B: Could we say a little more about sorrow? It is more than pain.
K: Much more than pain. Much more than loss. Much more than losing someone.
S: It is deeper than that.
K: Much deeper than that.
B: It goes beyond the image, beyond thought.
K: Of course. It goes beyond thought.
B: Beyond thought, and what we ordinarily call feeling.
K: Of course. Feeling, thought. Now can that end?
S: Before you go on – are you saying that the stream of sorrow is a different stream from the stream of image-making?
K: No, it is part of the stream.
S: Part of the same stream?
K: The same stream but much deeper.
B: Then are you saying that there is a very deep stream, and that image-making is on the surface of this stream?
K: That’s all.
B: Right. The waves on the surface, right? Could you say we have understood the waves on the surface of this stream, which we call image-making?
K: Yes, that’s right. Image-making.
B: And the disturbances in sorrow come out on the surface as image-making.
K: That’s right.
S: So now we have got to go deep-sea diving!
K: You know, sir, there is universal sorrow.
B: Yes, but let’s try to make it clear. It is not merely that there is the sum of all the sorrow of different people…
K: No, no. Could we put it this way? The waves on the river don’t bring compassion or love – compassion, love, we have said, are synonymous, so we will keep to the word ‘compassion’. The waves don’t bring this. What will? Without compassion human beings are destroying themselves. So does compassion come with the ending of sorrow, which is not the sorrow created by thought?
B: In thought you have sorrow for the self – right?
K: Yes. Sorrow for the self.
B: Which is self-pity.
B: And now you say there is another sorrow, a deeper sorrow.
K: There is a deeper sorrow.
B: Which is not merely the total sum but something universal.
K: That’s right.
S: Can we spell that out? Go into it?
K: Don’t you know it? I am just asking. Don’t you know, aren’t you aware of a much deeper sorrow than the sorrow of thought, of self-pity, the sorrow of the image?
B: Is it sorrow for the fact that man is in this state which he can’t get out of?
K: That is partly it. That means partly the sorrow of ignorance.
B: Yes. Man is ignorant and cannot get out of it.
K: Cannot get out of it. And the perception of that sorrow is compassion.
B: All right. Then the non-perception is sorrow?
K: Yes, yes, yes. Are we seeing the same thing?
S: No, I don’t think so.
K: Say, for instance, you see me in ignorance.
B: Or I see the whole of mankind in ignorance.
K: Mankind in ignorance. Ignorant in the sense we are talking about – that is, the maker of the image…
B: Let’s say that if my mind is really right, good, clear, that should have a deep effect on me.
S: What would have a deep effect on me?
B: To see this tremendous ignorance, this tremendous destruction.
K: We are getting at it. We are getting at it.
S: Right, right.
K: We are getting at it.
B: But then if I don’t fully perceive, if I start to escape the perception of it, I am in it too.
K: Yes, in it too.
B: The feeling is that universal sorrow is still something I can feel, is that what you mean to say?
B: Although I am not very perceptive as to what it means.
K: No, no. You can feel the sorrow of thought.
B: The sorrow of thought. But I can sense, or somehow be aware of the universal sorrow.
S: You say universal sorrow is there whether you feel it…
K: You can feel it.
B: Feel it or sense it.
K: Sorrow of man living like this.
B: Is that the essence of it?
K: I am just moving into it. Let’s go.
B: Is there more to it than that?
K: Much more to it.
B: Then perhaps we should try to bring that out.
K: I am trying to. You see me: I live the ordinary life, image, sorrow, fear, anxiety; I have the sorrow of self-pity. And you, who are ‘enlightened’ (in quotes), look at me, and I say, ‘Aren’t you full of sorrow for me?’ – which is compassion.
B: I would say that is a kind of energy which is tremendously aroused because of this situation.
B: But would you call it sorrow? Or compassion?
K: Compassion, which is the outcome of sorrow.
B: But have you felt sorrow first? I mean, does the enlightened person feel sorrow and then compassion?
S: The other way?
K: No, no. Go very carefully. You see, sir, you are saying that one must have sorrow first to have compassion.
B: I am not. I am just exploring.
K: Yes, you are exploring. Through sorrow you come to compassion.
B: That is what you seem to be saying.
K: Which implies that I must go through all the horrors of mankind…
B: Well, let’s say that the enlightened man sees this sorrow, sees this destruction, and he feels some tremendous energy – we will call it compassion.
B: Now does he understand that the people are in sorrow..?
K: Of course.
B: …but he himself is not in sorrow.
K: That’s right. That’s right.
B: But he feels a tremendous energy to do something.
K: Yes. Tremendous energy of compassion.
S: Would you say then that the enlightened man perceives, or is aware of the conflict, the awkwardness, the blundering, the loss of life, but that he is not aware of sorrow?
K: No, sir. Dr Shainberg just listen. Suppose you have been through all this – image, thought, the sorrow of thought, fears, anxieties, and you say, ‘I have understood all that’. But you have very little left. You have energy, but it is a very shallow business. And is life as shallow as all that? Or has it an immense depth? Depth is the wrong word.
B: Well, yes, inwardness?
K: Inwardness, yes. And to find that out don’t you have to die to everything known?
B: But how does this relate to sorrow at the same time?
K: I am coming to that. You might feel that I am ignorant, that I have my anxieties and fears. You are beyond it, you are on the other side of the stream as it were. Don’t you have compassion for me?
K: Compassion. Is that the result of the ending of sorrow, universal sorrow?
B: Universal sorrow? You say the ending of sorrow. Now you are talking about the person who is in sorrow to begin with.
B: And in him this universal sorrow ends? Is that what you are saying?
K: No. More than that.
B: More than that? Well, we have to go slowly because if you say the ending of universal sorrow, the thing that is puzzling is to say that it still exists, do you see? You say if the universal sorrow ends then it has all gone.
K: Ah, it is still there.
B: Still there. There is a certain puzzle in language.
K: Yes, yes.
B: So in some sense the universal sorrow ends, but in another sense it persists.
K: Yes, that is right.
B: Could we say that if you have an insight into the essence of sorrow, universal sorrow, then sorrow ends in that insight? Is that what you mean?
K: Yes, that’s right.
K: Although it still goes on.
S: I have got a deeper question. The question is…
K: I don’t think you have understood.
S: Oh, I think I have understood that one, but my question comes before, which is that the image-making has died – right? That is, the waves. Now I come into the sorrow.
K: You have lost the sorrow of thought.
S: Right. The sorrow of thought has gone but there is a deeper sorrow.
K: Is there? Or are you assuming there is a deeper sorrow?
S: I am trying to see what you are saying.
K: No, no. I am saying: Is there compassion which is not related to thought? Or is that compassion born of sorrow?
S: Born of sorrow?
K: Born in the sense that when the sorrow ends there is compassion.
S: OK. That makes it a little clearer. When the sorrow of thought…
K: Not personal sorrow.
S: No. When the sorrow…
K: Not the sorrow of thought.
B: Not the sorrow of thought, something deeper.
S: Something deeper. When that sorrow ends then there is a birth of compassion.
B: Of compassion, of energy.
K: Now is there not a deeper sorrow than the sorrow of thought?
S: There is. As you were saying, there is sorrow for ignorance which is deeper than thought – the sorrow for the universal calamity of mankind trapped in this sorrow, the sorrow for a continual repetition of wars and poverty and people mistreating each other, that’s a deeper sorrow.
K: I understand all that.
S: That is deeper than the sorrow of thought.
K: Can we ask this question: What is compassion? Which is love. We are using that one word to cover a wide field. What is compassion? Can a man who is in sorrow, in thought, in the image – can he have that? He cannot. Actually he cannot – right?
K: Now when does that compassion come into being? Without that life has no meaning. You have left me without that. All you have taken away from me is superficial sorrow, thought and image-making. And I feel there is something much more.
B: Just doing that leaves something empty.
K: There is something much greater than this shallow little business.
B: When we have thought which produces sorrow, self-pity, and when we also have the realization of the sorrow of mankind, could you say that the energy which is deeper is in some ways being..?
B: …moved. Well, first of all in this sorrow this energy is…
B: …is caught up in whirlpools or something. It is deeper than thought but there is some sort of very deep disturbance of the energy.
K: Quite right.
B: Which we call deep sorrow.
K: Deep sorrow.
B: Ultimately its origin is the blockage in thought, isn’t it?
K: Yes, that is deep sorrow of mankind. For centuries upon centuries it has been like that – you know, like a vast reservoir of sorrow.
B: It is sort of moving around in some way that is disorderly.
B: And preventing clarity. I mean perpetuating ignorance.
K: Yes, perpetuating ignorance, right.
B: Because if it were not for that then man’s natural capacity to learn would solve all these problems.
K: That’s right.
S: Right, right.
K: Unless you three give me, or help me, or show me, an insight into something much greater, I say, ‘Yes, this is very nice’, and off I go – you follow? What we are trying to do, as far as I can see, is to penetrate into something beyond death.
B: Beyond death?
K: Death we say is not only the ending of the organism, but the ending of the content of the consciousness – consciousness as we know it now.
B: Is it also the ending of sorrow?
K: The ending of sorrow of the superficial kind. That is clear.
K: And a man who has gone through all that says, ‘That isn’t good enough. You haven’t given me the flower, the perfume. You have just given me the ashes of it.’ And now we three are trying to find out that which is beyond the ashes.
B: There is that which is beyond death?
K: Ah, absolutely.
B: Would you say that is eternal, or…
K: I don’t want to use that word.
B: I mean is it in some sense beyond time?
K: Beyond time.
B: Therefore eternal is not the best word.
K: There is something beyond the superficial death, a movement that has no beginning and no ending.
B: But it is a movement?
K: It is a movement. Movement, not in time.
S: What is the difference between a movement in time, and a movement out of time?
K: Sir, that which is constantly renewing, constantly – new isn’t the word – constantly fresh, endlessly flowering, that is timeless. But this word flowering implies time.
B: I think we can see the point.
S: I think we get that, the feel of renewal in creation, and coming and going without transition, without duration, without linearity.
K: Let me come back to it in a different way. Being a fairly intelligent man, having read various books, tried various meditations, at one glance I have an insight into all that, at one glance – which is the end of image-making. It is finished. I won’t touch it. Then a meditation must take place to delve, to have an insight, into something which the mind has never touched before.
B: But even if you do touch, it doesn’t mean that the next time it will be known.
K: Ah, it can never be known in a sense.
B: It can never be known. It’s always new in some sense.
K: Yes, it is always new. It is not a memory stored up, altered, changed, and called new. It has never been old. I don’t know if I can put it that way.
B: Yes. I think I understand that. But could you say it is like a mind that has never known sorrow?
B: It might seem puzzling at first. You move out of this state which has known sorrow into a state which has not known sorrow.
K: Quite right, sir.
B: In other words there is no you.
K: That’s right, that’s right.
S: Can we say it in this way too – that it is an action which is moving where there is no you?
K: You see when you use the word ‘action’, it means not in the future, nor in the past; action is doing.
K: And most of our actions are the result of the past, or according to a future ideal. That’s not action, that is just conformity.
S: Right. I am talking about a different kind of action.
K: To penetrate into this, the mind must be completely silent. Otherwise you are projecting something into it.
S: Right. It is not projecting into anything.
K: Absolute silence. And that silence is not the product of control – wished for, premeditated, predetermined.
K: Therefore that silence is not brought about through will.
K: Now in that silence there is this sense of something beyond all time, all death, all thought – you follow? Nothing. Not a thing, you understand, nothing. And therefore empty and therefore tremendous energy.
B: Is this also the source of compassion?
K: That’s it.
S: What do you mean by source?
B: Well, in this energy is compassion…
K: Yes, that is right.
S: In this energy is…
K: This energy is.
S: That’s different.
K: Of course.
S: This energy is compassion. You see that is different from saying the source.
K: You see, beyond that there is something more.
S: Beyond that?
K: Of course.
B: Why do you say of course? What could it be that is more?
K: Sir, let us put it, approach it, differently. Everything thought has created is not sacred, is not holy.
B: Because it is fragmented.
K: It is fragmented. We know that putting up an image and worshipping it is a creation of thought.
S: That’s right.
K: Made by the hand, or by the mind, it is still an image. So in that there is nothing sacred. Because, as Dr Bohm pointed out, thought is fragmented, limited, finite; it is the product of memory and so on.
B: Is the sacred, therefore, that which is without limit?
K: That’s it. There is something beyond compassion.
B: Beyond compassion.
K: Which is sacred.
B: Is it beyond movement?
K: Sacred. You can’t say movement, or non-movement. A living thing – you can only examine a dead thing.
K: A living thing you can’t examine. What we are trying to do is to examine that living thing which we call sacred, which is beyond compassion.
B: What is our relation to the sacred then?
K: To the man who is ignorant there is no relationship – right? Which is true. To the man who is free of the image and the image-maker, it has no meaning yet – right? It has meaning only when he goes beyond everything, dies to everything. Dying means never for a single second accumulating anything psychologically.
S: But he asked the question: What is the relationship to the sacred? Is there ever a relationship to the sacred?
K: No, no. He is asking what is the relationship between that which is sacred, holy, and reality.
B: Well, that is implicit anyway. I mean that is implied.
K: Of course. We have talked about this question some time ago. Reality, which is the product of thought, has no relationship to that because thought is an empty little affair.
K: Relationship comes through insight, intelligence and compassion.
S: What is intelligence, I suppose we are asking. I mean, how does intelligence act?
K: Wait, wait. You have had an insight into the image. You have had an insight into the movement of thought – the movement of thought which is self-pity, which creates sorrow. You have had a real insight into that. Haven’t you? It is not a verbal agreement or disagreement or a logical conclusion. You have had a real insight into that, into the waves of the river.
K: Now isn’t that insight intelligence?
K: Which is not the intelligence of a clever man, we are not talking about that. Now work with that intelligence, which is not yours or mine, not Dr Shainberg’s or Dr Bohm’s, or somebody’s. That insight is universal intelligence, global or cosmic intelligence. Now move further into it. Have an insight into sorrow, which is not the sorrow of thought. Then out of that insight compassion. Now have insight into compassion. Is compassion the end of all life? End of all death? It seems so because the mind throws out all the burdens which man has imposed upon himself – right? So you have that tremendous feeling, that tremendous thing inside. Now that compassion, delve into it. And there is something sacred, untouched by man – in the sense of being untouched by his mind, by his cravings, by his demands, by his prayers, by his everlasting chicanery. And that may be the origin of everything, which man has misused – you follow?
B: If you say it is the origin of all matter, all nature…
K: Everything, all matter, all nature.
B: All of mankind.
K: Yes. That’s right, sir. So at the end of these dialogues, what have you, what has the viewer got, what has he captured?
S: What would we hope he has got? Would you say what we hope he has captured, or what he has actually captured?
K: What he has actually, not hope. What has he actually captured? Has his bowl filled?
S: Filled with the sacred.
K: Or does he say, ‘Well I have got a lot of ashes left, very kind of you, but I can get that anywhere’. Any logical, rational, human being would say, ‘They are discussing my part in all this and I am left with nothing’.
S: What has he got?
K: He has come to you – I have come to you three wanting to find out, wanting to transform my life, because I feel that is absolutely necessary, not just to get rid of my ambitions and all the silly stuff mankind has collected – I have emptied myself of all that – the I has died to all that. Now have I got anything out of all this? Have you given me the perfume of that thing?
S: Can I give you the perfume?
K: Or share it with me.
S: Has the viewer shared with us the experience we have had being together?
K: Have you two shared this thing with this man?
S: Have we shared this with this man?
K: If not, then what? A clever discussion – oh, we are fed up with that. You can only share when you are really hungry – burning with hunger. Otherwise you share words. So I have come to the point, we have come to the point, when we see that life has an extraordinary meaning.
B: Yes, it has a meaning far beyond what we usually think.
K: Yes, that is so shallow and empty.
B: So would you say this sacred is also life?
K: Yes, that’s what I was getting at. Life is sacred.
B: And the sacred is life.
S: Have we shared that?
K: Have you shared that? So we mustn’t misuse life. We mustn’t waste it because our life is so short.
B: You feel that each of our lives has a part to play in this sacred which you talked about? It is a part of the whole, and to use it rightly has a tremendous significance?
K: Yes, quite right. But to accept it as a theory is as good as any other theory.
S: Right. But somehow I feel troubled. Have we shared it? That burns, that question burns. Have we shared the sacred?
K: Which really means that all these discussions, dialogues, have been a process of meditation. Not a clever argument, but a real penetrating meditation which brings insight into everything that is being said.
B: Well, I should say we have been doing that.
K: I think we have been doing that.
S: And have we shared that?
B: With whom?
S: With the viewer?
K: Ah, are you considering the viewer? Or is there no viewer at all? Are you speaking to the viewer, or only to that thing in which the viewer, you and I, and everything is? You understand what I am saying?
S: You said we have been in a meditation, and I say we have been in a meditation – but how far have we shared our meditation?
K: No. I mean has it been a meditation?
K: Meditation is not just argument.
S: No, we have shared in that.
K: Seeing the truth of every statement.
K: Or the falseness of every statement. Or seeing in the false the truth.
S: Right. Then being aware of the false in each of us as it comes out and is clarified.
K: Seeing it all, and therefore we are in a state of meditation. And whatever we say must then lead to that ultimate thing. Then you are not sharing.
S: Where are you?
K: There is no sharing. It is only that.
S: The act of meditation is that.
K: There is only that.