Pupul Jayakar: 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.

Krishnamurti: Where shall we start this? You've asked so many things.

PJ: What is silence?

K: 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?

PJ: Yes.

K: 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?

PJ: Is there the one, or if all silences are of the same nature then there may be many approaches.

K: Yes, but I'm just asking what do we mean by 'right approach'?

PJ: That is what I mean by right, the one.

K: The only one.

PJ: The one, as against the hundred.

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

PJ: 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.

K: I would like to go into it.

PJ: That is what is generally understood. We can define silence as the absence of thought. Absence of thought.

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

PJ: How do you know it is true silence?

K: 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.

Questioner: You seem to be giving emphasis to the true approach rather than the nature of true silence. What is the distinction?

K: 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

Q: Natural.

K: 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?

PJ: 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.

Q: 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.

K: Let us go Yes.

Q: 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

K: Yes.

Q: 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

K: Suppose you don't know a thing what other people have said, why you should be silent. Would you ask the question?

PJ: Yes. Even at the level of the tranquilliser, you would ask the question.

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

PJ: Yes.

K: 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?

Q: There are many ways. Many ways of doing it.

K: 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.

PJ: Is it possible to bring about tranquillity to the mind without conflict.

K: Without discipline, without distortion, without - all those are exhausting processes.

Q: 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?

K: There, you are breathing, getting more oxygen into your system, and the oxygen naturally helps to be relaxed.

Q: So that is also a state of silence.

K: 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?

Q: 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

K: 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...

PJ: watching the breath.

K: Watching the breath, watching your toe, watching the light

Q: Repetition of mantras.

K: 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. K would consider... (Sound of siren)

We had this last Monday.

Q: Sir, would you include the silence induced by nature to this list – drugs, breath.

K: Which is all part of it.

Q: External, motivated

K: That's it. I would consider all those are artificial enforcements in order to induce silence.

PJ: That is, if you look at a mountain you get silence.

K: 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.

PJ: But that is only nature. These others

K: 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.

Q: The question starts with a motive.

K: I am saying the motive too, motive is artificial.

Q: Bringing about silence is an accidental...

K: 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.

Q: Sir, in looking at a mountain, though it is a non-duality experience, even then you say it is not silence.

K: I wouldn't call it silence. Because the thing is so great, for the time being that greatness knocks your...

Q: 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.

K: It is there.

Q: How?

K: 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.

Q: Yes, sir, but you say that is not silence.

K: 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?

Q: Sir, it is the state of mind that you describe.

K: I am not describing the mind.

Q: Not in the sense that it has no motive and...

K: 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.

Q: That state of mind is already a silent mind.

K: Maybe. I don't know. So, what is the natural, healthy approach to tranquillity? Right? Right, Pupul? What is the natural approach?

Q: But then approach is motivation.

K: 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?

Q: Would you use the word ‘natural’, or ‘obvious’?

K: Or, I would It doesn't matter, two words: natural, obvious - we have used those two words before. Obvious. We'll use those two words again: natural, obvious. Right? Then why do we make - silence is something tremendous.

PJ: In that is all poise, is all sanity. I see that.

K: 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.

Q: It doesn’t start from conflict and go (inaudible)

PJ: It doesn't solve anything.

K: Wait, wait. We haven't solved anything.

PJ: (Inaudible) another word there

K: We haven't solved anything.

PJ: You've put another word: 'harmony'.

K: Yes.

PJ: Now, one would say how does this

K: I'll come to that. Therefore I say, this is the basis for silence.

Q: For right silence.

K: For right silence.

Q: This is the started conflict with any one of those other things which we described. The right approach to silence.

PJ: No, no, the whole thing is, I know conflict, I don't know...

K: 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.

Q: The agitated mind naturally thinks towards a state of non-tension.

K: 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.

Q: Are you asking whether the agitated mind can deal with its own agitation?

K: That's a different question.

Q: No. She is saying that the agitated mind naturally asks the question, can this subside?

K: Yes, so be concerned not with silence but why is it agitated.

Q: It conceives of the opposite state of mind.

K: Ah, that is then an opposite, a conflict, and the opposite has its roots within its own opposite and so on.

Q: Yes, the concept itself is part of agitation.

K: Agitation. So I would say complete harmony is the foundation for the purity of silence.

PJ: How does one move this (inaudible)

K: 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.

PJ: Harmony arises when conflict ends.

K: 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?

Q: (Inaudible) There won’t be a centre of it in it, in that harmony.

K: 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)

Q: Why does this division arise between the mind, the

K: 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.

Q: That is the over-emphasis on the mind. Even without education, there can be an over-emphasis of emotions...

K: Of course, that's what I'm saying.

Q: Yes, so...

K: 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?

Q: 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

K: 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.

Q: Is it the image, to affect all the influence of the mind

K: No.

PJ: That is very simple.

K: Very simple: security, obviously.

PJ: Security, to make oneself important.

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

PJ: But still it doesn't solve.

K: 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 things: 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.

Q: And therefore yoga and all that.

K: 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?

Q: I adore knowledge because I need it.

K: 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.

Q: There is a sick person. The doctor is there, and he (inaudible)

K: Yes, yes, yes. That's still within the field of knowledge.

Q: 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.

K: 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 myself: I am more important than the poor chap who has no knowledge. I am a bureaucrat, soaked in some stupidity and I...

Q: 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.

Q: The next question: do you not make a distinction between knowledge and discovery of the new?

K: History.

Q: Discovery.

K: Of course, sir. Knowledge...

Q: (Inaudible)

K: 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.

Q: Exactly that. Rest aside the knowledge and make an experiment to see what happens.

K: 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.

Q: Can I will it, or it has to come into being by itself?

K: What do you say?

Q: I think the latter. I can’t will it.

K: So what will you do?

Q: Go into silence.

K: 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?

Q: Effort.

K: About effort.

Q: Only effort. Grit your teeth. Clench your teeth

K: and bite into it, is that it? (Laughs)

PJ: Sir, we're, I think, getting very clogged.

K: No, I'm not sure.

PJ: I'll tell you why, sir. You have used the word 'harmony'.

K: Use another word.

PJ: That's just it. We had silence and you said we can't

K: Ah, we won't touch it.

PJ: We won't touch silence. Then we take the word 'harmony', we cannot touch the word 'harmony'.

K: Then what will you do? Then why pursue silence?

PJ: So we come back to only one thing which we know: disharmony.

K: That's all. That's all I'm coming.

PJ: There is this division.

K: 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.

Q: Here also there is a question, sir: to know that you have ended disharmony totally.

Q: But we haven’t come to that.

Q: This morning I told somebody, there is a Latin saying, ‘I know what is right, but I don’t follow it’.

K: Follow it. Yes.

Q: (Inaudible)

K: Yes, I know.

Q: Now, there is a mechanism which seems to deny your statement if you deal with disharmony, harmony is so.

K: 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.

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

K: We are going to find out, sir. Don't maintain it.

Q: No, I don’t maintain it; that’s my observation.

K: Yes. Your personal observation of yourself?

Q: 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.

K: Therefore there is a duality, a contradiction in your observation as the observer, and the observed - a division. We can play with this endlessly.

Q: That’s the nature of disorder.

K: I am asking, sir - please follow what we have so far discussed: 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.

PJ: But, sir, disorder expresses itself as (inaudible)

K: I don't know anything about it. I wouldn't say that.

PJ: 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?

K: What is disorder? What is disorder in me?

PJ: Disorder in me is that when thought arises then I want something

K: No, no, no, you are attributing a cause, you are looking for a cause. Give me two seconds. You want to find out what is the cause of disorder. Right?

PJ: I don't.

K: No?

PJ: I don't. I observe the nature of disorder. I don't look for the cause, I don't know the cause, I can never know the cause.

K: You observe disorder. Right?

PJ: I observe disorder.

K: You observe disorder in oneself. One observes disorder in oneself. Right?

PJ: Yes. And I see that it is manifest as thought.

K: I don't know. I would like to go into that a little bit. I observe in myself disorder. I'd like to let's go into this very carefully because it's rather interesting. I observe myself in disorder. Why do I call what I observe as disorder?

Q: Disturbance is disorder.

K: I just want to go step - please I'm not trying to stop you, Sonaliji, I just want to find out. Why do I call it disorder? Which means I already have an inclination what order is.

PJ: Of course.

K: So, I am comparing what I have experienced, or known as order and thereby call 'what is' disorder. I don't do that.

PJ: No, sir

K: Please, half a minute, Pupul. I say no, don't do that, don't compare. Just see what disorder is. Can I know - please, wait - can I know, can the mind know disorder without comparing itself with order?

Q: In my personal opinion

K: Wait, sir, I haven't finished. Give me two seconds.

Q: Sorry, sorry.

K: So, can my mind not compare? Comparison may be disorder. Comparison itself may be the cause of disorder. Measurement may be disorder. And as long as I am comparing, there must be disorder. I am a bureaucrat and I am comparing myself to a higher bureaucrat, therefore that is disorder. I am comparing my disorder at the present moment with a whiff of order which I smelt, and comparing and therefore calling it disorder. So I see - I am just looking at it, be a little patient - so I see comparison is really important, not disorder. As long as my mind is comparing, measuring, there must be disorder. Right?

Q: But sir, without comparing I look at myself and I see there is disorder because every part of me is pulling in a different direction.

K: I've never felt I'm in disorder.

PJ: But we're not talking about K.

K: Wait, I know. (Laughter) I've never felt I'm in disorder. Except rarely, occasionally, when something Why? - I say to myself, why are all these people talking about disorder? Do they really know disorder? Or you only know it through comparison?

Q: I know that I put it crudely but it is exactly the fact with me. When I don’t get what I want, I call it disorder.

K: Darling, yes, sir. I don't call that disorder. That is - no, please, sir, don't - I mean I want a Rolls Royce, I want to go to the moon, I can't get it but I don't call that disorder.

Q: I call it very, very disorderly.

PJ: They are both conscious comparison. You bring in words which - forgive me - I find very difficult. There is no conscious comparison of the mind which says this is disorder and I want order.

K: No, I'm only asking how do you know disorder?

Q: Is it only a sense of uneasiness.

PJ: I see a sense of confusion. One thought against another thought.

Q: That is confusion.

PJ: It is confusion. You will say the word 'confusion' again is comparing.

K: No, contradiction.

PJ: I don't think about anything else but I know confusion.

K: We only know contradiction which is confusion. Stick to that. You say, my mind is in a state of confusion - because it is contradicting itself all the time.

PJ: Yes.

K: All right. Proceed from there.

Q: There is a real difficulty here. You see, when you say – you talked about silence, then harmony, then disorder. You are moving completely, moving away – this way. We are moving – you know? Otherwise why aren’t we with disorder? We leave a part in order.

PJ: No, I'm sorry, I'm not leaving a part in either harmony or silence. I say I observe my mind and I see disorder.

Q: Not only the mind but the disorder in the whole mechanism.

K: Yes, I overeat and then there is disorder.

Q: I see disorder in harmony – we are not talking of harmony but I see

K: You see disorder; what will you do? Then what? From there move.

PJ: Then I'm bound to ask. It is the nature of the mind to ask.

K: Ask.

PJ: I ask. There must be a way of finding a way out of this.

K: Yes. Then what?

PJ: And then I observe myself asking that question.

K: Yes.

PJ: And then that, for the time being, comes to an end. That 'me' comes to an end.

Q: (Inaudible)

PJ: The nature of the question needs answering. Look, sir, I am not talking - these steps we can discover, we needn't come to it by these steps.

K: No, don't do it.

PJ: But I thought it would be better to go step by step. Now I say there's an ending there. There may not be an ending. There is an ending there. I say there is an ending. To someone else there may not be an ending, but there is an ending. I say, what is the nature of this? Is this silence? Then I come back to my first question. Or is there an undercurrent still operating? You see, the (inaudible) of different qualities and natures and dimensions of silence. It means just this. The traditional outlook is the gap between two thoughts is silence.

K: That's not silence, silence between two noises is not silence.

PJ: That's what I've been coming to

K: Listen to that noise outside and there's a gap and you call that silence? I say that's nonsense. That's an absence of noise. Absence of noise is not silence.

PJ: We are coming now to some understanding of this. The ending of the perception of oneself in a state of disturbance.

K: Pupul, you are not being clear. Sorry.

PJ: The perceiving disturbance may end disturbance.

K: I'm questioning, when you say disorder, what I am questioning is I'm not at all sure that you know what disorder is. You call it tummy ache - wait, I over ate. Wait, please - that is disorder - right? - I overindulge in emotional nonsense - that is disorder.

PJ: I catch myself talking very loud. Disorder.

K: That is disorder. Now, so what? Disorder - what is disorder? No, no - how do you know it is disorder? Wait, Pupul, just listen. I overeat, I have a tummy ache - I don't call it disorder. I say, 'By Jove, I over ate, I mustn't eat so much'. Full stop.

PJ: As long as there is a dictionary meaning

Q: I know a state of normal health, therefore when we...

K: No, no. I don't go through all these processes. I overeat, I have pain, and I say to myself, 'By Jove, I must be careful next meal'.

PJ: We moved, Krishnaji, please, we have moved from silence, to harmony and we found that it was impossible to go into the nature of harmony without going into disorder.

K: That's all. That's all. Keep to those three points.

PJ: So we are going

K: Keep to those three points.

PJ: Why do you call it disorder?

Q: It’s not necessarily a recognition of disorder, because when there is a conflict between the body, the mind...

K: Therefore conflict you associate with disorder.

Q: No. The conflict makes one weary, as you say, and you instinctively feel there’s something wrong with it.

K: So, what you're saying is - if I understand rightly, please correct me - conflict indicates disorder. Right?

Q: Yes, conflict indicates disorder. Even the emergence of

Q: Even when you don’t name it there is conflict.

K: Conflict indicates disorder. Whether two thoughts, whether body - conflict. What have we been saying? What are we saying? Conflict is disorder.

Q: Indicates disorder.

K: Now conflict is disorder - not 'indicates'. You translate it as disorder.

Q: So you asked the question, is there disorder

PJ: I don't understand the difference between what you have said: you translate it as disorder, and it is disorder.

Q: And you said is there disorder at all.

PJ: No listen, Krishnaji says it is disorder now, and then he says, translates it as disorder. What is the difference?

K: All right. I'm only saying conflict indicates disorder. So, then what? From there, move. Move. You keep on going around in circles. Move.

PJ: I said, there must be a way of being free of this.

K: Of what?

PJ: Of conflict.

K: That's

Q: Disorder.

PJ: Of disorder

K: Yes, which is the same thing. So

PJ: One word or the other.

K: No, wait a minute. Silence, harmony, conflict. That's all. Not disorder. Conflict.

PJ: You can take - forgive me for saying so, Krishnaji - you can take the word 'disorder' and go through the same gymnastics with conflict, and come to the same (inaudible): how do I what do I do about conflict?

K: That's what I Wait. That's all we are concerned - please. Silence, harmony, conflict. Right? Now, how am I to deal with conflict non-artificially? Right?

Q: (Inaudible)

K: You know nothing, you are listening for the first time, therefore you have to go into it with me. Don't say, 'How do I know it for the first time?' - you don't know. Somebody comes along and says, 'Look, look at this marvellous machinery', - you look.

PJ: I see this much, that I can't think of silence or harmony when I am in conflict. That much is clear, sir.

K: So, is mind capable of freeing itself from conflict? That is the only thing you can ask. Right?

PJ: Can you ask that?

K: I am asking. Is the mind capable of freeing itself from every kind of conflict? What is wrong with that question?

Q: It is the mind again which is asking.

Q: (Inaudible)

PJ: It is exactly the same, the question can the mind be free of discovering. I don't see the difference between...

K: But I'm not going I am only saying - please, Pupulji - we have reduced it to conflict. Right? Now I say, look, stick to that one thing, don't let's go round and round and round. Stick to that one thing, conflict, and see if the mind can be free of it. And don't go around saying how - can the mind, knowing what conflict is and what conflict does, end conflict? Surely that's a legitimate question - no? No? Why are you silent?

Q: Because you assume that the mind can do it.

K: I don't

Q: Sir, can we, if we look into this question of conflict

K: Conflict is

Q: No, sir, I meant rather, look into the aspect of it which is comparison, because there is no conflict without comparison.

K: Conflict is contradiction, comparison, imitation, conformity, suppression, all that; put all that into that one word and accept the meaning of that word, as we defined it, and say, 'Can the mind be free of conflict?'

Go on.

Q: Of course it can be free, sir, it can be free of conflict, but the question which arises is what is the nature of that freedom from conflict?

K: How do you know before you are free? That becomes theoretical.

Q: No, sir, one has known (inaudible) free from conflict for the time-being, by going through the conflict there is an ending of that state of conflict, for a while at least.

K: Is there an ending completely of conflict?

Q: That’s the question which I ask. What is the nature of this ending and what do we mean by total

K: We are going to find out.

Q: I said some meetings ago there is no ending of conflict.

K: He says that

Q: The universe as we live in it...

K: Wait, sir, universe - don't include universe. In the universe there is apparently everything is moving in order.

Q: Who says that?

K: Hoyle. (Laughs) Astronomers. Expanding universe.

Q: I’m talking of the mental universe

K: Wait. Therefore don't use the word 'universe'. Let's stick to our minds which seem to be endlessly in conflict.

Q: That’s right.

K: That's all. Don't bring in universe.

Q: The universe in which I’m in.

K: Don't justify it, for god's sake. We are trying to get on with the stuff. Now, how is the mind to end conflict, naturally, because every other method, system, is a compulsive method, a directional method, a method of control, and therefore all that's out. Now, can the mind - yes - free itself from conflict. I say yes. Where are you at the end of it? I think mind can be completely, utterly be without conflict.

Q: Forever.

K: Don't use that word 'forever' because then you are introducing a word of time, and time is a factor of conflict.

PJ: I want to ask a very quick question. Can the mind be totally conflict?

K: I am telling you

PJ: No, sir, listen: can the mind be totally conflict?

K: Can the mind be in a state of total conflict?

PJ: Just be conflict?

K: Obviously. What are you trying to say? I don't quite understand.

PJ: You see, I feel myself totally helpless in this situation. The fact is there is conflict.

K: Yes.

PJ: And the fact is that any operation of the self on that

K: We have been through all that, don't bring in.

PJ: Seeing the nature of that, can the mind say, if it is conflict it is conflict?

K: I see what you are trying to say. Can the mind be aware of a state in which there is no conflict? Is that what you are trying to say?

Q: No.

Q: The other way.

K: Or

PJ: Be totally the fact.

K: Golly, you people are so quick. Or, the mind can only know conflict.

PJ: (Inaudible)

K: Right?

Q: Right.

K: Right. Do you know, is your mind totally aware of conflict? Or is just words?

PJ: You see...

K: Wait. Stick to one thing. Simple. Simple.

Q: (Inaudible)

K: I'm being simple. Is my mind totally aware that it is in conflict? Or is there a part of me a part of the mind that says, I am aware that I'm totally in conflict, or is there part of me watching conflict? Or is there part of me wishing to be free of conflict? Which means is there any fragment which says, 'I am not in conflict'? Or is there any fragment which separates itself from the totality of conflict? If there is a separate fragment, that's is all foolery, then that fragment says, 'I must act', 'I must do', 'I must suppress', 'I must go beyond'. So is the mind - please, this is a legitimate question, this - is the mind totally aware that there is only conflict? That is your question. Right?

Q: It would seem that the mind measures itself, as you say, and calls it conflict, but the true conflict is...

K: Yes, sir, that's what we are saying. Is your mind totally aware that there is nothing but conflict? Or is there a fragment which keeps away a little part and say, 'Yes I know I am aware I am conflict. But I am not in conflict, but I know'? So, is conflict a fragment, or total? I will keep to the same word, only put a different word for the time-being - is there total darkness or a slight light somewhere?

Q: If that light were not there can there be awareness?

K: I don't know anything about it - I'm asking you. I am asking you. Don't ask me that question. When there is a fragmentation of the mind, that very fragmentation is conflict.

PJ: Yes.

K: Therefore, the mind, is it ever aware - just listen - ever aware that it is total conflict? And Pupul says yes.

PJ: It can refuse You see, you are getting into words

K: No, no. I'm not trying to trip you.

PJ: I refuse to move away.

K: I have not moved away.

PJ: Therefore I don't know anything about total conflict.

K: Therefore you only know partial conflict.

PJ: Whether partial or...

K: No, that is important.

PJ: (Inaudible)

K: Why?

PJ: The fact is the conflict which is. And I say, can there be a refusal to move away?

K: I'm not moving away; I haven't moved away. I haven't really moved away from silence, harmony, or conflict.

PJ: (Inaudible)

K: I think it is an important question, because...

Q: The very awareness of the mind indicates that there is a fragment.

K: That's all. Therefore then you say partially I am in conflict, therefore you are never with conflict.

PJ: No, sir.

Q: A total conflict cannot know itself, unless there is something else to know it.

K: We're going to go into that, a little bit.

PJ: I am not making myself clear. I mean conflict is not (inaudible) When you say 'total', it fills the mind.

K: When the house is when the room is full of furniture - I am just taking forgive this wrong example, a better example you may think of - when the room is full of furniture there is no space to move. I would consider that utter confusion - you follow? - state of Wait, wait, I am just I am not finished. Is my mind so totally full of this confusion, so that it has no movement away from this?

PJ: Yes.

K: If it is so completely full of confusion, conflict and full of this furniture is in the room, then what takes place? That's what I want to get at, not a partial this and partial that and... When the steam is full it must do something - explode. And I do not think we look at this confusion so totally, this conflict so totally.

PJ: You see, there is a misunderstanding created when you say, you don't look, you don't see. I was very careful in those words.

K: Could I use a word: sorrow? May I? There is no moving away from sorrow. When you move away from sorrow then it is just, you know, escape from it, or suppressing - I won't even go into all that. Can one be full of sorrow - not 'can one' - is there such a thing as being full of sorrow? Is there such thing as being completely happy? When you are so aware that you are completely happy, it is no longer happy. In the same way when you are so completely full of this thing called confusion, sorrow, conflict, it is no longer there. It's only there when there is division. That's all.

Q: No, sir. Then it seems to be a hopeless problem because there is always this...

K: That's why, remain with the truth of the thing, not with the conclusion of the thing. The truth of the thing is, until the mind is complete with something it cannot but create conflict. If I love you and there is attachment in it, it is contradiction and therefore no love. So I say remain with the fact of that thing, don't introduce all the rest of it. If I know my mind is Is the mind totally full of this sorrow, this confusion, this conflict? I won't move away till that is so.

Q: Krishnaji, there is one peculiarity about your approach. When you draw a picture there is always a clear black outline of it, the colours don’t match. In reality there are no outlines, there are only colours merging into each other.

K: No, this to me is very clear. This to me is very clear.

Q: That very clarity is...

K: This to me is very clear. If there is If the heart is full of love, and there is no part of envy in it, the problem is finished. It is only when there is a part that is jealous then the whole problem arises.

PJ: When it is full of jealousy

K: Ah - therefore remain with it. Remain with that full of envy, be envious, you know, feel it.

PJ: Then its total nature undergoes

K: a tremendous change.

Q: No division.

PJ: No, in itself it undergoes

K: Of course, that's what I'm saying. It's when you say, 'I'm envious and I must not be', somewhere in the dark corner, the educational restraint, then something goes wrong. But to say, 'Yes, I am envious', and don't move from that. Moving is rationalising, suppress - all that. Just remain with that feeling.

Q: The rationalistic say ‘Without repentance, no salvation’.

K: I don't repent. I don't want to be saved.

Q: What is the difference between your being fully aware of the conflict and repenting the conflict?

K: Oh, oh, oh. Repentance means there is a repenter. There is an entity who repents, who regrets. I must stop.

Q: Being with jealousy, feeling it fully.

K: No, don't feel it. If you are jealous, don't You are just jealous.

Q: Then that is not perception.

K: That is perception.

Q: That can break down.

K: Oh, no, sir. That can break down only when you are trying to suppress it, go beyond it, rationalise it, and all the rest of it. But it's so simple.

Q: When you are in a mess are you not sorry for yourself?

K: Good god no. That is the after-thought: 'I wish I wasn't in a mess'. When you are in a mess, be in a mess, see it, don't move away from it.

Q: That is already after-thought. The very idea of not moving away is after-thought.

K: I'm saying that. You're repeating.

Q: Time is merciless.

K: This is merciless. All the rest is playing tricks. When there is sorrow, be completely with it.

Q: There is no time in the now. There is no time in the now. In the now there is not a moment...

K: I don't know what you are talking I'm talking about sorrow, not time. My son is dead, don't look at the beggar in there, I am full of sorrow. I don't have to invent sorrow, there it is, right in front of my nose. I'm in it. I won't move an inch from it.

Q: An action takes place, in that place?

K: Sir, action has taken When you are with something, action has taken place. I don't have to do something. A total action has taken place, which is the ending of that sorrow.

Q: How can we have tranquillity when the beggar is there

K: Sir, sir, sir

Q: Remove it. Feel sorrow and (inaudible)

Q: If you have not done anything about the beggar.

K: Tranquillity is the ending of sorrow.

Q: Is it the acceptance of sorrow?

K: No. It's the same then as the worshipping of sorrow.

Q: No, no, no.

K: Of course it is.

Q: If you accept sorrow as a...

K: Worshipping sorrow is also a form of accepting sorrow.

Q: Don’t place it in it. You have no business to use ‘worship’ in it. Acceptance is not worship.

K: Why should I accept it?

Q: I accept my crippled child without worshipping my crippled child.

K: No, why should I accept it? It is like that.

Q: I am here and sorrow is here. You have to live together.

K: Acceptance implies an accepter.

Q: Anything implies an operator. Anything implies an operator.

Q: Except sorrow. (Inaudible)

K: Be with violence.

Q: Will not there be a destruction with that violence?

K: No, that means you are moving away from the fact. Sir, when you are violent, be completely with it, which means, doing something violently is a moving away from violence. You've got it? Because you have moved away. Suppressing violence is also moving away, or trying to overcome violence, it is still moving away.

Q: (Inaudible)

K: No. The state of violence, you know it, you don't have to be.

Q: A distinction can be made, not be violent, but be with violence.

K: Yes. Live with it, be with it, not be violent. Of course, we are violent, we don't have to be with it. (Laughs)

0 0 votes
Article Rating
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments