I also think so, here a part in the 6th dialogue about the publication of his biografy:
DB: Yes, well, let’s try to put it now. You see, I’ll change the… I’ll bring in a few more points, if you don’t mind. I’ve been reading Mary Lutyens’ book about you.
K: Oh, you have… Too bad! (Laughs)
DB: Which I find quite interesting.
K: Oh, Lord! (Laughs)
DB: Well, I assume you wanted it read, because…
K: (laughs) …it’s published.
DB: You seem to approve of its publication.
K: No, I asked her to… The facts are these. Rajagopal asked – what’s his name? – Alan Watts and someone else if they would help him to write the biography. Knowing what Rajagopal is – knowing in quotes – I said that must never happen because then it’ll be… it all will be one-sided and not complete. So I asked Mary, and she said, ‘I’ll try and do it.’ I asked – no – Shiva Rao in India had collected during many years a whole… all the events that took place, and he was going to do it but his eyesight failed. And then I said to him, ‘Could I ask Mary Lutyens?’ He said, ‘Delighted.’ He knows her. He said, ‘If she does it, I’ll accept it.’ And that’s how it happened.
DB: Right. Well, I think it’s, you know, a very well written book; it’s quite interesting.
K: By Jove, do you mean to say you’ve got hold of the book already and read it?
DB: Yes, well, it holds your attention. (Laughs) Now…
Saral Bohm: Mary gave us a copy.
DB: She gave us a copy.
K: Of course, of course, of course, of course – she said that – that’s right.
K: Quite right – sorry.
DB: You see, that raises… you know, this book discusses some process you went through, some transformation, and it always raises the question of the difference between, you know, the state of truth and the ordinary state.
DB: Which really, I think, would help us if we got it very clear. Now – let’s see how I could put it – you see, it’s never clear whether this transformation is sudden or gradual or whether it ever took place at all, and…
K: I think, sir, there are several points there involved. We talked about, last time when we were here, or rather downstairs, a mind that’s unconditioned. It may be because such a mind was unhealthy at the beginning, weak, couldn’t retain, couldn’t be impressed upon.
DB: That was the theory we considered last week, yes.
K: One of the theories. And another theory, reincarnation. Another theory is goodness personified in a person called Maitreya – if you accept that – and manifests, and so on. That’s one thing. Then there is this whole idea which exists in the East and has been written about and gone into, and several people have – serious people, not charlatans – been through it. That is the Hindu tradition and they say that there is – what do they call it? – serpent fire.
K: I didn’t want to call it kundalini.
DB: Well, I mean it was referred to in the book as well.
K: Right – if it is referred to in the book I must take it up! (Laughter) That kundalini can be awakened and a different kind of energy comes into being. These are the two points. And transformation, I’m beginning to question whether there was any transformation at all.
DB: Well, that’s what I felt on reading the book, you see.
K: Oh, you felt that?
K: Oh, then we are…
DB: Well, at least…
K: …we are coming together.
DB: I couldn’t see any particular place where it would have happened, you see.
K: Yes, yes. I think, sir, something… I can tell you one thing. I don’t know how to put this. In that book, the brother dies.
K: Actually, I’ve no memory of that. It’s not a pretentious forgetful, but actually I’m fairly truthful with regard to these matters, I’ll…
DB: Yes, I understand that.
K: Either he could have gone into cynicism, bitterness, unbelief, and threw the whole thing out – which he didn’t do – or he could have taken comfort in reincarnation, in meeting the brother elsewhere – which he didn’t do either. So what actually took place? You follow? If we could penetrate that then perhaps we can understand the transformation never took place.
DB: Yes. And I think, you see, what’s also interesting is that finally, toward the end the step was made, you know, that the truth is a pathless land.
K: Yes, yes.
DB: In other words, you were saying more or less the same thing about truth then that we are saying right now, you see, and therefore…
K: Right. Yes, yes.
DB: I mean, I was struck by the similarity, almost identity.
K: Oh, I didn’t know that.
DB: You didn’t discuss reality then – at that time you were still using the word in its ordinary sense – but truth was…
K: Yes, yes. I think then if neither reincarnation and all the comfort involved in it, nor the cynicism and becoming… throwing all that and becoming worldly and, you know, just disappearing in worldliness – worldliness being, not money and all that because that wouldn’t have interested him – just disappearing into some kind of idiocy. Those did not take place. I think what probably happened – because it was so long ago I have no recollection – is facing the truth of death.
DB: Do you feel that was the crucial step then?
K: No, I think there – that’s it; we are coming to something – I don’t think that was a crucial step.
K: Though others have said that is the crucial step.
DB: Yes, in the book it didn’t appear that, you know, you could call it a crucial step, though it seems important.
K: No. No. But facing the truth of death.
DB: Yes. But now we have to come back to this question of truth. Would you say the correctness or the truth here?
K: Wait a minute, wait a minute. Yes, yes, yes. I think facing that actuality…
DB: The actuality of death.
K: Yes, that’s better. Facing the actuality of death freed him from the reality of thought. I think there’s something in that.
Sir, could we put it, this thing, differently? Can the mind be totally detached – from its body… Wait a minute, I must go slowly. I’m quick. Is there a state when the mind is wholly free from all detachment?
DB: All attachment.
K: All attachment. Attachment is incorrect.
K: A mind… a thought can see the incorrectedness of attachment.
DB: Yes. Or say it can be aware of it – yes.
K: Yes, consciously aware of the implications of attachment.
DB: Yes, I prefer that word because seeing is perception.
K: Yes, let’s… Thought can be conscious or…
DB: …consciously aware.
K: Consciously aware of all the implications of attachment. And says… thought can say, ‘Well, I won’t touch it anymore.’
DB: Yes. But now let’s try to go slowly into this. You like to refer to the fellow as ‘that boy’. (Laughs)
K: That boy – yes.
DB: He was a young man, I suppose.
K: Yes, yes. No, as a matter of fact, sir… I’ve read it, I read the book off and on, a few chapters, a few pages of it, really – I haven’t gone right through it. I think – it’s very difficult to talk about this because…
DB: It might help to get it clear.
K: If you talk to me a little bit about it, I’ll…
DB: Yes, I’ll try to talk a little.
K: Yes, right.
DB: You see, let’s say we go back to that boy or the young man who was to a certain extent attached to some of the things about the Theosophical… the beliefs of the… not exactly the beliefs but…
K: I question it. I question it.
DB: Oh, well, was there any attachment at all?
K: I question it. That’s what I’m questioning.
DB: But at least there appeared to be.
K: No – whether he was just making noise out there. (Laughs)
DB: Well, for example, there were letters he wrote in which, you know, he seems to accept it all.
K: Yes, yes. Because he was just repeating what… there was no conditioning but at the peripheral state he was repeating things which was told to him.
K: I think that would be accurate. It would be correct. (Laughs)
DB: Right. The other point is, you know, which would suggest some form of conditioning, is this process, as Mary Lutyens calls it, in which there was so much suffering. She describes a process which took many years off and on.
DB: And she said there was a great deal of suffering and it was not clear what was happening then, you see. I mean, whether it has any part in the transformation or not. Did it have any part in the transformation, or not? You see, it might be very…
K: I don’t think so.
DB: Yes. I wanted to say, just for the sake of making it clear, that it might be very discouraging for people if it did.
K: No, I don’t think so.
DB: Because they would say, ‘How could we ever do it?’
K: No, I think, sir, there are two answers to that.
K: (Laughs) You know, the Theosophical conception that Maitreya – whether you believe it or not that’s not the point – the Theosophical conception at that time, and probably still is, or the tradition in India and in Tibet, that there is a Maitreya, who is the essence of goodness – let’s talk… (inaudible) He, that goodness has to manifest in the world when the world is in a state of collapse – that’s what the tradition says – in the state of evil, in the state of destroying itself.
What are we talking about? I’m a little…
DB: Well, you see, I’ll come back to it, that we’re trying to get clear whether this young man was really attached and conditioned or not. Now, you see, I wanted to finish. Let’s say, aside from the letters and the relationships, which you say very superficial, then it seemed there was something deeply involved in this suffering which, you know, involved, at least on first sight, some form of attachment, say, to the image of the mother or something, you see, or…
K: No, no – no attachment.
DB: No. But do you have any idea what was involved there?
K: Attached to the mother?
DB: Well, you see, as I can remember reading about this thing which took place over a period of years, I mean some of the phenomena were, you know, intense pain in the head or in the neck or the spine, but there appeared to be periods when he called for his mother.
K: Because I think that’s merely physical reaction to… because when you suffer somebody wants – you know, that’s all. That’s nothing.
DB: Yes. It was not very significant.
K: No, no, no.
DB: Right. But then you have no…
K: I’m glad to have all this out now. (Laughs)
DB: Well, I think it helps to clear things up, you see, because it will enable us to see the essential point.
K: Yes, sir, quite right.