Jiddu Krishnamurti [1895 - 1986]
Are you not saying the same thing that Buddha said?
Brockwood Park, England, June 22, 1978.
“Dialogues with Krishnamurti” Editorial Edaf.
Walpola Rahula, international authority on Buddhism and author of the article on the Buddha, in the Encyclopedia Britannica.
David Bohm, member of the Royal Society and professor of theoretical physics at Birkbeck College, University of London.
TK Parchure, doctor of medicine, doctor of Krishnamurti.
G. Narayan, former director of the Rishi Valley school, belonging to the Krishnamurti India Foundation.
Irmgaard Schloegel, specialist in Buddhism.
Walpola Rahula : I have been following your teaching, if I may use that word, since my youth. I have read most of his books with great interest, and I have wanted to keep this discussion with you for a long time.
For someone who knows the teachings of the Buddha quite well, theirs are very familiar, they are not new to him. What the Buddha taught 2, 500 years ago today you teach with a new expression, in a new style, in a new envelope. When I read your books, I often make notes in the margin, comparing what you say with the Buddha; sometimes I even quote chapter and verse, or the text not only of the original teachings of the Buddha, but also the ideas of later Buddhist philosophers; You also formulate them practically in the same way. I was surprised how beautiful and perfect you have expressed them.
So, for starters, I would like to briefly mention a few points that the teachings of the Buddha and his own have in common. For example, the Buddha did not accept the notion of a creative God who rules the world and rewards and punishes people according to their actions. I think you don't accept it either. The Buddha did not accept the ancient Vedic or Brahmanic idea of an eternal, permanent, everlasting and immutable soul or atman. The Buddha denied it. Nor do you, I believe, accept that concept.
The Buddha, in his teachings, starts from the premise that human life is affliction, suffering, conflict and pain. And his books always emphasize the same. In addition, the Buddha affirms that the cause of this conflict and suffering is the selfishness created by the wrong notion of my ego, my atman. I think you say that too.
The Buddha says that when one is free from desire, attachment, ego, one is liberated from suffering and conflict. And I remember that you said somewhere that freedom means being free from all attachment. That is exactly what the Buddha taught: of all attachment. He did not distinguish between good attachment and bad; Of course, that distinction exists in the practice of daily life, but ultimately there is no such division.
Then there is the perception of the truth, the realization of the truth, that is, seeing things as they are; when that is done, the reality is seen, the truth is seen and the conflict is free. I think you have said this very often, for example in the book Truth and Reality. This is well known in Buddhist thought as samvrti-satya, and paramartha-satya: samvrti-satya is the conventional truth, and paramartha-satya is the ultimate or absolute truth. And you cannot see the absolute or last truth without seeing the conventional or relative truth. That is the Buddhist posture. I think you say the same.
On a more general level, but of great importance, you always say that you don't have to depend on authority, on anyone's authority, on anyone's teaching. Everyone has to do it on their own, see it on their own. That is a well known teaching in Buddhism. The Buddha said, do not accept anything for the mere fact that religion says it or the scriptures, or a spiritual master or guru accept it only if they see for themselves that it is right; if they see that it is wrong or bad, then scold it.
In a very interesting discussion that you had with Swami Venkatesananda, he asked you about the importance of the gurus, and you invariably replied: What can a guru do? Doing it is up to you, a guru can't save you. This is exactly the Buddhist attitude, that authority should not be accepted. After reading all this discussion in his book The Awakening of Intelligence, he wrote that the Buddha has also said these things and summarized them in two lines of Dhammapada: you have to strive, Buddhas only teach. This is found in the Dhammapada that you read a long time ago, when you were young.
Another very important thing is the emphasis you put on awareness or mental alertness. This is something of extreme importance in the teachings of the Buddha: being attentive. I was surprised myself when I read in the Mahaparinibbanasutra a speech that deals with the last month of his life, that wherever he stopped and spoke to his disciples he always said: He is Attentive, cultivate attention, mental alertness. It is called the presence of mental alert. This is also a very important point in his teachings, which I practice and hold in great esteem.
Then another interesting thing is its continuous emphasis on transience. This is something fundamental in the teachings of the Buddha: that everything is transitory, that there is nothing permanent. And in the book Freedom from the past you have said that perceiving that nothing is permanent is of the utmost importance, for only then is the mind free. That is in full agreement with the Four Noble Truths of the Buddha.
There is another point that shows how his teachings and those of the Buddha agree. I believe that in Freeing yourself from the past, you affirm that external control and discipline are not the way to go, nor does undisciplined life have any value. When you read this on the margin: a brahmin asked the Buddha, how have you reached these spiritual heights, by what precepts, what discipline, what knowledge? The Buddha replied: Not through knowledge, discipline, or precepts, or without them. That is the important thing, not with these things, but not without them. It is exactly what you say. You condemn submission to discipline, but without discipline, life is worthless. So it is exactly in Zen Buddhism. There is no Zen Buddhism; Zen is Buddhism. In Zen, submission to discipline is seen as attachment, and that is very censored, however, there is no Buddhist sect in the world in which so much emphasis is placed on discipline.
We have many other things to talk about, but to begin with I want to say that there is a basic agreement on these issues and there is no conflict between you and the Buddha. Of course, as you say, you are not a Buddhist.
Krishnamurti : No, sir.
WR .: And I don't know what I am, it doesn't matter. But there is hardly any difference between his teachings and those of the Buddha. It is simply that you say the same thing in a way that fascinates today's man and tomorrow's man. And now I would like to know what you think of all this.
K .: May I ask you, sir, with all due respect, why do you compare?
WR .: Because when I read your books, as a student of Buddhism, as someone who has studied Buddhist texts, I always notice that it is the same.
K .: Yes, sir, but if you allow me to ask, what need is there to compare?
WR .: There is no need.
K .: If you were not a scholar of Buddhism and all the speeches and sayings of the Buddha, if you had not studied Buddhism in depth, what impression would you make reading these books without prior knowledge of all that?
WR .: I cannot answer that because I have never lacked that knowledge. That is conditioned, that is a conditioning. We are all conditioned. Therefore, I cannot answer that question because I don't know what the position would be.
K .: Well, if you allow me a comment, I hope you don't mind ...
WR .: No, not at all.
K . : . . Does knowledge condition human beings, knowledge of the scriptures, knowledge of what the saints and others have said, the whole set of so-called sacred books, does that help humanity in any way?
W R .: The scriptures and all our knowledge condition man, there is no doubt. But I would say that knowledge is not absolutely unnecessary. The Buddha has pointed out very clearly that if you want to cross the river and there is no bridge, a boat is built and crossed using it. But if once on the other side one thinks, oh, this boat has been very useful, it has been very helpful, I cannot leave it here, I will carry it on my shoulders, that is a wrong action. What I should say is: of course this boat has been very useful to me, but I have crossed the river, it is no use to me, therefore I will leave it here for the benefit of another person. That is the attitude towards knowledge and knowledge. Buddha says that even the teachings, and not only these, but also the virtues, the so-called moral virtues, are like the boat and have a relative and conditioned value.
K .: I would like to question that. I am not questioning what you say, sir. But I would like to question whether knowledge has the quality of liberating the mind.
W R .: I do not believe that knowledge can release.
K .: Knowledge cannot, but the quality, strength, the feeling of ability, the impression of value that derives from knowledge, the feeling that one knows, the weight of knowledge, does that not reinforce you, to the ego?
W R .: Of course.
K .: Does knowledge really condition man? Let's put it that way. Undoubtedly most of us by the word "knowledge" means accumulation of information, experience, various facts, theories and principles, past and present, we call this whole group knowledge. Therefore, does the past help us? Because knowledge is the past.
W R .: All that past, all that knowledge disappears the moment the truth is seen.
K .: But can the mind that is crammed with knowledge see the truth?
W R .: Of course, if the mind is crammed, full and full of knowledge ...
K .: It is, it usually is. Most minds are full and impeded by knowledge. I am using the word "handicapped" in the sense of overloaded. Can such a mind perceive what is true? Or do you have to be free of knowledge?
W R .: To see the truth, the mind has to be free of all knowledge.
K .: Yes. Then why would one have to accumulate knowledge, then discard it and then seek the truth? Do you understand what I am saying?
W R .: Well, it seems to me that in our daily lives, most of the things that take place are useful at the beginning. For example, as children, in elementary school, we could not write without the help of patterned paper, but now I can write without it.
K .: One moment, sir, I agree. When we are in school or university, we need lines to guide writing and all that, but the beginning, which can condition the future as we grow, is it not of the utmost importance? Do you understand what I am saying? I don't know if I explain myself. Is freedom found at the end or at the beginning?
W R .: Freedom has no beginning or end.
K .: Would you say that freedom is limited by knowledge?
W R .: Freedom is not limited by knowledge, perhaps knowledge acquired and misused hinders freedom.
K .: No, there is no good or bad accumulation of knowledge. I can do certain ugly things and repent, or continue doing those same things, which, again, is part of my knowledge. But I am asking if knowledge leads to freedom. As you say, discipline is necessary at the beginning. And as one gets older, mature, acquires abilities and so on, does that discipline not condition the mind, so that one can never abandon discipline in the usual sense of that word?
W R .: Yes, I understand. You agree that discipline is necessary at the beginning, at a certain level.
K .: I am questioning it, sir. When I say that I question it, I do not mean that I doubt it or that it is not necessary, but that I question it for the purpose of investigating.
W R .: I would say that it is necessary at a certain level, but if it can never be abandoned ... I am speaking from the Buddhist perspective. In Buddhism there are two stages in relation to the Way: for the people who are on the Way but have not yet reached the goal, there are disciplines, precepts and all those things that are good and bad, right and wrong. And an arhat, or initiate, who has realized the truth has no discipline because he is beyond that.
K .: Yes, I understand.
W R .: But that is a reality of life.
K .: I question it, sir.
W R .: I have no doubt about it.
K .: Then we have stopped investigating.
W R .: No, it is not.
K .: I mean we are talking about knowledge, knowledge that may be useful or necessary as a boat to cross the river. I want to investigate that fact or simile to see if it is true, if it has the quality of truth, let's say so, for now.
W A .: Do you mean the simile or the teachings?
K .: All that. Which means, sir, which means accepting evolution.
W R .: Yes, accept it.
K .: Evolution, therefore, progress gradually, step by step, and finally reach the goal. First discipline, control, make efforts and, as I gain more capacity, more energy, more strength, I leave all that and move on.
W R .: There is no such plan, there is no plan.
K .: No, I am not saying there is a plan. I am asking or investigating whether there is such a movement, such progress.
W R .: What do you think?
K .: What do I think? Not.
Inngaard Schloegel: I perfectly agree with you, I can't believe there is.
W A .: Yes, that's fine, there is no such progress.
K .: We must investigate it very carefully, because all religious, Buddhist, Hindu and Christian tradition, all religious and non-religious attitudes are trapped in time, in evolution: to be Better, it will be good, one day the goodness will flourish in me. Okay? I am saying that there is a germ of falsehood in this. Sorry to express it that way.
IS: I completely agree with that, for the very good reason that, in our opinion, since there are human beings, we have always known that we should be good. If it were possible to progress in this way, we would not be the human beings that we are today. We would all have made enough progress.
K .: Have we made progress?
IS: Exactly, we have not progressed; In any case, very little.
K .: We may have made progress in technology, science, hygiene and everything else, but on the psychological level, inside, we have not done it, we are what we have been doing for a long time. s of ten thousand years.
IS: So knowing that we should do good, and having developed so many methods on how to do it, has failed to help us be good. In my view, there is a specific obstacle in all of us and it seems to me that what is at stake is the overcoming of this obstacle, since most of us want from the heart be good, but we don't take it to practice.
K .: We have accepted evolution. There is evolution in the biological field. We have transferred that biological fact to psychological existence, thinking that we will evolve psychically.
W R .: No, I don't think that's the attitude.
K .: But that is what it implies when you say gradually .
W R .: No, I do not say gradually . I do not say that. The realization of the truth, the obtaining or perception of the truth, does not follow a plan, does not obey a scheme.
K .: It is out of time.
W R .: Out of time, exactly.
K .: Which is very different from saying that my mind, which has evolved over the centuries, over millennia, that is conditioned by time, that is evolution, that is always acquiring more knowledge, will reveal the extraordinary truth.
W R .: It is not that knowledge that will reveal the truth.
K .: Therefore, why should I accumulate knowledge?
W R .: How can you avoid it?
K .: Avoid it on the psychological level, not the technological one.
W R .: Even on the psychological level, how can that be done?
K .: Ah, that is another matter.
W R .: Yes, how can that be done? Because we are conditioned.
K .: Wait a moment, sir. Let's investigate a little more. We evolve biologically and physically, from childhood to a certain age, to adolescence, maturity, etc., that is a fact. A small oak grows and becomes a gigantic oak; That is a fact. Now, is it a fact, or have we simply assumed that it is, that we have to grow psychologically? Which, on the psychological level, means that in the future I will reach the truth or that the truth will manifest if I prepare the ground.
W R .: No, that is a wrong conclusion, it is a wrong point of view; the realization of the truth is revolution, not evolution.
K .: Therefore, can the mind free itself psychologically from the idea of progress?
W R .: Yes, it can.
K .: No, you cannot "can"; It has to be.
W R .: That is what I said: the revolution is not evolution, it is not a gradual process.
K .: Can there be a psychological revolution?
W R .: Yes, of course.
K .: And what does that mean? Total absence of time.
W R .: It does not contain any time.
K .: However, all religions, all the sacred writings, both of Islam and of whatever, have argued that certain procedures must be followed.
W R .: But not in Buddhism.
K .: Wait a moment. I would not say no in Buddhism, I do not know. I haven't read anything about it, except when I was a boy, but I forgot that. When you say that you have to discipline yourself first and then, after a while, get rid of that discipline ...
W R .: No, I don't say that. No, I don't see it that way, and neither did the Buddha.
K .: Then, please, I may be wrong.
W R .: The question I have to ask is: how does the realization of the truth take place?
K .: Ah, that is a completely different matter.
W R .: What I am saying is that we are conditioned. No one can let us understand, no matter how much I try. The revolution consists in seeing that we are conditioned. At the moment of that perception there is no time, it is a complete revolution, and that is the truth.
K .: Suppose one is conditioned following the evolutionary model: I have been, I am and I will be. That is evolution. Do not?
W R .: Yes.
K .: Yesterday I acted in an ugly way, but today I am learning and detaching myself from that ugliness, and tomorrow I will be free of it. That is our whole attitude, the psychological structure of our being. That is a daily occurrence.
W R .: Do we see that? The understanding may be intellectual, purely verbal.
K .: No, I am not speaking intellectually or verbally; I mean that this structure is a fact: I will try to be good.
W R .: It's not about trying to be good at all.
K .: No, sir, not according to the Buddha, not according to the scriptures, but the average human being, in his daily life says: «I am not as good as I should be, but -give me a couple of weeks or years- and I will end up being tremendously good. ”
W R .: There is no doubt that this is the attitude practically everyone has.
K .: Virtually everyone. Now, wait a moment. That is our conditioning; the Christian, the Buddhist, everyone is conditioned by this idea, which may have originated in biological progress and moved to the psychological field.
W R .: Yes, that is a good way to express it.
K .: So, how is a man or a woman, a human being, going to break this mold, without introducing time? Do you understand my question?
W R .: Yes. Just by seeing.
K .: No, I can't see if I'm stuck in this damn ugliness of progress. You say that only by seeing, and I say that I cannot see.
W R .: Then you can't.
K .: No, but I want to investigate it, sir. That is, why have we given so much importance to "progress" in the psychological field?
IS: I am not a specialist but a practitioner. For me, personally, as a Westerner, as a scientist I was, I have found the most satisfactory answer in the Buddhist teaching that I blind myself, I am my own obstacle. While I, with all my conditioning load, is present, I cannot see or act.
K .: That doesn't help me. You are saying that you have learned that.
IS: I have learned it but I have done it in the same way that one learns to play the piano, and more than the way in which a subject is studied.
K .: Again: play the piano, which means practice. So, after this, what are we talking about?
G. Narayan: There seems to be a difficulty here. Knowledge has a certain fascination, a certain power; one accumulates knowledge, whether it is Buddhist or scientific, and that provides a peculiar sense of freedom, even if it is not freedom, in the realm of conventional reality. And after years of studies it is very difficult to leave, because after twenty years this point is reached and it is given value, but it does not have the quality of what we could call the truth. The difficulty in every practice seems to be that, when practiced, something is achieved and what is achieved belongs to the category of conventional reality, it has a certain power, a certain fascination, a certain capacity, perhaps a certain clarity.
W A .: Because of which one charges you attachment.
GN: Yes, and getting rid of it is much more difficult than for a beginner; A neophyte who does not possess these things can see something more directly than a man who has a great deal of acquired wisdom.
W R .: That depends on the individual; Can not generalize.
K .: If you allow me an observation, it can be generalized by principle. But let's go back to where we were. We are all hooked on this idea of progress, right?
W R .: We had just reached an agreement in that regard: that humanity accepts the fact that progress is a gradual evolution. As you said, it is accepted as a biological truth, and there it is demonstrable, so the same theory is applied to the psychological field. We agree that this is the human posture.
K .: Is that position the truth? I have accepted that there is progress in the sense of biological evolution and then, gradually, I have transferred it to psychological existence. Now, is that the truth?
W R .: Now I see what you are questioning. I don't think it's the truth.
K .: Therefore, I abandon all notions of discipline.
W R .: I would have said that it is not about abandoning it. If he leaves her consciously ...
K .: No, sir, just a moment. I see what human beings have done, which consists in moving from the biological plane to the psychological one, and there they have invented this idea that in the future divinity or enlightenment will be achieved. n, Brahman or whatever, nirvana, paradise or hell. If you perceive the truth of that, in fact and not theoretically, then it is over.
W R .: Absolutely, that's what I've been saying all along.
K .: Why, then, would we have to acquire knowledge of the scriptures, this and that at the psychological level?
W R .: There is no reason.
K .: So, why do I read the Buddha?
W R .: As I said, we are all conditioned.
David Bohm: May I have a question? Do you accept that you are conditioned?
K .: Dr. Bohm asks: Do we all accept that we are conditioned?
W A .: I don't know if you accept it or not; I accept it. To exist in time is to be conditioned.
DB: Well, what I mean is the following: it seems to me that Krishnaji has said, at least in some of our discussions, that he was not deeply conditioned at the beginning and, as a consequence, possessed some understanding outside of The common. Am I right?
K .: Please do not refer to am ; I may be a biological phenomenon, so don't include me. What we are trying to discuss, sir, is this: can we admit the truth that psychologically there is no progress? The truth, not the idea about it. Do you understand?
W R .: I understand.
K .: The truth about it, not the `` I accept the idea ''; The idea is not the truth. Therefore, do we see, as human beings, the truth or falsehood of what we have done?
W R .: Do you mean human beings in general?
K .: Everyone.
W R .: No, they don't see it.
K .: Therefore, when you tell them: acquire more knowledge, read this, read that, the scriptures, what the Buddha said, what Christ said - if it existed - and things for style, they are fully possessed by this accumulative instinct that will help them make the leap or throw them into heaven.
DB: When we say that we are all conditioned, how do we know that we are all conditioned? That is what I really meant.
K .: Yes. What you mean, sir, is: Are all human beings conditioned?
DB: What I wanted to underline is that if we say that we are all conditioned, that could be answered in two ways. One could be to accumulate knowledge about our conditioning, to say that we observe the common human experience; We can look at people and see, which is usually conditioned. The other way would be to say, do we see in a more direct way that we are all conditioned? That is what I was trying to explain.
K .: But does that contribute anything to this issue? I mean there may or may not be.
DB: What I am trying to communicate is that, if we say that we are all conditioned, then it seems to me that the only thing that can be done is a kind of disciplined or gradual approach. That is, it is part of the conditioning itself.
K .: Not necessarily, I don't see it.
DB: Well, let's try to investigate it. This is how I understand what your question implies about whether we all start conditioned ...
K .: And we are.
DB: . So what can we do in the next step?
W R .: There is nothing with the name of "the next step."
DB: How can we free ourselves from conditioning while we do whatever we do?
W R .: Seeing what liberates from conditioning.
DB: Well, the question is the same: how do we see?
W A.: Of course, many people have tried in several ways.
K .: No, there are no various forms. As soon as he says a "form, " he has already conditioned the person in the "form."
W R .: That is what I say. And you, likewise, are conditioning through your talks; these also condition. The attempt to decondition the mind is also conditioning it.
K .: No, I question that statement, if what K is talking about determines the mind, the mind that is the brain, the thoughts, the feelings, the entire human psychological existence. I doubt it, I question it. If you allow me, we are deviating from the main topic.
W R .: The question is how to see it, is that it?
K .: No, sir, no. No "how, " there is no way. First let's look at this simple fact: do I see, as a human being, that I am a representative of all humanity? I am a human being, therefore, I represent all humanity. Agree?
IS: Individually.
K .: No, as a human being, I represent you, everyone, because I suffer, experience agony, etc., and the same happens to every human being. Therefore, do I see, as a human being, the falsity of the step that human beings have taken when moving from the biological to the psychological level with the same mentality? There, on the biological plane, there is progress, from small to large, etc., from the wheel to the jet plane. As a human being, do I see the damage that human beings have caused by moving from there to here? Do I see it just like I see this table? Or do I say: "Yes, I accept the theory about it, the idea"? In that case, we are lost. The theory and the idea are, therefore, knowledge.
IS: If I see it as I see this table, then it is no longer a theory.
K .: Then it is a fact. But the moment we deviate from the fact, it becomes an idea, into knowledge, and the achievement of that. One moves further away from the fact. I don't know if I explain myself.
W R .: Yes, I imagine that it is.
K .: What is that? That human beings deviate from the fact?
W R .: Human beings are trapped in this.
K .: Yes, it is a fact, true, that there is biological progress: from the small to the gigantic tree, from childhood to childhood, to adolescence. Now we have passed with that mentality, with that fact, to the psychological ground, and we have assumed as a fact that there we progress, which is a false movement. I don't know if I explain myself.
DB: Are you saying that this is part of the conditioning?
K .: No, for now, set aside conditioning. I don't want to get into that. But why have we adapted the fact of biological growth to the psychological field? Why? Of course we did, but why have we done this?
IS: I want to become something.
K .: That is, you want satisfaction, security, certainty, a sense of success.
IS: And he's in love with him.
K .: So why doesn't a human being see what he has done, not theoretically but real?
IS: A common human being.
K .: You, me, X, Y
IS: I don't like to see it, I'm afraid of it.
K .: Therefore, you are living in an illusion.
IS: Naturally.
K .: Why?
IS: I want to be something that, at the same time, I fear not seeing. This is where the division is located.
K .: No, madam, when you see what you have done there is no fear.
IS: But the reality is that I don't normally see it.
K .: Why don't you see it?
IS: I suspect that due to fear. No sé por qué.
K.: Usted está entrando en un terreno completamente distinto, cuando habla del miedo. Yo quisiera simplemente investigar por qué los seres humanos han hecho esto, han practicado este juego durante milenios. ¿Por qué este vivir en esta falsa estructura? Y luego aparece gente que dice, «sea generoso, sea esto», y todas esas cosas. Why?
IS: Todos nosotros tenemos un lado irracional muy fuerte.
K.: Estoy cuestionando todo esto. Se debe a que estamos viviendo no con hechos sino con ideas y conocimiento.
W R.: Desde luego.
K.: El hecho es que en el nivel biológico hay evolución y que no la hay en el psicológico. Y por lo tanto, le concedemos importancia al conocimiento, a las ideas, las teorías, la filosofía ya toda esa clase de cosas.
W R.: ¿A usted no le parece que pueda haber cierto desarrollo, una evolución, incluso en lo psicológico?
K.: No.
W R.: Pero tome un hombre con serios antecedentes penales que miente, roba y demás; se le pueden explicar ciertas cosas muy fundamentales, básicas, y se transforma, en el sentido convencional, en una persona mejor que ya no roba, ya no dice mentiras ni quiere matar a otros.
K.: Un terrorista, por ejemplo.
W R.: Un hombre así puede cambiar.
K.: ¿Está usted diciendo, señor, que un hombre que es maligno -«maligno» entre comillas-, como los terroristas de todo el mundo, cuál es su futuro? ¿Es eso lo que está preguntando?
W R.: ¿No está usted de acuerdo en que se le puede explicar a un criminal de ese tipo lo erróneo de su conducta? Porque comprende lo que usted ha dicho, ya sea por su propio razonamiento o debido a su influencia personal o lo que sea, se transforma, cambia.
K.: No estoy seguro, señor, de que a un criminal, en el sentido estricto de esta palabra, se le pueda hablar en modo alguno.
W R.: Eso no lo sé.
K.: Puede apaciguarlo, ya sabe, darle una recompensa y esto y aquello, pero un hombre con una verdadera mentalidad criminal, ¿atenderá alguna vez la voz de la cordura? El terrorista, ¿le escuchará a usted, su sano juicio? Of course not.
W R.: Eso no se puede asegurar, no sé. No estoy del todo seguro de ello. Pero hasta que no tenga más pruebas no puedo afirmarlo.
K.: Yo tampoco tengo pruebas, pero se puede ver lo que está pasando.
W R.: Lo que está pasando es que hay terroristas y no sabemos si algunos de ellos se han transformado en hombres buenos. Carecemos de pruebas.
K.: De eso justamente estoy hablando, del hombre malo que evoluciona hasta convertirse en el hombre bueno.
W R.: En el sentido popular y convencional, no cabe duda de que eso sucede, uno no puede negarlo.
K.: Sí, lo sabemos, tenemos docenas de ejemplos.
W R.: ¿No aceptamos eso en absoluto?
K.: No, espere un momento, señor. Un hombre malo que dice una mentira, que es cruel y dem s, probablemente alg nd a se d cuenta de que eso es un mal asunto y diga: Cambiar y me har bueno . Pero eso no es bondad. La bondad no nace de la maldad.
WR: Por supuesto que no.
K.: Por lo tanto, el hombre malo, entre comillas, no puede nunca convertirse en el hombre bueno, sin comillas. El bien no es lo opuesto del mal.
W R.: A ese nivel lo es.
K.: A ning n nivel.
W R.: No estoy de acuerdo.
GN: Podr amos expresarlo del siguiente modo. En el nivel convencional, el hombre malo se convierte en el hombre bueno. Creo que a eso lo denominar amos progreso psicol gico . Eso es algo que hacemos, que hace la mente humana.
K.: Por supuesto, usted viste de amarillo y yo de marr n; tenemos los opuestos de la noche y el d a, el hombre y la mujer, etc. Pero existe un opuesto del miedo? Existe un opuesto de la bondad? Es el amor lo opuesto del odio? El opuesto, lo cual significa dualidad.
W R.: Yo dir a que estamos hablando en t rminos dualistas.
K.: Todo lenguaje es dualista.
W R.: Usted no puede hablar, yo no puedo hablar, sin un cnfoque dualista.
K.: S, por la comparaci n. Pero no me refiero a eso.
W R.: En este momento usted est hablando de lo absoluto, de lo supremo Cuando hablamos de bueno y malo, estamos hablando de forma dualista.
K.: Por eso quiero alejarme de ah . El bien no es nunca lo opuesto del mal. Entonces, de qu estamos hablando cuando decimos: Pasar, cambiar, de mi condicionamiento, que es malo, a la liberaci n de ese condicionamiento, que es bueno ? O sea, que la libertad es lo opuesto de mi condicionamiento. Por consiguiente, no se trata en absoluto de libertad. Esa libertad nace de mi condicionamiento porque estoy atrapado en esta prisi ny quiero ser libre. La libertad no es una reacci na la prisi n.
WR: No le comprendo del todo.
K.: Se or, podr amos considerar por un momento si el amor es lo opuesto del odio?
W R.: Lo nico que se puede decir es que donde hay amor no hay odio.
K.: No, estoy haciendo una pregunta distinta. Estoy preguntando: Es el odio lo opuesto del afecto, del amor? Si lo es, entonces en ese afecto, en ese amor, hay odio, porque se origina en el odio, en el opuesto. Todos los opuestos se originan en sus propios opuestos. No?
W R.: No lo s . Eso es lo que dice usted.
K.: Pero es un hecho, se or mire, yo tengo miedo y cultivo la valent a, ya sabe, para deshacerme del miedo. Me tomo un trago o lo que sea, todo eso, para librarme del miedo. Y al final, digo que soy muy valiente. Todos los h roes de la guerra y gente por el estilo reciben medallas por esto. Porque est n asustados dicen: «Tenemos que ir y matar», o hacer una cosa u otra, y se creen muy valientes, se convierten en héroes.
W R.: Eso no es valentía.
K.: Estoy diciendo que cualquier cosa que se origine en su opuesto contiene al propio opuesto.
W R.: ¿Cómo?
K.: Señor, si alguien lo odia y luego dice: «Debo amar», ese amor nace del odio. Porque él sabe lo que es el odio y dice: «No debo ser esto, pero debo ser eso.» De modo que eso es lo opuesto de esto. Por lo tanto, ese opuesto contiene a éste.
WR: No sé si es el opuesto.
K.: Ésa es la forma en que vivimos, señor. Eso es lo que hacemos. Yo soy propenso al sexo, no debo ser sexual. Hago voto de castidad, no yo personalmente, la gente hace voto de castidad, que es lo opuesto. De forma que están siempre atrapados en este corredor de los opuestos. Y yo cuestiono todo el corredor. No creo que exista; lo hemos inventado, pero en realidad no existe. Quiero decir… Por favor, esto es sólo una explicación, no acepte nada, señor.
IS: Personalmente, considero, a modo de hipótesis de trabajo, que este canal de los opuestos es un factor humanizador y que estamos atrapados en él.
K.: Oh, no, ése no es un factor humanizador. Eso es como afirmar: «He sido una entidad tribal, ahora me he convertido en una nación, y luego acabaré siendo internacional»; sigue siendo la continuidad del tribalismo.
DB: Me parece que ustedes dos están diciendo que, de algún modo, sí progresamos, puesto que no somos tan bárbaros como lo éramos antes.
IS: Eso es lo que entiendo por el factor humanizador.
K.: Yo cuestiono que sea humanizador.
DB: ¿Está usted diciendo que esto no es auténtico progreso? Por lo general, en el pasado la gente era mucho más incivilizada de lo que es hoy día, y por lo tanto, ¿diría usted que eso en realidad no significa mucho?
K.: Seguimos siendo bárbaros.
DB: Si, lo somos, pero algunas personas dicen que no somos tan bárbaros como lo éramos.
K.: No «tanto».
DB: Veamos si podemos esclarecer esto. Entonces, ¿diría usted que eso no es importante, que no es significativo?
K.: No, cuando digo que soy mejor de lo que era, eso no tiene sentido.
DB: Creo que deberíamos aclarar eso.
WR: En el sentido relativo, dualista, yo no acepto eso, no puedo verlo. Pero en el sentido absoluto, último, no existe nada semejante.
K.: No, no por último; yo ni siquiera voy a aceptar la expresión «por último». Yo veo cómo el opuesto se origina en la vida diaria, no en un futuro lejano. Soy codicioso, ése es un hecho. Intento volverme no codicioso, lo cual es un no-hecho, pero si permanezco con el hecho de que soy codicioso, entonces puedo realmente hacer algo al respecto, ahora. Por lo tanto, no hay opuesto. Señor, tome la violencia y la no-violencia. La no-violencia es un opuesto de la violencia, un ideal. De modo que la no-violencia es un no-hecho. La violencia es el único hecho. Por consiguiente, puedo afrontar los hechos, no los no-hechos.
WR: ¿Qué es lo que está tratando de decir?
K.: Lo que trato de decir es que no hay dualidad ni siquiera en la vida diaria. Es el invento de todos los filósofos, intelectuales, utopistas, idealistas que dicen que existe el opuesto, esfuércese por alcanzarlo. El hecho es que soy violento, eso es todo, voy a hacerle frente a eso. Y para hacerle frente, no invente la no-violencia.
IS: La pregunta ahora es: ¿Cómo le voy a hacer frente, una vez que he aceptado el hecho de que soy violenta…
K.: No aceptado, es un hecho.
IS: . . habiéndolo visto?
K.: Entonces podemos proseguir, se lo mostraré. Tengo que ver lo que estoy haciendo ahora. Estoy evitando el hecho y escapándome al no-hecho. Eso es lo que está sucediendo en el mundo. Así que no se escape, sino permanezca con el hecho. ¿Puede hacerlo?
IS: Bueno, la cuestión es: ¿Puede una hacerlo? Una puede, pero a menudo no le gusta hacerlo.
K.: Por supuesto que puede hacerlo. Cuando ve algo peligroso usted dice: «Es peligroso, así que no voy a acercarme.» Escaparse del hecho es peligroso. De modo que eso se acabó, usted no huye. Eso no quiere decir que se ejercita, que practica para no huir, usted no huye. Yo creo que los gurus, los filósofos, han inventado la huida. I'm sorry.
WR: No hay una huida, eso es completamente distinto, es una manera equivocada de expresarlo.
K.: No, señor.
W R.: No se puede huir.
K.: No, estoy diciendo, no huya, entonces ve. No huya, entonces ve. Pero usted dice: «No puedo ver porque estoy atrapado en eso.»
W R.: Eso lo veo perfectamente, veo muy bien lo que usted está diciendo.
K.: Por lo tanto, no hay dualidad.
WR: ¿Dónde?
K.: Ahora, en la vida diaria, no en un porvenir incierto.
W R.: ¿Qué es la dualidad?
K.: La dualidad es el opuesto. Violencia y no-violencia. Ya sabe, la India entera ha estado practicando la no-violencia, que es una tontería. Sólo hay violencia, voy a afrontar eso. Que los seres humanos le hagan frente a la violencia, no con el ideal de la no-violencia.
W R.: Estoy de acuerdo en que si se ve el hecho, eso es de lo que tenemos que encargarnos.
K.: Por lo tanto, no hay progreso.
WR: De cualquier modo, ésa es sólo una palabra que se puede emplear.
K.: No, no de cualquier modo. Cuando tengo un ideal, para conseguirlo necesito tiempo, ¿verdad? Por lo tanto, evolucionaré hacia él. Así que nada de ideales, sólo hechos.
W R.: ¿Cuál es la diferencia, cual es la discrepancia entre nosotros? Estamos de acuerdo en que sólo hay hechos.
K.: Lo que significa, señor, que para mirar los hechos no es necesario el tiempo.
W R.: Absolutamente, no.
K.: Por lo tanto, si el tiempo no es necesario, lo puedo ver ahora.
W R.: Sí, de acuerdo.
K.: Lo puede ver ahora. ¿Por qué no lo hace?
W R.: ¿Por qué no? Ésa es otra cuestión.
K.: No, no es otra cuestión.
DB: Si se toma en serio que el tiempo no es necesario, uno tal vez pudiera esclarecer todo el asunto ahora mismo.
W R.: Sí, eso no significa que lo puedan hacer todos los seres humanos; hay personas que pueden.
K.: No, si yo puedo verlo, usted lo puede ver.
W R.: No lo creo, no estoy de acuerdo con usted.
K.: No es una cuestión de acuerdo o desacuerdo. Cuando tenemos ideales alejados de los hechos, se necesita tiempo para llegar allí, el progreso es necesario. Debo tener conocimiento para progresar. Todo eso entra en juego. ¿De acuerdo? ¿Puede usted, entonces, abandonar los ideales?
W R.: Es posible.
K.: Ah, no, en el momento en que emplea la palabra «Posible», ahí esta el tiempo.
W R.: Quiero decir que es posible ver los hechos.
K.: Hágalo ahora, señor. Discúlpeme, no estoy siendo autoritario. Cuando usted dice que es posible, ya se ha alejado.
W R.: Quiero decir, debo decir, que no todo el mundo puede hacerlo.
K.: ¿Cómo lo sabe?
WR: Eso es un hecho.
K.: No, no aceptaré eso.
IS: Tal vez podría aportar un ejemplo concreto. Estoy de pie en un trampolín alto, sobre una piscina y no sé nadar, y me dicen: «Sólo salte, relájese completamente y el agua la mantendrá a flote.» Esto es perfectamente cierto: puedo nadar. No hay nada que me lo impida excepto que me da miedo hacerlo. Creo que ésa es la cuestión. Por supuesto que podemos hacerlo, no hay dificultad alguna, pero existe este miedo básico, que no obedece a razones, que nos hace retroceder.
K.: Disc lpeme, por favor, no estoy hablando de eso, eso no es lo que estamos diciendo. Pero si uno se da cuenta de que es codicioso, por qu nos inventamos la no-codicia?
IS: No sabr a decirlo, porque me parece tan obvio que, si soy codiciosa, entonces soy codiciosa.
K.: Entonces, por qu tenemos el opuesto? Why? Todas las religiones dicen que no debemos ser codiciosos, todos los fil sofos, si es que valen lo que pesan, dicen: No sean codiciosos, u otra cosa. O dicen: Si son codiciosos no alcanzar n el cielo . De modo que siempre han cultivado, a trav s de la tradici n, de los santos, de todo el tinglado, esta idea del opuesto. As que no lo acepto. Yo digo que eso es una evasi n de esto.
IS: Que lo es. En el mejor de los casos es una fase intermedia.
K.: Es una evasi n de esto, verdad? Y no solucionar este problema. De manera que para afrontar el problema, para eliminarlo, no puedo tener un pie all y otro aqu . Debo tener los dos pies aqu .
IS: Y si tengo ambos pies aqu ?
K.: Espere, se es un s mil, un s mil. Entonces, no tengo opuesto, el cual implica tiempo, progreso, practicar, intentar, devenir, toda esa gama.
IS: As que veo que soy codiciosa o que soy violenta.
K.: Ahora tenemos que examinar algo completamente distinto. Puede un ser humano liberarse de la codicia ahora? Esa es la cuesti n. No en un futuro. No estoy interesado en no ser codicioso en la pr xima vida, a qui n le importa, o dentro de dos d as; yo quiero ser libre del sufrimiento, del dolor, ahora mismo. Por lo tanto, no tengo ning n ideal en absoluto. De acuerdo, se or? Entonces s lo tengo este hecho: soy codicioso. Qu es la codicia? La palabra misma es condenatoria. La palabra codicia lleva siglos en mi mente, y la palabra inmediatamente condena el hecho. Al decir soy codicioso, ya lo he condenado. Ahora bien, puedo observar ese hecho sin la palabra con todas sus insinuaciones, su contenido, su tradici n? Observarlo. No se puede comprender la profundidad ni el sentimiento de codicia o liberarse de ella si se est preso de las palabras. De modo que, al estar todo mi ser preocupado con la codicia, dice: Est bien, no me dejar apresar, no emplear la palabra codicia. De acuerdo? Ahora bien, existe ese sentimiento de codicia despojado de la palabra, desligado de la palabra codicia ?
I S.: No, no existe. Contin e, por favor.
K.: Puesto que mi mente est llena de palabras y atrapada en las palabras, puede observar la codicia sin la palabra?
W R.: Eso es ver realmente el hecho.
K.: S lo entonces veo el hecho, s lo entonces lo veo.
W R.: S, sin la palabra.
K.: Ah es donde reside la dificultad. Yo quiero librarme de la codicia porque todo en mi sangre, en mi tradici n, mi formaci n. mi educaci n dice: Lib rese de esa cosa fea. As que continuamente me esfuerzo por librarme de ella. De acuerdo? Yo no fui educado, a Dios gracias, en esa l nea. Por lo tanto digo: Est bien, s lo tengo el hecho, el hecho de que soy codicioso.» Quiero comprender la naturaleza y la estructura de esa palabra, de ese sentimiento. ¿Qué es, cuál es la naturaleza de ese sentimiento? ¿Es un recuerdo? Si es un recuerdo, estoy mirando la codicia presente con los recuerdos del pasado. Los recuerdos del pasado han dicho: «Condénala.» ¿Puedo mirarla sin los recuerdos del pasado?
Voy a examinar esto un poco más, porque el recuerdo del pasado condena la codicia y, por lo tanto, la fortalece. Si es algo nuevo, no lo voy a condenar. Pero porque es nueva pero convertida en algo viejo por los recuerdos, las memorias, la experiencia, la condeno. Por lo tanto, ¿puedo mirarla sin la palabra, sin la asociación de las palabras? Eso no requiere disciplina o práctica, no necesita un guía. Simplemente esto: ¿puedo observarla sin la palabra? ¿Puedo mirar ese árbol, a la mujer, al hombre, al cielo, al firmamento, sin la palabra y descubrirlo? Pero si viene alguien y me dice: «Le mostraré cómo se hace», entonces estoy perdido. Y el «cómo se hace» es todo el negocio de los libros sagrados. I'm sorry. De todos los gurus, los obispos, los papas, de todo eso.
SOURCE:
