seeing out of emptiness? I see you, I see that bottle; there is no image, no
association or movement of thought because there is no image formation. So out
of real emptiness, quietness, there is a seeing. Is that what you mean by
withdrawing the senses?
P: My question arises out of the texts. In China and in India, the withdrawing
was considered important.
K: It is simple. Are you asking: Can you look at a woman, a man or a beautiful
object without desire, fulfilment or reaction? It is easy.
P: It is easy for you. See our difficulty.
K: I see a beautiful woman, a car, a child, furniture, and so on. Can they be
observed without any movement for acquiring or discarding? It is very simple. It
is the same for seeing and listening. I think they are one movement, not separate
movements. Though the instruments of perception and hearing are separate, they
are all one movement.
P: Desire existed before God; even before man came into being. The biological
urge, the impetus, is based on desire. How can you take desire, which has its own
propelling force, and say that it has no existence?
K: Let us be clear. I see a beautiful car, a really beautiful car—
P: Let us say I fall passionately in love; I am torn, ravaged by that desire. Can I
see that person without desire operating?
K: What is it that you are trying to ask?
P: Is there an actual withdrawal of sensory perception?
K: I wonder if we mean the same thing.
P: The car and maybe even the woman can be looked at without naming. But we
are loaded with questions, with problems of naming. It is not simple.
K: I wonder if the problem of naming is not related to knowledge.
P: Sir, a child is not exposed to knowledge and, yet, naming is a natural reaction.
I am questioning the nature of this inward movement.
K: I am not sure I understand what you are trying to say. There is a withdrawing
of sensory desires demanding fulfilment, but why do you use the word ‘inward’?