MEDITATION TIMES MAY 2010

Document Sample
MEDITATION TIMES MAY  2010 Powered By Docstoc
					                        A DOWNLOADABLE E-MAGAZINE
                           Vol III * May 2010 * Issue V
                        Meditation leads to Ultimate Flowering

Introducing various Masters & Dimensions of Spiritual Sojourn




                                                            TM




            THE WAY OF INTELLIGENCE




                www.taoshobuddhameditations.com
    MEDITATION TIMES
        A Downloadable Monthly E-Magazine                                          Click on image for website



                  A PRODUCTION OF www.taoshobuddhameditations.com
                     Published by: www.taoshobuddhameditations.com
                     Country of Origin: Trinidad & Tobago, West Indies.
              Chief Editor/Graphics Layout & Design: Swami Anand Neelambar
                      Editorial Team: Swami Anand Neelambar, Taoshobuddha
        International Contributors: Hadhrat Maulawi Jalaluddin Ahmad Ar-Rowi, Lars Jensen
           Assistant Contributors: Ma Prem Sutra, Swami Dhyan Yatri, Sufi Lakshmi Sahai


                                                       For Queries, Comments, and Suggestions and to submit
         In This Issue                                   Contributions, you can email the following persons:

                                                        Taoshobuddha: mailtaoshobuddha@gmail.com
 Editorial                                             Swami AnandNeelambaravatar411@gmail.com

 Krishnamurti
                                                                        You can also visit

 Cleansing the Mind                                          www.youtube.com\taoshobuddha9

                                                                www.scribd.com\taoshobuddha
 Death has little meaning
                                                                  www.scribd.com\avatar411
 Fear is part of pain
                                                                  taoshobuddha library at
                                                               www.DocStoc.com/Taoshobuddha
 Freedom
                                                         E books: www.EBookMall.Com/Taoshobuddha
 Right Living

 Reincarnation                                                  Also you can check the blog at
                                                         http://bodhidharmameditation.blogspot.com/

 Arhat and Bodhisattwa                                http://www.taoshobuddhameditations.myeweb.net/

                                                              http://meditationtimes.myeweb.net/
 The Discipline of Transcendence

 Buddha Vision – Swami Anand Neelambar
                                                       Third Anniversary Issue
           MEDITATION TIMES
       Published by Taoshobuddha Meditations
                Trinidad, West indies

              EDITORIAL
In this out third anniversary issue we focus on Jiddu
Krishnamurti. Krishnamurti is one on the Buddhas of
this century, and like all Buddhas he is most
misunderstood. And especially by his critics who are
not enlightened. Only an enlightened can see into
another enlightened master and say from what plane           Jiddu insisted that there is no path. And he is right at
he is operating at.                                          the ultimate level. At some point all paths must be
                                                             dropped to go beyond. But one cannot just begin at
Krishnamurti was too advances for his disciples. Those
                                                             no path. It is difficult and man cannot go into the dark
who gathered around him could not fathom his depth
                                                             night with no staff to help him grope. The master is
and profound teachings. It takes great preparation to
                                                             the staff. The master has been through the dark night
reach the dimension of Krishnamurti. Those of a
                                                             and he can guide the disciple up the point where the
future time will be able to grasp the precocious
                                                             disciples has to muster all his courage to take the
insights of Jiddu Krishnamurti.
                                                             plunge into the dimension beyond the known.
It was no accident that Krishnamurti was a
                                                             It is from this dimension where Jiddu speaks. And
contemporary of Osho. Both master were from
                                                             Jiddu was one of the rare and few masters who spoke
another realm and could not be understood by the
                                                             of the herenow as the ultimate state of being.
disciples around them. However in the case with Osh
he sought to make every effort to make his vision            When one is in the herenow one is in the totality of
available to the disciples. Osho came down to the            existence. One is interconnected to all and one is all.
level of the disciples. Jiddu tried in vain to elevate his
                                                             One becomes all and all becomes one.
disciples. The realm he came from was just too
infinite to be brought down to normal consciousness.         In our third anniversary issue we choose to highlight
It was the tragedy that Jiddu could not reach his            in much detail Jiddu Krishnamurti as he stands apart
disciples. But he did prepare them to see beyond this        from all other masters. And as I mentioned earlier
realm and to seek the vistas into a new dimension of         Jiddu shall only be understood in a future time when
consciousness.                                               mankind has evolved to a level beyond knowledge.
Such a dimension was envisioned by Osho and Osho             With our limited concepts of time and space we
made every vista into the herenow available. And this        cannot fathom the herenow.
could not have been possible were it not for the
preparation by Jiddu Krishnamurti.                           The jump to the superman is possible when we go
                                                             beyond the limits of time and enter the timeless state
Ramakrishna was also very insignificant as a precursor       of awareness known as Samadhi. It is this dimension
to Osho. It was Ramakrishna who first sought to seek         that is the home of Jiddu Krishnmaurti.
God in all available paths at the time. The paths are
many but the goal is one.
                 One of the most enlightened persons who have ever walked on this earth.

Krishnamurti spoke not as a guru but as a friend, and his talks and discussions are based not on tradition-based
       knowledge but on his own insights into the human mind and his vision of the sacred, so he always
  communicates a sense of freshness and directness although the essence of his message remained unchanged
 over the years. When he addressed large audiences, people felt that Krishnamurti was talking to each of them
                             personally, addressing his or her particular problem.




Introduction                                               spent the rest of his life holding dialogues and giving
[May 11, 1895 - 17 February 1986]                            public talks on his observations on the nature of
                                                             truth, sorrow and freedom. Krishnamurti did not
   I maintain that truth is a pathless land, and you         accept followers, because he saw the relationship
 cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any              between a guru and a disciple as essentially
 religion, by any sect. That is my point of view, and I   exploitative. He asked people to explore together with
adhere to that absolutely and unconditionally. Truth,      him and ‘walk as two friends’. He accepted gifts and
 being limitless, unconditioned, unapproachable by           support given to him and continued with lecture
   any path whatsoever, cannot be organized; nor          tours and the publication of books for more than half
should any organization be formed to lead or coerce                                a century.
            people along a particular path.


                                                          K
                                                                 rishnamurti is regarded globally as one of the
 After disbanding the Order and drifting away from               greatest thinkers and religious teachers of all
  the Theosophical Society and its belief system, he             time. He did not expound any philosophy or
religion, but rather talked of the things that concern   talk in India a month before his death, in 1986, in
all of us in our everyday lives, of the problems of      Ojai, California. He passed away on
living in modern society with its violence and
corruption, of the individual’s search for security      His supporters, working through charitable trusts,
and happiness, and the need for mankind to free          founded several independent schools across the
itself from inner burdens of fear, anger, hurt, and      world—in India, England and the United States—
sorrow. He explained with great precision the subtle     and transcribed many of his thousands of talks,
workings of the human mind, and pointed to the           publishing them as educational philosophical books.
need for bringing to our daily life a deeply
meditative and spiritual quality.                        Mary Lutyens – the Biographer
Krishnamurti belonged to no religious organization,      Mary Lutyens is the official biographer of Krishna
sect or country, nor did he subscribe to any school      and she has given authentic and unprejudiced
of political or ideological thought. On the contrary,    accounts of the life, teachings and events
he maintained that these are the very factors that       surrounding the life of Krishna. Mary Lutyens
divide human beings and bring about conflict and         wrote a book about Krishnamurti’s early life in
war. He reminded his listeners again and again that      India, England, and finally in Ojai, California, entitled
we are all human beings first and not Hindus,            ‘Krishnamurti: The Years of Awakening’. She was
Muslims or Christians, that we are like the rest of      a close associate of his from the Order of the Star,
humanity and are not different from one another.         and knew him from the early days until the end of
He asked that we tread lightly on this earth without     his life. This book contains many insights into this
destroying ourselves or the environment. He              period of his life, about which he rarely spoke.
communicated to his listeners a deep sense of            Furthermore Lutyens wrote three additional
respect for nature. His teachings transcend man-         volumes of biography: ‘The Years of Fulfillment
made belief systems, nationalistic sentiment and         (1983)’, ‘The Open Door (1988)’, and
sectarianism. At the same time, they give new            ‘Krishnamurti and the Rajagopals (1996)’.
meaning and direction to mankind’s search for            Additionally, she published and abridgement of the
truth. His teaching, besides being relevant to the       first three volumes, ‘The Life and Death of
modern age, is timeless and universal.                   Krishnamurti        (1991)’.      Other       published
                                                         biographies       of      Krishnamurti           include:
Jiddu Krishnamurti was born on May 11, 1895 in           ‘Krishnamurti, A Biography (1986)’, by associate
Madanapalle, Andhra Pradesh, India. However as a         Pupul Jayakar and ‘Star in the East: Krishnamurti’,
teenage he was discovered, in 1909, by C.W.              ‘The Invention of a Messiah (2002)’, by Roland
Leadbeater on the private beach at the Theosophical      Vernon.
headquarters at Adyar in Chennai, India. Leadbeater
recognized the uniqueness and the potential on the
teenage boy. He was subsequently raised under the        Birth
sponsored guidance of Annie Besant and C.W.
Leadbeater was part of the world-wide organization       Jiddu Krishnamurti came from a family of Telugu-
of the Theosophical Society. Krishnamurti was            speaking Brahmins. His father, Jiddu Narianiah,
believed to be a vehicle for a prophesied World          graduated from Madras University and then became
Teacher. Jiddu along with his brother Nityanand,         an official in the Revenue Department of the British
and another German had to undergo rigorous               administration, rising by the end of his career to the
training. This had created aversion in Jiddu about       position of rent collector and District Magistrate. His
the whole project. As a young man, when he was to        parents were second cousins, having a total of
declare himself as the ‘World Teacher’ he                eleven children, only six of whom survived
disavowed this destiny and also dissolved the Order      childhood. They were strict vegetarians, even
established to support it. Thereafter he spent the       shunning eggs, and throwing away any food that the
rest of his life travelling the world as an individual   ‘shadow of an Englishman crossed’. (Lutyens,
speaker and educator on the workings of the human        Awakening, p 1)
mind. At age of 90 he addressed the United Nations
on the subject of peace and awareness, and was           He was born in a small town about 150 miles (250
awarded the 1984 UN Peace Medal. He gave his last        km) north of Madras, India. His birth date has been
also stated as May 12, however Mary Lutyens,            special training. After Krishna was found, Hubert
points out, that the Brahmin day is calculated from     was soon dropped. (Lutyens, p 12)
dawn and he was born at 12:30 AM, so therefore on
May 11. It is only the Western world who would          Leadbeater had a history of being in the company of
state this was May 12. ‘As an eighth child, who         young boys, and gossip about that was vehemently
happened to be a boy, he was, in accordance with        denied by Annie Besant. The gossip erupted into a
Hindu orthodoxy, called after Sri Krishna who had       scandal in 1906 and led to Leadbeater’s resignation
himself been an eighth child.’                          from the Theosophical Society; however at the end
                                                        of 1908 he was re-instated on a vote. (Lutyens, p
Youth                                                   15)

In 1903, the family moved to Cudappah and Krishna       Hubert and Mrs Van Hook, his mother, also arrived
contracted malaria, a disease with which he would       at Adyar and stayed there for some time.
suffer recurrent bouts over many years. In 1904, his
eldest sister died, aged twenty. In his memoirs, he     Separation from father
describes his mother as ‘to a certain extent psychic’
and how she would frequently see and converse           Krishna, or Krishnaji, as he was often known, and
with her dead daughter. Krishna also states that he     his younger brother Nitya were educated at the
saw his dead sister on some occasions. In Dec 1905,     Theosophical compound and later taken to England
his mother, Jiddu Sanjeevamma, died at Cudappah,        to finish their education. His father at first grateful
when Krishnamurti was ten years old. Krishna says:      of the opportunities they got this way but also
‘I may mention that I saw her [my mother] after she     pushed into the background by the swirl of interest
died’ (Lutyens, p 5)                                    around Krishna, ended up in a lawsuit against the
                                                        Society to try to protect his parental interests. As a
‘Narianiah, though an orthodox Brahmin, had been a      result of this separation from his family and home,
member of the Theosophical Society since 1881           Krishnamurti and his brother Nitya became
(Theosophy embraces all religions).’ (Lutyens, p7).     extremely close and in the following years they
This was while Helena Blavatsky was still its alive     often travelled together.
and living in India. Narianiah had retired at the end
of 1907 and wrote to Annie Besant to recommend
himself as a caretaker for the 260-acre Theosophical    A philosophical awakening
estate at Adyar. He had four boys and Annie thought
they would be a disturbing influence and so turned      Lutyens states that there came a time when
him down. He continued his requests and finally         Krishnamurti fully believed that he was to become
was accepted as an assistant to the Recording           the World Teacher. The death of his brother Nitya
Secretary of the Esoteric Section. His family which     on November 11, 1925 at age 27 from tuberculosis,
included, he, his four sons, and a nephew moved         however, shook his fundamental belief in the
there on Jan 23, 1909. It was a few months after this   masters, the leaders of the Theosophical Society and
last move that Krishna was discovered by C.W.           the whole idea of the world teacher (Lord Maitreya)
Leadbeater, who believed him to be the awaited          project. He had prayed for his brother’s life to be
vessel.                                                 spared and it was not. The experience of his
                                                        brother’s death shattered his remaining illusions.
Leadbeater’s Influence
                                                        From The Song of Life (1931)
This discovery created a bit of a problem, as there
was already a conflicting claim made for Hubert van     My brother died. We were as two stars in a naked
Hook (b 1896), son of Dr Weller van Hook, a             sky. He was like me, Burnt by the warm sun...
surgeon in Chicago, and the General Secretary of the
Theosophical Society in the United States. Hubert       He died; I wept in loneliness. Wherever I went, I
was also chosen by Leadbeater and after she left her    heard his voice and his happy laughter. I looked for
husband, his mother brought him to India for            his face in every passerby and asked each if he had
                                                        not met with my brother; but none could give me
comfort. I worshipped, I prayed, but the gods were        I maintain that truth is a pathless land, and you
silent. I could weep no more; I could dream no            cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any
more. I sought him in all things, in every clime. I       religion, by any sect. That is my point of view, and I
heard the whispering of many trees calling me to his      adhere to that absolutely and unconditionally.
abode. And then, in my search, I beheld Thee, O Lord      Truth,       being      limitless,    unconditioned,
of my heart; In Thee alone I saw the face of my           unapproachable by any path whatsoever, cannot be
brother. In Thee alone, O my eternal Love, Do I           organized; nor should any organization be formed
behold the faces of all the living and all the dead?      to lead or coerce people along a particular path.

[Krishnamurti’s early teachings]                          After disbanding the Order and drifting away from
                                                          the Theosophical Society and its belief system, he
From 1925 onward things were to never be the              spent the rest of his life holding dialogues and
same again.                                               giving public talks on his observations on the nature
                                                          of truth, sorrow and freedom. Krishnamurti did not
...An old dream is dead and a new one is being born,      accept followers, because he saw the relationship
as a flower that pushes through the solid earth. A        between a guru and a disciple as essentially
new vision is coming into being and a greater             exploitative. He asked people to explore together
consciousness is being unfolded. ...A new strength,       with him and ‘walk as two friends’. He accepted gifts
born of suffering, is pulsating in the veins and a new    and support given to him (his main residence being
sympathy and understanding is being born of past          on donated land in Ojai, California) and continued
suffering – a greater desire to see others suffer less,   with lecture tours and the publication of books for
and, if they must suffer, to see that they bear it        more than half a century.
nobly and come out of it without too many scars. I
have wept, but I do not want others to weep; but if
                                                          Later years and ‘farewell talks’
they do, I know what it means. (The Herald of the Star,
January 1926)
                                                          In his later years, J. Krishnamurti spoke at the
In 1925, he was expected by Theosophists to enter         United Nations in New York, on the 11th April 1985,
Sydney, Australia walking on water, but this did not      where he was awarded the United Nations 1984
eventuate and he visited Australia the following          Peace medal.
year by ship.
                                                          In November of 1985, he revisited the places he had
This new vision and consciousness reached a climax        grown up in India, holding a last set of farewell talks
in 1929, when Krishnamurti rebuffed attempts by           between then and January 1986. These last talks
Leadbeater and Besant to continue with The Order          were on fundamental principles of belief and
of the Star, the section of the Theosophical Society      lessons. Krishnamurti commented that he did not
devoted to the coming of the World Teacher.               wish to invite Death, but was not sure how long his
Krishnamurti subsequently disbanded the Order,            body would last, he had already lost some 6 kg (13
whose head he was. On the opening day of the              lb) and once he could no longer talk or teach, he
annual Star Camp at Ommen, Holland, August 2,             would have no further purpose. He said a formal
1929, in front of several thousand members, he gave       farewell to all four points of the compass, the so-
a speech disbanding the Order, saying:                    called ‘elephant's turn’, on the Adyar shore where
                                                          he had long ago come to the attention of others. His
You may remember the story of how the devil and a         final talk, on January 4, 1986, invited his co-
friend of his were walking down the street, when          participants to examine with him the nature of
they saw ahead of them a man stoop down and pick          inquiry, the nature of life, and the nature of creation.
up something from the ground, look at it, and put it      It ended:
away in his pocket. The friend said to the devil,
‘What did that man pick up?’ ‘He picked up a piece        ‘So we are inquiring what makes a bird. What is
of the truth,’ said the devil. ‘That is a very bad        creation behind all this? Are you waiting for me to
business for you, then,’ said his friend. ‘Oh, not at     describe it, to go into it? ... Why? Why do you ask
all,’ the devil replied, ‘I am going to help him          [what creation is]? Because, I asked? No description
organize it.’                                             can ever describe the origin. The origin is nameless;
the origin is absolutely quiet, it's not whirring about    to whether his attitudes were conditioned by
making noise. Creation is something that is most           indulgence and privilege.
holy, that is the most sacred thing in life, and if you
have made a mess of your life, change it. Change it        In her 1991 book, ‘Lives in the Shadow with J.
today, not tomorrow. If you are uncertain, find out        Krishnamurti’, Radha Rajagopal Sloss, the
why and be certain. If your thinking is not straight,      daughter of Krishnamurti’s associates, Rosalind and
think straight, logically. Unless all that is prepared,    Desikacharya Rajagopal, wrote of Krishnamurti’s
all that is settled, you cannot enter into this world,     relationship with her parents including the secret
into the world of creation.’ ‘It ends.’ (these two         affair between Krishnamurti and Rosalind which
words are hardly audible, breathed rather than             lasted for many years. The public revelation was
spoken)                                                    received with surprise and consternation by many
                                                           individuals in the Krishnamurti community, and
‘This is the last talk. Do you want to sit together        was also dealt with in a rebuttal volume of
quietly for a while? All right, sirs, let us sit quietly   biography by Mary Lutyens (‘Krishnamurti and the
for a while.’                                              Rajagopals’, 1996).

J. Krishnamurti passed away two and a half months          Sloss’s allegations were centered around the notion
later at the age of 90 from pancreatic cancer. His         that the secret liaison indicated that Krishnamurti
remains were cremated and scattered by friends             had lead a deceptive double life in that he was
and former associates in the three countries where         believed to be celibate by his public following. A
he had spent most of his life, India, England and          later biographical volume by Roland Vernon (‘Star
United States of America.                                  in the East: Krishnamurti, the Invention of a
                                                           Messiah’), questions the ultimate impact of the
Influence                                                  revelations when compared to Krishnamurti’s body
                                                           of work as a whole.

Throughout his long life, Krishnamurti exerted a           The allegations of Radha Rajagopal Sloss against
great influence at the confluence of educated              Krishnamurti have to be understood at a deeper
philosophical and spiritual thought. Because of his        realm. We go on judging individuals on the basis of
ideas and his era, Krishnamurti has come to be seen        their actions. Actions are like leaves on the tree of
as an exemplar for modern spiritual teachers -             consciousness. Just as when autumn comes the
particularly those who disavow formal rituals and          existing leaves turn gold before falling. Autumn is
dogma. His conception of truth as a pathless land,         followed by spring when new foliage grows. This is
with the possibility of immediate self-realization, is     the way the tree continues to grow. So too as the
mirrored in New Age teachings as diverse as those          individual continues the inward journey and you
of Bruce Lee, and even the Dalai Lama.                     delve deeper layers of the being unconsciousness
                                                           surfaces as actions that are not needed any more.
Krishnamurti was close friends with Aldus Huxley.          Such actions must dissolve in that inward journey
Huxley wrote the foreword to ‘The First and Last           continues. The moments of unconsciousness can
Freedom’. Krishnamurti was also friends with, and          only dissolve as actions. Human life comes into
influenced the works of, the mythologist Joseph            existence as the outcome of understandings of the
Campbell and the artist Beatrice Wood.                     past. These are known as actions. As one interacts
                                                           along life many accounts open. For inward journey
                                                           these accounts have to close.
Criticism of Krishnamurti
                                                           When an enlightened one enters into any relation he
Krishnamurti has been criticized, sometimes as to          is totally aware of his actions. He is aware that these
whether he practiced what he preached. A number            actions have to dissolve. Therefore he has to enter
of people who knew him through the years pointed           into such actions. But then problem comes because
out that Krishnamurti’s life expresses something of        of outer religion, and its understanding. The
the Indian Brahmin lifestyle, for he was supported,        organized religions that constitute the society has
even pampered, through the years by devoted                nothing to do with truth. Each religion determines
followers and servants. The questions then arise as        its own tenets by distorting truth. The emphasis is
shifted from truth to morality. All such actions are       Krishnamurti belonged to no religious organization,
considered immoral. All outer religions are the           sect or country, nor did he subscribe to any school
religions of morality instead of truth.                   of political or ideological thought. On the contrary,
                                                          he maintained that these are the very factors that
One cannot deny the fact master has body as well.         divide human beings and bring about conflict and
He has journeyed through other realms of                  war. He reminded his listeners again and again
consciousness therefore his consciousness in not at       that we are all human beings first and not
the level of the body – mind realm. But he still has      Hindus, Muslims or Christians, that we are like
body. The needs of the body have to be fulfilled but      the rest of humanity and are not different from
not the way of the ordinary one. This is why it is        one another. He asked that we tread lightly on this
said master looks like you. He walks and talks like       earth without destroying ourselves or the
you yet still there is a vast difference between you      environment. He communicated to his listeners a
and him. He lives in body but the body                    deep sense of respect for nature. His teachings
consciousness does not dwell in him. This is the          transcend man-made belief systems, nationalistic
reason we cannot understand the actions of an             sentiment and sectarianism. At the same time, they
enlightened one from our level of consciousness.          give new meaning and direction to mankind’s
Alike other masters Krishnamurti was therefore            search for truth. His teaching, besides being
subjected to such controversies.                          relevant to the modern age, is timeless and
                                                          universal.
Krishnamurti’s once close relationship to the
Rajagopals deteriorated to the point that                 Krishnamurti spoke not as a guru but as a friend,
Krishnamurti in his later years, took Rajagopal           and his talks and discussions are based not on
(head of Krishnamurti Writings, Inc.) to court in         tradition-based knowledge but on his own insights
order to recover certain rights, manuscripts and          into the human mind and his vision of the sacred, so
personal correspondence being withheld by                 he always communicates a sense of freshness and
Rajagopal. The resulting litigation and cross             directness although the essence of his message
complaints continued for many years, and were not         remained unchanged over the years. When he
resolved until after the death of Krishnamurti in         addressed large audiences, people felt that
1986. Krishnamurti’s biographer Mary Lutyens              Krishnamurti was talking to each of them
placed the preponderance of responsibility for the        personally, addressing his or her particular
acrimony of the lawsuits and resulting damage to          problem. In his private interviews, he was a
Krishnamurti’s reputation on the personal                 compassionate teacher, listening attentively to the
animosity of the Rajagopals resulting from their loss     man or woman who came to him in sorrow, and
of influence in Krishnamurti’s life.                      encouraging them to heal themselves through their
                                                          own understanding. Religious scholars found that
In spite of all allegations Krishnamurti is regarded      his words threw new light on traditional concepts.
globally as one of the greatest thinkers and religious    Krishnamurti took on the challenge of modern
teachers of all time. He did not expound any              scientists and psychologists and went with them
philosophy or religion, but rather talked of the          step by step, discussed their theories and
things that concern all of us in our everyday lives, of   sometimes enabled them to discern the limitations
the problems of living in modern society with its         of those theories. Krishnamurti left a large body of
violence and corruption, of the individual's search       literature in the form of public talks, writings,
for security and happiness, and the need for              discussions with teachers and students, with
mankind to free itself from inner burdens of fear,        scientists and religious figures, conversations with
anger, hurt, and sorrow. He explained with great          individuals, television and radio interviews, and
precision the subtle workings of the human mind,          letters. Many of these have been published as books,
and pointed to the need for bringing to our daily life    and audio and video recordings.
a deeply meditative and spiritual quality.
         K: What is the root of conflict? Not only outwardly, but also this tremendous inward conflict of
                                          humanity? What is the root of it?

                                DB: Well, it seems that it is contradictory desires.

            K: No. Is it that in all religions, you must become something? You must reach something?

         DB: Then what made people want to do that? Why weren’t they satisfied to be whatever they
         were? You see, the religion would not have caught on unless people felt that there was some
                                   attraction in becoming something more.



K
       rishnamurti had conversation with Professor         DB: Well, we should make it clear how this is
       David Bohm on certain topics. These form            connected. What kind of becoming was involved in
       the integral part of ‘The Ending of Time’.          doing that? Instead of being constructive and
This particular conversation on                                       discovering new techniques and tools
‘the roots of psychological                                           and so on, man at a certain time found
conflict’ took place on April 1,                                      it easier to plunder his neighbors. Now
1980. David Joseph Bohm (20                                           what did they want to become?
December 1917 – 27 October
1992) was a American-born                                                K: Conflict has been the root of all this.
British quantum physicist who
made contributions in the fields                                         DB: What was the conflict? If we could
of theoretical physics, philosophy                                       put ourselves in the place of those
and neuropsychology, and to the                                          people of long ago, how would you see
Manhattan Project.                                                       that conflict?

KRISHNAMURTI: How shall we                                               K: What is the root of conflict? Not only
start? I would like to ask if                                            outwardly, but also this tremendous
humanity has taken a wrong turn.                                         inward conflict of humanity? What is
                                                                         the root of it?
DAVID BOHM: A wrong turn?
Well it must have done so, a long time ago, I think.       DB: Well, it seems that it is contradictory desires.

K: That is what I feel. A long time ago... It appears      K: No. Is it that in all religions, you must become
that way - why? You see, as I look at it, mankind has      something? You must reach something?
always tried to become something.
                                                           DB: Then what made people want to do that? Why
DB: Well possibly. I was struck by something I once        weren’t they satisfied to be whatever they were?
read about man going wrong about five or six               You see, the religion would not have caught on
thousand years ago, when he began to be able to            unless people felt that there was some attraction in
plunder and take slaves. After that, his main              becoming something more.
purpose of existence was just to exploit and
plunder.                                                   K: Isn’t it avoidance, not being able to face the fact,
                                                           and therefore moving to something else - to more
K: Yes, but there is the sense of inward becoming.         and more and more?
DB: What would you say was the fact that people          K: It causes a certain amount - but we are discussing
couldn’t stay with?                                      the idea of time,inwardly.

K: The Christians have said, Original Sin.               DB: So we have to see why time is so destructive
                                                         inwardly.
DB: But the wrong turn happened long before that.
                                                         K: Because I am trying to become something.
K: Yes, long before that. Long before that, the
Hindus had this idea of Karma. What is the origin of     DB: Yes, but most people would say that this is only
all this?                                                natural. You have to explain what it is that is wrong
                                                         about becoming.
DB: We have said that there was the fact that people
couldn’t stay with. Whatever it was, they wanted to      K: Obviously, there is conflict, in that when I am
imagine something better.                                trying to become something, it is a constant battle.

K: Yes, something better. Becoming!                      DB: Yes. Can we go into that: why is it a constant
                                                         battle? It is not a battle if I try to improve my
DB: And you could say that they began to make            position outwardly.
things technologically better, then they extended
this, and said, `I too must become better.'              K: Outwardly, no. It is more or less all right
                                                         outwardly, but when that same principle is applied
K: Yes, inwardly become better.                          inwardly it brings about a contradiction.

DB: All of us together must become better.               DB: And the contradiction is.?

K: That’s right. What is the root of all this?           K: Between ‘what is’ and ‘becoming what should be’.

DB: Well, I should think it is natural in thought to     DB: The difficulty is why is it a contradiction
project this goal of becoming better. That is, it is     inwardly and not outwardly?
intrinsic in the structure of thought.
                                                         K: Inwardly it builds up a centre, doesn’t it, an
K: Is it that the principle of becoming better           egotistic centre?
outwardly has moved to becoming better inwardly?
                                                         DB: Yes, but can we find some reason why it should
DB: If it is good to become better outwardly, then       do so? Does it build up when we do it outwardly? It
why shouldn't I become better inwardly?                  seems it need not.

K: Is that the cause of the conflict?                    K: It need not.

DB: That is getting towards it. It's coming nearer. K:   DB: But when we are doing it inwardly, then we are
Is it coming nearer? Is time the factor? Time - as ‘I    trying to force ourselves to be something that we
need knowledge in order to do this or that’? The         are not. K: Yes. That is a fact. Is it that one's brain is
same principle applied inwardly? Is time the factor?     so accustomed to conflict that one rejects any other
                                                         form of living?
DB: I can’t see that time by itself can be the only
factor.                                                  DB: But why have people come to the conclusion
                                                         that conflict is inevitable and necessary?
K: No, no. Time. Becoming - which implies time.
                                                         K: What is the origin of conflict?
DB: Yes, but we don’t see how time is going to cause
trouble. We have to say that time applied outwardly      DB: I think we touched on that by saying that we are
doesn't cause any difficulty.                            trying to force ourselves. When we are a certain
thing that we want to be, we also want to be                 K: And therefore the brain has gradually narrowed
something else, which is different; and therefore we         down to ‘me’, to the ‘I’.
want two different things at the same time. Would
that seem right?                                             DB: I don’t quite follow that. I understand that that
                                                             is what happened, but I don’t quite see all the steps.
K: I understand that. But I am trying to find out the        You say energy was enormous and the brain
origin of all this misery, confusion, conflict, and          couldn’t handle it, or decided that it couldn’t handle
struggle - what is the beginning of it? That’s why I         it?
asked at the beginning: has mankind taken a wrong
turn? Is the origin, ‘I am not I’?                           K: It couldn’t handle it.

DB: I think that is getting closer.                          DB: But if it can’t handle it, it seems as if there is no
                                                             way out.
K: Yes, that’s it. And the ‘I’ - why has mankind
created this ‘I’, which must, inevitably, cause              K: No, just a minute. Go slowly. I just want to
conflict? ‘I’ and ‘you’, and ‘I’ better than ‘you’, and so   enquire, push into it a little bit. Why has the brain,
on, and so on.                                               with all thought, created this sense of ‘me’, ‘I’? Why?

DB: I think it was a mistake made a long time ago,           DB: We needed a certain sense of identity to
or, as you call it, a wrong turn, that having                function.
introduced separation between various things
outwardly, we then kept on doing it - not out of ill         K: Yes, to function.
will but simply through not knowing better.
                                                             DB: To know where we belong.
K: Quite.
                                                             K: Yes. And is that the movement which has brought
DB: Not seeing what we were doing.                           the ‘me’? The movement of the outer? I had to
                                                             identify, with the family, the house, the trade or
K: Is that the origin of all this conflict?                  profession. All this gradually became the ‘me’?

DB: I am not sure that it is the origin. What do you         DB: I think that this energy that you are talking
feel?                                                        about also entered into it.

K: I am inclined to observe that the origin is the ego,      K: Yes, but I want to lead up to that slowly.
the `me', the`I'.
                                                             DB: You see, what you say is right, that in some way
DB: Yes.                                                     this sense of the ‘me’ gradually strengthened, but by
                                                             itself that wouldn’t explain the tremendous strength
K: If there is no ego, there is no problem, there is no      that the ego has. It would only be a habit then. The
conflict, there is no time - time in the sense of            ego becoming completely dominant required that it
becoming or not becoming; being or not being.                should become the focus of the greatest energy; of
                                                             all the energy.
DB: But it might be that we would still slip into
whatever it was that made us make the ego in the             K: Is that it? That the brain cannot hold this vast
first place. K: Wait a minute. Is it that energy - being     energy? DB: Let’s say that the brain is trying to
so vast, limitless - has been condensed or narrowed          control this - to bring it to order.
down in the mind, and the brain itself has become
narrowed because it couldn't contain all this                K: Energy has no order.
enormous energy? You are following what I am
saying?                                                      DB: But if the brain feels it can’t control something
                                                             that is going on inside, it will try to establish order.
DB: Yes.
K: Could we say that the brain, your brain, his brain,   DB: Yes, I understand. Certainly if we didn't do that,
her brain, has not just been born; it is very, very      the whole structure would collapse.
old?
                                                         K: That’s it.
DB: In what sense?
                                                         DB: But I don’t know whether there is not some
K: In the sense that it has evolved.                     other cause.

DB: Evolved, yes, from the animal. And the animal        K: Just a minute. I want to go into that a little bit. I
has evolved. So let’s say that in a sense this whole     am not talking theoretically, personally. But to me
evolution is somehow contained in the brain.             the idea of tomorrow doesn’t exist psychologically -
                                                         that is, time as a movement, either inwardly or
K: I want to question evolution. I understand, say,      outwardly.
evolution from the bullock cart to the jet.
                                                         DB: You mean psychological time?
DB: Yes. But before you question, we have to
consider the evidence of man developing through a        K: Yes, psychological time, and time outwardly. Now
series of stages. You can’t question that, can you?      if psychological time doesn't exist, then there is no
                                                         conflict, there is no ‘me’, no ‘I’, which is the origin of
K: No, of course not.                                    conflict. Outwardly, technologically man has moved,
                                                         evolved.
DB: I mean, physically it is clear that evolution has
occurred in some way.                                    DB: And also in the inward physical structure.

K: Physically, yes.                                      K: The structure, everything. But psychologically we
                                                         have also moved outward.
DB: And the brain has got larger, more complex. But
you may question whether mentally evolution has          DB: Yes, we have focused our life on the outward. Is
any meaning.                                             that what you are saying?

K: You see, I want to abolish time, psychologically.     K: Yes. We have extended our capacities outwardly.
You understand?                                          And inwardly it is the same movement as
                                                         outwardly. Now if there is no inward movement as
DB: Yes, I understand.                                   time, moving, becoming more and more, then what
                                                         takes place? You understand what I am trying to
K: To me that is the enemy. And is that the cause,       convey? Time ends. You see, the outer movement is
the origin of man's misery?                              the same as the inward movement.

DB: This use of time, certainly. Man had to use time     DB: Yes. It is going around and around.
for a certain purpose, but he misused it.
                                                         K: Involving time. If the movement ceases, then
K: I understand that. If I have to learn a language, I   what takes place? I wonder if I am conveying
must have time. B: But the misuse of time by             anything. Could we put it this way? We have never
extending it inwardly...                                 touched any other movement than the outer
                                                         movement. DB: Generally, anyway. We put most of
K: Inwardly: that is what I am talking about. Is that    our energy into the outer movements.
the cause of man’s confusion - introducing time as a
means of becoming, and becoming more and more            K: And psychological movement is also outward.
perfect, more and more evolved, more and more
loving? You follow what I mean?                          DB: Well, it is the reflection of that outward
                                                         movement.
K: We think it is inward but it is actually outward,     DB: Yes. So if we say the brain has no fixed
right?                                                   direction, then what is it doing? Is it moving in all
                                                         directions?
DB: Yes.
                                                         K: I am a little bit hesitant to talk about this. Could
K: Now if that movement ends, as it must, then is        one say when one really comes to that state, that it
there a really inward movement - a movement not          is the source of all energy?
in terms of time?
                                                         DB: Yes, as one goes deeper and more inward.
DB: You are asking, is there another kind of
movement which still moves, but not in terms of          K: This is the real inwardness; not the outward
time?                                                    movement becoming the inner movement, but no
                                                         outer or inner movement...
K: That’s right.
                                                         DB: Yes, we can deny both the outward and the
DB: We have to go into that. Could you go further?       inner, so that all movement would seem to stop.

K: You see, that word movement means time.               K: Would that be the source of all energy?

DB: Well, it really means to change from one place       DB: Yes, perhaps we could say that.
to another. But anyway there is still the notion of
something which is not static. By denying time you       K: May I talk about myself a little bit?
don't want to return to something static, which is
still time.                                              DB: Yes.

K: Let’s say, for instance, that one’s brain has been    K: First about meditation. All conscious meditation
trained, accustomed, for centuries to go North. And      is no meditation - right?
it suddenly realizes that going North means
everlasting conflict. As it realizes that, the brain     DB: What do you mean by conscious meditation?
itself changes - the quality of the brain changes.
                                                         K: Deliberate, practiced meditation, which is really
DB: All right. I can see it will wake up in some way     premeditated meditation. Is there a meditation
to a different movement.                                 which is not premeditated - which is not the ego
                                                         trying to become something - or being able to
K: Yes, different.                                       negate?

DB: Is the word flow any better?                         DB: Before we go ahead, could we suggest what
                                                         meditation should be. Is it an observation of the
K: I have been going North all my life, and there is a   mind observing?
sudden stoppage from going North. But the brain is
not going East or South or West. Then conflict           K: No. It has gone beyond all that. I am using the
ceases - right? Because it is not moving in any          word meditation in the sense in which there is not a
direction.                                               particle of any sense of trying consciously to
                                                         become, to reach a level.
DB: So that is the key point - the direction of
movement. When the movement is fixed in                  DB: The mind is simply with itself, silent.
direction, inwardly, it will come to conflict. But
outwardly we need a fixed direction.                     K: That is what I want to get at.

K: Of course we do. That’s understood.                   DB: Not looking for anything.
K: You see, I don’t meditate in the normal sense of       DB: Well, it is hard to know beforehand if
the word. What happens is that I wake up                  everything is going to be correct. K: Let’s go back to
meditating.                                               what we began with. That is, has mankind taken a
                                                          wrong turn, psychologically, not physically? Can
DB: In that state?                                        that turn be completely reversed? Or stopped? My
                                                          brain is so accustomed to this evolutionary idea that
K: One night in India I woke up; it was a quarter         I will become something, I will gain something, that
past twelve, I looked at the watch. And - I hesitate to   I must have more knowledge and so on; can that
say this because it sounds extravagant - the source       brain suddenly realize that there is no such thing as
of all energy had been reached. And that had an           time? You understand what I am trying to say?
extraordinary effect on the brain. And also
physically. I’m sorry to talk about myself but, you       DB: Yes.
understand, literally, there was no division at all; no
sense of the world, of `me'. You follow? Only this        K: I was listening the other day to a discussion on
sense of a tremendous source of energy.                   television about Darwin, his knowledge and what he
                                                          achieved - his whole theory of evolution. It seems to
DB: So the brain was in contact with this source of       me that this is totally untrue psychologically.
energy?
                                                          DB: It seems that he has given evidence that all
K: Yes, and as I have been talking for sixty years, I     species have changed in time. Why is that untrue?
would like others to reach this - no, not reach it. You
understand what I am saying? All our problems are         K: Of course. It is obvious.
solved. Because it is pure energy from the very
beginning of time. Now how am I - not ‘I’, you            DB: It is true in one respect, although I think it
understand - how is one not to teach, not to help, or     would be untrue to say the mind evolved in time.
push - but how is one to say, ‘This way leads to a
complete sense of peace, of love’? I am sorry to use      K: Of course.
all these words. But suppose you have come to that
point and your brain itself is throbbing with it - how    DB: But physically it seems clear there has been a
would you help another? You understand? Help -            process of evolution, and that this has increased the
not words. How would you help another to come to          capacity of the brain to do certain things. For
that? You understand what I am trying to say?             example, we couldn’t be discussing this if the brain
                                                          had not grown larger.
DB: Yes.
                                                          K: Of course.
K: My brain - but not mine - has evolved. Evolution
implies time, and it can only think, live in time. Now    DB: But I think you are implying that the mind is not
for the brain to deny time is a tremendous activity,      originating in the brain. Is that so? The brain is
for any problem that arises, any question is              perhaps an instrument of the mind?
immediately solved.
                                                          K: And the mind is not time. Just see what that
DB: Is this situation sustained or is it only for a       means.
period?
                                                          DB: The mind does not evolve with the brain.
K: It is sustained, obviously; otherwise there is no
point in it. It is not sporadic or intermittent. Now      K: The mind not being of time, and the brain being
how are you to open the door, how are you to help         of time - is that the origin of conflict?
another to say, ‘Look, we have been going in the
wrong direction, there is only non-movement; and,         DB: Well, we have to see why that produces conflict.
if movement stops, everything will be correct’?           It is not clear to say that the brain is of time, but
                                                          rather that it has developed in such a way that time
                                                          is in it.
K: Yes, that is what I meant. DB: But not necessarily       K: Yes. That is, can the brain, dominated by time, not
so.                                                         be subservient to it?

K: It has evolved.                                          DB: That’s right. In that moment it comes out of
                                                            time. I think I can see this - it is dominated only
DB: It has evolved, so it has time within it.               when you give it time. Thought which takes time is
                                                            dominated, but anything fast enough is not
K: Yes, it has evolved, time is part of it.                 dominated.

DB: It has become part of its very structure.               K: Yes, that’s right. Can the brain - which has been
                                                            used to time - can it see in that process that there is
K: Yes.                                                     no end to conflict? See, in the sense of realizing this?
                                                            Will it realize it under pressure? Certainly not. Will
DB: However, the mind operates without time,                it realize it under coercion, reward or punishment?
although the brain is not able to do so.                    It will not. It will either resist or escape.

K: That means that God is in man, and God can only          So what is the factor that will make the brain see
operate if the brain is quiet, if the brain is not caught   that the way it has been functioning is not correct?
in time.                                                    (Let’s use that word for the moment.) And what will
                                                            make it suddenly realize that it is totally
DB: Well, I wasn’t meaning that. I see that the brain,      mischievous? What will make it? Certainly not drugs
having a structure of time, is not able to respond          or some kind of chemical.
properly to mind. That’s really what seems to be
involved here.                                              DB: None of these outward things.

K: Can the brain itself see that it is caught in time       K: Then what will make the brain realize this?
and that as long as it is moving in that direction,
conflict is eternal, endless? You follow what I am          DB: What do you mean by realize?
saying?
                                                            K: Realize that the path along which the brain has
DB: Yes. Does the brain see it?                             been going will always be the path of conflict.

K: Has the brain the capacity to see in what it is          DB: I think this raises the question that the brain
doing now - being caught in time - that in that             resists such a realization.
process there is no end to conflict? That means, is
there a part of the brain which is not of time?             K: Of course, of course. Because it has been used to
                                                            the old path, for centuries! How will you make the
DB: Not caught or functioning in time?                      brain realize this fact? If you could make it realize
                                                            that, conflict is finished.
K: Can one say that?
                                                            You see, people have tried fasting, austerity,
DB: I don’t know.                                           poverty, chastity in the real sense, purity, having a
                                                            mind that is absolutely correct; they have tried
K: That would mean - we come back to the same               going away by themselves; they have tried
thing in different words - that the brain is not being      practically everything that man has invented, but
completely conditioned by time, so there is a part of       none of these ways has succeeded.
the brain that is free of time.
                                                            DB: Well, what do you say? It is clear that people
DB: Not a part, but rather that the brain is mainly         pursuing these outward goals are still becoming.
dominated by time, although that doesn’t
necessarily mean it couldn’t shift.                         K: Yes, but they never realize that these are outward
                                                            goals. It means denying all that completely.
DB: You see, to go further, I think that one has to        DB: Well, with a psychological problem, that is the
deny the very notion of time in the sense of looking       only way. Otherwise we would be caught in the very
forward to the future, and deny all the past. K:           source of the problem.
That’s just it.
                                                           K: Of course. Would that activity end time, the
DB: That is, the whole of time.                            psychological time that we are talking about?

K: Time is the enemy. Meet it, and go beyond it.           DB: Yes, if we could bring this immediate action to
                                                           bear on the problem, which is the self.
DB: Deny that it has an independent existence. You
see, I think we have the impression that time exists       K: One is greedy, or envious. To end immediately
independently of us. We are in the stream of time,         greed, attachment, and so on, will that not give a
and therefore it would seem absurd for us to deny it       clue to the ending of time?
because that is what we are.
                                                           DB: Yes, because any action which is not immediate
K: Yes, quite, quite. So it means really moving away -     has already brought in time.
again this is only words - from everything that man
has put together as a means of timelessness.               K: Yes, yes. I know that.

DB: Can we say that none of the methods that man           DB: The ending of time is immediate - right?
uses outwardly is going to free the mind from time?
                                                           K: Immediate, of course. Would that point out the
K: Absolutely.                                             wrong turn that mankind has taken?

DB: Every method implies time.                             DB: Yes, if man feels something is out of order
                                                           psychologically he then brings in the notion of time,
K: Of course. It is so simple.                             and the thought of becoming, and that creates
                                                           endless problems.
DB: We start out immediately by setting up the
whole structure of time; the whole notion of time is       K: Would that open the door to this sense of time
presupposed before we start.                               having no place inwardly? Which means, doesn’t it,
                                                           that thought has no place except outwardly?
K: Yes, quite. But how will you convey this to
another? How will you, or ‘X’, convey this to a man        DB: You are saying that thought is a process which
who is caught in time and will resist it, fight it,        is involved in time.
because he says there is no other way? How will you
convey this to him?                                        K: Wouldn’t you say that thought is the process of
                                                           time? Because thought is based on experience,
DB: I think that you can only convey it to somebody        knowledge, memory and response, which is the
who has gone into it; you are not likely to convey it      whole of time.
at all to somebody you just pick up off the street!
                                                           DB: Let’s try to put it that thought, as we have
K: So then, what are we doing? As that cannot be           generally known it, is in time.
conveyed through words, what is a man to do?
Would you say that to resolve a problem as it arises       K: Thought as we know it now is of time.
you have to go into it immediately, because
otherwise you may do the most foolish thing and            DB: Yes. I would agree, generally speaking.
delude yourself that you have resolved it? Suppose I
have a problem, any psychological problem - can the        K: Generally speaking, thought is time.
mind realize, resolve it immediately? Not deceive it,
not resist it - you understand? But face it, and end it.   DB: It is based on the notion of time.
K: Yes, all right. But to me, thought itself is time.    K: Yes. So he lives in time.

DB: Thought itself creates time, right.                  DB: He lives in time because he has attempted to
                                                         produce knowledge of the nature of the mind. Are
K: Does it mean, when there is no time there is no       you saying that there is no real knowledge of the
thought? DB: Well no thought of that kind.               mind? Would you put it that way? K: The moment
                                                         you use the word `knowledge', it implies time. When
K: No. There is no thought. I want just to go slowly.    you end time, in the sense we are talking about,
                                                         there is no knowledge as experience.
DB: Could we say that there is a kind of thought
which we have lived in which has been dominated          DB: We have to see what the word ‘experience’
by time?                                                 means.

K: Yes, but that has come to an end.                     K: Experience, memory.

DB: But there may be another kind of thought which       DB: People say, ‘I learn by experience, I go through
is not dominated by time... I mean, you were saying,     something.’
you could still use thought to do some things.
                                                         K: Which is becoming!
K: Of course, outwardly that's so.
                                                         DB: Well, let’s get it clear. You see there is a kind of
DB: We have to be careful not to say that thought is     experience, for example, in one’s job, which
necessarily dominated by time.                           becomes skill and perception.

K: Yes. I have to go from here to there, to my house;    K: Of course, but that is quite different.
that needs time, thought, but I am not talking of that
kind of time.                                            DB: But we are saying there is no point in having
                                                         experience of the mind, psychological experience.
DB: So let’s make it clear that you are talking of
thought which is aimed at the mind, whose content        K: Yes, let’s put it that way.               Psychological
is the order of the mind.                                experience is in time.

K: Yes. Would you say knowledge is time?                 DB: Yes, and it has no point, because you cannot say,
                                                         ‘As I become skilled in my job I will become skilled
DB: Well, yes...                                         in my mind, or skilled fundamentally’.

K: All knowledge is time.                                K: Yes. So where is this leading? I realize that
                                                         knowledge is time; the brain realizes it, and sees the
DB: Yes, in that it has been known, and may project      importance of time in a certain direction, and that
into the future, and so on.                              there is no value in time at all in another direction.
                                                         It is not a contradiction.
K: Of course, the future, the past. Knowledge -
science, mathematics, whatever it is - is acquired       DB: I would put it that the value of time is limited to
through time. I read philosophy, I read this or that,    a certain direction or area, and beyond that, it has
and the whole movement of knowledge involves             no value.
time. See what I mean!
                                                         K: Yes. So what is the mind or the brain without
DB: I think we are saying that man has taken a           knowledge? You understand.
wrong turn and got caught in this kind of
knowledge, which is dominated by time because it         DB: Without psychological knowledge?
has become psychological knowledge.
                                                         K: Yes, I am talking psychologically.
DB: It is not so much that it is caught in time as that   DB: Yes. The ground of everything is energy.
it is without psychological knowledge to organize
itself.                                                   K: Of course. Everything is energy. And what is the
                                                          source of this thing? Or is there no source of energy
K: Yes.                                                   at all? Is there only energy?

DB: So we are saying that the brain field must            DB: Energy just is. Energy is ‘what is’. There is no
organize itself by knowing psychologically all about      need for a source. That is one approach, perhaps?
itself.
                                                          K: No. If there is nothing, and therefore everything,
K: Is then the mind, the brain, disorder? Certainly       and everything is energy... We must be very careful
not. DB: No. But I think that people being faced with     because here, the Hindus have this idea too, which is
this might feel there would be disorder.                  that Brahman is everything. You understand? But
                                                          that becomes an idea, a principle, and then
K: Of course.                                             functioning is once more in the brain. But the fact of
                                                          it is, there is nothing; therefore there is everything,
DB: I think what you are saying is that the notion of     and all that is cosmic energy. But what started this
controlling yourself psychologically has no meaning.      energy?

K: So knowledge of the ‘me’ - the psychological           DB: We are not talking of time.
knowledge - is time.
                                                          K: I know we are not talking of time, but you see the
DB: Yes, I understand the totality of knowledge is        Christians would say, ‘God is energy and He is the
‘me’, is time.                                            source of all energy.’ No?

K: So then what is existence without this? There is       DB: But the Christians have an idea of what they call
no time; there is no knowledge in the psychological       the Godhead, which is the very source of God too.
sense, no sense of ‘me’, and then what is there? To
come to that point most people would say, ‘What a         K: And also the Hindus, the Arabic and the Jewish
horror this is.’                                          worlds have this. Are we going against all that?

DB: Yes, because it seems there would be nothing.         DB: It sounds similar in some ways.

K: Nothing. But if one has come to that point, what is    K: And yet not similar. We must be careful.
there? Would you say, because there is nothing, it is
everything?                                               DB: Many things like this have been said over the
                                                          ages.
DB: Yes, I would accept that. I know that. That is
true, it has all.                                         K: Then is one just walking in emptiness? Is one
                                                          living in emptiness?
K: No meditation, nothing.
                                                          DB: Well, that is not clear.
DB: Nothing.
                                                          K: There is nothing, and everything is energy. What
K: Nothing, that’s right.                                 is this?

DB: A thing is limited, and this is not a thing because   DB: Well, is there something within the energy?
there are no limits... At least, it has everything in
potential.                                                K: This is not different from energy. This. But the
                                                          thing that is inside says, ‘I am totally different from
K: Wait, Sir. If it is nothing, and so everything, so     that’.
everything is energy.
DB: The ‘I’ encloses itself and says, ‘I am different, I   beginning. What is that? Because otherwise this
am eternal.’                                               seems so utterly futile. I am all energy and just the
                                                           shell exists, and time has ended. It seems so futile.
K: Why has it done this? Why has the separation
arisen? Is it because outwardly I identify with a          DB: Yes, if we stop there....
house and so on, and that identification has moved
inwardly?                                                  K: That’s all.

DB: Yes. And the second point was that once we             DB: I think that really this is clearing the ground of
established a notion of something inward, then it          all the debris, of all the confusion.
became necessary to protect that. And therefore
that built up the separation.                              K: Yes. So the ending is a beginning. But what is
                                                           that? Beginning implies time also.
K: Of course.
                                                           DB: Not necessarily. I think we said there could be a
DB: The inward was obviously the most precious             movement which had no time.
thing, and it would have to be protected with all our
energy.                                                    K: That is all. I want to make it clear.

K: Does it mean then that there is only the organism       DB: Yes, but it is hard to express. It is not a question
- which part of energy? There is no ‘me’ at all, except    of being static, but in some sense the movement has
the passport name and form; otherwise nothing.             not the order of time. I think we would have to say
And therefore there is everything and therefore all        that now.
is energy?
                                                           K: Yes. So we will use the word ‘beginning’ and
DB: Yes, the form has no independent existence.            deprive it of time.

K: No. There is only the form. That’s all.                 DB: Because ending and beginning is no special
                                                           time. In fact they can be any time or no time.
DB: There is also the energy, you say.
                                                           K: No time. Then what takes place? What is
K: That is part of energy. So there is only this, the      happening? Not to me, not to my brain. What is
outward shape.                                             happening? We have said that when one denies time
                                                           there is nothing. After this long talk, nothing means
DB: There is the outward form in the energy.               everything. Everything is energy. And we have
                                                           stopped there. But that isn't the end.
K: Do you realize what we have said, Sir? Is this the
end of the journey?                                        DB: No.

DB: No, I should think not.                                K: That is not the end. Then what is going on? Is that
                                                           creation?
K: Has mankind journeyed through millennia to
come to this? That I am nothing, and therefore I am        DB: Yes, something likes that.
everything, and all energy.
                                                           K: But not the art of creating like writing or
DB: Well it can't be the end, in the sense that it         painting.
might be the beginning.
                                                           DB: Perhaps later we can discuss what we mean by
K: Wait. That is all I wanted you to begin with. The       creating.
ending is the beginning - right? Now I want to go
into that. You see, in the ending of all this - the
ending of time, we will call it briefly - there is a new
We were saying that psychological time is conflict that time is the enemy of man. And that enemy has existed
 from the beginning of man. And we asked why has man from the beginning taken a ‘wrong turn’, a ‘wrong
path’? And, if so, is it possible to turn man in another direction in which he can live without conflict? Because
  as we said yesterday the outer movement is also the same as the inner movement, there is no separation
  between inner and outer. It is the same movement. And we asked whether we were concerned deeply and
  passionately to turn man in another direction so that he does not live in time, with knowledge only of the
outer things. The religions, the politicians, the educators have failed: they have never been concerned about
                                           this. Would you agree to that?




M
         an continues to live within time and               first. And this will continue until man mover
         space. Sometimes the time is of inner              from the outer circumference to the inner realm
         space and other times it is of outer               of the being.
space. We are aware of the time in the outer
space. But when we move from the outer realm                As part of his lectures, and talks Krishnamurti
to the inner realm we are still consumed by time.           had conversation on various topics with eminent
Dream and thoughts are factors of time as well.             writers, and thinkers of his time. Prof Davis
Dream is inner. No dream is possible without the            Bhom was one such person. The present
time and space. Dream has its space for dream to            conversation deals with the cleansing of the
happen and the time zone.                                   mind of the accumulation of time. David Joseph
                                                            Bohm (20 December 1917 – 27 October 1992)
This is not a current phenomenon instead it has             was an American-born British quantum physicist
been happening from the time man breathed                   who made contributions in the fields of
theoretical   physics,      philosophy     and         time is abolished? And as we asked yesterday,
neuropsychology, and to the Manhattan Project.         when you come to? That point where there is
                                                       nothing and there is everything, where all that is
KRISHNAMURTI: We were saying that                      energy - when time ends, is there a beginning of
psychological time is conflict that time is the        something totally new? Is there a beginning
enemy of man. And that enemy has existed from          which is not enmeshed in time? Now how shall
the beginning of man. And we asked why has             we discover it? Words are necessary to
man from the beginning taken a ‘wrong turn’, a         communicate. But the word is not that thing. So
‘wrong path’? And, if so, is it possible to turn man   what is there when all time ends? Psychological
in another direction in which he can live without      time, not time of...
conflict? Because as we said yesterday the outer
movement is also the same as the inner                 DB: ...time of day.
movement there is no separation between inner
and outer. It is the same movement. And we             K: Yes. Time as the ‘me’, the ego, and when that
asked whether we were concerned deeply and             completely comes to an end, what is there that
passionately to turn man in another direction so       begins? Could we say that out of the ashes of
that he does not live in time, with knowledge          time there is a new growth? What is that which
only of the outer things. The religions, the           begins - no, that word ‘begins’ implies time too.
politicians, the educators have failed: they have
never been concerned about this. Would you             DB: Whatever we mean, that which arises.
agree to that?
                                                       K: That arises, what is it?
DAVID BOHM: Yes. I think the religions have
tried to discuss the eternal values beyond time        DB: Well, as we said yesterday, essentially it is
but they don’t seem to have succeeded.                 creation, the possibility of creation.

K: That is what I want to get at. To them it has       K: Yes, creation. Is that it? Is something new
been an idea, an ideal, a principle, a value, but      being born?
not an actuality, and most of the religious people
have their anchor in a belief, in a principle, in an   DB: It is not the process of becoming.
image, in knowledge, in Jesus or in something or
other.                                                 K: Oh, no, that is finished. Becoming is the worst,
                                                       that is time, that is the real root of this conflict.
DB: Yes, but if you were to consider all the           We are trying to find out what happens when the
religions, say the various forms of Buddhism,          ‘I’, which is time, has completely come to an end.
they try to say this very thing which you are          I believe the Buddha is supposed to have said
saying, to some extent.                                ‘Nirvana’. And the Hindus call it Moksha. I don’t
                                                       know whether the Christians call it Heaven...
K: To some extent but what I am trying to get at
is: why has man never confronted this problem?         DB: The Christian mystics have had some similar
Why haven’t we said ‘Let’s end conflict’? Instead      state...
we have been encouraged because through
conflict we think there is progress.                   K: Similar, yes. But you see, the Christian mystics,
                                                       as far as I understand it, are rooted in Jesus, in
DB: It can be a certain source of stimulus to try      the Church, in the whole belief. They have never
to overcome opposition.                                gone beyond it.

K: Yes, Sir, but if you and I see the truth of this,   DB: Yes, well that seems so. As far as I know
not in abstraction, but actually, deeply, can we       anyway.
act in such a way that every issue is resolved
instantly, immediately, so that psychological
K: Now we have said belief, attachment to all that      DB: Self-deception.
is out, finished. That is all part of the ‘I’. Now
when there is that absolute cleansing of the mind       K: Deception and all forms of illusion arise from
from the accumulation of time, which is the             that. So it is not that. I am clearing the decks as
essence of the ‘me’, what takes place? Why              we go along.
should we ask what takes place?
                                                        DB: Essentially it seems that you are clearing the
DB: You mean it is not a good question?                 movement of desire in its subtle forms.

K: I am just asking myself, why should we ask           K: In its subtle forms. So desire too has been put
that? Is there behind it a subtle form of hope? A       away. Then there is only mind - right?
subtle form of saying, I have reached that point,
there is nothing. Then that is a wrong question         DB: Yes, but then we have to ask what is meant
Wouldn’t you consider that so?                          by nature, if all is mind, because nature seems
                                                        somewhat independent.
DB: Well, it invites you to look for some hopeful
outcome.                                                K: But we have also said that the entire universe
                                                        is the mind.
K: If all endeavour is to find something beyond
the `me', the endeavour and the thing that I may        DB: You mean to say nature is the mind?
find are still within the orbit of `me'. So I have no
hope. There is no sense of hope, there is no sense      K: Part of the mind.
of wanting to find anything.
                                                        DB: The universal mind?
DB: What is then moving you to enquire?
                                                        K: Yes.
K: My enquiry has been to end conflict.
                                                        DB: Not a particular mind?
DB: Yes, we have then to be careful. We are liable
to produce a hope of ending conflict.                   K: The particular mind then is separate, but we
                                                        are talking of mind.
K: No, no; there is no hope. I end it. The moment I
introduce the word ‘hope’ there is a feeling of the     DB: You see, we have to make it clear, because
future.                                                 you are saying that nature is the creation of
                                                        universal mind, though nevertheless nature has a
DB: Yes, that is desire.                                certain reality.

K: Desire - and therefore it is of time. So I - the     K: That is all understood.
mind - put all that aside completely; I mean it,
completely. Then what is the essence of all this?       DB: But it is almost as if nature were the thought
Is my mind still seeking, or groping after              of the universal mind.
something intangible that it can capture and
hold? If that is so, it is still part of time.          K: it is part of it. I am trying to grope towards the
                                                        particular in coming to an end; then there is only
DB: Well, that is still desire.                         the Mind, the universal mind - right?

K: Desire and a subtle form of vanity.                  DB: Yes. We have been discussing the particular
                                                        mind groping through desire, and we said if all of
DB: Why vanity?                                         that stopped...

K: Vanity in the sense ‘I have reached’.
K: That is just my point. If all that has completely   DB: In some way... In so far as it is mind.
come to an end, what is the next step? Is there
any next? We said yesterday, there is a                K: Now if that energy is intelligent, why has it
beginning, but that word implies part of time.         allowed man to move away in the wrong
                                                       direction?
DB: We won’t say so much beginning, perhaps
ending.                                                DB: I think that that may be part of a process,
                                                       something that is inevitable in the nature of
K: The ending, we have said that.                      thought. You see if thought is going to develop,
                                                       that possibility must exist. To bring about
DB: But now is there something new?                    thought in man...

K: Is there something which the mind cannot            K: Is that the original freedom for man? To
capture?                                               choose?

DB: Which mind, the particular or the universal?       DB: No, that is, thought has to have the capacity
                                                       to make this mistake.
K: The particular has ended.
                                                       K: But if that intelligence was operating, why did
DB: Yes. You are saying the universal mind             it allow this mistake?
cannot capture it either?
                                                       DB: Well, we can suggest that there is a universal
K: That is what we are finding out.                    order, a law.

DB: Are you saying there is a reality - or             K: All right. The universe functions in order.
something - beyond universal mind?
                                                       DB: Yes, and it is part of the order of the universe
K: Are we playing a game of peeling off one thing      that this particular mechanism can go wrong. If a
after another? Like an onion skin, and at the end      machine breaks down, it is not disorder in the
there is only tears and nothing else?                  universe; it is part of universal order.

DB: Well, I don’t know.                                K: Yes. In the universal order there is disorder,
                                                       where man is concerned.
K: Because we said there is the ending, then the
cosmic, the universal mind, and, beyond, is there      DB: It is not disorder at the level of the universe.
something more?
                                                       K: No. At a much lower level.
DB: Well, would you say this ‘more’ is energy?
That energy is beyond the universal mind?              DB: At the level of man it is disorder.

K: I would say yes, because the universal mind is      K: And why has man lived from the beginning in
part of that energy.                                   this disorder?

DB: That is understandable. In a way the energy        DB: Because he is still ignorant, he still hasn’t
is alive, you are saying?                              seen the point.

K: Yes, yes.                                           K: But he is part of the whole, yet in one tiny
                                                       corner man exists, and has lived in disorder. And
DB: And also intelligent?                              this enormous conscious intelligence has not...

K: Wait a minute.
DB: Yes, you could say that the possibility of          DB: Then what leads you to say it?
creation is also the possibility of disorder. That if
man had the possibility of being creative; there        K: Would you say it is? Not, I perceive it, or it is
would also be the possibility of a mistake. It          perceived.
could not be fixed like a machine, always to
operate in perfect order. The intelligence would        DB: Yes. It is.
not have turned him into a machine that would
be incapable of disorder.                               K: It is.

K: No, of course not. So is there something             DB: You could almost say that it is saying it. In
beyond the cosmic order, mind?                          some sense, you seem to be suggesting that it is
                                                        what is saying.
DB: Are you saying that the universe, that that
mind, has created nature which has an order,            K: Yes. I didn’t want to put it - I am glad you put
which is not merely going around mechanically?          it like that! Where are we now?
It has some deeper meaning?
                                                        DB: We are saying that the universe is alive, as it
K: That is what we are trying to find out.              were, it is mind, and we are part of it.

DB: You are bringing in the whole universe as           K: We can only say we are part of it when there is
well as mankind. What makes you do this? What           no ‘I’.
is the source of this perception?
                                                        DB: No division.
K: Let’s begin again: there is the ending of the
‘me’ as time, and so there is no hope; all that is      K: No division. I would like to push it a little
finished, ended. In the ending of it, there is that     further; is there something beyond all this?
sense of nothingness. And nothingness is this
whole universe.                                         DB: Beyond the energy, you mean?

DB: Yes, the universal mind, the universal              K: Yes. We said nothingness that nothingness is
matter.                                                 everything, and so it is that which is total energy.
                                                        It is undiluted, pure, uncorrupted energy. Is
K: The whole universe.                                  there something beyond that? Why do we ask it?

DB: What led you to say that?                           DB: I don’t know.

K: Ah. I know. To put it very simply: division has      K: I feel we haven’t touched it - I feel there is
come to an end. Right? The division created by          something beyond.
time, created by thought, created by this
education, and so on - all that. Because it has         DB: Could we say this something beyond is the
ended, the other is obvious.                            ground of the whole? You are saying that all this
                                                        emerges from an inward ground?
DB: You mean that without the division then the
other is there - to be perceived?                       K: Yes, there is another - I must be awfully
                                                        careful here. You know one must be awfully
K: Not to be perceived, but it is there.                careful not to be romantic, not to have illusions,
                                                        not to have desire, not even to search. It must
DB: But then how does one come to be aware              happen. You follow what I mean?
that it is there?

K: I don’t think one becomes aware of it.
DB: We are saying the thing must come from             K: Yes.
that. Whatever you are saying must come from
that.                                                  DB: Would that be something in the way of a
                                                       substance? You see the question is, if it is not
K: From that. That’s it. It sounds rather              emptiness, then what is it?
presumptuous.
                                                       K: I don’t quite follow your question.
DB: You are actually seeing it. It is not that you
look at it and say, that is what I have seen.          DB: Well, you say something beyond emptiness,
                                                       other than emptiness. I think we can follow to
K: Oh, no. Then it is wrong.                           the energy and the emptiness. Now if we suggest
                                                       something other to that, to the emptiness...
DB: There isn’t a division. Of course, it is easy to
fall into delusion with this sort of thing.            K: This something other.

K: Yes, but we said delusion exists as long as         DB: Yes, then that other must be different from
there is desire and thought. That is simple. And       the emptiness. Something other to emptiness,
desire and thought are part of the ‘I’, which is       which therefore is not emptiness. Does that
time. When desire and time are completely              make sense?
ended, then there is absolutely nothing, and
therefore that is the universe, that emptiness,        K: Then it is substance.
which is full of energy. We can put a stop there...
                                                       DB: Yes, that is what is implied: if it is not
DB: Because we haven’t yet seen the necessity          emptiness, it is substance.
for going beyond the energy. We have to see that
as necessary.                                          K: Substance is matter, is it not?

K: I think it is necessary.                            DB: Not necessarily, but having the quality of
                                                       substance.
DB: Yes, but it has to be seen. We have to bring
out why it is necessary.                               K: What do you mean by that?

K: Why is it necessary? Tentatively, there is          DB: Matter is a form of substance in the sense
something in us that is operating; there is            that it is energy, but having the form of
something in us much more - much - I don't             substance as well, because it has a constant form
know how to put it - much greater. I am going          and it resists change. It is stable, it maintains
slowly, slowly. What I am trying to say is, I think    itself.
there is something beyond that. When I say ‘I
think’, you know what I mean.                          K: Yes. But when you use the word ‘substance’,
                                                       meaning beyond emptiness, does that word
DB: I understand, yes.                                 convey that meaning?

K: There is something beyond that. How can we          DB: Well, we are exploring the possible meaning
talk about it? You see, energy exists only when        of what you want to say. If you are saying it is not
there is emptiness. They go together.                  emptiness, then it would not be substance as we
                                                       know it in matter. But we can see a certain
DB: This pure energy you talk about is                 quality which belongs to substance in general; if
emptiness. Are you suggesting there is that            it has that quality, we could use the word
which is beyond the emptiness, the ground of the       substance, extend the meaning of the word
emptiness?                                             substance.
K: I understand. So could we use the word               DB: In the sense that if the mind thinks it already
‘quality’?                                              has this substance, then it will not be open...

DB: The word ‘quality’ is not necessarily the           K: Of course not. Can that thing ever be put into
emptiness, energy could have the quality of             words? It is not a question of avoiding
emptiness, you see. And therefore it is something       something, or trying to slither out of some
else. Something other might have the quality of         conclusion. But you see, so far we have put
substance. That is the way I see it. And is that        everything into words.
what you are trying to say?
                                                        DB: Well, I think that once something is properly
K: There is something beyond emptiness. How             perceived, then after a while the words come to
shall we tackle it?                                     communicate it.

DB: Firstly, what leads you to say this?                K: Yes, but can that be perceived? And therefore
                                                        be communicable? Is this beyond?
K: Simply the fact that there is. We have been
fairly logical all along, we have not been caught       DB: This thing beyond, would you say also it is
in any illusions so far. And can we keep that           alive? Life beyond emptiness, is that still life?
same kind of watchfulness, in which there is, no        Living?
illusion, to find out - or, not find out - that which
is beyond emptiness? To come down to earth!             K: Living, yes. Oh, yes.
Come down to earth in the sense to be
communicated. You follow what I mean?                   DB: And intelligent?

DB: Yes. Well we could come back to the                 K: I don’t want to use those words.
question before: why hasn't it come down?
                                                        DB: They are too limited?
K: Why hasn’t it come down? Has man been ever
free from the ‘I’?                                      K: Living, intelligence, love, compassion; they are
                                                        all too limited. You and I are sitting here. We
DB: No. Not generally speaking.                         have come to a point and there is that thing
                                                        which perhaps later on might be put into words
K: No. And it demands that the ‘I’ ends.                without any sense of pressure, and so without
                                                        any illusion. Don’t you see beyond the wall? The
DB: I think we could look at it this way: that the      word, I mean? We have come to a certain point,
ego becomes an illusion of that substance. You          and we are saying there is something still more -
feel the ego is a substance too in some way.            you understand? There is something behind all
                                                        that. Is it palpable? Can we touch it? Is it
K: Yes, the ego is substance.                           something that the mind can capture? You
                                                        follow?
DB: And therefore that substance seems to be...
                                                        DB: Yes. Are you saying it is not?
K: ...untouchable.
                                                        K: I don’t think it is possible for the mind to
DB: But that ego is an illusion of the true             capture it...
substance - it may be that the mind tries to
create some sort of illusion of that substance.         DB: Or grasp it?

K: That is an illusion. Why do you relate it to the     K: Grasp it, understand... for the mind even to
other?                                                  look at it. You are a scientist; you have examined
                                                        the atom, and so on. Don’t you, when you have
examined all that, feel there is something much          DB: You see, this notion is already an old one.
more, beyond all that?                                   This notion has been developed by Aristotle, that
                                                         this absolute is the cause of itself.
DB: You can always feel that there is more
beyond that, but it doesn't tell you what it is. It is   C: Yes.
clear that whatever one knows is limited.
                                                         DB: It has no cause, in a sense. That is the same
K: Yes                                                   thing.

DB: And there must be more beyond.                       K: You see the moment you said Aristotle... it is
                                                         not that. How shall we get at this? Emptiness is
K: How can that communicate with you, so that            energy, and that emptiness exists in silence, or
you, with your scientific knowledge, with your           the other way round, it doesn't matter - right?
brain capacity can grasp it?                             Oh, yes, there is something beyond all this.
                                                         Probably it can never be put into words. But it
DB: Are you saying it can’t be grasped?                  must be put into words. You follow?

k: No. How can you grasp it? I don’t say you can’t       DB: You are saying that the absolute must be put
grasp it. Can you grasp it?                              into words, but we feel it can’t be? Any attempt
                                                         to put it into words makes it relative.
DB: Look, it is not clear. You were saying before
that it is ungraspable by...                             K: Yes. I don’t know how to put all this.

K: Grasp, in the sense, can your mind go beyond          DB: I think that we have a long history of danger
theories? What I am trying to say is, can you            with the absolute. People have put it in words,
move into it? Not move, in the sense of time and         and it has become very oppressive.
all that. Can you enter it? No, those are all words.
What is beyond emptiness? Is it silence?                 K: Leave all that. You see, being ignorant of what
                                                         other people have said, Aristotle and the Buddha,
DB: Isn’t that similar to emptiness?                     and so on, has an advantage. You understand
                                                         what I mean? An advantage in the sense that the
K: Yes, that is what I am getting at. Move step by       mind is not colored by other people’s ideas, not
step. Is it silence? Or is silence part of emptiness?    caught in other people’s statements! All that is
                                                         part of our conditioning. Now, to go beyond all
DB; Yes, I should say that.                              that! What are we trying to do?

K: I should say that too. If it is not silence, could    DB: I think, to communicate regarding this
we - I am just asking - could we say it is               absolute, this beyond.
something absolute? You understand?
                                                         K: I took away that word ‘absolute’ immediately.
DB: Well, we could consider the absolute. It
would have to be something totally independent;          DB: Then whatever it is; the beyond emptiness
that is what ‘absolute’ really means. It doesn’t         and silence.
depend on anything.
                                                         K: Beyond all that. There is beyond all that. All
K: Yes. You are getting somewhere near it.               that is something, part of immensity.

DB: Entirely self moving, as it were, self active.       DB: Yes, well even the emptiness and silence is
                                                         immensity, isn’t it? The energy is itself
K: Yes. Would you say everything has a cause,            immensity.
and that has no cause at all?
K: Yes, I understand that. But there is something      DB: In which sense? In the sense that you are
much more immense than that. Emptiness and             using the beginning of everything as the ending?
silence and energy are immense, really
immeasurable. But there is something - I am            K: Yes. Right? You would say that?
using the word, ‘greater’, than that.
                                                       DB: Yes. If we take the ground from which it
DB: I am just considering. I am looking at it. One     comes, it must be the ground to which it falls.
can see that whatever you say about emptiness,
or about any other thing, there is something           K: That's right. That is the ground upon which
beyond.                                                everything exists, space...

K: No, as a scientist, why do you accept - not         DB: ...energy...
accept, forgive me for using that word - why do
you even move along with this?                         K: ...energy, emptiness, silence, all that is. All that.
                                                       Not ground, you understand?
DB: Because we have come this far step by step,
seeing the necessity of each step.                     DB: No, it is just a metaphor.

K: You see all that is very logical, reasonable, and   K: There is nothing beyond it. No cause. If you
sane.                                                  have a cause then you have ground.

DB: And also, one can see that it is so right.         DB: You have another ground.

K: Yes. So if I say there is something greater than    K: No. That is the beginning and the ending.
all this silence, energy - would you accept that?
Accept in the sense that up to now we have been        DB: It is becoming clearer.
logical.
                                                       K: That's right. Does that convey anything to
DB: We will say that whatever you speak of there       you?
is certainly something beyond it. Silence, energy,
whatever, then there is always room logically for      DB: Yes, well I think that it conveys something.
something beyond that. But the point is this: that
even if you were to say there is something             K: Something. Would you say further, there is no
beyond that, still you logically leave room for        beginning and no ending?
going again beyond that.
                                                       DB: Yes. It comes from the ground, goes to the
K: No.                                                 ground, but it does not begin or end.

DB: Well why is that? You see, whatever you say,       K: Yes. There is no beginning and no ending. The
and there is always room for something beyond.         implications are enormous. Is that death - not
                                                       death in the sense, I will die, but the complete
K: There is nothing beyond.                            ending of everything?

DB: Well that point is not clear, you see.             DB: You see at first you said that the emptiness is
                                                       the ending of everything, so in what sense is this
K: There is nothing beyond it. I stick to that. Not    more, now? Emptiness is the ending of things,
dogmatically or obstinately. I feel that is the        isn’t it?
beginning and the ending of everything. The
ending and the beginning are the same - right?         K: Yes, yes. Is that death, this emptiness? Death
                                                       of everything the mind has cultivated. This
emptiness is not the product of the mind, of the     K: And that dies too.
particular mind.
                                                     DB: Into the ground, right?
DB: No, it is the universal mind.
                                                     K: Yes.
K: That emptiness is that.
                                                     DB: So you could say the ground is neither born
DB: Yes.                                             nor dies.

K: That emptiness can only exist when there is       K: That’s right.
death - total death - of the particular.
                                                     DB: Well, I think it becomes almost inexpressible
DB: Yes.                                             if you say the universal is gone, because
                                                     expression is the universal.
K: I don’t know if I am conveying this.
                                                     K: You see - I am just explaining: everything is
DB: Yes, that is the emptiness. But then you are     dying, except that. Does this convey anything?
saying that, in this ground, death goes further?
                                                     DB: Yes. Well it is out of that that everything
K: Oh, yes.                                          arises, and into which it dies.

DB: So we are saying the ending of the particular,   K: So that has no beginning and no ending.
the death of the particular, is the emptiness,
which is universal. Now are you going to say that    DB: What would it mean to talk of the ending of
the universal also dies?                             the universal? What would it mean to have the
                                                     ending of the universal?
K: Yes, that is what I am trying to say.
                                                     K: Nothing. Why should it have a meaning if it is
DB: Into the ground.                                 happening? What has that to do with man? You
                                                     follow what I mean? Man who is going through a
K: Does it convey anything?                          terrible time. What has that got to do with man?

DB: Possibly, yes.                                   DB: Let’s say that man feels he must have some
                                                     contact with the ultimate ground in his life,
K: just hold it a minute. Let’s see it. I think it   otherwise there is no meaning.
conveys something, doesn’t it?
                                                     K: But it hasn’t. That ground hasn’t any
DB: Yes. Now if the particular and the universal     relationship with man. He is killing himself; he is
die, then that is death?                             doing everything contrary to the ground.

K: Yes. After all, an astronomer says everything     DB: Yes, that is why life has no meaning for man.
in the universe is dying, exploding, dying.
                                                     K: I am an ordinary man; I say, all right, you have
DB: But of course you could suppose that there       talked marvelously of sunsets, but what has that
was something beyond.                                got to do with me? Will that or your talk help me
                                                     to get over my ugliness? My quarrels with my
K: Yes, that is just it.                             wife or whatever it is?

DB: I think we are moving. The universal and the     DB: I think I would go back, and say we went into
particular. First the particular dies into the       this logically starting from the suffering of
emptiness, and then comes the universal.
mankind, showing it originates in a wrong             K: Of course.
turning, that leads inevitably...
                                                      DB: Even going back, the ancient religions have
K: Yes, but man asks, help me to get past the         said similar things that God is the ground, so
wrong turn. Put me on the right path. And to that     they say seek God, you know.
one says, please don’t become anything.
                                                      K: Ah, no, this isn’t god.
DB: Right. What is the problem then?
                                                      DB: No, it is not god, but it is saying the same.
K: He won’t even listen.                              You could say that ‘god’ is an attempt to put this
                                                      notion a bit too personally perhaps.
DB: Then it seems to me that it is necessary for
the one who sees this to find out what is the         K: Yes. Give them hope, give them faith, you
barrier to listening.                                 follow? Make life a little more comfortable to
                                                      live.
K: Obviously you can see what the barrier is.
                                                      DB: Well, are you asking at this point: how is this
DB: What is the barrier?                              to be conveyed to the ordinary man? Is that your
                                                      question?
K: ‘I’.
                                                      K: More or less. And also it is important that he
DB: Yes, but I meant more deeply.                     should listen to this. You are a scientist. You are
                                                      good enough to listen because we are friends.
K: More deeply, all your thoughts, deep               But who will listen among the other scientists? I
attachments - all that is in your way. If you can’t   feel that if one pursues this we will have a
leave these, then you will have no relationship       marvelously ordered world.
with that. But man doesn’t want to leave these.
DB: Yes, I understand. What he wants is the           DB: Yes. And what will we do in this world?
result of the way he is thinking.
                                                      K: Live.
K: What he wants is some comfortable, easy way
of living without any trouble, and he can’t have      DB: But, I mean, we said something about
that.                                                 creativity...

DB: No. Only by dropping all this.                    K: Yes. And then if you have no conflict, no ‘I’,
                                                      there is something else operating.
K: There must be a connection. There must be
some relationship with the ground and this,           DB: Yes, it is important to say that, because the
some relationship with ordinary man. Otherwise,       Christian idea of perfection may seem rather
what is the meaning of living?                        boring because there is nothing to do!

DB: That is what I was trying to say before.          K: We must continue this some other time,
Without this relationship...                          because it is something that has got to be put
                                                      into orbit.
K: ...there is no meaning.
                                                      DB: It seems impossible.
DB: And then people invent meaning.
                                                      K: We have gone pretty far.
            Human beings continue behaving with the animal instincts? And it seems that the animal
        instincts, may be overpowering in their intensity and speed, and especially with young children.
       It may be that it is only natural for them to respond with the animal instinct. Even after a million
           years, we are still instinctively behaving like our ancestors? In some ways and probably our
          behavior is also complicated by thought; the animal instinct has now become entangled with
            thought, and it is getting in some ways worse. Far worse! All these instincts of hatred now
             become directed and sustained by thought, so that they are more subtle and dangerous.




T     he Ending of Time Chapter 7 17th April 1980          K: And during all these many centuries we haven’t
      Conversation with Prof. David Bohm ‘Death            found a way, a method, a system - something that will
      Has Very Little Meaning.’ David Joseph Bohm          move us away from that track. Is that it?
(20 December 1917 – 27 October 1992) was a
American-born British quantum physicist who made           DB: Yes. One of the difficulties, surely, is that when
contributions in the fields of theoretical physics,        people begin to be angry with each other, their anger
philosophy and neuropsychology, and to the                 builds up and they can’t seem to do anything about it.
Manhattan Project.                                         They may try to control it, but that doesn’t work.

KRISHNAMURTI: Are we saying that human beings              K: As we were saying, someone – ‘X’ - behaves
are still behaving with the animal instincts?              naturally in a way that is not a response to the animal
                                                           instinct. What place has this kind of insight in human
DAVID BOHM: Yes, and that the animal instincts, it         society? None at all?
seems, may be overpowering in their intensity and
speed, and especially with young children. It may be       DB: In society as it is, it cannot be accommodated,
that it is only natural for them to respond with the       because society is organized under the assumption
animal instinct.                                           that pain and pleasure are going to rule. You could
                                                           say that friendliness is a kind of animal instinct too,
K: So that means, after a million years, that we are       for people become friendly for instinctive reasons.
still instinctively behaving like our ancestors?           And perhaps they become enemies for similar
                                                           reasons.
DB: In some ways. Probably our behavior is also
complicated by thought; the animal instinct has now        So I think that some people would say that we should
become entangled with thought, and it is getting in        be rational rather than instinctive. There was a
some ways worse.                                           period during the 18th century, the Age of Reason,
                                                           when they said man could be rational, could choose
K: Far worse.                                              to be rational, in order to bring about harmony
                                                           everywhere.
DB: Because all these instincts of hatred now become
directed and sustained by thought, so that they are        K: But he hasn’t done so!
more subtle and dangerous.
DB: No, things got worse, leading to the French          DB: There are no rules.
Revolution, to the Terror and so on. But, after that,
people didn’t have so much faith in reason as a way of   K: No rules; let’s put it that way; it’s better. This order
getting anywhere, or coming out of conflict.             is not based on rules. This means insight, perception,
                                                         action, order. Then you come to the question, are
K: So where does that lead us? We were talking really    insight continuous, or are it by flashes?
about insight that actually changes the nature of the
brain itself.                                            DB: We went into that, and felt it was a wrong
                                                         question, so perhaps we can look at it differently. It is
DB: Yes, by dispelling the darkness in the brain,        not time binding.
insight allows the brain to function in a new way.
                                                         K: Not time binding. Yes, we agreed on that. So now
K: Thought has been operating in darkness, creating      let's get a little further. We said, didn’t we, that
its own darkness and functioning in that. And insight    insight is the elimination of the darkness which is the
is, as we said, like a flash which breaks down the       very centre of the self, the darkness that self creates?
darkness. Then when that insight clears the darkness,    Insight dispels that very centre.
does man act, or function, rationally?
                                                         DB: Yes. With the darkness, perception is not
DB: Yes, man will then function rationally, and with     possible. It’s blindness in a way.
perception, rather than by rules and reason. But
there is a freely flowing reason. You see, some people   K: Right, then what next? I am an ordinary man, with
identify reason with certain rules of logic which        all my animal instincts, pleasure and pain and reward
would be mechanical. But there can be reason as a        and punishment and so on. I hear you say this, and I
form of perception of order.                             see what you are saying has some kind of reason,
                                                         logic and order.
K: So we are saying, are we, that insight is
perception?                                              DB: Yes, it makes sense as far as we can see it.

DB: It is the flash of light which makes perception      K: It makes sense. Then how am I to have reason in
possible.                                                my life? How am I to bring it about? You understand
                                                         that these words which are difficult are all of them
K: Right, that’s it.                                     time binding. But is that possible?

DB: It is even more fundamental than perception.         DB: Yes, without time, you see.

K: So insight is pure perception, and from that          K: Is it possible for man with his narrow mind, to
perception there is action, which is then sustained by   have this insight, so that pattern of life is broken? As
rationality. Is that it?                                 we said the other day, we have tried all this, tried
                                                         every form of self-denial, and yet that insight doesn’t
DB: Yes.                                                 come about.

K: That’s right.                                         Once in a while there is a partial insight, but that
                                                         partial insight is not the whole insight, so there is still
DB: And the rationality is perception of order.          partial darkness.

K: So, would you say, there is insight, perception and   DB: Which doesn’t dispel the centre of the self. It may
order?                                                   dispel some darkness in a certain area, but the source
                                                         of the darkness, the creator, the sustainer of it, is still
DB: Yes.                                                 there.

K: But that order is not mechanical because it is not    K: Still there. Now what shall we do? But this is a
based on logic.                                          wrong question. This leads nowhere.
We have stated the general plan, right? And I have to         intensity which sweeps him away. Darkness arises
make the moves, or make no moves at all. I haven't            because it is so overwhelming.
the energy. I haven’t the capacity to see it quickly.
Because this is immediate, not just something that I          K: Yes, but why is it different with ‘X’?
practice and eventually get. I haven’t the capacity, I
haven’t the sense of urgency, of immediacy.                   DB: First of all it seems natural to most people that
Everything is against me: my family, my wife, society.        the animal instincts would take over.
Everything! And does this mean that I eventually
have to become a monk?                                        K: Yes, that’s right.

DB: No. Becoming a monk is the same as becoming               DB: And they would say the other fellow, ‘X’, is
anything else.                                                unnatural.

K: That’s right. Becoming a monk is like becoming a           K: Yes.
businessman! I see all this, verbally as well as
rationally, intellectually, but I can’t capture this thing.   DB: So that is the way mankind has been thinking,
Is there a different approach to this problem? I am           saying that if there are indeed any people who are
always asking the same question, because I am                 different they must be very unusual and unnatural.
caught in the same pattern. So, is there a totally
different way? A totally different approach to the            K: That’s it. Human beings have been responding to
whole turmoil of life? Is there a different manner of         hatred by hatred, and so on. There are those few,
looking at it? Or is the old way the only way?                perhaps many, who say that is not natural or rational.
                                                              Why has this division taken place?
We have said that as long as the centre is creating
darkness, and thought is operating in that darkness,          DB: If we say that pleasure and pain, fear and hate,
there must be disorder, and society will be as it is          are natural, then it is felt that we must battle to
now. To move away from that, you must have insight.           control these, otherwise they will destroy us. The
Insight can only come about when there is a flash, a          best we can hope for is to control them with reason,
sudden light, which abolishes not only darkness but           or through another way.
the creator of darkness.
                                                              K: But that doesn’t work! Are people like ‘X’, who
DB: Yes.                                                      function differently, the privileged few, by some
                                                              miracle, by some strange chance event?
K: Now I am asking if there is a different approach to
this question altogether, although an old response            DB: Many people would say that.
seems so absolute.
                                                              K: But it goes against one’s grain. I would not accept
DB: Well possibly. When you say it seems absolute,            that.
do you want a less absolute approach?
                                                              DB: Well, if that is not the case, then you have to say
K: I am saying that if that is the only way, then we are      why there is this difference.
doomed.
                                                              K: That is what I am trying to get at, because ‘X’ is
DB: You can’t produce this flash at will.                     born of the same parents.

K: No, it can’t be produced through will, through             DB: Yes, fundamentally the same, so why does he
sacrifice, through any form of human effort. That is          behave differently? K: This question has been asked
out; we know we have finished with all that. And also         many times, over and over again in different parts of
we agreed that to some people - to ‘X’ - this insight         the world. Now why is there this division?
seemed so natural and we asked why is it not natural
to others?                                                    QUESTIONER: Is the division really total? You see,
                                                              even the man who responds to hatred with hatred,
DB: If we begin with the child, it seems natural to the
child to respond with his animal instincts, with great
nevertheless sees that it doesn’t make sense, is not         DB: But the difference is not intrinsic, it is not
natural and should be different.                             structural, built in like the difference between a tree
                                                             and a rock.
K: It should be different, but he is still battling with
ideas. He is trying to get out of it by the exercise of      K: Agreed. As you say, there is a difference between a
thought which breeds darkness.                               rock and a tree, but it is not like that. Let’s be simple.
                                                             There are two responses. They start from the source;
Q: I just want to say that the division does not seem        one has taken one direction, and the other has taken
to be so entire.                                             a different direction. But the source is the same. Why
                                                             haven’t all of them moved in the right direction?
K: Oh, but the division is entire, complete.
                                                             DB: We haven’t managed to answer that. I was just
Q: Well, then, why are people not simply saying, let’s       saying that if one understands that, and then going
continue to live that way, and let’s enjoy it to the last    back to the source, one does not have to take the
moment?                                                      wrong turn. In a sense we are continually taking this
                                                             wrong turn, so if we can understand this, then it
K: Because they can’t see anything except their own          becomes possible to change. And we are continually
darkness.                                                    starting from the same source, not going back in time
                                                             to a source.
Q: But they want to get out of it.
                                                             K: Just a minute, just a minute.
K: Now wait a minute. Do they want to get out of it?
Do they actually realize the state they are in, and          DB: There are two possible ways of taking our
deliberately want to get out of it?                          statement. One is to say that the source is in time,
                                                             that far back in the past we started together and took
Q: They are ambivalent about it. They want to go on          different paths. The other is to say that the source is
getting the fruits of it, but they have a sense that it is   timeless, and we are continually taking the wrong
wrong, and that it leads to suffering.                       turn, again and again. Right?

DB: Or else they find they can’t help it. You see, when      K: Yes, it is constantly the wrong turn. Why?
the time comes to experience anger or pleasure, they
can’t get away.                                              Q: This means that there is the constant possibility of
                                                             the right turn.
K: They can’t help it.
                                                             K: Yes, of course. That’s it. If we say there is a source
Q: But they want to get out of it, although they are         from which we all began, then we are caught in time.
helpless. There are forces which are stronger than
their will.                                                  DB: We can’t go back.

K: So what shall we do? Or is this division false?           K: No, that is out. Therefore it is apparent that we are
                                                             taking the wrong turn all the time.
DB: That’s the point. We had better talk of a
difference between these two approaches. This                DB: Constantly.
difference is not fundamental.
                                                             K: Constantly taking the wrong turn. But why? The
K: I don’t think they have anything in common.               one who is living with insight and the other who is
                                                             not living with insight - are these constant? The man
DB: Why? You say the difference is false, although           who is living in darkness can move away at any time
fundamentally people are the same, but a difference          to the other. That is the point. At any time.
has developed between them. Perhaps most people
have taken a wrong turning.                                  DB: Then nothing holds him, except constantly taking
                                                             the wrong turn. You could say the darkness is such
K: Yes, let’s put it that way.                               that he doesn't see himself taking the wrong turn.
K: Are we pursuing the right direction, putting the           K: Vice versa, back and forth. And from all that,
right question? Suppose you have that insight, and            everything begins. I see that very clearly. What shall I
your darkness, the very centre of darkness, has been          do? So I don’t admit division.
dispelled completely. And I, a serious, fairly
intelligent human being, listen to you. And whatever          Q: Krishnaji, aren’t we introducing division again,
you have said seems reasonable, rational, sane. I             never the less, when we say there is the man who
question the division. The division is created by the         needs insight?
centre which creates darkness. Thought has created
it.                                                           K: But man has insight. ‘X’ has insight, and he has
                                                              explained very clearly how darkness has vanished. I
DB: Well, in darkness, thought creates the division.          listen to him, and he says your very darkness is
                                                              creating the division. Actually, there is no division, no
K: From the darkness a shadow is thrown; it makes a           division as light and darkness. So he asks me, can you
division.                                                     banish, can you put away this sense of division?

DB: If we have that insight, we say there is no               DB: You seem to be bringing back a division by saying
division.                                                     that, by saying that I should do it, you see.

K: Yes. And man won’t accept that, because in his             K: No, not ‘should’.
darkness there is nothing but division. So we, living
in darkness, have created the division. We have               DB: In a way you are saying that the thought process
created it in our thoughts...                                 of the mind seems spontaneously to produce division.
                                                              You say, try to put it aside, and at the same time it is
DB: We are constantly creating it.                            trying to make division.

K: Yes, always wanting to live constantly in a state in       K: I understand. But can my mind put away division?
which there is no division. That movement, however,           Or is that a wrong question?
is still the movement of darkness. Right?
                                                              Q: Can it put away division as long as it is divided?
DB: Yes.
                                                              K: No, it can’t. So what am I to do?
K: How am I to dispel this continuous, constant
darkness? That is the only question, because, as long         Listen. ‘X’ says something so extraordinarily true, of
as that exists, I create this constant division. You see,     such immense significance and beauty that my whole
this is going round in circles. I can only dispel the         being says ‘Capture it’. That is not a division.
darkness through insight, and I cannot have that
insight by any effort of will, so I am left with nothing.     I recognize that I am the creator of division, because I
So what is my problem? My problem is to perceive              am living in darkness, and so out of that darkness I
the darkness, to perceive the thought that is creating        create. But I have listened to ‘X’, who says there is no
darkness, and to see that the self is the source of this      division. And I recognize that is an extraordinary
darkness. Why can’t I see that? Why can’t I see it even       statement. So the very saying of that to one who has
logically?                                                    lived in constant division has an immediate effect.
                                                              Right?
DB: Well, it’s clear logically.
                                                              DB: I think that one has to, as you say, put away the
K: Yes, but somehow it doesn’t seem to operate. So            division...
what shall I do? I realize for the first time that the self
is creating the darkness which is constantly breeding         K: I will leave that; I won’t put it away. That
division. I see that very clearly.                            statement that ere is no division - I want to get at that
                                                              a little bit. I am getting somewhere with it.
DB: And the division produces the darkness anyway.
                                                              ‘X’ s’ statement from this insight, that there is no
                                                              division has a tremendous effect on me. I have lived
constantly in division, and come along and says there      K: Of course that is no argument, but it is so!
is no division. What effect has it on me?
                                                           DB: Living in darkness is not worthwhile. But now we
DB: Then you say there is no division. That makes          say that it is possible to listen in the darkness.
sense. But on the other hand it seems that the
division exists.                                           K: He, ‘X’, explains to me very, very carefully. I am
                                                           sensitive, I have been listening to him in my darkness,
K: I recognize the division, but the statement that        but that is making me sensitive, alive, watching. That
there is no division has this immense impact on me.        is what I have been doing. We have been doing it
That seems natural, doesn’t it? When I see something       together. And he makes a statement that there is
that is immovable, it must have some effect on me. I       absolutely no division. And I know that I am living in
respond to it with a tremendous shock.                     division. That very statement has brought the
                                                           constant movement to an end.
DB: You see, if you were talking about something
which was in front of us, and you said, ‘No, it is not     Otherwise, if this doesn’t take place I have nothing -
that way’, then that would, of course, change your         you follow? I am perpetually living in darkness. But
whole way of seeing it. Now you say this division is       there is a voice in the wilderness, and listening to that
not that way. We try to look and see if that is so -       voice has an extraordinary effect.
right?
                                                           DB: Listening reaches the source of the movement,
K: I don’t even say, ‘Is that so? ‘X’ has very carefully   whereas observation does not.
explained whole business, and he says at the end of it
that there is no division. And I am sensitive, watching    K: Yes, I have observed, I have listened, I have played
very carefully, and realizing that I am constantly         all kinds of games all my life. And I now see that there
living in division. When ‘X’ makes that statement it       is only one thing. That there is this constant darkness
has broken the pattern.                                    and I am acting in the darkness; in this wilderness
                                                           which is darkness; whose centre is the self. I see that
I don’t know if you follow what I am trying to             absolutely, completely; I can’t argue against it any
explain? It has broken the pattern, because he has         more. And ‘X’ comes along and tells me this. In that
said something which is so fundamentally true. There       wilderness a voice says there is water. You follow? It
is no God and man. Right, Sir, I stick to that. I see      is not hope. There is immediate action in me.
something - which is, where hatred exists the other is
not. But, hating, I want the other. So constant division   One must realize that this constant movement in
is born out of darkness. And the darkness is constant.     darkness is my life. You follow what I am saying? Can
But I have been listening very carefully, and ‘X’ makes    I, with all the experience, with all the knowledge
a statement which seems absolutely true. That enters       which I have gathered over a million years, suddenly
into me, and the act of his statement dispels the          realize that I am living in total darkness? Because
darkness. I am not making an effort to get rid of          that means I have reached the end of all hope. Right?
darkness, but ‘X’ is the light. That’s right, I hold to    But my hope is also darkness. The future is out
that.                                                      altogether, so I am left with this enormous darkness,
                                                           and I am there. That means, the realization of that is
So it comes to something, which is, can I listen with      the ending of becoming. I have reached that point and
my darkness - in my darkness, which is constant? In        ‘X’ tells me this is natural.
that darkness, can I listen to you? Of course I can. I
am living in constant division which brings darkness.      You see, all the religions have said this division exists.
‘X’ comes along and tells me there is no division.
                                                           DB: But, they say it can be overcome.
Right. Now why do you say you can listen in the
darkness?                                                  K: It is the   same pattern repeated. It doesn’t matter
                                                           who said       it, but the fact is somebody in this
K: Oh, yes, I can listen in darkness. If I can’t I am      wilderness       is saying something, and in that
doomed.                                                    wilderness     I have been listening to every voice, and
                                                           to my own      voice, which has created more and more
DB: But that is no argument.
darkness. Yet, this is right. That means doesn’t it, that    K: Yes. Would you say the ground is endless
when there is insight there is no division?                  movement?

DB: Yes.                                                     DB: Yes.

K: It is not your insight or my insight, it is insight. In   K: What does that mean?
that there is no division.
                                                             DB: Well, it is difficult to express.
DB: Yes.
                                                             K: Keep on going into it; let’s express it. What is
K: Which brings us to that ground we spoke of...             movement, apart from movement from here to there,
                                                             apart from time - is there any other movement?
DB: What about the ground?
                                                             DB: Yes.
K: In that ground there is no darkness as darkness, or
light as light. In that ground, there is no division.        K: There is. The movement from being to becoming,
Nothing is born of will, or time, or thought.                psychologically. There is the movement of distance;
                                                             there is the movement of time. We say those are all
DB: Are you saying that light and darkness are not           divisions. Is there a movement which in itself has no
divided?                                                     division? When you have made that statement that
                                                             there is no division, there is that movement surely?
K: Right.
                                                             DB: Well, are you saying that when there is no
DB: Which means to say there is neither.                     division that movement is there?

K: Neither, that’s it! There is something else. There is     K: Yes, and I said, ‘X’ says that is the ground.
a perception that there is a different movement,
which is ‘non dualistic’.                                    DB: Right.

DB: Non-dualistic means what? No division.                   K: Would you say it has no end, no beginning?

K: No division. I won’t use ‘non-dualistic’. There is no     DB: Yes.
division.
                                                             K: Which means again time.
DB: But nevertheless there is movement.
                                                             DB: Can one say that movement has no form?
K: Of course.
                                                             K: No form - all that. I want to go a little further. What
DB: What does that mean now, without division?               I am asking is, we said that when you have stated
                                                             there is no division, this means no division in
K: I mean by movement, that movement which is not            movement.
time. That movement doesn’t breed division. So I
want to go back, lead to the ground. If, in that ground,     DB: It flows without division, you see.
there is neither darkness nor light, no God or the son
of God - there is no division - what takes place?            K: Yes, it is a movement in which there is no division.
Would you say that the ground is movement?                   Do I capture the significance of that? Do I understand
                                                             the depth of that statement? A movement in which
DB: Well, it could be, yes. Movement is undivided.           there is no division, which means no time, no
                                                             distance as we know it. No element of time in it at all.
K: No. I say there is movement in darkness.                  So I am trying to see if that movement is surrounding
                                                             man?
DB: Yes, but we said there is no division of darkness
and light, and yet you said there is movement.               DB: Yes, enveloping.
K: I want to get at this. I am concerned with mankind,       DB: Yes.
humanity, which is me. ‘X’ has made several
statements, and I have captured a statement which            K: You have abolished totally the fear of death.
seems so absolutely true - that there is no division.
Which means that there is no action which is divisive.       DB: Yes, I understand that when the mind is
                                                             partaking in that movement, then the mind is that
DB: Yes.                                                     movement.

K: I see that. And I also ask, is that movement without      K: That’s all! The mind is that movement.
time, etc? It seems that it is the world, you follow?
                                                             DB: Would you say that matter is also that
DB: The universe.                                            movement?

K: The universe, the cosmos, the whole.                      K: Yes, I would say everything is. In my darkness I
                                                             have listened to ‘X’. That's most important. And his
DB: The totality.                                            clarity has broken my spell. When he said there is no
                                                             division, he abolished the division between life and
K: Totality. Isn’t there a statement in the Jewish           death. I don't know if you see this?
world, ‘Only God can say I am’?
                                                             DB: Yes.
DB: Well, that's the way the language is built. It is not
necessary to state it.                                       K: One can never say then, `I am immortal'. It is so
                                                             childish.
K: No, I understand. You follow what I am trying to
get at?                                                      DB: Yes, that's the division.

DB: Yes that only this movement is.                          K: Or, ‘I am seeking immortality’. Or, `I am becoming'.
                                                             We have wiped away the whole sense of moving in
K: Can the mind be of that movement? Because that is         darkness.
timeless, therefore deathless.
                                                             Q: What then would be the significance of the world?
DB: Yes, the movement is without death; in so far as         Is there significance to it?
the mind takes part in that, it is the same.
                                                             K: The world?
K: You understand what I am saying?
                                                             Q: With man.
DB: Yes. But what dies when the individual dies?
                                                             DB: Society, do you mean?
K: That has no meaning, because once I have
understood there is no division...                           Q: Yes, it seems that when you make that statement,
                                                             there is no division, and life is death - what then is the
DB: ...then it is not important.                             significance of man with all his struggle?

K: Death has no meaning.                                     K: Man in darkness. What importance has that? It is
                                                             like struggling in a locked room. That is the whole
DB: It still has a meaning in some other context.            point.

K: Oh, the ending of the body; that's totally trivial. But   DB: Significance can only rise when the darkness is
you understand? I want to capture the significance of        dispelled.
the statement that there is no division, it has broken
the spell of my darkness, and I see that there is a          K: Of course. Q: The only significance is the dispelling
movement, and that’s all. Which means death has              of the darkness.
very little meaning.
K: Oh, no, no!                                               DB: Yes. The mind emerges from the movement as a
                                                             ground, and falls back to the ground; that is what we
DB: Aren’t we going to say that something more can           are saying.
be done besides dispelling the darkness?
                                                             K: Yes, that’s right. Mind emerges from the
K: have listened very carefully to everything that you,      movement.
who have sight, say. What you have done is to dispel
the centre. In darkness I could invent many things of        DB: And it dies back into the movement.
significance; that there is light, here is God, there is
beauty, and there is this and that. But it is still in the   K: That’s right. It has its being in the movement.
area of darkness. Caught in a room full of darkness, I
can invent a lot of pictures, but I want to get              DB: Yes, and matter also.
something else. Is the mind the one who has this
insight - who therefore dispels darkness and has             K: So, what I want to get at is, I am a human being
understanding of the ground which is movement                faced with this ending and beginning. And ‘X’
without time - is that mind itself the movement?             abolishes that.

DB: Yes, but it isn’t the totality. The mind is the          DB: Yes, it is not fundamental.
movement, but we are saying movement is matter,
movement is mind. And we were saying that the                K: It is not fundamental. One of the greatest fears of
ground may be beyond the universal mind. You said            life, which is death, has been removed.
earlier that the movement, that the ground, is more
than the universal mind, more than the emptiness.            DB: Yes.

K: We said that; much more.                                  K: You see what it does to a human being when there
                                                             is no death? It means the mind doesn’t age - the
DB: Much more. But we have to get this clear. We say         ordinary mind I am talking about. I don’t know if I am
that the mind is this movement.                              conveying this.

K: Yes, mind is the movement.                                DB: Let’s go slowly. You say the mind does not age,
                                                             but what if the brain cells age?
DB: We are not saying that this movement is only
mind?                                                        K: I question it.

K: No, no, no.                                               DB: But how can we know that?

DB: That is the point I was trying to get correct.           K: Because there is no conflict, because there is no
                                                             strain, there is no becoming, no movement.
K: Mind is the movement - mind, in the sense, ‘the
ground’.                                                     DB: This is something that it is hard to communicate
                                                             with certainty about.
DB: But you said that the ground goes beyond the
mind.                                                        K: Of course. You can’t prove any of this.

K: Now just a minute: what do you mean by ‘beyond            DB: But the other, what we have said so far...
the mind’?
                                                             K: ...can be reasoned.
DB: just going back to what we were discussing a few
days ago: we said we have the emptiness, the                 DB: It is reason, and also you can feel it. But now you
universal mind, and then the ground is beyond that.          are stating something about the brain cells that I have
                                                             no feeling for. It might be so; it could be so.
K: Would you say beyond that is this movement?
K: I think it is so. I won’t discuss it. When a mind has   K: Yes, but the brain, which has had insight, has
lived in the darkness and is in constant movement          changed the cells.
there is the wearing out, the darkness and is in
constant movement there is the wearing out, the            Q: Are you implying that even the organic brain does
decay of the cells.                                        not live in time anymore?

DB: We could say that this conflict will cause cells to    K: No, don’t bring in time yet. We are saying that
decay. But somebody might argue that perhaps even          insight brings about a change in the brain cells.
without conflict they could decay at a slower rate.        Which means that the brain cells are no longer
Let’s say if you were to live hundreds of years, for       thinking in terms of time.
example, in time the cells would decay no matter
what you did.                                              Q: Psychological time?

K: Go into this slowly.                                    K: Of, course that is understood.

DB: I can readily accept that the rate of decay of the     DB: If they are not so disturbed, they will remain in
cells could be cut down when we get rid of conflict.       order and perhaps they will break down more slowly.
                                                           We might increase the age limit from one hundred
K: Decay can be slowed down.                               and fifty to two hundred years, provided one also had
                                                           healthy living at all levels.
DB: Perhaps a great deal.
                                                           K: Yes, but all that sounds so very trivial.
K: A great deal. Ninety per cent.
                                                           DB: Yes, it doesn’t seem to make much difference,
DB: That we could understand. But if you say a             although it is an interesting idea.
hundred per cent, then it is hard to understand.
                                                           K: What if I live another hundred years? We are
K: Ninety per cent. Wait a minute. It can be very, very    trying to find out what effect this extraordinary
greatly slowed down. And that means what? What             movement has on the brain.
happens to a mind that has no conflict? What is that
mind, what is the quality of that mind which has no        DB: Yes. If we say the brain is in some way directly
problem? You see, suppose such a mind lives in pure        enveloped in this movement; that would bring it to
unpolluted air, having the right kind of food and so       order. But there is a real direct flow, physically.
on, why can’t it live two hundred years?
                                                           K: Not only physically.
DB: Well it is possible; some people have lived for a
hundred and fifty years, living in very pure air, and      DB: But also mentally.
eating good food.
                                                           K: Yes, both. It must have an extraordinary effect on
K: But you see, if those very people who have lived a      the brain.
hundred and fifty years, had no conflict, they might
live very much longer.                                     Q: You talked earlier about energy. Not the everyday
                                                           energy...
DB: They might. There was a case I was reading of a
man in England who lived to be a hundred and fifty.        K: We said that that movement is total energy. Now
And the doctors became interested in him. They             this insight has captured, seen, that extraordinary
wined and dined him, and then he died in a few days!       movement, and it is part of that energy. I want to
                                                           come much closer to earth; I have lived with the fear
K: Poor devil!                                             of death, fear of not becoming, and so on. Suddenly I
                                                           see there is no division, and I understand the whole
Q: Krishnaji, you generally say that anything that         thing. So what has happened to my brain - you
lives in time also dies in time.                           follow?
Let’s see something. See this whole thing, not              K: I am talking of the movement of thought, the
verbally, but as a tremendous reality, as truth. With       movement of any reaction.
all your heart, mind, you see this thing. That very
perception must affect your brain.                          DB: Yes. There is no movement in which the brain
                                                            moves independently. You were saying that there is
DB: Yes. It brings order.                                   the movement of the whole, but the brain does not go
                                                            off on its own, as thought.
K: Not only order in life but in the brain.
                                                            K: You see, you have abolished death, which is a
DB: People can prove that if they are under stress the      tremendously significant thing. And so I say, what is
brain cells start to break down. And if you have order      the brain, the mind, when there is no death. You
in the brain cells, then it is quite different.             follow? It has undergone a surgical operation.

K: I have a feeling, Sir – don’t laugh at it; it may be     DB: We said the brain normally has the notion of
false, it may be true - I feel that the brain never loses   death continually there in the background, and that
the quality of that movement.                               notion is constantly disturbing the brain, because the
                                                            brain foresees death, and it is trying to stop it.
DB: Once it has it.
                                                            K: To stop the ending of itself, and so on.
K: Of course. I am talking of the person who has been
through all this.                                           DB: It fore sees all that, and thinks it must stop it, but
                                                            it can't.
DB: So probably the brain never loses that quality.
                                                            K: It can’t.
K: Therefore it is no longer involved in time.
                                                            DB: And therefore it has a problem.
DB: It would no longer be dominated by time. The
brain, from what we were saying, is not evolving in         K: A constant struggle with it. So all that has come to
any sense, it is just confusion. You can’t say that         an end. What an extraordinary thing has taken place!
man’s brain has evolved during the last ten thousand        How does it affect my daily life, because I have to live
years. You see science, knowledge, has evolved, but         on this earth? My daily life is aggression, this
people felt the same about life several thousand years      everlasting becoming, striving for success - all that
ago as they do now.                                         has gone. We will pursue this but we have
                                                            understood a great deal today.
K: I want to find out: in that silent emptiness that we
went through, is the brain absolutely still? In the         DB: In bringing in the question of daily life you might
sense, no movement.                                         bring in the question of compassion.

DB: Not absolutely. You see, the blood is going in the      K: Of course. Is that movement compassion?
brain.
                                                            DB: It would be beyond.
K: We are not talking of that.
                                                            K: That’s it. That’s why one must be awfully careful.
DB: What kind of movement are we discussing?
                                                            DB: Then again, compassion might emerge out of it.
M
         an has throughout the ages been                 saints. We say, ‘Tell me all about it - what lies
         seeking something beyond himself,               beyond the hills and the mountains and the
         beyond material welfare - something             earth?’ and we are satisfied with their
we call truth or God or reality, a timeless state -      descriptions, which means that we live on words
something that cannot be disturbed by                    and our life is shallow and empty. We are
circumstances, by thought or by human                    secondhand people. We have lived on what we
corruption.                                              have been told, either guided by our inclinations,
                                                         our tendencies, or compelled to accept by
Man has always asked the question: what is it all        circumstances and environment. We are the
about? Has life any meaning at all? He sees the          result of all kinds of influences and there is
enormous confusion of life, the brutalities, the         nothing new in us, nothing that we have
revolt, the wars, the endless divisions of religion,     discovered for ourselves; nothing original,
ideology and nationality, and with a sense of            pristine, clear.
deep abiding frustration he asks, what is one to
do, what is this thing we call living, is there          Throughout theological history we have been
anything beyond it?                                      assured by religious leaders that if we perform
                                                         certain rituals, repeat certain prayers or
And not finding this nameless thing of a                 mantras, conform to certain patterns, suppress
thousand names which he has always sought, he            our desires, control our thoughts, sublimate our
has cultivated faith - faith in a savior or an ideal -   passions, limit our appetites and refrain from
and faith invariably breeds violence.                    sexual indulgence, we shall, after sufficient
                                                         torture of the mind and body, find something
In this constant battle which we call living, we         beyond this little life. And that is what millions of
try to set a code of conduct according to the            so-called religious people have done through the
society in which we are brought up, whether it           ages, either in isolation, going off into the desert
be a Communist society or a so-called free               or into the mountains or a cave or wandering
society; we accept a standard of behavior as part        from village to village with a begging bowl, or, in
of our tradition as Hindus or Muslims or                 a group, joining a monastery, forcing their minds
Christians or whatever we happen to be. We look          to conform to an established pattern. But a
to someone to tell us what is right or wrong             tortured mind, a broken mind, a mind which
behavior, what is right or wrong thought, and in         wants to escape from all turmoil, which has
following this pattern our conduct and our               denied the outer world and been made dull
thinking become mechanical, our responses                through discipline and conformity - such a mind,
automatic. We can observe this very easily in            however long it seeks, will find only according to
ourselves.                                               its own distortion.

For centuries we have been spoon-fed by our              So to discover whether there actually is or is not
teachers, by our authorities, by our books, our          something beyond this anxious, guilty, fearful,
competitive existence, it seems to me that one           The question of whether or not there is a God or
must have a completely different approach                truth or reality, or whatever you like to call it,
altogether. The traditional approach is from the         can never be answered by books, by priests,
periphery inwards, and through time, practice            philosophers or saviors. Nobody and nothing can
and renunciation, gradually to come upon that            answer the question but you yourself and that is
inner flower, that inner beauty and love - in fact       why you must know yourself. Immaturity lies
to do everything to make oneself narrow, petty           only in total ignorance of self. To understand
and shoddy; peel off little by little; take time;        yourself is the beginning of wisdom.
tomorrow will do, next life will do - and when at
last one comes to the centre one finds there is          And what is yourself, the individual you? I think
nothing there, because one's mind has been               there is a difference between the human being
made incapable, dull and insensitive.                    and the individual. The individual is a local
                                                         entity, living in a particular country, belonging to
Having observed this process, one asks oneself,          a particular culture, particular society, and
is there not a different approach altogether - that      particular religion. The human being is not a
is, is it not possible to explode from the centre?       local entity. He is everywhere. If the individual
                                                         merely acts in a particular corner of the vast field
The world accepts and follows the traditional            of life, then his action is totally unrelated to the
approach. The primary cause of disorder in               whole. So one has to bear in mind that we are
ourselves is the seeking of reality promised by          talking of the whole not the part, because in the
another; we mechanically follow somebody who             greater the lesser is, but in the lesser the greater
will assure us a comfortable spiritual life. It is a     is not. The individual is the little conditioned,
most extraordinary thing that although most of           miserable, frustrated entity, satisfied with his
us are opposed to political tyranny and                  little gods and his little traditions, whereas a
dictatorship, we inwardly accept the authority,          human being is concerned with the total welfare,
the tyranny, of another to twist our minds and           the total misery and total confusion of the world.
our way of life. So fl we completely reject, not
intellectually but actually, all so-called spiritual     We human beings are what we have been for
authority, all ceremonies, rituals and dogmas, it        millions of years - -colossally greedy, envious,
means that we stand alone and are already in             aggressive, jealous, anxious and despairing, with
conflict with society; we cease to be respectable        occasional flashes of joy and affection. We are a
human beings. A respectable human being                  strange mixture of hate, fear and gentleness; we
cannot possibly come near to that infinite,              are both violence and peace. There has been
immeasurable, reality.                                   outward progress from the bullock cart to the jet
                                                         plane but psychologically the individual has not
You have now started by denying something                changed at all, and the structure of society
absolutely false - the traditional approach - but if     throughout the world has been created by
you deny it as a reaction you will have created          individuals. The outward social structure is the
another pattern in which you will be trapped; if         result of the inward psychological structure of
you tell yourself intellectually that this denial is a   our human relationships, for the individual is the
very good idea but do nothing about it, you              result of the total experience, knowledge and
cannot go any further. If you deny it however,           conduct of man. Each one of us is the storehouse
because you understand the stupidity and                 of all the past. The individual is the human who
immaturity of it, if you reject it with tremendous       is all mankind. The whole history of man is
intelligence, because you are free and not               written in ourselves.
frightened, you will create a great disturbance in
yourself and around you but you will step out of         Do observe what is actually taking place within
the trap of respectability. Then you will find that      yourself and outside yourself in the competitive
you are no longer seeking. That is the first thing       culture in which you live with its desire for
to learn - not to seek. When you seek you are            power, position, prestige, name, success and all
really only window-shopping.                             the rest of it - observe the achievements of which
you are so proud, this whole field you call living      question. Is there anything to be done at all?
in which there is conflict in every form of             What can we do? Will somebody tell us? People
relationship, breeding hatred, antagonism,              have told us. The so-called spiritual leaders, who
brutality and endless wars. This field, this life, is   are supposed to understand these things better
all we know, and being unable to understand the         than we do, have told us by trying to twist and
enormous battle of existence we are naturally           mould us into a new pattern, and that hasn't led
afraid of it and find escape from it in all sorts of    us very far; sophisticated and learned men have
subtle ways. And we are frightened also of the          told us and that has led us no further. We have
unknown - frightened of death, frightened of            been told that all paths lead to truth - you have
what lies beyond tomorrow. So we are afraid of          your path as a Hindu and someone else has his
the known and afraid of the unknown. That is            path as a Christian and another as a Muslim, and
our daily life and in that there is no hope, and        they all meet at the same door - which is, when
therefore every form of philosophy, every form          you look at it, so obviously absurd. Truth has no
of theo- logical concept, is merely an escape from      path, and that is the beauty of truth, it is living. A
the actual reality of what is.                          dead thing has a path to it because it is static, but
                                                        when you see that truth is something living,
All outward forms of change brought about by            moving, which has no resting place, which is in
wars, revolutions, reformations, laws and               no temple, mosque or church, which no religion,
ideologies have failed completely to change the         no teacher, no philosopher, nobody can lead you
basic nature of man and therefore of society. As        to - then you will also see that this living thing is
human beings living in this monstrously ugly            what you actually are - your anger, your
world, let us ask ourselves, can this society,          brutality, your violence, your despair, the agony
based on competition, brutality and fear, come to       and sorrow you live in. In the understanding of
an end? Not as an intellectual conception, not as       all this is the truth, and you can understand it
a hope, but as an actual fact, so that the mind is      only if you know how to look at those things in
made fresh, new and innocent and can bring              your life. And you cannot look through an
about a different world altogether? It can only         ideology, through a screen of words, through
happen, I think, if each one of us recognizes the       hopes and fears.
central fact that we, as individuals, as human
beings, in whatever part of the world we happen         So you see that you cannot depend upon
to live or whatever culture we happen to belong         anybody. There is no guide, no teacher, no
to, are totally responsible for the whole state of      authority. There is only you - your relationship
the world.                                              with others and with the world - there is nothing
                                                        else. When you realize this, it either brings great
We are each one of us responsible for every war         despair, from which comes cynicism and
because of the aggressiveness of our own lives,         bitterness, or, in facing the fact that you and
because of our nationalism, our selfishness, our        nobody else is responsible for the world and for
gods, our prejudices, our ideals, all of which          yourself, for what you think, what you feel, how
divide us. And only when we realize, not                you act, all self-pity goes. Normally we thrive on
intellectually but actually, as actually as we          blaming others, which is a form of self-pity.
would recognize that we are hungry or in pain,
that you and I are responsible for all this existing    Can you and I, then, bring about in ourselves
chaos, for all the misery throughout the entire         without any outside influence, without any
world because we have contributed to it in our          persuasion, without any fear of punishment - can
daily lives and are part of this monstrous society      we bring about in the very essence of our being a
with its wars, divisions, its ugliness, brutality and   total revolution, a psychological mutation, so
greed - only then will we act.                          that we are no longer brutal, violent,
                                                        competitive, anxious, fearful, greedy, envious
But what can a human being do - what can you            and all the rest of the manifestations of our
and I do - to create a completely different             nature which have built up the rotten society in
society? We are asking ourselves a very serious         which we live our daily lives?
It is important to understand from the very               revolution: you are merely searching for a
beginning that I am not formulating any                   method, a system, to bring about change.
philosophy or any theological structure of ideas
or theological concepts. It seems to me that all          If I were foolish enough to give you a system and
ideologies are utterly idiotic. What is important         if you were foolish enough to follow it, you
is not a philosophy of life but to observe what is        would merely be copying, imitating, conforming,
actually taking place in our daily life, inwardly         accepting, and when you do that you have set up
and outwardly. If you observe very closely what           in yourself the authority of another and hence
is taking place and examine it, you will see that it      there is conflict between you and that authority.
is based on an intellectual conception, and the           You feel you must do such and such a thing
intellect is not the whole field of existence; it is a    because you have been told to do it and yet you
fragment, and a fragment, however cleverly put            are incapable of doing it. You have your own
together, however ancient and traditional, is still       particular inclinations, tendencies and pressures
a small part of existence whereas we have to deal         which conflict with the system you think you
with the totality of life. And when we look at            ought to follow and therefore there is a
what is taking place in the world we begin to             contradiction. So you will lead a double life
understand that there is no outer and inner               between the ideology of the system and the
process; there is only one unitary process, it is a       actuality of your daily existence. In trying to
whole, total movement, the inner movement                 conform to the ideology, you suppress yourself -
expressing itself as the outer and the outer              whereas what is actually true is not the ideology
reacting again on the inner. To be able to look at        but what you are. If you try to study yourself
this seems to me all that is needed, because if we        according to another you will always remain a
know how to look, then the whole thing becomes            secondhand human being.
very clear, and to look needs no philosophy, no
teacher. Nobody need tell you how to look. You            A man who says, ‘I want to change, tell me how
just look.                                                to’, seems very earnest, very serious, but he is
                                                          not. He wants an authority whom he hopes will
Can you then, seeing this whole picture, seeing it        bring about order in himself. But can authority
not verbally but actually, can you easily,                ever bring about inward order? Order imposed
spontaneously, transform yourself? That is the            from without must always breed disorder. You
real issue. Is it possible to bring about a complete      may see the truth of this intellectually but can
revolution in the psyche?                                 you actually apply it so that your mind no longer
                                                          projects any authority, the authority of a book, a
I wonder what your reaction is to such a                  teacher, a wife or husband, a parent, a friend or
question. You may say, ‘I don’t want to change’,          of society? Because we have always functioned
and most people don’t, especially those who are           within the pattern of a formula, the formula
fairly secure socially and economically or who            becomes the ideology and the authority; but the
hold dogmatic beliefs and are content to accept           moment you really see that the question, ‘How
themselves and things as they are or in a slightly        can I change?’ sets up a new authority, you have
modified form. With those people we are not               finished with authority for ever.
concerned. Or you may say more subtly, ‘Well,
it’s too difficult, it’s not for me’, in which case you   Let us state it again clearly: I see that I must
will have already blocked yourself, you will have         change completely from the roots of my being; I
ceased to enquire and it will be no use going any         can no longer depend on any tradition because
further. Or else you may say, ‘I see the necessity        tradition has brought about this colossal
for a fundamental inward change in myself but             laziness, acceptance and obedience; I cannot
how am I to bring it about? Please show me the            possibly look to another to help me to change,
way, help me towards it.’ If you say that, then           not to any teacher, any God, any belief, any
what you are concerned with is not change itself;         system, any outside pressure or influence. What
you are not really interested in a fundamental            then takes place?
First of all, can you reject all authority? If you can   ideals. You had an experience yesterday which
it means that you are no longer afraid. Then             taught you something and what it taught you
what happens? When you reject something false            becomes a new authority - and that authority of
which you have been carrying about with you for          yesterday is as destructive as the authority of a
generations, when you throw off a burden of any          thousand years. To understand ourselves needs
kind, what takes place? You have more energy,            no authority either of yesterday or of a thousand
haven't you? You have more capacity, more                years because we are living things, always
drive, greater intensity and vitality. If you do not     moving, flowing, and never resting. When we
feel this, then you have not thrown off the              look at ourselves with the dead authority of
burden, you have not discarded the dead weight           yesterday, we will fail to understand the living
of authority.                                            movement and the beauty and quality of that
                                                         movement.
But when you have thrown it off and have this
energy in which there is no fear at all - no fear of     To be free of all authority, of your own and that
making a mistake, no fear of doing right or              of another, is to die to everything of yesterday, so
wrong - then is not that energy itself the               that your mind is always fresh, always young,
mutation? We need a tremendous amount of                 innocent, full of vigor and passion. It is only in
energy and we dissipate it through fear but when         that state that one learns and observes. And for
there is this energy which comes from throwing           this a great deal of awareness is required, actual
off every form of fear, that energy itself produces      awareness of what is going on inside yourself,
the radical inward revolution. You do not have to        without correcting it or telling it what it should
do a thing about it.                                     or should not be, because the moment you
                                                         correct it you have established another
So you are left with yourself, and that is the           authority, a censor.
actual state for a man to be who is very serious
about all this; and as you are no longer looking to      So now we are going to investigate ourselves
anybody or anything for help, you are already            together - not one person explaining while you
free to discover. And when there is freedom,             read, agreeing or disagreeing with him as you
there is energy; and when there is freedom it can        follow the words on the page, but taking a
never do anything wrong. Freedom is entirely             journey together, a journey of discovery into the
different from revolt. There is no such thing as         most secret corners of our minds. And to take
doing right or wrong when there is freedom. You          such a journey we must travel light; we cannot
are free and from that centre you act. And hence         be burdened with opinions, prejudices and
there is no fear, and a mind that has no fear is         conclusions - all that old furniture we have
capable of great love. And when there is love it         collected for the last two thousand years and
can do what it will.                                     more. Forget all you know about yourself; forget
                                                         all you have ever thought about yourself; we are
What we are now going to do, therefore, is to            going to start as if we knew nothing.
learn about ourselves, not according to me or to
some analyst or philosopher - because if we              It rained last night heavily, and now the skies are
learn about ourselves according to someone else,         beginning to clear; it is a new fresh day. Let us meet
we learn about them, not ourselves - we are              that fresh day as if it were the only day. Let us start
going to learn what we actually are.                     on our journey together with all the remembrance of
                                                         yesterday left behind - and begin to understand
Having realized that we can depend on no                 ourselves for the first time.
outside authority in bringing about a total
revolution within the structure of our own
psyche, there is the immensely greater difficulty
of rejecting our own inward authority, the
authority of our own particular little experiences
and accumulated opinions, knowledge, ideas and
                                  Fear is part of pain; is there fear without thought?

How does one go beyond the defenses cultivated in childhood? Would one go to a psychoanalyst? One may think that is
 the easiest way and one may think that he will cure all the problems arising from one’s childhood. He cannot. He may
slightly modify them. So what will one do? There is nobody one can go to. Will one face that? There is nobody. Has one
 ever faced that fact that there is nobody one can go to? If one has cancer one can go to a doctor that is different from
the psychological knowledge that one has developed during childhood which causes one to become neurotic; and most
                                                  people are neurotic.

Question: Does not thought originate as a defense              unbalanced? One cannot go to anybody; so what is
against pain? The infant begins to think in order to           taking place in one’s mind now that one no longer
separate itself from physical pain. Is thought -               depends on others, on books, on psychologists, on
which is psychological knowledge - the result of               authority? What has happened to one’s mind if one
pain, or is pain the result of thought? How does               actually realizes that one cannot possibly go to
one go beyond the defenses developed in                        anybody? Neuroticism is the result of dependence.
childhood?                                                     One depends on one’s wife, on the doctor; one
                                                               depends on God or on the psychologists.
Jiddu Krishnamurti - Put a pin into a leg and there is
pain; then there is anxiety that the pain should end.          One has established a series of dependences around
That is the momentum of thinking, the nervous                  one, hoping that in those dependences one will be
reaction; then comes identification with that reaction         secure. And when one discovers that one cannot
and one says: ‘I hope it will end and I must not have it       depend on anybody, what happens? One is bringing
in the future’. All, that is part of the momentum of           about a tremendous psychological revolution; one is
thinking. Fear is part of pain; is there fear without          usually unwilling to face it. One depends on one’s wife;
thought?                                                       she encourages one to be dependent on her; and vice
                                                               versa. That is part of one’s neurosis. One does not
Have you ever experimented with dissociating                   throw it out, one examines it. Can one be free of it, not
thought from pain? Sit in a dentist’s chair for some           depending on one’s wife - psychologically, of course?
time and watch the things going on; your mind                  One will not do it because one is frightened; one wants
observing without identifying. You can do this. I sat in       something from her, sex or this or that. Or she
the dentist’s chair for four hours; never a single             encourages one with one’s ideas, helps one to
thought came into my mind.                                     dominate, to be ambitious, or says one is a marvelous
                                                               philosopher.
How does one go beyond the defenses cultivated in
childhood? Would one go to a psychoanalyst? One may            But see that the very state of dependence on another
think that is the easiest way and one may think that he        may be the cause of the deep psychological neurosis.
will cure all the problems arising from one’s                  When one breaks that pattern, what happens? One is
childhood. He cannot. He may slightly modify them. So          sane! One must have such sanity to find out what truth
what will one do? There is nobody one can go to. Will
                                                               is. Dependence has been from childhood, it has been a
one face that? There is nobody. Has one ever faced
that fact that there is nobody one can go to? If one has       factor against pain and hurt, a factor for comfort, for
cancer one can go to a doctor, that is different from the      emotional sustenance and encouragement - all that
psychological knowledge that one has developed                 has been built into one, one is part of that. This
during childhood which causes one to become                    conditioned mind can never find out what truth is. Not
neurotic; and most people are neurotic.                        to depend on anything means one is alone; all one,
                                                               whole - that is sanity, that sanity breeds rationality,
So, what is one to do? How is one to know, in a world
                                                               clarity, integrity.
that is somewhat neurotic, in which all one’s friends
and relations are slightly unbalanced, that one is also
 Why has sex become so important in our life? It has been so, not only in the present period, but always. Why has
sex been so deeply embedded in man? Apart from producing children, I am not talking of that. Why? Probably it is
the greatest pleasure a human being has. Demanding that pleasure, all kinds of complications arise; volumes have
been written with explanations of the psychological complications. But the authors have never asked the question
                as to why human beings have made this thing so extremely important in their lives.

Question: Why does sex play such an important part in           profound sense of that word, so long as there is egotism,
each one’s life in the world?                                   so long as there is the demand for success, money and
                                                                recognition - supplying the market? Do not agree with me
Jiddu Krishnamurti - There is a particular philosophy,          please. I am just pointing out. I am not saying I know
especially in India, called Tantra, part of which encourages    creativity and you do not; I am not saying that.
sex. They say through sex you reach Nirvana. It is
encouraged, so that you go beyond it - and you never do.        I am saying we never question these things. I say there is
                                                                a state where there is creation in which there is no
Why has sex become so important in our life? It has been        shadow of self. That is real creation; it does not need
so, not only in the present period, but always. Why has sex     expression, it does not need self-fulfillment; it is
been so deeply embedded in man? Apart from producing            creation. Perhaps sex is felt to be creative and has become
children, I am not talking of that. Why? Probably it is the     important because everything around us is circumscribed,
greatest pleasure a human being has. Demanding that             the job, the office, going to the church, following some
pleasure, all kinds of complications arise; volumes have        philosopher, some guru. All that has deprived us of
been written with explanations of the psychological             freedom and, further, we are not free from our own
complications. But the authors have never asked the             knowledge; it is always with us, the past.
question as to why human beings have made this thing so
extremely important in their lives.                             So we are deprived of freedom outwardly and inwardly;
                                                                for generation upon generation we have been told what to
Our life is in a turmoil, it is a constant struggle, with       do. And the reaction to that is: I’ll do what I want, which is
nothing original, nothing creative - I am using the word        also limited, based on pleasure, on desire, on capacity. So
‘creative’ very carefully. The painter, the architect, the      where there is no freedom, either outwardly or inwardly,
wood-carver, he may say he is creative. The woman who           especially inwardly, we have only one thing left and that is
bakes bread in the kitchen is said to be creative. And sex,     called sex. Why do we give it importance? Do you give
they say, is also creative. So what is it to be creative? The   equal importance to being free from fear? No. Do you give
painters, the musicians and the Indian singers with their       equal energy, vitality and thought to end sorrow? No.
devotion, say that theirs is the act of creation. Is it? You    Why? Why only to sex?
have accepted Picasso as a great painter, a great creator,
putting one nose on three faces, or whatever he does. I am      Because that is the easiest thing to hand; the other
not denying it or being derogatory, I am just pointing it       demands all your energy, which can only come when you
out. That is what is called creation.                           are free. So naturally human beings throughout the world
                                                                have given this thing tremendous importance in life. And
But is that entire creativeness? Or is creativeness             when you give something, which is only one part of life,
something totally different? You are seeing the expression      tremendous importance, you are destroying yourself. Life
of creativeness in a painting, in a poem, in prose, a in a      is whole, not just one part.
statue, in music. It is expressed according to a man’s
talent, his capacity great or small; it may be modern Rock      If you give importance to the whole then sex becomes
or Bach - I am sorry to compare the two! They are quite         more or less unimportant. The monks and all those who
incomparable.                                                   have denied sex have turned their energy to god but the
                                                                thing is boiling in them, nature cannot be suppressed. But
We human beings have accepted all that as creative
                                                                when you give that thing all-importance, then you are
because it brings fame, money, position. But I am asking: is
that creativity? Can there be creation, in the most             corrupt.
M
          any philosophers have written about          world, where you express whatever you like, the
          freedom. We talk of freedom - freedom        so-called individual freedom, or does freedom
          to do what we like, to have any job we       begin inwardly, which then expresses itself
like, freedom to choose a woman or a man,              intelligently outwardly? You understand my
freedom to read any book, or freedom not to            question? Freedom exists only when there is no
read at all. We are free, and what do we do with       confusion inside me, when I am psychologically
that freedom? We use that freedom to express           and religiously not to be caught in any trap - you
ourselves, to do whatever we like. More and            understand? There are innumerable traps: gurus,
more life is becoming permissive - you can have        saviors, preachers, excellent books, psychologists
sex in the Open Park or garden.                        and psychiatrists; they are all traps.

We have every kind of freedom and what have            And if I am confused and there is disorder, must I
we done with it. We think that where there is          not first be free of that disorder before I talk of
choice we have freedom. I can go to Italy or           freedom? If I have no relationship with my wife,
France: a choice. But does choice give freedom?        my husband or another - because our
Why do we have to choose? If you are very clear,       relationships are based on images - there is
perceive purely, there is no choice. Out of that       conflict which is inevitable where there is
comes right action. It is only when there is doubt     division. So should I not begin here, inside me, in
and uncertainty that we begin to choose. So            my mind, in my heart, to be totally free of all
choice, if you will forgive my saying so, prevents     fears, anxieties, despairs and the hurts and
freedom.                                               wounds that one has received through some
                                                       psychic disorder? Watch all that for oneself and
The totalitarian states have no freedom at all,        be free of it!
because they have the idea that freedom brings
about the degeneration of man. Therefore they          But apparently we have not the energy. We go to
control, suppress - you know what is happening.        another to give us energy. By talking to a
                                                       psychiatrist we feel relieved - confession and all
So what is freedom? Is it based on choice? Is it to    the rest of it. Always depending on somebody
do exactly what we like? Some psychologists say,       else! And that dependence inevitably brings
if you feel something, do not suppress, restrain       conflict and disorder. So one has to begin to
or control it, but express it immediately. And we      understand the depth and the greatness of
are doing that very well, too well. And this is also   freedom; one must begin with that which is
called freedom. Is throwing bombs freedom?             nearest, oneself. The greatness of freedom, real
Just look what we have reduced our freedom to!         freedom, the dignity, the beauty of it, is in oneself
                                                       when there is complete order. And that order
Does freedom lie out there, or here? Where do          comes only when we are a light to ourselves.
you begin to search for freedom? In the outward
      Right action means precise, accurate action, not based on motive. It is action which is not directed or
committed. The understanding of right action, right relationship, brings about intelligence. Not the intelligence
of the intellect but that profound intelligence which is not yours or mine. That intelligence will dictate what you
 will do to earn a livelihood; when there is that intelligence you may be a gardener, a cook, it does not matter.
   Without that intelligence your livelihood will be dictated by circumstance. There is a way of living in which
   there is no conflict; because there is no conflict there is intelligence which will show the right way of living

Question: I work as a teacher and I am in constant               Is it possible to live in this society, not only to have a
conflict with the system of the school and the pattern           right means of livelihood, but also to live without
of society. Must I give up all work? What is the right           conflict? Is it possible to earn a livelihood righteously
way to earn a living? Is there a way of living that does         and also to end all conflict within oneself? Now, are these
not perpetuate conflict?                                         two separate things: earning a living rightly and not
                                                                 having conflict in oneself? Are these two in separate,
Jiddu Krishnamurthy: This is a rather complex question           watertight compartments? Or do they go together?
and we will go into it step by step.
                                                                 To live a life without any conflict requires a great deal of
What is a teacher? Either a teacher gives information            understanding of oneself and therefore great intelligence
about history, physics, and biology and so on, or he             - not the clever intelligence of the intellect - but the
himself is learning together with the pupil about himself.       capacity to observe, to see objectively what is happening,
This is a process of understanding the whole movement            both outwardly and inwardly and to know that there is
of life. If I am a teacher, not of biology or physics, but of    no difference between the outer and the inner. It is like a
psychology, then will the pupil understand me or will my         tide that goes out and comes in. To live in this society,
pointing out help him to understand himself?                     which we have created, without any conflict in myself
                                                                 and at the same time to have a right livelihood - is it
We must be very careful and clear as to what we mean             possible?
by a teacher. Is there a teacher of psychology at all? Or
are there only teachers of facts. Is there a teacher who         On which shall I lay emphasis - on right livelihood or on
will help you to understand yourself? The questioner             right living that is, on finding out how to live a life
asks: I am a teacher. I have to struggle not only with the       without any conflict? Which comes first? Do not just let
established system of schools and education, but also my         me talk and you listen, agreeing or disagreeing, saying ‘It
own life is a constant battle with myself. And must I give       is not practical. It is not like this, it is not like that saying,’
up all this? Then what shall I do if I give up all that. He is   It is not practical. It is not like this, it is not like that’ -
asking not only what right teaching is but he also wants         because it is your problem. We are asking each other: is
to find out what right living is.                                there a way of living which will naturally bring about a
                                                                 right livelihood and at the same time enable us to live
What is right living? As society exists now, there is no         without a single shadow of conflict?
right way of living. You have to earn a livelihood, you
marry, you have children, you become responsible for             People have said that you cannot live that way except in
them and so you accept the life of an engineer or a              a monastery, as a monk; because you have renounced
professor. As society exists can there be a right way of         the world and all its misery and are committed to the
living? Or is the search for a right way of living merely a      service of God, because you have given your life over to
search for Utopia, a wish for something more? What is            an idea, or a person, an image or symbol, you expect to
one to do in a society which is corrupt, which has such          be looked after. But very few believe any more in
contradictions in itself, in which there is so much              monasteries, or in saying, ‘I will surrender myself’. If
injustice - for that is the society in which we live? And,       they do surrender themselves it will be surrendering to
not only as a teacher in a school, I am asking myself:           the image they have created about another, or which
what shall I do?                                                 they have projected.
It is possible to live a life without a single shadow of       present relationship with each other, intimate or
conflict only when you have understood the whole               otherwise. We create an image about each other and
significance of living - which is, relationship and action.    cling to that image.
What is right action - under all circumstances? Is there
such a thing? Is there a right action which is absolute, not   The moment you are tied to another person, or tied to an
relative? Life is action, movement, talking, acquiring         idea or concept, corruption has begun. That is the thing
knowledge and also relationship with another, however          to realize and we do not want to realize it. So, can we live
deep or superficial. You have to find right relationship if    together without being tied, without being dependent on
you want to find a right action which is absolute.             each other psychologically? Unless you find this out you
                                                               will always live in conflict, because life is relationship.
What is your present relationship with another - not the       Now, can we objectively, without any motive, observe
romantic, imaginative, flowery and superficial thing that      the consequences of attachment and let them go
disappears in a few minutes - but, actually, what is your      immediately? Attachment is not the opposite of
relationship with another? What is your relationship           detachment. I am attached and I struggle to be detached;
with a particular person? - perhaps intimate, involving        which is: I create the opposite.
sex, involving dependence on each other, possessing
each other and therefore arousing jealousy and                 The moment I have created the opposite conflict comes
antagonism.                                                    into being. But there is no opposite; there is only what I
                                                               have, which is attachment. There is only the fact of
The man or the woman goes off to the office, or to do          attachment - in which I see all the consequences of
some kind of physical work, where he or she is                 attachment in which there is no love - not the pursuit of
ambitious, greedy, competitive, aggressive to succeed; he      detachment. The brain has been conditioned, educated,
or she comes back home and becomes a tame, friendly,           trained, to observe what is and to create its opposite: ‘I
perhaps affectionate husband or wife. That is the actual       am violent but I must not be violent’ - therefore there is
daily relationship. Nobody can deny that. And we are           conflict.
asking: is that right relationship? We say no, certainly
not, it would be absurd to say that that is right              But when I observe only violence, the nature of it - not
relationship. We say that, but continue in the same way.       analyze but observe - then the conflict of the opposite is
We say that that is wrong but we do not seem to be able        totally eliminated. If one wants to live without conflict,
to understand what right relationship is - except              only deal with ‘what is’, everything else is not. And when
according to the pattern set by ourselves, by society.         one lives that way - and it is possible to live that way -
                                                               completely to remain with ‘what is’ then ‘what is’
We may want it, we may wish for it, long for it, but           withers away. Experiment with it. When you really
longing and wishing do not bring it about. We have to go       understand the nature of relationship, which only exists
into it seriously to find out.                                 when there is no attachment, when there is no image
                                                               about the other, then there is real communion with each
Relationship is generally sensuous - begin with that -         other.
then from sensuality there is companionship, a sense of
dependence on each other; then there is the creating of a      Right action means precise, accurate action, not based on
family which increases dependence on each other. When          motive; it is action which is not directed or committed.
there is uncertainty in that dependence the pot boils          The understanding of right action, right relationship,
over. To find right relationship one has to enquire into       brings about intelligence. Not the intelligence of the
this great dependence on each other. Psychologically           intellect but that profound intelligence which is not
why are we so dependent in our relationships with each         yours or mine. That intelligence will dictate what you
other?                                                         will do to earn a livelihood; when there is that
                                                               intelligence you may be a gardener, a cook, it does not
Is it that we are desperately lonely? Is it that we do not     matter. Without that intelligence your livelihood will be
trust anybody - even our own husband or wife? On the           dictated by circumstance.
other hand, dependence gives a sense of security; a
protection against this vast world of terror. We say: ‘I       There is a way of living in which there is no conflict;
love you.’ In that love there is always the sense of           because there is no conflict there is intelligence which
possessing and being possessed. And when that situation        will show the right way of living.
is threatened there arises all the conflict. That is our
        What is it that incarnates, is reborn? What is it that is living at this moment, sitting here?
                    What is it that is taking place now to that which is in incarnation?
       And when one goes from here, what is it that is actually taking place in our daily life, which is
           the living movement of incarnation – one’s struggles, one’s appetites, greed, envies,
                                            attachments - all that?
                           Is it that which is going to reincarnate in the next life?

Question: Would you please make a definite                What is it that incarnates, is reborn? What is it
statement about the non-existence of                      that is living at this moment, sitting here? What is
reincarnation since increasing ‘scientific                it that is taking place now to that which is in
evidence’ is now being accumulated to prove               incarnation?
reincarnation is a fact. I am concerned because
I see large numbers of people beginning to use            And when one goes from here, what is it that is
this evidence to further strengthen a belief they         actually taking place in our daily life, which is the
already have, which enables them to escape                living movement of incarnation – one’s struggles,
problems of living and dying. Is it not your              one’s appetites, greed, envies, attachments - all
responsibility to be clear, direct and                    that? Is it that which is going to reincarnate in the
unequivocal on this matter instead of hedging             next life?
round the issue?
                                                          Now those who believe in reincarnation believe

J  iddu Krishnamurti -We will be very definite.
   The idea of reincarnation existed long before
   Christianity. It is prevalent almost throughout
                                                          they will be reborn with all that they have now -
                                                          modified perhaps - and so carry on, life after life.
                                                          Belief is never alive. But suppose that belief is
India and probably in the whole Asiatic world.            tremendously alive, and then what you are now
Firstly: what is it that incarnates; not only             matters much more than what you will be in a
incarnates now, but reincarnates again and again?         future life.
Secondly: the idea of there being scientific
evidence that reincarnation is true, is causing           In the Asiatic world there is the word ‘karma’
people to escape their problems and that causes           which means action in life now, in this period,
the questioner concern.                                   with all its misery, confusion, anger, jealousy,
                                                          hatred, violence, which may be modified, but will
Is he really concerned that people are escaping?          go on to the next life. So there is evidence of
They escape through football or going to church.          remembrance of things past, of a past life. That
Put aside all this concern about what other people        remembrance is the accumulated ‘me’, the ego,
do. We are concerned with the fact, with the truth        the personality. That bundle, modified, chastened,
of reincarnation; and you want a definite answer          polished a little bit, goes on to the next life.
from the speaker.
So it is not a question of whether there is               But the boy comes back several times and the
reincarnation (I am very definite on this matter,         father gets angry and says, ‘I am going to send
please) but that there is incarnation now; what is        you to Death’ - and being a Brahmin he must
far more important than reincarnation is the              keep his word. So he sends him to Death. On his
ending of this mess, this conflict, now. Then             way to Death the boy goes to various teachers
something totally different goes on.                      and finds that some say there is reincarnation,
                                                          others say there is not. He goes on searching and
Being unhappy, miserable, sorrow-ridden, one              eventually he comes to the house of Death.
says: ‘I hope the next life will be better’. That
hope for the next life is the postponement of
facing the fact now. The speaker has talked a
great deal to those who believe in and have
lectured and written about reincarnation,
endlessly. It is part of their game. I say, ‘All right,
Sirs, you believe in it all. If you believe, what you
do now matters’. But they are not interested in
what they do now; they are interested in the
future. They do not say: ‘I believe and I will alter
my life so completely that there is no future’. Do
not at the end of this say that I am evading this
particular question; it is you who are evading it.

I have said that the present life is all-important;
if you have understood and gone into it, with all
the turmoil of it, the complexity of it - end it, do
not carry on with it. Then you enter into a totally
different world. I think that is clear, is it not? I am
not hedging. You may ask me: ‘Do you believe in
reincarnation?’ Right? I do not believe in
anything. This is not an evasion I have no belief
and it does not mean that I am an atheist, or that        When he arrives, Death is absent. (A marvelous
I am ungodly. Go into it, see what it means. It           implication, if you go into it.) Death is absent.
means that the mind is free from all the                  The boy waits for three days. On the fourth day,
entanglements of belief.                                  Death appears and apologizes. He apologizes
                                                          because the boy was a Brahmin; he says, ‘I am
In the literature of ancient India there is a story       sorry to have kept you waiting and in my regret I
about death and incarnation. For a Brahmin it is          will offer you three wishes. You can be the
one of the ancient customs and laws, that after           greatest king, have the greatest wealth, or you
collecting worldly wealth he must at the end of           can be immortal’. The boy says, ‘I have been to
five years give up everything and begin again. A          many teachers and they all say different things.
certain Brahmin had a son and the son says to             What do you say about death and what happens
him, ‘You are giving all this away to various             afterwards?’ Death says: ‘I wish I had pupils like
people, to whom are you going to give me away;            you; not concerned about anything except that’.
to whom are you sending me?’ The father said,             So he begins to tell him about truth, about the
‘Go away, I am not interested’.                           state of life in which there is no time.
 In enlightenment there is nobody there to get angry, and there is nobody there not to get angry either. So
 whatsoever happens simply happens. Krishnamurti does not get angry the way you get angry. Everything
  with an enlightened person happens on a totally different plane. His anger comes out of his compassion.
Your anger comes out of hate, aggression, cruelty. He becomes angry -- sometimes he starts pulling his hair
                           out, he hits his own forehead but out of compassion.

 And when they see that Krishnamurti can get angry, they are disillusioned, ‘So this man is not a buddha, he
  has not become enlightened yet.’ I say to you that he is one of the most enlightened persons who has ever
     walked on this earth. Still he can get angry, but his anger comes out of compassion; it is condensed
                    compassion. He cares about you, so much so that he becomes angry.
                                   This is a totally different quality of anger.




K
       rishnamurti       and       Osho      are          happens simply happens. Krishnamurti does not
       contemporaries. Many times the aspirants           get angry the way you get angry. Everything with
       visit Osho or Krishnamurti as the two              an enlightened person happens on a totally
lived in Mumbai. All Osho followers used the              different plane. His anger comes out of his
Saffron robes and Krishnamurti was against the            compassion. Your anger comes out of hate,
institution of Guru. So whenever the Osho                 aggression, cruelty. He becomes angry --
followers would sit in front row to listen to             sometimes he starts pulling his hair out, he hits
Krishna he used to get angry. This baffled the            his own forehead -- but out of compassion.
audience present there. From time to time the
followers of Osho sought an explanation from              Just think, for fifty years or more he has been
Osho In the present talks of the anger of                 teaching a certain kind of truth to the world, and
Krishnamurti. And thus Osho explained the                 nobody understands him. The same people
difference between the ordinary human anger               gather each year to listen to him -- the same
and that of Krishnamurti. The anger of the                people. Once he was talking in Bombay...
enlightened one is the expression of compassion.          somebody reported this to me, and the person
                                                          who reported it to me is an old lady, older than
Question: Beloved Osho, You have said that                Krishnamurti. She saw Krishnamurti when he
Krishnamurti can get angry. How is that                   was a child; she has seen him and listened to him
possible, as in enlightenment there is no one             for fifty years. And because she is a little deaf,
there to be angry?                                        very old, she sits in the front on a chair.

Osho: Henk Faassen, in enlightenment there is             And for fifty years Krishnamurti has been saying
nobody there to get angry, and there is nobody            that there are no methods for meditation, that
there not to get angry either. So whatsoever              meditation is not needed at all. Just be in the
present and live your life, that’s enough              goes on barking, on the other hand he goes on
meditation, no other technique, is needed.... For      wagging his tail. He is playing the diplomat, so
one and a half hours he poured his heart out, and      whatsoever the case turns out to be, he can
at the end the lady stood up and asked, ‘How to        always feel right. If the master comes and he sees
meditate?’ Now, what do you suppose he should          that the master is friendly, the barking will stop
do? He hit his head. This is not your anger. This      and his whole energy will go into the tail.
is so unbelievable! He is tired of this lady, but
this lady is not tired of him.                         If the master is angry with the intruder, then the
                                                       tail will stop completely, and his whole energy
She comes to every talk to listen to him, and asks     will go into barking. Your anger is also like that.
the same stupid questions. When I say                  You are weighing up how far to go, how much
Krishnamurti can get angry, I don’t mean, Henk         will pay; don’t go beyond the limit, don’t provoke
that he can get angry like you get angry. His          the other person too much. But when a man like
anger is out of compassion. This situation is          Krishnamurti becomes angry he is pure anger.
unbelievable! He wants to help this lady and he        And pure anger has a beauty because it has
feels so helpless. He tries this way and that. His     totality. He is just anger. He is like a small child,
message is very simple, singular, one-                 red faced, just anger all over, and ready to
dimensional. For fifty years he has been saying        destroy the whole world. That’s what happened
only a single word. In essence his whole teaching      to Jesus.
can be printed on one side of a postcard.

He has been saying it in as many possible ways
as one can invent, but it is the same citadel that
he attacks from the north, from the south, from
the west, from the east. And still people go on
listening to him and go on asking the same old
foolish questions. He certainly gets angry. And
when a man like Krishnamurti gets angry, he is
pure anger. Many in India have felt very
disappointed with Krishnamurti because he gets
angry. They have a certain concept that a buddha
should not get angry. They go with a prejudice.

And when they see that Krishnamurti can get
angry, they are disillusioned, ‘So this man is not a
buddha, he has not become enlightened yet.’ I
say to you that he is one of the most enlightened
persons who have ever walked on this earth. Still
he can get angry, but his anger comes out of
compassion; it is condensed compassion. He
cares about you, so much so that he becomes
angry. This is a totally different quality of anger.

And when he becomes angry he is real anger.
                                                       When he went into the great temple and saw the
Your anger is partial, lukewarm. Your anger is
                                                       money changers and their tables inside the
like a dog who is not certain how to behave with
                                                       temple, he was in a rage. He became angry -- the
a stranger. He may be a friend of the master, so
                                                       same anger that comes out of compassion and
he wags his tail; he may be an enemy, so he
                                                       love. Singlehanded, he drove all the money
barks. He does both together. On one hand he
                                                       changers out of the temple and overturned their
boards. He must have been really very angry,          Enlightened people need neckties? And not only
because driving all the moneychangers out of the      that -- the whole counter was full of neckties and
temple singlehanded is not an easy thing. And         he was throwing them this way and that, and he
reports say -- I don’t know how far they are right,   was not satisfied with any. The woman watched,
but reports say that he was not a very strong         looked at the whole scene, and fell from the sky.
man.                                                  She thought, ‘I have come from India for this
                                                      ordinary man who is purchasing neckties. And
Reports say that he was not even a very tall man;     even then, of thousands of neckties of all colors
you will be surprised, he was only four feet six      and all kinds of material, nothing is satisfying to
inches. And not only that -- on top of it he was a    him. Is this detachment? Is this awareness?’
hunchback. I don’t know how far those reports
are true, because I don’t want to go to court! But    She turned away. She didn’t attend the camp, she
it is there in the books, ancient books, very         came back immediately. And the first thing she
ancient books. So how did this hunchback, four        did was to come running to me, and she said,
feet six inches high, drive out all the               ‘You are right.’
moneychangers singlehanded? He must have
been pure rage! Indians are angry about that.         I said, ‘What do you mean?’
They cannot trust that Jesus is enlightened -- just
because of this incident.                             She said, ‘You are right that it was useless
                                                      wasting my time with Krishnamurti. Now I want
People have their prejudices, their ideas. Rather     to become a sannyasin of yours.’
than seeing into reality, rather than looking into
an enlightened man, they come ready with so           I said, ‘Please excuse me, I cannot accept you. If
many concepts, and unless he fits them he is not      you cannot accept Krishnamurti, how can I
enlightened. And let me tell you, no enlightened      accept you? Get lost! ... because here you will see
person is going to fit with your unenlightened        far more disappointing things. What are you
prejudices; it is impossible. It happened, a lady     going to do with my Mercedes Benz? So before it
came to me. She had been a follower of                happens, why bother? What are you going to do
Krishnamurti for many years, then a small thing       with my air-conditioned room? Before it
disturbed the whole thing and the whole               happens, it is better that you go and find some
applecart was upturned. The thing was so small        Muktananda, etcetera. You have not been able to
that I was surprised.                                 understand Krishnamurti; you will not be able to
                                                      understand me.’
There was a camp in Holland where
Krishnamurti holds a camp every year, and the         People like Krishnamurti live on a totally
woman had gone there from India. Near about           different plane. Their anger is not your anger.
two thousand people had gathered from all over        And who knows that he was not just playing with
the world to listen to him. The next morning the      those ties for this stupid old woman? Masters are
lectures were going to start, and the woman had       known to devise things like that. He got rid of
gone shopping. And she was surprised,                 this stupid old woman very easily.
Krishnamurti was also shopping. An enlightened
person shopping? Can you believe it? Buddha in        Source: from book ‘The book of wisdom’ by Osho
a supermarket? And not only that -- he was
purchasing a necktie.
                   Experiencing is one thing; helping others to experience it is not the same.
       In enlightenment there are no degrees; either one is enlightened or one is not. Once a person is
           enlightened he has the same flavor, the same fragrance as anyone who has ever become
       enlightened or will ever become enlightened. But to relate the experience, to communicate the
                                        experience is not possible for all.
            Traditions cannot be followed. You can understand them and understanding can be of
        immense help, but following and understanding are totally different things. So Krishnamurti
            is right when he is against following, but when he starts saying that you need not even
            understand, then he is wrong. Then he is speaking the language of an Arhata and he is
         unaware of the world of the Bodhisattva. Understanding is possible -- you can understand
         Buddha. What he is doing for forty years? What efforts has he been making for forty years?


Question: Osho, Could you please tell me your            Experiencing is one thing; helping others to
opinion about J. Krishnamurti, who is saying             experience it is not the same.
that you won’t be free and therefore not happy
as long as you follow any tradition, religion or         There have been many Arhatas but very few
master?                                                  Bodhisattvas. The Bodhisattva is both enlightened
                                                         and skillful to teach what has happened to him. It
Osho: Wolfgang, Gautam the Buddha has divided            is the greatest art in the world; no other art can
the enlightened persons into two categories. The         be compared with it, because to say the
first category he calls the Arhatas and the second       unsayable, to help people come out of their sleep,
Bodhisattvas. The Arhata and the Bodhisattva             to find and invent devices to bring what has
are both enlightened; there is no difference             happened to him to those who are thirsty for it
between their experience, but the Arhata is not a        and help them to get it... it is a rare gift.
Master and the Bodhisattva is a Master.
                                                         Krishnamurti is an Arhata, he is not a Bodhisattva.
The Arhata has attained to the same truth but he         His enlightenment is as great as anybody else's
is incapable of teaching it, because teaching is a       enlightenment; he is a Buddha, a Jesus, a Lao Tzu.
totally different art. For example, you can see a        In enlightenment there are no degrees; either one
beautiful sunset, you can experience the beauty of       is enlightened or one is not. Once a person is
it as deeply, as profoundly as any Vincent van           enlightened he has the same flavor, the same
Gogh, but that does not mean you will be able to         fragrance as anyone who has ever become
paint it. To paint it is a totally different art.        enlightened or will ever become enlightened. But
to relate the experience, to communicate the          A tradition is nothing but footprints on the sands
experience is not possible for all.                   of time of the enlightened people, but those
                                                      footprints are not enlightened. You can follow
Once Buddha was asked, ‘How many people have          those footprints very religiously and they will not
become enlightened amongst your disciples?’           lead you anywhere, because each person is
                                                      unique. If you remember the uniqueness of the
He said, ‘Many.’ He showed...’Look!’ Manjushri        person then no following is going to help you,
was sitting by his side and Sariputra and             because there cannot be a fixed routine.
Modgalyayan and Mahakashyap. He said, ‘These
four people are right now present here -- they        That’s the difference between science and
have become enlightened.’                             religion: science depends on tradition. Without a
                                                      Newton, without an Edison, there is no possibility
The inquirer asked, ‘If they have become              for Albert Einstein to have existed at all. He needs
enlightened why they are not so famous as you         a certain tradition; only on that tradition, on the
are? Why nobody knows about them? Why they            shoulders of the past giants in the world of
don’t have thousands of followers?’                   science, he can stand. Of course when you stand
                                                      on the shoulders of somebody you can look a little
Buddha said, ‘They have become enlightened but
                                                      farther than the person on whose shoulders you
they are not Masters. They are Arhatas, they are
                                                      are standing, but that person is needed there.
not Bodhisattvas.’
                                                      Science is a tradition, but religion is not a
The Arhata knows it but cannot make it known to
                                                      tradition: it is an individual experience, utterly
the others. The Bodhisattva knows it and can
                                                      individual. Once something is known in the world
make it known to the others. Krishnamurti is an
                                                      of science it need not be discovered again, it will
Arhata. Because of this he cannot understand the
                                                      be foolish to discover it again. You need not
beautiful world of a Master and his disciples.
                                                      discover the theory of gravitation -- Newton has
                                                      done it. You need not go and sit in a garden and
You ask me, Wolfgang: Could You Please tell me
                                                      watch an apple fall and then conclude that there
your Opinion About J. Krishnamurti, Who Is
                                                      must be some force in the earth that pulls it
Saying That you won’t be Free and Therefore not
                                                      downwards; it will be simply foolish. Newton has
Happy as Long as you Follow any Tradition,
                                                      done it; now it is part of human tradition.
Religion or Master?
                                                      It can be taught to any person who has a little bit
He is right. If you follow a tradition, religion or
                                                      of intelligence; even school children know about
Master -- remember the word ‘follow’ -- you will
                                                      it. But in religion you have to discover again and
not be free and you will not be blissful, you will
                                                      again. No discovery becomes a heritage in
not know the ultimate truth of life: by following
                                                      religion. Buddha discovered, but that does not
nobody knows it. What can you do by following a
                                                      mean you can simply follow the Buddha. Buddha
tradition? You will become an imitator. A
                                                      was unique; you are unique in your own right, so
tradition means something of the past, and
                                                      how Buddha has entered into truth is not going to
enlightenment has to happen right now! A
                                                      help you. You are a different kind of house; the
tradition may be very ancient -- the more ancient
                                                      doors may be in different directions. If you simply
it is, the more dead.
                                                      follow Buddha blindly, that very following will be
                                                      misleading.
Traditions cannot be followed. You can                 Many secret methods have been tried upon him:
understand them and understanding can be of            he has been taught while he was sleeping, he has
immense help, but following and understanding          been taught while he was in deep hypnosis, so he
are totally different things. So Krishnamurti is       does not remember it at all. Only recently Russian
right when he is against following, but when he        psychologists are trying to find ways how to teach
starts saying that you need not even understand,       children while they are asleep, because if we can
then he is wrong. Then he is speaking the              teach children while they are asleep much time
language of an Arhata and he is unaware of the         can be saved. And one thing more: when a child is
world of the Bodhisattva. Understanding is             asleep he can be taught more easily because there
possible -- you can understand Buddha. What he         is no distraction. His unconscious can be taught
is doing for forty years? What efforts has he been     directly, which is easier.
making for forty years?
                                                       When we teach a child through his consciousness
How Wolfgang came to know Krishnamurti’s               it is difficult, because ultimately the teaching has
ideas? He is trying to explain, he is trying with      to reach to the unconscious, only then it becomes
great effort to make you understand. You cannot        yours. And to reach to the unconscious through
follow Krishnamurti, but you can certainly             the conscious it takes long time, long repetition.
understand his vision, his perspective, and that       You have to go on repeating again and again and
will be enrichment. It will not bring you              again, then only slowly and slowly it settles to the
enlightenment, but it can be used as a stepping-       bottom of the conscious, and from that bottom
stone. Krishnamurti says he is fortunate that he       slowly it penetrates into the unconscious.
has not read any religious scriptures. That is not
right.                                                 But in deep sleep, or more precisely in hypnosis --
                                                       hypnosis means sleep, deliberately created sleep -
In the first place it is not factual -- he has been    - you can reach directly to the unconscious; the
taught when he was young all the ancient               conscious can be bypassed, and a thing can be put
scriptures, not only of one tradition but of all the   into the unconscious. The conscious will not know
traditions, because he was brought up by               anything about it. Krishnamurti was taught all the
Theosophists -- great synthesizers of all the paths    great scriptures in a deep hypnosis; he has
and all the religions and all the traditions.          completely forgotten. Not only that: he has been
Theosophy was one of the greatest efforts ever         even manipulated to write while he was in
made to bring all the traditions closer to each        hypnosis.
other: Hinduism, Mohammedanism, Christianity,
Judaism, Jainism, Buddhism, and Taoism.                His first book, ‘At The Feet Of The Master’, was
                                                       written under hypnosis, hence he simply shrugs
Theosophy was trying to find out the essential         his shoulders when you ask about that first book -
core of them all, and Krishnamurti was taught in       - which is really a rare document of immense
every possible way all that is great. He may have      value. But he simply says, ‘I don’t know anything
forgotten about it, and I know that he must have       about it, how it happened. I can’t say that I have
forgotten because he will not lie, he will not say     written it.’ Krishnamurti has been experimented
anything deliberately untrue. But he lived in a        upon by Theosophists in many subtle ways, so he
kind of hypnosis for twenty-five years. He was         is not aware that he has been acquainted with all
taken possession by the Theosophists when he           the great scriptures and all the great documents,
was only nine years of age, and then he had been       and what he goes on saying has reflections of all
brought up m a very special way.
those teachings They are there, but in a very            make you free of creeds and dogmas. That’s
subtle form.                                             what’s happening here. I am talking about all the
                                                         religions for the simple reason so that you don't
He cannot quote the scriptures, but what he says         become addicted with one standpoint. Life is
is the very essence of the scriptures. A tradition       multidimensional.     Certainly     Moses     has
has to be understood, and if you can understand          contributed something to it which nobody else
many traditions, of course it will enrich you. It        has done.
will not make you enlightened, but it will help you
towards the goal, it will push you towards the           Unless you understand Moses you will miss that
goal. Don’t be a follower of any tradition – don’t       perspective, that dimension; that much you will
be a Christian or a Hindu or a Mohammedan. But           be poorer. And the people who listen to
it will be unfortunate if you remain unaware of          Krishnamurti, they start following him! There are
the beautiful words of Jesus, it will be a sheer         Krishnamurtiites who have been listening to him
misfortune if you don’t know the great poetry of         for forty years or even fifty years. I have come
the Upanishads.                                          across old people of the same age as Krishnamurti
                                                         who have listened to him for fifty years, since
It will be as if a person has not heard any great        1930, and they have reached nowhere.
music -- Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, and Wagner. If
one has not heard, something will be missing in          All that they have learned is a kind of
him. It will be a misfortune if you have not read        negativeness: ‘This is wrong, that is wrong.’ But
Shakespeare, Milton, Dostoevsky, Kalidas,                what is right? About that there seems to be not
Bharbhuti, Rabindranath, and Kahlil Gibran. If you       even a glimpse in their being. Don’t become part
have not been acquainted with Tolstoy, Chekhov,          of a religion, but visit, be a guest to all the
and Maxim Gorky, something in you will remain            religions. In the temple there is a beauty, in the
missing. The same is true if you have not read Lao       mosque also, a different kind of beauty, in the
Tzu, Chuang Tzu, Lieh Tzu, Gautam Buddha,                church again a different experience. And this is
Bodhidharma, Baso, Lin Chi, Socrates, Pythagoras,        our whole heritage; the whole humanity’s past
and Heraclitus.                                          belongs to you. Why choose?

These are very different, unique perspectives, but       The follower chooses. He insists to be a Christian;
they will all help you to become wider. So I will        he will avoid Upanishads, he will avoid
not say that traditions are useless; I will say they     Dhammapada, he will not bother about Koran. He
become dangerous if you follow them blindly. Try         is unnecessarily crippling himself, paralyzing
to understand, imbibe the spirit. Forget the letter,     himself. I also say don’t follow, but I will not agree
just drink of the spirit. It is certainly dangerous to   with the statement that: don’t try to understand.
belong to a religion because that means you are          Trying to understand is not following; your
encaged, imprisoned into a certain creed, dogma.         understanding becomes clearer, more sharpened.
You lose your freedom; you lose your inquiry,            Krishnamurti goes on reading detective novels. Is
your exploration. It is dangerous to live surround       he following those detective novels? Is he trying
by a small philosophy.                                   to become a detective?

You will be a frog in the well; you will not know        If he can read detective novels, what is wrong in
about the ocean. But to understand is a totally          reading the Upanishads? And detective novels are
different phenomenon. The very effort to                 just ordinary, juvenile, and childish. Upanishads
understand all the religions of the world will           are the Himalayan peaks of human consciousness.
Don’t follow them -- there is no need to follow          One morning a great philosopher was seen
anybody.                                                 walking down the street touching every pole that
                                                         he passed. Someone asked him, ‘Hey, professor,
My Sannyasins are not my followers, they are just        why are you touching all those poles?’
my companions. The word Satsang, the word
Upanishad, means the company of a Master. The            The philosopher grinned and said, ‘And why are
disciple is a companion a fellow-traveler, and of        you not touching all those poles?’
course if you are traveling with somebody who
knows the territory, who has explored the                It is difficult to answer why you are not touching!
territory, your journey will become easier, your         The philosophers have their own arguments; you
journey will become richer, your journey will            may not be able to argue against them. They may
have less unnecessary hazards; you will be able to       silence you; they may bring great proofs, logical
reach the goal sooner than alone.                        arguments, and rationalizations. They may silence
                                                         you, but that is not going to help.
Traditions become dangerous only when you
cling to them; then certainly there is danger.           After giving a speech at Columbia University, the
Traditions are group efforts to keep the                 noted philosopher, Bertrand Russell, was
unexpected from happening. If you become a part,         answering questions from the audience. One
then it is dangerous, because then the tradition         student’s critical question brought him to a full
becomes a hindrance to you for exploring. The            stop. For a whole minute he said nothing, his
tradition insists for belief -- believe in it and        hand over his chin. Then he peered at the student
believe without inquiry. That’s what people are          and rephrased the question, making it more
doing, what Christians and Hindus and                    precise. He asked the student, ‘Would you say that
Mohammedans are doing -- believing into                  this is still your question?’
something they have never inquired.
                                                         The student answered delightfully, ‘Yes.’
And to believe into something without inquiring
is very disrespectful towards truth and towards          Again Lord Russell thought, this time even longer,
your own self. No, belief is not going to help --        and twice seemed about to speak. Then he said,
only knowing can free you. And he says the same          ‘That’s a very good question, young man. I don’t
about a Master. It is true about ninety-nine so-         believe I can answer it!’
called Masters, but it is not true about the one, the
                                                         But there are very few philosophers like Bertrand
real one He is ninety-nine percent right, because
                                                         Russell who will accept that they can’t answer.
wherever there are real coins there are bound to
                                                         They will invent answers; they will go on and on
be false coins too. A tradition is dead; a religion is
                                                         creating proofs, inventing proofs. For every kind
a philosophy, a belief, a dogma. If you believe in it,
                                                         of nonsense you can find proofs, you can argue.
it appears significant; its arguments appear to be
                                                         Religions are all based on theologies, and the very
very great.
                                                         word ‘theology’ is a contradiction in terms. ‘Theo’
The moment you stand by the side and look with           means God, ‘logy’ means logic -- logic about God.
a detached view, you can see the foolishness, the        In fact, there is no logic about God; there is love
stupidity. You can see that there are assumptions        but no logic. You can approach the phenomenon
which have not been proved, not been                     God or godliness through the heart, through love,
established.                                             but not through logic.
 Indeed Enlightened one can never be wrong. So too, Krishnamurti is not wrong, but he never considers the
  situation in which you are instead he considers only the space in which he is, and that freedom is part of
   enlightenment. The enlightened person has reached the highest peak of consciousness; his abode is on
 Everest. Now it is his freedom to speak according to the peak, the sunlit peak where he is, or to consider the
people who are still in the dark valley, who know nothing about the light, for whom the peak of the Everest is
                 only a dream, only a perhaps. This is the freedom of the enlightened person.
                                   Krishnamurti speaks in terms where he is.

Question: Osho, Can an enlightened person be              no question, because I know the peak and what he
wrong? This refers to what you told us about J.           is saying is certainly true -- from the vision of the
Krishnamurti, who keeps on saying that one                peak. Those who have arrived, for them the
does not Need a Master, which is actually not             journey becomes almost a dream phenomenon.
right please comment.                                     For those who have not arrived the journey is
                                                          real, the goal is just a dream. They are living in
Osho: Prem Pantha, an Enlightened person can              two different worlds. When you are talking to a
never be wrong. Neither J. Krishnamurti is wrong,         madman you have to consider him; if you don’t
but he never considers the situation in which you         consider him you cannot help him.
are. He considers only the space in which he is,
and that freedom is part of enlightenment. The            Once, a madman was brought to me. He had this
enlightened person has reached the highest peak           crazy idea that one afternoon when he was
of consciousness; his abode is on Everest.                sleeping, a fly has entered his mouth. And because
                                                          he used to sleep with open mouth, nobody can
Now it is his freedom to speak according to the           deny the possibility. And since then he was very
peak, the sunlit peak where he is, or to consider         much disturbed because the fly was roaming
the people who are still in the dark valley, who          inside him, jumping inside him, moving in his
know nothing about the light, for whom the peak           belly, going to his bladder, circulating in his
of the Everest is only a dream, only a perhaps.           bloodstream, sometimes in his head, sometimes
This is the freedom of the enlightened person.            in his feet. And of course he could not do anything
Krishnamurti speaks in terms where he is.                 because he was continuously occupied, obsessed
                                                          with the fly.
I speak in terms where you are, I consider you,
because if I am speaking to you, you have to be           He was taken to the psychoanalysts and they said,
taken in consideration. I have to lead you towards        ‘This is just in your mind -- there is no fly! And no
the highest peak, but the journey will begin in the       fly can move in your bloodstream, there is no
dark valley, in your unconsciousness. If I talk           possibility. Even if a fly has entered it must have
about my experience, absolutely inconsiderate of          died! And now six months have passed; it cannot
you, I am right, but I am not useful to you.              be alive inside you.’

An enlightened person is never wrong, but he can          He listened, but he could not believe it because
be useful or he can be useless. J. Krishnamurti is        his experience was far more solid. He was taken
useless! He is perfectly right; about that there is       to the doctors and everybody examined him and
they did everything, but finally they will say, ‘It is   is?’ And he said, ‘In the belly.’ And I touched the
just a mental thing. You are imagining.’ He will         belly and I said, ‘Of course it is there!’ And I
listen what they were saying, but he could not           convinced him that I perfectly believe in him and
trust because his experience was far more certain        then I uncovered his blanket and showed him the
than their words.                                        fly.

His family brought him to me as a last resort. The       And he said to the wife, ‘Now see! And give this
man was looking very tired because he was being          bottle to me; I will go all to those fools and take all
taken to one person, then to another, then all           the fees that they have taken from me! I have
kinds of physicians -- allopath and homeopaths           wasted thousands of rupees, and all that they did
and naturopaths -- and he was really tired. In the       was they told me I am mad! And now I don’t feel
first place the fly was tiring him, and now all these    the fly anywhere, because it is in the bottle!’
‘pathies’, medicines. And everybody was insulting
him -- that was his feeling that they were saying        He took the bottle, he went to the doctors.
that he was just imagining. Is he a fool or he is
mad, that he will imagine such a thing? They were        One of the doctors who knew me, he came to see
all humiliating him -- that was his feeling.             me. He said, ‘How you managed? Six months a fly
                                                         can live in the body? And that man has taken his
I looked at the man and I said, ‘It is so clear that     fee back from me, because he was making such a
the fly is inside!’                                      fuss that I said, ‘Better give it back to him!’ And he
                                                         proved that he was right!’
For a moment he was puzzled. He could not
believe me, because nobody has said that to him --       I said, ‘It is not the point who is right.’
because nobody has considered him. And they
ALL were right and I was wrong -- there was no           Gautam the Buddha defines truth as ‘that which
fly, but the madman has to be considered.                works’. This is the ancient most pragmatic
                                                         definition of truth: ‘that which works’! All the
And I said, ‘All those fools are just wasting your       devices are truth in this sense: they work; they
time; you should have come first here. It is such a      are only devices. The Buddha’s work is ‘Upaya’;
simple thing to bring the fly out; there is no need      ‘Upaya’ exactly means device.
to bother. Medicines won’t help -- you are not ill.
Psychoanalysis will not help -- you are not crazy.’      Meditation is an ‘Upaya,’ a device. It simply
                                                         helps you to get out of that which you have not
And immediately he was a changed man! He                 got in the first place -- the fly: the ego, the
looked at his wife and said, ‘Now what do you            misery, the anguish! It helps you to get free of
say? This is the right man,’ he said, ‘who really        it, but in fact it is not there. But it is not to be
knows. And all those fools were trying to convince       told...
me that there is no fly. It is there!’
                                                         And Krishnamurti has been doing that: he has
I said to him that, ‘It is simple -- we will take it     been telling crazy people that the fly does not
out. You lie down.’                                      exist and you don’t need any doctor. I say to you:
                                                         the fly exists and you need the doctor! Because
Don’t open your eyes. Just remain silent, breathe        just by telling to you that the fly does not exist is
slowly, so the fly settles somewhere, so we can          not going to help you at all.
catch hold of it!’
                                                         For thousands of years you have been told the ego
Then I rushed into the house to find a fly. It was a     does not exist. Has it helped you in any way?
little bit difficult because for the first time I was    There have been people who have told, in this
trying that, but finally I succeeded -- I could get a    country particularly, that the whole world is
fly in a bottle. And I came to the man, I moved my       illusory, MAYA, it does not exist, but has it helped
hand on his body, and I asked him, ‘Where the fly        India in any way? The true test is there: whether
it has helped, whether it has made people more           need for any Master. There is no need to find out
authentic, more real. It has not helped at all. It has   any device, strategy, technique, because in the
made people more deeply cunning, split, and              first place there is no problem. Why go on looking
schizophrenic; it has made them hypocrites.              for solutions? Those solutions will create more
                                                         problems; they are not going to help.’
All the religions have done this, because they
don’t consider you. And you are far more                 Nagarjuna did it; before Nagarjuna, Mahakashyap
important than the ultimate truth, because the           did it, and it has been a long tradition. Zen people
ultimate truth has nothing to do with you right          have been saying the same thing for centuries.
now. You are living in a dream world; some               Krishnamurti never uses the word ‘Zen’, but
device is needed which can help you to come out          whatsoever he is talking is nothing but Zen --
of it. The moment you are out of it, you will know       simple Zen.
it was a dream -- but a person who is dreaming, to
tell him that it is all dream is meaningless.            Zen says no effort is needed, nothing has to be
                                                         done. When nothing has to be done, what is the
Have you not observed in your dreams that when           need of a Master? Because the Master will tell you
you are dreaming it looks real? And every                to do something! Nothing has to be done -- what
morning you have found that it was unreal. But           is the need of the scriptures? Because the
again in the night you forget all your                   scriptures will tell you to do something, to know
understanding of the day -- again the dream              something! Nothing has to be done, nothing has to
becomes real. It has been happening again and            be known. You are already there where you are
again: every night the dream becomes real, every         trying to reach.
morning you know it is false, but that knowing
does not help. In the dream one can even dream           And I know this is true, but to talk about this
that this is a dream.                                    ultimate truth to people who are living in
                                                         tremendous darkness is futile. Prem Pantha, no
And that’s what has happened in India: people are        enlightened person can ever be wrong, but only
living in maya, deeply in it, and still talking that     few enlightened persons have been of help. The
‘This is all maya.’ And this talk too is part of their   majority of enlightened people have been of no
dream; it does not destroy the dream. In fact it         help at all, for the simple reason because they
makes the dream more rooted in them, because             never considered the other.
now there is no need to get rid of it -- because it is
a dream! So why get rid of it? It does not matter.       In fact, George Gurdjieff used to say, ‘Don’t
                                                         consider the other.’ It was one of his basic
In a subtle way all the religions have done this:        teachings: ‘Don’t consider the other. Just say what
they have talked from the highest peak to the            is absolutely true.’ But the absolute truth is truth
people for whom that peak does not exist yet. The        only when experienced; people are living in
people are living in darkness, and you go on             relative truth.
telling them that darkness has no existence. It is
true -- darkness has no existence, it is only the        My approach is different from Krishnamurti’s. I
absence of light -- but just by saying to people         know that one day you will come to that point
that darkness has no existence is not going to           where nothing is needed -- no Master, no
bring light in.                                          teaching, no scripture -- but right now the
                                                         scripture can be of help, the methods can be of
That’s what Krishnamurti is doing; it has been           help, and certainly a living Master can be of
done by many people. Nagarjuna did it --                 immense help. The function of the Master is to
Krishnamurti is not new, not at least in the East.       give you that which you already have and to take
Nagarjuna did it: he said, ‘Everything is false. The     away that which you don’t have at all.
world is false, the ego is false, and nothing exists.
Because nothing exists you are already free.
There is no need for any meditation; there is no
 To be a master and capable of communicating the same to others is the greatest art in the world. No
other art can be compared with it, because to say the unsayable, to help people come out of their deep
sleep, to find and invent devices to bring what has happened to him to those who are thirsty for it and
                 help them to attain to the state of inner serenity is indeed a rare gift.




G
       autama Buddha has divided the                   come out of their sleep, to find and invent
       enlightened     persons     into   two          devices to bring what has happened to him to
       categories. The first category he calls         those who are thirsty for it and help them to
the Arhatas and the second the                         get it is indeed a rare gift.
Bodhisattvas.      The    Arhata     and   the
Bodhisattva are both enlightened; there is no          The Arhata knows it but cannot make it
difference between their experiences are               known to the others. The Bodhisattva knows
concerned, but the Arhata is not a Master              it and can make it known to the others.
and the Bodhisattva is a Master. That alone
is the difference between Arhata and                   Origin
Bodhisattva.
                                                       ‘Arhata’ (Sanskrit) or ‘arahant’ (Pali), in the
The Arhata has attained to the same truth but          sramanic traditions of ancient India most
he is incapable of teaching it, because teaching       notably those of Jainism and Buddhism,
is a totally different art. For example, you can       signified a spiritual practitioner who had – to
see a beautiful sunset, you can experience the         use an expression common in the tipitaka –
beauty of it as deeply, as profoundly as any           ‘laid down the burden’, realizing the goal of
Vincent van Gogh, but that does not mean you           nirvana, the culmination of the spiritual life or
will be able to paint it. To paint it is a totally     brahmacharya. Such a person, having
different art. Experiencing is one thing;              removed all causes for future becoming, is not
helping others to experience it is not the             reborn after biological death into any
same.                                                  ‘samsaric’ (worldly) realm. In the Pali Canon,
                                                       the word is sometimes used as a synonym for
There have been many Arhatas but very few
                                                       ‘tathagata’.
Bodhisattvas. The Bodhisattva is both
enlightened and skillful to teach what has
                                                       The word ‘Arhat’ occurs as ‘arhattaa’ in the
happened to him. It is the greatest art in the
                                                       Rig Veda (Hopkins, P. 202The Great Epic of India)
world; no other art can be compared with it,
                                                       and as the first offer of salutation in the main
because to say the unsayable, to help people
Jain prayer ‘Navakar Mantra.’ The latter word      between the enlightenment of Arhata and
occurs mostly in Buddhist and Jain texts, but      Bodhisattva is that Arhata has attained to the
also in some Vaishnava texts, such as the          same truth but he is incapable of teaching it,
‘Bhagavata Purana’. ‘Arhattaa’ also occurs in      because teaching is a totally different art. For
the Vaishnava ‘’Srî Narada Pancharatnam            example, you can see a beautiful sunset, you
(Vijnanananda, P. 203 Srî Narada Pancharatnam).    can experience the beauty of it as deeply, as
                                                   profoundly as any Vincent van Gogh, but that
The word was used, as it is today in the liturgy   does not mean you will be able to paint it. To
of Theravada Buddhism, as an epithet of the        paint it is a totally different art. Experiencing
Buddha himself as well as of his enlightened       is one thing; helping others to experience
disciples. The most widely recited liturgical      it is not the same. Both Arhata and
reference is perhaps the homage:                   Bodhisattva are enlightened however
                                                   Arhata is not a master while Bodhisattva is
     Namo Tassa Bhagavato, Arahato,                a master.
        Samma-sammbuddhassa.
                                                   What is an Arhata in Buddhism
Homage to him, the Blessed One, the Worthy
  One, the perfectly enlightened Buddha            In Buddhist tradition the word is used in a
                                                   different meaning. In many Theravada texts,
                                                   the Buddha is described as an Arhata, one
Arhata and Bodhisattva are commonly                who has completely extinguished birth and
understood terms in Buddhism. The Arhata is        death. An Arhata is not reborn in any realm.
the pinnacle of spiritual achievement as           This is the highest spiritual achievement, the
mentioned in the Theravada scriptures, while       goal of all meditation and practice. The Arhata
the Bodhisattva is an ideal which spiritual        is the final stage of four stages of spiritual
seekers aim for in order to achieve                evolution – the stream-enterer, the once-
Buddhahood.                                        returner, the non-returner and the Arhata.

There are several sects within Buddhism, the       The stream-enterer is one who has entered
main ones being the Theravada (also called         the path of Nirvana and within a maximum of
Hinayana) and the other being Mahayana.            7 rebirths will attain to the level of Arhata. He
Arhata is a term used by the Theravada sect,       cannot go back into the realm of suffering. The
while Bodhisattva is used by the Mahayana.         once-returner as the name suggests is reborn
And there is some amount of debate among           only once before he becomes an Arhata. The
the Buddhists on these terms and what they         non-returner has no more rebirths in the
signify. In order to understand what this          lower realms but has not yet become an
means, it is important to learn the context in     Arhata. The Arhata is one who has
which the terms are used. This is how the two      extinguished all desire, all ignorance which
terms are used.                                    leads to rebirth.

In reality both Arhata and Bodhisattva are
enlightened ones. The only difference
The way of the Buddha is not a religion in the ordinary sense of the term. It has no belief-system, no dogma,
 and no scripture. It does not believe in god, it does not believe in the soul, it does not believe in any state of
moksha. It is a tremendous unbelief. Yet still it is unique and it is a religion. It is unique. You may not be at all
  in harmony with his heart, you may not believe him at all, you may not look at the proof. He has both the
                       proof and the argument. You will have to listen to his argument

Maturity accepts the fact and never creates any fiction around it. To accept the reality as it is, without trying
   to sweeten it, or decorate it, or trying to make it more acceptable to your heart. If it is shattering, let it
shatter. If it is shocking, let it shock. If the truth kills, then one is ready to be killed. Buddha is merciless. And
 nobody has ever opened the door of reality so deeply and profoundly as he has done. He does not allow you
   any childish desires. He says: become more aware, more conscious, and more courageous. Do not go on
hiding behind beliefs and masks and theologies. Take hold of your life into your own hands. Burn bright your
     inner light and see whatsoever is. And once you have become courageous enough to accept it, it is a
                    benediction. No belief is needed. That is Buddha’s first step towards reality.

 Buddha does not say, ‘I have solved the mystery.’ he does not say, ‘here I hand over to you what truth is.’ he
  says, ‘the only thing that I can give to you is an impetus, a thirst, a tremendous passion, to become aware,
conscious, and alert; so that you live your life consciously, full of light and awareness, that your life is solved.’
                          There is no need for some ultimate explanation of existence.




B
         uddha says ‘the only thing that I can give            Buddha       remains     utterly    unique,    and
         to you is an impetus, a thirst, a                     incomparable. He says that god is nothing but a
         tremendous passion, to become aware,                  search for security, a search for safety, a search
conscious, and alert; so that you live your life               for shelter. You believe in god, not because god is
consciously, full of light and awareness, that your            there; you believe in god because you feel
life is solved.’                                               helpless without that belief. Even if there is no
                                                               god, you will go on inventing. The temptation
The way of the Buddha is not a religion in the                 comes from your weakness. But it is not so with
ordinary sense of the term. It has no belief-                  Buddha. You may not be at all in harmony with
system, no dogma, and no scripture. It does not                his heart, you may not believe him at all, you may
believe in god, it does not believe in the soul, it            not look at the proof he is, but you will have to
does not believe in any state of moksha. It is a               listen to his argument. He has both the proof and
tremendous unbelief. Yet still it is unique and it             the argument.
is a religion. It is unique because Buddha simply
devised methodology to evolve your godliness                   This is discourse on 42 Sutras of Buddha known
from deep within you. Buddha has created the                   as Discipline of Transcendence.
way for your essence to manifest. Nothing has
ever happened before like that in the history of               The Buddha said: To be free from the passions
human consciousness, and nothing afterwards.                   and to be calm, this is the most excellent way.
Those who leave their parents, go out of the         sacrifice their own lives for them. They are like a
home, understand the mind, reach the source,         child who tries to eat a little honey smeared on
and comprehend the immaterial, are called            the edge of a knife. The amount is by no means
‘Shramanas’.                                         sufficient to appease his appetite, but he runs the
                                                     risk of wounding his tongue.’
Those who observe the precepts of morality,
who are pure and spotless in their behavior, and     The Buddha said: ‘men are tied up to their
who exert themselves for the attainment of the       families and possessions more helplessly than in
fruits of saint ship are called Arhatas.             a prison. There is an occasion for the prisoner to
                                                     be released, but householders entertain no
Next is the ‘Anagamin’.                              desire to be relieved from the ties of family.
                                                     When a man’s passion is aroused nothing
At the end of his life, the spirit of the Anagamin   prevents him from ruining himself. Even into the
ascends to the heaven and obtains Arhatship.         maws of a tiger he will jump. Those who are thus
                                                     drowned in the filth of passion are called the
Next is the Skridagamin.                             ignorant. Those who are able to overcome it are
                                                     saintly Arhata.’
The Skridagamin ascends to the heaven (after his
death), comes back to the earth once more, and       Buddha is unique. But it is not so with Buddha.
then attains Arhatship.                              You may not be at all in harmony with his heart,
                                                     you may not believe him at all, you may not look
Next is the Srotapanna.                              at the proof he is, but you will have to listen to
                                                     his argument. He has both the proof and the
The Srotapanna dies seven times and is born          argument. He himself is the proof of what he is
seven times, when he finally attains Arhatship.      saying, but that is not all. If you are not ready to
                                                     look at him he can force you, he can convince
The ascending order is:                              you; he is a rationalist.

   1.   Arhata                                       Buddha is so rationalist that even a man like
   2.   Anagamin                                     Bertrand Russell finds difficult to ignore.
   3.   Skridagamin                                  Bertrand Russell was an atheist, and purely
   4.   Strotapana                                   logical. He has said, ‘before Buddha I start feeling
                                                     hesitant. With Jesus I can fight.’ He has written a
By the severance of passions is meant that like      book ‘Why I am not a Christian’. It is a great
the limbs severed they are never again made use      argumentative book. It has not yet been replied
of.                                                  to by Christians as his argument still holds. But
                                                     before Buddha he suddenly feels hesitant, he is
The sutra of forty-two chapters the Buddha said:     not so certain about his ground. Buddha can
‘moved by their selfish desires, people seek after   convince him even on his own ground. Buddha is
fame and glory.                                      as much an analyst as Bertrand Russell.

But when they have acquired it, they are already     You need not be a religious person to be
stricken in years. If you hanker after worldly       convinced by Buddha that is his rarity. You need
fame and practice not the way, your labors are       not believe at all. You need not believe in god,
wrongfully applied and your energy is wasted. It     you need not believe in the soul, and you need
is like unto burning an incense stick. However       not believe in anything still you can be with
much its pleasing odor be admired, the fire that     Buddha. In the process by and by you will come
consumes is steadily burning up the stick.’          to know about the soul and about the god as
                                                     well.
The Buddha said: ‘people cleave to their worldly
possessions and selfish passions so blindly as to
But those are not hypotheses. No belief is             gives you a feeling that somebody is looking after
required to travel with Buddha. You can come           the affairs and you are not alone. It is an
with all your possible skepticism. Buddha              assurance that this cosmos is not just a chaos, it
accepts, and welcomes, he says, ‘come with me.’        is really a cosmos. There is a system behind it,
Therefore first he convinces your mind, and once       and logic behind it. It is not an illogical jumble of
your mind is convinced and you start travelling        things, or anarchy. Somebody rules it. The
with him, by and by you start feeling that he has      sovereign king is there looking after each small
a message which is beyond mind, he has a               detail. Remember not even a leaf moves without
message which no reason can confine. But first         his moving it. Everything is planned. You are part
he convinces your reason. Buddha’s religion is         of a great destiny. Maybe the meaning is not
supra-rational, but not against reason. This has       known to you, but the meaning is there because
to be understood in the very beginning. It has         god is there.
something to do with the beyond, supra-rational,
but that supra-rational is not against the rational.   God brings a tremendous relief. One starts
It is in tune with it. The rational and the supra-     feeling that life is not accidental; there is a
rational are continuity, continuous. This is the       certain undercurrent of significance, meaning,
rarity of Buddha.                                      destiny. God brings a sense of destiny. Buddha
                                                       says: there is no god. It simply shows that man
Therefore the way of the Buddha is not a religion      knows not why he is here. It simply shows man
in the ordinary sense of the term, because it has      is helpless. It simply shows that man has no
no belief-system, no dogma, and no scripture. It       meaning available to him. By creating the idea of
does not believe in god, it does not believe in the    god he can believe in meaning, and he can live
soul, or in any state of moksha. It is a               this futile life with the idea that somebody is
tremendous unbelief. Yet it is a religion. It is       looking after it.
unique. Nothing has ever happened before like
that in the history of human consciousness, and        Just think: you are in an air flight and somebody
nothing afterwards. Buddha remains utterly             comes and says, ‘there is no pilot.’ Suddenly
unique, incomparable.                                  there will be a panic. No pilot?! ‘No pilot’ simply
                                                       means you are doomed. Then somebody says,
He says that god is nothing but a search for           ‘believe the pilot is there invisible. We may not
security, a search for safety, a search for shelter.   be able to see the pilot, but he is there; otherwise
You believe in god, not because god is there; you      how is this beautiful mechanism functioning?
believe in god because you feel helpless without       Just think of it: everything is going so beautifully
that belief. Even if there is no god, you will go on   there must be a pilot! Maybe we are not capable
inventing. The temptation comes from your              of seeing him, maybe we are not yet prayerful
weakness. It is a projection. Man feels very           enough to see him, maybe our eyes are closed,
limited, very helpless, almost a victim of             but the pilot is there. Otherwise, how is it
circumstances. He does not know from where he          possible? This airplane has taken off, it is flying
comes and where he is going. Also he does not          perfectly well; the engines are humming.
know why he is here.                                   Everything is a proof that there is a pilot.’

Without god it is very difficult for ordinary man      If somebody proves it, you relax again into your
to have any meaning in life. The ordinary mind         chair. You close your eyes, you start dreaming
will go crazy without god. God is a prop for you.      again and you can fall asleep. The pilot is there,
It helps you, consoles you, and comforts you. It       you need not worry. Buddha says: the pilot does
says, ‘do not be worried the almighty god knows        not exist. It is a human creation. Man has created
everything about why you are here. He is the           god in his own image. It is man’s invention; god
creator he knows why he has created the world.         is not a discovery, it is an invention. And god is
You may not know but the father knows, and you         not the truth it is the greatest lie there is. That is
can trust in him.’ it is a great consolation. The      why I say Buddhism is not a religion in the
very idea of god gives you a sense of relief. It
ordinary sense of the term. Buddhism is god less       Their physical bodies go on growing, but their
religion that you cannot imagine?                      minds remain stuck there somewhere below the
                                                       age of ten. Christianity, Judaism, Islam,
When for the first time western scholars became        Hinduism, is the religions below the age of ten.
aware of Buddhism, they were shocked. They             They fulfill whatsoever are your needs. These
could not comprehend that a religion can exist --      religions are not too much worried about the
and without god! They had known only Judaism,          truth. They are more worried about you. Instead
Christianity and Islam. All these three religions      they are more worried how to console you. The
are in a way very immature compared to                 situation is such: the mother has died and the
Buddhism. Buddhism is religion come of age.            child is crying, and you have to console the child.
                                                       So you tell lies. You pretend that the mother has
 Buddhism is the religion of a mature mind.            not died: ‘she has gone for a visit to the
                                                       neighbors -- she will be coming. Do not be
Buddhism is not childish at all. It does not help      worried, she will be just coming. Or ‘she has gone
any childish desires in you. It is very merciless.     for a long journey. It will take a few days but she
Let me repeat it: there has never been a man           will I be back.’ or: ‘she has gone to visit god
more compassionate than Buddha, but his                nothing to be worried about. She is still alive:
religion is merciless. In fact, in that                maybe she has left the body, but the soul lives
mercilessness he is showing his compassion. He         forever.’
will not allow you to cling to any lie. Howsoever
consoling, a lie is a lie. And those who have given    Buddha is the most shattering individual in the
you the lie, they are not friends to you, they are     whole history of humanity. His whole effort is to
enemies because under the impact of the lie you        drop all props. He does not say to believe in
will live a life full of lies. The truth has to be     anything. He is an unbeliever and his religion is
brought to you, howsoever hard, shattering, and        that of un-belief. He does not say ‘believe!’ he
shocking it may be. Even if you are annihilated        says ‘doubt!’ now, you have heard about
by the impact of the truth it is good. Buddha          religions which say ‘believe!’
says: the truth is that man’s religions are man’s
inventions. You are in a dark night surrounded         But you have never heard about a religion which
by alien forces. You need someone to hang on to,       says ‘doubt!’ Doubt is the very methodology.
someone to cling to. And everything that you can       Doubt to the very core. Doubt to the very end.
see is changing constantly. Your father will die       Doubt to the very last. And when you have
one day and you will be left alone. Your mother        doubted everything and you have dropped
will die one day and you will be left alone, and       everything out of doubt, and then suddenly
you will be an orphan. And from the very               reality arises in your vision. It has nothing to do
childhood you have been accustomed to having a         with your beliefs about god. It is nothing like
father to protect you, and a mother to love you.       your so-called god. Then arises reality:
                                                       absolutely unfamiliar and unknown. But that
As you grow your childish desire will again            possibility exists only when all the beliefs have
assert itself: you will need a father-figure. If you   been dropped and the mind has come to a state
cannot find it in the sky, then you will find it in    of maturity, understanding, and acceptance of
some politician. Stalin became the father of           ‘whatsoever is. And we do not desire otherwise.
Soviet Russia and they had dropped the idea of         If there is no god, or no god makes no difference.
god. Mao became the father of china and they           And we do not have any desire to project a god. If
had dropped the idea of god. But man is such           there is no god, then we accept it.’ This is what
that he cannot live without a father-figure. Man       maturity is.
is childish. There are very few rare people who
grow to be mature.                                     Maturity accepts the fact and never creates any
                                                       fiction around it. To accept the reality as it is,
My own observation is this that people remain          without trying to sweeten it, or without trying to
near about the age of seven, eight, and nine.          decorate it, or without trying to make it more
acceptable to your heart. If it is shattering, let it    unconscious became the god. Then everything is
shatter. If it is shocking, let it shock. If the truth   determined by the unconscious of man, and man
kills, then one is ready to be killed. Buddha is         is helpless in the hands of the unconscious. Now
merciless. And nobody has ever opened the door           these are new names for god; it is a new
of reality so deeply and profoundly as he has            mythology.
done. He does not allow you any childish desires.
He says: become more aware, more conscious,              The Freudian psychology is a new mythology
and more courageous. Do not go on hiding                 about god. The name is changed but the content
behind beliefs and masks and theologies. Take            remains the same; the label has changed, the old
hold of your life into your own hands. Burn              label has been dropped; but a fresh, newly-
bright your inner light and see whatsoever is.           painted label has been put on it that can deceive
And once you have become courageous enough               people who are not very alert. But if you go
to accept it, it is a benediction. No belief is          deeper into Freudian analysis you will
needed. That is Buddha’s first step towards              immediately see that now the unconscious is
reality.                                                 doing the same work that god used to do. So
                                                         what is wrong with poor god? If you have to
All belief-systems are poisonous and barriers.           invent something and man has always to be
Buddha is neither a theist nor an atheist. He says,      determined by something history, economics,
a few people believe that there is god and a few         unconscious, and this and that. If man cannot be
people believe that there is no god, but both are        free, then what is the point of changing
believers. His non-belief is so deep that even           mythologies, theologies? It makes not much
those who say there is no god, and believe in it,        difference. You may be a Hindu, or a Muslim, or a
are not acceptable to him. He says that just to say      Christian, or a Jew makes not much difference.
there is no god makes no difference. If you              Your mind remains childish and you remain
remain childish, you will create another source          immature.
of god. For example, Karl Marx declared: ‘there is
no god,’ but then he created a god out of history.       You remain in search, you continue to search for
History becomes the god; the same function is            a father figure: someone somewhere who can
being done now by history that was done                  explain everything, who can become the ultimate
previously by the concept of god. What was god           explanation. The mature mind is one who can
doing? God was the determining factor. God was           remain without any search even if there is no
the managing factor. It was god who was                  ultimate explanation of things. That is why
deciding what should be and what should not be.          Buddha says: I am not a metaphysician. He has
Marx dropped the idea of god, but then history           no metaphysics. Metaphysics means the ultimate
became the determining factor, then history              explanation about things -- he has no ultimate
became the fate. Then history is determining.            explanation.
Now what is history? And Marx says communism
is an inevitable state. History has determined           Buddha does not say, ‘I have solved the mystery.’
that it will come, and everything is determined          he does not say, ‘here I hand over to you what
by history. Now history becomes a super-god.             truth is.’ he says, ‘the only thing that I can give to
But somebody to determine is needed.                     you is an impetus, a thirst, a tremendous passion,
                                                         to become aware, conscious, and alert; so that
Man cannot live with indeterminate reality. Man          you live your life consciously, full of light and
cannot live with reality as it is: chaotic, and          awareness, that your life is solved.’ There is no
accidental. Man cannot live with reality without         need for some ultimate explanation of existence.
finding some idea which makes it meaningful,             Nobody has ever come. Buddha denies
relevant, and continuous, which gives it a shape         metaphysics completely. He says metaphysics is
which reason can understand; which can be                a futile search. So the first thing: he denies god.
dissected, and analyzed, into cause and effect.          And          then         Buddha         continues….
Freud dropped the idea of god, but then the
BUDDHA VISION

 O wanderer on the mystical sojourn
        The merger of the two
     Shall reveal the singular way
     To the mysterious commune.
        Between the twin peaks
     Lays the inexhaustible source;
        The indivisible reality;
         The Mystic Female.
         It is in the beginning,
            It is in the end.
  Yet end and beginning, exists not.
        It is an eternal middle.


          Neelambar sings:
       O my radiant paramour
       See with the Buddha eye
       The amrita that is closest
   This exists in mind immaculate.
        To a fool who squints
         One lamp is as two;
The most firmly established on the path
       Appear the most remiss.
           http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbVXrtRXhVY

     A MONTHLY DOWNLOADABLE E MAGAZINE

 A PRODUCTION OF TAOSHOBUDDHA MEDITATIONS

                  DOWNLOAD FROM

      1. WWW.SCRIBD.COM/TAOSHOBUDDHA
   2. WWW.ISSUU.COM/TAOSHOBUDDHALIBRARY
      3. WWW.DOCSTOC.COM/TAOSHOBUDDHA
         4. WWW.SCRIBD.COM/AVATAR411
    5. WWW.EBOOKMALL.COM/TAOSHOBUDDHA


 JUST LOG ON TO THE ISSUE ON ANY SEARCH ENGINE
                     AND DOWNLOAD


MEDITATION TIMESTM IS A GIFT FROM THE ENLIGHTENED


                     TAOSHOBUDDHA


       EDITED BY SWAMI ANAND NEELAMBAR
     (A MAN OF IMPECABLE INSIGHT AND POET)
2009 ISSUES
TIMES 2010 ISSUES

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:62
posted:4/26/2010
language:English
pages:82
BRIJ SAKSENA BRIJ SAKSENA SPIRITUAL MASTER http://dhyan-samadhi.webs.com/
About TAOSHOBUDDHA IS BORN IN INDIA IN A FAMILY OF SUFI MASTERS. I am here for all that existence wants me to be. Therefore I go on allowing happening all that existence has sent me for. And whatsoever the existence does not want to happen I will not allow happening. My being is absorbed in God. This is totality. And this, the word ‘God’ means to me. This is flowing in God or cosmic harmony. And the moment this happened, I became suddenly all - infinite - OCEANIC... AND NOW SOUR IN INFINITE SKY EFFORTLESSLY.... SCORES OF HIS VIDEOS ARE AVAILABLE ON VARIOUS PATHS AND MASTERS ON YOU TUBE.COM /TAOSHOBUDDHA; AND MANY OTHER SITES. HE HAS WORLDWIDE MEDITATION IN TRINIDAD, FLORIDA, BOSTON, NEWYORK, SWEDEN AND MANY OTHER CITIES OF THE WORLD. SCORES OF HIS BOOKS CAN BE PURCHASED AT MAJOR SITES WORLDWIDE AND BOOK STORES. FOR COMPETE LIST LOG TAOSHOBUDDHA ON ANY SEARCH ENGINE. LIST OF BOOKS: FROM STERLING PUBLISHERS, NEW, DELHI, INDIA 1. MEDITATION THE WAY TO SELF REALIZATION 2. THE SECRETS OF BHAKTI 3. THE ESSENCE OF SUFISM BOOKS PUBLISHED FROM I.PROCLAIM BOOK STORE.COM PITTSBURG PA 1. HARIPATH-THE HIDDEN SPLENDOR 2. FRUITS THE ESSENCE OF LIFE VIGOR 3. MEDITATION THE ULTIMATE IN HEALING 4. LEAVES FROM A SUFI HEART VOL 1 5. LEAVES FROM A SUFI HEART VOL 2 6. SHAH BAHAUDDIN NAQSHBAND - LIFE AND WORKS 7. MARAQBA-I-NAQSHBANDI 8. MARAQBA-I-RUMI 9. JAPJI SAHIB SONGS OF NANAK 10. SRI RAMA GITS 11. OM GANESHYAH NAMAH 12. QUEST FOR BIRTH AND DEATH IN SAVITRY OF DRI AUROBINDO 13. SAVITRI - REVIEW BY TAOSHOBUDDHA 14. TASUWWARE SHEIKH 15. THE SECRETS OF SPIRITUAL LIFE (TALKS OF TAOSHOBUDDHA) BY LARS JENSEN 16. SRIMAD BHAGWAD PURANA INTRODUCTION AND MORE BOOKS ARE IN PUBLICATION. SCORE OF HIS FREE DOCUMENTS ARE AVAILABLE ON DOCSTOC.COM; SCRIBD.COM' ISSUU.COM E MAIL: mailtaoshobuddha@gmail.com mailtaoshobuddha@yahoo.com PHONE: 1-954-381-1227 WEB SITE: http://dhyan-samadhi.webs.com/ 65 titles of taoshobuddha are available both in print and digital format. www.https//amazon.com/taoshobuddha