'The Roots of Psychological Conflict'
KRISHNAMURTI: How shall we start? I would like to ask if humanity has taken a wrong turn.
DAVID BOHM: A wrong turn? Well it must have done so, a long time ago, I think.
K: That is what I feel. A long time ago... It appears that way - why? You see, as I look at it, mankind has always tried to become something.
DB: Well possibly. I was struck by something I once read about man going wrong about five or six thousand years ago, when he began to be able to plunder and take slaves. After that, his main purpose of existence was just to exploit and plunder.
K: Yes, but there is the sense of inward becoming.
DB: Well, we should make it clear how this is connected. What kind of becoming was involved in doing that? Instead of being constructive, and discovering new techniques and tools and so on, man at a certain time found it easier to plunder his neighbours. Now what did they want to become?
K: Conflict has been the root of all this.
DB: What was the conflict? If we could put ourselves in the place of those people of long ago, how would you see that conflict?
K: What is the root of conflict? Not only outwardly, but also this tremendous inward conflict of humanity? What is the root of it?
DB: Well, it seems that it is contradictory desires.
K: No. Is it that in all religions, you must become something? You must reach something?
DB: Then what made people want to do that? Why weren't they satisfied to be whatever they were? You see, the religion would not have caught on unless people felt that there was some attraction in becoming something more.
K: Isn't it an avoidance, not being able to face the fact, and therefore moving to something else - to more and more and more?
DB: What would you say was the fact that people couldn't stay with?
K: The Christians have said, Original Sin.
DB: But the wrong turn happened long before that.
K: Yes, long before that. Long before that, the Hindus had this idea of Karma. What is the origin of all this?
DB: We have said that there was the fact that people couldn't stay with. Whatever it was, they wanted to imagine something better.
K: Yes, something better. Becoming.
DB: And you could say that they began to make things technologically better, then they extended this, and said, `I too must become better.'
K: Yes, inwardly become better.
DB: All of us together must become better.
K: That's right. What is the root of all this?
DB: Well, I should think it is natural in thought to project this goal of becoming better. That is, it is intrinsic in the structure of thought.
K: Is it that the principle of becoming better outwardly has moved to becoming better inwardly?
DB: If it is good to become better outwardly, then why shouldn't I become better inwardly?
K: Is that the cause of the conflict?
DB: That is getting towards it. It's coming nearer. K: Is it coming nearer? Is time the factor? Time - as `I need knowledge in order to do this or that'? The same principle applied inwardly? Is time the factor?
DB: I can't see that time by itself can be the only factor.
K: No, no. Time. Becoming - which implies time.
DB: Yes, but we don't see how time is going to cause trouble. We have to say that time applied outwardly doesn't cause any difficulty.
K: It causes a certain amount - but we are discussing the idea of time,inwardly.
DB: So we have to see why time is so destructive inwardly.
K: Because I am trying to become something.
DB: Yes, but most people would say that this is only natural. You have to explain what it is that is wrong about becoming.
K: Obviously, there is conflict, in that when I am trying to become something, it is a constant battle.
DB: Yes. Can we go into that: why is it a constant battle? It is not a battle if I try to improve my position outwardly.
K: Outwardly, no. It is more or less all right outwardly, but when that same principle is applied inwardly it brings about a contradiction.
DB: And the contradiction is.?
K: Between `what is' and `becoming what should be'.
DB: The difficulty is, why is it a contradiction inwardly and not outwardly?
K: Inwardly it builds up a centre, doesn't it, an egotistic centre?
DB: Yes, but can we find some reason why it should do so? Does it build up when we do it Outwardly? It seems it need not.
K: It need not.
DB: But when we are doing it inwardly, then we are trying to force ourselves to be something that we are not. K: Yes. That is a fact. Is it that one's brain is so accustomed to conflict that one rejects any other form of living?
DB: But why have people come to the conclusion that conflict is inevitable and necessary?
K: What is the origin of conflict?
DB: I think we touched on that by saying that we are trying to force ourselves. When we are a certain thing that we want to be, we also want to be something else, which is different; and therefore we want two different things at the same time. Would that seem right?
K: I understand that. But I am trying to find out the origin of all this misery, confusion, conflict, struggle - what is the beginning of it? That's why I asked at the beginning: has mankind taken a wrong turn? Is the origin, `I am not I'.?
DB: I think that is getting closer.
K: Yes, that's it. And the `I' - why has mankind created this `I', which must, inevitably, cause conflict? `I' and `you', and `I' better than `you', and so on, and so on.
DB: I think it was a mistake made a long time ago, or, as you call it, a wrong turn, that having introduced separation between various things outwardly, we then kept on doing it - not out of ill will but simply through not knowing better.
K: Quite.
DB: Not seeing what we were doing.
K: Is that the origin of all this conflict?
DB: I am not sure that it is the origin. What do you feel?
K: I am inclined to observe that the origin is the ego, the `me', the`I'.
DB: Yes.
K: If there is no ego, there is no problem, there is no conflict, there is no time - time in the sense of becoming or not becoming; being or not being.
DB: But it might be that we would still slip into whatever it was that made us make the ego in the first place. K: Wait a minute. Is it that energy - being so vast, limitless - has been condensed or narrowed down in the mind, and the brain itself has become narrowed because it couldn't contain all this enormous energy? You are following what I am saying?
DB: Yes.
K: And therefore the brain has gradually narrowed down to `me', to the `I'.
DB: I don't quite follow that. I understand that that is what happened, but I don't quite see all the steps. You say energy was enormous and the brain couldn't handle it, or decided that it couldn't handle it?
K: It couldn't handle it.
DB: But if it can't handle it, it seems as if there is no way out.
K: No, just a minute. Go slowly. I just want to enquire, push into it a little bit. Why has the brain, with all thought, created this sense of `me', `I'? Why?
DB: We needed a certain sense of identity to function.
K: Yes, to function.
DB: To know where we belong.
K: Yes. And is that the movement which has brought the `me'? The movement of the outer? I had to identify, with the family, the house, the trade or profession. All this gradually became the `me'?
DB: I think that this energy that you are talking about also entered into it.
K: Yes, but I want to lead up to that slowly.
DB: You see, what you say is right, that in some way this sense of the `me' gradually strengthened, but by itself that wouldn't explain the tremendous strength that the ego has. It would only be a habit then. The ego becoming completely dominant required that it should become the focus of the greatest energy; of all the energy.
K: Is that it? That the brain cannot hold this vast energy? DB: Let's say that the brain is trying to control this - to bring it to order.
K: Energy has no order.
DB: But if the brain feels it can't control something that is going on inside, it will try to establish order.
K: Could we say that the brain, your brain, his brain, her brain, has not just been born; it is very, very old?
DB: In what sense?
K: In the sense that it has evolved.
DB: Evolved, yes, from the animal. And the animal has evolved. So let's say that in a sense this whole evolution is somehow contained in the brain.
K: I want to question evolution. I understand, say, evolution from the bullock cart to the jet.
DB: Yes. But before you question, we have to consider the evidence of man developing through a series of stages. You can't question that, can you?
K: No, of course not.
DB: I mean, physically it is clear that evolution has occurred in some way.
K: Physically, yes.
DB: And the brain has got larger, more complex. But you may question whether mentally evolution has any meaning.
K: You see, I want to abolish time, psychologically. You understand?
DB: Yes, I understand.
K: To me that is the enemy. And is that the cause, the origin of man's misery?
DB: This use of time, certainly. Man had to use time for a certain purpose, but he misused it.
K: I understand that. If I have to learn a language, I must have time. B: But the misuse of time by extending it inwardly...
K: Inwardly: that is what I am talking about. Is that the cause of man's confusion - introducing time as a means of becoming, and becoming more and more perfect, more and more evolved, more and more loving? You follow what I mean?
DB: Yes, I understand. Certainly if we didn't do that, the whole structure would collapse.
K: That's it.
DB: But I don't know whether there is not some other cause.
K: Just a minute. I want to go into that a little bit. I am not talking theoretically, personally. But to me the idea of tomorrow doesn't exist psychologically - that is, time as a movement, either inwardly or outwardly.
DB: You mean psychological time?
K: Yes, psychological time, and time outwardly. Now if psychological time doesn't exist, then there is no conflict, there is no `me', no `I', which is the origin of conflict. Outwardly, technologically man has moved, evolved.
DB: And also in the inward physical structure.
K: The structure, everything. But psychologically we have also moved outward.
DB: Yes, we have focused our life on the outward. Is that what you are saying?
K: Yes. We have extended our capacities outwardly. And inwardly it is the same movement as outwardly. Now if there is no inward movement as time, moving, becoming more and more, then what takes place? You understand what I am trying to convey? Time ends. You see, the outer movement is the same as the inward movement.
DB: Yes. It is going around and around.
K: Involving time. If the movement ceases, then what takes place? I wonder if I am conveying anything? Could we put it this way? We have never touched any other movement than the outer movement. DB: Generally, anyway. We put most of our energy into the outer movements.
K: And psychological movement is also outward.
DB: Well, it is the reflection of that outward movement.
K: We think it is inward but it is actually outward, right?
DB: Yes.
K: Now if that movement ends, as it must, then is there a really inward movement - a movement not in terms of time?
DB: You are asking, is there another kind of movement which still moves, but not in terms of time?
K: That's right.
DB: We have to go into that. Could you go further?
K: You see, that word movement means time.
DB: Well, it really means to change from one place to another. But anyway there is still the notion of something which is not static. By denying time you don't want to return to something static, which is still time.
K: Let's say, for instance, that one's brain has been trained, accustomed, for centuries to go North. And it suddenly realizes that going North means everlasting conflict. As it realizes that, the brain itself changes - the quality of the brain changes.
DB: All right. I can see it will wake up in some way to a different movement.
K: Yes, different.
DB: Is the word flow any better?
K: I have been going North all my life, and there is a sudden stoppage from going North. But the brain is not going East or South or West. Then conflict ceases - right? Because it is not moving in any direction.
DB: So that is the key point - the direction of movement. When the movement is fixed in direction, inwardly, it will come to conflict. But outwardly we need a fixed direction. K: Of course we do. That's understood.
DB: Yes. So if we say the brain has no fixed direction, then what is it doing? Is it moving in all directions?
K: I am a little bit hesitant to talk about this. Could one say, when one really comes to that state, that it is the source of all energy?
DB: Yes, as one goes deeper and more inward.
K: This is the real inwardness; not the outward movement becoming the inner movement, but no outer or inner movement...
DB: Yes, we can deny both the outward and the inner, so that all movement would seem to stop.
K: Would that be the source of all energy?
DB: Yes, perhaps we could say that.
K: May I talk about myself a little bit?
DB: Yes.
K: First about meditation. All conscious meditation is no meditation - right?
DB: What do you mean by conscious meditation?
K: Deliberate, practised meditation, which is really premeditated meditation. Is there a meditation which is not premeditated - which is not the ego trying to become something - or being able to negate?
DB: Before we go ahead, could we suggest what meditation should be. Is it an observation of the mind observing?
K: No. It has gone beyond all that. I am using the word meditation in the sense in which there is not a particle of any sense of trying consciously to become, to reach a level.
DB: The mind is simply with itself, silent.
K: That is what I want to get at.
DB: Not looking for anything. K: You see, I don't meditate in the normal sense of the word. What happens is that I wake up meditating.
DB: In that state?
K: One night in India I woke up; it was a quarter past twelve, I looked at the watch. And - I hesitate to say this because it sounds extravagant - the source of all energy had been reached. And that had an extraordinary effect on the brain. And also physically. I'm sorry to talk about myself but, you understand, literally, there was no division at all; no sense of the world, of `me'. You follow? Only this sense of a tremendous source of energy.
DB: So the brain was in contact with this source of energy?
K: Yes, and as I have been talking for sixty years, I would like others to reach this - no, not reach it. You understand what I am saying? All our problems are solved. Because it is pure energy from the very beginning of time. Now how am I - not `I', you understand - how is one not to teach, not to help, or push - but how is one to say, `This way leads to a complete sense of peace, of love'? I am sorry to use all these words. But suppose you have come to that point and your brain itself is throbbing with it - how would you help another? You understand? Help - not words. How would you help another to come to that? You understand what I am trying to say?
DB: Yes.
K: My brain - but not mine - has evolved. Evolution implies time, and it can only think, live in time. Now for the brain to deny time is a tremendous activity, for any problem that arises, any question is immediately solved.
DB: Is this situation sustained or is it only for a period?
K: It is sustained, obviously, otherwise there is no point in it. It is not sporadic or intermittent. Now how are you to open the door, how are you to help another to say,`Look, we have been going in the wrong direction, there is only non-movement; and, if movement stops, everything will be correct'?
DB: Well, it is hard to know beforehand if everything is going to be correct. K: Let's go back to what we began with. That is, has mankind taken a wrong turn, psychologically, not physically? Can that turn be completely reversed? Or stopped? My brain is so accustomed to this evolutionary idea that I will become something, I will gain something, that I must have more knowledge and so on; can that brain suddenly realize that there is no such thing as time? You understand what I am trying to say?
DB: Yes.
K: I was listening the other day to a discussion on television about Darwin, his knowledge and what he achieved - his whole theory of evolution. It seems to me that this is totally untrue psychologically.
DB: It seems that he has given evidence that all species have changed in time. Why is that untrue?
K: Of course. It is obvious.
DB: It is true in one respect, although I think it would be untrue to say the mind evolved in time.
K: Of course.
DB: But physically it seems clear there has been a process of evolution, and that this has increased the capacity of the brain to do certain things. For example, we couldn't be discussing this if the brain had not grown larger.
K: Of course.
DB: But I think you are implying that the mind is not originating in the brain. Is that so? The brain is perhaps an instrument of the mind?
K: And the mind is not time. Just see what that means.
DB: The mind does not evolve with the brain.
K: The mind not being of time, and the brain being of time - is that the origin of conflict?
DB: Well, we have to see why that produces conflict. It is not clear to say that the brain is of time, but rather that it has developed in such a way that time is in it.
K: Yes, that is what I meant. DB: But not necessarily so.
K: It has evolved.
DB: It has evolved, so it has time within it.
K: Yes, it has evolved, time is part of it.
DB: It has become part of its very structure.
K: Yes.
DB: However, the mind operates without time, although the brain is not able to do so.
K: That means that God is in man, and God can only operate if the brain is quiet, if the brain is not caught in time.
DB: Well, I wasn't meaning that. I see that the brain, having a structure of time, is not able to respond properly to mind. That's really what seems to be involved here.
K: Can the brain itself see that it is caught in time, and that as long as it is moving in that direction, conflict is eternal, endless? You follow what I am saying?
DB: Yes. Does the brain see it?
K: Has the brain the capacity to see in what it is doing now - being caught in time - that in that process there is no end to conflict? That means, is there a part of the brain which is not of time?
DB: Not caught or functioning in time?
K: Can one say that?
DB: I don't know.
K: That would mean - we come back to the same thing in different words - that the brain is not being completely conditioned by time, so there is a part of the brain that is free of time.
DB: Not a part, but rather that the brain is mainly dominated by time, although that doesn't necessarily mean it couldn't shift.
K: Yes. That is, can the brain, dominated by time, not be subservient to it? DB: That's right. In that moment it comes out of time. I think I can see this - it is dominated only when you give it time. Thought which takes time is dominated, but anything fast enough is not dominated.
K: Yes, that's right. Can the brain - which has been used to time - can it see in that process that there is no end to conflict? See, in the sense of realizing this? Will it realize it under pressure? Certainly not. Will it realize it under coercion, reward or punishment? It will not. It will either resist or escape.
So what is the factor that will make the brain see that the way it has been functioning is not correct? (Let's use that word for the moment.) And what will make it suddenly realize that it is totally mischievous? What will make it? Certainly not drugs or some kind of chemical.
DB: None of these outward things.
K: Then what will make the brain realize this?
DB: What do you mean by realize?
K: Realize that the path along which the brain has been going will always be the path of conflict.
DB: I think this raises the question that the brain resists such a realization.
K: Of course, of course. Because it has been used to the old path, for centuries! How will you make the brain realize this fact? If you could make it realize that, conflict is finished.
You see, people have tried fasting, austerity, poverty, chastity in the real sense, purity, having a mind that is absolutely correct; they have tried going away by themselves; they have tried practically everything that man has invented, but none of these ways has succeeded.
DB: Well, what do you say? It is clear that people pursuing these outward goals are still becoming.
K: Yes, but they never realize that these are outward goals. It means denying all that completely.
DB: You see, to go further, I think that one has to deny the very notion of time in the sense of looking forward to the future, and deny all the past. K: That's just it.
DB: That is, the whole of time.
K: Time is the enemy. Meet it, and go beyond it.
DB: Deny that it has an independent existence. You see, I think we have the impression that time exists independently of us. We are in the stream of time, and therefore it would seem absurd for us to deny it because that is what we are.
K: Yes, quite, quite. So it means really moving away - again this is only words - from everything that man has put together as a means of timelessness.
DB: Can we say that none of the methods that man uses outwardly is going to free the mind from time?
K: Absolutely.
DB: Every method implies time.
K: Of course. It is so simple.
DB: We start out immediately by setting up the whole structure of time; the whole notion of time is presupposed before we start.
K: Yes, quite. But how will you convey this to another? How will you, or `X', convey this to a man who is caught in time and will resist it, fight it, because he says there is no other way? How will you convey this to him?
DB: I think that you can only convey it to somebody who has gone into it; you are not likely to convey it at all to somebody you just pick up off the street!
K: So then, what are we doing? As that cannot be conveyed through words, what is a man to do? Would you say that to resolve a problem as it arises you have to go into it immediately, because otherwise you may do the most foolish thing and delude yourself that you have resolved it? Suppose I have a problem, any psychological problem - can the mind realize, resolve it immediately? Not deceive itself, not resist it - you understand? But face it, and end it.
DB: Well, with a psychological problem, that is the only way. Otherwise we would be caught in the very source of the problem. K: Of course. Would that activity end time, the psychological time that we are talking about?
DB: Yes, if we could bring this immediate action to bear on the problem, which is the self.
K: One is greedy, or envious. To end immediately greed, attachment, and so on, will that not give a clue to the ending of time?
DB: Yes, because any action which is not immediate has already brought in time.
K: Yes, yes. I know that.
DB: The ending of time is immediate - right?
K: Immediate, of course. Would that point out the wrong turn that mankind has taken?
DB: Yes, if man feels something is out of order psychologically he then brings in the notion of time, and the thought of becoming, and that creates endless problems.
K: Would that open the door to this sense of time having no place inwardly? Which means, doesn't it, that thought has no place except outwardly?
DB: You are saying that thought is a process which is involved in time.
K: Wouldn't you say that thought is the process of time? Because thought is based on experience, knowledge, memory and response, which is the whole of time.
DB: Let's try to put it that thought, as we have generally known it, is in time.
K: Thought as we know it now is of time.
DB: Yes. I would agree, generally speaking.
K: Generally speaking, thought is time.
DB: It is based on the notion of time.
K: Yes, all right. But to me, thought itself is time.
DB: Thought itself creates time, right.
K: Does it mean, when there is no time there is no thought? DB: Well no thought of that kind.
K: No. There is no thought. I want just to go slowly.
DB: Could we say that there is a kind of thought which we have lived in which has been dominated by time?
K: Yes, but that has come to an end.
DB: But there may be another kind of thought which is not dominated by time... I mean, you were saying, you could still use thought to do some things.
K: Of course, outwardly that's so.
DB: We have to be careful not to say that thought is necessarily dominated by time.
K: Yes. I have to go from here to there, to my house; that needs time, thought, but I am not talking of that kind of time.
DB: So let's make it clear that you are talking of thought which is aimed at the mind, whose content is the order of the mind.
K: Yes. Would you say knowledge is time?
DB: Well, yes...
K: All knowledge is time.
DB: Yes, in that it has been known, and may project into the future, and so on.
K: Of course, the future, the past. Knowledge - science, mathematics, whatever it is - is acquired through time. I read philosophy, I read this or that, and the whole movement of knowledge involves time. See what I mean!
DB: I think we are saying that man has taken a wrong turn and got caught in this kind of knowledge, which is dominated by time because it has become psychological knowledge.
K: Yes. So he lives in time.
DB: He lives in time because he has attempted to produce knowledge of the nature of the mind. Are you saying that there is no real knowledge of the mind? Would you put it that way? K: The moment you use the word `knowledge', it implies time. When you end time, in the sense we are talking about, there is no knowledge as experience.
DB: We have to see what the word `experience' means.
K: Experience, memory.
DB: People say, `I learn by experience, I go through something.'
K: Which is becoming!
DB: Well, let's get it clear. You see there is a kind of experience, for example, in one's job, which becomes skill and perception.
K: Of course, but that is quite different.
DB: But we are saying there is no point in having experience of the mind, psychological experience.
K: Yes, let's put it that way. psychological experience is in time.
DB: Yes, and it has no point, because you cannot say, `As I become skilled in my job I will become skilled in my mind, or skilled fundamentally'.
K: Yes. So where is this leading? I realize that knowledge is time; the brain realizes it, and sees the importance of time in a certain direction, and that there is no value in time at all in another direction. It is not a contradiction.
DB: I would put it that the value of time is limited to a certain direction or area, and beyond that, it has no value.
K: Yes. So what is the mind or the brain without knowledge? You understand.
DB: Without psychological knowledge?
K: Yes, I am talking psychologically.
DB: It is not so much that it is caught in time as that it is without psychological knowledge to organize itself.
K: Yes.
DB: So we are saying that the brain field must organize itself by knowing psychologically all about itself.
K: Is then the mind, the brain, disorder? Certainly not. DB: No. But I think that people being faced with this might feel there would be disorder.
K: Of course.
DB: I think what you are saying is that the notion of controlling yourself psychologically has no meaning.
K: So knowledge of the `me' - the psychological knowledge - is time.
DB: Yes, I understand the totality of knowledge is `me', is time.
K: So then what is existence without this? There is no time, there is no knowledge in the psychological sense, no sense of `me', then what is there? To come to that point most people would say, `What a horror this is.'
DB: Yes, because it seems there would be nothing.
K: Nothing. But if one has come to that point, what is there? Would you say, because there is nothing, it is everything?
DB: Yes, I would accept that. I know that. That is true, it has all.
K: No meditation, nothing.
DB: No thing.
K: No thing, that's right.
DB: A thing is limited, and this is not a thing because there are no limits... At least, it has everything in potential.
K: Wait, Sir. If it is nothing, and so everything, so everything is energy.
DB: Yes. The ground of everything is energy.
K: Of course. Everything is energy. And what is the source of this thing? Or is there no source of energy at all? Is there only energy?
DB: Energy just is. Energy is `what is'. There is no need for a source. That is one approach, perhaps?
K: No. If there is nothing, and therefore everything, and everything is energy... We must be very careful because here, the Hindus have this idea too, which is that Brahman is everything. You understand? But that becomes an idea, a principle, and then functioning is once more in the brain. But the fact of it is, there is nothing, therefore there is everything, and all that is cosmic energy. But what started this energy?
DB: We are not talking of time.
K: I know we are not talking of time, but you see the Christians would say, `God is energy and He is the source of all energy.' No?
DB: But the Christians have an idea of what they call the Godhead, which is the very source of God too.
K: And also the Hindus, the Arabic and the Jewish worlds have this. Are we going against all that?
DB: It sounds similar in some ways.
K: And yet not similar. We must be careful.
DB: Many things like this have been said over the ages.
K: Then is one just walking in emptiness? Is one living in emptiness?
DB: Well, that is not clear.
K: There is nothing, and everything is energy. What is this?
DB: Well, is there something within the energy?
K: This is not different from energy. This. But the thing that is inside says, `I am totally different from that'.
DB: The `I' encloses itself and says, `I am different, I am eternal.'
K: Why has it done this? Why has the separation arisen? Is it because outwardly I identify with a house and so on, and that identification has moved inwardly?
DB: Yes. And the second point was that once we established a notion of something inward, then it became necessary to protect that. And therefore that built up the separation.
K: Of course.
DB: The inward was obviously the most precious thing, and it would have to be protected with all our energy. K: Does it mean then that there is only the organism - which part of energy? There is no `me' at all, except the passport name and form; otherwise nothing. And therefore there is everything and therefore all is energy?
DB: Yes, the form has no independent existence.
K: No. There is only the form. That's all.
DB: There is also the energy, you say.
K: That is part of energy. So there is only this, the outward shape.
DB: There is the outward form in the energy.
K: Do you realize what we have said, Sir? Is this the end of the journey?
DB: No, I should think not.
K: Has mankind journeyed through millennia to come to this? That I am nothing, and therefore I am everything, and all energy.
DB: Well it can't be the end, in the sense that it might be the beginning.
K: Wait. That is all I wanted you to begin with. The ending is the beginning - right? Now I want to go into that. You see, in the ending of all this - the ending of time, we will call it briefly - there is a new beginning. What is that? Because otherwise this seems so utterly futile. I am all energy and just the shell exists, and time has ended. It seems so futile.
DB: Yes, if we stop there....
K: That's all.
DB: I think that really this is clearing the ground of all the debris, of all the confusion.
K: Yes. So the ending is a beginning. But what is that? Beginning implies time also.
DB: Not necessarily. I think we said there could be a movement which had no time.
K: That is all. I want to make it clear. DB: Yes, but it is hard to express. It is not a question of being static, but in some sense the movement has not the order of time. I think we would have to say that now.
K: Yes. So we will use the word `beginning' and deprive it of time.
DB: Because ending and beginning are no special time. In fact they can be any time or no time.
K: No time. Then what takes place? What is happening? Not to me, not to my brain. What is happening? We have said that when one denies time there is nothing. After this long talk, nothing means everything. Everything is energy. And we have stopped there. But that isn't the end.
DB: No.
K: That is not the end. Then what is going on? Is that creation?
DB: Yes, something like that.
K: But not the art of creating like writing or painting.
DB: Perhaps later we can discuss what we mean by creating.
Posts
