Now you are therefore in a great difficulty as to how to converse with him on your pet subject, which you really want to go ahead with, how to deal with it. Then you ask him don’t you feel that when I know something and you do not know something, don’t you feel that there is some inadequacy. Don’t you see that. I think I understand you say you don’t understand, but he is immovable he says I don’t really understand make me understand then I can at least argue with you or go ahead with you but make me understand then you ask him a question – tell me what is your definition of understanding? It is good way of opening the dialogue. When he says what you are speaking is non–sense in a certain sense he has given you a final disproof and thrown you out of the court but if you are clever you will ask him. Fine if he is non–sense– tell me what is sense? Therefore there is point of having a dialogue now. It’s a linkage of a dialogue. Tell me what is sense? Now he is obliged to answer. He can’t say even this I don’t understand because he himself has used the word non–sense. The fact that he has used the word non–sense he knows what is sense. In comparison with which what you are saying is non–sense, so ask him, what is sense? So he thinks over the question and comes like with an answer, no words have sense. This is the first answer no words have sense. You are using words soul, spirit and all that so his first answer, no words have a sense, but words derive a sense in themselves they have no sense. All words are non–sense all are aabra ka dabra, but words derive their sense from experience. Whatever is experienced make sense fine this is a good progress in dialogue. He has come out with a statement that what can be experienced is sense then you ask the question that all that you can experience is necessarily sensible. Say Yes, but all that is sensible is not necessarily true, so he makes a further space for you to dialogue. He makes a distinction between all that can be senses or experience and all that is true or not true. Why does he say this because if he doesn’t say you will trap him so before he tells you in the very beginning, before you trap him? I see that a stick which is straight when it is put into water, I see it bent so the word bent stick makes a meaning, its sensible. I see a bent stick but it doesn’t mean that bent stick is true of the stick. The truth of the stick is that it is straight. Now before you point out this experience and prove him somewhat weak. He himself starts by saying that I make a distinction between that which is sensible and that which is true. Fine, then what is the definition of true? The definition of true he says is that which is verifiable, in the case of the bent stick, it is bent only so long as you don’t verify it. When you take it out verify whether it is really bent or not, you find it is not bent so that which is verifiable is true. Fine, very good. You have made a good progress in dialogue then you go forward what is the meaning of verifiable, what is verifiable? Now here again he comes to a difficult terrain. He has to take a great care to see that you don’t trap him because he knows you are quite an adversary, quite powerful in your own way, but he doesn’t want be trapped. So when you ask the question what is verifiable? So he says in the first place that which is again and again physically seen − is verifiable, that which is again and again what is called objective. You see it, I see it, he sees it several people when they all confer and they come to the conclusion that yes we all have seen that is called verifiable. Fine, but why do you say that we only that which is verifiable in physical perception is called verifiable. Now it is at this point that he is really cornered. If he says that physical senses are the only means of knowledge then he knows your argument. How do you know that physical means are only means are the only means of knowledge, so he won’t make that argument. This is where the latest materialism stands, you might say. He has still not responded to your question. The dialogue in the world with a materialist stands here. The first dialogue is over, although many people are still making the dialogue of the first kind, but more advanced make the second kind of dialogue which I have presented to you. They have still not responded to your question. Now if you tell them, now this is a third category of dialogue, the second grade philosophers do not answer this question, they are still waking to answer your question. They have not been able to find an answer. There is a third category of materialists, who say that we should not limit ourselves only to those experiences which are physically verifiable, they admit. But he asked you the question I grant that you may have some experiences which are not physical, but tell me what is it that you are experiencing? Now you are thrown again into the same device. You say I experience soul and then he says I don’t understand what you are saying. He repeats the argument of the second grade philosopher and says, I don’t understand. What you are saying then you tell him that what I am saying is somewhat quite different. When you say it makes no sense to you fine. It makes no sense to you because you are accustomed so far to only one kind of sense, namely physical verification. Now you have admitted that physical verification is not the only thing, he says, yes − that is true. Would you like therefore to enter into a field which is not physical, so he says look first of all I don’t have that patience because I am very busy with what I am doing now, but
still, if you are very insistent being a friend I will have a dialogue with you so go ahead I will spend some time with you in a friendly chat then you argue and point out that look my dear friend that you are basically seeking a proof in terms of physical verification but I also know that because that proposition is not sustainable you have at least prepared with me that you are prepared to admit that there is some other way of knowing things, other ways of verification, but before I proceed further tell me an answer to one question which I will put to you. I will make very direct statement that soul, spirit words which are not understood by you are supra– physical, they are not physical. Do you agree with the proposition that the supra–physical cannot have physical proof?
Do you admit with me that if somebody says show me the invisible, would it not be irrational. You have agreed that you are rational, all of you are rational then would you not agree that when you say show me the invisible, is it not irrational. You are demanding the physical proof of something which I declare are supra–physical.