Jiddhu Krishnamurti (1895 - 1986)

EXPLORATION INTO INSIGHT - 'THE BRAIN CELLS AND THE HOLISTIC STATE'

P: Do you not think that in order to investigate that, one should go into the problem of dissipating energy?

DS: I don't know what you mean by that.

P: The momentum which pushes us, creates and disappears. Just as there is the engine which has energy, and which dissipates, there is the same kind of energy involved in the momentum which we are speaking about. Could we go into energy, the energy which dissipates and the energy which does not dissipate?

DS: Maxwell says, for a scientist, the first principle of energy is one of defining relationship. When you say `energy', I am seriously asking what the problem is. I am wondering when we say `energy', do we mean a substance, a definable force? Or, does this `energy' imply a form of relationship?

P: I don't quite comprehend what you say.

DS: I question whether there is anyone who has actually thought about what energy is in the psychological sense.

P: That is why if we discussed it, it might clarify matters.

DS: Do we mean a substance or a force that exists within the person, or is `energy' something that is manifested in relationship, and if so, then it raises a whole category of questions.

P: Doesn't physics (I have no knowledge of physics) accept that there is an energy which dissipates and an energy which in itself does not have the seed of dissipation?

FW: Yes, but you see, no physicist can define what energy is. Energy is a basic assumption in physics - that it is there. We know that energy is necessary. Without energy, no force is possible. Without energy, no work is possible. So, energy and work are very much related. So, we can use force, we can see work being done, but we can never see energy.

K: Is there an energy which is endless, without a beginning and without an end? And is there an energy which is mechanical which always has a motive? And is there an energy in relationship? I would like to find out.

P: Dr Shainberg asked what is it that gives momentum.

K: What is it? Let us keep to that.

P: Is momentum the arising of the thinker, and then the thinker giving himself continuity?

K: What is the drive, the force behind all our action? Is it mechanical? Or is there an energy, a force, a drive, a momentum which has no friction? Is that what we are discussing?

DS: What is the momentum of this energy that becomes mechanical? Let us stay out of the fantasy realm for a while but keep to just this momentum of thought and desire and its mechanical nature. What is the momentum of this energy, of thought, desire and the creation of the thinker?

K: Go on, sir, discuss it.

DS: You see thought, sensation, then power, then desire, and fulfilment of desire; the whole drive with a little modification goes on, continues. So, that is the momentum.

K: You are asking what is the momentum behind desire. I desire a car. What is behind that desire? We will keep it very simple. What is the urge, the drive, the force, the energy behind the desire that says, `I must have a car'? DS: Is it that you desire a car or does the car come up as a desire and then creates the `I'? Is the `I' created by desire?

K: If I didn't actually see the car, didn't feel it, didn't touch it, I would have no desire for a car. Because I see people driving in a car, the pleasure of driving, the energy, the fun of driving, I desire it.

P: Sir, is it only the object which creates desire?

DS: That is the question.

K: It may be a physical object, or a non-physical object, a belief, an idea, anything.

FW: But in the first place, it probably has to be perceivable by the senses, because you perceive something by the senses, and you make an image of it, then you desire it. So, could one say that whatever can be desired has to be sensed? And so from your question I ask: Anything which can be desired, has it first to be perceivable through the senses? One could, of course, speak of `God'. I can desire God.

P: It is desire that maintains and keeps the world going. Can you take desire back to its roots?

DS: Would there be desire if there were no 'I'?

K: What is the momentum behind any desire? Let us begin with that. What is the energy that makes me desire? What is behind my being here? I have come here to find out what you are talking about, what this discussion is about. The desire is to discover something other than my usual rush of thought. So, what is that? Is that desire? Now, what is behind the desire that made me come here? Is it my suffering? Is it my pleasure? Is it that I want to learn more? Put all these together, what is it that is behind all that?

DS: To me it is relief from what I am.

P: Which is identical with a sense of becoming.

K: Becoming? What is behind becoming? DS: To get somewhere different from where I am, and there also there is desire.

K: What is behind that energy that is making you do that? Is it punishment and reward? All our structure of movement is based on punishment and reward, to avoid one, to gain the other. Is that the basic drive or energy that is making us do so many things? So is the motive, the drive, the energy derived from these two: to avoid one and gain the other?

DS: Yes. That is part of it. That is at the level of thought.

K: No. Not at the level of thought only. I don't think so. I am hungry, my reward is food. If I do something wrong, my reward is punishment.

M: Is that different from pleasure and pain? Is reward the same as pleasure, and punishment the same as pain?

K: Reward - keep to that word. Don't enlarge that word. Reward and punishment. I think that is the basic, ordinary, common drive.

P: Reward and punishment to whom?

K: Not `to whom'. That which is satisfactory, and that which is not satisfactory.

P: But for whom? You have to posit it.

K: I have not yet come to that. The problem is, what is satisfying I call `reward', that which is not satisfying I call `punishment'.

DS: Yes.

K: So, is there not the `I' saying: `I must be satisfied', `I am hungry'?

P: Hunger is a very physiological thing.

K: I am keeping to that for the moment. Does the physiological spill over into the psychological field and does the whole cycle begin there? I need food; food is necessary. But that same urge goes into the field of psychology, and there begins a completely different cycle. But it is the same movement. Singh: Sir, where is all this process going on? If it goes on in me, what I experience, when I participate in this process of investigation, where is it taking place? Is it in the brain? Where do I find this pleasure - pain need?

K: Both at the biological level and the psychological.

Singh: If it is the brain, then there is definitely something, which one may say is twilight, between pleasure and pain. There are definitely some moments when there is no need to satisfy hunger and still the desire to be satisfied is there. I may be satisfied and may still feel hungry.

K: I don't quite follow what you are saying.

Singh: Sir, if there is reward and punishment, and if this process of reward and punishment is to be investigated in the brain, at the physiological level, then there are some responses in the brain which are in between reward and punishment.

K: You mean there is a gap between reward and punishment?

Q: Not a gap, but an interlink, a bridge.

GM: You mean there is a state which is neither reward nor punishment?

Singh: Yes. Where one merges into another.

P: If I may ask, there may be another state, but I do not know what it is. How does this answer the question, how does this further the question of the nature of this force which brings it into being and then keeps it going? Basically, that is the question.

DS: That is the question. Where is this momentum? Where is this momentum of reward and punishment? And even if there were space in between -

K: Are you asking, what is it that is pushing one in the direction of reward and punishment? What is the energy, what is the momentum, what is the force, what is the volume of energy, that is making us do this or avoid that? Is that the question? Could it be satisfaction, gratification, which is pleasure? DS: But then, what is gratification? What is your state of being when you are aware that there is freedom from hunger?

K: It is very simple, isn't it? There is hunger, food is given, and you are satisfied. But the same thing is carried on and it is never ending. I seek one satisfaction after another and it is endless. Is it that this energy, the drive to be satisfied, is both biological as well as psychological? I am hungry and psychologically I am lonely. There is the feeling of emptiness, there is the feeling of insufficiency. And so I turn to God, to the Church, to gurus. Physiologically, the insufficiency is satisfied very easily. Psychologically, it is never satisfied.

Par: At what point does one go from the physiological fulfilment to the thought process?

K: Sir, it may be that the physiological movement has entered into the psychological movement and carries on. Is this so?

P: What I am trying to enquire into is this: It is not a question of whether it is possible or whether it is a matter of choice. It is so from the moment I am born. Both types of wants begin. Therefore, I am asking, what is the source of both beginnings, the physiological and psychological?

Q: The one word `insufficiency' should be enough.

P: It isn't. Both are structured in a force which then propels. That structure within one, the coming together of a number of things, is the centre, the `I'.

K: Look. I don't think it is the `I'.

P: What is it? Why do you say that?

K: I don't think it is the `I'. I think it is the endless dissatisfaction, the endless insufficiency.

DS: What is the source of that?

P: Can there be insufficiency unless there is someone who is insufficient? DS: Who is insufficient?

P: Can there be insufficiency without the one who feels it?

K: I don't posit the `I'. There is continuous insufficiency. I go to Marxism. I find it insufficient, I go from one to the other. The more intelligent I am, the more awake I am, the more dissatisfaction there is. Then, what takes place?

S: You are implying by that, that there is a matrix without the reality of the `I' which in its very momentum can act.

K: I don't know the matrix. I don't know the `I'. All that I am pointing out is the one factor that there is physiological insufficiency which has entered into the field of psychological insufficiency and that goes on endlessly.

DS: There is an endless sense of incompletion.

K: Insufficiency. Keep to that word.

A: I suggest at this point that we may cut out the physiological insufficiency.

K: I am purposely insisting on that..It may be from the flowing out of that, that we create all this misery.

Par: I question that. Is it a mixture of physiological and psychological spilling over? What do we exactly mean by `spilling over'? One is a fact, the other is not.

K: No. Therefore, there is only physiological insufficiency.

P: How can you say that?

K: I don't say that. I am just investigating.

P: There is both physiological as well as psychological insufficiency.

K: Look, Pupulji, for the moment I will not use the word `I'. I am not investigating the `I'. I feel hungry. It has been satisfied. I feel sexual, that is being satisfied. And I say: `That is not good enough, I must have something more.' P: The `more'?

K: The `more', what is that?

P: It is the momentum, isn't it?

K: No, the `more' is more satisfaction.

P: What is the momentum then?

K: Keep to that word. The brain is seeking satisfaction.

P: Why should the brain seek satisfaction?

K: Because it needs stability; it needs security. Therefore, it says: `I have discovered this: I thought I had found satisfaction in this but there isn't any. I shall find satisfaction and security in that, and again there isn't any'. And it keeps going on and on. That is so in daily life. I go to one guru after another, or one theory after another, one conclusion after another.

Q: Sir, the very nature of this insufficiency at a physiological level leads to sufficiency at the metaphysiological level. It leads from some inadequacy in the physiological machine to the completion of it. And it is this cycle that is operative; that is how the brain works. If the physiological spill-over is ever to continue in the psychological field, then this cycle of insufficiency and sufficiency must continue.

K: Must continue? Examine yourself. It is very simple. You are seeking satisfaction. Everybody is. If you are poor, you want to be rich. If you see somebody richer than you, you want that, somebody more beautiful, you want that and so on and on. We want continuous satisfaction.

A: Sir, I want to draw your attention again to the central feature of physiological insufficiency, that every activity to fulfil that physiological insufficiency leads to satisfaction. That is to say, between the insufficiency and its recurrence, there is always a gap, as far as the physiological insufficiency is concerned; whereas where psychological insufficiency is concerned, we begin a cycle in which we do not know any gap. K: Forget the gap sir. That is not important. Watch yourself. Isn't the whole of the movement the energy a drive to find gratification reward? Shainberg what do you say to this?

DS: I think what is coming out of this model of the physiological reward-punishment scheme is definitely so. I mean that is the whole way the `me' functions, whether it is logical or not.

K: The whole momentum of seeking satisfaction is captured by the `I'.

DS: Then it is there that the `I' becomes manifest.

K: That's it. That is what I mean. I am seeking satisfaction. It never says, `satisfaction is being sought'. I am seeking satisfaction. Actually it should be the other way: satisfaction being sought.

DS: Satisfaction sought creates the `I'.

K: So momentum is the urge to be satisfied.

P: I will ask you a question which may seem to be a movement away. Isn't the `I' sense inherent in the brain cells which have inherited knowledge?

K: I question that.

P: I am asking you, sir: listen to the question. The knowledge of man which is present in the brain cells, which is present in the depths of the subconsciousness, isn't that `I' part of the brain?

S: Pupulji, are you then equating the whole of the past with the `I'?

P: Of course, the whole of the past. I am asking whether the `I' comes into existence because of this manifestation of seeking satisfaction. Or, whether that very centre of memory, the matrix of memory, whether that is not the `I' sense.

K: You are asking, is there the `I', the `me' the ego, identifying itself with the past, as knowledge.

P: Not identifying itself.

K: Wait. Let me get the question clear. P: Not identifying itself. But `I' as time, time as the past. And the

'I' sense is the whole of that.

K: Wait. You said at the beginning, does the brain contain the `I'? I would say tentatively, investigating, there is no `I' at all but only the search for pure satisfaction.

P: Is the whole racial memory of man fictitious?

K: No. But the moment you say I am the past that `I' is fictitious.

S: Is the past itself saying that I am the past, or a part of the past saying that it is the past?

K: You see you are raising a question which is really very interesting: Do you observe the past as the `I'? There is the whole past, millennia of human endeavour, human suffering, human misery, confusion, millions of years. There is only that movement that current, there is only that vast river - not `I' and the vast river.

P: I would like to put it this way: When this vast river comes to the surface, it brings to the surface the movement of the `I'. It gets identified with the `I'.

Chorus: I don't think so.

K: Pupulji, the `I' may merely be a means of communication.

DS: Is it a way of talking, reporting?

P: Is it as simple as that?

K: No, I am just stating. It is not as simple as that.

S: Sir, at one point you said the manifestation of the stream is the individual. When this vast stream of sorrow manifests itself as the individual, is the `I' present or not?

K: Wait, wait. That is not the point. That vast stream manifests itself in this, in a human being; the father gives to me a form and then I say `I', which is the form, the name, the idiosyncratic environment, but that stream is `me'. There is this vast stream which is obvious. A: I am saying that we are looking with our existing knowledge at the stream and identifying ourselves with the stream. The identification is done post facto, whereas it really starts with the momentum.

K: No, no.

P: How can one see that? You see, the way Krishnaji puts it does not really lead to the depth of oneself. The depth of oneself says,'I want to, I will become, I will be'. That depth springs from the past, which is knowledge, which is the whole racial unconscious.

K: Can I ask, why is the `I' there? Why do you say `I want'? There is only want.

P: Still by saying that, you don't eliminate the `I'.

K: No, you do eliminate that `I'. How do you observe? In what manner do you observe this stream? Do you observe it as the `I', observing? Or, is there observation of the stream only?

P: What one does in observing is a different issue. We are talking of that nature of energy which brings about the momentum. Now I am saying the momentum is the very nature and structure of the `I' which is caught in becoming.

K: I want to question whether the `I' exists at all. It may be totally verbal, non-factual. It is only a word that has become tremendously important, not the fact.

FW: Isn`t there an imprint of the `I' in the brain matter? Isn't that an actuality?

K: No, I question it.

FW: But the imprint is there. The question is: If it isn't an actuality, then what is it?

K: The whole momentum, this vast stream is in the brain. After all, that is the brain, and why should there be the `I' at all in that?

P: When you are talking of the actual, it is there. K: It is there only verbally.

DS: It is actually there. In the sense if you and I are together, there are two parts to it; my identification with myself is the `I', is the relationship with you.

K: Sir, when are you conscious of the `I'?

DS: Only in relationship.

K: I want to understand when you are conscious of the `I'.

DS: When I want something, when I identify myself with something, or when I look at myself in the mirror.

K: When you experience, at the moment of experiencing something, there is no`I'.

P: All right, there is no `I'. We agree with you. But then the `I' emerges a second later.

K: How? Look, go into it slowly.

FW: There is the question of momentum.

K: You are missing my point. There is experience. At the moment of crisis there is no `I'. Then, later, comes the thought which says: `That was exciting, that was pleasurable,' and that thought creates the `I' which says: `I have enjoyed it.' Right?

P: What has happened there? Is the `I' a concentration of energy?

K: No.

P: The energy that dissipates?

K: It is the energy that dissipates, yes.

P: But still it is the `I".

K: No, it is not `I'. It is an energy that is being misused. It isn't the `I' that uses the energy wrongly.

P: I am not saying I use the energy wrongly. The `I' itself is a concentration of energy that dissipates. As the body wears out, the 'I` in that sense has the same nature, it gets old, it gets stale. K: Pupul,just listen to me. At the moment of crisis, there is no 'I'. Follow it. Now can you live, is there a living at the height of that crisis, all the time? Crisis demands total energy. Crisis of any kind brings about the influx of all energy. Leave it for the moment. We will break it up afterwards. At that second, there is no `I'. It is so.

DS: That is a movement.

K: No. At that precise second, there is no `I'. Now, I am asking: `Is it possible to live at that height all the time?'

DS: Why are you asking that?

K: If you don't live that way, you have all kinds of other activities which will destroy that.

DS: What is the question?

K: The point is this: the moment thought comes in, it brings about a fragmentation of energy. Thought itself is fragmentary. So, when thought enters, then it is a dissipation of energy.

DS: Not necessarily.

Par: You said: `At the moment of experience, there is no 'I'.

K: Not that `I said'. It is so.

Par: Is that the momentum?

P: No. The question really amounts to this; we say it is so. But still that does not answer the question as to why the `I' has become so powerful. You have still not answered the question even though at the moment of crisis, the `I' is not, the whole past is not.

K: That is the point. At the moment of crisis, there is nothing.

P: Why are you saying `no' to the `I' being the mirror of the whole racial past?

K: I am saying `no' because it may be merely a way of communication.

P: Is it as simple as that? Is the `I' structure as simple as that? K: I think it is extraordinarily simple. What is much more interesting, much more demanding, is that whenever thought comes into being, then dissipation of energy begins. So, I say to myself: `Is it possible to live at that height?' The moment the `I' comes into being, there is dissipation. If you left out the `I' and I left out the `I', then we would have right relationship.

FW: You said the moment thought comes in, there is dissipation of energy. But the moment the `I' comes in, there is also dissipation of energy. What is the difference?

K: Thought is memory, experience, all that.

FW: You have to use it in your life.

DS: Which is just what we are doing right now. I find when I say dissipation of energy, I immediately see myself take up the position of the observer and say `that is bad'. What I am suggesting is that you can be neutrally aware. There is a crisis and a dissipation, a crisis and a dissipation. That is the flow of existence.

K: No.

P: K's point is, there is that, but the transformation which we are talking about is to negate that.

DS: I question whether there is any such thing as breaking out of this. I think we remember the intensity of the energy of the crisis, and then we say I would like to keep it all the time. Do you do that?

K: No.

DS: Then why ask the question?

K: I am asking that question purposely because thought interferes.

DS: Not all the time.

K: No. All the time. Question it, sir. The moment you have a crisis, there is no past, nor present, only that moment. There is no time in that crisis. The moment time comes in, dissipation begins. Keep it for the minute like that. A: There is the crisis. Then, there is dissipation and then identification.

P: At the moment of crisis, many things happen. You talk of a holistic position at the moment of crisis. Even to come to that, one has to investigate it very deeply, in oneself in order to know what this thing is.

K: You see Pupul holistic implies a very sane mind and body, a clear capacity to think, and also it means holy, sacred; all that is implied in that word `holistic'. Now, I am asking: `Is there an energy which is never dissipated, which you want to draw from?' There is dissipation when it is not holistic. A holistic way of life is one in which there is no dissipation of energy. A non-holistic way of living in dissipation of energy.

P: What is the relationship of the holistic and the non-holistic to the brain cells?

K: There is no relationship to the brain cells. Let us look at it. I want to be quite clear that we understand the meaning of that word `holistic'. It means complete, whole, harmony, no disintegration, no fragmentation. That is the holistic life. That is endless energy. The non-holistic life, the fragmented life, is a wastage of energy. When there is a feeling of the whole, there is no `I'. The other is the movement of thought, of the past, of time; that is our life, our daily life, and that life is reward and punishment and the continuous search for satisfaction.

P: Sir, the holistic is held in the brain cells. That is, it throws up responses, challenges. The non-holistic is held in the brain cells. It is the whole stream of the past meeting the challenge. Now, what relationship has the holistic to the brain cells and the senses?

K: Have you understood the question, Doctor?

DS: Her question is: What is the relationship of this holistic state in the brain to memory and the past and the senses?

K: No, no. You haven't listened. P: I said there are two states, the holistic and the non-holistic. The non-holistic is definitely held in the brain cells because it is the stream of the past held in the brain cells, challenged and giving momentum. I am asking what is the relationship of the holistic to the brain cells and to the senses?

DS: What do you mean by the senses?

P: Listening, seeing, tasting...

DS: Can I go into that? I think if there were something in what we were saying, there would be a different relationship of such part functions in the holistic state. They are not merely part functioning but functioning as part of the holistic state, whereas in the dissipation of energy and fragmentation, it begins to function as isolated centres.

K: Sir, her question is very simple. Our brain cells now contain the past, memory, experience, knowledge of millennia, and those brain cells are not holistic.

DS: Yes, they are separate cells.

K: They are not holistic. Stick to that. She says the brain cells now are conditioned to a non-holistic way of living. What takes place in the brain cells when there is a holistic way? That is her question.

DS: I would put it differently. I would say: `What takes place in the relationship to the brain cells in the holistic state of perception?'

K: I am going to answer that question. Does the holistic brain contain the past and therefore can the past be used holistically? Because it is whole, it contains the part, but the part cannot contain the whole. Therefore, when there is the operation of the part, there is dissipation of energy.

P: After going through all this, we have come to this point.

K: Yes. A marvellous point. Stick to it. P: What is then its place in the brain which is the structure of the human mind?

K: We know only the non-holistic way of living, keep to that. That is the fact, that we live non-holistically, fragmentarily. That is our actual life and that is a wastage of energy. We see also that there is contradiction, there is battle. All that is a wastage of energy. Now, we are asking: `Is there a way of living which is not a wastage of energy?'

We live a non-holistic way of life, a fragmentary life, a broken life. You understand what I mean by broken, saying something, doing something else, a life that is contradictory, comparative, imitative, conforming, having moments of silence. It is a fragmentary way of living, a non-holistic way, that is all we know. And somebody says: Is there an energy which is not wasted? And with that question let us investigate it to see if it is possible to end this way of living.

P: But I have asked another question, and you have still not answered that.

K: I am coming to that. That is a very difficult question to answer which is: one lives a non-holistic life, which is a constant seepage of energy, a wastage of energy. The brain is conditioned to that. One sees that actually. Then one asks: Is it possible to live a life which is not that? Right?

Q: Not always, sir, that is what we are investigating. Whether that breath of freedom could be a totality.

K: No, it can never be totality, because it comes and goes. Anything that comes and goes involves time. Time involves a fragmentary way of living. Therefore, it is not whole. Look, we live a non-holistic life. The brain is conditioned to that. Occasionally, I may have a flair of freedom but that flair of freedom is still within the field of time. Therefore, that flair is still a fragment. Now, can the brain that is conditioned to that, a non-holistic way of living, can that brain so completely transform itself that it no longer lives the way of conditioning? That is the question. DS: My response to that is: Here you are in a state of fragmentation; here you are in a state of dissipation of energy. And there you are looking for satisfaction.

K: No, I am not. I am saying this is a wastage of energy.

DS: That is all we know and nothing else.

K: Yes. Nothing else. So, the brain says: `All right, I see that.' Then it asks the question: `Is it possible to change all this?'

DS: I wonder whether the brain can ask it.

K: I am asking it. Therefore, if one brain asks it, the other brain must ask it too. This is not based on satisfaction.

DS: Could you say anything about how you can ask the question about what you state without seeking satisfaction? K: It can be asked because the brain has realized for itself the game it has been playing.

DS: So, how is the brain to raise the question?

K: It is asking it, because it says, `I am seeing through that.' Now, it says: `Is there a way of living which is non-fragmentary, which is holistic?'

S: And that question is as holistic as any.

K; No, not yet.

DS: That is what I am having trouble with - where that question comes from. You say it is not seeking satisfaction, it is not holistic. Then, what brain is producing this question?

K: The brain which says: `I see very clearly the waste of energy'.

P: The very fact of your saying that the brain is seeing through the whole problem of fragmentation...

K: Is the ending of it.

P: Is that holistic? K: The ending of it, that is holistic.

P: The ending is the very seeing of fragmentation.

DS: Is that holistic?

K: That is holistic. But she asked a much more complex question in regard to the holistic brain which contains the past, the totality of the past, the essence of the past, the juice of it, sucking in everything of the past. What does that mean? The past is nothing, but such a brain can use the past. I wonder if you follow this. My concern is with one's life, actual, daily, fragmentary, stupid life. And I say, `Can that be transformed?' Not into greater satisfaction. Can that structure end itself? Not by an imposition of something higher which is just another trick. I say if you are capable of observing without the observer, the brain can transform itself. That is meditation. Sir, the essence is the whole. In fragmentation, there is no essence of anything.