Audio | J. Krishnamurti & David Bohm - Brockwood Park 1975 - 5: Attention implies that there... 

J. Krishnamurti Fifth Dialogue with Dr Bohm at Brockwood Park 22 June 1975 Krishnamurti: Well, sir? Dr Bohm: Everything ready? K: He’s always ready! DB: I think when we were discussing last time, you know, there were some points, consequences which, you know, I think are interesting and briefly it’s this: I think over the years we have seen that thought moves in contradiction, I mean, inevitable contradiction from one to another. K: Yes. DB: Then we said, let’s try to keep thought in its place. Right? You know, where it’s technically efficient and so on. But then one discovers thought, or else in the field of reality, but one discovers thought cannot stay in its place. K: No, it cannot - quite. DB: Because the minute that it finds a place it is already beyond that place, and at the same time it’s still thought, it’s a pure contradiction. So therefore, finally one can see that, you see, until now we’ve been, at least the general tendency of humanity is to say, yes, there are things wrong with thought, but let us see if we can straighten it out. And we’ve been trying to straighten it out and the ultimate straightening out was to keep it in its place. But it won’t stay in its place, therefore perhaps the idea occurred to me then that perhaps thought cannot be straightened out, perhaps by its very nature… K: It’s crooked. DB: …it’s crooked. K: Quite. Like a corkscrew. DB: Yes. If that’s the case, then it seemed to me that we need some other energy, some other movement… K: That’s right. DB: …which will carry out some of the functions that are now carried out by thought. In other words, our practical function. K: I don’t quite follow. DB: Well, you see, our thought is crooked now, you can’t keep it in the practical sphere - if you try to use thought it’s going to go out of that sphere, but there may be another movement which can carry out those functions, without becoming crooked. K: Without becoming crooked. DB: Yes, but it might be a very different nature. K: Yes, I agree. I see that. DB: And that, it seemed to me, would be a good point to start. K: Are we saying, sir, that thought being in itself contradictory, and when it tries to put order in that contradiction it creates further disorder, and that thought can never have its right place. DB: Yes, even if we were able to start out entirely fresh, we would come to the same thing. K: Yes, the same thing. Then, we’re asking: is there an energy which will carry out, will function without becoming crooked. Is that it? DB: Yes. K: That’s it. Right. DB: Because unless there is that, we must return to thought. K: Quite. Good point, that. How does one find out? How does one investigate it or how does one, realising the nature, the intrinsic nature of thought, what is the instrument of operation, or the instrument which will discover the new energy? DB: Well, we sort of began to look at some of that last time, so there’s a very serious trap in this sort of question.DB: Because thought is always projecting itself into everything. K: So we’re asking: can thought ever be an instrument that can discover something which is not crooked? DB: Yes, now, there is one point I could add, you know, you see, you used to discuss negative thinking. K: Yes, negative thinking. DB: And this, though you may not like this - you know, this, negative thinking is really the discovery of contradiction in your thought. K: Yes.K: Yes, dialectic. DB: Which is a kind of dialogue in which you have discussions, within the dictionary, through the art of discussion, through question and answer. K: Yes, sir. I know what it means really, doesn’t it also mean offering opinion? DB: Not exactly - that’s one form of it but it’s to start with something which people will accept as reasonable, which may be an opinion, and to move from there logically and demonstrate the inevitable contradiction. K: Contradiction, quite, quite. DB: And now this is very interesting, you see - there are two attitudes to contradiction: the usual attitude is to say, drop it, but it can have something else, you see, the usual attitude is contradiction is just bad, I mean, people don’t like it. And in the… K: I don’t see - isn’t there in contradiction a synthesis? DB: Well, that depends, you see. Now let’s try to put it that when one of the exponents of dialectic I’ve studied is Hegel who has carried it quite far. He says that at a certain stage thought reveals its contradiction, then it suspends itself, and one sees the emptiness of the forms of the contradictions. But then he goes on to a new idea, which will resolve the contradiction, and then it moves on and on. K: Quite. DB: Now in order to stop that movement on and on, Hegel invented what he called the absolute idea which finished it, but he didn’t notice that that would be another… K: Quite - these clever people get caught in their own words, quite. DB: But suppose we say that, I think Hegel had some perception, and then he got caught in it again. But if we leave that aside, we could say that we pursue the contradiction on and on, and finally we begin to see there’s not much point in repeating the contradiction again and again in another form. And therefore we ask the question, you see, we see that thought is inherently contradictory, then it comes to the point we just raised, that you try to keep it in its place, and again you can’t. I think that we have to carry the dialectic further than Hegel did. In other words, therefore the dialectical movement or art inevitably leads to the point where we are, namely that thought must end itself. K: End itself, quite. DB: And I don’t think many of the people who used it quite saw that. I was told by Narayan that the Buddha was a great master of dialectic art, and perhaps he did use it that way, but in general it was not used that way. K: I don’t know, I don’t know Buddhism very well, but I don’t know it at all, except the superficial mutterings of the Buddhist priests and so on. I think one of the Buddhist scholars, (?), I think it was, I was told, he went much further saying, thought, there is nothing. And I don’t know all the trimmings and the depth of what he meant, but he went into this question of thought and ending thought and nothingness. That’s what I was told. We’ve come to the point now, as far as I see, between you and me, what we have discussed: thought being contradictory in its very nature, through dialecticism it can resolve one contradiction and create another contradiction and keep on repeating this, hoping thereby to come to a certain point when thought itself sees its absurdity. And therefore thought then, seeing its absurdity, invents a new, or conceives a new pattern. It is still thought. DB: It is still thought, yes. K: So we’ve reached that point. And we see the movement of thought must always be contradictory, self - and so on. Can that thought end and a new energy operating in the field of reality, and not bring about contradiction in that reality? That’s it, we’ve got it. DB: Yes and we could add one more point to sum up what we’ve been doing, on the intellectual side we see contradiction through dialectic, and on the other side of feeling it’s through desire. K: Yes, through desire - quite. DB: It comes to the same thing. K: Exactly the same, that’s why I don’t - I think it’s quite useless to talk about desire, if you talk about thought, it’s useless to talk about desire. Right? Or shall we go into desire? DB: Well, I mean, Dr Parchure thought that we should say a few things about it, I don’t know if we… K: Sir, when you use the word ‘desire’, we used in that meaning feeling, demand, and also the meaning of that very word. DB: Longing, yes. K: Longing, clinging to, seeking ultimate pleasure, ultimate pleasure in different forms, the highest and the lowest and so on. Surely all that is in the field of thought?K: Desire is one of the arms, if you can put it, of thought. DB: Yes, it’s thought producing feeling. K: Feeling - thought producing feeling. Would there be desire, would there be a feeling, if thought didn’t enter into that area? DB: Well, that’s a question, you see. In general in our culture it’s accepted that there would be one. K: Yes, I know, I know. DB: But on the other hand, if it were not identified by thought as a certain kind of feeling, it’s hard to say what it would be. K: Quite. I desire this house, or I desire something or other. In that very desire is included the longing for that which thought has created, and I want the image which thought has created as pleasurable, and wanting that pleasure. I mean, I don’t think there is a difference between desire and thought. DB: Yes, and the contradiction in desire comes in the same way, that just as there is inherently a contradiction in thought, so there is inherently a contradiction in desire. K: A contradiction in desire. Inherent. But is there - just a minute - I desire when I’m young, a - what? - a woman. I desire a house. I change the objects of desire. DB: That’s the contradiction. K: But desire remains. DB: Desire remains but its object is always contradictory. It won’t stay with an object. K: No, of course not. DB: When you get the object, it’s another desire. K: Yes.

DB: Just the same as thought won’t stay but it will move from one to another. K: That’s so. I think that’s clear. Dr Parchure: I think that a person knows of his ‘I’ through comparison, through thought. If there is no thought he doesn’t have positive feeling of his ‘I’. And this comparison is a movement of desire. K: A movement of thought. Dr P: Movement of thought. And in that is incorporated the feeling of desire. K: All that is within that area. Dr P: Now this continuous movement of thought, either pleasure or pain or fear is a continuous projection and the person doesn’t come to know of this movement, so a continuous chase is there, and his life between the projected image and himself is the explanation of energy. K: Quite. Dr P: Now, this is a process of conditioning as it starts from the object as seeing, as sensation, to the state of image-formation. K: What do you mean by conditioning? I don’t quite follow that.. Dr P: If we have a young child which has no thinking process started, but feeling process only. K: No, I think that’s a dangerous statement to make - child has no thought but only feeling. DB: I think some psychologists have studied that and in other words, (?) says that a child has what he calls pre-verbal thought, sensory motive thought, like an animal. In other words, he thinks through his images and through his motor activities, but it’s still thinking, and there’s pleasure in it, of course. K: Non-verbal. Dr P: Dr Bohm was saying that we have function and knowledge in relation to objects, in which the ‘I’ did not operate. Now the child is wanting to be secure in the environment, and therefore learns of his environment through objects, and their knowledge. At what stage does this element of using memory for pleasure and pain… K: When it becomes mine. Dr P: So is that desire? K: It is part of desire. I cling to the toy, this is a toy. You come along and take it away, try to take it away, I hold it. There begins the ‘I’. DB: There is the child clinging to his mother, you see. K: Of course, child clings to his mother. DB: She goes away. K: Then the mother goes away - of course, the whole problem is there. So, sir, let’s start. We said, desire is in its very nature contradictory, though it appears that the objects may change, desire for, but in essence desire is contradictory. As thought is contradictory. So now we say, is there an energy which operates in the field of reality without becoming crooked? DB: Yes. K: You see, when I have discussed with the pundits in India, scholars and others, they have said, this energy is divine - I’m using their words. And therefore it can never operate in the field of reality, and if it does, it can never go contradictory. They invent an energy - I don’t know if I’m making it clear? DB: Yes, it’s clear. K: They presuppose or imagine there is an energy which is unconditioned, which is Brahmin, God, or whatever it is. If we can erase from our minds that process of invention or imagining, as one must if you want to really find out, then what have we? We have only then thought, desire, in their essence, or in its essence, crooked in operation, and the result contradictory, everlasting. And we know nothing else. Right, sir? I think that would be a sane position. At least I’d like to start that way. I know nothing other than this crooked nature of thought and desire, which clings and changes its object of longing. Right. And I see in my consciousness - which Pupil raised, which is an interesting point - I see in my consciousness, I’m aware of my consciousness, and in that consciousness all movement is thought and desire. Right? That consciousness, because it is in constant movement, has never found an energy which is not contradictory, an energy which is not produced by desire and thought. That’s all I - right? So what shall I do? Then my problem then is: can thought ever see its own movement and the futility of its own movement - futility in the sense, contradictory, conflicting? DB: You would have to see it totally. K: Totally, that’s what I mean, totally, of course, of course. Can thought see totally the movement, its movement in consciousness, can it see it as a whole? DB: Yes, well now, one can see difficulties there, you see, I mean, why it looks perhaps impossible. You see, the way ordinarily we think about something, and that very thought separates the thing we think about from the thought. Now, then it seems, as soon as you begin to say ‘I am that thing that I think about,’ then it seems thought cannot be sustained, do you see? K: Yes, yes. All right, sir, move from there. My consciousness is myself, there is no separation between myself and the content of my consciousness. The content is me. That - now wait a minute - that I see. Is that seeing within the field of consciousness or outside it? I don’t know if I’m making myself clear? DB: Yes. K: When I say, ‘I see the contradictory nature of thought,’ I see, I mean by that word, is it verbal perception, intellectual comprehension, or is it actual perception? Is it an actuality, let’s put it that way. Or I imagine I see, or I think I see, or I desire to see, therefore I see. Is seeing, observing and so on, is seeing, perceiving, a movement of thought? If it is, then I don’t see. There is no seeing. Then when do I say, when does the mind say, ‘I see’? DB: Well, when the movement of thought stops. K: Obviously. And what made it stop? How has that come about? DB: Well, through seeing the contradiction, or the absurdity. K: Yes, but when you say, contradiction and absurdity, is thought seeing, imagines it’s seeing? DB: No, there is attention to what thought is doing. K: There is attention. DB: To the actual, actuality. K: Yes, to actuality, the actual is being seen, the actual which is the creation of thought, desire, and all that, the movement of thought, that’s the actual. And who is it that sees it? How does it happen? DB: Yes, well, there’s nobody that sees it, I mean. There’s nobody that sees it. K: That’s what I want to get at. Who sees it? Dr P: Would you say that attention is the thing that sees? K: I don’t want to go back, I want to start anew. Otherwise I can’t think that way, I can’t operate that way - sorry. I’ve got a problem. Dr Bohm has shown me, thought is everlastingly moving, moving from pattern to pattern as desire, and contradictory patterns, contradictory desires - when thought does that there can be no solution or ending to that. And he says there is no ending to sorrow, confusion, misery, conflict, all that. I listen to him, because he’s telling me something serious, I’m paying attention to it, I respect what he’s saying, and I say at a given moment, ‘I see it.’ What do I see? The verbal pattern? I hear the verbal description and therefore I have caught the colour of the painting of the words and all that? Or is it an intellectual grasp of what is being said, or it has nothing to do with any of that, but only perception. I’m just asking. How does that happen? Dr P: The careful attention that… K: I’m not going to use your words, I don’t want to use ‘attention’. I’m asking you, I’ve listened to him, I’ve paid attention to him, I respect what he’s saying, to me it seems logical, sane and real, actual. That’s all. And then, at a moment I say, ‘By Jove, I see, I see the whole of it,’ not the fragments put together but the whole movement, desire, thought, contradiction, the movement from pattern to pattern, the excuses - all the rest of it. I see it completely as a whole. And my action of seeing it as a whole is totally different from the action of thought-action. Now how does this happen? DB: Yes, well, again, it’s not clear what you mean by ‘how’. K: I’m sorry, I shouldn’t say ‘how’. DB: Well, you see, let me just say something, you see, when I was looking at it and I saw that thought could not be made straight, you see, it seemed I couldn’t describe what happened, but then at that moment I was no longer interested in trying to make thought straight, you see, so I thought that that was seeing. K: Yes, I see that. Are you saying, does thought see itself in movement and contradiction? Is that what you’re saying? DB: Well, I’m saying that, when there is seeing, then the whole thing no longer continues, you see, something, that thought, that this movement of contradiction does not… K: Does thought see itself? DB: No, it does not see itself. I mean, it seems to me in some vague sense that there’s a bigger movement or space. K: That may be imagined by thought. DB: It may be imagined, yes.

K: Or, the scientists have said, cosmic energy. You follow? All that, I don’t know anything about it; all that I know is this. And listening with attention, with respect, with care, the moment I see, yes, I see, I understand the whole of it. You don’t have to talk any more about it. I see the whole of it. What - no! What brought this about? If you say attention - or would you put it, attention means, attention implies, that there is no centre, centre as thought, which has created the ‘me’ and ‘not me’ and all the rest of it. Dr P: The ancients have presumed that there is a thing like pure desire. K: I don’t believe that pure nonsense. Dr P: The process of seeing without centre comes about through the pure desire, which has no objective. K: That, please, sir - I don’t know what the ancients say. You are moving, you’ve taken me off from something. Which is, does this come about when there is attention, which implies there is no centre which thought has made? And therefore I receive everything he says without twisting. DB: You say, when thought makes the centre, that starts the twisting - is that what you’re implying? K: Yes. DB: Yes, but I wouldn’t say - but is there thought without a centre? Can there be thought before the centre? K: Ah, yes. Is there a centre… DB: Or is thought in the centre or is thought and the centre more or less in the same domain. K: Same domain, yes. DB: You see, when you think about something, that thing you think about, you see, the weakness of thought as I see it, may be, is that thought inevitably separates itself from what it thinks about, I mean, it creates. Right? K: I follow that. DB: But it creates an imaginary other which it calls the object, which is still really thought. K: Quite, I see all that. DB: Now is that, does that take place before the creation of the centre, or is the centre something else, do you see? K: I don’t quite follow. DB: You see, if I say thought, the essential feature of thought is to reflect in such a way as to create let’s say, an image of something. K: Yes, which becomes the centre from which… DB: Yes, now, let’s get that straight you see, because you say the image becomes the centre. Now it’s not quite clear to me. Let’s say, I’m thinking about an image of a tree or something. Now that which I’m thinking about seems to be separated from me, you see. K: Yes. DB: It seems the image is over there somewhere, I’m here. Now therefore it seems that I’ve created two images, one is the tree and the other is me - is that? K: That’s right. There is the ‘me’ - the ‘me’ is the image which thought has created… DB: And the tree also. K: And the tree, tree is an actuality. DB: No, but I’m thinking about it. K: Thinking about it, yes. DB: You see, I don’t… K: Yes, I understand. The thinking about the tree, and the thinking which has created an image in me, in this mind, as the ‘me’. DB: Yes, but it seems that thought presents those two as separate . K: Separate, that’s right. DB: When in fact it’s one thought. K: Yes, that’s one thought. DB: Now, it would seem from what you say that there is no thought without the centre. K: That’s the point, that’s right. DB: Well if something, energy, could take place without the centre, then we wouldn’t have this problem. K: That’s right. DB: Now once we have the centre and the periphery, then there must be desire and contradiction and so on. K: All the rest of it, yes - that’s right. Now Pupil raised a point this morning, which was rather interesting. DB: I didn’t quite hear her questions. K: No - I’ll tell you, I’ll repeat it. Unfortunately she isn’t here and I hope I’m representing her rightly. Is the seeing within the field of consciousness? That means, seeing must have space, and is there a space which is not touched by thought in consciousness, and therefore that space says, ‘I see’? DB: Yes. K: Not that space says - from that space arises the total comprehension. DB: Yes, but it’s part of consciousness. K: Yes, that’s it. It’s part of the content of consciousness which has been conditioned by religion and so on and so on and so on. All right. Then where does this seeing take place? DB: In that case, in the case you were discussing - when the space is part of consciousness. K: Yes. I see that space is part of this consciousness, and therefore it is still within the field of contradiction, still within the field of desire, still in the field of reality which thought has created. I see that. But is there a perception, a seeing as a whole, outside it? And if there is an outside seeing, as it were, if I can use that word, then thought or the centre which thought has created, with its periphery and all that, comes to an end. Seeing is the ending of thought. Would you say that? DB: Yes. K: Perceiving is not the movement of thought. Perception is not the movement of thought. DB: Yes, you see even when you perceive a contradiction, then thought stops. K: Yes. You see the truth outside the field of consciousness. Truth is not within the field of consciousness. If it were it would be reality and so on, it would be still - truth would have contradiction; it would be your truth, my truth, his truth, if it is within that field. If it is not, it is truth. Then you see it, and you, because you see it, your action in the field of reality is never crooked. Right? DB: Yes, well we could raise a question there, just to get it clear because, I mean, is it possible that you might fall back into it, you see? K: Into reality. DB: Yes, into contradiction.

K: Never if I see truth. DB: Just once is enough. K: Absolutely. If I see, if there is a perception of truth, how can you go back to it, go back into something which is not truth? DB: But then, you see, how do you come to make mistakes and so on, you see? Would you just say that’s… K: Wait a minute, let’s look at it. DB: Yes. K: All action - for the moment I’m just exploring - all action is in the field of reality. Right? And action of truth in the field of reality can never be contradictory, we say. DB: Yes, I mean, that’s what we - yes. K: We’ll say, we’ll explore it. And you say there can be mistakes made by truth. DB: I don’t know who makes them. K: Might be made, there might be mistakes. DB: There might be mistakes and we want to understand. K: Yes. You see truth - there is a perception of truth for you, and you have to act, you are living in the field of reality. And you have realised the field of reality is always contradictory. And since you have seen truth, perceived truth - since there’s been a perception of truth - a little bit more accurate - that truth operates in the field of reality, created by thought. Right. Would it be a mistake when you take the wrong direction of a road? A wrong road? DB: Well, it depends on how you use the language. You could say that… K: I’m using language simply. I’m walking along. DB: Yes. Well, if you just simply choose one way instead of another and you have lacked information. K: Yes. So, lacking information, you, looking at it might say he’s making a mistake. So in the operation, truth operating in the field of reality, and not having sufficient information, can take a wrong direction. And you looking at it from there, say, ‘Oh he’s mistaken, therefore he’s never seen truth.’ DB: Well, that may be one way. You see, it depends, you see, at some stage, you see one could go to the other extreme and say that what is the sign of a man who has not seen truth, you see. K: Yes, of course. DB: I mean, not merely that he makes mistakes. K: That’s simple enough. He lives a contradictory life. DB: Yes, he lives in self-contradiction and, which is, you should be able to distinguish from a mistake then, if you’ve not got wrong information. K: Yes, that’s it - wrong information. DB: Now… K: Now, sir, just a minute, I want to go into it. Now what am I to do? You, there is a perception of truth, and you have to act in the field of reality, do you make a mistake? That’s what I want to question. Mistake being, that which is not truthful. DB: Yes, well, then we have to be very clear what is truth. K: That’s what I want to get at, exactly. Truth being, we said, thought cannot perceive it, realise it, examine it, express it. Right? Reality can’t. DB: Yes, there’s no inherent contradiction in the act, you see, if in the ordinary act of thought there is inherent contradiction. Because the way I see it, is because thought cannot keep clear the difference between itself and what is not thought, you see, it makes a mistake which is not just simply lack of information but a mistake based on some confusion, in which some part of itself is projected as being not thought, but either truth or reality, or goodness or logic, and so on. K: Logic - truth of logic - no, reality of logic, or rather: the logic which thought spins out becomes illogical. DB: Yes, because thought, you see, I would like to put it this way, that - this may clear it up. You see there is actuality and for a certain purpose we’ll divide actuality into two kinds; one is that which is actual and independent of thought; and the other is a certain actuality created by thought, like the microphone, but then also it’s a feeling inside of us, images. K: Inside of our heads, yes. DB: Now thought loses track of what it has created and then it recognises it again as something which it has not created. Now that mistake is the cause of contradiction. K: Yes. DB: But that is not a mistake which is really a mistake because it can’t be corrected, you see. That, in other words, thought has no way of keeping track of that, and therefore it cannot possibly correct that mistake, therefore it’s something going wrong which is inherent in the structure. K: Yes, inherent in the structure. DB: Whereas a mistake due to something which has gone wrong because of lack of information, it can correct it when you get right information. K: That’s what I wanted to get at. Quite. DB: So, we could say that in that sense, truth, well, the word ‘mistake’ is somewhat ambiguous, but truth in some sense makes no mistakes, but if we could use the word mistake in right quotes. K: Right quotes, yes. After all, if once you have seen something dangerous, it’s finished. DB: Yes. K: But thought can create a danger, which becomes unreal, and hold onto that thing as being safe. DB: Yes, because thought has lost track of the fact that made it, you see - thought thinks it’s a solid, safe thing. K: We are saying thought - truth cannot make a mistake - quotes. DB: Quotes, yes. K: That’s tremendous, sir, that. DB: It can do things wrong because of wrong information only. K: And… DB: It’s like a good computer, if it’s given wrong information it will come up with the wrong result, you see, it has to. K: Yes, that’s right - that’s a good simile, yes. You see organised religions have no truth in it. You see it, totally. You can’t go back and organise religious stuff - it’s finished for you. And your action will be totally logical, never contradictory. Right? DB: Yes. But now, one could ask the question, I mean several people have asked me whether human beings, you know, there’s a feeling that human beings are not capable of this kind of perfection, you see. K: It’s not perfection, sir. That’s what… DB: No, in one sense, it’s not, in another sense it is. K: I don’t see it as perfection. DB: I know, I realise that. K: I see it as a man who is aware, sensitive, attentive, and sees the danger, and therefore don’t touch it, doesn’t touch it. DB: Well, you see, I mean, I’ve talked with a few of the scientists, you see, especially one of them, and he, I think he gets some idea of what you mean, but he feels, you know, he’s rather dubious that a human being could really, you know, be that sensitive, ready to drop all his attachments. K: I don’t see why. DB: I’m not sure. K: Why it should be inhuman - if one can put it that way - why should it be inhuman to see truth? DB: Well, I think you’re right, that there’s no reason, it’s merely our tradition. K: That’s it. The thickness of the wall which thought has created. DB: I mean, people have made the tradition of being modest and so on - it’s only human to err and so on. K: Quite. It’s not a question of modesty about this. I think one has to have a great sense of humility to see this, to see truth and expression, say, of it is not humility - is still humility is nothing to do with me. DB: Yes, well, I understand that. K: Let’s go back. The question of Pupilji, says is there a space in consciousness - I want to go back a little bit, because - which is not created by thought? Is there any part of consciousness, a little corner, which thought has not touched? DB: Well, I should think it’s impossible. K: It’s impossible. DB: Because thought is one structure, I mean. Every part of thought touches every other part, in my view anyway. K: I see that. One thought touches the various other parts. DB: Either directly or indirectly. K: Quite. All fragments within consciousness… DB: They all touch. K: …are all related.

DB: Yes, you see, the degree of connection is quite amazing. You see some scientists have looked into that and you see, a very simple case, connection, I think, we could show it, if I can remember it. You see, that, you can tell, for example, that a certain word is not in the language, you know. K; Yes. DB: Right away. Like the word ‘incliné’ is not in the language though ‘inclination’ is, and that’s connected immediately to your entire memory. K: Yes, take the word ‘oak’, it doesn’t exist in Sanskrit. DB: What? K: Oak, tree, it doesn’t exist in Sanskrit. Does it, sir? Oak tree, doesn’t exist. Dr P: No. DB: No, and somebody can tell that a word is not in the language immediately, which shows that every word is somehow connected, it’s the whole language. K: Quite. All words are inter-related, naturally. So all fragments are inter-related. And so there is no space, no corner, no hidden spot, where thought has not touched. DB: Yes, or where it hasn’t at least the potentiality to touch. In other words, it probably has touched it, but it could also at least have the potential to touch. It has the potentiality of touching, since it’s connected. K: Yes. Potentiality of touching, as we said, all thoughts are related, all fragments are related, to each other. DB: And that’s part of the contradiction of thought which tries to treat them as unrelated, you see. K: Quite, quite, quite. DB: That’s one of its basic contradictions. K: Right. That being so, then when, where, what brings about the act of perception? DB: Well, you know, you frequently ask this sort of question, not always. I say, you frequently ask this kind of question, and, which answer is not clear, you see. K: I think the answer is clear, sir, when we say thought comes to an end. DB: Yes, well, that we’ve said before, yes. But I mean, then you ask, what brings it to an end, you see. K: No, I’m coming - let’s see. What brings thought - then my first question is - (sneezes) sorry - question is, does - (sneezes) sorry. (It’s not part of the conversation - it’s part of hay-fever!) My first question is: does thought see this, see its own movement, and therefore thought itself sees the futility of it, and stops? DB: Well, I shouldn’t think, you know, it doesn’t seem to me that thought has that power, you know, that… Dr P: Why do you say that? DB: Well, since thought deals with fragments, that is, all that thought perceives it perceives in fragments. It might see the futility in a fragmentary way. K: Yes, and therefore it can contradict next minute. DB: And one part will try to stop and the other part keeps on going. K: So you’re saying, thought cannot see itself as a whole. It is only seeing - it is only a mind that sees the whole, and therefore truth, and to see the whole thought has come to an end. Now how does this happen? Not ‘how’ in the sense method, system, and all that - what brings this about? You say it is attention. (pause) Not quite. DB: Not quite. Perhaps we could say that, why you say it’s not attention, you see. Why do you say it’s not attention? K: Because when you’re not attentive, you see things which you’ve never seen before. DB: Well, let’s get this clear, you see. You are saying there’s a perception beyond attention. K: Beyond attention. DB: Right, which comes unexpected. K: It cannot be invited. DB: Yes. K: It cannot be - there can be, it’s like my saying I’ll be attentive in order to receive truth. That’s tommy rot. DB: Well, the word ‘attention’ means stretching toward. K: What? DB: The word ‘attention’ means basically to stretch yourself towards something, you see. K: Stretch yourself. Stretch out. DB: Now, you’re saying that in some sense, when you are not stretched out, something… K: That’s why I’m saying, when you say attention, I see it’s not quite that. DB: It’s not quite that, but is attention thought? I mean, let’s get it just clear, for the record. Is attention still connected with thought? K: Wait a minute. No, concentration is, is connected with thought. DB: Yes, I mean, but, there is an attention, you say, which is not connected with thought but still it’s not what we want. K: No, it’s not quite, not the whole. DB: Not quite what we need. K: So there must be - let’s begin - not ‘must be’. There is an awareness which is not concentration, an awareness in which there is no choice, an awareness moves to attention, and attention, in that attention there is a stretching out, as you say, to capture. That is not attention in the field, to capture something. DB: Yes, but what about - sorry. K: I’m coming. To me that’s not sufficient. DB: Yes, well, would you say, attention means stretching out from awareness? Right? K: Yes. DB: Then it’s not sufficient. K: Not sufficient. If we understand by the meaning of the word ‘stretch out’. DB: Yes, but you see, ordinarily, you see, suppose I say I am aware of something and I stretch to it, I want to capture it, the very word ‘perceive’ means to capture, anyway. K: Capture, of course. DB: And, now, that is not thought. K: No, no. DB: But it’s still based on memory. K: It’s not quite enough. DB: It’s beyond memory but it’s not quite enough. All right, because you say thought is the movement of memory. K: Yes. My goodness! So, there must be a sense of - can we use the word ‘spontaneity’? Not right, no. Then there must be a sense of non-being, there must be - that’s right - a sense of nothingness. DB: Nothingness. K: You see, all right. Concentration, awareness, in awareness there is choice, then it is not awareness. DB: Yes, but we were talking about awareness without choice. K: Without choice. DB: But still, then we go beyond attention. K: Then attention, and we say, attention is still not quite, is not enough. DB: What is attention? Is it a kind of energy, what you said? K: Attention is summation of energy. DB: Summation of energy, which… K: But that’s not quite enough. DB: It’s the summation of the human energy. K: Human energy, as well as the energy - it’s human energy. That’s not enough, obviously, So, is there, does the mind, going through all this, comes to absolute nothingness. Nothingness being not a thing in it. And that is more than summation of energy, it is super, super star! DB: Well, you see, I wanted to say, attention is the, I mean it may be before division, attention is summation of the energy of the human being, and you’re saying there may be an energy beyond that. K: That’s right. DB: Which would be wrong to call cosmic. K: No, no. DB: But still it’s something beyond what we would call the… K: Beyond the human energy. There is a danger in this, because I can imagine that. DB: Yes. K: So the mind has cut out all that. You follow? Not ‘cut out’ - it’s seen all that. I’m putting it wrong, sorry. DB: Now I’ll just ask you a question, you have gone through discovering all this? In other words, you see this is a discovery. K: Which? DB: What you’re saying now, I mean, were you this way all your life, seeing it this way? K: I’m afraid so. DB: Yes, then, well, right, then it brings up another question, you know, which is what we’re doing now, that you are communicating. K: Yes. DB: It’s a different - we’ve discussed this once before, but for some odd reason, you were that way and the rest of us were not. K: I wouldn’t want to sound conceited - I’m not. DB: But, I mean, some combination of tendencies and environment. K: Yes. Wait, wait. Combination of tendencies and environment. DB: Makes the person conditioned. K: Yes, but he had been through all that. DB: Yes, but what is the difference then? K: A human being going through all that gets conditioned. Another human being going through all that is not conditioned. DB: Yes, and it’s not clear what the difference is. Why is there a difference? K: That becomes tremendously… DB: That’s too difficult? K: No, not difficult, one has to go into something entirely different, which is: there are two human beings, let’s keep it simple. One gets conditioned, and the other doesn’t. Why? How has it happened the other doesn’t get conditioned? Is it a lack of good health at the beginning, that he was ill… DB: The wrong circumstances. K: Circumstances, and therefore he never, he listened to it all, never penetrated, because the mind wasn’t healthy, the body wasn’t healthy. You follow? Therefore he didn’t receive anything. DB: I see, and then by the time he could receive he was stronger. K: Yes therefore he never entered it. DB: It never took hold. K: Took hold. The other took hold. DB: At the stage when it was, yes, there is this in child development, that children go through stages of tremendous openness to something, and at a certain stage that development is no longer possible. K: The other human being is open. DB: Yes, which one? K: Who is not conditioned. DB: Yes, he remains open. K: Open. How does one, how does it happen? There are several theories about this. May I? DB: Yes.

Indeed

but how to perceive this completely. other person is hurting me, so now how to see

@@nikethannikethan6997 you seems to be escaping

"and the thought projects itself in everything too" ... "which makes it inherently contradictive" 🙆🏻‍♂️

They get nowhere? Are u even listening then?

No that is a misunderstanding of what they are saying. Good is always good and right. No thing means no stressful thought. No stressful thought is good. This is a very complex subject and I will get into this tomorrow in my next video on my channel. There is no such thing as Nothingness actually in the Infinite Cosmos. Nothingness does not exist. There is always something. Some thing. They mean Nothingness in terms of no stressful thought processes as in Ego driven extrapolation and measurements.

ru-vid.com/group/PL1n30s-LKus6nRAj6ph5Y7frNhKAEF6f9

the reality they are talking is in the field of thoughts, thruth is never there, only empty mind, not conditioned, not programed, can be touched by thruth,

Watch the first two debates of this series it will get cleared. They defined these terms very carefully.

Limited judgment brought about by petty insecure thought...do you understand this teaching before you judge? Do you even have the Capacity to understand the depth of these 2 men before you speak sir?

Sir I feel this is because K never spoke from memory unlike us

Specific example(s)? Care to discuss?

The words will get you lost.

yes , he contradicts himself which means what he wants to convey is actually indescribable. if you try to describe it then it leads to contradictions and inconsitencies.