the other morning, when we gathered here,
asked a question, which was, what is the difference
between relationship and sex? In talking it over together, we came to a certain point, which was, why do human beings
throughout the world give predominance or importance
or a priority to certain activity? Why sex has become
such an important thing, overriding all others, why money, why the sense of
committed direction, why human beings give all their
attention, their life to an idea, to an ideal, to a God
and so on why? We asked this question
and we went over it. Is it because society
demands it? A particular culture produces this attitude. The society, the culture
is what we have created. Each human being has
created it.
And why do human beings,
you and I, or others, why we give importance
to one particular action business, artistic,
political, economic, or being committed totally
to a so-called religious life? Is it because
we are seeking security? In giving ourselves over
to a particular action, committing ourselves
to a particular ideal, in that there is
certain security. There, you are very clear. You have committed yourself
to an ideal, to a utopia, and you can work for it, completely
disregarding all other activities. That gives a certain sense
of security, wellbeing, being committed to something.
In talking it over together, we saw
I hope we all understood this that when we do this,
it is like cultivating one arm, out of proportion
to the other arm. So there is disharmony. A man or a woman committed
to a particular career a scientist is Dr Bohm here?
Yes. Sorry.
If you are committed to be an
artist all your life or a musician, or this or that, it does
breed a certain disharmony. And we said,
what then, is harmony? I hope you are all
interested in this. It is what you asked, for those who weren't here
the other day, we are exploring this thing,
together. Then we asked, what is harmony? Can human beings
live in harmony? Harmony implies a good mind logical, reasonable,
objective, impersonal, not thinking about oneself and one's
own attitudes and one's own opinions and cultivating those opinions,
attitudes, and so giving importance
to the intellect, which breeds disharmony.
So, to have a very good mind,
clear, objective, impersonal, and if one may use
the word 'heart', which is, affection, kindliness,
generosity, not romantic, sentimental, and to have a good body, so the three are continuously
working harmoniously so there is no distortion
in action. That is where we came to the other
day, when we were discussing this. Can this harmony
be brought about? And who is the entity or the thought
that is to bring this about? Right?
We came up to that point. We said,
can thought cultivate or struggle or exercise itself in bringing about this harmony? And we said, also, that thought
itself is born out of disharmony.
That is what we came to
and we will discuss that. Right?
May we? Will thought bring about the necessity
of living a life every day harmoniously,
so that there is no distortion, so that one doesn't give importance
to one particular thing, either to family, child, occupation,
career, money, and so on can thought in its activity
bring this about? And is not thought itself not harmonious? Does it not breed disharmony? So, let's talk it over together
from there. What do you think?
How do you regard thought, in relation to the question, can thought bring about a life
that is totally harmonious? If thought doesn't bring it about,
then what will? This is the question that arose
from your particular question, what is the difference
between relationship and sex? Please, what do you say? Q: Sir, are you saying that thought
must always breed disharmony? K: Are you saying that
thought must be in disharmony. Let's talk it over together
and find out.
If thought is very limited, if you see that and if you not agree if you directly
see it, that thought is limited under all circumstances,
then that which is limited, narrow, shallow,
can that bring about harmony? We must be very clear
on this point, whether the thought is,
in itself, whatever it does, whether it says, I am God,
I am the universe, I am the whole of this and that,
it is still limited. Do we understand that question? Do we together see that point? Is not thought a small corner of a vast field? That small corner thinks it can
cover the whole of the field, it can understand the universe, the
cosmos, the whole existence of man, from that little corner. Thought has created society,
architecture, technology, etc., And is not thought, in itself,
a broken-up piece? Q: Broken-up it may be,
but I don't know about limited. I am not certain
that thought is limited.
K: You are not sure?
Q: No. K: Of what?
Q: That thought is limited. K: Thought is limited you are not
sure that thought is limited. How am I going to
show it to you? Would you say thought...
Is thought affection? Is thought love?
Is thought compassion? Would you say that
thought can comprehend or become aware of something
it does not know? It can speculate about something
it does not know and imagine it knows. And is not thought limited
because it is born out of time? That may be
a little more difficult. Is not thought time itself? Q: But time is continuous. K: No, time is continuous
as a movement, isn't it? As a movement.
So, thought is a movement, movement born out of memory that is the residue, that memory
is the outcome of experience and knowledge.
So, knowledge is the past. Right?
Q: Yes. K: So, thought is a movement
out of the past, obviously, so it must be limited. It can project the future and say,
that is what is going to be, but it is still the outcome
of the past.
Thought has created,
according to Karl Marx, certain political,
economic ideals which have become tyrannical
and all the rest of it. So, the intellect, which is the movement of thought,
reason, logic and so on, that has created an ideal. No? Now, thought creates one ideal
and you create another ideal. No? Democratic ideal,
totalitarian ideal, national ideal, the ideal of God
and the ideal of non-God.
So thought, because it is born out
of the past, because it is of time, because it is a movement
based on certain memories, is inevitably limited. No? Don't agree with me
but see it clearly for yourself. I may be wrong. You have to understand the truth of
it, not your opinion or my opinion, that the truth is that thought,
under all circumstances, is a small corner, which tries
to dominate the rest of the field.
So, can that thought
bring about this harmony of which we were
talking about? Right? Can it? Can that which is limited
understand the unlimited? It can think,
or it can speculate, assert, and write volumes intellectually
about the unlimited, and think it will understand
the unlimited, but it is still the movement
of that little corner. So, we are asking, can that thought
bring about harmony? Come on, Shaku. If it cannot, which apparently,
if one has gone into it sufficiently it is fairly obvious that it cannot.
Right? Then what will? You understand my question? If thought cannot bring about this
essential harmony, then what will? So man has said,
God will bring it about. An outside agency, which is
omnipotent and all the rest of it, which is cosmos,
whatever name you give to it, that will,
if you can give yourself over to it, will bring this harmony.
If you abandon yourself
and let that external agency truth, God, universe,
cosmos, what you like that will bring this
extraordinary thing called harmony. That thing is still invented
by thought. Right? Or you hand yourself over
to some guru. He says, I know.
I will help you
to achieve this thing. So he gives you lots of systems,
meditations, etc. But it is still the movement
of that little corner. Right? So, if one realises this
or sees the truth that thought, though technologically it can
do the most marvellous things, is limited.
Thought has divided the world.
Thought has created wars, saying, this is a Christian,
this is a heathen, and wars, wars, wars. And that very movement
of thought says, I will bring this harmony
into my being. And if that is very clear,
that thought cannot, under any pressure,
under any reward or punishment, can never bring this about,
then what will? Is this question clear?
What will? Q: The thought
realises its pettiness, so it thinks that by putting many,
or greater thoughts together, it will probably build
a bigger or better picture. K: Yes.
Can the pettiness,
which is thought, can that pettiness, shallowness,
superficial thing, can that open the door
to the universe? It cannot. Then what will? Well, sir?
Come on, discuss with me. Q: But when we are asking what will,
aren't we again using thought to try to find out?
K: Yes. K: But we can ask that question,
though it is the outcome of thought, and find out if there is
a different kind of movement, 'movement' in quotes,
which is not thought.
Q: What do you mean by
a different kind of movement? K: We are going to find out. So, let's find out.
You and I find out, together. First, one must see very clearly,
definitely, irrevocably that thought is limited,
thought cannot bring this about. That is an absolute fact.
If that is so, then what takes place? Go on, sir, examine it. Q: Isn't it so that thought
must see itself, see by itself that it is not right to prevail,
to be predominant? K: Sir, you have agreed, both of us, after this examination
for nearly an hour or half an hour, and the other day we spent
an hour and 20 minutes going into this question unless we are really obstinate
and not observing, we came to the point
that thought is limited. Q: Sir, it seems that,
in listening to this I feel that with the use of logic we
are seeing that thought is limited without actually having
a perception of it. K: We have not only used reason,
logic, sanity, you see it is a fact.
Thought has divided you
as an Indian and me as a Christian. Thought has invented
your God and my God, my Christianity and your Hinduism.
You are a Hindu, I am a Muslim. It is the result of propaganda,
of tradition, of thought wanting
security in the family, in the community,
in a group says, I am an Indian,
I am a Muslim, I am this. Therefore,
thought has divided you and me into certain categories
of nationalities, beliefs, etc.
Q: It doesn't seem to be enough
to simply see the external fact of that. That is the external fact.
K: Yes, those are external facts. External facts which thought
has produced. Q: Yes.
K: So thought then says what:
there is the inner world. There is the outer
and the inner. Q: Yes, but Shankar
raised the question, because we can see, very readily,
that thought produces this division, but it may still be going on
in our brains. K: Of course, it will go on
in your brain, if you don't drop it.
If the thought says,
how absurd this is. And says, all right,
I won't be a Hindu or a Muslim, Jew or a Christian,
Arab and so on. Q: But it can go on
in more subtle ways. K: No, that is a different matter.
Of course, it can go on differently.
It can go on inwardly,
more subtly, by having ideals, being attached to
a particular form of experience and not moving away
from that experience. That experience gives one
a great sense of security. Thought is working
all the time, isn't it? It may not express itself outwardly,
but it is going on jealousy, anxiety, fear,
and all the rest of it is going on. Now, let us for the moment keep
to the point, which is, can thought, even outwardly,
bring about this harmony? If it cannot, what will? Who will answer this question? Probably nobody
has put this question, nobody has written books
about it.
Even if they have, it is still
the operation of thought, the function, thought, writing.
So, what is your answer to that? Wouldn't you answer that question
or find not an answer... All right,
let me put it differently. How do you approach
this question? Q: Sir, this question, perhaps,
can only be approached by... There are thoughts going
through my mind, constantly.
And perhaps the question
can be approached only by quietening that.
K: No. K: So, here is a question.
Thought cannot produce that. How do you approach the question?
How do you say, now, what next? How do you come to it? You understand my question?
Do you? Look, we have spent
several hours over this, when you come to the final point,
how do you receive it? How do you approach it? Because your approach
may dictate the answer, your approach
may reveal the answer. Not somebody will answer you, but after enquiry,
after exploration, you are approaching it,
aren't you, with quite a different
quality of mind are you? All right,
may I explain a little more? I said, I see clearly that being
committed to a particular thing, a particular career, committed to
a family, a child, to this or that, does bring about disharmony.
I see that very clearly. And I say, am I committed
to a particular thing? Right? To becoming an artist,
an engineer, to this or that. And I see if I am committed that way
I must live in disharmony, therefore I must live in conflict,
anxiety, fear, sorrow all that follows, inevitably. Though I pretend it will not, but it
will produce unfortunate reactions.
I see that very clearly. And I also see very clearly there
must be no attachment of any kind to an experience,
to a person, and so on. I see that very clearly. And am I attached, do I hold on to
a particular experience, thinking it is most
marvellously spiritual? So, there must be freedom
from all those, otherwise, I am caught
in a particular direction, therefore,
that will breed disharmony.
So, there must be
freedom from it. Then, I realise thought is,
under all circumstances, limited. I am very clear on that point. Nobody no logic, no guru,
no saint, no god, nothing will alter that.
Right? So, what is harmony? I said, complete, total relationship
with the mind, that is harmony, and thought cannot bring it about.
Now, how do I come to that point? What has been my approach
to that point? You understand what I am saying? Do I want to find an answer? Do I want to find a way out
of my disharmony, something that will
bring about this harmony? So, I must be very clear how
I am approaching this question. Have you got
what I am talking about? Now, how do you approach it? Do you want to
live a harmonious life? If you do, it is still
the operation of thought, because that way thought says,
by jove, that is a rewarding thing, it will be marvellous, it will be
beautiful, it will be this and that. So, how do you approach it?
You can only approach it when thought has understood
its limitation and doesn't move out
of that limitation. Thought cannot produce
this harmony.
And thought has built the 'me',
the ego, the personality, and that centre says,
I must have that harmony. It is a most marvellous way
of living, therefore I must get it. So, am I committed to anything? Committed
to a particular action, the family, the child, the mother,
the father, the career, and so on. If I am, then I live
and I cultivate disharmony, which is going to produce
ugly things in my life.
If I give emphasis to sex,
as most young people do, and most people in the world do,
even the older generation, then they live, obviously,
in great misery. So, what is one to do?
You understand my question, now? So, can thought
do anything about it? Can 'I', which is the result
of thought, do anything about that? Can I practice harmony? You say, ah yes, I will have
a good mind, I will love people, I will have a good body
that is probably possible, eat properly, no smoking,
no alcohol, no drugs, etc. But the other factors,
thought cannot bring it about. So, having that very clear, then what takes place? The movement of thought
will not answer this question.
Therefore, thought ceases to
project itself into the approach. I wonder if I am
making myself clear. Am I? Then what is the approach? If thought is not
creating the wave, then what is taking place,
which is, the approach? I don't know if I am
making myself clear. Am I? Am I? Yes? Let's put the question
differently: can thought stop? Not thought saying to itself,
I must stop.
You understand the point? Then that is the exercise of thought
suppressing thought, but thought still remains. Is that clear? So can thought
realise itself and stop? You know, we are entering
into something very complex: this is real meditation
but I won't go into all that unless you want me to. This is the essence
of meditation, for thought to realise for itself
that it is limited and therefore
it has no movement other than what is involved
in that little corner. Therefore, one asks
not one asks can thought stop itself? Therefore, can time come to an end?
Not science fiction time, but in our life, in daily life,
can time come to an end? Not think about what you will be
or what you must be in the future, or what you have been
in the past, but all that movement
come to an end, stop.
Which is time.
I wonder if you get all this. You say, what the dickens has
all this to do with our daily life? Mary Zimbalist: You have said
that thought is always partial, and I think we have seen that. Now, this particular realisation
on the part of thought that it cannot do anything,
that it stops, is this, perhaps, also partial
because it is the action of thought and therefore we get into
trouble with this? K: It may become
a little too abstract or too subtle or whatever it is. Do you know what insight is? Wait a minute.
You have said
thought is limited right? How did you come to that?
By reason? By logic? By explanation?
By example? Or just listen, find out
or you had an insight into it. You saw the truth of it
instantly. That insight is unrelated
to memory. Therefore it is not
the product of thought.
MZ: What is its relation
to logic? What is the relationship
of insight to logic? K: Nothing. It has no relationship
to logic, to reason, to memory. MZ: But we have come to
this realisation about thought perhaps very largely,
through logic. We have used logic to come
to this realisation.
K: No, we have used logic
to point out, to explain, but that logic, reason,
cannot bring about insight. That is why I asked you
if you see the truth of it. To see something wait a minute,
let's take an example to have an insight into
the whole structure of religion, as it now exists, as it has existed,
to have a quick insight into it. From that insight you can use logic,
reason, and point out, clearly.
But the other way,
it won't work. I wonder if I am
making myself clear. Now, wait a minute. If you belong to an institution what is implied in
belonging to an institution? What is an institution? Based on authority, rules,
routine all that.
To be free, not to belong
to an institution, you can reason
against it or for it, but to see the inward structure
and nature of institutions, to have an insight into that,
you are free of institutions, though you may function. But the belonging to something, whether it is the institution
of Catholicism or Protestantism or communism it is finished.
To have an insight into it is to observe without... I don't want to go into all this
observe without the observer. It becomes too complex.
MZ: How does that differ from the
observation of something ordinary? That red car out there
will only go so fast. I can realise its limitation
just through the ordinary accumulation of knowledge
and process of thought, but how, when you are
talking about insight, is this realisation of the
limitations of abstract things... K: Madame, excuse me
I didn't want to go into this because it is too difficult.
MZ: But we are already in it. K: I brought it in, unfortunately.
I shouldn't have.
Does the word 'insight'
help you to see this? Though we have used reason, logic,
example, pointed out this and that, do you suddenly see,
in spite of the reason and logic, see the truth of it? The quick perception of it
is to have an insight into it. And if you have insight into it,
you can never go wrong. It is what it is. Say for instance,
if you have an insight into anger I am taking a silly example to have an insight into it, from that insight
you can be extraordinarily logical.
You can be logical, but you
may not have insight into it. Q: Sir, even if there is
no direct connection between thought and insight, when one gives attention
to a problem because that problem
is important to that person, you said that when one gives
too much attention to family or job, that is disharmony. K: No, not too much attention
I didn't say that. Q: You are right,
you didn't say that.
When one is out of harmony,
if that becomes very important... K: No, perhaps you weren't here
the other day. When one makes the family
the most important thing, gives priority to it, or to the child, to the husband,
to the wife, to a job, that does bring disharmony.
That is all. Q: But suppose that there is importance in one's life
to getting to the bottom of thought.
K: No, are you not you,
I am not asking you, personally are you giving importance, priority,
to one thing over all the others? It may be sex, it may be a husband,
it may be a wife, it may be a child,
it may be a career, so on. And if one does,
why does one do it? This is what the world has done. Every human being,
more or less, does it, because he says,
I can't give priority to everything. Q: Sir, we went into it
the other day, and we saw that it was
thought's or the mind's way of playing a trick on itself, making
itself the most important thing by giving importance
to something else.
K: Yes, we went into it. So where are we
at the end of it? Have you an insight
I am using the word 'insight' rather carefully
and hesitantly into the nature of harmony? Have you? That if I am attached to
my husband, wife, girl, child, that I will have no insight
into the nature of harmony obviously will I? If I am attached to my career
as a politician God forbid can I have harmony?
You follow? It is impossible. So, will I abandon my career
as a politician? If I can't, then I won't talk about
harmony, it is meaningless. I may talk about it intellectually,
play with it that is silly.
So, can I drop
my becoming a politician? That will give me position,
that will give me power, that will give me money
and so on. But if I saw
the nature of harmony, saw clearly, have an insight
into the beauty of it, this thing has no meaning
it is gone. I am no longer a politician. Q: I am still approaching
the harmony and insight both through thought, as I have no other
instrument to try and understand.
The issue of harmony
and insight, both of these I am trying to
understand through thought. K: No, not through thought.
Sorry. Q: Is there a difference between
the nature of harmony and the harmony of nature?
K: Between? Q: The nature of harmony
and the harmony of nature. K: No!
It is the same thing, isn't it? Does one realise
the contradiction between what you think,
what you feel, do you realise actually,
not theoretically, the interaction or the lack
of interaction between the three mind, body, heart.
I have used the
word 'heart' to convey a great deal, which we have gone into. Does one see a harmonious interrelationship
between the three? Or there is no relationship
between the three. One is operating much more
than the other. Intellect may be
highly developed, or romantically feeling sentimental
and emotional and becoming rather gooey.
Or giving emphasis
to the soma, the body, which says, I must have tasty food,
drink, smoke, sex sensation. Do we realise this? Then, if we realise that
there is a break between the three, then thought says,
I must relate it, I must bring about
an interrelationship, interaction, which will be even, which will flow smoothly. Therefore it says,
I must control my body, I mustn't eat more
than I should, I must restrict my emotions
it is still the movement of thought. I wonder if you get this.
Now, wait a minute.
How do you see this? Is it an idea? A description
which you are accepting? The words with their meaning, you say, yes,
that is perfectly right, it is true, and from there
you move to an idea. Or do you see it
actually in your life? Q: Sir, do you mean that tomorrow
when I come upon this again, I don't think about the words
that we said about it today and face it, as it is, in my life?
K: Shankar, look at it, please. Give a minute's thought.
I am not being personal with you. Do you realise that there is a
contradiction between the three? Do you? If you realise and what do
you mean by that word realise? Is it an actual fact or is it
an idea that there is a division? Q: No,
it is happening to me now.
I am sitting here and
I am trying to listen to you, at the same time something tells me
it is lunchtime and I am hungry and I want to go and eat. K: Yes, give another five minutes
more before we get really hungry! But I am asking you, Shankar,
a simple question, which is, how do you listen to this statement,
to my question, which is,
do you find in yourself a break between the intellect,
the heart and so on? Is there a gap between them,
and so contradiction? Now, wait a minute.
How do you see that? How are you aware of that fact
that there is a division, a break? Is that an idea, or you say,
yes, there is a break? Because we live
so much in ideas, and then try to put
that idea into action. So, we have moved away
from the fact. Right? Is it time to stop? Is your hunger dominating, predominant? Right, we had better stop,
don't you think? Yes? Right, we must stop..
No comments:
Post a Comment