This is the 9th dialogue between J.

Krishnamurti

and David Bohm, in Gstaad, 1975.

Krishnamurti: I think your watch is a little

bit fast.

David Bohm: Oh.

K: Oh, don’t...

I try to be punctual.

DB: Well, perhaps we should, you know, go

on with what we were discussing the other

time, you know, to clarify some of these points.

We were discussing the action of truth, you

know, and if I could sum up, I think on one

discussion you said – as I could understand

– that the thought process may, if it is

straight and healthy, it may become aware

of the action of truth...

K: Yes, yes.

DB: …and move in harmony with that.

And on the other hand, the thought process,

when it is distorted and conditioned, it may

not do that.

K: Yes, that’s right.

DB: But truth can actually act physically

in the brain cells, is what we were coming

to.

K: That’s what we were talking – yes.

DB: To bring it back.

Now, and I thought…

K: Sir, would that be accurate?

DB: Well, I don’t know.

I mean, you see, we’re trying to go into

that.

K: I think so, but…

DB: Yes, I know you think so, yes…

K: I feel that way.

DB: I think we should discuss it a little

while.

K: Little while – yes, I think so too.

DB: Because it is a very important point and

it is quite contrary to our traditional scientific

knowledge.

K: Nowadays, after reading that article...

(inaudible)

DB: Well, perhaps not after reading about

parapsychology and so on, but since the scientific

tradition is changing too.

K: Yes.

DB: But anyway, we could say, you see, the

brain is material.

Now, I think we are saying that matter exists;

it has an actuality apart from thought, but

we don’t know it, you see – or we know

only some of it.

Would you say that’s reasonable?

K: Yes.

DB: In other words, the complete depths of

matter are unknown to us and perhaps may never

be known – we may know more and more.

And the brain, as being made of matter, constituted

of matter, we could never follow the complete

unknown depths in which thought arises in

matter.

Right?

But thought has become conditioned over the

ages – we said partly by heredity and partly

through tradition and culture…

K: Tradition, culture…

DB: …environment.

And it has been conditioned to self-deception,

to falsify, you know, to…

K: ...distort.

DB: …to distort.

K: Yes.

DB: And this is in the material structure

of the brain.

And then we say truth…

Well, I would like to add a point there.

K: Yes.

DB: That we could in one sense say that this

conditioning constitutes a subtle kind of

brain damage, that is…

K: That’s right.

DB: You see, I would like to go on to that.

If we take a piece of delicate electronic

equipment, such as an amplifier or a computer.

Now, if that is overloaded then there is distortion.

Now, if you keep on overloading it, gradually

it may break down the parts and therefore

it will distort more.

K: Yes.

DB: So we could say that the kind of conditioning

we were talking about, the conditioning which

gives great importance to thought and to the

self and the centre...

K: That does distort.

DB: ...creates an overload.

It overloads, distorts and gradually damages

the brain.

K: Wears down, damages the brain – yes.

DB: In a way that is perhaps too subtle to

be detected by scientific instruments, except

when it has gone very far.

K: Yes, completely...

DB: But still it is there, you see.

K: Yes.

Are you saying, sir, that when the brain is

overloaded, by environment, by economic conditions,

social...

DB: And by fear and sorrow.

K: ...sorrow and all the rest, all the things

that are going on in human beings, it does

damage the brain cells?

DB: Yes.

K: I think that is so.

DB: Yes.

K: Yes, that can be accepted.

DB: Yes, there is a real physical, chemical

damage to the brain cells.

And those damaged brain cells will produce

thought that is inherently distorted.

K: Distorted – quite, quite.

DB: And therefore as thought tries to correct

that damage, it does so from a distorted brain.

K: It makes it worse.

DB: Because it is distorted it must make it

worse.

K: Quite.

Right.

Now from there, can there be a total perception

which heals completely?

DB: Yes, that’s what we discussed: to heal

the brain cells.

Now, you see, so let’s…there was something

I wanted to say.

Yes, well, the one point is that the brain

does not recognise this brain damage very

clearly, but it attributes it to something

else – do you see?

For example, you know, it may attribute it

to feeling uneasy, or else to some external

circumstances.

In other words…

K: It blames…

DB: ...on anything else – do you see?

K: Yes.

DB: And I think that a great deal of this

damage to the brain occurs in tradition – do

you see?
You see, it occurred to me tradition is a

form of brain damage.

K: Quite, quite – the cult of tradition.

Quite.

I agree.

DB: Any tradition, good or bad.

That is, what it does is it gets people to

accept a certain structure of reality, you

know, very subtly, without realising they

are doing it, by imitation or by example,

or by words or just by statements, and so

very steadily the child builds up an approach

in which the brain attributes things which

are in the tradition to a reality that is

there independent of tradition – do you

see?

K: I understand.

DB: Right?

And it gives it tremendous importance.

K: You can see this in the older cultures,

like in India, you know, this distortion and

damage to the brain through tradition.

DB: Well, I think it’s in every culture.

I was just reading about the Australian, the

people who originally lived in Australia,

the aborigines, and they have a very different

tradition in which they have what they call

dreamtime.

K: Sleep.
DB: Well, while they are dreaming they think

it’s another time, which was also before

being born and after dying.

K: Oh, I see.

DB: And they have a tradition of getting into

the dreamtime by means of a series of initiations

and rituals at a certain age of adolescence.

And in that dreamtime they can function very

differently, they can go into the desert and

live there under conditions…

K: Intolerable.

DB: …intolerable to ordinary people.

K: Quite.

DB: So, you see, it has a tremendous effect,

this tradition.

K: Quite, quite, quite.

DB: It has real effects of all sorts, which

may even be valuable in some ways.

But at the same time it conditions the brain

to a certain view of reality, which is fixed.

They say – at least I read somewhere – that

people who don’t share this dreamtime are

unreal, you see.

K: Quite, quite.

(Laughs)

DB: (Laughs) Now, and in fact the same thing

happens in our culture that we are… you

see, that was the point I wanted to come…

I think we have to discuss culture at great

length.
K: Yes... (inaudible)

DB: Because this…

Now, in our culture we get a conditioning

which looks very different, but it is basically

similar in structure as to what is sensed

to be real and necessary and right, what you

have to make of your life, you see, what sort

of person you should be, and so on – you

know, what is really the right thing to do.

And all this is picked up in very tiny little

indications that don’t seem to be thought

but seem to be the perception of reality.

K: Quite.

DB: And therefore the brain is beginning to

treat thought as some reality independent

of thought, it’s becoming fragmented, so

that a person then may look at reality and

say, ‘That’s reality, I’ve got to keep

my feet on the ground.’

But this ground has been created by tradition,

by thought.

K: By tradition, by thought – quite.

DB: It is no ground – do you see? – it

has nothing under it at all.

(Laughs)

K: Quite, quite.

DB: And it is sustained by this brain damage

– do you see?

That is, that it’s nourished and sustained

by this damaged brain which is unable to get

out of that circle.

But still, I think we have to go into culture

very carefully, because culture also has valuable…

K: It has certain values, yes.

DB: Values which cannot be discarded.

And you see, one of the dangers that could

arise in an uncritical look at what you say

is that somebody might want to discard culture,

you see.

Because it’s not clear, you see...

K: Sir, what does that word culture mean,

to cultivate?

DB: Based on cultivate, yes.

And also cult.

K: Yes, cult.

Yes.

That is, to grow.

DB: To grow.

But that is also the basic meaning of the

word create – I looked it up in the dictionary

– is ‘to cause to grow’.

K: Cause to grow.

Yes, that’s what it is.

DB: So therefore, in some sense, unless we

get it clear, you know, we are going to be

unclear about creation.

You see, in other words, there may be some

tendency to treat culture as creation.

K: As creation.
DB: And yet, you see, we cannot discard culture

and just drop it.

K: Quite, quite.

I understand.

DB: But there is some confusion around it.

K: So, what do we mean by culture?

That which grows, that which is capable of

growth.

DB: Growth, which is passed on.

You see, what grows passes on from one generation

to another.

You see, even the word nature has the same

root.

‘To be born’, you see, is its basic root.

K: Yes – nature, of course.

DB: And in Greek the word is physis the same

as physics, which means ‘to grow’, you

see.

So these are very deep concepts which are

very general.

K: I mean, from the savage living in a cave,

to modern man, is called culture, growth.

DB: Yes.

Or the savage may himself have his own growth.

K: His own – of course, of course – his

own culture.

DB: His own culture, and we impose our culture

on him and he breaks down, you see.

K: That is what has happened in various – yes.

DB: And then some anthropologists say his

culture is just as valid as ours, and so on,

you see.

K: Yes, yes.

What benefit has culture?

DB: Well, that’s what we have to look into.

You see…

K: That’s what...

I’m asking what benefit has culture.

DB: Well, let’s look at several aspects

of culture, you see – science, art, music,

literature, technology.

K: Yes.

DB: I mean, at the very least you say every

culture has a certain technology with which

it approaches reality.

You know, certain methods have been developed

to live, you know, to grow things, to make

things.

K: Has thought created culture?

Of course it has.

DB: It has, yes.

And some culture seems to be necessary for

man to survive, you see.

K: Yes.

I wonder if it is necessary.

DB: Well, perhaps it isn’t, but at least

it appears to be.

K: It appears.

Let’s question it.

DB: Yes.

Well, I wanted to go a little further, you

see, that we take science as part of our culture,

now art as part of our culture, now music.

For example, you have often said you enjoy

listening to good music, and that is part

of our culture, you see.

K: Yes, I understand.

But I think there is a danger, isn’t there,

of depending on it, of using it as a means

to go beyond, or achieve, or penetrate into

something else.

DB: Well, let’s try to make that clear,

you see.

Because, you see, let’s say... let’s take

the example of music – Mozart or Beethoven.

Now, you say that here is a… would you say

that there was some insight and something

beyond the mechanism of thought to create

that?

K: Ah.

Yes, sir, I thought about it too.

Now, wait a minute.

You are a musician.

DB: Well, let’s say a composer, I mean…

K: Composer.

DB: …a person who creates new music.

K: Yes, a great composer.

Or composition, putting down the notes and

all the rest of it is the work of thought.

DB: Yes, but that’s not enough to…

I mean, anybody can put down notes.

K: I want to go a little…

DB: Yes.

K: So that is the result of thought.

Then, is – wait a minute – he listens

to the music, doesn’t he, before he puts

it down?

DB: Well, I don’t know what kind of imagination

he’s got.

You know, Beethoven was deaf but he somehow

could imagine the music, I suppose.

K: But he must have heard it.

DB: Well, he heard it when he was not deaf,

but then when he made new music while he was

deaf, he never heard it.

K: So you are saying the hearing is not necessary.

DB: Well, perhaps in the beginning it was,

but later it wasn’t.

K: In the beginning – Beethoven became deaf

– therefore in the beginning it was necessary.

I mean, he heard it.

DB: He heard it, yes.

K: And when he became deaf he no longer heard

it?

DB: No, he could hear no music at a certain

stage…

K: Therefore, how did he capture it?

DB: I don’t know.

You see, I’d say through some kind of inner

perception, now as we usually call imagination.

K: Wait a minute, sir, wait a minute.

DB: He may have heard it inwardly.

K: Wait a minute, let’s go slowly.

This is rather interesting.

When you are speaking now, do you think it

out and then speak?

DB: No, you don’t.

K: No.

Why?

DB: Well, it’s clear that there is a formation

of the meaning first, I mean.

In other words, whatever I mean to say comes

first.

K: How does that happen?

DB: Well, I don’t know if we can say exactly

how, you see, that that…

K: I mean, when I get onto the platform I

talk.

Fortunately or unfortunately, I talk.

I don’t think.

If I thought it out it would all go wrong.

I’ve done that before – I used to write

it down, enormous notes, and then make a…

go over it endlessly, make a resume of it

and then I would read it, and... (inaudible)

DB: It doesn’t...

(inaudible) But sometimes it is valuable to

make very rough notes.

K: No, wait a minute.

And Dr Besant said to me, ‘Why do you bother

with the notes?

Just say what you want to say.’

The first time I got really dithery about

it, and gradually I said...

Is there a thinking, hearing the words, all

that, when one speaks?

DB: No, I mean, the speech comes before thought,

as a rule.

K: Speech comes before – ah, ah, just let

us see that – speech comes… but the speech,

the words…

DB: There is some scientific evidence on that,

as a matter of fact.

People have watched carefully the kind of

mistakes that are made sometimes in words,

the use of words, and I can’t remember the

details but…

K: No, it doesn’t matter.

DB: The mistakes are such that it looks as

if an entire phrase or sentence or paragraph

is formed all at once and then it comes out

– do you see?

In other words, from the way the mistakes

are made it would only have been possible

to make them if the entire structure...

K: No, say for instance, Dr Besant was a great

orator, first class, supposed to be the best.

DB: Yes.

K: She said she used to see the phrases in

front of her.

DB: Well, that’s one way, but…

K: Now I’m questioning…

I want to… may I a little bit?

DB: Yes.

K: Does speech come before thought?

I use English to tell you something.

The usage of English is memory.

DB: Yes.

K: And I use that memory and talk.

DB: Well, in the same way, when you walk,

you see, you had to learn to walk, and to

a certain extent that learning was, you know...

K: Then it becomes natural, easy and so on.

DB: It becomes part of you.

K: Part of you – quite.

DB: And now the speech in the same way becomes

part of you.

Right?

K: So you are saying speech comes before thought.

DB: It may.

I mean…

K: It may.

DB: There is some evidence that it may.

Or else thought itself may be different from

what we thought, I mean, what we…

You know, it may have a different structure

from what is generally attributed to it.

K: So we are talking about culture.

DB: Yes.

K: Culture is growth – from childhood to

manhood and so on, so on.

The expression of one’s feelings must be

thought – put it down on paper, words…

DB: Yes, or notes or…

K: ...notes, anything.

And when you speak, when you deliver a lecture

you write it out or you talk as you go, you

express as you go along.

That means it must have all been stored up

inside.

DB: Well, not necessarily.

I mean, that particular order in which it

appears may be the result of perception at

that moment.

K: Yes, that’s what I want to get at.

DB: Yes.

K: That’s what I want to get at.

DB: I mean, some of the material may have

been stored up but then the particular way

it comes out depends on perception.

K: Perception of what?

DB: Well, that’s what we want to find out,

you see...

K: Perception.

I talk, unfortunately – no, fortunately

– I seem to be talking, if I may be a little

bit personal, from emptiness.

I don’t know if that…

From…

I have talked for so many years, it comes

now through long practice – you can say

that – the thing flows out.

DB: Yes.

K: But if I think about it previously, it

doesn’t flow out.

DB: Well, if you think – yes.

But you may think a little, for example, at

times you said… you told me you were thinking

about something this morning.

K: Yes, an idea happens, something you see.

DB: Yes.

K: But if I think about it previously and

store it, then it goes… somehow it messes

up.

DB: Yes.

K: But I see something, then let it work itself

out as I talk.

DB: Yes.

K: So is there not a state – I’m just...

– where thought is not in operation as memory

and all the rest of it?

Ah, yes, you’re right – perception.

Perception as you go along.

DB: Yes, well, we asked the question about

what do we perceive.
K: Perceive, I’m just…

Perception as we go along.

DB: Yes.

K: That’s right.

That’s what actually takes place.

Now, what is perception there?

Would you call it perception, or – I don’t

know – it’s not insight.

Then it’s a perception, insight is a perception.

DB: Insight is perception.

Is it to perceive – I don’t know – when

you understand, let’s say you perceive the

meaning of what is said, for example, as a…

K: You see, sir, is it possible

to say something without the operation of

thought – except the usage of words...

I can’t get at it.

How does one talk... (inaudible)

DB: Well, wouldn’t it be possible that the

movement of thought, of words, might be similar

to any other movement?

You see, if you perceive an object and you

start to move towards it or away from it,

it needn’t involve thought.

K: No, no.

DB: Or at least not… except for the stored

up information about the object, but I mean,

it needn’t fundamentally depend on thinking

about it.

Right?
K: No.

DB: Now, could you say that when we talk,

the vocal chords respond in a similar way,

you see, as they might to a perceived object?

K: Yes, yes, but it’s much more than that,

surely.

DB: Yes, it’s more than that, but I meant

that the actual...

K: Either you see the words and you read them…

DB: Well, I don’t do that.

K: You don’t do that.

DB: No.

K: Or you have talked so long, one has talked

so long, for so many years, it becomes – not

a habit...

DB: No.

A skill, perhaps?

It becomes skill.

There is a certain skill involved.

K: Skill in it.

DB: Yes.

K: There’s a certain skill in it.

DB: The whole thing takes place without conscious

direction.

K: Yes, but that doesn’t answer it yet.

DB: No.

K: How... (laughs)

DB: Is there…

I mean, maybe it’s something relevant about…

if we come back to the unconscious mind as

well, since part of the process seems to be

not conscious.

I mean, there may be that unconscious mind

which is just dimly aware and repressed.

But then sometimes one seems to regard the

unconscious mind as something more than that,

you see.

For example, you said at times that you were

speaking to the unconscious.

K: Yes, yes.

DB: Which is a different kind of unconscious.

K: Yes.

DB: And perhaps, I’ll just remind you, you

probably know that some people studying the

brain have found the two sides – the left

and the right – and, you see, one is more…

is primarily verbal – I forget which – I

think it’s the right hand side, I’m not

sure – and the other side is primarily non-verbal,

they say.

K: Non-verbal – yes.

DB: And they call that, possibly, unconscious.

You see, there are cases where they have cut

the connections – you have read about, perhaps

– between the two sides of the brain, and

it seems when they are cut, one side doesn’t

quite know what the other side is doing.

And a person may say in words that he doesn’t

know anything about something, when in his

actual action he’s doing it.

He may see something and respond to it with

his movement, but if you ask him about it

he doesn’t know anything about it.

K: Quite, quite, quite.

Ah, no, no.

No, no.

Quite, quite – I understand.

DB: So they have said that perhaps one side

of the brain is the unconscious and the other

side, the verbal side, is conscious.

I don’t know.

But then obviously there is a deeper part

of the brain, the base, which is common.

You know, that is the part where the feelings

are.

It is the centre of attention and the centre

of emotion and so on, which probably connects

both sides and works on both sides.

K: Quite.

DB: Yes.

Now, would you say that possibly there is

an unconscious mind, which is not merely forgotten

or repressed, you know, which works when you

talk, you see?

K: I can’t find it.

Wait a minute.

Sir, look, you make notes and you read – that’s

one way.
DB: Yes.

K: And if you have done that for a number

of years then you get a certain skill – that’s

one thing.

Then, the skill in talking – but that is

not the answer – what takes place?

DB: Well, you see, whatever you say does not

come from the purely verbal part of the brain

– do you see?

K: Yes, yes.

DB: I mean, unless it’s rather trivial.

K: Of course, of course.

DB: Now, one view is that it may come from

something deeper, of which you are not conscious

generally.

You see, there was, for example, these studies

where the brain was cut, and it appears that,

say the perception of music is on this side

of the brain which is the opposite of the

word, you see, the perception of visual things

and so on.

And there seems to be a function of the brain

that is non-verbal.

It may still be thought of some kind, I don’t

know – very much less defined, not verbal

thought.

I mean, it may somehow… it can be conditioned,

so memory may still be in it.

Now, you see, what we’re doing is we’re

coming out with… then there is a connection

of those two, so the word could express something

which is non-verbal.

K: Sir, is there, in the brain, untouched

by culture, anything?

DB: Well, that is a question that science

couldn’t at present consider because, you

know, it’s beyond anything that anybody

could do, because we don’t know what that

would mean, you see, from the material point

of view.

You see, in other words, if we say there is

a certain material structure to the brain,

now, there is no way at present to tell whether

it’s been touched by culture or not.

K: Quite, quite, quite, quite, quite.

DB: Because at present our way of looking

at it is too crude, anyway.

K: Would I… would you… if I say something

about it, would you listen?

DB: Yes.

K: Not discard it, throw it out.

We said – let’s begin – we said consciousness

is content, all the rest of it.

If that content be emptied – emptied in

the sense no longer conditioned – is there

a part of the brain where nothing… where

no tradition, no time, nothing has touched,

nothing has made an imprint on it?

DB: Well, possibly.

You see, we wouldn’t say possibly – it’s

a part, I mean, because...

Do you think it’s somewhere, a particular

part of the brain?

K: Not only a particular part of the brain

but a particular consciousness which is not

this consciousness.

DB: Another consciousness, are you saying?

K: Another consciousness.

DB: Right.

Which may be another function.

Or is it another part – what are you saying?

K: No, not…

No, let me get...

DB: Yes.

K: My brain is conditioned – tradition,

culture, heredity.

DB: Yes.

All right, and that means it’s damaged in

some way.

K: Damaged.

Damaged and it has healed itself completely.

DB: Yes.

You say it was damaged and healed itself.

K: Healed itself.

DB: Suppose, I mean.

K: I’m taking… suppose my brain healed

itself.

Now it is unconditioned.

DB: Yes, but how can it heal itself if it’s

damaged?

The question is how can it have healed itself.

K: Healed itself by… through having an insight

or perception which is not the perception

of the damaged.

Wait a minute, wait a minute.

DB: All right, I understand, yes.

But we say the whole brain is not… the brain

is not damaged through and through but there

is a certain damage to the brain.

K: Damage, brain – yes, that’s right.

DB: But there is still a function that is

not damaged.

K: That’s right.

That’s right.

And is there a consciousness which is totally

different from the conditioned consciousness,

which functions, operates when a

really great composer has that perception?

DB: Well, we wanted to discuss the composer

– let’s say it’s Beethoven and he’s

deaf but he has a perception.

Now, let’s say we know his brain was damaged,

you know, he was often very disturbed mentally.

K: Very disturbed man, poor chap; I know.

DB: And yet you say there was a part of his

brain or a function or something which could

work anyway despite that damage.

K: Despite that damage.

Because if he was really damaged he couldn’t

have been a musician.

DB: Yes, if he’d been damaged deeply, through

and through.

But would you say in general, damage, even

cultural damage is not deep?

I mean, it may appear deep but perhaps it

isn’t.

K: Yes, I think it is not too deep.

DB: Not too deep.

K: Would you say that?

DB: Yes.

I mean, it works on a certain level...

K: After all, my brain is damaged in tradition.

I can step out of it.

The brain says, ‘Rubbish.’

DB: Yes, well, the damage is in certain functions

of the brain which are based on memory.

K: Yes, and it can put it aside.

DB: Memory is not really a deep function of

the brain, you see.

K: No, no, no, that’s right.

DB: Though it may appear, it may treat itself

as deep, you see, or attribute to itself the

depth.

K: If I’m a Catholic, I see…

I talk with you and I reason… you show me

all of it, I say, ‘Finished.

I’m out.

No longer a Catholic.’
DB: Yes, well, in general, you see…

I mean, in principle I think it’s right.

What actually happens is that a person may

see this in a flash of insight, but a certain

part of the damage attributes to itself…

K: ...the fear…

DB: Yes, it attributes to itself the property

of being very deep and beyond thought – do

you see?

K: Quite, quite, quite.

DB: And therefore it escapes this insight

– do you see?

K: Yes.

DB: It doesn’t mean that the damage is deep,

but the damaged part attributes to itself

great depth.

K: Yes – quite, quite.

DB: So that often it is not enough merely

to say… you know, a person who is a Catholic,

it might be explained to him and he’ll see

it in that moment but a little later...

K: Ah, no, wait a minute, wait a minute.

You say I’m attached – say for instance,

I’m attached to my wife, or to something

– and because I respect and I listen, I

am fairly sensitive to what you are saying,

then it’s finished, it’s over, deep, I

am never attached any more.

DB: Well, it doesn’t commonly happen that

way, you see.

K: Why?

DB: Well, that’s what we want to find out.

K: Why?

DB: I was proposing one reason, which is that

this conditioning attributes to itself some

significance which is very deep and beyond

mere memory and thought – do you see?

Let’s say, suppose I am a Catholic and I

have been brought up in the Catholic tradition,

I have been exposed to it, you know, very

non-verbally and subtly – it has left all

sorts of marks.

Then when I become a bit frightened, once

again it all seems so real, you see.

K: Yes, yes.

DB: And therefore I forget what you’ve said.

K: Of course, of course.

But, sir, is it – no, wait a minute, wait,

don’t…

that’s too easy.

DB: No, but that’s what actually happens.

K: But I think there is something deeper than

that.

Let’s go into it a little bit.

I’m just saying – it may not be.

If I listen to you because you are serious,

you have detached yourself, and you show it

to me, and you say, ‘Look, listen...’

and because I respect you, because I listen

to you, because I am attentive, what you say

has a tremendous meaning and it is true.

The truth of it, not the rationalisation of

it, but the truth of what you are saying.

DB: Yes, but you see, even... you see, there

is the tremendous tendency in this traditional

conditioning to resist that truth.

K: Ah, I am not resisting it.

DB: Yes.

K: Of course.

Because first of all I want transformation.

That is a basic necessity for me as a human

being.

DB: Yes, but then there is the other necessity

of security, you see, which we have discussed.

K: Wait.

You show it to me: ‘Through transformation,

old boy, there is tremendous security.’

DB: Right.

But, you see, isn’t that shown…

K: Wait, wait.

You see, you point out to me that if I transform

myself totally, you will be eternally – what?

– eternally safe, secure, all the rest of

it.

Because you have seen it, because you have

got it, to me… then it’s… when you say

something it’s a shock – I see it.

But if I haven’t transformed, if I am a

crook, phoney, then whatever I say, ‘Well…’

DB: Right.

But then how do you account for the fact,

you know, that you’ve been talking for so

many years and, you know, it has had...

K: I think, sir, basically, people won’t

listen.

DB: Yes, but now let’s come to that – why

not?

You see, we’re still on the same point.

K: Same point.

Why not?

Because I don’t think they are interested.

DB: But why not, you see?

K: Because, I mean, why should they be interested?

DB: Well, because life is such a mess, you

know, because...

K: Ah, but it’s all…

They have their little harbours in which they

are sheltering themselves.

DB: But that’s an illusion.

I mean, why do they...

K: You say it is an illusion.

To me it is not.

DB: To them it’s…

I know, but why does the brain resist seeing

this illusion?

You see, very often people get shocks which

show that something is wrong and then, you

know…
K: ...they go back.

DB: They go back.

K: Of course.

DB: We still have… you see, we have to get

through this tendency to go back, you know.

You see, whatever the shock may be, the brain

may go back – do you see?

K: Yes.

DB: Let’s say we listen to the person who

really sees.

There is a shock and maybe the brain will

then go back later.

K: You are asking why does it go back?

DB: Yes.

K: Oh, that’s very simple – because of

habit, tremendous years of tradition and all

the rest of it – habit.

DB: Yes, but then that’s still the same…

K: ...same circle.

DB: The same circle, you see.

In other words, the only answer which is an

adequate one is one that will stop it, you

see.

In other words, as I see it, an explanation

which doesn’t end this thing, you see, is

not a full explanation.

K: Sir, does explanation…

DB: Yes, it doesn’t, but you just explained

it by saying it was habit – do you see?

K: No, I’m just saying.

I say it is habit, and we can go back and

forth.

DB: But that doesn’t get anywhere.

K: That doesn’t get anywhere.

DB: No.

K: So what makes me break… what brings about

to the damaged brain a total – what?

DB: Yes – it will see and not go back.

K: Not go back.

(Laughs) Wait, sir.

A man sees organisation of any spiritual movement

is useless and he drops it instantly, never

goes back to it, never cultivates it, never

organises it again.

Now, what has taken place in that man?

He perceives the truth of it.

DB: Yes, but let me say something, you see.

You have said that man, that young man, was

not actually deeply conditioned in the first

place.

Now we have to consider another man who was

deeply conditioned in the first place.

Now let’s say there is the man who was not

deeply conditioned in the first place and

sees the falseness of organised pursuit of

truth and he drops it.

K: Drops it.

Now, the other…

DB: But that’s fairly easy because it was

never very deep, you see.

K: Yes.

But the other man is conditioned.

DB: Yes, much stronger.

K: Much stronger, and he never… he may temporarily

see it and then goes back to it.

DB: Unconsciously it begins to slip back,

you see.

K: Now – yes.

Can that man be shocked?

I mean, after all, there have been electric

shocks to an insane man.

DB: Well, they don’t make… they don’t

really change much.

K: They don’t change much.

Can you shock me?

DB: Well, yes, at other times you’ve said,

you know, shocks are no use, you see.

K: I know, I’m just asking.

I can shock you but I go back tomorrow.

DB: It’ll go back.

I mean, it may work for a while, you see.

K: I know.

So what is the thing that makes me see something

and end it, and not go back?

(Pause)

Do you see that thing?

DB: What, floating in the air, you mean?

K: Yes, there’s a feather.

DB: Yes.

(Laughs)

K: (Laughs) What makes it?

You see, sir, because they haven’t been

able to do this they say, ‘Well, only for

the few.

Not many – many cannot change.’

DB: Well, yes.

One could put it like this, that perhaps the

brains have been damaged too much for most.

K: Too much – yes.

(Laughter) Yes.

Ah, that…

DB: You don’t accept that.

K: I don’t quite.

That’s too easy.

(Laughter) What makes…

You see something and it’s finished.

Right?

I don’t see it, but you point it out.

I see it.

And then for a few months or days, I see it.

And suddenly it disappears and I’m back

into...

DB: Or gradually.

You know, I think it’s more likely to say

a gradual slipping into…

K: Slips out.

All right.

DB: Slipping into the old way.

K: Old habit.

What is the thing that makes it...

(Pause)

Sir, is it – I’m just… – is attention

a conscious process?

DB: Well, we couldn’t say it’s not, you

see.

K: Yes.

DB: It may be this unconscious that we talked

about.

K: Yes.

If it is not a conscious or unconscious process,

that is, not a process of time, not a process

of thought, which is conscious, unconscious,

is there another kind of attention which acts

and it’s over?

I’m just trying to find out.

(Laughs)

DB: Would you say, as we said the other time,

that it’s something beyond attention that

acts?

K: Yes.

That is what I’m trying to get at.

If you tell me, rationalise my attachment,

my reactions, my defences, etc., etc. – rationalise

it – I listen rationally, logically, and

it’s still within the field of thought.

And within the field of that thought, whatever

thought does cannot produce a permanent, radical

transformation.

DB: Yes.

K: Now, you have explained to me rationally,

and you say, ‘That is not enough.

You won’t change if you remain there.

You’ll go back to it.’

And you point out to me, you say, ‘Look,

don’t think, don’t rationalise, just listen

to me.

Don’t control, don’t resist, just listen.’

That listening is not… you are not appealing

to the rational, thoughtful process, you are

appealing to something that is beyond thought,

beyond my usual consciousness.

You are appealing to something much deeper

in me – you are touching.

Which has nothing to do with rational… with

the movement of thought.

Would that be right?

You are appealing to me at a level of which

I am not aware… of which I’m not conscious.

And you are appealing – yes, wait a minute,

sir – you are appealing to me at a level

which may be called compassion, which is not

at the level of thought.

If you appeal to me at that level, how can

I…

I can’t go back to the former habits.

I can’t go back.

Is that possible?
Sir, is love the factor of profound change?

Not all the movements of thought and all the

explanations, all the pros and...

DB: Well, would you say... is it truth?

Previously we said it was truth.

K: Yes, truth.

DB: But is there a distinction, you see?

K: No, of course not – it’s the whole

thing.

Truth is love and compassion, everything.

I just want to see if that is so.

Can you appeal to… can you, out of your

compassion, out of your love, touch something

in me that transforms me?

Because to you there is that truth.

You see truth as something – you know, all

that – and you live in that, you have that

feeling of – you know, all that.

And from that you speak.

And you say, ‘Well, my friend, you have

tried to do it for 50 years and you haven’t

done it.’

(Laughs) And to that there would be the ordinary

answer: ‘The brains are too damaged, and

therefore there are very few brains who are

not damaged, perhaps you can affect them.’

That’s all.

DB: Well, that’s one answer.

K: But, that’s just… that is not a complete

answer.

Therefore we go back to the old thing: only

a few – you follow? – all the rest of

it.

DB: Well, one view would be that only a few

in this would spread, or something like that.

K: Yes, yes, ‘a few’ means spread, and

all the rest of it.

DB: Yes.

K: Ah, that’s – you follow?

DB: You are not accepting that.

K: No.

That is back into culture, back into time,

back into the whole business of it – tradition.

Again, a new damage.

(Laughs) This is what actually takes place.

DB: Well, are you saying that… yes, if we

are using culture in order to bring order

to the mind, then this will damage the brain.

But then what can we use culture for?

We can use it technically, or you can enjoy

it, I suppose – you enjoy the music.

K: Now, sir, just a minute.

Now, what shall we do?

You speak out of that, out of the depths of

that something immense and I listen to you,

and you affect me at that level – temporary,

it is a temporary affair and I go back to

my old damage.

You have healed me, not completely, partially,

and the old damage takes over.

DB: Yes, slowly.

K: Or can you heal me – you can’t heal

me – you are talking to me at such depth

that the very listening is healing the whole

thing.

Why doesn’t it happen?

You tell me very clearly, ‘Don’t be attached,’

and you explain to me.

And your explanation is out of that compassion,

out of the perception of truth.

And I see it, I have an insight into it, but

I lose that insight.

DB: Yes.

You see, I think that maybe there is some

clue in the nature of the brain damage, you

see, what it does, insofar as it distorts

perception.

You see, the whole thing depends on perception.

K: Yes.

DB: Clear perception.

Now, this brain damage, you see, can produce

what appears to be perception – at least

what it takes to be perception – but the

difficulty is, is that comes in slowly, unconsciously,

you see, an attribution of things, of properties

which the brain takes to be the same as perception.

K: Yes, but you are appealing…

DB: I know, I understand.

K: You are appealing to something much greater.

And I respond to it for a few days or a few

months and it’s gone.

Or I say, ‘Please remind me of it.

Let me read books and keep on memorising them’

– you follow? – and I lose it.

Why…

Is it, sir – ah, we come back to the same

thing – is it that my brain, not only damaged

but refuses to see anything new, because whatever

you say might lead me to such danger?

DB: Well, the brain attributes danger to seeing

something new, you see.

K: Of course, of course.

DB: It appears to perceive danger.

In other words, something happens in which

the brain projects danger into that situation.

It is thought, but it comes back as if it’s

something seen – do you see?

K: So you say… so you attack fear – you

follow?

So you talk about fear, you talk about pleasure,

you talk about suffering and you say, ‘Look,

look, please listen to me.

For God’s sake, out of your heart listen

to me.’

I listen to you but I go back.

DB: Well, you know, you can keep on…

You see, there is also the culture which continually

brings it back.
You see, in any relationship within this cultural

frame of reality, that frame of thought is

already there.

K: Yes, already there.

So everything is – quite, quite, quite.

Now, how does this operate?

Are you appealing to me, talking to my daily,

unconscious consciousness?

Are you talking to me, showing in that consciousness

there is no answer?

Are you talking to me at that level, or are

you talking to me not only at that level – because

you have to talk at that level – but you

also talk to me at a much deeper level.

And it may be I am not used to that deep level.

DB: Yes, it could be.

K: I think, sir, that’s more like it.

I’ve always gone to the well with a little

bucket, and you say, ‘Look, that little

bucket won’t do anything, you just… it’ll

quench your thirst momentarily.’

So you are not talking to me at the level

which I am used to.

You are talking to me at a deeper level which

I am not used to.

And I get used to it while you are talking

to me, and the moment you stop talking to

me, it’s gone.

DB: Well, at least in time.

Either that moment or later.

K: Yes, yes, I mean…

So I’m not…

Is it, sir, that I want to reduce everything

into habit, the brain.

You follow what I mean?

What you say, I see at a deep level.

And what I have seen, I reduce that or make

that into a habit, and therefore I lose it.

And you tell me at that deep level, ‘There

is no time, there is no habit.’

You can’t capture it by your brain.

Your brain will make into a habit, into a

tradition, into another damage.

So you say, ‘Don’t do that.’

DB: Yes, well, the thing is that thought tends

to accompany everything that happens, you

see, and it gives an imitation, an accompaniment,

like music or – accompaniment.

K: Quite, quite, quite.

DB: Which builds up and that becomes the habit.

Now, then thought takes that habit as the

same as the original.

At the beginning thought says the accompanying

is helping and later it mistakes that accompaniment

for the thing itself.

Right?

K: Yes.

But you tell me, ‘See the whole structure

or thought.
Be tremendously aware of it.’

DB: It seems to be part of our tradition that

there should be some thought, you know, that

this thought should not stop, you know, that...

K: Yes, yes.

DB: In fact, every tradition must demand that

thought doesn’t stop, I mean.

K: Yes, of course.

Quite right – every tradition is that.

DB: You see, I think that…

I was reading…

I mean, this may add a little bit.

You see, when children are brought into a

tradition, you can see that when they follow

the tradition, you see, everybody says, ‘That’s

right, you are good’ and so on.

And you don’t follow it they say, ‘No,

you shouldn’t,’ or, ‘It’s bad.’

And so that the child begins to feel very

good and secure in the tradition, you see.

When he is following tradition he feels that

he is a good boy.

K: Of course, of course.

(Laughs)

DB: And when he is not following it, he is

a bad boy.

So therefore there may be a habit, you know,

of going on with that whole tradition, fitting

into it, either the momentary one or the old

one.

And also thought becomes disturbed and frightened,

you see, in moving out of the tradition, you

see, that he will lose that security, that

belonging to a community in which…

K: That particular – yes.

DB: …there is consensus about what is real.

You see, it’s much deeper than personal

gain even.

K: Of course, of course.

DB: Because this community gives a consensus

as to what is real and right and true and

good, and when you are in it you feel it’s

all settled, you see, it’s safe.

K: Yes, safe – quite, quite.

DB: And therefore getting out of it might

mean, you know, chaos – do you see? – it

means the entire...

You see, I think that... you see, it’s not

generally realised how significant it is to

be out of tradition – do you see?

Mostly you say, ‘Well, I’m free of tradition.

I don’t do this, I’m not a Catholic anymore.’

K: (Laughs) Quite.

DB: Or whatever.

K: But that’s not it.

DB: But tradition goes back to that feeling

of belonging to the family and the community…

K: Yes, of course, of course.

DB: …and of being sort of felt that you

are approved of, because you are not only

doing what they say that you’re supposed

to do but believing what you are supposed

to believe, and believing in what is real.

You see, everybody…

I think we are trained – no, this tradition

includes belief that we have a correct consensus

as to what is real – do you see?

In other words, that we don’t create our

reality.

K: Yes, quite.

I understand all that.

DB: But in fact we do, you see.

But, you see...

And now all of that goes against...

Now, if you say we’re going to talk to this

deep level...

K: Yes, it goes against all that.

DB: It goes against all that.

And that, you know, works in very subtle ways,

to start working, you know.

K: Sir, just a minute.

DB: Yes.

I mean, we’ve got to reach all of that.

K: Can you who speak out… you are talking

out of… from that depth to me.

And I don’t even talk about it.

I have an insight into it, I feel it, I know…

Can you – not help me – can I sustain

it?

DB: You see, it’s a question, you see, there’s

no tradition of… man’s tradition of mystery,

man’s tradition of rationality.

You see, in other words, man’s old tradition

was mystery, then came the modern tradition

of no mystery, rationality, of being… but

to be free of this, of every form of tradition...

K: Yes, sir.

That’s what you’re asking me.

DB: Yes.

K: You say, ‘Look, every form of tradition...’

DB: And, you see, at first sight one would

say, ‘Well, you can’t do it’ – do

you see?

In other words, because one feels culture

gives you the… your culture gives you the

chance to think and look at these things,

and so on.

K: And also it gives you safety, gives you

security, a place in the community, family.

DB: A place, and also it gives you an order

in the mind, and so on and so on, you see.

Now, you see, the point is that all of this

is the result, is damage, you know, is somehow,

you know, is distortion, it’s the damaged

brain, you see.

I think that’s the firmest point that I

can see.

K: Yes.
You have explained to me all that, as clear,

verbally, intellectually, every way you have

made it perfectly clear to me.

Fear is involved, a place is involved, security

is involved in tradition – if I leave it,

etc,.

etc.

DB: Yes, it’s a distortion.

It’s the readiness to believe whatever will

make me feel better, and so on.

K: Yes, all that.

And you say, ‘I’m not talking to that.

Because if I talk to that you are merely going

round and round in circles.’

Right?

DB: Well, beyond a certain point.

K: You are not talking to me at that level

at all.

You are talking to me at a level that… at

that level which is not this.

DB: Now, you say that is the function, or

the part of the brain that is not conditioned,

that is not…

K: I don’t know.

DB: You don’t know.

K: I don’t know.

But there is a depth which is not touched

by the brain – by the traditional brain,

by the damaged brain, by the brain which is

conditioned, all the rest of it – a depth,

a dimension, which is not touched by thought.

All that’s what you have said about tradition

– everything is the process of thought and

that process of time has not touched this.

You talked to me, you showed it to me, and

if there is an action from that, the brain

can never be damaged again.

It may be that your talking to me at that

level heals the brain completely.

DB: You were saying last time that there is

a direct action on the matter of the brain.

K: Yes.

I think there is something in this.

DB: Now, is this the only way, you know, to

say... you see, that it depends on somebody

having a peer who was not conditioned, who

can talk from that depth?

K: Naturally, if you are healthy you can talk

to me.

DB: Yes, but I mean… so, that if there were

only conditioned people then they would never

find a way out.

K: Absolutely not.

How can the damaged... and all the rest of

it.

DB: Yes, you see, it goes against…

K: ...tradition.

DB: …tradition, the modern tradition of

saying that, you know, even some of what you

say, that we must discover – see, let’s

try to get it clear – we must observe and

discover and find our way out.

Now, if the brain were not damaged then it

could do that, obviously, but you see, if

it is damaged…

K: Yes.

Being damaged…

DB: …it cannot do it.

Therefore, it…

K: But you – ah, that’s it.

DB: What?

K: You realise it cannot do it.

DB: Yes.

K: Therefore you stop.

DB: You stop.

But I mean, it was you who… it was the one

who was not damaged who communicated this

– right? – from another depth.

Right?

K: Yes, but…

Yes.

Wait, sir.

Wait.

I realise by your talk – by reading, talking;

it doesn’t matter how I realise it – that

the damaged brain, whatever it does, will

still be in that area.

DB: Yes.
Now, there may be a… you see, there is the

tendency of this damaged brain to come to

conclusions and present them as facts – do

you see?

K: Therefore I realise all the tricks the

damaged brain does.

DB: Yes.

And you see, one of the tricks is to say,

you know, nothing can be done...

K: Yes – nothing can be done.

DB: And let it go, you see.

K: Quite, quite, quite.

DB: Or else I’ll keep on working on it.

You see, the...

K: I don’t know if you saw it last night,

a young man singing these folk songs and all

that – thousands of people…

It is another – you follow, sir?

– science…

DB: Well, you mean that was another attempt

of the brain to heal itself, you know, in

a false way?

K: Yes, false way.

To escape, to...

It can’t do anything socially, it can’t

do anything morally, it can’t do anything

scientific, it can’t do anything artistically,

at least it can go and listen to this rot

going on and warble about the place.

Can the damaged brain… of course, if it

is completely damaged you can’t do anything.

DB: No.

You see, then there is always the feeling,

you know, that if something – you see, one

has to look at it carefully – if something

has been damaged materially, perhaps it can

never be repaired... (inaudible)

K: Quite.

It may not...

DB: Therefore we don’t know.

We don’t know.

Right?

K: Yes – we don’t know.

Unless it is completely damaged you can’t

do anything about it.

DB: No.

K: You are ready for an asylum, or whatever

it is.

But we are talking of fairly... a not too

damaged brain.

DB: Well then we don’t know.

But you cannot know whether the damage can

be healed or not.

Right?

K: Yes, yes.

DB: But then…

K: Now wait a minute, sir.

You talk and you explain all this, and you

say, ‘Whatever the damaged brain – which

is the result of thought and tradition and

all the rest of it – whatever it does, will

produce further damage.’

So, because you say that, you point it out,

I realise that.

That is the first necessity, isn’t it – I

realise it.

Then, after I’ve realised it, you talk to

me at a depth which thought has not touched.

You see – no, that seed... you planted a

seed... because then all that’s wrong.

You see, my question is, sir: Why do I, once

having had an insight into that depth, why

should I be caught and go back into the old

thing?

That’s what the question is.

Will I ever go back if I have really… if

you have pointed out that depth and I have

an insight into that depth and I perceive

that depth, can I ever go back to the other?

Will not your saying act as a tremendous shock

or tremendous jolt?

DB: Well, I mean, there is this point we were

just discussing, that the brain may get used

to any shock or jolt.

K: I know, that’s what I’m…

DB: And therefore...

K: Therefore I have to be very, very clear,

the structure of thought and all the rest

of it, absolutely clear.

Otherwise the depth becomes the habit.

In your pointing out to me the whole activity

of thought, because I am very serious, I’m

very concerned, thought does stop.

And the feeling of the depth can never become

a habit.

When depth becomes habit it becomes pleasure,

tradition, and all the rest of it, fear, losing

it, and all that.

Now, is that depth within consciousness?

DB: Well, you see, before, you know, you said

there is another kind of consciousness.

K: That’s right.

It’s not in that consciousness.

That’s what I want to get at, too.

It’s not…

DB: Well, perhaps we could say it’s neither

in this right half of the brain nor the left,

I mean, that...

K: Yes.

I don’t know anything about the right or

left, but it’s not in the area of thought.

Thought cannot capture it.

DB: Now, you see, there is this other consciousness

– would you say this is still a function

of the brain?

Right?

Do you mean to say that it’s going on in

the brain?
K: Now, if you say brain, in the sense it

is the product of time…

DB: Well, I don’t know whether it’s the

product of time or not, you see.

K: Is a product of evolution, product of great…

you know, from the... (inaudible)

DB: We still haven’t made, you know, some

of those points clear, because, you see, if

you say nature is continually, you know, it’s

cultivated, it’s growing, and wouldn’t

you say there is a creation in nature as well?

Right?

K: Yes.

DB: Now, would you say nature is the product

of time?

K: It is and it’s not, surely.

DB: Yes, well, that’s what we are trying

to get hold of, you see, and maybe it will

solve the brain too, then.

Because the brain has arisen in the same way

as other natural things.

K: Or is it – aha, yes, yes – or is it

cultivated carefully?

DB: Yes.

But I mean, if we take the evolution of, you

know, of all sorts of plants and animals,

naturally.

Now, in one sense it seems to happen in time.

Right?

K: Yes.
DB: You know, one animal is born, it dies;

the next one, the next one, and so on, you

see – so you have growth.

K: And generation of instinct, grows…

DB: Yes.

But then there is change, there is always

a mutation and then another growth occurs,

and so on.

Now, you see, wouldn’t you say that is a

kind of creation?

I mean, you see, creation meaning ‘cause

to grow’.

Right?

K: Ah, yes – creation in the sense – yes

– to create, to cultivate.

Yes, growth.

And then what, sir, what are you trying…

DB: Right.

Now, the brain has grown also in such a process,

you see.

You see, one has to get clear about this time,

because let’s say there were the animals

and there were various mutations, the monkeys,

the other animals, you know, and there were

creatures with bigger and bigger brains, producing

finally modern man.

Now, that seems to have taken time, you see.

K: Yes.

Yes.
It seems to have taken time – yes.

DB: I don’t know if you agree entirely on

that.

You say it has and it hasn’t, I mean.

K: (Laughs) I’m just asking myself.

I suppose it has in one sense, hasn’t it?

DB: Yes.

K: So the brain is not only the product of

culture... time, but isn’t there also a

thing, part of the brain, outside the brain,

which is not of time?

DB: Well, that’s the thing we want to come

to, you see, because there is a structure

of the brain which has evolved through time.

K: Time – granted.

DB: And that may go beyond thought, that structure,

you see.

For example, it may involve attention, awareness.

K: Yes, it may involve…

Aha, I see what you are trying to say.

Wait, wait, wait.

You are saying the brain evolves in time;

in that time there is awareness, attention.

DB: Beyond thought.

It’s not culture and not thought.

K: It is still within that area…

DB: ...of time.

K: …of time.

DB: Yes, it’s as all sorts of species have

appeared in nature.
You see, in some sense it seems that some

kind of creation goes on in nature, which

appears to involve time.

K: Yes, yes.

DB: Although perhaps a very long time, but…

K: Yes.

I understand this.

Now, is attention…

DB: At least the brain which can give attention,

you know, it took time to evolve.

Right?

K: Ah?

What is that?

DB: The brain which is able to give… to

have attention.

You see, let’s take a much smaller brain,

of say, I don’t know, a small animal.

Now, its attention is in some way a lot less

than what is possible to a man.

Or would you...

K: Of course.

DB: The difference of those two took time

for the brain to evolve.

K: Evolve – yes, yes.

DB: So the capacity for attention depended

on time.

K: Yes, yes, yes.

But is there an attention which is not of

time?
DB: No, well, that’s…

Is there?

You see, that’s the...

The attention itself may not be of time – do

you see?

I’m trying to say that the brain...

K: The attention itself is not of time.

DB: No.

The ability of the brain to have attention

depended on time, you see, the structure...

(inaudible)

K: The capacity – yes.

But attention itself is not of time.

DB: Not of time, but it may be taking place

in the brain – right?

– though not of time.

K: Yes, that’s right, that’s right.

Aha – that’s right.

Yes, attention itself is out of time but the

capacity to have attention may involve time.

DB: It involved growth, culture.

And also, you see, you have also said that

as the brain grows older it grows more mature;

its capacity in some way improves.

Right?

K: Yes, if it is… of course, all... (inaudible)

DB: Yes.

And that seems to involve time in a way, you

see.

K: Time – quite, quite, quite.

DB: So therefore, in some way time is involved

to produce a certain capacity.

K: Capacity means time.

DB: Yes.

But now something may happen within that capacity,

are you saying, which is not of time?

K: Yes, yes, that’s right.

DB: So that in some sense time…

K: Attention in itself is not time but the

capacity to have attention may involve time.

DB: It depends on growth, and so on.

K: Yes – and all the rest of it.

DB: The young child has a different capacity.

K: So we are saying growth is time but attention

is not.

Right.

DB: Yes, and truth is not.

K: Yes – truth is not.

DB: And compassion is not.

K: Yes.

Compassion, none of that is in time.

Right.

DB: And that compassion or truth may operate,

you were saying, on the material structure

of the brain, so…

K: Yes, sir.

Yes, sir, we’ve…

Yes, yes.

DB: And so on.

So the brain is changed physically.

Even it’s time and behaviour is different.

K: Yes, yes, yes.

DB: Something new is introduced into time,

I mean.

K: That’s right.

That’s right.

DB: But I mean, while we’re at it, you see,

we could get more clear on creation, because,

you see, creation means ‘to cause to grow’,

literally, and now you say perception is creation

– you have said.

Right?

K: Yes.

Perception is cause to grow.

DB: Is it?

K: No.

(Laughs)

DB: No.

But I’m trying... let’s get it clear.

Creativity is perception, you see.

K: Yes.

DB: But you see, we have to get clear on what

is meant, because, you see, ordinarily the

very word creation means ‘to cause to grow’,

and we can say nature is creative, it causes

new species to grow, and so on.

K: Yes, yes.

DB: Now then, in what sense is man creative

– do you see? – in what sense…

You see, he may… let’s say Beethoven had

an insight and this gave rise to certain new

music.

Right?

So in that sense it caused new music to grow.

But I want to be more clear about creation,

you see.

K: But, sir, was the thing, the depth, was

that… the depth which produced that music,

the depth is not of time.

DB: No.

But couldn’t we say that perhaps even in

nature the depth which brings about something,

you know, is not of time, you see?

In other words, the mechanical explanation

of nature is only limited, it won’t cover

everything.

K: Limited – agreed.

DB: The creation of new forms in nature may

also depend on what is beyond time.

K: Yes.

Maybe.

Yes, maybe.

DB: It may be; we don’t know.

But...

K: But in a human…

I mean, one can see in himself compassion

is out of time, truth is out of time.

DB: Yes.
K: And the depth from which that comes, that

compassion, is out of time.

DB: Yes.

K: And therefore it is not cultivable.

DB: No, it cannot be made to grow, you see.

K: It cannot be made to grow.

DB: So we say the origin or the essence of

creativity does not grow – is what you’re

saying.

K: That’s right.

DB: But creativity may cause something to

grow in the field of time – is that what’s

occurring?

K: Yes.

Yes, yes, yes.

Yes.

DB: Because, you know, it could, for example...

K: Yes, sir.

Yes, that’s quite right.

DB: Because, anyway that is what we have in

mind, that the new perception should cause

the growth of a new society or a new man.

Right?

K: Yes – a new man – quite.

DB: But creativity itself in essence does

not grow.

I mean, this…

K: In essence – no, no.

DB: Yes.

It is not created.
(Laughs)

K: (Laughs) Yes – it’s not created, that’s

right.

Good!

But out of that thing which is not created

there can be a new man, a new society.

DB: Yes.

I mean, this creates a new brain that is not

damaged.

K: Sir, go back to the point: Why do I lose

it?

I have an insight into that profound thing

and it’s lost after a day or after a month.

Or it is

not lost at all but – comes to the same

thing.

Because I mean, all my tradition says hold

onto it, make it into a habit, make it into…

bring it into… all the rest of it.

How subtle all this is.

DB: Yes, well, we make it into tradition,

you see, another tradition.

(Pause)

K: That’s right, sir – die to everything

that thought has built as creation, as tradition.

(Pause)

I think...

You see, you speak from that depth and I listen

to you.
And you explain all the movements of thought

as time.

That I understand very easily.

And you say, ‘Thought, time, must have a

stop, otherwise you can’t…

there is no depth.’

So I hunger after it, practise, all the rest

of that rubbish grows.

But if I listen to you and see the truth of

what you say – not the rationalisation of

it but the truth of what you say.

The truth being the perception of what you

say, the total perception of what you say.

I can only do that against all the pressure,

tradition, everything that says, ‘Don’t

do this.’

DB: Or which also says, ‘Do it, but absorb

it in this tradition.’

K: Yes – do it in order to get something

else.

So, I’m back.

So, what you tell me, I have to understand

the subtlety, the reality, the depth of that

reality, that thought is... etc.

But you see, I won’t listen to you when

you go to such – you follow? – to such

extreme...

DB: Yes, it’s hard to listen.

I mean, if you propose abandoning all tradition,

all culture, all…

K: Exactly.

DB: …everything, then, you know, the brain

may say, ‘All right,’ but it sort of rejects

it.

K: ‘Oh, for God’s sake, stop it.’

(Laughs) Yes, sir.

(Pause)

DB: You see, the Chinese are reputed to have

absorbed all their conquerors, you see.

All the barbarians came in and they all became

Chinese.

That’s how it survived, you see.

So that’s what happens.

K: (Laughs) Yes, yes, yes.

DB: The non-tradition becomes tradition, you

see.

K: That’s what the Hindus did with the Moguls.

Quite.

DB: I think that is the most subtle feature

by which the tradition absorbs the non-tradition.

K: Quite.

You see, sir, but I have to listen to you,

or read you, I have to be entirely with you

in this.

I can’t because my wife is angry – you

follow?

– everything is against this.

I have no leisure – you know?

DB: Yes, and also to communicate with people,

use their frame.

The traditional frame, you see, takes over.

K: I know.

It struck me – I don’t know if you were

reading this morning, I just read that parapsychology...

DB: Yes, I read it the other day.

K: You read it.

That’s a new game they are going to go into.

DB: Yes, well, it’s already being absorbed

into a new tradition.

K: A new tradition.

(Laughs) I was just thinking of that

this morning.

(Pause)

Now, sir, how can, at Brockwood, how can you

make those – not make – how can you tell

those students all this and they will absorb

the reality of what you are saying, and the

truth of what you are saying?

The reality – you know what I mean? – and

the truth.

How can they…

If I was a teacher there, and I see what you

are saying to be absolute truth, and I want

to tell them about it, I want them to be non-traditional,

in the real sense.

They come, they are conditioned, damaged,

and the teachers are damaged.

So what can you do?

The whole society is against this.

DB: Yes, well...

K: Everything is against this.

DB: You see, the student or the child is in

a society of his own which has its tradition

and demands, you know, its reality, you know,

it determines its own reality.

And therefore perhaps it’s like the Australian,

in what you say is unreal.

K: (Laughs) Absolutely.

The tradition of reality – quite right.

DB: Yes.

You know, to him the real thing is what he

is doing with his friends, you know, how they

are getting together, their relationships

and so on, and what he is going to do afterwards

in society.

So, you see, this thing probably must seem

unreal when you first hear it – you know,

it doesn’t fit your reality.

K: Of course, sir.

Now it’s my job to see that they get…

to see that they understand this.

(Pause)

Everything is against it – sex, pleasure,

money – everything is...

DB: All those things which people say are

really important, you see, in real life and

so on.

You see, it may seem like, sort of, if somebody

first hears it, this is all abstraction, you

know, it’s very distant from reality.

K: Of course.

DB: Unless he is very dissatisfied and unless

he feels unhappy with reality, you see.

In other words, I think that it must depend

on a...