GS: For the non-fragmented person, physics does not exist.
K: What is the importance of an artist?
GS: He transports people into states which they themselves are not able to
reach—still fragmentary, but different.
K: Being fragmented, he needs self-expression; and his self is part of the
fragmentation. So would you deny the artist his function? Now the physicist is
important, but he does not come before the universe, before the human heart,
before the human mind; he is as important or unimportant as the artist.
GS: There is a difference in the quality. The artist is usually not clear.
K: The artist is clear in his feeling, but the expression goes wrong because he is
conditioned to objectivism, non-objectivism and all that. So, can I live in this
world non-fragmentarily—not as a Hindu, Buddhist, Christian or Communist,
but as a human being?
GS: Why not just live; why the word ‘human’?
K: The way we live is not human at all. It is a battle—country, wife, children, the
boss. We live that way, at war with each other. You call that living. I say that this
perpetual struggle is not living.
GS: Life is not a perpetual struggle all the time.
K: But most of the time it is. The window is closed.
GS: But why the word ‘human’?
K: Sir, I did not use the word ‘individual’. Do you know the meaning of the
word ‘individual’? It means ‘one who is indivisible’. Man is not. So one realizes
this fact of fragmentation, and of time: the constant battle for position, power,
prestige, success, domination, and the effort to escape from all this to reach
enlightenment through the mantra, through yoga. How is this everlasting
chattering to come to an end? Is it at all possible not to be fragmented? How is it
possible for the brain cells themselves to be quiet? Because that is the mechanism
of time, put together slowly over years, which we call evolution. This is the
central question.
GS: And that is rightly so. You bring the problem back to physics, because
physics talks about the external universe but it does not talk about the brain cells.
If you had only a fragment of reality, then you would not accept it as consistent.
If it is consistent, then it is fiction. Could the fragment be self-consistent?