Truth, Actuality and the Limits of Thought by Krishnamurti & David Bohm

Author:Krishnamurti & David Bohm [Krishnamurti and David Bohm]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Krishnamurti Foundation Trust
Published: 2020-12-05T16:00:00+00:00

EIGHT

DB: I had a letter from David Shainberg and he raised one major question: “If thought is inherently fragmented and yet thought has to be consciously aware of its own fragmentation, then could we ask whether the thought which is aware of its own fragmentation, is also fragmented?”.

K: Shall we start with that?

DB: Yes...

K: Why do we accept it that thought is fragmented? Why do we say that thought is broken up or has the faculty of breaking up?

DB: I think that we’ll have to go deeply into the nature of thought...

K: What is the real, basic reason for thought to be fragmented? Why is thought limited, broken up?

DB: Yes, now I’ve been considering for some time the nature of thought and one point about thought is that it is beginning as a reaction and becoming a reflection. Now, on the basis of memory thought creates an imitation of certain actual things that happen independently of thought. For example, it may imitate in your imagination the appearence of a feeling, or a sound, or something else. Now, it is not possible in a reflection to capture the whole of what is reflected, so there is always an abstraction...

K. Yes, there is always an abstraction, I see that, but you haven’t answered my question: why is it fragmented?

DB: Any abstraction is bound to be a fragment, you see?

K: You’re saying: thought reflects memory...

DB: Yeah... It reflects the content of memory.

K: And therefore, as it reflects, it’s an abstraction.

DB: It doesn’t reflect all...

K: ...and therefore it’s fragmentary.

DB: Yes, it selects some things to reflect, and other things are not reflected...

K: Would you put the question this way: Can thought see the whole?

DB: Well, “Does thought see?”, that’s another question that David Shainberg raised: “Does thought actually see anything?”. We discussed the other time in Brockwood that thought can be consciously aware of something, let’s say there is an awareness which involves perception, but everything we’re aware of may go on into memory; is that right?

K: Yes.

DB: Now, when that memory responds, we have thought...

K: Right...

DB: So, as I see it, this conscious awareness is awareness recorded in memory and then reflected, right?

K: Right. So memory is fragmented; therefore, its reflection as thought is fragmented.

DB: The whole experience, for example, is not contained in memory—the essence of it may be left out...

K: Left out... I understand. Now, let’s dig deeply into it: why is thought fragmented?

DB: Partly because it’s an abstraction, as you’ve just said. I think there is another reason: in some sense, thought is not fully aware of its own operation. Perhaps we can begin this way: the brain has no sense organs to tell itself that it’s thinking.

K: Quite...

DB: You see, if you move your hand, there is a sense organ that tells you that it is moving. If you move your head, the image moves but it is corrected so that the world doesn’t spin unless something is wrong with your balance. On the other hand, there are no such sense organs in the brain.

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.