F: Even biologically, you are not right. The size of the brain which is usable,
determines the extent of consciousness. If you use more, consciousness will be
greater.
K: The old brain is very limited. The entire brain is the new which has not been
used. The entire quality of the brain is new. Thought, which is limited, functions
in a limited field. The old brain is not active because the limited has ceased.
P: So you are saying that if you see the small part of the brain as limited,
limitation ends.
K: No. Limitation goes on.
P: But because the part does not take over the whole, nor does it limit itself to
itself, the rest of the brain, which is not used, comes into operation. Then this is
again a totally materialistic position.
K: Agreed. Carry on further.
P: That is all; there is nothing more to discuss.
F: I have an objection. Even if the entire brain is used fully, it will still only be
consciousness; it will be a tremendously enlarged consciousness.
K: Depending on whether there is a centre.
D: If there is a centre, then you are not using the ‘other’.
F: We have been operating only within the limited. Now if you move into the
‘other’, how do you know that the consciousness has not a focalizing tendency?
K: Focalizing takes place when thought operates as pain, despair, success—when
thought operates as the ‘me’. When the ‘me’ is silent, where is consciousness?
F: After that it all becomes conjecture. You presume that the only factor which
can project the centre is disappointment, hurt; you presume that thought is
limited and projects itself. Why should the focus as the ‘me’ depend on
limitation?
K: Focalization takes place when thought is functioning.
P: If thought with its word and meaning ceases, whatever operates then is not
recognizable as word and meaning.
F: You are narrowing the field. I am still legitimately questioning the point that
frustration is the only point of focalization.