The Limits of Thought: Discussions by David Bohm

Author:David Bohm [Bohm, David]
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 9781134650262
Google: f6GEAgAAQBAJ
Amazon: 1134650264
Barnesnoble: 1134650264
Goodreads: 17496223
Publisher: Taylor and Francis
Published: 2011-08-01T05:00:00+00:00

4 Thought and perception

KRISHNAMURTI: Why has mankind given such tremendous importance to thought?

DAVID BOHM: You have pointed out that thought gives security in many senses, not only in the sense of psychological security, but also material security.

KRISHNAMURTI: Yes, thought in itself is not secure.

DAVID BOHM: Thought cannot be secure, it’s a mere reflection.

KRISHNAMURTI: Yes, therefore it cannot be secure in itself and seeks security outside.

DAVID BOHM: But why does it seek security?

KRISHNAMURTI: Because thought is constantly changing, constantly moving.

DAVID BOHM: But that doesn’t explain why it’s not satisfied to just be that.

KRISHNAMURTI: Because it sees its own perishable nature.

DAVID BOHM: Why should it want to be imperishable?

KRISHNAMURTI: Because that which is imperishable is its security.

DAVID BOHM: If thought were content to say, ‘I’m insecure, I’m impermanent’, then it would be like nature, it would just say, ‘I’m here today and tomorrow I’m different.’

KRISHNAMURTI: Of course. But I am not satisfied with that. Is it because of attachment?

DAVID BOHM: But what is attachment? Why should thought attach itself to anything? Why shouldn’t it say, ‘I’m just thought, I’m just a reflection’?

KRISHNAMURTI: But you’re giving to thought considerable intelligence. If it says, ‘I’m just like nature, I just come and go in constant movement…’

DAVID BOHM: Now are you saying that thought is mechanical, that’s why it’s doing this. Then we have to see why a mechanism should necessarily seek security. A machine doesn’t seek anything in particular; we can set up a machine and it just goes.

KRISHNAMURTI: Of course. As long as there is energy, it’ll go on working.

DAVID BOHM: If it breaks down, that’s the end of it.

KRISHNAMURTI: But does thought realize that it is mechanical?

DAVID BOHM: No, but thought made a mistake, there is something incorrect in its content; which is, thought does not know it’s mechanical. But does that mean that thought thinks it is not mechanical?

KRISHNAMURTI: Sir, a mechanical thing doesn’t get hurt.

DAVID BOHM: No, it just functions.

KRISHNAMURTI: Whereas thought gets hurt.

DAVID BOHM: And thought has pleasure.

KRISHNAMURTI: Yes, pleasure, pain, and all the rest of it. Let’s stick to one thing. It gets hurt. Why does it get hurt? Because of the image and so on. It has created the image, and in the thing that it has created it is seeking security, isn’t it?

DAVID BOHM: Yes, it is not clear why it ever began to seek that kind of security. If it began as a mechanism, there was no…

KRISHNAMURTI: This is rather interesting, isn’t it? Why does thought not realize it is mechanical? Why does it suppose that it is something different from a machine?

DAVID BOHM: Yes, it may in some sense suppose it has intelligence and feeling and that it’s a living thing, rather than mechanical.

KRISHNAMURTI: I think that’s the root of it, isn’t it? It thinks it’s living. And therefore it attributes to itself the quality of non-mechanical existence. Thought is clever, giving itself qualities which basically it does not have. Why does it do it?

DAVID BOHM: You were saying that thought somehow can realize it is mechanical, which would imply that it had some intelligence.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.