K: What shall we talk about? What do you think is the
most important thing... that we 3 can talk about? S: Well, the one thing,
I've had an idea lately... that has been on my mind... and I've been getting it
from when we talked before... there is the feeling you've
been conveying that... life comes first and
not thought or work... something like that, in other
words, that I find in myself... and I find that most people... are caught up
in the fact that... you know, you said once
we live second-hand lives. If we could talk
about that, I think... the second-handness
of our life. K: What do you say?
B: Well, in relation to that... I perhaps would like to talk
about the question of wholeness. K: Shall we talk about that first,
and then include yours. S: Sure. I think this
is part of it. I see that the second-handedness
is not wholeness. K: Quite. I wonder how we can
approach this question... knowing that most
people are fragmented... broken up and not whole. How do we tackle or
approach this question? S: Through direct awareness
of the fragmentation. K: No, I would like to...
- I'm just asking it because... Are we discussing
it theoretically? S: No. K: Verbally, or taking ourselves... - you, we 3-
taking ourselves as we are... and examining what
we mean by fragmented. And then work from there,
what is the whole... not theoretically or verbally. Then I think that has vitality,
that has some meaning. S: Well, If we see
the fragmentation... the wholeness is there. K: Ah, no, don't assume anything.
S: Right. B: That's too fast.
K: Then we are off to theory. S: OK. Right. K: We have been talking... with a lot of students
here, this question. Dr. Bohm was there too. And whether we can ever be
aware of ourselves at all. Or we are only
aware of patches... not the totality
of fragmentations. I don't know if
I'm conveying this. S: Go ahead. K: Can one be aware,
conscious, know... the various fragments... examining one by
one by one by one... and who is the examiner... is he not also a fragment... who has assumed an authority? So when we talk about being
aware of fragments... socially, morally, ethically,
religiously, business, art... the whole activity
is fragmented. Can one, is one aware
of the movement... of these fragments... or do you take one fragment
and examine it... or say 'Yes, I am aware
of that', and not the many. You follow what I am saying? S: I am following you. I think
you are mostly aware of... when I think of what you are
saying, I seem to be aware... of a kind of many fragments.
K: Are you? S: One at a time, spread out
like that, like a machine-gun. K: Yes. So you're really
aware one by one. S: Right. And caught up by
the movement of the fragments. K: One by one.
Is that so? Are you sure that it is so? S: Yes, I think, it seems
to be that… Well, then sometimes you
can take a step back... or you seem to
take a step back... or I seem to take a step back,
and I'm aware of these many. K: No, when Dr. Bohm asked
'can't we talk over together... this question of wholeness'... which implies holiness,
health, sanity and all that... I wonder from what source
he's asking that question. S: Yes. You mean if he's coming
from a fragmented position... or he's coming from
a whole position. K: No, no. If he's asking from the whole
position, there is no question. So, I would like to,
if one may ask... Are we aware of the
fragments as a whole... a collection of fragments... or are we aware one
fragment at each time? What do you say, sir? B: Generally, the thing
presents itself... first as primarily
one fragment… K: One fragment at a time.
B: …with a background... of all the other fragments
perhaps dimly present in it. I mean, in the beginning... that one fragment seems
to take emphasis... or pre-eminence in awareness. S: Doesn't that one fragment
fragment out... quickly into many
little fragments? I have an idea and then that idea
is in contrast to another idea... so I'm immediately caught
up into two fragments there... and then I have
another idea... which is the repetition
of that first idea... so I'm caught up in a movement
of fragments rather than... my attitude is fragmented,
my relationship is fragmented... my very substance of movement
is a feeling of fragmentation. I don't have any centre when
I'm fragmented. I'm not... K: I'm not sure about that.
S: That is the question. K: I'm not at all sure... that there is no centre
when you're fragmented. B: I think definitely
there is a centre. That is the major fragment
you are aware of. K: That's right. S: Then let's go into that more. B: Well, I just think that
there is a centre... which you may
sense anywhere... say here or here... that seems to be the
centre of everything... that is connected
to everything, right? S: I see what you are
saying, but I feel that... when the fragmentation
is going on... it's like the centre
is looking for itself... it feels like
it's not a centre. K: Are you aware of
the fragmentation? Not, 'fragmentation is going on'. S: No, I am not. K: Then what are we aware of? S: I think - that's a terrific
question - because I think... when there is fragmentation
what we are aware of... is like being sucked forward
into more fragments. There is a kind of movement
of more fragmentation... more fragmentation, which
is what we are aware of. What you have talked
of in terms of pleasure. It's like pleasure is pulling us
forward into more fragments... this would give me pleasure,
that would give me pleasure... And it's that feeling of pieces. K: Before we go into the
question of pleasure... Are we aware, actually... from a centre,
which says 'I am fragmented'? That is the question, isn't it? B: Yes.
S: That's the question. B: We are both aware of a
centre and from a centre... K: That's it. B: This centre seems to be,
as you say, the fragment... that is dominating,
or attempting to dominate. K: That centre is the
dominating factor. B: Yes. In other words... K: Which is in itself a fragment. B: Yes, I mean this centre is... Well, it seems to be the
centre of your being... as it were the centre
of the ego or the self... which one might
think is the whole. K: Quite, quite. B: Because it's in contact with
everything. In other words… K: Would you say... having a centre is the
very cause of fragmentation? B: I would say that,
although at first sight... it seems quite different. S: At first sight...
- I think that's important. The difference between - at first
sight it doesn't seem that way. B: At first sight
it seems that... the centre is
what is organising... everything into a whole.
K: Yes. B: One feels one
wants a centre... to bring everything to a whole,
to stop the fragmentation. K: Yes, try to bring
about integration... try to make wholeness
and all that. S: Right. If you feel
the fragmentation... then you centre
here and say... 'I can see all
the fragmentations' - but that's still centre. K: No, but I am asking whether
when there is a centre... doesn't it make
for fragments? S: That I see. I see
what you are saying. But I'm trying to
take it from... What is the experience when
there is fragmentation?. There doesn't seem to be a centre.
K: Contradiction. S: Right. But it doesn't
feel like a centre. K: No. Contradiction.
When there are fragments... I am aware of the fragments... because of contradiction.
S: Right. K: Because opposing factors. B: You mean by contradiction
also conflict… K: Conflict. Out of contradiction
there is conflict. Then I am aware that
there are fragments. I am working in an
area of fragments. S: Right. But then, yes, then
I'm not aware of the fact... that I have in
fact got a centre. That's the self-deception,
right there. K: No - don't you think,
if I may suggest... that where there is conflict... then only you are aware of
a conflict, of contradiction. That is, one is aware only
when there is conflict. Right? And then the next awareness,
the next movement is… conflict arises out
of fragmentation... opposing elements... opposing desires, opposing
wishes, opposing thoughts. B: But are you saying that... these oppose first
before one is aware... and then suddenly you are aware
through the unpleasantness... or the pain of the opposition
that the conflict is unpleasant? K: Yes, conflict is unpleasant and
therefore one is aware... B: ...that something is wrong.
K: Wrong. Yes. B: Something is wrong,
not just simply wrong... but wrong with
the whole thing. K: Of course. Sir, after all,
self-consciousness... You are aware
of yourself only... when there is pain
or intense pleasure... otherwise you are
not aware of yourself. So fragmentation with its conflict
brings this sense of... I'm aware, I'm in conflict
- otherwise there's no awareness. S: Yes... you are saying that
the very fragmentation itself... breeds the centre.
K: Breeds the centre. S: And the centre has bred the
fragmentation, so it's like a... K: Yes, back and forth.
S: Right. B: Would you say that thought in
itself before there is a centre... breeds conflict? Or is there
thought before a centre? K: Oh, thought before the centre. B: Yes. One view is to say that
the centre and thought... are always co-existent
and one breeds the other. K: One breeds the other, quite. B: The other view is to say that
there might be thought first... and that produces conflict
and then that produces a centre. K: Let's go into that a little bit.
B: Yes. S: (Laughs) That's a good one. K: Does thought exist
before conflict? B: Before a centre.
K: Before the centre. One is aware of the centre
only when there is conflict. B: Yes, because that
comes in apparently... to try to bring about
wholeness again... to take charge of everything. K: The centre tries to take charge,
or try to create wholeness. B: Yes, to bring all
the factors together. K: But centre itself is a fragment. B: Yes, but it doesn't know that. K: Of course, it doesn't know
but it thinks it can bring... all the fragments together,
make it a whole. So Dr. Bohm is asking
the question which is... Did thought exist
before the centre... or the centre existed
before the thought? B: Or the two together?
K: Or the two together. S: Right. He's also asking, does
thought create the centre? K: Thought creates the centre… S: That would be the action,
the very creation... a sort of an after-effect
of the thought. In other words, is the organism
- is the production of thought... the very cause of a centre? That I think carries it
because then... K: Yes, let's be clear
on this point too. Are we asking, did thought
create the centre? B: Yes, and was there a kind
of thought before a centre? K: Yes. Thought before
the centre. That's it. B: Which came into contradiction. K: Yes, thought created
the centre... or the centre existed
before the thought… B: Or else the centre was... - that's a view which
is common... people think the centre
is me who was first. K: Me is the first. B: And then I began
to think, right? K: No, I think thought
exists before the centre. S: Yes, then we have
to ask the question... maybe not at this minute... of why is there thought,
what is thought? K: Oh, that's a different matter.
Do we go into that? B: That might be a long story. S: Yes, I don't think
that's for now. But we have to get at that.
K: No… S: Let's stay with what
we started with. K: Yes, we started out asking... Can we talk about the
wholeness of life? How can one be aware of... that wholeness
if one is fragmented? That's the next question. You can't be aware
of the whole... if I'm only looking
through a small hole. S: Right. But on the other hand,
in actuality you are the whole. K: Ah! That is a theory. S: Is it? That's where… B: A supposition, yes.
K: Of course when you are fragmented... how can you assume
that you are the whole? S: Well, that's a wonderful…
That's an issue because... How am I to know
I'm fragmented? K: That's what we are asking.
S: Yes. K: When are you aware
that you are fragmented? Only when there is conflict. S: Right, that's right. K: When there are two
opposing desires... opposing elements
of movements... then there is conflict... then you have pain
or whatever it is... and then you
become conscious. S: Right, but at those moments... it often times happens
that you don't want... to let go of the conflict.
You feel your fragmentation... K: No, that's a different matter.
S: Right. K: What we are asking is... Can the fragment
dissolve itself... and then only it's possible
to see the whole. You cannot be fragmented
and then wish for the whole. S: Right. All you really know
is your fragmentation. K: That's all we know. Therefore let's stick to that... and not beat round
the bush and say... 'Let's talk about the whole'
and all the rest of it. B: The supposition that... there's a whole may be
apparently reasonable... but as long as you are fragmented
you could never see it. It would be just an assumption. S: Right, right. B: You may think you have
experienced it once... but that's also
an assumption... because that's
gone already... K: Absolutely. Quite right. S: I wonder if there's
not a tremendous pain... or something that goes on... when I'm aware
of my fragmentation. That's the loneliness somehow… K: Look sir, can you be
aware of your fragments? That you are an American... that I am a Hindu, you
are a Jew, Communist... you just live in that state. You don't say, 'Well,
I know I'm a Hindu'. It's only when you
are challenged... it's only when, say 'What
are you?', then you say... 'Yes, I'm an Indian',
or a Hindu, or an Arab. B: When the country is challenged
then you have to go to war. K: Of course.
S: Right. So you are saying that I'm
living totally reactively. K: No, you are totally living
in a kind of - what? miasma, confusion. S: From one piece to the next... from one reaction
to the next reaction. K: Reward and punishment,
in that movement. So, can we be aware,
actually now... now!
- of the various fragments? That I'm a Hindu,
that I'm a Jew... that I'm an Arab,
that I'm a Communist... that I'm a Catholic, that I'm
a businessman, I'm married... I have responsibilities,
I'm an artist, I'm a scientist... you follow? - this various
sociological fragmentation. S: Right. K: As well as psychological
fragmentation. S: Right. That's exactly
what I started with. This feeling that I'm a fragment,
this feeling that… that's where I get absorbed,
this being a fragment... K: Which you call the individual. S: That I call important!
not just the individual. K: You call that important.
S: Right. That I have to work. K: Quite.
S: That it's significant. K: So can we now in
talking over together... be aware that I'm that? I'm a fragment and therefore... creating more fragments,
more conflict... more misery, more confusion,
more sorrow... because when
there is conflict... it affects everything.
S: Right. K: Can you be aware of
it as we are discussing? S: I can be aware as we
are discussing it a little. K: Aha, not a little.
S: That's the trouble. Why can't I be aware of it? K: No, sir. You are only aware
of it when there is conflict. It is not a conflict in you now.
S: Yes. B: Is it possible to be aware
of it without conflict? K: That's the next thing, yes.
That requires quite a different… B: How will we consider
this different approach? K: Quite a different approach. B: I was thinking of looking
at one point that... the importance of
these fragments is that... when I identify myself
and say 'I'm this'... I'm that', I mean
the whole of me. In other words, the whole
of me is rich or poor... American, or whatever... and therefore it's all-important
because it's the whole. I think it seems that
the trouble is that... the fragment claims
that it's the whole... and makes itself
very important. S: Right, takes up the
whole life. This is life. B: Then comes a contradiction... and then comes another fragment
saying it's the whole. K: Look what is happening... in Northern Ireland,
the Arab world... the Middle Eastern world,
the Muslim and the Hindu... this whole world is
broken up that way... outside and inside. S: Me and you. K: Me and you, we and
they, and all the rest of it. B: But I mean that's the
difference between saying... we have a lot of
different objects... in the room which are
separate and so on... which we can handle.
K: That's a different thing. B: There's no problem
there. But if we say... 'I'm this, I'm wholly this'... then I also say 'I'm wholly
that and I'm wholly that'. S: You are bringing in
something different there... that's exactly how it is... that we come to believe
in these fragments. Because we look at
objects and we say... 'they are separate things,
therefore I'm a separate thing'. K: I question that, sir. Say, for instance, the
Arab and the Israeli... Are they aware that
they are… I'm an Arab, I want to fight... that somebody else who is not? Or I have an idea
- you follow? - idea. B: What do you mean?
An idea that I'm an Arab? K: Yes. B: But the idea is that that's
very important as well. I'm totally an Arab. K: Yes, I'm totally an Arab. B: It's all-important. That's
the form of the idea, isn't it? K: Yes. B: And now somebody
else has the idea... I'm a Jew, that's
all important... therefore they must
destroy each other. K: Impossible to...
Quite. And I think the politicians... the religious people,
are encouraging all this. B: But they are also
running by fragments… K: Because they are
fragmented themselves. You see, that's the whole point. People who are in power,
being fragmented... sustain the fragmentations. S: Right. The only way to get
into power is to be fragmented. K: Of course! B: he says 'it's all-important
that I should be a politician... successful and so on'…
K: Of course. S: This movement into
fragmentation almost... it seems to be
caused by something. It seems to be... K: Is this what you are asking... What is the cause of
this fragmentation? S: Right. What is the cause of the
fragmentation, what breeds it? K: That's very simple.
S: What sucks us into it? K: No, what brings
about fragmentation? S: Now, you know... what brings it about,
when the mother and child... when the child separates
from the mother. Right? K: Biologically.
S: No, psychologically. K: Biologically as well as… S: The child starts
being able to walk... and the child can
walk away and then... he runs back, and
then he runs back... and he looks back,
he says 'is she still there?' gradually moves away. Now the mother that's
not able to let go says... 'Hey, come back here!' Then scares the child to death... because the child
thinks I can't do it... if she says I can't do it,
I can't do it. K: Quite. No, we are asking something
very important, which is... What is the cause
of this fragmentation? S: Yes. That's why I was
getting into that... - there's some cause there... it begins there this 'I have
got to hold on to something'. K: No. Just look at it, sir. What has brought
fragmentation in you? S: My immediate response is the
need to hold on to something. K: No, much deeper than that. Much more. Look at it. Let's go slowly at it.
Not immediate responses. What brings this conflict
which indicates... I'm fragmented, and
then I ask the question... what brings this fragmentation? What is the cause of it? B: Are you saying
there is a conflict... and there something
happens... that causes fragmentation,
in the conflict? S: No, he's saying the fragmentation
causes the conflict. B: Is the cause of the conflict. Then what is the cause
of the fragmentation? Right. That's important. K: Why are you and I and the majority
of the world fragmented? What is the source of it? B: It seems we won't
find the cause by... going back in time to
a certain happening. S: I'm not looking
for genetics... I'm looking for
right this second. I come upon a... it seems to do that... there is a focussing or... a holding on to something
inside my movement. K: Sir, look at it as
though not from... Dr. Shainberg's point
of view, just look at it. Put it on the table and look
at it objectively as it were. What brings about
this fragmentation? S: Fear.
K: No, no, much more. B: Maybe the fragmentation
causes fear. K: That's it, that's it. Why am I a Hindu? if I'm, I'm not a Hindu... I'm not an Indian,
I have no nationality... but suppose I call
myself a Hindu. What makes me a Hindu? S: Well, conditioning would
make you a Hindu. K: Which is, what is
the background... what is the feeling... or what is it that makes
me say 'I'm a Hindu'? Which is a fragmentation,
obviously. What makes it? My father, my grandfather,
generations and generations... after ten thousand or
five thousand years, said... 'You are a Brahmin'. And I
say 'All right, I'm a Brahmin'. S: You don't say 'All
right, I'm a Brahmin' - you say 'I'm a Brahmin'. K: I'm a Brahmin. S: Right. That's quite different.
You say 'I'm a Brahmin'... because it's like you...
they work on you that way. K: I'm a Brahmin like you
saying 'I'm a Christian'. S: Right. K: Which is what? S: That's tradition, conditioning,
sociology, history... culture, climate, everything. K: But behind that, what is that? S: Behind that is man's...
K: No, no, don't theorise. Look at it in yourself. S: That gives me a place... an identity, I know who I'm
then, I have my little niche. K: Who made that niche? S: I made it and they
helped me make it. In other words, I'm co-operating
in this very... K: You are not co-operating.
You are it. S: I'm it! Right, but I mean
- that's right... the whole thing is moving
toward putting me in a hole. K: So what made you,
the great great great... arrieres, grandparents... created this environment, this
culture, this whole structure... of human existence,
with all its misery... and with all
the mess it's in... who, what has
brought it about? Which is the fragmentation with
all the conflict and all the… S: The same action then is now. K: Now. That's all I'm asking. S: Yes. The same action that
makes man now, right now. K: The Babylonians, the
Egyptians, the ancients... we are exactly
the same monkeys now. S: Right. This is what I was getting
at in the beginning. This all gives me my
second-hand existence. K: Yes. Proceed.
Let's go into it. Let's find out why
man has bred... or brought about this state... and which we accept
- you follow? gladly and... or unwillingly.
S: Love it. Love it. K: I'm willing to kill somebody
because he's a Communist... or a socialist,
or whatever it is. Exactly what's going on in Northern
Ireland, in the Middle East. S: Well, everywhere, you
know, doctors, lawyers... K: Of course, of course.
The same problem. S: My sense of it is that it
stops me, it closes me off... it keeps the movement,
you know... it's like, the tree
doesn't get in. If I know who I'm then
I don't look at the tree. K: Yes sir, but you are not
answering my question. S: I have some answers, but… K: Is it the desire for security... biological as well as
psychological security? S: You could say yes. K: If I belong to something... to some organisation,
to some group... to some sect, to some
ideological community... I'm safe there. B: That's not clear because
you may feel safe but… K: I feel safe there.
But it may not be safety. B: Yes, but why don't I see
that I'm not really safe? K: Because I'm so - what? It's coming, you go
into it, it's coming. S: I don't see it.
K: Just look. I join a community… S: Right. I'm a doctor.
K: Yes, you are a doctor. S: I got all these ideas. K: You are a doctor, you have
a special position in society. S: Right. And I got a lot of
ideas of how things work. K: You have a special
position in society... and there you are
completely safe - safe. S: Right. K: You can malpractice
and all the rest of it... but you are very protected... by other doctors,
the other organisations… a group of doctors…
- You follow? S: Right.
K: You feel secure. B: But it's essential
that I shouldn't... enquire too far to
feel secure, isn't it? In other words, I must stop
my enquiry at a certain point. K: I'm a doctor - finished. B: I don't ask many
questions about it... but if I started
to ask questions... K: ...then you are out! B: Then people say 'don't
ask questions, that's… K: If I begin to ask questions
about my community... and my relationship
to that community... my relationship
with the world... my relation
to my neighbour... I'm finished.
- I'm out of the community. I'm lost. S: That's right. K: So to feel safe, secure,
protected, I belong. S: I depend.
K: I depend. S: Right. B: I depend wholly in some sense. If I don't have that then I
feel the whole thing is sunk. S: This is good. You see, not only
do I depend but... every problem
that I now have... is with reference
to this dependency. I don't know from nothing about
the patient, I only know about... how the patient doesn't
fit into my system. K: Quite, quite.
S: So that's my conflict. K: (Laughs)
He is your victim. S: That's right, my victim. (laughs). He loves that… B: It's still not clear why
I should go on with it. As long as I don't ask questions
I can feel comfortable... but I feel uncomfortable
and I do ask... questions, very
deeply uncomfortable... because the whole of
my situation is challenged. But then if I look
at it more broadly... I see the whole thing
has no foundation... it's all dangerous. In other words... this community itself is
in a mess, it may collapse. Or even if the whole of
it doesn't collapse... you see, you
can't count on... the academic
profession anymore... they may not give
money for universities... K: Quite (laughs). B: Everything is
changing so fast... that you don't
know where you are. So why should I go on with
not asking questions? K: Why don't I ask questions?
Because fear. B: Fear, but that fear
is from fragmentation. K: Of course. So is it... the beginning of this
fragmentation takes place... when one is seeking security? S: But why… K: Both biologically as
well as psychologically. Primarily psychologically,
then biologically. B: But isn't the tendency to seek... security physically
built into the organism? K: Yes, that's right. It is. I must
have food, clothes, shelter. It's absolutely necessary.
S: Right. K: And when that is threatened
- say if I questioned... the Communist
system altogether... living in Russia... I'm a non-person. S: But let's go a little bit
slower here. You are suggesting there that... in my need for
security biologically... I must have
some fragmentation. K: No, sir. Biologically fragmentation
takes place... the insecurity takes place when
psychologically I want security. I don't know if I'm making
myself clear. Wait a minute. If I don't psychologically
belong to a group... then I'm out of that group. S: and then I'm insecure.
K: I'm insecure. And because the group gives
me security, physical security... I accept everything
they give me, say to me. S: Right.
K: But the moment I object... psychologically
to the structure... of the society or
the community, I'm lost. This is an obvious fact. S: Right.
B: Yes. S: You're suggesting then that... the basic insecurity
that we live in... is being conditioned... the response to this,
the answer to this... is a conditioned
fragmentation. K: Partly.
S: Partly. And that the movement of
fragmentation is the conditioning. K: Sir, look. If there was no fragmentation,
both historically... geographically, nationally... no nations, we would
live perfectly safely. We would all be
protected, we would all... have food, we would all have
- you follow? houses, there would be
no wars, would be all one. He is my brother.
I'm him, he is me. But this fragmentation
prevents that taking place. S: Right. So you're even
suggesting more there... you are suggesting that
we would help each other. K: Naturally I would help...
- obviously! B: We're going around in a circle
though still, because you say... K: I'm not going in circles... I want to get back
to something which is... if there were no nationalities... no ideological groups,
and so on and so on... we would be perfectly… I mean, we would have
everything we want... instead of spending
on armaments... all the rest of it, proper
education, all that. That's prevented because... I'm a Hindu, you are an Arab,
he is a Russian... you follow? - all that's
prevented. We are asking... why does this fragmentation
take place? What is the source of it? K: Is it knowledge? Yes, sir! S: It is knowledge,
you think… K: Is it knowledge?
I'm sure it is (laughs)... but I'm putting
it as a question. S: It certainly seems to be... K: No, no - look into it.
Let's find out. S: What do you mean by knowledge? What are you
talking about there? K: The word 'to know'. Do I know you? Or... I have known you. I can never say... 'I know you' - actually. It would be an abomination
to say 'I know you'. I have known you. Because you in the meantime
are changing, you have... all your - you follow?
there is a great... deal of movement
going on in you. K: And to say 'I know you', means... I'm acquainted or intimate... with that movement
which is going on in you. It would be impudence on my
part to say, 'I know you'. S: That's right.
Because not only that... that would be denying
your effect on me... which is causing me,
which is a change... from knowing you,
from being with you... K: So knowing, to
know, is the past. Would you say that… B: Yes, I mean what we
know is the past… K: Knowledge is the past.
B: I mean the danger is that... we call it the
present. Is that it? The danger is that we call
knowledge the present. K: That's just it.
B: In other words if we said... the past is the past, then... wouldn't you say
it needn't fragment? K: What is that? Sorry.
B: If we said, if we recognised... or we acknowledged that the
past is the past, it's gone... therefore what we
know is the past... then that would not
introduce fragmentation. K: That wouldn't, quite right.
B: But if we say what we know... is what is present now... then we are introducing
fragmentation. K: Quite right, quite. B: Because we are imposing this
partial knowledge on the whole. K: So would you say... knowledge is one of the
factors of fragmentation? Sir, that's saying an awful
- you follow? It's a large pill to swallow! B: But also you are implying
there are other factors. K: Yes. (Laughs) And that may be the only factor. B: But I think we
should look at it... this way, people
have hoped... through knowledge to
overcome fragmentation… K: Of course. B: …to produce a system
of knowledge... that will put
it all together. K: Like in Bronowsky's
Ascent of Man... through knowledge, emphasising
knowledge, knowledge... Is that not one of the
major factors, or perhaps... the factor of fragmentation? 'My experience tells
me that I'm a Hindu... my experience tells me
I know what god is'. B: Wouldn't we better say that... confusion about the
role of knowledge... is what is the
cause fragmentation? In other words,
knowledge itself... if you say knowledge
is always the cause… K: No, I said, we
began by asking... B: Let's make it clear. K: Of course. Sir, that's what
we said yesterday in our talk... art is putting things
in its right place. So I put knowledge
in its right place. B: Yes, so we are not
confused about it any more. K: Of course.
S: Right, right. You know, I was just
going to bring in... this interesting example... a patient of mine was teaching
me something the other day... She said, I have the
feeling that as a doctor... the way you operate is,
there is a group of doctors... who have seen certain
kinds of patients... and if they do 'X' to them... they will get certain
kind of effects... and they achieve things. She says 'you are
not talking to me... you are doing this to me
hoping you will get this result'. K: Quite.
S: That's what you are saying. K: No, a little more than that. We are saying, both
Dr. Bohm and I... we are saying,
knowledge has its place. S: Let's go into that. K: Like driving a car, learning
a language and so on. B: We could say, why is
that not fragmentation? We could make it clear... in other words, if we drive
a car using knowledge... that is not fragmentation. K: But when knowledge
is used psychologically... B: One should see more clearly
what the difference is. The car itself, as I see it,
is a part, a limited part... and therefore it can
be handled by knowledge. S: You mean, it's a
limited part of life. B: Of life, yes. But when
we say 'I am so and so'... I mean the whole of me... therefore I'm applying
a part to the whole. I'm trying to cover
the whole by a part. K: When knowledge assumes
it understands the whole... B: Yes. K: ...then begins the mischief.
B: But it's very tricky... because I'm not
explicitly spelling out... that I understand the whole,
but it's implicit by saying... 'I, everything is this way,
or I'm this way'. K: Quite. B: It implies that the
whole is this way. The whole of me, the whole of
life, the whole of the world. S: What Krishnaji was saying,
like 'I know you'... that's how we
deal with ourselves. We say 'I know this about me'... rather than being
open to the new event. Or even being aware
of the fragmentation. B: Yes, about you then
I shouldn't say I know all... because you're not a limited
part like a machine is... that's what's implied. The machine is fairly limited
and we can know all... that's relevant about it,
or almost all anyway... sometimes it breaks down. K: Quite, quite. B: But when it comes to
another person that is... immensely beyond what
you could really know. The past experience doesn't
tell you the essence. K: Are you saying,
Dr. Bohm, that... when knowledge spills over... into the psychological field... B: Well, also in another field... which I call the
whole in general. Sometimes it spills over into
the philosophical field... when man tries to make
a metaphysical view... of the whole universe.
K: That's, of course... that's purely theoretical... and that has no meaning
to me personally. B: But I mean that's one of the
ways in which it does that. It goes wrong.
Some people feel that... when they are discussing
metaphysics... of the whole universe
that's not psychological... it probably is but... the motives behind
it are psychological... but some people may feel... that they are making
a theory of the universe... not discussing psychology. I think it's a matter
of getting the language. K: Language, quite. S: Well, you see this… what you are saying,
or what he is saying... can be extended to
the way people are... They have a metaphysics
about other people... 'I know all other people
are not to be trusted'. K: Quite.
B: You have a metaphysics... about yourself saying,
I'm such and such a person. S: Right. I have a
metaphysics that life... is hopeless and
I must depend on these… K: No, all that we can say is…
we are fragmented... that's a fact - and I'm aware
of those fragments… fragmented mind... there is an awareness
of the fragmented mind... because of conflict. S: That's right. B: You were saying before, we
have got to have an approach... where we are not aware
just because of that. K: Yes. That's right.
B: Are we coming to that? K: Coming, yes. So
from there, conflict. I say, what is the
source of this conflict? The source is fragmentation,
obviously. Now, what brings
about fragmentation? What is the cause
of this? Behind it. We said, perhaps knowledge. Knowledge, psychologically
I use knowledge. 'I know myself'... when I really don't know,
because I'm changing, moving. Or I use knowledge for
my own satisfaction. For my position,
for my success... for becoming a great
man in the world. I'm a great scholar... I've read a million books
and I can tell you all about it. It gives me a position,
a prestige, a status. So is that it... fragmentation takes place
when there is a desire... for security,
psychological security... which prevents
biological security. S: Right. K: You say, right. And therefore... security may be
one of the factors. Security in knowledge
used wrongly. B: Could you say that some sort
of mistake has been made... man feels insecure biologically,
and he thinks... what shall I do, and
he makes a mistake... in the sense that
he tries to obtain... a psychological sense of
security by knowledge. K: By knowledge, yes.
S: By knowing. B: Yes.
S: By repeating himself... by depending on all
of these structures. K: One feels secure
in having an ideal. S: Right. That's so true. B: You see, but...
I always ask... why a person makes this mistake.
In other words, if thought… or if the mind had
been absolutely clear... it would never have done
that. Isn't that right? S: If the mind had been
absolutely clear... but we've just said... that there is biological
insecurity. That's a fact. B: But that doesn't imply that
you have to delude yourself. K: Quite right. S: But that implies
that the organism... No, that's right, but it implies
that that has to be met. B: Yes, but the delusion
doesn't meet it. S: Right. That's the
nub of the issue. K: Go on further, you can see... S: I mean there's
that biological fact... of my constant uncertainty. The biological fact
of constant change. K: That's created through
psychological fragmentation. S: My biological uncertainty? K: Of course.
I may lose my job... I may have no money tomorrow. B: Now, let's look at that... I may have no money tomorrow. You see, that may be
an actual fact, now... but the question
is what happens. What would you say... if the man were clear,
what would be his response? K: You would never be
put in that position. B: He wouldn't get there
in the first place. But suppose he finds
himself without money. K: He would do something. B: He will do something. His
mind won't just go to pieces. K: Go in nightmarish circles. S: He won't have to have all the
money he thinks he has to have. B: But aside from that he won't
go into this well of confusion. K: No, absolutely. S: I mean the problem 99%
of the time, is that... we all think we need more... we have this ideal
of what we should have. K: No, sir. We are
trying to stick... to one point, which is... What is the cause of
this fragmentation? K: We said knowledge
spilling over... into the field where
it should not enter. B: But why does it do so? K: Why does it do it?
It's fairly simple. B: Why? K: We've got another 5,
6 minutes more. It's fairly simple. Go on, sir. S: My sense of it is, from what
we've been saying, it does it... It does it in a delusion
of security. It thinks that there is… thought creates the illusion
that there is security there. B: Yes, but why doesn't
intelligence show... that there is no security,
it's not clear. S: Why doesn't intelligence
show it? K: Can a fragmented
mind be intelligent? B: Well, it resists intelligence. K: It can pretend
to be intelligent. B: Yes. But are you
saying that once... the mind fragments then
intelligence is gone? K: Yes.
B: But now that... S: He said 'yes'. B: But now you are creating
a serious problem... because you are
also saying that... there can be an
end to fragmentation. K: That's right. B: At first sight that would
seem to be a contradiction. Is that clear?
K: It looks like that but it's not. S: All I know is fragmentation.
That's what I have got. K: Let's stick to it and see if
it can end. We go through it. S: I'm… B: But if you say the
fragmented mind cannot... intelligence
cannot operate there. K: No
S: I feel like one answer... to your question is that,
we've talked about it... in terms of conditioning.
I feel like I'm a victim... or I'm caught by this offering. You offer me, you tell me
'Look, old boy... I think this can help you,
here is a fragment, come along'. And I feel like thought does
that, you know. My mother or... my father says 'Look,
it's good to be a doctor'... or this one says it's
good to go to do this. K: Is psychological security
more important... than biological security? S: That's an interesting question.
K: Go on, don't make it… We've got five minutes
- come to it. S: No, well, one thing... we are convinced somehow,
I think the society... K: No, I'm asking - don't move away
from the question - I'm asking... Is psychological security... much more important
than physical security... biological security?
S: It isn't but it feels like it is. K: No, no, don't move
away from it. I'm asking you.
Stick to it. To you. B: Are you asking,
what is the fact… K: What is the fact. S: I would say yes, that
psychological security seems... K: Not, now don't…
B: What is actually true? S: Actually true, no. Biological
security is more important. K: Biological - are you sure? S: No. I've turned it around. I think psychological security is
what actually I worry about most. K: Psychological security. S: That's what I
worry about most. K: Which prevents
biological security. S: Right. I forget about
biological security. K: No, no. Because I'm seeking
psychological security in ideas... in knowledge, in
pictures, in images... in conclusions,
all the rest of it... which prevents me
from having... biological, physical
security for me... for my son, for my children,
for my brothers. I can't have it. Because psychological
security says I'm a Hindu... a blasted little somebody
in a little corner. S: No question. I do feel
that psychological... K: So, can we be free of the desire
to be psychologically secure? S: That's right.
That's the question. K: Of course it is. S: That's the nub of it. K: Last night I was listening to
some people about Muggeridge… one of them was holding,
who was the chairman... and they were all talking
about Ireland, various things. Each man was completely
convinced, you know. S: That's right. I sit in on
meetings every week. Each man thinks his territory
is the most important. K: So, we have given… man has given
more importance... to psychological security than
to biological, physical security. B: Yes, but it's not clear why he
should delude himself in this way. K: He has deluded himself... Why? The answer is there.
Why? We've got two minutes more.
We will have to stop… S: Images, power… K: No, sir, much deeper.
Why has he given importance? S: He seems to think that - we,
not he - we seem to think... that's where security is,
that that's most important. K: No. Look more into it. The 'me' is the most
important thing. S: Right. That's the same thing. K: No, no - me! my position, my happiness... my money, my house,
my wife - me. S: Me. B: Yes. And isn't it
that each person... feels he is the
essence of the whole. The 'me' is the very
essence of the whole. I would feel that if the
'me' were gone... the rest wouldn't
mean anything. K: That's the whole point! The 'me' gives me complete
security, psychologically. B: It seems all-important.
K: Of course. S: All-important.
B: Yes, because people say... if I'm sad then the whole
world has no meaning. Right? S: It's not only
that, but it's... I'm sad if the 'me'
is not important. K: No, I don't… We are saying the 'me'… in the 'me' is the
greatest security. S: Right. That's what we think. K: No, not we think. It is so. B: What do you mean, it is so? K: In the world what is happening.
B: That's what is happening. But it's a delusion, which
is happening, right? K: We'll come to that later.
B: Yes. S: I think that's a good point.
That it's so that the 'me' is... I like that way
of getting at it... - the 'me' is
what is important. That's all that is!
K: That's all, psychologically. S: Psychologically. K: Me, my country; me, my god;
me, my house, and so on... S: It's very hard to
let that in, you know… K: So, it's twelve o'clock,
we had better stop. S: (Laughs) At least
we have got your point. B: Right.
