Part I - Dialogue 2 - 2nd Conversation with Dr. David Shainberg and Prof. David Bohm, Brockwood Park - 18th May, 1976

KRISHNAMURTI: May we go on where we left off yesterday? Or would you like to start something new?

Dr Bohm: I thought there was a point that wasn't entirely clear about what we were discussing yesterday. We rather accepted that security, psychological security, was wrong, was a delusion, but in general I don't think we made it very clear why we think it is a delusion. You see, most people feel that psychological security is a good thing and quite necessary, and that when it is disturbed, when a person is frightened, or sorrowful even - so disturbed that he might require treatment - he feels that psychological security is necessary before he can even begin to do anything.

K: Yes, right.

B: I don't think it's at all clear why one should say it is not really as important as physical security.

K: I think we have made it fairly clear but let's go into it. Is there really psychological security at all?

B: I don't think we discussed that fully yesterday.

K: Of course. Nobody accepts that. But we are enquiring into it, going into the problem of it.

B: I think that if you told somebody who was feeling very disturbed mentally that there is no psychological security he would just feel worse.

K: Collapse. Of course.

Dr Shainberg: Right.

K: We are talking of fairly sane, rational people.

S: OK.

K: We are questioning whether there is any psychological security at all. Permanency, stability, a sense of well-founded, deep-rooted existence, psychologically... I believe in something...

S: ...and that gives me...

K: It may be the most foolish belief...

S: Right.

K: ...a neurotic belief. I believe in it.

S: Right.

K: And that gives me a tremendous sense of vitality and stability.

B: I can think of two examples: one is that if I could really believe that after dying I would go to heaven, make quite sure of it, then I could be very secure anywhere, no matter what happens.

S: That would make you feel good.

B: Well, I wouldn't really have to worry; it would all be a temporary trouble; I would be pretty sure that in time it was all going to be very good. Do you see?

K: Right. That is the whole Asiatic attitude, more or less.

B: Or if I am a Communist, I think that in time Communism is going to solve everything; we are going through a lot of troubles now but it is all going to be worthwhile, and in the end everything will be all right. If I could be sure of that then I would feel very secure inside, even if conditions are hard now.

S: OK. All right.

K: So although one may have these strong beliefs which give one a sense of security, of permanency, we are questioning whether there is such a thing in reality, in actuality...

S: Yes, yes. But I want to ask David something. Take a scientist, a guy who is going to his laboratory every day, or take a doctor - is he getting security from the very routinization of his life?

K: His knowledge.

S: Yes, from his knowledge.

B: Well, he makes believe he is learning the permanent laws of nature, really getting something that means something.

S: Yes.

B: And also getting a position in society - being well known and respected and financially secure.

S: He believes that these things will give him security. The mother believes that a child will give her security.

K: Don't you have security psychologically?

S: Yes. I get a security out of my knowledge, out of my routine, out of my patients, out of seeing my patients, out of my position...

B: But there is conflict in that because if I think it over a little bit I doubt it, I question it. I say it doesn't look all that secure, anything may happen. There may be a war, there may be a depression, there may be a flood.

S: Right.

K: There may be sane people all of a sudden in the world!

B: So I say there is conflict and confusion in my security because I am not sure about it. But if I had an absolute belief in god and heaven...

K: This is so obvious!

S: It is obvious. I agree with you it is obvious but I think it has to be really felt.

K: But, sir, you, Dr Shainberg, you are the victim.

S: I'll be the victim.

K: For the moment. Don't you have strong belief

S: Right.

K: Don't you have a sense of permanency somewhere inside you?

S: I think I do.

K: Psychologically?

S: Yes, I do. I mean I have a sense of permanency about my intention.

K: Intention?

S: I mean my work.

K: Your knowledge?

S: ...my knowledge, my...

K: ...status...

S: ...my status, the continuity of my interest. You know what I mean?

K: Yes.

S: There is a sense of security and the feeling that I can help someone.

K: Yes.

S: And that I can do my work.

K: That gives you security, psychological security.

S: There is something about it that is secure. What am I saying when I say "security"? I am saying that I won't be lonely.

K: No, no. Feeling secure. That you have something that is imperishable.

S: Which means - no I don't feel it that way. I feel it more in the sense of what is going to happen in time. What am I going to have to depend on? - what is my time going to be? - am I going to be lonely, is it going to be empty?

K: No, sir.

S: Isn't that security?

K: As Dr Bohm pointed out, if one has a strong belief in reincarnation, as the whole Asiatic world has, then it doesn't matter what happens. You may be miserable this life but next life you will be happier. So that gives you a great sense of "this is unimportant, but that is important".

S: Right, right.

K: And that gives me a sense of great comfort, for this is a transient world anyhow and eventually I will get to something permanent.

S: That is in the Asiatic world; but I think in the Western world you don't have that...

K: Oh, yes, you have it.

S: ...with a different focus.

K: Of course.

B: It is different but we have always had the search for security.

S: Right, right. But what do you think security is? I mean, for instance, you became a scientist, you have your own laboratory, you pick up books all the time - right? What the hell do you call security?

K: Having something...

S: Knowledge?

K: Something which you can cling to and which is not perishable. it may perish eventually but for the time being, it is there to hold on to.

B: You feel that it is permanent. Like people in the past who used to accumulate gold because gold is the symbol of the imperishable.

S: We still have people who accumulate gold... we have business men, they have got money.

B: You feel it is really there. It will never corrode, it will never vanish and you can count on it.

S: So it is something that I can count on.

K: Count on, hold on to, cling to, be attached to.

S: The me.

K: Exactly.

S: I know that I am a doctor. I can depend on that.

K: Experience. And on the other hand, tradition.

S: Tradition. I know that if I do this with a patient I will get a certain result - I may not get any good results but I'll get this result.

K: So I think that is fairly clear.

B: Yes, it is clear enough that this is part of our society.

K: Part of our conditioning.

B: Conditioning, that we want something secure and permanent. At least we think so.

S: I think there is a feeling in the West of wanting immortality.

K: That's the same thing.

B: Wouldn't you say that in so far as thought can project time, that it wants to be able to project everything as far as possible into the future? In other words the anticipation of what is coming is already the present feeling. If you anticipate that something bad may come you already feel bad.

K: That's right.

B: Therefore you would want to get rid of that.

S: So you anticipate that it won't happen.

B: That it will all be good.

S: Right.

B: I would say that security would be the anticipation that everything will be good in the future...

K: Good.

S: It will continue.

B: It will become better; if it is not so good now it will certainly become better.

S: So then security is becoming?

K: Yes, becoming, perfecting, becoming.

S: I see patients all the time. Their projected belief is, I will become - I will find somebody to love me; I see patients who say, "I will become the chief of the department", "I will become the most famous doctor", "I will become the best tennis player". The best.

K: Of course, of course.

B: Well, it seems it is all focused on anticipating that life is going to be good, when you say that.

K: Yes, life is going to be good.

B: But it seems to me you wouldn't raise the question unless you had a lot of experience that life is not so good. In other words it is a reaction to having had so much experience of disappointment, of suffering...

K: Would you say that we are not conscious of the whole movement of thought?

B: It is only natural to feel I have had a lot of experience of suffering and disappointment and danger, and now I would like to be able to anticipate that everything is going to be good. At first sight it would seem that that is quite natural. But now you are saying it is not.

K: We are saying there is no such thing as psychological security. We have defined what we mean by security. We don't have to beat it over and over.

S: No, I think we have got that.

B: Yes, but is it clear now that these hopes are really vain hopes. That should be obvious, should it?

K: Sir, there is death at the end of everything.

B: Yes.

K: You want to be secure for the next ten years, that is all, or fifty years. Afterwards it doesn't matter. Or if it does matter you believe in something that there is god, that you will sit on his right hand or whatever it is you believe. So I am trying to find out, not only that there is no permanency psychologically, but that there is no tomorrow psychologically.

B: That hasn't yet come out.

K: Of course, of course.

B: When we say empirically that we know these hopes for security are false because first of all you say there is death, secondly you can't count on anything; materially everything changes.

K: Everything is in flux.

B: Mentally everything in your head is changing all the time. You

can't count on your own feelings, you can't count on enjoying a certain thing that you enjoy now, you can't count on being healthy, you can't count on money.

K: You can't rely on your wife, you can't rely - on anything.

S: Right.

B: So that is a fact. But I am saying that you are suggesting something deeper.

K: Yes, sir.

B: But we don't base ourselves only on that observation.

K: No, that is very superficial.

S: Yes, I am with you there.

K: So, if there is no real security, basic, deep, then is there a tomorrow, psychologically? Then you take away all hope. If there is no tomorrow you take away all hope.

B: What you mean by tomorrow is the tomorrow in which things will get better?

K: Better, more - greater success, greater understanding, greater...

B:.... more love.

K:.... more love, always that.

S: I think that is a little quick. I think that there is a jump there because as I hear you, I hear you saying there is no security.

K: But it is so.

S: But for me to say - to really say, "I know there is no security"...

K: Why don't you say that?

S: That is what I am getting at. Why don't I say that?

B: Well isn't it a fact - just an observed fact that there isn't anything you can count on psychologically?

S: Right. But you see I think there is an action there. Krishnaji is asking, "Why don't you say there is no security?" Why don't I?

K: Do you, when you hear there is no security, see it as an abstracted idea or as an actual fact? Like that table, like your hand here, or those flowers?

S: I think it mostly becomes an idea.

K: That is just it.

B: Why should it become an idea?

S: That, I think, is the question. Why does it become an idea?

K: Is it part of your training?

Part - yes. Part of my conditioning.

S: Part of a real objection to seeing things as they are.

S: That's right.

B: If you try to see that there is no security, something seems to be there which is trying to protect itself - let us say that it seems to be a fact that the self is there. Do you see what I am driving at?

K: Of course.

B: And if the self is there it requires security, and this creates a resistance to accepting as a fact that there is no security, and puts it as an idea only. It seems that the factuality of the self being there has not been denied. The apparent factuality.

K: Is it that you refuse to see things as they are? Is it that one refuses to see that one is stupid? - not you - I mean one is stupid. To acknowledge that one is stupid is already...

S: Yes. You say to me, "You refuse to acknowledge that you are stupid" - let us say it is me - that means then that I have got to do something...

K: No. Not yet. Action comes through perception, not through ideation.

S: I am glad you are getting into this.

B: Doesn't it seem that as long as there is the sense of self, the self must say that it is perfect?

K: Of course, of course.

S: Now what makes it so hard for me to destroy this need for security? Why can't I do it?

K: No, no. It is not how you can do it. You see you are already entering into the realm of action.

S: That I think is the crucial point.

K: I say first see it. And from that perception action is inevitable.

S: All right. Now to see insecurity. Do you see insecurity? Do you actually see it?

K: No. No. No. Do you actually see that you are clinging to something, some belief which gives you security?

S: OK.

K: I cling to this house. I am safe. It gives me a sense of pride, a sense of possession; it gives me a sense of physical and therefore psychological security.

S: Right, and a place to go.

K: A place to go. But I may walk out and be killed and I have lost everything. There might be an earthquake and everything gone. Do you actually see it? The seeing, the perception, of that is total action with regard to security.

S: I can see that that is the total action.

K: No, that is an idea, still.

S: Yes, you're right. I begin to see that this whole structure is the way I see everything in the world - right? I begin to see her, the wife, I begin to see these people - they fit into that structure.

K: You see them, and your wife, through the image you have about them.

S: Right. And through the function they are seeing.

B: Their relation to you, yes.

K: Yes.

S: That is right. That's the function they serve.

K: The picture, the image, the conclusion is the security.

S: That's right.

B: Yes, but why does it present itself as so real? I see that there is a thought, a process which is driving on, continually...

K: Are you asking why has this image, this conclusion, become so fantastically real?

B: Yes. It seems to be standing there real, and everything is referred to it.

K: More real than the marbles, than the hills.

B: Than anything, yes.

S: More real than anything.

K: Why?

S: It is hard to say why. Because it would give me security.

K: No. We are much further than that.

B: Because, suppose abstractly and ideally you can see the whole thing as no security at all. I mean just looking at it professionally and abstractly.

S: That is putting the cart before the horse.

B: No, I am just saying that if it were some simple matter, with that much proof you would have already accepted it.

S: Right.

B: But when it comes to this, no proof seems to work.

S: Right. Nothing seems to work.

B: You say all that, but here I am presented with the solid reality of myself and my security and there is a sort of reaction which seems to say, well that may be possible but it is really only words. The real thing is me.

S: But there is more than that. Why has it such potency? I mean, it seems to take on such importance.

B: Well, maybe. But I am saying that the real thing is me, which is all important.

S: There is no question about it. Me, me - me is important.

K: Which is an idea.

B: We can see abstractly that it is just an idea. The question is how do you break into this process?

K: I think we can break into it, or break through it, or get beyond it only through perception.

B: The trouble is that all that we have been talking about is in the form of ideas. They may be correct ideas but they won't break into this.

S: Right.

B: Because this dominates the whole of thought.

S: That is right. I mean you could even ask why are we here. We are here because we want to...

K: No, sir. Look: If I feel my security lies in some image I have, a picture, a symbol, a conclusion or an ideal, I would put it not as an abstraction but bring it down. You see it is so. I believe in something. Actually. Now I say, why do I believe?

B: Well have you actually done that?

K: No, I haven't because I have no beliefs. I have no picture, I don't go in for all those kinds of games. I said 'if'.

S: If, right.

K: Then I would bring the abstracted thing into a perceptive reality.

S: To see my belief, is that it?

K: See it.

S: To see my belief. Right. To see that 'me' in operation.

K: Yes, if you like to put it that way. Sir, wait a minute. Take a simple thing. Have you a conclusion about something? A concept?

S: Yes.

K: Now wait a bit. How is that brought about? Take a simple thing - a concept that I am an Englishman.

B: The trouble is that we probably don't feel attached to such concepts.

K: All right.

S: Let's take one that is real for me. Take the one about me being a doctor.

K: A concept.

S: That is a concept. That is a conclusion based on training, based on experience, based on the enjoyment of the work.

K: Which means what? A doctor means - the conclusion means he is capable of certain activities.

S: Right, OK. Let's take it. Concretely.

K: Work at it.

S: So now I have got this concrete fact that I have had this training, that I get this pleasure from the work, I get a kind of feedback...

K: Yes, sir. Move.

S: All right. Now that is my belief. That belief that I am a doctor is based on all that, that concept.

K: Yes.

S: OK. Now I continually act to continue that.

K: Yes, sir, that is understood. Therefore you have a conclusion. You have a concept that you are a doctor.

S: Right.

K: Based on knowledge, experience, everyday activity.

S: Right.

K: Pleasure and all the rest of it.

S: Right.

K: So what is real in that? What is true in that? Real, meaning actual.

S: Well that is a good question. What is actual?

K: Wait. What is actual in that? Your training.

S: Right.

K: Your knowledge.

S: Right.

K: Your daily operation.

S: Right.

K: That's all. The rest is a conclusion.

B: But what is the rest?

K: The rest: I am very much better than somebody else.

B: Or else this thing is going to keep me occupied in a good way.

K: In a good way. I will never be lonely.

S: Right.

B: But isn't there also a certain fear that if I don't have this then things will be pretty bad?

K: Of course.

S: Right, OK.

B: And that fear seems to spur me on...

K: Of course. And if the patients don't turn up...

B: Then I have no money, fear.

K: Fear.

S: No activity.

K: So loneliness. So be occupied.

S: Be occupied doing this, completing this concept. OK. Do you realize how important that is to all people, to be occupied?

K: Of course, sir.

S: Do you get the meat of that?

K: Of course.

S: How important it is to people to be occupied. I can see them running around.

K: Sir, a housewife is occupied. Remove that occupation and she says: Please...

B: "What shall I do?"

S: We know that as a fact. Since we put electrical equipment into the houses the women are going crazy, they have nothing to do with their time.

K: The result of this is the effect on the children - don't talk to me about it.

S: Right, OK. Let's go on. Now we have got this fact.

K: Now is this occupation an abstraction? Or actuality?

S: Now this is an actuality. I am actually occupied. 262 K: No.

B: What is it?

K: You are actually occupied - eh?

S: Yes.

K: Daily.

S: Daily.

B: Well what do you really mean by occupied?

S: What do you mean?

B: Well, I can say I am actually engaged in all these occupations - that is clear. I mean I am seeing patients as the doctor.

S: You are doing your thing.

B: I am doing my thing, getting my reward and so on. Being occupied seems to me to have a psychological meaning. There was something I once saw on television about a woman who was highly disturbed; it showed on the electro-encephalograph, but when she was occupied doing arithmetical sums the electro-encephalograph went beautifully smooth. She stopped doing the sums and it went all over the place. Therefore she had to keep on doing something to keep the brain working right.

K: Which means what?

B: Well what does it mean?

K: A mechanical process.

S: That's right.

B: It seems the brain starts jumping all over the place unless it has this thing.

K: A constant...

B: Content.

K: So you have reduced yourself to a machine.

S: Don't say it! No, it's not fair. But it is true. I have, I mean I feel there is a mechanical...

K: ...response.

S: Oh, yes - commitment.

K: Of course.

B: But why does the brain begin to go so wild when it is not occupied? That seems to be a common experience.

K: Because in occupation there is security.

B: There is order.

K: Order.

S: In occupation there is a kind of mechanical order.

B: Right. So we feel our security really means we want order, is that right?

K: That's it.

B: We want order inside the brain. We want to be able to project order into the future, for ever.

S: That's right. But would you say that you can get it by mechanical order?

B: Then you get dissatisfied with it; you say, "I am getting sick of this mechanical life, I want something more interesting."

K: That is where the gurus come in!

B: Then the thing goes wild again. The mechanical order won't satisfy it. It works only for a little while.

S: I don't like the way something is slipping in there. We are going right from one thing to another. I am working for satisfaction.

B: I am looking for some regular order which is good, do you see? And I think that by my job as a doctor I am getting it.

S: Yes.

B: But after a while I begin to feel it is too repetitious. I am getting bored.

S: OK. But suppose that doesn't happen? Suppose some people remain satisfied with their jobs?

B: Well they don't really. I mean then they become dull.

K: Quite. Mechanical. And you stop that mechanism and the brain goes wild.

S: That's right.

B: Right. So they may feel they are a bit dull and they would like some entertainment, or something more interesting and exciting. And therefore there is a contradiction, there is conflict and confusion.

K: Sir, Dr Shainberg is asking what is disturbing him. He feels he hasn't got his teeth into it.

S: You are right.

K: What is disturbing you?

S: Well, it is this feeling that people will say that...

K: No, you say, you.

S: Let's say I can get this order from occupying myself with something I like.

K: Go on. Proceed.

S: I do something I like and it gets boring, let's say, or it might get repetitious, but then I will find new parts of it. And then I'll do that some more because that gives me pleasure, you see. I mean I get a satisfaction out of it.

B: Right.

S: So I keep doing more of that.

K: You move from one mechanical process, get bored with it, and move to another mechanical process.

S: That's right.

K: Get bored with it and keep going.

S: That's right. That's it.

K: And you call that living.

S: That is what I call living.

B: I see that the trouble is that I now try to be sure that I can keep on doing this, because I can always anticipate a future when I won't be able to do it. I will be a bit too old for it, or else I'll fail. I'll lose the job or something. So I still have insecurity in that order.

K: Essentially it is mechanical disorder.

S: Masking itself as order.

K: Now, wait a minute. Do you see this? Or is it still an abstraction? Because you know, as Dr Bohm will tell you, idea means observation, the original meaning is observation. Do you observe this?

S: I see that, yes.

B: Then the point is, are you driven to this because you are frightened of the instability of the brain? If you are doing something because you are trying to run away from the instability of the brain, that is already disorder.

S: Yes, yes.

B: In other words that will be merely masking disorder.

S: Yes. Well then you are suggesting that this is the natural disorder of the brain?

B: No, I am saying that the brain without occupation tends to go into disorder.

K: In a mechanical process the brain feels secure, and when that mechanical process is disturbed it becomes insecure and disordered.

S: Then gets caught up again in the mechanical process.

K: Again and again and again and again.

S: It never stays with that insecurity.

K: No. When it perceives this process it is still mechanical. And therefore there is disorder.

B: The question is why does the brain get caught in mechanism?

K: Because it is the safest, the most secure way of living.

B: Well, it appears that way, but it is actually very...

K: Not appears, it is so for the time being.

B: For the time being, but in the long run it is not.

S: Are you saying we are time-bound, conditioned to be time-bound?

K: No. Conditioned by our tradition, by our education, by the culture we live in, to operate mechanically.

S: We take the easy way.

K: The easy way.

B: At the beginning the brain makes a mistake, let's say, and says "This is safer" - but somehow it fails to be able to see that it has made a mistake; it holds to this mistake. In the beginning you might call it an innocent mistake; it says, "This looks safer and I will follow it" and it continues in this mechanical process rather than seeing that it is wrong.

K: You are asking: Why doesn't it see that this mechanical process is essentially disorder?

B: That it is essentially disorder and dangerous.

K: Dangerous.

B: It is totally delusory.

S: Why isn't there some sort of feedback? In other words I do something and it comes out wrong. At some point I ought to realize that. Why haven't I seen that my life is mechanical?

K: Now wait. You see it?

S: But I don't.

K: Wait. Why is it mechanical?

S: Well, it is mechanical because it is all action and reaction.

K: Why is it mechanical?

S: It is repetitious.

K: It is mechanical.

S: It is mechanical. I want it to be easy. I feel that it gives me the most security to keep it mechanical. I get a boundary. It is mechanical because it is repetitious...

K: You haven't answered my question.

S: I know I haven't! I am not sure what your question is.

K: Why has it become mechanical?

S: Why?

B: Why does it remain mechanical?

K: Why does it become and remain mechanical?

S: I think it remains mechanical... it is the thing we began with.

K: No. Pursue it. Why does it remain mechanical?

S: What has caused us to accept this mechanical way of living? I am not sure I can answer that.

K: Look. Wouldn't you be frightened?

S: I would see the uncertainty.

K: No, no. If the mechanical life one lives suddenly stopped, wouldn't you be frightened?

S: Yes.

B: Wouldn't there be some danger?

K: That, of course. There is a danger that things might...

S: ...go to pieces.

K: ...go to pieces.

S: It is deeper than that.

K: Wait. Find out. Come on.

S: It is not just that there is a genuine danger, that I would be frightened. It feels like things take on a terribly, moment-by moment effect.

K: No, sir. Total order would give complete security, wouldn't it?

S: Yes.

K: The brain wants total order.

S: Right.

K: Otherwise it can't function properly. Therefore it accepts the mechanical, hoping it won't lead to disaster. Hoping it will find order in that.

B: Could you say that perhaps in the beginning the brain accepted this not knowing that this mechanicalism would bring disorder - that it just went into it in an innocent state?

K: Yes.

B: And now it is caught in a trap, and somehow it maintains this disorder, it doesn't want to get out of it.

K: Because it is frightened of greater disorder.

B: Yes. It says all that I've built up may go to pieces. In other words I am not in the same situation as when I first went into the trap because now I have built up a great structure. I'm afraid that structure will go to pieces.

K: Yes, but what I am trying to get at is that the brain needs this order, otherwise it can't function. It finds order in the mechanical process because it is trained from childhood - do as you are told, etc. There is a conditioning going on right from the start to live a mechanical life.

B: And at the same time the fear of giving up this mechanism.

K: Of course, of course.

B: In other words you are thinking all the time that without this mechanism everything will go to pieces, especially the brain.

K: Which means the brain must have order. And finds order in a mechanical way. Now do you see that actually the mechanical way of living leads to disorder? Which is tradition. If I live entirely in the past, which I think is very orderly, what takes place? I am already dead and I can't meet anything.

S: I am repeating myself always, right?

K: So I say, "Please don't disturb my tradition!" Every human being says, "I have found something which gives me order, a belief, a hope, this, or that, so leave me alone."

S: Right.

K: And life isn't going to leave him alone. So then he gets frightened and establishes another mechanical habit. Now do you see this whole thing? And therefore an instant action clearing it all away, and therefore order. The brain says at last I have an order, which is absolutely indestructible.

B: That doesn't follow logically.

K: It would follow logically if you go into it.

B: Go into it. Can we reach a point where it really follows necessarily?

K: I think we can only go into it if you perceive the mechanical structure which the brain has developed, attached and cultivated.

S: Can I share with you something I see as you are talking? I see it like this. Don't get impatient with me too quickly. I see it this way. Flashing through my mind are various kinds of interchange between people. The way they talk, the way I talk to them at a party. It is all about what happened before. You find them telling you who they are, in terms of their past. I can see what they will be. Like one guy who said, "I have just published my thirteenth book." It is very important to him that I get that information, see. And I see this. And I see this elaborate structure. This guy has got it into his head that I am going to think this about him, and then he is going to go to his university and they will think that about him. He is always living like that and the whole structure is elaborate - right?

K: Are you doing that?

S: When did you stop beating your wife! Of course I am doing it. I am doing it right now. And seeing the structure right now in all of us.

K: But do you see that fragmentary action is mechanical action?

S: That's right. It is there, Krishnaji. That is the way we are.

K: And therefore political action can never solve any human problems. Nor can the scientist - he is another fragment.

S: But do you realize what you are saying? Let us really look at what you are saying. This is the way it is. This is the way life is.

K: That's right.

S: Right? This is the way it is. Years and years and years...

K: Therefore why don't you change it?

S: But this is the way it is. We live in terms of our structures. We live in terms of history. We live in terms of our mechanics. We live in terms of our form. This is the way we live.

K: It means that when the past meets the present and ends there, a totally different thing takes place.

S: Yes. But the past doesn't meet the present so often. I mean...

K: I mean it is taking place now.

S: Now. Right now. Right. We are saying it now.

K: Therefore can you stop there?

S: We must see it totally.

K: No. The fact. The simple fact. The past meets the present. That is a fact.

B: Let us say how does the past meet the present? Let us go into that.

S: How does the past meet the present?

B: Well, just briefly, I think that when the past meets the present the past stops acting. What it means is that thought stops acting so that order comes about.

S: Do you think the past meets the present, or the present meets the past?

K: How do you meet me?

S: I meet you in the present.

K: No. How do you meet me? With all the memories, all the images, the reputation, the words, the pictures, the symbols - with all that, which is the past, you meet me now.

S: That's right. That's right. I come to you with a...

K: The past is meeting the present.

S: And then?

K: Ends there. Does not move forward.

S: Can it stop? What is the past meeting present? What is that action?

K: I will show it to you. I meet you with the past, my memories, but you might have changed in the meantime. So I never meet you.

I meet you with the past.

S: Right. That is a fact.

K: That is a fact. Now if I don't have that movement going on...

S: But I do.

K: Of course you do. But I say that that is disorder. I can't meet you then.

S: Right. How do you know that?

K: I don't know it. I only know the fact that when the past meets the present and continues, it is one of the factors of time, movement, bondage, fear, and so on. If, when the past meets the present, one sees this, one is fully aware of this, completely aware of this movement, then it stops. Then I meet you as though for the first time, then there is something fresh. It is like a new flower coming out.

S: Yes.

K: I think we will go on this afternoon. We haven't really tackled the root of all this. The root, the cause, of all this disturbance, this turmoil, travail and anxiety.

B: Why should the brain be in this wild disorder?

K: I know, wild. You, Dr Shainberg, who are a doctor, an analyst, you have to ask that fundamental question - Why? Why do human beings live this way?