This is the 8th dialogue between J.

Krishnamurti

and David Bohm, in Gstaad, 1975.

DB: I’ve had a, you know, a letter from

David Shainberg, and we’ve sent the tapes

of the Brockwood discussions to David Shainberg.

K: Oh yes.

DB: And he had a few questions. I think the

major – he finds them very interesting,

of course – he raised one question, you

know, which I could put like this, you see:

If thought is fragmented, inherently fragmented,

and yet thought has to be consciously aware

of its own fragmentation, then we could ask

the question whether the thought which is

aware of its own fragmentation is also fragmented?

K: Good question. Shall we start with that?

DB: Yes.

K: Why do we accept that thought is fragmented?

DB: Yes, well…

K: Why do we say that thought is broken up,

has the faculty of breaking up?

DB: I think one could go into the… one would

have to look deeply into the nature of thought.

K: Yes.

DB: I mean, aside from the fact that experience

seems to fit it, which is not a very good

reason.

K: No, no, no, that’s a... Experience isn’t

a good criterion.

DB: No. I mean, we do experience thought as

fragmentary but that is… we have to understand

it.

K: What is the real, basic reason for thought

to be fragmented? Why is thought limited,

broken up?

DB: Yes, well, now, I’ve been looking, considering

for some time the nature of thought and, you

see, one point about thought is that it forms

a kind of… let’s say, it may be a combination,

beginning as a reaction and becoming a reflection.

Now, thought creates a certain… on the basis

of memory, thought creates a certain imitation

of some actual thing that happens independently

of thought. Right? Is that clear what I mean?

K: I follow that, I follow that.

DB: For example, it may imitate the appearance

in your imagination or the feeling or the

sound or something else. Now, it is not possible

in a reflection to capture the whole of what

is reflected.

K: Yes.

DB: There is always an abstraction.

K: It is always an abstraction. I agree. I

see that.

DB: Abstract means to take out, you see, so

you...

K: But we haven’t answered my question yet:

Why is it fragmented?

DB: Any abstraction is bound to be a part,

to be a fragment, you see.

K: You’re saying thought reflects memory.

DB: Yes, memory – it reflects the content

of memory.

K: Content of memory. And therefore as it

reflects it is an abstraction.

DB: It doesn’t reflect all.

K: Therefore it’s fragmentary.

DB: Yes.

K: Yes.

DB: It selects some things to reflect and

others are not reflected.

K: Would you put the question this way: Can

thought see the whole?

DB: Well, you see, does thought see? You see,

that’s another question which David Shainberg

raised – does thought actually see anything?

Right?

K: Quite.

DB: We discussed the other time in Brockwood

that there is a conscious awareness – thought

can be consciously aware of something. Let’s

say that there is an awareness which involves

perception. And now thought – I don’t

know how you could put it – but everything

that we are aware of may go on to the memory.

Is that right?

K: Yes.

DB: And now when that memory responds we have

thought.
K: That’s what we said – yes.

DB: Right. So therefore, as I see it, conscious

awareness is awareness recorded in memory

and then reflected.

K: Yes, that I understand.

DB: Right?

K: So memory is fragmented.

DB: Memory is inherently fragmented because

it selects something.

K: Yes. Memory is fragmented, therefore its

reflection as thought is fragmented.

DB: It’s not the whole.

K: Yes.

DB: The whole experience, for example, is

not contained in the memory. Subtle… the

essences may be left out. Right?

K: Left out – quite. I understand. Now,

I want to… let’s dig deeper into it.

DB: Yes.

K: Why is thought fragmented?

DB: That’s partly because it’s an abstraction,

as we’ve just said. And I think there’s

another… possibly you could find another

reason that... you see, that in some sense

thought is not fully aware of its own operation,

you see. Well, we could perhaps begin this

way, that the brain has no sense organs inside

to tell itself that it’s thinking.

K: Quite.
DB: You see, if you move your hand, there

is a sense organ that tells you it’s moving.

Or if you move your head, you see, the image

moves but it’s correcting so that the world

doesn’t spin, unless something is wrong

with your balance.

K: Balance – quite.

DB: On the other hand, there are no such sense

organs in the brain. You see, if you do an

operation on the brain, once you’ve passed

through the skull there’s no sensation and

people may be conscious while they are operated

on and it does not disturb them.

K: Yes, yes, I heard...

DB: And now, so let’s say thought has its…

is recorded, it’s held in memory in the

cells of the brain, and the cells of the brain

react to produce some image or imitation.

K: Quite, quite.

DB: And now, while they first react there

is no sensation that they are reacting. You

see, a little later you may sense the result

of the reaction.

K: Yes, that’s…

DB: Is that clear?

K: We’re going… Yes, I understand that.

DB: But then when thought becomes conscious

of that result it may not know that is has

produced that result.

K: Quite.
DB: And therefore it will attribute to that

result an independent existence.

K: So, thought is a reflection of memory – that’s

one.

DB: Yes.

K: The brain has no feeling apart from…

DB: ...apart from the sense organs of the

body.

K: …sensory body. And therefore brain stores

up memory, and memory is partial and therefore

it is… and thought is partial.

DB: Yes, and also thought is not fully aware

of itself.

K: Now, is that the complete answer?

DB: Well, I don’t know, you see.

K: I don’t know – we’re investigating.

DB: Yes. But I was going to finish what I

was saying, that there was an inherent fragmentation

here, because thought not being aware of itself

and then suddenly becoming aware of its own

result further down the line, attributes that

to something which is independent of thought.

K: Independent – quite.

DB: And thus it fragments itself, because

one part of thought… You see, it introduces

two fragments, because one part of thought

has produced this result and another part

of thought comes along and says that this

is something else.
K: Yes. It’s like this – quite, quite.

DB: Yes, and therefore the thought has broken

up into two parts which are contradicting

each other.

K: Yes. I think there is something more, isn’t

there? Why is thought fragmented? You can

see what thought has done – all what it

has reflected upon, what it has thought about,

what it has put together, are all fragments.

DB: Well, that’s from experience though,

you see.

K: Yes, yes.

DB: If we reflect upon our experience we see

the fragmentary nature of the activity of

thought.

K: Yes, yes. Is there a deeper reason, deeper

thing behind it? Why is thought fragmented?

I was thinking about it the other day, walking

– why is it fragmentary? What is the nature

of thought? What is thought? Not words, symbols,

reflection of memory, the activity, the thing

it has done, but actually what is the substance

of thought? Is it a material process, a chemical

process?

DB: Well, yes, it... (inaudible)

K: All right. If it is a chemical, material

process, why should it be fragmented?

DB: Well, it’s…

K: Is perception a fragmentary process?

DB: No. No, perception is not.

K: No. Why?

DB: Well, why should it be fragmentary?

K: If perception is the activity of thought…

DB: Well, no, we didn’t say that, you see.

K: I’m just thinking aloud. If perception

is the activity of thought then perception

cannot see the whole.

DB: No. I think thought contains a kind of

imitation of perception, you see, which we

call reflection.

K: Yes. So thought imagines it perceives.

DB: It contains… Yes.

K: It contains or it supposes it sees.

DB: Yes. It produces a certain result which

it supposes it sees.

K: Yes. But yet why is it broken up? I understand

all these, but there must be a deeper thing,

isn’t there? There may not be but...

DB: No.

K: Is thought seeking a result?

DB: Well, it may be seeking a result, I mean...

K: An end to be achieved, an end to be gained,

something which it can fulfil itself in and

feel satisfied. And – wait a minute, I’m

just… I hope you don’t mind – why has

civilisation, mankind given such terrific

importance to thought?

DB: Well, I think that, you know, in your

talk yesterday, I mean, you pointed out the

issue of security.

K: Yes.

DB: That thought gives, I mean, security in

many senses, not only in the sense you said,

of psychological security, also material security.

K: Yes. Thought in itself is not secure.

DB: Well, thought can’t be secure, it’s

a mirror reflection.

K: Yes – reflection. Therefore, as it cannot

be secure in itself and seeks security outside...

DB: But why does it seek security, you see?

K: Oh that’s… because in itself it is

fragmentary.

DB: Yes but we were… you know, we’re going

round in a circle.

K: Going round in a circle.

DB: (Laughs) And also it does not explain

why something which is fragmentary should

seek security, you see. We have to go a little

more slowly.

K: More slowly – yes. Why does thought seek

security? Because thought is constantly changing,

constantly moving.

DB: Yes. But that doesn’t… you see, nature

is always moving too, but you see…

K: Ah, but nature is different... (inaudible)

DB: I know, but we have to see the difference,

you see.

K: Yes, yes, yes.

DB: You see, nature doesn’t seek security,

as far as we can tell.

K: Nature doesn’t, no. Why does thought

seek security? Is it in itself uncertain,

in itself insecure, in itself is in constant

movement?

DB: But that doesn’t explain why it’s

not just satisfied to just be that.

K: Why, because it sees its own perishable

nature.

DB: But why should it want to be imperishable?

K: Because that which is imperishable is its

security.

DB: Yes, but I mean, I still feel we’re

going around in a circle. You see, it isn’t…

let’s say that if thought were content just

to say, ‘I’m insecure, I’m impermanent,’

then it would be like nature, you see, it

would just say, ‘Well, I’m here today

and tomorrow I’m different.’ Right?

K: Ah, but I am not satisfied with that.

DB: But why not? You see, that’s the thing.

K: Because… Is it attachment?

DB: But what is attachment – do you see?

I mean, why should thought attach to anything;

you see, why shouldn’t it say, ‘Well,

I’m just thought’ – do you see?

K: Ah, I see what you mean. I see what you

mean.

DB: I’m just a reflection, I don’t…

you know, there’s no need...

K: But you’re giving to thought a considerable

intelligence.

DB: Well…

K: If you say, ‘I’m like nature, I just

go, come’ – you follow? – in a constant

flux, constant...

DB: Well now are you saying that thought is

mechanical and that’s why it’s doing this?

K: Yes.

DB: But then we have to see why a mechanism

should necessarily do this – do you see?

K: Why should mechanism…

DB: ...seek security. I mean, a machine doesn’t,

you see, seek anything in particular. You

see, we can set up a machine and it just goes.

K: Of course. As long as there is energy,

it’ll go on working.

DB: Yes, and then it breaks down and that’s

the end of it.

K: That’s the end of it – quite. Why does

thought seek security?

DB: Yes. You see, why should any mechanism

want to be secure?

K: But does thought realise that it is mechanical?

DB: No. But you see, then comes the point,

you say thought has made a mistake, you see,

something incorrect in its content, which

is, thought does not know it’s mechanical.

But does that mean that thought thinks it

is not mechanical?

K: Now wait a minute, let’s come back.

DB: Yes.

K: Do I think I’m mechanical? Maybe in my

thought, all the rest of it.

DB: But thought may begin by not thinking

about itself at all, you see, it just begins

to think. And later it may think… it may

tend… you know, I think in general thought

does not think it’s mechanical. But the

other thing is, does it definitely think it

is not mechanical, you see, beyond the mechanism?

Does it think it’s intelligent, in other

words?

K: Sir, a mechanical thing doesn’t get hurt.

DB: No, it just functions.

K: Functions. It doesn’t get hurt. It stops

working – that doesn’t mean it is hurt.

DB: No.

K: Whereas thought gets hurt.

DB: Yes, and thought has pleasure.

K: Yes – pleasure, pain and all the rest

of it. It gets hurt – let’s stick to one

thing – it gets hurt. Why does it get hurt?

Because of the image and all the rest of it.

It has created the image, and in the thing

that it has created, in that it is seeking

security, isn’t it?

DB: Yes, but why… it is not clear why it

ever began to seek that kind of security,

you see.

K: Ah – why it began.

DB: You see, if it began as a mechanism, there

was no reason in a mechanism.

K: But it never realised it is mechanical.

DB: Yes, all right, but a mechanism doesn’t

know it’s mechanical either, you see. I

mean, like, you know, the tape recorder…

K: Ah, tape recorder doesn’t realise it’s

mechanical.

DB: But it just simply functions mechanically.

(Laughs) You see, it doesn’t... (inaudible)

...to be hurt, you know.

K: (Laughs) Rather interesting this, isn’t

it? Why does thought not realise it is mechanical?

DB: Yes. You see…

K: Why does it suppose that it is something

different from a machine?

DB: Yes, it may, in some sense, supposes it

has intelligence and feeling and, you know,

that it’s a being…

K: ...is a living thing.

DB: A living thing, rather than mechanical.

K: I think that’s the root of it, isn’t

it?

DB: Yes.

K: It thinks it’s living.

DB: Yes.

K: And therefore it gives… it attributes

to itself the quality of non-mechanical existence.

DB: If you could imagine a computer that had

been programmed, say to…. with the information

that it was living… (laughs)

K: Yes, it would say, ‘I’m living.’

DB: And then it might try to react or respond

accordingly, you see, but…

K: Yes. But thought doesn’t do that.

DB: What?

K: Thought has its own… Is thought clever,

giving itself qualities which it basically

has not?

DB: But why should it do that? You see, a

machine doesn’t do it.

K: Ah, I understand. No, a machine doesn’t

do it, but it does it because… Why does

it do it?

DB: Because even to some extent, if we are

to take David Shainberg’s question, you

were saying that thought somehow can realise

it is mechanical, which would imply that it

had some intelligence, you see.

K: Yes. Now wait a minute, just let’s...

Does thought realise that it is mechanical,

or perception sees that it is mechanical?

DB: All right then, yes. That would seem to

be a change from what you said the other day.

K: I’m just investigating.

DB: I can understand if we say there is perception

which sees the mechanical, fragmentary nature

of thought, you see. Now you see, I could

say any machine is in some sense fragmentary,

it’s not alive.

K: Quite.

DB: It’s made of parts that are put together,

and so on. Now, if there is a perception that

it is… that thought is mechanical, then

the intelligence is in the perception.

K: Are we saying, sir – let’s get this

clear – that thought has a quality… has

in itself the quality of intelligence, perception,

and therefore it perceives itself mechanical?

DB: Yes, that would seem strange.

K: That would… I’m just… Wait a minute.

DB: Yes. Or…

K: Or there is perception which… there is

perception and that perception says thought

is mechanical.

DB: Yes. I mean, we call that truth... (inaudible)

K: Yes. But… yes. There are two things,

isn’t there – either the thought in itself

has this sense of perception, sense of intelligence,

and therefore realises that it’s mechanical,

or there is perception, which is truth, and

that perception says thought is mechanical.

DB: Yes. Now, the first idea seems to be a

contradiction.

K: Yes, yes – first idea… Let’s… I’m

just...
DB: Yes.

K: Does this answer it? Does this answer why

thought is fragmentary?

DB: Well, you see, if thought is mechanical

then it will have to be fragmentary.

K: Who realises that it is mechanical?

DB: Well, if we say perception sees it’s

mechanical.

K: Wait a minute, I just want to explore.

Can thought realise that it’s mechanical?

DB: Well, that’s the question we’re…

K: That’s what I…

DB: It’s not clear, you see.

K: Can thought realise it’s mechanical?

DB: Because, you see, the other time it seemed

you were saying that. You were saying there

would be a conscious awareness of the nature

of thought and thought would then, you know,

come to order.

K: We must go back to something else then.

DB: Yes.

K: The things that contain consciousness are

put together there by thought.

DB: Yes.

K: And all the content of that consciousness

is the product of thought. Consciousness is

thought.

DB: Yes, well, it’s the whole process.

K: Yes, the whole... We won’t… Right.

Does thought see all this? Or there is pure

perception without thought, and then says,

‘Thought is mechanical’?

DB: But then how does thought know what to

do, you see? You see, we were discussing also

the other day that when there is perception

of truth…

K: ...action takes place.

DB: …action takes place and thought becomes

aware of that action.

K: Yes. Wait – yes, that’s right. That’s

right. Let’s get at it.

DB: Now, but in becoming aware of that action

is thought mechanical, you see?

K: Yes. No, thought then is not mechanical.

DB: You have to say that thought changes its

nature.

K: Its nature.

DB: All right. Well, that’s the point we

have to get hold of, you see.

K: Yes.

DB: To say thought does not have a fixed nature.

K: Yes.

DB: Is that the point?

K: Yes, sir.

DB: Because you see, if we once… you see,

I think that much of the discussion tends…

if you use one word, it tends to imply that

that has a fixed nature – the word thought.

But now thought can change.

K: Yes, thought does change.

DB: Yes, but I mean it can change fundamentally.

K: Fundamentally. Wait a minute.

DB: Not just superficially.

K: Let’s get at this. Let’s get at this.

I’m beginning to see something... we’re

both beginning to see something. We say perception,

total perception is truth. That perception

operates in the field of reality, and therefore

there…

DB: Well…

K: Wait, no. Wait, go slow. I’m sorry, I

made a mess.

DB: No, I’m just saying that we didn’t

say that perception or truth operates directly

in the field of reality. We said the other

day that it operates in actuality.

K: No – quite right – in actuality. Now

wait a minute. There is perception, which

is truth. That

can only act in actuality, that which is actual.

DB: Yes.

K: Actual being care, isn’t it?

DB: What?

K: The word actual.

DB: Acting or to act.

K: Is act.

DB: Yes.

K: The action in the field of reality – isn’t

it? Look, sir, put it round the other way.

I see something.

DB: Yes.

K: I perceive something totally. Which is

not the act of thought.

DB: Yes, so that is a direct act.

K: Yes, that is direct perception.

DB: Yes.

K: Then that perception acts.

DB: Acts directly.

K: Directly.

DB: Without thought.

K: That’s what I want to find out.

DB: Yes. To begin, without thought, perception

acts directly. As we say, perception of danger

acts immediately.

K: Yes, immediately.

DB: Without thought.

K: That’s right.

DB: And now… but then thought may become

aware of the act, of the action.

K: Thought then can become aware of the act

and translate it into words.

DB: And into further structures.

K: Further structure.

DB: Yes.

K: Right. We’re getting, slowly. That is,

there is a total perception, which is truth.

That perception acts – acts – in the field

of reality. That action is not the product

of thought.

DB: Yes.

K: But thought, because it is an action of

the whole, thought has undergone a change.

DB: All right. We haven’t… Now, you see,

the point is that if there is an action in

the whole, and you say thought is part of

the whole, thought is contained within the

whole – is that what you’re saying? – and

therefore it is changed.

K: No, no. I’m just… I must go back. Sees

the whole – that is the truth.

DB: The whole is different.

K: I mean... whole is different.

DB: Because of the perception.

K: Because of perception. It is not fragmented.

DB: No, it’s one whole.

K: One whole.

DB: But different.

K: Yes. And it acts.

DB: Yes.

K: The action is not the product of thought,

is not put together by thought. That’s clear.

Then what is the relationship of thought to

that act?

DB: Well it seems, you know, we could say

that… you see, there are several points.

You see, one thing is to say that thought

is a material process based on the brain cells.

K: Yes.

DB: Now, the action of perception will somehow

act on the brain cells, won’t it?

K: That’s the point – it does. Quite right,

sir.

DB: And therefore thought must be different.

K: Different. Quite right. That is, sir, I

see there is… You see something totally,

and that total perception is different from

the fragmentary perception, which has been

the nature of the activity of the brain. When

there is this total perception and action,

it must affect the brain cells.

DB: Right. Well, suppose we go there. And

in affecting the brain cells it may change

the nature of thought.

K: Just... let’s hold a minute. It’s rather

tenuous.

DB: Yes.

(Pause)

K: Yes, yes, yes, yes.

DB: And now you could say that…

K: Yes, quite right.

DB: Now, once…

K: It is a shock – you follow? – it’s

something totally new to the brain.

DB: Yes. And the brain… therefore perception,

being total, penetrates the physical structure

of the brain.

K: Yes – structure of the brain. If you

see – let’s be simple about it – if

you see – what? – greed or – no – division,

fragmentation, is tremendous danger – see

it – doesn’t it affect your whole way

of thinking?

DB: Yes, but I think that brings us to the

next question, that thought has developed

a way of preventing this effect from taking

place.

K: That’s it, that’s what I want to get

at.

DB: It may momentarily happen.

K: Yes, that’s it, that’s it.

DB: That thought has…

K: Thought resists it.

DB: It resists, but why? You see, a machine

would not resist.

K: No. Because it’s habit.

DB: But what is habit? We ought to go into

that.

K: Yes, it has become… it is conditioned

to that. It is habit, it remains in that groove.

And perception comes along and shakes that.

DB: Yes, but thought stabilises itself, it

holds to a fixed form.

K: To grey... you know, to whatever it is.

DB: You see...

K: That’s right.

DB: You see, I was thinking that, you see,

if we look at it this way, that thought hasn’t

got a fixed nature – it may be mechanical

or it may be intelligent – and the…

K: No, I wouldn’t give that word intelligence

to thought, for the moment.

DB: Yes, before we were saying that, you see.

But I mean, you’re saying... but before

we said thought may not have a fixed nature

and may… and needn’t be mechanical.

K: Yes.

DB: Now…

K: Thought is mechanical.

DB: Yes, but…

K: Thought functions in grooves.

DB: Yes.

K: Thought lives in habits, memories.

DB: Yes.

K: And a total perception does affect the

whole structure...

DB: That’s right, but after, as a result

of this perception thought is different – right?

K: Yes, thought is – wait a minute – is

thought different because of… Yes.

DB: Yes. The perception has penetrated the

physical structure of the thought and made

it different.

K: Yes, different.

DB: But now you don’t want to say it’s

intelligent but, let us say, that if thought

were just a machine it would not cause trouble.

You see, if thought behaved just like an ordinary

machine...

K: ...an ordinary machine, it would be no

trouble at all.

DB: No trouble, I mean, it would just function.

Now, thought for some odd reason is trying

to do more than behave like a machine.

K: Yes, thought is trying to do more than

a machine – quite.

DB: Now, you see, suppose, if we could look

at it again, there is perception and awareness

and this may be recorded in thought. You see,

whatever happens… you see, if perception

affects the physical… there are two things

– one is perception affects the physical

structure of the brain and this effect is

somehow recorded in the content of memory.

Memory takes…

K: That’s right, memory takes charge.

DB: Yes, it holds it. And now that… you

see, any such recording is a kind of imitation.

You see, every recording machine is a kind

of imitation. It’s not merely that thought

is mechanical, some sort of… but also that

it contains a process of imitation to record

information. You see, like the tape recorder

records some sort of imitation of the structure

of sound, in the magnetic form, which again

is recreated a sound, as imitating the original

sound.

K: Original sound – quite.

DB: Now, you see, thought has the capacity

to imitate whatever happens, because of the

recording. Right?

K: Yes, that’s right,

DB: Is that clear?

K: Just a minute, sir.

DB: Yes.

K: Wait a minute, I want to go back a little

bit.

DB: Yes.

K: You perceive totally, about something.

There is total perception of greed – let’s

take for the moment. Because of that total

perception your activity is non-mechanical.

Just a minute, sir.

DB: Yes.

K: The mechanical being the pursuing of greed

by thought… as thought

DB: But isn’t there another part of thought

which is mechanical, which is necessary, you

see? For example, the information contained

by thought.

K: Wait, wait, I’m just coming… Wait a

minute. You perceive totally the nature and

the structure of greed and because you perceive

it there is the ending of it. Ending of it.

What place has thought then?

DB: Well, it still has a mechanical place.

K: No, you’ve finished. Wait a minute, sir.

DB: But thought used in ordinary function

still has a place.

K: No, you’re finished – you’re not

greedy.

DB: Yes, but thought also includes things

other than greed, you know, like the practical

thought.

K: Yes. Wait. You’re not greedy. Wait a

minute. You are not greedy. That reaction,

that momentum, that habit, that mechanical…

is over. What place has thought?

DB: Well, where? You see, well, thought has

some place. If you say…

K: What for? What for?

DB: You want to find your way.

K: What for? What for? I’ll get... when

I need a coat, I’ll get it, but there is

no greed.

DB: No, but thought is not identified with

greed. You have thought which is rational.

K: I don’t quite follow.

DB: Well, you see, greed is irrational thought.

K: Yes – greed is irrational.

DB: Right.

K: Right.

DB: But now there is rational thought. For

example, if you want to figure out something

or...
K: No, no. When you see the totality… when

you perceive the totality of greed something

has happened to you.

DB: Yes. But are you saying that there’s

no more thought – do you see?

K: Thought is not necessary.

DB: Well, then how do you find your way?

K: Find my way?

DB: How do you use memory?

K: Look, I’m no longer greed…

DB: Right.

K: I’ve no need for thought in the field

of perception, and therefore thought doesn’t

enter into it at all.

DB: Not into perception but it still has a

place, apparently, you see.

K: Has it? Has it?

DB: Well, for example, if you want to know

the way from here to wherever you want to

go.

K: No, I’m taking greed. Greed – let’s

stick to...

DB: Yes, it has no place in greed, I mean.

K: Yes. That’s all I’m sticking to.

DB: Oh, but I mean, you were saying before

it has no place, you see.

K: No, I’m saying it has no place in greed.

DB: Right.

K: Where there is total perception thought

has no place.
DB: In the perception.

K: Not only in the perception, thought doesn’t

exist anymore with regard to that.

DB: Yes.

K: You perceive that all belief is irrational…

I mean, there is a perception of this total

structure of belief, and it’s out – belief

has no place in your thought, in your brain.

So why do you want thought there?

DB: We’re not saying I want it but we say

that there is a tendency that thought may

have.

K: No, it won’t. Ah, that’s the whole…

If I see belief… if I perceive the total

nature of belief then it’s over. Then where

does thought come into that – which thought

has created? I wonder if I’m conveying something.

Look, sir, I perceive – I, for the moment

I’m using I – I perceive totally the nature

of belief, with fear, all the rest of it involved,

and because it is total perception belief

as such doesn’t exist in my thought, in

my brain, nothing, it... Now, where does thought

come into it?

DB: Well, not at that point, that part, no.

K: It’s finished. Wait. So thought has no

place when there is total perception. Same

thing with greed, same thing with fear. Thought

operates only when there is a necessity for

food, clothes, shelter. What do you say to

that?

DB: Yes, well, that may be right. Now…

K: I want to question it. I want to go into

it.

DB: Yes, but you see, let’s look at the…

see what we started with, which was to understand

why thought has done what it has done.

K: Yes.

DB: In other words, when there is total perception

then there is no place for thought, you see.

Now…

K: That’s something, sir. That’s something.

DB: Yes. Now when we come to practical affairs

you could say we don’t have total perception

but we depend on information which has been

accumulated and so on – right? – and therefore

we need thought.

K: There, yes. I need to build a house.

DB: And you depend on accumulated information,

you see. You cannot just directly perceive

how to build a house – do you see? Right?

K: (Laughs) Quite.

DB: But, you see, say for psychological matters…

K: Ah, that’s it, that’s it.

DB: What?

K: Psychologically, when there is total perception,

thought doesn’t enter into psychological

process.

DB: Yes, it has no place in the psychological

perception, although it may have a place in

material perception.

K: That’s right, that’s right.

DB: But still we would like to come back to

answer, you know, the question raised by David

Shainberg, which is, why has thought… you

see, I think people will always ask why has

thought gone wrong, you see, why has it done

all these strange… why has it pushed itself

where it has no place?

K: Could we say that thought creates illusion?

DB: Yes, but why should it, you see, why does

it want to?

K: Why does it want to.

DB: Even more deeply, you know, what makes

it happen, you see?

K: Because thought has taken the place of

perception.

DB: But why should it?

K: Why should it? Why should thought assume

that it sees the whole?

DB: Or even that it sees anything. You see...

K: Yes. Rather interesting – good. Does

it happen, sir – let’s look at it a little

bit – that when there is total perception,

that perception having no movement of thought

as time and so on, such a mind uses thought

only when necessary?

DB: Yes.
K: And otherwise it’s empty, otherwise…

DB: I wonder if we could put it differently,

that such a mind when it uses thought, it

realises that this is thought and it never…

K: Yes, never goes…

DB: …it never supposes it’s not thought.

Right?

K: Yes, that’s right, that’s right. That

it is thought and nothing else.

DB: If it’s only thought, it’s not…

you know, it has only a limited significance…

K: That’s right, that’s right.

DB: …and we needn’t consider it that important,

you see.

K: That’s right.

DB: But, you see, I think the danger is that

there is a mind in which... it does not realise

that this is thought – do you see? – something

happens – you see, thought works. You see,

let’s try to put it like this: suppose that

somebody... there is joy or enjoyment and

now, slightly later there comes thought which

imitates it, remembers it. And the difference…

you see, then that… it’s a very subtle

imitation and therefore it treats it as the

same. Do you see what I mean?

K: Quite, quite.

DB: And therefore it begins to get caught

in its own pleasure, in the pleasure which

it mistakes for joy, enjoyment.

K: Quite.

DB: And now, after a while it becomes a habit,

and then when the pleasure is not there there

comes a reaction of pain and fear and so on.

K: Yes.

DB: And all this trouble starts. Now, so at

some stage, you see, there is this mechanical

process which somehow loses… it does not

acknowledge or does not know that it is mechanical.

K: Yes. Sir, would you say also, man never

realised until recently – I’m just asking

– that thought is physical and chemical,

and therefore it assumed tremendous…

DB: ...importance.

K: …importance?

DB: Well, yes, let’s look into that. That

is, would you say... In general it is certainly

true that people… it’s only recently that

science has shown the physical and chemical

properties of thought. Now, but suppose we

go back to the past – would you say that

nobody, or perhaps some people understood?

K: Maybe.

DB: But in general most people did not.

K: Did not. I’d like to say – take people

like so-called Jesus.

DB: Well, yes, but we don’t know whether

he even existed, so...

K: That’s just it. All the saints function

on thought.

DB: What about Buddha, for example?

K: Wait a minute. Again, according to the

tradition, the Eightfold Noble Path, is right

thinking.

DB: But he may have meant... (inaudible) ...thinking

mechanically.

K: Mechanically – that’s it. Therefore,

we can’t take anybody in the past.

DB: Why? – because we can’t be sure what

they meant.

K: Sure what they meant.

DB: Right. It was interpreted and so on.

K: Of course, of course.

DB: And we can’t ask him what he means.

(Laughs)

K: (Laughs) No.

Is that the reason, because man thought…

man said… thought said, ‘I’m the only

important thing’?

DB: Yes, but how did it come to say that – do

you see?

K: Because there was no perception.

DB: No, but then why wasn’t there?

K: No – man… thought didn’t realise

or thought wasn’t told that it was physical

and chemical.

DB: Yes, well, thought did not know it’s

physical and chemical, therefore thought,

when it thought about itself, mistook itself

for… you see, I was trying to put it that

in some sense thought… when there is intelligence,

intelligence acts or when truth acts, then

thought must follow that action.

K: Action – yes.

DB: Right?

K: Yes.

DB: But suppose – or when there is enjoyment,

you know, and so on, and joy – but now,

suppose thought creates from memory an imitation

of all that.

K: But it didn’t think it was imitation.

DB: No, that’s what I’m trying to say

– it didn’t know it was imitation.

K: That’s just it.

DB: It was too subtle for thought to know

it was an imitation.

K: Yes, that’s it. And also because thought

from the beginning said, ‘I am the only

God.’

DB: Well, no, I wonder if that didn’t come

a little later, you see.

K: I don’t know how it came.

DB: No, but I meant that when it… you see,

the first thought mistook itself for joy and

intelligence and goodness and so on.

K: Yes, yes.

DB: And then it realised its impermanence

and therefore…
K: ...began to…

DB: ...to question, and then it invented the

idea that there is a self which is always

there...

K: That’s right.

DB: …which produces thought, you know, and

truth and perception and so on. You see, that…

You see, I think, suppose somebody – you

often give this example – is enjoying the

sunset, and there may be a small accompaniment

of thought, you know, which is harmless in

itself.

K: Yes, flutters round – quite.

DB: It flutters round. But now as it builds

up, you know, by habit, you know, by repetition,

it gets stronger and becomes comparable to

the other one in intensity.

K: Quite, quite.

DB: And then thought does not see this imitation

and it treats it as the truth, as the genuine.

K: Yes, yes. So are we saying, sir, are we

saying this: that thought never… man has

never been told or realised that thought is

physical and chemical?

DB: Well, that is not enough because, you

see, science has been saying that thought

is physical and mechanical but that in itself

hasn’t changed anything.

K: No, no. But if you perceive that…

DB: Yes, to perceive it. You see, it was not

enough for science to know that thought is

mechanical.

K: No, no.

DB: Or physical or chemical.

K: No – that’s right. But it’s only

recently.

DB: Yes.

K: And the habit has… conditioning and the

habit has been: thought is the primary thing

in life.

DB: Yes, well, even when it was called non-thought

it was still thought, you see. In other words…

K: It was still thought – that’s right.

DB: It was some imitation.

K: Of course.

DB: So, that is, thought created imitations

of the primary thing in life and then said

that’s the primary thing in life, you see.

K: Yes.

DB: Now, thought never knew that it was mechanical.

K: That’s right.

DB: And therefore never knew that its own

process... You see, let’s try to put it

slightly differently: Thought never had any

reason to suspect that what it created was

not the prime thing in life, because even

if it could see itself creating it – right?

– it would not know there was anything wrong

with that.
K: Quite. So what are we saying now? Thought

never realised it was limited. Thought never

realised that which it created was a chemical

and physical thing. Is that what we are saying?

DB: Well, that was part of it, yes.

K: Part of it. And we are saying also, that

where there is total perception a change in

thought takes place.

DB: All right. Now, what happens to thought

then?

K: Thought being mechanical, it can only operate

mechanically, not… it doesn’t interfere…

there is no psychological entity which thought

can use.

DB: Yes. Well, now suppose we clear this up

a little bit.

K: Ah, we are getting… (inaudible)

DB: Because let’s say that thought… there’s

a new invention, you see, which we discussed

before, and something new comes into thought,

into the field of reality. But we say that

might be a perception.

K: I think it is. Of course.

DB: But then thought, because of that perception

thought is different.

K: Yes.

DB: But it remains mechanical but different.

K: That’s right. That’s exactly what we

are saying.

DB: Yes, it just changes the order of its

operation through that perception.

K: Yes.

DB: And therefore the creativity is not in

the thought itself but in the perception.

K: Perception. That means thought – wait

a minute, sir, let’s get it clear – thought

has created the me; the me has become independent

of thought.

DB: Well, apparently.

K: Apparently, apparently.

DB: Yes.

K: And the me being still part of the thought

is the psychological structure. And perceptions

can only take place when there is no me.

DB: Yes, well, we could try to go into that,

just to make it more, you know, clear.

K: Yes, yes. I think this is right. Go on,

sir.

DB: Yes, it’s right. You see, the me, this

imaginary structure, you know… well, it’s

real as well, as we’ve been saying, but

you see, the me involves some sort of centre,

doesn’t it?

K: The me, certainly. The me is the centre.

DB: And the centre, you see, is an old…

very old form in thought. It’s one of the

most fundamental forms – right? – it probably

goes to the… animals probably sense through

a centre.
K: Quite. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Centre – family

centre and so on, so on – yes.

DB: Yes. And also the geometric centre, you

see. When people use the centre with the rays

emanating out, is a very power symbol, you

see. The sun with its rays.

K: Rays – yes.

DB: And this had a tremendous…

K: The centre.

DB: The centre has a tremendous effect on

human thought, you see.

K: Yes, yes. Yes, sir.

DB: And this centre has the meaning of totality,

you see, that one point touches everything,

you see. In other words, the centre is a symbol

of the contact with the whole, you see.

K: Yes, yes.

DB: And I think that’s the way the self

is considered in thought, that it perceives…

the self is perceiving everything.

K: Everything – that’s right.

DB: The self is determining everything.

K: Explain it, sir. Would you explain it scientifically?

The centre is, as you said just before…

DB: ...in contact with everything. It radiates

into everything, you see.

K: The centre radiates like the sun.

DB: Yes.

K: Of course, they worship the sun, because

of this radiation.
DB: That’s right. The sun was the image

of themselves, you see.

K: Yes, yes, yes.

DB: Only a bigger one, you see.

K: Yes, of course. (Laughs) So there is a

centre. Is that centre independent of thought?

DB: Well, it would seem the centre is thought.

K: Yes, that’s it.

DB: But it’s a basic structure in thought.

We think in terms of centres – do you see?

K: Centre – that’s right.

DB: In physics, for example, each atom is

a centre.

K: That’s why it’s fragmented.

DB: Why? Let’s get it clear.

K: There it is.

DB: Because we think through the centre?

K: Through the centre.

DB: Well, let’s get it more clear. You see,

let’s say, in physics…

K: Ah, we’re getting it.

DB: One of the basic theories of physics is

to think that the world is made of atoms – each

atom is a centre, a force which connects to

all the other atoms. Right? And of course

the opposite view is there is a continuous

field, you see, and no centre. You see, those

are the two views that physics has studied

and has pursued them in different forms. Now,

you were saying that if we think through the

centre there’s going to be fragmentation.

K: That’s right.

DB: Would you say the atomic view is fragmentary

then?

K: Must be.

DB: Yes. Although… Yes.

K: So, sir, you see what we’re getting at?

DB: Yes.

K: The basic reason of fragmentation is that

we function from a centre.

DB: Yes. Well, it’s not… we must think

in terms of centres because that may be useful.

K: Yes, that may be…

DB: Because the sun is at the centre of the

solar system.

K: Yes, of course.

DB: But we think... we function, we psychologically

function, you see, from a centre.

K: From a centre.

DB: And you see, physically we are forced

to function from a centre because the body

is the centre of our field of perception.

K: Of course, of course. Ah, yes.

DB: But psychologically we form an imitation

of that.

K: Yes.

DB: We have the thought of the centre which

is probably – I think Jung called it an

archetype – it maybe millions of years old

– right? – going back to the animals.

K: The animals – quite.

DB: And now that form is useful physically,

but then it was extended psychologically – right?

– to think of...

K: That’s simple enough.

DB: Right?

K: That’s right, sir. That’s why thought

is fragmentary.

DB: Well, is there a thought which does not

function from the centre, or it always has

to?

K: Has to, because thought is memory from

a centre.

DB: Well, let’s try to explore that. Why

does it have to be from a centre – do you

see? Why couldn’t there be memory without

a centre?

K: How can there be?

DB: Well, that’s…

K: Just memory? Like a computer.

DB: Well, why couldn’t there be?

K: Ah, if it was… But there is the psychological

centre.

DB: But it’s not clear to me why there cannot

be memory which is just memory, you see, just

information.

K: Yes, there can be information.

DB: Yes, but does that have to have a centre?

K: Why should it have a centre?

DB: No.

K: If it’s merely information, why should

it have a centre?

DB: No, there’s no centre. But you see,

why does thought… you see, it’s not clear

yet to me why thought had to form a centre

– do you see? I mean, we knew there was

a centre but why it had to psychologically

give the centre such importance.

K: Because thought never acknowledges to itself

that it is mechanical.

DB: Well, let’s try to bring that out. You

see, thought was unable to acknowledge that

it was mechanical, and now why does that call

for a centre?

K: But thought has created a centre.

DB: Yes, but why? But it not only creates

the centre, but you see, the centre was there,

the idea of the centre was there just for

practical purposes anyway. But thought used

that idea for itself, psychologically for

itself.

K: Yes.

DB: Now, why was it doing that?

K: For a very simple reason: thought said,

‘I can’t be mechanical, I must be something

much more.’

DB: How does the centre make it more then?

K: Ah, because that gives it a permanency,

the me, the...

DB: We should try to make it more clear, you

see, that the centre gives this permanency.

Now, why?

K: Why?

DB: Yes.

K: Thought has created this...

DB: Yes, the microphone.

K: ...microphone. That is permanent – ‘permanent’

in quotes.

DB: Relatively, yes.

K: Relatively. And here thought created the

me as a permanent entity.

DB: Yes, but why did it pick on the centre

to be permanent?

K: Perhaps it picked it up because the sun

is the centre of the universe, and if there

is a centre, as you said, it joins everything.

DB: It joins everything, yes. It gives unity.

K: Unity, family and so on, so on. But that

centre becomes totally unnecessary when there

is complete perception.

DB: It is necessary, you see, when there is

not complete perception.

K: That’s what’s happening.

DB: It’s what happening.

K: That’s not necessary but that’s what’s

happening.

DB: It’s happening. You see, the thought

trying to... not realising it is mechanical,

not able to realise it’s mechanical, thought

began to treat its own products as living.

K: As living, that’s right. That’s right.

DB: And seeing their instability, you know,

their impermanence, it tried to establish

something permanent.

K: Permanent – quite right.

DB: And it found the centre useful for trying

to do that. Right?

K: Yes.

DB: Because it made a connection with everything.

K: That’s right.

DB: In other words, you see, it’s a form

around which everything can be put, held together.

K: The centre, yes – quite.

DB: The centre. So therefore, you see, if

everything is falling apart – left to itself

thought falls apart – right? – and then

you establish a centre, it holds it all together

and you say that…

K: My family, my house, my country, my…

DB: And then that’s permanent – right?

So you say, ‘I have a permanent centre.’

In other words, thought has hit on the idea

of a permanent centre to hold everything together.

And in fact that is what we do all the time

to organise, to have a centre around which

everything can be organised.

K: It’s like an executive, like everything.

DB: Yes.

K: That’s right, sir. So when you perceive

something totally, centre is non-existent.

And yet you can… Now, wait a minute, wait

a minute, wait a minute – doesn’t it bring

in something? When you perceive something

doesn’t that include everything?

DB: All right. Let’s go slowly.

K: I mean, isn’t that the central thing

that holds, that connects everything?

DB: What, to perceive?

K: Perceive.

DB: The act.

K: The act: ‘This is false.’

DB: Wait, well let’s go... I see it’s

something different then, you see, that the

act of perception unites everything…

K: Yes, that’s right.

DB: …and thought is imitating that by a

centre that unites everything…

K: That’s right, sir.

DB: …and to the centre it attributes perception.

K: Perception – that’s right.

DB: As well as…

K: The observer and so on.

DB: And also the thinker. It also attributes

its own origin to that centre, and therefore

it attributes truth to itself.

K: That’s right.
DB: And therefore life and so on.

K: Is there, sir, perception of greed, of

fear – you know, perception? Or total perception,

which includes everything? You follow what

I mean?

DB: Well, yes.

K: So it isn’t perception of greed, perception

of belief, perception of…

DB: Yes. Well, let’s say there is perception

of that which is… of what is. Right?

K: Yes. Perception… there is only perception.

DB: There is perception. Right, now, there’s

a question we might clear up, you see, because

we said truth is that which is.

K: Yes.

DB: Right.

K: Yes. There is only perception.

DB: Yes.

K: Not the perceiver.

DB: There is no perceiver, but perception

is also that which is, isn’t it?

K: Yes. The perceiver is the centre.

DB: Yes, well, the perceiver is… thought

attributes to the centre the quality of being

a perceiver, as well as a thinker and an actor.

K: Yes – and all the rest of it, experience

and so on.

DB: You see, I think that it might be helpful

to say that this business... you see, one

of the functions of thought is to refer or

attribute, you see – that if you have, for

example, referred pain, you see, that although

the tooth may be decayed on one side, it’s

referred to the other, and the gum will swell

up on the other side.

K: Yes, yes. Yes, yes.

DB: So the point is that thought can attribute

anything to anything, refer anything to anything.

K: Yes, quite, quite.

DB: And that’s part... You see, if we hear

a sound we may say it comes from here, there,

you know – we may have to correct it, you

know, we don’t know exactly how to attribute

it. And therefore when thought, say, has invented

a centre, and then it may attribute various

qualities to that centre, such as thinking,

feeling…

K: Yes, that’s right. That’s right, sir,

that’s right.

DB: And if there is pain, it will attribute

the pain to the centre, or if there’s pleasure…

So therefore it becomes alive, you see. So

could you say that suffering arises there,

when pain is attributed to the centre?

K: Of course, of course. As long as there

is a centre there must be suffering.

DB: Yes, because the suffering is not… You

see, when there is no centre then the pain

is merely in thought.
K: Merely physical.

DB: Either it’s physical or it’s memory

– which is nothing.

K: Yes – which is nothing.

DB: But if the memory of pain is attributed

to the centre…

K: To the centre – of course, then it…

DB: ...then it becomes real, it becomes something

big.

K: So – aha – so, we are seeing something.

That is, sir, I’m asking: If there is total

perception thought has no place...

DB: ...in that perception.

K: ...in that perception.

DB: And yet thought may… that perception

acts and thought may have a place in the action,

is what we were saying the other day.

K: Yes. No, let’s get this clear, I’m

not quite… Let’s get… There is total

perception. In that there is no thought. And

that perception is action.

DB: Yes, and that will change the quality

of thought by changing the brain cells.

K: Yes, and so on – we’ve been into that.

Now, thought has only a mechanical function.

DB: By mechanical we mean more or less not

intelligent, you see. In the dictionary they

are given as more or less opposites.

K: Yes, thought has…

DB: It’s not creative, not intelligent.

K: No, no, it’s purely mechanical.

DB: Yes. Creative is also taken as the opposite

of mechanical.

K: Yes, creative, opposite – quite, quite.

So if it is merely mechanical then it can

operate mechanically in everything without

any psychological centre.

DB: Yes, well, then it would be like this

computer that…

K: Yes. But the computer, as we said too,

if the computer is told this is your bucket,

and later on says it’s not your bucket,

it has no emotional…

DB: No, that’s merely contradictory information.

K: Yes, contradictory information, that’s

all. Similarly here. So has… You see, we

are giving, aren’t we, sir, tremendous importance

to thought.

DB: Well, thought is giving importance to

itself.

K: Itself – thought giving to itself tremendous

importance. When perception takes place and

thought becomes mechanical…

DB: Well, when thought acknowledges it’s…

K: Acknowledges it’s mechanical, then there

is no problem.

DB: Yes. Yes, you see, I mean, but we were

talking with two views in mind – one was

with this point in mind and the other was

to understand fully how thought got off on

the wrong track, you see.

K: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. I can see

how it has gone on the wrong track, the centre.

DB: Yes. Well, I think even from the beginning…

there was the beginning where thought mistook

itself for something living and creative…

K: Yes.

DB: …and then it established the centre

in order to make that permanent. Right?

K: Yes.

DB: And then that gave it tremendous importance,

you see. You see, the combination of the two…

K: Combination of one…

DB: Well, that thought mistook itself for

something intelligent and alive.

K: Yes, that’s right. That’s right, that’s

right.

DB: And its own imitations, for enjoyment

and for intelligence and love and so on. And

then, seeing this was impermanent, you see,

it naturally wanted to make it permanent and

therefore it found the centre as the way to

try to do it.

K: Quite.

DB: Because the centre was actually the practical

way of trying to organise things permanently.

K: Quite right, sir, quite right. That’s

right. So, now we’ve answered why thought

is fragmentary.
DB: Yes, well, let’s make it more clear.

Why is it fragmentary, you see? I mean, we

have answered why it has gone wrong but let’s…

you have to sort of, just to finish it, I

mean. Why is it? I mean, to make it… spell

it out.

K: Because of the centre.

DB: Yes.

K: The centre thinks – no – thought created

the centre as a permanency and that centre

forms as a unit to hold everything together.

DB: Yes, everything in the whole world. The

whole world is held together by the centre.

Because if somebody feels his centre goes,

he feels the whole world is going to pieces.

K: Going to pieces – that’s right, that’s

right.

DB: So the centre is the same as the world.

Right?

K: That’s right. So thought is fragmentary.

DB: Well, the thought is fragmentary. Now,

let’s see. Thought is fragmentary… I mean,

it’s not quite clear why it’s fragmentary,

you see. It’s clear why it’s wrong but…

(laughs)

K: No, because it has separated itself from

the thing it has created.

DB: Yes, now that’s the point. So let’s

make that very clear, you see, that thought

has attributed to itself, it cannot separate

itself…

K: No, sorry.

DB: It has attributed to itself a centre,

which is separate from itself. Whereas in

fact it is the centre. It has created the

centre and it is the centre.

K: It is the centre.

DB: But it thinks of itself or attributes

to that centre the property of being alive

and real and so on.

K: That’s right, that’s right. Phew!

DB: Yes. And that is a fragmentation.

K: That’s the basic thing.

DB: And from there follows… you see, we

may as well spell it out.

K: Yes, spell it out, sir.

DB: From there follows the necessity for the

rest of the fragmentation of life, because

in order to maintain that those two are different,

thought must then break up everything to fit

that – do you see?

K: Of course.

DB: You know, it introduces confusion because,

you see, either it separates things that are

not separate, or puts together things that

are different, you see. In order to maintain

that fiction that the centre is separate from

thought, everything else has to be cut to

fit that.
K: To fit that – all the cloth has to be

cut. All existence has to be cut to fit that

centre.

DB: Yes, you see, for example, you see, if

somebody identifies the centre with, you see,

attributes to the centre the quality of being

a certain nation, you see, then he must then

distinguish another nation as not belonging

to the centre, so he fragments something as

one, mankind, in order to hold the centre

together.

K: Quite right, sir. That’s it, very clear

now.

DB: And therefore the entire world is fragmented

indefinitely, shattered into fragments.

K: Shattered into fragments. I want to get

something else, too, upon this. You see, is

perception from time to time?

DB: From moment to moment?

K: Moment to moment – no, no, I’m not

– no. I perceive the nature of belief – it’s

finished. I perceive totally… there is total

perception of fear – that’s finished.

And there is total perception of greed – that’s

finished. Is that perception one after the

other or is there a total perception of the

whole thing?

DB: Well, let’s go into that slowly, then.

You see, if there were a total perception

of the whole thing then what would be there

left to do – you see?

K: That’s what I want to find out.

DB: You see, let’s go… You see, this raises

the second question. This is more or less

the second question that David Shainberg brought

in, you see. He was raising this question.

He says you... let us say you went through…

you put it in the sixth, in the last discussion

at Brockwood, that it was like Columbus discovering

America, that somebody else doesn’t have

to discover America.

K: Go through all the....

DB: But then what does he do that is creative,

do you see, that is corresponding to what

you did – do you see?

K: Now, just a minute, sir, just a minute.

First let me answer this question and we’ll

come to it. Is perception...

DB: ...a whole?

K: Whole, therefore…

DB: If there is one perception.

K: ...it’s cleared the field.

DB: The entire field is cleared.

K: Entire field.

DB: And then what is there left to do…

K: Wait a minute, wait a minute, let’s see

if that is so.

DB: Yes.

K: So it hasn’t got to go through greed,

belief, fear, pleasure – the whole thing

is clear, cleared the deck.

DB: Well, you are saying that the mind may

perceive the nature… the whole nature of

thought – is that what you’re saying,

or is it beyond that?

K: Beyond, a little more.

DB: Yes.

K: All right, let’s take that. Thought perceives…

perception sees the nature of thought.

DB: Yes.

K: And because it perceives the nature of

thought, all this, all the fragments…

DB: All the parts are in there – yes, all

right, I get that.

K: That’s clear.

DB: Well, that brings up a question which

I wanted to ask for some time, you see, because

in the Indian book Tradition and Revolution,

you know, you mentioned toward the end of

it the notion of essence, that perception

distils the essence. Right? Do you remember

that?

K: No, I don’t remember.

DB: Oh, well.

K: Sorry. It doesn’t matter. It doesn’t

matter, sir.

DB: Yes, but I wanted to… You see, so in

some way there seemed to be a notion there

is perception, you see, total perception being

intelligence, and out of that came what you

call the essence – it was distilled like

the flower, you know.

K: Yes, yes, yes.

DB: Now, is that essence anything like this

whole?

K: That’s what… that it is, of course.

DB: Yes.

K: Now, wait a minute, sir, I want to get

this clear to myself.

DB: Yes.

K: Would you say there is no perception of

fear, greed, envy, belief, but total perception

of everything that thought has put together

and the centre?

DB: Well, it’s total… you see, there’s

a phrase people sometimes use: essence and

totality, you see, to perceive…

K: The essence...

DB: ...and totality.

K: Aha. Perceive the essence and totality.

DB: Does that seem appropriate?

K: I’m hesitating, the word essence.

DB: Essence is bothering… Yes, well... so

let’s say we perceive the totality.

K: Leave the word essence for the moment.

DB: Yes.

K: There is no partial greed, envy and all

that – it is total perception.

DB: Yes.

K: And therefore total perception means all

the things that thought has put together and

made itself separate, a centre.

DB: Well, we have to… Yes. Now, when we

talk about total perception, you see, we have

to make it more clear now.

K: Yes.

DB: Because total may just mean, you know,

all these things or it may mean something

else.

K: To me it means something else.

DB: Yes, now, if you make that more clear.

K: It means, not fragment – no. Not… Total

perception. Sir, wouldn’t total perception

mean this: thought attributing to itself certain

qualities, thought creating the centre and

giving to that centre certain attributes,

and all the things from the centre, psychological

centre.

DB: Well, that’s the whole structure.

K: The whole structure.

DB: Yes. That’s part of total perception,

is the whole structure.

K: The whole of that.

DB: The whole entire structure.

K: Yes.

DB: That’s very often what we call the essence,

you know, the basic structure.

K: Yes, all right. If you call that essence,

I say I agree.

DB: Yes. I mean, that structure which is universal

– would you agree that it’s not just this

thought or that thought, or this problem or

that problem?

K: It is universal – quite, yes. Now wait

a minute. Is such a perception possible? You

may think – not think – you say that is

perception, nothing else. Because you tell

me, I see that, I feel that, I recognise,

I see the truth of what you’re saying. The

truth of what you are saying is the truth

– not mine or yours, it is the truth.

DB: Yes, now, you say the truth is... if you

say it’s the truth, it’s that which is,

you see.

K: That which is, actual.

DB: Yes. Well, it’s both. You see, I’m

trying to get a little more clear, that when

we say there is truth and there is actuality

– now, you see, the way we ordinarily use

the word, the actual is really the right way

for using the word individual. You see, it

would seem to me the individual… actuality

is individual, you see, undivided.

K: Yes, undivided. Ah, yes – individual,

undivided – quite.

DB: You see, actuality is undivided but there

is, you know, one moment of actuality or there

may be another moment of actuality and so

on, but, now, when we see the essence or when

we see the totality or the universal…

K: Yes, yes.

DB: …what is necessary and universal – right?

– then that includes all that. Right?

K: All that – that’s right. That’s right,

that’s right.

DB: So that the truth goes beyond the individual

actual fact…

K: Yes.

DB: …because it sees the total. I mean,

it sees what is universal and necessary, the

totality of the nature of thought. Right?

K: Totality of the nature of thought. That’s

enough.

DB: So that every individual example of thought

is in there.

K: That’s right, that’s right. When that

is seen, thought is then merely mechanical.

DB: Well, then thought acknowledges…

K: That’s it.

DB: …it is mechanical. You see, thought...

K: No, thought doesn’t have to acknowledge

– it is mechanical.

DB: No, no, it is mechanical. Yes, all right.

Thought has changed so that it is mechanical

and thought no longer attributes to itself

– I want to put it that thought ceases to

attribute to itself the non-mechanical.

K: Yes, that’s right. I think that’s what

actually took place.

DB: When?

K: From the beginning of this boy.

DB: Yes.

K: It was all – what shall we say? – unrealised.

You follow?

DB: (Inaudible)

K: Not unrealised – it was there.

DB: It was implicit or...

K: Implicit – yes – whatever you like

to say.

DB: Well, all right. Perhaps it was implicit

in everybody when he’s born but then it

gets… the conditioning takes.

K: I question whether it is implicit with

everybody.

DB: All right. Now, let’s get it clear.

You see, there are two views. You see, we

have to get it…

K: (Laughs) We go from one…

DB: That’s what we were discussing the other

day, you know, here. So we could take two

views and consider them both, you see.

K: Yes.

DB: One view is that it’s implicit in everybody

and then the conditioning takes hold in most

people and, you know, it’s lost. Right?

K: That’s a very dangerous…

DB: I know, but that’s one view.

K: I know, I know, that’s one view.

DB: But why is it dangerous?

K: Dangerous, because you then assume there

is something in you which is unconditioned.

DB: Well, no, because we say it may be conditioned

by now, you see.

K: No, from childhood, from the very beginning.

DB: Yes, that somebody was born unconditioned

– it’s an assumption. Right?

K: It’s an assumption.

DB: All right. So you assume there is in the

child something unconditioned. You say that

may be false. Right?

K: That may… I should think that is false.

DB: All right. So the child, you are suggesting

that the child is born with some conditioning,

perhaps hereditary.

K: The genes and the heredity and the society,

it is already there.

DB: And then it gets added to.

K: Added to, encrusted and thickens.

DB: All right. So that’s one view which

you want to… you think is wrong, you feel

to be wrong.

K: I won’t even accept it.

DB: You won’t accept that view.

K: Because that’s a theory.

DB: Yes, all right. Now…

K: (Laughs) Sorry.

DB: Now let’s take the other view. All right.

Now, you say that this boy was born and…

K: It sounds personal. It is not.

DB: All right. I know. Yes. You see – yes,

you were saying last week – right? – that

there was some destiny or some hidden mysterious

order.

K: Something much more, much more, than disease,

than reincarnation, than what the Theosophists,

Maitreya…

DB: Yes.

K: ...the Brahmanical tradition of you mustn’t

kill, you mustn’t do harm, etc. – karma.

I think it’s much more something else. Sorry.

DB: Yes, I mean, you say there was something

else. Now, of course this idea has also occurred

to people, you know, in the past. You see,

there are people who felt that they were…

that some mysterious force was working in

them, and they may have been fooling themselves.

Right?

K: Absolutely.

DB: Yes. Like, you take Alexander the Great,

you know, he thought he was a god and he actually…

many people felt his energy so much that they

were ready to do anything with him.

K: But his energy was spent in conquering.

DB: That’s right, in conquering – it was

obviously false.
K: False, obviously. Napoleon felt that.

DB: Napoleon felt it, perhaps Hitler felt

it.

K: Exactly – Mussolini and Stalin.

DB: Yes. And you see, let’s say, first I

wanted to put it, you see, just to try to

make it clear, that that feeling may liberate

tremendous energy, either falsely or not.

K: Yes.

DB: Now, it is therefore... has danger in

it, do you see, which we must recognise. Right?

K: That’s right, that’s right.

DB: Now, but nevertheless you cannot discard

that because this energy may still be necessary

in spite of the danger in it. Right? In other

words, if we recognise that there is danger

in this notion, but it doesn’t prove the

notion is false.

K: Oh, no, no, no, of course not.

DB: It doesn’t prove it’s true or false.

K: It may be misused.

DB: It may be misused, you see.

K: Quite.

DB: But suppose now we look at it from the

other side, and you say that something mysterious

happened, you know, which cannot be explained,

which is beyond the order…

K: All the explanation of the Brahmin…

DB: …the order that we can include in thought.

You see, let’s try to put it that maybe

thought cannot grasp.

K: Thought did not create a centre.

DB: Yes, it did not create a centre but thought

cannot grasp why. You see, let’s say thought

is ordinarily conditioned to create a centre,

over the ages. Right?

K: Yes, yes, perfectly right.

DB: A person may be born, according to you,

with the tendency to create the centre.

K: Yes.

DB: But in this case thought did not create

the centre – that’s what you’re saying.

K: That’s right.

DB: And you cannot say why it did not, beyond

this mysterious action.

K: Yes – I wouldn’t know.

DB: Now, you say in some sense the boy was

protected, is what you said last week.

K: Protected, guarded. They did everything

to guard him, first of all.

DB: Yes, yes. Well, there was a combination

of circumstances which helped, you know, conducive

to that.

K: Conducive, but it doesn’t explain.

DB: No, it doesn’t explain.

K: That’s all.

DB: No. Now… Yes, and, well there are several

points we could go on from there. You see,

one point is to say that if man is... you

see, it occurred to me during the week that

if, let’s say, man has to transform away

from this conditioned existence, and if he

is born conditioned then there’s no way

out of it, if that is all there is to it.

In other words, from this conditioned mind

there can be no way out.

K: Quite.

DB: Therefore the only way out would be for

somebody to come into existence who is not

conditioned.

K: Yes. Proceed, yes.

DB: Right? Now, therefore if there is such

a person it would say that does not have any

personal significance. Right? If you see what

I mean.

K: Yes, yes.

DB: But it’s just a part of the universal

order.

K: Yes, that’s right.

DB: You see, I could give you an example from

physics, that in order to crystallise something,

you see, let’s say something is in solution

and it may be cooled far beyond the point

of crystallisation or, you know, solidification,

unless there is a small nucleus around which

it can crystallise, otherwise it may remain

uncrystallised indefinitely.

K: Yes.
DB: But that particular nucleus has no special

significance other than that it was the place

around which crystallisation took place.

K: Yes, quite right. Absolutely.

DB: Now, well, so you could say that perhaps

if you were to argue, just for the sake of

discussion, that mankind has reached a stage

where it is ready or has been ready for a

change. Right?

K: Yes, that’s what the… yes.

DB: Many people have said that. But then it

would be necessary... you see, it cannot change

from the conditioned state.

K: There must be a catalyst, somebody...

DB: ...a nucleus, which is unconditioned.

Now, that’s the idea that occurred to me,

anyway.

K: Quite, quite, quite.

DB: I mean, whether it’s true or not is

another... you know, we have to discuss. But,

you know... Now, you see, another question

arose. I mean, I think a number of people

began to ask it, which is, you see, until

now, or until recently, you have not been

talking in these terms, you see, but rather

emphasising awareness of the conditioning

and so on. Now, it seems that now you are

saying something more, or different.

K: Yes.

DB: And could you say why at this time, you

see, or what?

K: (Laughs) I wouldn’t know. Sir…

DB: I mean, why didn’t you discuss this

point before, is really what I’m getting

at.

K: Ah. (Inaudible) (Laughs) Sir, you see,

I’m just going back. If there is total perception

of the nature of thought and all its activities,

and therefore the total perception of the

content of consciousness – and the content

makes consciousness, all the rest of it – that

used to be the centre.

DB: What?

K: The content...

DB: Yes, I mean, I think I would look at the

centre as a form, an empty form, around which

all these things are placed, you see. They

are attributed to the centre.

K: Yes, attributed to the centre. Now, when

the centre is not – total perception can

only exist when the centre is not – then

consciousness must be totally different.

DB: All right. Yes, now what would you say

about its nature then?

K: What would be its nature? You see, sir,

the centre, as you pointed out, is the factor

of unification.

DB: Or the attempt.

K: Attempt. Napoleon – you follow? – centre.

DB: It’s the way people have always tried

to unite.

K: Unite – but it hasn’t succeeded – never.

When the centre is not, which is perception

of the totality of thought, and therefore

centre is not, consciousness must be something

quite different.

DB: But does it involve… You see, the word

consciousness ordinarily would involve the

idea of thought. Is it still thought?

K: There is no thought; can’t be.

DB: Well, why do you call it consciousness

then?

K: Then I said it must be something totally

different.

DB: Yes.

K: The consciousness which we have is with

the centre, with all the content, with all

the thought, with all that movement, and when

there is total perception of that, that is

not.

DB: The centre is not, yes, and the whole

order is different.

K: Different.

DB: Yes, and – something I was going to

ask you. Yes. Now, you were also mentioning

many times about, say, the brain cells, that

it might involve the brain cells working in

a different way.

K: Different way. I think so.

DB: Perhaps different brain cells will work,

I don’t know.

K: I don’t know. I think it works differently.

DB: Yes.

K: Sir, may we… What is compassion? Is the

centre capable of compassion?

DB: Well, I’d say the centre is not capable

of anything real, I mean.

K: No. Can the centre attribute to itself

as being compassionate?

DB: It certainly can do that.

K: It can. (Laughs) Yes, as God – anything

it can attribute. But if there is no attribution

at all then what is compassion? Is total perception

compassion?

DB: Well, it has to include the feeling for...

(inaudible)

K: I should think total… one of the qualities

of total perception – it sounds terrible

– is compassion.

DB: You see, the centre could only have feelings

which are attributed to it, so it would have

compassion for whatever it’s identified

with.

K: Of course. I love you and I don’t love

others.

DB: Yes.

K: Quite. Or I love others but I don’t love

you. (Laughs)
DB: (Laughs) Anyway, it would have no understanding

and therefore it

would have no meaning.

K: It’s very interesting, this. We’ve

got somewhere. How would you convey all this

to somebody in the tent? He’s sentimental,

romantic, wanting illusions, myths, fanciful

imaginations, problems of sex, of fear, and

you’re telling him something – you follow,

sir? – and he won’t even… Here we’ve

got leisure, we want to go into it, we want

to find out, because we’re totally objective

about oneself.

DB: Well, that’s the...

K: I think that’s where compassion operates.

Sorry. Operates – you and I. Sorry, I withdraw

that word.

DB: I mean, that’s where it’s necessary.

It’s necessary there. Well, you mean by

that that… You see, if we were considering

what you were saying yesterday, now the stream

of human thought, you see.

K: Yes, yes, yes.

DB: That every… whatever is wrong there,

it’s universal, it belongs to everybody.

Right?

K: That’s right.

DB: So, now, you may see something going wrong

and you attribute it to somebody. You see,

the thought attributes it to somebody else

but whenever something is going wrong, it’s

going wrong in thought, and therefore it’s

in everybody.

K: Yes, that’s right.

DB: That’s right?

K: That’s right, sir.

DB: That there is no such thing as thought,

my thought or your thought. It cannot stop.

You see, the minute you are thinking it then

I am thinking it. Even if there is no extra-sensory

thought, it’s just by ordinary communication.

The structure of your thought is communicated

to me. If it’s the wrong structure then

I’m in the wrong structure of thought.

K: Of course.

DB: Then my brain or my thought attributes

that wrong structure to you, another centre.

K: Yes, quite.

DB: And says, ‘This centre is all right,’

or it will try to make it all right, ‘and

the other centre is wrong,’ and therefore

there could be no compassion. Right? Because

then I’m hostile, I must fight the other

centre.

K: That’s right, sir.

DB: I must resist the other centre. Right?

This centre is resisting the other centre.

The good is in this centre and the bad is

in the other centre. (Laughter) And therefore

there could be no compassion.

K: Yes, sir.

DB: But, you see, if it’s all one thought

process, one stream, then one cannot attribute

this to a particular person, and therefore

it seems you understand the nature of that

thought, and that is compassion.

K: Quite right. Yes, sir.

DB: Because you must see that anyone thinking

that thought must be suffering. I mean...

K: Yes, sir.

We were going to talk, discuss rather, about

the mystery, what is the mysterious. Perhaps

it’s too late now. You see, sir, all religions

have made the cathedrals dark.

DB: Yes.

K: The temples are dark, implying that God

is mysterious.

DB: Yes.

K: That there is something so mysterious that

you cannot understand. And there have been

secret societies, special initiations – you

know, all that – through which you went

in order to come upon the mysterious. All

that is not mysterious.

DB: No, well, that’s just imitation.

K: Imitation, which thought – etc., etc.

DB: Yes.

K: If there was no invention of the mysteriousness

of… created by thought, is there a mystery?

DB: Well, if you say one sense of the mystery

is that it cannot be explained or grasped

by thought, I mean...

K: Yes, and also myths.

DB: Myths. Well, myths are an attempt to grasp

it by thought. I mean by poetic thought.

K: Yes, poetic thought. And apparently man

has lived with those myths.

DB: Yes, again, it’s the same point we were

discussing before, that thought is attributing

to itself some…

K: The mysterious.

DB: The mysterious – and not merely life

but the ultimate mystery.

K: Mystery – yes, that’s right.

DB: In other words, it produces something

which it then says is not thought but the

ultimate mystery.

K: Quite, quite.

DB: And so in some way, you see, people have

said that these myths were poetic means by

which people grasped something true. But at

the same time it may be that if you use this

once as a metaphor then it would be helpful,

but when you repeat it then it becomes a…

But wouldn’t it remain true that in saying

that which is cannot be grasped in thought?

K: That’s right. Anything... but the mystery

of it.
DB: Yes.

K: We must discuss that some other time.

DB: Well, perhaps there isn’t really time

– it’s quarter past five now.

K: We’d better stop.

(Pause)

We can go on next Friday.

DB: Go on next time. Friday you want to go

on? Is that all right? I mean…

K: Of course

DB: It doesn’t bother you that you have

a discussion in the morning?

K: Ah, wait a minute, wait a minute. (Laughs)

Discussions don’t tire me so much as a sustained

talk…

Mary Zimbalist: (Inaudible) ...two hours,

and two hours the next day, and the day before.

K: May we, sir, leave it open?

DB: Right, but… yes, well, we have to be

leaving, I think, this Sunday or Monday, you

see, so we should try to set... (inaudible)

K: All right. You leave on… you fix your

day.

DB: Well, no, I don’t want to put any strain

on you. You see, the…

K: No…

Saral Bohm: Krishnaji, we’ve fixed the date...

DB: ...of leaving.

K: When are you leaving?

DB: Well, we haven’t fixed the date exactly

but I think we originally planned to leave

on Monday, didn’t we?

K: Monday. That would be on the 4th, is it?

DB: Is that it, the 4th?

SB: I think it’s the 4th. We could stay

one more night.

DB: We could stay one more day if you really

want to have a discussion.

Doris Pratt: The discussions have ended. The

4th is free.

DB: Sunday – the discussions end on Sunday.

Now, would you be ready the following day?

K: Or Sunday, because there is no discussion

the next day.

DB: Oh, it’s the next day that you’re

concerned with.

K: Yes. No, I have discussions, discussions,

discussions.

DB: Yes, but when they are finished…

K: On Sunday morning they are finished.

DB: And you feel that you would be able in

the afternoon?

K: I can do it on Sunday afternoon

MZ: Four hours talking?

K: Ah, that’s all right, that’s all right.

SB: Otherwise we can stay one more day.

DB: We can wait one more day.

K: No, no, don’t, don’t. We can arrange

this. Sunday afternoon at three thirty.