J. Krishnamurti – Brockwood Park 1978 – Discussion 3 with Buddhist Scholars – Does free will exist?

J. Krishnamurti – Brockwood Park 1978 – Discussion 3 with Buddhist Scholars – Does free will exist?

Giddu Narayan: I am suggesting that
Dr Rahula puts all the questions that he has noted down, so that in the course
of the discussion we can cover most of the ground. And I have also got
one or two things to say. I would like also to put it so that the discussion can
centre round the questions. Walpola Rahula:
Why not put your question first? GN: My question is,
in the Mahayana philosophy… Krishnamurti: Could you explain what Mahayana is
in the Buddhist philosophy? GN: As coming from Nagarjuna, probably the greatest thinker,
second century: he talked a great deal
about sunyata, void, and it has a very close
association with insight. And I believe the whole
of later Buddhist thought owes its strength to this
Nagarjuna’s idea of sunyata as being something
which is pure, pristine. And there is no insight
without sunyata. I will put it that way. And then he also said that
without understanding the outer there is no possibility
of going to the inner. Then he also made a statement
which seems to be fallacious: samsara is nirvana,
and nirvana is samsara. David Bohm:
What nirvana and samsara? K: Sir, you are using
Sanskrit words, perhaps some of us may understand, but you have to explain it
very carefully. GN: Samsara is worldly life with all
its travail, suffering and dukkha, with all its sorrow
– samsara. Nirvana is a state of freedom,
bliss, liberation. He said samsara is nirvana,
and nirvana is samsara. And this is explained
by the Buddhist scholars through Pratitysamutpada, the whole thing is interrelated,
conditioned origination. So this has a very
powerful influence over the Buddhist thought today,
as I understand it. And I would like
this to be examined in the context of what
we have been talking about. K: I haven’t understood
the statement. GN: The first thing is
the importance of sunyata. K: What do you mean
by that word ‘sunyata’? WR: From the Buddhist point of view
I will explain. Sunyata literally means
voidness, void, emptiness. K: Nothingness. Sunyata.
I know the meaning. WR: That is the literal meaning. But the significance is that it is attributed
by western Buddhist scholars mostly to Nagarjuna.
That is incorrect. It is the Buddha
who said this first, and Nagarjuna as a great thinker,
philosopher, developed it into a system. Whereas Buddha said it
in a very simple way. And Ananda who was Buddha’s nearest
associate, companion, disciple, asked one day, ‘Sir, it is said
the world is sunya, empty, what does it mean,
to what extent is it sunya?’ He said,
‘Ananda, it is without self’ – he used the word
‘atta’, ‘atman’ – ‘without self
and anything pertaining to self, therefore it is sunya’. It is very clearly explained. In many other places
he told a man, ‘See the world as sunya
and you are liberated’. And these are
the original statements. Nagarjuna took these ideas and developed them
by his Madhyamkiarika based on Pratityasamutpada
that is dependent origination, I would rather call it
conditioned genesis, and on that philosophy that is everything is
interdependent, relative, nothing is absolute,
everything is cause and effect, and cause cannot be
separated from the result, except if it can dissipate,
it’s a continuity. That is time also. And on this philosophy Nagarjuna
developed very highly as a system, this teaching of sunyata
as void, empty. And that is exactly
what Krishnaji says also. There is no self, and you see it
and every problem is solved. There is no complication,
there is no problem. That is how I see it
in relation to his explanation. Then the second thing you said
– what was the second question? GN: The relationship
between the outer and the inner. WR: That is exactly
what Krishnaji and Dr Bohm discussed as ‘Actuality and Truth’
or ‘Reality and Truth’, and it is published
in that new book, that is
Samrhitisatya and Paramarthasatya, these are also accepted
Buddhist philosophical propositions. Samrhitisatya is conventional, that is what we do,
talk and eat and all these things, within duality, within relativity. You can’t say
this is false, this table. But in another sense this is not so. But Samrhitisatya is
that conventional truth. Paramarthasatya is the ultimate,
absolute truth. These two also
cannot be separated. GN: That’s right. WR: Now Nagarjuna clearly says
in one place, in Madhyamika Karika, one who cannot see and
does not see the conventional truth is incapable of arriving
at the ultimate truth. The third question you raised was,
I think, nirvana and samsara. That is also, Nagarjuna says – clearly, I remember
the words even by heart. He says that nirvana has no
difference whatsoever from samsara and samsara has no difference
whatsoever from nirvana. To clarify the word ‘samsara’, in the strict definition samsara
is the continuity of our existence. And I remember once I put
this question to Krishnaji in Paris, personally, there was nobody
except him and myself. K: Two wise people! WR: I don’t know. But I put it to Krishnaji, there is a great Nagarjuna
statement like this, it is very interesting
to say it today, I asked him what he thought. Then to my surprise he said,
‘Who is Nagarjuna?’ I said, ‘That is your compatriot’, because he was from Andhra,
supposed to be from Andhra. K: Oh! WR: And then I explained to him
who Nagarjuna was historically as a thinker and a philosopher. I said in Buddhist history
he is perhaps the boldest thinker. Then he asked me,
what were his attainments. I said we can’t say, that we don’t
know, only we know his writings, through writings about him, but about his attainments,
spiritual realisation we can’t say anything. Then Krishnaji paused
for a minute and asked me, ‘What did
Buddha say about all this?’ I said nothing. ‘That is correct’, then you said with the finger,
this I remember very well, at Suarès, whose house?
K: Suarès. WR: ‘That is right’. Because I was always doubtful and I did not accept
Nagarjuna’s statement so clearly, definitely saying
nirvana and sunyama were the same. K: I am not quite sure
that we understand, all of us. WR: Yes, will you explain
this position, sir? K: No, may I ask this,
to explain a little more? What does samskara mean actually?
WR: Samsara. K: Samskara in Sanskrit. WR: Samsara, Sanskrit, Pali,
both – Samsara. Samskara is another thing. GN: Samskara is a different word. WR: Samsara literally means
wandering, going off, going round. K: And Samskara means?
WR: Samskara means construction, that is all our thinking.
K: The past. WR: It belongs to the past.
K: That’s right. WR: It belongs to the past.
K: Yes, I understood that. WR: Yes, that belongs to the past. All our samskaras are work of the memory,
knowledge, learning and all that. K: Like an old man
going back and living in the past. That’s it. WR: But samsara is continuity.
K: Continuity, I understand. WR: Nirvana, we can’t define.
K: No, whatever it is. WR: Whatever it is, it is never defined
in positive terms by the Buddha. Always whenever he was asked,
he said, no, that is not nirvana. K: Quite, so you have asked your questions?
GN: Yes, I’ve asked. K: Now, sir,
you better ask your questions too in relation to what he has said. WR: The question is not from him,
from you. My question I am asking from you.
K: What? WR: There are many questions,
but as we have not much time. K: We have got plenty of time, sir. WR: One question is – both I will say at once,
so you can take them – one question is, that in western philosophy,
western thought, free will has played
a very important part. K: Free will.
WR: Free will – absolute free will. K: Free will.
WR: Yes, free will. According to the same philosophy
that Mr Narayan said, conditional relations, that is cause and effect, according to that philosophy,
Buddhism, such a thing is impossible because all our thinking, all our construction, all our work,
all our knowledge is conditioned. K: Yes. WR: Therefore
if there is a free will, it is free only in a relative sense
and it is not absolute freedom. That is the Buddhist position. That is one question I put.
K: Let’s talk it over, sir. What is will?
What is will? How do you explain what will is? WR: Will is
that you decide, you want. K: No, what is the origin,
the beginning of will? I will do this,
I won’t do that. Now, what is the meaning of will? WR: The meaning of will
is to want to do. K: No, no. All right, let me go on then. Is it not desire? WR: It is a desire. K: Desire accentuated, heightened,
strengthened, which we call will. DB: It seems to me
that we make it determined. We determine the object of desire.
We say, ‘I am determined’. K: In that there is determination.
DB: It gets fixed there. K: I desire that, and to achieve that
I make an effort. That effort,
the motive of that effort is desire. So will is desire. Right? WR: It is a form of desire. K: It is a form of desire. Now, can desire ever be free?
WR: Absolutely. That is what I wanted
to hear from you. No, you don’t like to say that
but I want to say it. K: Desire can never be free. It can change the objects of desire: I can desire one year
to go to buy this, the next year that, change, but desire is constant,
the objects vary. And the strengthening of desire: I will do that,
the will is in operation. Will is desire. Now can desire ever be free? WR: No. K: But we say free will exists because I can choose
between this and that, between this job and that job,
I can go – except in totalitarian states – I can go from England
to France freely. So the idea of free will
is cultivated with a sense that human beings
are free to choose. What does that mean
– to choose? I can choose between
blue jeans and something else, between this car and that car,
between that house and so on, but why should I choose at all? Apart from material things, apart from certain books and so on, why is there choice? I am a Catholic,
I give up Catholicism and become a Zen Buddhist. And if I am a Zen,
I become something else, and I choose.
Why? Why is there choice at all, which gives one the impression
that I am free to choose? Right, sir? So I am asking why is there
the necessity of choice at all? If I am a Catholic, and saw the whole
significance of Catholicism, with its abstractions,
with its rituals, dogmas, you know, the whole circus in it, and I abandon that, why should I join something else? Because when I have
investigated this I have investigated
all the religions. I wonder… So choice must exist only
when the mind is confused. No? When it is clear,
there is no choice. Is that right? WR: Right, I think you have
answered the question, to me you have
answered the question. K: I haven’t fully answered it. DB: I think that
the western philosophers might not agree with them,
I am not sure. K: They won’t agree, of course. DB: They say that choice
is not desire, that will is not desire
but will is something else. I think that is my impression.
K: Yes, will is something else. DB: Will is a free act, a sane act.
K: The will is something inherited or it is part of the genetic
process, to will, to be. DB: But I think, for example,
I can’t say I know much about it, but Catholic philosophers may say
when Adam sinned he willed wrongly, let’s say,
he made a wrong choice, and he set us off on this way. K: You see,
that is a very convenient way of explaining away everything. DB: I understand that.
K: First invent Adam and Eve, the serpent, the apple, and god, then put everything
as the primal crime. WR: Yes, a lot of creation in that,
mental creation. DB: I think if one observes,
one can see that will is the result of desire. But I think people
have the impression that will is
something entirely different. K: Yes, will is part of something sacred. DB: That’s what many people think. K: Something derived
from a divine being. WR: According
to the western philosophy. K: More or less. I don’t know very much
of western philosophy but from people
with whom I have talked, and they may not
be sufficiently informed, but they have given
me the impression that will is something
not quite human, not quite desire, not quite something
that you cultivate. It is born out of the original sin, original god,
and so on, so on. But if one puts all that aside,
which is theoretical, problematical and
rather superstitious, if you put all that aside, then what is will
and what is choice, and what is action
without choice and will? You follow?
That is the problem. Is there any action which is not compounded with will? You understand?
I don’t know what the Buddha… GN: Would you say that
insight is not the result of will, has nothing to do with will? K: Oh, nothing whatever to do
with will, or desire, or memory. GN: So insight is something which is
free from will, and also analysis. WR: Yes. Insight is seeing. And in that seeing
there is no choice, there is no discrimination,
there is no judgement, there are no moral or immoral
values, value judgements. You see. GN: So insight is not
the result of will, nor is it the result of analysis. K: No.
WR: No. K: You see,
this is becoming theoretical. You are making it so theoretical. GN: Because through analysis…
K: Excuse me, sir. You are making it theoretical,
you have defined it, it is not this,
it is not that, it’s not that, and you think you have insight.
Have you? GN: No, I don’t think
I have insight. K: Then why do you discuss it? GN: No, because we have been
discussing insight so far, or we have been seeing. K: Now, Narayan, if I may point out, we are talking over together action in which there is no choice,
in which there is no effort as will. Is there such action? I don’t know, sir, please. WR: There is such an action. K: You know it? Or is it a theory?
Forgive me, I must be clear. Forgive me, sir,
I want to move away, if you will forgive me,
and I am not being impudent, one should move away from theories,
from ideas, from conclusions. But find out for oneself
the truth of that matter: which is, is there an action in which there is no
effort of will at all and therefore no choice? So what is correct action in which there is no will,
no choice, no desire – because will is
part of desire and so on? To find that out
one must be very clear – mustn’t one? – of the nature of desire. And desire is part of sensation, and desire being part of sensation, and thought identifies itself
with that sensation, and through identification
the ‘I’ is built up, the ego, and the ego then says,
‘I must’, or ‘I will not’. So we are trying to find out
if there is an action not based on the principle
of ideals, on desire, on will, not spontaneous – that word
is rather a dangerous word because nobody is spontaneous, one thinks one can be spontaneous, but there is no such thing because one must be
totally free to be spontaneous. Do you follow? So is there such action? Because most of our action
has a motive. Right? And motive means movement, I want to build a house,
I want that woman or that man, I am hurt psychologically
or biologically, and my motive is to hurt back – so there is always
some kind of motive in action, which we do in daily life. So then action is
conditioned by the motive. The motive is part
of the identification process. So if I understand
– not ‘understand’ – if there is a perception
of the truth that identification
builds the whole nature and the structure of the self, then is there an action
which doesn’t spring from thought? I don’t know, am I right, sir? DB: Yes, could we ask why
– before we go into that – why there is identification,
why is it that this is so prevalent? K: Why does thought identify?
DB: With sensation and other things. K: Why is there identification
with something? DB: Specially sensation.
K: Yes, sensation. Answer it, sirs. I don’t know.
You are all experts. GN: Is it the very nature
of thought to identify or are there forms of thought
which don’t identify with sensation? K: Narayan, why do you – if I may again most politely
and respectfully, etc., etc. – why do you put that question? Is it a theoretical question
or an actual question? Why do you, Narayan, identify? GN: Let me put it this way… K: No, I won’t put it differently. GN: The one thing
I can identify with is sensation, I have nothing else
to identify with. K: So why do you give
importance to sensation? Do you say, I am a sensate being
and nothing else? GN: No, no.
K: Ah, that’s it. GN: If I have to identify
with anything, it can only be with sensation. DB: Is there a duality
in identification? K: Of course.
DB: Could we make it clear? K: In identification,
as you point out, sir, there is duality,
the identifier and the identified. DB: Is it possible that you are
trying to overcome the duality by identifying, by saying,
‘I am not different’, when you are,
or when you feel you aren’t. K: You see, I don’t want to enter into
the field of ideologies, theories. To me,
I have no interest in it. But I really, in investigating
I want to find out, perhaps I have found out,
but talking over together, is there an action
in which the self is not? In daily life, not in nirvana, when I have reached freedom
and all the rest of it, I want to do it in this life,
as I live. Which means I have to find out, the mind has to find out an action
which has no cause, which means no motive; an action which is not
the result, or the effect, of a series of causes
and effects. If that exists,
action is always bound, chained. Am I making myself clear?
WR: Yes, go on. K: So is there such an action? DB: Well, it seems to me
we can’t find it as long as we are identifying.
K: That’s right. That’s why I said as long as identification exists
I can’t find the answer. DB: But why does thought identify? K: Why does thought
identify with sensations? DB: Is that irresistible or is that
just something you can put aside? K: I don’t know
if that is irresistible or if it is part of sensation. DB: How is that?
K: Let’s investigate. I don’t like to… DB: You think
that sensation is behind that? K: Perhaps. When I say ‘perhaps’, that word is used
for the purpose of investigation, not ‘I don’t know’, but let’s
investigate. But it may be. So why have sensations
become so important in life, sexual sensations,
the sensation of power, whether occult power
or political power, economic power, or power of a woman over a man
or a man over a woman, power of environment, the influence of the environment,
the pressures – why? Why has thought yielded
to this pressure? Right, sir? DB: Does sensation necessarily
produce a pressure? K: It does when it is identified. DB: Yes, but then
it is the two together. K: I know,
but let’s examine a little further. What do we mean by sensation? DB: Well, it seems to me that we may have
a remembered sensation of pleasure. K: Senses,
the operation of the senses – touching, tasting, seeing,
smelling, hearing. DB: The experience
that happens then; and also the memory of it. K: No, the memory is only when
there is an identification with it. DB: I agree, yes. K: When there is no identification
the senses are senses. But why does thought
identify itself with senses? DB: Yes, that is not yet clear. K: I know,
we are going to make it clear. DB: Are you saying that
when the sensation is remembered, then we have identification?
K: Yes. DB: Can we make that more clear? K: Let’s make it a little
more clear. Let’s work at it. There is perceiving
a pleasurable lake, seeing a beautiful lake, what takes place in that seeing? There is not only optical nerve,
seeing by the eye, but also the senses are awakened, the smell of the water,
the trees on the lake… DB: Could we stop a moment? When you say seeing, of course
you see through the visual sense. K: I am using pure visual sense. DB: Now, therefore you already have the visual sense
awakened merely to see. Is that what you mean? K: Yes.
I am just seeing. DB: Visually.
K: Visually, optically, I am just seeing,
then what takes place? DB: And the other senses
start to operate. K: And the other senses
start operating. Why doesn’t it stop there? DB: What is the next step? K: The next step is
thought comes in – how beautiful that is,
I wish I could remain here. DB: So thought identifies it?
K: Yes. DB: It says, ‘It is this’.
K: Yes, because in that there is pleasure. DB: In what? K: Seeing
and the delight of seeing, then thought coming
into operation and saying ‘I must have more, I must
build a house here, it is mine’. DB: But why does thought do that? K: Why does thought interfere
with senses – is that it? Now wait a minute, sir. The moment the senses take pleasure, say, ‘How delightful’ and stop there, thought doesn’t enter. K: Right?
DB: That’s right. K: Now why does thought enter? If it is painful, thought avoids it. DB: Right. K: It doesn’t identify itself
with that. DB: It identifies against it,
it says, ‘I don’t want it’. K: No, leave it alone,
go away from it, either deny it
or move away from it. But if it is pleasurable,
when the senses begin to enjoy, say, ‘How nice’, then thought begins
to identify itself with it. DB: But why, I mean? K: Why, because of pleasure. DB: But why doesn’t thought give it
up when it sees how futile this is? K: Oh, that’s much later.
DB: That’s a long way off. K: When it becomes painful, when it is aware identification
breeds both pleasure and fear, then it begins to question. DB: Well, are you saying
thought has made a simple mistake in the beginning,
a kind of innocent mistake? K: Yes, that’s right. Thought has made a mistake
in identifying with something, that brings to it pleasure, or there is pleasure in something. DB: And thought tries to take over.
K: To take over. DB: To make it permanent, perhaps. K: Permanent, right,
which means memory. A remembrance of the lake
with the daffodils, and the trees, and the water and sunlight,
and all the rest of it. DB: I understand now
thought has made a mistake and later it discovers this mistake, but it seems to be too late
because it doesn’t know how to stop. K: It is now conditioned. DB: So can we make it clear
why it cannot give it up, you see. K: Why it cannot give it up? That’s our whole problem.
DB: Do we try to make it more clear? K: Why doesn’t thought give up something which it knows or is aware
that it is painful? DB: Yes.
K: It is destructive. Why? Go on, why, sir? Sir, let’s take a simple example: psychologically one is hurt. DB: Well, that is later. K: I am taking that as an example,
doesn’t matter later or… One is hurt. Why can’t one
immediately give up that hurt, because knowing that hurt is going
to create a great deal of damage? That is, when I am hurt
I build a wall round myself not to be hurt more; there is fear, and isolation,
neurotic actions – all that follows. Thought has created
the image about myself, and that image gets hurt. Why doesn’t thought say, ‘Yes, by Jove, I have seen this’,
drop it immediately? Right? It is the same question.
DB: Yes. K: Because when it drops the image
there is nothing left. DB: Then you have
another ingredient because thought wants to hold on
to the memory of the image. K: Hold on to the memories
which have created the image. DB: And which may create it again, and thought feels
they are very precious. K: Yes, they are very precious,
nostalgic and all the rest of it. DB: So somehow it gives
very high value to all that. How did it come to do that? K: Why has it made
the image so valuable? DB: Yeah. Why has the image
become so important which thought has created? DB: If I may say that in the beginning
it was a simple mistake, and thought made
an image of pleasure, and it seemed to become
very important, precious, and was unable to give it up. K: Yes, why doesn’t it? Sir, if I give up pleasure, if thought gives up pleasure,
what is there left? DB: It can’t seem to return
to the state in the beginning when there was nothing. K: Ah, that is the pristine state.
That is the thing. DB: It is unable
to return to that state. K: It can’t because thought
– you know, all the rest of it. DB: Well,
I think what happens is that when thought thinks
of giving up pleasure, which has become very precious, then the mere
thought of that is painful. K: Yes, the giving up is painful. DB: And therefore
thought runs away from that. K: Yes, so it clings to pleasure. DB: It does not wish
to face the pain. K: Till there is
a better reward for pleasure, which will be a better pleasure. DB: That’s no change, is it?
K: Of course. DB: But thought seems
to have fallen into a trap which it has made, because it has innocently
remembered pleasure, and then gradually
made it important, and then it has become too painful to give it up.
K: Give it up. DB: Because any change from
the immediate removal of pleasure is very painful. K: Because it has nothing else than
afterwards, then it is frightened. DB: But you see, in the beginning it was not
frightened to have nothing else. K: Yes.
DB: Now it is. K: Yes.
In the beginning, that means the beginning
being the beginning of man. DB: Yes. K: In the beginning of man
– can we question even that? DB: Perhaps not. K: Beginning of the ape. DB: If you go far enough back. You want to say
it has been going a long time, but thought has built this trap
which has gradually got worse. K: Sir, could we say,
as the brain is very old – all our brains are very old – merely tracing it back
further and further, you can never find out. But I can say
my brain is now as it is, which is very old, conditioned,
in terms of pleasure and pain. DB: Yes. They say
that the old brain is also the emotional
part of the brain. K: Of course, emotional
and all the rest of it, sensory. So where are we now? DB: Well, we say that this brain
has conditioned itself by continual memory
of the image of pleasure, the unpleasantness of giving it up
and the fear. K: So it clings to something
which it knows. DB: Which it knows
and which is very precious to it. K: But it doesn’t know
that it is going to breed fear. DB: Even when it knows
it still clings. K: But it would much rather
run away from fear hoping the pleasure will continue. DB: But I think eventually
it starts to become irrational because it creates pressures which make the brain irrational
and unable to get this straight. K: Yes. Where are we now
at the end of this? We started off, sir,
didn’t we, Dr Bohm, with – is there an action in which
there is no motive, no cause, the self doesn’t enter
into it at all? Of course there is. There is when the self is not, which means no identifying
process takes place. There is the perceiving
of a beautiful lake with all the colour and the glory
and the beauty of it, and that’s enough. Not the cultivating of memory which is developed
through the identification process. Right? DB: This always raises the question: how are we going to stop
this identification? K: I don’t think there is a ‘how’. DB: Right, but then what do we do? K: Which means meditation, control,
practice, practice, practice. And that way makes the mind
mechanical, dull – forgive me – and literally incapable
of receiving anything new. Irmgard Schloegl: If it imitates,
if it just imitates it, this is precisely what happens. If these practices are done with
imitation, imitation, imitation. WR: That means if that practice
becomes an imitation… IS: Then this is
a terrible condition. WR:…then the mind is mechanical. K: What do you mean ‘imitation’? IS: If you tell me
– if I make it very simple – just three times a day
put your hand on the floor and something will happen.
K: And I do it. IS: And I do it,
I do not think about it, I do not enquire about it,
I do not say, ‘Why? Now, what happens,
why should I?’, if I do not question it, if I just mechanically do it,
nothing will happen, I will get only
more and more fuzzy. But if I enquire into it, why,
what for, what is my reaction… K: My question is: I have listened to somebody
who says, put your hand there, and then I begin to enquire, but I don’t accept anybody
telling me that I must put my hand there, then I don’t have to enquire. Do you remember
that famous story of a guru – he had a favourite cat,
and he had many disciples. Every morning,
before they all started meditation, he caught hold of the cat,
put it on his lap, and meditated. And when he died, the disciples
had to search around for a cat. WR: I have heard it differently. The cat was tied up
so he could not come and listen. K: Same thing. You see, our minds are mechanical anyhow, have been made mechanical. Can’t we investigate why we have become mechanical, rather than practise that
which is non-mechanical, which may be mechanical. IS: We can, since there have been people
who have become whole before us… K: I don’t know.
IS: Or it seems. If I stand out of my quest.
K: I don’t know anybody. IS: It seems likely.
K: You see, you accept it. IS: I am looking at it
as a possible proposition. K: I don’t know.
I start with myself. I don’t look to somebody
who is enlightened. I don’t know.
They may deceive themselves. IS: This is why
I am trying to find… K: So one must start with oneself. Oneself is already second-hand,
living in the shadow of others, so why look to others?
So here I am. From there I begin.
It’s so simple, whereas the other leads
to so many complications. IS: I do not necessarily
see it as a complication. If I have an idea that there is something
that is more than my illusion, my suffering,
my general state of dissatisfaction in which I am
and which I have to face, if I do not think
that there is any possibility, then I might not even try. If I see that
there might be a possibility, I do not need to take it for truth, but it gives me the sense that it is worthwhile
trying to work with myself as my own subject of experiment,
to work it out. K: Why do you want a motive? IS: I think it is almost impossible
not to start with that motive, because that starts from self. K: No, madam, we are talking about the same thing,
aren’t we? I just want to know myself, not because I suffer,
I go through, you know, I just want to know what I am, not according to anybody,
but just know about myself. So I begin to enquire, I begin to look in the mirror,
which is myself. The mirror says,
your reactions are these, and as long as you have
these reactions, you are going to pay heavily, you are going to suffer.
So that is all. So now how am I,
an ordinary human being, knowing all my reactions, ugly, pleasant, hateful,
all the reactions one has, to bring about an observation
in which there is no motive to restrain or to expand
reactions? I wonder
if I am making myself clear. IS: Yes. K: How am I to observe myself
without a cause? The cause generally is
punishment and reward. Which is obviously too absurd,
like a dog being trained. So can I look at myself
without any motive? Go on, sirs. IS: At this stage of enquiry, where I am beginning
to try to do it, to start with, I cannot do it,
I am too conditioned. K: No, I wouldn’t admit that. You are always asking for help. IS: No, but I can in the same way
as I can do a physical training, I can be able slowly,
but not immediately, to look, to bear the proximity
of those things that I do normally
not like to see in myself. K: I understand that, madam. Which is like: I have no muscles
to do certain exercises, in a week’s time I have those
muscles by doing exercises. That same mentality
is carried over, I don’t know myself, but I will gradually
learn about myself. IS: I’s not that I need
to gradually learn – we have to be very careful here – it is not that I need to gradually
learn about myself, it is only that I have
to develop the courage, the strength to bear myself. K: It is the same thing,
it is the same thing. I haven’t the strength, physical strength
to do certain exercises: the same mental operation
goes psychologically – I am weak,
but I must get strong. IS: It is not
that I must get strong. I think this is where
one gets oneself into a… K: Cul-de-sac.
IS: Yes, it is not for the motive, it is the very real
suffering and looking, and suffering and looking,
suffering and looking, and there is a changing factor in it which in the end makes it possible. K: Which is again
gradual, evolution. I say that is totally – if I may point out,
I am not correcting you – that will lead nowhere,
that is an illusion. IS: It need not lead to anywhere, but if it is continued
in that spirit, with that attitude, not I get something out of it, then there is a sudden change
possible and it does occur. Whether we have done it, and I would like to make
another point on that: whether we have done it
starting with that motive and changed and began slowly
the other way, or whether we have done it
unbeknownst to ourselves, so that it can suddenly happen on the basis of the life
that we have lived, does really not
make any difference. K: Madam, either you have insight
immediately, or you don’t have it. IS: Yes, that is true but what led up to it,
that is the point. K: Ah, there is no preparation,
which means time, which means cultivating,
identification, the ‘me’. IS: No.
K: Of course. The moment you allow time
it is the cultivation of the self. IS: Not necessarily. K: Why do you say, not necessarily? IS: If I do it for something
that I want to gain out of it, then it is certainly
a cultivation of the self. K: Madam, when you say,
as we said just now, insight is devoid
of time and memory. Insight is timeless,
it must happen. You can’t gradually come to it, it is not a thing
cultivated by thought. So to have an insight into oneself
instantly, not by degrees. Is that possible?
IS: Yes. K: No, don’t say, yes,
we are enquiring. IS: Then I would say with my
own conviction and experience, I would say yes. K: Say yes to what?
IS: It is possible. K: That means,
if you have an insight, that insight wipes away the self, not momentarily,
not momentarily. So would you say, action then is without motive? Do you know such action; not occasionally,
but living an everyday life? I don’t want to be occasionally fed,
but I want to be fed every day. I don’t want to be
occasionally happy, I want to have –
you know, all the rest of it. As insight is devoid of time
and divorced from memory, thought, therefore is there an action
born of insight? You understand? WR: If you have insight – I don’t say ‘had’ because
that means memory again, the past. K: Have insight.
WR: If you have insight, there is no exception,
all your actions are without motive. K: Again, forgive me – are we talking
theoretically or actually? WR: Actually. K: That means action is correct,
accurate, right through life. WR: Yes. You may make mistakes, sir,
technically. K: No, I am not
talking of technically. WR: But there is no self, there is
no motive if you have that insight. Every action… K: Have you got that insight?
Not you, sir, has one insight, that insight into the whole
nature of the self, not arguments, not inductions,
not deductions, not conclusions, but have an insight
into the nature of the self? And therefore the self, if there is an insight
into the self, then action will inevitably
follow from that insight. IS: May I make one point clear
that I feel strongly about, it is not that I have the insight,
that is not possible. There is that insight. K: What? Is there such insight?
IS: There is the insight. It is not as if I have it. GN: It is not that I have insight,
there is insight. K: I have no insight,
I am only blind. If I say,
‘I have an insight into that’, I am a little bit mentally deranged. So what are we talking about? You asked a question, sir. WR: Of course, we have gone
very far away from my question. K: I know. WR: Now let us forget that question
altogether, that was answered. K: Let’s go back to it. WR: No, that question
you have answered. Then there is another question,
also related. You see, there is – perhaps you are
aware of this theory – many people… that we think in a language,
there is a belief. Many people say that.
K: What? WR: You think in a language. Very often they ask me:
in which language do you think. I say, I don’t know.
There is no language in thinking. Thought has no language, and the thought is
immediately interpreted into the nearest language. K: Sir, could you convey your
thought to me without the word? WR: That is the thing. When you convey thought,
it is indefinite. K: No, sir. Can you convey your
thought to me without the word? WR: That depends on the level.
K: Which means what? WR: I don’t know
whether you accept it, or whether you have that experience: without talking, without words,
there is communication. K: That is, sir, there can only be
communication, communion when you and I
are on the same level and with the same intensity,
at the same time. Right? Which is what? When you and I
are on the same level, with the same intensity,
at the same time, what is that thing? Then words are not necessary. WR: No.
K: What is that thing? WR: You can say if you like,
that it is thought. K: No, no. Sir, when both of us are like that,
what is the quality of that state? Not the absence of thought, but the quality,
the perfume, the thing. Wouldn’t you call that love? WR: Yes.
K: No, don’t, don’t. WR: But you asked me,
or just you are going to answer it. I get confused when you put it to me and people are expecting
me to answer it. K: Sir, when two people have this extraordinary
quality of this state, words are not necessary. There is that quality
of love which exists, therefore the words
become unnecessary. There is instant communication. Now, for most of us,
language drives us. Right? Right, sir? Language drives us,
pushes us, shapes us. Our minds are
conditioned by language, which is language, words,
drive us, force us. I am an Englishman – the language,
and the contents of that language. Right? And if we use words
without the language directing us, words then have
an entirely different meaning. GN: The language doesn’t drive you,
but you drive the language. K: That’s right. DB: I think that ordinarily
we are identified with our language, and therefore it is driving us, but if we are free
of identification… K: That’s why, sir, it is extraordinary
how language has made us. I am a communist. DB: That’s an identification.
K: That’s it, that’s it. DB: But do you think that language is
the major source of identification? K: One of them. DB: One of the big ones.
K: Yes. WR: I don’t know
whether it would be useful, I would like to remind here of a very important Mahayana
Buddhist philosophical attitude. That is, it is said that the world
is caught up in language. Naamkaya, Padakaya Vyanjana… K: In Sanskrit too.
WR: Yes, these are Sanskrit words. And it is said
the ordinary man is stuck in words just like an elephant in the mud, and so one must go beyond words
– Nam, Pada, Vyanjana, to see them. Because as long as you are,
as you say, driven by language… K: Are you? WR: Are you asking personally? K: Yes, are you?
Am I? Dr Bohm,
is he driven by language? WR: That I can’t see.
You answer that. K: I can answer for myself,
but I am asking you. WR: Yes, you answer for yourself.
K: Oh, absolutely. WR: That’s enough. K: That’s not enough. GN: But I think the more skilful, or scholarly
one becomes in language, I suppose there is
a greater possibility of being caught in language. WR: Yes. Certainly. GN: Whereas the rustic might just
use it for simple communication. K: Sir, that was your question whether thought has words, whether thought is part of words. Does the word create the thought, or thought create the word?
Egg? DB: You once asked the question,
is there a thought without the word? K: That’s what I want to… That is very interesting, sir,
shall we go into it a little bit? Do you want to go into it, sir? WR: Is there a thought
without the word. DB: That is the question. WR: I think thought has no word. Thought has no word.
Thought is an image. K: No, we are using the word
in the sense to include the symbol, the image,
the picture, the word – all that. DB: You see, the word can easily
be turned into an image, for example, by an artist, a description can be turned
by an artist into an image, or vice versa, the image could
be described and turned into words. So they have an equivalent content. K: Sir, what is
the origin of thought? If you had to find out, not what the Buddha said, if you, as a human being,
had to find out something, you must find out otherwise your head
will be chopped off; it is something tremendously
important that you must find out, what will you do: what is the origin of thought? God made the world and the word
was incarnate… What is it? At the beginning of the Bible,
Genesis. I’ve forgotten it.
DB: I’ve forgotten it, I can’t remember the Genesis. K: I’m sorry, this is common,
you hear it on… K: Please sir, answer that question. WR: Is there an origin? K: Is there?
WR: Is there an origin? K: Must be.
WR: Why must? K: Otherwise –
in you, sir, what is the origin? WR: No origin. K: Of course, sir, there must be
a beginning of thought. WR: That is again a fallacy,
a wrong way of looking at it. K: No, no, no. WR: By asking
everything must have a beginning. K: No, I am not asking
everything has a beginning. I am just asking
in order to find out, what is the beginning of thought. How did thought begin? With the dog
– you follow, sir? – with the animals,
everything that is living, they all think in various ways,
or feel, and so on, there must be a beginning of that.
What is that in human beings? IS: If we had no desire at all,
we would have no thought. K: No, it is not a question of that. DB: Are you discussing thought without identification
or with identification? K: No, sir. How did thought begin in myself? Was it handed down by my father,
by my parents, by education, by environment, by the past?
I want to know. What made me think? Go on, sir. What made you think? WR: The question is this, you are putting
some cause behind this, but I would say,
nothing made me think, it is in the nature
of yourself thinking. K: No. WR: There is no other origin, cause.
K: Oh yes, there is. I’ll show you.
WR: What is that? K: I’ll tell you in a minute. K: No, I am not
the final authority, sir. I’d like to talk it over. If I had no memory,
would there be thinking? WR: I ask you again,
what is the origin of memory? K: That’s fairly simple to answer. I remember seeing you in Paris
– which I don’t – but suppose I remember
seeing you in Paris – that is recorded, isn’t it? Right, sir? WR: That is generally accepted
that it is recorded in the brain. K: No, it is an ordinary fact.
WR: No, that I do not accept. It is an old 19th-century,
20th-century theory that everything is recorded
in the brain somewhere. K: No, sir.
Look, I met you this week, you come back a year later
– I hope you will – and then I say, yes, sir,
I recognise you. Right? How does that recognition
take place? WR: Very good you carried on because this is a question
that I want to ask you. How does memory arise? I didn’t ask it, but this is the question that
I very much wanted to ask you. K: I am doing that, sir. I meet you now,
and in a year’s time you come back – I hope you will –
for a discussion. Then I say, yes, sir, Mr Rahula,
we met last year. How does that take place?
Very simple. Memory. The brain has recorded that memory of meeting you,
learning your name. So that is memory, and when I meet you next time
I recognise you. Right? There is nothing… WR: How does it happen? That is the question.
K: It is very simple. You have been introduced to me, we have sat down here
for two afternoons and a morning, and that is remembered, when you come back next year,
I say, yes. If I didn’t remember,
I wouldn’t recognise you. Right? So recording goes on – it is not the 19th, or 1st century
or the 20th century – recording must go on. The elaborate educating process
of learning a technique, how to drive a car,
or go to the moon, whatever it is, it is careful
accumulation of memory, which then acts. There is nothing wrong in that,
is there? WR: How does it happen? K: Sir, I don’t know
how to drive a car, so I go to the man who teaches me
how to drive a car. I take twenty four lessons, at the end of it I am inspected and the man says,
‘You are pretty good’. And you say I have learnt it
by driving with him, he is telling me,
be careful, turn to the left, he is guiding me all the time. So at the end of twenty four lessons
I am a good driver. I hope. And that’s all. There is nothing
right or wrong about it. In the same way I meet you today,
next year I will remember, which is, there is remembrance,
which is the recording process. No? It is so simple. WR: Still it is not
completely clear to me. Let us admit it is recorded, how does that record come up
when we meet next year? K: Oh, when I see you. That memory springs up and says,
oh, he is Mr Rahula. And the recording is the image,
pleasurable or not pleasurable. WR: I hope it will be pleasurable! K: And that is recorded, and when I meet you next time,
I meet you. But if it is not pleasurable
I say, ‘Well, what a bore’. And I turn away
and talk about something else. So this whole process is recorded
– how I’ve learnt to drive a car, how I’ve learnt to speak English,
French, German, whatever it is, there must be recording. No? WR: Certainly it is so.
K: But you said 19th century… WR: What I want to say is,
it is not in the brain. That is the thing. K: Where is it? WR: It is in the nature of what we
call generally the mental faculty. Just as eye, ear, nose, etc., the mind faculty, the mental faculty
also is a faculty. K: Yes. WR: That is one
of the potentialities. K: It is the faculty
of the brain to record. WR: It is not the physical brain. That is my point. K: Ah, you have gone off
into something else. WR: Yes, that is what I say. GN: You are saying
that the mental faculty is spread all over the body,
not necessarily in the head? Is that…
when you say it is not in the brain. WR: Our mental faculty
is one of the sense organs, there are five
physical sense organs. You see, the eye has the power
to see and to examine, the ear can’t do it,
it can hear only. And there is the mental faculty just like eye, ear, nose, tongue
– all the physical faculties – there is the mental faculty, which eye, ear, nose,
tongue and body deals with the external world,
material world. But the world is not
finished by that, the bigger part of the world
is not touched by that. K: What is the bigger part
of the world? WR: The bigger part of the world? That is what we were talking about,
these sensations, and all these things are not touched
by the body, or anything like that. Then the mind faculty,
the mental faculty is the thing that has
many, many aspects, many potentialities;
one is this memory. And what I want to clarify from you
is how does it happen, and of course you begin
with the idea of the brain… K: No. WR:…the recording in the brain,
and with which I disagree. K: Sir, let’s cut out the brain,
for the moment. I meet you today
and I see you a week later. There is the process
of recognition. All right. That’s one part of the faculty. The other part of the faculty
is to think logically, or not logically. So there are several aspects, faculties which are
made up in the mind. You cannot have mind
without the brain. WR: Yes. Certainly not only the brain, but without the body,
without the stomach, without the heart.
K: What? GN: He includes all the physical. WR: Without the physical existence
you can’t have the mind. K: That’s all.
WR: Why only brain? K: Therefore the mind
is part of the senses, the mind is part of the thought, emotions, certain faculties,
to think and so on, so on. Is that outside, or the whole structure
of the organism, the whole brain, body,
eyes, ears, all that is part of this mind
which is the process of thinking. No? DB: Are you saying mind is thought,
or is it more than thought as well? K: I don’t know but…
DB: That includes thought. K: I don’t want to say that.
DB: Just say thought. I only want to say the mind as long as it is functioning
within the field of thought, is limited. DB: You mean consciousness,
the mind is that. K: Yes, consciousness
is limited. DB: We say it is limited by these
faculties, wherever they are. K: Yes, that’s right,
whatever they are. DB: But as far
as recognition goes, people are even making machines that can imitate
the process of recognition. K: Of course. DB: You know you can recognise
simple things already by means of a computer. IS: And yet, if I have met you
just for a moment and there was not a sufficient
impact of you of that meeting image, I will next week pass you by
and not recognise you. K: Of course.
DB: That’s the point, it has to be recorded
with some energy, you see. IS: That is what I mean,
there must be sufficient energy. K: Of course, all recording
must have energy. DB: If you don’t turn on
the microphone, nothing is recorded. WR: And many things that we see
and hear we don’t remember, only things that leave
a certain impression. DB: You see,
I think it is fairly clear how the record
could give rise to a recognition and the next experience. The next time you see the person
the record is compared with. WR: It comes back.
DB: It comes back, yes. WR: It is exactly like the computer. K: So our brains are computers. WR: I should say, no, not the brain. K: What is the brain?
WR: The brain may be the basis. Why do you only say brain,
why not the whole body, whole heart, without heart can you think?
K: No. Therefore, sir, we said that. The brain, the mind, the mind contains the brain,
the feelings, the heart, the whole structure.
DB: All the nerve centres. K: We are using
the word ‘mind’ as consciousness, which is I cannot have consciousness
if the heart doesn’t function. WR: That is why I used
the word mental faculty instead of the mind
or consciousness, the word faculty embracing,
involving all that department. K: What do you mean
by the word faculty? What does the word mean, sir? DB: To have some
capacity and ability – capacity to do something. WR: The ability to do,
like when you say a visual faculty. K: No, sir, ability to do
depends on knowledge. If I didn’t know
how to play the piano, that is, I learnt it. WR: No, excuse me, sir,
you are going away from the point. I said the mind faculty, mind has the power, the capacity,
the potentiality to do all that. And those are different
aspects of the thing. K: Oh, I see. DB: The faculty is inborn,
are you saying? WR: Inborn, innate,
in itself it has the power. And you can’t ask
why and from where. K: No, I want to ask that. I won’t accept the mind
has the inborn faculty. DB: To think. K: Inborn which means it is not
genetic, it is not heredity. DB: No, inborn means genetic. WR: No, no, that is not right. Say the mind just like our eyes
has the power to see. K: So the mind has the power…
WR:…to do all those tricks, all those things
that we are taught – the memory, reaction
and sensation, and all that. K: The mind is
the active energy to do all this. DB: Also the physical structure
is all over the body. I think that it is a good analogy to say that the eye
has certain possibilities, and in this whole body already
the infant has the ability to think, already built into him
because of the heredity. K: How has this ‘built in’
come into being? DB: By growing in the same way
that the eye grew. You see, the eye has a tremendous…
K: Which means evolution. DB: Evolution, yes.
K: Wait, wait, go slowly. Which means,
right from the beginning, it has evolved till we are
now monkeys, greater monkeys. Sorry! WR: Again, sir, I question that. You took for granted
Darwin’s theory. K: I don’t take Darwin,
I see this happening in the world. WR: When you say
we are evolved from the monkey. K: We have evolved
from imperfect man; or not evolved from perfect man. We are going down the hill
instead of up the hill, or we are going uphill,
therefore we are imperfect man. DB: I wonder if we want
to discuss all these things, they are really details
that are not certain. WR: That is why I object to that
statement about the monkey evolving. We don’t know about it. K: I don’t know, sir,
I don’t know how we have evolved, but I do know
the very simple thing which is, without recording
there is no thought. WR: That means that
thought is memory. K: Of course. Thought is memory,
which is experience, which is knowledge, stored up – it doesn’t matter where,
in my big toe, stored up – and when it is challenged,
it operates. DB: Well, we have also said
thought is the ability… to reason logically and along
with the memory, all that together. K: Think logically, or illogically,
and so on. DB: All that is
what you have called faculties. WR: Yes, I used that word because
it uses a bigger field than reason. DB: But you are saying
it still depends on memory. K: Of course, a sense
of recording is memory. DB: Without memory none of
the other faculties could operate. K: Of course. I see that thing, it has been called a tree,
I call it a tree. That’s all.
It is recorded all the time. Without that recording there is no beginning of thought,
there is no thought. Sir, if you were born
in the Catholic world and conditioned
by the Catholic world, you would be thinking
along the Catholic world, Christ, you know,
the whole business of it. So you are conditioned
by propaganda, by books, by priests,
by all the circus that goes on, as you are conditioned in India,
or Ceylon and so on. So what is the origin,
the beginning of this conditioning? Why does man condition himself? For security, to avoid danger? Obviously. I believe in Christ, because I have been brought up
in the Christian world, that’s my conditioning, and this life is a miserable life,
unhappy life, but I believe in Christ which gives me a certain
sense of comfort, strength to face this appalling thing,
the world, so it gives me great comfort. That’s all. It gives me security
in an insecure world, psychologically,
the Father is looking after me. That’s all. And the Hindus,
the Buddhists, the Islams, they are all in the same category. So the instinctual response
of a human being is to feel secure, like a child, sir, obviously. No? WR: How does it come about,
that sense of security, the feeling of security,
what is the origin of that? K: The mother and the child,
the baby, they must have a little security, the baby must have security,
physical security, it must have food at the right time, the right hour,
and all the rest of it. DB: Does the baby have a feeling
of security at the same time? K: Probably, I don’t know,
not being a baby, I don’t remember it,
but I am sure it feels safe. DB: It feels safe. K: Safe, looked after, quiet, the moment it cries
the mother is there to change the diapers,
to feed it and all the rest of it. What’s wrong with that? From that physical security
we turn to psychological security which Christ gives me. It may be nonsense, unreasonable
and all kinds of things, but I like that, at least
I have comfort in some illusion. But I don’t call it illusion. If you call it illusion,
I will kick you. So we go on that way. You have your security
in something, I have my security and another has
his security in Islam, and so on. So each one of us clings to our own
particular form of security, whether it is reasonable, sane,
rational, that doesn’t matter. DB: It seems to me that it is
similar to the pleasure question that is you register
the feeling of pleasure and then try to build it up. K: But I can’t give up, I can’t say,
well, I’ll let go of Christ, I say, my God, I can’t. DB: It is the same with pleasure,
you can’t give up pleasure. K: Of course, of course,
the same problem. IS: I think it is harder
with pleasure because people nowadays do seem as though they give up
or change their religions without too much difficulty, but we are all much more
against giving up our pleasure when it really comes to it. K: Ah, well, that’s a different
matter altogether. Physical pleasure… IS: Or pleasures of the mind.
K: Of course. WR: But where are we going? K: Where are we going
– I haven’t finished yet. We haven’t discussed
the central issue of life: what is action
without this enormous complex of motives, reactions,
regrets, pain, sorrow. Can a human being live in action
without all this dreadful confusion? That’s all. And you say, yes, you can live. And you tell me,
if you are a Christian, believe in god,
believe in Christ, he will save you from all this. And I am so unhappy, I say,
for god’s sake, and I cling to it. And if you are X, you say, I believe in all the things
that the Buddha has said, that to me is good enough. I will take comfort in that:
Buddham Sharanam gachchami. So my actions are based
on reward and punishment. Right, sir? If I do this, I will reach nirvana, if I don’t, I’ll go to hell, which is the Christian idea
and all the rest of it. One has thrown all that overboard, being fairly intelligent
and educated, one says, that is all nonsense. I want to find out
if there is an action without any shadow
of effort and regret. You understand, sir? It is important to find out,
not theoretically or casually – it is a burning question for me, a passionate thing I must find out? because I don’t want to enter
into the cage, in the rat race. So what shall we do? What is right action
under all circumstances which doesn’t depend
on circumstances – my wife says, do this, I love you, but you must do this,
or something else. I put away all those
influences or pressures, but I want to find out if there is an action
which is complete in itself. So I must understand: is there an action which is total, which is complete, whole,
not partial. Which means can I observe myself
wholly, not in fragments? Or through the fragment
instantly see the whole? So is there an action
which is whole? I say, yes, there is, definitely. Don’t you ask me, what is that? WR: I wanted to ask,
but I was waiting for the reply. K: Ask it! WR: I want to ask, what is that? K: First of all, can you see
with your eyes the tree as a whole? Can you see your wife,
or your husband, or your girlfriend, or boyfriend,
as a whole entity? Do you understand my question? Can you see anything totally, or you are always seeing partially? WR: When you use the word ‘totally’,
what is the meaning? K: Holistic, whole. Don’t go into something else. Can I see you as a whole being? You understand? Can I see humanity as myself, which is the whole? That’s good enough. Can I see humanity as myself? Because humanity is like me,
suffering, miserable, confused, agony, terrified, insecure,
sorrow-ridden – like another. Right? So in seeing man, humanity,
I see myself. WR: Or rather the other way:
by seeing yourself you see humanity. K: Which is me. It doesn’t matter whether you say,
I see myself as humanity, then humanity is me. I am not separate from humanity. I don’t say, I’m an elite, I’m this;
I am like the rest of the gang. Not the mafiosa
but the ordinary gang. So I see the world as myself,
which is the whole. That’s simple, sir – no, not simple,
it is – would that be right, sir? DB: I was wondering if,
what you said, we could consider
the tree for a moment. K: The tree is too petty.
I don’t want to… DB: It is not clear when you say
you see the tree as a whole. K: The whole thing –
to see something wholly, sir. DB: Just see it all, right? IS: I think we are in a slight
language difficulty because we have
no other possibilities. This, ‘I see as a whole’, really it means that the self
or the fallacy of the self, has clearly been seen into
and has broken down, because otherwise however much
I see the tree as a whole, it is still my thought. K: That is the ultimate thing.
IS: Yes. K: But can you see your husband,
your wife, or your girlfriend, as a whole being? Totally, you know. You can, can’t you? How does that happen
when you can see somebody wholly? IS: The tremendous
– but not my – warmth. K: No, no…
IS: Warmth comes in. K: If you love that tree,
you will see it wholly. IS: But we have also to be careful
what we mean by love. K: Keep it very simple, don’t
intellectualise it for the moment, we’ll do it later. If I love somebody, love, not possessive, acquisitive,
all the rest of that nonsense, if I love,
the whole thing is there, the totality of that man
or woman is there. So can I see myself wholly
– myself being humanity? I am not different from humanity. I am not an individual. That’s all phoney. I am the rest of the world,
I am the world. Can I see that as a whole? I am not a communist, sir, because the communists say that too, but I am not that stupid communists. WR: Why do you want
to deny communism like that? K: No, no, no. WR: What is wrong
if you are a communist? K: No, you have misunderstood. Communists are full of theories and putting those theories
into practice and shaping man
according to a theory. I am not talking about that,
leave that for the moment. I am sorry I brought it in. To look at myself – I can only see myself as a whole when I am actually
the rest of mankind. DB: You mean in essence, you mean that essentially
I am the same as the whole. K: Essentially, basically.
DB: The basic qualities. K: I may have a long nose,
or short nose, and crooked eyes, or blue eyes – I am not talking about that.
IS: A basic human being. K: As a human being. Then there is no individual effort, nor collective effort. Right? K: When one sees oneself as a whole,
the parts disappear. But we think by collecting the parts
we make the whole. So when I see myself as a whole,
then the parts disappear, therefore the self is not. Sir, when I see that thing,
that tree, completely… I can only see it completely
if I don’t condemn, if I don’t say,
‘It’s my tree, it’s my garden’. Right? You understand what I am saying?
WR: Yes, yes. K: So when I love that tree,
I see it as a whole. DB: Would you say then
that it is similar to all trees? Like saying,
if I see myself as a whole, I am the same as all mankind. K: So all trees I love. DB: Is that the same?
K: Of course, obviously. DB: It doesn’t depend
on that single tree. It is not just this tree
that you love. K: It isn’t that elm that I love. DB: That is right here
in this place. K: Trees I love, whether they are in your garden,
or my garden, or somewhere else. DB: Wherever it is.
K: On the field. DB: So it doesn’t matter,
the particulars. K: That’s it. IS: And it doesn’t matter which side
it is because they are the same. I love the tree and see it whole
because I love it, that doesn’t matter,
the one and the other is the same. This is the same. K: Look, I raised
the question of seeing wholly because what is action
which is not fragmented, not broken up
as a business man, as the artist, as a lecturer,
as a professor, as a priest – an action which is total. Don’t say, if the self is not,
then you will have it. But I have a self, one is caught in the self;
or rather the self is there. DB: But you are suggesting, see the self whole
and then it won’t be there. K: Yes, sir. DB: Therefore would you also say
that you have to love the self? K: That is a dangerous statement.
I was going to make it and I stopped myself in time
because that is what… DB: Some people have said. K: Advertising – people say,
love, reward yourself, love your hair, use this shampoo.
DB: Could you say instead you are mankind,
you love mankind? K: Ah, no.
DB: That’s not true. K: Now, be careful. DB: Because the analogy
seems to be limited. K: Analogies are limited. IS: So are words in themselves. K: Any more questions, sir? We will stop
unless you have any more questions. WR: There is no end
to these questions, therefore let us finish today
like that, unless the other people,
Mr Narayan, other people… But you have answered
all my questions, and thank you very much for all your
very enlightening explanations. And also I must thank Mr Narayan
for arranging this. K: And all these people. WR: Of course, they are all one. K: No, no. WR: When I thank you or Narayan,
or everybody else, I have thanked all the people. K: No, you don’t thank me
and therefore thank everybody, we are all thankful. WR: Yes, thankful to everybody.
IS: We all thank each other.

You may also like


  1. Until one is filled with the same love and intensity of K, one can never have the insight he is pointing it out. When you actually have it you will see that you are K and there nothing exists except K.

  2. In the first discussion 'walpola rahula' made it look as he met Kriahnaji for the first time in-person and in the second discussion he even accepts that he never had got the chance to meet krishnaji alone in-person and discuss his questions, But in this discussion out of nowhere he points out things from his meeting with Krishnaji in paris where they both seemed to have a discussion. Can anyone clarify?

  3. Thinking with language is an interesting point which didn't get what it deserve. There was a lot of jumps from one question to another. Interviewers were full of questions and needed many clarifications.
    It seems that Dr Bohm is the one who gets precisely what Krishanmurti says.

Leave a Reply

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