200th Episode! The Most Thought-Provoking Ep to Date!
Good morning everybody, today is my two hundredth podcast episode so as a result of that to celebrate I'm not going to speak at all in this voice note. I am going to share with you the most thought provoking audio thing I've heard in my life really and it is with three scientists, a biologist, a psychologist, a physicist and Krishnamurti talking about basically our mind, our consciousness, our self, how we're also gonna fix ourselves, all this stuff. And it just penetrates you, the way he simplifies it down to real explanation. And these signs are just kind of shocked in silence at the truth that comes out of it. And it's an inquiry, these people are speaking with such honesty and respect, it's an amazing to hear such an open conversation without like shouting over each other and stuff.
Speaker 1:So have a listen to this, it's like twenty odd minutes long. Listen to it if you get time to do it all in one go and let me know what you think. So comment underneath the post and stuff. I wanna know what you think about this. So guys, enjoy it for my two hundredth episode.
Speaker 1:I wanna know what you think. That's my present. 200 episodes in, all I'm back is. Let me know you think of this. Be open minded.
Speaker 1:Do not try and interpret things with your old past experiences. Just be open. Listen. Don't try and be fighting for or against us. Listen and see for yourself.
Speaker 1:You have to inquire in, you have to inquire self into what he's saying to see what you think. Okay? Here we go. Enjoy yourself. Speak to you tomorrow.
Speaker 2:In this complex contradictory dualistic existence, that very fact creates the demand for security.
Speaker 3:Yes.
Speaker 2:So can we eliminate the self?
Speaker 3:Well, we haven't have we gotten to the self? It seems like there's somebody in there, in here, who's going to juggle all these things and get rid of the But that
Speaker 2:means you are different from this, from consciousness.
Speaker 3:Right.
Speaker 2:But you are that. You are pleasure, you are fear, you are all belief, all that you are. I think don't please agree with what we're talking or whatever what I'm saying. It may be all tongue
Speaker 3:a I think there are a lot of people who wouldn't agree with that. I think they would say that
Speaker 2:I know there are a lot of people who wouldn't agree with it because they haven't gone into it. They just want to brush all this aside.
Speaker 3:Well, let's look at this. Is there a self that's separate, that's going to be able to somehow iron out these contradictions?
Speaker 4:No. Well, how do you know? I mean, it seems to me that the there is a well, at least it may be illusory, but it's very easy to think that one is separate from some of these problems and that there's something inside one which can make I must, please.
Speaker 2:Doctor, am I separate from my fear? Am I separate from the agony I go through,
Speaker 4:the depression? Well, I think that there's something within one which can examine these things, and that indicates there is some kind of separation. Because
Speaker 2:we there is the observer separate from the observed.
Speaker 4:Yes.
Speaker 3:Is that so? Well, it seems to
Speaker 4:be so.
Speaker 2:It seems to be so.
Speaker 4:Now, this is it seems to me the problem, that it does seem to be so. I mean, in my own experience, of course, as in many other people, it does indeed seem that there is an observer observing things like fear in one's own reactions. And it comes out most clearly, I find, in insomnia, if one's trying to sleep. There's one part of one that says, that's going on with silly worries and ridiculous thoughts round and round. There's another part of one that says, I really want to sleep.
Speaker 4:I wish I could stop all these silly thoughts. And there one has this actual experience of an apparent Of Of course. So, this isn't just a theory, it's an actual fact of experience that there is this kind of I agree.
Speaker 2:But why does that division exist? That's, of Who created the division?
Speaker 4:It may just be a fact.
Speaker 2:What may not be said?
Speaker 4:It may just be a fact.
Speaker 3:Is that so? I want to examine it.
Speaker 4:I want to find Well, yes, so do I. I mean, is it indeed a fact that consciousness, as it were, has levels, some of which can examine others one at a time?
Speaker 2:No. Would you kindly consider, is fear different from me? I may act upon fear. I may say, I must suppress it, I might rationalize it, I might transcend it, but the fear is not is me.
Speaker 4:Well, we
Speaker 2:I only invent the separation whether you want to act upon it. But otherwise, am fear.
Speaker 4:The common and ordinary way of analysing would be to say, I feel afraid, as if the afraidness was separate from the I. I want to get out of this state of feeling afraid, so I want to escape from it, leaving the fear behind, and the I will come past beyond it and somehow escape it. This is the normal way we think.
Speaker 2:I know. Will.
Speaker 4:So what's wrong with that?
Speaker 2:You keep up this conflict.
Speaker 3:But I think he is saying it may be inevitable.
Speaker 4:It may be inevitable. I
Speaker 2:question it.
Speaker 5:All right, yes. So then could we make it less mean, how do you propose to show it's not inevitable?
Speaker 2:First of all, when there is anger, at the moment of anger, there is no separation. Right?
Speaker 4:When you're very angry
Speaker 2:Yes, of course. I mean, we're talking about What
Speaker 4:we normally say is you lose control of yourself and the separation disappears, you become the anger, yes.
Speaker 2:At the moment, when you are really angry, there is no separation. The separation only takes place after. I have been angry. Right? Now why?
Speaker 2:Why does the separation take place?
Speaker 4:Through memory.
Speaker 2:Through memory. Right? Because I've been angry before. So the past is evaluating, is past recognising it? So the past is the observer.
Speaker 5:That may not be obvious. For example, I may have physical reactions that go out of control, like sometimes the hand or the body, I say I am observing those physical reactions going out of control and I would like to bring them back in. Right? Yes. I think somebody might feel the same way that his mental reactions are going out of control and that he they have momentarily escaped his control, and that he is trying to bring them back in.
Speaker 5:You see, now, that's the way it may look or feel to many people. So what? What? Well, it is not clear, have we made it clear that that is not the case, you see?
Speaker 2:Sir, I'm trying to point out, I don't know if I'm making myself clear, when one is frightened, actually, there is no me separate from fear.
Speaker 3:Within there's some.
Speaker 2:When there is a time interval, there is the division. And time interval, time is thought. When there is thought comes in, then begins the division, Because thought is memory. The past.
Speaker 4:Thought involves memory. Yes.
Speaker 2:Involves memory and so on. So thought, memory, knowledge is the past. So the past is the observer. Who says, am different from fear, I must control it?
Speaker 3:Let's go through this very slowly because it seems like the experience is that the observer is the present. Seems like he's saying, I'm here now, and what am I gonna do about this the next time it comes up?
Speaker 2:Yes. But what what am I going to do about it is the response of the past, because you have already had that kind of experience. So haven't you had fear?
Speaker 3:Surely.
Speaker 2:Yes. You know, something a fear that is really shaken, devastating one.
Speaker 3:Yes.
Speaker 2:And at that second there is no division. You are entirely consumed by that.
Speaker 3:Yes.
Speaker 2:Right?
Speaker 3:Right.
Speaker 2:Now, then thought comes along and says, I've been afraid because of this and because of that, now I must defend myself, rationalise fear, and so on and so on and so on. It's so obvious. What are we discussing? Well,
Speaker 3:okay.
Speaker 5:You see, I think coming back again to the physical reaction, which can also consume you. Say it, at the next moment you say, I didn't notice it at that time, thought comes in and says, that's a physical reaction.
Speaker 2:Yes.
Speaker 5:Now I know it. You see, what is the difference of these two cases? You see that in the second case, it would make sense to say, I know that I have reacted this way before. Right? You know, I can take such and such an action.
Speaker 2:See I don't quite follow this.
Speaker 5:Somebody can feel that it's true I get overwhelmed by a reaction and thought comes in, but in many areas that's the normal procedure for thought to come
Speaker 4:in
Speaker 5:if something shattering happens, and then a moment later you think, what was it? Right? Yes. Now, in some cases that would be correct. Right.
Speaker 5:Now, why is it in this case it is not, you see?
Speaker 2:Ah, I see what you mean. Answer your answer it. You see, you meet a rattler on a walk Yeah. Which I've done very often. You meet a rattler.
Speaker 2:He rattles and you jump. That is physical, self protective, intelligent response. That's not fear.
Speaker 5:Right. Well, not psychological fear. It has been called
Speaker 2:a kind of I don't call that psychological fear.
Speaker 5:No, it's not psychological fear. It's a simple physical reaction.
Speaker 2:Physical reaction, is an intelligent reaction not to be bitten by the rattler.
Speaker 5:Yes, but that moment later I can say, no, that's a rattler or it's not a rat I may discover it's not a rattler, it's another snake, which is not so dangerous.
Speaker 2:No, not so dangerous. Then I pass it
Speaker 5:But then thought comes in and it's perfectly alright.
Speaker 2:Yes. Right? Yes.
Speaker 5:But here, when I am angry or frightened
Speaker 2:Then thought comes in.
Speaker 5:And it's not alright.
Speaker 2:It's not alright because oh, I I see what you're trying to get. Why do I say it's not alright? Because fear is devastating. It blocks one's mind, thought, and all the rest. One shrinks in that fear.
Speaker 5:Yes, I think I see that you mean that possibly that when thought comes in, it cannot possibly come in rationally in the midst of fear. Yes. Is that what you
Speaker 2:That I am trying
Speaker 5:to So in the case of physical danger, it could still come in rationally.
Speaker 2:Yes. Here, it becomes irrational. Yes. Why, I am asking is, why? Why do I why doesn't one clear up all this awful mess?
Speaker 3:Well, it isn't clear.
Speaker 2:Look, sir.
Speaker 3:It isn't
Speaker 2:It is a messy consciousness.
Speaker 3:Yeah, yeah, it's a messy consciousness.
Speaker 2:Messy consciousness, contradicting.
Speaker 3:Yeah.
Speaker 2:Frightened. Mhmm.
Speaker 3:Oh,
Speaker 2:so many fears and so on. It's a messy consciousness.
Speaker 5:Mhmm.
Speaker 2:Now why can't we clear it up?
Speaker 3:Well, it seems we are always trying to clear it up after the I
Speaker 2:think the difficulty lies we don't recognise deeply this conscious this messy consciousness is me. And if it is me, I can't do anything. I don't know if you get the point.
Speaker 4:You mean you think we think that there's a me separate from this messy consciousness.
Speaker 2:We think we are separate. And therefore we are accustomed, it's our conditioning, to act upon it. But I can't do very well to do that with all this messy consciousness, which is me. So how am I no. The problem then arises, what is action?
Speaker 2:We are accustomed to act
Speaker 3:Yeah.
Speaker 2:Upon the messy consciousness. When there is realisation, the fact that I am that I can't act, I am because I am that.
Speaker 3:Then what is action?
Speaker 2:That's non action. Don't
Speaker 3:Okay. That
Speaker 2:is not okay. Is the total difference. Yeah.
Speaker 3:I think I understand. On the one hand, there's the action of consciousness on itself, which just perpetuates things.
Speaker 2:Yes.
Speaker 3:And seeing that, then it ceases to act.
Speaker 2:It's not non violent sorry.
Speaker 4:Sorry, sir, what you're saying that the normally we have the idea that there's a self which is somehow separate from some of the contents of our messy consciousness. If someone tells us we're wonderful, we don't want to be separate from that, but if we feel afraid and something tells us we're awful, we do want to be separate from So, it's rather selective, but nevertheless, we do feel there's something in us which is separate from the contents of this messy consciousness. We normally act in such a way as to change either the contents of the consciousness or our relation to them or our relation to the world and so on, but we don't normally examine this apparent separation between the self, the me, and the contents of the messy consciousness. That's something we don't challenge. Now, are suggesting that, in fact, the separation which we can actually experience and do most of us do experience is in fact something we ought to challenge and look at.
Speaker 4:And we ought to face the idea that we actually are no Of course a messy consciousness and nothing other.
Speaker 3:So obvious.
Speaker 4:Well, isn't obvious, it's very non obvious, and it's a very difficult thing to realise, because one's very much in the habit of thinking one is separate from So,
Speaker 2:is our conditioning can we move away from our conditioning? Our conditioning is me. And then I act upon that conditioning, separating myself. But if I am that, No action. Which is the most positive action?
Speaker 3:Way that that would be heard, I'm afraid, is that if I don't act on it, it's just going to stay the way it is.
Speaker 4:You're suggesting that by recognising this, there's a sort of the process of recognising, of facing up to, and of
Speaker 2:It's not facing up. Who is to face up? Not recognise, who is recognising? You see, we're always thinking in those terms. I am that, full stop.
Speaker 2:We never come to that realization. Totally. There is some part of me which is clear, and that clarity is going to act upon that which is not clear. That's always, this goes on.
Speaker 4:Yes. Yes.
Speaker 2:I'm we are I'm saying the whole content of one's consciousness is unclear, messy. There's no part of it that's not that's clear. We think there is a part, which is the observer separating himself from the mess. So the observer is the observed.
Speaker 5:Gurus. Right. You were raising the question of action,
Speaker 3:or if that is the
Speaker 5:case, how is action to take place?
Speaker 2:I say, no. When I see, when there is perception of that which is true, that very truth is sufficient, it's finished.
Speaker 5:You've said also, for example, that mess itself realises its own messiness.
Speaker 2:Messiness, it's finished.
Speaker 4:So, are you suggesting the realisation of the messiness itself in some way dissolves the messiness?
Speaker 2:Yes. Not a separative realisation that I am messy. The fact is consciousness is messy. Full stop. Mhmm.
Speaker 2:And I can't act upon it.
Speaker 4:Mhmm. Because
Speaker 2:previously, acting upon it was a wastage of energy. Mhmm. Because it's I never solved it. I've struggled. I've taken vows.
Speaker 2:I've done all kinds of things to resolve this messiest stuff. And it has never been cleared.
Speaker 5:Mhmm.
Speaker 2:It may partially, occasionally.
Speaker 3:Well, I think that's another aspect of this. In therapy or in our own lives, we seem to have insights that are partial, that we clear up a particular problem and gain some clarity and order for a time. And then the thing returns in some other form or
Speaker 2:Yes.
Speaker 3:In the same form. You're suggesting that the thing needs to be done across the board in some Before
Speaker 2:the observer acted upon it, upon the messy consciousness. Right? Saying, I'll clear this up, give me time, you know, all the rest of
Speaker 4:it. Mhmm.
Speaker 2:But and that's a wastage of energy.
Speaker 3:Right.
Speaker 2:When the fact that you are that, you're not wasting energy, which is attention. I don't know if you want to go into this.
Speaker 4:Oh, no, this is very interesting. Please do.
Speaker 2:Would we agree that acting upon it is a wastage of energy?
Speaker 3:Yes. Just creates more disorder.
Speaker 2:No. It creates most disorder, and there is this constant conflict between me and the not
Speaker 3:me. Mhmm.
Speaker 2:The me who is the observer
Speaker 5:Mhmm.
Speaker 2:And I battle with it.
Speaker 3:Right.
Speaker 2:Control it, suppress it, anxious, worry. You follow? But which is all essentially wastage of energy. Mhmm. Whereas I am this messy consciousness is me.
Speaker 2:I have come to realise that through attention. Not I have come to realise, sorry.
Speaker 5:Would you say that the consciousness itself has come to realise it?
Speaker 2:Yes.
Speaker 5:Mean, without me. Right?
Speaker 2:Yes. Which is total attention. I'm giving to this consciousness. Not I'm there is attention and inattention. Inattention is wastage of energy.
Speaker 2:Attention is energy. When there is observation that consciousness is messy, that fact can only exist when there's total attention. And when there's total attention, it doesn't exist anymore, confusion. It's only inattention that creates the problems. Refute it.
Speaker 4:But sir, I don't understand entirely what you're this total attention that you're talking about would only be able to have this effect if it somehow was something completely in the present and devoid of memory.
Speaker 2:Of course, of course. Attention is that. If you now, just if I attend to what you have said just now, devoid of memory, which is attention, I listen to you not only with the central ear, but with the other ear, which is I'm giving my whole attention to find out what you're saying, which is actually in the present. In attention there is no centre.
Speaker 4:Because the attention and the thing attended to become one, you mean. You mean there's no centre in the attention because the attention is all there is, the thing attended to and the attention is all there is.
Speaker 2:Ah, no, no. There is messiness because I've been inattentive.
Speaker 4:Right?
Speaker 2:Yes. When there is the observation of the fact that the observer is the observed, and that state of observation in which there is no observer as the past, that is attention. Sir, I don't know if you have gone into the question of meditation here. Don't know that's another subject. That
Speaker 3:may be a relevant subject. It seems that what you're talking about may happen partially.
Speaker 2:I it can't happen. Then you can keep how partial mess and partial not mess. We're back again in the same position.
Speaker 3:Yes.
Speaker 4:But do you think this kind of attention you're talking about is the sort of thing that many people experience occasionally in moments of great beauty or occasionally a piece of music they're really enjoying, lose themselves and so on? Do you think that many of us have had glimpses of this in these kinds
Speaker 2:of That's it. When I see a mountain, the majesty, the dignity and the depth of it drives away myself. A child with a toy, the toy absorbs him. Mountain has absorbed me. Toy has absorbed the child.
Speaker 2:I said that means something there is something outside which will absorb me, which will make me peaceful, which means an outside agency that'll keep me quiet. God, prayer, looking up to something or other. If I reject an outside agency completely, Nothing can absorb me. Then I'm they say, if you absorb me, when you are gone, I'm back to myself.
Speaker 3:Yes.
Speaker 2:So I discard any sense of external agency which will absorb me. So I'm left with myself. That's my point.
Speaker 3:I see. So you're suggesting that when this happens partially, it's because we're depending on something.
Speaker 2:Yes, of course.
Speaker 3:I see.
Speaker 2:Like my depending on my wife.
Speaker 3:Or my therapist or
Speaker 2:my something or other. Yeah. Like a Hindu, Catholic or anybody, they depend on something. Therefore, dependence demands attachment.
Speaker 3:Now, it's possible to listen to you say this and have the idea of what you're talking about and try and do that.
Speaker 2:Ah, you can't do it. That means you're acting again.
Speaker 3:Uh-huh.
Speaker 2:You want something out of it. In exchange, I'll give you this, give me that. That's just a trade. Here, it's not like that. You're enquiring into something which demands a great deal of thought, great deal of intelligence and attention that says, look, why is there this division, this mess in the world?
Speaker 2:Because our consciousness is messy, and so the world is messy. So, from that arises, it possible to be free of the self? Consciousness, the messy consciousness is the self.
Speaker 4:It's not free to possible to be free from the contents of consciousness, different experiences, as long as my eyes are open and I'm looking and I see all sorts of different things. Now, what you were saying about the attention when one's looking at a mountain, for example, are you suggesting that if I have that same kind of attention to everything I experience, that then this is the
Speaker 2:You see, again, you experience. Yes. But all right. You are the experience.
Speaker 4:Yes.
Speaker 2:Right? That means there is no experience.
Speaker 4:There's just attention, you mean.
Speaker 2:Experience involves remembrance, time, and which is the past. Therefore, experiencer is the experienced. If I seek illumination, enlightenment or whatever you might like to call it, I'm then trying to do all kinds of things to achieve that.
Speaker 4:But
Speaker 2:I don't know what illumination is. I don't know. Not because you said it or Buddha said it or somebody else said it. I don't know. Mhmm.
Speaker 3:But I'm going to find out.
Speaker 2:Which means the mind must be totally free from prejudice, from fear, all the rest of that messy business. So my concern is not illumination, but whether the content of my consciousness can be plain, whatever word you use. That's my concern. Not concern, that's my inquiry. And as long as I am separate from my consciousness, I can experience it, I can analyse it, I can tear it to pieces, act upon it, which means perpetual conflict between me and my consciousness.
Speaker 2:I wonder why we accept all this. Why do I accept that I'm a Hindu? Why do I accept that I'm a Catholic? You follow? Yes.
Speaker 2:Why do why do we accept what other people say?
Speaker 3:We say it ourselves. We say it ourselves.
Speaker 2:Yes. No. Not only we say it, but it's encouraged, sustained, nourished by people outside. Why? Why do we accept?
Speaker 2:He is a professor and he's teaching me. I accept that. Because he knows biology much more than I do. I go to his class and I'm being informed with what he says. But he's not my guru.
Speaker 2:He's not my behavioral guide. He's giving me information about biology, and I'm interested in it. I want to study it, and I want to go out in the field and do all kinds of stuff. But why do we accept authority, psychological authority, quote, spiritual Again, come back to security. I don't know what to do, but you know better than I do.
Speaker 2:You're my guru. I refuse that position.
Speaker 4:But don't we arrive at the same set of problems if we start not from authority, but from responsibility? Say, I'm a father, I have this child, we've agreed
Speaker 2:some
Speaker 2:kind
Speaker 2:of
Speaker 4:How
Speaker 2:do construct that? Of course.
Speaker 4:You have to look after this Of course. Fine. But now, in order to feed the baby, you become preoccupied with security, job, tenure, you know, house, protecting the house against marauders and so on.
Speaker 2:Of
Speaker 4:course. Don't you get into the same lot of things about the preoccupation with security, starting not from authority but from responsibility for others, for children, for example. Of course. So, you then what is the answer to that? It's easy to say you should reject responsibility.
Speaker 2:Because if have money, if I earn money, job, and so on, I have to look after myself. If I have servants, I have to look after servants, my children, perhaps their children too. I'm responsible for all that. Yes. Physically, I'm responsible to give them food, to give them the right amount of money, allow their children go to proper school like my children.
Speaker 2:I'm responsible for all that.
Speaker 4:But isn't that going to bring you back to the same position of insecurity and so on that you were trying to dissolve by this rejection of authority?
Speaker 2:I don't see why I need spiritual or psychological authority. Because if I know how to read myself, I don't need anybody to tell me. But we have never attempted deeply to read the book of myself. I come to you and say, please help me to read. And then the whole thing is lost.
Speaker 3:But I think what Rupert is asking is that if if we start by assuming responsibility for other people, that entails
Speaker 2:What? My my earning capacity.
Speaker 3:Which must be secure.
Speaker 2:Yes. Secure as much as possible. Mhmm. Not in countries where there's tremendous unemployment.
Speaker 3:So you're saying that that doesn't entail any psychological inquiry.
Speaker 2:Of course not. But when I say he's my servant, I'm going to keep him in that place. You follow?
Speaker 3:No. Tell me.
Speaker 2:I treat him as a servant.
Speaker 3:Yeah.
Speaker 2:Which which becomes irresponsible.
Speaker 3:I don't know, naturally. But if it's a servant, he can come and go.
Speaker 5:But if it's
Speaker 3:a child, he can come and go.
Speaker 2:I part of my family. Yeah.
Speaker 5:I think the question is something like this, suppose you are responsible for a family and the conditions are difficult, you may not have a job, and you may start to worry about it and become insecure Yes. Right?
Speaker 2:I don't worry about it. I have no more money. So, my friend, I have no more money. If you want to share the little food I have, share it.
Speaker 5:Right. You are saying that even if you are unemployed and you are responsible for a family, it will not disturb the order of the mind.
Speaker 2:Of course not.
Speaker 5:You will find an intelligent way to solve it.
Speaker 2:Deal with it.
Speaker 4:But this kind of worry, as a result of responsibility, relevant.
Speaker 2:I don't call it worry. I am responsible. Yes. And therefore I look after her as much as I can. And if you can't.
Speaker 2:If
Speaker 4:can't.
Speaker 2:I can't. Why should I worry and bother? I can't. It's a fact.
Speaker 5:You're saying that it's possible
Speaker 3:to be completely free of worry, for example, in the face of great difficulties.
Speaker 2:Yes. There is no you see, that's what I'm saying. Where there is attention, there is no need to there is no worry because there is no centre from which you are attending. There
Speaker 4:are still problems and there may still be responsibilities that one
Speaker 2:Of course, is problems, so I resolved them.
Speaker 4:But if you can't resolve
Speaker 2:them, if
Speaker 4:your family is starving I can't.
Speaker 2:Why should I worry about it? I can't be a queen of England. No. No, sir, why should I worry?
Speaker 4:But if you're a poor Indian, unemployed, your family is starving, you've tried everything, you've failed, you don't worry. Actually, surprisingly enough, a lot of poor Indians in just that situation don't worry, that's the most amazing thing about India. But then, of course, people coming along looking from outside say, well, this is fatalism.
Speaker 2:Yes, that's right.
Speaker 4:And it's often regarded as the disease of India, the very fact that so many people manage not to worry in those circumstances, to the degree that
Speaker 2:we would expect.
Speaker 3:I'd like to
Speaker 2:ask a question. You have listened to all this. Messy consciousness.
Speaker 3:Does
Speaker 2:one realise it and empty the content, fear, you know, the whole business. Yeah. Does it interest you?
Speaker 3:Yes.
Speaker 2:Totally?
Speaker 3:Yes.
Speaker 2:That means what?
Speaker 3:It means you just listen. No. It means
Speaker 2:a conversation, dialogue between us, penetrating deeper and deeper and deeper. Which means you must be free to examine, free from your prejudice, from your previous experience. Of course. Otherwise, you can't examine. You can't invest investigative means explore, you know, push it, push it, push it further and further.
Speaker 2:Now, am I are you are we willing to do that so that actually the self is not? But when the self is not, it doesn't mean you can't you neglect your wife, your children, your you follow? That becomes so silly. It's like taking a becoming a sannyasi and going off into the mountains. Monk going off into a monastery.
Speaker 2:That is extraordinary escape. The fact is I have to deal with my wife and children, if I have a servant. Can I be so totally without the self that I can intelligently deal with these problems?
