JK: The world is me: I am the world. But we have divided it up into the British earth and the French earth, and all the rest of it!
DB: Do you mean, by the world, the physical world, or the world of society?
JK: The world of society, primarily the psychological world.
DB: So we say the world of society, of human beings, is one, and when I say I am the world, what does it mean?
JK: The world is not different from me.
DB: The world and I are one.
JK: Yes. And that is real meditation; you must feel this, not just as a verbal statement: It is an actuality. I am my brothers keeper.
JK: Is it some kind of fanciful projection, hoping that it will solve our problems? It is not to me. It is an actuality. Because the end of suffering means love.
DB: Before we go on, let’s clear up a point about “me.” You see, you said it is not to me. Now, in some sense it seems that you are still defining an individual. Is that right?
JK: Yes. I am using the word “I” as a means of communication.
DB: But what does it mean? In some way, let’s say there are two people, let’s say A and B.
DB: So A says it is not to me–that seems to create a division between A and B.
JK: That’s right. But B creates the division.
JK: What is the relationship between the two?
DB: B is creating the division by saying, “I am a separate person.”
The Ending of Time Extended Version
**Is the brain that translates relationship as ‘myself and the other’ caught in illusion? Caught in the divisive cultural conditioning? Confusing thought imagery for the actual?