Krishnamurti stated that there is ‘no division’. But what did he mean by this statement? It isn’t yet clear to me, so I thought I would share the question.
For context, the dialogue where Krishnamurti talks most explicitly about no division is the 7th discussion from in The Ending of Time series.
The 7th dialogue is the continuation of a previous conversation (dialogue 6) in which K and Bohm had been discussing the relationship of insight to the brain.
In that (6th) discussion K had suggested that insight is independent of the matter of the brain - which moved Bohm to ask how something non-material can act on, or have a relationship with, matter.
To explore this question they then used an analogy drawn from the field of human relationship of how love is related to hate. K argued that love and hate have no relationship: that there is a complete division between love and hate.
K then stated that there exist a few people (such as X) for whom love is natural (i.e. who respond to hate with love), but that the vast majority respond to hate with hate. And that there is a complete division between these two approaches.
K then asked why this division exists when both groups share the same human consciousness?
It is this thread that Krishnamurti and Bohm continue in the 7th dialogue (from which I have excerpted the relevant passages).
In this (7th) discussion they question whether the division between the person with insight (X) and the person living in darkness is actually absolute; and they end by associating the statement ‘no division’ with an endless, deathless movement that K says is the ground of both mind and matter.
DB: If we begin with the child, it seems natural to the child to respond with his animal instincts [i.e. to respond to hate with hate]…
JK: Yes, but why is it different with X? …
Human beings have been responding to hatred by hatred and so on. There are those few, perhaps many, who say that is not natural or rational. Why has this division taken place? …
…because X is born of the same parents.
DB: Yes, fundamentally [they are] the same, so why does he behave differently? …
JK: … is this division false?
DB: That’s the point. We had better talk of a difference between these two approaches. This difference is not fundamental.
JK: I don’t think they have anything in common.
DB: Why? You say the difference is false, although fundamentally people are the same, but a difference has developed between them. Perhaps most people have taken a wrong turning…
JK: Yes, let’s put it that way.
DB: But the difference is not intrinsic, it is not structural, built in like the difference between a tree and a rock.
JK: Agreed. As you say, there is a difference between a rock and a tree, but it is not like that. Let’s be simple. There are two responses. They start from the source. One has taken one direction, and the other has taken a different direction. But the source is the same. Why haven’t all of them moved in the right direction?
DB: We haven’t managed to answer that. I was just saying that if one understands that, then going back to the source, one does not have to take the wrong turn. In a sense we are continually taking this wrong turn, so if we can understand this, then it becomes possible to change. And we are continually starting from the same source, not going back in time to a source.
JK: Just a minute, just a minute.
DB: There are two possible ways of taking your statement. One is to say that the source is in time, that far back in the past we started together and took different paths. The other is to say that the source is timeless, and we are continually taking the wrong turn, again and again. Right?
JK: Yes, it is constantly taking the wrong turn. Why? …
The one who is living with insight and the other who is not living with insight—are these constant? The man who is living in darkness can move away at any time to the other. That is the point. At any time…
How am I to dispel this continuous, constant darkness? That is the only question, because as long as that exists, I create this constant division… I can only dispel the darkness through insight, and I cannot have that insight by any effort of will, so I am left with nothing. So what is my problem? My problem is to perceive the darkness, to perceive the thought that is creating darkness, and to see that the self is the source of this darkness. Why can’t I see that? …
So he asks me, “Can you banish, can you put away this sense of division?” …
I recognise that I am the creator of division, because I am living in darkness, and so out of that darkness I create. But I have listened to X, who says there is no division. And I recognise that is an extraordinary statement…
I see something—which is where hatred exists the other is not. But, hating, I want the other. So constant division is born out of darkness. And the darkness is constant. But I have been listening very carefully, and X makes a statement which seems absolutely true. That enters into me, and the act of his statement dispels the darkness. I am not making an effort to get rid of darkness, but X is the light. That’s right, I hold to that.
So it comes to something, which is can I listen in my darkness, which is constant? In that darkness, can I listen to you? Of course I can. I am living in constant division, which brings darkness. X comes along and tells me there is no division…
Which brings us to that ground we spoke of…
DB: What about the ground?
JK: In that ground, there is no darkness as darkness or light as light. In that ground, there is no division. Nothing is born of will or time or thought.
DB: Are you saying that light and darkness are not divided?
DB: Which means to say there is neither.
JK: Neither—that’s it! There is something else. There is a perception that there is a different movement, which is “non-dualistic.”
DB: Non-dualistic means what? No division.
JK: No division. I won’t use “non-dualistic.” There is no division.
DB: But nevertheless there is movement.
JK: Of course…
I mean by movement, that movement which is not time. That movement doesn’t breed division. So I want to go back, lead to the ground. If, in that ground, there is neither darkness nor light, no God or the son of God—there is no division—what takes place? Would you say that the ground is movement? …
Would you say the ground is endless movement?
JK: What does that mean?
DB: Well, it is difficult to express…
JK: Would you say it has no end, no beginning? …
Do I capture the significance of that? Do I understand the depth of that statement? A movement in which there is no division, which means no time, no distance as we know it. No element of time in it at all. So I am trying to see if that movement is surrounding man?
DB: Yes, enveloping…
JK: It seems that it is the world. You follow?
DB: The universe.
JK: The universe, the cosmos, the whole.
DB: The totality.
JK: Totality. Isn’t there a statement in the Jewish world, “Only God can say ‘I am’”? …
You follow what I am trying to get at?
DB: Yes, that only this movement is.
JK: Can the mind be of that movement? Because that is timeless, therefore deathless.
DB: Yes, the movement is without death; insofar as the mind takes part in that, it is the same…
Would you say that matter is also that movement?
JK: Yes, I would say everything is…
DB: Yes. The mind emerges from the movement as a ground and falls back to the ground; that is what we are saying.
JK: Yes, that’s right. Mind emerges from the movement.
DB: And it dies back into the movement.
JK: That’s right. It has its being in the movement.
DB: Yes, and matter also.
JK: So what I want to get at is I am a human being faced with this ending and beginning. And X abolishes that.
DB: Yes. It is not fundamental.
JK: It is not fundamental. One of the greatest fears of life, which is death, has been removed.