eliwill/krishnamurti_discussions · Datasets at Hugging Face

text stringlengths 12 1.33k
K would consider... (Sound of siren) We had this last Monday. Sir, would you include the silence induced by nature to this list - drugs, breath. Which is all part of it.
External, motivated... That's it. I would consider all those are artificial enforcements in order to induce silence. That is, if you look at a mountain you get silence.
Ah, wait no. Wait, wait. When you look at a mountain what takes place?
By the greatness, by the beauty, by the grandeur of the mountain, that absorbs you and makes you silent. That is still artificial. But that is only nature.
These others... Like a child, given a good toy, is absorbed by the toy and for the time being, till it breaks down, he is very quiet. I would consider all those, any form of inducement to silence, to bring about silence, is artificial - for K. The question starts with a motive. I am saying the motive too, motive is artificial.
Bringing about silence is an accidental... I want to find out, sir, whether it is accidental or is there a natural way, without inducement, without motive, without direction, without etc., etc., etc. Sir, in looking at a mountain, though it is a non-duality experience, even then you say it is not silence.
I wouldn't call it silence. Because the thing is so great, for the time being that greatness knocks your... The absence of the 'me' is there, but the absence of the 'me' is not at the conscious level, but you say is it there.
It is there. How? Look, you see a marvellous picture, a marvellous sunset, an enormous chain of mountains, and it's like the toy with a child.
That greatness knocks out the 'me' for the moment and the mind becomes silent. This is... you experiment with it. Yes, sir, but you say that is not silence.
I wouldn't call that silence because the mountain, the sunset, the beauty of something takes for the moment - the 'me' is pushed aside. And the moment that's gone, I'm back to my chattering or whatever it is. So, at least I want to be clear that any artificial, with a motive, a directional, seems to K that it's a distortion which will not bring about the depth of silence - in which is included practices, disciplines, controls, identification with the greater and thereby making myself quiet, and so on and so on, so on.
Then I ask myself what is the necessity of silence? If it has no motive, would I ask that question? Sir, it is the state of mind that you describe.
I am not describing the mind. Not in the sense that it has no motive and... No, sir, no, no, no, sorry. I said, any inducement, in any form, subtle or obvious, I would consider doesn't bring about the depth of great silence.
I would consider it's all superficial. I may be wrong. We're enquiring.
That state of mind is already a silent mind. Maybe. I don't know.
So, what is the natural, healthy approach to tranquillity? Right? Right, Pupul?
What is the natural approach? But then approach is motivation. No.
What is the natural - I won't use that word, even - what is the natural way... natural state of tranquillity? How does one come upon it naturally? As (inaudible), as we have also said, if I want to listen to what you are saying, my mind must be quiet.
That's a natural thing. If I want to see something clearly, the mind mustn't be chattering. That's a natural thing.
No? What? Would you use the word 'natural', or 'obvious'?
Or, I would... It doesn't matter, two natural, obvious - we have used those two words before. Obvious.
We'll use those two words natural, obvious. Right? Then why do we make - silence is something tremendous.
In that is all poise, is all sanity. I see that. So I would say the basis for the depth of silence is poise, harmony, between the mind, the body and the heart - division for the moment - great harmony.
The setting aside any artificial methods, including control and all the rest of it. I would said that is the basis. The real basis is harmony.
It doesn't start from conflict and go... (inaudible) It doesn't solve anything. Wait, wait. We haven't solved anything.
(Inaudible) ...another word there... We haven't solved anything. ...You've put another 'harmony'. Yes.
Now, one would say how does this... I'll come to that. Therefore I say, this is the basis for silence.
For right silence. For right silence. This is the started conflict with any one of those other things which we described.
The right approach to silence. No, no, the whole thing is, I know conflict, I don't know... All right. Therefore don't talk about silence.
Deal with conflict, not silence. If there is disharmony between the mind, heart and body, deal with that - not with silence. If you deal with silence being disharmonious, then it is artificial.
This is so. Now I am getting at it. The agitated mind naturally thinks towards a state of non-tension.
So be concerned with the agitated mind, not with silence. Lead with 'what is', and not with 'what might be'. That comes logically, is right.
I'll stick to this. Are you asking whether the agitated mind can deal with its own agitation? That's a different question.
No. She is saying that the agitated mind naturally asks the question, can this subside? Yes, so be concerned not with silence but why is it agitated.
It conceives of the opposite state of mind. Ah, that is then an opposite, a conflict, and the opposite has its roots within its own opposite and so on. Yes, the concept itself is part of agitation.
Agitation. So I would say complete harmony is the foundation for the purity of silence. How does one move this... (inaudible) Let's go into that, not into silence.
We'll later on come to the question of the varieties of silences. So what is harmony? Right?
Go on, sirs. Harmony arises when conflict ends. I want to find out what is harmony - between the mind, the body and the heart, (inaudible) - total sense of being whole, without fragmentation, without the over-development of the intellect, but the intellect operating clearly, objectively, sanely, not that, and the heart not sentiment, gooey, emotionalism, outbreak of hysteria, but has a quality in it of affection, care, love, compassion, you know, vitality, and the body has its own intelligence and uninterfered by the intellect or by taste - all that.
The feeling everything is operating, functioning beautifully like marvellous machinery. Even though it's not physically well. This is important.
Yes, sir? Were you going to say something? No.
Now, is this possible? (Inaudible) There won't be a centre of it in it, in that harmony. In that harmony is there a centre?
I don't know. We're going to find out. Can the mind, the brain, function efficiently without any friction, distortion, and so the mind, the intellect, the capacity to reason, the capacity to perceive, sharp, clear.
And when the centre is there it's not possible, obviously, because then the centre is translating everything according to its limitation. Am I reducing everybody to silence? (Laughs) Why does this division arise between the mind, the... ...body.
Arise, because through our education, where emphasis is made on the cultivation of the intellect as memory and reason, as a function apart from living. That is the over-emphasis on the mind. Even without education, there can be an over-emphasis of emotions... Of course, that's what I'm saying.
Yes, so... The intellectual, man worships the intellect much more than the emotions. Doesn't he?
And emotion is translated into devotion, into sentimentality, into all kinds of extravagance of expansions of emotionalism, hysteria and so on, so on, so on. We have done this all along. No?
How does he start losing understanding? The accumulation of memory for technical or day-to-day purposes, with the accumulation in terms of emotional memories and incidences... Which is, that's fairly simple, sir.
Why does the brain, as the repository of memory, why does it give such importance to knowledge? Technological, psychological, in relationship - why has it given, why have human beings given such extraordinary importance to knowledge? I have an office, I've become an important bureaucrat, which is, I have knowledge about doing certain function, and I become pompous, stupid, dull - why?
Why do I give such importance to knowledge? Go on, sir. Is it the image, to affect all the influence of the mind... No.
That is very simple. Very security, obviously. Security, to make oneself important.
Obviously. Knowledge gives you status. Don't you know bureaucrats who are fairly high up, all they want is status.
But still it doesn't solve. No, he asked that question. So, I must come back.
Human beings have worshipped knowledge; knowledge is identified with the intellect. Right? The erudition, the scholar, the philosopher, the inventor, the scientist, are all concerned with knowledge.
No? And they have created in the world marvellous going to the moon, new guns, submarines, Polaris, thing that goes off from the - they have invented the most extraordinary things, and the admiration, the sense of the marvel of knowledge is overwhelming. And we say - we accept it.
So, we have developed an inordinate admiration, almost verging on worship, the intellect. All the sacred books and their interpretations, is all that. Correct me if I'm wrong.
And in contrast to that there is a reaction - say, for goodness sake, let's be a bit more emotional about all this, let me have my feelings, I love being stupid, I love - you know. No? Devotion, hysteria, sentimentality, extravagance in expression, you know, all that arises from this.
And the body is neglected. You see this. And therefore yoga and all that.
And practise yoga to get the body well, and so you have this division, takes place unnaturally. And now we have to bring about a natural harmony where the intellect functions like a marvellous watch, where the emotions and affections, care, love, compassion, all those are healthily, you know, functioning, and the body which has been so despoiled, which has been so misused, comes into its own intelligence. So there is that.
Now, how do you do it? I adore knowledge because I need it. Of course.
I made that very clear, sir. Don't let me repeat it all over again. I need knowledge, to talk to you in English I need knowledge of English.
I don't know any other language in India, so I have to use English; that's knowledge. I have to ride a bicycle; that's knowledge. I have to drive a car; that's knowledge.
I have to drive an engine, drive a motor; that's knowledge. There is a sick person. The doctor is there, and he... (inaudible) Yes, yes, yes.
That's still within the field of knowledge. But I am concerned with the problem because I have to solve it. I have to solve the problem of disease so I go to knowledge.
Yes, sir, I say that, sir. Knowledge is necessary. But when knowledge is misused by the centre as the 'me' who has got knowledge and therefore I am superior to the man who has less knowledge, I become... knowledge then I use as a status for I am more important than the poor chap who has no knowledge.
I am a bureaucrat, soaked in some stupidity and I... If I may say so, we started the discussion with silence, and the various ways in which we arrive at silence. Without dealing with the agitated mind, or the mind in conflict, he has pointed out that unless there is a harmony we cannot have the basis for even questioning or asking what is silence.
The next do you not make a distinction between knowledge and discovery of the new? History. Discovery.
Of course, sir. Knowledge... (Inaudible) Sir, sir, sir, when knowledge - sir, just listen, sir - when knowledge interferes in the discovery of the new, there is no discovery of the new. There must be an interval between knowledge and the new, otherwise you are just carrying on the old.
Exactly that. Rest aside the knowledge and make an experiment to see what happens. That's all that we are saying, sir.
So, I want to get back. There is this... Radhaji asked just now, why is there division between the mind, the heart and the body. We see that; why.
Now we say, how is this division to naturally come into deep harmony - naturally? Right? Now how do you do it?
Enforcement? You can't do it. Ideals?
Ideal of harmony, therefore I must lessen my intellect - you follow? - it becomes too silly. Right?
So what shall I do? Go on. Can I will it, or it has to come into being by itself?
What do you say? I think the latter. I can't will it.
So what will you do? Go into silence. Don't you know, sir - I mean, not you particularly - one is aware of this division, isn't one?
- intellect, emotion, and the body, there is this tremendous division between all of them. A gap. How do you... how is the mind to remove all these gaps and be a whole mechanism functioning beautifully?
What do the traditionalists say? Effort. About effort.
Only effort. Grit your teeth. Clench your teeth... ...and bite into it, is that it?
(Laughs) Sir, we're, I think, getting very clogged. No, I'm not sure. I'll tell you why, sir.
You have used the word 'harmony'. Use another word. That's just it.
We had silence and you said we can't... Ah, we won't touch it. We won't touch silence. Then we take the word 'harmony', we cannot touch the word 'harmony'.
Then what will you do? Then why pursue silence? So we come back to only one thing which we disharmony.
That's all. That's all I'm coming. There is this division.
Therefore I say, let's deal with disharmony and not with silence, so when there is the understanding of disharmony, from that may flow naturally silence. Here also there is a question, to know that you have ended disharmony totally. But we haven't come to that.
This morning I told somebody, there is a Latin saying, 'I know what is right, but I don't follow it'. Follow it. Yes.
(Inaudible) Yes, I know. Now, there is a mechanism which seems to deny your statement if you deal with disharmony, harmony is so. Don't bring in something from Latin.
Face the thing as is. Pupul says, we started out with silence and we said, look it's no good discussing silence until you find out if there is a natural way of coming to it. The artificial way is not - right?
- because, you know, we have been through that - therefore we said, what is the natural way? The natural way is to find out if there is harmony, but we do not know anything about harmony because we are in a state of disorder. So let's deal with disorder, not with harmony, not with silence.
With disorder. I came in, I wanted to say that according to our experience the disorder never yields. The disorder remains disorder.
We are going to find out, sir. Don't maintain it. No, I don't maintain it; that's my observation.
Yes. Your personal observation of yourself? My observation of myself.
I huff and puff and observe and observe and observe the disorder - and the disorder looks at me. I look at the disorder, disorder looks at me. Therefore there is a duality, a contradiction in your observation as the observer, and the observed - a division.
We can play with this endlessly. That's the nature of disorder. I am asking, sir - please follow what we have so far we started out with silence, what is the nature of silence; are there different varieties of silence, are there different approaches to silence.
Pupul also said, what is the beginning of silence, the approach to silence? We said, perhaps there may be a right way - 'right' in quotes. And we said, let's find out.
Any artificial means to bring about silence is not silence - any artificial means, we made that very clear, don't let's go back to that. If there is no artificial way then what is - is it possible to come upon silence naturally, without effort, without inducement, without direction, without artificial means. And in examining it, we said harmony.
To that Pupul says, we don't know what this harmony is but what we do know is disorder. So let us put aside everything else and consider disorder, not what silence is. Therefore, a mind that is disordered enquires after silence.
Silence then becomes the means of bringing about order, or escape from disorder. Silence then is imposed on disorder. As that gentleman said, impose it, or run away from disorder.
We stop all that and say, why is there disorder? Is it possible to end disorder? Right?
Oh lord. But, sir, disorder expresses itself as (inaudible) I don't know anything about it. I wouldn't say that.
I would say it is a matter of perception. If you - let's discuss it - if you... Is there any other way it expresses itself? What is disorder?
What is disorder in me? Disorder in me is that when thought arises then I want something... No, no, no, you are attributing a cause, you are looking for a cause. Give me two seconds.

K would consider... (Sound of siren) We had this last Monday. Sir, would you include the silence induced by nature to this list - drugs, breath. Which is all part of it.

External, motivated... That's it. I would consider all those are artificial enforcements in order to induce silence. That is, if you look at a mountain you get silence.

Ah, wait no. Wait, wait. When you look at a mountain what takes place?

By the greatness, by the beauty, by the grandeur of the mountain, that absorbs you and makes you silent. That is still artificial. But that is only nature.

These others... Like a child, given a good toy, is absorbed by the toy and for the time being, till it breaks down, he is very quiet. I would consider all those, any form of inducement to silence, to bring about silence, is artificial - for K. The question starts with a motive. I am saying the motive too, motive is artificial.

Bringing about silence is an accidental... I want to find out, sir, whether it is accidental or is there a natural way, without inducement, without motive, without direction, without etc., etc., etc. Sir, in looking at a mountain, though it is a non-duality experience, even then you say it is not silence.

I wouldn't call it silence. Because the thing is so great, for the time being that greatness knocks your... The absence of the 'me' is there, but the absence of the 'me' is not at the conscious level, but you say is it there.

It is there. How? Look, you see a marvellous picture, a marvellous sunset, an enormous chain of mountains, and it's like the toy with a child.

That greatness knocks out the 'me' for the moment and the mind becomes silent. This is... you experiment with it. Yes, sir, but you say that is not silence.

I wouldn't call that silence because the mountain, the sunset, the beauty of something takes for the moment - the 'me' is pushed aside. And the moment that's gone, I'm back to my chattering or whatever it is. So, at least I want to be clear that any artificial, with a motive, a directional, seems to K that it's a distortion which will not bring about the depth of silence - in which is included practices, disciplines, controls, identification with the greater and thereby making myself quiet, and so on and so on, so on.

Then I ask myself what is the necessity of silence? If it has no motive, would I ask that question? Sir, it is the state of mind that you describe.

I am not describing the mind. Not in the sense that it has no motive and... No, sir, no, no, no, sorry. I said, any inducement, in any form, subtle or obvious, I would consider doesn't bring about the depth of great silence.

I would consider it's all superficial. I may be wrong. We're enquiring.

That state of mind is already a silent mind. Maybe. I don't know.

So, what is the natural, healthy approach to tranquillity? Right? Right, Pupul?

What is the natural approach? But then approach is motivation. No.

What is the natural - I won't use that word, even - what is the natural way... natural state of tranquillity? How does one come upon it naturally? As (inaudible), as we have also said, if I want to listen to what you are saying, my mind must be quiet.

That's a natural thing. If I want to see something clearly, the mind mustn't be chattering. That's a natural thing.

No? What? Would you use the word 'natural', or 'obvious'?

Or, I would... It doesn't matter, two natural, obvious - we have used those two words before. Obvious.

We'll use those two words natural, obvious. Right? Then why do we make - silence is something tremendous.

In that is all poise, is all sanity. I see that. So I would say the basis for the depth of silence is poise, harmony, between the mind, the body and the heart - division for the moment - great harmony.

The setting aside any artificial methods, including control and all the rest of it. I would said that is the basis. The real basis is harmony.

It doesn't start from conflict and go... (inaudible) It doesn't solve anything. Wait, wait. We haven't solved anything.

(Inaudible) ...another word there... We haven't solved anything. ...You've put another 'harmony'. Yes.

Now, one would say how does this... I'll come to that. Therefore I say, this is the basis for silence.

For right silence. For right silence. This is the started conflict with any one of those other things which we described.

The right approach to silence. No, no, the whole thing is, I know conflict, I don't know... All right. Therefore don't talk about silence.

Deal with conflict, not silence. If there is disharmony between the mind, heart and body, deal with that - not with silence. If you deal with silence being disharmonious, then it is artificial.

This is so. Now I am getting at it. The agitated mind naturally thinks towards a state of non-tension.

So be concerned with the agitated mind, not with silence. Lead with 'what is', and not with 'what might be'. That comes logically, is right.

I'll stick to this. Are you asking whether the agitated mind can deal with its own agitation? That's a different question.

No. She is saying that the agitated mind naturally asks the question, can this subside? Yes, so be concerned not with silence but why is it agitated.

It conceives of the opposite state of mind. Ah, that is then an opposite, a conflict, and the opposite has its roots within its own opposite and so on. Yes, the concept itself is part of agitation.

Agitation. So I would say complete harmony is the foundation for the purity of silence. How does one move this... (inaudible) Let's go into that, not into silence.

We'll later on come to the question of the varieties of silences. So what is harmony? Right?

Go on, sirs. Harmony arises when conflict ends. I want to find out what is harmony - between the mind, the body and the heart, (inaudible) - total sense of being whole, without fragmentation, without the over-development of the intellect, but the intellect operating clearly, objectively, sanely, not that, and the heart not sentiment, gooey, emotionalism, outbreak of hysteria, but has a quality in it of affection, care, love, compassion, you know, vitality, and the body has its own intelligence and uninterfered by the intellect or by taste - all that.

The feeling everything is operating, functioning beautifully like marvellous machinery. Even though it's not physically well. This is important.

Yes, sir? Were you going to say something? No.

Now, is this possible? (Inaudible) There won't be a centre of it in it, in that harmony. In that harmony is there a centre?

I don't know. We're going to find out. Can the mind, the brain, function efficiently without any friction, distortion, and so the mind, the intellect, the capacity to reason, the capacity to perceive, sharp, clear.

And when the centre is there it's not possible, obviously, because then the centre is translating everything according to its limitation. Am I reducing everybody to silence? (Laughs) Why does this division arise between the mind, the... ...body.

Arise, because through our education, where emphasis is made on the cultivation of the intellect as memory and reason, as a function apart from living. That is the over-emphasis on the mind. Even without education, there can be an over-emphasis of emotions... Of course, that's what I'm saying.

Yes, so... The intellectual, man worships the intellect much more than the emotions. Doesn't he?

And emotion is translated into devotion, into sentimentality, into all kinds of extravagance of expansions of emotionalism, hysteria and so on, so on, so on. We have done this all along. No?

How does he start losing understanding? The accumulation of memory for technical or day-to-day purposes, with the accumulation in terms of emotional memories and incidences... Which is, that's fairly simple, sir.

Why does the brain, as the repository of memory, why does it give such importance to knowledge? Technological, psychological, in relationship - why has it given, why have human beings given such extraordinary importance to knowledge? I have an office, I've become an important bureaucrat, which is, I have knowledge about doing certain function, and I become pompous, stupid, dull - why?

Why do I give such importance to knowledge? Go on, sir. Is it the image, to affect all the influence of the mind... No.

That is very simple. Very security, obviously. Security, to make oneself important.

Obviously. Knowledge gives you status. Don't you know bureaucrats who are fairly high up, all they want is status.

But still it doesn't solve. No, he asked that question. So, I must come back.

Human beings have worshipped knowledge; knowledge is identified with the intellect. Right? The erudition, the scholar, the philosopher, the inventor, the scientist, are all concerned with knowledge.

No? And they have created in the world marvellous going to the moon, new guns, submarines, Polaris, thing that goes off from the - they have invented the most extraordinary things, and the admiration, the sense of the marvel of knowledge is overwhelming. And we say - we accept it.

So, we have developed an inordinate admiration, almost verging on worship, the intellect. All the sacred books and their interpretations, is all that. Correct me if I'm wrong.

And in contrast to that there is a reaction - say, for goodness sake, let's be a bit more emotional about all this, let me have my feelings, I love being stupid, I love - you know. No? Devotion, hysteria, sentimentality, extravagance in expression, you know, all that arises from this.

And the body is neglected. You see this. And therefore yoga and all that.

And practise yoga to get the body well, and so you have this division, takes place unnaturally. And now we have to bring about a natural harmony where the intellect functions like a marvellous watch, where the emotions and affections, care, love, compassion, all those are healthily, you know, functioning, and the body which has been so despoiled, which has been so misused, comes into its own intelligence. So there is that.

Now, how do you do it? I adore knowledge because I need it. Of course.

I made that very clear, sir. Don't let me repeat it all over again. I need knowledge, to talk to you in English I need knowledge of English.

I don't know any other language in India, so I have to use English; that's knowledge. I have to ride a bicycle; that's knowledge. I have to drive a car; that's knowledge.

I have to drive an engine, drive a motor; that's knowledge. There is a sick person. The doctor is there, and he... (inaudible) Yes, yes, yes.

That's still within the field of knowledge. But I am concerned with the problem because I have to solve it. I have to solve the problem of disease so I go to knowledge.

Yes, sir, I say that, sir. Knowledge is necessary. But when knowledge is misused by the centre as the 'me' who has got knowledge and therefore I am superior to the man who has less knowledge, I become... knowledge then I use as a status for I am more important than the poor chap who has no knowledge.

I am a bureaucrat, soaked in some stupidity and I... If I may say so, we started the discussion with silence, and the various ways in which we arrive at silence. Without dealing with the agitated mind, or the mind in conflict, he has pointed out that unless there is a harmony we cannot have the basis for even questioning or asking what is silence.

The next do you not make a distinction between knowledge and discovery of the new? History. Discovery.

Of course, sir. Knowledge... (Inaudible) Sir, sir, sir, when knowledge - sir, just listen, sir - when knowledge interferes in the discovery of the new, there is no discovery of the new. There must be an interval between knowledge and the new, otherwise you are just carrying on the old.

Exactly that. Rest aside the knowledge and make an experiment to see what happens. That's all that we are saying, sir.

So, I want to get back. There is this... Radhaji asked just now, why is there division between the mind, the heart and the body. We see that; why.

Now we say, how is this division to naturally come into deep harmony - naturally? Right? Now how do you do it?

Enforcement? You can't do it. Ideals?

Ideal of harmony, therefore I must lessen my intellect - you follow? - it becomes too silly. Right?

So what shall I do? Go on. Can I will it, or it has to come into being by itself?

What do you say? I think the latter. I can't will it.

So what will you do? Go into silence. Don't you know, sir - I mean, not you particularly - one is aware of this division, isn't one?

- intellect, emotion, and the body, there is this tremendous division between all of them. A gap. How do you... how is the mind to remove all these gaps and be a whole mechanism functioning beautifully?

What do the traditionalists say? Effort. About effort.

Only effort. Grit your teeth. Clench your teeth... ...and bite into it, is that it?

(Laughs) Sir, we're, I think, getting very clogged. No, I'm not sure. I'll tell you why, sir.

You have used the word 'harmony'. Use another word. That's just it.

We had silence and you said we can't... Ah, we won't touch it. We won't touch silence. Then we take the word 'harmony', we cannot touch the word 'harmony'.

Then what will you do? Then why pursue silence? So we come back to only one thing which we disharmony.

That's all. That's all I'm coming. There is this division.

Therefore I say, let's deal with disharmony and not with silence, so when there is the understanding of disharmony, from that may flow naturally silence. Here also there is a question, to know that you have ended disharmony totally. But we haven't come to that.

This morning I told somebody, there is a Latin saying, 'I know what is right, but I don't follow it'. Follow it. Yes.

(Inaudible) Yes, I know. Now, there is a mechanism which seems to deny your statement if you deal with disharmony, harmony is so. Don't bring in something from Latin.

Face the thing as is. Pupul says, we started out with silence and we said, look it's no good discussing silence until you find out if there is a natural way of coming to it. The artificial way is not - right?

- because, you know, we have been through that - therefore we said, what is the natural way? The natural way is to find out if there is harmony, but we do not know anything about harmony because we are in a state of disorder. So let's deal with disorder, not with harmony, not with silence.

With disorder. I came in, I wanted to say that according to our experience the disorder never yields. The disorder remains disorder.

We are going to find out, sir. Don't maintain it. No, I don't maintain it; that's my observation.

Yes. Your personal observation of yourself? My observation of myself.

I huff and puff and observe and observe and observe the disorder - and the disorder looks at me. I look at the disorder, disorder looks at me. Therefore there is a duality, a contradiction in your observation as the observer, and the observed - a division.

We can play with this endlessly. That's the nature of disorder. I am asking, sir - please follow what we have so far we started out with silence, what is the nature of silence; are there different varieties of silence, are there different approaches to silence.

Pupul also said, what is the beginning of silence, the approach to silence? We said, perhaps there may be a right way - 'right' in quotes. And we said, let's find out.

Any artificial means to bring about silence is not silence - any artificial means, we made that very clear, don't let's go back to that. If there is no artificial way then what is - is it possible to come upon silence naturally, without effort, without inducement, without direction, without artificial means. And in examining it, we said harmony.

To that Pupul says, we don't know what this harmony is but what we do know is disorder. So let us put aside everything else and consider disorder, not what silence is. Therefore, a mind that is disordered enquires after silence.

Silence then becomes the means of bringing about order, or escape from disorder. Silence then is imposed on disorder. As that gentleman said, impose it, or run away from disorder.

We stop all that and say, why is there disorder? Is it possible to end disorder? Right?

Oh lord. But, sir, disorder expresses itself as (inaudible) I don't know anything about it. I wouldn't say that.

I would say it is a matter of perception. If you - let's discuss it - if you... Is there any other way it expresses itself? What is disorder?

What is disorder in me? Disorder in me is that when thought arises then I want something... No, no, no, you are attributing a cause, you are looking for a cause. Give me two seconds.