P: Though operating on matter, essence is unrelated to both.
K: Let us begin again slowly with essence. Is it unrelated to consciousness? I am
assuming that one has observed consciousness. There has been a perception of
the movement of consciousness as thought, and as the content of that
consciousness, which is time. The very observation of that—the flame of
observation—distills. Right?
In the same way, the flame of perception brings the essence of emotive
movement. Now your question was: Having this essence, what is its relationship
to the emotion?—None whatsoever; essence has nothing to do with the flower.
Though the essence is part of the flower, it is not of it. I do not know if you see
this.
F: ‘Although it is part of the flower, the essence is not of it’—how can that be so,
even grammatically?
K: Look, sir, the other day I saw them taking the bark of a tree to produce some
kind of alcohol; that essence is not the bark.
F: But it is in the bark.
D: Which is realized because of the heat.
K: The heat of perception produces the essence. So what is the question?—Is
essence related to consciousness? Obviously not. The whole point here is the
flame of perception; the flame of perception is the essence.
D: It creates the essence and it is the essence.
K: It is the essence.
P: Is perception the moment of creation?
D: Do we create what we perceive?
K: I do not know what you mean by creation.
P: Bringing into being something which was not there before.
K: Is perception creation? What do you mean by creation? I know what
perception means. Let us stick to that word. I do not know what the meaning of
creation is. Producing a baby? Baking bread?
D: No, I would not say that. Moving from here to there is also producing.