23. Meeting Scientists

Professor David Bohm invited a group of eminent scientists to discuss the role of knowledge in the transformation of humanity and society. They met twelve times in seven days in 1974, starting on 13 October.

At the end of the week, Krishnamurti spoke to them, but before that he challenged the scientists to step out of the world of theories and seek a solution to the problems of human consciousness.

The participants were physicists DavidBohm, David Peat, Fritjof Capra, and George Sudarshan; psychiatrists Gordon Globus, Bryan Goodwin, David Shainberg, and Montague Ullman; brain scientist Karl H. Pribram; biophysicist Maurice Wilkins; biologist Robin Monro; medical doctor Elizabeth Ferris with his husband philosopher Julian Melzack. Some non-participating scientists and members of Brockwood Park community were also present.

The invited scientists gave short presentations, after which they engaged in discussion about a wide range of topics concerning humanity. Krishnamurti asked them questions typical of him: What is the self? Can we live without it, and so solve all human problems? Could we all live as free human beings and co-operate without any psychological labels?

According to Krishnamurti, profound change in human beings can only be brought about by forgetting all theories and speculations and facing life as it is. We must see how the human mind is conditioned
by the imaginary idea of a separate self. Why are we imprisoned by this harmful delusion, and can we get rid of it?

Search for the Root

In the preparatory meeting, David Bohm stated that the ultimate root of the world chaos is human inadequacy, and that something must be done about it.

Many ancient religions have called for a transformation of humanity, with Buddhism in particular calling for a radical transformation of the psyche, or the whole being. Christianity states that human beings are in a state of original sin, and must be saved.

However, the religious impetus has died out in modern times, with a very similar theme being pursued in a secular manner.

Some people have believed that knowledge of the order of existence in itself would be transformative. According to Bohm, Albert Einstein thought that ordinary life was rather petty, confused and did not mean much, but that if people came together to study the order of the universe scientifically, they would truly be working together and embodying a different spirit. In a sense, they would be transformed.

Dangerous Knowledge

Only a few researchers were able to bring about such a change. For most people, scientific knowledge was important because of its practical applications.

Knowledge was believed to eliminate poverty and ignorance from society and, together with technology and political change, to transform society and humanity.

Today, very few people believe that knowledge can save society. In fact, many consider knowledge to be dangerous and destructive.

Advances in medicine have led to overpopulation, pollution, and a general decline in quality of life, as traffic, noise, and pollution have increased. There is also violence, an energy crisis, and economic challenges. Many have predicted the collapse of our civilisation.

According to Bohm, the challenge is that people are unable to co-operate effectively, despite technology has made everyone in the world dependent on each other.

Some have adopted an approach of self-knowledge, while others have emphasised religious or technological knowledge. There are scientists who believe that genetic engineering could create better humans, while behaviourists advocate reconditioning humanity.

Bohm believes that intelligence is what is needed. There are many kinds of intelligence. A person can be intelligent in a narrow field and yet still serve destructive goals, thereby causing problems in
the world. An intelligent person can set a trap for themselves because they do not understand the consequences of their actions.

While rational knowledge is necessary, it is not enough; we must also have intuitive knowledge. Today, people's brains have become numb from pursuing self-interest and a myriad of emotions.

Physics Meets Mystics

The second meeting begins with physicist Fritjof Capra discussing two types of knowledge: scientific and mystical. In modern physics, the universe appears as an inseparable, interconnected whole that cannot be divided into distinct, isolated things or events.

The world cannot be reduced to basic structures or basic components. Everything must be viewed through a network or networks of complex relationships. Thus, the scientist is not a detached observer, but is involved in the world and influences the properties of the objects he observes. This makes objective observation impossible.

Time and space merge to form a four-dimensional continuum known as spacetime. There are no static objects, only dynamic patterns that have both spatial and temporal dimensions. These patterns have a certain mass and energy.

Since mass is a form of energy, objects cannot be separated from their essence. Objects are alive because they are constantly interacting with each other to create particles that form an inseparable cosmic network.

This endless cosmic dance of energy is reflected in the writings and teachings of mystics. Physicists derive their knowledge from experiments, mystics from meditation. These are complementary manifestations of the human mind.

The difference is that mystical knowledge cannot be transmitted verbally through words and books. It is beyond the reach of our ordinary senses. While physics studies particles and the realm of the subatomic world, mystics speak of higher levels of consciousness and multidimensional experiences.

Capra concludes that mystical knowledge is transformative in itself, whereas scientific knowledge remains abstract and theoretical.

Is Narcissism Part of Being Human?

Next, GordonGlobus, a professor of psychiatry and philosophy, says that he is more optimistic about the state of the world than Bohm.
He believes that there are more enlightened people in the world today than ever before.

Globus also believes that the self is real and important to everyone. Furthermore, the self is more than just sensory impressions. The 'I' pursues its own interests. Self-interest has very deep biological roots.

In his view, narcissism is an inherent part of the human condition – it is simply how our brains are wired to function.

Brain scientistKarl H. Pribram (referred to by his peers as "the Einstein of Brain Science") criticises the idea of biological conditioning being nativistic. There are significant variations in how individuals express themselves.

He adds that it is not good to set up dichotomies here and overdo the nativistic element. We all have inherent capabilities that can be expressed and utilised in various ways.

K asks, what is the self actually in our daily life? If we forget all theories and speculations about it, are we actually separate from what we perceive? Should we react to what we see happening in the world, or should we stay out of it?

After a few comments, it was decided to revisit the question of the nature of the self later.

Who Needs Help?

The next theme is whether we need guidance or assistance in transformation. Sudarshan says that sometimes people need help from others. Capra uses the metaphor of cleaning a mirror. The mirror is yours, but someone helps you to clean it. Once it is clean, nothing interferes with it, it is your own seeing.

K points out that seeing something as being true or false changes the way we see it. The reaction is immediate; there is no time involved. The change is instant.

He also asks whether compassion or love can be taught. If they could be taught, and if we actually had love and compassion, would not all human problems be solved? There would be no wars or other horrors. However, knowledge is not love; knowing something does not bring about transformation.

Defining Being Human

The next morning, philosopher JulianMelzackopens the meeting by stating that, in his opinion, knowledge plays a crucial role in explaining and improving humanity.

Pribram comments that there are two types of science: descriptive and normative. The latter requires defining the context in which a

particular observation was made. The social sciences have both descriptive and normative features. Putting humans into a biological framework creates an artificial limitation.

Bohm agrees with Pribram. When dealing with something as subtle as a human being, a mechanical description often overlooks essential features. For example, no machine can explain quantum mechanics.

Is Compassion Necessary in Science?

Next up is Robin Monro, a biologist and pioneer in yoga therapy. He addresses three issues. Parapsychology, consciousness, and mystical experiences all pose serious challenges to mechanistic biology.

It is clear that consciousness affects the state of the world. However, objective analysis alone will not solve our problems, because our thinking is always influenced by values and preconceptions.

According to Monro, there is little compassion in science. Nevertheless, compassion and wisdom go hand in hand.

K asks whether compassion and love can be taught. If they could be, then everything would be solved. Pribram says that we can at least unlearn the things that stand in the way.

Globus asks K how he could teach compassion to his medical students. K replies that we all know what physical and psychological suffering is. If we don't escape it through ideas, comforts, and beliefs, we realise that the observer is the observed. Then all suffering ceases.

Trying to escape the fact of suffering is a waste of energy. Remaining with suffering means that the division between the observer and the observed comes to an end. Out of that comes compassion.

Our Holographic Brain

The next morning's session begins with Karl H. Pribram talking about perception and knowledge. He raises the question, what actually happens in the brain at the moment of perception. Experiments show that information is distributed throughout the entire network: our brains are holographic.

Secondly, there is an illusion of direct perception. The outside world is not as it appears to us. The classical approach to thinking about

brain function is that there is input to the brain and that is abstracted and organised in the brain and forwarded as an output to the motor systems. However, this is not a fruitful way of looking at brain function.

There is a great deal of evidence that not only that there is input to the brain, but also output from the brain itself. These outputs actually act as filters or sieves on the input. They act as output mechanisms to the motor parts of the brain.

These motor parts of the brain do not directly control muscle movement, but rather, they alter the sensitivity of the input functions. There is evidence that stimulating the so-called association cortex alters the retina itself.

According to Pribram, there are three types of output function: know-how, know-what, and know-that. These are not hierarchical and analytical, but rather heterarchical and holistic.

Knowledge systems work 'downstream' and alter the way we perceive the world. We must make the holistic/subjective approach as rigorous and precise as the analytical/objective approach has been in the past. Then so-called mystical and scientific thinking emerge. Analytical thought is overly simplistic.

To Gordon Globus, Pribram's model of the brain explains why it is so difficult for people to change their views. Bohm emphasised that Pribram's model differs significantly from the old view in that the whole is intertwined with every part of the brain, not just a specific part of the brain.

Routes to Transformation

In the fifth session in the afternoon, George Sudarshandiscusses personal change. In his view, we can choose to be outside the
cause-and-effect chain. To him there seems to be many routes to transformation. It can happen when listening to others, reading something, in meditation, chemical stimuli, or in the presence of a Master.

Krishnamurti asks Sudarshan whether transformation is recognisable, and, if so, how one can know when it has occurred.

Secondly, is freedom from attachment a gradual or instant process? If we are not attached to our ideas, prejudices, country, or furniture, what is the 'me'?

Opening the Psychic Closet

The next day, psychiatristMontague Ullmanopens by stating that science is one-sided and dualistic. Too little attention has been paid to man's homonomous (similar) needs. He himself felt "impelled to build a psychic closet" towards paranormal phenomena. He has now started to open the door and is trying to "transform the skeletons".

Ullman considers Freud's theory of dreams to be wrong because it approaches dreams in the wrong way, casting a paralysing shadow over them. Rather than interpreting dreams, psychiatrists should learn to appreciate them. The powers displayed by our dreaming selves far exceed the scope of our waking faculties. Dreams reflect the distortions caused by society in a creative way, tuning our psyche to the world.

Can the Brain Be Still?

On Wednesday morning, K asks Pribram if the brain could ever be still. Pribram says no, as neurons are always firing. However, states such as meditation and deep sleep do not involve any thought activity.

K clarifies that he means movement stirred by thought. Pribram says that electrical activity goes on, albeit slowly. This activity is cyclic and repetitive, with a different quality of rhythm and energy configuration.

From Dichotomy to Systemic View

Maurice Wilkins begins his presentation by acknowledging the dichotomy between thought and feeling, and art and science. Although he was fascinated by science, he was repelled by
analytical thought. He shared Kierkegaard's view that thought was dead; however, he also recognised that, beyond the world of thought, there was the world of life and love.

Wilkins considers scientists to be overgrown schoolboys. They are obsessively interested in something, but the scientific community as a whole is somehow trapped, enchanted by the world of thought. Scientists are unaware of how trapped they really are.

According to Wilkins, it is important to be aware of our conditioning and the limitations of humanity, as K has pointed out. In order to

build a good society, we need a wider view of humanity and must remove the obstacles to its development.

However, personal transformation alone cannot take us very far. There must be a deeper systemic change. In studying history books, we can learn that there has been much oppression in the name of God and the divine rights of kings. Even changing a political system has not prevented the gross misuse of power.

Bringing Compassion into Science

Wilkins then asks: How can we bring compassion into science? At present, fundamental questions are not being asked. Science operates in silos, with each branch of science in its own corner. The fragmentation of thought in education leads to mental stagnation.

However, there is hope that scientists will engage with alternative technologies and adopt more ecological views, bringing us more directly into contact with nature. Studying the relationship between art and science is also important.

Sudarshan comments that compassion plays a vital role, even in basic science. Bohm adds that if scientists do not consider the bigger picture, their work has no meaning.

Pribram comments that, as a brain scientist, it is important for him to understand both compassion and how the brain works. The two are apparently closely connected, interconnected.

K asks if they all as scientists feel responsible for ending killing. Pribram says yes, Melzack no – he finds the whole idea ridiculous. Compassion does not help to solve equations. It applies to human beings, but not to being a scientist. Capra says he does not separate the two.

K says that scientists should transform themselves and, in doing so, they would change the world. This transformation must be instant; it cannot happen gradually.

Health Is Wholeness

On Thursday, medical doctor Elizabeth Ferris opens by talking about alternative medicine.

She argues that the fragmentation of medicine is paradoxical, given that health is defined as wholeness. However, medicine focuses

on diseases rather than health. Medicine has become associated with Pasteur's germ theory of disease. Diseases are viewed as entities separate from the person.

The general view is that medicine is not suited to dealing with people as a whole, but rather with bits and pieces of them. It is difficult to feel compassion for an elbow or a knee, yet a holistic view of humanity and its condition is essential in medicine.

The discussion then moves on to alternative medicines, such as acupuncture, tai chi, and homeopathy, and finally to compassionate doctors.

Bohm argues that a different way of thinking and perceiving is needed in medicine. A holistic view cannot be achieved without considering both feelings and intellect.

Quantum and Mental Leaps

In the Thursday afternoon session, Bohm talks about his personal path. He had discovered that the universe is immensely ordered and interconnected, yet the highest virtues of the people he knew and of society as a whole were very trivial and narrow. There was a deep contrast between the two.

His interest in physics was sparked when he realised that atoms contain energy which could potentially be released.

The next leap came when he learned about quantum theory. There, he discovered that the observer and the observed are inseparable. The instrument used for observation affects the result obtained. The whole universe is one and indivisible.

This is a view shared by K and Bohm, which led to their friendship in the early sixties. Bohm says he shares Krishnamurti's view that the fundamental problem of humanity is not a lack of knowledge or political organisation, but rather misused and confused thinking. Something must be done about this. For science to achieve something new, it needs love, passion, and a will to co-operate.

K comments that the fundamental question is not to understand and explain the world with words, but to ask oneself whether one can live in the world without a sense of self. It is pointless to discuss this if the mind is not in a selfless state. Without a direct connection to oneself, it would be nothing more than verbal persuasion, mere words.

To be selfless, one must understand that it is thinking that has created chaos in the world. Everything is now self-centred, and thinking cannot change this because it is the root cause of self-centredness.

The immeasurable can only be experienced when one abandons everything that it is not. It is not time, thought, words, or description. While the immeasurable may be possible to communicate, thought can never attain it.

Bohm says that we need a preliminary analysis to figure this out, but we must be 'there', and we may need a different language to see the world differently. Knowledge is limited, here, we are talking about a state or movement in which there is no observer.

Krishnamurti emphasises that we must learn to listen to others. Verbal understanding is not enough. When we truly listen, we do not form opinions, make judgments, or pass judgement. This is how true connection is created.

Beyond the Measures

So what is it that changes a person deeply and perhaps permanently?

First, we must understand that thinking is fragmented, and that is what makes our lives a constant struggle. Mindfulnessis the factor that changes this situation, because then you see without an observer.

The observer is the cause of disorder because it divides. We have divided life and death, you and me, us and them, humans and nature.

Thinking is only information and cannot change us psychologically. We can start with verbal dialogue and explore together without jumping to conclusions. Then we will find out what our relationship
is to the whole of humanity.

In the West, measurement has been primary. In the East, the emphasis has been on the immeasurable. The observer establishes the measure. Our general modes emphasise either measurement or space-time causal action.

For K, the fundamental question is not how to explain the world in words, but if we can live in this world without self. This cannot be discussed unless one is in a selfless state. Otherwise, it would merely be a verbal exchange. The subject must be present while we talk. Then we will communicate not only verbally, but actually.

To be in that state, we must see that thought has created this mess in the world, the division between people.

Krishnamurti feels a tremendous sense of responsibility to bring about a change both inside and outside. Everything is self-centred, and thought cannot change that, because thought is the root cause
of self-centredness.

The immeasurable is there when we negate everything that it is not: it is not time, not thought, not the word, nor the description. The immeasurable is incommunicable, thought can never grasp it because thought is limited. Bohm says that we need a preliminary analysis to straighten this out, but we must "be there" and perhaps use a different kind of language so that we can perceive the world differently.

Knowledge is limited, and we are talking about something in which there is no observer.

K points out that we must learn to listen to others. Verbal understanding is not enough. You may hear something you have never heard or experienced before. In this case, we are verbally expressing something non-verbal.

When you actually listen, you don't impose your opinions, judgements, conclusions, or prejudices. When you so listen, when you are attentive, there is actual communion.

How to Hear Silence?

Next, Krishnamurti talks about his youth and how theosophists discovered and prepared him "for the manifestation of the World Teacher".

K says he talks about simple things, such as pleasure and fear, and of human behaviour. It is either as he says or it is not. He is not engaging in any kind of propaganda.

Capra asks K if he has changed over the years. He replies that only the phrases he uses have changed; the core has remained the same.

Capra also wants to know how K's verbal method could help bring about the change. To Capra, it seems that K just sits on a chair and tells people to stop thinking. Other teachers use different methods, often completely non-verbal.

K responds that there is a great danger that his words will be filtered through his listeners' prejudices. Each person's inner observer assumes the position of authority, claiming to know and distinguish what is right or wrong in what is said. This happens automatically.

However, by listening totally to another person, the listener may see the limitations of his thinking, revealing and stopping the mechanism of the endlessly chattering mind naturally. Then control disappears and there is no longer any authority. Insight silences the ego.

Can we actually end the 'me' every day? Not just talk about it, but do it! In order to understand the sacredness of life, one needs a silent mind without images.

We Like Conflict!

Sudarshan asks K if there is ever a time when he is in that 'state of no me'. K replies that nobody can know that state. In fact, it is not even a state, but a movement. This movement is not in time! One cannot imagine or experience that state. We know nothing about it!

There is silence in the mind, and that silence has no motive. It cannot be induced. When the mind is silent, "the heavens are open to you". It is in that silence that the sacred is. However, our minds are not silent because we are conditioned to live in conflict.

"We like conflict", says K. We like to live in conflict because it makes the ego feel alive. We don't want to get rid of the self, because we assume it is the most important thing in our life. It is our whole life!

As this is the case for most people, there is nothing more to be said. They won't listen! If something gives us profit – both financially, emotionally, and intellectually – we go with it.

Selfish People Are Energetic

In both sessions on the last day, K talks about death and meditation. He says that we are all second-hand people who repeat what we have learnt and say nice things, but do not live by them.

We are incredibly self-centred and don't take on serious responsibility for other people. The self is not compassionate; it cares selectively. The 'me' does not know what real love is; it loves the images it has adopted. This is part of our conditioning.

So, what does it mean to die to the 'me'? Who is the entity that joins the physical to the spirit, the "joiner"? Can there be psychological death? Is there anything permanent in me? What is the 'me' actually, not according to someone else, a specialist? Is it a series of words, concepts and forms that have put together the idea of me?

Seeing is more important than the one who sees. It is crucial to realise that there is no seer separate from seeing. The seer distorts what is seen. The seer is the past, our conditioning. It is the central factor of distortions, contradictions, and divisions.

Bohm calls the observer a fiction. However, we believe that there is an observer with tremendous energy and reality behind it. Going beyond what is gives us much more energy, because there is no contradiction.

Therefore, the illusion of the self is therefore not mere fiction; it appears to have some genuine force behind it. One thought leads to another, and this is taken as a proof that the illusion is real.

K asks now: can that fiction die not just at the end of life, but every day? Bohm comments that this would only be a fictitious death.

Selfish people are often tremendously vital. Their activity causes much mischief and misery, either to themselves or to others. Being aware of this is a form of intelligence.

Can we see that the suffering and the sufferer are not two separate things? Can the mind remain there without escaping or suppressing suffering?

The difference between a toothache and psychological suffering is that a toothache is real, whereas suffering stems from a fictitious, imagined entity.

The Self as a Fiction

What happens to the mind in a state of complete emptiness and complete nothingness?

According to K, when the self is not, we care much more about everything. There is freedom, and also a profound sense of love.

Real love has nothing to do with thought or thinking. Love can only be when action is not based on any formula or concept.

There is no way we can understand this with thought. Life is not a formula to be expressed. Our mind is too limited to cover the whole of life.

According to Bohm, the fiction of the self interferes with action, wasting our energy, and causing confusion. If we let go of this image, there is real affection and care. Something totally different emerges. There is nothing inside, there is only a vast sense of space and energy without any direction.

Without the self and all its burdens, there is real freedom and a great sense of love.

The love we know is a product of thought, of remembrance. This kind of love is part of fear and pleasure, and can be cultivated through thought. It is part of the 'me'.

If the me is not, the thing we call love has quite a different meaning, vitality, and energy. Love is not something you preach about; it acts.

Love Is Liberty

Krishnamurti begins the final session by asking, once again, what there is when the self is not, and what action is then? He also asks what action is when it is not based on an idea, an ideal, a concept. How can we get people with set beliefs to work together to solve human problems?

Life is about co-operation and relationship. You cannot co-operate if you are prejudiced or have a formula, if you are dominated by authority or self-interest, or if you want to dominate others.

First, we must be free to see the facts together, and then act based on them rather than on an idea or authority. K says that this happens when you love someone, but we are so intellectual that we fail to see and do this. When you love, there is no self.

Freedom of action is not possible when we have ideals, beliefs, concepts or formulas. Seeing the same thing together without either opposing or agreeing is the key to right action.

Got the Point?

Listening to these discussions now, over 50 years later, amid a new rise in stupidity, one cannot help but wonder what is wrong with the human mind. Why haven't we still got this?

It is inspiring to hear these brilliant minds explore the human mind and its obvious limitations. The key point K was trying to make, seems quite simple. What is holding us back?

It is very human to limit our minds to what we can comprehend. Nobody understands the whole of life, but we may at least have an insight into the nature and limits of thought. This was the topic that Krishnamurti and Bohm later discussed in depth.

Would the mind be empty without the content of consciousness? On the contrary.

The self is afraid of the idea of emptiness. It feels as though it loses everything that is dear to it. K takes the opposite view. To him, an empty mind is full of energy, and an element that could be called
love or joy is present.

Empty mind is a free mind – free of sorrow, fear, and the pursuit of pleasure.

As an idea, this has no value. However, when the mind is actually free, it is timeless and beyond the known.