K: Do not say that it cannot know. The intellect can only know freedom within
the field, like a man who knows freedom within a prison. It then asks: What is
freedom? If this is not freedom, then what is? Is there such a thing at all? And if
there is no such thing, let us make the best of this. As man can never be free, let
us make the interior of the prison more perfect—more toilets, more hangers,
more rooms.
But the intellect rejects the possibility that there can be no freedom, because it
is inconceivable that there is no way out of this prison. The clever brain invents
māyā, the ātman, brahman.
Now, I am asking myself: If there is no freedom, is the mind everlastingly
condemned to live within this field? What is the point of it all? The communists,
the materialists say that you cannot get out. (pause)
I have got it: I am not concerned whether the brain cells change or not. I see
that this concern about freedom, freedom which is not a formula, which is not a
conclusion, is not freedom. Right?
Then the mind says: If this is not freedom, what is freedom? Again it says: I
do not know. But it sees that in that not-knowing there is an expectation to know.
When I say: I do not know what freedom is, there is a waiting and an expectation
to find out. The mind does not really mean that it does not know; it is waiting for
something to happen. I see that and I discard that. (pause)
So I really do not know; I am not waiting, I am not hoping that some answer
will come through an outside agency. I am not expecting a thing. There it is.
There is the clue. I know that there is no freedom here. There is reformation, but
no freedom. Reformation can never bring freedom.
Man revolts against the idea that he can never be free, that he is condemned to
live in this world. It is not the intellect which revolts, but the whole organism, the
whole perception. Right? Therefore he says: As this is not freedom, I really do
not know what freedom is. I really do not know.
That not-knowing is freedom; knowing is prison. This is logically correct. I
do not know what is going to happen tomorrow. I am therefore free of the past,
free of the field. Knowledge of the field is prison; absence of knowledge of the
field is also prison. So the mind that lives in a state of not-knowing is a free
mind.
The traditionalists went wrong when they said: Don’t be attached. You see,
they denied all relationship; they could not solve the problem of relationship and,
so, broke away from all relationships and withdrew into isolation. To live within
the knowledge of this field is prison; not to know the prison is also not freedom.
So a mind that lives in the known is always in prison. That is all. Can the mind
say: I do not know? Which means that the yesterday has ended. For it is the
knowledge of continuity which is the prison.
A: To pursue this requires ruthlessness.
K: Do not use the word ‘ruthlessness’. On the contrary, it requires tremendous
delicacy. When I say: I do not know, I really do not know. Full stop. See what
that means. It means that there is a sense of real humility, a sense of austerity.