Seminar 5, Ojai, California, 18 April 1982
Questioner: This afternoon we’d like to go into some of the issues that were raised in our previous discussions in more detail, issues that may be of particular interest to some of the mental health professionals; and I’d like to start with the question of the observer and the observed.
David Bohm: Yes?
Q: That that was said to be an error; and I wonder if we could explore in what sense it’s an error. If I have a… or if a patient comes in with a problem, they want to think about their problem, they want to do something about it; say they are depressed and they observe that depression, why is that an error?
DB: Yes, I understand the question, that in ordinary common sense that would be just the right thing to do. Now, the difficulty is — as we were saying in the previous discussions — that this brings about a conflict; and… of course, if we were observing the table, it doesn’t bring about a conflict but when we try to observe the mind, apparently it does. Now, I thought maybe it would be good to try to bring out in a little more detail what may be happening there, that we’ve got an image of ourselves and we’re trying to observe it — right? — and if you imagine trying to observe yourself, you may feel you’re somewhere in here around your chest or the solar plexus, and that is being a kind of an image which is, apparently, being observed from a point of view or a vantage point somewhere further back in the head. Is that clear what I mean? That’s about where it feels.
Now, one might say that perhaps comes about because we have an image of the body; you see, when we are looking at the body, it’s as if from the vantage point of the eye, almost like looking through the eye, like a window and we see the body. Right? And also, looking at other people who I know are similar to me, I see that my eye must also be an organ of the body. Right? Now, then when we try to imagine ourselves, we will probably imagine a very similar structure, namely, somewhere inside us, a vaguely defined image of the body and somewhere back… what we’ll have is, as it were, the eye of the mind through which the mind is looking. That is an image structure, not an actuality. Right?
Q: Now, this is an important distinction, I think. In psychotherapy, in some of the theories behind therapy, it’s said that there is a self-image, a body image, and you’re saying that this is an image and not an actuality?
DB: Well, the body is an actuality, clearly.
Q: Yes.
DB: Now, this self-image, I’m suggesting, is just an image but it may appear very actual and that is what we have to see why; that is, that is part of the illusion. Right? I mean, obviously a television image doesn’t fool anybody, you know; nobody believes it to be actual. So somehow this seems very real and actual; I think we remarked on this during the discussions. Now, one point that makes it actual is there’s a feeling connected with the image, as if it were touching the body.
Q: Yes.
DB: Right? Then that would be, as it were, experiencing it; perhaps there’s pleasure and pain in it; and furthermore this image seems to be very active; it seems to be the source of activity. I mean, it may have desire and will in it and various actions, physical actions appear to emerge from it; it seems you do what the image wants. Right?
Q: Well, it doesn’t seem like there’s a division between me and the image; it’s not like I do what the image wants; it’s that I do what I want.
DB: That’s right, but I’m identified with the image. Now, you see, I think that one can get some idea of this better by thinking that this image is rather a kind of fantasy; that is, in a fantasy you not only have an image but you’ll feel you’re actively participating in this image, as well as experiencing it, you see. I think advertisers use this quality of the mind a great deal; for example, they’ll present an image of a car and you are sort of invited to imagine yourself at the wheel of the car, feeling how good it is to drive it, how nice it is, the pleasure, the speed of the car. (Laughs)
Q: Right.
DB: Possibly, how other people admire you; and you are living in a kind of world of fantasy — right? — surrounding you, which is the projection of that image.
Q: The *you* is the projection of that image, is that what you’re saying?
DB: Well, that world of fantasy surrounds this central image…
Q: Yes, I see.
DB: …which appears to be located in the body. Right?
Q: Now, many psychologists would say, ‘What’s wrong with that? As long as it’s positive and healthy, that could be very good.’
DB: Well, in principle such fantasy can be useful for imagining various alternative courses of action, but it gets dangerous when you begin to mistake it for reality. Now, say in the case of *Secret Life of Walter Mitty*, you had a nice story of a man who slipped very easily into this fantasy and found it hard to get out of it, though he did manage it, but I think that when it comes to the ego we just simply don’t get out of it at all. That is, the ego forms a world of fantasy around it: what it needs, what it desires, and other people and other things have to fit into this world and supply what it needs. I mean, there’s a sort of a slogan I think could be applied to it, that, ‘Everything must be for me what I need it to be.’ And since things… either you try to force things to fit it or else when things don’t fit, you get hurt. Right?
Q: Now, when you say mistake it for reality, you don’t mean as in psychosis?
DB: Well, it doesn’t go as far as psychosis; there’s no hallucination or anything.
Q: But can that be clarified or can that distinction be made?
DB: Well, yes. You see, let’s try to take an example of an image of somebody. Now, what’s a good image? One image might be: I’m a very competent person, a very efficient, effective and otherwise admirable person (laughs); everybody sees this; it’s constantly being shown and it will lead me to good fortune in my life, and happiness. Right? Now, I expect everybody to support this image — right? — but I may do something incompetent and somebody says, ‘That’s idiotic, incompetent,’ and that breaks the image. Right? Now, then you feel very uncomfortable. Right? Now, but the comfort you feel when you have the image is not a good thing either because it leads you to do all sorts of silly things — right? — you’re accepting your estimate of yourself from the image, so it leads to self-deception, at the very least.
Q: Well, this is a profoundly different goal for therapy, implicit in this, than we normally would tackle in therapy. Normally, we try to get the image improved, not see it as false; we try to make the self become more effective in some way or another.
DB: Yes; well, if the self is an image, then there’s no point in doing that.
Q: And if the self is real, then there is a point in it.
DB: Yes. Now, and I don’t know how we’re going to decide that; b ut if the self is an image, then the point is to dispel this notion that the image is real.
Q: Right. And whether or not the image is real then, are you saying that the image not being real is on a par with any fantasy not being real?
DB: Yes.
Q: That I have the fantasy of myself as going up to Big Bear this week and going to ski and that’s not real because it hasn’t happened?
DB: Well, but then you know it’s not real. You see, that fantasy or that imagination may help you project a trip but if you imagine that you’re a great skier when you’re not, as you start skiing down the mountain you will find difficulty.
Q: Are we just saying then that the picture of myself should fit the actual facts?
DB: No, because the difficulty is that the self-image is constantly looking, has a constant pressure to deceive itself; that is, the purpose of the image is not to tell you about yourself — right? — that is not the way the image generally works. Right?
Q: So you’re saying that there’s distortion in the process itself?
DB: Yes. You see, its aim is basically a sense of pleasure and security.
Q: Oh, so you’re saying the function of the image is not that it be available for planning and so on?
DB: Yes, that’s one of its functions but not the dominant one, as a rule.
Q: The dominant one being that I have a sense of continuity and security.
DB: Yes; and pleasure.
Q: And pleasure.
(Pause)
All right; and you’re saying that this differs from a normal fantasy in that I don’t realise it’s going on; I think it’s actually real.
DB: Yes; it seems quite real and it’s very vivid, you see, very vital.
Q: Yes; and my emotions proceed from it.
DB: Yes, and feelings inside proceed from it, the heartbeat or the feeling in the solar plexus and your activities; you know, you may say things to people based on that and you’re waiting for them to answer you back on that basis.
Q: Okay. Now, this is commonly known in therapy; at some level we deal with this phenomenon in… for example, we may deal with somebody who, as part of their self-image, feels themselves to be the victim and as part of their projection onto the world they feel the world is a victimiser.
DB: Yes; well, the other side of that is the feeling of being dominant and aggressive, very confident that you’re going to get your way.
Q: Right. And in therapy we help the person to get insight into that particular aspect of their self-image but we don’t deal with the self-image as a false thing in and of itself.
DB: Well, it appears that way.
Q: So how can we see that this is actually the case? Or why don’t we see that it’s the case?
DB: Yes, why don’t we see? Well, because… one reason is the image is very realistic, obviously; you know, that it satisfies our criteria for reality.
Q: What do you mean by that?
DB: Well, it’s rather permanent and it feels solid and it’s — you know? — it has great activity in it. I mean, anything doing that would be felt to be real, at least at first sight. See, we don’t see where this activity is coming from.
Q: And I think it’s coming from me.
DB: Yes; well, because… but that begs the question. Right?
Q: What do you mean?
DB: Well, we’re questioning whether this *me* is there. (Laughs) I mean, if we’re serious about it. Right? We’re saying this *me* is an image, or at least generally speaking it is. Right?
Q: Okay, so we say that we have some action going on; I’m saying this action is coming from me and you’re saying that that begs the question in that it’s… that’s the thing we’re questioning: whether it really is coming from me.
DB: Yes. Yes, and… okay, and so how are we going to find out?
Q: Well, we don’t seem to have any trouble finding out in terms of particular aspects of the image. Like I say, with a patient that feels they’re the victim, in therapy after a while they gain some insight into the fact that they’re doing that.
DB: How do you show them that?
Q: Well, we examine situations in which they feel that, like between themselves and me, the therapist, in which the therapist has made no contribution; the therapist is just sitting there and the patient sees that he’s beginning to feel victimised.
DB: Now, does he infer from that that… what does he infer from that?
Q: Well, at first glance he may think that he’s really being victimised but after he looks at it, after he listens to himself doing this for a while…
DB: Well, how does he do that?
Q: He starts to realise that this is a pattern in his life; that gives him some reason to doubt the reality of it or at least that it’s coming from the outside all the time, he…
DB: Well, that’s still an inference, though; he’s not actually looking at it.
Q: Right; he’s inferring that it may not be true; and then he may, in therapy, see that I am not trying to hurt him; that I don’t have that intent which contradicts his feeling that I am…
DB: Yes. So he’s faced with a contradiction, right? What does he do then?
Q: Well, what actually happens is that sometimes he… on some occasions he gets an insight into it.
DB: He sees something.
Q: He sees something.
DB: And then he’s free of it. Right?
Q: Yes; it’s dissolved.
DB: Right, okay; now, that’s what we’ve got to do about… See, the point is that you’re doing that with some aspect of the image, say a particular image, let’s say, that I am victimised or that I would like to be aggressive and unfortunately I’m always victimised, and I would like to be the victor once in a while.
Q: Right.
DB: But now we can generalise the image and say there are much more general images, saying, you know… — what’s a good general image?
Q: ‘I exist as an individual.’
DB: Well, I’m here… that I’m an individual. Right? You see, is that an image?
Q: You’re suggesting that, somehow, by the same process that we use in therapy we may get at that?
DB: Well, or similar; I mean, not the same. There’s something in there which we haven’t got hold of. See, somehow, he must have given some attention to what was going on, you see? I mean, actually; if he really had an insight.
Q: So we’re… somehow attention is going to give us an insight into this?
(Pause)
You’re saying that there is something more to me than my image, then?
DB: Well, I hope so; I mean, that is potentially; I mean, you should be capable… everybody should be capable of something more than an image, I mean; otherwise I don’t see how we would have managed to even to exist until now. (Laughs)
Q: And that’s attention; so I’m giving attention to this question but I don’t know where to look.
DB: Yes; well, now, then — we discussed this point this morning — attention gets narrowed by thought, by conclusions from the past.
Q: Can you say more about that?
Q: Or maybe a related question to that is: the way that we’re discussing this, it isn’t completely evident why this is such a problem.
DB: Why what’s such a problem?
Q: Why seeing this is such a problem; why paying attention to this and understanding this is such a problem; that is…
DB: Oh yes. Yes; well, let’s try to say… let’s try to get rid of the image in various ways, you see. Now, one way is by thinking about it and analysing it; we discussed that this morning, right? Now, the question is that requires an analyser who is separate from the image.
(Pause)
Q: So the problem perpetuates itself with that method?
DB: It’s the same thing, because we’re saying that the separate analyser, is he different from the image, or isn’t it the same structure that makes both? Now, that… suppose you have an analyser, he wants to analyse anger; well, the only really important point is: can he do it when he’s really angry?
Q: Well, the therapists at this point say that that depends on ego strength, that the degree to which a person is able to bring to bear his observing ego and analyse a problem depends upon how strong he is psychologically. Are you suggesting that there’s something inherent in this which makes that approach impossible?
DB: Yes, well, is anybody strong enough to maintain objectivity when he’s angry, about himself, objectivity about himself? Because he is that anger — right? — his whole thought process is pervaded with it.
Q: You’re saying there isn’t a separate thing called ego strength, that it’s…
DB: Anger is something very powerful that spreads through everything. Like fear.
Q: Or whatever the emotion is that’s proceeding out of what’s central to that particular self; if the self is the victim, then feelings of victimisation are central and will invade his ego strength.
DB: Yes, there’s fear in that and frustration and hurt and disappointment and what-not.
Q: So then it’s a matter of pain looking at pain.
DB: Or pleasure looking at pleasure. See, if he’s thinking of how nice it is to be flattered — you told him he’s a great fellow — then he will be very unwilling to question the fellow who’s saying this, you see? He may not question even when that fellow is leading him up the garden path, you know. (Laughs) And I don’t think anybody is different in this regard, you see, whether he feels himself to be normal psychologically or not.
Q: And in the case of anger, the distortion is… or the source of the distortion is…?
DB: Well, it’s a very powerful emotion; see, one thing we tend to do is to try to justify the anger, saying, ‘I’m right,’ or else you say, ‘I’m wrong; I should control myself.’ Right? But we’ve discussed that, how futile that is; I mean, both are equally silly procedures. And, you see, the belief that I can control myself is part of the distortion, or the belief that I’m right or… I can’t even trust the judgment that I’m wrong, you see. I might believe I’m wrong for some very wrong reason; the anger distorts; I might even be right, you know.
Q: So you’re saying that to analyse this, meaning to try to hold back an objective part and look at it… look at yourself objectively, self-analysis, doesn’t make any sense, for this reason, that the mind itself is part of the process that’s looking, is the process that’s looking.
DB: There’s no real separation, you see; as the analyst, I am what I am analysing. Right?
Q: Okay.
DB: Or I as the observer am what I’m observing. Right?
Q: Well, we try to get around this point by doing it later; we say, ‘Well, I was angry last week and I was angry the week before but I don’t want to be angry tomorrow, so let me observe it now while I’m calm.’
DB: Yes, well, then we try by inference to draw conclusions; but, you see… see, it depends on how you go about that, you see; are you just drawing inferences? You see, if the anger is not there, you’re not looking at it — right? — you’re drawing inferences from past behaviour…
Q: Right; I get some understanding of the pattern. Yes.
DB: …which is analysis — right? — that’s still analysis. Right? So, first of all, you may be distorted right now by the urge toward pleasure and the belief that you have succeeded, or the fear that you may not, and when anger comes will this actually help? Or won’t it just override everything? You see, we’ve said that whatever structure goes into thought it will be… it’s pervaded with anger when anger comes.
Q: So we’re saying that doing that, trying to figure it out at a later time, doesn’t add any strength to my psychological structure so that I can cope with it when it arrives?
DB: Not fundamentally; you know, it may help a little but…
Q: Help me control it.
DB: Control it or something but, you see, it won’t really fundamentally alter it.
Q: And that’s because the fundamental problem is to adequately meet it when it arrives.
DB: Yes, otherwise distortion starts and whatever you do just makes it worse.
Q: Okay.
DB: You see people angry, the distortion building up between them.
(Pause)
Q: So this is why you’re saying attention is necessary?
DB: Yes.
Q: That this analytic approach isn’t going to…
DB: Yes, the analytic approach really can’t work there, you see; and the point is anyway a great deal of what you may be looking at is an image, which looks very real, and that’s misinformation.
Q: So when I analyse it, at some later time, I’m just looking at a picture of it?
DB: And assuming it to be real, which means you’re going on an entirely wrong track. It would be better if you hadn’t done it at all. Right?
Q: Right; say I analyse it at a later time and build up images of how it works and how I’m going to handle it in the future…?
DB: Yes, but when the time comes, you don’t. Right?
Q: Or I may handle it differently than I did in the past but I still haven’t met it.
DB: Yes.
Q: I’ve just superimposed another layer. Well, if we’re not going to do… approach it by analysis, then you’re saying we need to approach it by awareness of it.
DB: You see, one point about analysis is that there’s a delay, isn’t there? You know, you’ve pointed out some of the delay; it may be a long delay, like a week or… but in any case, whenever you try to think of it, there’s a delay, isn’t there?
Q: Yes.
DB: You know, there’s time lag, a time interval comes in.
Q: That’s interesting; I’m trying to… it seems like one of the strengths of analysis is that very time interval, and what I want to accomplish by analysis is strengthening that time interval; some stimulation comes in and I blow up and the way I conceptualise it later is if I could just keep my head in that instant and know what to do, and I think and plan and want to stick something in there in between and lengthen that interval.
DB: Yes, well, that’s… but then we’ve gone into it, why that isn’t going to work. Right?
Q: Yes.
DB: Now, you see, the point about this time interval, it’s basic to all thought. You see, I mean, Krishnamurti likes to give an illustration, that if somebody asks your name, your reaction is so fast that there’s essentially no time interval, but as soon as you’re asked something which you don’t know the answer, you now must suspend the action and turn the action back toward the memory to search for an answer — right? — that’s the beginning of thought. Right? If you don’t find it there, you could try to ask somebody the answer, look it up in a book or even figure it out logically or do an experiment or various other things but, you see, that’s all stretching out in time. Right? And while you’re doing it you obviously have a kind of goal in mind, you’re projecting time — right? — you have a sort of a goal that you’ve projected and a space, an imaginary… in your image, and between you and the image and that goal is also… there’s a space too, which implicitly will take time to cover. Right?
Now, you see, one point you can say is does it make any sense to bring in time in this way? Now, in certain areas it does; you can see where they are, can’t you?
Q: Yes, if I’m dealing with the mechanical world, it makes sense to bring in time.
DB: Yes, because things move fairly slowly there and they’re steady and regular; for example, this table may not be very different a week from now, so if you’re thinking what to do with it, you could take a whole week thinking it over. But now the mind is very dynamic, very fast — right? — faster than thought; the emotional reaction is faster than thought — right? — and other actions may be still faster; so how can thought do anything? You see, it will… by the time it gets there, everything may have changed radically.
Q: Yes; so it’s always behind the power curve.
DB: Yes, and in addition it’s being distorted by that very thing because it doesn’t know what it is.
(Pause)
Q: Yes, okay; I follow that. That leaves us in the present, having to cope with anger. We’re not going to bring in any time delay of thought; we’re going to cope with it.
DB: That’s right; no will power because that requires some time to think what’s… that also requires thought, doesn’t it?
Q: Right; with will power I’m going to figure out what I want in advance, steel myself and bring…
DB: Yes; and determine; see, will is determination to fix and determine what you’re going to do. Right?
Q: I could practice it many times so that it becomes automatic.
DB: But you don’t know what to practice. I mean, you see, what is it that you’ve got to do? I mean, what is anger?
Q: So we never do get to the heart of it by these methods.
DB: No.
Q: Okay.
(Pause)
There’s another method that therapy often uses and that’s trying to train a person in having the skills necessary to cope with situations so they don’t get angry in the first place.
DB: Well, how would you do that?
Q: Well, say that they don’t know how… say a person doesn’t know how to be assertive, they are very timid and so on; and so what happens with them is they don’t assert themselves and they store up feelings of resentment and finally something is just too much and they blow up, and so you help them by trying to get them to learn how to say what’s on their mind at the time.
DB: How… I mean, how do they learn?
Q: Practice it.
DB: Does it really work?
Q: Well, it works in the sense that it does develop the skill in them to do that and lowers…
DB: But I mean are they really satisfied with that?
Q: Many; many are.
DB: Many. Yes, well, I think there is difficulties in that method; I mean…
Q: Okay.
DB: You see, I would say that person who was… reticence may be a form of self-image — right? — the opposite of the aggressive self-image. Now, say a child copying somebody’s aggressive self-image may have been slapped down many times, so he may be reticent, which is another image; he thinks that, ‘If I hold back, I’ll be safe.’ Right? Now, what you’re doing is training him to carry out a course of actions to overcome that reticence but one hasn’t touched that image so it seems to me a conflict is going on there.
Q: That there’s an impulse in him to be reticent.
DB: Reticent; and a still deeper impulse to be aggressive; that there’s a triple conflict. (Laughs)
Q: So that technique is just covering up the conflict.
DB: And it will come out some other way, perhaps.
Q: Could he then… could he by learning how to be sufficiently assertive not… no longer feel this as an issue within his self-image?
DB: But he doesn’t know what to do with his… You see, the self-image is not anything under anybody’s control, you see — let me try to say something about that — that this fantasy, this imagination and fantasy is tied closely to thought but usually to a very passive, associative kind of thought; I mean, one thing leading to another — right? — that is, something comes up and you associate a word and the word associates an image and the image may associate another word and another image. See, in storytelling that sort of thing… you can see that going on. And a person doesn’t know it’s happening, you see; the images suddenly spring out, they’re very vivid and they are taken as real and that keeps the fantasy going; so there isn’t anything anybody can do about this directly by any of the ordinary ways.
Q: Wait; now, that was a jump I didn’t follow. What did you mean by that?
DB: Well, how can you stop this chain of association? I mean, it’s built into you; it’s like a computer programme, you see. See, take Pavlov and his dog — right? — he said, ‘Okay, the dog is hungry,’ so what do you do? You ring a bell — right? — now, every time you give him food you ring a bell — right? — so sooner or later you ring a bell and he starts to salivate, he can’t stop it — right? — it’s connected up in… wired up in him now.
Q: So you’re saying that these kinds of solutions that use thought and training, basically overlay the underlying problem; they don’t get down…
DB: Yes, I don’t see how they could change it; you see, I think… you must say the underlying problem is wired into him, in some sense; I mean, maybe not as rigid as that but some set of connections are being made in the nervous system.
(Pause)
Q: Okay; it brings us back to awareness again in the present. We’re not going to bring thought into it, we’re not going to analyse it, we’re not going to try and train a person out of it. But what is he to be aware of or what is this awareness?
DB: Yes, well, it seems — we have one clue — that there’s an image; he’s got to be aware of his image. Right?
Q: As an image? He’s aware of himself.
DB: Yes, but he’s got to be aware of what the image actually is — you know? — as an image. Right?
Q: How is he to do that?
DB: Well, you see, can we… that may not be a good question. Right? You see, because…
Q: It seems that that question presupposes a system of knowledge which we’re saying is part of the problem to begin with.
Q: Tell me; what do you mean?
Q: Well, we’re saying that… or your question, ‘What is he to do?’ proposes that there is some thing to do.
Q: Oh, I see.
DB: Which could be defined in thought, you see; I mean, either he could use will power or he could train himself or there would be some procedure, but we’ve said anything like that cannot reach this unknown, fast process in which he’s caught.
(Pause)
Q: What would be a proper question at this point then?
DB: Well, we have to discover it. You see, one of the points is that the… making the right question is half the point — right? — if not more. (Laughs) You see, because where do our questions come from?
Q: Well, they come out of the mind that’s trying to fix itself, in this case.
DB: Yes. Do they come from the same store of memories that the problem is coming from?
Q: Yes, I see.
Q: And, in that case, they’re the wrong question.
DB: Yes; they will presuppose… they’ll make assumptions which presuppose some of the things that have to be questioned. And that is one of the main tricks by which this whole thing goes on: that people, having become aware that something is badly wrong, then make questions and the questions they make are based on the very thing that’s wrong, therefore it stops. Right?
(Pause)
Q: But where does that leave us then?
DB: Well, you see, we’ve said that attention is needed for observing this thing, but attention is needed for even making the question.
Q: In other words, the question grows out of attention to the situation, not out of knowledge about it.
DB: Yes; if it grows out of knowledge it’s going to keep you in the same situation.
(Pause)
So we have to give attention; you know, the question must come from attention. Now, how are we going to give attention to this process? I don’t know; can we remember, you know, what… — I mean, as a clue; you know, is there… — what some of the things we did discuss, you see, about attention, can we go over it?
(Pause)
You see, the first point was attention is not the same as concentration — right? — that concentration is based on the knowledge, on the past, which says, ‘This is important and not that.’ But, you see, we’re dealing with something unknown so that won’t help us; I mean, it gets in the way.
Q: So we’re saying the attention that’s required is not to be directed by our thinking.
DB: Yes, it can’t be directed; our thinking may serve that later but the attention itself cannot be given a direction or a limit by our thinking — right? — or by our habits, our special interests and so on.
Q: Well, this gets real scary…
(Laughter)
…because normally a person thinks that… normally a person pays attention by what they’re trying to achieve; the direction of their attention is controlled by their intent.
DB: Yes; and we see in a certain area that makes sense.
Q: I want to get the dinner on the table, so I’ve got to go to the refrigerator. But here you’re saying that we’re operating in an area where we don’t understand, so we don’t even know what to pay attention to.
DB: Yes, that’s the first point: we don’t know what to pay attention to, you see.
Q: Leaving us with the sense of directionless-ness.
DB: Yes, but that may be the clue.
Q: How’s that?
DB: Well, every direction is just based on arbitrary knowledge from the past which doesn’t know about this. Right? Now, therefore the clue may be: no direction.
Q: If there is no direction and I am attentive, then whatever comes up… then I see whatever comes up.
DB: Yes.
Q: Okay.
DB: Yes… see, I just had a notion, an idea, that directionless-ness inspires some sort of uneasiness at first. Right?
Q: Yes.
Q: Yes.
DB: Right?
Q: Some sort of unknown…
DB: Yes; and where does that come from?
Q: That uneasiness?
DB: Yes.
Q: It feels like a loss of control.
DB: Yes, I know how it feels like, but I’m saying where does it come from.
(Pause)
Q: I don’t know; it comes out of myself, is what it feels like.
DB: Well, that makes it a bit dubious, doesn’t it? (Laughs)
(Laughter)
You see, we have to question that, you see. But I mean, you see, attention would show you the need to question that — right? — because we’ve said the self is an image, it puts out all sorts of things which are in accordance with the needs of that image. Right?
Q: Okay, so that’s telling me that this image, involved in myself, is that I have to stay in control.
DB: Yes.
Q: That control is important to me.
DB: Yes; and directionless-ness is dangerous. Right? So it’s the image which is telling you that and making you feel that way, because we said the image is… it associates really to say directionless-ness is associated with something bad, loss of control, and that’s associated with a bad feeling, sort of an uneasy feeling — right? — it’s kind of a machine at work. Right? Does that make sense?
Q: Yes.
DB: And I get this uneasy feeling; but I didn’t see that chain of associations and suddenly the uneasy feeling springs up and I say, ‘That’s me having an uneasy feeling’ — right? — and perhaps I sense that this is a bad area to be in. Right?
Q: Right.
DB: But it could be very misleading to look at it that way. Right?
Q: Right; I could just get out of there and never keep attending.
(Pause)
Noticing that, the uneasy feeling goes away.
DB: Yes; but, you see, I think that one had to see there, I get an uneasy feeling when I say that or you say it or anybody says it — right? — that we’re not going to have any direction (laughs); and then I suddenly notice that we’re committed in principle to inquiring without direction, so you say, ‘What does it mean to have an uneasy feeling?’ — right? — you say, ‘What is the source of it?’ And you can feel that the source of it is just that very thing you yourself said: it’s me. Right?
Q: So I’m watching that unfold; I see that part of my identity is that I have to be in control, that when there’s directionless-ness I feel uneasy; that doesn’t reveal to me that I am, in essence, an image.
DB: No, I mean, I think thus far we’ve been proceeding from the inference; there’s enough… we’ve discussed enough evidence that that’s a good… a reasonable notion — right? — to inquire into.
Q: Right.
DB: See, we’re saying if you’re inquiring — at least, as far as reason is concerned — you accept that this is reasonable and you inquire from there. Right? But if you suddenly say, ‘I’m going to give up my starting point of inquiry,’ then you say there can be no inquiry — right? — I must have a pretty good reason for giving it up — right? — so I look into it and I say there doesn’t seem to be a good reason but I give it up. That’s just another one of those things which we said the image is always doing.
Q: Yes.
DB: So there… you see, a number of things are observed that way. Right?
Q: So by this what I do is gain an insight into the mechanical workings of myself? Now, is this what you’re talking about?
DB: That’s the beginning, yes.
Q: Yes; that I see that it proceeds automatically and that I want to get out of there automatically and do.
DB: And by being sensitive to what’s happening in the moment, you see, you get a sort of a feeling or a notion of what’s happening. Right?
(Pause)
You see, you have to observe this thing carefully and critically, as it were, to be ready for some sort of clue of something that isn’t making sense. You know, I think if a thing doesn’t make sense, you first get a feeling that something is wrong — it’s not always a correct feeling but it’s a good clue — and then you try to discover what is it that’s gone wrong. Right?
Q: So we’re holding this posture of attention all the time and we find an experience come up which is that we’re inclined to get the heck out of there, we don’t want to be directionless.
DB: Yes, and that’s… and we can see this much more generally, that we don’t really want any of this at all. (Laughs) We’re really quite unwilling to inquire deeply; I mean, can you see that?
Q: Yes, it becomes too uncomfortable because of this not knowing where to go.
DB: Well, that’s what the explanation you give but that’s not why it’s uncomfortable, you see.
Q: No, I don’t see.
DB: Well, you’ve just explained why it was uncomfortable.
Q: Yes, I see that.
DB: Because of a process of association to discomfort, between directionless… there’s a process of association between directionless-ness and discomfort. Now, is that a necessary connection or is that an arbitrary connection?
Q: I see; I see.
Q: So you’re saying is there anything about directionless-ness that should be uncomfortable or that is actually…
DB: Yes, that has to be uncomfortable.
Q: …that’s necessarily uncomfortable.
DB: Yes.
Q: Or is that a conditioned association?
(Pause)
DB: You know, it could have been associated long ago — I don’t know — in many ways. Right? I mean, obviously, in certain ordinary affairs of life, to fail to have a direction can often be troublesome, so you associate and tacitly come to the conclusion that it’s always so. Right? That’s an example of how it might have happened.
Q: Well, it seems implicit in the idea of a self — just on the working hypothesis that it’s an image — that it’s necessary that it be pretty directed; it seems like its point is to get its way.
DB: Yes, it needs direction. You see, without direction there’d be no point to it.
Q: It starts to flounder around.
DB: Yes, and it’s worse than floundering around; like we were discussing the other day, yesterday, it begins to fall apart, it’s highly unstable, and that becomes really alarming.
Q: The self seems paradoxical in this regard, in that on the one hand it seems real stable: if I have a problem, it seems infinitely deep and complex and immovable; I go into therapy; and on the other hand it seems unstable in that I am always feeling on the verge of needing to do something about myself, need to strengthen it.
DB: Well, also it may fall apart, you see; you get contradictions and people coming to you must feel themselves in danger of coming apart; I mean, that’s the way I would think; you know, that they have all sorts of contradictory urges, perhaps, and they don’t know what’s going to happen; that — oh, I don’t know — somebody may be depressed and he may have suicidal impulses, you know, and he wants to live. Right?
Q: Right.
Q: Now, we’re saying that this basic process is common to people, common to consciousness, but then the types of disorders that we see are real varied.
DB: Yes, well, there can be many ways in which this comes out; you see, that this… the content of the image varies according to the particular background of each person, his whole set of connections with society and his education and his family history and everything else, so the thing will come out; but if you look deeply, it’s always the same structure. Now, the suggestion is not to treat the detailed content but to get to the general structure that is common to all mankind. So to get to the whole… to the image in itself — you know, the essence of it or the actual nature of images — and then these other things should come right, you see.
Q: So a patient’s particular problem, he may need to have no insight into his particular problem; he may even get…
DB: Well, I’m not saying that — that may be going too far — but I’m saying that if we don’t put the general insight as first priority or as the… then we’re not going to get very far. Some insight into his problem might help lead to the general insight, but the point is to keep in mind that the general insight is the key point, or the deep insight; which is the insight into… that cannot be put in thought. Right?
Q: Now, wait a minute. It cannot be put in thought?
DB: Yes. It cannot be captured in thought.
Q: Why do you say that?
DB: Well, it’s implied more or less by what we’ve said; that anything that we could capture would be limited; you see, that thought would then have knowledge — right? — it would have knowledge of just the thing we… of the actual happenings that are going on in the conflict, which we said it couldn’t because it couldn’t analyse, it couldn’t… it was too fast, you know, and a time delay, a time interval was not permissible and thought requires a time interval. Right? So that general, essential or deep problem or the deep nature of the insight, the origin of it or the source, the way it comes into being — right? — that I say we cannot capture in thought.
Q: I see.
DB: Because that originates where thought is coming into being, is arising. Right?
Q: That’s another reason, I think, where the discomfort with this comes from.
DB: Yes?
Q: Because if it’s in thought, then it’s handle-able. And you are trying to direct us to an area that isn’t.
DB: Yes, and there’s another… another point to consider is that it just as much involves the emotions and the physical movements of the body as it does thought. Right? These all flow into each other; that consciousness is thought, feeling, desire, will, impulse to act and attention much beyond. Right? Now, all of that may be involved. Right? Now, just by thinking about it you can’t handle it all — right? — I mean, for all the reasons we’ve given and just evidently, that thought does not know all about its emotional base. Right?
Q: Thought doesn’t know about its emotional base?
DB: Well, in the case of anger, for example, it doesn’t understand how the emotion is affecting it.
Q: So thought can’t know its own roots?
DB: No; that’s the way… Would you agree with that?
Q: Yes. All it does is seem to unfold.
DB: Yes, and at this level it’s largely mechanical; you know, there may be another kind of thought but we’ll say the common kind is very mechanical; especially the kind connected with psychological conflicts.
Q: Yes, that’s evident.
(Pause)
From inside of this system, from inside of thought, this seems that that’s all there is.
DB: Well, that’s… yes, but again, the word *seems* means appears — right? — and to whom does it appear, you see? How does it appear? Right? You see, what appears may be an image. Right? It can be a fantasy or… the same root as fantasy is the same root as phenomenon in Greek, meaning to appear. Right? The phenomenon is the appearance of something real and a fantasy is the appearance of something unreal. (Laughs)
(Pause)
Q: So we get to the point where we’re saying that thought can’t know its own roots; there is awareness in the moment of what comes up, wondering does it make sense…
DB: Yes; and now, the thing is, you know — probably we can’t go all the way into this in the time available — but the point is to look into this question of the quality of attention which might make insight possible, you see. Now, the suggestion is there will be an insight not into a partial conflict but into this whole structure and that will end the structure just as your insight into the partial conflict ended that; and one notion is that actually insight is an energy beyond thought — of the kind we discussed, you know, this morning — something of that nature, not in time; but nevertheless it acts in the nervous system; you may imagine changing whatever molecules there are there on which is based this neurological wiring that creates the conflict. Right? Well, that’s just a suggestion to help… you know, suggest something not necessarily literally true. And now, it’s crucial then this insight requires attention; the word *attention* means literally to stretch toward; I don’t know if that helps; but…
Q: To stretch toward?
DB: Yes, to stretch toward the thing. It may also be thought of as a kind of gathering of every… gathering of all… something from all around and not just in particular directions but from anywhere. Right? Right? And not prejudge beforehand how you’re to gather the information. Right?
And therefore it cannot be restricted to any of the particular senses or to thought or feeling or desire or will or anything else that may turn up unknown. Now, if you once frame it: ‘I’ve got to attend to my thoughts,’ then you leave your feelings and desire and will out, you see; but we said they are linked absolutely to the thoughts, you see, that there is really hardly any difference between them. Right? The association of one leads to the association of the other. So if you once say you are attending to this, then you can’t attend to the actual process.
Q: Yes; so we’re not going to limit it.
DB: Yes. And now, is it possible to have this attention which will include thought, feeling, desire, will, physical feelings, what is actually happening as you think, how thinking is arising and turning into all these other things? So that, in a way, you may even perhaps — let’s just say, for the sake of suggestion — attend to the process of association. See, if we could do that, then it would no longer fool you. Right?
Q: If we can…. yes, I see what you’re saying.
DB: Then you would say, ‘I know this is fantasy.’ Right?
Q: Yes, I see. If we saw the self unfolding mechanically, as it unfolded.
DB: Yes; and perhaps… that suggests time but it might be seen in a flash. Right?
Q: If we saw the whole thing at once.
DB: Yes, the whole pattern of it; rather than seeing it happen in time, the whole pattern would sort of unfold in front of you at once, all the different sides. Right? Now, it’s something like Mozart is said to have seen his whole… very often, the whole composition all at once and then he unfolded it, by playing it or writing notes.
Q: That seems to be how perception proceeds, in any event: you see the whole thing and then you analyse it into parts if you want to study it. Or how insight occurs in a particular level; you’re just saying the same thing about this general.
DB: It’s the same… but it goes much further; and then the question — the other question we discussed this morning — is: what will bring this about? Right? And, you see, that quality of insight could only come from intense interest and passion, which we discussed is often lacking because… In fact, you could say, that Krishnamurti said you see the absolute necessity of having a healthy mind — right? — absolute necessity is a very powerful thing. Right? (Laughs) Now, the peculiar, ironical thing is that what the image sees equates itself with the mind and it sees the absolute necessity of the wholeness of the image.
Q: No, I didn’t follow that.
DB: See, the image is equated by thought with the mind. Right?
Q: Yes.
DB: And the body, or with the soul and heart — right? — and mind; and therefore thought thinks, ‘This must be healthy; this has got to be healthy.’
Q: This self?
DB: This self, which is really an image. Right?
Q: I see.
DB: So since the image has various things wrong with it, it says — thought thinks — ‘It’s absolutely necessary that this has got to be right,’ and therefore you’ve got the absolute drive to make it right; it sweeps everything aside. Right?
Q: Oh, I see.
DB: Yes. Including… and that’s why you do all these silly things. Right? So the thing has sort of got twisted up, you see? That is, the mistake is to say, ‘That is what I am.’ I mean, fundamentally, you know, necessarily; I may be that now. Right?
Q: Yes; that’s why people come into therapy and that’s why therapy is within a self-centred context.
DB: So now, with this feeling of the absolute necessity of a healthy mind, attention goes with great energy into all these things and attention does not record things that are unnecessary to record, you see; and from this can arise the insight that may change it all. Right?
(Pause)
Q: Another aspect of this — which we maybe can touch on briefly before our time is up — is the notion that comes up in therapy of… in regard to attention of acting out. On the one hand we’re saying that we want to attend to this without controlling it, but we don’t mean to imply by that that we just let it run hog-wild.
DB: No, that’s clear; that… what we mean is that we don’t suppress the consciousness of it by covering it up with another image — as we discussed before — but we allow this thing to display in consciousness but not to be carried out; the action is suspended. Right? Because if we carry it out, that would only be done under the belief that this image is real and that would mean that we were not questioning it seriously at all. The whole thing would be a useless exercise. So we’re questioning the image and therefore we don’t actually carry it out physically.
Q: So we’re not taking our thoughts as being real and we’re not taking our emotions as being real, or our intentions as being real; we’re not assuming that.
DB: We’re not assuming they’re real; they may be part of the image — right? — or a consequence of the image. A consequence of believing that the image is real, we may have certain further… a great many other things happen. You see, if you see a shadow in the dark at night and think that’s an assailant, all sorts of consequences follow: the adrenaline, heartbeat and everything. As soon as you see it’s a shadow, a new set of consequences takes over. Right? So according to the way you’re thinking, the whole mind is organised — right? — and if your thinking through… organised by an image, then all the consequences follow, if that image is regarded as real. See, that shows the power of an image. Right?
Q: Yes.
DB: That is, the image, though only an image, has consequence things of tremendous power.
Q: If it’s taken as real.
DB: Yes; so that mistake is enough to produce a very great consequence.
Q: Well, that seems to be the mistake we’re talking about all along: how does an image, in the first place, get mistaken as real?
DB: Yes, well, we went into that, that one of the things is that we get a sense of its firmness and solidity, the feelings in it; we get various imitations of what a real thing would do, you see. It’s very active; it produces other effects all over the body and outside, apparently. And in other ways it satisfies what you would take as a test of reality. You see, if you say the shadow is an assailant, how do you see it’s not assailant? You say it’s not real because your hand goes through it, for example — right? — if it were an assailant, it wouldn’t. Now similarly, if you find that there’s some sort of image inside and it seems to be solid and resistant — nothing changes it, it’s permanent, and various things are… it’s doing various things — then by association thought says, ‘That’s real.’ Right? And therefore thought treats it as real and produces all the feelings that would be required, and the adrenalin and other effects that would be required, for such a real thing.
Q: So, I understand; you’re saying that it’s plausible that the self is an image…
DB: Yes, we have made a reasonable case for it.
Q: …and you’re saying that there is a way in which we can investigate this?
DB: Yes; I mean, we haven’t settled the issue here in this discussion, we have merely been going over the case you make for the self being an image and the approach which is involved in actually inquiring into this.
Q: Let’s stop at this point.
DB: Right.
Copyright 1982 Krishnamurti Foundation Trust. All Rights Reserved.