Ending of Time

Chapter 5
12th April 1980
Conversation with Prof. David Bohm
The Ground of Being, and The Mind of Man

DAVID BOHM: Perhaps we could go further into the nature of the ground; whether we could come to it and whether it has any relationship to human beings. And also whether there could be a change in the physical behaviour of the brain.

KRISHNAMURTI: Could we approach this question from the point of view, why do we have ideas? And is the ground an idea? That is where we must first be clear. Why have ideas become so important?

DB: Perhaps because the distinction between ideas, and what is beyond ideas, is not clear. Ideas are often taken to be something more than ideas; we feel they are not ideas but a reality.

K: That is what I want to find out. Is the ground an idea, or is it imagination, an illusion, a philosophic concept? Or something that is absolute, in the sense that there is nothing beyond it?

DB: How can you tell that there is nothing beyond it?

K: I am coming to that. I want to see whether we look at that, or perceive that, or have an insight into that, from a concept. Because after all the whole Western world - perhaps also the Eastern world - is based on concepts. The whole outlook and religious beliefs, are based on that. But do we approach it from that point of view or as a philosophic investigation - philosophic, in the sense, love of wisdom, love of truth, love of investigation, the process of the mind? Are we doing that when we discuss, when we want to investigate, explain, or find out what that ground is?

DB: Well, perhaps not all the philosophers have been basing their approach on concepts, although certainly philosophy is taught through concepts. Certainly it is very hard to teach it except through concepts.

K: What then is the difference between a religious mind and a philosophic mind? You understand what I am trying to convey? Can we investigate the ground from a mind that is disciplined in knowledge?

DB: Fundamentally, inherently, we say that the ground is unknown. Therefore we can't begin with knowledge, and we have suggested we start with the unknown.

K: Yes. Say for instance `X' says there is such a ground. And all of us, `Y' and `Z', say, what is that ground, prove it, show it, let it manifest itself? When we ask such questions, is it with a mind that is seeking, or rather that has this passion, this love for truth? Or are we merely saying let's talk about it?

DB: I think that in that mind there is the demand for certainty; we want to be sure. So there is no enquiring.

K: Suppose you state that there is such a thing, that there is the ground; it is immovable, etc. And I say, I want to find out. Show it, prove it to me. How can my mind, which has evolved through knowledge, which has been highly disciplined in knowledge, even touch that? Because that is not knowledge, it is not put together by thought.

DB: Yes, as soon as we say, prove it, we want to turn it into knowledge.

K: That's it!

DB: We want to be absolutely certain, so that there can be no doubt. And yet, on the other side of the coin, there is also the danger of self-deception and delusion.

K: Of course. The ground cannot be touched as long as there is any form of illusion, which is the projection of desire, pleasure or fear. So how do I perceive that thing? Is the ground an idea to be investigated? Or is it something that cannot be investigated?

DB: Right.

K: Because my mind is trained, disciplined, by experience and knowledge, and it can only function in that area. And someone comes along and tells me that this ground is not an idea, is not a philosophic concept; it is not something that can be put together, or perceived by thought.

DB: It cannot be experienced, it cannot be perceived or understood through thought.

K: So what have I? What am I to do? I have only this mind that has been conditioned by knowledge. How am I to move away from all that? How am I, an ordinary man, educated, well-read, experienced, to feel this thing, to touch it, to comprehend it?

You tell me words will not convey that. You tell me you must have a mind that is free from all knowledge, except that which is technological. And you are asking an impossible thing of me, aren't you? And, if I say I will make an effort, then that also is born out of the self-centred desire. So what shall I do? I think that is a very serious question. That is what every serious person asks.

DB: At least implicitly. They may not say it.

K: Yes, implicitly. So you, on the other side of the bank, as it were, tell me that there is no boat to cross in. You can't swim across. In fact you can't do anything. Basically, that is what it comes to. So what shall I do? You are asking me, you are asking the mind, not the general mind but...

DB: ...the particular mind.

K: You are asking this particular mind to eschew all knowledge. Has this ever been said in the Christian or the jewish worlds?

DB: I don't know about the jewish world, but in some sense the Christians tell you to give your faith to God, to give over to jesus, as the mediator between us and God.

K: Yes. Now Vedanta means the end of knowledge. And being a Westerner, I say, it means nothing to me. Because from the Greeks and all that, the culture in which I have lived has emphasized knowledge. But when you talk to some Eastern minds, they acknowledge in their religious life that a time must come when knowledge must end; the mind must be free of knowledge. Vedanta is the whole way of looking. But it is only a conceptual, a theoretical understanding. But to a Westerner, it means absolutely nothing.

DB: I think that there has been a Western tradition which is similar, but not as common. For example, in the Middle Ages there was a book called The Cloud of Unknowing, which is on that line, although it is not the main line of Western thought.

K: So what shall I do? How shall I approach the question? I want to find it. It gives meaning to life. It is not that my intellect gives meaning to life by inventing some illusion, some hope, some belief, but I see vaguely that this understanding, coming upon this ground, gives an immense significance to life.

DB: Well, people have used that notion of God to give significance to life.

K: No, no. God is merely an idea.

DB: Yes, but the idea contains something similar to the Eastern idea that God is beyond knowing. Most people accept it that way, though some may not. So there is some sort of similar notion.

K: But you tell me that the ground is not created by thought. So you cannot under any circumstances come upon it through any form of manipulation of thought.

DB: Yes, I understand. But I am trying to say that there is this problem, danger, delusion, in the sense that people say, `Yes, that is quite true, it is through a direct experience of Jesus that we come upon it, not through the thought of God, you see!' I am not able to express their view accurately. possibly, the grace of God?

K: The grace of God, yes.

DB: Something beyond thought, you see.

K: As a fairly educated, thoughtful man, I reject all that.

DB: Why do you reject it?

K: Because it has become common, first of all, common in the sense that everybody says that! And also there may be in it a great sense of illusion created by desire, hope, fear.

DB: Yes, but some people do seem to find this meaningful although it may be an illusion.

K: But if they had never heard of Jesus, they wouldn't experience Jesus.

DB: That seems reasonable.

K: They would experience something different that they have been taught. In India I mean...

QUESTIONER: But don't the more serious people in the religions say that essentially God, or whatever that is, the Absolute, the ground, is something that cannot be experienced through thinking? Also they might go so far as to say it cannot be experienced at all.

K: Oh, yes, I have said it cannot be experienced. `X' says it cannot be experienced. Let's say, I don't know. Here is a person who says there is such a thing. And I listen to him, and not only does he convey it by his presence, but through the word. Although he tells me to be careful; the word is not the thing; but he uses the word to convey that there is this something so immense that my thought cannot capture it. And I say, all right, you have explained that very carefully, and how is my brain, that is conditioned, disciplined in knowledge, how is it to free itself from all that?

Q: Could it free itself by understanding its own limitation?

K: So you are telling me thought is limited. Show it to me! Not by talking or memory, experience or knowledge; I understand that, but I don't capture the feeling that it is limited, because I see the beauty of the earth, I see the beauty of a building, of a person, of nature. I see all that, but when you say thought is limited, I don't feel it. It is just a lot of words which you have said to me. Intellectually I understand. But I have no feeling for it. There is no perfume in it. How will you show me - not show me - how will you help me - not help - aid me, to have this feeling that thought itself is brittle, it is such a small affair? So that it is in my blood - you understand? When once it is in my blood, I have got it. You don't have to explain it.

Q: But isn't that the possible approach, not to talk about the ground, that at the moment is far too removed, but rather to look directly at what the mind can do.

K: Which is thinking.

Q: The mind is thinking.

K: That is all I have. Thinking, feeling, hating, loving - you know all that. The activity of the mind.

Q: Well, I would say we don't know it, we only think we know it.

K: I know when I am angry. I know when I am wounded. It is not an idea, I have got the feeling, I am carrying the hurt inside me. I am fed up with the investigation because I have done it all my life. I go to Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam - and I say I have investigated, studied, looked at them. I say these are all just words. How do I as a human being have this extraordinary feeling about it? If I have no passion, I am not investigating. I want to have this passion that will explode me out of this little enclosure, have built a wall around myself, a wall, which is myself. A man has lived with this thing for millions of years. And I have been trying to get out of it by studying, by reading, by going to gurus, by all kinds of things, but I am still anchored there. And you talk about the ground, because you see something that is breathtaking, that seems so alive, so extraordinary. And I am here, anchored in here. You, who have `seen' the ground, must do something that will explode, break up this centre completely.

Q: I must do something, or you must?

K: Help me! Not by prayer, and all that nonsense. You understand what I am trying to say? I have fasted, I have meditated, I have renounced, I have taken a vow of this and that. I have done all those things. Because I have had a million years of life. And at the end of the million years I am still where I was, at the beginning. This is a great discovery for me; I thought I had moved on from the beginning, by going through all this, but I suddenly discover I am back at the same point where I started. I have had more experience, I have seen the world, I have painted, I have played music, I have danced - you follow? But I have come back to the original starting point.

Q: Which is me and not me.

K: Me. I say to myself, what am I to do? And what is the human mind's relationship to the ground? perhaps if I could establish a relationship it might break up this centre, totally. This is not a motive, not a desire, not a reward. I see that if the mind could establish a relationship with that, my mind has become that - right?

Q: But hasn't mind then already become that?

K: Oh, no.

Q: But I think you have just wiped away the greatest difficulty in saying there is no desire.

K: No, no. I said I have lived a million years...

Q: But that is an insight.

K: No. I won't accept insight so easily as that.

Q: Well, let me put it this way: it is something much more than knowledge.

K: No, you are missing my point. My brain has lived for a million years. It has experienced everything. It has been Buddhist, Hindu, Christian, Muslim; it has been all kinds of things, but the core of it is the same. And someone comes along and says, look there is a ground which is... something! Am I going back to what I have already known - the religions, etc? I reject all that, because I say I have been through it all, and they are like ashes to me at the end of it.

DB: Well, all those things were the attempt to create an apparent ground by thought. It seemed that through knowledge and thought, people created what they regarded as the ground. And it wasn't.

K: It wasn't. Because man has spent a million years at it.

DB: So long as knowledge enters the ground, that will be false?

K: Of course. So is there a relationship between that ground and the human mind? In asking that question, I am also aware of the danger of such a question.

DB: Well, you may create a delusion of the same kind that we have already gone through.

K: Yes. I have played that song before.

Q: Are you suggesting that the relationship cannot be made by you, but it must come?

K: I am asking that. No, it may be that I have to make a relationship. My mind now is in such a state that I won't accept a thing. My mind says I have been through all this before. I have suffered, I have searched, I have looked, I have investigated, I have lived with people who are awfully clever at this kind of thing. So I am asking the question, being fully aware of the danger of it, as when the Hindus say, God is in you, Brahman is in you - which is a lovely idea! But I have been through all that.

So I am asking if the human mind has no relationship to the ground, and if there is only a one-way passage, from that to me...
DB: Surely that's like the grace of God then, that you have invented.

K: That I won't accept.

DB: You are not saying the relationship is one way, nor are you saying it is not one way.

K: Maybe; I don't know.

DB: You are not saying anything.

K: I am not saying anything. All that I `want' is this centre to be blasted. You understand? For the centre not to exist. Because I see that the centre is the cause of all the mischief, all the neurotic conclusions, all the illusions, all the endeavour, all the effort, all the misery - everything is from that core. After a million years, I haven't been able to get rid of it; it hasn't gone. So is there a relationship at all? What is the relationship between goodness and evil? Consider it. There is no relationship.

DB: It depends on what you mean by relationship.

K: Contact, touch, communication, being in the same room...

DB: ...coming from the same root.

K: Yes.

Q: But are we then saying that there is the good, and there is the evil?

K: No, no. Let's use another word; whole, and that which is not whole. It is not an idea. Now is there relationship between these two? Obviously not.

DB: No, if you are saying that in some sense the centre is an illusion. An illusion cannot be related to that which is true, because the content of the illusion has no relation to what is true.

K: That's it. You see, that is a great discovery. I want to establish relationship with that. Want; I am using rapid words to convey something. This petty little thing wants to have relationship with that immensity. It cannot.

DB: Yes, not just because of its immensity, but because in fact this thing is not - actually?

K: Yes.

Q: But I don't see that. He says the centre is not actual, but I don't see that the centre is not actual.

DB: Not actual, in the sense of not being genuine but an illusion. I mean, something is acting but it is not the content which we know.

K: Do you see that?

Q: You say the centre must explode. It does not explode because I don't see the falseness in it.

K: No. You have missed my point. I have lived a million years, I have done all this. And at the end of it I am still back at the beginning.
Q: So you say the centre must explode.

K: No, no, no. The mind says this is too terribly small. And it can't do anything about it... It has prayed, it has done everything. But the centre is still there. And someone tells me there is this ground. I want to establish a relationship with that.

Q: He tells me there is this thing, and also says that the centre is an illusion.

DB: Wait, that is too quick.

K: No. Wait. I know it is there. Call it what you like, an illusion, a reality, a fiction - whatever you like. It is there. And the mind says, it is not good enough; it wants to capture that. It wants to have relationship with it. And that says, `Sorry, you can't have relationship with me.' That's all!

Q: Is that mind which wants to be in connection, in relationship with that, the same mind which is the `me'?

K: Don't split it up, please. You are missing something. I have lived all this. I know, I can argue with you, back and forth. I have a million years of experience, and it has given me a certain capacity. And I realize at the end of it all there is no relationship between me and truth. And that's a tremendous shock to me. It is as if you have knocked me out, because my million years of experience say, go after that, seek it, pray for it, struggle for it, cry, sacrifice for it. I have done all that. And suddenly it is pointed out that I cannot have relationship with that. I have shed tears, left my family, everything, for, that. And that says, `No relationship'. So what has happened to Me? This is what I want to get at. Do you understand what I am saying - what has happened to me? To the mind that has lived this way, done everything in search of that, when that says, `You have no relationship with me'. This is the greatest thing...

Q: It is a tremendous shock to the `me', if you say that.

K: Is it to you?

Q: I think it was, and then...

K: Don't! I am asking you, is it a shock to discover that your brain, and your mind, your knowledge, are valueless? All your examinations, all your struggles, all the things that you have gathered through years and years, centuries, are absolutely worthless? Do you go mad, because you say you have done all this for nothing? Virtue, abstinence, control, everything - and at the end of it, you say they are valueless! Do you understand what this does to you?

DB: I mean, if the whole thing goes, then it is of no consequence.

K: Absolutely, you have no relationship. What you have done or not done is absolutely of no value.

DB: Not in any fundamental sense. It has relative value, relative value only within a certain framework, which in itself has no value.

K: Yes, thought has relative value.

DB: But the framework in general has no value.

K: That's right. The ground says, whatever you have done `on earth' has no meaning. Is that an idea? Or an actuality? Idea being that you have told me, but I still go on, struggling, wanting, groping. Or is it an actuality, in the sense that I suddenly realize the futility of all that I have done. So, one must be very careful to see that it is not a concept; or rather that one doesn't translate it into a concept or an idea, but receive the full blow of it!

Q: You see, Krishnaji, for hundreds of years, probably since man has existed, he has pursued what he calls God, or the ground.

K: As an idea.

Q: But then the scientific mind came along, and also said it is just an idea, it is just foolish.

K: Oh, no! The scientific mind says that through investigating matter we will perhaps come upon the ground.

DB: Yes, many feel that way. Some would even add, investigate the brain, you see.

K: Yes. That is the purpose of investigating the mind, not to blast each other off the earth, with guns. We are talking of `good' scientists, not governmental scientists, but those who say, we are examining matter, the brain and all that, to find out if there is something beyond all this.

Q: And many people, many scientists, would say that they have found the ground; the ground is empty, it is emptiness; it is an energy which is different from man.

K: Now, is that an idea, or an actuality to them, which affects their life, their blood, their mind, their relationship with the world?

Q: I think it is just an idea.

K: Then I am sorry, I have been through that. I was a scientist ten thousand years ago! You follow? I have been through all that. If it is merely an idea, we can both play at that game. I can send the ball to you, it is in your court, and you can send it back to me. We can play that. But I have finished with that kind of game.

DB: Because, in general, what people discover about matter does not seem to affect them deeply, psychologically.

K: No, of course not.

DB: You might think that if they saw the whole unity of the universe they would act differently, but they don't.

Q: You could say that it has affected some of their lives. You see the whole Communist doctrine is built on the idea (which they think is a fact) that whatever is, is just a material process, which is essentially empty. So then man has to organize his life and society according to those dialectical principles.

K: No, no, dialectical principles are opinion opposing another opinion; man hoping, out of opinions, to find the truth.

DB: I think we should leave this aside. There are ways of looking at different meanings of the word dialectical - but one needs to see reality as a flowing movement; not to see things as fixed, but to see them in movement and interconnection. I think that you could say that whatever way people managed to look at it, after they saw this unity it didn't fundamentally change their lives. In Russia, the same structures of the mind, if not worse, hold as elsewhere. And wherever people have tried this, it has not actually, fundamentally, affected the way they feel and think, and the way they live.

Q: You see, what I wanted to say is that the dismissal of the pursuit of the ground has not had any shocking effect on people.

K: No! I am not interested. It has given me a tremendous shock to discover the truth, that all the churches, prayers, books, have absolutely no meaning - except how we can build a better society, and so on.

DB: If we could manage to bring this point to order, then it would have great meaning - to build a good society. But as long as this disorder is at the centre, we can't use that in the right way. I think it would be more accurate to say that there is a great potential meaning in all that. But it does not affect the centre, and there is no sign that it has ever done so.

Q: You see what I don't understand is that there are many people who in their life have never pursued what you call the ground.

K: They are not interested.

Q: Well, I am not so sure. How would you approach such a person?

K: I am not interested in approaching any person. All the works I have done - everything I have done - the ground says are valueless. And if I can drop all that, my mind is the ground. Then from there I move. From there I create society.

DB: I think you could say that as long as you are looking for the ground somewhere by means of knowledge, then you are getting in the way.

K: So to come back to earth; why has man done this?

DB: Done what?

K: Accumulated knowledge. Apart from the necessity of having factual knowledge in certain areas, why has this burden of knowledge continued for so long?

DB: Because in one sense man has been trying to produce a solid ground through knowledge. Knowledge has tried to create a ground. That is one of the things that has happened.

K: Which means what?

DB: It means illusion again.

K: Which means that the saints, the philosophers, have educated me - in knowledge and through knowledge - to find the ground.

Q: To create a ground. You see, in a way, there used to be all these periods when mankind was caught in superstition. And knowledge was able to do away with that.

K: Oh, no.

Q: To some extent it was.

K: Knowledge has only crippled me from seeing truth. I stick to that. It hasn't cleared me of My illusions. Knowledge may be illusory itself.

Q: That may be, but it has cleared up some illusions.

K: I want to clear up all the illusions that I hold - not some. I have got rid of my illusion about nationalism; I have got rid of illusion about belief, about this, about that. At the end of it, I realize my mind is illusion. You see, to me, who have lived for a thousand years, to find all this is absolutely worthless, is something enormous.

DB: When you say you have lived for a thousand years, or a million years, does that mean, in a sense, that all the experience of mankind is.?

K: ...is me.

DB: ...is me. Do you feel that?

K: I do.

DB: And how do you feel it?

K: How do we feel anything? Wait a minute, I will tell you. It is not sympathy, or empathy, it is not a thing that I have desired, it is a fact, an absolute, irrevocable fact.

DB: Could we share that feeling, perhaps? You see, that seems to be one of the steps that is missing, because you have repeated that quite often as an important part of the whole thing.

K: Which means that when you love somebody there is no, me, - it is love. In the same way, when I say I am humanity, it is so; it is not an idea, it is not a conclusion, it is part of me.

DB: Let's say it is a feeling that I have gone through all that, all that you describe.

K: Human beings have been through all that.

DB: If others have gone through it, then I also have gone through it.

K: Of course. One is not aware of it.

DB: No, we separate.

K: If we admit that our brains are not my particular brain, but the brain that has evolved through millennia...

DB: Let me say why this doesn't communicate so easily: everybody feels that the content of his brain is in some way individual, that he hasn't gone through all that. Let's say that somebody, thousands of years ago, went through science or philosophy. Now how does that affect me? That is what is not clear.

K: Because I am caught in this self-centred, narrow little cell, which refuses to look beyond. But you as a scientist, as a religious man, come along and tell me that your brain is the brain of mankind.

DB: Yes, and all knowledge is the knowledge of mankind. So that in some way we have all knowledge.

K: Of course.

DB: Though not in detail.

K: So you tell me that, and I understand what you mean, not verbally, not intellectually; it is so. But I come to that only when I have given up ordinary things, like nationality, etc.

DB: Yes, we have given up the divisions, and we can see that the experience is of all mankind.

K: It is so obvious. You go to the most primitive village in India, and the peasant will tell you all about his problems, his wife, children, poverty. It is exactly the same thing, only he is wearing different clothes or whatever! For `X', this is an indisputable fact; it is so. He says, all right, at the end of all this, of all these years, I suddenly discover that it is empty. You see, we don't accept it, we are too clever. We are so soaked with disputations and arguments and knowledge. We don't see a simple fact. We refuse to see it. And `X' comes along and says, see it, it is there: then the immediate machinery of thought begins - and says, be silent. So I practise silence! I have done that for a thousand years. It has led nowhere.

So there is only one thing, and that is to discover that all that I have done is useless - ashes! You see that doesn't depress one. That is the beauty of it. I think it is like the phoenix.

DB: Rising from the ashes.

K: Born of ashes.

DB: In a way it is freedom, to be free of all that.

K: Something totally new is born.

DB: Now what you said before is that the mind is the ground, it is the unknown.

K: The mind? Yes. But not this mind.

DB: In that case it is not the same mind.

K: If I have been through all that, and come to a point when I have to end all that, it is a new mind.

DB: That's clear, the mind is its content, and the content is knowledge, and without that knowledge it is a new mind.

Chapter 6
15th April 1980
Conversation with Prof. David Bohm
Can Insight Bring About a Mutation of The Brain Cells?

DAVID BOHM: You have said that insight changes the brain cells, and I wonder if we could discuss that?

KRISHNAMURTI: As it is constituted, the brain functions in one direction: memory, experience, knowledge. It has functioned in that area as much as possible, and most people are satisfied with it.

DB: Well, they don't know of anything else.

K: And also they have placed knowledge in supreme importance. If one is concerned with fundamental change, where does one begin? Suppose `X' feels he will go along a certain direction set by mankind. He has been going there century after century, and he asks himself what is radical change; if it is in the environment, or in human relationships; if it is a sense of love, which is not in the area of knowledge. Where is it to begin? You understand my question? Unless there is some mutation taking place inside here, inside my mind, the brain, I may think I have changed, but it is a superficial change, and not a change in depth.

DB: Yes. What is implied there is that the present state of affairs involves not only the mind but also the nervous system and the body. Everything is set in a certain way.

K: Of course. That is what I meant, the whole movement is set in a certain way. And along that pattern I can modify, adjust, polish a little more, a little less and so on. But if a man is concerned with radical change, where is he to begin? As we said the other day, we have relied on the environment or society and various disciplines to change us, but I feel these are all in the same direction.

DB: In so far as they all emanate from this thing, the way the mind and body are set, they are not going to change anything. There is a total structure involved which is in the brain, in the body, in the whole of society.

K: Yes, yes. So what am I to do? What is `X' to do? And in asking this question, what is there to change?

DB: What exactly do you mean by `what is there to change'? What is to be changed?

K: Yes, both; what is there to be changed, and what is there to change? Basically, what is there to change? `X' sees that he can change certain things along this way, but to go much further than that, what is one to do? I am sure man has asked this question. You must have asked it. But apparently the mutation hasn't taken place. So what is `X' to do? He realizes the need for a radical revolution, a psychological revolution; he perceives that the more he changes, it is the same thing continuing; the more he enquires into himself, the enquiry remains the same, and so on. So what is there to change; unless `X' finds a way to change the brain itself?

DB: But what will change the brain?

K: That's it. The brain has been set in a pattern for millennia! I think it is no longer `what' should I change. It is imperative that I change.

DB: So it is agreed that there must be a change, but the question is still, how can the brain change?

K: One must come to that point. If this question is put to you as a scientist, or as a human being who is involved in science, what would your answer be?

DB: I don't think science can deal with it, because it doesn't go far enough. It can't possibly probe that deeply into the structure of the brain. Many questions are positing the relationship of brain and mind, which science has not been able to resolve. Some people would say that there is nothing beyond the brain...

K: ...Purely materialistic; I understand all that.

DB: If it is not materialistic, then for the moment science has very little to say about it. Perhaps some people would try to, but science generally has been most successful, most systematic, in dealing with matter. Any attempt to do otherwise is not very clear.

K: So you would tell `X', to change inside in the brain cells, etc. My immediate answer to that is, how? Everybody asks that. It is not a matter of faith. It is not a matter of changing one pattern to another pattern. So you leave me without any direction - right? You leave me without any instrument that can penetrate this.

DB: Except that you are implying there is something beyond the brain, in putting that question. We don't know. The very statement implies that insight is somehow beyond the brain, else it couldn't change the brain.

K: Yes. So how am I to capture it? Maybe I can't capture it...

DB: ...but how will it come about? You are saying that something that is non-material can affect matter. This is the implication.

K: I am not sure.

DB: I think that clearing this up, would make more clear what your question is. It is somewhat puzzling if you don't.

K: All that you have said to me is, insight changes, brings about mutation in the brain. Now you explain what insight is, which is not a result of a progressive knowledge, not progressive time, not a remembrance. This insight may be the real activity of the brain.

DB: All right. Let's put it differently. The brain has many activities which include memory, and all these that you have mentioned. In addition there is a more inward activity, but it is still the activity of the brain.

K: It may be the same.

DB: You see, in putting this, something seems to be not quite clear.

K: Yes. We must be very clear that it is not the result of progressive knowledge; it is not come by through any exercise of will.

DB: Agreed. I think people can generally see that insight comes in a flash, it does not come through will. Those who have considered it at all can see that. Also, that chemistry will probably not bring it about.

K: I think most people who are concerned see that. But how am I, as `X', to have this insight? I see your logic, I see your reason.

DB: In some ways it may disturb people. It is not clear what the logic is, what is going to make this change in the brain. Is it something more than the brain, or is it something deeper in the brain? This is one of the questions.

K: Of course.

DB: It is not quite clear logically.

QUESTIONER: Are you saying that there is a function of the brain which acts without reference to its content?

K: Yes, to the past, to the content.

DB: This is a good question. Is there a function in the brain which is independent of the content? Which is not conditioned by the content, but that might still be a physical function?

K: I understand. Is this the question? Apart from the consciousness with its content, is there in the brain an activity which is not touched by consciousness?

DB: By the content; yes.

K: Content is the consciousness.

DB: Yes, but sometimes we use the word in another sense. Sometimes we imply that there could be another kind of consciousness. So if we call it `content' it would be more clear.

K: All right. A part of the brain which is not touched by the content.

DB: Yes, this suggests that it may be possible for the brain to change. Either the brain is entirely controlled by its content, or in some way it is not conditioned.

K: That is a dangerous concept!

DB: But it is what you are saying.

K: No. See the danger of it. See the danger of admitting to oneself that there is a part of the brain...

DB: ...an activity...

K: ...all right, an activity of the brain which is not touched by the content.
DB: It is a possible activity. It may be that it has not been awakened.

K: It has not been awakened. That's right.

Q: But what is the danger?

K: That is simple enough. The danger is that I am admitting there is God in me, that there is something superhuman; something beyond the content which therefore will operate on it, or that will operate in spite of it.

Q: But which part of the brain sees the danger?

K: Let us go slowly. Which part of the brain sees the danger? Of course it is the content that sees the danger.

Q: Does it?

K: Oh, yes, because the content is aware of all the tricks it has played.

DB: This is similar to many of the old tricks.

K: Yes.

DB: Those tricks we have discussed before - the assumption of God within, the imagination of God within. There is a danger here obviously.

Q: But could the brain, seeing the danger, make that statement nevertheless? Because that statement might be pointing to the right direction.

DB: Even though it is dangerous, it may be necessary to do so; it may be on the right track.

K: The unconscious, which is part of the content, may capture this, and say, `Yes' - so it sees the danger instantly.

Q: It sees its own trap.

K: Yes, it sees the trap which it has created. So it avoids that trap. That is sanity: to avoid a trap is sanity. Is there an activity which is totally independent of the content? Then, is that activity part of the brain?

DB: Is it a natural activity of the brain? Material in the brain.

K: Which means what?

DB: Well, if there is such a natural activity, it could awaken somehow, and that activity could change the brain.

K: But would you say it is still material?

DB: Yes. There could be different levels of matter, you see.

K: That is what I am trying to get at. Right.

DB: But you see, if you think that way, there could be a deeper level of matter which is not conditioned by the content. For example, we know matter in the universe is not conditioned by the content of our brains generally. There could be a deeper level of matter not conditioned in that way.

K: So it would still be matter, refined, or `super', or whatever; it would still be the content.

DB: Why do you say that? You see, you have to go slowly. Do you say that matter is content?

K: Yes.

DB: Inherently? But this has to be made clear, because it is not obvious.

K: Let's discuss it. Let's grip this. Thought is matter.

DB: Well, thought is part of the content, part of the material process. Whether it exists independently as matter is not so clear. You can say, water is matter; you can pour water from one glass to another, it has an independent substance. But it is not clear whether thought could stand as matter by itself, except with some other material substance like the brain in which it takes place. Is that clear?

K: I don't quite follow.

DB: If you say water is matter, then it is clear. Now if you say, thought is matter, then thought must have a similar independent substance. You say air is matter - right? Or water is matter. Now waves are not matter, they are just a process in matter. Is it clear what I mean?

K: Yes. A wave is a process in matter.

DB: A material process. Is thought matter or is it a process in matter?

Q: May one ask, is electricity considered to be matter?

DB: In so far as there are electron particles it is matter, but it is also a movement of that, which is a process.

Q: So it is two things.

DB: Well you can form waves of electricity, and so on.

Q: Waves would be the matter, but not the electrical action.

DB: The electrical action is like the waves, but the electricity consists of particles.

K: What is the question we are now asking?

DB: Is thought a material substance, or is it a process in some other material substance - like the brain?

K: It is a material process in the brain.

DB: Yes, scientists would generally agree with that.

K: Let's stick to that.

DB: If you say it is matter, they would become very puzzled.

K: I see.

Q: It doesn't exist apart from the brain cells. It resides in the brain.

K: That is, thought is a material process in the brain. That would be right. Then can that material process ever be independent?

DB: Independent of what?

K: Independent of something that is not a material process. No, wait a minute, we must go slowly. Thought is a material process in the brain. We all agree about this?

DB: Yes, you would get very wide agreement on that.

K: Then our question is, can that material process in the brain bring about a change in itself?

DB: Yes, that is the question.

K: In itself. And if that material in itself can change, it would still be a material process. Right?

DB: Yes. Thought is always apparently going to be a material process.

K: And therefore it is not insight. We must come back to that.

DB: You are saying that insight is not a material process?

K: Go slowly. We must be careful in using words. Thought is a material process in the brain; and any other movement, springing from that material process, is still material.

DB: Yes, it has to be.

K: Right. Is there another activity which is not a material process?

DB: Of course people have asked that question for ages. Is there spirit beyond matter?

K: Spirit, Holy Ghost! Is there some other activity of the brain which cannot be related to the material process?

DB: Well, it cannot depend upon it. Insight cannot depend on the material process, as it would then be just another material process.

K: Insight cannot depend on the material process, which is thought.

DB: But you were putting it the other way round, that the material process may depend on insight, may be changed by insight.

K: Ah, wait. The material process is dependent on it, but insight is not dependent on that process.

DB: Now many people would not see how something non-material would affect something material.

K: Yes, quite.

DB: It might be easily agreed that something non-material is not affected by matter, but then how does the operation work the other way?

K: What do you say? The brain thought, with its content, is a material process. Any activity from it is still part of that. Now is insight part of that too?

DB: We have agreed on its independence of that; it can't be part of it. But it can still act within the material process, that's the crucial thing.

K: Yes. That's right. Insight is independent of the material process, but yet it can act upon it.

DB: Let's discuss that a little. Generally speaking, in science, if `A' can act on `B' there is usually reciprocal action of `B' on `A'. We don't find situations where `A' acts on `B', but `B' never acts on `A'.

K: I see, I see.

DB: This is one of the difficulties you have raised. We don't find this elsewhere; in human relations, if I can act on you, you can act on me - right?

K: Yes, we see that human relationships are interaction.

DB: Yes, mutual relationships.

K: And in those relationships there is response, and so on. Now, if I don't respond to your action, I am independent of it.

DB: But you see, science generally finds that it is not possible to have a one-sided action.

K: Quite. So we are continually insisting that the material process must have a relationship to the other.

DB: An action, anyway. Relationship is an ambiguous word here. If you said action it would be more clear.

K: All right. The material process must be able to act on the non-material, and the non-material must act on the material.

DB: But that would make them both the same.

K: Exactly!

Q: Not necessarily. One could envisage that insight is a much larger movement than the material process of the brain, and therefore that the larger movement can act on the smaller movement, but the smaller cannot act on the larger.
K: Yes, we are saying the same thing.

DB: The small movement has no significant action on the larger movement. You can have a situation that if you drop a rock in the ocean, the ocean absorbs it with no significant change.

K: Yes.

Q: So then they would still have a two-way action but only one action would be significant.

K: No, no. Don't enter into that too quickly, let us be careful. Love has no relationship to hate.

DB: Again there is this word `relationship'. Would you, for example, say that hate has no action on love?

K: They are independent.

DB: Independent, they have no action on each other.

K: Ah, it is a very important thing to discover this. Love is independent of hate. Where there is hate the other cannot exist.

DB: Yes, they can't stand side by side, acting on each other.

K: They can't. So when scientists say, if `A' has a relationship to `B', then `B' must have a relationship to `A', we are contradicting that.

DB: Not all scientists have said that; a few have said otherwise - I don't like to bring in Aristotle...

K: Bring him in!

DB: He said there is an unmoved mover, that God is never moved by matter; he is not acted on by matter, but he acts. Do you see? That is an old idea then. Since Aristotle's time, science has thrown out this concept, and said that it is impossible.

K: If I see clearly that love is independent of hate, hate cannot possibly act on love. Love may act on hate, but where hate is, the other cannot be.

DB: Well, those are two possibilities. Which are you saying?

K: What are the two possibilities?

DB: You said, one possibility is that love may act on hate, and the other is that they have no action at all on each other.

K: Yes.

DB: But which?

K: I understand. No, love cannot act on hate.

DB: Right. They have no relationship. But perhaps insight could, you see.

K: We have to be quite clear on this point. Violence, and being without violence, are two entirely different factors. One cannot act upon the other.

DB: In that case you could say that the existence of the one is the non-existence of the other, and there is no way in which they can act together.

K: That's right.

DB: They cannot be there together.

K: Absolutely. I'll stick to that. So when this material process is in action, the other cannot exist.

DB: What is `the other' this time? Insight?

K: Yes.

DB: That denies what we were saying before; that there is an action from insight on the material process.

K: Now, steady, yes. Where there is violence the other - I hate to use the word `non-violence' - is not.

DB: Peace, or harmony?

K: Where there is violence, peace cannot exist. But where there is peace, is there violence? No, of course not. So peace is independent of violence.

Q: You have said many, many times that intelligence can act upon thought; insight can affect thought, but it doesn't work the other way round. You have given many examples of this.

K: Intelligence can wipe away ignorance, but ignorance cannot touch intelligence - right? Where there is love, hate can never exist. Can love wipe away hate?

DB: We said that this doesn't seem to be possible, because hate appears to be an independent force.

K: Of course it is.

DB: It has its own momentum, you see, its own force, its own movement.

Q: I don't quite get this relationship of love and hate with the earlier discussion of insight.

DB: There seem to be two different areas.

Q: Thought is a movement, and insight seems to be non-movement, where everything seemingly is at rest, and it can observe movement.

DB: That is what we are trying to get at, the notion of something which is not affected by anything else.

Q: Aren't you then saying, in looking at love and hate, that there is good and there is evil, and that evil is a completely separate, independent force?

DB: Well, it is independent of good.

Q: But is the process in the mind, or is it related to insight?

DB: We are coming to that.

Q: Take light and darkness. Light appears, and the darkness is gone.

DB: Good and evil; love and hate; light and darkness - when one is, the other can't be, you see. That is all we are saying so far.

Q: Do you mean, in a single brain?

DB: In any brain, yes, or in any group, or anywhere. Whenever there is hate going on in a group, there is not love.

K: Something has just come to my mind. Love has no cause. Hate has a cause. Insight has no cause. The material process, as thought, has a cause. Right?

DB: Yes, it is part of the chain of cause and effect.

K: Can that which has no cause ever act upon that which has a cause?

DB: It might. We can see no reason why that which has no cause might not act on something that has a cause. There is no obvious reason. It won't happen the other way round. What has a cause cannot act on that, which has no cause, because that would invalidate it.

K: That's right. But apparently the action of insight has an extraordinary effect on the material process.

DB: It may for example wipe out some causes.

K: As insight is causeless, it has a definite effect on that which has cause.

DB: Well, it doesn't necessarily follow, but it is possible.

K: No, no, I don't say it is possible.

DB: I am saying we haven't quite seen why it is necessary. There is no contradiction when we say the word possible.

K: All right, I see. As long as we are clear on the word possible. We must be careful. Love is without cause, and hate has a cause. The two cannot co-exist.

DB: Yes. That is true. That is why there is a difference between love and insight. That is why it doesn't follow necessarily that if something has no cause it will act on something that has a cause. That is what I was trying to say.

K: I just want to explore a little more. Is love insight?

DB: As far as we can see it is not the same. Love and insight are not identical, are they? Not exactly the same thing.

K: Why?

DB: Insight may be love, but, you see, insight also occurs in a flash.

K: It is a flash of course. And that flash alters the whole pattern, operates on it, uses the pattern, in the sense that I argue, reason, use logic, and all that. I don't know if I am making myself clear?

DB: I think that once the flash has operated, the pattern is different, and would therefore be more rational. The flash may make logic possible, because you may have been confused before the flash.

K: Yes, yes! Aristotle may have come to all this by logic.

DB: Well, he may have had some insight! We don't know.

K: We don't know, but I am questioning it.

DB: We really don't know how his mind operated because there are only a few books that have survived.

K: Would you say by reading some of those books that he had insight?

DB: I haven't really read Aristotle directly; very few people have because it is hard. Most people read what other people have said about Aristotle. A few phrases of his are common, like `the unmoved mover'. And he has said some things which suggest that he was quite intelligent, at least.

K: What I am trying to say is that insight is never partial; I am talking of total, not partial, insight.

Q: Krishnaji, could you explain that a little? What do you mean by `not partial' insight?

K: An artist can have a partial insight. A scientist can have a partial insight. But we are talking about total insight.

I: You see the artist is also a human being, so...

K: But his capture of insight is partial.

Q: It is directed to some form of art. So you mean that it illuminates a limited area, or subject. Is that what you mean by partial insight?

K: Yes.

Q: Then what would be total insight? What would it encompass?

K: The total human activity.

DB: That is one point. But earlier on, we were asking whether this insight would illuminate the brain, the activity of the brain. In that illumination, it seems that the material activity of the brain will change. Would that be correct? We must get this point clear, then we can raise the question of totality. Are we saying that insight is an energy which illuminates the activity of the brain? And that in this illumination, the brain itself begins to act differently.

K: You are quite right. That's all. That is what takes place. Yes.

DB: We say the source of this illumination is not in the material process; it has no cause.

K: No cause.

DB: But it is a real energy.

K: It is pure energy. Is there action without cause?

DB: Yes, without time. Cause implies time.

K: That is, this flash has altered completely the pattern which the material process has set.

DB: Could you say that the material process generally operates in a kind of darkness, and therefore it has set itself on a wrong path?

K: In darkness, yes. That is clear. The material process acts in ignorance, in darkness. And this flash of insight enlightens the whole field, which means that ignorance and darkness have been dispelled. I will hold to that.

DB: You could say, then, that darkness and light cannot co-exist for obvious reasons. Nevertheless the very existence of light is to change the process of darkness.

K: Quite right.

Q: But what contributes the flash?

K: We haven't come to that yet. I want to go step by step into this. What has happened is that the material process has worked in darkness, and has brought about confusion, and all the mess that exists in the world. But this flash of insight wipes away the darkness. Which means that the material process is not then working in darkness.

DB: Right. But now let's make another point clear. When the flash has gone, the light continues.

K: The light is there, the flash is the light.

DB: At a certain moment the flash is immediate, but then, as you work from there, there is still light.

K: Why do you differentiate flash from light?

DB: Simply because the word `flash' suggests something that happens in one moment.

K: Yes.

DB: You see, we are saying that insight would only last in that moment.

K: We must go slowly.

DB: Well, it is a matter of language.

K: Is it merely a matter of language?

DB: Perhaps not, but if you use the word `flash', there is the analogy of lightning, giving light for a moment, but then the next moment you are in darkness, until there is a further flash of lightning.

K: It is not like that.

DB: So what is it? Is it that the light suddenly turns on, and stays on?

K: No. Because when we say `stays on' or `goes off', we are thinking in terms of time.

DB: We have to clear this up, because it is the question everybody will put.

K: The material process is working in darkness, in time, in knowledge, in ignorance and so on. When insight takes place there is the dispelling of that darkness. That is all we are saying. Insight dispels that darkness. And thought, which is the material process, no longer works in darkness. Therefore that light has altered - no, it has ended - ignorance.

DB: So we say that this darkness is really something which is built into the content of thought.

K: The content is darkness.

DB: That's right. Then that light has dispelled that ignorance.

K: That's right. Dispelled the content.

DB: But still we have to be very careful, in case we still have content in the usually accepted sense of the word; you know, all kinds of things.

K: Of course.

DB: So we can't say that the light has dispelled all the content.

K: It has dispelled the centre of darkness.

DB: Yes, the source, the creator of darkness.

K: The self Right? It has dispelled the centre of darkness which is the self.

DB: We could say that the self, which is part of the content - that part of the content which is the centre of darkness, which creates it and maintains it - is dispelled.

K: Yes, I hold to that.

DB: We see now that this means a physical change in the brain cells. That centre, that content which is the centre, is a certain set, form, disposition of all the brain calls, and it in some way alters.

K: Obviously! You see, this has enormous significance, in our relationship with our society, in everything. Now the next question is, how does this flash come about? Let's begin the other way round. How does love come about? How does peace come about? Peace is causeless, violence has cause. How does that causeless thing come about when my whole life is causation? There is no `how' - right? The `how' implies a cause, so there is no `how'.

Q: Are you saying that since it is without cause, it is something that just exists?

K: No, I don't say that it exists. That is a dangerous statement.

Q: It has to exist at some point.

K: No. The moment you say it exists, it is not.

DB: You see, the danger is that it is part of the content.

K: The question you put was about a mutation in the brain calls. That question has been put after a series of discussions. And we have come to a point when we say that the flash, that light, has no cause; that the light operates on that which has cause, which is the darkness. That darkness exists as long as the self is there, it is the originator of that darkness, but light dispels the very centre of darkness. That's all. We have come to that point. And therefore there is a mutation. Then I say that the question of how do I get this flash of insight, how does it happen, is a wrong question. There is no `how'.

Q: There is no `how', but there is darkness and there is light.

K: Just see first there is no `how'. If you show me how, you are back into the darkness. Right?

DB: Yes.

K: It is a tremendous thing to understand that. I am asking something else, which is, why is it that we have no insight at all? Why is it that this insight doesn't start from our childhood?

DB: Well, the way life is lived...

K: No, I want to find out. Is it because of our education? Our society? I don't believe it is all that. You follow?

DB: What do you say then?

K: Is it some other factor? I am groping after this. Why don't we have it? It seems so natural.

DB: At first, one would say something is interfering with it.

K: But it seems so natural. For `X', it is quite natural. Why isn't it natural for everyone? Why isn't it possible? If we talk about blockages, education, etc., which are all in the realm of causation, then to remove the blockages implies another cause. So we keep on rolling in that direction. There is something unnatural about all this.

Q: If you would say that there are blocks...

K: I don't want to use that; it is the language of the darkness.

Q: Then you could say that the blocks prevent the insight from acting.

K: Of course. But I want to move away from these blockages.

DB: Not exactly blockages, but we used the words `centre of darkness', which we say is maintaining darkness.

K: Why isn't it natural for everybody to have this insight?

DB: That is the question.

K: Why is love not natural to everybody? Am I putting the question clearly?

DB: I think, to make it more clear, some people might feel that it is natural to everybody, but being treated in a certain way they gradually get caught in hate.

K: I don't believe that.

DB: Then you would have to suppose that the young child meeting hate would not respond with hate.

K: Yes, that's right.

DB: Most people would say that it is natural for the young child meeting hate to respond with hate.

K: Yes, this morning I heard that. Then I asked myself why? Now just a minute. `X' has been put under all these circumstances, which could have produced blockages, but `X' wasn't touched by them. So why is it not possible for everybody?

DB: We should make it clear why we say it would be natural not to respond to hate with hate.

K: All right. Limit it to that.

DB: Even when one hasn't thought about it. You know, the child is not able to think about all this. Some people would say it is instinct, the animal instinct...

K: ...which is to hate...

DB: ...well, to fight back.

K: To fight back.

DB: The animal will respond with love, if you treat him with love, but if you treat the animal with hate he is going to fight back.

K: Of course.

DB: He will become vicious.

K: Yes.

DB: Now some people would say that the human being in the beginning is like that animal, and later he can understand.

K: Of course. That is, the human being's origins were with the animal, and the animal, the ape or the wolf...

DB: ...the wolf will respond with love too.

K: And we are saying, why...

DB: Look, almost everybody feels that what I said is true, that when we are very young children, we are like the animal. Now you are asking, why don't all young children immediately fail to respond to hate with hate?

K: That means, is it the fault of the parents?

DB: What you are implying is that it is not entirely that. There must be something deeper.

K: Yes, I think there is something quite different. I want to capture that.

DB: This is something that would be important.

K: How do we find out? Let's have an insight! I feel that there is something totally different. We are attacking it from a causational point of view. Would it be right to say that the beginning of man is not animal?

DB: Well, that is not clear. The present theory of evolution is that there have been apes, developing; you can follow the line where they become more and more like human beings. Now when you say that the beginning of man is not animal, it is not clear.

K: If the beginning of man is the animal, therefore that instinct is natural and then it is highly cultivated.

DB: Yes, that instinct is cause and effect.

K: Cause and effect, and it becomes natural. But someone comes along and asks `Is it?'

DB: Let's try to get this clear.

K: I mean, scientists and historians have said that man began from the ape, and that, as all animals respond to love and to hate, we as human beings respond instantly to hate by hate.

DB: And vice versa, to love by love.

K: At the beginning there were a few people who never responded to hate, because they had love. Those people implanted this thing in the human mind. Right? That where love is, hate is not. And that has also been part of our inheritance. Why have we cultivated the response of hate to hate? Why haven't we cultivated the other? Or is the other - love - something that cannot be cultivated?

DB: It is not causal. Cultivation depends on a cause.

K: On thought. So why have we lost the other? We have cultivated very carefully, by thought, the concept of meeting hate by hate, violence by violence, and so on. Why haven't we moved along with the other line? With love, that is causeless? You follow my question?

DB: Yes.

K: Is this a futile question?

DB: One doesn't see any way of proceeding.

K: I am not trying to proceed.

DB: We have to understand what made people respond to hate with hate...

K: ...To `X', the other seems so natural. So if that is so natural to him, why isn't it natural to everyone else? It must be natural to others!

You know this ancient idea, which is probably in existence in the jewish and in the Indian religions, and so on, that the manifestation of the highest takes place, occasionally. That seems too easy an explanation. Has mankind moved in the wrong direction? Have we taken a wrong turn?

DB: Yes, we have discussed this before, that there has been a wrong turning.

K: To respond to hate by hate, violence by violence, etc.

DB: And to give supreme value to knowledge.

Q: Wouldn't another factor also be the attempt to cultivate the idea of love? The purpose of the religions has been to produce love, and better human beings.

K: Don't go into all that. Love has no cause, it is not cultivatable. Full stop.

Q: Yes, but,the mind doesn't see that.

K: But we have explained all that. I want to find out why, if it is natural to `X', it isn't natural to others. I think this is a valid question.

DB: Another point is to say that you could see that the response of hate to hate makes no sense anyway. So why do we go on with it? Because many believe in that moment that they are protecting themselves with hate, but it is no protection.

K: But to go back to that question: I think it is valid. `X' is without cause, `Y' is caught in cause. Why? You understand? Is it the privilege of the few? The elite? No, no. Let's look at it another way. The mind of humanity has been responding to hate with hate, violence by violence, and knowledge by knowledge. But `X' is part of humanity, and he does not respond to hate by hate, like `Y' and `Z'! They are part of `X's' consciousness, part of all that.

DB: Why is there this difference?

K: That is what I am asking. One is natural, the other is unnatural. Why? Why the difference? Who is asking this question? The people, `Y' and `Z', who respond to hate by hate, are they asking the question? Or is `X' asking the question?

Q: It would seem that `X' is asking this question.

DB: Yes, but you see we were also just saying that they are not different. We say they are different, but also that they are not different.

K: Of course. They are not different.

DB: There is one mind.

K: That's it, one mind.

DB: Yes, and how does it come that another part of this one mind says no?

K: That's the whole thing. How does it come about that one part of the mind says we are different from another? Of course, there are all kinds of explanations, and I am left with the fact that `A' `B' and `C' are different from `X' `Y' and `Z'. And those are facts - right?

Q: They appear to be different.

K: Oh, no.

Q: They are actually different.

K: Absolutely; not just apparently.

DB: I think the question we want to come back to is, why do the people who cultivate hate say that they are different from those who don't?

K: Do they say that?

DB: I think they do, in so far as they would admit that if there was anybody who didn't cultivate hate, they must be different.

K: Yes, that is clear - light and darkness, and so on. But I want to find out if we are moving in the right direction. That is, `X' has given me that gift, and I have not carried that gift. You follow what I mean? I have cultivated one response, but not carried this. Why? If a father has responded to hate by hate, why has the son not responded in the same way?

DB: I think it is a question of insight.

K: Which means that the son had insight right from the beginning. You follow what I am saying? Right from childhood, which means what?

DB: What?

K: I don't want to enter into this dangerous field yet!

DB: What is it? Perhaps you want to leave that.

K: There is some factor that is missing. I want to capture it. You see, if that is an exception, then it is silly.

DB: All right. Then we agree that the thing is dormant in all human beings; is that what you want to say?

K: I am not quite sure that is what I want to say.

DB: But I meant that the factor is there in all mankind.

K: That is a dangerous statement too.

DB: That is what you were saying.

K: I know, but I am questioning. When I am quite sure, I will tell you.

DB: All right. We tried this, and we can say it seems promising but it is a bit dangerous. This possibility is there in all mankind, and in so far as some people have seen it.

K: Which means God is in you?

DB: No, it is just that the possibility of insight is there.

K: Yes, partly. I am questioning all this. The father responds to hate by hate; the son doesn't.

DB: That happens from time to time.

K: No, consistently from the beginning - why?

DB: It must depend on insight, which shows the futility of hate.

K: Why did that man have it?

DB: Yes, why?

K: And why if this seems so terribly natural to him, is it not natural to everybody? As water is natural to everybody.

DB: Well, why isn't insight present for everybody from the beginning?
K: Yes, that is what I am asking.

DB: So strongly that even maltreatment cannot affect it.

K: Nothing can affect it, that is my point. Maltreatment, beating, being put into all kinds of dreadful situations hasn't affected it. Why? We are coming to something.