Is there a reason for witholding information?

In 1975, Krishnamurti and David Bohm conducted a series of 12 dialogues that were never published as a whole like *** The Ending of Time.***

Parts were published in two books:
*** Truth and Actuality ***, which contains the dialogues

  1. on May 18, 1975 - What is truth and what is actuality?
  2. on 31 May 1975 - Thinking cannot bring about insight.
  3. on 11 Oct 1975 - Can the brain free itself from all self-discussion
    and
    *** Limits of Thought ***, which contains the dialogues
  4. on 24 May 1975 - Seeing what is action
  5. on 14 Jun 1975 - How does desire arise from perception
  6. on 22 Jun 1975 - Attention implies that there is no center
  7. on Jul 25, 1975 - What is the substance of thought?
  8. on 6 Aug 1975 - Is there anything in the brain that has not been touched by culture?

so 4 dialogues have not been published still , namely those of
6) on 28 Jun 1975 - Observing without the observer
7) on 18 Jul 1975 - If thought cannot reach, why should it suffer?
10) on 27 Sep 1975 - Truth does not belong to any individual
11) on 4 Oct 1975 - What is wisdom that is not a movement of thought?

Nevertheless all the dialogues are as audiotapes available on youtube.

Recently someone gave me the official transcriptions of all the talks and now after reading while listening to the audiotapes I don’t understand the reason for this omission.

They provide enlightening and additional information.

2 Likes

I can’t remember where I read it now - it was in a biography of either Bohm or Krishnamurti - but apparently the reason for not publishing the dialogues in full was that some people close to K (I believe it was Mary Lutyens principally) objected, on the grounds that in the discussions Bohm speaks more than K.

It sounds petty, but apparently that was the main reason. Mary Lutyens is well-known to have been sceptical of the influence that Bohm had on K’s language - she felt that K’s language became less poetic and more scientific under Bohm’s influence - and it was an editorial decision to split the dialogues up (some were published, as you say, in Truth and Actuality, others in the Limits of Thought), as well as to reduce Bohm’s word-count in the dialogues that were published.

Another reason seems to have been a feeling that some of the content was unsuitable for publication.

From what I recall reading, this decision caused real hurt in David Bohm, because he felt that there was genuine value in the collaboration; and he personally felt that the dialogues should have been published in full.

What is strange about the affair is that K himself asks Bohm during the last dialogue (one can hear it on the audio version) if he wouldn’t mind a transcript of the discussions to be shared with other people, because he (K) had been told by others who knew about them that they had found them greatly moving. So K’s initial reaction implied that the discussions merited publishing in full, and that they had an intrinsic value.

And yet, under the influence of Mary Lutyens (and others close to K), he decided to go against his earlier enthusiasm to have the discussions published, and assented to them being shelved in the manner that they were.

Obviously, I feel that this was a mistake. They ought to have been published in full, and would have constituted an original series in the same mould as the Ending of Time series.

1 Like

I became this information from An uncommon Collaboration from David Moody. Since then I asked a lot around and collected as much as i could from the books and subtitles to get a full picture but didn’t succeed and then suddenly they gave me the whole set transcriptions. According to Moody it was single-handedly done by Mary Lutyens for the reason you mentioned. But 6 en 7 are real beauties with information i never never came about elswhere. Even now they are not available in writing on the comon K sites. I really cann’t understand why? I found the combination of reading while listening an additioning in understanding. The non-verbal is here very essential.

1 Like

It appears that my numbering in the opening was automatically changed. but my intention was:
*** Truth and Actuality ***, which contains the dialogues 1, 3 and 12.
and
*** Limits of Thought ***, which contains the dialogues 2, 4, 5, 8 and 9.

this to make the information accurate.

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.
SB: (Inaudible)
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.
K: Yes.
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.
DB: Kundalini.
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?
DB: Yes.
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.
DB: Yes.
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.
DB: No.
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.
DB: Yes.
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.
DB: Yes.
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.
K: Yes.
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.
DB: Yes.
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.
"

2 Likes

Yes. This discussion is one of the real stand-outs. It is the most explicit that K has been about these matters in public (as far as I am aware). Thank you for bringing attention to it.

I think I remember that it was during this conversation that Krishnamurti gives importance to the way he remained with the sorrow caused by the death of his brother Nitya. He goes on to say that he (K) didn’t avoid, suppress, or escape it. Rather, he faced “the truth of death” with complete non-resistance.

I have a quotation from the conversation here:

If I don’t escape from suffering, if a human being doesn’t escape from suffering… that very suffering brings about a great energy… The very word ‘suffering’ has its root in ‘passion’… [Therefore] suffering in the field of reality has a meaning in the sense that it can give - if a human doesn’t escape - a certain quality of energy… If he faces that suffering, and doesn’t deceive himself, there is a certain kind of energy.

And then at the end of the conversation - if I remember correctly - I think they talk about mystery, right?

It is a profound conversation, genuinely worth people’s time.

Hi James,

No, mystery is talked about in the 7th dialogue. I’ll gonne searced for an adequat part, because like this former part the context is important.

Ah, ok - thanks for correcting me. I must have confused it with a slightly later discussion :+1:

your memory appeared better than mine, it’s indeed in the 6th dialogue !

"
K: You see, sir, there’s something much more than all this.
DB: Yes.
(Pause)
K: Would you accept the word mystery?
DB: Well, yes, I should say so.
K: There is something which you cannot talk about. Not… Which you cannot talk about. Which doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
DB: No.
(Pause)
K: I think truth is that. Every religion has talked about that mystery – Judaism said the nameless, Hindus have called it brahman, others, Christians, haven’t gone very deeply into that matter, they called it God. But there is something really tremendously mysterious. And we are trying to articulate it in words.
DB: Well, not really, you know. I think we’re trying just to clear up…
K: I know.
DB: …some of the difficulty of people, of what has to be said.
K: Oh, they’re going to have lots of difficulties. (Laughs) If they read this book they’re going to have lots of difficulties. (Laughter)
DB: I feel that if we… I don’t believe that anything we’ve done clears up this. I mean…
K: We have cleared up a great deal.
DB: Yes, I mean, it doesn’t touch this mystery, as you say.
K: No, it can’t.
DB: It’s merely so that we can communicate more effectively.
K: Yes. No, but if you, as a scientist, accept that there is something mysterious.
DB: Yes, I mean, I should say, you know, that our reason can only…
K: …go so far.
DB: …go, you know, some limited way – yes.
K: Yes.
DB: I mean, it cannot be limited in any particular way but it can never be the whole.
K: Go beyond it – quite. You see, when you touch that mystery, I mean, things are totally different.
Sorry, my body’s just absolutely shaking with it. (Breathes) It’s calmed down.
You see… So reality can never… thought can never touch that. Then what is it that is aware of that? Not conscious of it or… How do you… why do you say there is a mystery?
DB: Well, it’s hard to explain, but I mean, partly because I can see that the whole thing could never be explained, you know, by any thought. In other words…
K: Thought cannot touch it. Then who… then how… what is it that says there is a mystery? You follow my point, sir? You see, the Christians say there is a mystery which you cannot go beyond, which you cannot touch. The saints have said this. I haven’t read them, but from talking to some of the people who have read about the saints, like Aldous Huxley, they say there is a mystery which you cannot… I am not sure they touched that mystery, because they were Christians, they were worshippers of a certain form. I don’t…
DB: Yes, well, you may say there is a mystery because you don’t want to penetrate. You see, let’s try to put it like this – the way I’ve seen it, that…
K: Yes, that’s right.
DB: You see, I think that to a certain extent the ego works on a sort of a parody of this mystery. You see, the ego makes itself so mysterious…
K: Mysterious – quite.
DB: …in order to protect itself from being seen.
K: Quite, quite, quite.
DB: Therefore, in a way the ego presents itself to itself as a God – do you see? – or as the ultimate mystery.
K: Yes.
DB: And therefore if it’s identified with Christian or some other teaching it will make these teachings very mysterious too, you see. You see, it may be – the way I look at it is perhaps thought somehow becomes dimly… a hint… conscious of something.
K: Yes.
DB: And it tries to imitate or to capture it for itself by imitation.
K: Quite, quite. Now, would you as a scientist – trained logically in reason, usage of words and so on – admit there is such a thing as mystery?
DB: Yes. You see, I don’t think even our thought will stand up when probed all the way. It always dissolves, you see.
K: Quite. It cannot probe beyond – yes.
DB: It may extend and extend and extend but eventually it comes to some horizon, you know.
K: Where it cannot…
DB: Yes.
K: Yes. I think… Begin again. Because that boy was unconditioned, was not conditioned – though at the peripheral existence he was, but basically he was not.
DB: Well, can we go slowly here because that raises the question of others who are basically conditioned and could we understand a little of what that means, you see?
K: Conditioned means with greed, envy, you know, all the – conditioned.
DB: Yes, but it’s not clear what the difference is, you see.
K: Aha – what is the difference. I think there is a difference. You see, really, if you read that book, he didn’t really wake up till about when he was – what? – quite late.
DB: Yes. Well, I don’t know exactly when, but…
K: Quite late.
DB: He already had been picked up by the Theosophists.
K: Quite late.
DB: Yes.
K: One of Dr Besant’s suffering or misery was… she said to me – I don’t know if it’s put in that book – she said, ‘You are now 33 or so and you are not interested in anything – not in women, not in what I am doing, about the work – you are only interested, apparently, in clothes and cars. (Laughter) And what is going to happen?’
"

2 Likes

Care to elaborate?..

Aren’t they speaking for themself?

2 Likes

Yes, but you expressed the opinion that they provided “enlightening and additional information”. What, for instance, did you find enlightening? In what way are you more enlightened now than you were prior to reading it?

Here some more on mystery in dialogue 6

"
DB: Yes. You see, I think you can say anything in the field of reality can be explained, you see – we can penetrate more deeply and broadly and there is limitless progress possible there. But the essence is not explained, you see.
K: No, I’m asking a different question, sir. I’m asking you: In talking like this, though you have an intimation of that mystery being a scientist, serious and all the rest of it – you had an intimation, perhaps long ago – in talking now, do you… it’s no longer an intimation but a truth. Sorry to corner you. (Laughs)
DB: Well, yes, it is a truth, this.
K: So it’s no longer an intimation?
DB: I think it’s been a truth for a while in fact, you see, because it’s implied in what we’ve been doing here.
K: Yes – quite, quite.

You see – something interesting – being – how shall we say it? – the truth of that mystery makes the mind completely empty. Just a minute. Completely – it’s like something silent. It’s completely silent. Or because it is silent it sees it. Not sees – it’s aware of it. Because it is silent the truth of that mystery is. I don’t know if I am conveying anything. When the mind is completely silent – not induced, not meditated upon – you follow? – all that – when it is… because it has put order in reality, therefore it is free from that confusion, there is a certain silence. But that silence is not real silence because it is just moving away from confusion, but that’s not silence. Realising that that is not silence, and not moving away from realisation. Am I conveying something? In the sense, realising that and staying there, saying, ‘This is not real silence.’ Which means negating that which order has produced.

1 Like

and the start in the 7th dialogue:

This is the seventh dialogue between Mr J. Krishnamurti and Dr Bohm,
on Friday July the 18th 1975, at Tannegg, Gstaad, Switzerland.
"
Krishnamurti: What do we start on?
David Bohm: Well, maybe you have some suggestion. (Pause)
K: Where did we leave off?
DB: Well, now, we discussed… the last time we began by discussing the question of how thought responds to the action of truth. And then you broke off toward the end for a short period, and then you came back and you raised the question of mystery.
K: Oh, yes. Oh, yes.
DB: And I told you yesterday that I saw a quotation from Einstein saying that the… of all the experiences we can have, the most beautiful of the experiences we can have is the mysterious, is the way he put it.
K: Right. (Pause)
All the religions – I mean, not the orthodox priest or the orthodox saints – they’ve all said there is something extraordinarily mysterious, something so vast that the human mind can’t grasp.
DB: And I was saying last time that I think that, as this quotation from Einstein shows, that this is behind the deepest part of scientific research. You see, I think, you know, when I (inaudible) …I just remembered when I was in Berkeley, California, they were setting up a huge magnet to study the atom, you know, the nucleus, and I felt, you know, they were probing something very mysterious.
K: Yes.
DB: But of course, a friend of mine came along, you know, who was also studying physics and he said any piece of iron as big as that must eventually turn into a battleship – which it did, it became part of the Manhattan project for, you know, the atomic bomb.

K: Atomic bomb – quite.
I wonder if there is anything mysterious. I’m just exploring it; I don’t say there is or there isn’t. I wonder if there is anything really mysterious. Or we may… first of all, as a thing desirable, it is very inviting.
DB: Yes, well, I looked up that word mystery, you see.
K: Yes.
DB: It means, basically, hidden or secret, you see. The word mum and mutter… or mumble, rather, is the same word as mysterious – to keep it secret or quiet.
K: Quiet, yes.
DB: So, some of the religions had esoteric mysteries at their centre.
K: Yes. The Greeks had it, the Egyptians had it, and the Hindus of course.
DB: Yes. But then it says in the dictionary…
K: Even the Theosophists had it.
DB: Yes. In the dictionary it says that the Christian concept of mystery is something beyond human understanding, you see – it was not exactly the same. You see, the other one was something secret, but perhaps you could be initiated into the mystery.
K: Yes, initiated into the mystery.
DB: Then you would understand it, you see.
K: Yes, yes.
DB: But the Christians said you could never understand it.
K: Understand it in the sense experience it?
DB: Well, to give it a rational… comprehend it, rationally.
K: Ah.
DB: Beyond rational comprehension, you see.
K: Beyond rational comprehension – yes. If one sets about to experience that, or to come into that – rather than experience, I prefer the word coming into it.
DB: Yes, I think that they used to say to participate in it.
K: Participate in it – let’s use that, that’s a better word still – participate in it. What is the nature of the mind, or of the state that can participate into something that is totally mysterious?
DB: Yes, well… And what is the nature of the participation?
K: Yes, that’s just it. You see, you were talking about the other day, having read that biography – I think we missed a point there.
DB: What was the point?
K: The explanations which we gave – illness, reincarnation, this and that.
DB: Yes.
K: I think that that doesn’t cover the ground totally.
DB: I see.
K: Because I always felt there was something which was so vast that all their initiations, all their mysteries, all their… had nothing to do with it. See, it can be either so romantically idiotic, or it is something… it’s there. I don’t know if I am…
DB: Yes.

2 Likes

Yes, and because it’s only my opinion it doesn’t matter what my thoughts about it were and what they are now.

but to satisfy your curiosity somewhat here are some minor changes:
Based on the various biographies, I kept asking myself whether “the processin Ojai” or “the death of his brother” was the trigger for the transformation and now conclude, based on his own words, that it was neither.
In other words, there is no need for hearsay!

What possessed Mary Lutyens to stop the publication and - in my words - blackmailed Krishnamurti into withdrawing from everything if it was published goes in the trash for the same reason. As does the reason why Krishnamurti acted on it at all. That remains a ‘mystery’ just to stay on the current topic.

What I think about it is of no importance whatsoever !!!

But what is witholding the organisation for publication NOW is.

every dialogue in the paper ends with:

"Transcript of audio source, with minimal editing. Checked by J.H. Checked by P.D. on 8 July 2009. Checked by D.T. on 13 October 2010. Verification of this transcript against its tape is final as of 13 October 2010. Printed on acid-free paper and stored in KFT Archives. Digital copy shared with KFA and KFI Archives.

Copyright  1975 Krishnamurti Foundation Trust Limited, England. All Rights Reserved.
"

Is it to fill the archive or to inform people ??

1 Like

Here it is mentioned in de transcripton:

“(Long pause)
K: I want to ask a totally different thing, sir. People have heard, like Wilhelm, heard these tapes.
DB: Yes.
K: They are greatly moved and they want copies of it. Or could we – lots of people hear it?
DB: Yes.
K: So it is up to you – what do you say? I know nothing of it; I am leaving.
DB: Well, I think we can leave it to whoever is arranging these things.
Well, we should see each other in California – right?”

One of the arguments recently used not to publish was that’s they are so difficult to edit, but why edit them at all ??
Do you have problems with reading the transcriptions?
Give them the title ** Transcriptions of the First 12 dialogues Krishnamurti and Bohm 1975**
It is almost 50 years after the event took place and the words are still valid and living !!

2 Likes

It seems impossible - at least for me - to express correctly that this superficial remark was the trigger for a much deeper understanding that words can never express what is happening deep inside.

So after many attempts, I will leave it by this remark.

If anyone is interested I can post the missing transcripts of “Truth and Actuality”. They were copied from the YouTube site.

Yes ,I am interested ,please send me the link.