Krishnamurti
What shall we talk about? What do you think is the most important thing that we three can talk about?
Shainberg
Well, the one thing, I’ve had an idea lately, and there is one thing that’s been on my mind, and I have been getting it from, I mean, when we talked before. And that is: there is the feeling you have 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 I think 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.
Krishnamurti
What do you say?
Bohm
Well, in relation to that I perhaps would like to talk about the question of wholeness.
Krishnamurti
Yes, sir. Shall we talk about that first…
Bohm
Which first?
Krishnamurti
…and then include yours?
Shainberg
Sure. I mean, I think this is part of it.
Krishnamurti
Part of that, yes.
Shainberg
I see that second-handedness is not wholeness.
Krishnamurti
Wholeness, 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?
Shainberg
Through direct awareness of the fragmentation.
Krishnamurti
No, I would like to—I am just asking it because—are we discussing it theoretically?
Shainberg
No.
Krishnamurti
Verbally, or taking ourselves—you, we three—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.
Shainberg
Right, right. Well, if we see the fragmentation, the wholeness is there.
Krishnamurti
Ah, no, no, don’t assume anything.
Shainberg
Oh, that’s right.
Bohm
That’s too fast.
Krishnamurti
Then we are off to theory.
Shainberg
Okay. Right, right.
Krishnamurti
You know, 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 do not know if I am conveying this.
Shainberg
Go ahead.
Krishnamurti
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; you know, the whole activity is fragmented—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?
Shainberg
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.
Krishnamurti
Are you?
Shainberg
One at a time, you know? Spread out like that, like a machine-gun.
Krishnamurti
Yes. So you are really aware one by one.
Shainberg
Right. And caught up by the movement of the fragments.
Krishnamurti
One by one. Is that so? Are you sure that it is so?
Shainberg
Yes, I think… I mean, 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 am aware of these many.
Krishnamurti
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 is asking that question?
Shainberg
Yes. You mean: is he is coming from a fragmented position or he is coming from a whole position?
Krishnamurti
No, no. If he is asking from the whole position, there is no question.
Shainberg
Right.
Krishnamurti
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?
Bohm
Well, generally, the thing presents itself first as primarily one fragment…
Krishnamurti
One fragment at a time.
Bohm
…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 preeminence in awareness.
Shainberg
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 am immediately caught up into two fragments there. And then I have another idea, which is the repetition of that first idea, so I am caught up in a movement of fragments rather than—I mean, my attitude is fragmented, my relationship is fragmented, my very substance of movement is a feeling of fragmentation. I don’t have any center when I am fragmented. I am not…
Krishnamurti
I am not sure about that.
Shainberg
That is the question.
Bohm
No, no.
Krishnamurti
I am not at all sure that there is no center when you are fragmented.
Bohm
I think definitely there is a center.
Krishnamurti
There is.
Bohm
Because, I mean, that is the major fragment you are aware of.
Krishnamurti
That’s right.
Shainberg
Then let us go into that more.
Bohm
Well, I just think that there is a center which you may sense anywhere, say here or here, and that seems to be the center of everything. Everything that is connected to everything, right?
Shainberg
I see what you are saying, but I feel that when the fragmentation is going on, it is like the center is looking for itself. It feels like it’s not a center.
Krishnamurti
Are you aware of the fragmentation? Not, fragmentation is going on.
Shainberg
No, you’re not. I am not.
Krishnamurti
Then what are we aware of?
Shainberg
I think—that is a terrific question. Because I think when there is fragmentation, what we are aware of is like being sucked into more fragments. In other words, there is a kind of movement of more fragmentation, more fragmentation, which is what we are aware of. It is what you have talked of in terms of pleasure. It is like pleasure is pulling us forward into more fragments—this would give me pleasure, that would give me pleasure, that would give me pleasure. And it is that feeling of pieces.
Krishnamurti
Before we go into the question of pleasure…
Shainberg
Yes.
Krishnamurti
…are we aware, actually, from a center, which says, “I am fragmented”? That is the question, isn’t it?
Bohm
Yes.
Shainberg
Right. That is the question.
Bohm
We are both aware of a center and from a center, you see…
Krishnamurti
That’s it.
Bohm
…and this center seems to be, as you say, the fragment that is dominating, or attempting to dominate.
Krishnamurti
That center is the dominating factor.
Bohm
Yes. In other words…
Krishnamurti
Which is in itself a fragment.
Bohm
Yes. I mean, this center is itself… well, it seems to be the center of your being, you know, as it were, the center of the ego or the self, which one might think is the whole.
Krishnamurti
Quite, quite.
Bohm
Because it is in contact with everything, you see. In other words…
Krishnamurti
Would you say having a center is the very cause of fragmentation?
Bohm
Yes, I would say that, although at first sight it seems quite different.
Shainberg
At first sight it seems—and I think that is important. The difference between—at first sight it doesn’t seem that way.
Bohm
At first sight it seems that the center is what is organizing everything into a whole.
Shainberg
Right.
Krishnamurti
Yes.
Bohm
In other words, one feels one wants a center to bring everything to a whole, to stop the fragmentation.
Krishnamurti
Yes, try to bring about integration, try to make wholeness and all that.
Shainberg
Right. If you feel the fragmentation, and then you center here, and say, “I can see all the fragmentations”—but that is still center.
Krishnamurti
No, but I am asking: when there is a center, doesn’t it make for fragments?
Shainberg
That I see. I see what you are saying. But I am trying to take it from: what is the experience when there is fragmentation? There doesn’t seem to be a center.
Krishnamurti
A contradiction. Contradiction.
Shainberg
Right. But it doesn’t feel like a center.
Krishnamurti
No. Contradiction. Sir, when there are fragments, I am aware of the fragments because of contradiction.
Shainberg
Right.
Krishnamurti
Because opposing factors.
Shainberg
Yes.
Bohm
You mean by contradiction also conflict…
Krishnamurti
Conflict. Out of contradiction there is conflict. Then I am aware that there are fragments. I am working in an area of fragments.
Shainberg
Right. But then, yes, and then I am not aware of the fact that I have in fact got a center. That is the self-deception, right there.
Krishnamurti
No, I think—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.
Bohm
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?
Krishnamurti
Yes, conflict is unpleasant, and therefore one is aware that…
Bohm
…that something is wrong.
Krishnamurti
Wrong. Yes.
Bohm
Something is wrong. Not just simply wrong, but wrong with the whole thing.
Krishnamurti
Whole thing, of course. Sir, after all, self consciousness, when 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 am aware, I am in conflict”—otherwise there is no awareness. I wonder if I am…
Shainberg
Yes. Go ahead. You are saying that the very fragmentation itself breeds the center.
Krishnamurti
Breeds the center.
Shainberg
And the center has bred the fragmentation, so it is like a…
Krishnamurti
Yes, back and forth.
Shainberg
Right.
Bohm
Well, would you say that thought in itself, before there is a center, breeds conflict in it? Or is there thought before a center?
Krishnamurti
Is there thought—oh, thought before the center.
Bohm
Yes. I mean, one view is to say that the center and thought are always co-existent and one breeds the other.
Krishnamurti
One breeds the other, quite.
Bohm
Or the other view is to say that there might be thought first, and that produces conflict, and then that produces a center.
Krishnamurti
Let’s go into that a little bit.
Bohm
Yes.
Shainberg
That’s a good one!
Krishnamurti
Does thought exist before conflict?
Bohm
Before a center.
Krishnamurti
Before the center. One is aware of the center only when there is conflict.
Bohm
Yeah, because that comes in apparently to try to bring about wholeness again, you see? To take charge of everything.
Krishnamurti
The center tries to take charge, or try to create wholeness.
Bohm
Yes, to bring all the factors together.
Krishnamurti
But center itself is a fragment.
Bohm
Yes, but it doesn’t know that.
Krishnamurti
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 center, or the center existed before the thought?
Bohm
Or the two together?
Krishnamurti
Or the two together.
Shainberg
Right, right. Or he is also asking: does thought create the center?
Krishnamurti
Thought creates the center…
Shainberg
And that would be the action, the very creation in the—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 center? That I think carries it, because then…
Krishnamurti
Are you asking—yes, let’s be clear on this point, too. Are we asking: did thought create the center?
Bohm
Yes, and was there, therefore, a kind of thought before a center?
Krishnamurti
Yes. Thought before the center. That’s it.
Bohm
Which came into contradiction.
Krishnamurti
Yes. Thought created the center, or the center existed before the thought…
Bohm
Or else the center was—that’s a view which is common. I mean, people think the center is me who was first.
Krishnamurti
“Me” is the first.
Bohm
And then I began to think, right?
Krishnamurti
Yes. No, I think thought exists before the center.
Shainberg
Yes, then we have to ask the question—I don’t know if we want to get into it at this minute—but then we have to ask the question of: why is there thought? Or: what is thought?
Krishnamurti
Oh, that is a different matter. Do we go into that?
Bohm
That might be a long story.
Shainberg
Yes that’s a long story. I don’t think that’s for now. But we have to get at that.
Krishnamurti
No, but…
Shainberg
Let’s stay with what we started with.
Krishnamurti
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 is the next question. You can’t be aware of the whole if I am only looking through a small hole.
Shainberg
Right. But on the other hand, in actuality, you are the whole.
Krishnamurti
Ah! That is a theory.
Shainberg
Is it? That’s where…
Bohm
A supposition, yes.
Krishnamurti
Of course. When you are fragmented how can you assume that you are the whole?
Shainberg
Well, that’s a wonderful… I mean, that’s an issue, because how am I to know I’m fragmented?
Krishnamurti
That’s what we are asking.
Shainberg
Yes.
Krishnamurti
When are you aware that you are fragmented? Only when there is conflict.
Shainberg
Right, that’s right.
Krishnamurti
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.
Shainberg
Right, right. But at those moments it often times happens that you don’t want to let go of the conflict. It is like you feel your fragmentation…
Krishnamurti
No, that’s a different matter. That’s a different matter.
Shainberg
Right.
Krishnamurti
What we are asking is: can the fragment dissolve itself? And then only it is possible to see the whole. You cannot be fragmented and then wish for the whole.
Shainberg
Right.
Krishnamurti
Then it is merely…
Shainberg
All you really know is your fragmentation.
Krishnamurti
That’s all we know.
Bohm
That’s right.
Krishnamurti
Therefore, let’s stick to that, and not beat round the bush and say, “Well, let’s talk about the whole,” and all the rest of it.
Bohm
Yes. And the supposition that there is a whole may be apparently reasonable, but as long as you are fragmented you could never see it. It would be just an assumption.
Shainberg
Right, right.
Bohm
You may think you experienced it once, but that’s also an assumption, because you don’t… that is gone already.
Krishnamurti
Absolutely. Quite right.
Shainberg
You know, 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…
Krishnamurti
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 am a Hindu.” It’s only when you are challenged, it is only when you say, “What are you?,” then you say, “Yes, I am an Indian,” or a Hindu, or an Arab.
Bohm
When the country is challenged, then you have got to war.
Krishnamurti
Of course.
Shainberg
Right. So you’re saying that I am living totally reactively.
Krishnamurti
No, you are totally living in a kind of—what?—miasma, confusion.
Shainberg
From one piece to the next, from one reaction to the next reaction.
Krishnamurti
Reward and punishment in that movement. So can we be aware, actually now—now—of the various fragments? That I am a Hindu, that I am a Jew, that I am an Arab, that I am a Communist, that I am a Catholic, that I am a businessman, I am married, I have responsibilities, I am an artist, I am a scientist—you follow?—these various sociological fragmentations, as well as psychological fragmentation.
Shainberg
Right, right. That’s exactly what I started with. Right. This feeling that I am a fragment, this feeling that—that’s where I get absorbed, is being a fragment…
Krishnamurti
Which you call the individual.
Shainberg
That I call important, not just the individual!
Krishnamurti
You call that important.
Shainberg
Right. That I have to work.
Krishnamurti
Quite.
Shainberg
That it’s significant.
Krishnamurti
So can we now, in talking over together, be aware that I am that? I am a fragment, and therefore creating more fragments, more conflict, more misery, more confusion, more sorrow, because when there is conflict, it affects everything.
Shainberg
Right.
Krishnamurti
Can you be aware of it as we are discussing?
Shainberg
I can be aware as we are discussing it a little.
Krishnamurti
Aha, not a little.
Shainberg
That’s the trouble. Why can’t I be aware of it?
Krishnamurti
No, sir. You are only aware of it when there is conflict. It is not a conflict in you now.
Shainberg
Yes.
Bohm
But is it possible to be aware of it without conflict?
Krishnamurti
That’s the next thing, yes. That requires quite a different…
Bohm
How will we consider this different approach?
Krishnamurti
Quite a different approach.
Bohm
Well, I was thinking of looking at one point that the importance of these fragments is that when I identify myself and say, “I am this,” “I am 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 is the whole, and makes itself very important.
Shainberg
Right, takes up the whole life. This is life.
Bohm
Yeah. And then comes a contradiction, and then comes another fragment saying it’s the whole.
Krishnamurti
Look what is happening in Northern Ireland, the Arab world, the Middle Eastern world, the Muslim and the Hindu—you know, this whole world is broken up that way: outside and inside.
Shainberg
Me and you.
Krishnamurti
Yes, me and you, we and they, and all the rest of it.
Bohm
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.
Krishnamurti
That’s a different thing.
Bohm
There is no problem there. But if we say, “I am this, I am wholly this,” then I also say, “I am wholly that and I am wholly that.”
Shainberg
You are bringing in something different there. though. That is 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 am a separate thing.
Krishnamurti
I question that, sir. Say, for instance, the Arab and the Israeli—are they aware that they are… I am an Arab, I want to fight that somebody else who is not? Or I have an idea—you follow?—idea.
Bohm
What do you mean? An idea that I am an Arab?
Krishnamurti
Yes.
Bohm
But the idea is that that’s very important as well. I am totally an Arab.
Krishnamurti
Yes, I am totally an Arab.
Bohm
It’s all-important. That’s the form of the idea, isn’t it?
Krishnamurti
Yes.
Bohm
And now somebody else has the idea, “I am a Jew,” that’s all-important, therefore they must destroy each other.
Krishnamurti
Impossible to… quite. And I think the politicians, the religious people are encouraging all of this.
Bohm
But they are also running by fragments…
Krishnamurti
Because they are fragmented themselves. You see, that is the whole point. People who are in power, being fragmented, sustain the fragmentations.
Shainberg
Right. Of course, the only way to get into power is to be fragmented.
Krishnamurti
Of course!
Bohm
Well, he says: it is all-important that I should be a politician, and successful, and so on…
Krishnamurti
Of course.
Shainberg
This movement into fragmentation, almost, it seems to be caused by something. It seems to be…
Krishnamurti
Have you asked—is this what you are asking: what is the cause of this fragmentation? Right?
Shainberg
Yeah, right. What is the cause of the fragmentation? What breeds it?
Krishnamurti
That’s very simple.
Shainberg
What sucks us into it?
Krishnamurti
No, what brings about fragmentation?
Shainberg
Now, you know, what brings it about, when the mother and child start—when the child separates from the mother. Right?
Krishnamurti
Biologically.
Shainberg
No, psychologically.
Krishnamurti
Biologically as well as…
Shainberg
The child starts, 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 is not able to let go says, “Hey, come back here!”
Krishnamurti
Quite.
Shainberg
And 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.”
Krishnamurti
Quite. But, no. We are asking something very important, which is: what is the cause of this fragmentation?
Shainberg
Yes. That’s why I was getting into that—there is some cause there. I mean, it begins there, I have got to hold on to something.
Krishnamurti
No. Just look at it, sir. What has brought fragmentation in you?
Shainberg
Well, my immediate response is the need to hold on to something.
Krishnamurti
No, much deeper than that. Much more. Look at it. Look at it. Let’s go slowly at it.
Shainberg
Okay.
Krishnamurti
Not immediate responses. What brings this conflict, which indicates I am fragmented, and then I ask the question: what brings this fragmentation? What is the cause of it?
Bohm
Are you saying there is a conflict, and there something happens that causes fragmentation in the conflict? Is that what you are saying?
Shainberg
No, he’s saying the fragmentation causes the conflict.
Bohm
Is the cause of the conflict. Then what is the cause of the fragmentation? Right? That’s important.
Krishnamurti
Why are you and I and the majority of the world fragmented? What is the source of it?
Bohm
It seems we won’t find the cause by going back in time to a certain happening.
Shainberg
I am not looking for genetics, I am looking for right this second. I come upon a, to put it in these words, it seems to do that. There is a focusing or a holding on to something inside my movement.
Krishnamurti
Sir, look at it 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?
Shainberg
Fear. I mean—
Krishnamurti
No, no, much more.
Bohm
Maybe the fragmentation causes fear.
Krishnamurti
Yes, that’s it, that’s it. Why am I a Hindu? I am not a Hindu, I am not an Indian, I have no nationality—but suppose I call myself a Hindu. What makes me a Hindu?
Shainberg
Well, conditioning would make you a Hindu.
Krishnamurti
Which is, what is the background, what is the feeling, or what is it that makes me say I am a Hindu? Which is a fragmentation, obviously.
Shainberg
Right, right.
Krishnamurti
What makes it? My father, my grandfather, generations of generations, after ten thousand or five thousand years, said, “You are a Brahmin.” And I say, “All right, I am a Brahmin.”
Shainberg
You don’t say. “All right, I am a Brahmin”—you say “I am a Brahmin.”
Krishnamurti
I am a Brahmin.
Shainberg
Right. That’s quite different. You say, “I am a Brahmin” because it’s like you… they work on you that way.
Krishnamurti
Yes. “I am a Brahmin” is like you saying, “I am a Christian.”
Shainberg
Right.
Krishnamurti
Which is what?
Shainberg
That is tradition, conditioning, sociology, history, culture, climate, everything.
Krishnamurti
But behind that, what is that?
Shainberg
Behind that is man’s…
Krishnamurti
No, no, don’t theorize. Look at it in yourself.
Shainberg
Well, that gives me a place, an identity. I know who I am then. I have my little niche.
Krishnamurti
Who made that niche?
Shainberg
Well, I made it and they helped me make it. In other words, I am co-operating in this very…
Krishnamurti
But you are not co-operating. You are it.
Shainberg
I am it! Right, but I mean—that’s right, the whole thing is moving toward putting me in a hole.
Krishnamurti
So what made you, the great-great-great- arrieres, eh? Grandparents made, created this environment, this culture, this whole structure of human existence, with all its misery and with all the mess it is in. Who, what has brought it about? Which is the fragmentation with all the conflict and all the…
Shainberg
The same action then is now.
Krishnamurti
Now. That’s all I am asking.
Shainberg
Yes. The same action that makes man now, right now.
Krishnamurti
Exactly! The Babylonians, the Egyptians, the ancient—we are exactly the same monkeys now.
Shainberg
Right.
Bohm
Yes.
Shainberg
Well, this is what I was getting at in the beginning. This all gives me my second-hand existence.
Krishnamurti
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 or unwillingly.
Shainberg
Love it. Love it.
Krishnamurti
We are of it. I am willing to kill somebody because he is a communist or a socialist, or whatever it is. Exactly what is going on in Northern Ireland, in the Middle East.
Shainberg
Well, everywhere. I mean, you know, doctors, lawyers…
Krishnamurti
Of course, of course. It is the same problem.
Shainberg
Same problem. 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 am, then I don’t look at the tree.
Krishnamurti
Yes, sir, but you are not answering my question.
Shainberg
I have some answers, but I…
Krishnamurti
Is it the desire for security—biological as well as psychological security?
Shainberg
You could say yes.
Krishnamurti
If I belong to something—to some organization, to some group, to some sect, to some ideological community—I am safe there.
Bohm
But that is not clear. Because you may feel safe, but…
Krishnamurti
I feel safe there. But it may not be safety.
Bohm
Yeah, but why don’t I see that I am not really safe, you see?
Krishnamurti
Because I am so—what? It’s coming, you… go into it, it’s coming.
Shainberg
I don’t see it.
Krishnamurti
No. Just look. I join a community…
Shainberg
Right. I’m a doctor.
Krishnamurti
Yes, you’re a doctor.
Shainberg
I get all these ideas.
Krishnamurti
You are a doctor. You have a special position in society.
Shainberg
Right. And I got a lot of ideas of how things work.
Krishnamurti
You have a special position in society, and there you are completely safe. Safe.
Shainberg
Right.
Krishnamurti
You can malpractice and all the rest of it, but you are very protected by other doctors, the other organizations, a group of doctors who are all—you follow?
Shainberg
Right.
Krishnamurti
You feel secure.
Bohm
But it is essential that I shouldn’t inquire too far to feel secure, isn’t it? I mean, in other words, I must stop my inquiry at a certain point.
Krishnamurti
I am a doctor—finished.
Bohm
I don’t ask many questions about it, but if I started to ask questions…
Krishnamurti
…then you’re out!
Bohm
Then if people say: don’t ask questions, that’s…
Krishnamurti
If I begin to ask questions about my community, and my relationship to that community, my relationship with the world, my relation to my neighbor, I am finished—I am out of the community. I am lost.
Shainberg
That’s right.
Krishnamurti
So to feel safe, secure, protected, I belong.
Shainberg
I depend.
Krishnamurti
I depend.
Bohm
So I depend wholly, in some sense. If I don’t have that, then I feel the whole thing is sunk.
Shainberg
Ah, but see, this is even—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.
Krishnamurti
Quite, quite.
Shainberg
So that’s my conflict.
Krishnamurti
He is the victim.
Shainberg
That’s right, my victim, right. He loves that…
Bohm
But again, you see, it’s still not clear why I should go on with it. You see, in other words, as long as I don’t ask questions I can feel comfortable, but I feel uncomfortable and I do ask questions that are 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. I mean, it’s all dangerous. In other words, this community itself is in a mess and it may collapse. Or even if the whole of it doesn’t collapse, you can’t count on the academic profession anymore, you know, they may not give money for universities…
Krishnamurti
Quite!
Bohm
Everything is changing so fast that you don’t know where you are. So why should I go on with not asking questions, you see?
Krishnamurti
Why don’t I ask questions? Because fear.
Bohm
Fear, but that fear is from fragmentation.
Krishnamurti
Of course. So is it: the beginning of this fragmentation takes place when one is seeking security?
Shainberg
But why wouldn’t it…
Krishnamurti
Both biologically and as well as psychologically. Primarily psychologically, then biologically.
Shainberg
Right.
Krishnamurti
Physically.
Bohm
But isn’t the tendency to seek security physically built into the organism?
Krishnamurti
Yes, that’s right. It is. I must have food, clothes, shelter. It is absolutely necessary.
Shainberg
Right.
Krishnamurti
And when that is threatened—say, if I questioned the communist system altogether, living in Russia—I am a non-person.
Shainberg
But let’s go a little bit slower here. Why would—you’re suggesting there that in my need for security biologically, I must have some fragmentation.
Krishnamurti
No, sir. Biologically, fragmentation takes place, the insecurity takes place, when psychologically I want security.
Shainberg
Okay.
Krishnamurti
I don’t know if I am making myself clear—wait a minute. That is, if I don’t psychologically belong to a group, then I am out of that group.
Shainberg
And then I am insecure.
Krishnamurti
I am insecure.
Shainberg
Right.
Krishnamurti
And because the group gives me security—physical security—I accept everything they give me, say to me.
Shainberg
Right.
Krishnamurti
But the moment I object psychologically to the structure of the society or the community, I am lost.
Shainberg
Right.
Krishnamurti
I mean, this is an obvious fact.
Shainberg
Right.
Bohm
Yes.
Shainberg
Well, 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.
Krishnamurti
Partly.
Shainberg
Partly. And that the movement of fragmentation is the conditioning.
Krishnamurti
Sir, look, 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, we’d all be one. He is my brother; I am him, he is me. But this fragmentation prevents that taking place.
Shainberg
Right. So you’re even suggesting more something there—you’re suggesting that we would help each other.
Krishnamurti
Naturally I would help—obviously!
Bohm
We are going around in a circle though, still, because you say…
Krishnamurti
I am 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 is prevented because I am a Hindu, you are an Arab, he is a Russian—you follow?—all that is prevented. And we are asking: why does this fragmentation take place? What is the source of it? Is it knowledge? Yes, sir!
Shainberg
It is knowledge, you think, you say…
Krishnamurti
Is it knowledge? I am sure it is, but I am putting it as a question.
Shainberg
It certainly seems to be.
Krishnamurti
No, no—look into it. Let’s find out.
Shainberg
What do you mean by knowledge? What are you talking about there?
Krishnamurti
The word “to know.” Do I know you? Or: I have known you? I can never say, “I know you”—literally; I mean, 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.
Shainberg
Right.
Krishnamurti
And to say “I know you” means I am acquainted or intimate with that movement which is always going on in you. It would be impudence on my part to say, “I know you.”
Shainberg
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. It’s from being with you.
Krishnamurti
So knowing, to know, is the past. Would you say that…
Bohm
Yes, I mean what we know is the past and—
Krishnamurti
Knowledge is the past.
Bohm
But, I mean, the danger is that we call it the present. The danger is that we call knowledge the present.
Krishnamurti
That is just it.
Bohm
In other words, if we said the past is the past, then wouldn’t you say it needn’t fragment?
Krishnamurti
What is that? Sorry.
Bohm
If we said, if we recognized, 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.
Krishnamurti
That wouldn’t, quite right.
Bohm
But if we say what we know is what is present now, then we are introducing fragmentation.
Krishnamurti
Quite right, quite.
Bohm
Because we are imposing this partial knowledge on the whole.
Krishnamurti
So would you say knowledge is one of the factors of fragmentation? Sir, that is saying an awful—you follow?
Bohm
What does it mean?
Krishnamurti
It is a large pill to swallow!
Bohm
But also, you are implying there are other factors.
Krishnamurti
Yes. And that may be the only factor.
Bohm
Yes. But I think we should look at it this way":" that people have hoped through knowledge to overcome fragmentation—
Krishnamurti
Of course.
Bohm
—to produce a system of knowledge that will put it all together.
Krishnamurti
Like in Bronowski’s Ascent of Man through knowledge: emphasizing knowledge, knowledge, knowledge. Is that not one of the major factors (or perhaps the factor) of fragmentation? My experience tells me I am a Hindu, my experience tells me I know what god is.
Bohm
Wouldn’t we better say that confusion about the role of knowledge is what’s the cause fragmentation? In other words, knowledge itself, you see, if you say knowledge is always the cause—
Krishnamurti
No, I said, we began by asking—
Bohm
Yeah, I mean let’s make it clear.
Krishnamurti
Of course, 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.
Shainberg
Right.
Bohm
Yes, so we are not confused about it any more.
Krishnamurti
Of course.
Shainberg
Right, right. You know, I was just going to bring in this rather interesting example: a patient of mine was teaching me something the other day, and she said, “I have the feeling that, as a doctor, the way you operate is,” she says, “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!”
Krishnamurti
Quite, quite.
Shainberg
That is what you are saying.
Krishnamurti
No, a little more, sir, than that. We are saying—both Dr. Bohm and I—we are saying: knowledge has its place.
Shainberg
Let’s go into that.
Krishnamurti
Like driving a car, learning a language, and so on.
Bohm
We could say: why is that not fragmentation? We could to make it clear, you see, that, in other words, if we drive a car using knowledge, that is not fragmentation.
Krishnamurti
No, but when knowledge is used psychologically—
Bohm
One should see more clearly what the difference is. That is, the car itself, as I see it, is a part, a limited part, and therefore it can be handled by knowledge.
Shainberg
You mean, it’s a limited part of life.
Bohm
Of life, yes. But when we say I am so and so, I mean the whole of me, you see? And therefore I am applying a part to the whole. I am trying to cover the whole by a part.
Krishnamurti
When knowledge assumes it understands the whole…
Bohm
Yes.
Shainberg
Yes.
Krishnamurti
…then begins the mischief.
Bohm
But it is often very tricky, because I am not explicitly spelling out that I understand the whole, but it is implicit by saying I, or everything is this way, or I am this way.
Krishnamurti
Quite, quite.
Bohm
It implies that the whole is this way, you see. The whole of me, the whole of life, the whole of the world.
Shainberg
What Krishnaji was saying, I mean, 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.
Bohm
Yeah, but I am saying about you then I shouldn’t say I know all, because you are not a limited part like a machine is—that’s what’s implied. You see, the machine is fairly limited and we can know all that is relevant about it—or almost all, anyway; sometimes it breaks down.
Krishnamurti
Quite, quite.
Bohm
But when it comes to another person, that’s immensely beyond what you could really know. The past experience doesn’t tell you the essence.
Krishnamurti
Are you saying, Dr. Bohm, that when knowledge spills over into the psychological field…
Bohm
Well, also in another field which I call the whole in general. You see, sometimes it spills over into the philosophical field and man tries to make it metaphysical, the whole universe.
Krishnamurti
Of course. That is—of course, I mean, that’s purely theoretical and that has no meaning to me, personally.
Bohm
But, I mean, that’s one of the ways in which it does that, you see. It goes wrong. Some people feel that when they are discussing metaphysics of the whole universe that is not psychological. It probably is; but the motives behind it are psychological, but some people may feel that they’re making a theory of the universe, not discussing psychology. I think it’s a matter of getting the language.
Krishnamurti
Language, quite.
Shainberg
Well, I mean, you see this with—what you’re saying, or what he’s 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.
Krishnamurti
Quite.
Bohm
Or you have a metaphysics about yourself saying: I’m such and such a person.
Shainberg
Right, right. I have a metaphysics that life is hopeless and I must depend on these—
Krishnamurti
No, all that we can say is: we are fragmented—that’s a fact—and I am aware of those fragmentations, fragmented mind. There is an awareness of the fragmented mind because of conflict.
Shainberg
That’s right.
Bohm
You were saying before, we have got to have an approach where we are not aware just because of that.
Krishnamurti
Yes. That’s right.
Bohm
Are we coming to that?
Krishnamurti
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.
Shainberg
Perhaps knowledge.
Krishnamurti
Knowledge. Psychologically, I use knowledge. “I know myself,” when I really don’t know, because I am 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? That fragmentation takes place when there is a desire for security, psychological security, which prevents biological security?
Shainberg
Right.
Krishnamurti
You say: right. And therefore, security may be one of the factors. Security in knowledge, used wrongly.
Bohm
Or could you say that some sort of mistake has been made? That, say, man feels insecure biologically, and he thinks, you know: what shall I do? And he makes a mistake in the sense that he tries to obtain a psychological sense of security by thinking, or by knowledge.
Krishnamurti
By knowledge, yes.
Shainberg
By knowing.
Bohm
Yeah.
Shainberg
By repeating himself, by depending on all of these structures.
Krishnamurti
One feels secure in having an ideal.
Shainberg
Right. That’s so true.
Bohm
You see, but somewhere I always ask why a person makes this mistake? You see, in other words, if the mind had been absolutely clear, let’s say, it would never have done that. Isn’t that right?
Shainberg
If the mind had been absolutely clear. But we have just said that there is biological insecurity. That’s a fact.
Bohm
But that doesn’t imply that you have to delude yourself.
Krishnamurti
Quite right.
Shainberg
But that implies that the organism—no, that’s right—but it implies that that has to be met.
Bohm
Yeah, but the delusion doesn’t need it.
Shainberg
Right. That’s the nub of the issue.
Krishnamurti
Go on further. You can see if you want.
Shainberg
I mean, there’s that biological fact of my constant uncertainty. The biological fact of constant change.
Krishnamurti
That’s created through psychological fragmentation.
Shainberg
My biological uncertainty?
Krishnamurti
Of course! I may lose my job, I may have no money tomorrow.
Bohm
Now, let’s look at that: to say I may have no money tomorrow. You see, that may be an actual fact, but now the question is: what happens? You see, what would you say if the man were clear; what would be his response?
Krishnamurti
You would never be put in that position.
Bohm
You mean, he wouldn’t get there in the first place.
Shainberg
He wouldn’t have that question.
Bohm
But suppose he finds himself without money, you see?
Krishnamurti
He would do something.
Bohm
He’ll do something. His mind won’t just go to pieces.
Krishnamurti
Go in nightmarish circles.
Shainberg
He won’t have to have all the money he thinks he has to have.
Bohm
But aside from that, he won’t go into this well of confusion.
Krishnamurti
No, absolutely.
Shainberg
I mean, the problem 99% of the time, I certainly agree, is that we all think we need more; that we have this ideal of what we should have.
Krishnamurti
No, sir. We are trying to stick to one point, which is: what is the cause of this fragmentation?
Shainberg
Right.
Krishnamurti
We said knowledge spilling over into the field where it should not enter.
Bohm
But why does it do so, you see?
Krishnamurti
Why does it do it? It’s very simple.
Bohm
Why?
Krishnamurti
We’ve got another five, six minutes more. It’s very simple. Go on, sir.
Shainberg
My sense of it is—from what we have been saying—is that it does it in a delusion of security. It thinks that there is&—thought creates the illusion that there is security there.
Bohm
Yes, but why doesn’t intelligence show that there is no security, you see? I’m not—it’s not clear.
Shainberg
Why doesn’t intelligence show it?
Bohm
Yeah. In other words—
Krishnamurti
Can a fragmented mind be intelligent?
Shainberg
No.
Bohm
Well, it resists intelligence.
Krishnamurti
It can pretend to be intelligent.
Bohm
Yes. But are you saying that once the mind fragments, then intelligence is gone?
Krishnamurti
Yes.
Bohm
But now that—
Shainberg
He said yeah.
Bohm
Yeah. But now you are creating a serious problem, because you are also saying that there can be an end to fragmentation.
Krishnamurti
That’s right.
Bohm
You see, at first sight that would seem to be a contradiction. Is that clear?
Krishnamurti
It looks like that, but it’s not.
Shainberg
All I know is fragmentation.
Krishnamurti
Therefore—
Shainberg
That’s what I have got.
Krishnamurti
Let’s stick to it and see if it can end. We—go through it!
Shainberg
I am…
Bohm
But you say the fragmented mind cannot, intelligence cannot operate there.
Shainberg
I feel like one answer to your question is that, you know, we’ve talked about it in terms of conditioning. I feel like I am a victim, or I am 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? “Come.” My mother or my father says, “Look, it is good to be a doctor,” or this one says it is good to go to do this.
Krishnamurti
Is psychological security more important than biological security?
Shainberg
Well, you know, that’s an interesting question.
Krishnamurti
Go on, don’t make it into…! We have got five minutes—come to it!
Shainberg
Right. Well, no, one thing: we are convinced, somehow or the other, I think the society—
Krishnamurti
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?
Shainberg
It isn’t, but it feels like it is.
Krishnamurti
No, no, no, don’t move away from it. I’m asking you. Stick to it. To you.
Bohm
Are you asking: what is the fact—
Krishnamurti
What’s the fact?
Shainberg
I would say yes, that psychological security seems…
Krishnamurti
Not—now, don’t…
Bohm
What is actually true?
Shainberg
Actually true? No. Biological security is more important.
Krishnamurti
Biological? Are you sure?
Shainberg
No. I’ve turned it around. I think psychological security is what actually I worry about most.
Krishnamurti
Psychological security.
Shainberg
That’s what I worry about most.
Krishnamurti
Which prevents biological security!
Shainberg
Right. I forget about biological security.
Krishnamurti
No, no. Because I am 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 am a Hindu, a blasted little somebody in a little corner.
Shainberg
No question. I do feel that psychological—
Krishnamurti
So can we be free of the desire to be psychologically secure?
Shainberg
That’s right. That is the question.
Krishnamurti
Of course it is!
Shainberg
That’s the nub of it, right.
Krishnamurti
Last night I was listening to some people about—Margarita or one of them was holding; who was the chairman, or what it was—and they were all talking about Ireland, various things. Each man was completely convinced, you know?
Shainberg
That’s right. I sit in on meetings every week. Each man thinks his territory is the most important.
Krishnamurti
Yeah. So man has given more importance to psychological security than to biological, physical security.
Bohm
Yes, but it’s not clear why he should delude himself in this way.
Krishnamurti
That is. He has deluded himself—why? Why? The answer is there. Why? We’ve got two minutes more. We’ll have to stop—
Shainberg
Images, power, the—
Krishnamurti
No, sir, much deeper. Why has he given importance?
Shainberg
He seems to think that—we, not he—we seem to think that’s where security is; that that’s most important.
Krishnamurti
No, no. Look more into it. The “me” is the most important thing.
Shainberg
Right. That’s the same thing.
Krishnamurti
No, no—“me.” My position, my happiness, my money, my house, my wife—“me.”
Shainberg
Me.
Bohm
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, you know, that the rest wouldn’t mean anything.
Krishnamurti
That’s the whole point! The “me” gives me complete security, psychologically.
Bohm
But, I mean, it seems all-important.
Krishnamurti
Of course.
Shainberg
All-important.
Bohm
Yes, because people say: if I am sad, then the whole world has no meaning. Right?
Shainberg
Well, it’s not only that, but it’s: I am sad if the “me” is not important.
Bohm
Yes.
Krishnamurti
No, I don’t—we are saying: in the “me” is the greatest security.
Shainberg
Right. That’s what we think.
Krishnamurti
No, not we think. It is so.
Bohm
What do you mean, it is so?
Krishnamurti
In the world what is happening.
Bohm
That is what’s happening. But it’s a delusion, which is happening, right?
Krishnamurti
We’ll come to that later.
Bohm
Yeah.
Shainberg
I think that that’s a good point. That it is so that the “me” is—I like that way of getting at it—the “me” is what is important. That’s all that is!
Krishnamurti
That’s all, psychologically.
Shainberg
Psychologically.
Krishnamurti
Me, my country. Me, my god. Me, my house. And so on.
Shainberg
It is very hard to let that in, you know—
Krishnamurti
So it is twelve o’clock, we’d better stop.
Shainberg
Well, at least we’ve got your point.
Bohm
Right!