You are here
Part I - Dialogue 5 - 5th Conversation with Dr. David Shainberg and Prof. David Bohm, Brockwood Park - 19th May, 1976
KRISHNAMURTI: We have talked about the necessity for human beings to change, and about why they don't change, why they accept this intolerable condition of the human psyche. I think we ought to approach the same thing from a different angle. Who has invented the unconscious?
Dr Shainberg: Who has invented it? I think there is a difference between what we call the unconscious and what is the unconscious. The word is not the thing.
K: Yes, the word is not the thing. Who has thought it up?
S: Well, I think the history of thinking about the unconscious is a long and involved process.
K: May we ask: Have you an unconscious? Are you aware of your unconscious? Do you know if you have an unconscious that is operating differently, trying to give you hints - are you aware of all that?
S: Yes. I am aware of an aspect of myself that is incompletely aware. That is what I call the unconscious. It is aware of my experience, aware of events in an incomplete way. That's what I call the unconscious. It uses symbols and different modes of telling, of understanding a dream, say, in which I discover jealousy that I wasn't aware of.
K: Do you also give importance, Dr Bohm, to a feeling that there is such a thing?
Dr Bohm: Well, I don't know what you mean by that. I think there are some things we do that we are not aware of. We react, we use words in an habitual way...
S: We have dreams.
B: We have dreams, yes...
K: I am going to question all that because I am not sure...
S: You are not questioning that we have dreams?
K: No. But I want to question, I want to ask the experts if there is such a thing as the unconscious, because I don't think it has played any important part in my life at all.
S: Well, it depends on what you mean.
K: I will tell you what I mean. Something hidden, something incomplete, something that I have to go after consciously or unconsciously - discover, unearth, explore and expose. See the motives, see the hidden intentions.
B: Well, could we make it clear that there are some things people do which you can see they are not aware of doing?
K: I don't quite follow.
B: Well, for example, this Freudian slip of the tongue - somebody makes a slip of the tongue which expresses his will.
K: Yes, yes, I didn't mean that quite.
S: That is what most people think of as the unconscious. You see, I think there are two problems here, if I can just put in a technical statement. There has arisen in the history of thinking about the unconscious, a belief that there are things in it which must be lifted out. Then there are a large group of people now who think of the unconscious as areas of behaviour, areas of response, areas of experience that they are not fully aware of, so that in the daytime they might have, let's say, an experience of stress which they didn't finish with, and at night they go through re-working it in a new way.
K: I understand all that.
S: So that would be the unconscious in operation. You get it also from the past or from previous programmes of action.
K: I mean - the collective unconscious, the racial unconscious.
B: Let's say somebody has been deeply hurt in the past; you can see that his whole behaviour is governed by that. But he doesn't know it; he may not know it.
K: Yes, that I understand.
S: But his response is always from the past.
K: Yes, quite. What I am trying to find out is why we have divided the conscious and the unconscious. Or is it one unitary total process - one movement? Not hidden, not concealed, but moving as a whole current. These clever brainy birds come along and split it up and say there is the conscious and the unconscious, the hidden, the incomplete, the storehouse of racial memories, family memories....
S: The reason that that has happened, I think, is partially explained by the fact that Freud and Jung and others were seeing patients who had fragmented off this movement which you are talking about. So much knowledge of the unconscious grew out of that.
K: That's what I want to get at.
S: There's the whole history of hysteria, where patients couldn't move their arms, you know?
K: I know.
S: Then you open up their memories and eventually they can move their arms. Or there were people who had dual personalities...
K: Is it an insanity - not insanity - is it a state of mind that divides everything, that says there is the unconscious and the conscious? Is it also a process of fragmentation?
B: Well, wouldn't you say, as Freud has said, that certain material is made unconscious by the brain because it is too disturbing?
K: That is what I want to get at.
B: It is fragmented. That is well known in all schools of psychology.
S: That's right. That is what I am saying. It is fragmented off and is then called the unconscious. What is fragmented is the unconscious.
K: I understand that.
B: But would you say that the brain itself is in some sense holding it separate on purpose in order to avoid it?
K: Yes, avoiding facing the fact.
S; That's right.
B: Yes. So that it is not really separate from consciousness.
K: That is what I want to get at.
S: It isn't separate from consciousness but the brain has organized it in a fragmented way.
B: Yes, but then it is a wrong terminology to call it that. The word unconscious already implies a separation.
K: That's right, separation.
B: To say there are two layers, the unconscious and the surface consciousness, a structure is implied. But this other notion is to say that that structure is not implied, but that certain material wherever it may be is simply avoided.
K: I don't want to think about somebody because he has hurt me. That is not the unconscious, it's just that I don't want to think about him.
S: That's right.
K: I am conscious he has hurt me and I don't want to think about it.
B: But a kind of paradoxical situation arises there because eventually you would become so good at it that you wouldn't realize you were doing it. That seems to happen, you see.
K: Yes, yes.
B: People become so proficient at avoiding these things that they cease to realize they are doing it.
K: Yes.
B: It becomes habitual.
S: That is right. I think this is what happens. These hurts....
K: The wound remains.
S: The wound remains and we forget that we have forgotten-
K: The wound remains.
B: We remember to forget, you see!
K: Yes.
S: We remember to forget and then the process of therapy is to help the remembering and the recall - to remember you have forgotten, and then to understand the connections of why you forgot; then the thing can move in a more holistic way, rather than being fragmented.
K: Do you consider, or feel that you have been hurt?
S: Yes.
K: And want to avoid it? Resist, withdraw, isolate - the whole picture being the image of yourself being hurt and withdrawing - do you feel that when you are hurt?
S: Yes. I feel - how to put it?
K: Let's go into this.
S: Yes, I feel there is definitely a move not to be hurt, not to have that image, not to have that whole thing changed because if it is changed it seems to catapult into the same experience that was the hurt. This has a resonation with that unconscious which reminds me... you see I am reminded of being hurt deeply by this more superficial hurt.
K: I understand that.
S: So I avoid hurt - period.
K: If the brain has a shock - a biological, physical shock - must the psychological brain, if we can call it that, be hurt also? Is that inevitable?
S: No, I don't think so. It is only hurt with reference to something.
K: No. I am asking you: Can such a psychological brain, if I can use those two words, never be hurt? - in any circumstances, given family life, husband, wife, bad friends, so-called enemies, all that is going on around you - never get hurt? Because apparently this is one of the major wounds of human existence. The more sensitive you are, the more aware, the more hurt you get, the more withdrawn. Is this inevitable?
S: I don't think it is inevitable but I think it happens frequently, more often than not. And it seems to happen when an attachment is formed and then the loss of that attachment. You become important to me, I like you, or I am involved with you, then it becomes important to me that you don't do anything that disturbs that image.
K: That is, the relationship between two people, the picture we have of each other, the image - that is the cause of hurt.
B: Well, it also goes the other way: we hold those images because of hurt.
K: Of course, of course.
B: Where does it start?
K: That is what I want to get at.
S: That is what I want to get at too.
K: He pointed out something.
S: I know he did, yes.
B: Because the past hurt gives tremendous strength to the image, the image which helps us to forget it.
S: That's right.
K: Now is this wound in the "unconscious" - we use the word unconscious in quotes for the time being - is it hidden?
S: Well, I think you are being a little simplistic about that because what is hidden is the fact that I have had this happen many times - it happened with my mother, it happened with my friend, it happened in school, when I cared about somebody... You form the attachment and then comes the hurt.
K: I am not at all sure that it comes through attachment.
S: Maybe it is not attachment, that is the wrong word. What happens is that I form a relationship with you where an image becomes important - what you do to me becomes important.
K: You have an image about yourself.
S: That's right. And you are saying that I like you because you are conforming with the image.
K: No, apart from like and dislike, you have an image about yourself. Then I come along and put a pin in that image.
S: No, first you come along and confirm it.
B: The hurt will be greater if you first come along and are very friendly to me and confirm the image, and then suddenly put a pin in me.
K: Of course, of course.
B: But even somebody who didn't confirm it can hurt if he puts a pin in properly.
S: That's right. That's not unconscious. But why did I have the image to begin with? That is unconscious.
K: Is it unconscious? That is what I want to get at. Or it is so obvious that we don't look. You follow what I am saying?
S: I follow, yes.
K: We put it away. We say it is hidden. I question whether it is hidden at all, it is so blatantly obvious.
S: I don't feel all parts of it are obvious.
B: I think we hide it in one sense. Shall we say that this hurt means that everything is wrong with the image, but we hide it by saying everything is all right? In other words the thing that is obvious may be hidden by saying it is unimportant, that we don't notice it.
S: Yes we don't notice it but I ask myself what is it that generates this image, what is that hurt?
K: Ah, we will come to that. We are enquiring, aren't we, into the whole structure of consciousness?
S: Right.
K: Into the nature of consciousness. We have broken it up into the hidden and the open. It may be the fragmented mind that is doing this. And therefore strengthening both.
S: Right.
The division grows greater and greater and greater...
S: The fragmented mind is...
K: ...doing this. Now most people have an image about themselves, practically everybody. It is that image that gets hurt. And that image is you, and you say, "I am hurt".
B: It is the same as what we were discussing this morning.
K: Yes.
B: You see, if I have a pleasant self-image, I attribute the pleasure to me and say that it is real. When somebody hurts me then the pain is attributed to me and I say that's real too. It seems that if you have an image that can give you pleasure, then it must also be able to give you pain. There is no way out of that.
K: Absolutely.
S: Well, the image seems to be self-perpetuating, as you were saying.
B: I think people hope that the image will give them pleasure.
K: Pleasure only.
B: Only pleasure, but the very mechanism that makes pleasure possible makes pain possible, because the pleasure comes if I say "I think I am good", and this is sensed to be real, which makes that goodness real, but if somebody comes along and says, " You are no good, you are stupid", that too is real and therefore very significant.
K: The image brings both pleasure and pain.
B: I think people would hope for an image that would bring only pleasure.
S: People do hope that, there is no question. But people not only hope for the image, they invest all their interest in their image.
B: The value of everything depends on this self-image being right. So if somebody shows it's wrong, everything is wrong.
S: That's right.
K: But we are always giving new shape to the image.
B: But I think this image means everything, and that gives it tremendous power.
S: The entire personality is directed to the achievement of this image. Everything else takes second place.
K: Are you aware of this?
S: Yes. I am aware of it.
K: What is the beginning of this?
S: Well...
K: Please, just let me summarize first. Every human being practically has an image of himself, of which he is unconscious or not aware.
S: That's right. Usually it's sort of idealized.
K: Idealized, or not idealized, it is an image.
S: That's right. They must have it.
K: That have it. 128 B: They have it.
S: But they must direct all their actions towards getting it.
B: I think one feels one's whole life depends on the image.
K: Yes, that's right.
S: Depression is when I don't have it.
K: We will come to that. The next question is: How does it come into being?
S: Well, I think it comes into being in the family in some way. You are my father and I understand through watching you that if I am smart you will like me, right?
K: Quite. We agree.
S: I learn that very quickly. So I am going to make sure I get that love...
K: It is all very simple. But I am asking: What is the origin of making images about oneself?
B: If I had no image at all I would never get into that, would I?
S: If I never made images..?
B: Yes. Never made any image at all no matter what my father did.
K: I think this is very important.
S: That is the question.
B: Maybe the child can't do it, but suppose he can... K: I am not at all sure...
B: Perhaps he can, but I am saying under ordinary conditions he doesn't manage to do it.
S: You are suggesting that the child already has an image that he has been hurt.
K: Ah, no, no. I don't know. We are asking.
B: But suppose there was a child who made no image of himself.
S: OK. Let's assume he has no image.
B: Then he cannot get hurt.
K: He can't be hurt.
S: There I think you are in very hot water psychologically because a child...
K: No, we said "suppose".
B: Not the actual child - but suppose there was a child who didn't make an image of himself so he didn't depend on that image for everything. The child you talked about depended on the image that his father loved him.
S: That's right.
B: And therefore when his father doesn't love him, everything has gone, right?
S: Right.
B: Therefore he is hurt. But if he has no image that he must have his father love him, then he will just watch his father.
S: But let's look at it a little more pragmatically. Here is the child and he is actually hurt.
B: He can't be hurt without the image. Who is going to get hurt?
K: It is like putting a pin into the air.
S: Now wait a minute, I am not going to let you guys get away with this! Here you have got this child vulnerable in the sense that needs psychological support. He has enormous tensions.
K: Sir, agreed to all that. Such a child has an image.
S: No, no image. He is simply not being biologically supported.
K: No. No.
B: Well, he may make an image of the fact that he is not biologically supported. You have to get the difference between the actual fact of what happens biologically and what he thinks of it. Right? Now I have seen a child sometimes drop suddenly, he really goes to pieces, not because he was dropped very far but because that sense of...
K: Loss, insecurity.
B: ...insecurity, because his mother was gone. It seemed as if everything had gone, right? And he was totally disorganized and screaming, but he dropped only about this far, you see. But the point is he had an image of the kind of security he was going to get from his mother. Right?
S: That is the way the nervous system works.
B: Well, that is the question - Is it necessary to work that way? Or is this the result of conditioning?
K: This is an important question.
S: Oh, terribly important.
K: Because whether in America or in this country, children are running away from their parents. The parents seem to have no control over them. They don't obey, they don't listen. They are wild. And the parents feel terribly hurt. I saw on TV what is happening in America. One woman was in tears. She said, "I am his mother he doesn't treat me as a mother, he just orders me about." He had run away half a dozen times. And this separation between parents and children is growing all over the world. They have no relationship between themselves, between each other. So what is the cause of all this, apart from sociological, economic pressures which made the mother go out to work and leave the child alone - we take that for granted - but much deeper than that? Is it that the parents have an image about themselves and insist on creating an image in the children?
S: I see what you are saying.
K: And the child refuses to have that image - he has his own image. So the battle is on.
S: That is very much what I was saying when I said that initially the hurt of the child...
K: We haven't come to the hurt yet.
S: Well, what is in that initial relationship between child...
K: I doubt if they have any relationship. That is what I am trying to get at.
S: I agree with you. There is something wrong with the relationship.
K: Have they a relationship at all? Look, young people get married, or they don't get married. They have a child by mistake, or intentionally, but young people are children themselves; they haven't understood the universe, cosmos or chaos - they just have this child.
S: That's right. That is what happens.
K: And they play with it for a year or two and then say, "For God's sake, I am fed up with this child", and look elsewhere. And the child feels left, lost.
S: That's right.
K: And he needs security, from the beginning he needs security.
S: Right.
K: Which the parents do not give, or are incapable of giving - psychological security, the sense of "You are my child, I love you, I'll look after you, I'll see that throughout life you will behave properly". They haven't got that feeling. They are bored with it after a couple of years.
S: That's right. K: Is it that they have no relationship right from the beginning neither the husband, nor the wife, boy or girl? Is it only a sexual relationship, the pleasure relationship? Is it that they won't accept the pain principle involved with the pleasure principle?
S: That's right.
K: What I am trying to see is if there is actually any relationship at all, except a biological, sexual, sensual relationship.
S: Well...
K: I am questioning it, I am not saying it is so, I am questioning it.
S: I don't think it is so. I think they have a relationship but it is a wrong relationship.
K: There is no wrong relationship. It is a relationship or no relationship.
S: Well, then we will have to say they have a relationship. I think most parents have a relationship with their children.
B: Suppose the parent and child have images of each other, and the relationship is governed by those images - the question is whether that is actually a relationship or not, or whether it is some sort of fantasy of relationship.
K: A fanciful relationship. Sir, you have children - forgive me if I come back to you - you have children. Have you any relationship with them? In the real sense of that word.
S: Yes. In the real sense, yes.
K: That means you have no image about yourself.
S: Right.
K: And you are not imposing an image on them?
S: That's right.
K: And the society is not imposing an image on them?
S: There are moments like that...
K: Ah, no. That is not good enough. It is like a rotten egg.
S: This is an important point.
B: If it is moments it is not so. It is like saying a person who is hurt has moments when he is not hurt, but he is sitting there waiting to explode when something happens. So he can't go very far. It is like somebody who is tied to a rope, and as soon as he reaches the limits of that rope he is stuck.
S: That is right.
B: So you could say I am related as long as certain things are all right, but beyond that point it just sort of blows up. You see what I am driving at? That mechanism is inside there, buried, so it dominates me potentially. It is like the man who is tied to a rope and says there are moments when I can move wherever I like, but I can't really because if I keep on moving I am bound to come to the end.
S: That does seem to be what happens, in fact. There is a reverberation in which there is a yank-back.
B: Either I come to the end of the cord, or else something yanks the cord. The person who is on the end of a cord is really not free ever.
S: Well, that's true, I mean I think that is true.
B: You see in the same sense the person who has the image is not really related ever.
K: Yes, that is just the whole point. You can play with it verbally, but the actuality is that you have no relationship.
S: You have no relationship as long as it is the image.
K: As long as you have an image about yourself you have no relationship with another. This is a tremendous revelation - you follow? It is not just an intellectual statement.
S: I have the memory of times when I do have what I think is a relationship, yet one must be honest with you, and say that after such relationship there inevitably seems to be this yank-back.
B: The end of the cord.
S: Yes, a yank-back. You have a relationship with somebody but you will go just so far.
K: Of course. That is understood.
B: But then really the image controls it all the time because the image is the dominant factor. If you once pass that point, no matter what happens, the image takes over.
K: So the image gets hurt, and the child, because you impose the image on the child. You are bound to because you have an image. Because you have an image about yourself you are bound to create an image in the child.
S: That is right.
K: You follow, you have discovered? And society is doing this to all of us.
B: So you say the child is picking up an image just naturally, as it were, quietly, and then suddenly it is hurt?
K: Hurt. That's right.
B: So the hurt has been prepared and preceded by this steady process of building an image?
S: That's right. There is evidence, for instance, that we treat boys differently from girls...
K: No. Look at it: don't verbalize it too quickly.
B: You see, if the steady process of building an image didn't occur there would be no basis, no structure, to get hurt. In other words the pain is due entirely to some psychological fact. Whereas I was previously enjoying the pleasure of saying, "My father loves me, I am doing what he wants" - now comes the pain - "I am not doing what he wants, he doesn't love me".
S: I don't think we touched on the biological situation of the child feeling neglected.
B: Well, if the child is neglected, he must pick up an image in that very process.
K: Of course. If you admit, see it as a reality, that as long as the parents have an image about themselves they are bound to give that image to the child...
S: Right. There is no question, as long as the parent is the image-maker and has an image, he can't see the child.
K: And therefore gives an image to the child.
S: Right. He will condition the child to be something.
K: You see, society is doing this to every human being. Religions, every culture around us is creating this image. And that image gets hurt. Now the next question is: Is one aware of all this? Which is part of our consciousness.
S: Right, right.
K: The content of consciousness makes up consciousness. That is clear.
S: Right.
K: So one of the contents is the image-making, or maybe the major machinery that is operating, the major dynamo, the major movement. Being hurt, which every human being is - can that hurt be healed and never be hurt again? That is, can a human mind which has created the image, which has accepted the image, can that mind put away the image completely and never be hurt? - which means that a great part of consciousness is empty - it has no content. I wonder.
S: Can it? I really don't know the answer to that.
K: Why? Who is the image-maker? What is the machinery or the process that is making images? I may get rid of one image and take on another. I am a Catholic, I am a Protestant, I am a Hindu, I am a Zen monk, I am this, I am that - you follow? - they are all images.
S: Who is the image-maker?
K: You see, after all, if there is an image of that kind how can you have love in all this?
S: We don't have an abundance of it.
K: We don't have it. S: That's right. We have got a lot of images. That is why I say I don't know.
K: It is terrible, sir, to have these images - you follow?
S: Right. I know about image-making, I see it. I see it even when you are talking about it. I can see that if I don't make one image I will make another.
K: Of course, sir. We are saying, Is it possible to stop the machinery that is producing images? And what is the machinery? Is it wanting to be somebody?
S: Yes. It is wanting to be somebody, it is wanting to know - wanting to have. Somehow or other it seems to be wanting to handle the feeling that if I don't have it I don't know where I am.
K: Being at a loss?
S: Yes. The feeling that you are at a loss. Not to be able to rely on anything, not to have any support, breeds more disorder - you follow? B: That is one of the images...
K: The image is the product of thought - right?
S: It is organized.
K: Yes, a product of thought. It may go through various forms of pressure, a great deal of conveyor belt, and at the end it produces an image.
S: Right. No question. I agree with you there, yes.
K: Can the machinery stop? Can thought which produces these images, which destroys all relationship so that there is no love - not verbally but actually no love - can it stop? When a man who has got an image about himself says, "I love my wife, or my children", it is just sentiment, romantic, fanciful emotionalism.
S: Right.
K: As it is now, there is no love in the world. There is no sense of real caring for somebody.
S: That is true. K: The more affluent the worse it becomes. Not that the poor have this. I don't mean that. Poor people haven't got this either - they are concerned with filling their stomachs, and work, work, work.
B: But still they have got lots of images.
K: Of course. All these are the people who are correcting the world - right? Who are ordering the universe. So I ask myself, can this image-making stop? Stop, not occasionally, but stop. Because unless it does I don't know what love means. I don't know how to care for somebody. And I think that is what is happening in the world because children are really lost souls, lost human beings. I have met so many, hundreds of them now, all over the world. They are really a lost generation. As the older people are a lost generation. So what is a human being to do? What is the right action in relationship? Can there be right action in relationship as long as you have an image?
S: No.
K: Ah! Sir, this is something tremendous. S: That is why I was wondering. It seemed to me you made a jump there. You said all we know is images, and image-making. That is all we know.
K: But we never said can it stop?
S: We have never said can it stop - that is right.
K: We have never said, for God's sake if it doesn't stop we are going to destroy each other.
B: You could say that the notion we might stop is something more we know that we didn't know before...
K: It becomes another piece of knowledge.
B: I was trying to say that when you say "all we know", a block comes in.
S: Right.
B: You see, it is not much use to say "all we know". If you say it is all we know then it can never stop.
K: He is objecting to your use of "all".
S: I am grateful to you.
B: That is one of the factors blocking it.
S: Well, if we come down to it, what do we do with that question: Can it stop?
K: I put that question to you. Do you listen to it?
S; I listen to it - right.
K: Ah, do you?
S: It stops.
K: No, no. I am not interested in whether it stops. Do you listen to the question. Can it stop? We now examine, analyse, this whole process of image-making - the result of it, the misery, the confusion, the appalling things that are going on. The Arab has his image, the Jew, the Hindu, the Muslim, the Christian, the Communist. There is this tremendous division of images, of symbols. If that doesn't stop, you are going to have such a chaotic world - you follow? - I see this, not as an abstraction, but as an actuality, as I see that flower.
S: Right.
K: And as a human being, what am I to do? Because I personally have no image about this. I really mean I have no image about myself, no conclusion, no concept, no ideal - none of these images. I have none. And I say to myself what can I do? - when everybody around me is building images and so destroying this lovely earth where we are meant to live happily in human relationship and look at the heavens and be happy about it. So what is the right action for a man who has an image? Or is there no right action?
S: Let me turn it back. What happens with you when I say to you Can it stop?
K: I say, of course. It is very simple to me. Of course it can stop You don't ask me the next question: How do you do it? How does it come about?
S: No, I just want to listen for a minute to when you say, "Yes, of course". OK. Now how do you think it can stop? Let me put it to you straight - I have absolutely no evidence that it can, no experience that it can.
K: I don't want evidence.
S: You don't want any evidence?
K: I don't want somebody's explanation.
S: Or experience?
K: Because they are based on images. Future image, or past image or living image. So I say: Can it stop? I say it can. Definitely. It is not just a verbal statement to amuse you. To me this is tremendously important.
S: Well, I think we agree that it is tremendously important, but how?
K: Not how. Then you enter into the question of systems, mechanical processes, which are part of our image-making. If I tell you how, you will say tell me the system, the method and I'll do it every day and I'll get the new image.
S: Yes.
K: Now I see the fact of what is going on in the world.
S: I am with you, yes.
K: Fact. Not my reaction to it. Not romantic, fanciful theories of what it should not be. It is a fact that as long as there are images there is not going to be peace in the world, or love in the world - whether it be the Christ image, or the Buddha image or the Muslim image - you follow? There won't be peace in the world. Right. I see it as a fact. Right? I remain with that fact. Finished. This morning we said that if one remains with the fact there is a transformation. That is, not let thought interfere with the fact.
B: For then more images come in.
K: More images come in. So our consciousness is filled with these images.
S: Yes, that is true.
K: I am a Hindu, a Brahmin, I am by tradition better than anybody else, I am the chosen people, I am the Aryan - you follow? I am an Englishman - all that is crowding my consciousness.
B: When you say remain with the fact, one of the images that may come in is that it is impossible, that it can never be done.
K: Yes, that is another image.
B In other words, if the mind could stay with that fact with no comment whatsoever...
S: The thing that comes through to me when you say remain with the fact is that you are really calling for an action right there.
K: Sir, it is up to you. You are involved in it.
S: But that is different from remaining with it.
K: Remain with that.
S: To really see it. You know how that feels? It feels like we are always running away.
K: So our consciousness, sir, is these images - conclusions, ideas...
S: We are always running away.
K: Filling, filling, and that is the essence of the image. If there is no image-making what is consciousness? That is quite a different thing.
B: Do you think we could discuss that next time?
K: Yes. Tomorrow.