eliwill/krishnamurti_discussions · Datasets at Hugging Face

text stringlengths 12 1.33k
The animal does not create problems. If we believe what the scientists say, that man evolved from the animal, then he has all the instincts which the animal has. The essential difference is that man has in addition the ability to think, and this ability to think has also created all those problems.
And what you are asking is, can we use this ability not to create problems but to do something entirely different? Yes, sir that's right. The brain is the source of all problems.
It has created the self and also all the problems. You suggest that the brain can end the problems. Then what is the difference between that brain which has ended and the mind?
You said that the brain is the source of problems and out of the brain comes the ending of problems. With that ending, the brain that remains thinks, perceives, receives intimations. What is the actual difference between that brain and the mind?
I understand, I understand. Just a minute. See, you are asking a question that involves death.
Before I can answer that question I must answer what death is. There is an Italian proverb that All the world is going to die, perhaps even I too! Do you see the joke of it?
So, what is death? We know what is birth, mother, father, all the rest of it, and the baby is born and goes through this extraordinary tragedy. It is a tragedy; it is not something happy, joyous, free.
It is a bigger tragedy than any Shakespeare ever wrote. So I know what is birth. Now, what is death?
I am asking this; you tell me. When we were discussing time the other day, you spoke of a 'now' in which was all time, both living and death. The brain, having the capacity to see the flow of living, also has the capacity to reveal that ending which is death.
That is the answer. I said, living is attachment, pain, fear, pleasure, anxiety, uncertainty, the whole bag, and death is out there, far away. I keep a careful distance.
I have got property, books, jewels; that is my life. I keep it here and death is there. I say, bring the two together, not tomorrow, but now - which means end all this now.
Because that's what death is going to say. Death says you can't take anything with you; so invite death - not suicide - invite death and live with it. Death is now, not tomorrow.
There is something lacking in this. I may be able to invite death now and the brain may be still for a time, but the whole thing comes back again; then the problem of life comes back. No, no.
I am attached to him, he is a friend of mine, I have lived with him, we walked together, We played together, he is my companion, and I am attached to him. Death says to me, You can't take him with you. So death tells me, Free yourself now, not ten years later.
And I say, Quite right, I will be free of him. Though I am still his friend, I am not dependent on him at all. Because, I can't take him with me.
What's wrong with that? You are not arguing against that? Which means, sir, you have to end all gratification... No, I am not saying that.
I said, attachment. All attachment... That's all. Sir, is it possible to end that so long as the two bodies exist?
Oh, yes, sir. Our bodies are not tied together; they are two separate bodies. Psychologically I take him as a friend and get slowly attached to him inwardly.
I am not attached to him outwardly because he goes one way and I go another - he drinks, I don't, and so on. But still he is a friend of mine. And death comes and says you can't take him with you.
That is a fact. So I say, All right, I will be detached now. Sir, isn't it that the problem comes not because you get pleasure from your friend or your wife, but because you begin to use that pleasure as a fulfilment for yourself, and therefore you want a continuity of that and you want to possess that person?
Yes. Therefore, what is relationship? I won't go into it, we have no time.
You see, sir, you are not meeting my point. I asked you where self-interest begins and ends. Is ending more important than anything else?
- ending? And what is then that state in which there is no self-interest at all? Is it death?
- which means an ending. Death means ending - ending everything. So it says, 'Be intelligent, old boy, live together with death.'
Which means die but keep the body. The other death is coming anyway. Body?
Give it to the birds or throw it into the river. But psychologically, this tremendous structure I have built I can't take with me. Is it an instinct, sir?
Is it an inheritance through the genes? Yes, probably. But animals don't think this way; I have watched several animals.
No, therefore I am not sure if it is an instinct. That's all I am saying. Don't reduce it to an instinct, sir.
What was the joke you were going to tell us? A man dies and meets his friend in heaven. They talk and he says, 'If I am dead, why do I feel so awful?'
Krishnamurti (K) May I raise a very difficult question? How would you, if you had a son here or a daughter, want to educate them, to bring about a holistic life? You've got so many students here - capable, intelligent.
Through what means, what kind of attitude, what kind of verbal explanation, would you educate them in a holistic way of living? I mean by 'holistic', whole, unbroken, not splintered up, not fragmented, as most of our lives are. So my question is, if I may put it to you, how do you bring about a holistic way of living, an outlook that's not fragmented in specializations?
First Teacher (T) Sir, first we must be holistic ourselves. That's understood, sir. But first of all, you are educators here, including myself (if you will permit me).
I am happy in Rishi Valley, I like the place, the beauty of it, the hills, the rocks, the flowers, the shadows on the hills. I am one of the educators here; parents send me one of their children and I want to see that they live a life that is whole. Whole means good.
'Good', not in the ordinary sense of that word; not the traditional word ' a good boy, a good husband - that's all very limited. The word 'good' has much greater significance when you relate goodness to wholeness. Good, then, has the quality of being extraordinarily generous; good has that sense of not wanting to hurt another consciously; good, in the sense that it is correct - not only for the moment, correct all the time.
Correct in the sense that it does not depend on circumstances; if it is correct now, it will be correct a hundred years later or ten days later. Correctness with goodness is not related to environment, circumstances, pressures and so on. From that comes right action.
So, goodness and a holistic way of living go together. In what manner am I going to see that the boy grows in goodness and a holistic way of living? Do we rely on each other?
Is it an individual problem, or is it a problem of the whole school, the whole body? So the action must be comprehensive - not that that gentleman thinks one way and I think another way about goodness; it must be a cohesive action. Now, is that possible?
Sir, in the word 'holistic' is implied not the orthodox, the organized, but that quality of religion which we will go into presently. How am I, living here as an educator, to bring this about? The first thing we have to do is to make the child feel secure in his relationship.
It seems to me that unless the child feels secure in his relationship, with me and the place, nothing can happen. I want to find out whether what you say is really what I want to do. If I feel that is really what I want to do, then I must find out what I mean by that, what is the content of my feelings.
Would it be necessary, if you and I are working together in the school, to find out, not what I mean by that or what you mean, but rather find out if there is something that is valid for all of us? Not because we stick to an idea or come together around an idea, but in the investigation we say together, "This is it." Sir, do we understand what it means to live a holistic life?
Or is it a theory? Sir, perhaps we merely understand by contrast. We see fragmentation in ourselves...
If you see fragmentation or breaking up in yourself, then you have the problem of how to get rid of it, how to be whole. I don't want a problem about it. Then I have already broken it up.
Despite that, the fact remains that we are fragmented. Just a minute. I know I am fragmented; my whole thinking process is fragmented.
And also I know I mustn't make a problem of it because then that's another fragmentation. My feeling of fragmentation is itself a problem - I don't make a problem; I see a problem. I understand.
I realize I am fragmented, but I don't want to make a problem of it. But, sir, doesn't it mean that when I see that I am fragmented, it is a problem? That's what I want to get at, which is - I see I am I say one thing and I do another, think one thing and contradict what I think.
And I also see very clearly that I mustn't make a problem of it. Perhaps I don't see that clearly. That's what I want to discuss.
If I make a problem of it, I am already further fragmenting. But there is an in-between stage. I don't want that.
I am fragmented, broken up in different ways. If I make a problem of it, saying to myself, I must not be fragmented, that very statement is born out of fragmentation. Something born of fragmentation is another form of fragmentation.
But my brain is trained to make problems. So I must be aware of the whole cycle of it. So what am I to do?
You say to that, 'I should not make a problem of it.' Do we have a choice, or is it automatic? When we see the fragmentation within us, we say, 'I would not like to make a problem of it.'
See the truth, not 'I will not make a problem.' I see the fact that if I make a problem of it, it's another fragmentation. That's all.
I see it. I don't say, I mustn't get rid of it or I must get rid of it, so what am I to do? Is there anything to be done in this case?
I am going to show you presently. Don't be so eager, if you don't mind my saying so. The way I see it, there is nothing to be done except actually watching, observing.
Just a minute, sir. Don't come to that conclusion. What am I to do?
Observe. Don't tell me, sir. These are words.
Seeing that I am fragmented, aware that whatever I do is another kind of fragmentation, what is left for me? You don't put yourself in that position; you have already come to a conclusion. So conclusion is another fragmentation.
I have this Is there a way of living holistically in which is involved the quality of a religious mind, deep goodness, without any mischief, without any duality? Am I making it complicated? No, sir.
Why not, sir? My whole being thinks dualistically. It's always in opposition in the sense that I want to do this and yet I mustn't do it; I should do it, but I don't like to do it, and so on.
It always takes opposing positions. So, what is left for me? I see all this at a glance, or through analysis.
And I see it is like that. Then my question what am I to do? Don't tell you should or shouldn't - I don't accept anything from you; I am very sceptical by nature.
You are asking the what am I to do? When there is observation, no question arises. Are you doing it?
Yes. Are you doing it? If you are not doing it and you say we must try, you are in contradiction, therefore duality, therefore fragmentation, and hence no goodness.
As soon as you say or think about a holistic state of goodness, you are already in contradiction. No, you are not in contradiction. You are only putting it into words.
What's your action when you want to educate your student in this goodness? The school has a certain reputation, a certain éclat - a feeling about it. And there is a certain atmosphere in this valley.
And I sent you my son, hoping that you will help him to grow in this holistic way of life. I am communicating, I am not contradicting. It is in the way I posit the question that the contradiction arises.
I understand. We are trying to investigate the question, not lay down laws about it. At least I'm not.
I really want to find out what way I can help the student. I may not be holistic. Don't first I must be holistic, and then I can teach.
Then you are dead. Then that will take an eternity. If you I must first be holistic, then you have stymied yourself.
Sir, I am not saying anything. I really don't know what to do with these children whose parents want them to join the IIT [Indian Institute of Technology] or something or other. And I've got the tremendous opposition of society - the father, the mother, the grandfather, wanting the boy to have a job and all that.
How am I to bring this about? You don't answer me. Krishnaji, I am not answering the question how am I to bring this about; I'm looking at fragmentation.
What does that mean? Follow it out - I am fragmented, the boy is fragmented. Right, sir?
Right. Then what's the relationship between me and the boy? We are learning together.
Don't use phrases quickly. What's my relationship with the student who is fragmented like myself? I am not different from him.
Of course you are different from him - you teach maths; he doesn't know any. Don't say you are not different from him. There is no relationship at all if I am fragmented.
please, sir, answer my I am fragmented, and I am your student. What's our relationship? Or, is there any relationship at all?
Or, are we on the same level? It can only be a fragmented relationship. What is actually my relationship?
There doesn't seem to be any. That's all. How can fragments have a relationship?
Why not? Are you really asking me that question? Yes.
You answer it, You ask me a question, and I am too eager to reply to it. So it goes on between you and I answer it and then you counter it; then I counter it, and so on. He asks me a question and he expects me to answer it, and I I won't answer it because in the question itself is the answer.
So, can we look at the question and wait for it to flower? My question is very, very serious. The question itself contains the answer if you let it flower, if you let it alone, not cover it immediately with a response.
Your response is already conditioned, already personal. So leave the question. If the question has depth, significance, vitality, then the question unfolds.
Now, sir, is there truth? Does truth exist? You don't know, if you're honest; so we leave the question.
Let's look at the question, and the question begins to Is there truth, or only active, vital, illusion? I won't go into that. If the question has depth, if the question has a sense of great vitality - because you are asking the question in great inward searching - let the question answer itself.
It will if you leave it alone. Now I am coming back to my original question. I have a child come to me.
I am fragmented, he is fragmented. So there is no relationship? Are you sure there is no relationship, or are you just saying it?
I think I am sure there is no relationship in the fragmented state, and I find that any response that I give to the student would itself be a fragmented response. Yes. Stop there.
Then, what will you do? Whatever relationship I have is still fragmented. Is that a reality or a verbal statement?
It seems a reality to me. Either it is real in the sense that the microphone is real; that's not an illusion. The word microphone is not that.
I don't know if you get the quality of it. So we must come back. What am I to do, sir?
You tell me. Am I fooling myself that I can give a holistic education? We are going to find out, you and I, whether it is possible to do it or not.
The first statement we are fragmented. Let's stick to that. We are both fragmented, and I don't know what to do.
What does that mean to you - I don't know; I don't know what to do? Then, I must investigate. When I say, I don't know, I really mean I don't know.
Or, am I waiting for somebody else to tell me, so I will know? Which is it? At the moment the latter.
Is there a state of the brain when it I really don't know? I am not waiting for him to answer, or expecting someone else to tell me. All these are states when I am waiting for an answer.
But no one can answer this because they are all fragmented. Therefore I am waiting, watching, looking, observing, listening to the question. I don't know what to do.
Then I ask myself, 'What's the state of my brain which "I don't know"?' At that point of time, it's not functioning. 'I don't know'.
Or are you waiting for it to know? Waiting for it to know. Therefore, you are waiting to know; you will know.
Therefore your brain is not saying, 'I don't know.' It's all very logical, you know. The brain doesn't say it doesn't know.
That's it, that's the first thing - the brain never acknowledges or remains in the state 'I don't know'. You ask 'What is Ishvara?' and I promptly answer.
You have read, or you believe or you don't believe; Ishvara comes as a symbol to you. But if you ask, 'What is the element which created this?' it's a tremendously interesting What is the beginning of life?

The animal does not create problems. If we believe what the scientists say, that man evolved from the animal, then he has all the instincts which the animal has. The essential difference is that man has in addition the ability to think, and this ability to think has also created all those problems.

And what you are asking is, can we use this ability not to create problems but to do something entirely different? Yes, sir that's right. The brain is the source of all problems.

It has created the self and also all the problems. You suggest that the brain can end the problems. Then what is the difference between that brain which has ended and the mind?

You said that the brain is the source of problems and out of the brain comes the ending of problems. With that ending, the brain that remains thinks, perceives, receives intimations. What is the actual difference between that brain and the mind?

I understand, I understand. Just a minute. See, you are asking a question that involves death.

Before I can answer that question I must answer what death is. There is an Italian proverb that All the world is going to die, perhaps even I too! Do you see the joke of it?

So, what is death? We know what is birth, mother, father, all the rest of it, and the baby is born and goes through this extraordinary tragedy. It is a tragedy; it is not something happy, joyous, free.

It is a bigger tragedy than any Shakespeare ever wrote. So I know what is birth. Now, what is death?

I am asking this; you tell me. When we were discussing time the other day, you spoke of a 'now' in which was all time, both living and death. The brain, having the capacity to see the flow of living, also has the capacity to reveal that ending which is death.

That is the answer. I said, living is attachment, pain, fear, pleasure, anxiety, uncertainty, the whole bag, and death is out there, far away. I keep a careful distance.

I have got property, books, jewels; that is my life. I keep it here and death is there. I say, bring the two together, not tomorrow, but now - which means end all this now.

Because that's what death is going to say. Death says you can't take anything with you; so invite death - not suicide - invite death and live with it. Death is now, not tomorrow.

There is something lacking in this. I may be able to invite death now and the brain may be still for a time, but the whole thing comes back again; then the problem of life comes back. No, no.

I am attached to him, he is a friend of mine, I have lived with him, we walked together, We played together, he is my companion, and I am attached to him. Death says to me, You can't take him with you. So death tells me, Free yourself now, not ten years later.

And I say, Quite right, I will be free of him. Though I am still his friend, I am not dependent on him at all. Because, I can't take him with me.

What's wrong with that? You are not arguing against that? Which means, sir, you have to end all gratification... No, I am not saying that.

I said, attachment. All attachment... That's all. Sir, is it possible to end that so long as the two bodies exist?

Oh, yes, sir. Our bodies are not tied together; they are two separate bodies. Psychologically I take him as a friend and get slowly attached to him inwardly.

I am not attached to him outwardly because he goes one way and I go another - he drinks, I don't, and so on. But still he is a friend of mine. And death comes and says you can't take him with you.

That is a fact. So I say, All right, I will be detached now. Sir, isn't it that the problem comes not because you get pleasure from your friend or your wife, but because you begin to use that pleasure as a fulfilment for yourself, and therefore you want a continuity of that and you want to possess that person?

Yes. Therefore, what is relationship? I won't go into it, we have no time.

You see, sir, you are not meeting my point. I asked you where self-interest begins and ends. Is ending more important than anything else?

- ending? And what is then that state in which there is no self-interest at all? Is it death?

- which means an ending. Death means ending - ending everything. So it says, 'Be intelligent, old boy, live together with death.'

Which means die but keep the body. The other death is coming anyway. Body?

Give it to the birds or throw it into the river. But psychologically, this tremendous structure I have built I can't take with me. Is it an instinct, sir?

Is it an inheritance through the genes? Yes, probably. But animals don't think this way; I have watched several animals.

No, therefore I am not sure if it is an instinct. That's all I am saying. Don't reduce it to an instinct, sir.

What was the joke you were going to tell us? A man dies and meets his friend in heaven. They talk and he says, 'If I am dead, why do I feel so awful?'

Krishnamurti (K) May I raise a very difficult question? How would you, if you had a son here or a daughter, want to educate them, to bring about a holistic life? You've got so many students here - capable, intelligent.

Through what means, what kind of attitude, what kind of verbal explanation, would you educate them in a holistic way of living? I mean by 'holistic', whole, unbroken, not splintered up, not fragmented, as most of our lives are. So my question is, if I may put it to you, how do you bring about a holistic way of living, an outlook that's not fragmented in specializations?

First Teacher (T) Sir, first we must be holistic ourselves. That's understood, sir. But first of all, you are educators here, including myself (if you will permit me).

I am happy in Rishi Valley, I like the place, the beauty of it, the hills, the rocks, the flowers, the shadows on the hills. I am one of the educators here; parents send me one of their children and I want to see that they live a life that is whole. Whole means good.

'Good', not in the ordinary sense of that word; not the traditional word ' a good boy, a good husband - that's all very limited. The word 'good' has much greater significance when you relate goodness to wholeness. Good, then, has the quality of being extraordinarily generous; good has that sense of not wanting to hurt another consciously; good, in the sense that it is correct - not only for the moment, correct all the time.

Correct in the sense that it does not depend on circumstances; if it is correct now, it will be correct a hundred years later or ten days later. Correctness with goodness is not related to environment, circumstances, pressures and so on. From that comes right action.

So, goodness and a holistic way of living go together. In what manner am I going to see that the boy grows in goodness and a holistic way of living? Do we rely on each other?

Is it an individual problem, or is it a problem of the whole school, the whole body? So the action must be comprehensive - not that that gentleman thinks one way and I think another way about goodness; it must be a cohesive action. Now, is that possible?

Sir, in the word 'holistic' is implied not the orthodox, the organized, but that quality of religion which we will go into presently. How am I, living here as an educator, to bring this about? The first thing we have to do is to make the child feel secure in his relationship.

It seems to me that unless the child feels secure in his relationship, with me and the place, nothing can happen. I want to find out whether what you say is really what I want to do. If I feel that is really what I want to do, then I must find out what I mean by that, what is the content of my feelings.

Would it be necessary, if you and I are working together in the school, to find out, not what I mean by that or what you mean, but rather find out if there is something that is valid for all of us? Not because we stick to an idea or come together around an idea, but in the investigation we say together, "This is it." Sir, do we understand what it means to live a holistic life?

Or is it a theory? Sir, perhaps we merely understand by contrast. We see fragmentation in ourselves...

If you see fragmentation or breaking up in yourself, then you have the problem of how to get rid of it, how to be whole. I don't want a problem about it. Then I have already broken it up.

Despite that, the fact remains that we are fragmented. Just a minute. I know I am fragmented; my whole thinking process is fragmented.

And also I know I mustn't make a problem of it because then that's another fragmentation. My feeling of fragmentation is itself a problem - I don't make a problem; I see a problem. I understand.

I realize I am fragmented, but I don't want to make a problem of it. But, sir, doesn't it mean that when I see that I am fragmented, it is a problem? That's what I want to get at, which is - I see I am I say one thing and I do another, think one thing and contradict what I think.

And I also see very clearly that I mustn't make a problem of it. Perhaps I don't see that clearly. That's what I want to discuss.

If I make a problem of it, I am already further fragmenting. But there is an in-between stage. I don't want that.

I am fragmented, broken up in different ways. If I make a problem of it, saying to myself, I must not be fragmented, that very statement is born out of fragmentation. Something born of fragmentation is another form of fragmentation.

But my brain is trained to make problems. So I must be aware of the whole cycle of it. So what am I to do?

You say to that, 'I should not make a problem of it.' Do we have a choice, or is it automatic? When we see the fragmentation within us, we say, 'I would not like to make a problem of it.'

See the truth, not 'I will not make a problem.' I see the fact that if I make a problem of it, it's another fragmentation. That's all.

I see it. I don't say, I mustn't get rid of it or I must get rid of it, so what am I to do? Is there anything to be done in this case?

I am going to show you presently. Don't be so eager, if you don't mind my saying so. The way I see it, there is nothing to be done except actually watching, observing.

Just a minute, sir. Don't come to that conclusion. What am I to do?

Observe. Don't tell me, sir. These are words.

Seeing that I am fragmented, aware that whatever I do is another kind of fragmentation, what is left for me? You don't put yourself in that position; you have already come to a conclusion. So conclusion is another fragmentation.

I have this Is there a way of living holistically in which is involved the quality of a religious mind, deep goodness, without any mischief, without any duality? Am I making it complicated? No, sir.

Why not, sir? My whole being thinks dualistically. It's always in opposition in the sense that I want to do this and yet I mustn't do it; I should do it, but I don't like to do it, and so on.

It always takes opposing positions. So, what is left for me? I see all this at a glance, or through analysis.

And I see it is like that. Then my question what am I to do? Don't tell you should or shouldn't - I don't accept anything from you; I am very sceptical by nature.

You are asking the what am I to do? When there is observation, no question arises. Are you doing it?

Yes. Are you doing it? If you are not doing it and you say we must try, you are in contradiction, therefore duality, therefore fragmentation, and hence no goodness.

As soon as you say or think about a holistic state of goodness, you are already in contradiction. No, you are not in contradiction. You are only putting it into words.

What's your action when you want to educate your student in this goodness? The school has a certain reputation, a certain éclat - a feeling about it. And there is a certain atmosphere in this valley.

And I sent you my son, hoping that you will help him to grow in this holistic way of life. I am communicating, I am not contradicting. It is in the way I posit the question that the contradiction arises.

I understand. We are trying to investigate the question, not lay down laws about it. At least I'm not.

I really want to find out what way I can help the student. I may not be holistic. Don't first I must be holistic, and then I can teach.

Then you are dead. Then that will take an eternity. If you I must first be holistic, then you have stymied yourself.

Sir, I am not saying anything. I really don't know what to do with these children whose parents want them to join the IIT [Indian Institute of Technology] or something or other. And I've got the tremendous opposition of society - the father, the mother, the grandfather, wanting the boy to have a job and all that.

How am I to bring this about? You don't answer me. Krishnaji, I am not answering the question how am I to bring this about; I'm looking at fragmentation.

What does that mean? Follow it out - I am fragmented, the boy is fragmented. Right, sir?

Right. Then what's the relationship between me and the boy? We are learning together.

Don't use phrases quickly. What's my relationship with the student who is fragmented like myself? I am not different from him.

Of course you are different from him - you teach maths; he doesn't know any. Don't say you are not different from him. There is no relationship at all if I am fragmented.

please, sir, answer my I am fragmented, and I am your student. What's our relationship? Or, is there any relationship at all?

Or, are we on the same level? It can only be a fragmented relationship. What is actually my relationship?

There doesn't seem to be any. That's all. How can fragments have a relationship?

Why not? Are you really asking me that question? Yes.

You answer it, You ask me a question, and I am too eager to reply to it. So it goes on between you and I answer it and then you counter it; then I counter it, and so on. He asks me a question and he expects me to answer it, and I I won't answer it because in the question itself is the answer.

So, can we look at the question and wait for it to flower? My question is very, very serious. The question itself contains the answer if you let it flower, if you let it alone, not cover it immediately with a response.

Your response is already conditioned, already personal. So leave the question. If the question has depth, significance, vitality, then the question unfolds.

Now, sir, is there truth? Does truth exist? You don't know, if you're honest; so we leave the question.

Let's look at the question, and the question begins to Is there truth, or only active, vital, illusion? I won't go into that. If the question has depth, if the question has a sense of great vitality - because you are asking the question in great inward searching - let the question answer itself.

It will if you leave it alone. Now I am coming back to my original question. I have a child come to me.

I am fragmented, he is fragmented. So there is no relationship? Are you sure there is no relationship, or are you just saying it?

I think I am sure there is no relationship in the fragmented state, and I find that any response that I give to the student would itself be a fragmented response. Yes. Stop there.

Then, what will you do? Whatever relationship I have is still fragmented. Is that a reality or a verbal statement?

It seems a reality to me. Either it is real in the sense that the microphone is real; that's not an illusion. The word microphone is not that.

I don't know if you get the quality of it. So we must come back. What am I to do, sir?

You tell me. Am I fooling myself that I can give a holistic education? We are going to find out, you and I, whether it is possible to do it or not.

The first statement we are fragmented. Let's stick to that. We are both fragmented, and I don't know what to do.

What does that mean to you - I don't know; I don't know what to do? Then, I must investigate. When I say, I don't know, I really mean I don't know.

Or, am I waiting for somebody else to tell me, so I will know? Which is it? At the moment the latter.

Is there a state of the brain when it I really don't know? I am not waiting for him to answer, or expecting someone else to tell me. All these are states when I am waiting for an answer.

But no one can answer this because they are all fragmented. Therefore I am waiting, watching, looking, observing, listening to the question. I don't know what to do.

Then I ask myself, 'What's the state of my brain which "I don't know"?' At that point of time, it's not functioning. 'I don't know'.

Or are you waiting for it to know? Waiting for it to know. Therefore, you are waiting to know; you will know.

Therefore your brain is not saying, 'I don't know.' It's all very logical, you know. The brain doesn't say it doesn't know.

That's it, that's the first thing - the brain never acknowledges or remains in the state 'I don't know'. You ask 'What is Ishvara?' and I promptly answer.

You have read, or you believe or you don't believe; Ishvara comes as a symbol to you. But if you ask, 'What is the element which created this?' it's a tremendously interesting What is the beginning of life?