This is the 11th dialogue between J.

Krishnamurti

and David Bohm, at Brockwood Park, 1975.

Krishnamurti: What shall we talk about, sir?

David Bohm: Well, last time, you know, at

the end I was suggesting the question of the

three qualities – we call them truth, wisdom

and intelligence – and their relation, possibly,

to experience.

K: That’s right, we’re going to talk about

that.

Did you ever hear of Keyserling?

DB: Is that an economist?

No.

K: No, no, no, he was a philosopher, a German.

Keyserling, he started a school of wisdom

in Darmstadt or someplace like that.

And also in India there was a school of wisdom.

And they asked me to go once to it.

I said I wouldn’t go because you can’t

teach wisdom.

Their idea of wisdom was to study a lot of

books.

DB: Well, that’s one idea, to accumulate

the wisdom of the ages.

K: Wisdom, yes, that’s it.

What does that word come from?

DB: Well, I looked it up.

K: I am sorry, I meant to have looked it up.

DB: First of all, wisdom has the same root

as wit and it has the same root as seeing,

like video.

K: Has it anything to do with vidya, the Sanskrit

word?

DB: Yes, vidya also means see in Sanskrit.

K: Of course, of course.

DB: And wit is the same word.

K: Wit – oh yes.

DB: Witness probably, and wisdom, and some

others I’ve forgotten by now.

K: Look at that dictionary.

First of all, could we... how do you want

to approach it?

Can wisdom be learnt?

DB: Well, this is a difficult question.

You see, it can’t be learnt in the usual

sense.

The question is: is there any way in imparting

wisdom?

K: Yes.

DB: In some sense conveying it or...

But one of the definitions that stuck in my

mind was that it was ‘a capacity for sound

judgement’.

K: Oh – capacity for sound judgement.

DB: That’s one of the phases of it.

In this area where thought properly functions

then thought will be capable of sound judgements.

Yes, well, looking at the dictionary, you

see, the word wise.

Oh, I had made a mistake.

Yes, I was right – from a root, Aryan based

weid meaning ‘to see’ or ‘to know’.

K: To know – that’s right.

(Inaudible)

DB: The same root is vide in Latin and idea

in Greek.

And wisdom, it says: ‘the quality of being

wise’.

That’s not much help.

(Laughter) ‘Sound judgement, sagacity’.

Then the second meaning – archaic – is

‘learning knowledge and science, the Wisdom

of the Ancients.’

You see, that’s another meaning, the accumulated

wisdom, but that’s not what we mean.

K: Is it a confusion between knowledge and

wisdom?

DB: Well, there has been over the ages such

a confusion, you see, but clearly from the

root of the word it means, not so much knowledge,

but the act of seeing or knowing.

K: That’s the act of seeing.

DB: The act of seeing is the basic root, but

it has also come to mean, apparently, the

capacity to make sound judgements, which depends

on perception.

K: Yes.

DB: In other words, judgements are not made

from thought, but...

K: ...but from accumulated knowledge.

DB: No, but from perception.

You see, in other words, I think a judgement

is merely the expression in thought... a sound

judgement is the expression in thought of

a perception.

K: Yes.

DB: You see, a judgement means originally

‘to divide’, the word judge.

K: Judge, to divide.

DB: The German word (inaudible) is the original

division, and you make a distinction or a

discrimination.

You know, a sound judgement should make it

according to a perception, not according to

knowledge or tradition.

K: Yes, yes, yes.

DB: You see, the traditional judgements are

to divide between good and evil, right and

wrong, true and false, or just simply to divide

in a technical way between cause and effect,

you know, between relationship and non-relationship.

You see, for example, we made the division

saying that truth...

K: ...and reality...

DB: ...are not related – which is a judgement.

K: I see.

DB: The form of thought is a judgement, but

if that were just based on knowledge it would

have no meaning.

K: No – quite, quite, quite.

DB: But if that judgement expressed or communicates

a perception.

K: And also discerning – I mean, discernment

– to discern between essential, non-essential,

truth and false, and so on.

DB: That’s right.

That’s a perception, in the form of...

K: Is perception dualistic?

DB: No, but the way of expressing it is dualistic,

you see.

K: That’s it.

That’s it.

DB: You see, this is a point which is hard

to explain, but our language inevitably divides.

K: Language divides – yes.

DB: And it must express something which is

whole as a judgement, namely as something

divided, but nevertheless one.

K: One – quite, quite.

DB: This is the way our...

You see, there was a way I had in mind...

You see, our thought has to give an account

of the perception; our words – right? – an

intelligible account of perception.

K: Perception – quite.

DB: And part of the intelligible account is

in the form of judgements.

But, as you were saying, the description is

not the described, you see, the account is

not what is accounted for.

K: Quite.

So what is then, if it is perception and not

judgement?

I just want to...

It is not discernment, but wisdom is perception

that...

Is wisdom the perception that discernment

exists when there is duality?

Would that be wisdom?

DB: Well, when is there duality, you see?

K: When there is discernment.

DB: Yes, but then there is a certain area

where discernment is called for – is that

what you mean to say? – in the area where

thought belongs.

K: Yes, in the area where thought belongs.

And to see where thought belongs is wisdom.

DB: Yes.

Yes, that’s the key to wisdom, really.

K: Yes.

DB: That is, if thought is aware of where

it belongs then it will make sound judgements,

correct discernments.

K: But that’s not wisdom.

If thought knows its place – if I can put

it – and functions within its own limit

then that is the operation of thought.

DB: Yes, but that...

K: But that’s not wisdom, is it?

DB: That’s not wisdom but that is – we

have to make it clear that that is taken as

one of the signs of wisdom, you see.

K: I see.

I’m glad we’re discussing this.

DB: Yes.

You see, it’s not to say that is the essence

of wisdom because that merely is the outward

form of an act of a man who is wise.

K: Quite.

Quite.

So would you say that wisdom is the perception

of the limitation of thought and its operation

in the limited area?

DB: Yes, that’s the essence of wisdom.

K: That’s the essence of wisdom.

DB: To perceive the limitation of thought.

And then the act of such a man will take the

form of sound judgements, you see.

K: Aha.

I see.

Yes – quite.

Quite, quite.

You see, I was...

Discernment – you must have heard of Shankara,

the Indian philosopher.

DB: Yes.

K: I believe he lays a tremendous emphasis

on this capacity to discern.

DB: Yes.

The dictionary also says ‘to make sound...’

The question is what is it that makes the

judgement or discernment sound?

K: It can be very logical, sane, clear thinking

that can make a sound judgement.

DB: Yes, but the person won’t have... if

his thought goes outside its proper area he

won’t have that.

K: No, no, of course not.

But very few realise the limitation of thought.

DB: Yes.

Now that’s the point, that if you merely

put it in the outward form it is misleading.

You see, the sound judgement is merely the

outward manifestation of wisdom, and if you

emphasis that then it’s already wrong.

K: Yes, sir.

Quite, quite.

DB: Then you are treating that as if it were

the essence.

K: Quite.

DB: But the essence is the perception which

allows one to see that thought is limited,

you know, and also the readiness of thought

to move with that perception, as I said.

K: Yes.

DB: The way I put it is to give a correct

account of its limits and to take that account

into account, you see, and move it.

In other words, you see, it seems that – this

was something I was observing – let’s

say there is a perception, then thought may

give an account of that perception, you see,

but that is not the perception.

But still thought has to give the account.

K: Yes, yes.

DB: Right?

K: Yes.

DB: You see, in some sense you could compare

thought to the witness, you see, the witness

of what is observed.

But the witness, if he gives a correct account

of what he observes, that’s good, but if

he puts in his own thought as part of the

account it’s wrong, you see.

That’s well known in court.

The difficulty is that this witness is continually

putting in his own conclusions, you know,

his own ideas, as if they were perceptions.

K: Distorting.

DB: It’s distorting because he’s putting

them in, not saying, ‘This is my conclusion,’

but saying, ‘This is what I see.’

(Laughs)

K: Yes.

Quite, quite, quite.

DB: And that is not wisdom, you see.

K: And what is the difference then between

wisdom and intelligence?

DB: Well, that’s what we wanted to come

to, you see.

There are different words and one wonders

if there is not some different shade of meaning

sometimes, you see.

There are three words: wisdom, intelligence

and truth, you see.

K: Yes – wisdom, intelligence and truth.

Yes.

DB: Now, we have discussed intelligence once

before and at that time I think we were very

nearly treating it as containing wisdom and

truth.

You see, we were using one word to cover the

whole, I think.

K: Cover the whole.

Now we have separated it: truth, wisdom and

intelligence.

DB: Yes.

Now, you see, the truth you say is first,

and from truth may flow wisdom, and from wisdom

intelligence.

Is that...

K: Sir, would a man who perceives truth be

foolish?

DB: No.

You see, foolishness is the opposite of wisdom

but, you see, there would be no point.

Truth would not lead a man into folly, I mean.

K: No.

If one sees what is truth, he acts according

to that.

DB: Yes.

K: And that action, would it be a wise action?

DB: Well, it would inevitably be a wise action.

K: Yes.

And therefore not foolish and therefore an

intelligent action.

DB: Yes.

But we want to see why we use the two words

wise and intelligent.

You see, either one of the words is superfluous

or there’s a further shade of meaning that

we have to explore.

Right?

K: Yes, quite, quite.

DB: Now, we say there is a difference between

truth and wisdom, first.

You see, truth is that which is, we said.

K: Yes.

DB: Now, wisdom is somewhat more limited,

the way we have seen it – it’s the perception...

primarily the perception of the limitations

of thought.

Right?

K: Yes.

DB: Right?
So that thought does not do anything foolish.

If thought does not know its limits then of

course...

K: Then it does...

DB: ...all sorts of foolish things.

K: Quite, quite.

DB: Now, as soon as thought can know its limits

then it does not do anything foolish, you

see.

So perception of that which is, it seems to

me, goes far beyond the perception of the

limits of thought.

K: Why have we then divided truth, wisdom

and intelligence?

DB: Well, we don’t know.

It may be partly the tradition, you know,

of our culture, but there may be some reason

behind it.

You see, I think we have to...

K: ...look at it.

DB: ...look at it.

K: Quite.

DB: Now, it seems to me that wisdom emphasises

this perception of the limits of thought – do

you see? – the true perception of the limits

of thought.

K: Yes.

DB: Now, what is intelligence, you see, then?

K: The meaning of that word, according to

the dictionary, isn’t it, ‘to read between’.

DB: There are many meanings.

K: A dozen.

DB: Legere means also ‘to pay attention’.

K: Pay attention – legere.

DB: Legere.

It could mean the same as read or pay attention,

and it also means ‘to gather’ and...

K: Yes – collect.

DB: To collect, and also it means to choose,

you see.

K: Ah, yes.

Aha.

You see, we come back to – yes.

Yes, I see that.

Is choice intelligence?

No – is the capacity to choose intelligence?

DB: Well, no.

You see, the point is that we have to say:

what is the capacity to choose?

Unless somebody would say, ‘If he chooses

it is either arbitrary or he must choose intelligently.’

K: But choice.

DB: Choice itself, you see, in practical affairs

you may choose one thing over another with

the help of intelligence.

Right?

K: Yes.

DB: Now what kind of choice do you have in

mind, you see?

K: Is there, in perception, choice?

DB: Oh, that’s the question – yes, yes

– or in awareness – right?

K: In awareness.

In awareness, in perception, in attention

is there any choice?

DB: You see, that’s the same as saying there

is no discrimination.

K: That’s it.

That’s it.

Yes.

DB: You could not choose unless there were

discrimination to choose from.

Right?

K: Yes – choose from.

DB: If there is no discrimination there is

no place for choice to operate.

K: That’s right.

That’s right.

There is no choice.

DB: Yes.

K: So, that’s right.

DB: So the question is: why is it that the

word legere had this range of meanings?

K: I know.

DB: You see, there seems to be some deep confusion

somewhere.

Were people confused between attention and

choice?
In other words, the same word can mean attention,

pay attention, and it can also mean choose.

I don’t know why, how that came about.

K: If there is attention would there be choice?

DB: No, there wouldn’t be, you see, but

people may think that there would be.

You see, in other words, there may be in our

tradition a widespread belief that attention

would contain choice.

K: I know.

Attention, awareness, perception, in that

surely there is no choice at all – you just

perceive and act according to that perception.

DB: Yes.

But if somebody thought we actually perceived

discriminations then he might think that you

could choose, that awareness would contain

choice.

You see, I’m trying to say what mistaken

presupposition would allow people to come

to this belief that there is choice in awareness,

you see.

Because I think...

K: Is it the outcome of the feeling or the

idea that because there is choice there is

freedom?

DB: That’s part of it, perhaps.

But the idea of, say, choosing between good

and evil, let’s say – that’s one of

the favourite choices...

K: Yes, good and evil, take that.

DB: ...and people felt you are free to choose

between good and evil.

But you wouldn’t be able to do that unless

you could discriminate good and evil.

Right?

Therefore it is probably assumed that you

can discriminate good and evil.

K: No, but a man who perceives, to him there

is no choice.

DB: No, there is no choice but he also doesn’t

discriminate in that perception.

K: No, no, and therefore he acts according

to that perception.

DB: Yes.

Well, that perception contains the whole,

as I see it, of good and evil, and the implication

of the necessary action, all undivided.

Right?

K: Yes, yes, yes.

DB: It is not necessary to say, ‘This side

is evil; this side is good – I go to this

side.’

K: No, no.

(Laughter) Good guys and bad guys – quite.

DB: So that there is some confusion in our

tradition about the nature of perception,

you see.

K: For me, if I may be... perception implies

a choiceless action, not discriminating action

or a choosing action, just perception.

DB: Yes, the description may make it look

like a choice.

K: Description, yes.

DB: Yes.

A person may see the whole of good and evil

and take the right action, but when described

it’s described that he took the good action

and avoided the evil action – do you see?

But that’s only a description.

K: But the description is not the described,

and so on, and all the rest of it.

DB: So the point is that in the description

we inevitably use the dualistic language.

It looks that way.

And in order to communicate something that

is not dualistic, you see, there is…

K: So let’s begin.

To see is to act, and in that action there

is no choice.

DB: Yes.

K: And that perception is truth.

DB: The perception that there is no choice.

K: Yes, there is no choice – that is the

truth.

DB: Yes.

K: Now, in translating that into words, does

it imply any dualistic...

DB: No, it doesn’t.

The words are dualistic in form but the actuality

is not dualistic.

You see, the mere statement that that is truth

is a kind of... there is dualism in the way

you use the words because, you see, it would

imply that is not wrong, that is not false,

and so on.

I’m trying to say that there is a certain

background in language...

K: Of course, of course.

DB: ...which has dualism built into it.

K: Yes, quite right.

I understand.

DB: Nevertheless knowing that that is the

case it is possible to communicate free of

dualism – that’s what I want to suggest.

K: Quite, quite, quite.

Quite.

Can I communicate... can one communicate love

without the implication of hate, jealousy,

anger?

DB: Yes, as long as we realise that the words,

you know, are only the description, you see.

That it’s part of the language that love

is not hate and so on, you see.

Perhaps one could say that one has nothing

to do with the other.

K: Is wisdom the denial, the negation of the

opposite?
DB: No.

K: Just a minute, sir.

DB: What is the opposite of wisdom?

It’s folly, you see.

K: Folly.

DB: No, it can’t be.

You see, in one sense it’s not the opposite

of folly.

K: Oh, no.

DB: No.

You see, but wisdom is obviously the denial

of folly.

But denial does not mean opposition.

K: Quite, quite.

DB: I mean, that’s a matter of being careful,

because to deny means that the other is not

there at all.

K: Quite.

DB: Not that it opposes it.

K: Is intelligence different from perception?

DB: Well, it can’t be really different from

perception.

K: No.

So why has man divided perception – no – truth,

wisdom, intelligence, and good and evil and

all the rest of it – why has this division...

how has this division come about?

DB: Well, are we really clear that there’s

no use to this division at all?

You see, intelligence might be a different

shade of meaning.

I mean...

K: Would a man who perceives truth

have this division in himself?

DB: There would be no point to it.

K: No, no point to it.

So who has divided this?

DB: Well, it’s clear that thought has divided

it, you see.

In thought it appears as divided – we have

different words and some sense that they mean

something different.

K: Thought has divided it, or we have been

educated to divide this.

DB: Yes, well, through thought, you see.

K: Yes.

DB: I mean, our thought has been conditioned

to divide it.

K: Fragment it.

DB: To fragment it, you see.

K: Yes.

DB: To use different words and give them different

meanings and so on, and even to give intelligence

the meaning of some sort of skill in thought

– do you see?

K: Skill in thought – (laughs) yes, quite.

DB: And people talk about artificial intelligence.

They talk about computers that would be artificial

intelligence.
K: Artificial intelligence, yes.

DB: I was talking with a man who worked in

computers and he finally saw that it would

be artificial thought not artificial intelligence.

K: Quite.

Then what are we trying to do?

We are trying to find out what is the relationship

between wisdom and truth... between intelligence

and wisdom and all...

DB: Yes.

You see, if we could explore, is there any

part of the meaning of intelligence that we

have not looked at yet, or do we say it is

all contained in truth?

K: I am just beginning to question that.

DB: What?

K: Whether in the word truth, whether all

those are not included.

(Pause)

Sir, as we said the other day, we said there

is reality and truth.

Reality is all that which thought has created,

all that which chooses, which discriminates,

and functions within that field.

We said that is all reality.

DB: Yes.

Well, I would try to put it that it is not

merely what thought has done, but there is

a certain actuality which thought has brought

about, or which thought can describe.

K: Yes.

DB: Even the tree may be described as part

of reality where thought discriminates, and

the tree exists independently of thought but

still thought...

K: Thought is different.

DB: ...thought knows the tree in that form.

Right?

K: Yes.

Thought knows the tree in that form, but the

tree is separate or is not thought.

DB: The tree is not thought, it is an actuality.

But still, I say reality is therefore not

only what man has produced and what he knows

but all the unknown reality which he could

know.

K: Yes.

DB: Like what’s going on on Mars, or...

K: Yes, yes, yes, surely.

DB: You see, which still would be known through

thought.

Whatever could be known through thought is

reality, you see.

K: Yes, everything that can be known through

thought is reality.

We went through all this the other day.

DB: Yes, that’s just to cover everything.

K: Yes.

Yes, that’s right.

DB: And therefore truth would have to be...

K: Can a thoughtful man be a wise man?

DB: Well, what do you mean by thoughtful?

K: Thoughtful in the sense, who sees the world

is degenerating, who sees the various forms

of revolution taking place, and through thought

says, ‘I must find an answer,’ and relies

on thought to find that answer.

DB: Well, no, you see, aside from all the

criticism you could make about lack of perception,

you see, the major point is that thought is

then moving outside its proper area, you see.

If he is going to find an answer without...

K: No, but he says, ‘I only know thought.’

DB: Yes, I know.

K: ‘And I know nothing else.

And since thought has created this awful confusion

thought will find an answer.’

DB: Yes, well, that’s outside...

You see, that’s one of the points of wisdom,

for thought to understand that it cannot possibly...

K: ...find an answer.

DB: ...find an answer to that which it itself

produces – do you see?

When thought produces contradiction it cannot

find an answer.

K: So a thoughtful man is not a wise man.

DB: Well, if he depends on thought he’s

not wise, yes.

K: Yes, of course, of course.

A thoughtful man is not a wise man, nor is

he an intelligent man.

DB: No.

K: We are condemning the thoughtful man, aren’t

we?

(Laughs)

DB: Well, if that’s what you mean by a thoughtful

man.

But very often thoughtful means just wise

or intelligence.

You see, the words can be used differently.

K: I know.

But a thoughtful man is not a wise man.

DB: Well, not the way we have defined it.

K: Would you take a thoughtful man, even though

we didn’t define it, as a wise man?

DB: Not if he depends on thought, you see.

But sometimes by the word thoughtful you mean

something different, you see.

‘The person is not thoughtful’, meaning

that he was not wise usually, that he was

not observing his thoughts.

K: Yes, yes, yes, yes.

DB: You see, there is a great deal of ambiguity

in the language and the words are used in

different senses.

But I would say that if a man depends entirely

on thought then he cannot be wise.

K: Let’s limit it to that, yes.

A man who depends entirely on thought – rational,

logical and dependent on thought – is not

a wise man.

Then what is wisdom which is not the movement

of thought?

Has it got a place, a seat?

Is it a living thing or is it an accumulated

experience?

DB: Well, yes, I mean it’s clear that it’s

a living thing but you see, I think we should

discuss then since you’ve brought in the

word experience, we must discuss it.

K: Yes, all right.

DB: You see, because that is another of these

very ambiguous words.

The word experience has many meanings, but

one of the meanings is ‘to put to the test’,

like the same root as peril.

And another meaning is ‘to go through’

as in per.

But I think... it seems to me there are two

aspects of experience.

You see, if you are working in some practical

domain...

K: ...you need it, of course.

DB: ...you need experience to learn, you see.

K: Of course.

DB: Now, so we’re saying that experience

is thought, basically.

There was one interesting definition of experience

which was given by some philosopher, Immanuel

Kant, who said it’s a combination of sensation

and thought, which seemed good to me.

You see, that...

K: Combination of sensation and thought.

Quite.

DB: And these thoughts are the basic categories,

the basic discriminations.

In other words, you don’t only have sensation

but there is an immediate thought too fast,

you know, to be seen, in which there is a

discrimination or a category, like cause and

effect or good and bad and so on, pleasant

and unpleasant.

And therefore you could say that is experience.

In some sense experience, I say, is the contact

with reality.

I don’t know if that makes sense to you.

You see, proper experience in practical affairs

is what you mean by something being real.

K: Can you experience truth?

DB: No, you can experience reality.

K: Yes.

Quite, quite, quite.

DB: That’s what I wanted to say.

Reality is what can be experienced.

K: Yes.

DB: And the sense of reality is important

in the experience.
You see, the fact that you have a sensation

or a contact, you know, sort of a feeling

that it is real, I am real and the whole thing

is real, you see.

K: Quite.

DB: On the other hand, you see, if you try

to experience truth or love or beauty or something

then it has no meaning, you see, there’s

no place.

So experience goes wrong when thought tries

to go out of its place.

K: Go out of its limits.

DB: Out of its limits.

You see, the same as...

I would say... the way it seems to me, also

it’s interesting – you could say you experience

pain or pleasure or experience desire.

K: Yes, yes.

DB: Experiencing desire, it seems to me, would

be a case of thought going out of its limits

– right?

K: Yes.

Quite.

Now, to see the whole of that – the operation

of thought, the limitation of thought, the

thought sensation, and thought accumulating

knowledge about the future, and so on, all

that – and seeing the interrelationship

between intelligence, wisdom and truth – seeing

the whole of that, would you call that wisdom?

DB: You could call it wisdom, you could call

it truth, you see.

K: Yes.

DB: But to me, the notion of intelligence

also gets across something more detailed in

the sense of meeting the individual situation.

In other words, we could say truth, meeting

the actual individual situation is intelligence.

I don’t know if that makes sense.

K: Aha.

I see what you mean.

DB: In other words, truth is the universal

or the global.

Of course, it’s all one but I mean we divide

it in our description – our language is

dualistic.

K: Quite.

DB: But truth is the universal or the global,

but when it meets the individual actual situation

we call that intelligence – do you see?

That’s the way it occurred to me.

K: Yes.

DB: In other words, intelligence is what keeps

everything in order.

K: Quite.

Yes – quite.

DB: It is not really different from truth

but it is calling attention to a different

action, a different way of looking at it,

I don’t know, a different way of – not

exactly of looking but...

K: Seeing the whole is wisdom, is truth.

DB: Seeing the whole is truth.

And I think that the actions of a man who

sees the whole are wise – that’s the way

I would like to put it.

K: Yes.

Yes.

DB: And then the very root says, you know,

they are wise, meaning they are based on seeing,

(laughs) since wise means seeing.

K: Wise means seeing.

DB: It says so in the dictionary, the original

meaning, based on the same root as vide.

K: Yes, vide.

DB: And intelligence is also seeing, you see,

but I think it’s merely giving names to

the action of truth, emphasising the...

Intelligence, it seems to me, would involve

the ability to deal with every actual case

from the seeing.

K: Yes, from the seeing, that’s right.

DB: And not from memory or from knowledge.

K: No, that’s right.

Quite.

DB: You see, people might think that wisdom

consisted in accumulating a great deal of

knowledge, this tradition, and they get so

much knowledge that they would know how to

deal with every individual case, and they

would think that’s wisdom, you see.

But that’s wrong.

K: The other day, Lord Clark, ‘Civilisation

Clark’, was talking about Egypt and he was

showing some pictures of Sakkara and Luxor

and the Valley of the Kings, and he said,

‘There civilisation began.’

DB: Yes, well, as far as we know.

K: I mean, I’m just...

As far as we know – but it might be much

older.

DB: Yes.

K: Is civilisation the product of thought?

DB: Well, it seems to me it is.

K: And then culture is also part of thought.

DB: Yes, the root is ‘to cultivate, to make

something grow’.

K: Cultivate, yes, grow.

So our civilisation then is not... is based

on thought.

DB: Yes.

I mean, that seems obvious.

K: Obvious.

It is obvious.

DB: And also Bronowski was making that very

clear in his series, you know, in saying the

ascent of man was the ascent of his knowledge.

K: So, knowledge is in the field of reality.

DB: Yes.

K: Now you see we are getting at it.

Knowledge is in the field of reality and we

are operating on knowledge.

DB: Yes, and then we use experience, you know,

to gain knowledge and to apply our knowledge

and so on.

K: All that.

Then what... has knowledge any relationship

to truth?

DB: No.

You see, at first sight it might have but,

you know, it doesn’t actually.

K: No, actually not.

No, sir.

DB: Thought has no relation.

You see, it is a very hard thing to put.

This comes to a question which we were considering

some time ago, you know: where did thought

first go wrong?

You see, one idea was, let’s say thought

suddenly expanded in man as his brain enlarged

and thought, we were suggesting, did not know

its limitations, you see.

When thought first appeared in man it did

not know that it was limited, you see, and

it tried to behave as the unlimited.

Now, before it could find out that it was

limited it had already created so much chaos

that it couldn’t do anything.

(Laughs) Now, it’s very hard for thought

to discover it is limited, not only, you know,

for all this chaos but also there’s an inherent

difficulty in the language, you know, in thought

to express its limitation because there is

a paradox, you see.

If you try to say thought is limited, you

see, thought first of all establishes limits

– do you see?

– thought is that which makes limits.

Right?

All the limits come from thought.

K: Division and so on.

DB: The very word determine is to terminate,

to limit, you see.

So if we say all the limits are set by thought,

and now we want to say thought itself is limited.

K: Yes, we do.

DB: Then that becomes difficult to say not

paradoxically, you see, because thought not

only makes limits but it transcends every

limit that it makes – do you see?

K: Yes, yes, yes.

DB: Therefore if thought says, ‘Thought

is limited,’ it immediately transcends that

limit.

K: Yes.

It draws a line and goes beyond the line.

DB: That’s right, yes.

It is the character of thought to set a limit

and transcend the limit.

If thought says, ‘I am limited,’ then

immediately it transcends the limit.

K: Yes – quite.

DB: And therefore it has not done the right

thing, you see.

Therefore, there is another way to put it,

that the whole process of setting limits and

transcending them, which is thought...

K: Which is thought.

DB: ...not to say, ‘Is it limited?’ because

that will get us into that trouble, but rather

to say: does it have any bearing whatsoever

on truth?

K: Obviously not.

DB: No.

Not to say it is limited or unlimited or anything,

but merely that it has nothing whatsoever

to do with it.

K: That’s right.

Thought has no relationship to truth.

DB: Yes.

It has no relevance to truth, no bearing to

truth, or anything, you see.

K: Quite.

DB: Therefore it cannot even state that truth

is unlimited or anything like that.

K: No, no.

Quite.
DB: And therefore, what thought has to do...

You see, when thought sees that then it is

obvious that the right action of thought is

to not attempt any of those questions where

it has no bearing, you see.

K: Yes.

You see, I was looking at those, on the television,

the picture of Sakkara where he showed extraordinary

buildings, ancient buildings – 3,000, 5,000,

I don’t know how old they are.

It was put together by thought.

DB: Yes.

K: Thought became an instrument of perception.

DB: Why do you say an instrument of perception?

K: I’m just...

I’m not...

The architect who – (inaudible) or whatever

you call him – he had an image, or the imagination

to see what the buildings should be.

DB: Yes.

Now that brings us back to... last week we

were discussing imagination and then you said

you don’t imagine anything.

K: I don’t, personally.

DB: Yes.

Now, you see, if we could just... as long

as we are on this, perhaps...

Let’s take an architect, and he has plans

and he has to visualise what this looks like.

What would you say about that?

Suppose you wanted to make a building from

a drawing, wouldn’t you have to visualise

it?

K: Yes.

DB: Yes, so that...

K: No, but I can’t do it.

I can only do it if I see some... if an architect

draws a plan then I can say, ‘This is not

right.’

But I can’t...

DB: You can’t what?

K: ...draw it rightly.

I can only correct what is...

DB: Why is that?

K: I have no visual capacity to see something

solid, you know, a drawing.

DB: In the imagination.

K: Imagination.

I can’t imagine a building.

DB: Is this just a peculiarity of yourself?

K: Maybe a peculiarity of myself.

DB: Or does it reflect... does it mean something

more, in the sense that there is something

wrong with imagination?

K: I don’t think imagination plays a part

in meditation, in truth, in perception.

DB: I understand that.

I mean, I agree with all that – that’s

clear.
I say imagination may have certain limited

parts to play, let’s say in visualising

certain arrangements like a building.

K: Sure.

Yes, yes, of course, of course.

A painting.

DB: You see, one thing that occurred to me

was that imagination always contains what

I call the imaginer.

K: Quite.

DB: The person who seems to be looking.

K: Looking, yes.

DB: But he is quite imaginary.

K: Yes.

DB: In other words, there is nobody looking.

You see, just like in a dream, the dreamer

is not there.

So the imaginer who is looking at the picture

is not there.

You see, the imaginer is imagined.

K: But, talking of dreams, hasn’t it happened

to you when you are dreaming there is interpretation

of that dream going on?

DB: Yes, well, that would be another kind

of dream, you see.

In one kind of dream it seems you are identified

with the dreamer, with the one who is dreaming,

you see, some character in the dream.

K: Well, we won’t go into dreams yet – quite.

DB: Yes.

But there might be another kind of dream in

which you are not identified, you see.

K: Yes.

DB: But couldn’t there be a kind of imagination

where you were not identified?

You see, I think you use...

like when you compared to Columbus discovering

America, there is an image there.

K: Yes.

DB: Now, there was no image-maker but the

image was merely an expression, a visual expression

of a certain perception – do you see?

Somebody might call that a kind of imagination.

K: No, that’s a statement.

It’s not imagination.

DB: It’s a statement but there is an image

in there, you see – the image of Columbus

on his boat going to America.

K: I didn’t imagine that.

DB: Yes, all right, but to some extent it

communicates that.

K: I just said that’s a fact.

Apparently, Columbus did discover America

– if previously it had not been discovered

by the Vikings and so on – but apparently

Columbus... that’s a fact.

DB: Yes, it is a fact.

K: I just stated a fact.

DB: Yes.
But I think it’s a matter of language.

You see, there is the kind of imagination

which is fancy or fantasy.

K: Fancy – yes, yes, yes.

DB: The same thing.

And in this it appears that the thing being

imagined is being looked at by somebody, and

in a way it’s taken as if he actually were

looking at something.

K: Quite.

That I understand.

DB: And that is delusion, you see.

All right.

But a person can have an image which he knows

is an image, you see.

These metaphors, you see.

Columbus discovering America is a metaphor.

K: Yes.

DB: And there are many other metaphors which

take the form of images.

I can’t remember them now, but I think you

have used others.

That use of imagery is like the use of language.

Do you see what I am driving at?

K: Quite.

That’s simple.

That I understand.

DB: All right, so...

K: No, wait a minute, sir.

DB: Yes.

K: So in the field of reality there is imagination.

There is the artist, the musician.

DB: That’s right.

He may use images in a constructive way rather

than pure fantasy.

K: Yes.

Yes, and so on.

Now, can a musician or an artist see truth?

DB: No, you see, once again... not as a musician,

anyway.

You see, he might as a human being see truth,

like any human being.

There is no reason why being a musician or

an artist should make a person more perceptive

of truth than anything else.

K: That’s just it.

That’s it.

DB: Although, of course, among musicians and

artists there may be a belief to the contrary.

K: Yes, quite, quite.

DB: In fact I think there is.

K: Yes, that they are superior entities and

so on – quite – more sensitive and therefore

perhaps capable of seeing truth.

DB: Yes, because in some way... you see, I

have even read that some people regard art

as the sacred or art as expressing something

deep, and so on.

Now, you see, this is a point we have raised

before about the culture.

The word culture has a tremendous range of

meanings too, because anthropologists use

it to mean everything, you see.

K: Everything – yes – quite, quite.

DB: And now other people use it to mean just

music and art and literature and some other

things, you see.

But...

K: We are using it in a very... we are using

it only in the field of reality.

DB: Yes.

Everybody, even the anthropologist uses it

only in the field of reality, you see.

K: Quite.

DB: Now, the question is: can the culture

bring about a perception of truth?

There is a widespread belief that it could.

K: I know, I know.

DB: That the culture could put the mind in

order, as it were.

That by means of a good culture the mind is

brought to a certain order which would be

helpful.

K: Which means through time, order.

DB: Yes, that’s really it.

I think it’s a very widespread belief, you

see.

K: Yes, of course.
Through evolution, order.

DB: Yes, or through cultivation, order, and

so on.

K: Yes, yes.

Through time bring about order.

DB: Yes.

Even the Egyptians, who thought, you know,

more timelessly, nevertheless they believed

that through cultivation of the mind they

would bring a certain order.

I mean, it’s obvious that they did try it.

(Laughs) So that I think is a case where thought

is going beyond its proper limits, you see.

K: Yes.

DB: When thought tries to put the brain in

order, as it were, to put the mind in order,

thought is trying to do what it could never

do.

K: No.

You see, but the whole of the political field

and the economic business is to bring about

order in the field of reality.

DB: Yes.

K: And they can never do it.

DB: No.

You see, it would be important to point out

why not though, you see.

K: Oh, that’s simple.

Why not is simple.

Because they are...

DB: …it is too limited, you see.

K: Too limited, of course.

It’s not global.

DB: It doesn’t go into the deep sources

of human action.

K: Yes, quite.

So we are eliminating altogether the artist,

the musician, the archaeologist, the politician,

the economist.

DB: Yes.

Well, none of these can bring order.

Science also cannot bring order in the field

of reality because, you know, whatever knowledge

it gains it depends on the human being what’s

done with it.

K: Yes.

So, only those who perceive truth can bring

about order.

DB: Yes.

(Pause)

K: Quite right.

DB: But you see, it might be worth saying

a few things.

It may seem at first sight that one is dismissing

everything, you see, in other words, the whole

of culture.

But at the same time, you know, why would

you have a school here to teach people things?

K: No, that’s a different thing.

DB: No, but I mean it’s important to make

it clear, you see, because sometimes the language

can lead you into something that doesn’t

communicate properly, by...

K: Quite, quite.

This morning there was an article quoted from

the Los Angeles Times, in the Tribune, about

the revolutionaries in America.

Did you read... did you look at that?

I was telling you about it.

DB: You mentioned it to me.

K: I mentioned it.

They are, all of them are saying the present

structure of society is destructive, is not

giving man opportunity to be free, to be happy

and so on and so on and so on.

And all these revolutionaries want to upset

what they call capitalism and bring it...

bring about a world state or a state in America

where

big corporations are not in power.

DB: Yes.

K: All that is in the field of thought.

DB: Yes.

K: And they have tremendous appeal.

DB: Is that what the article said?

K: No, no, I am saying.

They have tremendous appeal, because what

is taking place in India, putting the cap

on everything – you know – and dominating,

they think that will bring order.

The revolutionaries want to bring order, the

communists want to bring order.

So everybody is trying to bring order in the

field of reality.

DB: Yes.

K: And we are saying that’s impossible.

DB: Yes, and that might discourage a lot of

people.

K: No.

I mean, that’s a fact.

DB: It’s a fact, yes.

K: Would the revolutionary accept this as

a fact?

DB: Well not as he is now.

I mean, not now.

That is, the revolutionary doesn’t see this

fact.

K: Yes.

But then what relationship is the one who

perceives truth to the revolutionary who says

we must change the world?

DB: Yes, well, it’s again the same point,

that truth has no direct relation to this

reality, you see.

The only possibility would be to find a way

to communicate.

K: Yes.

Therefore you... he... the man who is a revolutionary,

he says, ‘You have no place; you are irrelevant.’

DB: Yes, the revolutionary says you are irrelevant

unless you can somehow communicate with him.

K: Ah, but you can’t communicate with him

because he has enclosed himself entirely in

the field of reality.

DB: Yes, you can’t really do much with him.

K: No.

Any more than you can do anything with Brezhnev.

I mean, he wouldn’t even tolerate you.

So, what place has the man who perceives truth

in this world of reality?

DB: Well, it’s clear he has no place actually,

you know, not directly.

You know, his perception of truth has no place

in this world of reality.

K: I am not sure.

DB: Well, let’s see what place he would

have other than, you know, communicating to

break through this field of reality.

K: If the man in the world of reality is a

real revolutionary – I don’t mean blood

and thunder revolutionary, but the feeling

that society is corrupt, etc., etc., and he

has got a strong feeling that it must changed

– could the man who has perceived truth

talk to him?

DB: Yes, well, that’s what I meant – that

all he can do is to communicate truth.

You are saying the revolutionary is not really

completely engulfed in the field of reality,

you know, he is still able to listen because

he sincerely wants a better society, and therefore

if the other man can put it right, put the

thing rightly, you know, in the right way...

K: But, you see, sir, can this man who is

a real deep revolutionary ever see truth?

Or must he realise the limitation of thought

and so on, so on.

DB: Yes, well, that’s what has to be communicated,

I am saying.

If this man is still able to listen to something

then he may be able to listen to the fact

of the limitation of thought, if it’s really

put in a way that gets to him.

K: Yes, I understand.

DB: Although he may start to resist it very

quickly, but that means the other fellow has

to be very fast.

K: Yes.

DB: (Laughs) And very succinct, and so on.

K: I think, sir, we are clear.

That is, we are saying in the world of reality

there is choice, there is... everything is

in the field of reality, and a man who perceives

truth can only operate or function upon reality.

DB: Well, we said he can’t actually.

K: In the sense – wait a minute – in the

sense he can communicate.

DB: Yes, but that’s not... he doesn’t

communicate to reality.

K: No, no – he cannot communicate truth.

DB: No.

K: But he can communicate to this man who

is in the field of reality to say, ‘Look,

let’s move, see the limits of that.’

DB: Yes, he can communicate first of all showing

the inconsistencies and showing the limits

and so on.

Within the field of reality, a certain...

if the man is not totally engulfed, there

is a certain area where he can listen.

K: But why is it that all the leaders of the

world are dominating this, this world of reality?

DB: Well, because nobody has any idea in that

world of what to do, you see.

You know, I think we have just made it clear

nothing can be done, and probably deep down

there’s a sense nothing can be done – you

know, leave it to somebody to do it.

Right?

I mean, we don’t know what to do.

K: (Laughs) Quite, quite.

DB: (Laughs) If we knew what to do we might

try to do it.

But the other fellow seems to know what he

is doing; perhaps we had better let him get

on with it.

You know, that’s the sort of thinking that

might go on.

K: One of the revolutionaries says, ‘Order

your own life.’

DB: Yes, but we’re back in the same story.

What is going to order it, you see?

In my view it would be possible – you see,

it’s important to communicate in different

ways to see if this thing will come across.

My own feeling is that the communication itself

has to be very orderly, both verbally and

non-verbally.

K: Non-verbal – quite, quite, quite.

DB: But the order of the communication itself

is part of the communication.

K: If there is perception of the truth, the

truth will bring order in words.

DB: Yes, that’s it.

That brings us to a point that we were discussing

before, you see.

K: Yes, that’s it.

DB: It will bring order in words and in also

the non-verbal action.

K: Non-verbal action – quite.

DB: And that order will itself be seen by

the man, not only what you say, the content

of what you say, but the whole order of it

will be seen, and that seeing will already

be a bit beyond reality, I mean.

K: Quite, quite.
DB: Now, we were discussing words a few times

ago, and one question that arose is that it

is not clear how words are formed.

Remember, we discussed this.

You know, you can’t see yourself making

the words and you suddenly find yourself saying

them without any visible account.

You can’t account for how it comes about,

you see.

One of the questions that occurred to me – you

see, I could see there might be two ways of

forming words – one way would be from memory,

you see, from the habit, or stored-up phrases

would just come out from the record and be

combined in various ways.

K: Is the English language very confusing?

DB: Well, not when you get to know it, I suppose.

K: Like the word see – seeing with the eyes,

seeing with the mind, seeing with the intellect,

seeing with feeling – you follow?

– seeing.

DB: Yes.

K: And when you use the word see, all these

are implied.

DB: Yes, I think in most languages that sort

of thing happens.

K: Is it so in Sanskrit, because...

DB: I don’t know Sanskrit.

K: I don’t know either.

DB: But I mean, most of the languages, like

French or Italian and so on, probably do much

the same.

K: But I believe in Sanskrit there are different

words for all this.

DB: Yes.

Well, Sanskrit was, as you know, a language

constructed specifically for philosophical

and religious...

K: Yes, ‘made perfect’ it means.

The word Sanskrit means ‘that which has

been made perfect’.

DB: But it’s so that our common language

– and I think the word (inaudible) just

meant the common language...

K: Common language, (inaudible).

DB: (Inaudible) – which is the same as our

language here – has all this confusion.

K: Yes.

DB: And we have trouble with this confusion

now, trying to see what intelligence means...

K: Yes.

(Laughs)

DB: (Laughs) ...and wisdom and truth and so

on.

But I don’t think the language is the main

problem.

In other words, this confused language is

probably the product of a confused mind.

K: Yes, quite right – language is not the

main problem.

DB: But I’m interested, you see, in how

language forms.

Now, the other idea of words forming is like

you once discussed, the drum vibrating to

the emptiness.

The words could form, as it were, directly

from truth.

Is that...

K: Yes, yes.

DB: So that you are not thinking the words.

And in that case you’re saying something

we said before, the truth can act directly

on the physical structure of the brain in

some way.

K: Yes, that’s right.

We’re coming to that.

DB: That is very interesting, you see.

Now, one thing that occurred to me is if you

say that then you must say that at bottom,

you know, in its depths, matter is not mechanical,

you see.

It may be mechanical in a certain way.

K: Man is not mechanical.

DB: Matter is not mechanical.

K: Matter.

DB: Because truth could not act on matter

if it were just mechanical.

K: Quite.

DB: So you would have to say the mechanical

aspects of matter are a certain area of matter,

you know, which thought can handle, and thought

itself is material.

K: You know, there is an old...

I think part of the old Indian tradition and

Tibetan, in the Eastern tradition, that matter

is living.

DB: Yes, well that’s sort of what’s implied

in what you say, isn’t it?

K: Yes.

DB: Because, you see, if truth can actually

operate in matter then matter must be intelligent

in some way, or living, or at least it’s

intelligible.

K: That’s what I was saying – if he who

perceives truth can operate or... on the consciousness

or on the mind or the brain of the man who

is caught in the world of reality.

DB: Yes, that’s a very interesting point,

you see.

K: Yes, that’s it.

DB: I think we have to see this very clearly.

K: Yes.

DB: You see, first of all, the truth operates

in his own brain...

K: Yes, of course.

DB: ...clearing away the confusion.

K: Yes.

DB: Sometimes it occurred to me the analogy

of a fog which could be cleared away either

by the sun or by the wind or a storm, you

see.

In other words, rather than trying to arrange

everything within the fog...

K: No, no, no – quite.

DB: ...it is all cleared away, you see.

So all the questions arising in the fog are

irrelevant.

K: Would you say, sir – from that arises

– just briefly – suffering, when you remain

totally with suffering that’s a storm?

DB: Yes.

Yes, that’s the storm that clears the fog.

K: Clears the fog – that’s it.

DB: And it’s a real material storm then

it would be... actual or something, genuine.

K: Yes.

DB: But I think that, you know, we should

look a little bit at this notion that matter

is fundamentally not mechanical, you see.

K: Not mechanical – quite, quite.

DB: But it has a mechanical area.

K: Yes.

DB: Which is also the area that thought can

handle.

So we could say that that is the right area

for thought, which is the mechanical area

of matter, and thought itself is part of the

mechanical area of matter.

K: That’s right.

DB: Which can bring order within that other

mechanical area but it cannot bring order

into itself.

K: No.

And thought is trying to go beyond it.

DB: Yes, it tries to transcend its limit,

you see.

K: Yes.

DB: Because thought... you see, when thought

first forms, its very form is to set a limit

and transcend it, and thought does not know

that there are some areas it can’t go into,

and therefore thought tries to transcend those

limits too, you see.

Now, either it tries to understand the truth

or spirit or love or something, or it tries

to take hold of the brain matter and keep

it in order, but it can’t reach those depths.

K: Quite.

So we are saying mind is not mechanical.

DB: Yes, and also matter is not mechanical.

K: Matter is not mechanical.

DB: Although it has a mechanical...

K: ...part.

DB: ...part or side or something.

K: Yes, that’s right.

Therefore truth can touch the non-mechanical

part in man, in matter.

DB: Yes, in matter.

And truth operating in one brain clears that

brain.

K: I get it, I get it.

That’s right.

DB: And then being communicated it may clear

another brain.

K: Another brain – quite, quite.

DB: Now when that brain is clear it can operate

in order.

K: Quite.

DB: But you see, then you would say the brain,

being material, is both mechanical and non-mechanical.

K: That’s right.

DB: Now the mechanical side will operate in

order only if with the truth it keeps it clear.

Is that it?

K: That’s right.

DB: In other words, something non-mechanical

is needed to keep the mechanical clear.

K: Yes.

DB: Otherwise you accumulate pollution or

some fog or mist, you know, smog, from the

past.

K: Are you saying that in man or in matter

there is intelligence?

I’m using...

DB: I am saying it’s implied.

You see, I am trying to say that if we proceed

from where we started, saying that truth actually

operates in the brain – now, if it does

then it follows that there must be something

like intelligence in matter, you see, at least

something non-mechanical.

K: Then we have to be awfully careful because

that brings in that God is in you.

DB: Well, no, we don’t say that.

K: That’s what I want to avoid.

(Laughs)

DB: Yes, we’ve got to be careful because

thought is thereby transcending its proper

limits.

K: Yes.

Quite, quite.

(Laughs) We’ll catch him that way.

(Laughter) Quite.

DB: You see, we’re not saying God is anywhere,

but merely the question is whether matter

is mechanical or not.

All we could say is that matter can respond

to intelligence, as it were.

Whether it is intelligent or not we don’t

know, but one view of it is it might be, in

the sense that... in some sense, anyway.

But I think if we stick to where we are, you

see, and what implications are in that then

we could say we have got to the point of saying

matter is not mechanical, it is capable of

responding to intelligence.
And whether it has intelligence or not we

don’t know, but it has a property that I

call intelligibility, which maybe is in some

relation to intelligence, also the possibility

of being acted on by intelligence.

K: Why has religion been associated with truth?

DB: Well, in a way it’s natural if you think

of the deeper meaning of religion, you see.

K: The word religion – yes.

DB: Yes.

Apparently the best meaning that this dictionary

gives is relegere, meaning ‘to gather together’

or ‘to pay attention to the whole’ or

something like that.

K: Yes, that’s right – diligent and negligent

and all the rest of it.

DB: So if religion was originally the gathering

together of the whole then truth is that too,

you see.

K: Yes.

That’s what I wanted to make clear.

That’s right.

DB: But then when religion became, you know,

corrupted by being defined as reality then

it went wrong.

You could say that if one reads the Bible,

the Old Testament, the Hebrews were continually

in danger of falling into idolatry, you know,

of making God real, you see, of making images

which turned truth into reality.

K: Like last night there was a priest, a Roman

Catholic priest, who was talking about the

devil.

He says, ‘I actually believe that there

is devil.’

DB: Yes, well, if he believes there God, he

must...

K: ‘A devil, who now is having a marvellous

time.’

(Laughter)

DB: Yes, well, it’s only natural – if

he believes that God is real, he must believe

that the devil is real.

K: Sir, we are saying something which is terribly

revolutionary.

DB: In what sense?

K: Revolutionary in the sense we are denying

evolution.

Evolution there is in the field of thought,

in the field of reality.

DB: We are denying that evolution has to do

with that which is.

It may happen in the field of reality.

K: Yes.

DB: You see, I think we could put it carefully,

that in the field of reality you may observe

evolution taking place – one animal becoming

another and so on.

But we are saying that that is only the field

of reality, it is not even the depths of matter,

much less the depths of mind.

K: Yes.

We are now saying whatever is in the field

of reality, conclusions, and thought moving

out of its limit, transcending it, and creating

another reality, is still within the field

of reality.

DB: Yes.

K: All that we say is unrelated to truth.

DB: Yes.

K: And truth is something which can only be

perceived when the mind acts as a whole.

DB: Yes.

K: That’s right.

Yes.

DB: But in addition you are saying that truth

actually acts to bring about this wholeness

by dissolving the mist of reality in the brain,

you see, the confusion – whatever we want

to call it.

K: That’s right.

You know, we were talking the other day about

emptiness – at lunch – having great energy.

DB: Yes.

K: You were saying space...

DB: Yes, I said space has – this was a calculation

I once made, that according to modern physics

empty space is full of a tremendous energy

which is inaccessible.
People don’t take it very seriously, but

if you actually do the calculation it’s

an essentially unlimited energy in each part

of space.

K: You see, the other night – I am not being

personal – the other night – you know,

I have a peculiar kind of meditation; I wake

up meditating.

DB: Yes.

K: The other night I woke up with this feeling

of tremendous energy in emptiness.

DB: Yes.

K: I was – please, when I use the word I,

I don’t mean that – this whole brain was

completely empty and therefore there was an

extraordinary quality of energy.

DB: Yes.

K: And when you said at lunchtime that according

to scientists, according to you, in space

there is great energy...

DB: Yes, unlimited.

K: ...unlimited energy, I felt the same thing,

you see.

So, is emptiness, which means nothingness

– let me put it – mustn’t there be emptiness

for the perception of truth?

DB: Yes.

But the point about the energy, that the perception

of truth is the action of this energy.

K: Yes, that’s it.

DB: You see, the way – you may find this

interesting – the way modern physics treats

the atoms and the particles of matter is to

say they are created out of empty space and

that they dissolve into empty space.

And to say that a particle is a sort of manifestation

of that energy of the whole – right?

– so that it’s a small change, a form,

as it were, within that energy – do you

see? – which is transient.

Do you see what I mean?

K: Yes, I understand.

DB: Now perhaps you could say thought is a

similar form – I don’t know, you see – or

matter as we know it, you know, the mechanical

side of matter.

But then there is the energy itself – you

see, physics disregards that energy itself.

It pays mostly attention to matter, you see.

K: Matter – yes, quite.

DB: And it tries to ignore the rest of the

energy.

And that’s what thought does, you see, it

only...

K: But from this arises a question: how is

a man to empty his mind?

DB: Yes, well...

K: How is a human being, who sees the world

of reality and knows its limitation and...

how can that man perceive this immense thing?

They have tried, in the religious field, as

little as I know about it, they have tried

every method to get to this.

DB: Yes.

I mean, one can see the problem of methods,

that every method is part of the content of

consciousness of thought.

K: Quite.

DB: Therefore in using the method means you

are not doing it.

K: No, but that has become – what?

– not only the fashion, that seems to have

been right from the beginning – do something

to get that.

DB: Yes, well it seems to me that again is

thought not seeing its... trying to transcend

its limit.

You see, in other words that is something

which is not proper, you know, which thought

cannot deal with.

K: How can one help – not help – show

or communicate or awaken this extraordinary

emptiness and energy – which is truth and

so on, all the rest?

DB: Well...

K: If you, as a professor, doctor, scientist,

physicist, who has gone into the question

of time, space, matter, energy, and if you

perceived that truth, how would you communicate

to me, both verbally and non-verbally?

Not communicate, because I would say – I

am fairly intelligent – I’d say, ‘Verbal

communication, I can never get it through

verbal communication, because the description

is not the described and all the rest of it.

It is my serious concern and interest to understand

that emptiness.’

You would you describe all the limitations

of thought and so on, so on, so on, so on.

How would you help me to come to that extraordinary

emptiness?

You see, this has been the problem, one of

the problems of a man who sees it and then

wants to tell somebody about it.

DB: Yes.

Yes, well, somehow...

Yes, I see the problem.

K: In telling him, it gets destroyed.

DB: It gets destroyed because thought takes

hold of it.

K: Yes, takes over, and the priests get into

it, and then the whole thing is gone.

(Pause)

DB: You see, the point is to communicate to

thought, you know, so that thought does not

attempt to move outside its field, you see.

K: But I only know thought.

DB: Yes, I know that, but it’s not entirely

so.

We just said that – we considered this revolutionary,

and we said it may be that he only knows thought,

but there is still something in him which...

K: Unless he’s really a profound revolutionary...

DB: Yes.

Yes, I’m trying to say that we are considering

the profound revolutionary who might still

have something in him.

K: Yes, then...

I mean, there are very few profound revolutionaries.

(Laughs)

DB: Well, I mean...

K: They are all revolutionaries in the sense

of changing the environment.

And therefore, you see, they say a guru is

necessary.

You follow?

DB: Yes, but I mean still it’s no use.

K: No, of course not.

‘He will show me or help me to realise that’

– which is impossible.

So everything has been so made corrupt, so

impossible.

So we have now...

I mean, if you had that emptiness and you

want to show it to me, what do you do with

me?

DB: You see, I think maybe we are going a

little too fast...

K: All right.

DB: ...in the sense that there is a great

deal of things we haven’t gone into yet

that may be getting in the way.

K: I have jumped to...

Sorry, I jumped to this emptiness.

DB: You see, the point is there is a tremendous

movement of thought, of self-deception and

so on.

You see, the mind does not see the whole...

the thought does not handle the whole of what

it produces.

You see, it produces a whole movement and

it tries to stop a little bit of it.

K: Quite, quite.

DB: It is incapable of getting to its own

root and stopping at all.

K: And they have said...

that’s why they have said control it.

DB: Yes, but then that has no meaning, you

see.

K: No meaning to it – quite right.

DB: Then there is the question of time, you

see.

In other words, we see that chronological

time has been invented by thought and it’s

useful and correct and, you know, it gives

us insight into matter, and then it has been

extended to psychological time.

K: That’s right – and psychologically

evolve.

DB: Evolve to become better, you see.

K: Better, yes.

DB: Now, that again, you see, thought in the

beginning, when it invented time, it did not

know that time was limited.

You see, it only used it chronologically and

it began to just use it psychologically as

well because it didn’t know any reason not

to, and now the point is that...

K: Sir, would you – may I just add something,

probably totally irrelevant – in that emptiness

there is no time.

DB: No.

K: No.

DB: There’s no time there, but you see,

time appears when the centre is produced and

with the memory of the past and the expectation

of the future and the attempt to make the

future better and so on.

Now, there is the belief, due to our whole

tradition and background and experience, that

this time is a serious reality, it’s a solid,

genuine reality.

You see, in other words, it appears to be

so in matter and therefore extended, it appears

to be so, psychologically.

K: Yes, for a tree.

For a plant to become a tree it needs time

– all that.

DB: Yes.

So it seems that psychologically we must also

exist in time, you see.

The point is though, if we can communicate

this, that there is no fact of psychological

time, you see, that it’s entirely imagination.

K: Imagination with the work of thought.

DB: The work of thought.

A person imagines this whole stretch of time

and this imagination produces real results

in the brain, which it takes as proof that

the thing is there, you see.

So, the thing has no ground beyond thought,

you see.

Its only reality as thought, as the memory

– right? – it’s the imprint of the memory.

Now, the thing is that

this time is not actually observed.

K: Yes, yes.

DB: It is only imagined, and we imagine that

we observe it – do you see?

That is what I was trying to say – there

is an imaginer who imagines that he observes

time.

K: The observer imagines...

DB: ...that he observes time, you see.

That is, if he didn’t imagine that he observed

time then he would see it was only thought.

You see, it’s the imagination that we are

observing, where some of the confusion arises.

K: Quite.

I understand.

DB: You see, if thought is going on, when

you realise it’s thought then you evaluate

it, you know, and see whether it has its place

or not – there’s no problem.

But you see, if you think that it’s perception

then you take it as truth – do you see?

And the same thing happens in experience,

that you get an experience of time, you experience

the reality of psychological time, (laughs)

because the sensations which are supposed

to be connected with time are there, but they

are imagined to be real and independent of

thought – do you see?

So you apparently are looking at time, you

know, experiencing the reality of time, and

apparently have knowledge of the correctness

of time, and so on – do you see?

But you see that none of this is a fact.

K: None of this is a fact.

That’s right.

There is no tomorrow, psychologically.

DB: Psychologically, there is no next moment.

K: That’s right.

DB: And there is no past, you see, psychologically

– it’s all memory.

What is present now is a memory and an expectation

in thought.

K: Yes, and all reaction to that is mechanical.

DB: Yes.

The memory itself is mechanical because it’s

on the brain cells – right?

And the difficulty is that that memory is

given the importance of something transcendent,

I mean, of your very existence, so that the

reaction is enormous.

You see what I mean?

K: Yes, yes.

(Pause)

You see, all that, in the world of reality,

if there is no relationship between this and

truth, to abandon this can only take place

through suffering – is that it?

DB: Well, that may be a way.

I mean, I can’t say whether it is only possible.

In staying with suffering...

K: Yes, that’s what we said.

DB: This whole process creates suffering.

K: Yes, this whole process creates suffering.

DB: And must do so.

Now, if you escape suffering you are not actually

perceiving the process.

So, you see, you have to stay with suffering

because...

K: You have to stay with reality.

DB: With reality.

K: That’s it.

DB: And reality is very unpleasant when you

stay with it.

K: You have to stay with reality.

You have to stay with the limitation of thought

and not move from there.

DB: Yes, but suppose you find that you are

nevertheless moving, you see.

K: Of course.

DB: Then what?

K: Then you are... then still it is the thought

moving.

DB: Yes.

K: So you say...

The perception of all that is truth.

DB: Yes.

K: But I can’t... or people can’t perceive

that, therefore you have to talk, if you tell

that the word is not the thing, and so they

say, ‘What the...’ (laughs)

DB: Well, I think that there’s an understanding

on a certain level, but the trouble is something

like this, that many people are ready to listen

and understand up to a point.

Now, the difficulty is that the whole of thought

produces a movement beyond what thought can

be conscious of, and therefore this understanding

is applied to some partial consequence of

thought.
So you try to stop that partial consequence

while the whole thing is untouched, you see.

In other words, the typical experience people

have in listening to you is to say, ‘Yes,

it’s very good, very clear, but I can’t...

it doesn’t quite work,’ you know.

K: Yes, quite.

DB: (Laughs) You see, I think that there are

quite a few people that want, up to a point

to...

K: Up to a point.

DB: Yes.

But then the question is, you see, if you

find that you are only going up to a point...

K: That isn’t good enough.

DB: It isn’t good enough, but the reason

is probably that one is probably escaping

suffering, you see.

In other words, if you went a bit further

it might come to the suffering.

K: You see, thought is so extraordinarily

subtle that it thinks it is still, it thinks

it knows its limitations, but it is always

putting out a tentacle, waiting, waiting,

waiting.

DB: Yes, it’s ready to transcend its limits.

K: Yes.

You see, that’s...

DB: Well, I wonder if you couldn’t look

at desire, you see, that there’s a desire

in thought to do all this – right?

K: Yes, of course, of course.

Desire being a sensation and thought.

DB: Yes, a sensation and thought along with

the instructions, you know, to carry out,

to achieve.

You see, if you get a pleasant sensation then

the thought says, ‘That’s pleasant,’

and then a set of instructions to try to get

hold of it.

K: Quite.

DB: Or if it says, ‘Unpleasant,’ then

get rid of it.

K: Get rid of it.

DB: But of course desire has this sense of

longing and craving and yearning and so on,

something very powerful which overrides, you

know, all the understanding.

K: The other day after the talk a man came

up to me and said, ‘If I have no desire

I can’t have sex.’

DB: Yes.

K: I said – you follow how... he has related

desire as sensation, thought and sex.

DB: Yes.

Well, it’s sensation, thought and achieving

the satisfaction of the desire.

K: Of course, of course.

DB: Well, that...

K: Sir, is it possible – please, I am putting

the most absurd question – not to have desire

at all?

DB: Well, that’s what I was sort of coming

to, to say what is desire, you know, do we

have to have it?

K: That’s what I’m getting at.

DB: You see, I was trying to find out what

is the real object of desire, because it is

often very hard, you know, it changes.

K: But it is – desire, sensation, thought

– is still within that field of reality.

DB: Yes.

It seems to me is that what desire is trying

to achieve is basically a better state of

consciousness – do you see? – more orderliness.

K: More orderly and so on – yes.

DB: Yes.

And that is inherently meaningless.

K: Here, in the field of reality.

DB: In the field of reality.

That is, it is moving, it is doing something

meaningless, as it is trying to do something

which is outside, where thought has no place

– do you see?

You see, thought thinks that it can improve

the state of consciousness by some activity

– right?

That goes back to ancient times when thought

didn’t know its limits.

So one of the things that thought thinks it

can do is to make an improved state of consciousness

– do you see?

K: Quite, quite.

DB: You see, because possibly there is a feeling

consciousness is the essence of our existence

or something.

You see, in other words, we may be taking

reality as the essence of our existence as

our consciousness, and then thought is trying

naturally to improve it.

K: Quite – naturally.

DB: And then it experiences desire, I mean,

an intense sensation and a wish, a longing

to carry out that improvement, which it can

never do.

K: Quite.

Consciousness is in the field of reality.

DB: Yes, that’s the point we’re trying

to say.

But usually our tradition is that it is not,

you see.

K: No – quite.

And truth is not consciousness.

DB: No, truth is not consciousness.

And consciousness is not the essence of our

existence, you see, of our being – right?

But if anything is, truth is – right?

K: Yes, yes.
Therefore would you say that the self is the

essence of consciousness?

DB: Well, that’s a question, you see.

Certainly the consciousness as it is now.

K: As it is now – I am taking it as it is

now, not as something glorious or anything

– as it is now.

DB: The very word self – I looked up – one

of its meanings is quintessence.

K: Quintessence.

DB: The thing itself, the quintessence, the

essence of all essences.

K: Yes, quite.

It is the essence of consciousness.

DB: Yes.

K: And truth is the essence of non-consciousness.

DB: Well, the essence of that which is – do

you see?

K: Yes.

DB: But I mean, why would you say non-consciousness?

K: Self is the essence of consciousness, as

we know it.

DB: Yes, as we know it.

But we discussed one of the other times another

kind of consciousness that might not be conditioned

– right?

K: Yes, but is that consciousness... can that

ever be conscious of itself?

DB: The other kind?

K: Yes.
DB: I see.

K: If it is, it cannot come to truth

DB: Yes, you see, why is that?

K: I think I am making...

DB: Because in being conscious of itself,

well, first of all, it must be dividing itself.

K: Yes – quite, quite, quite – you’ve

got it.

It’s very interesting.

DB: Yes.

Now, we say there is a kind of consciousness

which is unconditioned.

Would you sometimes even say a kind of thinking

that is unconditioned?

I don’t know.

In some of your writings you even implied

that there was another kind of thought, or

something like thought.

K: Like thought, perhaps.

DB: Like thought.

K: But it’s not thought.

DB: It’s not thought, but could you call

it...

K: Let’s keep to this for a minute, sir,

may we?

DB: Yes.

K: The self is the essence of... the word

itself is the essence, the essence of consciousness.

Consciousness is in the field of reality.

DB: Yes, it’s an activity of the brain,

you see.

K: And it is an activity of the brain which

has been conditioned.

DB: Yes.

K: With memory and all the rest of it.

And we said, that consciousness can never

come upon truth.

DB: No, well, first of all, no real structure

can ever give truth.

K: Yes, of course.

This structure – all right – quite.

So, this is nothingness.

DB: Nothingness is truth – yes.

K: Is truth – not a thing.

And in that nothingness, which is emptiness,

space, there is tremendous energy.

It is not identified with any consciousness.

DB: No, not even this other consciousness.

You see, we discussed the kind of unconditioned

consciousness.

Now, I was wondering if – I mean, just to

make things clear – we could say that first

of all we have thought, which is conditioned

operation of the brain – it’s only a very

small part of the operation of the brain.

K: Yes.

DB: And then we have the whole operation of

the brain, which includes attention and awareness.

Now would you say this other consciousness

is there?

K: Would you call it consciousness?

DB: Well, you did at one stage.

K: I know.

I know, that’s what I want to get... push

it a little bit more.

DB: Well, I don’t know, I don’t quite

get...

I see this much, that there is thought which

is only a small part of the operation of the

brain, but when it goes out of its sphere

it tends to treat itself as everything.

K: Sir, when you said the other day at lunch,

‘In space there is tremendous energy,’

that energy is not conscious of itself.

DB: No, no, it doesn’t know itself.

K: That’s all.

DB: No, but that energy perceives.

K: That energy perceives.

DB: Yes, now...

K: It is not the perception of the self.

DB: Well, yes, now let’s get that clear,

you see, because, as I see it, an energy may

perceive and that perception is action, and

this perception can take its own action into

account.

Do you see what I mean?

K: Yes, yes, yes.

DB: It does not get confused by that.

K: Yes, yes.

DB: But it does not do that by seeing itself

acting.

K: No, it is not self-conscious.

DB: It is not self-conscious but it is conscious...

It is not conscious but it is perceptive of

action – right?

– including its own action.

K: Yes, that’s right.

Yes.

I don’t want to use the word consciousness

here.

DB: No.

Now, the self-consciousness, as I see it,

it involves the notion that consciousness

has an essence – do you see?

K: Yes.

DB: Now that may be a false notion.

You see, in other words, when consciousness

discovers that it’s rather changeable...

You see, the whole of thought works, seeing

things change, it says, ‘They are only appearances,

there must be some essence beneath it.’

You see, that’s a very basic form of thought,

isn’t it?

K: Yes, quite.

DB: So when we see how changeable consciousness

is, it’s only natural for thought to think

there must be an essence, you know, which

produces this consciousness, which is permanent.

But then that may be entirely false – do

you see?

That in other words, this essence would be

called the Self – right?

Now, what you have said is that consciousness

is nothing but its content, and therefore

it is not some movement taking place in an

essence – do you see?

It is not the appearance of an essence.

K: Quite, quite, quite.

DB: And therefore there is nothing but memory

acting.

K: Yes.

DB: With no essence behind it – do you see?

Which makes it rather a trivial thing.

(Laughs)

K: So what is the nature of this energy, which

is nothingness, which is emptiness, what is

its... has it

any consciousness as we know it?

DB: Well, let’s try to put it that there

may be... let’s say that consciousness as

we know it may begin by being conscious of

a certain content, like the book and the microphone

and so on, and later it begins to think about

itself and begins to think of its own essence.

Now, you see, if consciousness did not think

of its own essence or did not attempt to think

of its own essence then wouldn’t it be another

kind of consciousness?

K: Yes, put it that way – yes.

I don’t like to use the word consciousness

because it implies self-consciousness generally.

DB: Yes, it generally does, but we could say

consciousness is its content – right?

K: If there is no content...

DB: ...then there’s no consciousness.

K: ...there is no consciousness as we know

it.

DB: As we know it.

But then why do you put in the phrase ‘as

we know it’ – do you see?

That’s what’s puzzling.

K: All right, I’ll remove that phrase.

DB: Because when you put that phrase in it

implies there’s another kind.

K: Of course, of course, of course – I’m

sorry.

All right, when the content is not, there

is no consciousness.

DB: Yes.

I mean, that is very clear, you see.

And any content of something beyond consciousness

is still consciousness.

When we think of something beyond consciousness

that is still...

K: Quite – its content, yes.

DB: You see, when we think of the microphone,

that content can bring us into contact with

an actuality of the microphone, but when we

think of the essence of consciousness there

is no actuality.

There is nothing but content.

K: Yes, there is nothing but content.

Right.

You empty that content.

DB: Yes.

So now it’s becoming clear why you have

to empty the content, you see, because when

you first put it, ‘empty the content’

it sounds crazy, you see, because you say,

‘I must have the content to get on with

life.’

Now, we’ll say there is the practical content

of consciousness, you know, the scientific

content, the technical content and so on.

K: Of course, of course, that’s all so...

DB: Now then we say beside that there is the

content of the self, the very essence, which

includes psychological time – because we

think the essence exists in psychological

time – right?

K: Yes.

We abolish that too.

DB: We abolish the essence – do you see?

We say that consciousness may have a content

but it has no essence.

K: Quite.
DB: It is nothing but appearance, it is nothing

but moving memories, (laughs) with instructions

to act and so on, you see.

K: There is nothingness.

DB: Yes.

K: In that nothingness – I’m just asking;

I’m not saying – in that nothingness everything

is contained.

DB: Yes, now we should go into that a little,

you see.

In what sense is it contained?

K: Is reality contained in that?

DB: Well, that’s the question, you see.

K: That’s it.

DB: You see, let’s try to put it that in

some way it may be – you are saying it may

be because you were saying...

K: Ah, no.

No, I...

DB: Well, let’s try to put it.

You say truth acts in matter – right?

– so matter is contained in it.

K: That’s right.

DB: Right.

Now then we also have reality...

K: Wait a minute, sir.

That’s right, that’s right – keep to

that.

That’s right.

DB: Yes.
Matter is contained in it.

K: In it.

DB: And thought is nothing but a form...

K: ...of matter.

DB: ...a form of matter.

It’s an empty form of matter, you see.

K: It’s matter.

DB: It’s a very, very, unsubstantial form

of matter.

K: Yes, yes.

DB: And which may be useful in a certain domain,

you see.

K: You see, in this there is no division.

DB: Yes.

All right, this becomes very clear and also

it would tie up, possibly, with scientific

ideas even.

You see, we say in truth, in emptiness is

energy – it is energy – and in this is

contained all matter.

But of course this energy may well go infinitely

beyond matter as we know it.

K: Yes, yes, yes.

DB: Now then, in matter is the brain as well,

and in the brain is a form, a very insubstantial

form called thought, which is also matter.

K: Thought.

Yes, that’s right.

DB: And that is the truth – right?

K: Yes.

So in nothingness, everything is.

DB: Yes.

K: But that’s a difficult statement.

You follow?

DB: Yes, but I think we can understand that.

And we say thought then operates as material

in that brain – right?

K: You see, thought thinks it is independent.

DB: Yes, now let’s come... the self-deception,

you know, the illusion is that thought thinks

it exists independently of matter.

When thought began it did not know its relation

to matter – that was one of its weak points.

So it could easily begin to think it was independent

or very nearly so, or something, and eventually

it could think it was the very essence of

everything.

You see, perhaps a young child when he first

begins to think, an infant, he may think that

he creates everything by thinking, you see,

because all the forms of everything appear

in consciousness through thought – do you

see?

K: Quite, quite.

DB: Now, then later he learns that he doesn’t

create everything, but he doesn’t really

learn it properly, you see.

He sort of denies that idea in some part,

but he does not ever get to deny the whole

of it.

K: Yes, quite.

You see, I have been told by the Indian pundits,

Indian scholars, that they have said this.

DB: Said what?

K: When there is nothingness, everything is

in that.

DB: Yes.

K: Which is, in God – to put it in the vulgar

terms – in God everything is.

DB: Yes.

K: You see, that statement in itself is wrong.

DB: Yes, well let’s try to see exactly what’s

wrong with it.

You see, I think the trouble with that statement

is that it is thought transcending its limit

– do you see? – that it is a form of consciousness.

In other words, what we do is we make a picture.

This is one of the problems which philosophy

tends to get into, which is try to make an

explanation of everything.

K: Of course.

DB: Which is still only thought – do you

see?

Therefore, you see, once you take that as

an explanation then the thing is wrong – do

you see?

I mean, then you are saying the essence is

just this which I am thinking about.

K: Quite, quite.

What time is it?

DB: Yes, it must be getting late.

Twenty past five.

Well, perhaps we should finish at this stage.

K: At this stage.

DB: Yes.

There’s one more.

K: We’ll conclude it later.

DB: I don’t know if it would be worthwhile

to try to make a summary during this last

one.

K: Yes.

Not a summary only, we’ll proceed, we’ll

go on.

DB: Proceed, yes.

But I meant to sort of just go over the basic

ideas and then go on.

K: Yes, we will.

You see, when one says, ‘In nothing, everything

is,’ that’s a wrong statement even.

DB: Yes.

So how would you put it then?

K: You don’t put it.

(Laughs)

DB: (Laughs) Well, it’s the same as with

the judgement – do you see?

The judgement divides what is actually undivided.

You see, the perception is undivided but the

judgement expresses it as divided – do you

see?

You see, the judgement always puts a division.

K: Of course, of course.

You see, the man listening to that: ‘In

nothingness, everything is,’ he says, ‘In

me is God; I am God.’

DB: Well, that is because he is thinking that

that’s it, you see.

K: Of course.

And he has lost it.

I think – isn’t it in the Judaic religion?

– just don’t name.

DB: Yes, but that didn’t help either, you

see.

K: (Laughs) No, of course not.

Imagination went rampant.

DB: You see, I think that there is a point

here to see the limits of philosophy.

You see, every thought is limited and even

that thought is limited, you see, and therefore

if we take that thought as anything more than

a description, you know, as an indication

of something, then...

K: Of course.

And that’s why it’s very important to

see that thought cannot transcend itself.

DB: Yes.

K: That is the basic thing.

DB: But you see, thought has this tremendous

impetus to transcend itself.

K: Of course, of course – that’s the root

of it.

DB: And thought is trying to reach for the...

K: Reach heaven – yes, quite.

Well, we’d better stop, otherwise we’ll

go on sitting here forever!