eliwill/krishnamurti_discussions · Datasets at Hugging Face

text stringlengths 12 1.33k
You must feel secure otherwise everything goes wrong for the poor child. Broken families and all that takes place and the child goes to pieces. So the brain must have security, but it has sought security in things that are not secure.
It has sought security in god, which is an idea, it is not a reality. In the name of god probably Christians have killed more people than anybody else. Right?
Sir, dismissing those ridiculous beliefs in politicians, in god, in all those ideals, surely people here can see that it is absolutely ridiculous to believe in all that nonsense. So my question how can I if my brain needs security, how can I provide it when the very activities are destructive? I'll show it to you.
If the brain sees those factors are destructive, what has taken place in the brain? What has given to the brain the capacity to see all those things are false? Go on sir, answer it.
Wait. Watch it sir, don't use words yet. The brain has seen, the mind has seen god, nationalities, religious divisions, are disastrous for human relationship, what is the capacity that makes the brain see that?
What is that capacity, sir? Awareness. What is that capacity you have, that says, 'That is silly'?
It is just a directness. Is it not intelligence? Of course it is.
When you say, 'It is stupid to be a nationalist, stupid to belong to any organised religion' - it is your intelligence says that it is stupid. Therefore in intelligence is security. Wait, you are not listening!
But it will also tell me that to be a business man you must exploit people. Ah, no, no, No, it won't tell you. It won't tell you.
If your intelligence says, that is stupid, your intelligence also says, we must have money, we must have better - you follow? Let intelligence operate not your idea of intelligence. I think that is baffling, that last one, if you don't mind me saying so.
What sir? (laughter) This question of security, the intelligence says... Ah, no. that's not... Is that intelligence?
Now wait a minute, sir. Go into it. Is that intelligence?
I will be a better business man, I will have more money, I will cheat, I will do everything - is that intelligence? It is the opposite. Why do you say it is the opposite?
What tells you? Sir, listen to it - what tells you it is the opposite? I can see it is destructive.
What makes you see it? It just is. I look at it simply and I see it.
That's right sir. So you see we have sought security in things which are not intelligent. Right?
And we are learning to seek security in intelligence and let that intelligence operate. That intelligence is not yours or mine, it isn't the communist, or the Catholic, it belongs to nobody, it is intelligence. When that intelligence operates, in that action there is security.
Got it sir? So education is contrary to what you have just said. That's right sir.
That is just it. What we have called intelligence, what we were trying to look on as intelligence is unintelligence. That's right sir.
So we are standing on our heads. Ah no, we have been standing on our heads, now we are standing on our feet. (laughter) It's like when you think things for yourself, understand for yourself, people, especially when you are young, people say you are being selfish.
Ah, no, no, no. What were you going to say sir? There is one question that worries me.
If we come here to listen to you sincerely, lecture after lecture, but go away and can't put this into practice - what is wrong? Sir, I'll tell you what is wrong. Don't put anything into practice.
The moment you put it into practice it becomes mechanical. But if you see the facts of it - you understand? - if you see the truth of it, it acts.
That is what I mean, we don't see it, otherwise... That's right sir, why don't you see it? Is it that you are not listening properly? Is it that you are frightened?
Is it that you have not enough energy to listen? Is it that you don't see the world and everything collapsing, burning - you follow? - you don't see it, you don't feel it, it is not in your blood?
We might be just too far gone. Ah. (laughter) Yes, we might be too far gone.
Our brains have gone to pieces, that might be true. I don't know about other people here, but I'm not too far gone. I can see that clearly the world is collapsing, there is terrible destruction, and people are fighting with each other in various ways and I ask myself where do I come into this, how do I fit in?
I obviously can't just provide for myself, it is meaningless for me to provide for myself. No, sirs, just listen to this. Just listen to it.
The world is fighting. Right? Killing each other.
There are the Catholics, Protestants, Communists, Hindus, Muslims - you follow? - appalling things are going on. My guru is better than your guru.
Right? All that kind of thing is going on. What is my relationship to all that?
Right? I think - not think - I see all that is most destructive, which is, my intelligence says it is destructive. Now what is that intelligence to do and what is its relationship to all that is taking place?
Right? What is the relationship? Careful.
Look at it carefully sir. What is the relationship of that intelligence to a world that is non-intelligent, which is insane? There is no relationship.
Therefore, wait. No relationship. Right?
How can sanity have relationship with insanity? No, it can't. Therefore what will you do?
You must do, you must act, you must live, what will you do? What will that intelligence do? Act the same.
Wait. Do watch, put your... See it sir. I don't know.
Why do you say I don't know? Because I find myself here in this tent examining this question, my whole being is fixed on this question of what will I do. I see clearly destruction.
I understand, what will you do? I'll show you sir. Go into it, take time, look at it.
What will you do? You say intelligence is sanity. They are living unintelligently therefore insanely.
And you say sanity has no relationship with insanity. Right? Then what will sanity do?
(Inaudible) Madam, are you listening to the question he has asked? The question he has asked what am I, who have seen the unintelligent world as it is, the insanity that is going on, intelligence says, I am finished with that, I have no relationship with it. He has asked that question and we are asking, what is that intelligence to do?
Because it must act, it can't say, 'There is tremendous intelligence' - it must act. Go slowly sir. Are you acting, or intelligence is acting?
If you are acting, you belong to that. Listen sir. If you say, well what am I to do?, then you are putting a wrong question.
What is the action of intelligence, is quite a different question. You don't say, what am I to do. Right?
If you say, what am I to do, you are still playing with insanity. I wonder if that is clear. Is intelligence different from me?
Of course, for god's sake, we have moved away from that altogether. Are you saying, how do I act intelligently, is this what I should have said? No, on the contrary.
I am saying, what is the act of intelligence which has discovered that the world is insane? Right? Do you see the difference sir?
What is intelligence to do? It is choiceless. Do listen sir.
See what we have discovered. If you say, what am I to do with intelligence, then you belong to a group of people who use intelligence unintelligently - you get it? Whereas if you say, what will that intelligence do?
Right? How is that intelligence to act? Why do you even ask that question?
Why do you ask that question? Because you are not sure of your intelligence. Do look at it.
You are not sure of that intelligence. If there is that intelligence it will but if you are not sure of that intelligence then you ask the how will that intelligence act? In other words we are so egotistic that we think this intelligence cannot act without us.
Yes, that is right sir. That is right sir. You have got it sir?
So look what happens. Quite right, sir. There is the responsibility of intelligence, intelligence is responsible to act, intelligence has the responsibility of action.
Right? When I say, I have the responsibility to use action, then I am playing, I am going to use intelligence in my corrupt way. Whereas intelligence operating has its own action.
Now have you that intelligence, is there that intelligence operating in you? Clear - you follow? - not uncertain, not saying, I am not quite sure, I don't know if I have got it, I am a bit hot under the collar but I am not sure.
Which means you don't follow anybody, no guru, no authority, no system. You follow sir? All that is involved in that intelligence.
When there is that intelligence there is sanity. Right? Then a sane mind will act sanely.
You don't have to ask, what am I to do. Got it? Right?
Pupul I wonder whether we can talk about silence and how it is reached, or whether silence has many facets and forms. Whether there is only one silence which is absence of thought, or whether silence which arises through different experiences or different situations is different in nature, dimension and direction. Where shall we start this?
You've asked so many things. What is silence? Are you saying, is there right approach - right in the sense, we'll describe what 'right' is - to silence?
And if there is, what is that first? You started off with that, didn't you? Yes.
And whether there are different varieties of silence, which means different methods by which to arrive at silence, and is silence... what is the nature of silence. So, shall we go in that order first? Is there a right approach to silence - right in the sense - 'right', we'll put it in quotes.
What do we mean by right? Is there the one, or if all silences are of the same nature then there may be many approaches. Yes, but I'm just asking what do we mean by 'right approach'?
That is what I mean by right, the one. The only one. The one, as against the hundred.
Yes, therefore what is the one? What is the true, natural, reasonable, logical, and beyond the logic, what is that approach? Is that it?
I don't know. I don't know whether I would put it that way. I would say that when consciousness is not operating, then thought is not operating.
I would like to go into it. That is what is generally understood. We can define silence as the absence of thought.
Absence of thought. I can go blank, you know, just without any thought, just looking at something and go blank. Is that silence?
How do you know it is true silence? That's what I... Let's begin by asking is there a right approach to silence, and what is that 'right'? And are there many varieties of silences and is silence an absence of thought, which implies in that a great many things, such as I can go blank - suddenly, you know, I'm thinking a great deal and I just stop and look at something and go blank - daydream, vaguely daydream.
That's why I would like to approach this question by asking is there a true approach to silence? You started with that question, I think we ought to take that first, and go into the other things afterwards. You seem to be giving emphasis to the true approach rather than the nature of true silence.
What is the distinction? I think so. I think so, because there are those people who have practised silence, controlling thought, mesmerizing themselves into silence, and controlled their chattering mind to such extent that the mind becomes absolutely dull, stupid - and silent.
So I want to start with the enquiry from this point of right approach. Otherwise we'll wander off. Right?
It seems more sane to find out is there a right - again, 'right' is somehow not the word - is there... Natural. A natural, sane, healthy approach - sanity is sane, so we'll use one... Sanity is healthy - is there a healthy, logical, objective, balanced approach to silence?
Right? Could we proceed from there? What is the necessity of silence?
I know from what people have told me a great deal and I've talked a great deal about it too - not 'I' but one has talked about it a great deal too - what is the necessity for silence? Sir, the necessity for silence is very easy to understand. People, in ordinary living, a constantly chattering mind, constantly irritated mind, when it comes to a rest there is a feeling of being refreshed, the mind is refreshed, quite apart from anything else.
So the silence in itself is important. And also there is, even in the ordinary sense, there's no seeing or listening, there is no seeing of colour, there's no seeing of things unless there is a certain quality of silence. Even in the ordinary sense.
Let us go... Yes. And it's the whole tradition that silence is important, is necessary - it is also there.
And therefore we have all these systems, whether it is the watching of prana or breath or whether it is doing pranayama - these are all the various... Yes. ...which seem to make people go to... make use of - there is a state of silence.
It is not an unhealthy state of silence, sir, but there is a state of silence. It is not... Suppose you don't know a thing what other people have said, why you should be silent.
Would you ask the question? Yes. Even at the level of the tranquilliser, you would ask the question.
So, you asked the question in order to tranquilise the mind. Right? Yes.
Because the mind is chattering and it's wearisome and exhausting, so you say, is there a way of tranquilizing the mind without the drugs? We know the way of tranquilizing the mind with drugs, but is there another way which will naturally, healthily, sanely, logically, bring about tranquillity to the mind? Right?
How do you approach this? How would I, being weary, exhausted by the chattering of the mind, ask myself, can I, without the usage of drugs quieten the mind? Is there a way of doing it?
That's natural, I would ask that. Now, is there? There are many ways.
Many ways of doing it. Ah, I don't know any way. You all say there are many ways.
I come from a land - I don't read, except detectives and historical books and so on - I come from a land where we don't know any of these things. Right? First hand, I'm talking about.
So I say, now, how is... can the mind do this? Can the mind, without effort, because effort implies disturbance of the mind, it doesn't bring about tranquillity, it brings about exhaustion, and exhaustion is not tranquillity. It's like a businessman, at the end of the day, exhausted, takes a drink to be quiet, to calm his nerves, and so conflict will not bring about tranquillity.
Conflict will bring about exhaustion and the exhaustion may be translated as silence by those who are completely washed out at the end of the day, they say, 'At last, I can go into my meditation room and be quiet'. Right? So, is there... is it possible to bring about tranquillity to the mind without conflict?
Right? I would put that question. Is it possible to bring about tranquillity to the mind without conflict.
Without discipline, without distortion, without - all those are exhausting processes. Sir, simple thing, may be absurd, but when one does pranayama there's no conflict in it, but there is silence; it doesn't exhaust you. What is the nature of that silence?
There, you are breathing, getting more oxygen into your system, and the oxygen naturally helps to be relaxed. So that is also a state of silence. No, I am not talking - I want to find out - we'll discuss the state of silences afterwards, but I want to find out whether the mind can be tranquilised... become tranquil without any kind of effort, breathing, enforcement, control, direction.
Right? The mind asks such a question only in its agitated and disturbed state. The mind asks such a question, is it possible to have tranquillity of the mind without any outside help... No, no, I didn't say outside help.
I said, without conflict - please, no, listen, sir - without direction, without enforcement, without control, practices of breathing, doing this and - without any enforcement of any kind, which is, I can take a drug, a tranquilliser and make the mind very quiet. It is on the same level as pranayama. And I can control the mind and force the mind - my mind can be controlled and brought about silence.
It is on the same level as breathing, drugs. So I want to start from a point where the mind is agitated, chattering, exhausting itself by incessant friction of thought, and it says, is it possible to be really quiet, without any artificial means? Right?
To me that is a central issue. That's... I would approach it if I went into this.
I would discard any... (Sound of siren) I would consider, if I was investigating, I would consider artificial, control, drugs, breathing... ...watching the breath. Watching the breath, watching your toe, watching the light... Repetition of mantras. Mantras.
All those are artificial, which induce a peculiar kind of silence. So I would not consider - please, when I say 'I', it is not... I will use the word 'I' for the moment, with the understanding that I am not... K is not emphasising himself.

You must feel secure otherwise everything goes wrong for the poor child. Broken families and all that takes place and the child goes to pieces. So the brain must have security, but it has sought security in things that are not secure.

It has sought security in god, which is an idea, it is not a reality. In the name of god probably Christians have killed more people than anybody else. Right?

Sir, dismissing those ridiculous beliefs in politicians, in god, in all those ideals, surely people here can see that it is absolutely ridiculous to believe in all that nonsense. So my question how can I if my brain needs security, how can I provide it when the very activities are destructive? I'll show it to you.

If the brain sees those factors are destructive, what has taken place in the brain? What has given to the brain the capacity to see all those things are false? Go on sir, answer it.

Wait. Watch it sir, don't use words yet. The brain has seen, the mind has seen god, nationalities, religious divisions, are disastrous for human relationship, what is the capacity that makes the brain see that?

What is that capacity, sir? Awareness. What is that capacity you have, that says, 'That is silly'?

It is just a directness. Is it not intelligence? Of course it is.

When you say, 'It is stupid to be a nationalist, stupid to belong to any organised religion' - it is your intelligence says that it is stupid. Therefore in intelligence is security. Wait, you are not listening!

But it will also tell me that to be a business man you must exploit people. Ah, no, no, No, it won't tell you. It won't tell you.

If your intelligence says, that is stupid, your intelligence also says, we must have money, we must have better - you follow? Let intelligence operate not your idea of intelligence. I think that is baffling, that last one, if you don't mind me saying so.

What sir? (laughter) This question of security, the intelligence says... Ah, no. that's not... Is that intelligence?

Now wait a minute, sir. Go into it. Is that intelligence?

I will be a better business man, I will have more money, I will cheat, I will do everything - is that intelligence? It is the opposite. Why do you say it is the opposite?

What tells you? Sir, listen to it - what tells you it is the opposite? I can see it is destructive.

What makes you see it? It just is. I look at it simply and I see it.

That's right sir. So you see we have sought security in things which are not intelligent. Right?

And we are learning to seek security in intelligence and let that intelligence operate. That intelligence is not yours or mine, it isn't the communist, or the Catholic, it belongs to nobody, it is intelligence. When that intelligence operates, in that action there is security.

Got it sir? So education is contrary to what you have just said. That's right sir.

That is just it. What we have called intelligence, what we were trying to look on as intelligence is unintelligence. That's right sir.

So we are standing on our heads. Ah no, we have been standing on our heads, now we are standing on our feet. (laughter) It's like when you think things for yourself, understand for yourself, people, especially when you are young, people say you are being selfish.

Ah, no, no, no. What were you going to say sir? There is one question that worries me.

If we come here to listen to you sincerely, lecture after lecture, but go away and can't put this into practice - what is wrong? Sir, I'll tell you what is wrong. Don't put anything into practice.

The moment you put it into practice it becomes mechanical. But if you see the facts of it - you understand? - if you see the truth of it, it acts.

That is what I mean, we don't see it, otherwise... That's right sir, why don't you see it? Is it that you are not listening properly? Is it that you are frightened?

Is it that you have not enough energy to listen? Is it that you don't see the world and everything collapsing, burning - you follow? - you don't see it, you don't feel it, it is not in your blood?

We might be just too far gone. Ah. (laughter) Yes, we might be too far gone.

Our brains have gone to pieces, that might be true. I don't know about other people here, but I'm not too far gone. I can see that clearly the world is collapsing, there is terrible destruction, and people are fighting with each other in various ways and I ask myself where do I come into this, how do I fit in?

I obviously can't just provide for myself, it is meaningless for me to provide for myself. No, sirs, just listen to this. Just listen to it.

The world is fighting. Right? Killing each other.

There are the Catholics, Protestants, Communists, Hindus, Muslims - you follow? - appalling things are going on. My guru is better than your guru.

Right? All that kind of thing is going on. What is my relationship to all that?

Right? I think - not think - I see all that is most destructive, which is, my intelligence says it is destructive. Now what is that intelligence to do and what is its relationship to all that is taking place?

Right? What is the relationship? Careful.

Look at it carefully sir. What is the relationship of that intelligence to a world that is non-intelligent, which is insane? There is no relationship.

Therefore, wait. No relationship. Right?

How can sanity have relationship with insanity? No, it can't. Therefore what will you do?

You must do, you must act, you must live, what will you do? What will that intelligence do? Act the same.

Wait. Do watch, put your... See it sir. I don't know.

Why do you say I don't know? Because I find myself here in this tent examining this question, my whole being is fixed on this question of what will I do. I see clearly destruction.

I understand, what will you do? I'll show you sir. Go into it, take time, look at it.

What will you do? You say intelligence is sanity. They are living unintelligently therefore insanely.

And you say sanity has no relationship with insanity. Right? Then what will sanity do?

(Inaudible) Madam, are you listening to the question he has asked? The question he has asked what am I, who have seen the unintelligent world as it is, the insanity that is going on, intelligence says, I am finished with that, I have no relationship with it. He has asked that question and we are asking, what is that intelligence to do?

Because it must act, it can't say, 'There is tremendous intelligence' - it must act. Go slowly sir. Are you acting, or intelligence is acting?

If you are acting, you belong to that. Listen sir. If you say, well what am I to do?, then you are putting a wrong question.

What is the action of intelligence, is quite a different question. You don't say, what am I to do. Right?

If you say, what am I to do, you are still playing with insanity. I wonder if that is clear. Is intelligence different from me?

Of course, for god's sake, we have moved away from that altogether. Are you saying, how do I act intelligently, is this what I should have said? No, on the contrary.

I am saying, what is the act of intelligence which has discovered that the world is insane? Right? Do you see the difference sir?

What is intelligence to do? It is choiceless. Do listen sir.

See what we have discovered. If you say, what am I to do with intelligence, then you belong to a group of people who use intelligence unintelligently - you get it? Whereas if you say, what will that intelligence do?

Right? How is that intelligence to act? Why do you even ask that question?

Why do you ask that question? Because you are not sure of your intelligence. Do look at it.

You are not sure of that intelligence. If there is that intelligence it will but if you are not sure of that intelligence then you ask the how will that intelligence act? In other words we are so egotistic that we think this intelligence cannot act without us.

Yes, that is right sir. That is right sir. You have got it sir?

So look what happens. Quite right, sir. There is the responsibility of intelligence, intelligence is responsible to act, intelligence has the responsibility of action.

Right? When I say, I have the responsibility to use action, then I am playing, I am going to use intelligence in my corrupt way. Whereas intelligence operating has its own action.

Now have you that intelligence, is there that intelligence operating in you? Clear - you follow? - not uncertain, not saying, I am not quite sure, I don't know if I have got it, I am a bit hot under the collar but I am not sure.

Which means you don't follow anybody, no guru, no authority, no system. You follow sir? All that is involved in that intelligence.

When there is that intelligence there is sanity. Right? Then a sane mind will act sanely.

You don't have to ask, what am I to do. Got it? Right?

Pupul I wonder whether we can talk about silence and how it is reached, or whether silence has many facets and forms. Whether there is only one silence which is absence of thought, or whether silence which arises through different experiences or different situations is different in nature, dimension and direction. Where shall we start this?

You've asked so many things. What is silence? Are you saying, is there right approach - right in the sense, we'll describe what 'right' is - to silence?

And if there is, what is that first? You started off with that, didn't you? Yes.

And whether there are different varieties of silence, which means different methods by which to arrive at silence, and is silence... what is the nature of silence. So, shall we go in that order first? Is there a right approach to silence - right in the sense - 'right', we'll put it in quotes.

What do we mean by right? Is there the one, or if all silences are of the same nature then there may be many approaches. Yes, but I'm just asking what do we mean by 'right approach'?

That is what I mean by right, the one. The only one. The one, as against the hundred.

Yes, therefore what is the one? What is the true, natural, reasonable, logical, and beyond the logic, what is that approach? Is that it?

I don't know. I don't know whether I would put it that way. I would say that when consciousness is not operating, then thought is not operating.

I would like to go into it. That is what is generally understood. We can define silence as the absence of thought.

Absence of thought. I can go blank, you know, just without any thought, just looking at something and go blank. Is that silence?

How do you know it is true silence? That's what I... Let's begin by asking is there a right approach to silence, and what is that 'right'? And are there many varieties of silences and is silence an absence of thought, which implies in that a great many things, such as I can go blank - suddenly, you know, I'm thinking a great deal and I just stop and look at something and go blank - daydream, vaguely daydream.

That's why I would like to approach this question by asking is there a true approach to silence? You started with that question, I think we ought to take that first, and go into the other things afterwards. You seem to be giving emphasis to the true approach rather than the nature of true silence.

What is the distinction? I think so. I think so, because there are those people who have practised silence, controlling thought, mesmerizing themselves into silence, and controlled their chattering mind to such extent that the mind becomes absolutely dull, stupid - and silent.

So I want to start with the enquiry from this point of right approach. Otherwise we'll wander off. Right?

It seems more sane to find out is there a right - again, 'right' is somehow not the word - is there... Natural. A natural, sane, healthy approach - sanity is sane, so we'll use one... Sanity is healthy - is there a healthy, logical, objective, balanced approach to silence?

Right? Could we proceed from there? What is the necessity of silence?

I know from what people have told me a great deal and I've talked a great deal about it too - not 'I' but one has talked about it a great deal too - what is the necessity for silence? Sir, the necessity for silence is very easy to understand. People, in ordinary living, a constantly chattering mind, constantly irritated mind, when it comes to a rest there is a feeling of being refreshed, the mind is refreshed, quite apart from anything else.

So the silence in itself is important. And also there is, even in the ordinary sense, there's no seeing or listening, there is no seeing of colour, there's no seeing of things unless there is a certain quality of silence. Even in the ordinary sense.

Let us go... Yes. And it's the whole tradition that silence is important, is necessary - it is also there.

And therefore we have all these systems, whether it is the watching of prana or breath or whether it is doing pranayama - these are all the various... Yes. ...which seem to make people go to... make use of - there is a state of silence.

It is not an unhealthy state of silence, sir, but there is a state of silence. It is not... Suppose you don't know a thing what other people have said, why you should be silent.

Would you ask the question? Yes. Even at the level of the tranquilliser, you would ask the question.

So, you asked the question in order to tranquilise the mind. Right? Yes.

Because the mind is chattering and it's wearisome and exhausting, so you say, is there a way of tranquilizing the mind without the drugs? We know the way of tranquilizing the mind with drugs, but is there another way which will naturally, healthily, sanely, logically, bring about tranquillity to the mind? Right?

How do you approach this? How would I, being weary, exhausted by the chattering of the mind, ask myself, can I, without the usage of drugs quieten the mind? Is there a way of doing it?

That's natural, I would ask that. Now, is there? There are many ways.

Many ways of doing it. Ah, I don't know any way. You all say there are many ways.

I come from a land - I don't read, except detectives and historical books and so on - I come from a land where we don't know any of these things. Right? First hand, I'm talking about.

So I say, now, how is... can the mind do this? Can the mind, without effort, because effort implies disturbance of the mind, it doesn't bring about tranquillity, it brings about exhaustion, and exhaustion is not tranquillity. It's like a businessman, at the end of the day, exhausted, takes a drink to be quiet, to calm his nerves, and so conflict will not bring about tranquillity.

Conflict will bring about exhaustion and the exhaustion may be translated as silence by those who are completely washed out at the end of the day, they say, 'At last, I can go into my meditation room and be quiet'. Right? So, is there... is it possible to bring about tranquillity to the mind without conflict?

Right? I would put that question. Is it possible to bring about tranquillity to the mind without conflict.

Without discipline, without distortion, without - all those are exhausting processes. Sir, simple thing, may be absurd, but when one does pranayama there's no conflict in it, but there is silence; it doesn't exhaust you. What is the nature of that silence?

There, you are breathing, getting more oxygen into your system, and the oxygen naturally helps to be relaxed. So that is also a state of silence. No, I am not talking - I want to find out - we'll discuss the state of silences afterwards, but I want to find out whether the mind can be tranquilised... become tranquil without any kind of effort, breathing, enforcement, control, direction.

Right? The mind asks such a question only in its agitated and disturbed state. The mind asks such a question, is it possible to have tranquillity of the mind without any outside help... No, no, I didn't say outside help.

I said, without conflict - please, no, listen, sir - without direction, without enforcement, without control, practices of breathing, doing this and - without any enforcement of any kind, which is, I can take a drug, a tranquilliser and make the mind very quiet. It is on the same level as pranayama. And I can control the mind and force the mind - my mind can be controlled and brought about silence.

It is on the same level as breathing, drugs. So I want to start from a point where the mind is agitated, chattering, exhausting itself by incessant friction of thought, and it says, is it possible to be really quiet, without any artificial means? Right?

To me that is a central issue. That's... I would approach it if I went into this.

I would discard any... (Sound of siren) I would consider, if I was investigating, I would consider artificial, control, drugs, breathing... ...watching the breath. Watching the breath, watching your toe, watching the light... Repetition of mantras. Mantras.

All those are artificial, which induce a peculiar kind of silence. So I would not consider - please, when I say 'I', it is not... I will use the word 'I' for the moment, with the understanding that I am not... K is not emphasising himself.