KRISHNAMURTI: Love has no relationship to hate.
DAVID BOHM: 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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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?
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.