing it will go wild. That’s what somebody might fear. K: If I have an insight
into measurement, that very insight not only banishes
all movement of measurement there is
a different order there! B: Yes, it does not go wild…
K: It doesn’t go wild,
on the contrary! B: Yes. That is really the attempt
to measure which makes it go wild. K: That’s right.
The measurement is ‘wild-ing’… is confusion. Right? Now let’s proceed.
After establishing all this, can this mind,
through meditation – we’re using
the word meditation without any sense
of measurement, comparison – can that mind find an order,
a state where there is no… …where there is,
let’s be more positive, something
which is not man-made. Because one has been through
all the man-made things. Right? And they are all limitation,
there is no freedom in it, there is chaos,
there is mess and all that. B: When you say you’ve been
through man-made things, what are they? K: Everything! Like religion,
science, worship, prayers, anxieties, sorrow,
attachment, detachment, loneliness and suffering
and confusion and ache and anxiety,
loneliness, all that. B: Also all the attempts,
by revolution… K: Of course, physical revolution,
psychological, all that. Those are all man-made. So many people have put this
question, obviously, must have. And therefore they say, God. Which is another concept, and that very concept
creates disorder. B: That’s clear
that man has invented God and given him
the power of the absolute. K: Yes, quite.
B: Which is himself. K: Which then becomes himself. B: Yes,
therefore it becomes dead. K: Chaotic.
B: It dominates him. K: Now, one has finished
with all that. Right? Now then the question is,
is there something beyond all this, which is never touched
by human thought, mind? B: That makes a difficult point,
not touched by the human mind, but mind might go
beyond thought. Do you mean by the mind only thought,
feeling, desire and will, or something much more? K: For the time being,
we have said the human mind is all that. B: But the mind is now
considered to be limited. K: No, no. As long as the human mind
is caught in that, it is limited. B: Yes, the human mind has potential.
K: Tremendous potential. B: But it is not realised now,
it is caught in thought, feeling, desire
and will. Then that which is beyond this is not touched
by this limited sort of mind. Now what will we mean by the mind
which is beyond this limit? K: First of all, sir,
is there such a mind? Is there such a mind
that is actually – not theoretically or romantically,
all that nonsense – actually said,
‘I have been through this’? B: Through the limited stuff. K: And being through it
means finished with it. Is there such a mind? Or because
it has finished with it, or it thinks
it has finished with it, therefore creates the illusion
that there is something else. I won’t accept that. As a human being,
one person, or X, says, ‘I have understood this, I have seen
the limitation of all this, I have lived through it,
and I have come to the end of it.’ And this mind,
having come to the end of it, is no longer the limited mind. And is there a mind
which is not… which is totally limitless? You follow what I mean? B: Yes, now that raises
the question of how the brain is able to be in contact
with that mind. What is the relation
between that unlimited mind and the brain? K: I want to be clear
on this point, it’s rather interesting
if we go into it. This mind – brain, the whole of it,
the whole nature and the structure of the mind,
which includes the emotions, the brain, the reactions, the
physical responses and all that – this mind has lived in turmoil,
in chaos, in loneliness and has had a profound insight
into all that. And having such a deep insight,
cleared the field. This mind is no longer
that mind. B: Yes, it’s no longer
the original limited mind. K: Yes.
No longer the limited mind. B: That you began with. K: Damaged mind.
Let’s use that word damaged. B: Damaged mind,
also damaged brain, the same working has damaged
the brain. K: Yes, all right. B: So we have thought,
damaged mind, damaged brain. K: …damaged emotions,
damaged brain… B: The cells themselves
are not in the right order. K: But when there is this insight
and therefore order, the damage is undone. B: Yes. We discussed
that the previous time. K: I don’t know
it you agree to that even. B: Certainly you see it’s possible, by reasoning you can see
it’s quite possible, because you can say
the damage was done by disorderly
thoughts and feelings, which over-excite
the cells and disrupt them now with the insight,
that stops and a new process is set up. K: Like a person
going for fifty years in a certain direction
and realises suddenly that that’s not the direction,
the whole brain changes. B: It changes at the core then the wrong structure
is dismantled and healed, that may take time.
But the insight… K: …is the factor that changes. B: Yes, and that insight
does not take time. But it means that the whole
process has changed the origin. K: Again, that mind,
the limited mind, with its consciousness
and its content, says, I have been…, etc.,
it’s over – that part. Now is that mind,
which has been limited, and having had insight
into this limitation, and therefore moved away
from that limitation, is that an actuality,
a something that is really tremendously
revolutionary? You follow? And therefore it is no longer the human mind
– forgive me for using that word. B: We should clear that up, what we mean
by the human mind. K: Human mind with its
consciousness, which is limited. B: Yes, that limited consciousness
which is conditioned, not free. K: That is ended. B: That is the general consciousness
which has been the case, not just in individuals
but it has been all round. K: I’m not talking of an individual,
that’s too silly. B: We discussed that, that the individual is the outcome
of the general consciousness, a particular outcome,
rather than an independent thing, that’s one of the difficulties.
K: That’s one of the confusions. B: The confusion is
we take the individual mind to be the concrete actuality. It’s necessary to consider
this general mind to be the actuality from which
the individual mind has formed. K: That’s all very clear. B: But now we say we move away
even from that general mind, but what does it mean? K: Yes, the general and the particular
mind. B: And the particular mind. K: Now, if one has totally
moved away from it, then what is the mind? B: Yes, and what is the person,
right? K: What is a human being then. Then what is the relationship
between that mind, which is not man-made mind,
and the man-made mind? I don’t know
if I’m making myself clear. B: Did we agree
to call it universal mind, or would you prefer not to? K: I don’t like that word
universal mind, lots of people used it.
Let’s use a much simpler word. B: Well, it’s the mind
which was not made by man. K: I think that’s simpler,
I’ll keep to that. A mind
which is not made by man. B: Neither individually
nor in general. K: Generally or individually,
it’s not made by man. Sir, can one observe,
really, deeply, without any prejudice, does such a mind exist?
You follow what I’m trying to say? B: Let’s see what
that means to observe that. There are some difficulties of
language here, because we say one must observe… K: I observe.
B: Yes, who observes? That’s one of the problems. K: We’ve been through all that. There is no division
in observation. Not, I observe,
there is only observation. B: Observation takes place. Would you say it takes place
in a particular brain, or a particular brain
takes part in the observation? K: I know the catch in this. No, sir, it doesn’t take
in a particular brain. B: Yes, but it seems that
a particular brain may respond. K: Of course, but it is not…
K’s brain. B: I don’t mean that, what I mean by the word
particular brain, we could say, a certain human being
in space and time, whatever his form is,
not giving him a name, is distinguished from another one
which might be there or there. K: Look, sir,
let’s get clear on this point. We live in a man-made world,
man-made mind, we are the result
of man-made minds – our brains and so on, brain, with all its
responses, not the actual… B: The brain itself
is not man-made but it has been conditioned.
Man-made conditioning. K: Right,
that’s what I mean. Now, can that mind uncondition itself so completely that it’s no longer man-made?
B: Yes, that’s the question. K: That is the question
– let’s keep it to that simple level. Can that man-made mind
– as it is now – can it go to that extent, to so completely
liberate itself from itself? B: Yes, of course that’s
a somewhat paradoxical statement. K: Paradoxical but it’s actual,
it is so. Wait, let’s begin again. One can observe the consciousness
of humanity is its content. And its content is
all the man-made things, anxiety, fear,
and all the rest of it. And it is not only particular
it is the general. Having had an insight into this, it has cleansed itself of that. B: That implies that it was always
potentially more than that but that insight
enabled it to be free of that. Is that what you…? K: That insight
– I won’t say it is potential. B: Yes, there is
a little difficulty of language, that if you say the brain
or the mind had an insight into its own conditioning and then almost you’re saying
it became something else. K: Yes, I am saying that,
I am saying that. B: Right. OK. K: The insight transforms
the man-made mind. B: But then you say it’s no longer
the man-made mind. K: It’s no longer. That insight means the wiping away of all
the content of consciousness. Right? Not bit by bit by bit,
the totality of it. And that insight is not
the result of man’s endeavour. B: Yes, but then that seems
to raise the question of where does it come from. K: All right.
Where does it come from? Yes. In the brain itself,
in the mind itself. B: Which, the brain or the mind? K: Mind.
I’m saying the whole of it. B: We say there is mind, right?
K: Just a minute, sir. it’s rather interesting,
let’s go slowly. The consciousness is man-made,
general and particular. And logically, reasonably
one sees the limitations of it. Then the mind
is gone much further. Then it comes to a point
when it says, ‘Can all this be wiped away
at one breath, one blow, one movement.’
And that movement is insight, the movement of insight. It is still in the mind but not born out of
that consciousness. I don’t know
if I’m making myself clear. B: Yes. Then you are saying
the mind has the possibility, or potential, of moving
from beyond the consciousness but we haven’t actually done
much of it. K: Of course. It must
be a part of the mind. B: The brain, mind can do that, but it hasn’t generally done it. K: Now,
having done all this, is there a mind which is not… not only man-made, which man cannot conceive,
cannot create, it is not an illusion.
Is there such a mind? I don’t know if I am
making myself clear. B: What you are saying is, having freed itself
the mind has… K: General and particular. B: …freed it from the
general and particular structure of consciousness
of mankind, from its limits, and now this mind
is now much greater. Now you say, this mind,
is raising a question, right? K: This mind is raising a question.
B: Which is what? K: Which is… First, is that mind free
from the man-made mind? That’s the first question.
B: It may be an illusion. K: Illusion,
one has to be very clear. No, it is not an illusion, because
he sees measurement is illusion, he knows
the nature of illusions, where there is desire
there must be illusions. And illusions must create
limitation, and so on. He has not only understood it,
he’s over. B: He’s free of desire. K: Free of desire.
That is the nature. I don’t want to put it so brutally.
Free of desire. B: It is full of energy. K: Yes. So this mind,
which is no longer general and particular,
and therefore not limited, and this limitation has been… broken down through insight, and therefore the mind is no
longer that conditioned mind. Right?
B: Yes. K: Now, then what is that mind? Being aware that it is no
longer caught in illusion. B: Yes, but you were saying
it was raising a question about whether
there is some much greater… K: Yes, that’s why I’m
raising the question, is there a mind
which is not man-made? And if there is, what is its relationship
to the man-made mind? B: Yes. K: This is very difficult. It’s half past twelve, do we go on?
B: If you feel like it. K: I can go on, it’s fun.
Go up to a quarter to one. B: Quarter to one,
that’s good, yes. K: You see,
every form of assertion, every form of verbal statement
is not that. Right? So we’re asking, is there a mind
which is not man-made. And I think
that can only be asked when the limitations
are ended, otherwise
it’s just a foolish question. B: That’ll be the same…
K: Just a waste of time, then. That becomes theoretical,
nonsensical. B: Part of
the man-made structure. K: So one must be absolute – – I’m using the word –
one must be… B: I think the word
‘absolute’ can be used there if we are very careful. K: Very carefully, yes. Absolutely free of all this. Then only
can you put that question. When you put that question,
when that question is raised, is there a mind not man-made,
and if there is such a mind, what is its relationship
to the man-made mind? Now, is there
such a mind, first? Of course there is.
Of course, sir. Without being dogmatic
or personal, there is. But it is not God. Because, God
– we’ve been through all that. B: Yes, it is part of
the man-made structure. K: Which has created chaos
in the world. There is.
Then, the next question is, – if there is such a mind,
and someone says there is – what is the relationship of that
to the human mind, man-made mind? B: Yes, to the general. K: Particular and general.
Has it any relationship? B: The question’s a difficult one
because you could say that the man-made mind
is pervaded with illusion, most of its content
is not real. K: No. So this is real – we’ll use the word ‘real’
in the sense actual – and that is measurable,
confused. Has this relationship to that?
Obviously not. B: Well, a superficial one
in the sense the man-made mind has some real content at a
certain level, a technical level – the television system
and so on. So, in that sense,
in that area, there could be a relationship,
but as you were saying that is a very small area.
But fundamentally… K: No, as we discussed, the man-made mind
has no relationship to that. But that has a relationship
to this. B: Yes, but not to the illusions
in the man-made mind. K: Wait a minute, wait a minute,
let’s be clear. My mind is the human mind.
It has got illusions, desires, etc. And there is other mind
which is not… which is beyond all limitation. This illusory mind, the man-made
mind, is always seeking that. B: Yes, that’s its main trouble.
K: Yes, that’s its main trouble. It is measuring it, it is
advancing, am I getting nearer, farther, all the rest of it. And this mind,
the human mind, the mind that’s made by
human beings, the man-made mind
is always seeking that, and therefore it’s creating
more and more mischief, confusion. This man-made mind
has no relationship to that. B: Yes…
K: Obvious, obvious. B: Any attempt to get that
is the source of illusion. K: Obvious. Now, has that
any relationship to this? B: What I was suggesting was that it would have to have… The illusions in that mind,
desire and fear and so on, have no relationship to that,
because they are figments anyway. K: Yes, understood. B: But that
can have a relationship to the man-made mind in
understanding its true structure. K: Are you saying, sir, that that mind has a
relationship to the human mind the moment it’s moving
away from the limitation? B: Yes, in understanding
those limitations it moves away. K: Yes.
Then that has a relationship. B: Then it has
a genuine relationship to what this limited
mind actually is, not to the illusions as
to what it thinks it is. K: What? Let’s be clear. B: We have to get
the words right. The mind which is not limited, which is not man-made,
cannot be related to the illusions which are
in the man-made mind. But it has to be related
to the source, to the real nature
of the man-made mind, which is behind the illusion. K: The man-made mind
is based on what? B: On all these things we have said. K: Yes, which is its nature.
B: Yes. K: Therefore how can that
have a relationship to this, even basically? B: The only relationship
is in understanding it, so that some communication
would be possible, which might communicate
to the other person. K: No, I’m questioning that.
B: Yes. Because you were saying that the mind which is not
man-made may be related to the limited mind and
not the other way around. K: I even question that. B: All right, you are changing that.
Why are you questioning it? K: I’m just pushing it a little.
B: It may or may not be so. K: Yes, I’m questioning it.
B: OK. K: What is the relationship then
of love to jealousy? It has none. B: Not to jealousy itself, no,
which is an illusion, but to the human being
who is jealous, there may be. K: I’m taking love and hatred
– two words – Love and hatred have
no relationship to each other. B: No, not really.
K: None! B: Except that love might understand
the origin of hatred, you see. K: Ah… Yes, yes. B: In that sense I would
think of a relationship. K: I see, I understand. You’re saying
love can understand the origin of hatred,
how hatred arises, etc. Does love understand that? B: Well, I think in some sense that it understands its origin
in the man-made mind, having seen it with all
its structure and moved away… K: Are we saying, sir, that love – we use that word
for the moment – that love
has relationship to non-love? B: Only in the sense
of dissolving it. K: I’m not sure, I’m not sure, we must be
awfully careful here. Or the ending of itself… B: Which is itself? K: …the ending of hatred,
the other is, not the other has relationship to the understanding of hatred. B: We have to ask
how it gets started then. K: That’s very simple. B: No, but suppose
we say we have hatred, right? K: I have hatred.
Suppose I have hatred. I can see the origin of it.
Because you insulted me… B: That’s a superficial notion
of the origin, to say why does one
behave so irrationally is the deeper origin. If you merely say
you’ve insulted me, and I say why should you
respond to the insult. K: Because all my conditioning
is that. B: Yes, that’s what I mean by it, then you’re understanding
the origin of… K: I understand that. But does love help me to
understand the origin of hatred? B: No, but someone in hatred, understanding this origin
and moving away. K: Moving away!
B: Yes. K: Then the other is. The other
cannot help the movement away. B: No,
but suppose one person, one human being has this love
and the other has not can the first one
communicate something which will start the movement
in the second one? K: That means
A can influence B. B: Not influence
but simply to… One could raise the question: why should anybody
be talking about any of this, why should I talk about it? K: That’s a different matter! No, the question is, is hate dispelled by love? B: No, not that. K: Or the understanding
of hatred and the ending of it,
the other is. B: That’s right, but
if we say that A has reached that
– the other is. Love is for A,
and he sees B, C, D… K: B has got the other… B: Now we’re saying, what is he going to do… K: What is the relationship
between the two? B: That’s the same question. What is he going to do is
another way of putting it, right? K: I think…
just a minute, sir. I hate, another loves.
My wife loves and I hate. She can talk to me,
she can point it out to me, the unreasonable
and so on, so on, so on, but her love
is not going to transform the source of my hatred. B: That’s clear, yes, except the love is the energy which will be
behind the talk. K: Behind the talk. B: The love itself doesn’t sort of go in there
and dissolve the hate. K: Of course not,
that becomes romantic, etc. So the man who hates,
the source of it, the cause of it, the movement of it, having
an insight and ending it, has the other. B: Yes,
if we say A is the man who has seen all this and he, now,
has the energy to put it to B – it’s up to B what happens. K: I think we’d better pursue this.
Quarter to one.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *