Small Group Discussion 2, Rishi Valley, 24 January 1971

Swami Poornananda Tirtha (SPT): Yesterday, lastly, Krishnaji made a remark that the old is wrong. We were discussing outside. I have been trying to study Vedanta and study Krishnaji’s speeches and writings and all that with a quite a free mind. Having come through the orthodox line and broken off from that, finding its incompleteness and, maybe the orthodox things not in the traditional fashion, I find there is a lot of common ground between what Krishnaji says and what is contained in Vedanta—as you see in *Yogavaasishta*, in some of the Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita and such other texts. For example, a spiritual life—if the word *spiritual* is not misunderstood—is explained as *paanditya, baalya, mouna*. *Paanditya* is interpreted in common parlance as scholarship. That is not the meaning. *Pandaa* means *atma vishayaa buddhihi*. In other words *buddhi*—intensity, that intense feeling for transcending the mind or living this higher life. That is *Paanditya*, that intensity. *Baalya* means a child-like state. The child-like state is something that automatically comes when this intensity is there. Children do not carry their insults, they don’t carry the past, they are ever creative, they approach things with a fresh mind. That type of *baalya*, child-like simplicity. *Mouna*, natural silence. These are the three marks or the three traits of a *Vedantin*. This is explained there. When I went through that they are absolutely in contrast to many other things that I had been taught. *Shankara* says the same thing. In *Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad* the same thing is stated—*paanditya, baalya, mouna.* When you go through *Yogavaasishtha* which is an independent treatise, there it is stated: *Vaasanaakshaya, Vignaana,* *Manonaasha*. *Vignaana* means right understanding, right perception as we have been discussing and *vaasanaakshaya* means, the motives and the reactions that the mind has when we are in a life of relationship. Stopping thought is almost pooh-poohed in Vedanta. Stopping thought is the work of the yogis, but here the deeper motives and the reactions one has to face. *Vaasanaakshaya* means those deeper motives and reactions, they go away, they are not there. How does it take place? In front of the light of awareness, sensitivity, that automatically takes place. *Manonaasha* means—that’s a technical term—literally it means destruction of the mind. But it is not the destruction of the mind, mind becoming free of these traits. These are the things that are explained in *Yogavaasishtha.* I used to go through that, discuss with people what is the unique approach of Vedanta, but here it seems to be totally different. It was when I was remaining that way that I came across Krishnaji’s writings and I was very happy because the same thing I find very clearly stated by another person with more of clarification, more of application to life. So through my observation I find there is a lot of common ground in these two things although ninety nine percent of the conventional *vedantins*, they don’t talk about this, they don’t discuss this. Another point. According to *Shankara,* according to Upanishad, no *saadhanaa* is necessary. A man who knows explains the things, talks about the things. A man who is intense in understanding, he listens attentively. In the very act of listening you can have that awakening, that enlightenment. That alone is taken as the real *Vedantic* method. Those who are not able to do that, for them certain other methods are given. What are those methods? Association and discussion with people who happen to know it originally for themselves. And then reading of such books. *Manan*, reflection. *Manan*, reflection means probably it is in life when we face problems. And *nididhyaasan*. When that reflection becomes intense, probably they can have a moment when they have this awareness. This is what is stated. So much of preparation for meditation, struggle and again any mental act is not at all recommended in the Upanishad. And in *Yogavaasishtha* there is a very special verse which is highly revealing. It is stated:

*Jnyaptistu granthi vichchedah Tasmin satihi muktataa Mrigatrishnaambu buddhyaadi Shaantimaatraatmakatvahah*

*Jnyapti* means awareness. *Jnyaptistu granthi vichchedah.*. *Granthi* literally means ‘knot’, as you bring about a knot, you know, in a rope that is not handled properly. Now to untie the knot it is not a crude approach that is necessary, but attentively we have to handle it. So the mind itself is referred to *granthi*, a knot—so full of motives, reactions, desires and aversions and what not. What is the reference here is that *granthi*, that knot, that should not be there. And there is no action for that, no special action or act. In front of awareness, passive awareness, that takes place—*Jnyapti, Gnaana, Bodha*—awareness—*Avadhaana*—these are the words used. And when a man remains in the state of awareness there is freedom. *Tasminsatihimuktataa. Muktataa* means freedom. And what is this *Mrugatrishnambubhudyadi Shantimatratmakaha*, it is not a matter of effort. A man walks through a desert, he sees a mirage in front of him. From a distance there seems to be water in the mirage, but the mind that got deluded, had the delusion, when it goes near, and it closely investigates, that very mirage disappears. Similarly, this mind, the very mind if you are able to look at it, understand it, closely, attentively, as mirage disappears, the self disappears. So here it is only a question of awareness, *jnyapti*, and nothing apart from that. There is not a question of time, it is not a question of effort. These are the clear statements that I find in some of the Upanishads. And one more. These *Rishis* have written independently, apart from the Upanishad, you see. That is *Sanatsujaatiya*. There it is stated: *Pramaadamvai Mrityumaham bruyemi, Sadaa apramadatvam Amrutatvam bruyemi*

To Dhritarashtra, the father of Duryodhan, Sanatsujata sage explains: *pramaada* means inattention. Inattention means death, and attention means *amrutatva*: peace. *Pramaadamvai Mrutyumahambruyemi,* I say, that inattention means *mrityu,* death; and attention means *sadaa,* always, moment to moment; *apramaadatvam*, absence of inattention. Even the word used, not attention, absence of inattention, *amrutatvambruyemi.* That is—*amrutatva* is a special word: peace, bliss, joy—that is it. I could find the same things—and not that I compare and contrast, that is not the approach—I could have more of clarification, more of understanding, application to life has been much better. I find a lot of common ground. What is the special thing that I could find? One factor. Yesterday, Krishnaji explained about the actual and the ideal. Such discussions we don’t find in the Upanishad. We don’t find in the Upanishad. Probably in those times they did not have any of these ideals like communism, socialism and things like that. I do not. I cannot say. But for the current problems, modern problems, modern complexities, I find better application. My approach, perspective is better when I go through these things. And I have gone through quite a number of our books. I don’t find an ideal mentioned anywhere. They say life would be full of *samyakdarshan*. *Samyakdarshan* means, s*amyak*—perfect, *Darshan*—attention or vision. And Vedanta is called by *Shankara* and others as *samyakdarshan*: perfect vision. This *Advaita,* *Dvaita*, and so many other things are, given by others. *He* calls it *samyakdarshan.* That *dsarshan,* that vision alone is talked about or discussed there*.*

Krishnamurti (K): I wonder, sir, if we could discuss this morning, what does it mean—perception. Could we discuss?

SPT: Yes, please.

K: Apart from what the traditionalists say and what the professional commentaries, what does perception mean? To perceive. Is it a mere matter of intellectual perception, or visual perception, or is it a combination of both, psychosomatic perception, or is it something entirely different? You follow?

SPT: Yes, yes.

K: When you drive that car, if you keep your eyes very close to the front mud-guard, you are bound to have an accident. Right? I don’t know if you have ever driven a car. So you have to watch about three hundred or more yards ahead and at the same time keep your eyes moving, not just watch it in front, in front of the car. So your mind sees much more than your eyes. Your mind is already aware of the curve of the road before the eyes even see the curve. I don’t know if you have—you’ve driven a car, haven’t you?

Radha Burnier (RB): Yes.

K: You have driven, so you know.

S. Balasundaram (SB): And also it takes in a lot of things.

K: Takes in *much* more than the eye does. So when you talk about perception, what do we mean by that word? To see—is it an intellectual perception, a verbal conclusion, a verbal comprehension? And what the eye sees is very flat, very—It’s very— see it. I see this microphone, I see you sitting, I see the—the eyes see the colour of the carpet.

RB: The eye meaning here the sense organ.

K: The sense organ. It sees, doesn’t it, in a linear or horizontal line.

Achyut Patwardhan (AP): Sir, is it not true that even the perception of the eye…

K: Visual, sensory eye.

AP: Visual perception of the eye, sensory perception of the eye is not uniform.

K: Is not?

AP: Uniform. That is to say, we come to this room. When I come to this room I notice that Swamiji is wearing that microphone, I notice the design of the saree…

K: Yes, yes.

AP: … I notice things, the design of this curtain. But very soon I am quite unaware of this. Very soon I am seeing and not seeing. That is the physical eye also is not seeing everything all the time at a uniform quantum.

K: What are you trying to say? What of it?

AP: What I want to say is, that there must be some factor other than the contact of object and sense in the awareness of ‘I see’. I don’t know if I am making sense. And that is how the first awareness of inattention comes. The first awareness of inattention comes to me when I know that I come, somebody kicks something, he kicks a book. That is the awareness of inattention. It is not that, you can’t say that you have not seen that.

K: Achyutji, I haven’t come to that point yet. Sorry. Forgive me. I am just trying to understand what that word conveys. Not inattention, attention and all that.

AP: No, I was wondering whether in the physical act of perception itself is the beginning of some form of…

K: No, I don’t know anything about it. All that I know is that I see—visual perception. Right?

RB: I think what he means is that when the eye sees it is not merely reflecting like a mirror.

K: All right. Then what is it that goes with it? Look, there is the sensory perception—I see you sitting there—sensory perception. Then there is the images which that sensory perception plus the intellectual capacity of thought, understanding, calculating, judging, builds an image. Right? Visual perception, building of the image, then…

RB: Memory of that image.

K: Yes, all the factors involved in that. That’s what we generally call perception, don’t we?

RB: Yes.

K: Right, sir?

SPT: Yes, that is the meaning of the word *perception*.

K: To perceive. Where does inattention or attention come in this?

RB: I see an object. Then there is an image of that object. Then there is the memory of that image, with all the associated ideas. Then I see something else.

K: And again that goes on. You are accumulating all the time impressions—both sensory impressions and impressions, recording impressions—impressions that are recorded, conscious or unconscious, the various images, conclusions, prejudices—all that, all that is involved in perception. No?

RB: All that is involved in perception. But when I see a second image I am not able to even physically reflect it because all this is there. That is what he meant by inattention.

K: I don’t quite understand what you are saying. Sorry.

RB: I see an object and then all this process takes place. I see another object but I don’t see it in full because my mind is loaded.

K: Ah, but do you see the other object?

RB: No, I don’t see it.

SB: Do you see the first object? Because when you see something, immediately there is a distraction of the image.

K: Look, Balasundaram, I see you. The visual perception and the various images that that perception, association, prejudices, all that have been built up. Right? And I see you and I have another series of images.

RB: Yes.

K: And I see him as other series of images. And so dozens and dozens of images I have—the mind has. They are recorded, taped, you know, and kept there.

RB: Loaded.

K: Loaded and are kept there. In the brain cells, they are kept there. And when I meet I turn on the attention, there is an attention and that image comes out, and so on, so on, so on. That’s all what we are talking about, isn’t it? That’s what we call perception. Isn’t it?

RB: Normally, yes.

K: Now, what’s wrong with it? Those are the obvious factors taking place. Obvious machinery that is in operation. In the word *perception*, that’s what’s involved in all that. That’s happening all the time, isn’t it?

AP: Sir, may I make my point clear?

K: Not yet, sir, not yet. I am sorry. I want to see. That’s all I know. Where does the trouble begin? This is the ordinary operational process of perception. Ordinary happenings when you see, observe visually, all this—you are building images.

AP: Sir, this factor of sensitivity and varying degrees of sensitivity attached to perception, is it not also a vital aspect of perception? That is, you know, I live in the midst of squalor and dirt and live imperviously to that. And you come there and immediately it is a physical pain to you to see the same thing. And I don’t see. I see it and I don’t see it. It is not that I don’t see it. What I mean is, can you separate perception from the degree of sensitivity that goes with various—that means perception is not the same with you or I, or somebody else.

K: Ah, wait, sir, wait. Therefore that’s why I am going to… When I have all these accumulated images recorded, conscious or unconscious, right?, loaded, my mind is loaded with them, where is the place for sensitivity?

AP: Sir, it is a question of degrees, sir.

K: No, no. I don’t think it is a matter of degrees. Let’s investigate. Don’t let’s assume anything. My mind, this mind is loaded with thousands of images. Right?

AP: Yes.

K: Sensuous perception and thousands of images. The mind, the brain cells are always registering. All the imprints are going on, on and on, thousands and thousands of them. The mind is crowded with them; weighed down by them. Why do you talk about sensitivity? I see dirt and I say, yes, that is the—I see cleanliness, you follow? Where does sensitivity come into this at all at present? Wait, I am holding on.

AP: Sir, it comes in this way: Seeing is always a—it is not a passive act of a mirror reflecting. There is always some impression new created in the brain which is a very new perception. And my submission is that with every new response which I call perception, the factor of degrees comes. I know it is very inconvenient because I have not been able to understand why degrees, where degrees, because it is an imponderable. Because ignorance is imponderable.

SPT: May I put a word here? You see, I look at you, Mr Achyut Patwardhan. The moment I hear that, understand, look at you: socialist, who left the party—I see you through an image. Then is there a perception there? There is no perception I think. Am I clear?

SB: I think even this seeing is like a camera which sees its own shutters, it doesn’t see the object. SPT: Shall I make it bit more clear? I look at a tree. At once an idea from my memory comes—says, this is a banyan tree. Then do I look at the tree, I don’t see the fact. I look through the idea.

K: Of course. Of course.

SPT: When I look through the idea there is no perception, no real perception.

K: Of course. Of course, sir. The mind is crowded with these impressions, images and information about the object it sees. Right? It is loaded with all this—information about the object, the image, the sensory perception and behind the image like and dislike, fear, pleasure, attraction and not attraction—you know, all that is, oh all that is there.

RB: The whole works.

K: The whole works are there. And so the mind, the brain and the whole structure is never empty. Right?

AP: It seems.

K: Never empty. No, I don’t know. Never empty because it’s too full. And through this burden it turns and looks at one, looks at you, with all the images, associations, like, dislike, pleasure, pain, all that is involved in it. And when you go away I look at him and that same process goes on. Right? What’s wrong with this?

SPT: I am never face to face with fact.

K: No, sir. What’s wrong with this? This is the fact. Don’t say face the fact. There is sensory perception, then the image, then all the like, dislike, how nice—all that follows, associations and all that. Now, this is a fact also. Right?

RB: This is the fact that I don’t realize.

K: Wait a minute. This is the fact.

RB: Yes, this is the fact.

K: As much as the fact that you are sitting there. Now, then what takes place? Each time I see you, the images, associations, pleasure, all that project. And I see you through these screens. Right? Then what’s wrong with that? That’s a natural process, isn’t it? That’s what we are doing *all* the time. Right?

SPT: Sir, then there is no question of seeing at all. I don’t see her then. I see the idea.

K: Wait, sir, wait. I am coming—let’s go slowly with it. First I want to be clear that this is right. Thousand impressions, thousand sensory perceptions, thousand conclusions — let’s cover the whole of that by one word *conclusions* — through these conclusions I look. And by looking through these conclusions, these conclusions thicken or become faint, never disappear. Right? The more I see you and the more I like you, the thicker grows a conclusion. I don’t know if you are… Right?

RB: Every further perception in the sense…

K: Sensory perception, increases the thickness of the conclusion. Or if I don’t like you…

RB: Same thing.

K: … same thing, but I push you away. It doesn’t thicken. It thickens only in the sense that I want you to be out of my sight. I don’t want to see you because you make me nervous, you frighten me, you point out, criticize me, threaten me—ten different things. This is the ordinary process going on *all* the time. Right? All through life. Right? So the image making and the conclusion is the past. Through conclusions I look at you. That’s what we are doing. Right? I look at you and say, she said this, she did not do that, she misbehaved, she was so nice. And through all that I see you. Again that’s a fact. That’s a normal, everyday process: You have robbed me, you have run away with my wife, you have… you are my boss, you are better off than I am, you follow? Conclusion after conclusion. So I am always looking at the world, all the challenge, everything through conclusions which are in the past. Right? Right, sir? What is wrong with it? Why shouldn’t I do that?

SB: What starts with perception is now gradually no perception—less perception, less perception, less perception.

K: What’s wrong with it? That is what is happening in life, sir. No, no. Don’t condemn it yet.

SB: No, no.

K: Don’t condemn it yet. That is what we are doing all the time.

SB: Quite right.

K: Right?

SPT: Quite.

K: Absolutely. I want to be sure before we go in it further, you see. So is there a—Wait, wait. Wait a minute. Go slow, go slow, go slow. So all my visual perception is translated in terms of conclusions. Right? Right? Then what takes place? That’s a fact. We all know this. That is tradition, isn’t it?

SPT: Yes.

K: That is knowledge, isn’t it?

RB: That is knowledge.

K: That’s experience. Knowledge, experience, knowledge, tradition—all that is contained in the word *past*.

AP: And the word *conclusion*.

K: And conclusion. Of course. *Past* and *conclusion*. And that is the structure and the nature of the brain cells. The brain cells *are* the past. They retain the memory of the past.

RB: They retain the memory.

K: Because in that there is safety.

RB: Yes, of course, there is all the biological reason.

K: That is safety.

RB: Yes.

K: Biological processes as well as the psychological accumulation of memories and conclusions—the past, in that there is tremendous safety.

Questioner 1(Q1): How is there safety and why I do it? Is there any safety?

K: No, wait. There is! No, don’t question yet, let’s look at it, look at it before you—Otherwise I wouldn’t know where to go to… You wouldn’t know your name. You wouldn’t know the route to Bangalore. You wouldn’t be able to recognize your husband, wife. In that tradition, knowledge, experience, conclusions, is the feeling of complete—there is nothing new, therefore there is nothing disturbing, therefore there is safety. That’s absolutely right.

SPT: Yes, there is nothing new to disturb.

K: Anything new is disturbing.

SPT: Disturbing, yes.

K: And as the brain cells need order, it finds order in the past. Right? Isn’t it?

RB: Yes, but to come back to your question, what’s wrong with that?

K: I am saying there is nothing wrong in it. I am seeing what visual perception, sensory perception does. What the brain, with the mechanism of thought, what it has done: Sensory perception, image, conclusions…

RB: Safety.

K: …conclusions, the past, complete order—safety. All that is tradition. In tradition there is safety. In the past there is complete security.

RB: Security implies struggle.

K: No, security implies the sense of not wanting to be disturbed.

RB: Which wouldn’t exist unless one was aware of that struggle.

K: No, no, no. There is no question of awareness. Don’t bring it in yet. I don’t know if you have noticed, the mind, the brain needs order. It may establish order *in* disorder, which is neurotic. You are following? It needs order and therefore it finds order in disorder and becomes neurotic. And in neuroticism there is order for it. I don’t know if you…

AP: Sir, the conservatives…

K: Wait, wait, wait, sir, see it.

RB: Yes, some psychologists say that everybody is neurotic to some point.

K: Wait, wait, you see what we have reduced to. The brain demands order because in order there is security. Whether that security brings about disorder or not, then there is disorder, in that disorder it finds security.

SPT: That is perfectly clear. Yes.

K: Right?

RB: Yes.

K: So. In this tradition there is order. Doing everything what my grandmother, grandfather in the past have told me—there is order. And if that is thrown out, I create new tradition: long hair, short hair, hippies, this, that—there is order. Follow it. In continuity there is order. Anything that isn’t continued is disorder and therefore uncertainty, therefore the brain says, I can’t function in this. Therefore it has to create another security, another harbour where it feels safety.

RB: Yes, therefore it is always clinging to the past.

K: Always creating and clinging to the past. Or projecting an idea in the future, holding on to that, which is, the projection *is* from the past. I don’t know…

RB: Yes.

K: Which is the ideal, the goal, the principle, the end. And you come along and tell me, this is not order. You come along with your revolutionary ideas—both sociological, spiritual, whatever it is—and I reject it, because I don’t see any security in that. So there is conflict between you, and me who wants order. Right? And that’s where we are. This is happening all the time in our life. Right?

AP: This is happening all over the world.

K: This is the—I reduce the new in terms of the old and there I am safe, secure. I say, yes, Shankara said this—oh, Vedanta means this—back to the—[*To SP*] No, sir, I am not…

SPT: Quite, quite, I follow.

K: Why does the brain, why does the mind do this? There is the Russian revolution, French. You follow? Revolution—upsets the whole apple cart. You know, everything is upside down. But soon the brain creates an order out of disorder. Right? And says, this is order, for God’s sake, no more revolution, let’s stop where we are. Right, sir?

AP: Sir, we have discovered something.

K: What have you discovered? Put it simply, sir.

AP: That the moment I see something new, it becomes a disturbance. This perception is the instrument with which I convert the new into the old.

K: What do you mean the instrument, what is the instrument?

AP: That is, what happens is, the moment you say something, by reference to my past conclusions, I absorb it, incorporate it. It appears to be new, I am again secure. That is…

K: Yes, that’s what we are saying.

AP: That is the capacity to…

K: This is the biological process of the brain.

AP: No, sir, what I want to …

K: No, just listen, sir, this is the biological necessity for the brain because that is the most efficient way to work. I am an engineer, I have accumulated knowledge—mathematics and all the rest of it—and in that there is complete order, safety, position, money—you follow? Finished. I am a priest—it is the same thing happening.

AP: Sir, will you examine something which has, we have just…

K: That’s right, sir.

AP: …quickly passed, that is, there is an incapacity, an in-built incapacity to stay with the new.

K: Ah, no.

AP: No, no, I protect it.

K: Wait, I am not…

AP: I am protecting. You say I see something.

K: No, no, wait, sir. Unless I understand, the brain cells themselves understand the danger of the past, the danger of seeking security in the past, the brain cells won’t move, won’t see anything new. If it does see anything new it will translate it in terms of the old and find—Therefore the brain cells themselves have to see the immense danger of what it considers security in the past.

RB: Which means a total change because for centuries…

K: I don’t know. You follow? I see only this: Sensory perception, conclusion, image as conclusion, safety in conclusion. It may be a new conclusion, a disorderly conclusion, but there is safety in that. However neurotic it is, in that neuroticism there is safety. I don’t know if you see the…

RB: Yes, yes.

K: See the beauty of this. And this is the truth, that’s why it is so beautiful. And anything new comes along, I translate it in terms of the past, accept it, absorb it, make it into the past. It is the past. Right? That is the whole mechanism of visual perception and conclusions. Right? Now, how is the brain which is insistently demanding security, how is that brain to see that in the past there is no security but always in the new? I don’t know if I—No, it’s not quite…

RB: It doesn’t know the new.

K: No, wait, I have put it wrongly. You see, you have introduced a new—I don’t want to bring in yet. The brain cells are seeking security in disorder and in order, right?, both. In disorder it is seeking security: if you offer me a perfect, systematic, methodological order, I will accept it. The brain accepts it. What next? Come on, sir. Move step by step, you see, you will see, then it will come right. That’s the whole biological process. Right? That’s the whole traditional process: Security in the past, never in the future, never in the present, but there is absolute security in the past.

RB: Yes.

K: Absolute. And that’s knowledge. Both biological knowledge, technological knowledge, and the knowledge which has been gathered through experience. In knowledge there is security. And knowledge is the past. So what is the next question?

AP: There is also, sir, then modified continuity in this process involved.

K: Of course, modified, but old knowledge, it changes…

AP: This creates a feeling of progress. I want to see…

K: Yes, yes, yes. Of course. Of course. Moment you have knowledge, it can be modified, continued, changed, but it is still within the field of knowledge.

Questioner 2 (Q2): We act or react from this background for the present every time.

K: The whole thing is that. What’s wrong with this?

SB: Is there security in this?

K: What do you mean is there security, that’s how I live! That’s what has been my whole biological process. All the accumulation of scientific, technological knowledge, all knowledge derived in relationship: You’ve hurt me, you’ve nagged, me, you’ve bullied me, you’ve deceived me, you’ve hurt me, you’ve been pleasant, you follow? Conclusions. In that conclusion there is a feeling of safety. It may produce division, but there is safety.

SB: I become dull, I don’t like…

K: No, no, don’t say dull or not dull. This is simply—start with this, sir. Don’t verbalize, don’t bring in adjectives—dull, clear, stupid—not yet. What is the next thing? And I see knowledge is necessary. Right?

RB: Yes.

K: To go to the house, to write a letter, to talk, to build a house, knowledge is necessary. That’s all. Then where is the—What is the next question? Go on, sir, go on, push.

R. Madhavachari (RM): Mechanical part of the knowledge it is all right, but psychologically is it necessary?

K: No, there also knowledge is tremendously important. Psychologically I don’t want to be hurt. You’ve hurt me tremendously. So I resist and resistance is part of knowledge. Right? So what is the next question? Go on, it’s right there.

RM: How are the brain cells to perceive …

K: How are the brain cells to perceive…

RM: … this fact.

K: It sees this fact, this is the only fact.

RM: It *is* the fact. But the fact that acting upon these conclusions and so on and so forth, that’s what we are doing. And it is futile.

K: No, no! It is not futile. It is essential. Essential. Look, sir, we said knowledge is the past. Right? *See* what—Without knowledge there is no functioning. I can’t speak. You wouldn’t be here. Knowledge is necessary. Knowledge is the past. And all my thought, being, everything is the past. Right? So in the past—go on, sir, I don’t want to put it.

RM: What I am saying is, it is true, we are doing all this, all that is a fact. But in that fact there is another fact. This is not—I don’t know how to explain that. There is something very radically wanting in this.

K: What is wanting?

RM: What is wanting is, for instance…

K: Go step by step, you will get it. What is wanting? This is the construction…

RM: Yes, yes.

K: …biological, reasonable, logical, psychological—all that. Now what is there, ‘something isn’t quite right’.

RM: Something is terribly wanting. That is very difficult to know.

K: Find out, Maama. You’ll see. I will show it to you in a minute.

Questioner 2 (Q2): There is no permanency about anything!

K: Wait, wait. What do you mean knowledge—Knowledge is the most permanent thing. What are you saying!

Q2: … challenge …

K: I meet the challenge with my knowledge and translate that challenge in terms of my knowledge and it may bring me hell but in that hell I am safe. Don’t sir, don’t. There is something—I’ll show. [*Laughs*] You’ll see. So I am asking myself, I see knowledge is necessary and knowledge is the past and thought is the response of the past, right? And so I am always living, the mind is always living with the past. Right, Maama? So the mind is always a prisoner. Right? No? Now what does the prisoner talk about? Freedom—uh, what are you saying? Why did you—Being in prison he is talking about freedom: *moksha*, n*irvana*—you follow?—God knows what else. He knows this isn’t really freedom, but he wants freedom, because in freedom there is joy, there is beauty, there is something else happening. Here there isn’t any. It’s a repetitive, mechanical continuity. So he *has* to invent an ideal, he *has* to invent a *moksha*, a heaven, you follow? There is safety also in the future. I don’t know if you are following all this. Right? Don’t agree. We’ll see logically. It must be completely logical, otherwise we’ll get lost.

RB: There is something missing, as he said, so we try to put in the missing piece in the jigsaw puzzle by the inventions.

K: By bringing in the other factors—God, pursue God, pursue truth, pursue enlightenment, you follow? But anchored here. Right? And this anchorage is necessary, biologically it is necessary. Right? Go on, sir, proceed—what are we—? Can the brain, knowing knowledge is essential and also can the brain see the danger of knowledge which brings about division. Got it! That’s right. Got it! Does knowledge bring division? Go on, sir. Don’t agree. Is knowledge the factor that divides?

RB: Yes, of course.

K: No, Don’t agree, just see.

RB: No, because as you said, knowledge means conclusion.

K: All that.

RB: Yes, all that.

K: And yet brain cells seek in knowledge, security, and knows in knowledge there is danger of division.

RB: Yes, it is difficult to realize…

K: Wait, wait, wait, it hasn’t been stated yet. Just see the difficulty.

RB: … knowing that knowledge is necessary, to see that…

K: And also knowledge is a danger because it divides. I don’t know if you see that.

RB: To see it at the same time is difficult.

K: See it, see it at the same time. Otherwise you won’t see it.

RB: Yes.

K: Right, Swamiji?

Q1: Knowledge divides what?

K: Knowledge in itself is divisive. Not *divides what*. In itself it is divisive—the known and the unknown. Yesterday, today and tomorrow. Yesterday is what is known, today is modified from the yesterday and tomorrow is uncertain—division. Knowledge, which is, ‘I know you’. I know you through your image, conclusion, knowledge, I know you. But you in the mean time have changed. My image divides—obvious. I am a Muslim which is my image of myself and you is the image, knowledge as a Hindu—there is division. So knowledge divides and knowledge is security. You see? Right?—I am talking too much—And mind, the brain cells seeking security in knowledge knows that knowledge at one time is necessary, at one level is necessary, at other times it is divisive, therefore dangerous, therefore insecurity. Therefore it says God is unifying factor. You follow all the tricks it plays? Right? So.

RB: And that invention too creates further division.

K: And so on.

RB: And so on.

K: The moment you see knowledge is necessary and knowledge is also divisive, then you know what is the function of knowledge without the factor of dividing. That’s it! The factor of division is the building of images. All right? Are you getting all this or…? So can the brain cells see that knowledge is necessary to be physically secure, *physically secure*. Otherwise I couldn’t talk to you. Otherwise I couldn’t go home. Otherwise I couldn’t do my job—engineer, gardener, whatever it is, teacher. Knowledge is necessary and the knowledge derived through conclusions, or rather, conclusions are divisive, based on image. What, sir?

AP: This point of images is the crucial part of it all.

K: Yes.

AP: That is, in perception, there is an involuntary process of image-making which has got mixed up with perception.

K: Yes, sir. No, just see what has taken place. Don’t interpret it yet.

RB: But the knowledge which is necessary is also based on the image-making. Isn’t it?

K: No. No. I need, to live in this world I need technological knowledge

RB: Yes.

K: How to build a house, how to cultivate a land, how to walk, how to ride—knowledge is absolutely essential—knowledge being the past, all that.

RB: Yes.

K: Now, in that brain cells take complete security. Knowledge gives to the brain cells great security. And it must have security, it can’t function efficiently. A good engineer, a good mathematician, a good builder, if he is all the time disturbed, he can’t build. He becomes inefficient and he is inefficient because psychologically he is disturbed. You see the result? Disturbed because he has an image of himself in relation with his wife, friend, whatever it is. And that relationship is disturbed in which he has established security in knowledge and that knowledge is being disturbed.

RB: Sir…

K: See what it is. Follow it. So he becomes inefficient where he should be efficient.

RB: Yes. Are we not then talking about two types of image-making? Because in technological knowledge also there is the recording…

K: Of course.

RB: … the memory of equations, of everything. And that is also a form of image-making, isn’t it?

K: Yes, of course, of course.

AP: I thought you were using the word *image-making* in a very specific way of where we give some emotional…

K: We said that, sir, we said that.

AP: …whereas in the latter there is not. My submission is, when Radha was saying that both are images, I say one is a factual image which does not vary with my aversion, attraction. The other is constantly varying, and the other is the psychological image for which we use words.

K: And that is the most important. AP: And that is the word, our word in our present context is used only for this variable thing which is based on our likes and dislikes.

K: So that becomes the major factor. Not the…

AP: Not the other thing.

K: Other. So what next?

AP: And it is as an escape out of this that the projection of freedom comes.

K: Yes. But also it knows, in this there is no freedom. See the importance. In this there is no freedom, therefore it *has* to invent a freedom outside the prison.

RB: But it also knows that that is also an image…

K: No. No! All our religions are built on that.

AP: Sir, the moment you put the word *sthitapragnya*

K: I don’t know what that means.

AP: I am taking one word—and you define that word *sthitapragnya* as the man whose mind has developed the faculty of moving out of the vortex of likes and dislikes, you have created for yourself, projected a future, and in that future you are seeking a new security.

K: It is finished, sir. Once you see the trick—you follow?—once you see this whole process, the whole structure of our knowledge, then it’s all understood, then we don’t have to go into the details.

AP: No, sir, the question that I wanted to ask Swamiji when he started this morning that the mind has the wonderful capacity of verbalizing something which it has not experienced, but would like to experience.

K: Achyutji, we haven’t finished with this. Sorry. We’ll go back to that later.

AP: No, I thought we were……

K: No, no, no, no. All that’s included in this, sir, both psychological as well as technological, physical, biological knowledge. And I see, the mind sees knowledge is divisive and unifying. To build a machine, to build a house, we must, the engineer, the architect, the mason, all must cooperate. It may be personal motive, but doesn’t matter. Cooperation is necessary to build a house based on, design in space is architecture. Am I saying something…?

SPT: Yes.

AP: Design in space is architecture.

K: Where am I?

RB: You need cooperation to…

K: There is cooperation there. To go to the moon three hundred thousand people had to cooperate. Think of it. Cooperate for personal motives, for nationalistic motives, for racial pride, American—you follow?—but cooperation in knowledge. In that cooperation there is safety. So the brain cells accept it immediately. And next thing is, in all this there is the bondage of time. Right, sir? That’s what the brain is struggling against. In this, there is safety in this. But it knows also in this there is no freedom. And it *wants* freedom because in freedom may be the super security. I don’t know if you see this.

RB: Yes.

K: And that’s why man has always talked about freedom. From immemorial times it’s freedom. But freedom in here he always talks, therefore outside it. And we are saying, *here*, not outside. I don’t know if you follow all this. Right?

RB: Is the desire for freedom also a biological characteristic?

K: Isn’t it?

RB: The desire for a super security.

K: So is there freedom in this?—In all the things which thought has built. All this is the result of thought.

AP: Including freedom.

K: Including freedom.

RB: Yes, because every biological need is a mechanical need.

K: Yes. So, look at it. In this it can’t find freedom because it is my own construction. It is my baby. Therefore freedom must be outside. And you come along and say, look, that is an escape from this. There is no freedom there, it is only a projection of yourself. Because you are caught here, therefore you have—Right? So is there—freedom is here, not out there.

RB: In other words, is there a freedom in knowledge?

K: No, no. Wait. Put it that way—is there freedom in knowledge? Is there freedom in the past? Knowledge is the past. Knowledge is the accumulations of millions of years of experience. Does experience give freedom? Obviously not. So is there such thing as freedom?

RB: Yes, because…

K: No, wait, wait. Is there such thing as freedom?

RB: I don’t know. Because the thing that freedom is not outside, it is a projection, there is no freedom inside, because it is knowledge…

K: I don’t know. You have always sought freedom outside—all the religions, all the books, all the practices—out there. There may be absolute freedom *here*. And, we are going to find out. I got it. Because I know, the brain knows, thought is aware that it has created this prison. Right? Right? Knowledge, all that thought knows is that it has created this prison, demanding security. And it must have security otherwise you can’t function. See the—uh?

RB: Yes.

K: So thought says now, where is there freedom? Not outside in heaven or whatever it is. But it must be somewhere where it is perceivable. Perception. Right? Not invented, not projected, not invented, not formulated, not the projection of the past, which is still knowledge, so it must, there must be somewhere.

SPT: I think the very act of perception.

K: This is all act of perception. No. This has been the act of perception. No? Visually I perceive you. Visual perception has created all this.

RB: That is the prison.

K: It is this—knowledge. Knowledge and non-knowledge, you follow? Knowledge and a state of non-knowledge is still a projection of thought.

AP: This is the field…

K: Right. Then what is it?

SPT: Can you please clarify that non-knowledge?

RB: We say that all knowledge, the past, is the prison, so we are thinking of something which is not that…

K: Yes, the unknown.

RB: … and the freedom.

SPT: Quite, quite.

K: Therefore the unknown is the known.

RB: Yes.

AP: We have brought it as a new category.

RB: That is the projected opposite of what is known.

K: Right? It is very simple now. Now it’s clear for me. This is the structure of the brain cells with their memories which is responsible for thought. This is the structure of thought. Right? Right, sir? Thought. Thought says knowledge is necessary, old boy, you can’t get rid of it. Right? Thought says—because you have questioned it—thought says, outside it there is no freedom either. So what is freedom? Is there such a thing at all?

RB: We don’t know. We only know that everything it produces or cooks up is within the…

K: So what does it say? Come on! Is there security in thought? You put the question. You haven’t put the question. You say no. Thought has created all this. Right? Knowledge… So thought says, by Jove, I have created all this, is there security in the very thinking itself?

RB: It is the very thinking which has done all this.

K: Therefore, is this secure? I have assumed this is secure.

RB: Yes.

K: No knowledge is secure—must have, but is all this secure? Because I see wars.

RB: Division, memory…

K: Division. Yours, mine, you, we, they, my family, your family, my name. Now, is there security in all this? See what we have found? In knowledge there is security, but not in this, which is the result of knowledge. I don’t know if you—it is the result of knowledge. Knowledge being memory, past, thought. Thought has created the technological knowledge and thought has created also the other, in which it is trying to find security in relationship, and knows it is not there. Right? So thought says, by Jove, is there security in the very structure of thinking itself? Right? Is there security in the past? See how we have come about? Is there security in tradition? Is there security in knowledge except that? You follow? Is there? Though brain cells are wanting to find security in that too. So is there? The brain cells have to see for themselves that there is no security there. So what happens? I see there is no security there, in the fabrications of thought. That’s a tremendous discovery, for me it’s a tremendous discovery, not just agreement. Right? So thought says, what next? I must kill myself. Right? I must destroy myself, because I am the greatest danger. I don’t know if you see that. RB: Slay the slayer.

K: And say now, who is ‘I’ going to destroy it? You follow the tricks it’s playing? So thought again says, by Jove, I mustn’t divide—the perceiver and the perceived. You follow? The slayer and the killed, slayer and the slain. I mustn’t divide myself. So is there an ending of myself without division? Division means contradiction, effort and pain. Is there an ending of myself without effort? And there is the quality of sensitivity. To come through all this and come to that point requires tremendous subtlety. All this demands subtlety, which is sensitivity. No? So can thought end by itself? Right, sir? All this has needed great awareness, attention, to pursue step by step, never missing a link. And this moving step by step is its own discipline, is its own order. I don’t know if you are following this. I don’t have to have super order. There is order in this. Therefore, the brain now is completely orderly—I don’t know if you—

RB: Yes.

K: …because it follows step by step seeing its own illogical attitudes, illogical search in things that have no security, which is security in division. It has sought security in division and now it sees in division there is no security. Therefore, its every step is step in order.

RB: Yes.

K: And that order is its own, you know, security.

RB: Thought itself brings order.

K: Not brings, it *is* order.

RB: It *is* order.

K: No, no, don’t *bring*. So order is perception of things as they are. As they are. You follow? As you are. Not my conclusion of what you are. I said perception is seeing things as they are. And I cannot see things as they are if I have a conclusion. In conclusion therefore there is disorder and thought has sought security in conclusion which has bred disorder. Therefore it rejects immediately—I don’t know if you see this—because it wants security. So thought says no more conclusions. I won’t make any conclusions. Therefore thought functions only in knowledge where it is necessary. Got it? But nowhere else. Because the function of thought *is* to create conclusions, images, etc. Therefore your thought comes to an end here, not here. Right? Right, sir? I don’t know.

Q1: Sir, although knowledge has done this, divisions and all that, such knowledge when you read text books and all that it creates understanding…

K: I don’t know why I have to read books at all.

Q1: Or we have such discussions or read such discussions, or whatever it is. Such knowledge.

K: No, no, no. You are mixing two things. I am discussing. We are sitting here discussing. This is not binding. You can say, well, I have learnt what he said and this and this I must remember, then that becomes binding.

Q1: No, what is in the books and all that, if you read and all that, which you call knowledge, whatever is of the past, the book is of the past…

K: Obviously.

Q1: It is not knowledge at all, it is … although it looks…

[Break in recording] K: The book says knowledge is binding — you read that in a book. In the reading of that in a book, you see immediately the truth of it, and therefore you are out of it. Is that what you mean?

Q1: Yes.

K: Yes, obviously.

Q1: So although it is knowledge it is not knowledge.

K: Ah wait, wait. No — I agree- but look. Look, unless we had discussed this very carefully this morning, you wouldn’t come to that. If you read in a book ‘knowledge is binding’, without all this morning what we did, you say, ‘What is he talking about?’ Right, sir? Until your mind has drilled, dug into this, when you read ‘knowledge is binding’ in a book, would you have understood it?

Q1: No, what I mean is…

Sunanda Patwardhan (SP): She was telling me the other day she read two sentences from your book somewhere. She said three days I was… Something like that, she said.

K: No, no, no, no, let her say it, let her say it.

Q1: Although knowledge is binding…

K: Right, knowledge is binding — you have understood.

Q1: When we read such books, Upanishads or your books, or like that, it just frees the mind. Although it is knowledge it’s not knowledge.

K: I see what you meant.

RB: At that moment there is a perception or awareness.

K: Yes, naturally, that’s all right. What then? What are you trying to convey to me? Sorry, I don’t quite…

RB: I think she is merely trying to say that everything one reads is not binding.

SP: There can be a perception…

K: No, no, no, no, it’s much more than that.

Q1: So… [inaudible] …of the past, simply you can’t [inaudible].

K: Of course!

Q1: No. No. So although knowledge…

RB: I think it depends on the use of words such as *knowledge, past,* etc.

AP: No, it is difficult… [inaudible]

Q1: See that winding, although it looks… [inaudible] …when you wind something and unwind it also, it looks, the process is the same, but the fact is different.

SPT: Yes, I shall put it thus: I wind it round me like that. Unwinding is another winding, but unwinding frees, winding binds. Similarly, this very discussion, printed, if she reads, it frees, although it is knowledge.

K: I understand. It’s simple, I understand what you mean. Yes, quite.

AP: But I was asking, when — before we went into this whole thing — you said about tradition and the common ground, you began by giving the common ground. What I wanted to say was that with regard to what appears to be common ground, there is the great stumbling block of words which do not carry any perception. Persevere, but words don’t give any perception. That is, our difficulty is…

SPT: The reader does not understand the significance.

AP: Our difficulty is that I read [inaudible] or I read any book. When I read the book, a certain process is outlined. Verbally, it has been stated there. But that verbal thing does not at all carry any relief and I remain with nothing other than words in my hands. This is the difficulty.

K: I think she has conveyed it enough, sir. I think she made it perfectly clear.

AP: No, this was what I was saying about when we started the discussion with got similarities. We started this discussion by saying there are similarities and then you took it in another direction.

K: And therefore all similarities are to be distrusted. You know — what is similar has to be distrusted.

AP: So this word becomes a barrier to understanding.

SPT: Quite. Agreed, but probably in my case, myself and Balasundaram discussed that together, and you see, somehow or other, this understanding, the vision came. Then I read the books. Probably translated the books according to this. Not read the books and then got it or caught it — that was not the case.

K: Sir, what would happen to you if there were no books at all? Only technological books — you follow? — and no other book, what would you do? I hope there will be detective stories, but apart from that. [Laughter]

SPT: Somebody will come along and write a book.

K: No, I won’t read any other book. They can write all the… upside down, inside out, as high as the mountain, I won’t read any of those books. What would you do? No Sankaras, no — you know — [inaudible] — none. You would be stuck!

(Audio ends abruptly)