FIRST AND LAST LECTURE GIVEN IN 1972 AT THE INDIAN INSTITUTE
OF WORLD CULTURE IN BANGALORE
U.G. : Let me, at the very outset, thank the authorities of the Indian Institute of World Culture for giving me this opportunity to meet you all here. I was very reluctant to accept the invitation of Mr. Venkataramaiah. But somehow, if I may use that word, I was trapped into this kind of a thing.
As Mr. Kothari pointed out, I don't like to give talks at all. You all seem to be very fond of listening to speeches, talks, lectures, discussions, discourses, conversations, and so on. I do not know if at any time you realise for yourself and by yourself that you never listen to anybody or anything in this world. You always listen to yourself. I really don't know what to say. I don't know what you want to listen to and what I am expected to do.
This is supposed to be a discourse and a dialogue. I very often point out to those who come to see me and talk things over that no dialogue is possible and no dialogue is necessary. It may sound very strange to you, but, nevertheless, the fact does remain that no dialogue is possible and yet no dialogue is necessary.
If you will permit me, I will say a few words, to set the ball rolling, as it were. That's a very hackneyed and over-worked expression, but that would serve our purpose.
I am going to say a few words about the state of 'not knowing'. How can anybody say anything about the state of 'not knowing'? I have necessarily to use words. Can we use words without indulging in abstract concepts. I say we can. But I do not, at the same time, mean that it is a non-verbal conceptualisation. That is a funny thing – there is no such thing as non-verbal conceptualisation at all. But, perhaps, a few words like this will enable you to understand that the methods of thought prevent you from understanding the limitations of thought as a means to directly experience life and its movements.
This state of 'not knowing', or natural state, is not just my particular state. This is as much your natural state as it is mine. It is not the state of a God-realised man, a Self-realised man. It is not the state of a holy man. It is the natural state of every one of you here. But since you are looking to somebody else and you are reaching out for some kind of a state of liberation or freedom, you are lost. So, how can one understand the limitations of thought? Naturally, the only instrument we have is the instrument of thought. But what is thought? I can give you a lot of definitions, and you know a lot of definitions about thought. I can say that thought is just matter; thought is vibration; and we are all functioning in this sphere of thought. And we pick up these thoughts because this human organism is an electromagnetic field. And this electromagnetic field is the product of culture. It may sound very inappropriate on this occasion to say that in order to be in your natural state, all that man has thought and felt before you must be swept aside and must be brushed aside. And that means the culture in which you are brought up must go down the drain or out of the window. Is it possible? It is possible. But, at the same time, it is so difficult, because you are the product of that culture and you are that. You are not different from that. You cannot separate yourself from that culture. And yet, this culture is the stumbling block for us to be in our natural state.
Can this natural state be captured, contained and expressed through words? It cannot. It is not a conscious state of your existence. It can never become part of your conscious thinking. And then why do I talk of this state of 'not knowing'? For all practical purposes it does not exist at all. It can never become part of your conscious thinking.
Here, I have to explain what I mean by the word 'consciousness'. You and I mean two different things, probably – I don't know. When do you become conscious of a thing? Only when the thought comes in between what is there in front of you and what is supposed to be there inside of you. That is consciousness. So, you have to necessarily use thought to become conscious of the things around you, or the persons around you. Otherwise, you are not conscious of the things at all. And, at the same time, you are not unconscious. But there is an area where you are neither conscious nor unconscious. But that 'consciousness' – if I may use that word – expresses itself in its own way; and what prevents that consciousness to express itself in its own way is the movement of thought.
What can anyone do about this thought? It has a tremendous momentum of millions and millions of years. Can I do anything about that thought? Can I stop it? Can I mould it? Can I shape it? Can I do anything about it? But yet, our culture, our civilisation, our education – all these have forced us to use that instrument to get something for us. So, can that instrument be used to understand its own nature? It is not possible. And yet, when you see the tremendous nature of this movement of thought, and that there isn't anything that you can do about it, it naturally slows down and falls in its natural pattern.
As Mr. Kothari pointed out, I don't like to give talks at all. You all seem to be very fond of listening to speeches, talks, lectures, discussions, discourses, conversations, and so on. I do not know if at any time you realise for yourself and by yourself that you never listen to anybody or anything in this world. You always listen to yourself. I really don't know what to say. I don't know what you want to listen to and what I am expected to do.
This is supposed to be a discourse and a dialogue. I very often point out to those who come to see me and talk things over that no dialogue is possible and no dialogue is necessary. It may sound very strange to you, but, nevertheless, the fact does remain that no dialogue is possible and yet no dialogue is necessary.
If you will permit me, I will say a few words, to set the ball rolling, as it were. That's a very hackneyed and over-worked expression, but that would serve our purpose.
I am going to say a few words about the state of 'not knowing'. How can anybody say anything about the state of 'not knowing'? I have necessarily to use words. Can we use words without indulging in abstract concepts. I say we can. But I do not, at the same time, mean that it is a non-verbal conceptualisation. That is a funny thing – there is no such thing as non-verbal conceptualisation at all. But, perhaps, a few words like this will enable you to understand that the methods of thought prevent you from understanding the limitations of thought as a means to directly experience life and its movements.
This state of 'not knowing', or natural state, is not just my particular state. This is as much your natural state as it is mine. It is not the state of a God-realised man, a Self-realised man. It is not the state of a holy man. It is the natural state of every one of you here. But since you are looking to somebody else and you are reaching out for some kind of a state of liberation or freedom, you are lost. So, how can one understand the limitations of thought? Naturally, the only instrument we have is the instrument of thought. But what is thought? I can give you a lot of definitions, and you know a lot of definitions about thought. I can say that thought is just matter; thought is vibration; and we are all functioning in this sphere of thought. And we pick up these thoughts because this human organism is an electromagnetic field. And this electromagnetic field is the product of culture. It may sound very inappropriate on this occasion to say that in order to be in your natural state, all that man has thought and felt before you must be swept aside and must be brushed aside. And that means the culture in which you are brought up must go down the drain or out of the window. Is it possible? It is possible. But, at the same time, it is so difficult, because you are the product of that culture and you are that. You are not different from that. You cannot separate yourself from that culture. And yet, this culture is the stumbling block for us to be in our natural state.
Can this natural state be captured, contained and expressed through words? It cannot. It is not a conscious state of your existence. It can never become part of your conscious thinking. And then why do I talk of this state of 'not knowing'? For all practical purposes it does not exist at all. It can never become part of your conscious thinking.
Here, I have to explain what I mean by the word 'consciousness'. You and I mean two different things, probably – I don't know. When do you become conscious of a thing? Only when the thought comes in between what is there in front of you and what is supposed to be there inside of you. That is consciousness. So, you have to necessarily use thought to become conscious of the things around you, or the persons around you. Otherwise, you are not conscious of the things at all. And, at the same time, you are not unconscious. But there is an area where you are neither conscious nor unconscious. But that 'consciousness' – if I may use that word – expresses itself in its own way; and what prevents that consciousness to express itself in its own way is the movement of thought.
What can anyone do about this thought? It has a tremendous momentum of millions and millions of years. Can I do anything about that thought? Can I stop it? Can I mould it? Can I shape it? Can I do anything about it? But yet, our culture, our civilisation, our education – all these have forced us to use that instrument to get something for us. So, can that instrument be used to understand its own nature? It is not possible. And yet, when you see the tremendous nature of this movement of thought, and that there isn't anything that you can do about it, it naturally slows down and falls in its natural pattern.
continue reading Here
No comments:
Post a Comment