Touching the source

A rather long video (56 minutes) - discussion with Dr Bohm and Dr Shainberg (psychiatrist) - I don’t usually watch such long videos - and have never been a fan of his discussions with Bohm - But maybe I’ve been missing out on some rather exciting entertainment : K really gets quite mystical/religious here and makes the mystery rather apparent.

I sometimes wonder whether some of the stuff he says is downright confusing and not very helpful - although he calls it meditation - as in sharing with open mind rather than closed off in our own world view.

The person who encouraged me to watch the video seemed to think that the subject under discussion was compassion. And we do explore the notion of compassion as seeing the human condition when the self ends.

We also explore the notion of identity being time and knowledge. Death being non-accumulation.

But personally I liked : Silence as the door to the source. And meditation as the ending or the self. These seemed to be the most practical pointers in what was mainly an exploration of some hidden mystical reality.

This looks very interesting Douglas - I’ll watch it tomorrow. Thanks for posting it.

1 Like

Thanks mac. I’ve watched a couple of videos from this series of discussions. They’re often ponderously slow…and Shanberg is annoying for some reason…to me, personally, that is. I like Bohm’s contributions in the the one’s I’ve watched. I watched all of the first and part of the second one in the series. Will check out this one later. I thought the first was very good other than being ponderously slow going. There’s at least one or two videos of K discussing with a Jesuit priest…also very interesting. WEll, when is K NOT interesting?

Yes but ponderous is universal in nature, and for that there must be compassion :slight_smile:

He feels out of his depth, and pretends not to be - dishonesty (even unconscious dishonesty - is there such a thing as conscious dishonesty?) is always a bit annoying.

Maybe Dr Shainberg makes us feel a bit “annoyed” with his presence because of the three participants we see ourselves in him. ‘Out of our depth’. Imagine yourself on that sofa while K and Bohm seem to be ‘in on the joke’ and you are not.

1 Like

Dr Shainberg is the man earning his living out of the mind, although it’s really the psyche, and as such is heavily invested in a self/other dynamic as embraced by the culture as a whole, which is exploitative in nature, and essentially corrupt.


Hopefully you’ll never need psychiatric care. Many do. (even Dr Bohm ultimately) And Shainberg, I would guess, is probably among the best…understanding more about his ‘role’ and probably questioning it more than most.

Thus his need to protect his legitimacy

You’re questioning the legitimacy of the psychiatric profession? How about dentistry?

No - the legitimacy of the self - as in : “me the great psychiatrist”.
Innocence and the “beginners mind” being always more appropriate faced with the great unknown.

We may be ‘faced with it’ but we somehow always manage to ‘look the other way’ :expressionless:

Self is undoubtedly suffering and no one is decrying that fact, but the obvious flaw here is that the thing attempting the fix is the thing bringing about the damage in the first place, and the process involved reinforces self rather than questioning its existence, so psychiatry, embedded in a legal system as it, and given to endless categorisation can only do more harm than good. And as for Krishnamurti, he is for sweeping away the entire reality human beings are altogether and wants to dynamite the place effectively. So I never quite get why so many who are tied to a defence of the place to one degree or another, gather around him so, quoting him and watching endless videos. It’s almost as though they don’t hear a thing he says!


As he is reported to have said “No one got it.” I agree with you generally about psychiatry and psychoanalysis and accept its usefulness in aiding people with mental problems that are a danger to themselves and others. More ‘crazy’ than the societally acceptable ‘crazy’.

What is remarkable in any video is that there is a man talking and questioning from a different space. It is opening of the door of inquiry, where the speaker is not a representor of knowledge, of their beliefs, but afresh, with clarity, looking at what is on the table, here with what people are asking about. The points we get to see are not only a non-conventional way of thinking, but show the falseness of the way we live. This always gets me, and among an audience, it can be either insightfully, different, sound, points, or, only more verbal information and knowledge in conflict. It can remain a human conflict, or it can be understood as insights to be shared.

1 Like

I think this video may be relevant to the discussion. It’s one of the best I’ve seen of K discussing with Bohm.

I would say Dr Shainberg is just totally lost between the two of K and Bohm and trying to keep his head above water. Barely manages though

Compassion, which K equates with love and also what is beyond compassion and, on the other hand, ignorance and sorrow, which K does not mention but maybe it is what is commonly referred to as “evil”? At one time in the video K seems to be on the verge of talking of the source of all suffering but then he gets sidetracked by something else; too bad.