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 sometimes imply something more than facts.
K: I am proceeding from the question: Can the mind see the 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 become 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: If there is perception, there is no time. I look, and there is no time.
P: 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: My mind is the result of memory, experience, knowledge; it is the result of
time. My consciousness is within the field of time. How can I see that the whole
content is within the field of time?
P: Because of memory, of thought.