Questioner (Q): Acharya Ji, I would like to raise a notion of compromise, and specifically in its primary dictionary definition, according to which, it is disagreement where both parties being unable to solve a problem settle on making concessions, so in a way, reaching a middle way.
Acharya Prashant (AP): Come again, compromise in the context of?
Q: So, I'm mentioning this primary definition because I know that there are other definitions, but I'm only now concerned with this one when both parties are trying to find a middle way. Then again, there are situations where this definition doesn't seem to hold. For example, there is a party next door, and we feel we are entitled to ask them to turn down the music, or I want to sleep and I feel entitled to ask others not to talk because, or I don't want to talk to someone, and I am expecting that they respect this request.
So, it seems that quietness and silence trump noise. And I am wondering, firstly, whether this we can take as proof that our innate nature is indeed silence. And secondly, I am wondering, how compromise, in this primary definition, comes into play in the spiritual process, and if it has any legitimacy at all.
AP: See, silence is, indeed, your inner nature, but not necessarily the silence of the oral kind. Inner nature is mental silence and not necessarily the silence in which there is an absence of words or sounds. Depending on the situation, even if you are surrendered to the inner silence, externally, you may require either physical silence or some material sound. So, either way, it is possible. And both these possibilities are when you are, indeed, surrendered to the inner silence; in love with the inner silence. In that case—two possibilities.
