Eighth Conversation with David Bohm in Ojai
Saturday, April 19, 1980
Krishnamurti: We left off – non-movement.
David Bohm: Yes.
Krishnamurti: A human being who has been pursuing the path of becoming and has gone through all that and went through this sense of emptiness, silence, energy, and abandoned almost everything and come to the point, the ground. And has this insight, how does all that affect his daily life? That was what we came to.
Bohm: Yes, that was the question.
Krishnamurti: What is his relationship to society, what is his action with regard to war and the whole world – a world that is really living in darkness and struggling in darkness, that's what we... What is his action. Right? I would say, sir, as we discussed the other day, it is non-movement. What does that mean?
Bohm: Yes, well we said before that the ground was movement without division.
Krishnamurti: Without division, I forgot that, yes, quite right.
Bohm: In some sense it seems inconsistent to say non-movement while you say the ground is movement.
Krishnamurti: The ground is movement, yes. I forgot all that... Sorry – hello sir. Would you say an ordinary, average man, educated, sophisticated, with all his unpleasant activities, he is constantly in movement. Right?
Bohm: Yes, well, a certain kind of movement.
Krishnamurti: I mean a movement in time.
Krishnamurti: A movement in becoming. And we are saying the man who has trodden – if I may use that word – that path and come to that point, and from there what is his action? We said for the moment, whatever that may mean, non-action, non-movement. What does that mean.
Bohm: Well it means, as you said, not taking part in this process, becoming and all that.
Krishnamurti: Yes, that, of course, that is obvious. If he doesn't take part in this process, what part does he play? Would you say, a complete non-action. What does that mean? Let's talk over, sir. I see something but I am trying to put it into words.
Bohm: Well, it is not clear why you should call it non-action. We might think that it was action of another kind which was not part of the process of becoming.
Krishnamurti: Yes, it is not becoming.
Bohm: It is not, but it may still be action.
Krishnamurti: But he still has to live here.
Bohm: Yes. Well there is one sense in which whatever you do is action, in the sense that his action is not directed towards this illusory process, it is not involved in it, but it would be directed towards what underlies this illusory process. It would be directed towards... like we were discussing the other day the wrong turning which is continually coming out of the ground. Right?
Krishnamurti: Yes, yes. You see various religions have described a man who has been saved, who is illuminated, who has achieved something or other. They have described very clearly what he is, how he walks, specially in Hindu religious books, I believe, there it is stated very clearly, how he looks, how he walks, the whole state of his being. I think that is merely a poetic description of something which is...
Bohm: You think it is imagination?
Krishnamurti: I'm afraid a great deal of it there is imagination. Though, I have discussed this point with some and they say it is not like that.
Krishnamurti: That it's not imagination. Somebody who described it knew exactly what it was.
Bohm: Well, how should he know? Not clear.
Krishnamurti: I don't want to personally... he said « You are that » – I said « Buzz off ». So what is a man of that kind, how does he live in this world? Very interesting question, this, if you go into it rather deeply. I think that is right, sir. There is a state of non-movement. That is, the non-movement which we have gone into.
Bohm: Perhaps we could go... You see it is not clear exactly what you mean by non-movement.
Krishnamurti: One becomes poetic, I am trying to avoid that. You see would it be right sir, even poetically: it is like a single tree in a field. There is no other tree but that tree, whatever the name of that tree is, it is there.
Bohm: Well, why do you say non-movement though, you see it's...
Krishnamurti: It is non-moving – tree, I'm making the statement...
Bohm: The tree stands of course.
Krishnamurti: A tree is a living, moving thing, but I don't mean that.
Bohm: But I mean the tree in some sense is moving but in relation to the field it stands. That is the picture we get.
Krishnamurti: You see I come to you, you have been through... you have gone from the beginning to the end. And now you are at the end with a totally different kind of movement, which is timeless and all that.
Bohm: I agree.
Krishnamurti: Now, you are in that, you are that. I come to you and say, « What is that state of mind » – I think that is right – « What is the state of your mind, that has walked on that path and ended something, totally moved out of darkness, what is the state of that mind? »
Bohm: If you say it is non-movement are you implying that it is constant?
Krishnamurti: It must be. Constant in the sense – what do you mean by constant?
Bohm: Well it can have many meanings, but...
Bohm: No, no.
Krishnamurti: No. Do you mean it is...
Bohm: No, no. It may mean « stans »...
Krishnamurti: Oh no, no, no.
Bohm: ...To stand firm, to stand together as a whole, you see. That is really its literal meaning.
Krishnamurti: Is that it? A mind...
Bohm: That is the picture you have got of the tree as well, you know. That is the picture which the tree in the field suggested.
Krishnamurti: Yes, I know, you... That is too romantic and poetic (laughs) and it becomes rather deceptive. It is a nice image but I'll move away from it. What is the mind sir, what is that mind – I think we have to go through that – what is that mind, the quality of that mind that has started from the beginning and pursued the becoming, went through all that, the centre of darkness has been wiped away, that mind must be entirely different. No? Now what does such a mind do, or not do, in the world which is in darkness? Sorry, this sounds...
Bohm: Yes, well I think the mind does not enter into that world, that movement of that world.
Bohm: And in that sense we say that it is constant, not fixed but does not move.
Krishnamurti: Moody says « static » – no it's not static.
Bohm: No, not static, no, it's the constancy which in a sense it's also movement. There a constancy which is not merely static but which is also at the same time movement, movement which determines its opposite – constant.
Krishnamurti: We said that movement, not the becoming movement.
Bohm: No, but the ground movement.
Krishnamurti: Yes, let's call it the ground movement.
Bohm: Which is completely free.
Krishnamurti: What has happened to that mind? Let's go into it a little bit. It has no anxiety, no fear and all the rest of it. (Pause) You see the word « compassion » and « love » is beyond that. Right?
Bohm: Yes, well, but that may emerge out of this ground.
Krishnamurti: Yes. The mind being nothing, not a thing, and therefore empty of knowledge – sorry all this sounds so... unless we follow right from the beginning.
Bohm: You have to go through it otherwise it makes no sense.
Krishnamurti: Yes, no sense. Empty of knowledge. And would it be always acting in the light of insight?
Bohm: Yes, well, it would be pervaded, not always but it should be of the quality of insight.
Krishnamurti: Yes, that is what I mean.
Bohm: I mean I think « always » brings in time, you see.
Krishnamurti: I remove the word.
Bohm: I would use « constantly ».
Krishnamurti: Yes « constantly », yes, let's use the word « constant ».
Bohm: It is a bit better but not good enough.
Krishnamurti: Yes. (Laughs) Let's use the word « constant ». It is acting constantly in that light, in that flash or whatever – we use that word – of insight. I think that is right. So what does that mean in one's daily life? Earn a livelihood...
Bohm: Well, I mean that would be another point. You would have to find a way to stay alive.
Krishnamurti: Stay alive. So that is why I am saying: as civilisation grows, begging is a criminal act (laughs).
Bohm: Is not allowed. You have to find some way to stay alive.
Krishnamurti: I am just asking: What will you do? He has no profession, no skill because – knowledge and all that. He has no coin with which he can buy...
Bohm: Yes, but wouldn't it be possible for this mind to earn enough to get what is needed to stay alive?
Questioner: Why has he no skill to earn a livelihood?
Krishnamurti: Why should he have skill?
Questioner: To earn a livelihood.
Krishnamurti: Why? Why must you have skill to earn a livelihood? You say that. Another man says, « Why, why should I have skill of any kind? » – I am just discussing, enquiring into it – « Why should I have any skill to earn a livelihood? »
Bohm: Well, suppose you had to take care of yourself anywhere in the forest, you would need a certain skill. You see suppose you were by yourself in a cave, you know.
Krishnamurti: Ah, I don't want a cave!
Bohm: I know, but if you happen to be...
Krishnamurti: It's too dark! (Laughs)
Bohm: Wherever you are, wherever it is, you live somewhere, you need some skill to find the food which you need. You see if everybody were to do this then the human race would perish, right?
Krishnamurti: I am not sure sir.
Bohm: Well, what would happen then? Let's explore it.
Krishnamurti: That is what I am coming to.
Bohm: Right. But I mean at first sight it would seem that if everybody would say no skill is needed, then...
Krishnamurti: No, because skill implies as we said, knowledge, from that knowledge experience and gradually develop a skill. And that skill gives you an opportunity to earn a livelihood – meagre or a great deal. And this man says, there may be a different way of living and earning. We are used to that pattern – right sir? And he may say, « Look, that may be totally wrong ».
Bohm: It depends what you mean by skill, you see. For example, suppose he has to drive a car, now that takes some skill, you see. He may want to drive.
Bohm: Is he going to do without that?
Krishnamurti: Now, I had better go carefully into the word « skill ».
Bohm: Yes. I mean skill could have a bad meaning of being very clever at getting money.
Krishnamurti: Money. So this man is not avaricious, he is not money-minded, he is not storing up for the future, he hasn't any insurance, but he has to live, and when we use the word « skill », as driving a car...
Bohm: ...carpentry, you know, a carpenter has skill, you see, the skill in machines. If all those skills were to vanish it would be impossible.
Krishnamurti: The whole thing would collapse, of course.
Krishnamurti: I am not sure – do we mean by that, that kind of skill must be denied?
Bohm: No, it couldn't mean that.
Krishnamurti: No. That would be too silly.
Bohm: But then people become very skilful at getting other people to give them money, you see! (Laughs)
Krishnamurti: (Laughs) That might be the game. That may be it! As I am doing!
Questioner: I wish you were more skilled at that! (Laughter)
Krishnamurti: Sufficient unto the day thereof. (Laughs)
Questioner: But is it that now we have made a division between living and skill, living and working, living and earning a livelihood, and our security...
Krishnamurti: It is that, it is that. I need to have food, I need to have clothes and a shelter.
Questioner: But is the division necessary?
Krishnamurti: It is not division, I need it.
Questioner: Yes, but as the society is built now, we have a division between living and working.
Krishnamurti: No, but we have been through all that. We are talking of a man who has been through all this and has come back – come back (laughs) – to the world and says, « Here I am ». What is his relationship to society and what is he to do? Right sir? Has he any relationship to society?
Bohm: Well, not in a deep sense. Not in a fundamental sense, although there is a superficial relationship he has to have.
Krishnamurti: All right. A superficial contact with the world.
Bohm: Yes, he has to obey the laws, he has to follow the traffic signals.
Krishnamurti: (Laughs) Quite. But I want to find out sir, what is he to do? Write, talk – that means skill.
Bohm: Well, is that the kind you don't think is necessary? Is that skill – well, that kind of skill need not be harmful, you see.
Krishnamurti: I am just asking, I am just asking.
Bohm: It's the same as the other skills, carpentry.
Krishnamurti: Yes. That belongs to that kind of skill. But what is he to do? I think if we could find out, sir, the quality of a mind that has been through that from that from the beginning to the end, you know, the last five or six discussions we have had, we went through all that step by step to the very end. And that man, that man's mind is entirely different, and he is in the world. How does he look upon the world? You have reached and come back – sorry, these are terms – and I am an ordinary man, living in this world. What is your relationship to me? Obviously none. Because I am living in a world of darkness and you are not. So your relationship can only exist when I come out of that darkness, when darkness ends.
Bohm: Yes, that's right, when darkness stops.
Krishnamurti: Then there is only that, there is not a relationship, there is only that. But now there is division between you and me. And I look at you with my eyes which are accustomed to darkness and to division. And you don't. And yet you have to have some contact with me. You have to have, however superficial, however slight, a certain relationship with me. Is that relationship compassion? – not translated by me as compassion. Not say, « Oh, show, you are not compassionate if you don't do this ». So I am not looking from my darkness at you who may be compassionate. I don't know if... So I cannot judge what your compassion is. Right?
Bohm: Well, yes, that follows from that, yes.
Krishnamurti: I don't know what your love is, what your compassion is because my only love and compassion has been this. And so what do I do with you?
Bohm: Which one are we talking about now? It is not clear to me which one we are discussing. (Laughter)
Krishnamurti: No, you, « X », have been through all that and come back.
Bohm: Yes and « Y » has not.
Krishnamurti: « Y » has not. « Y » says to you, « Y » asks – I asked this just now, I have forgotten it. I would say sir, « Y » says, « Who are you? You seem so different, your way of looking at life is different. Who are you »? And what will « Y » do with you, « X »? That is the question. Not what you will do to me, but what will I do with you? I don't know if I am making it clear.
Bohm: Yes, well, « Y » has to do something... are you asking... yes I understand, what will « Y » do, what will « Y » do with « X », I mean what will he do?
Krishnamurti: So our question has been what will « X » do with « Y ». On the contrary, I think we are putting the wrong question. What will « Y » do with « X ». I think what would happen generally is I either worship him, kill him, or neglect him. Right?
Krishnamurti: You say well, what. If « Y » worships « X » then everything is very simple. (Laughs) He has the goods. (Laughter) He has the goodies of the world. But that doesn't answer my question. My question is not only what will « Y » do to « X » but what will « X » do with « Y »? « X's » demand is, say, « Look, walk out of this darkness, there is no answer in this darkness, so walk out, move out » – it doesn't matter, whatever phrase we use, dispel it, get rid of it, etc., etc. And « Y » says then « Help me, show me the way » – and back again – you follow? So what will « Y » do to « X »?
Bohm: Well, I can't see that « Y » can do very much except what you said, to worship, or to do something else.
Krishnamurti: Yes, something else – kill him or neglect him.
Bohm: But I think that if « X » has compassion, if compassion works in « X » – right?
Krishnamurti: Yes, « X » is that. He won't even call it compassion.
Bohm: No but we call it that, then « X » will work to find a way to penetrate the darkness.
Krishnamurti: Wait: so « X's » job is to work on darkness.
Bohm: Well, to discover how to penetrate darkness.
Krishnamurti: In that way he is earning a livelihood.
Bohm: Well possibly. (Laughs)
Krishnamurti: Ah, ah, ah. No, no. I am talking seriously.
Bohm: It depends on whether people are willing to pay him for it. (Laughs)
Krishnamurti: Oh, yes, they are... (laughs) No, I am talking seriously.
Bohm: Well it is a possible way, anyway.
Krishnamurti: Yes. Probably that is. « X » is the teacher. « X » is out of society, out of darkness. « X » is unrelated to this field of darkness and « X » is asking, teaching, saying to the people of darkness, « Come out ». What's wrong with that?
Bohm: Well, nothing is wrong with that.
Krishnamurti: So that is his means of livelihood. What's wrong with that?
Bohm: Well, it's perfectly all right as long as it works, it is perfectly all right.
Krishnamurti: It seems to work! (Laughs)
Bohm: Of course if there were a lot of people like « X » there would be some limit.
Krishnamurti: No sir. What would happen if there were lots of people like « X »?
Bohm: That is an interesting question, yes.
Krishnamurti: What would happen?
Bohm: Well, then I think there would be something revolutionary.
Krishnamurti: That's just it.
Bohm: The whole framework would change.
Krishnamurti: That is just it. If there were lots of people like that they would not be divided.
Krishnamurti: That is the whole point, right?
Bohm: No, I think that even if ten or fifteen people were undivided they would exert a force that has never been seen in our history.
Krishnamurti: Tremendous. That's right.
Bohm: Because I don't think it has ever happened, that ten people were undivided.
Krishnamurti: So that is « X's » job in life. He says that is the only thing. A group of those ten « X's » will bring in a totally different kind of revolution. Right? Will society stand for that?
Bohm: They will have this extreme intelligence and they will find a way to do it, you see.
Krishnamurti: Of course, of course.
Bohm: Society will stand for it because they will be intelligent enough to not to provoke society and society will not react until it is too late. (Laughter)
Krishnamurti: Quite right, quite right. You are saying something which is actually happening. So what happens? Would you say then the function of many « X's » is to awaken human beings to that intelligence which will dispel the darkness?
Krishnamurti: And that is his means of livelihood. Right?
Krishnamurti: There are those people who in darkness cultivate this, exploit people, and there are « X's » who don't exploit people. All right. That seems very simple. But I don't think it is all that simple.
Bohm: All right.
Krishnamurti: Is that the only function of « X »? That seems very simple, doesn't it?
Bohm: Well, it is a difficult function, it is not so simple.
Krishnamurti: The function may be complicated but that can easily be solved. But I want to find out something much deeper than mere function.
Bohm: Yes, well, function is not enough.
Krishnamurti: That's it. Apart from function, what is he to do? « X » says to « Y », « Listen », and « Y » takes time, all the rest of it and gradually, perhaps once, sometime, he will wake up and move away. And is that all « X » is going to do in life? – in life, you understand sir? Is that all?
Bohm: Well, that can only be an outcome of something deeper.
Krishnamurti: The deeper is all that.
Krishnamurti: The ground.
Bohm: The ground and so on, yes.
Krishnamurti: But is that all he is to do in this world? Just to teach people to move out of darkness?
Bohm: Well, that seems to be the prime task at the moment, in the sense that if this doesn't happen the whole society will sooner or later collapse anyway.
Bohm: But he needs to be in some sense creative more deeply, I think.
Krishnamurti: What is that.
Bohm: Well, it is not clear.
Krishnamurti: Sir, suppose you are « X », I am « Y ». « X » is... you as « X » has an enormous field in which you operate, not merely teaching me, but you have this extraordinary movement which is not time and all that. That is, you have this abounding energy.
Krishnamurti: And you have reduced all that to teach me – you follow what I mean? – to move out of darkness!
Bohm: Yes, well that can only be a part of it.
Krishnamurti: So what is the rest doing – you follow? I don't know if I am conveying this.
Bohm: Well that is what I tried to mean by some creative action beyond this is taking place.
Krishnamurti: Yes, beyond that. You may write, you may preach, you may heal, you may do this and that, but those are all rather trivial. Right sir? Trivial, it is a very small business. But you have something else. Have I reduced you, « X », to my pettiness? You can't. My pettiness says, « You must do something. You must teach, you must write, you must heal, you must do something to help me to move. » Right? You say all right, you comply to the very smallest degree, but you have something much more immense than that! You understand, sir, my question?
Bohm: Yes. So what.
Krishnamurti: How is that operating on « Y »?
Bohm: On « Y »?
Krishnamurti: How is that immensity operating on « Y », apart from darkness – I don't know if I am trying to say anything.
Bohm: Well, are you saying that there is some more direct action?
Krishnamurti: Either there is more direct action, or « X » is doing something totally different to affect the consciousness of man. I don't know if I am...
Bohm: Yes, all right, but what could it be now?
Krishnamurti: Because you are not « satisfied », in quotes, merely preaching, talking, all that petty stuff. That immensity which you are must affect, must do something.
Bohm: Yes. Are you saying that it must in the sense of a feeling that you need to do it, or are you saying must in the sense of necessity?
Krishnamurti: It must!
Bohm: It must necessarily do so. Right?
Bohm: But how will it affect mankind? Now you see when you say this, it would suggest to people that there is some sort of extrasensory effect, you know that it spreads.
Krishnamurti: That is what I am trying to capture.
Krishnamurti: Yes. That is what I am trying to convey.
Bohm: Not merely through the words, through the activities or gestures.
Krishnamurti: Sir, leave the activity alone. That is simple. We have gone into that. That is peanuts, small potatoes, whatever you call it.
Bohm: It is only a matter of making it clear, though, you still need to make it clear what you mean to say, that it is not that.
Krishnamurti: It is not that.
Bohm: Not just that.
Krishnamurti: Not just that. Because that immensity must – must...
Bohm: Necessarily you mean, you mean necessarily acts?
Krishnamurti: I wonder if you see what I am trying to get at, sir?
Bohm: You are saying that there is a more direct action.
Krishnamurti: No, no. All right. That immensity necessarily has other activities.
Bohm: Yes, other activities in other ways, at other levels, other...
Krishnamurti: Yes, other activities. Which has been translated in the Hindu, and perhaps a little bit as, at various degrees of consciousness.
Bohm: Yes, that's what I said that they are different levels of acting.
Bohm: Or degrees.
Krishnamurti: That too is a very small affair.
Krishnamurti: You follow? What do you say sir.
Bohm: Well I am saying that since the consciousness emerges from the ground that this activity is affecting all mankind from the ground.
Krishnamurti: Yes. Yes, sir. Yes sir, yes sir.
Bohm: Yes, I mean you see many people will find this very difficult to understand, of course.
Krishnamurti: I am not interested in many people.
Krishnamurti: I want to understand – you, « X » and I, « Y » – that ground, that immensity, is not limited to such a potty little affair.
Krishnamurti: It couldn't.
Bohm: Yes, well the ground includes physically the whole universe.
Krishnamurti: The whole universe, yes, and to reduce all that to...
Bohm: ...to these little activities.
Krishnamurti: It sounds so silly!
Bohm: Yes, well I think that raises the question: what is the significance of mankind in the universe, or in the ground?
Krishnamurti: Yes, that's it. That's it.
Bohm: Because these little things are very little, even the best that we have been doing has very little significance at that scale. Right?
Krishnamurti: Yes. I « think » – think in quotes, for the moment, this is just opening the chapter – I think that « X » is doing something – not doing, by his very existence...
Bohm: Yes, that he is making something possible?
Krishnamurti: Yes. Einstein, when you as a scientist, has made something possible, which man hadn't discovered before.
Bohm: But that's in a way which we can see. We can see that fairly easily because that works through the usual channels of society.
Krishnamurti: Yes, that I understand. You can see that. What is this man bringing apart from the little things? What is he bringing? Would you say, sir, – this all sounds... putting it into words sounds wrong – « X » has that immense intelligence, that energy, that something, and he – I am cold.
Bohm: He is what?
Krishnamurti: He must operate at a much greater level than I can possibly conceive, which must affect the consciousness of those who are living in darkness.
Bohm: Well possibly so. The question is will this effect show in any way, you know, manifestly?
Krishnamurti: Ah, yes sir. Apparently it doesn't.
Bohm: Apparently it doesn't.
Krishnamurti: If you hear the morning news (laughs), see television and all the rest of the world, apparently it is not doing it.
Bohm: Yes, that is what is difficult, it is a matter of great concern that mankind...
Krishnamurti: But it must affect sir.
Bohm: It has to, you say.
Krishnamurti: It has to.
Bohm: Well why do you say it has to?
Krishnamurti: Because light must affect darkness!
Bohm: Yes. Well you see, let me say, perhaps « Y » might answer that he is not sure, living in darkness he is not sure that there is such an effect. He might say maybe there is, I want to see it manifest in some way, then I can...
Krishnamurti: Manifest actually.
Bohm: But not seeing anything and still being in darkness, « Y » says what shall I do?
Krishnamurti: I understand all that. So are you saying: « X's » only activity is just that?
Bohm: No. Merely that it may well be that the activity is much greater but you know it hasn't shown, you see. If we could see it.
Krishnamurti: How would it be shown? How would « Y », who wants proof of it shown...
Bohm: Well not even proof but just to be shown. Let's say « Y » might say something like this: many people have made similar statements and some of them have obviously been wrong and you know one wants to say, you know, it could be true. You see until now I think the things we have said make sense and you know they follow to a certain extent.
Krishnamurti: Yes, I understand all that sir.
Bohm: And now you are saying something which goes much further and other people have said things like that where one feels that they were on the wrong track, you know, that they were fooling themselves, or certainly some of these people were.
Krishnamurti: No, no, « X » says I am not with the... we are being very logical.
Bohm: Yes, but at this stage logic will not carry us any further.
Krishnamurti: No. Very reasonable, rational. We have been through all that. So « X's » mind is not acting in any irrational way.
Bohm: Right. Well you could say that having seen that the thing was reasonable so far, « Y » may have some confidence that it may go further.
Krishnamurti: Yes, that is what I am trying to say.
Bohm: But of course no proof.
Bohm: So we could explore.
Krishnamurti: That is what I am trying to do.
Questioner: What are the other activities of « X »? We said « X » has a function, teaching, but we said « X » has other activities.
Krishnamurti: May be. Must have. Necessarily must.
Questioner: Which are what?
Krishnamurti: I don't know, we are trying to find that out.
Bohm: Well you were saying that somehow he makes possible – the way I understand it – an activity of the ground in the whole consciousness of mankind which would not have been possible without him.
Bohm: That is what I understand.
Krishnamurti: Yes. That's what I », beginning to...
MZ: But sir, aren't you saying and implying also that his contact with « Y » is not verbal and only verbal. It is not that « Y » has to listen and say oh, yes, but some other quality...
Krishnamurti: Yes, yes, but « X » says that is all a petty little affair. That is of course understood, we'll do that, but « X » is saying there is something much greater than all that.
MZ: The effect of « X » is far greater than perhaps can be put into words.
Krishnamurti: Yes. We are trying to find out what is that greater that must necessarily be operating?
Questioner: Is it something that appears in the daily life of « X »?
Krishnamurti: Yes. Daily life of « X » is apparently doing the petty little stuff – teaching, writing, book-keeping, or whatever it is. Is that all? You follow what I mean? It seems so silly!
Bohm: Are you saying that in the daily life « X » does not look so different from anybody else?
Krishnamurti: No, he apparently is not.
Bohm: But there is something else going on...
Krishnamurti: Yes. That's what...
Bohm: ...which does not show, right?
Krishnamurti: That's it. When « X » talks it may be different, he may say things differently and so on, so on, but that's all...
Bohm: ...Yes it's not fundamental because there are so many people who say things differently.
Krishnamurti: Yes, that's so... Ah, no.
Bohm: Well, I mean there are people who say things differently from other people.
Krishnamurti: No but the man who has walked through that right from the beginning to the end, he is entirely different and when he says something, that is also different, but I am not concerned about that. Let's leave that.
Bohm: All right.
Krishnamurti: We are asking: such a man has the whole of that energy to call upon. And to reduce all that energy to these petty little affairs seems so ridiculous.
Bohm: Yes, well let me ask a question. You see why does the ground require this man to operate on him and in mankind? You see why can't the ground, as it were, operate directly in mankind to clear things up?
Krishnamurti: Ah, you are asking, just a minute, just a minute, just a minute. Are you asking why does the ground demand action.
Bohm: Why does it require a particular man, you see?
Krishnamurti: Oh, yes, that I can easily explain. That's part of existence, like the stars.
Questioner: Can the immensity act directly on mankind or does it have to inform a man to go to the consciousness of mankind. Is that what you are asking?
Krishnamurti: No, sir. We are talking something else. I want to find out, « X » wants to say, I am not going to be reduced to writing, talking, that is too petty, too small. We will do that, but that's... leave that alone. And the question is, as you put, why does the ground need this man?
Krishnamurti: It doesn't need him.
Bohm: No, but why does it then... But when he is here the ground – if he is here then the ground will use him.
Krishnamurti: That's all.
Bohm: But would it be possible that the ground could do something to clear up this mess we are talking about?
Krishnamurti: That is what I want to find out. That is what I am asking in different words. The man, the ground doesn't need man but the man has touched the ground.
Krishnamurti: So the ground is using him, let's call it, is employing him. He is part of that movement. Is that all? You follow what I mean sir? Am I asking wrong questions? Why should he do anything except this?
Bohm: Well perhaps he does nothing, but...
Krishnamurti: That very doing nothing may be the doing.
Bohm: Yes, well in doing nothing he makes possible the action of the ground. It may be that? In doing nothing which has any specified aim...
Krishnamurti: That's right. Specified content which can be translated into human terms.
Bohm: Yes, but still he is supremely active in doing nothing.
Krishnamurti: Yes. All this sounds...
Questioner: Could one say is there an action which is beyond time of that man?
Krishnamurti: He is, sir, don't, he is that.
Questioner: Yes. Then therefore we cannot ask for a result of that man.
Krishnamurti: He is not asking results.
Questioner: Well, « Y » is asking for a result.
Krishnamurti: No. He says I am not concerned with « Y ». I am only concerned, « X » says I am only concerned to talk, to preach, or to do something, petty little stuff, that is a very small thing and I am not even bothered about that. But there is a vast field which must affect the whole of mankind.
Bohm: Well there is an analogy which may not be very good but consider it that in chemistry a catalyst makes possible a certain action without itself taking part.
Bohm: But merely by being what it is.
Krishnamurti: Yes, what it is. Is that what is happening? Even that is a small affair. Right?
Questioner: And even there « Y » would say it isn't happening because the world is still in a mess. So what has... you know, the question is, is there a proof in the world for the activity of that man?
Krishnamurti: Nobody. He says I'm not... « X » says I am sorry, that is no question at all. I am not interested in proving anything. Right? It isn't a mathematical problem or technical problem to be shown and proved. He says this is so. I have walked from the beginning of man to the very end of man and this is there, there is a movement which is timeless. Right? The ground which is the universe, the cosmos, everything. But the ground doesn't need the man but the man has come upon it. Right? And the man, he is still a man in the world. Right? And that man says I will write and do something or other – not to prove the ground, not to do anything but just out of my, out of « X's » compassion or whatever it is he does that. But there is much greater movement which necessarily must play a part in the world.
Questioner: Does the greater movement play a part in the world through « X »?
Krishnamurti: Obviously, obviously. If there were ten « X's » it would be – of course it would be... I think we are pursuing something which may not have value at all.
Bohm: What do you mean, no value? Why do you say no value?
Krishnamurti: Value in the sense – which « X » may only see – I am not saying this out of vanity, out of escape or anything – « X » says there is something else operating which cannot possibly be put into words. That's not... may be a slight escape (laughs) but he says « What am I to do? » There is nothing which a man like « Y » will understand. He will immediately translate it into some kind of illusory thing. But « X » says there is. Right?
Krishnamurti: Sir, it must be! Otherwise it is all so childish.
Bohm: Yes. Well, I think that « Y » might say it doesn't follow that the universe isn't something very childish or trivial. But if you say it isn't trivial...
Krishnamurti: No, it is not trivial.
Bohm: No, but I think that the general view which people are developing now is that the universe has no meaning.
Krishnamurti: Yes, yes.
Bohm: That it moves any old way, you know all sorts of things happen and none of them have any meaning.
Krishnamurti: None of them have meaning for the man who is here, but the man who is there, speaking relatively, he says it is full of meaning, not invented by thought and all that but it has got – the word « meaning » has no meaning there.
All right sir. Leave the vastness and all that. Which means « X » says, the occupation with pettiness and perhaps there will be ten people who will join the game, and that might affect the society – which will not be communism, socialism, this, this, the other. It might be totally different, based on intelligence, compassion and all the rest of it.
Bohm: Yes. Well if there were once ten they might find a way to spread much more, you see.
Krishnamurti: That's what I am trying to get at. I can't get it.
Bohm: What do you mean?
Krishnamurti: Sir, you bring the universe and I translate it into... it's so... You understand sir?
Bohm: Well, if the whole mankind were to see this, are you saying that that would be something different?
Krishnamurti: Oh, yes sir. Of course.
Bohm: Would it be a new...
Krishnamurti: ...it would be paradise on earth.
Bohm: It would be like an organism of a new kind.
Krishnamurti: Of course. I think we better stop there, I don't know. What time is it?
Bohm: Ten past five.
Krishnamurti: I think we better stop there sir. You see, I am not satisfied with this. (Laughs)
Bohm: Well what is it that you...
Krishnamurti: I am not « satisfied », in quotes satisfied, in leaving this immensity to be reduced to some few words. You follow? It seems so stupid, incredible. You see man, « Y » is concerned with « Show me, prove it to me, what benefit it has, will I get my future... » – you follow? He is concerned with that. And he is looking at « X » with the eyes that are so accustomed to this pettiness. So either he reduces that immensity to his pettiness and puts it in a temple, and has therefore lost it completely. But « X » says it's... I won't even look at that. There is something so immense that « X » says please do look at this, and « Y » is always translating it into « show it to me », « prove it to me », « will I have a better life » – you follow? He is concerned always with that.
Krishnamurti: Isn't that enough? I think we had better stop there sir. I'll have to go at this sometime with you later.
Bohm: Maybe later. To bring the light which would allow other people to be open to the immensity.
Krishnamurti: Yes. You see, is it like this, sir? We only see a small part but that very small part extends to infinity. That means endless.
Bohm: Endless, yes. Small part of what?
Krishnamurti: No. That immensity we see only as a very small thing. And that immensity is the whole universe.
Krishnamurti: I can't help but think that it must have some immense affect on « Y », on many « Y's, on society.
Bohm: Yes. Well certainly the perception of this must have an effect but it seems that this is not in the consciousness of society at the moment.
Krishnamurti: I know.
Bohm: But are you saying still the effect is there?
Krishnamurti: Yes sir.
MZ: Are you saying that the perception of even a small part of it is not to be... (inaudible)
Krishnamurti: Of course, of course.
MZ: It is in itself the changing factor?
Krishnamurti: I think we better stop here.
Bohm: Well, I don't want to raise a question but do you think it is possible that a thing like this could divert the course of mankind away from the dangerous course that is taking place?
Krishnamurti: Yes sir, that is what I am thinking too. But to divert the course of man's destruction somebody must listen. Right?
Krishnamurti: Somebody – ten people must listen.
Krishnamurti: Listen – they listen but I mean listen to that immensity calling.
Bohm: So the immensity may make possible, may divert the course of man, you say. The individual cannot do it.
Krishnamurti: Yes, the individual cannot do it, obviously. But the individual, but « X », who is supposed to be an individual, has trodden this path and says, « Listen », but they don't listen!
Bohm: Well then somehow discover, is it possible to discover how to make people listen?
Krishnamurti: More, oh, you are back. Sir, we better stop. But what.
Bohm: What do you mean?
Krishnamurti: The actors of the show – the last appearance.
Bohm: What does it mean not to do a thing?
Questioner: « Y » is not to do a thing. What does that mean?
Krishnamurti: Thing being thought. You don't want to go into all that. Sir I realise as « Y » that whatever I do, whatever I do: sacrifice, give up, practise, discipline, whatever I do I am still living in that circle of darkness. Right? So « X » says, « Don't act, you have nothing to do. » You follow? That is translated – « That's all right,. I'll wait. You do everything, I'll sit, wait and see what happens. » No, I must pursue this sir. It is all so hopeless, hopeless from the point of view of « Y », not to « X ».
Right sir, we better stop.
Eighth Conversation with David Bohm in Ojai
Saturday, April 19, 1980
© 2016 Copyright by Krishnamurti Foundations