You are here
Life is sacred
Life is sacred
Krishnamurti: After this morning, as an outsider, you have left me completely empty, completely without any future, without any past, without any image. So where am I?
Dr Shainberg: That's right, somebody said that was watching us this morning, or one of the people around here said, 'How am I going to get out of bed in the morning?'
Dr Bohm: Oh, yes.
K: No, I think that is fairly easy - that question of getting out of bed in the morning - it's fairly simple. Because I have to get up and do things, as life demands that I act, not just stay in bed for the rest of my life. You see, I have been left as an outsider who is viewing all this, who is listening to all this, with a sense of... 'blank wall'. A sense of - I understand what you have said very... because it has been made very clear to me. I have, at one glance, I have rejected all the systems, all the gurus - the Zen Buddhism, this Buddhism, this meditation, that meditation and so on - I've discarded all that because I have understood the meditator is the meditation. But I haven't still... feel, have I solved my problem of sorrow, do I know what it means to love? Do I understand what is compassion? Live - not understand, intellectually I can spin a lot of words, but at the end of all this, these dialogues, after discussing with you all, listening to you all, have I this sense of astonishing energy which is compassion, the end of my sorrow, do I know what it means to love somebody, love human beings?
DS: Actually love.
K: Actually, actually.
DS: Not talk about it.
K: No, no. That's all... I've gone beyond all that. And you haven't shown me what death is.
K: I haven't understood a thing about death. You haven't talked to me about it.
So there are these things we should cover before we have finished this evening - a lot of ground to cover.
DB: OK. Could we begin on the question of death.
K: Yes. Let's begin on death.
DB: Now the one point occurred to me, you know we discussed in the morning, saying that we had come to the point where when we see the observer is the observed then that is death, essentially, is what you said. Right?
DB: Now, this raises a question, you know, if the self is nothing but an image - right? - then what is it that dies? You see if the image dies that's nothing - right? - that's not death.
K: No, that's right.
DB: So is there something real that dies?
K: There is biological death.
DB: Well, we're not discussing that at the moment.
DB: I mean you were discussing some kind of death.
K: I was discussing, when we were talking this morning, I was trying to point out if there is no image at all...
K: ...if there is no variety of images in my consciousness, I am dead, there is death!
DB: Well, that's the point that's not clear. What is it that has died? You see death implies something has died.
K: Died? The images have died, 'me' has... 'me' is dead.
DB: But is that something... is that a genuine death in the sense that...
K: Ah, that's what I want to... of course - that's what I want to... is it a verbal comprehension?
DB: Yes. Or more deeply is there something that has to die? You see, I'm trying to say, something real.
DS: Some thing.
DB: In other words, if an organism dies, I say, I see that, up to a point, something real has died, you see.
K: Yes, something real has died.
DB: Now but when the self dies...
K: Ah, but I have accepted so far, the self has been an astonishingly real thing.
K: You come along - you three come along - and tell me that that image is fictitious, and I understand it, and I'm a little frightened that when that dies, when there is no image - you follow? - there is an ending to something.
DB: Yes, well, what is it that ends?
K: Ah, quite! What's it that ends.
DB: Because is it something real that ends? Or you see, you could say an ending of an image is no ending at all, right?
K: At all. What?
DB: If it's only an image that ends, that's an image of ending. I mean, I'm trying to say that nothing much ends if it's only an image.
K: Yes, that's what I want to get at.
DB: Is that... You know what I mean?
K: If it is merely an ending of an image...
DS: Right, then there is nothing much.
K: There is nothing.
DB: No, it's like turning off the television set.
K: Turning... Yes, that leaves me nothing.
DS: Right. Is that... (inaudible) what death is?
DB: Is that what death is, or is there something deeper that dies?
K: Oh, very much deeper.
DB: Something deeper dies.
DS: Well, how about the image-making process?
K: No, no. I would say it is not the end of the image which is death, but something much deeper than that. B But it's still not the death of the organism you see.
K: Still not the death of organism, of course, the organism...
DB:.. will go on, up to a point. Right.
K: Up to a point, yes. Till it's diseased, accident, old age, or senility and so on. But death: is it the ending of the image, which is fairly simple and fairly, you know, acceptable and normal, but...
K: ...but logically, or even actually. But it is like, you know, a very shallow pool. You have taken away the little water and there is nothing but mud left behind. There is nothing. So is there something much more?
DS: That dies?
K: No. Not that dies, but the meaning of death.
DS: Well, is there something more than the image that dies, or does death have a meaning beyond the death of the image?
K: Of course, that's what we are asking.
DS: That's the question.
K: That's what we are asking.
DS: Is there something about death that is bigger than the death of the image?
K: Of course. Obviously. It must be.
DB: Will this include the death of the organism, this meaning?
K: Yes. The death of the organism might go on - I mean the organism might go on, but eventually come to an end.
DB: Yes. But if we were to see what death means as a whole, universally, then we would also see what the death of the organism means, right?
K: Yes, yes.
DB: And is there some meaning also to the death of the self image, the same meaning?
K: That's only, I should say, that's only a very small part.
DB: That's very small.
K: That's a very, very small part.
DB: But then, is there, say, one could think there might be the death of the self-image, then there might be a process or a structure beyond the self-image that might die, and that creates the self-image.
K: Yes, that is thought.
DB: That's thought. Now are you discussing the death of thought?
K: Yes, that's only also again superficial.
DB: That's very small.
K: Very small.
DB: And is there something beyond thought itself that should die...
K: That's what I want to get at.
DS: We're trying to get at the meaning of death..
DB: We're not quite clear.
DS:.. which is beyond the death of the self, thought or the image.
K: No, just look. The image dies. Image, that's fairly simple. It is a very shallow affair.
K: Then there's the ending of thought, which is the ending of... the dying to thought.
DB: Right. You would say thought is deeper than the image but still not very deep.
K: Not very deep. So...
DB: All right.
K: So, we have removed the maker of image and the image itself.
DS: Right. Right.
K: Now, is there something more?
DB: In what sense something more? Something more that exists or something more that has to die, or...
DS: This is something creative that happens?
K: No. No, we are going to find out.
DB: But I mean your question is not clear when you say, 'Is there something more?'
K: Is there.? No. Is that all death?
DB: Oh, oh I see. Is that all that death is.
DS: This is death.
K: No. No. I understand, image, maker of image.
K: But that's a very shallow affair.
DS: Right. So then there is something else...
K: And then I say, 'Is that all, is that the meaning of death?'
DS: Right. I think I'm getting with you - is that the meaning of death only in that little part. Is there a meaning that's bigger?
K: Death must have something enormously significant.
DB: Now you are saying death has a meaning, a significance for everything. For the whole of life.
K: Yes, whole of life.
DB: Yes, now first could you say why do you say it? You see, in other words, first it's not generally accepted if we're thinking of the viewer, that death is that sort of thing. In other words the way we live now, death...
K: Is at the end.
DB: ...is at the end and you try to forget about it, you know, and try to make it unobtrusive, and so on.
K: But if you, as you three have worked at it, pointed out, my life has been in a turmoil. And my life has been a constant conflict, anxiety, all the rest of it.
K: That's been my life. I have clung to the known, and therefore death is the unknown. So I am afraid of that. And you come along, we come along and say, look, death is partly the ending of the image, the maker of the image, and death must have much more, greater significance, than merely this - empty saucer (laughs).
DB: Well, if you could make more clear why it must have, you see.
K: 'Why it must have'. Because...
DS: Why must it.
K: Is life just a shallow, empty pool? Empty mud at the end of it?
DS: Well, why would you assume it's anything else?
K: I want to know.
DB: But, I mean, even if it is something else, we have to ask why is it that death is the key to understanding that, do you see.
K: Because it's the ending of everything.
DB: All right.
K: And all my concepts, images - end of all the memories.
DB: But that's in the ending of thought, right?
K: Ending of thought. And also it means, ending of time.
DB: Ending of time.
K: Time coming to a stop totally. And there is no future in the sense of past meeting the present and carrying on.
DB: You mean psychologically speaking.
K: Yes, psychologically speaking, of course.
DB: Where we still admit the future and the past.
K: Of course.
DS: That's right, OK, yes.
K: Ending - psychological ending of everything.
K: That's what death is.
DB: And when the organism dies then everything ends for that organism.
K: Of course. When the organism - this organism dies, it's finished.
K: But wait a minute. If I don't end the image, the stream of image-making goes on.
DB: Yes, well, I think it's not too clear where it goes on, you see; in other people, or in...
K: It manifests itself in other people. That is, I die.
DS: Right, the organism.
K: I die, the organism dies, and at the last moment I'm still with the image I have.
DB: Yes, so then what happens to that?
K: That's what I'm saying. That image has its continuity with the other rest of the images - your image, my image.
K: Your image is not different from mine.
DS: Right. We share that.
K: No, no, not share it, it's not different.
K: It may have a little more frill, a little bit more colour, but essentially the image, my image is your image.
K: Now, so there is this constant flow of image-making.
DB: Well, where does it take place? In people?
K: It is there, it manifests itself in people.
DB: Oh, you feel that it's broader, in some ways it's more general, more universal.
K: Yes, much more universal.
DB: That's rather...
DB: I say, it's rather strange, I mean to think of that.
DS: It's there.
K: It is a... it is...
DS: It's a river, yes, like a river, it's there. And it manifests itself in streams which we call people.
K: Manifest - no. That stream is the maker of images and images.
DB: So, in other words, you're saying the image does not originate only in one brain, but in some sense it is universal.
K: Universal. Quite right.
DB: Yes, but that's not clear. You're not only saying that it's just the sum of the effects of all the brains, but are you implying something more?
K: It's the effect of all the brains, and it manifests itself in people, as they're born; genes and all the rest of it.
K: Now. Is that all? That's - yes, that's...
K: Does death leave me - me, I mean - does death bring about this sense of enormous, endless energy which has no beginning and no end? Or is it just, I have got rid of my images and the image-maker is... I can stop it, it is fairly simple, it can be stopped, and yes. But I haven't touched the much deeper things, there must be, life must have infinite depth.
DB: Yes, now the death which opens that up.
K: Death opens that up.
DB: It's the death, you say... but we say it's more than the death of the image-making, you see this is what is not clear. Is there, for example... I'm trying to say... something real which is blocking that from realising itself?
K: Yes, 'I' is blocking itself through image and thought maker, the maker of images.
DS: Yes, that's what's blocking it though, the image-making and thought-making is blocking the greater.
K: Wait, wait, blocking that.
DS: Blocking that, right.
K: But there are still other blocks, deeper blocks.
DB: That's what I was trying to get at. That there are deeper blocks that are real.
K: That are real. Now.
DB: And they really have to die.
K: That's just it.
DS: So, would that be like this stream that you're talking about, that's there?
K: No, no. There is a stream of sorrow, isn't there?
DB: Yes, now in what sense? Is sorrow deeper than the image?
DS: It is.
DB: It is. Well, that's important then.
K: It is.
DS: You think so?
K: Don't you?
DS: I do. I think...
K: No, no, be careful sir, this is very serious, this thing.
DS: That's right, that's right.
DB: I mean, would you say sorrow and suffering are the same, are just different words?
K: Oh, different words - sorrow and suffering.
DB: All right, just to clear it up.
DS: Deeper than this image-making is sorrow.
K: Isn't it? Man has lived with sorrow a million years.
DB: Well, could we say a little more about sorrow. You see, what is it? It's more than pain, you see.
K: Oh, much more than pain, much more than loss, much more than losing my son and my parent or this or that.
DS: It's deeper than that.
K: It's much deeper than that.
DS: Right, right.
DB: It goes beyond the image, beyond thought.
K: Of course. Beyond thought.
DB: Oh. Beyond what we would ordinarily call feeling.
K: Oh, of course. Feeling, thought. Now can that end?
DS: Well, let me before you go on, are you saying that the stream of sorrow, if I can be so naive, is a different stream from the stream of image-making? If you had to say it's there, is it two different streams, or...
K: No, it's part of the stream.
DS: Part of the same stream.
K: Stream but much deeper.
DS: Much deeper.
DB: Are you saying, then, there's a very deep stream - image-making is on the surface of this stream - the waves on the surface, right?
K: That's all. That's all. But we have been left with that you see, I want to penetrate.
DB: Well, could you say we've understood the waves on the surface of this stream which we call image making.
K: Image-making. That's right.
DB: Right. And whatever disturbances and sorrow comes out on the surface as image-making.
K: That's right.
DS: So now we have got to go deep sea diving, right? (Laughter)
DB: But what is, you know, sorrow?
K: You know, sir, there is universal sorrow.
DB: Yes, but let's try to make it clear. You see, it's not merely that the sum of all the sorrow of different people?
K: No, no, it is this: could we put it this way - the waves on the river doesn't bring compassion or love - compassion and love are the same, they're synonymous so we'll keep to the word 'compassion'. The waves don't bring this. What will? Without compassion human beings - as they are doing - they are destroying themselves. So, does compassion come with the ending of sorrow which is not the sorrow created by thought.
DB: Yes, all right. So, let's say in thought you have sorrow for the self - right?
K: Yes, sorrow for the self.
DB: Which is self-pity, and now you say there's another sorrow, I think we haven't quite got hold of it. There's a deeper sorrow...
K: There is a deeper sorrow.
DB: ...which is universal, not merely the total sum but rather something universal.
K: That's right.
DS: Can we just say... Can we spell that out, go into that?
K: Don't you know it?
K: Without my - I'm just asking - don't you know or are aware of a much deeper sorrow than the sorrow of thought, self-pity, the sorrow of the image.
DB: Does this sorrow have any content? I mean to say it's sorrow for the fact that man is in this state of affairs which he can't get out of.
K: That's partly it. That means partly the sorrow of ignorance.
DB: Yes. I mean that man is ignorant and cannot get out of it.
K: Cannot get out - you follow?
DB: Right. Yes.
K: And that the perception of that sorrow is compassion.
DB: All right, so the non-perception is sorrow then?
K: Yes, yes. Are we saying the same thing?
DS: No, I don't think so.
K: Say for instance, you see me in ignorance.
DB: Or I see the whole mankind.
K: Mankind in ignorance. DS: Yes. Right.
K: And after living millennia, they are still ignorant - ignorant in the sense we are talking, that is, the maker of the image (laughs) and all that.
DB: Now, let's say that if my mind is really right, good, clear, that should have a deep effect on me? Right?
DS: What would have a deep effect? To see this ignorance.
DB: To see this tremendous ignorance, you see, this tremendous destruction.
K: We are getting at it.
K: We are getting it.
K: We are getting it.
DB: But then if I don't fully perceive, if I start to escape the perception of it, then I'm in it too?
K: Yes, you are in it too.
DB: But the feeling is still with... That universal sorrow is still something that I can feel, I mean, is that what you mean to say?
DB: Although I am not very perceptive as to what it means.
K: No, no, no. You can feel the sorrow of thought.
DB: The sorrow of thought. But I can sense, or somehow be aware, of the universal sorrow.
K: Yes. You can.
DS: You say the universal sorrow is there whether you feel it or not.
K: You can feel it. You can feel it.
DB: Feel it or sense it.
K: Sorrow of man living like this.
DB: Is that the essence of it?
K: I'm just moving into it. Let's move in.
DB: Yes. Is there more to it then?
K: Much more to it!
DB: Oh well, then perhaps we should try to bring that out.
K: I am trying to, There is...
DS: Sorrow, yes.
K: You see me. I live the ordinary life: image, sorrow, fear, anxiety, all that. I have the sorrow of self-pity, all that. And you who are enlightened in quotes, look at me and say, my... Aren't you full of sorrow for me? Which is compassion.
DB: I would say that is a kind of energy which is tremendously aroused because of this situation.
DB: But that, would you call it sorrow, or you'd call it compassion.
K: Compassion, which is the outcome of sorrow.
DB: But have you felt sorrow first? I mean has the enlightened person felt sorrow and then compassion?
DS: Or the other way?
K: No. No, no - be careful old man. Go very carefully. You see, sir, you are saying that one must have sorrow first to have compassion.
DB: I'm not, I am just exploring it, right?
K: Yes, we are exploring. Through sorrow you come to compassion.
DB: That's what you seem to be saying.
K: Yes, I seem to be saying, which implies, that I must go through all the horrors of mankind.
DS: Right. Experience.
K: In order.
DB: But let's say...
K: That's the point, sir - forgive me.
DB: Well, let's say that the enlightened one, the enlightened man, sees this sorrow, sees this destruction, you know - sees this - and he feels something - right? - he senses something which is a tremendous energy...
DB: ...we call it compassion. Now does he... he understands that the people are in sorrow...
K: Of course!
DB: ...but he is not himself in sorrow.
K: That's right. That's right.
DB: But he feels a tremendous energy to do something.
K: Yes. Tremendous energy of compassion.
DB: Compassion. Feeling for them.
DS: Would you then say that the enlightened man perceives or is aware of the - I hate to use the word, inefficiency - but the conflict, he's not aware of sorrow, he's aware of the awkwardness, the blundering, the loss of life.
K: No, sir. Doctor Shainberg, just listen. You have been through all this, suppose you have been through all this.
K: Image, thought, the sorrow of thought, the fears, anxiety, and you say, I have understood that. It's over in me. But you have left very little: you have energy, but it is a very shallow business.
K: And is life so shallow as all that? Or has it an immense depth? Depth is wrong word, but...
DB: Has inwardness...
K: And great inwardness. And to find that out don't you have to die to everything known?
DB: Yes, but how does this relate to sorrow at the same time?
K: I am coming... You might feel... I am ignorant, I have my anxieties, all the rest of it. You are beyond it, you are on the other side of the stream as it were. Don't you have compassion?
DS: Yes, yes, I do.
K: Not up here.
DS: No, I know. But I see it and I...
K: Is that the result of the ending of sorrow, the universal sorrow.
DB: What - the universal sorrow.
K: Universal sorrow.
DB: Wait - you say the ending of sorrow. Now you're talking about a person who was is in sorrow to begin with.
DB: And in him this universal sorrow ends. Is that what you're saying?
K: No. No, a little more than that.
DB: More than that, then we have to go slowly, because if you say the ending of universal sorrow the thing that is puzzling is to say it still exists, you see.
DB: You see if the universal sorrow ends, then it's all gone.
K: Ah! It's still there, no. Of course.
DB: It's still there. You see there is a certain puzzle in language. So in some sense the universal sorrow ends but in another sense it persists.
K: Yes. Yes, that's right.
DB: But could we say that if you have an insight into the essence of sorrow - universal sorrow - then in that sense sorrow ends in that insight. Is that what you mean?
K: Yes, yes.
DB: Although you know it's still there.
K: Yes, yes, although it still goes on.
DS: I've got a deeper question now. The question is...
K: Ah, I don't think you have understood.
DS: I think I understood that one, but my question comes before: which is that, here is me - the image-making has died. Right? That's the waves. Now, I come into the sorrow.
K: You've lost the sorrow of thought.
DS: Right. The sorrow of thought has gone, but there's a deeper sorrow.
K: Is there? Or you are assuming that there is a deeper sorrow.
DS: I'm going... I'm trying to understand what you are saying.
K: Ah! No, no! I am saying, is there compassion which is not related to thought, or is that compassion born of sorrow?
DS: Born of sorrow.
K: Born in the sense, when the sorrow ends there is compassion.
DS: OK. That makes it a little clearer. When the sorrow of thought...
K: Not personal sorrow.
DS: No. When the sorrow...
K: Not the sorrow of thought.
DB: Not the sorrow of thought, but something deeper.
DS: Something deeper. When that sorrow...
DB: I think he's seen the point.
K: That's it.
DS: When that sorrow ends then there is a birth of compassion, of energy.
K: Now. Is there not a deeper sorrow than the sorrow of thought?
DS: There's the sorrow - David was saying there's the sorrow for ignorance is deeper than thought. The sorrow for the universal calamity of mankind trapped in this sorrow; the sorrow of a continual repetition of wars and history and poverty and people mistreating each other, that's a deeper sorrow.
K: I understand all that.
DS: That's deeper than the sorrow of thought.
K: Can we ask this question: what is compassion which is love - we're using that one word to cover a wide field. What is compassion? Can a man who is in sorrow, thought, image, can he have that? He can't. Absolutely he cannot. Right? Right?
K: Now. When does that come into being? Without that life has no meaning. You have left me without that. So if all that you have taken away from me is superficial sorrow - thought and image, and I feel there's something much more.
DB: I mean just doing that leaves something emptier, you know...
K: Something much greater than this shallow little business.
DB: Is there, you see, when we have thought producing sorrow and self pity, but also the realisation of the sorrow of mankind and could you say the energy which is deeper is being in some way..
DB: You see, well, first of all in this sorrow this energy is caught up in whirlpools.
K: Yes, that's right, in a small field, quite right.
DB: It's deeper than thought but there is some sort of very deep disturbance of the energy...
K: Yes. Quite right, sir.
DB: ...which we call deep sorrow.
K: Deep sorrow.
DB: Ultimately it must... its origin is the blockage in thought, though, isn't it?
K: Yes, yes. That is deep sorrow of mankind.
DB: Yes. The deep sorrow of mankind.
K: For centuries upon centuries, it's like, you know, like a vast reservoir of sorrow.
DB: It's sort of moving around in, in some way that's disorderly and...
DB: ...and preventing clarity and so on. I mean perpetuating ignorance.
K: Ignorance. Perpetuating ignorance, right.
DB: That's it. Because, you see, if it were not for that then man's natural capacity to learn would solve all these problems. Is that possible?
K: That's right.
DS: All right, all right.
K: Unless you three give me, or help me, or show me, or have an insight into something much greater, I say, 'Yes this is very nice', and I go off - you follow?
K: What we're trying to do, as far as I can see, is to penetrate into something beyond death.
DB: Beyond death.
K: Death we say is not only the ending of the organism, but the ending of all the content of the consciousness and the consciousness which we know as it is now.
DB: Is it also the ending of sorrow?
K: Ending of sorrow of that kind, of the...
K: ...of the superficial kind. That's clear.
K: And a man who's gone through all that he says, that isn't good enough, you haven't given me the flower, the perfume. You've just given me the ashes of it. And, now, we three are trying to find out that which is beyond the ashes. (Laughs)
DB: You say, there is that which is beyond death.
DB: I mean, would you say that is eternal or...
K: I don't want to use this word.
DB: No, not use the word, but I mean in some sense beyond time.
K: Beyond time.
DB: Therefore 'eternal' is not the best word for it.
K: Therefore, there is something beyond this superficial death, a movement that has no beginning and no ending.
DB: But it is a movement.
K: It's a movement. Movement, not in time.
DB: Not in time, but...
DS: What is the difference between a movement in time and a movement out of time?
K: That which is constantly renewing, constantly - 'new' isn't the word - constantly fresh, flowering, endlessly flowering, that is timeless. This is all... flowering implies time.
DB: Yes, well, I think we can see the point.
DS: I think we get that. The feel of renewal in creation and in coming and going without transition, without duration, without linearity, that has...
K: You see, let me come back to it in a different way. Being normally a fairly intelligent man, read various books, tried various meditations - Zen and this and that and the other thing - at one glance I have an insight into all that, at one glance, it is finished, I won't touch it! And it may be the ending of this image-making and all that. There a meditation must take place to delve, to have an insight, into something which the mind has never touched before.
DB: Right. But I mean even if you do touch it, then it doesn't mean the next time it will be known.
K: Ah! It can never be known in the sense..
B' It can never be known, it's always new in some sense.
K: Yes, it's always new. It is not a memory stored up and altered, changed and call it 'new'. It has never been old. (Laughs)
K: I don't know if I can put it that way.
DB: Yes, yes, I think I understand that, you see. Could you say like a mind that has never known sorrow?
DB: And to say that it might seem puzzling at first but it's a move out of this state which has known sorrow and...
K: Quite right, sir.
DB: ...in to a state which has not known sorrow.
K: Not... yes, that's quite right.
DB: But there's no you, so...
K: That's right, that's right.
DS: Can we say it this way too: could we say that it's an action which is moving where there is no 'you'?
K: You see, when you use the word 'action', action means not in the future or in the past, action is the doing.
K: I mean most of our actions are the result of the cause, or the past, or according to a future - ideals and so on.
DS: This is not that.
K: That's not action.
DS: No, no.
K: That is just conformity.
DS: Right. No, I'm talking about a different kind of action.
K: So. No, I wouldn't... action implies - see, there're several things involved. To penetrate into this, the mind must be completely silent.
K: Otherwise you are projecting something into it.
DS: Right. It is not projecting into anything.
K: Absolute silence.
K: And that silence is not the product of control: wished for, premeditated, pre-determined. Therefore that silence is not brought about through will.
K: Now, in that silence there is the sense of something beyond all time, all death, all thought. You follow? Something - nothing! Not a thing - you understand? Nothing! And therefore empty. And therefore tremendous energy.
DB: Is this...
K: Energy. Don't - leave it! Leave it!
DB: Is this also the source of compassion?
K: That's what I... That's it.
DS: What do you mean by 'source'?
DB: Well, that in this energy is compassion, is that right?
K: Yes, that's right.
DS: In this energy...
K: This energy is compassion
DB: Is compassion.
DS: That's different.
K: Yes. Of course.
DS: This energy is compassion. You see, that's different from saying 'the source'.
K: You see, and beyond that there is something more.
DS: Beyond that?
K: Of course.
DB: Beyond that. Well, why do you say 'of course'? (Laughter) What could it be that's more?
K: Sir, let's put it, approach it differently. Everything thought has created is not sacred, is not holy.
DB: Yea, well, because it's fragmented.
K: Is fragmented, we know it, and putting up an image and worshipping it is a creation of thought; made by the hand or by the mind, it's still an image. So, in that there is nothing sacred, because - as he pointed out - thought is fragment, limited, finite, it is the product of memory and so on.
DB: Is the sacred, therefore that which is without limit?
K: That's it. There is something beyond compassion...
DB: Beyond compassion.
K: ...which is sacred.
DB: Yes. Is it beyond movement?
K: Sacred. Sacred - you can't say movement, or non movement.
DB: You can't say anything.
K: A living thing; a living thing, you can only examine a dead thing.
K: A living thing, you can't examine. What we are trying to do, is to examine that living thing which we call sacred, which is beyond compassion.
DB: Well, what is our relation to the sacred then?
K: To the man who is ignorant there is no relationship. Right? Which is true.
K: To the man who has removed the image, all that, who is free of the image and the image-maker, he is still... it has no meaning yet. Right?
K: It has meaning only when he goes beyond everything, beyond - he dies to everything. Dying means, in the sense, never for a single second accumulating anything psychologically.
DS: Would you say that there is any - you asked the question, what is the relationship to the sacred - is there ever a relationship to the sacred or is the sacred...
K: No, no, no, he is asking something.
K: He is asking, what is the relationship between that which is sacred, holy, and to reality.
DB: Yes, well, it's implicit anyway.
DB: I mean, that's implied.
K: Of course. We've talked about it, some time ago, this question, which is: reality which is the product of thought has no relationship to that because thought is an empty...
DS: Right. Right.
K: ...little affair. That may have a relationship with this.
DB: In some way.
K: And the relationship comes through insight, intelligence and compassion.
DS: How, how... What is that relationship? I mean, what is intelligence I suppose we're asking.
K: Intelligence? What is intelligence.
DS: I mean, how does intelligence act?
K: Ah! Wait! Wait! You have had an insight into the image. You have had an insight into the movement of thought, movement of thought which is self-pity, creates sorrow, and all that. You have had a real insight into it. Haven't you?
K: It's not a verbal agreement or disagreement or logical conclusion, you have had a real insight into that business. Into the waves of the river. Now, have you an insight also... isn't that insight intelligence? Which is not the intelligence of a clever man - we're not talking of that. So there is that intelligence - you've already got that intelligence.
DS: That's right.
K: Now move with that intelligence, which is not yours or mine, intelligence - not Dr Shainberg's or K's, or somebody's: it is universal intelligence, global or cosmic intelligence - that insight. Now, move a step further into it.
DS: Move with, yes
K: Have an insight into sorrow, which is not the sorrow of thought, all that, the enormous sorrow of mankind, of ignorance - you follow? - and then out of that insight compassion. Now, insight into compassion: is compassion the end of all life, end of all death? It seems so because you have thrown away, mind has thrown away all the burden which man has imposed upon himself. Right? So you have that tremendous feeling, a tremendous thing inside you. Now, that compassion - delve into it. And there is something sacred, untouched by man - man in the sense, untouched by his mind, by his cravings, by his demands, by his prayers, by his everlasting chicanery, tricks. And that may be the origin of everything - which man has misused. You follow? Not that it exists in him because then we get lost.
DB: If you say it's the origin - of all matter, all nature?
K: Of everything, of all matter, of all nature.
DB: Of all mankind.
K: Yes. That's right, sir. I'll stick by it. (Laughs) So, at the end of these dialogues, what have you, what has the viewer got? What has he captured?
DS: What would we hope he'd capture? Would you say what'd we hope that he would capture, or what has he actually captured?
K: What has he actually, not hope.
K: What has he actually captured. Has his bowl filled?
DS: Filled with the sacred.
K: Or will he say, 'well, I've got a lot of ashes left, very kind of you, but I can get that anywhere'. Any logical, rational human being will say 'Yes, by discussing you can wipe out all this and I am left nothing'.
DS: Or has he got...
K: Yes, that's what... He has come to you - I have come to you three wanting to find out, transforming my life, because I feel that is absolutely necessary. Not to - you know - get rid of my ambition, all the silly stuff which mankind has collected. I empty myself of all that. I, please when I use the word 'I' it's not 'I' - 'I' can't empty itself, 'I' dies to all that. Have I got anything out of all this? Have you given me the perfume of that thing?
DS: Can I give you the perfume?
K: Or - yes sir, share it with me?
DS: I can share it with you. Has the viewer shared with us...
DS: ...the experience we've had being together.
K: Have you, have you two shared this thing with this man?
DS: Right. Have we shared this with this man?
K: If not, then what, what? A clever discussion, dialogue, oh, that we are fed up! (Laughs) You can only share when you are really hungry - you follow? - burning with hunger. Otherwise you share words. So I have come to the point, we have come to the point when we see life has an extraordinary meaning.
DB: Well, let's say it has a meaning far beyond what we usually think of.
K: Yes, this is, this is so shallow and empty.
DB: Well, would you say the sacred is also life?
K: Yes, that what I was getting at.
K: Life is sacred.
DB: And the sacred is life.
DS: And have we shared that?
K: Have you shared that. So, we mustn't misuse life.
K: You understand? We mustn't waste it because our life is so short. You follow?
DB: You mean you feel that each of our lives has a part to play in this sacred which you talk about.
K: What, sir?
DB: Each of our lives has an important part in some sense to play.
K: It's part... It's there!
DB: It's part of the whole...
K: Oh, yes.
DB: ...and that misusing it is - well, to use it rightly has a tremendous significance.
K: Yes. Quite right. But to accept it as a theory is as good as any other theory.
DS: Right. There's something though... I feel troubled. Have we shared it?
K: Yes, sir!
DS: That burns, that question burns. Have we shared the sacred?
K: Which means, really, all these dialogues have been a process of meditation. Not a clever argument. A real penetrating meditation which brings insight into everything that's being said.
DB: Oh, I should say that we have been doing that.
K: I think that we have been doing that.
DS: We've been doing that.
DS: And have we shared that?
DB: With whom? Among ourselves?
DS: With the viewer.
DB: Well, I should think...
DB: ...that's the difficulty.
K: Are you considering the viewer or there is no viewer at all? Are you speaking to the viewer or only that thing in which the viewer, you and I, everything is? You understand what I'm saying? You've got two minutes more.
DS: Well, how would you respond then to what David said, he said, 'We have been in a meditation', you say 'We have been' and I say 'We've been in a meditation'. How've we shared in our meditation?
K: No. I mean, no. Has it been a meditation?
K: This dialogue.
K: You know meditation is not...
K: ...just an argument.
DS: No, we've shared. I feel that.
K: Seeing the truth of every statement.
K: Or the falseness of every statement.
K: Or seeing in the false the truth.
DS: Right. And aware in each of us and in all of us of the false as it comes out and is clarified.
K: See it all, and therefore we are in a state of meditation.
K: And whatever we say must, must then lead to that ultimate thing. Then you are not sharing. (Laughs)
DS: Where are you?
K: There is no sharing. we have got one moment. There is no sharing. It is only that.
DS: That. The act of meditation is that.
K: No. There is no - there is only that. Don't... (laughs)
DS: Oh - OK