BA71DSG - Can the past be wiped away through effort? home
Bangalore, India - 1 February 1971
Discussion with Small Group

Text-only version

0:00 This is a small group discussion with J. Krishnamurti in Bangalore, 1971.
0:08 Nulenur Shrinivas Murti May I introduce, sir?
0:11 Krishnamurti: Do what you like, sir.
0:11 NSM: All right. Because we are doing mostly as your children, you see, so we are not to all concerned about formalities. Swamiji represents almost a lifetime of deep study, scholarship, understanding, and living. He is a special Vedantin inasmuch as he has brought Vedanta out of the rut into which it had fallen – so much of accretion had come on it during the passage of time or passage through time. Many of us who were extremely sincere, who wanted to understand things, could have some light going through his books, listening to his talks and all that. 0:58 We read your books and heard your lectures also with the same type of seriousness, and we found a lot of common ground, quite a lot of identity in both. He has read some of your books, and he personally feels that your teachings cover only a part of Vedanta. In other words, Vedanta covers something more than that. He plans to write a book later bringing out clearly Vedanta and the teachings of persons like Vivekananda, Jnanatirtha, yourself, and what subtle differences or otherwise differences are there. We, who have been trying to read these things, find, in him as well as you, two great personalities or, let me put, impersonalities, who have been representing wisdom as it is – himself, ancient wisdom, yourself, new discovery and teaching. 2:00 So we feel a meeting together of these two minds will be of great benefit to all, especially to the people of this country who are traditional in a way, yet who through tradition are able to get out of tradition because there, this wisdom is there. As an example, if I may put, after hundred years your books may be interpreted by people or may be read by people, and then another man may come and say, throw away all the books including Krishnamurti’s books.
2:33 K: Quite right.
2:33 NSM: But when we read your books it is a beam of light for us through which we can see things more clearly.
2:40 K: I understand, sir.
2:40 NSM: Similarly, the Swamiji has helped present Vedanta clearly 2:44 and it has been a beam of light to us and we find quite a lot of identity. I think, very sincerely I feel, a close discussion may be of great benefit.
2:54 K: So...
2:58 NSM: Swamiji is a little bit hard of hearing. I don’t know what can be done for that. Shall I put a chair here, please, for that?
3:06 K: I can talk loud, sir. I can talk loud. Participant: Shall I put a chair here, sir?
3:10 K: No, no, this is all right. Swamiji: Krishnaji, I am old, I am hard of hearing.
3:17 P: Swami, turn the chair a little bit.
3:20 SW: No, no, that is nothing.
3:23 K: You don’t have to turn, sir. That’s all right. There, there. Sit down, sir, it will be all right.
3:35 NSM: You can speak in English. Can we please make it as informal as possible? Due to old age he is slightly nervous.
3:44 K: Yes, sir, I understand.
3:44 NSM: He is ninety-three.
3:47 SW: Just as I have assumption of an old man, world famous, as he shall explain it.
3:55 K: So what shall we discuss, sir? How do we...
3:59 NSM: This, you handle.
3:59 K: No, I couldn’t handle.
4:03 Sunanda Patwardhan: Ask him.
4:13 NSM: Yesterday in your talk there was a reference to Maya. One would feel that the speaker did not have a perfect understanding of the phenomenon represented by the word ‘maya’. The word ‘maya’ has been misused by many people especially the foreign writers, English writers. It is something else. Probably we can start it as a point.
4:38 SW: Beg your pardon?
4:38 NSM: The word ‘maya’...
4:41 K: Start something else, sir, it’s not because... it’s something else, because...
4:50 NSM: You can present the salient points of Shankara.
4:53 SW: Oh, no, no, I have not come here... I would rather listen to him say something and be glad to learn. I’ll not complain to hear his discourse.
5:14 K: How shall we attack this?
5:26 P: No, Swamiji, let it be more clearer how people have misinterpreted the word ‘maya’.
5:33 NSM: We won’t make it formal. Let it be informal that’s the best thing. Let two hearts meet and talk.
5:40 SP: You don’t think, I mean that’s different. We’ll have to take an issue and discuss it.
5:48 K: Sir, would you ask him, sir, suppose if there were no books, books written by Shankara, or the tradition, how would a man begin? Not knowing, not knowing what other people have said about enlightenment, about right way of thinking – nothing. I know I haven’t personally read a thing about all this. Now, how would a man, if there was no book at all, no tradition at all in the sense, in the accepted word, in the sense of that meaning, how would you, what would they do? You understand, sir, my question?
6:40 NSM: Quite, quite.
6:40 K: Now, put it. See what happens.
6:40 NSM: Now, Krishnaji asks, had there been no tradition and had there been no books...
6:47 K: At all.
6:47 NSM: At all, how would a man begin?
6:50 SW: What is that? If there were no tradition...
6:56 NSM: No books at all.
6:59 SW: Books...
6:59 NSM: No books.
6:59 SW: Doesn’t matter.
6:59 NSM: How would a man begin? How can a man come by – shall I use the word ‘enlightenment’?
7:06 K: Any word, yes, enlightenment, understanding.
7:10 SP: Use any word.
7:12 NSM: How would a man begin? How would a man have enlightenment?
7:15 SW: Enlightenment?
7:18 P: Yes.
7:18 K: Enlightenment.
7:18 SW: Enlightenment does not belong to any book.
7:18 K: No.
7:21 SP: How does a person...
7:26 SW: The man himself, that is all.
7:26 NSM: How would a man begin?
7:26 SW: Begin to do what? Beginning what? Begin to live? Begin to listen or to talk or what? Begin to do what?
7:33 NSM: For example...
7:36 SW: How would a man begin to do what?
7:40 K: Quite right. Begin to live. Begin to...
7:45 SW: There are no books now, I suppose, and how would a man begin, what should he begin?
7:51 SP: What should he begin with?
7:57 SW: Is it to talk, or to know, teach, or what?
8:04 K: What would he do in life, seeing what life is – misery, conflict and all the rest of it, along what lines... Wait, sir, suppose I am in sorrow, my life is in sorrow, I know nothing about any books, no tradition, no Shankara, nothing. Now, I want to be free of that sorrow. How do I begin?
8:40 NSM: I am in sorrow.
8:44 K: A man.
8:44 NSM: A man is in sorrow. He does not know Shankara, he does not know shastras, nothing. How would he be free of the sorrow?
8:57 SW: Perhaps, if he were able to do it, he would concentrate in himself and think over the matter, come to a conclusion, if he is prepared. That is if he has got sufficient samskaram in his mind.
9:12 SP: If he has sufficient samskara, he will come upon it.
9:15 K: Samskara being?
9:18 SP: Previous evolution, enough point of maturity.
9:22 K: You see. So you are leaving, you are depending on the past for his conduct, is that it?
9:43 NSM: A bit more, sir?
9:43 K: I mean, you are depending on the past for understanding.
9:49 NSM: So one has to depend upon his past, his past samskaras – past.
9:55 SW: That is all.
9:58 NSM: For his understanding.
9:58 SW: Yes, that is all. Because man, you can’t say he suddenly has to come down from elsewhere, he is already the result of his past, isn’t it? He has not to depend but he is in fact dependent on the past. Man already means, man as such, we already take him to be the result of all the past.
10:22 SP: Yes.
10:25 SW: And therefore he has to depend, what is there? Otherwise what would be understanding of man? And you say man already he has got a body, the mind and already his intellect and all that, otherwise he could not be a man. And therefore that is already a stage of evolution which he has reached. And therefore he must depend upon his past.
10:44 SP: He has to depend upon the stage of evolution.
10:47 Achyut Patwardhan: Doesn’t that deny freedom? Doesn’t that deny freedom altogether?
10:53 K: Come over here, sir.
10:57 SP: Come, Achyutji.
11:01 AP: That would deny freedom, I think, completely then.
11:05 NSM: Then if a man has to depend upon his past completely, does it mean that freedom is denied?
11:12 SW: Not he has, he is.
11:12 NSM: He is the...
11:15 SW: He is a creature that depends on his past. Man already, the word ‘man’ itself...
11:22 NSM: Does it mean that he is the result of the past?
11:25 SW: No, no, it presupposes the effect of the past. Isn’t it? The evolution of man already we suppose he is a man at a particular stage of an animal developing into a man. Therefore he has to depend. That is all.
11:40 K: I wonder how...
11:40 SW: Not that he has to depend but that’s his nature, the very nature.
11:52 NSM: Does that mean there is no freedom?
11:55 SW: Where is freedom? No question of freedom or destiny here at all. No question. We are only talking of man, animals and all that. Suppose there is a man who has already dropped into the world, a man with all the faculties and already the body and all the other organs. Given that, you have asked me – he has got sorrow – how has he to come over it? Isn’t it? Therefore you have already supposed. You have not supposed it, the question itself presupposes it. Man is in a state of evolution in a particular stage. Man means already he is – as if man were neutral and then today he has to depend on past or future, that question would be out of place. We cannot ask that question at all.
12:44 AP: Sir, the question of time is involved in this. The question of time is involved in this. Does that mean...
12:56 NSM: Please come closer.
12:56 AP: You repeat, if you like. You repeat: is man a slave of time, or is there such a thing as a timeless process which will break this chain at any time?
13:10 NSM: That means man...
13:13 K: Is slave to time.
13:13 NSM:...is time bound. A slave of time.
13:17 SW: Yes, it seems to me. The word ‘man’ presupposes that.
13:24 AP: You ask him to answer again. He should answer again. No, no, I want him to say, is the human race, is any human being, completely a slave of time, or is time only something which exists with ignorance and can break at any time?
13:56 NSM: Long question means it will be difficult for him to... Does it mean that the whole human race...
14:04 K: Man.
14:04 NSM:...man is a slave of time?
14:08 SW: Whether he is a slave or master, it’s a different question because when he does become things, he may be a master if he likes, or he may be a slave, it is left to him. But man as such is endowed with so many faculties and all that we have proposed. The word ‘man’, that is all. The question involves that, it is not I. The word ‘man’ when you say animals, men and all that, do you think so many people were dropped down from the sky, one man was dropped here and another animal was dropped there and a fish was there and all that. We can’t understand like that in the ordinary way of thinking.
14:51 AP: Is the factor of avidya entirely at the mercy of time or is avidya something which can be cut at any time? Which is it?
15:03 SW: The word ‘man’ requires, demands clarification. Man as a body, or man as endowed with faculties, or man as a conscious being, so many things, and then when we say man in the ordinary sense, we know a man means a biped, as somebody said, and he has got so many faculties and all that. All that is presupposed in the word man in the ordinary way of thinking.
15:32 NSM: You said man is the result of samskaras. Samskara means past samskaras. Samskara means accumulated samskaras. That means there is a time process in it.
15:50 SW: Certainly, when you have placed man at a particular point of time, have you not? Man has come, man has appeared, you say. Otherwise, where would be a man at all?
16:02 NSM: That’s right. So the word ‘man’...
16:04 SW:...requires clarification, I told you. Man as such, what is man? What do we understand by the word ‘man’? Then we will understand and we will be able to see whether he is a creature of time or he is a master of time and all that. It is a complex idea.
16:23 AP: You just ask him this question: Is time independent of the human mind or is time a part of the creation of the human mind? Because it is the creation of the human mind...
16:33 NSM: I request one thing. You see, both of them discussing will be the best. We shall be spectators.
16:39 K: Come in here, sir. Come in, come in. No, you see, I don’t know how to tackle this.
16:44 AP: This one question, you ask him.
16:47 K: Come nearer, sir.
16:47 AP: I’ll come. I’ll ask this one question. One question I want to ask.
16:54 SW: Yes, tell me. What is it?
16:54 AP: Is time...
16:54 K: Make it short.
16:58 AP: Is time... You repeat.
17:00 NSM: No, I shall tell him afterwards.
17:03 SW: He will repeat it.
17:06 AP: Is time a part of the human mind?
17:09 SW: What?
17:12 NSM: Is time a part of the human mind or is time independent of human mind?
17:16 SW: Now without committing ourselves to any particular theory, we have first introduced the word ‘man’. And then he says, is time physically existent by itself or is this only...? That means now we are launching into another question of idealism and realism.
17:35 K: I don’t think he’s understood it.
17:38 SW: Is time only subjective or is only objective? That question means that, isn’t it? So there’s a lot of controversy, even philosophers and all that. Well, do you want me to commit to any particular theory?
17:49 AP: No, no, no theory, I am not asking about theory, sir.
17:52 SW: I beg your pardon.
17:52 AP: I’m not asking any theory. I am saying...
17:58 SW: Your question was: is time a part of man’s mind?
18:02 P: No.
18:06 SW: A part or portion of mind. Isn’t it?
18:06 AP: No. Is man a creature of time or the creator of time?
18:11 NSM: Is man a creature of time or the creator of time?
18:16 SW: It is all one. For me, you’ve put in a longer way, a better expression, that is all, if it is explanation. What was unknown, what was folded, it is unfolded now, that is all. What is man then? I want to understand as you understand. Since the man is the subject of discussion we must know what you understand by the word ‘man’. Then it will be ready to attend, to understand, to see whether he is a creature of time or time is, well, a creation of man’s mind and all that. Man is the subject, about him we had better be giving some predicates.
18:58 NSM: No, you have used the word ‘man’...
19:01 K: Sir.
19:03 NSM:...should we not understand man before jumping into other things? That is what he is asking.
19:03 K: No.
19:03 SP: That’s not what Krishnaji’s asking.
19:06 AP: I am not jumping into anything.
19:09 K: Just a human being who is the result of samskaras, can he break the past at any time or must it break from him completely?
19:21 NSM: Should he go through a process or can he break it at once.
19:25 K: At once.
19:25 NSM: Human being, a human being who is the result of samskaras, can he break the samskaras at once, at one moment, or does he have to go through a process of time?
19:36 SW: Either process is possible according to the capacity of the man. That is all. Either is possible. He can do it now and here, or he may take even a number...
19:46 K: On what does that depend?
19:50 SW:...of births even, if there are births.
19:53 NSM: What does...
19:53 K: The breaking depend.
19:53 NSM: This breaking depend upon?
19:56 K: Yes, that’s right.
20:00 SP: That’s right.
20:00 NSM: What is the factor upon which the breaking of the samskaras depend?
20:04 SW: Now you are launching into another discussion.
20:11 NSM: No, it is not another discussion. Same.
20:15 SW: No, no, no. It looks like that. But still we are, when you ask now, ‘How is a man to break all his samskaras? ’ is the question. Now we have made samskaras independent of man, entity, an independent entity altogether.
20:31 NSM: No, no that is not the understanding.
20:35 SW: I’ll answer you. ‘How can I handle this machine’, if you ask this question, this machine is different from me, and I can do it or undo it as I please since it is different. How can I undo myself? Suppose I ask that question, that would be out of place.
20:48 K: No, no.
20:48 SW: The question would not arise at all. If we understand by your ‘man’, all the samskaras put together is also a man. If samskaras are also part and parcel of man, the question would be different. And if samskaras are only external, only apparently different, then it would be a different question. Whether they are there or other than, or what.
21:14 NSM: The first, first.
21:14 SP: The first.
21:14 SW: The first alternative. Ah, that is good.
21:18 NSM: Samskaras are man.
21:23 SW: Samskaras are man. Well, now, some suggestion, it is called, from beginning would come – sometimes they say that does not bear scrutiny or explanation. Just as I awake from a sleep. When suppose a question is asked now – how can I make up my mind to awake from my sleep? Suppose the question was asked. A process...
21:47 K: It is not...
21:51 SW: There is only a process known only to man. He knows that he was asleep and he has come out of a sleep. Does he make any effort to go out of his sleep? That question, man as such...
22:01 K: He hasn’t got it.
22:05 SW: He has gone to sleep now. All the functions are stilled.
22:09 K: Sir!
22:09 SW: No, no particular function is active in sleep, deep sleep I mean. Not dream even, deep sleep. Now he awakes suddenly. He only knows that he did not know anything but he has arisen. Now, if a question is asked, ‘How did sleep evolve into waking?’, I think nobody can answer that question. We know that we do get out of it. That’s all. Logical questions can come only in waking.
22:39 K: You see, he’s...
22:39 SW: How can I handle this? How can I separate this, 22:43 all this or conquer this or that and all that? Because there are things to be conquered and there are things to conquer. But in sleep we are all together, every distinction is obliterated. We do know as a matter of fact that a man gets out of his sleep.
23:01 P: He is answering it the way, the traditional way.
23:05 SP: The traditional way.
23:08 P: In which a man in ignorance is supposed to be asleep. So enlightenment is the true awakening. So you can’t give an answer just as the man wakes up.
23:18 SW: Narayana, Narayana...
23:18 K: No, no. My question is not that at all. My question is, I am the result of my samskaras. Now, I realise that, not sleep or wake, I realise it as I walk around the street. Now, must the samskaras go on till the end?
23:38 P: Time-bound.
23:43 K: Time-bound, or can they be broken at any time? And if it is to be broken, on what does it depend?
23:49 P: Shrini, you ask him again. He seems to answer the same way – sleeping and waking up.
23:52 NSM: I understand that I am the result of samskaras.
23:56 SW: Yes.
24:00 NSM: And after this understanding, do I have to go through the same samskaras for a long time, or can I break it immediately?
24:07 SW: He can do either.
24:07 SP: How? On what does it depend?
24:07 SW: No question of how. Through efforts.
24:15 SP: Why no question?
24:15 SW: I beg your pardon. I will tell you what I mean. You see here, we are all sitting down here, a question is asked now. One says, ‘So much I can understand’, this man says. The other man says, ‘How is it? ’ The question: how can it happen? Now, if there are two persons here, one man asks me, he says, ‘Now I am able to understand what you say. Quite right’, he says. The second man only says, ‘Wait a bit, I have got a doubt here’. Why should there be a difference at all?
24:45 K: No, sir. I have no doubt, look.
24:48 SW: He asked me how this is possible and how that is not possible. It depends upon...
24:54 NSM: Not that, not that. What is the factor that is instrumental in the breaking of samskaras? Am I right?
25:01 SW: All right. Now, samskaras are broken suddenly or the samskaras are such that they are broken suddenly once, and samskaras are such that they want time and effort. It is only a question of samskara. Now, it seems to me you’ve asked me not to quote from any book of Shankara or anybody. No, no, no, that is why I did not say it.
25:29 NSM: No, no. You are free to quote.
25:29 SW: Not that. Only to illustrate. I do quote but not as authority. That is all.
25:35 K: As you like.
25:38 SW: Virat Purusha, one, suddenly he was afraid and in the next moment he said, ‘Why should I be afraid because there is nobody else’. This is... In the Brahadaranyaka Upanishad it is stated. Virat Purusha the moment he appeared on the scene, first he was afraid. Then he reflected, and he said, ‘Why should I be afraid? There is no second at all. Why should I be afraid of second? It is only from the second that you have are afraid. ‘There is no second at all’, he said. Now first moment he was afraid, the next moment he reflected and got over it. Nobody came to teach him or no authority was quoted, 26:20 neither Shankara nor the Upanishads were born. The Upanishad simply states a fact. That simply means that samskaras are such, just as I quoted to give another illustration the state of deep sleep – from deep sleep suddenly a man wakens, and then he says, he becomes aware. While during sleep he is not aware of an iota, nothing, anything else. When a question is asked, ‘How does a man wake from sleep? ’ he does wake, that is all that he can understand. The samskaras, the explanations do not come in, that is all I say.
26:58 NSM: Then, can I put a question?
27:01 SW: Oh, yes!
27:01 NSM: Then if that be the case, as a man waking from sleep, a man is in deep sleep, he wakes, I go and ask him, ‘How did you wake up?’ He says, ‘I do not know. I have woken up, only this much I know’.
27:14 SW: That is all. But he does.
27:14 NSM: Then the teachings have no place at all in a man’s life.
27:18 SW: Oh, that is not it. That is not it. That does not follow necessarily because I say samskaras differ whether one man may require teaching, another man may not take the teaching, because samskaras differ. That does not mean everybody is already complete with so many samskaras and at the next moment he rises as from sleep. No, that is not possible.
27:45 NSM: So, is it a quality of the samskaras? Is it a quality of the samskaras?
27:48 SW: The nature, the nature, the degree, intensity, how good samskara.
27:55 K: What is it? I haven’t understood.
27:55 P: He says the same thing that...
27:59 K: There is no reason.
28:02 P: Traditional explanation. There is no reason.
28:02 K: You suddenly wake up.
28:02 P: Man in ignorance in samskaras is like a man in sleep.
28:06 K: I understand. And you suddenly wake up.
28:08 P: He wakes up and you can’t ask a man what made him wake up.
28:08 SW: There are certain facts in nature, isn’t it?
28:11 K: Wait, wait.
28:15 SP: And also that it depends upon the type of samskaras. A particular quality of samskara instantly gets it. There are samskaras which need time and effort.
28:23 K: So, that’s...
28:23 SP: Both these things are there.
28:27 SW: There are certain facts in nature which are such...
28:30 K: I see what that means.
28:33 SW:...that you would not require any explanation at all. And there are other complicated factors that do require an explanation.
28:40 K: That is, sir, that is, he’s saying, a man who is conditioned, which is samskaras, the weight of the samskaras or the lightness... the...
28:52 NSM: Lightness.
28:55 K: The heavy samskara will take time to dissolve and the man who is, holds it lightly can drop it at any time.
29:05 P: It seems quite safe, anyway you can ask him.
29:08 NSM: So can we infer from your statement that one with heavy samskaras will take a long time and one whose samskaras are light...?
29:18 SW: I don’t know whether we measure the things with a thermometer.
29:24 K: No, there is no measurement but...
29:28 SW: That is all. We can only say the nature of samskara is such, as the Gita says, ‘Anake janma samsiddhah...’ What is that? Suddenly a man comes after a number of births. But still the man, as the Upanishad says, ‘It was Brahman itself knew itself as such, at once it became’. So if we compare these two statements – one statement says, ‘Anake janma samsiddhah...’ he realised that there was a thing. But the sruti says – ‘Suddenly Brahman... he knew Brahman and he became all’. And therefore it depends upon the nature. I don’t know how to define that nature. Is it the intensity or the weight or the depth and all that. 30:32 You know, I have seen people at the railway station, so many people going asleep, a number of people. The policeman comes, suddenly he says, ‘The train is coming’, he asks him to get up. Suddenly he says and then he goes to sleep, that man he is in deep slumber, he cannot be awaked. But there is another man, without being asked to get up, the moment at the slight somebody provocation at once wakes up. We have seen such people on the railway platform. Why did this man wake up first moment, why that requires. Even some complaint, the policeman have to kick him off from the platform.
31:13 P: If that depends on the nature of the samskaras, what is the place of effort and what is the place of teachings?
31:22 NSM: If that completely depends upon the nature of samskaras...
31:25 SW: No, no, that is not it. You must understand me there. From the very beginning you are asking me, is man a creature of samskaras? That question cannot be asked.
31:37 K: I wouldn’t ask that way.
31:37 SW: That question again cannot arise.
31:40 K: No, of course not. No, quite right, sir. Quite right.
31:43 SW: It is not so bad.
31:46 NSM: So it is not completely the result of samskaras.
31:49 SW: Certainly not. It is samskara. He can break it, one man, and another man, cannot break it, he takes time. That is all. Facts are such. If you put children into school, some boy comes first and after five years he comes last. What can we say? The teacher teaches, the boy takes down notes. The boys do exercises, all that, but still we see different results in the case of boys. The teacher cannot be blamed for that.
32:23 NSM: What is the place of teachings or books...?
32:30 SW: Suggesting reality, truth. Suggesting. What is already, is suggested of the Shastras. The shastras suggest what is there. That is the place of teaching. Acharya, both teacher and as well as shastra. Both the books and the acharya are meant for only to address what there is. One man knows and he suggests the truth to the other. According to the capacity, each will grasp the truth. That is the end of the matter.
33:20 SP: What does it come to, sir?
33:24 K: That’s what I’m wondering.
33:29 AP: Would you say that that point of time must be examined?
33:35 K: Apparently it doesn’t, you see. Then is it a mere question of chance? Just a minute, sir, just a minute, sir. I am asking. Let’s see, before you ask him. I am conditioned, I have got heavy samskaras, and I go through life suffering, adding more, or taking away a little of my samskaras – right? – and all this involves a long process of many lives, doesn’t it? Having accumulated samskaras, I must go on till the end. Right? 34:43 Or, this whole idea of samskara may be totally wrong. Wait, I’m just inquiring, sir. I am not... Don’t translate it yet to him. Because we have an idea that I am the result of the past. That’s simple. Right? Now, can the past be wiped away totally through effort, through teachings? Or, it doesn’t depend on teachings, on effort at all, but on a totally different factor. You understand, sir, my question?
35:34 NSM: Yes, sir.
35:41 K: I am the result of the samskaras. That’s a fact. That’s all. It looks like it. I won’t say it’s a fact, it looks like it. And I go on blindly till something happens, I wake up. But I am asking, to wipe out these samskaras, on what does it depend? On my effort or on chance, by some sudden miracle, I break away. You understand, sir?
36:25 P: Quite, quite.
36:25 NSM: I am the result of samskaras and I go on. Suddenly...
36:35 K: I go on. Can these samskaras be broken through effort?
36:40 NSM: Can the samskaras be broken through effort?
36:43 SW: Certainly. Otherwise what would be...
36:46 K: Wait, wait. Through will...
36:50 SW: Some do not do it, some are able to do it, even at once.
36:55 K: On what does that factor depend, the ‘at once’?
36:58 NSM: This ‘at once’, breaking at once...
37:01 SW: Yes.
37:04 NSM: On what does that depend?
37:04 SW: Yes, that is why I gave you as an illustration that of sleeping. Once again, see, we do not know, they’re inexplicable. They do happen.
37:10 K: Ah.
37:13 SW: Certain meteor-like, such great persons come, they do break and they show themselves to the world. That is all.
37:23 SP: Great persons come.
37:23 SW: It is not empirically explainable. Such things happen, you know.
37:29 K: So the average... the human... the ordinary man can never come out of this misery.
37:36 NSM: Then the ordinary man can never come out of this misery.
37:40 SW: Not misery. Who has taken man out to be a bundle of miseries? There may be pleasures, sorrows, everything. He is a bundle of all these feelings.
37:52 K: No, no, no.
37:55 SW: Well, if you call the whole thing a misery, you are great.
37:55 SW: A man is a bundle of miseries. That’s all. He is not always miserable.
38:02 K: It’s not the whole thing.
38:02 SW: Man is not a miserable creature.
38:02 K: He is a mixture of everything.
38:06 NSM: He is a mixture of everything.
38:09 SW: Yes, he is a mixture. And he can come out of that, he can make master of the situation also. It only depends upon himself.
38:21 K: And now when he depends upon himself, what is the factor that makes him depend on himself and therefore doesn’t depend on the teachers, books, etc.?
38:35 NSM: When he is a master of himself, what is the factor...
38:41 K: That makes him depend on himself?
38:45 NSM: That makes him depend upon himself and not upon teachers or books or effort?
38:49 SW: Well, books and the shastras are not so inimical as that. He may or may not depend. It all depends on his samskaras as I say. One man requires some suggestion, teaching and all that, another man does not. That is all. Now we are almost arguing in a vicious circle.
39:14 NSM: No. You see, it is not argument. It is only coming closer.
39:20 SW: What I say is how, I will tell you what I mean, not the actual actions. You observe facts and come to certain conclusions. We have taken the word ‘man’ as if he was dropped in time. He has got a past, the present and the future. The man is the result of his past and he may become the master of his future, if he likes. Now, this is the position, assumption as it were.
39:44 NSM: Assumption?
39:48 SW: Assumption, yes. We have taken ‘man’ as such. Man means a creature who has evolved into the cave at a particular time. He is now the result of all that. Now, instead of assuming that there is a time process and there is a creature who is endowed by certain faculties which may or may not enable him to overcome nature and all that, if instead of that, well, perhaps you would call it metaphysical. Suppose someone asked me, ‘How will I know that time itself is a factor? How do I know I am full of samskaras? 40:26 How do I know that I am the result of the past? Past, present and future, are they really real?’ Such questions may occur to one man. Because there are number of creatures and a number of ways people are putting it. Isn’t it? It all depends upon the quality, the nature of his bent of mind and inclination and way of thinking for himself. Then, therefore, suppose such a question is asked, now all these questions become out of place altogether. Because we have assumed that man is the result of samskaras. Again we say, he is the man of samskaras and therefore how he is to break. How do we know that he is the result of samskaras are really real? 41:08 Certain factors seemed to be so very real. Well, a nightmare, we have dreams, we have got so many things, we think it is so very difficult to get over those things, isn’t it? But still when we awake, nothing of the kind is it. Therefore, even not being afraid of a question like that, a man may put that question, is there to put that question: is there such a thing as time at all?
41:39 K: I don’t put it.
41:42 SW: Or is a man after all a creature of his impressions and all that? When we have assumed that, the question arises: how does he get out of that difficulty? But if the question is put that way, it becomes metaphysical, and then he will have to examine facts and see whether at all man is a creature of past, whether he is a man of his impressions and all that.
42:07 K: Sir.
42:14 SW: That question will be a different question.
42:14 K: Sir. I am born. I am born in Italy in the culture of Catholicism – you understand? – in the culture of Catholicism. And I realise that’s a very small world. And I know I am conditioned by the Catholic church. That’s all I know. That’s a fact. I know nothing else. Right?
42:57 SW: We are launching into, they are requesting for me to go into metaphysical questions.
43:00 K: No, sir. No, no.
43:03 SW: There will be too many abstruse questions.
43:09 K: I am not metaphysical. I am not metaphysical, sir. Just tell him.
43:12 NSM: He is not metaphysical, and there is no metaphysical question as such.
43:19 SW: No, no, no. When we ask, ‘Is man a creature of time?’, it becomes metaphysical because we will have to define the terms ‘man’, ‘samskaras’, ‘time’ and all that. That is why, the word ‘metaphysical’ is not opprobrium, I am not afraid of being metaphysical even if necessary, but what you want is, when we want to decide we have to define our terms and then understand. I am in time is the question, or time is pushing on independently, I am in it, that’s a different question. Is time as such real at all? That’s a another question. Questions will be put in from different angles and they will have to answer from different angles. 44:09 It is not at all a sin to be metaphysical, only provided you are true to nature, facts, so long as you stick to facts. If supposing we do transcend physical matters and become metaphysical, where is the harm? It is the man himself that reasons about those things. Only, provided there must be facts. He must not merely imagine. Even that man is in time. Even that man has samskaras, given that he has got a faculty for trying to overcome it. We have been discussing that question from that standpoint. So many things given.
45:13 NSM: What is that faculty to overcome it? You said faculty to overcome samskaras.
45:19 SW: Just now I said – we do take samskaras, samskaras from the past and there are samskaras that also are conducive to the future. While I am acting now I am the result of factors, I am also independent of them, I am also working against them.
45:36 NSM: That point is not raised. There is a faculty to overcome samskaras, you said. Faculty to overcome samskaras, you just said.
45:47 SW: Yes, he can.
45:52 NSM: What is the faculty?
45:52 SW: What is that faculty?
45:52 NSM: Yes.
45:52 SW: No, no. That is not it. We are now discussing about samskaras, isn’t it? Now our talking is the result of samskara. But still, I am now making effort. You ask a question and I give an answer. It is not the effect of samskara, my way of thinking and your way of thinking may be the result. But still I have got that faculty 46:15 with which I do think over it and say, this is not it, I can do it. I’ll make a resolve and break the past. I am not a creature of the past.
46:27 NSM: One can break the past.
46:27 SW: Otherwise it would... The ordinary way is to think that they are the result, that winter comes, is a matter of course, we are all creatures of that cold and all that. To wear a blanket and all that, it is left to me.
46:47 K: Have you understand what he said? Sunanda?
46:50 SP: As far as...
46:50 K: No, even the previous point, have you understood? I haven’t understood a thing.
47:00 SP: We are the result of samskaras. At the same time, as I am talking, as I am thinking, it is not entirely the result. There is something which is not.
47:09 K: What is that thing?
47:09 P: That is what he has been asking.
47:12 NSM: So we are talking and thinking. You said that we are not entirely the result of samskaras.
47:25 SW: Certainly not.
47:28 NSM: We are talking and thinking, and this talking and thinking is not the result of samskaras, we are reflecting on it.
47:35 SW: No, there are two parts there.
47:35 NSM: Yes, yes.
47:35 SW: As a result of the past samskaras, we do all things natural. Suppose a man suddenly falls into a river, he cannot but go with the current, but he has also the faculty of swimming even against the current and getting out of it. Isn’t it? But left to the samskaras, the course of the river, he is sure to go to. That’s all. There are two forces there – the activity of the man, there is. Everything is not altogether destined to be a creature of samskaras. Nobody says that. Samskaras are only tendency of thinking.
48:18 SP: What is the other part?
48:18 K: What is the other part?
48:22 NSM: What is the other part? What does this consist of?
48:25 SW: We are not merely speculating about it, we see it clearly. We once thought we were all creatures under the British rule, now we have become independent. What is it that made us become independent?
48:38 K: Oh, that’s fairly simple.
48:41 SW: We have got both the factors there. There are the factors.
48:44 NSM: The latter one, what is it exactly?
48:48 SW: It is effort. What is it?
48:51 K: So, effort.
48:51 NSM: Effort.
48:51 SW: We make effort.
48:51 K: Now, who is the maker of effort?
48:55 SW: Swim against the current and do it.
48:58 NSM: Who is the maker of this effort?
49:02 SW: The maker...?
49:04 NSM: Of this effort.
49:04 SW: The man himself as we said just now. Now, the word ‘man’ we have not defined. Man is a complex of both of these things.
49:14 K: Who makes effort? Don’t you...
49:17 SW: We have not defined our terms. That makes us so very awkward...
49:21 NSM: He says we have not defined our position.
49:24 SW:...That puts us in an awkward position. According to one proposition, we think he is a creature of circumstances, according to another, we think he is a free man.
49:32 P: Before you discuss something, to define the terms that one uses...
49:38 K: Of course. That is what...
49:42 P:...that is also part of the traditional...
49:42 K: I understand this very well. I understand. No, just stick to the point. One has to make effort. Right, sir? Who is to make the effort? Is it the man upon himself and order his condition, his samskaras? You understand, sir? I realise I have got samskaras, I make an effort to break them. Right? I must be different from my samskaras. You understand?
50:15 NSM: Quite. The effort-maker, is he different from samskaras?
50:15 K: Must be, otherwise his effort has no value.
50:19 NSM: Yes. Is the effort-maker different from the samskaras?
50:22 SW: Certainly, otherwise how could...? His samskaras... we call them. It is one samskara that makes me realize it.
50:32 K: That’s it.
50:37 SW: When he has got the samskaras I become a creature but otherwise I become a man. as Gita says.
50:43 K: Now... So then it is the...
50:46 SW: That is why we have to define the word ‘man’.
50:49 K: No, leave man alone. Leave the definition of man. I realise that I am a bundle of samskaras. I realise I must break them from myself. Am I different from the samskaras which I am making the effort to break? Maker of effort, is he different?
51:12 SP: He says, ‘Yes’.
51:15 K: You say, ‘Yes’. Now, why is he different? No, of course...
51:19 NSM: Why is the maker of effort different from the samskaras?
51:23 SW: Why?
51:23 NSM: Yes. Why?
51:23 SW: Why? It is a fact. Why to define. Go upwards and not the way. Such questions how can you have? Man is such, constitution of man is such.
51:39 K: When you say there is a something or an entity or a factor or an agency that operates...
51:49 SW: When the samskaras are stronger, he yields to them. When he is stronger, the samskaras yield.
52:01 K: If I am to make an effort, I want to know who makes the effort, what is the mind or whatever it is, that makes the effort to break.
52:15 NSM: One wants to know what is the entity that makes effort to break samskaras. What is that thing?
52:26 SW: What?
52:26 K: What is the factor?
52:26 NSM: What is the factor?
52:30 K: The energy, agency, doesn’t matter what word.
52:33 NSM: The energy or the agency or whatever it may be, that tries to break samskaras.
52:39 SW: Tries?
52:39 NSM: Yes.
52:39 SW: Who is it that tries, you are asking?
52:42 NSM: Yes, yes, yes. What is it?
52:45 SW: You want to know, no? Who is it that tries, is that the question?
52:49 NSM: Yes, yes.
52:51 SW: Now, here we have begun to analyse the word ‘man’. Till now we have taken man as a complex being with his body, with mind and all that. Now if man is distinct from the mind and all that, and if he can use it like a machine, he becomes distinct. Isn’t it?
53:09 K: Don’t you...
53:09 SW: Now, what did we mean by the word ‘man’ when we posed the question?
53:14 K: No, don’t use ‘man’.
53:14 SW: Once you say...
53:14 K: Consciously, you say...
53:17 SW:...man was dropped as a creature. Now we are asking, samskaras are part of his mind. Now he has to overcome the factors. The mind becomes different, distinct from him, abstractly speaking, and he becomes a master of the mind. Isn’t it? Man becomes the master of his mind. Now, man as such now he is different from mind now. Though for all practical purposes they are all put together, still there is that creature who is man, in himself and the mind which is his instrument which he uses. 53:53 If I use my bicycle today, I may use another bicycle, I am different from bicycle, still so long as I work along with the bicycle, bicycle and myself do make a combined effort in travelling, isn’t it? Well, which is the significance that we give to the word ‘man’ when we started? That is the question. From the very beginning, I have been asking you what do mean by the word ‘man’. That question, isn’t it?
54:24 P: We started by saying man is a bundle of his samskaras, accumulated past and so on. Now when we have come to this, we have discussed all this, and you say something breaks the samskaras, there is a part of man, which we didn’t define, which operates on that.
54:37 K: Now, what is that part?
54:40 NSM: Now, he says that comes us to the question of analysing what is this ‘man’?
54:43 K: Sir, sir, we are doing that, aren’t we, now? We are saying man is made up of many fragments. Right? One of the fragments is this samskara, or many fragments is the samskara. Right? And man is part of these many fragments and also man is part... is the factor who breaks these fragments. So in man are all these factors. Is that it? Wait, wait, that’s what he says. Don’t disturb him unnecessarily. All these factors. Then there is the factor which breaks, is the superior factor. Right? It must be. Which is not touched by samskara. Right? So man – just a minute – man is samskara, a factor which is not touched by samskaras, which then can operate on the samskaras. So man is made up of these many things. Right? So you are saying there is a factor which is untouched by time, by samskara, by anything. Is that it?
56:18 NSM: So in man...
56:18 K: There are all these factors.
56:22 NSM:...there are many factors.
56:25 SW: Yes.
56:25 NSM: One factor is samskara, then mind and what-not, so many other things...
56:33 K: Sir, swami, don’t introduce ‘mind’. Just keep to the simple fact.
56:35 NSM: Oh, yes, please. Plus that superior factor which can break samskaras.
56:43 SW: Yes, he can.
56:43 K: That’s all. Now, what is that superior factor?
56:48 NSM: What is that superior factor?
56:52 SW: Himself. His own self. His own self, real self. 56:56 His real self.
56:59 K: Now, what is that real self?
56:59 NSM: What is the real self?
57:02 SW: You see, it is only the not-self that can be predicated as what, this, that and all that. This is an instrument – when I say, that is a machine, that is a man, that is an animal, all that. Similarly, predicate cannot be asked, since you have taken out all those factors outside from man now. Man’s self is his self. That is all. What is his self? If you say what, I shall have to predicate.
57:31 AP: What he is saying is that his self which is the real self is not the self who asks this question, ‘Who it is?’ The one who speculates about who it is, is the samskaras.
57:44 K: No, no, no, I understand, I understand. Of course.
57:48 AP: The one who is asking these various questions...
57:51 K: Is part of the samskaras.
57:51 AP:...regarding that true self is the samskara.
57:55 K: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. This is... I can answer... But that doesn’t... I am not asking a question at all. I see I am conditioned. I see the samskara, and I see... Now, again, ‘I’ see – you follow? – I understand the trap of all this – both verbal trap and intellectual trap, I see this. But, you see, the moment you posit there is the real self who can break the samskara, then in that there is essentially a duality.
58:38 NSM: Quite. Shall I tell him that?
58:42 K: I don’t know. I don’t want him to...
58:46 P: And, also, there is the real self. What triggers the operation of the real self?
58:54 AP: And first if there is duality – his first point.
58:59 NSM: When you take into account man with these two things, the one samskaras, the other the breaker of samskaras which is the real self, is there not duality?
59:13 SW: Certainly, there is. Otherwise how could we...? The question already implies, when you ask me, ‘Can the man break his samskaras? ’, you have already taken the duality into consideration. Isn’t it?
59:28 SP: Quite right. Quite right.
59:28 SW: The samskaras therefore have to be broken...
59:32 K: Quite right. He’s quite right.
59:35 SW: The breaker of samskaras means duality. Well, there is the difficulty for me...
59:38 K: I understand all this. Verbal...
59:42 SP: Quite right.
59:42 SW: By implication we have got that duality.
59:46 SP: We have to go beyond it.
59:49 SW: If I make a curry, there is the vegetables and other things.
1:00:07 SP: He says if there is an instrument which breaks, there is a duality.
1:00:11 NSM: So can we never get beyond duality? Is there anything beyond duality?
1:00:20 SW: There is non-duality of course. When you ask me that question, beyond duality there must be non-duality.
1:00:29 K: You see...
1:00:29 SW: That is a different question. You are putting.
1:00:29 K:...you are putting him...
1:00:29 SW: Now, duality and then conquering the samskaras, and time, all this, we cannot get over so long as we have already assumed them to exist. We have not asked any question at all if they do exist, are they real and all that.
1:00:44 K: This is all very...
1:00:48 SW: Suppose you ask me what is beyond duality. Beyond is a term of time or space. Isn’t it? We have already taken down duality into consideration. How can we get over it?
1:01:03 P: Can you put some actual thing and get an actual answer to this? A real thing and a real answer. Because now this is, really going into the realm of...
1:01:15 SP: He says we have assumed all this.
1:01:18 K: You see, I...
1:01:21 SW: There are certain facts which we do not explain, and yet we do every day. As I said, just we wake from sleep and when we break our dream, we do not know why, how we broke our dreams. We do get out of these dreams. We cannot say that we never dreamt. We cannot say that we never slept. We do yet. But all these are put together into one series now and we say all this is one life. Under what assumption, I don’t know. When you have taken for granted, you have to argue on that line only. If you give certain assumptions for facts and then want to draw conclusions, you are...
1:02:06 K: No, sir.
1:02:06 SW:...obliged to draw conclusions from these facts as they are.
1:02:10 K: You see, sir, I am born in a culture which knows nothing about samskaras – you follow? – nothing. I am born a Catholic. I am conditioned in Catholicism. Right? That’s my samskara – conditioned. And I want to get rid of it, that’s naturally. Moment I realise I am a prisoner, I want to get out. There is no who am I, who is this, who is that. I just want to get out. Right? Then I make an effort. Now, the samskara of the Catholic, the prison, and the maker of effort, is all the ‘me’. Right? 1:03:03 And therefore it is still – I am fighting, fighting to free myself. So it is a constant conflict, living as I am. Right, sir? Now, what am I to do as a Catholic – not as a Hindu – born in that particular culture? I don’t want to make effort but be out of it. Because I see effort doesn’t solve the problem.
1:03:41 NSM: I am born a Catholic. One is born a Catholic, conditioned by that, conditioned by that.
1:03:49 SW: Yes.
1:03:52 NSM: I understand I am conditioned by being a Catholic.
1:03:58 SW: You are that man? Yes.
1:04:00 NSM: Yes. There is that conditioning and I am struggling to get over it, that prison, these are there. That is, I am in it. These are there. I am not a Hindu.
1:04:16 SW: Certainly not.
1:04:19 NSM: What am I to do to get over it? Is that right?
1:04:22 K: No, sir, no, sir. Sir, I am born a Catholic. I am in that prison and I want to get out of that prison. The more I struggle, not only I am caught more in it, but also I fall into another, another prison, Hindu prison, Buddhist prison – you follow? From one prison I go to the other, and I see the futility of it. And yet I am not, I am not free of the prison in which I am. I don’t know if you can translate this.
1:05:05 NSM: Quite. I am born a Catholic.
1:05:11 SW: All right.
1:05:11 NSM: I am struggling to be out of it. The more and more...
1:05:18 K: When I struggle against it, I fall into another...
1:05:22 NSM: Another trap.
1:05:25 K: Another trap.
1:05:25 NSM: When I struggle against it I fall into another trap.
1:05:25 SW: Certainly. He does.
1:05:28 NSM: I understand the futility of the whole of it. I understand the futility.
1:05:32 SW: Yes, of the effort.
1:05:32 NSM: Of effort. The whole of it.
1:05:36 K: Now, then what?
1:05:38 NSM: Then what?
1:05:38 K: But I am making effort all the time to be free. So you ask me to stop making effort. Is that it?
1:05:44 NSM: So I understand the futility of making effort and I am making effort all the while.
1:05:52 SW: I know.
1:05:52 NSM: The futility is also known.
1:05:52 SW: Yes, yes.
1:05:52 NSM: So what is your suggestion? Is it to stop effort?
1:05:56 SW: Certainly not. Certainly not. Only his way of making effort may be in the wrong way and that is all. That is all. The effort is all right.
1:06:07 K: Right effort. Wrong effort. But I don’t know right effort.
1:06:07 SW: Suppose a man who does not know how to swim, he only begins, he cannot... there is the buoyancy of water is there, all the same he may be drowned, he may make effort and again get drowned also in the wrong way.
1:06:26 K: No, no. You see, similes are so...
1:06:30 SW: In the right way, it is all right. That is all. So every effort will not be successful. The right effort only, there will be the right effort.
1:06:37 SP: Right effort.
1:06:37 K: Right effort and wrong effort. But I don’t want to make any effort.
1:06:43 SW: There must be a plan. isn’t it?
1:06:43 K: There must be a...
1:06:46 SP: Tell him that. I don’t want to make any effort.
1:06:49 K: Because I see effort means more pain, more battle with myself.
1:06:52 NSM: I see effort means more pain and more battle against myself.
1:06:55 SW: It does. It does.
1:06:59 NSM: And I make no effort.
1:07:03 SW: Then doomed if you make no effort. It is so very difficult for children when they go to school, taught how to learn their books and all that, to be under the guidance of a master to do all these exercises exactly to be punctual and regular, so very difficult. But still they do get over it in course of time. They can, provided they go the right way.
1:07:30 K: You see, the observer is the observed.
1:07:35 SW: Otherwise a stubborn boy may be of no use.
1:07:40 K: Would you say, since the observer is the observed, the maker of effort is the result of the effort itself?
1:07:52 NSM: I don’t know whether he will accept that proposition.
1:07:55 K: What?
1:07:55 SP: Will he accept the proposition at all. Ask him. He says he may not accept the proposition.
1:08:02 K: What proposition? Wait, wait. What is the proposition? I am not making proposition.
1:08:05 SP: The observer is the observed.
1:08:08 K: Ah, this is... I don’t know. Just state it.
1:08:08 AP: Just state it.
1:08:11 NSM: Krishnaji says, since the observer is the observed, the maker of effort is the effort.
1:08:19 K: Is the effort.
1:08:22 NSM: Is the effort.
1:08:22 K: There is no right and wrong effort.
1:08:25 NSM: Since the observer is the observed, the maker of effort...
1:08:28 K: Is the effort.
1:08:28 NSM:...is the very effort.
1:08:32 SP: There is no right and wrong effort.
1:08:36 NSM: Is that so? So there is neither right nor wrong effort.
1:08:40 SW: You are at the end. When he succeeds, the questioner, when he knows it, it is all right. But before that there is such a thing as right effort or wrong effort. When you take the result it is all right.
1:08:53 K: You see, you see, that is...
1:08:56 SW: You see. I wanted to get out of dream because...
1:08:56 K: The observer is the observed.
1:08:59 SW:...I was very nearly under the clutches of a tiger. I made all efforts frantically, uselessly and all that, suddenly I cried and go.
1:09:07 K: You see, after, but the whole idea is, go through all this.
1:09:10 SW: When you do make efforts there are right ways and wrong ways. Otherwise, there would be no necessity for anyone else, for the elder to suggest, a man who knows better, to suggest you the way. And then when you are in difficulty you had better do a full...
1:09:24 K: The whole world is revolting against authority. There is no elder.
1:09:43 NSM: I think he is tired.
1:09:46 K: What, sir?
1:09:46 NSM: He may be tired. It is five-twenty, sir.
1:09:50 K: Oh, no, we better finish. I am sorry. I hope we haven’t tired you, sir.
1:09:53 SW: Very glad to have met you.
1:09:56 K: Sir, I’m sorry. I hope we haven’t tired you.
1:09:59 SW: Ah, the whole world feels enriched.
1:09:59 K: No, sir. No, sir.
1:09:59 SW: Really, really.
1:10:03 K: No, no.
1:10:06 SW: I do mean what I say really. Mere flattery won’t do.
1:10:06 K: No, no, not in the least.
1:10:10 SW: What I say, I mean what I say.
1:10:14 K: Yes, of course, sir. I know. I am not questioning that, sir. I am not questioning that. You mean what you say, of course.
1:10:21 SW: No, no, doesn’t matter. No, doesn’t matter. Simply, I asked him when we came here, how should I make a beginning. I said I cannot really come and give a discourse on Gita and all that, I said. No, I will be there, I will give you suggestions, he said. Well, somehow he succeeded. He gave me some questions.
1:10:40 K: Quite, quite.
1:10:42 SW: Some questions have to be asked. And therevfore we answered some questions.
1:10:42 K: Quite.
1:10:42 SW: It is not only testing questions around that. I don’t take it that way at all.
1:10:48 K: I understand sir. I understand.
1:10:48 SW: There is no difficulty. Only it is a great opportunity to have seen. I came on certain other purposes. I am not Bangalorean and all. Taken by somebody else here. You have come from a different country.
1:11:04 K: Quite, quite.
1:11:07 SW: We met here, we have questioned truth. When we reflect on those things...
1:11:10 K: Yes, sir.
1:11:13 SW: In fact, when he asked me, asks us to say the observer is observed, as he says. When we began to question those differences...
1:11:23 NSM: Observer is the observed.
1:11:23 SW: It is all right. What I am saying is, when we began to talk about these things we were two different persons.
1:11:29 K: Quite, quite.
1:11:33 SW: But when we were deep in the discussion itself, we never knew that somebody was asking us or I am answering it.
1:11:40 K: Quite, quite, quite.
1:11:43 SW: All the questions and all that they were all swept away in the stream and we were all in one stream. Isn’t it? That is how the observer also becomes the observed. When it is observed, everything is one only, that is all.
1:12:00 K: Yes, sir. I understand. That’s another...
1:12:03 SW: It was a great opportunity that he gave us. I could not come all the way that way when you gave that lecture here. listen and all that. But I could only simply listen, being a lay man, limp only.
1:12:25 K: I understand that.
1:12:28 SW: He has succeeded, Poornananda being him, therefore he has brought me here and given us Poornanada here, to have a darshan and all that.
🢁