Small Group Discussion 4, Brockwood Park, 14 June 1975
Krishnamurti: Go on, sir, I am…
David Bohm: Well, I mean, I think that during the scientists conference — which incidentally was very successful, and all those that I’ve talked to were very happy with it…
K: Did they really like it?
DB: Yes. I mean, I’ve talked with several who are in England and they are all very… they liked it very much. And I think several questions came up which, you know, are related to what we’ve been talking about. I would say that we have to get into the questions of beauty, goodness and love, but probably it would be best to start with desire, I feel, because that perhaps is…
K: …is the root of it.
DB: It’s the factor which is the cause of the confusion.
K: Quite.
DB: Because it imitates those three.
K: Why has desire become such an extraordinarily important thing in life?
DB: Yes, well, perhaps if we discussed a little around it, first.
K: Yes, that’s what…
DB: You see, I looked up the word and it’s based on a French word which originally meant ‘something missing’.
K: Something missing.
DB: Yes, and obviously its basic meaning is yearning, longing, craving and hankering.
K: Hankering — yes.
DB: And the closely associated words are *belief* and *hope*, you see.
K: Quite.
DB: And hope, for example, is the confident expectation that desire will be realised. And I think belief is connected with it. You see, the word *belief* has the word *love* in it — *lief.*
K: Lief — yes.
DB: And love in the sense of desire, which we were discussing.
K: Quite, quite
DB: And therefore, what you believe is what you desire to believe, you see. (Laughs) Therefore, it’s the source of falseness because you accept as true just because you desire it. So the whole story of desire and belief and hope and despair are in desire, you see.
K: Desire — quite.
DB: So the question is, you see: What is it we long for and why do we long for it?
K: Yes, that’s what I mean. What is the meaning of that word *long for*?
DB: Well, that’s very ambiguous because it may, perhaps, mean something genuine and it may mean something false.
K: False — quite. Does one long for anything actual or abstract?
DB: Well, in general one longs for something abstract. I mean, I don’t know if… One might feel that there was a real possibility, an actual…
K: I might long for that car.
DB: Yes, but suppose we say you could long — I mean, I’m not saying for or against — but you could long, say, to end this state of society, you see, which is…
K: Yes, yes.
DB: I mean, try to make it a little deeper.
K: A little different, yes. I long for…
DB: …the ending of this ugly state of society.
K: Yes — ugly. Yes.
Sir, I would like, if I may, separate desire… No, let’s put it: Is thought separate from desire?
DB: Well, that’s the question we have to go into, you see.
K: That’s it.
DB: In general I would say that thought and desire are the same.
K: Are the same — so would I.
DB: But, for example, you frequently talk about desire arising in perception — contact and sensation and desire.
K: Yes.
DB: Now, it seems to me that you may be right, but usually we are caught in a kind of desire for that which is imagined.
K: Aha. So it is part of thought.
DB: It is part of thought, but then you seem to be describing something else which is not part of thought. You see, you start from perception.
K: No. I see that car.
DB: That’s perception.
K: Not only perception — I see the colour, the shape of the car, the ugliness of that particular car and I don’t want it, I wouldn’t go in it. That is a perception and a sensation.
DB: A sensation, yes, of good or bad.
K: Yes, a sensation.
DB: Now, you say sensation is the root of desire — is that what you’re implying?
K: That’s what I’m trying to get at.
DB: But sensation is also part of perception. I mean, you can’t…
K: No, you can’t separate the two. But which is first, sensation or perception?
DB: Well, I looked at that and I feel that perception is first, because, you know…
K: If I didn’t see that car I couldn’t… Quite.
DB: You can’t have a sense of something until there is something to be seen. That is, a sense would have no meaning if it were not connected with what was being sensed.
K: Quite, quite. So eyes play a tremendous part in perception.
DB: Yes, but also sound perception.
K: Sound perception, taste.
DB: Taste perception, and so on — touch perception.
K: Yes, touch. All the senses.
DB: Yes.
K: And then how does desire arise from perception?
DB: You see, it seems to me that somehow thought and imagination come in. But you seem to say it’s more direct than that.
K: Does imagination come into it?
DB: Well, in the form that desire usually takes, it does. You see, I think most of our desires by now are for things that are imagined — do you see? — although what you say may have been the beginning. For example, in the example I gave of the different state of society…
K: Different society — yes.
DB: There is an intense desire for that on the part of many people, which drives them very hard, and I think that that’s imagined, isn’t it, that new state of society?
K: Let’s see now. Desire. I want… a group of us want to change the structure of society.
DB: Into something better. Say, like Karl Marx, you see.
K: Better. Karl Marx. The desire born out of perception of the state of society which actually is.
DB: Which is very ugly.
K: Ugly.
DB: And the sensation is unpleasant, yes.
K: Yes, yes. So seeing or observing or thinking what the society now is, and to change that…
DB: …to, I imagine, a better state.
K: A better state. Is that part of desire?
DB: Well, it seems so, at least at first sight.
K: I’m just…
DB: Yes. I mean, it seems that there is an intense desire for that imagined state.
K: Or is it perception?
DB: Perception — how is that?
K: I perceive the rottenness or the corruption or the malaise of this society. I see it. That perception drives me, not my desire to change society. My perception says, ‘This is ugly.’
DB: Yes.
K: And that very perception is the action of the movement to change it.
DB: Yes, but now…
K: I don’t know if I’m making…
DB: Yes, well, then there’s a longing to change it.
K: Is there a longing?
DB: Well, if we say it’s desire, it’s implied.
K: Desire — I’m just seeing whether desire…
DB: I mean, you see, if we go back to the meaning of that word, ‘something is missing’, you see? There is a longing for something that’s missing.
K: Or, sir, or I perceive.
DB: Yes.
K: That very perception, we said, is action. Perception is action. The perception of the society as it is, is ugly. Let’s use that word for the moment. And that very perception demands action.
DB: Yes, but now we can’t act immediately — at least that’s the (inaudible).
K: I know, but the perception then begins to lay… formulate what kind of action should take place.
DB: Well, that comes by thinking about it, I suppose.
K: Yes. Of course.
DB: A perception creates a demand either for or against — right? — through sensation.
K: So, is perception a part of desire?
DB: Well, I should say not in the beginning, you see, but as soon as it reaches the sense of ugliness or beauty… Or it’s implicitly that, of course, but, you see, if you merely see the state of society without a sense that it is ugly or beautiful…
K: No, no, no. Perception itself is action. Right?
DB: Yes.
K: A perception… The ugliness of society is perceived.
DB: Yes.
K: And that perception… I won’t even use the word *ugly* because then we have to go into the contrary. Perception is the root of action, and that action may take time and all the rest of it. Where does desire come in this? I don’t see it.
DB: Well, it does seem to come in, doesn’t it?
K: As far as I am concerned, it doesn’t.
DB: Well, why do you say that? I mean, what would you say to those people who want to change society? Would you say…
K: I would say, ‘Is it your perception that is acting or your prejudice against? Or your desire to change society in order to achieve something else?’
DB: But that’s still a desire, isn’t it?
K: That is desire. Is perception part of desire? I don’t think it is.
DB: No. You frequently said that there’s perception, contact and sensation and then that becomes desire. Right?
K: Yes, yes, yes. Yes, but once — that is, sir, quite right — but once there is perception, where does desire come into it, in carrying out that perception?
DB: Well, I mean, in principle, if you could immediately carry it out there would be no need for desire, would there?
K: No, of course. That’s one thing.
DB: Yes.
K: But I can’t carry out immediately.
DB: Therefore you think something is missing. You say, ‘I can’t…’ It should be this way but I would like to carry… I mean, what I see, and I can’t do it immediately.
Dr Parchure: Sir, desire is actually a motive power. Perception directly cannot…
K: I don’t accept that.
DP: It may be uncontaminated by thought.
K: I don’t accept perception has desire… desire is the motive of perception. You perceive society is rotten. You perceive the actual — let’s put it — actuality is perceived. In that actuality of perception where does desire come in?
DP: Not in perception.
K: That’s what I’m…
DB: Yes, well, we have to find out why it comes in — do you see?
K: Yes, that’s what I want to get at.
DB: I mean, you see, if we had something very simple — that I perceive some object like an apple and I would like to eat it and I just eat it, there’s no problem of desire — right? — because it’s right there.
K: That’s it. It is there. Let’s move a little further.
DB: Yes. On the other hand, if I can’t get the apple then there may come the problem of desire, you see. I’m not saying it’s right or wrong, but suppose I perceive something which…
K: …I can’t get.
DB: …I can’t get — not immediately, or at least I don’t know how to get.
K: Yes.
DB: And then desire *may* arise.
K: May arise.
DB: It doesn’t have to — I didn’t say that.
K: No. It may arise, because I want that apple — because I like the taste and so on and so on.
DB: Yes.
K: That’s one thing. I perceive the actuality of society and I act. Where does desire come in that?
DB: Well, if you do act, desire doesn’t come in, but, you see, you may feel that you don’t know how to act — do you see? In other words…
K: I may not know how to act, therefore I will consult, talk, discuss it over.
DB: But after consulting a while you may become discouraged. You see…
K: Ah — my perception is so clear it cannot be discouraged.
DB: Well, that may be so, but I am describing what generally happens.
K: Ah, yes.
DB: You see…
K: Of course, what generally happens…
DB: What generally happens is — let’s say I perceive the falseness and rottenness of society and, you know, I consider how to change it, I talk with people and so on. After a while I begin to see that it doesn’t change all that easily.
K: Yes, quite, quite.
DB: And perhaps at some stage I may begin to feel, you know, it doesn’t look possible at all. But then may come a longing to change it, nevertheless.
K: No. That’s what… If I see it is not possible to change, then it’s finished.
DB: It’s finished, but then why is it that people don’t accept that?
K: That’s it.
DB: Right. You see, I’m just describing what is the general experience, which is that on seeing that this thing is not possible there is a longing for that which is not possible, or, you know…
K: Yes — the longing for that which is not possible.
DB: And that is the form of desire which is always frustrated and, you know, it creates all these problems.
K: Yes, yes.
DB: Now, on the other hand you can’t say, ‘I accept that society will go on false forever,’ you see.
K: No, of course not. (Laughs)
So, I don’t quite yet see the relationship between perception and desire.
DB: Well, perhaps there is none. You see…
K: I understand that.
DB: Yes, but why is it that there seems to be one? Or at least people, apparently… You see, in general…
K: Is it, sir, is it perception that is driving them, or they have never perceived and only desire is operating?
DB: Well, that may be, but the perception itself was born of desire. At least, what they think is perception. Right?
K: Yes.
DB: But then the question is: Where did desire originate?
K: That’s a different matter.
DB: I mean, it seems mysterious why there should be this desire there.
K: No. I see that car.
DB: Yes.
K: I’d like to own it. I associate that car with pleasure.
DB: But, I mean, it would only be possible to get into that if at some stage perception failed. I mean, to get caught in it.
K: I don’t quite follow.
DB: Well, you see, if you say, ‘I’d like to own the car,’ there’s still no problem unless you have this intense longing, which is desire, you know, which drives you. Right?
K: Ah, I see.
DB: You could say, ‘I’d like to own the car. If it’s possible I’ll own it; if it’s not, I won’t.’
K: I won’t. That’s simple enough — no problem.
DB: But that is not usually what is meant by desire.
K: No — desire means longing for.
DB: The longing for what you cannot get.
K: Yes.
DB: Whether you can get it or not you long for it.
K: Aha. You see, I can’t… I don’t function that way.
DB: Well, yes, but we have to understand this function because it seems to be the general function.
K: That’s the general function, I agree.
DB: And, you see, first of all, it’s not clear why it should be there. I mean, not clear to me, anyway.
K: Which is desire.
DB: Desire — yes. I mean, but rationally there’s no reason for it, you see, as far as one can see, but it’s still there, very powerful, you see, all over the world.
K: Is desire based on sensation?
DB: Well, that’s what we’re exploring. You see, I think it’s not entirely sensation — I don’t know — but it may be.
K: Sensation, imagination.
DB: Yes.
K: An imaginative pleasure I am going to get… one is going to get.
DB: Yes. I think it’s based on the imagination of not merely a pleasure but of beauty, you know, and even of what is good, you see. In other words, that all that is missing, or appears to be missing, is imagined, and this gives a tremendous energy, you see. You see, people generally desire things which are regarded as beautiful.
K: Yes.
DB: And in fact, you see, take things like gold or precious stones which have very little value in themselves, but people have…
K: …attached to…
DB: …attached to it because of the eternal beauty of it, and therefore they are ready to do anything for it.
K: And also desire for power, position.
DB: Power is the same thing, you see.
K: The same thing — all right.
DB: Yes, because…
K: How does it arise — is that it?
DB: Yes — how does it arise and what is the meaning of it? You see, that’s the…
K: How does it arise? I see you driving in a big car; you the politician in a big position; you the — you know — and I want that. I’d like to have that.
DB: Yes, but it’s not clear why I drive myself to such lengths to get it.
K: Because it gives me tremendous pleasure.
DB: Yes, but then why do I want the pleasure? You see, that’s the…
K: Why? Ah, I see, I see.
DB: I mean, unless I’ve been confusing this pleasure with something else which would be of tremendous value.
K: Or, pleasure is the only thing I know.
DB: But the only thing of what kind? Because I know a lot of things, you see. I mean, I know all sorts of objects…
K: No, I live such a superficial life.
DB: Yes.
K: My education is superficial and pleasure is superficial, and so I long for that.
DB: But, I mean, it must seem that it’s not superficial or it wouldn’t be worth longing for it.
K: If it was not…
DB: I say it must at least appear to be not superficial, or it would not be worth longing for it. You see, I don’t think anybody longs for something that he recognises to be superficial.
K: Ah, no, that’s what I… Of course. If I recognised pleasure was superficial…
DB: …there’s no longing.
K: …then it’s not longing.
DB: But somehow there’s a feeling that pleasure is something else, something very significant, you know, very deep.
K: Is pleasure deep?
DB: Well, it may look that way.
K: Of course, may look, but is it actually?
DB: It isn’t, but you see, why does it look that way? You see, in other words…
K: Why am I deceived by thinking pleasure is very deep?
DB: Yes.
(Pause)
K: What do you think?
DP: There is more of a lasting element in pleasure’s demand than the depth. It doesn’t understand actually the depth of pleasure, but a continuity in the sensation of the…
K: Sir, is pleasure one of the factors of covering my emptiness?
DB: Well, it may be. But I think that pleasure helps create the impression of some sort of full, harmonious, beautiful life, you see. It covers this.
K: Aha. I see. Is pleasure associated with beauty?
DB: I think it is, you see. In general, the very fact that the word *love* is connected with desire and also with beauty would suggest that pleasure and beauty are somehow associated. You see, people expect that a beautiful thing will give pleasurable experiences.
K: Yes, I understand that. I understand that. But is… I see something very beautiful. Where does pleasure arise in that? I’d like to own it, I’d like to possess it.
DB: Or I would like to have it forever. I’d like the experience to be repeated somehow.
K: Yes, yes — I’d like to have it forever.
DB: Not necessarily own it, but just so that it would be there forever.
K: Yes, be there.
DB: Yes.
K: Why do I do this?
DB: Because of a kind of fear that you will be without it. You see that…
K: Is it in myself I am not beautiful?
DB: Well, that may be part of it. The sense of not having contact with beauty in myself and therefore wanting something…
K: So is beauty out there, and therefore I want it?
DB: Well, it’s rather… You see, it’s both. You see, even in the dictionary it says beauty is not merely the quality of the thing but the quality of the person who perceives it — it’s one and the same, you know. In other words, it’s both the quality of the thing and the quality of the sensation.
K: Yes.
DB: And in some sense, no division of the observer and the observed. I mean, that’s more or less recognised in the dictionary. That idea is recognised in the dictionary, you see, that it belongs both to the observer and the observed. But the way I look at it is this: Suppose I say I have no beauty, no contact with beauty, but by seeing a thing I create the beauty in me.
K: Yes, yes, yes, I understand that.
DB: And then we say the thing has gone, so I’m back in the previous state. Then I begin to long for that experience again.
K: So what is the problem, sir?
DB: I think that the question really is to understand this process of desire, because without understanding it I don’t think, you know, that this confusion around thought will end. In other words, it can be seen on one side as desire and on the other side as what we’ve been discussing — truth and reality and so on.
K: Yes.
DB: Right. Desire is on the side of feeling. In other words, something… once this confusion arises in desire then it drives the whole mind into falseness.
K: Would you say desire is in the field of reality?
DB: Yes, it’s in the field of reality, but it’s that thing which presents itself in some way as not in the field, you see.
K: Ah, I see. I get it. I get it.
DB: It presents itself as apparently a way to…
K: Can I desire truth?
DB: That’s something… You see, it would seem I could desire truth, or at the very least I could desire beauty or good. You see, it’s generally accepted that you could have a desire for the good or the beautiful or the true. I mean, in our usage of language that’s acceptable.
K: Language — yes, I understand that.
DB: In fact, most people would agree that that’s quite reasonable. (Laughs) Now, I understand you are questioning that, you see.
K: Yes, I am questioning that. Is beauty in the realm of reality?
DB: Or is the good in the realm of reality?
K: Yes — good in the realm of reality.
DB: Because I think I should say that good and beauty, most people regard them almost equivalents.
K: Synonyms, yes.
DB: The very root of the word *bene* and… You see, beauty and good in Latin have related roots.
K: Good, yes
DB: In fact *beatus* also means blessed, you know.
K: Blessed — yes.
DB: It also has the same root, you see.
G Narayan: I wanted to ask… (inaudible) …and truth have been talking about for some time.
K: Stick to the same point we are discussing.
GN: Yes. When you say, ‘Is it in reality or is it in truth?’ I don’t quite see the distinction sometimes.
K: Nor we. (Laughs)
GN: Because in reality, normally, there is relatedness, relativity. Do you mean to say that in truth this relativity or conditional… (inaudible)
K: It’s not. It’s not. Of course not. No, Narayan, just look at this.
We said beauty, love and goodness. Is that in the field of reality, created by thought, and something… I long to get that?
DB: If it were in the field of thought then I could reasonably long to have it, you see.
K: That’s it.
DB: Because I could say it’s somewhere in the field of reality but I don’t know exactly where. I’m separated from it and want to overcome the separation.
K: That’s it, that’s it.
DB: Right?
K: That’s it.
DB: You see, and…
K: And is that good, beauty and love in the field of reality?
DB: No. That’s something we should discuss, you know. It’s along with creation and so on, and truth.
K: Yes, that’s it. So desire is in the field of reality.
DB: Yes. Well, desire is a movement in the field of reality and it projects within that field something which should be outside of it.
K: Yes, yes, yes, yes. Yes.
DB: But it becomes an impossible movement because… Since that which it projects is not in the field of reality desire can never be satisfied.
K: That which is projected is part of reality.
DB: It’s part of reality, but…
K: But I don’t… one doesn’t recognise that.
DB: That’s right. But at the same time there is always the feeling that that’s not all — do you see? You see, I think there’s always a contradiction in desire.
K: Oh, of course.
DB: Because you project this in the field of reality and even if you were to achieve it you would feel this is not all that I want.
K: Quite. But it’s still… when you say it is not all that I want, it is still there.
DB: I know. That’s the contradiction.
K: Yes, yes.
DB: But the field of reality gets broken in two, you see — the part that you have and the part that you want, you haven’t got.
K: Yes. But it’s still in the field of reality.
DB: Yes.
K: So is good in the field of reality?
DB: No, I think it’s clear it’s not.
K: It’s obviously not. Then longing for beauty, as it is in the field of reality, is a movement of thought projecting beauty and longing for it.
DB: Yes. Yes, or at least remembering the beauty that was perceived and longing to continue it, and so on, or some new form.
K: Yes.
So could we say: What is beauty which is not in the field of reality?
DB: Well, that’s the thing we have to go into, yes.
K: Goodness which is not in the field of reality.
GN: Would you then say there is some goodness in the field of reality too?
K: Of course there’s some goodness in the field of reality. Not the goodness which is not induced by thought. I can induce myself to be good. I can cultivate, practise goodness. But that is not the goodness of truth.
DB: Well, the goodness may act in the field of reality. Is that possible?
K: Yes, yes, yes.
DB: But I’m puzzled a little about beauty, which seems rather mysterious in some ways. If we say there is an object like the tree in the field of reality, which is beautiful but it is not beauty, you know. You see, in other words, beauty is not in the field of reality; it’s the essence.
K: Yes, that’s the danger. Quite. Quite. No, I would say beauty is not in the field of reality.
DB: Yes, but the tree is in the field of reality.
K: No, tree is… It is.
DB: All right, then we have to get it clear, because ordinarily…
K: That’s it.
DB: You see, this requires clarification, because in the ordinary use of language we would say the tree is real, you see.
K: Yes. No, quite, quite, quite, quite.
DB: (Laughs) Now, for example, if you were a lumber man you would treat it as a reality.
K: Of course. I think *what is* is beautiful.
DB: Yes, all right. But then, you see, we are liable to fall into a difficulty of language if we say that the tree is not real but it is — do you see?
K: Yes.
DB: The tree is that which is, but it is not real.
K: Yes, put it that way.
DB: But that’s such a violation of the ordinary use of language.
K: (Laughs) Of course.
GN: When you say *what is*…
K: No, he said something.
GN: Yes.
K: Which is, the tree, as we generally accept, is a reality. But that which is, we say is truth. And I, looking at the tree, bring it into a field of reality, thinking about it.
DB: You’re also acting on it as a real thing.
K: As a carpenter.
GN: That’s what I was about to say. Whether it is truth or reality depends entirely on the way of knowing, way of approaching.
K: Aha. You can’t know truth.
GN: When you are seeing, when you see *what is*…
K: No, no — the whole problem is that. We discussed this.
Let me… let us get it clear. We say goodness is not in the field of reality.
DB: It may act there, but in essence it is not there.
K: In essence it is not in the field of reality. Good works, good behaviour, good taste, good food, good thoughts are all there.
GN: In the field of reality.
K: In the field of reality. But goodness, the essence of it, is not in reality. So is… I mean, the wallpaper created by thought is beautiful. It’s quite beautiful — the colouring, those birds, the shape of the limbs — the whole pattern of movement in the wall is beautiful. It is created by thought, therefore it’s in the world of reality.
DB: Yes. And many ideas may be beautiful.
K: Quite. Many ideas — all the rest of it.
So, where does desire…
DB: Well, we haven’t finished the question with beauty there, because you say the tree is that which is, it is beauty — right?
K: That which is is beautiful. That’s something we’ve just discovered.
DB: Now, the wallpaper, we say, is created by thought but also…
K: But also it is.
DB: It is.
K: Aha. That’s quite different.
DB: Yes. We should get it clear because…
K: That’s quite different. I see it, yes.
DB: But how do we get it clear because, you see, even that which is created by thought may be *that which is*, then, is what you’re saying.
K: Aha. Now go slow, go slow, go slow, go slow.
DB: You see, language is very treacherous.
K: Yes, quite. That which is created by thought, like a car…
DB: Or like the wallpaper.
K: Like the wallpaper.
DB: Which may be beautiful, like the tree.
K: That is… What? What are we saying?
GN: You were saying just now, sir, that good taste…
K: …good ideas…
GN: …good ideas, belong to the field of reality.
K: Of course.
GN: And this would come in that category.
K: In that category — but it is there.
GN: Yes, it is there.
K: As the tree is there.
GN: Yes.
DB: Yes, is there a difference?
K: Yes. Oh yes, there is one.
GN: When you say *what is*…
K: No, there is a vast difference between *what is* on the wall, created by thought, that is equally — not *equally* — that is beautiful, like a good idea, good food, good clothes, and all the goodness, and that, we say, because it is created by thought it is in the field of reality. But yet it *is*. It is there.
GN: That’s what I want to ask further.
K: Wait, wait, wait — it is there. Then what is the difference between that — those birds, the movement of those birds — and the movement of the tree?
GN: Is it a difference in knowing? That’s what I’m asking.
K: No, no. No, nothing to do with knowing. Just go slow. What is the…
GN: The way of knowing.
K: No, no, no, not the way of knowing. We say that wallpaper, with all the colouring, with all the shade, with all the movement of it, is created by thought and therefore it is in the world of reality, and yet it is beautiful, and yet it *is*.
GN: Yes.
K: It is. Thought hasn’t created the tree, but it is. What’s the difference between that and that, between that wallpaper and that tree?
GN: I can indicate the difference.
K: What’s the difference?
GN: This is created by thought; that’s not created by thought.
K: No, no — what is the difference? I say that *is*, and also I say that *is*.
GN: Yes.
K: Both are. Therefore, both are out of the field of reality — is that what you’re saying?
DB: Well, they are both out of it and in it, depending on… You see, because in another way of looking you can say that the wallpaper is part of reality.
K: Wallpaper is part of reality.
DB: And so is the tree in some way.
K: But we say that wallpaper *is*.
DB: Yes. Well, are you saying…
K: That is as destructible as the tree.
DB: I didn’t get that.
K: That can be destroyed, as the tree.
DB: The same as the tree, yes.
K: But we say that is in the field of reality and yet it is beautiful in that field, and also we say it *is*.
DB: It is. Now, are you discussing there its actuality when you say it *is*?
K: That’s actual also.
DB: Yes, it is actual, but is that what you mean by the word it *is*?
K: Yes, yes. Both are actual.
DB: Both are actual, yes. And therefore they have their own activity and the activity of our perception.
K: They both are actual.
DB: Yes.
K: And we say beauty is not in the field of reality.
DB: Yes, but is it in the field of actuality?
K: That’s actual.
DB: That is actual, and beauty is actual.
K: We must be careful.
DB: Yes. It is actual and beauty is actual. Is it?
K: Beauty is actual.
DB: Yes.
K: And we say beauty is not, in essence, in the field of reality.
DB: Yes. But it is actual, and through that may act in the field of…
K: Yes, it acts — all that.
No, what is the difference, sir, between two actualities: the one actuality in the field of reality, one actuality which is not in the field of reality? Is there an actuality — I’m just questioning — in the field of truth?
DB: Well, we say truth acts, you see.
K: Truth acts.
DB: Yes. But are you raising the question whether there is actuality in the essence? I mean, is that your question?
K: Yes. No. Are… We both say both are actualities.
DB: Yes. They are different orders of actuality in some way. I mean, the tree and the wallpaper.
K: Ah, the moment you say a different order of…
DB: Well, they are a different kind of actuality.
K: Yes, different kind of actuality.
DB: Because the wallpaper was created by the thought of mankind.
K: Yes.
DB: Although it has a certain actuality which wasn’t — say, the material from which it was made was not created by the thought of mankind. Right? You see, it was made of some material which exists in various transformations. You see, whatever it… You know, in other words, it may have been made from paper, which was made from wood, which grew. But the form put on it…
K: …is varied.
DB: …is mankind — right? — is the thought of mankind.
K: Yes, man has put that pattern.
DB: Yes.
K: But in essence that and the tree — in essence — are the same.
DB: Yes.
K: Therefore, why do we say — in that we are agreed — why do we say then truth is not in the field of reality?
DB: Well, I think that… to go back to the way we use the word, that *real* means to be a thing, which is, you know, what we think about and is limited and conditioned, and so on. Now, you see, would we say that… if you say truth is unconditioned, it is no thing.
K: Yes — no thing.
DB: And beauty is no thing.
K: Yes, that’s right.
DB: And goodness is no thing.
K: No thing — that’s right.
DB: But they are actual — that’s what we’re implying. Right?
K: No, sir, let’s go slowly in this. If it is no thing is there an actuality?
DB: Well, that’s the question. You see, for example, in the conference with the scientists you mentioned something which was some sort of energy which — I can’t remember — was self-sustaining and orderly. Right?
K: Yes — non-contradictory, non-regretting, and all that stuff.
DB: So in a way it was a substance, a self-sustaining energy, which is a cosmic sort.
K: Yes.
DB: Which we could say is the energy of that which is. I mean, is that what you mean to say? It is the energy… you know, it is same as that which is.
K: We have to go into this carefully, very carefully.
DB: Yes. Because, you see, you did mention that before, and that idea in fact has arisen in many contexts, even in physics, and so I won’t go into it now, but a rather similar idea has arisen in physics that there is an energy in empty space which is completely orderly.
K: Yes, yes, absolutely. I agree. I agree. Which is orderly.
DB: Orderly, in perfect order.
K: Quite, quite, quite.
Sir, reality is a thing.
DB: Or it’s the totality of all things.
K: Thing — we’ll put it — reality is a thing.
DB: Yes.
K: Truth is not a thing, therefore it is nothing.
DB: Yes.
K: The thing creates ‘energy’ — in quotes.
DB: It has a kind of energy.
K: One kind of energy.
DB: Limited energy.
K: Limited energy. The not-a-thing which is empty is unlimited.
DB: Is unlimited energy. And you say that that unlimited energy, what you imply, is self-sustaining, it doesn’t depend on something else.
K: That doesn’t depend. This depends; the other doesn’t.
DB: But ultimately even this may depend on that, you see. Is that a possibility? That the thing ultimately depends on the unlimited, on that.
K: On that — ah, of course. That’s what the… We go back then, we’re caught in a trap, which is: God is in us, that energy, that supreme energy is in man.
DB: No, man depends on it.
K: Depends on it.
DB: You see…
K: Because one doesn’t depend upon it, one becomes evil?
DB: No, let’s try to put it differently. You see, it was related to the question as to whether this energy, the energy of thought…
K: …is one thing.
DB: …is one thing, or is it just that thought… it’s all one energy which is being used wrongly?
K: Yes, we went…
DB: That’s the question,
K: We talked about that.
DB: Yes, but it was never quite settled.
K: No, we never worked it out.
DB: No, but I think it’s similar to say: Is there one energy which makes the emptiness and the things, or are there two energies?
K: One energy… there is only one energy — we are saying, discussing — there is only one energy, which is used in reality and therefore destructible and perverted and deteriorating, degenerating and all the rest of it — and that same energy is nothingness.
DB: Yes.
(Pause)
K: Nothingness being death. Right, sir? I think — I am just hesitating to put it forward — I think that energy born of nothingness is different from the other.
DB: But is there no unity?
K: I’m just exploring it.
DB: (Inaudible) …but no connection?
K: I think there is one-way connection.
DB: One-way connection.
K: That is, from nothingness to thing, but thing to nothingness is not possible.
So, now let’s go slowly. I want to… Is the energy of nothingness different from the energy of thing?
(Pause)
For the moment — I’m just exploring — for the moment I see that it is different. Different in the sense, dissimilar.
DB: They’re dissimilar, yes — that’s one meaning of *different*.
K: Yes — dissimilar.
DB: But it still allows for a relationship. It allows for a one-way relationship.
K: One-way of relationship.
DB: Yes.
K: Or are they both the same? One in the field of reality and therefore misused, deteriorating and all the rest of it; in the other it is endless, it is not…
DB: Yes, well, let’s try to put it that there is one energy which is endless, which includes the finite.
K: Yes, yes.
DB: You see, the other view is, instead of saying there are two we say there is one which is infinite, but the infinite includes the finite and does not exclude it. You see, that is one view.
K: Yes, that’s one view. I understand that. No, I want… That’s one view. I don’t want to get into views.
DB: Yes. I mean, that’s one proposal.
K: Proposal.
DB: Right. Now, the other proposal.
K: The other proposal is there is no relationship from the thing to nothingness.
DB: No, that’s the same in both proposals. You see, if you say it’s infinite, which contains the finite, therefore the infinite is related towards the finite but it doesn’t mean the finite can do anything to the infinite.
K: Yes. Quite, quite.
(Pause)
I see it, for the… as it being different.
DB: All right.
(Pause)
K: Nothingness is death, we said. Which means total ending. Right, sir? Thought in the world of reality has never an ending. Thought creates its own energy. I’m trying to… Are they both the same, from the same source? One: human beings degenerate that energy and the same… and the source of water is polluted in the world of reality. And it is the same water in the world of truth. Same water — I mean, the energy. Is that it? Electricity — you misuse it and somebody else doesn’t misuse it — it is electricity. Or: is that source of energy which is of nothingness is that energy totally different, dissimilar? I’ve got the question all right.
Let me put… let’s put it this way, sir: From the field of reality can there be a movement to truth?
DB: No.
K: No. Why?
DB: Well, because again, the field of reality is conditioned, it’s made of things.
K: So as it cannot… as it has no relationship to truth, then truth can operate in the world of reality. Then there is no connection.
DB: Well, there is a one-way connection.
K: One-way connection, but…
DB: Yes.
K: Therefore there is no… it is not an interacting relationship.
DB: No, it’s not a mutual, reciprocal relationship.
K: Yes.
DB: It’s one-way. And perhaps you could say truth acts in reality through death, that is, through seeing the ending, say, ending the false, for example.
K: Yes. Is the ending — we go back to the same thing. Thought can be ended. Obviously. One can see that. Is that ending of thought the same as the nothing… not-a-thing? I don’t know if I’m…
DB: Well…
K: Ah. No, sir. No, this is… I’m getting at it. I think this is right. There are two separate energies.
DB: What?
K: The energy of nothing is totally different from the other.
DB: But then you haven’t explained why there can be the relationship in which the nothing operates in the field of thought or reality.
K: It can operate because it’s everything.
DB: Yes, all right, but then therefore it includes everything.
K: Ah, no.
DB: What do you mean by saying *everything*?
K: No, everything in the sense, in nothingness — oh, I must be careful here (laughs). We said nothingness means ending, ending of… Ending. That is, not a thing. In the world of reality, ending means a continuation in a different form. Now, this has no continuity — truth. That has a continuity.
DB: Yes, all right, that difference we can see.
K: We’re just… This has a movement in time; this has no movement in time. Are they the same movement?
DB: Is time sort of a small movement within the infinite?
K: Quite, quite, quite.
DB: Because you did use the analogy in the scientists’ conference of some small area inside a big space, you see. Now, do you want to look at time that way?
K: Yes, I see that. No, I still feel in my blood… (inaudible) …this is totally different.
DB: It’s totally different, yes.
K: Let’s put it round this way, sir. In the field of reality, love has a different meaning — jealousy — you know, all that.
DB: Well, no, that’s when it’s trapped in there. But I’m saying that love can act in the field of reality.
K: Love can act in the field of reality.
DB: In a clear way, you see.
K: Yes, love can act in the field of reality, but the love in reality is not love.
DB: Well, that’s desire.
K: Desire and all the rest of it. We are getting slowly back.
DB: Yes. And beauty in reality is therefore… if it’s trapped in there it’s not beauty.
K: So the love in nothingness can act in the world of reality. But this can never be polluted in the field of reality, therefore it is something entirely original. I mean, I don’t know…
Sir, could we begin the other way around? We said death is ending, and that which has a continuity can never be creative.
DB: Yes.
K: That which has a movement in the timely… in the time sense, has no ending. And we said death, inward death, is the ending of everything — every thing.
DB: Every thing — yes.
K: The two… There is no relationship between the two. I would like to think that I can use the world of truth in reality.
DB: Yes. Well, we’ve been saying so far though that truth acts in reality.
K: Acts in reality. Now is that so? Truth acts in reality. Can it? Can nothing, can not-a-thing… It has no movement, has it?
DB: What?
K: Not-a-thing. How can not-a-thing act in reality? Reality is a thing.
DB: Right.
K: Sorry! How can nothing act in…
DB: Well, if we say that reality is actually nothing, you see, there’s another view. To say reality… the thing appears to be…
K: Yes, of course. That’s… we have gone off into some other… Quite.
Sir, would you put it this way? A mind that has no measure — I’m just enquiring — that is not living in the world of measure, can that mind operate in the world of measure?
DB: Yes, well, what does operate then?
K: Only measure.
DB: Well, measure operates in the world of measure, but this mind operates to see the falseness in that measure — do you see? Suppose I make a measurement and it’s wrong, and I see that it’s wrong.
K: And I alter the measurement.
DB: I alter it. But before I alter it I have to see that it is false. Right?
K: Yes.
DB: Now, isn’t that the operation of truth?
K: No, because I’ve measured the table, the right length of the table, and I see that it doesn’t fit in the room, therefore it’s a…
DB: Yes, all right, but now how do I see it? You see, if the mind is operating clearly it will see that, otherwise, you know, it may become confused and not see it.
K: Yes. Yes, that’s clear.
DB: Yes.
K: If I measure properly with a tape measure and stick to that, then it’s right. But it’s still in the world of measurement.
DB: Yes. Yes, well, measurement operates in the world of measurement. You see, thought itself is part of measurement. Right?
K: Yes, yes.
DB: But it’s important that thought should be clear, you know, and free of confusion, free of falseness. You see, at present, through desire and through other factors, thought becomes false.
K: Yes, yes. I understand all that. Yes.
DB: Now, what is the difference between the mind in which thought is false and the one in which thought is not false?
K: Can’t the falseness be seen in the world of reality?
DB: No, it’s the truth of it that’s seen. The truth of the world of reality, you see. The truth of the world of reality is its falseness.
K: Yes, yes, yes, in the word we are talking, yes.
DB: So…
K: Sir, may we say it this way? The world of reality is measurement — let’s stick to that for the moment — and that measurement may be false or true.
DB: Yes, it may not… (inaudible) Well, I would rather not say true, but correct.
K: I mean correct — let’s put it that way. That measurement may be false or correct in the field of reality.
DB: Yes.
K: Now, in nothingness there is no measurement.
DB: There is no measurement, no. But…
K: Wait, wait, wait — there is no measurement.
DB: Yes.
K: Now what’s the relationship between the two? This has measurement; this has no measurement.
DB: Yes, but what is it that sees whether the measurement is fitting? You see, if the measurement is false there is contradiction.
K: Yes.
DB: Now, what it is that sees the contradiction?
K: Pain.
DB: But it doesn’t always work. You see, in other words, the world of measure cannot have any criterion in it to guarantee the correctness. Do you see?
K: Of course, of course. Correct. Quite right.
DB: Something beyond it is needed.
K: But if my measurement is incorrect there is disturbance.
DB: Yes, but then I may suppress awareness of that disturbance.
K: Yes, but it is still in that area.
DB: It’s in that area, but what is it that sees that it is disturbance in that area?
K: Because I perceive I am disturbed.
DB: Yes, but many people don’t perceive.
K: Ah, because they’re insensitive, they are not aware, they are not conscious.
DB: Yes, but then…
K: But it is still there.
DB: Yes. But then, why not?
K: What do you mean, why not?
DB: Why are they not conscious?
K: Because my education — I can give you ten different reasons.
DB: Yes, but finally…
Questioner: My judgement in reality becomes part of consciousness and attachment, to a person who measures from within. And to a mind which is in emptiness has no attachment to the measurement which it does.
K: No, we said, sir, there is no measurement in nothingness. Let’s stick to that for the moment. There is no measurement in nothingness. There is measurement in reality — wrong, false measurement and correct measurement.
DB: Yes.
K: And Dr Bohm says: Who perceives the false and the correct? Who is the entity that sees in the world of reality the false and the correct? It is still the same mind which has measured.
DB: Yes, but then there’s no meaning to it, because, you know, this may be false at the next step, you see.
K: Of course, of course.
DB: But still, it seems there is some meaning to a thing being correct, because, you know, if you measure…
K: Because it fits, it is suitable, it is happy, it is convenient.
DB: Yes, but…
K: It is still there. I must stick to it. It is still there. Correct me — I want…
DB: Well, that’s still in that field, but in that field there is no way to guarantee — what shall I say?
K: Pure correctness.
DB: Pure correctness.
K: Agreed.
DB: And you see, we notice in some people there may be more ability or less ability to do that.
K: Of course. Agreed.
DB: All right. Now, it seems to me that there must be some perception beyond that field.
K: Why? Why should there be some other perception except that? You can only say there is some other perception when there is nothingness.
DB: Yes.
K: Is that nothingness a hypothesis, a theory, a verbal structure, or truth? If it is a verbal structure it is still in the world of reality.
DB: Yes, well, naturally, if it’s a verbal structure then it won’t change anything.
K: If it is still a theory, a hypothesis, a thing thought out, it’s still there. Here, we say there is no entrance for thought, therefore it is nothing. And we are saying: Is there a relationship between the two? That’s the central point we are trying to find out. No, I don’t think there is. Wait, I’m just… If I say there is no relationship then what takes place? If there is no relationship between this and that, and I make endeavour, struggle, to reach that, therefore I imagine I have a relationship to that, either in theory, in the hypothesis or hoping, which is desire. And I’m caught in that desire, hope. Imagining I have a relationship with that, I go… Because — why do I do this? — because I want something that’s permanent, something that can never be hurt, something that is not ending, beginning, suffering, all that. So I project as an idea or as an imagination or as a hope or as a desire, that there is this. When I project from this to this, this becomes… whatever the projection is, is unreal, is imaginary, it is a fantasy. Now, if there is actually nothingness — not theory — then where is the connection between the two?
(Pause)
In dying to the reality — (laughs) this sounds absurd — only then there is nothingness. In dying to reality. Which means dying to all the things thought has created. Which means dying to all the things of measurement, movement of time.
I know nothing about this. Right, sir? I know nothing about nothingness. (Laughs) I can’t even imagine it. I don’t know what it is. I’m not concerned with it. But I’m only concerned with this. I live in this. Here, I’m always caught between the false and the correct, between the false measurement and correct measurement, and I’m adjusting myself always between the two, or pursuing the one and rejecting the other — but it is still here. And do I see this totally, that desire has no end, hope has no end, struggle has no end, if I live here? So, I don’t know anything about it. That’s all your invention. You may know what nothingness is. I shut my eyes to that. I only know this. And my desire — not to enter that — to be free of this.
DB: If it’s a desire, it’s still the same, isn’t it?
K: Yes, I’m saying my desire, my hope, my longing — all from this. So, I am still exercising thought, therefore I’m still caught in the trap of that. So you tell me, ‘End thinking.’ Not because you want to get this. I can end it, but is that ending different from this?
DB: What do you mean? Is what different?
K: I can end by persuasion, by practice, by…
DB: Well, no, I mean that’s still the same process.
K: Of course. I can feel I can end it.
DB: Yes, well that would still be the same.
K: So, therefore you’d still be there. Is there an ending here without a motive?
DB: Well, it seems you’ve bought in nothingness implicitly by saying no motive.
K: Yes. So if I see the thing, sir, completely, there is an ending. Then that is this. Then it’s nothing. But I think it would be a wrong question on my part to say, ‘Is there a relationship between the two?’ I won’t even ask it. I’m right — that’s right. I won’t ask it. It’s a wrong question. Sorry. At least I won’t ask it, because I only know this. All the priests have said, all the… etc., etc. I say, ‘Please, I only know this.’ Right, sir.
As I only know this, my energy is limited to this — corrupted, perverted, distorted, neurotic, pathological — everything, that. And the man who says, ‘There is a nothingness’ — he just says it, he doesn’t relate this and that. He says there is nothingness. How do you catch him? He doesn’t say, ‘It contains… in nothingness everything is.’ He sees the danger of that and says, ‘No, I won’t even… There is only nothingness.’ And the man here says, ‘What’s the use of that? It’s not marketable, it doesn’t relieve my pain, my agony. Keep it to yourself.’
DP: Nothingness has come in the field of reality.
K: Ah! You want to introduce it. But the man who says, ‘There is nothingness’ — there is nothingness. But I, living in the field of reality, hear you say, ‘Nothingness,’ and it has… your saying it has a reality, has something to me. I want to bring that into here.
DB: Well, basically you’re saying that we’ve got to approach the thing with the right question that doesn’t presuppose something wrong.
K: That’s right, sir.
DB: And that you can’t… whatever may be right about nothingness you can’t say it, you know, from the starting point when you’re in reality.
K: That’s right. That’s right. Therefore, you see, this energy of nothingness is something quite different from this. And he says, ‘Don’t bother about it. Look at this and get out of it. Don’t bother about the other.’
DP: Is there an ending without desire?
K: No, don’t ask that question — only concern ourselves here.
DP: Ending.
K: Yes, ending desire.
DP: Or seeing.
K: See it. Don’t bring cosmos — sorry — into the limited.
DB: But you did bring it in during the discussions with the scientists.
K: I know. I brought it in because I wanted them to know something exists other than this blasted little stuff. You may reject it. You come along and say, ‘Look,’ to me, ‘there is a state of nothingness.’ You say that and it is tremendously true to you. And it means dying — you follow? — all that, not a thing in his mind. I hear that. Because he has said it I have a feeling it is true because he… the very… his saying it rings… — no — his very presence, his very saying, his very word has that. And I want to pull him into this. And he says, ‘Go to hell! You can’t do it.’ I think that’s right. Quite right, sir — otherwise we get caught in the ancient trap: God is here, truth is in reality — all the rest of it.
Does this answer, sir? That beauty, goodness, truth — the purity of it is in nothingness. But the true… but the good, the beautiful — what is the other? — love.
DB: Yes, what is it? The good, the beautiful and the…
K: The good…
DB: …and the correct.
K: Are all in here, which is different from the other. I think that is right.
DB: Yes, well, I think that — I mean, just simply — one has a general expectation that a state of nothingness would not produce a man who acted evilly or is evil.
K: Don’t… You see?
DB: Yes, I know, but I’m just saying this.
K: That’s a wrong question.
DB: It’s a wrong question, but we have to look at the question.
K: It’s a hypothetical question.
DB: Yes. We have to look at the question, in the sense that it is one which is present in our background, in our tradition, over the whole world. You see, it’s part of the tradition that a man who acts from the nothingness or from God, or whatever people call it, would not do evil things.
K: Ah, wait! (Laughs) I wouldn’t… Look, sir, there is, after all, in the Jewish, in the Hindu — not in the Christian world — the nameless.
DB: Yes.
K: The unmeasurable, the nameless. And I live here and name him all the time, and he doesn’t even recognise the name. I think that is true. So my only concern is here. Do I see the totality of this? And if I see the total, I’m out. That’s right, sir. That holds true right to the… I’ll stick to it. Therefore, there is no relationship between the two.
(Pause)
Sir, a man who experiences death — I won’t use the word *experience* — a man who dies — not under anaesthesia, operation, accident, disease, old age — dies — because he’s alive, active — dies. There is a total ending, but he has ended. The ending in reality is quite different, therefore there is no relationship. I’m right. I’ll stick to this. I’m clear. I’ll fight all the scientists now!
Love, sir, the love of… the love that exists in reality is one thing. That same word cannot be applied here. You can call it compassion, you can call it something else, but it’s not the same word, not the same content of that word.
DB: Well, I mean, we were discussing love as movement in relationship, but that would seem at first sight to be in reality, since relationship is there. Now how do you…
K: Oh yes, it’s still there.
DB: It’s still a movement in relationship. You say that, however, we cannot use the same word, you see. It’s not clear exactly what you’re meaning to say.
K: No, but I was using the word *love* for the moment. Sir, nothingness is something entirely different. Therefore my relationship here is a movement in time, in change, in breaking down one image and introducing another image, and so on, so on, so on, so on — that’s my relationship. When I see the totality of that relationship — really perceive it in the sense perceiver and the perceived are one and there is no perceiver but only perception — that’s the ending of the whole of that.
Then you ask, ‘What is relationship?’ Right?
DB: Yes.
K: I say, ‘Do that first, I’ll answer you afterwards.’ That’s right. Dr Bohm has climbed the Everest and I haven’t. He can describe to me the beauty of that climb, but I’m still in the valley. And I long to have that vision of what he has seen. My desire is to that. My desire is for the description, not for the… go up there. I have no desire when I go up, when I climb. In the climbing there is no desire. But in the… to achieve the description of what he has seen, there is desire. Right, sir? I think that holds it. I think that’s right. We are caught in description, not in actual climbing.
(Pause)
Should we… Poor people, I hope…
DB: It’s five-thirty now. It’s an hour and a half.
K: We’d better go and shake hands — in reality. (Laughter)
Sir, we’ll go on every Saturday.
DB: Yes. That’s next week.