energy, entropy and life

Tradition and Revolution(J. Krishnamurti KFI) 중에서







ENERGY, ENTROPY AND LIFE


Dialogue 26


D: The other day we discussed God. We also discussed energy,
and you spoke of human energy and cosmic energy. I will state the
scientific position. Scientists have measured energy and have
arrived at an equation: E=MC², a fantastic figure. This is material
energy. Biologists have also proved that life-energy is anti-entro-
pic, which means that while material energy dissipates itself, life
energy does not. So this movement energy dissipates is against the
material flow of energy which dissipates and ends in dead uni-
formity. The human being generally moves with entropic energy
and, therefore, decays. Scientists have measured even the time
span of this energy. The problem therefore is: How can man,
being aware of this, be part of the movement of energy that is anti-
entropic?

K: One can see quite simply that that which is mechanical wears
itself out, given a certain time.

D: What is measurable can be manipulated by the mind of man.
An instance of this is the atom bomb. This energy, this movement
of entropy, dominates the world today. How do we get out of its
grip?

D: What is measurable can be manipulated by the mind of man.
An instance of this is the atom bomb. This energy, this movement
of entropy, dominates the world today. How do we get out of its
grip?

P: This is a very important point. If there is a movement of energy
which does not dissipate itself, which does not end, decay then,
from the point of view of science as well as man, it is probably the
answer to all the problems of the world.

K: So what are you asking? How is the movement of this
mechanical decay in which man is caught to be brought to an end?
Is there a contrary movement?

D: And, what is the nature of the contrary movement?

K: Let us put that question again simply. Man is caught in material
energy, in mechanical energy; he is caught by technology, by the
movement of thought. Do you get the key to it?


page 189


D: No.

K: There is the whole field of technological knowledge and the
movement in that knowledge; that is the field in which man lives.
It has tremendous influence on him; it is really taking him over,
absorbing him. Scientists have measured the energy of that
movement, and that energy is an energy of decay, an energy of
waste. Scientists also say that there is a contrary movement of
energy in the opposite direction which is creative energy. Real
human energy is non-mechanical, non-technological. Now, what is
the question?


D: Modern biolgists such as Huxley and de Chardin hold that
man has developed from the smallest cell, and that in him there is
an emergence of consciousness. Man as an entity can be conscious
of the whole evolutionary process.

P: From this another very interesting fact emerges. De Chardin
says that the next leap forward will come by 'a process of seeing'.
which is the same as the traditional pasyanti. I think it is important
to explore this verb which has such a loaded traditional meaning in
India.

K: We will come to that if we can examine the decaying process--
the energy which is mechanical, which is entropic. We are also
trying to find that life-energy which non-mechanical. What is
this energy?

D: Biologists say that it lies in cultural development, in the destiny
of man, not in a new species emerging.

A: This question faces modern man at many levels. After the
satellites went up. there was a new measurement of the cosmos.
We call that the measurable infinite. But man also knows that
there is the immeasurable infinite.

K: Quite. They have measured thought. They have measured
memory.

F: In what sense do you mean this?

K: In the sense that the electrical impulses of thought are
measured.

F: Thought is the measure of entropy.


page 190



P: Only that which has a begining and an end can be measred.

K: So there is a movement which ultimately, in its very motion,
leads to decay.

F: It also leads to radiance and that is the end of entropy. There
are those two movements--a mechanical movement and an anti-
mechanical movement.

A: The biologist's approach is very tentative when it comes to
consciousness. Whenever he speaks of life-energy, he does not
speak with the same precision as when he speaks of the other kind
of energy. There is a recognition that the anti-entropic is the
'other', the 'other' still remains unknown.

D: One fact is certain. That the life-enery does not move in the
direction in which the entropic energy moves.

A: Let us take the movement of life-energy as something unknown
to us. We cannot manipulate it. In the measure that man becomes
conscious of the entire evolutionary process in himself, he be-
comes aware of consciousness.

P: I think we are going around in circles. What is observable is that
man is born, lives and dies. The phenomenon of a cysclic move-
ment, of a beginning and an ending of energy, is visible and deeply
structured in our consciusness--something emerging and disap-
pearing, which is not concerned with emerging or disappearing?

K: It is the same thing. Do we accept that there is a begining and
an ending of energy?

F: Individuals may begin and end, but life does not. It creates.

K: Do not bring in the individual yet. There is a movement of
energy which is mechannical, which is measurable, which may end,
and there is life-energy which you cannot manipulate; it goes on
infinitely. We see that in one case there is a wastage of energy, and
that in the other there is a non-wastage of energy.

F: I do not see the other as a fact.

K: All right. Let us see the movement of energy which can reach a
height and decline. Is there any other form of energy which can


page 191



never end, which is not related to the energy which begins,
continues and withers aways? Now how are we going to find out? I
have got it. What is energy that decays?

P: Material energy decays. Why does it decay?--By friction?

D: By pressure?

F: The fact is that there is energy overcoming friction, and energy
dissipating in friction.

P: You say that there is an energy which decays in friction, through
friction. I say that its very nature is friction. All that movement
which we call energy, in itelf is friction. Show me why it is not so.

D: Energy is the biological capacity to overcome resistance, but it
dissipates itself in this process.

K: As in a machine.

P: So it is manifest as friction.

K: Let us go into this. Any energy that meets resistance wears
itself out. Take a car going up the hill without enough power--the
energy created by the machine will wear out. Is there an energy
which can never wear out, whether you go uphill, downhill,
parallel, vertical? Is there an energy which has no friction in itself
parallel, which, if it meets resistance, does not recognize resistance,
does not recognize friction? There is another factor to it. Energy
also comes into being through resistance, through manipulation.

P: The moment energy crystallizes--

K: Do not say that.

P: Why, sir, the human organism is a crytallization.

K: The human organism is a field of energy, but do not use the
word 'crystallization'. I am keeping it very simple. There is energy
that meets resistance and wears itself out. In that whole field there
is the energy brought about through resistance, through conflict,
through violence, through growth and decay, through the process
of time. Now we are asking if there is any other energy which does
not belong to this field, which is not of time.

A: Tradition calls it the timeless arrow.

F: Are you asking whether there is an energy which is irresistible?


page 192




K: No. I only know energy which is in the field of time. It may
hve a span of ten million years, but it is stil in the field of time.
That is all we human beings know. And, as human beings, we are
inquiring if there is an energy which is not in the field of time.

F: Are you asking whether it is an energy which does not undergo
transformation?

K: Look. I know energy, the cause of energy, the ending of
energy. I know enrgy as the overcoming of resistance, I know the
energy of sorrow, the energy of conflict, of hope, of despair; they
are within the field of time. And that is the whole of my
consciousness. I am asking: Is there an eergy which is not time-
bound, which may not within the field of time at all? Is there an
energy which may is not within the field of time and, yet, not be
touched by time? It is very interesting. Man must have asked this
question for centuries upon centuries, and not being able to find
an answer, he postulated god, and put God outside the field of
time. (pause)

But putting God outside the field is to invite. God into the field
of time; and therefore all that is part of consciousness. And that
decays. It decays, if I may use that word, because it is of time and
because it is divisible. And my mind which is divisible, which
wants to find a timeless energy, proceeds to postulate an energy
which it calls God, and worships that. All that is within the field of
time. So I ask: Is there any other energy which is not of time? Shall
we go into it?

D: Yes.

K: How do I find out? I reject God, because God is within the field
of time. I reject the super self, the atman, the brahman, the soul,
heaven, for they are all within the field of time. Now you ask: Is
there an energy which is timeless? Yes, sir, there is. Shall we go
into it?

D: Yes, sir.

K: How do I find out? Consciousness must empty itself of its
content, the content which time has created. Must it not?

P: May I ask something? Is the total emptying of consciousness not
the same as seeing the totality of consciousness?


page 193


K: It is. Agreed. I do not think I have made myself clear. There is
the fact of totally emptying consciousness; there is another fact
which is seeing with the totality, with all the content--seeing the
field of time as a total state; seeing the whole field of time now.
What does that seeing mean?

Is that seeing different from the field od time or, has that seeing
separated itself from the field od time? What we call perception is
that seeing which, separated from the field of time, looks at the
field of time and thinks it is free.

D: Right, sir. This perception presupposes a perceiver.

K: We are back to the same thing. So the question arises: What is
total seeing? I see logically, verbally; I comprehend the whole
consciousness of man. The whole of consciousness is its content,
and this content has been accumulated through time, which is
cultire, religion, knowledge. Whether this content expands or
contracts, it is still within the field of time. It is the movement of
consciousness within the field of time. Consciousness is time itself.
What do you say D, is consciousness time?

D: I have no other instrument but consciousness.

K: I am aware of that. I see that consciouness is time, because the
content of consciousness is consciousness, and the content has
been accumulated through centuries upon centuries.

D: Consciousness is conflict, friction.

K: We know that. How can my mind look at this total field of time,
and not be of the field?--That is the question. Otherwise it cannot
look. Total perception must be free of time. Is there a perception
which is not of time? What do you say?

D: That is our question.

K: And if it not of time, then perception is the life-movement.
Perception itself is the life-movement.

D: Logically that would be so.

K: Can my mind which is of time, which consists of accumulated


page 194


impressions of experience and knowledge gathered in time--
which is the content of consciousness--disassociate itself from the
total field? Or is there a perception which is not of time and which
therefore sees the totality?

P: A is right. I cannot just posit the 'other'.

A: The moment I posit the 'other' it becomes the god of the
Upanisads. All that I can say is: Seeing that all consciousness is
within the field of time I can remain with it; I am it.

K: You are it. Somebody comes along and tells you that movement
within the field of time is measurable, and he asks: Is there a
perception which sees the totality of consciousness, which is time?
He does not tell you whether there is or there is not. Is there such a
perception? That is a legitimate question.

P: May I say something? I see you. I see this room. I see the
interiority of my consciousness. There is no more than that. I can
see. It is concrete thing; seeing is concrete.

K: Are we wasting time?

P: We are not. We have to be concrete. This is seeing.

K: I understand P. Here I am sitting in this room. I see the content
of the room and myself in it. 'Myself' is the observer who is
conscious of the room, the proportion of the room, of the space of
the room. I see this through the consciousness which is made up of
time. The observer and the observed are within the field of time.
That is all. When the observer invents something, that is still
within the field of time. So any movement is within the field of
time. That is all I know. That is a fact. Knowing that, somebody
asks: Is there a movement which is not of time? Have you
understood my question?

P: I do not know.

K: You may put the question to yourself. To put the question to
yourself is legitimate.

P: Putting the question is a fact, but that does not make it
legitimate.

D: Questions something imply something more than facts.

K: I am proceeding from the question: Can the mind see the


page 195



totality of itself? Can the mind see itself as the field of time?--
Not as an observer observing the field of time. Can the mind itself
becomes totally aware, so that it sees consciousness as time? It is all
fairly simple.

P: I do not see that. What is involved in seeing consciousness as
time? When I am observing thought. I see it as a flux; I see that
movement: I wake up to a thought as having been, then to another
thought as having been, and so on and on. And I put all this
together and say: There is movement. When Krishnaji says,
'Observe this room', I observe this room--but there is no
perception of time. Is it the active present?

K: What are you trying to say. P?

P: I cannot accept your statement regarding the perception of
consciousness as a movement of time. If we do not allow the
concreteness of the actual seeing, we move into the field of the
conceptual.

K: What you are saying is that when you enter a room you perceive
the proportions of the room, its shape, the colours and, also, that
you perceive your own consciousness with the same tactile sense.

P: Then I perceive A speaking. I then connect the two perceptions,
and thought brings in time. There is no sense of time apart from
the connections.

K: You asked a question: Do you see consciousness as the whole
content of time? I question that; I want to examine it under a
microscope.

K: One is a formula, a conclusion, a statement; the other is a
process of finding out.

P: I find it very difficult. Do you know what you are asking, sir?
You are asking us to perceive an abstraction. Can an abstraction


page 196


be perceived? The moment there is no thought, 'what is' becomes
an idea or an abstraction.

K: Wait. You have drawn your own conclusions when you say that
it is an abstraction; I have not come to any conclusions.

P: I ask myself: When I accept that consciousness is a product of
time, is that a statement or is it something that I see?

K: Is it a statement with a verbal meaning which I accept and
which, therefore, becomes a conclusion or, is it an actual fact, as
this room is a fact, that the whole of my brain, the whole of my
consciousness, is this enormous field of time?--Is it as concrete as
that?

P: How can it be as concrete as the other?

K: I will show it to you in a minute. I see that a conclusion is not a
fact because thought has entered into it. Thought hears this
statement, accepts it, makes it into a formula and remains with
that formula. That is an abstraction. A formula is an abstraction
created by thought; and therefore it is the cause of conflict. It is of
the very nature of conflict. I see that very clearly. Now, is there a
perception which is not of thought, not of the field of time as the
mind? Formulas are the most deadly things. Formulas and con-
cepts are products of thought and, therefore, are all within the
field of time.

P: Why is it necessary to make this absolute statement at all? Why
is it necessary to make an absolute, finite statement?

K: I will show you in a minute. I am inquiring into the field of time.
Time, we said, is consciousness. Time is the result of centuries
upon centuries of eperience. That is my consciousness, and
consciousness is made up of all the content. I hear you state that,
and thought picks it up and makes a formula of it. I see that the
very formulas is within the field of time, and that that very formula
is the factor of friction. So I do not touch it. I have negated it. I am
asking myself: Have I negated it, or am I still thinking, feeling that
I have negated it? Am I still trying to find a fact which is not within
the field of time? (pause)

I am discovering something: When thought operates. it must
operate within the field of time. It must come to a conclusion; and


page 197



conclusions are part of consciousness. That is all. I now ask myself:
Is there any movement of thought, or am I pretending to myself
that there is no movement of thought and that there is only
perception? When I enter this room there is no movement of
thought; I just see. When thought comes in, there is an entry into
the field of time. Now I am asking: Is the mind deceiving itself by
saying that it has no formulas when it is consciousness. Or, is there a
perception which has nothing whatsoever to do with thought? I
only know that all consciousness is within the field of time, and
that thought is consciousness.

Therefore, I am inquiring; I do not want to deceive myself; I do
not want to pretend that I have got something which I have not
got. I see that whenever thought comes into being, it must create a
formula, and that the formula is within the field of time; the whole
of consciousness is time. I hear you say this. Now, is it a formula
which I have accepted or, is there the fact of the perception of the
total movement of thought?

P: What is meant by these words which you use--'the total
movement of thought'? You ask whether we have accepted it as a
formula. I have neither accepted it as a formula nor is it a fact for
me; it is neither of these.

K: But by listening, by examing, by investigating, you say that
this is so. It is not a question of accepting. Now, move a step
further. Is that 'it-is-so' an acceptance of an idea? Is it intellectual
and. therefoe, still within the field of time?

P: I will never answer that question to you or to myself.

K: I am asking it.

P: What do I answer?

K: You are not asking that question. You know nothing about it. I
want to find out whether the mind, that is the result of time, on
hearing that statement, accepts it as a statement, as a formula and,
therefore, remains in time, or whether it sees the truth, the fact.

Then what takes place? It is a fact. Nothing more can be said
when thought does not arise. I see the rom, but the moment
thought says that it has propotion, colour, beauty, time enters--


page 198


you follow? In the same way, this whole field of time exists only
when thought operates.

Now, am I pretending that thought is completely absent or is it a
fact--of which we can be aware? Then what takes place?--I am
aware of this room without any interference of time.

P: At this moment what are you aware of?

K: The mind which is the result of time hearing what you are
saying, accepts as a formula and says yes. The acceptance is a
conclusion--which is the operation of thought. Therefore, I see
that time is still operating in that sense. So is there operation of
perception without thought? What takes place then?

P: What are you perceiving at this moment? (pause)

K: (Makes a gesture, brushing one hand over the other) Nothing.
That is it. It is logically correct.

A: Whatever we hear, becomes a memory the next moment.

K: I am not concerned about you all. forgive me. I am not
concerned whether you see or do not see. I told you that I am
going to invertigate. I am investigating, You are merely remaining
with the formula. I see this fact. Am I perceiving the formulas with
a formula or perceiving without a movement of thought, without
a formula? Then P asks me: In that state, what is there to
perceive? Absolutely nothing, because that state is not of time.
That is the fator of life-energy.

F: This state which you are just now descibing can be called
en. ropy of thought, a state where no movement is possible any
more.

K: You are not investigating.

F: It has not ended here. You are ending it.

P: I want to ask another question. You say there is nothing. Is
there movement?

K: What do you mean by movement?

P: The passage from here to there--

K: Which is measurable and comparable. Movement which is



page 199


measured is within the field of time. And you are asking whether
there is movement in that nothingness. If I say that there is
movement, you will tell me that it is measurable and, therefore, in
time.

P: There is movement in nothingness then.

K: What does that mean? The movement of time is one thing. The
movement of nothingness is not of time; it is not therefore
measurable. But it has its own movement, which you cannot
possibly understand unless you leave the movement of time
behind. And that is infinite. And that movement is infinite.


Bombay
11 Febuary 1971