 Can two contemporary enlightened masters disagree with each other? As I've heard of Osho Rajanesh disagreeing about the way of Jay Krishnamurti. People can disagree or agree with whatever. If you talk to me about anything, art, music, politics, whatever, maybe I'll disagree with you too, with almost anything that you say. No, I didn't say you're contemporary enlightened, but I may disagree with anybody. But if we pay attention to life, there is no need to agree or disagree because the way it is is the way it is. Nobody agrees or disagrees about that. But about culture, about clothing, about music, about politics, about art, we can agree and disagree endlessly, isn't it? And the more we disagree, it gets better. Yes? Yes or no? About things around us, if we disagree, that is if you're joyful and disagree, if you're a miserable wench, then if you disagree, you will fight. If you're a little sophisticated in your head, disagreement always leads to betterment of things, isn't it? Suppose you and me disagree, how this should be arranged, we can sit here and debate about it for the next two days and then maybe come up with something really beautiful. But the moment we disagree, we get angry and we will fight. Such people are different. So if you can disagree joyfully and debate it, even the smallest aspects of life, it's perfectly fine. There is no necessity that you have to agree with everybody. You don't have to because when it comes to physical things around us, each one of us see differently, that's why so much variety of life has happened, isn't it? So many languages, so many forms of music, so many forms of art, so many… when many, many things have happened. Because if everybody agreed, all of us would be living in the cave. We disagreed. Maybe if you were a caveman's daughter, caveman's son. If you were a caveman's son, if you said, I want to build a hut out there, I'm sure your father disagreed. He said no. He said why a cave is good and all the great qualities of living in a cave, he would have expounded for you. But you disagreed. That's why a hut, that is why a million other things, isn't it? So it's all right. Enlightened or otherwise, you can disagree about a million things. What's the problem? But if you get to the core, you don't have to agree, you don't have to disagree. The way it is, is the way it is. Existential does not need your agreement or disagreement. It's simply that the physical, the psychological, the emotional needs agreement and disagreement. You try to gather around people who agree with you, which is a serious mistake because they must be stupid. If you have the sophistication and equanimity within yourself to be constantly around people who disagree with you, you will see you will do things much better in the physical world. If you have only people who agree with you, that means you have gathered an idiot bunch around you, who will say for everything, there are certain village level, for lack of vocabulary, I'm saying village level mystics in every village there will be one. And he will always have an assistant, sidekick. Whatever he says, that guy will sit there and say, adhsaripah. It means that's perfect, no? That's right. So whatever this guy is saying, that guy will go on punctuating with adhsaripah. So if you want to gather a crowd of adhsaripah people around you, that means you have a serious problem. If you want to do things in the world, you must gather people who will not agree with you, who will disagree with you, who will look at it, things in a thousand different ways than the way you look at it. Only then things will happen, isn't it? But the core of existence neither needs agreement nor disagreement. It is not asking for your agreement or disagreement. You can only dissolve into it. There is no debate about it.