Writings

Domhnall O´Brien:  Well, the date is the 3^rd of July 2009 and we have with us Dr. Rubén Feldman González. Hello Rubén.

Rubén Feldman González:  Hi.

DO:  Well Rubén, could you tell me something about yourself, your qualifications, where you were born and how you found out about Unitary Perception?

RFG:  Yes, I was born in Argentina, left the country during a severe social conflict in ’74 and started to study psychiatry in the United States. I’m a physician and I’m specialized in psychiatry, neurology, pediatrics and I have been quite lucky to have met very extraordinary people that allowed me to start Holokinetic Psychology, which is practically a breakthrough in Psychology and the beginning of Scientific Psychology, something that was of course needed.

That is essentially what I can tell you.

DO:  So Unitary Perception itself… what is Unitary Perception?

RFG:  Unitary Perception is a function of the brain that was apparently lost by mankind.

DO:  So it’s not a technique.

RFG:  It’s not a technique. It is a function of the brain like sleep or hunger and for reasons that are quite extraordinary themselves, it has been lost. Now it has been recovered by Jiddu Krishnamurti and he taught me Unitary Perception and it was probably the most important thing in my life in terms of what I learned. And immediately he introduced me to David Bohm, a very important physicist. And we had like a decade of dialogues, the three of us, to polish the language by which to start talking about Holokinetic Psychology and Unitary Perception.

It was for me very important to have those dialogues. Those dialogues with them changed my life for the better and we started a new psychology. That’s essentially what happened.

DO:  Holokinetic Psychology.   

RFG:  Holokinetic Psychology, we started that.

DO:  You said before that Unitary Perception is the most important thing in the human brain, in the human mind.

RFG:  I believe so, yes.

DO:  Some people would say that possibly, that possibly… how could I say it… it might almost look like arrogance…

RFG:   Or exaggerated. It is not, because what happens is that once you understand what Unitary Perception is, everything becomes more relevant, everything in life and even the things that are considered to be the most important like God or religion, or whatever we consider to be important, are seen under a new light when you understand Unitary Perception. So I believe that even the understanding of religion can be improved tremendously when you understand Unitary Perception.

Relationship is improved by Unitary Perception. That’s why I say that it is the most important thing in life because everything in life is improved by it, everything.

DO:  So it affects all areas of life?

RFG:  It affects everything in life. And that’s why I say it is important. Not because it is a fragment of life that it is important but rather because it improves the totality of life.

DO:  But then something comes to mind. Is this for particular people? Is it for a select few?

RFG:  No.

DO:  Is IQ important in the understanding of Unitary Perception? Can everyone understand this or are there people who are excluded from understanding it?

RFG:  Ah no. It is a function of… Unitary Perception is a function of the brain. It is for everybody. It’s like sleep, it is for everybody and Unitary Perception is for everybody.

Now, what do we need to understand Unitary Perception? We need to have a good brain, as most people do and to have, yes, some IQ you know, basic IQ, you probable need an IQ of 120 or 130 to understand Unitary Perception but there are hidden variables, you know, that I’m beginning to see, rather to understand as hidden, in why, you know, in the understanding of this some people take it easily… Unitary Perception, and some people don’t. So what are the hidden variables? That I don’t know. But IQ is of course very important for understanding because we’re talking about a new level of abstraction in the understanding of the functioning of the brain. And the brain functions in three different ways and Unitary Perception is one of them.

So we have been used to believe that mind is thought and memory and self - and that is mind. But now we have to begin to talk about mind as something that is not only memory and thought and self. It’s something more than that. Mind is also Unitary Perception.

DO:  Ok.

RFG:  Yes.

DO:  Just to talk a little bit about Unitary Perception. The person who is in Unitary Perception, does their relationship change or how does it affect them? Or how does it come out in someone’s life?

RFG:  Well see when I learned Unitary Perception, which took me a while because I resisted it, as something that was not very important for some reason and when I did take it seriously, you know, it took me a while I insist, my life changed for good, everything. And so I probably discovered even love, you know. I am serious about this. And I began to gather… because of a growth in energy that Unitary Perception brings, I started to accumulate…

DO:  Energy.

RFG:  Titles, yes.

DO:  Can you explain that?     

RFG:  Yes. Unitary Perception is a mutation in the brain that brings a tremendous amount of energy. And I didn’t know what to do with that.

DO:  You’re talking about physical energy?

RFG:  Yeah, physical, physical, nothing mystical, it’s true, true physical energy. And I didn’t know what to do with it, with the energy. And I started to accumulate…

DO:  Qualifications.

And life is highly improved by that, very highly improved. Relationships get better, more profound. You are… you start to get interested in everything. Like I started to study religion because when I started to teach Unitary Perception many people asked me questions about religion that I couldn’t answer and so I started to study religion. And I was surprised to see many things in religion that are mistranslated and I was amazed by that.

DO:  So a different way.     

RFG:  Yes. And so I started to understand religion in a new way.

DO:  In a new light. 

RFG:  Yes in a new way. And I even wrote about it and I think about writing about it and life becomes fascinating in all its aspects and everything is interesting for me now, everything. I don’t have the time of course to study everything but I would like to.

DO:  Rubén just in relation to religion, broadly in relation to religion… You made a reference to Jiddu Krishnamurti. You met Jiddu Krishnamurti in 1975, did you say?

RFG:  Yes. Hungtington Hotel, Nob Hill, San Francisco, California, March 23, 1975. Jiddu Krishnamurti was 80 years old when we first met.

DO:  When you left Argentina, why did you seek out someone like Jiddu Krishnamurti? What reason to meet him did you have? You were saying that you wanted to meet him.

RFG:  Yes.

DO:  I know that Jiddu Krishnamurti, in his lifetime, throughout most of his life, he used the word “meditation”. Is Unitary Perception related to meditation? And why did Jiddu Krishnamurti use that word?

RFG:  Yes.

DO:  Rather than using something else or using “Unitary Perception’. Why “meditation”?

RFG:  Yes. Let me answer in two parts. Well first I told a good friend in Argentina Mr. Prada “Listen” I said, the country was in shambles, tragedy. People were disappearing. “Prada” I said (in Argentina we address each other by the family name it’s like I would say O’ Brien to you instead of Domhnall) and I said “Prada” I said “ I don’t want to go to my medical office anymore. I am fed up with all the tragedy.”

He said “Why don’t you see JK, Jiddu Krishnamurti?”

“Who is that?”

He told me. And I go, I started to try to meet Jiddu Krishnamurti but he wasn’t offering any more interviews. He was already 80. But for some very lucky series of circumstances I met him and well, as I say, it changed my life and I never regret having done everything to meet him.

And meditation…

DO:  Yes...

RFG:  I immediately told him you know, the word “meditation’ the way he used it, meaning something beyond thought and beyond memory and beyond self, is not correct. Because “meditation”, the origin of the word is “to measure” “to moderate”, “to medicate”. So to medicate is thought. To measure is thought.

DO:  We’re not talking about something measurable here.

RFG:  Right and “to moderate” is thought. So I told him “You’re talking about something very important with a word that is incoherent and not related to what you’re talking about. I told him that.  And he took it quite seriously. Because he listened to people you know. And as you will know, he talked about this in 1985, September, in Brockwood Park.  What is the name of the DVD? You probably remember the name of the DVDs .

View it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twJ7CxYNgt4

DO:  Facing a World in Crises. 

RFG:  Facing a World in Crises. DVD 4. He talks about it and says “Meditation is a stupid word” . So he finally heard you know, he heard, he understood what I was trying to tell him. Because it’s true you know. “Meditation” is not a coherent, adequate word to talk about something which is not only thought and memory and self. It’s beyond that. And so he encouraged me to use the words “Unitary Perception” and which we consider to be adequate because of the epistemological implications of the words “Unitary Perception”.

DO:  Well, while we’re still on the topic of Jiddu Krishnamurti, could you summarize, if that’s possible, his teachings?

RFG:  Krishnamurti?

DO:  Yes. Is it possible to summarize his teachings?

RFG:  Yes well I’ll try to make it short. I say “Would you summarize your teachings”. I told him “Would you summarize your teaching?”

He goes “Well” he goes “attempt without effort to live with death in futureless silence”.

I go “What!?”

He goes “Attempt without effort to live with death in futureless silence”.

DO:  Death?  

RFG:  With death.

And I go “Well why don’t we make a correction, why don’t we say: attempt without effort to live with peace in futureless silence”?

He goes “Dr. González doesn’t want to die”.

(laughter)

DO:  Well again… the topic of Jiddu Krishnamurti. This is the last thing maybe. Many have interpreted what Jiddu Krishnamurti has said of being sort of a… how will I put it… that nothing can be done to be in Unitary Perception or as he would say, to be in meditation. The human being, the man or woman, all they can do is wait for this to happen, it’s not something that you do, it’s not something that a person does…

RFG:  Ah yes.

DO:  …There’s nothing to be done.

RFG:  For technical reasons we probably need to go to the answer after a stop now. Yes.

----

(Recording continues after break) 

RFG:  The question is very important. JK, Jiddu Krishnamurti speaks about meditation in a way that is maybe kind of misleading to those people that are not very much aware of what he’s talking about. And when he says mind that’s another thing that has to be clarified. He talks about the mind in a way that we have clarified as ABC. The mind is functioning in three different ways. Meaning, we can live the present, you know, this moment, in three different ways depending on what precinct of the mind we’re living in. Like for example we talk about mind as something that functions in three different ways, you know, ABC. So when JK speaks about mind he talks about mind as A without saying A and as B without saying B and mind as C without saying C.  We clarify it and we say which kind of mind we’re talking about. It has to be clarified.

Of course JK, Jiddu Krishnamurti is a very relevant teacher and he has to be taken into account very seriously. But one of the things that your question alludes to is it’s very important to clarify  what does it mean when JK talks about mind.

DO:  In relation to the confusion about the word “mind” and what Jiddu Krishnamurti actually was saying, people say that possibly there’s nothing we can do to be in Unitary Perception.   

RFG:  Ah!

DO:  Because you have to start from “That” as Jiddu Krishnamurti called it. People say that the mind is something that the brain cannot be in contact with.

RFG:  The sacred. 

DO:  The sacred, the sacred, exactly.

RFG:  Now. Of course. See this is a very… This is a very important thing. We can do nothing to be in the sacred. It has to come. If you are in peace, you know, it comes. But we can do nothing for the sacred to come. And that is something very important that Jiddu Krishnamurti talks about.

But he spoke for more than eighty years.

DO:  Right.

RFG:  More than eighty years. He started to talk when he was twelve. (laughing)

So what was he talking about? If we have to do nothing then what was he talking about for so long? He’s talking about B, Unitary Perception, which he called meditation, wrongly. At the end I insist that he clarified that meditation is a stupid word. In his own words.

So it’s very important that we understand that there’s nothing that we can do for A, the sacred. But it’s very important that we do B.

DO:  Ok.

RFG:  And I told him “Why do I have to be in Unitary Perception? Why do I have to listen to everything at the same time? Why?”

And he said “Do it and see what happens”.

It’s not we have to do nothing as many people very mistakenly believe. No. We have to do B. We have to be in Unitary Perception. It’s very important that we understand that. It’s not as many Krishnamurti readers believe, that we can’t. That we have to do nothing, no, no. That’s a very big mistake.

DO:  Ok. I’m glad you clarified that point. When you say that you discussed this, not discussed, but dialogued with Jiddu Krishnamurti and David Bohm over a period of, was it twelve years or…

RFG: Twelve years in total.

DO: Yes, in total. Well in relation to David Bohm then, what was his contribution? What contribution did he make to our understanding of Unitary Perception or… let me rephrase that. Was David Bohm’s contribution to give a basis to this in physics? Where does he come in to all this?

RFG: Well, David Bohm, the contribution of Bohm is so important that it goes beyond imagination.

I told him “What is the implication of Holokinesis?” that being the concept that he introduced in physics. “What is the implication of Holokinesis?”

He says, he told me “We cannot have the slightest idea”.

That’s what he said. Meaning the implications are so tremendous that it’s very hard to imagine what are the implications of Holokinesis. Now Holokinesis essentially means movement from here to here, which means…

DO: From here to here…?

RFG: Movement from here to here, something that has as one of the many implications a complementary understanding of time. And that’s why when I said to him “Well this means that we have to start a new Psychology”.

And he said “Of course”.

Now that’s why I say, you know, Holokinesis by David Bohm is a concept mathematically established in 1986 that… mathematically formulated in 1986, that goes beyond imagination in terms of its many implications, mostly about time. Now why do I say about time?

Because in Psychology, if we have a new understanding of time, we have to speak a new language in Psychology.       

DO:  A new understanding of time, what do you mean?

RFG:  Right. Meaning, let’s say there are at least three basic concepts of time , you know: Time as absolute by Newton, right? For example it is 11:15 right? Absolute time, just to make it simple, 11:15. It’s absolute time.

But Einstein comes later and says “Well wait a minute, time depends on the position of the observer” right? Ah! So relative time. So we have absolute time by Newton and relative time by Einstein.

And now we have irrelevant time by Bohm.

Because if there is a movement from here to here as Bohm demonstrates mathematically, ah, then it means that the understanding of time has to be complemented.

DO:  I can picture someone trying to imagine “What does that mean? The movement from here to here…?”

RFG:  Right. It’s very tough to understand. Essentially, well the way he taught it to me was according to his own experience, you know, and if we… I think we can be anecdotal for a minute, right?

DO:  Yes.    

RFG:  I tell him “Well how did you come out… how did you come about Holokinesis?”

And he goes “Well I was observing the particle, you know, the electron in the bubble chamber, right? And then what happens? I lost it.”

He goes “I lost the electron and the electron reappears in the very same place.”

So he goes “I thought I had a problem with my eye…”

(laughter)    

“…So I went to the …”

DO:  Optician.

RFG:  To the optician right?

And the optician says “You’re doing great, you know, no problem with your eyes.”

And then he goes to Einstein. He was a good friend of Einstein. And he tells Einstein about having lost the electron and Einstein says “Yeah we see that all the time”.

And David Bohm says “Well where can I see something written, where can I study that, something written about that?”

Einstein says “Nobody ever wrote anything about that!”

And he started to investigate the matter and he comes out with a nomination for the Nobel Prize in Physics, with a very little thing like that, that nobody had heeded before and he… because he took care of trying to understand that, he received the nomination for the Nobel Prize in Physics. Very interesting that, that…This is an anecdote but it means so many things, right? In the understanding of science itself right? How a very little thing can have so many implications.

DO:  Far reaching.     

RFG:  A very little thing may have so many implications if we only pay attention to it.

Like time, you know. Time is probably the most important implication of Holokinesis. And of course time, if there is a new understanding of time, there has to be a new understanding of psychology. Of course. And a new language to address psychology, which is what we have done.

That is why I say that there are 32 psychologies until Bohm and another, very different one, since Bohm, which is the one I have started.

DO:  Speaking of language, that’s something that I’d like to ask you about. You speak about using a coherent language in order not to distort Unitary Perception because possibly in psychology up to now language has been confused, to put it mildly...

RFG:  To put it mildly!    

DO:  Could you speak a little about the coherent language you use in Holokinetic Psychology why it’s necessary and what’s…

RFG:  For example, for example, trying to be simple, right? If time is irrelevant because there is a movement from here to here as part of reality, undivided reality and Bohm spoke about undivided reality, another implication of all this. Ah, so, undivided reality has a movement from here to here and time is irrelevant. In psychology what does it mean? It means that Unitary Perception is THE way to establish conscious contact – conscious, not unconscious – with Holokinesis. It’s the only way that we have in the brain to make contact with Holokinesis, the source of all energy.

So what does it mean if you want to explain Unitary Perception? It means that you cannot say “I am going to achieve Unitary Perception” because that expression, which is very, very commonly used …

DO:  Of course.           

RFG:  “Achieve Unitary Perception” is not correct because it means something in time, something that will happen eventually in time, gradually. And that is not Unitary Perception and that is not irrelevant time. It has to happen now. So we cannot say “achieve Unitary Perception”. That’s just an example.

(Second thirty minutes)

That’s only an example for us to begin to start to understand how we have to start to use polished language to explain Unitary Perception.

DO:  I suppose in relation to that, the use of the word “mind”… the use of words like “consciousness”, “mind” etc…

RFG:  Exactly.  

DO:  …which are thrown around… possibly need to be defined.

RFG:  Yes. 

DO:  And looked at…

RFG: Yes, oh there is another definition of mind. We can go into that in a minute.

DO:  Well I’m going to ask you that later.

RFG:  There is another definition of mind. Of course, of course. We can go into that in a minute.

DO:  To go back to Bohm for a minute because I don’t think I fully explored… I wanted to ask you about… I know what you said about Bohm seeing the atom disappear in the bubble chamber and then he couldn’t explain it. But then the hologram appeared in 1965, was it? Or, I’m not sure if I’ve got the date right.

RFG:  Around that, yes. Denis Gabor: Nobel Prize in Physics 1971.

DO:  Where does the hologram fit into all this?

The hologram for me sounds like a very… modern…

RFG:  Oh very important.

DO:  No but it sounds… Ok, where does the hologram fit into all this?

RFG:  Ok. Well another anecdote, you know. The anecdote is this. I go to Bohm… knock, knock! (laughing)  He opens the door for me, at his house, we start to discuss and he says “Have you heard about the hologram?”

And I go “No”.

So he says “Well then we cannot start talking. You have to go and read about the hologram”. That tells you the importance of the hologram for Bohm. The hologram is technologically  a breakthrough for mankind because it brings to us, among many other implications, that reality is undivided and that there is an implicit order, an implicit order in reality. And we can talk about that in a minute.

(a pause occurs here to change the DVD in the camera)

DO:  Well Rubén would you tell me, why has the hologram brought a revolution in science? What is the basic thing about the hologram that makes it different from what went before it in science? For me it seems like just… Well for someone who looks at it, it’s just like a 3-D image. Ok it’s interesting but what’s behind it?

RFG:  Well, as I said you know, Bohm wouldn’t talk to me until I read the hologram, you know. Because … being a physician I didn’t even have an idea… I didn’t know about the hologram. After all, it is a photographic technology. So a physician isn’t supposed to be interested in that, like me, a physician like me. But he wouldn’t talk to me unless I read the hologram. Why? Because the hologram is a new technology in photography that if we go to the basis of the negative which is the hologram, the photographic negative…

DO:  Ok.  

RFG:  …so-called hologram, it’s different from the so-called, let’s say classic negative.

DO:  Yes in normal cameras.

RFG: Yes. In what way is it different? It is different because you don’t see the photographed object or person, you don’t see it.

DO:  In the negative?    

RFG:  In the negative. You only see spirals and… stripes of light-interference. You don’t see the person that has been photographed. Where is the person? The person is implied… implicit in the hologram. And the person reappears, let’s say by laser, you know, by laser on the hologram.

DO:  You shine a light on the hologram…

RFG:  Right. You shine the laser, amplified light, into the hologram (the negative) and the person appears completely, like a statue of light. So the person is there but it’s not visible unless you have laser.

So the first thing that is implied in the hologram is that there is an implicit order of reality. Very important.

And second… every point of the photographed person, let’s say, or object, every point is in every point of the hologram. Ah, again undivided reality!

So the implications of the hologram are two at least. Two at least.

DO:  So if I break up the holographic plate and shine a light through one part of it?

RFG:  Right. Like if you break the hologram in 20 pieces you’re going to have the same complete statue of light of the person photographed. So that means what? That means that the hologram implies at least two things. Undivided reality and also that there is an implicit order in the undivided reality of the universe. So that’s very important.

Ah! And Bohm started to see the possibility of explaining what happened in the bubble chamber with the disappearance of the electron. When the electron disappears and reappears he didn’t know what was happening, until the hologram appears.

DO:  But where does the electron go?

RFG:  Well the electron went to the implicit order of reality. To the implicit order of itself and reappears into the explicit order of reality.

DO:  So it’s moving in space?    

RFG:  No! It is moving from here to here. See that’s why the concept of holokinesis is so relevant. The electron disappeared in itself, in the implicit order of itself and reappears into the explicit order of itself. Ah, tremendous, tremendous!

And then Bohm starts to try to formulate this mathematically, which he does, as I said before, in 1986. And of course from there on we have Holokinetic Psychology. And I was lucky to be there, I was in touch with him since 1978, so I saw all of this emerging. I was very lucky and probably that is why Holokinetic Psychology is one of the first, if not the first, outcomes of holokinesis, outside of physics. But of course holokinesis will be appearing in all of the activities of man in the course of history, of course.

DO:  Ok. Along the same lines… there’s a famous experiment called the E.P.R.

RFG:  E.P.R.

DO:  By Einstein… Albert Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen.

RFG:  Yeah.

DO:  I believe David Bohm was involved with that experiment…

RFG:  No he… he was the one who imagined it you know. He started the EPR experiment. But what happened… he told me that too. He showed me the papers you know. And I see “Experiment of Bohm, Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen”, but he had…

DO:  Scratched it out…

RFG:  Scratched it out, his own name… And I go “Why is your name scratched out?”

He goes “There were too many names”. (laughing)

So when he presents the article of the EPR to the press, he presents it with his own name scratched out. That tells you something about Bohm right?

DO:  So what is EPR?

RFG:  EPR means that reality is undivided. One electron has a spin right? Electrons have a spin, meaning rotation. So a force, any force, including observation he says, can transform the spin of the electron. And immediately, all the electrons that are contiguous or remote to this electron, immediately, at the same time…

DO:  At the same time…

RFG:  …change their own spin. So if the spin of one electron changes, all the spins of all the electrons close or remote are going to change.

Oh. That tells you something very important too. That reality is undivided. Reality is undivided.

DO:  Well this has implications, very big implications for psychology I presume.

RFG:  Yeah. Because it means that… One of the questions of David Bohm you know, that comes to mind right now by association, he used to say: “Why don’t I know anything about you” he says “if my electrons are not separated from your electrons?” by the EPR. “My electrons are actually in contact with yours, with your electrons”.

DO:  Are you speaking about Group Mind?

RFG:  Yeah. And then he starts to speak about Group Mind. And he says “Why don’t we know more about each other if electronically we are so connected by the EPR?” he says. Because there is a barrier that is established by ego, that divides us.

DO:  In your book, in English, it’s not translated but in English it would be something like “My Meetings with David Bohm” you mention, when you first went to London… and you talked to David Bohm, an instance of Group Mind.

RFG:  Yes.   

DO:  With David Bohm and his wife.  

DO:  Wouldn’t some people call that telepathy? 

RFG:  Yeah, but he says “Telepathy is not the right word.

 “Telos” in Greek means far away. And he says “Group mind is here”. So telepathy is not the right word because “telos” means far.

DO:  So it’s not information in space?

RFG:  The information is here. What he meant very sensibly was that the… all the information is here! So why talk about tele-pathy. No. It’s all here. But we don’t have access to it because of ego. Ego. Ego is the big destroyer of the contact with nature, with people. Ego is the destroyer of contact, yeah. Destroyer of relationship, yes.

DO:  On the same kind of theme, I’d like to ask you about… if you could say a small bit about Bell’s Theorem in science.

RFG:  Bell’s Theorem, well…

DO:  I think it’s related to this.   

RFG:  Yes. Very much. Bell came out with a mathematical demonstration that all… let’s say… physical elements of the universe are not discrete, meaning are not separated. They are all in touch. Meaning, we are not 8 minutes of light away from the sun, he said. We are in touch with the sun right now.

DO:  So this is mathematically… been proven mathematically?

RFG:  Yes. Meaning that there are not 8 minutes of light to the sun he says, only. But there is contact with the sun right now. That’s a tremendous thing because from there came the concept of the tachyon.

DO:  Tachyon?

RFG:  Tachyon. “Tachyon” meaning the fast particle. An invented particle to explain “particularly” as Bohm said, something that cannot be “particular”.

DO:  When you said “particularly” you mean “as a particle”.

RFG:  As a particle. And then the tachyon is invented to try to explain why everything is in touch right now. Like for example the ultimate star is already in touch with us, right now. Not necessarily 20 light years away. It’s in touch right now, which is the implication of Bell’s Theorem.

And that again means undivided reality, again. From a new perspective, a demonstration again of what Bohm was saying, undivided reality. Hologram, EPR, Bell’s Theorem, we have so much evidence, you know, from so many activities of man, that reality is undivided and that there is an implicit order of reality. And all that has to be incorporated as we have done, into Psychology.

DO:  Is the implicate order separate from the explicate order?

RFG:  No. It’s here. Both are here. Like the electron disappears in the implicit order of itself right here, from here to here, and reappears here, from here to here into the explicit order.

And that’s kind of difficult to understand in the beginning but… the implications are so many that I think it’s necessary for us to understand that particular element of knowledge.    

DO:  Well this revelation you speak of possibly hasn’t trickled down to all areas of science yet. Up to now neurologists have been saying that mind, however we define that, is produced by the brain in the cerebral cortex.

RFG:  Ah right. 

DO:  That it’s being produced in the top area of the brain…

RFG:  Yes, yes, but now take a look at this.

DO:  ...but Holokinetic Psychology has redefined mind.

RFG:  Yes.

DO:  So now we have two definitions of mind.

RFG:  Oh yes, yes.

DO:  An old definition…

RFG:  Well there are several definitions of mind but I think we need a new one according to all this you know, to respond to all this responsibly, to all these elements of knowledge.

DO:  So what is mind?

RFG:  Well for example sodium is in the brain right?  But sodium is not produced by the brain. So mind is in the brain. But the mind is not produced by the brain, same as sodium is not. And ok we can go back to this matter in a minute. Ok.

DO:  Ok I think we might be running out of time for that question.

(pause while DVD is changed in the camera) 

DO:  Well Rubén you were saying that mind has a new definition in Holokinetic Psychology.

RFG:  Yes. Mind has to be seen now, of course after saying all these things that we have said, of course mind needs a new definition. For example mind is not only the result of the interaction of the observer or the organism with the environment from the uterus through  death. It is much more than that. All we know about mind is this. Mind is the result of the interaction of the organism with the environment from the womb until death. Which means memory, homeostasis, thought, ego, but mind is much more than that. And that’s what… that is our contribution, mind is much more than that. And mind has become a synonym of thought and memory, which is not fair. Mind is much more than memory. Mind is much more than thought. Mind is much more than “self”. And so to that definition we have to add that mind is also Unitary Perception. Which is by the way, the title of my recent book, “Mind is also Unitary Perception” that’s the name of the book, a little tiny book, a dialogue with a professional. I think it’s a nice dialogue. And mind is precisely that, you know, not only what we said before but also Unitary Perception. Mind is also Unitary Perception. We have to complement the definition of mind stating precisely that, that mind is also Unitary Perception, not only memory. Mind is more than memory.

DO:  Ok, I suppose then if I ask the next question… Is the “I” a real entity?

RFG:  Huh?

DO:  Is the “I” a real entity or what do you mean by the phrase: “What sees is all there is”? That might be another way of phrasing that question.

RFG:  That’s an epistemological definition if you want, of Unitary Perception, you know. But the “I” is a product of thought. Ego is a product of thought. So there is truly not a thinker in the mind. In the mind there is only thought. Sorry, the mind as I said before is not only thought. What I’m saying is that there is not a thinker “thinking” thought. There is thought but there isn’t the thinker. We have to redefine that too.

DO:  The usual way of looking at this is that I’m here and I pick my thoughts…

RFG:  Ah yeah.  

DO:  I pick my thoughts. I choose… I choose to do this. I choose to do that.

RFG:  Yes and is it true? Is that true? Like the patient I discussed yesterday in the conference, that he tells me “I cannot stop thinking about the girl who dropped me”. So the question to him would be: Do you think your thought or is it that that thought is making you crazy?! (laughing) in spite of yourself, right? Meaning, wait a minute, do we think our thoughts or is it that our thoughts think “our selves”. (laughing)

DO:  Thinks the “self”. So the “I” isn’t…

RFG:  Thought thinks the self, thought thinks the self. It’s not that the self thinks.

DO:  So thought invents the self you mean?

RFG:  Thought invents the self. It isn’t that… it’s not the reverse, as we believe, you know, that we think, that “I” think, no! It’s not as easy as that. We want to believe that but evidence to the contrary is so huge that only by denial can we avoid seeing that it’s not like that. Yeah.

DO:  Ok. If you go into any of the universities at the moment… if you go into a psychology department… if I started listing off the number of psychologies I’d get up a huge list, you said that there are up to 23 or is it more than that… psychologies at the moment? 

RFG:  Well I thought there were 23 but recently I hear that the European Academy of Psychology has 32...

DO:  32..!

RFG:  32 registered approaches in psychology.

DO:  Well in relation to the last question in relation to the “I”. The “I” seems to play a very big part in those psychologies.

RFG:  It’s the most important thing. Like in Gestalt for example (Gestalt Psychology) you’re not allowed to speak without saying “I”. See, you’re not even allowed to speak. Meaning, the language is extremely egocentric, mainly in Gestalt. But the egocentric language is part of life because Sanskrit you know, the structure of language is egocentric.

But in Gestalt Psychology it has become a technique of egocentric language. Now, is ego all there is in the mind? Of course not! We’re emphasizing that, you know.

DO:  But still in relation to that question, I wanted to kind of broaden out a little on this… A lot of the 23 psychologies seem to rely on memory as well, as a tool or as a way of looking at the psyche or the person…

RFG:  Yeah, yeah.             

DO:  You have said, or it has been said in Holokinetic Psychology that the… 23 or whatever number of psychologies are stylized defense mechanisms.

RFG:  Defenses. In the memory of Freud it would be…

DO:  Relying on memory?

RFG:  Yeah, but see, is the mind only memory? Again, the same question. Is the mind only memory? Of course not. Mind is more than memory. Mind is also Unitary Perception. Now, what does it mean? It means that the 23 psychologies have thought and memory as the only thing there is in the mind. And mind is much more than that.

DO:  When you say “mind” when you say that, that the 32 psychologies have “mind”, but “mind” with a definition as memory.

RFG:  Memory. 

DO:  Yes.

RFG:  And there’s nothing else. As if mind was only memory. And that is not true. That is not true. And we have to emphasize that. Not only because it’s true but also because it’s so established, the belief that mind is only memory and thought and self. No, mind is much more than that, much more than that.

DO:  Well then, you could possibly talk about a before and after in psychology, a before David Bohm and before Rubén Feldman González and before Holokinetic Psychology and an after… an old paradigm and a new paradigm possibly.

RFG:  Yes. Well my bias is… my belief, my understanding is that the complementary understanding of time that David Bohm brings is the marker of a new Psychology. 

 See, meaning there is a psychology until David Bohm and a psychology after David Bohm, because of Holokinesis.

DO:  So we’re seeing the… the effects of… all of Physics… in all areas including Psychology.

RFG:  There is a science up to David Bohm and a science starting with Bohm. There is a Physics up to David Bohm and a Physics after Bohm.

DO:  So you’re talking about a revolution bigger than the Copernican revolution? You’re talking about something huge.

RFG:  The Copernican Revolution was big, but the Bohmian revolution is bigger! Because why? See, the revolution of Copernicus brings a change in the situation of the sun, (which became the Center) but the revolution of Bohm brings a new understanding of science itself, a new understanding of time. So that is tremendously important and the implications are even difficult to imagine, as he himself said so many times. So we are in the beginning of a new era in the understanding of science and psychology and all the human activities...

DO:  Ok.

RFG:  …simply because of Holokinesis. Simply because of Holokinesis and the new understanding of time. And that’s why I say there is a Psychology until Bohm and later, of course, you know, I contribute to Psychology by the understanding of Holokinesis. And it’s absolutely necessary to do that. And we saw that with Bohm and JK, from the very beginning.

DO:  Ok. On that… there’s something else I’d like to ask on that. The idea of social change… changes in society… I mean for thousands of years mankind has been trying to change society in different ways, revolutions of this kind, ideologies of that type… “ism’s” and “ologie’s” or whatever. But you say, or in Holokinetic Psychology something that is very important is that a social revolution by itself will not change humanity.

In connection with this, a friend of yours, Achyut Patwardhan in India, he was also a friend of Jiddu Krishnamurti…

RFG:  Achyut.

DO:  Patwardhan. He talked about there being two types of socialism. He used the word socialism.

RFG:  Yes, he was the initiator of the Socialist Party of India, Achyut Patwardhan. And I talked to him, I was lucky to talk to him and I said “Well tell me about you”, you know, “tell me about socialism”, which was connected to him. And he says “What socialism are we talking about? The socialism of the gangster, with a pistol, or the socialism of the sanyassi?” which is the person that has… that is not touching the world.”

DO:  Renounced.

RFG:  Renounced. Sanyassi is the person that is not touching the world.

DO:  Not touching the world…

RFG:  The person that is completely indifferent to prestige, to profit and to power. That’s a sanyassi. And Achyut, an ordinary person, told me “What socialism are we talking about… the one of the gangster with a pistol under the belt or the one of the sanyassi which is the person that has… that is not touching the world.

DO:  Well then… Is humanity seeking security in ideologies and in trying to fix a society  in a certain way? Are we looking for security in the wrong place? Are we looking for a security that can’t be found possibly?

RFG:  Of course. I have studied revolutions because, as I say, I’m interested in everything since I met JK and Bohm and I understood Unitary Perception. I am interested in absolutely everything. I wish I had more time! But revolutions were of course very interesting for me. All of them failed, all of them. All the revolutions failed.

There was a revolution in China in 1200 or so, so called  “Cielism”, which is “Heavenism”, or something like “Heavenism”. It was kind of a religious thing but very socialistic in its nature, in the new understanding of socialism. So it was something very, very… well, revolutionary. It failed but it lasted 120 years. It was the longest revolution. But it ended, it failed, because egos are starting to fight with each other and it failed. Why did it fail? Because there is no Unitary Perception. You study the Soviet Union. Why did it fall? No Unitary Perception. You study all the revolutions, they are missing one important thing, Unitary Perception. Without that, nothing new will last. Nothing real will last. Yeah.

DO:  Ok. I want to get on to another area. Possibly I’m coming back to talk about something we talked about before, but I’d like to just go into it a little bit more: memory.

So the “I” is a product of memory. You say that there’s a relationship between the META process, and Unitary Perception and homeostasis. What is homeostasis?

RFG:  Homeostasis is a tremendous energy of the body that creates balance, the balance of health.

DO:  And for example you say… I read in one of your books that a new born baby… have very little memory, obviously because they don’t have experience and they don’t have…

RFG:  Right. 

DO:  …and there’s a homeostasis there already.

RFG:  Yes. Which is memory, very useful memory without words. Yeah. The memory of establishing balance in the body. Balance of what? Balance of the temperature, always 37 degrees you know, in the body, no matter whether you are in Alaska or in the Sahara, you know, 37 degrees…

DO:  So, the human being as a baby… the organism starts off with some memory, at the start.

RFG:  Yes, yes.

DO:  This memory is built-in.

RFG:  Oh yeah, and it creates balance. Same amount of red blood cells, same amount of white blood cells, same amount of sodium, potassium, etc, etc. Same temperature, all that is homeostasis. Health, health. Another word for homeostasis would be health.

DO:  Well on the same topic…(Pause to change DVD in Camera)

DO:  Rubén, you say that thought is basically hypnosis and the Experience of Bernheim demonstrates this. Can you say a bit about the Experience of Bernheim? What is it?

RFG:  Yeah, well it’s not that I say that thought is hypnosis. It has been said before by Bernheim who was a friend of Sigmund Freud. And Bernheim had an “Experience”, so called, by which he demonstrates that thought is hypnosis. And we are practically a mosaic of hypnosis. We are conditioned by one million things since birth through to death. Music is probably the most hypnotic thing and so many ideas and ideologies and beliefs and all that is thought and it’s a… it’s hypnosis, you know. And most of what we do is a product of the multiple forms of hypnosis that we live in.

DO:  So where does the Experience of Bernheim come into this?

RFG:  Bernheim… Bernheim did this, you know. He hypnotized a person and told the person that when he would leave hypnosis or wake up, it’s not the right language, but when he would wake up, let’s say, he would count up to 3. So the person stops being in hypnosis and counts “1,2,3”. And Bernheim asks “Why did you count up to 3?”And the person invents a reason to save face. Because he doesn’t know why he counted up to 3. Counting up to three is a product of hypnosis. But he says “Well I counted to 3 because I have to do three things. I have to go to the supermarket and buy bananas, pears and apples”. And that is to save face. Now, how many things are like that in our thought? Practically all. You see, we are taught, we are conditioned, we act upon the conditioning, whether ideology or belief or music or songs or news or so many things that hypnotize us, literature etc. and eventually we act upon it but we don’t recognize that we are acting upon hypnosis.

DO:  So if I say I’m Irish or Catholic or Jewish or Protestant…

RFG:  Right. And then obviously we deny that all that is hypnosis. And we continue acting as such, you know.

DO:  “I chose those things”.

RFG:  Yeah. “I chose to be Argentinean”, well, “I chose to be Catholic, or Muslim” well, controversial right? You are taught to be that. But all that’s pretty legitimately called hypnosis by Bernheim. And he ended up saying that all thought is hypnosis. Now if that is true, as I believe it is, then we have to be very, very careful to see thought in Unitary Perception too. Because it’s not that we’re going to be free from the hypnosis of music or ideology or belief because we see all that in Unitary Perception. No. But it’s going to be easier, you know, for us to be less dependent upon the hypnosis and less prone to act upon hypnosis if we see that we are hypnotized.

DO:  So not as mechanical possibly…

RFG:  Right. See, if I know I have been told to be a Catholic, then it’s not going to be so hard to be free from acting upon it. Or on whatever, you know. If I know that I have been conditioned to be this or that it’s going to be easier to be free from the past. Being free from the past is not that you’re going to forget the past, but if we are aware that we are conditioned, if we’re aware that we are hypnotized, by music, by literature, by one million things, there’s a freedom up to a certain point from acting upon hypnosis. So our actions are not going to be so unconscious and so barbarous and so brutal as they are, like war and misery, misery that is created by man against man just for the sake of manipulation. Misery that isn’t necessary, that is invented to exploit man.

DO:  And I suppose the fact that we act so incoherently is related to the fact that we’re unconscious of conditioning…

RFG:  Right. We are not aware that we are conditioned and we say, like in the Experience of Bernheim, you know, “1,2,3”. And then we invent a reason for saying 1,2,3. I am this because etc, etc, etc. We invent a reason, denying the fact that we are simply conditioned, that we are  simply hypnotized. Like a song, we listen to a song then we repeat the song and it’s hard to say, to swallow the pill, you know, that that song has hypnotized me, and that’s why I repeat it. I repeat it, I repeat it!

I repeat the song and I repeat the song. And then if someone says “Rubén you’re repeating the song” I can get angry, because I don’t see that I have been hypnotized by the song, simply, you know. I mean, if we see that we’re hypnotized by the song, its sadness, its brutality, then you may stop repeating the song, for example.

DO:  I’m conscious of time. We’re possibly running up against time here. Maybe we’ll come back to that if we have time.

What does it mean to say that Unitary Perception is the verb of verbs?

RFG:  Ah right. We say Unitary Perception… there’s not a verb there see?

DO:  But Unitary Perception…is it something that a person does, Unitary Perception?

RFG:  Yes. “Unitary” is an adjective and “perception” is a noun. There’s no verb. But it has to be considered a verb. It is an action. It’s like saying Unitary Perception is the foundation of action. It could be said: seeing is acting. If I see that I am conditioned then I may be more relieved from the conditioning, more released from the conditioning.

DO:  So, sorry I’m interrupting you, but it’s not like you think first and then do, think out, plan out and then do…

RFG:  Action is mostly a consequence of thought, human action. Is there any other type of action? Of course there is. But very rarely do we act in a way that is not formulated by thought, by conditioning, by formula, by technique. Is there spontaneous action, action that is not conditioned? Of course there is. But we don’t know much about it. We don’t know much about it. I think it’s something to explore,  what is spontaneous action? Action without conditioning.

DO:  Without hypnosis.

RFG:  Without hypnosis. I mean it has to be explored, because it is true life. It’s the beauty of life, the peace, the energy of life, the intensity of life, action that is not formulated, that is not conditioned.

DO:  So… it’s really that we’re almost… you could say half dead, half asleep, conditioned, hypnotized…

RFG:  Yes.

DO:  …thinking that we’re making… that we’re in control, not in control… that we’re there, fully there in our lives. That we’re choosing, but… that’s not the case.

RFG:  No. Because Unitary Perception means that we’re completely here. And hypnosis is essentially the idea that you have to be “there”. (laughing) So see I would like to be in Ibiza or Acapulco right? So, meaning, I don’t want to be here. So I have been hypnotized by the idea that I have to be in Acapulco, right? Well, why not be here? (laughing) completely. Because being here completely may be the most beautiful vacation in life! As it is! And I have discovered that being here in Unitary Perception is the most beautiful thing in life! I don’t have to be there. I can be HERE and enjoy life intensely, peacefully.

DO:  And that word “vacation” itself means emptiness doesn’t it?

RFG:  Right.

DO:  Vacant, not to be…

RFG:  Not to be conditioned. I can be happy, energetic, being here! The idea of being “there” is hypnosis too, you know. “I have to be in Acapulco to be happy”. That’s hypnosis. We have to learn to be here and enjoy the here. And that is Unitary Perception, see. Yes.

DO:  I think we might have just enough time to… I want to ask you about sleep.

RFG:  Sleep...

DO:  Is there a part… is there something… Is this the right way to put it, there are numerous areas, there’s REM sleep and N-REM sleep…

RFG:  Yes. It’s a complex thing. But there is one important thing of sleep that is relevant for Unitary Perception… There is a moment of sleep, we know very little about sleep but what we know about sleep is very important. There is a moment of sleep, so called S4 or N-REM 4 or MOL 4.

DO:  MOL?

RFG:  MOL 4.

DO:  What’s the word in English?

RFG:  In English it’s N-REM. That particular moment S4 or N-REM 4 is the Unitary Perception of sleep. That is very important because a great liberation of energy, and even growth happen in that particular moment.

That tells us a lot about Unitary Perception, in terms of energy, in terms of regeneration, in terms of peace.

DO:  Regeneration is taking place in S4 sleep?

RFG:  In S4, N-REM sleep, yes.

DO:  Regeneration is taking place…

RFG:  Yes, and restoration, regeneration, growth, liberation of electricity, so-called electrodermic storms. It’s all a manifestation of energy, that particular moment of sleep so-called N-REM or S4. Very important. That is very important for us when you start to study Unitary Perception. Yes.

DO:  Do you… In Holokinetic Psychology you differentiate between intelligence and rationality. I mean… rationality, how would you define it? It’s based on IQ isn’t it?

RFG:  Yes. Because intelligence has many implications too or many definitions. Binet said that intelligence is the ability to reach a goal.

But Krishnamurti said that intelligence is the ability to read between the lines. What lines?

Memory and Unitary Perception. Intelligence is the ability to recognize when we need thought and when we don’t. Because of course thought is necessary for life, of course, but not permanently! So intelligence is… one of the implications of intelligence is to recognize when thought is not necessary and then you’re free from thought, you can just be in peace. Yes.

DO:  But you’re not saying that thought is being thrown out?

RFG:  Being what? 

DO:  Being thrown out, that thought is not needed…

RFG:  No! Of course not.

DO:  Because we need memory you know… to think…

RFG:  Oh of course, of course! We need to know where the hotel is in order to go to sleep. We need memory. And we need thought of course, rational thought.

DO:  My identity… I go to the bank…

RFG:  Everything, passport, you need a passport. What I mean is… mind is not only that. So we have been led to believe that mind is only that. What I’m saying is, after 12 years of dialogue with Bohm and JK, mind is more than memory. It’s more than that, no matter how important memory is, no matter how important thought is, identity is, there is more than that in the mind.  Mind is more than memory. Mind is also Unitary Perception. I insist on this. I repeat because it’s so important. Yes.

DO:  It’s difficult…

RFG:  It’s difficult to grasp, yes…

DO:  Because this is a revolution you’re talking about…

RFG:  Of course, it’s something so new, very new and so it’s really something to, not only recognize and memorize but understand! And it’s difficult to understand precisely because it’s new and because we have been led to believe, again you know, let me repeat it, because I think it’s necessary to repeat it. We have been led to believe that mind is only memory. It’s not that. Mind is more than memory. Very important.

(pause to change the DVD in the camera)   

DO:  Ok. Well Rubén, what happens to someone who takes Unitary Perception seriously? What would you say about your own life in relation to that?

RFG:  Yes, well, JK teaches me this. I was reluctant to understand. I thought it was too simple to be worthy of attention. I was used to abstractions, philosophical and scientific, that I thought were more important than simple things. And this, Unitary Perception, was too simple for me. So I didn’t take it seriously in the beginning. And I went, to Krishnamurti, JK, and told him “Why should I listen to all the sound at the same time?” I mean “Why?!”And he told me something very, very important. “Do it and see what happens”.

DO:  Of course when you say listen to all the sound… the visual field and the weight at the same time…

RFG:  Right.

DO:  At the same time.

RFG:  Right. Perceive everything perceptible at the same time.

DO:  And what was his reply to that?

RFG:  And he says “Do it and see what happens”. When I said “Why should I perceive everything perceptible at the same time?” He goes “Do it and see what happens”.

Finally I was lucky enough to take it seriously and saw what happens, peace energy, joy. The joy for nothing. Regeneration… My arthritis was cured etc, etc. Many people have gone through the same thing, regeneration. My wife has gone through two cancers already and after ten years she’s doing well. I wonder how much Unitary Perception has been relevant for her feeling well after two cancers. That’s a question…

Ok. What happens? Do it and see what happens. Ok, when you say peace you know… I discovered peace at age 35, rather late but thank God still, you know, I discovered it. I was teaching this one day and I said “Peace is the most important thing that happens in Unitary Perception.” And a lady says “What else?”  “Is that all, what else?” And I go “Well you tell me “Is that all, what else?” because you don’t know what peace is!!

DO:  But people would say “Well, I get peace from my religion or I get peace from doing yoga or I get peace from…

RFG:  …Drinking a glass of wine.

DO:  Yeah… or praying, or… numerous things.

RFG:  Yeah but I’m not talking about the peace that comes from outside, from whatever that comes from outside, I talk about the peace that comes from perception, from seeing, from listening. 

DO:  You’re not talking about a peace that is caused.

RFG:  No. A peace that is spontaneous, you know, that is born from Unitary Perception right now and here. But many people don’t see the importance of peace because they don’t know peace. But when you discover peace, truly, then you know that peace is the most important thing in life. But many people believe that peace is something that they know, but they really don’t know it. Because if they knew peace, they would also know that peace is the most important thing in life.

Peace is not a value of life. Why? Because we have lost peace. We have lost the understanding of what peace is! Ok, peace is the first thing that comes in Unitary Perception. Immediately.

The second thing is, the joy for nothing. And very soon energy. Very real energy, physical energy, physical energy. And regeneration. Regeneration that, as I said, in my life, end of arthritis. And my wife is a witness of this, you know. because she saw me when she met me… when we met, with my wife, you know, in the very beginning before we married she saw me, you know, particularly crippled by arthritis, practically crippled by arthritis, and in two or three years I was free from arthritis.  One day I say “For how long have I not been crippled by arthritis?” Fifteen days on the ground without being able to move – that kind of arthritis.

And she goes “For the last three years”.

But I hadn’t noticed because when you feel well, you know, everything’s ok, you don’t care about time. She said “For the last three years you haven’t had any problem of arthritis.”And since then, meaning the last 25 years, no arthritis. That is what Unitary Perception is: regeneration, energy, peace, joy.

DO:  And your relationships with people…?

RFG:  Ah relationship! Well, group mind. Group mind appears very soon too. I was in Caracas, you know, teaching this. And my wife was in the United States. And I called her.

DO:  Caracas, Venezuela.

RFG:  Caracas, Venezuela. And I call her and tell her “I’m going to a different town”, you know, “to teach there, bye, bye”. And then I go to the car. We were going with some friends to… psychologists, to Maracai. And I go to the car , you know, having left the hotel one minute ago.

I enter the car and I go “I have to call my wife again”.

And everybody was joking and … you know… And I said “I have to call her”.

So I called her again. “Why do I have to call you?” “Why do I have to call you?” because I had called her ten minutes before.

And she goes “After hanging up I received another call that my grandmother died. So I have to go to Mexico.” Because she’s Mexican, my wife… “I have to go to Mexico for the funeral. So call me… next call, call me in Mexico”.

So, da, dan!! That tells you… that tells you so many things. There are new functions of the brain that reappear because the brain is stimulated by Unitary Perception to some very deep degree and this new function appears. And…

DO:  And so they’re not really new, they’re…

RFG:  No! These are functions that are lost because of lack of use. Lost. The word, the word made group mind disappear, because the word is more efficient for communication. But my bias is that mankind had group mind before the word.

DO:  Word… thought, the word.

RFG:  Word, yes, language. Language is much more efficient you know, for communication and then of course we lost group mind. But in Unitary Perception we recover that group mind that existed before language.

DO:  You talk about… in relation to this… sort of in relation to this… in relation to relationship: communion. What is communion?

RFG:  Communion. Communion is something I have the feeling it’s been lost too, you know. Same as peace. It’s a pity you know, that we have lost communion. Communion is part of peace. That’s why I say that peace is the most important thing in life because if we have peace, we have communion, meaning a relationship that… that’ s very hard to explain and describe, you know. What is relationship in communion?   

DO:  Well the word communion means “com”, together, doesn’t it?

RFG: Come together. Meaning that there are no secrets between you and I. meaning that we are in communion! Meaning that we are as one. We are as one! And that is… In Christianity it used to be said that the couple, the human couple, you know, are one. I wonder how much we have lost that too, that we are to be as one, you know. That is the most normal thing, you know. but we have lost it, my bias is that we have lost it. I hope I’m wrong but I think that we have lost it. It can be recovered in Unitary Perception, meaning a relationship in which you know about the person, you have the feeling that you know about the person, you know. Like in the human couple. With my wife we have this communication that sometimes is even painful. In what way is it painful? That you know so much about the other person.

DO:  Beyond the word.

RFG:  Beyond the word that it can be… the compassion that it brings, you know, knowing so much about her suffering, about everything. It can bring and it brings such a compassion that it can be painful. But it’s beautiful because of its depth. It’s beautiful because of its very depth. Have we lost that? I wonder if we have lost that…?

But it’s all a by-product of peace. And we don’t have to believe that we know, let me repeat this… we don’t have to believe that we know peace. I don’t think we know peace. Because if we knew peace we would give peace the place that it has to have, the most important thing in life. That is peace. But since we don’t know it, we believe that peace is a glass of wine or sitting in that park or… it’s much more than that!!

DO:  It brings to mind the phrase: “Requiescat in Pace”. Rest in Peace.

RFG:  Ah, Requiescat in Pace!Meaning something that is for the dead, right? See, Rest in Peace, it’s for us! It’s for us. The dead do not read those words. We can read those words. We can read those words but we don’t heed them. Rest in Peace, that’s what we have to recover too. To rest in peace, meaning have a dialogue like this, in peace, you know, go to work in peace, have a relationship with your wife in peace. Do whatever you have to do in peace. And life is completely different. Wake up in peace, go to bed in peace, everything, eat in peace.

DO:  But at the same time, peace doesn’t become something that you seek out…

RFG:  Ah, no, no. No, no, no. It comes. It comes when? When you start to listen. And… like I was surprised by the Gospel, you know, Jesus Christ saying “They have ears but they don’t listen” Jesus Christ! Well, what does it mean, that’s very simple right? What does it mean? They have ears but they don’t listen.

DO:  Having ears they don’t hear and having eyes they don’t see.Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not? Mark 8:18 (ASV)¹⁸ οφθαλμους εχοντες ου βλεπετε και ωτα εχοντες ουκ ακουετε Mark 8:18 (Scrivener)

RFG: Yeah. They have eyes but they don’t see. Very important! And… very important… and true that we don’t listen. And what does it mean to listen? It’s not only that I listen to you and I understand what you’re saying. It’s more than that. It’s listen to the totality of the sound at the same time that you feel the weight of your body. It’s like incarnation, you know, incarnate. Now!!

DO:  That word “incarnation”, what does it mean?

 RFG:  Incarnation, meaning to be here completely, to feel your body completely, to feel the body, to listen to the sound at the same time, all the sound at the same time, to see the totality of the visual field at the same time to feel the weight of your body, to feel the body, at the same time. That is the peace, immediately when you do that, remember JK “Do it and see what happens”. When you do it, then peace. Then the joy, then the intensity, then the energy, the relation, and then of course, life is a blessing, a blessing, believe me that. And we have to recover this. We have to recover this, as human beings. We shouldn’t miss the chance to recover this kind of life that apparently seems to be missing, seems to be disappearing. Yes.

DO:  Well, it’s always a pleasure to talk to you…

RFG:  The same with me Domhnall.

DO:  …I think you’ve clarified a lot…

RFG:  You think so? I’m so glad. I’m so glad. And if anybody wants to read about all this much more they can go to:

www.unitaryperception.org  and download the books for free if they’re interested.

DO:  The books are in English and Spanish.

RFG:  English and Spanish and I think other languages too, but English and Spanish yes.

DO:  At the moment.

RFG:  At the moment English and Spanish. Yes. Esperanto, some things in Portuguese , etc. Ah, there is a book in French now. I don’t know who translated it but it’s in French.

DO:  “Mes conversations avec Jiddu Krishnamurti”. My conversations with Jiddu Krishnamurti.

RFG:  Ah right, it’s in French and I don’t know who did it. Do you know?

DO:  I don’t actually!!

(laughter) 

RFG:  So…

DO:  Well thank you very much.

RFG: No thank you Domhnall for your effort.

L’Association Culturelle Krishnamurti

Website :

http://www.krishnamurti-france.org/R-Feldman-Gonzalez-Mes-conversations-avec-Jiddu,645