inferior. And, in using the word, there must be the contact of intention conveyed
in the quality of the voice. That means both of us at the same time, at the same
level, with the same intensity must understand the word. There must be the
contact of intention, only then is there real communication.
A: This is so. Our minds, listening to you, used to set up so many obstacles. All
that is over. Now there are no barriers.
K: What is important in communication is not so much the word, although the
word and meaning are necessary, but to meet each other at the same time, at the
same level, with the same intensity.
A: To communicate with oneself is also important. What does communication
mean in that context?
K: Can one communicate with oneself?
A: Yes. It is a question of becoming coherent to oneself.
K: Communication is generally understood to be between two or more people.
A: But it need not even be two people. It can be between a person and a book.
All this is implied when we talk about communicating with oneself.
K: I do not think one can communicate with oneself.
A: Sir, in Sanskrit they use the word svasamvāda for ‘self-communication’.
K: I question that.
A: Why?
K: Even when you use the word ‘self-communication’, I do not think you
communicate with yourself. You only observe what is going on. But the moment
you use the word ‘communicate’, there is duality—in the sense that there is the
division between you and the book, between you and me.
A: You said that there must be a certain sense of rapport, even for observing. I
wonder if there is anything in that.
F: The message is the most important part in communication.
K: No; I can say something, and if you are not in a state of rapport you will twist
it; you will twist the message. So the important thing is not the message but why
at certain levels certain messages seem to be communicated to some people and
not to others.