K: What is time, actually? Actually, what is time? Time is hope. DB: Psychologically.
K: Psychologically. I am talking entirely
psychologically for the moment. DB: One tends to
keep on thinking. K: Of course.
We have understood that. K: Hope is time.
Becoming is time. Achieving is time. Now, take the question
of becoming: I want to become something,
psychologically. I want to become non-violent
– take that for example. That is altogether a fallacy. DB: We understand
it is a fallacy but the reason it is a fallacy is
that there is no time of that kind. K: No. Human beings are violent, and they have been
talking a great deal – Tolstoy, and in India –
of non-violence. The fact is we are violent. DB: Yes. K: And the non-violence
is not real. But we want to become that. DB: Yes, but it is again an
extension of the kind of thought that we have with regard
to material things. If you see a desert,
the desert is real, and you say the garden
is not real but in your mind is the garden, which will come
when you put the water there. So we say,
we can plan for the future when the desert
will become fertile. Now, we have to be careful
– we say we are violent, but we cannot by similar planning
become non-violent. Why is that? K: Why?
Because the non-violent state cannot exist
while there is violence. DB: Yes. K: That is an ideal. DB: One has to make it more clear,
because in the same sense the fertile state and the desert
don't exist together either. I think that you are saying
that in the case of the mind, when you are violent,
it has no meaning. K: That is the only state.
DB: That is all there is. K: Yes, not the other. DB: The movement towards
the other is illusory. K: So all ideals are illusory, psychologically. The ideal of building
a marvellous bridge is not illusory, you can plan it, but to have
psychological ideals. DB: Yes, if you are violent
and you continue to be violent while you are trying
to be non-violent... K: It is so obvious.
DB: It has no meaning. K: There is no meaning, and yet that has become
such an important thing. So, the becoming, which is either
becoming 'what is' or becoming away from 'what is.' DB: Yes, 'what should be.' K: I question both. DB: If you say
there can be no sense to becoming in the way of self-improvement. K: Self-improvement
is something so utterly ugly. So we are saying that the source of all this
is the movement of thought as time. When once we admit time
psychologically, all the other ideals, non-violence, achieving some
super state and so on, become utterly illusory. DB: Yes. Now, when you talk
of the movement of thought as time, it seems to me that that time which comes from movement
of thought is illusory. K: Yes. DB: We sense it as time,
but it is not a real kind of time. K: That is why we asked,
what is time? DB: Yes. K: I need time
to go from here to there. If I want to learn
some engineering, I must study it, it takes time. That same movement
is carried over into the psyche. I say, I need time to be good. I need time to be enlightened. DB: Yes, that will always
create a conflict between one part of you
and another. So, that movement in which you say,
I need time, also creates a division
in the psyche between, say,
the observer and the observed. K: That is right. We are saying
the observer is the observed. DB: Yes, and therefore
there is no time is what is meant, psychologically. K: The experiencer, the thinker,
is the thought. There is no thinker
separate from thought. DB: Yes. All that you are saying
seems very reasonable. I think that it goes so strongly
against the tradition, or what we are used to, that it will be
extraordinarily hard for people to really,
generally speaking, to... K: Most people, they want
a comfortable way of living. Let me carry on as I am,
for God's sake, leave me alone. DB: Yes, but that is the result
of so much conflict that people are worn out
by anything. K: But in escaping from conflict
or not resolving conflict, conflict exists,
whether you like it or not. That is the whole point. Is it possible to live a life
without conflict?
