Disorder and relationship
Can we die to all things gathered?
1st Public Talk, New York, New York State
April 20, 1974
I think we should be rather clear about what we are going to say. We are going to talk over many things together and as this is not an entertainment, either religious, or social, or anything that gives one sensation, but rather it is a serious affair with which we are concerned. Most of us in this rather chaotic world are becoming less and less serious, we wish rather to be entertained, amused, we are seeking sensations, but I am afraid none of these things are going to change our lives, the way we behave, our violence, our brutality, the wars and the suffering. And as we are going to talk about these matters during these four talks, about disorder, and what is order, we are going to talk about suffering, fear, pleasure and what is love and the extraordinary meaning of death, and also we are going to talk over together what is meditation. To be concerned with these matters demands a mind that is serious, a mind that is capable of understanding and not coming to any conclusion, a mind that is not seeking definition or a description because a definition or a description is not what is described. And we have to be rather careful with the usage of words. Each one will translate what is being said according to his particular idiosyncrasy or his conditioning, and therein lies the danger of communication.
Communication implies, doesn't it, that we think over together, not that you listen to the speaker, what he has to say, but rather share in what the speaker desires to put into words. And sharing implies responsibility, sharing implies that you too partake, if you are really seriously interested in what is being said. And therefore it behoves that we should listen, and that is one of the most difficult things to do, to listen. Because when we hear any statement we translate it according to our conditioning, background, according to our particular desires, and hopes and despairs, therefore we are actually not listening. Listening implies that you put aside your particular fancy, your particular problem, your particular intention and experience but actually listen. Listen with your heart and your mind, to what is being said; not that you must agree or disagree because we are not dealing with ideas and speculative philosophy but rather we are concerned with what is actually going on, not only outwardly but also inwardly. To listen and therefore understand and act is a serious responsibility. And in this responsibility, which comes only when you pay attention, when you are committed to the understanding of our lives, the way we behave, the way of sorrow, our loves and despairs, fears and pleasures, then only there is a possibility of acting very clearly and very simply. And that action does not breed further disorder.
So if you are willing, and you must be apparently because you have all gathered here, we will go into all these matters. We are not bringing any Eastern philosophy, the speaker is not a Hindu, nor a Christian, Buddhist, he doesn't belong to any category. Philosophy implies, the very meaning of that word, is the love of truth, not speculative ideas, definite conclusions, various comparative religious intentions and meanings, but rather the love of truth in daily life. And as the speaker has spent nearly over fifty years at this business, not to convince you of anything, not to bring a new set of ideas and conclusions, or a new religious organisation to which you belong... try to persuade you to belong, but rather together investigate the enormous complex problem of our daily living because that is the utmost importance, isn't it, nothing else matters, because it is conduct, the way we behave, not only in our intimate relationships but also with our neighbours, our attitudes and actions with regard to other people, with other beliefs, with other conditionings. And if we can lay the foundation of right behaviour, and without that the search for truth, the desire that is becoming popular in this country about meditation, will have no meaning at all, because meditation is a very, very serious thing. It requires a mature mind, a mind that has lived in right relationship, a mind that is capable of understanding what is true order in conduct.
And so from the very beginning - which is from today for the next four talks that we are going to be here together - we are concerned with a religious mind that can comprehend not only the way of life of everyday action, but also a religious mind that is capable of entering into a world that is not of time, that is not of knowledge, that is not measurable. And when we use the word 'religion' we are not employing that word in the usual sense. The world religions are organised beliefs, based on propaganda, exploitation and belief and superstition. We are using that word 'religion' according to its original dictionary meaning. The dictionary is accepted as the norm of the usage of words. There it is neither your meaning nor the speaker's meaning, it is the meaning that comes from the original usage of that word. And religion implies in that sense, gathering all energy to transform or regenerate the mind so that it can comprehend and live in daily life a truth that is not measurable by social standards or by fear or by pleasure. The meaning of that word is a gathering of all one's energy, which means, give complete total attention to the excellency of conduct, give attention to suffering, what it is to love and the meaning of death, and to go beyond the whole movement of thought. That is the meaning of the word 'religion', which is concerned with the transformation, with the regeneration of man, not all this nonsense that is going on in the world, with their beliefs, with their rituals, with their authority, and so on. So we are using that word as it is originally intended. You cannot disagree or agree with it.
So as we said, we are concerned with the understanding, and therefore acting, of this religious mind which alone can bring about a different kind of revolution. I do not know if you have not noticed, a new culture can only take place with a religious movement, when a few really deeply, seriously live that kind of life, out of that few, or from that few comes a new kind of action.
So as we are dealing with very, very serious matters, I am afraid one has to give your attention, that means your care, your affection, your sense of responsibility.
So first let us consider the disorder in which we live. This disorder is spreading throughout the world outwardly: violence, brutality, the corruption of politicians, the division between the artist, the businessman, the politician and the priest, the fragmentation of the world into nationalities and therefore conflicts, wars. That is one of the reasons. All this indicates a great disorder, economic, social, religious and philosophical and the disorder that unfortunately the gurus bring into this country. I hope you tolerate all this, what the speaker is saying. Don't get irritated or angry with the speaker because he is just pointing out, he is putting the map of this extraordinary disorder in front of you. It is no good getting irritated or angry with the speaker when he points out these things. It is for you to look. And it matters very much how you look. If you look as a Christian you will not see the whole map, or a Hindu, or a Buddhist or some kind of sectarian idiocy. Or if you belong to one particular category of gurus and therefore conditioned by that peculiar degeneracy, then you will not be able to see clearly the whole of this map, the whole of this disorder which is destroying the world.
So if you want to look at that map of disorder you have first to be free to observe, not bring your opinions and your judgements and your evaluations of what should be and what should not be, your favourite politicians and so on, or your favourite gurus. And when you look at this disorder and also to look at one's whole life which is also disorderly - we mean by that word 'disorder' contradiction, say one thing, do another, think one thing and act something else. Disorder implies fragmentation, both outwardly and inwardly. This fragmentation as the artist outwardly, the politician, the businessman, the religious man, this fragmentation which prevents the whole human being, the totality of human being. Disorder implies conflict, conflict in our behaviour, conflict outwardly, conflict between nationalities, between classes, between various vested interests, religiously or business. So that's our life, great disorder. You know what - this is a description, description of the actual state of affairs in the world, whether you go to India, or to Europe or come to this country, and you see famine, despair, degeneracy, the old traditions that are destroying, and when you come to this country where there is so much energy, there too there is considerable disorder. And when we look at ourselves inwardly, if one can look at it dispassionately, at your own lives, how disorderly it is, and therefore how sorrowful, how utterly meaningless.
And the description is not the described. Description has no meaning, but what is described has meaning. You may disagree with the description, you may use different words, give different explanations, come to different conclusions, but the description is not the described, the word is not the thing. And so one must be very aware that we are not caught in words or in the description and explanation, but actually observe the fact of disorder. We mean by 'disorder', as we said, conflict, division, conflict in behaviour, conflict in our thinking, fragmentation of our lives, all that breeds disorder. The source of disorder, the origin of disorder is this self-centred, egotistic attitude towards the world, me first and you second, our colossal selfishness.
Now, can, in this chaos, in this agonising, despairing world, can there be order? Can we, as human beings, you as a human being, observing all this, can you bring order out of disorder? Or order comes naturally without effort when you understand or when you observe the disorder. Please understand my question. To us order is generally a pattern to be followed, a pattern established by the religions or by some moralist or by some philosophy, and conformity to that pattern is generally called order. Conforming, imitation, obeying to a sanction. And is that order? Or is that the very essence of disorder? Please, we are sharing this thing together, we are not asserting anything, we are asking, realising, being aware, of this extraordinary disorder that is going on outwardly and inwardly, in every corner of the earth - some weeks ago I was in India, in a little valley, unknown, there are no tourists fortunately there, it is a quiet valley, beautiful, restful, full of ancient rocks, and two villagers were passing by, uneducated, illiterate, and they were quarrelling, ready to fight and destroy each other about a piece of earth. And this disorder seems to exist in every corner of our heart and our mind. Now if one is serious about it, how is order to come out of this? Knowing that our minds have created this disorder, our desires, our selfish activities, our fragmentary attitude towards life, how is order to come out of it? Because without order there is no security, without order there is no conduct, there is no behaviour. Order is essential, outwardly as well as inwardly. And one realises that we human beings have created this, by our greed, by our arrogance, by our fears, the pursuit of pleasure, by our beliefs in various doctrines, philosophies, saviours and so on. We are responsible for it. And being responsible, and therefore serious, what is one to do, how is it possible to bring this order which is not conformity, order which comes with freedom not out of compulsion?
Therefore, what matters is how you look at disorder, how you observe disorder, how you listen to the noise of disorder. Is the observer who is looking at this disorder different from the disorder? Do you understand my question? That is, the observer who looks at the disorder about him and also in him, is the observer different from the thing observed? Please, this is really serious. Let's take time over it. Because if I may point this out, unless you understand this, this basic principle, we shall live always in contradiction, in opposition, in conflict. That is, I see around me wars, mothers, wives, crying out of the wars, the division of the rich and the poor, the injustice, the falseness of behaviour of the politicians and so on. I see this colossal mess and confusion around me. I am not exaggerating it. This is an actual fact that is going on. And also one observes in oneself the contradiction, the poses, the hypocrisy, the vanities, the arrogance, the competition, the utter lack of love, sensitivity, callousness, constant struggle. How does one look at this? Is the observer who is looking at it different from the thing he observes? You understand, please, my question? Because if the observer is different from the thing observed then there is opposition, then there is a division between the observer and the observed, between the thinker and the thought, between the experiencer and the experienced, therefore there is opposition, division and therefore conflict. Do you look at it that way? Are you different from the thing you observe, which is disorder? Or the observer is the observed? The observer who is himself in disorder, therefore he is not different from the disorder which he is observing.
After all, this mind, our human mind, with all its cunning, with all its capabilities, with extraordinary capacities, has created this mess. That is, your mind, your heart, your whole being, your activities, your way of life, has created this agony of disorder in the world. Are you different from that disorder? Or you are that disorder? Please, this is really important because once you eliminate from your mind opposition altogether, which is division altogether, then you are faced with actual facts, with 'what is', and then you can deal with it. But if there is division between you as the observer and the thing observed, which is different from you, then you will always live in conflict and therefore in disorder.
So can you observe this disorder without the observer? The observer being the entity who judges, who evaluates, who has his own peculiar opinions about disorder. Can you look at this problem of disorder, which we have explained clearly what we mean by disorder, can you look at it with eyes that are not burdened with the past conclusions, opinions, judgements, evaluations, who is the observer? You understand? This requires great attention. This requires an awareness of not only of what is happening outwardly but also inwardly and the reactions that arise, to be aware of all that, which is the very essence of disorder. Because your opinion is different from another, your judgement, your evaluation, your hopes, fears, your ambitions.
And can we look at this disorder not as an outsider looking in but the very observer is the disorder because he has created this. Then what takes place? You understand my question? Are we sharing this together? That is, I observe disorder not with a conclusion, with an answer, with my particular idiosyncrasy or conditioning, I just observe this disorder. There is no division between the disorder and myself. I am... the very me is disorder. So what then takes place when there is no division between me and the thing I observe? I hope we are taking the journey together.
When there is... when I am disorder - not that there is disorder outside of me - I am the very essence of disorder. This is very difficult to accept or to see because most of us have separated ourselves from the thing outside: we are orderly, we are noble, we are divine, we are this and we are that. But to put aside all that nonsense and to look at it, then what takes place? That is, what took place when there was division between me and the thing observed? When there is division between the observer and the observed there was conflict, there was opposition, there was wastage of energy. Right? Like two people quarrelling, two nations quarrelling, two ideas in opposition, that's a wastage of energy. So when there is a division between the observer and the observed, because of that division there is conflict. And out of that conflict every form of neurotic behaviour takes place. When the observer is the observed that conflict comes totally to an end and therefore there is a tremendous gathering of energy, which is not wasted in conflict.
May I go on, are we together in this? Because unless you understand this, this basic reality, and it is reality, whether you like it or not, but if you don't like it it is good for you to hear it, because nobody will tell you these things; they have all got philosophies, they have all got conclusions. And it is good to hear something that is true, that is honest, because that does something irrevocable.
The wastage of energy has gone into conflict when there is division, between Israel and the Arabs, between the Hindus and the Muslims, between the Christians, among their various sects, Baptists, you know, all that business. So wherever there is division there must be conflict. And in that conflict every form of neurotic behaviour takes place. Escape from conflict is a neurotic behaviour, whether you escape from conflict through churches, rituals and all the rest of it, or take a drink, or take drugs, or escape through sex, and all that, it is all neurotic behaviour. Now when the observer is the observed, then conflict ceases therefore there is no action which is neurotic, no action which is regrettable, therefore that action is total, whole.
So out of this disorder comes naturally order, not the order of a blueprint, not the order of the sergeant, not the order of a society which is so utterly immoral, as our society is, but an order that is flowering, that is moving, that becomes extraordinarily clear. This you have to not understand tomorrow, you have to understand it now as you are sitting there. Don't say to yourself, if I may tell you, 'I'll think about this. It's rather a good idea but I haven't time now, I'll think about it when I am quiet'. You are quiet now, there is no future, there is only now. You have to see this now and when you see it clearly then out of that clarity blossoms order. And that order has a great sense of austerity, a great sense of beauty, it is not a thing put together by thought.
So that is the first thing. If a man wants to be serious and go into the problem of existence that is the first thing he has to understand, that division between himself as the observer, as the experiencer, as the thinker and the thought, the experience and the thing observed are different, when that division comes to an end there is a totally different kind of action. This is not a philosophy, this is not an idea, a conclusion, but a thing to be observed in daily life and lived in daily life.
From that we can go to the next thing which is, all life, all living is relationship, there is no living without relationship. May I go on with all this? Please, may I suggest let me... let the speaker talk for a while and then you can ask him questions.
Questioner: I can’t hear.
Krishnamurti: You can't hear? You are just now saying this after forty minutes! I have nearly talked for an hour and you say you don't hear me.
Q: It’s always hard to hear.
K: It's awfully hard to hear up there.
Q: I spoke to the manager and he said he gave you two microphones.
K: I can't move the chair. Is that better? Why didn't you tell me an hour ago? It's nearly twelve. I was going to talk about relationship because it is one of the most important things in life. You know all religions have denied human relationship. They are related, at least they think they want to be related to God, to a saviour, to some ideal. The whole religious field in the past and also unfortunately in the present where the monks, in India, in the Buddhist world and here, deny human relationship. They are wedded to Jesus or to Krishna or to Buddha or somebody else, which is a picture in their mind. And we are talking, at least the speaker is talking about relationship, human relationship in which there is so much disorder. Until we solve that disorder in human relationship, seeking through meditating has no meaning, it's an escape. So it becomes very important, if you don't mind my pointing it out to you most earnestly, it becomes very important to find out what is right relationship because unless we understand that we will live a miserable life, a life of conflict, a life of jealousy, a life of anxiety, despair, frustration. And I think unless we see this disorder in our relationship, whether intimate or the relationship with another far away, one has to realise one cannot possibly live without relationship, whether you live in a monastery, go to a guru and his ashrama which becomes a concentration camp or escape into some woods. This is a fundamental issue whether human beings can live together in relationship in which there is not a shadow of conflict.
I do not know if there is time to go into it this morning because we thought at the end of the talk we would ask questions. So would you like me to go on or would you like to ask questions?
Audience: Go on.
K: All right. You see I hope you can listen to all this because you must be tired. You have spent an hour in discussing one kind of disorder. Now we are going to spend some time to talk about the disorder in relationship, in human relationship, and if you are not tired then we can go on into it.
First of all, what is relationship, what does it mean to be related? What does the meaning of that word, the dictionary meaning, not your meaning or my meaning - we can invent every kind of meaning according to our fancy, according to our hope, but actually what does relationship mean? It comes, I think, from the word to respond, respond adequately to each relationship whatever it is, in the business world, in the political world, in the religious world, in the world of... in every field, to respond adequately, to respond fully, to respond wholly. The word 'wholly' means sanity, whole means sanity, whole means healthy, whole means holy, h-o-l-y, all that is implied in that word 'whole'. And to respond wholly in relationship is to have no disorder in that relationship. So that's only an explanation, don't be caught by the explanation or by the word because we are so easily caught up with words, we are a slave to words, we memorise this definition and then try to live according to that definition, which is absurd.
Now, what does it mean to respond wholly in relationship? Do we ever respond wholly? That means totally, sanely, healthily, with holiness. Or do we respond fragmentarily, disjointedly, inadequately? Please observe yourself and your relationship. Do you ever respond wholly, or is it only partial? You may respond wholly sexually, and apparently that relationship has become extraordinarily important in this world probably that's because... we will go into it another time. What is the fact first, what is actually going on in our relationships, not what should be, but what is actually taking place? That is, we are related to each other through the images that we have built about each other. Right? Am I stating the fact? Of course I am stating the fact, you mightn't like it, you mightn't like it but that is the fact. You have an image about her and she has an image about you; you have an image about the politician or the businessman or the artist or the holy man or the religious man, you have many, many images. And the image you have about another, specially in an intimate relationship - as a husband, wife, man, boy, girl and so on - each one has an image about the other. Those images are related. You are not related, your image about him and your image about her are related. Those images have been built through various days and various incidents, flatteries, hurts and all the rest of it. Therefore those images are fragmentary and therefore there is no relationship at all. You may hold the hand of another, you may call it my family, my wife, my children, but you have an image about yourself much stronger than the image about her or your children. The image is your picture of yourself. And how can that image ever act wholly? Right?
So we have this problem in relationship. Having created the image or many images about her or him, and realising that these images are actually preventing adequate response, which means response wholly, what is one to do with the image that you have - please listen to this - and how to prevent future images being built? Do you understand my question? I have built an image about you, you are my brother, my wife, my mother, my sister, my lady and so and so on, you have said things to me, hurt me, you have bullied me, you have dominated me, you have given me pleasure, you have been my companion, sexually, this, that, I have built an image about you. The image is the image which is the response of the image which I have about myself. Right? And that image prevents my relationship with you. I realise that very clearly. And how is that image and the formation of further images to end so that I respond wholly to you? You understand my question? You see, I have created an image about myself because that is part of my education. I begin to create images about myself from childhood, through school, through college, all the environment brings about this image in me about myself. That's part of my life, that's part of my culture, that's part of my religious and social and economic and ordinary education, to build an image about myself. And that's one fact.
Then according to that image I build another image about you and that image, the original first image feels it must not be hurt. Are you following all this? We are not analysing because analysis is paralysis. (Clapping) No, no, please, don't, would you mind not clapping, it is not worth it. What is important is that you understand and live this, not waste your energy clapping. As I said, we are not analysing. I won't go into the question of analysis because it is rather complex. But we are merely observing. When you observe you see so much. It is only when you analyse you don't see because then there is the analyser and the analysed, there is a division. Where there is a division there is conflict and therefore you don't see completely.
Now we are saying there is the original image of myself and that image doesn't want to be hurt, doesn't want to express itself except according to its own fancy and so on and so on and so on. And in relationship there are various hurts, various flatteries, companionship, friendship, sexual appetites, all that takes place. And that creates another image. And so I have got dozens and dozens of images. I am saying to myself and I hope you are doing it, though I do it for you, how is it possible - is it possible, not 'how' - it is possible not to have an image at all? Then only I can respond completely. Now how is it possible not to have an image? I know I have an image built through the environment, through culture, through education and all the rest of it, that's the 'me' which says, 'I must succeed, I must fulfil, I must become great, I must be famous, I must have money, I must have' - you follow, the 'me'. And there is the image about you. Now how is this image about you to end, never to take place? It can only end - please listen to this, it's very simple, therefore you will miss it if you don't see the simplicity of it, we want something complex, we love something complex, we can't look at things simply. My image about you comes to an end completely when I am aware of what you are saying and give attention to what you are saying. You insult me, you flatter me - to be aware, attentive, at that moment. You understand? It is only when the mind is inattentive the image takes shape. Right? Am I explaining this clearly?
Look, you flatter me, there are many, various ways of flattering, clapping. Clapping is one of the ways of flattering. Now I am aware at that moment the whole implications of that clapping. That's a form of flattery. To be attentive at that moment. Attention implies non-duality as the observer and the observed. When you are completely attentive - have you ever noticed? - there is no division. And when you flatter, at that moment give your whole attention to it, then you will see there is no image formation at all. Do it as you are sitting now, there, observe the image you have built about her or him, non-analytically. This is really important. Non-analytically, just observe the image you have. That image has been created, has come into being through various incidents, pleasurable, non-pleasurable, and all the rest of it. Now look at that image you have about her or him with complete attention. Then you will see in that attention there is no image at all. So the past image and the image that you might build will disappear when you give complete, whole, non-fragmented attention. Not the attention of concentration, not the attention of will. Do you understand all this? Isn't it too much at one talk? It's up to you.
So human relationship or rather the lack of human relationship is destroying the world. It is becoming more and more mechanical, our minds are becoming mechanical, we can see things being killed, a baby seal be killed, and we say, yes, we tolerate it. We don't mind destroying, killing somebody called Russian, or Chinese, German or this or that because still we have pictures, images about these people, and therefore we are killing the images and not the people.
So what takes place when there is no image between you and me, the image being conclusions, the image being your desire, your hope, your this, your that, what takes place when there is not a shadow of this image formation? Isn't that love? Isn't that the quality of a mind that is really sensitive, that knows care, attention, that gives... that allows the flowering of love, not the love of desire, pleasure.
Well sirs, I think that is enough for this morning. Now do you want to ask any questions?
K: Yes, sir, just a minute, sir. Now wait a minute. When you ask questions please find out why you ask questions, and from whom are you expecting the answer? If you wait for an answer - please do listen - if you wait for an answer then you do not share either in the question or in the answer. But if you put the question in order to share the question with me, with another, then the answer is in the question. Which doesn't mean I am preventing you from asking questions. You must ask questions, you must doubt but doubt must be held on a leash and let go when necessary and held otherwise doubt has no meaning. So to ask questions is very important, and to ask questions which you are willing to share with another. That means you are listening to the question not be occupied with your own question. You understand? I am sure you have got lots of questions. Wait a minute, sir. Each one has his own question, he is occupied and he won't listen to that man's question. But if you listen to that question we are sharing it together. You have understood? Right. Now, sir?
Q: Thanks. Recognising the relationship that one has with one’s society, how are we to draw sustenance from that society and work in it without the increasing ignorance and evil that sustain it?
K: I can't hear it, sir. Has someone else heard it? I can't hear it, sir, properly. And, sir, if you don't mind, be brief.
Q: Recognising the relationship with one’s society, how is one to sustain oneself as a work, work within that society?
K: Right, I have understood. Recognising one's relationship with one's society what is one to do with regard to livelihood. Isn't that it, sir?
Q: Yes, sir.
K: What is one to do about livelihood recognising the responsibility of one's relationship to a particular society? What is my relationship to this society, first, and what is my action in livelihood, what am I to do? Right? Now what is my relationship to the society in which I live? The society which is the Christian society, the society that is so immoral - right? - it is an immoral society, a society in which everything is permitted, every kind of deception, hypocrisy, corruption. That is the society and I am related to that. What is my responsibility to that society? Who has created that society? Who has created the society in which you live? Past generations and the present generation, you are creating it, you are responsible for it. That we don't want to see. We say it is the fault of the politicians, it is the fault of the pioneer spirit, it is the fault of wrong philosophy, it is the fault of behaviourism, you know, anything but it is not my fault. You have created this society, you are responsible for it because you are greedy, envious, you hate people, you are envious, ambitious, competitive, money has become tremendously important. Money means freedom, and freedom is related to what you want to do. And you are that society, not you are different from that society. You, as the observer, is non-existent, as I pointed out, you are that society. So your relationship to that society is non-existent, you are that society. I wonder if you see this. You put a wrong question when you say, 'What is my relationship to that society?' as though you were different, noble, highly minded and all the rest of it, a glorious entity and you say, 'I am related to that'. You are that because in yourself, if you will pardon me pointing it out, you are corrupt, you are ambitious, you are greedy, you are money-minded and all the rest of it, and you have created this society and tolerate this society. And in this society you say, 'How am I to have a right livelihood? I must live, I must have a job, now what am I to do?' You understand my question, sirs? What am I to do to earn a livelihood in a corrupt society? And I am also corrupt.
Now is it possible - now wait a minute - see what takes place. Society which I have built and my past generations have built, that's corrupt, therefore I am that corruption, I am that immoral structure called society. Do I see this, or it is merely an idea, a concept, or do I actually see it? If I see it, not as divided 'me' and society, 'me' is the society, 'me' is the community, 'me' is the country I live in and destroy the country, then what takes place? Out of that perception grows intelligence, doesn't it? You understand, sir? Intelligence is the highest form of sensitivity. Please listen to this. You can only see this when you are sensitive and therefore out of that sensitivity, out of this perception there is intelligence. Not the intelligence of books and cleverness and all that filthy business but intelligence which we will go into as we go along. Now that intelligence will tell you what to do, that intelligence will tell you the occupation that you should have. But if you make up your mind according to your prejudice in relation to the society then you are going to create a great deal of mischief and conflict. Right, sir.
Q: Could you talk a little more about the observer and the observed?
K: Could you talk a little more about the observer and the observed. This will have to be the last question.
Sir, take any object, any object and look at it, a cloud, the blue waters of a lake, the solitary hill upon a tree - I mean, the tree upon the hill. Look at your friend, your wife or anybody. How do you look at it? You look at a tree, or a watch, or a cloud, when you look at a cloud with all the light, the depth and the marvellous beauty of it, when you look at it you use words - that's a cloud, it is beautiful, it's full of light - so you are looking with a judgement. Right? When you are looking at a tree your botanical knowledge, your like and dislike, your sense of your favourite tree, all that interferes with your looking at it. Please, follow this. And when you look at your friend, your wife or your husband, you are again looking at it with the image you have. So the observer is the past, the observer is the entity that has knowledge, that judges, that evaluates, the entity that looks with pleasure and displeasure. Right? So the observer is the past. And the observer is the tradition, is the experience, is all that. Now can you look at the tree, at the cloud, at the wife, at the child, without the eyes of the past? Which is, look without the observer. What you see is the present and you look at it with a conclusion which is the past. So there is a division between the past and the present, as the observer and the observed. Am I making it clear? I'll go on explaining, you will see it in a minute.
The past is the tradition. Right? Now in India and in the world of religion the past plays a tremendous importance. Right? Tradition. The meaning of that word 'tradition' is to hand down, to hand over from the past to the present, and it also has got an extraordinary meaning which nobody uses, and you will find it in good dictionaries, which is, tradition also means betrayal, to betray. Betray what? Betray the present if you are traditionally minded. You understand? So the observer is rooted in tradition in the past, with his experience, with his knowledge, with his accumulated technology and so on and so on, he is the past. So the observer is the essence of knowledge, and the observer is the past, knowledge is past. And with that he looks, therefore he betrays the present. Now can you, after listening to that, which is only a description - words are used to convey the meaning of it so don't be caught in the words - and can you look at the cloud, at the tree, at a sheet of water sparkling in the sunlight, at your wife and your husband without the observer, without the knowledge that you have acquired, which is the past? Then you will see that you are not the cloud - you don't become the cloud - but you see the beauty of that cloud totally differently, you see the tree with all the beauty of that leaf and the branch and the movement of the leaf entirely differently. And when you look at your wife, husband, her or him, without the past, then you are for the first time seeing the person as he is. Then in that there is great beauty. Out of that comes great affection and love. Right, sirs.