K: We know sensory observation—seeing, hearing, touching—and the intellect,
which is part of the whole structure. Now what is the question?
P: In that sense, the teaching is materialistic, as opposed to the metaphysical.
Your position is a materialistic position.
F: If you want to stick to facts, the only instrument we have is the brain. Now, is
the brain everything or is it an instrument in the hands of somebody else? If you
say that there is only the brain, it will be a materialistic position. If you say that
the instrument is materialistic, then the teaching is not materialistic.
P: The Tāntrik position and the ancient alchemist position are in one sense
similar to Krishnaji’s position. Everything has to be observed. There is nothing
that can be accepted which has not been seen with the eyes of the see-er. I now
ask: What is your view of God? I feel it is a very legitimate question.
F: Can you explain what God is?
K: What do you mean by God? We have explained energy and matter, and now
you ask what we mean by God. I never use the word ‘God’ to indicate something
which is not God. What thought has invented is not God. Whatever is invented
by thought, is still within the field of time, within the field of the material.
P: Thought says: I cannot go further.
K: But it may invent God, because it cannot go further. Thought knows its
limitations. Therefore, knowing its limitations, it tries to invent the limitless
which it calls God. That is the position.
P: When thought sees its limitations, it is still aware of an existence beyond
itself.
K: Thought has invented it. Thought can only go beyond when it comes to an
end.
P: Seeing the limitations of thought is not the knowing of thought.
K: So we must go into the knowing of thought and not into God.
D: When thought sees its own limitations, it practically debunks itself.
K: Does thought realize that it is limited or, does the thinker, who is a product of
thought, realize that thought is limited? Do you see the point?
P: Why do you draw the distinction?