I see some of my old friends are here!

Can I, can we, if you will allow me to talk for a little and then we can discuss the questions or have a dialogue. Shall we do that? (pause) I hope you like the place.

Sir, I'd like to go into the question, which I think is quite serious: why is it that human beings throughout the world, in spite of all the terrible things that are happening, don't seem to fundamentally change themselves. Not at an elite group or belonging to some sect and conforming to a particular pattern but I'm sure one must have asked oneself, why we don't fundamentally change. Not go from one group to another, or one swami to another, one guru to another, which will become rather silly, but seeing what the world is, the mess, the chaos, the utter brutality and all the rest of it, poverty, violence, wars, we human beings psychologically seem to remain as we have been for millennia upon millennia. Why is it that we fundamentally, radically don't bring about a psychological change in ourselves? That's one of the questions we could discuss if you will. And also another problem involved in that is: I wonder if one realises, not intellectually, or idealistically or theoretically, that we are the world and the world is us. That is a statement that can be investigated, corroborated and see for oneself the truth of that. Psychologically, inwardly, wherever one goes the same problems exist - sorrow, pain, suffering, fear, pleasure and all the rest of the content of one's consciousness is common to all human beings. Whether they live in this country or in America or in Europe or in Russia or in China or wherever one lives, this is the common factor of all human beings, that we all suffer, that we all have fears, great deal of uncertainty, loneliness, and there is very little love, sorrow and all that. That's the common factor of every human being in this world. And so we are the world and the world is us; not as an idea or as a problematical theory or a concept but as an actual fact.

The fact is different from an idea. The word 'idea' comes from Greek and so on which means to observe. Originally the meaning of that word 'idea' was to observe. And from that, through observation we make an abstraction of what we have observed. And that abstraction becomes much more real than the fact of observation and that which has been observed. So, when we hear a statement of this kind - that the world is us and we are the world - either one observes it as an actual fact or through observing that which is a fact, you draw a conclusion, an abstraction as a conclusion or as an idea and live with that idea. I hope I'm making myself clear. Or one lives or understands, sees the full significance of this statement. So we ought to, if I may, we ought to go into that rather deeply, if you will. That when we say 'we are the world and the world is us', all individuality disappears; the individuality as we know it, as we consider, which is, that an individual is something separate from the rest of mankind; that one is different from another psychologically though physiologically you may be different - brown, white or tall, short, black and so on. So, is there an individual? The word 'individual' implies an entity who is not fragmented in himself. The meaning of that word 'individual' is indivisible in himself; is not broken up - broken up into various categories and careers as a businessman, as a doctor, as a professor, teacher, politician, a religious man and so on. This breaking up into various categorical divisions is what we are now and therefore we are not individuals at all. One part may be extraordinarily cultivated, intelligent, alive, the other parts are rather dull, dormant or totally neglected. So there is no individual in the pure sense of that word - a human being who does not live in fragments. And as we do - God and no God or you know, broken up, the whole human structure and nature is to live in departments. And when one goes into this question of 'we are the world and the world is us' it becomes that one human being is the representative of all humanity.

Please, neither accept nor reject this statement. Let's investigate it so that you as a human being see what are the implications of our daily life, how fragmented they are and how every human being, wherever he lives, is fragmented; so we are the representatives of this fragmentation of the world. And is it possible to live a life that is whole, complete, sane, sanity and holy? Is that possible? I think that must be one of the questions that all human beings must face. And since we are a small group - I'm rather glad of it - we can go into it, have a dialogue. That every human being, you, I, every human being is the representative of all humanity. You know, that gives you a tremendous sense of great vitality, great strength when you see you are not just a flotsam in a vast ocean of humanity. I don't know, can we discuss that, can we go into it?

And from that: is it possible to bring about a change, not only change, a transformation, a mutation in the whole of consciousness. Our consciousness being all the things that thought has put in, has created - the Gods, the fears, the pleasures, the loneliness, the sorrow, all the complexities that thought through the millennia has produced, which makes up our consciousness. So there are two things that we ought to go into very carefully, if you are interested and I presume you must be interested to have come here.

So we are asking first, does each one of us see the truth, the fact, that we are the world, psychologically? That is, every human being suffers both biologically as well as psychologically; every human being has fear of various kinds; every human being, unless he is completely neurotic, is uncertain, lives in disorder; says one thing and does another; caught up in various beliefs and dogmas. And religion has become merely rituals, tradition, superstition. These are the common factors of all human beings in the world. So you are fundamentally the world - the psychological world. And is it possible for a human being who is the representative of humanity to transform totally, bring about a mutation in consciousness which then will affect the rest of mankind? Can we go into that?

What is a fact? We are not - please, let's understand very clearly from the beginning that this small gathering are concerned fundamentally to bring about a radical change in themselves, in daily life; not theoretically, not an abstraction. That's why we meet. Otherwise, it's not worth meeting: we are not serious then. So I am asking, do we understand a fact, what is a fact? What do you think is a fact? Come on, sirs. Is a fact that we observe, that which we observe? I observe that tree and is my observation distorted, perverted, conditioned and so I don't see the fact? But I see only the image which the word 'tree' has created in my mind and so I am seeing not the fact of the tree but the image which I have about a tree. Do you understand what I am saying? What do you say, sirs? Because, science, in its full significance, means observation, to observe. But when a scientist looks through the microscope, and if he comes with a certain conclusion and observes that which he is seeing through a microscope, that which he is seeing is distorted because of his conclusion. This is - no? Are we talking Greek or English? Can we see clearly anything, the tree, myself, my husband, my wife, my neighbour, observe without any distortion. Then what we see is the fact in which there is no distortion. Right? Can I observe the mountain, those hills without using the word 'the mountain' which is already a factor of distortion, just to observe? Are we meeting each other somewhere?

All right, sir, can you observe the speaker who is sitting unfortunately on the platform, can you observe him without the image that you have created about him? But if you have created an image about him, then you are looking at him through the image, therefore you are distorting your observation. In the same way, can you observe a human being, another, without that image which is the factor of distortion, therefore observe very clearly? Can you observe your guru - if you have any, I hope you haven't any - can you observe that human being who calls himself a guru, or you have made him into a guru, can you observe him without the image that you have built up about gurus? You can, can't you? Or is that an impossible factor? And if you do, will you have a guru? You understand my question? Oh, come on!

So we are trying to find out because it's very important in one's life to deal with facts and not with theories, not with ideas, not with suppositions or theories but deal with facts only. If I have cancer, that's a fact because I have consulted several doctors, surgeons, unless they are crazy they tell me 'you have got cancer' after examination, bioscope and all the rest of it and that's a fact. Can I observe that fact without fear? Go on, sir, examine it. So are we in our talks and discussions and dialogues, dealing with ideas, theories, conclusions and not concerned with our daily, everyday life? Which is it we are doing? Come on, sir, you must, this is simple - which is it we are doing? Are we concerned with ideas, ideals, conclusions, abstractions or with our daily life which is so complex, with our daily misery, travail, anxiety, loneliness? If we are, then we can do something about it, actually. I can do something if the doctor or the surgeon tells me that I have cancer. I can postpone it or discuss it, whether it is important, whether it can be done immediately, face the whole sequence of it in order. If I am dealing with abstractions or conclusions which I have made up through various experiences and so on, those are not facts. So when you are dealing with abstractions you can play all kinds of tricks. Whereas if you deal with daily facts, daily suffering, daily anxiety, loneliness, bitterness, anger, hatred, the innumerable things that we have to face in daily life, then we can deal with them. And I am afraid in India, more so than in other parts of the world, we are - not 'we', I exclude myself out of that - they live in a world of suppositions, beliefs, superstitions, theories. So they never enquire into their whole nature, structure, being.

So we must be very clear, if you are serious, whether we are dealing with theories, abstractions, conclusions, ideas or with the daily facts of life. Which is it we are doing, sirs and ladies, if I may ask? Absolute silence! But if you want to discuss about God, I'm sure you will all sit up and take notice! And if you want to discuss about Advaita or whatever the stuff you call, and you will all sit up and play with it, argue back and forth. But if you are dealing with daily facts you all become silent. So that's why it becomes extraordinarily difficult for the speaker who is only concerned with the daily facts, not abstractions. From the observation of daily facts like anger, jealousy, hatred, the cunningness of thought, having understood that completely, radically and gone beyond them, then we can go into something fundamentally real, true. But to think, to avoid this and go, spin with a lot of words and nonsense has no meaning. So please let's be clear between ourselves what it is you are doing - you and the speaker. Can we be clear on this matter? Oh, my Lord! What, sirs?

The other day, Mr Patwardhan and I were discussing, talking over. I asked that person whether in India - don't say have they done it in the rest of the world, that's irrelevant - has any teacher, guru, any ancient philosophers and so on, except the Buddha, has anybody said, know yourself first? Do you understand my question, sir? You understand what I am saying? Why are you all so silent, sir? And the reply was, perhaps one or two, and even that I question. Sir, don't you see, how can we go very further or deeply if we don't know ourselves? Not according to some saint or some philosopher or psychologist but actually to know for yourself what you think, why you do certain things, whether you're anxious, fearful. Right? That is, to know yourself, to know what you are. Not what Shankara, this or that person said. That's all nonsense. But to know yourself means you have to observe. Observe yourself in what you are doing, why you are doing it, which doesn't become egocentric activity. But it does become egocentric activity when in observation you try to change, move, alter the facts according to your like and dislike, then it becomes utterly meaningless and selfish. Can we go on? I am going on. You understand what I am saying? That's why I think it's very important from the beginning to find out what it means to observe.

I was talking to one of the great scientists and he was saying something which I wanted to enquire about which was, when you observe - please listen, just two minutes, give your attention to it - when you observe without any pressure, without any conclusion, just to observe, that which you observe undergoes a change. I asked him if this is a fact because I have seen that when you observe your greed - observe your greed or your antagonism, violence - not try to make violence into non-violence which is nonsense but to observe that violence without any distortion. You understand? Distortion being, the very word 'violence' is a distorting factor. I wonder if you see that. Do you? Sir, come on, sir. Because violence, the very usage of that word implies condemnation, and we mustn't be violent and all the moral and ethical and environmental impressions, conclusions. But can you observe that violence without the word and observe? Have you ever tried any of these things? Then that which you observe undergoes a fundamental change. So I asked the scientist - I said 'Tell me', I know him fairly well and I said, 'Look, find, can you observe through a microscope that which you are seeing, to look at it without any hypothesis, any conclusion and what happens when you do?' He said 'Then you observe that which is actually going on and therefore as your observe there is transformation taking place in it'. Right, Doctor?

Can you observe yourself with that clarity, because you are fundamentally the world and the world is you. So if there is, in that observation, a total mutation then your whole consciousness with all its content can transform itself and therefore that which is transformed affects the whole of mankind. Right? Is this all new or is it all something - what do you say, sir?

Psychologically mankind has not changed very much. If you observe the ancient Egyptians, the Babylonians and the Persians and all the rest, down history, that human beings, in themselves, with their greed, with their anxiety, with their fears are more or less the same as the present twentieth century. Right? This is a fact. No? And as there is no longer biological change for man - you can't grow a fourth arm or a third arm - the only possibility left is deep psychological revolution. Not evolution - evolution implies time, gradual growth. We won't go into that, it becomes too complex for the moment.

So what are we dealing with, between you and the speaker, what is it - at what level - that's better - at what level are we communicating with each other? Are we communicating at the verbal level because you and I happen to understand English? So are we communicating with each other at the verbal level - please, listen to it - or at the intellectual level? The intellect being the capacity to grasp quickly; to understand quickly - not act quickly but to understand quickly, to see the meaning of something, the exercise of the intellect. Is that - at that level are we communicating with each other? That is, verbally, intellectually or are we communicating with each other about the fact that one is greedy, anxious, fearful, lonely, sorrow-ridden and facing that and communicating at that level with each other? What is it we are doing? Come on, sirs. Would you kindly tell me at what level are we meeting? You can say at the sentimental level, romantic level, a devotional level, which is all emotions. Or we are understanding each other verbally as we happen to know English. Which is intellectual, verbal, argumentative, agreeing, disagreeing or you and the speaker meet at a level where we are concerned with the transformation of that which is, actually is in us, not theoretically. I think one has a right to ask this. I am asking it and as I happen to be sitting, unfortunately, on a platform, so I am asking you definitely, at what level are we meeting? Or are you meeting because you happen to have one guru and you have become his unfortunate follower, and you are window-shopping? You know, what that widow-shopping is? You understand, window-shopping? What it means, sir, do you? You go, when you are in town, you go from one shop to another looking at the various widows and what they contain. Is that what you are also doing? If you are not very clear, how can we meet each other? You understand my question, sir? I can hold your hand but if you haven't got the same feeling I can hold your hand, it'll be nothing. Right? So it's very important it seems to me at what level are we talking or discussing, meeting? What do you say, sirs? You see, unfortunately unless we settle this, we can't go very much further. Right? I say 'I want to marry you' and you say to me 'At what level? Why do you want to marry me?' Do you love me? Or do you want sex with me? Why do you want to marry me? Because you say, 'I love you' which means you also must love me? Right? Right, sirs? Then there is a meeting. For God's sake, wake up - there is some kind of meeting then. If you go to a guru - apparently, you people have gurus - you go there for a very definite purpose. You expect something from the poor chap, probably, which he hasn't got, but pretends or thinks he has and so he meets you. Because you want to be deceived and he is deceiving and you play the game. But if you want to meet somebody, say, 'Look, I don't want to meet you unless you and I are prepared to go into ourselves and find out, facts, not theories, then there is a possibility of us meeting together, go into it, deeply, seriously, earnestly and all the rest of it'.

Q: Sir, is it very important to put into words?

K: Eh?

Q: Is it very important to express? Supposing I am communicating

K: Is it very important to put into words, to express? Isn't it very important? I can say this is blue. I may be deceived because I am colour-blind and say, this is blue. And you say please, this is not blue; it's red or pink or whatever it is. Right? So there is need in communication to correct each other. That's one fact. And also communication verbally is necessary because I may give to one word a different meaning, you another meaning. So if we both understand the common usage of a particular word, then it becomes very clear. But if I don't speak at all and you don't speak and we can imagine all kinds of fanciful things, can't we? You may sit here with me, not with me, I won't, with somebody else and think you are living, having an extraordinary sense of peace. Right? But you may not be, that's merely an escape from daily noise. Right? So one must express what one thinks clearly and see the limitation of expression, limitation of reason, limitation of thought and then we can communicate totally at a different level, if you are at the same level. (Pause)

Sir, I would like to put you a question: do you know - know - that is, can you find out, not quote somebody, what is the origin of thinking? Mustn't you know that? What do you think is the origin of thinking? The beginning of thought. Say for instance, you can observe, if you are at all sensitive, want to find out, you can observe the beginning of anger, can't you? That's very easy, fairly simple, isn't it? You call me a fool. I can see the heat coming up, can't you?

Q: That’s a long chain, sir.

K: Eh?

Q: That’s a long chain. If we go deeply into that thinking, you know – I get anger

K: We are not - no, you are missing my point, please madam. You can observe the arising of anger. That's all I am talking. Not the cause and the future of anger, how to get rid of - nothing of that kind. Please, this is the importance of communication. You have already gone ahead without understanding what I want to say. Which is, you can observe very clearly the arising of anger. Right? Right, sir? Now, can you observe equally clearly the arising of thought, from what source, what is the bed, what is the matrix, what is the ground from which the thing grows? Shouldn't you find this out? Because we have given such great importance to thinking. Right? No? Tremendous importance - all our civilisation, all our culture, all our religion is based on thought. So it's very important to find out, isn't it, what is the beginning of this extraordinary thing which man has worshipped, which has created such havoc in the world also. Because it has created wars, created division, created the Hindu, the Muslim, the Arab, the Jew, the communist, the socialist. Right? Don't you want to know? Eh? Find out, sir, give a little thought to it.

Q: Memory.

K: What?

Q: Memory, memory.

K: Memory, you are sure? Eh? No, no, not you feel. You must be clear, sir, don't. You said memory. You may be right. So what is memory? Are you repeating something you have heard? Or is it your original discovery: thought arises from memory? Which is it, sir? As most of us are second-hand human beings - we are second-hand, aren't we? Right, sir? No? When the gentleman says it's memory, he is either repeating what he has heard, which makes him second-hand, obviously. Forgive me, not you, sir, generally. Or you are discovering it for yourself, then it is something vital. Then from there you can move, then it becomes like a tremendous stream of water. But if you say, 'Well, I heard, Mr K talk about memory and I repeat it,' it is just like a machine repeating, repeating, repeating. So what is the origin of thought?

Q: (Inaudible)

K: Yeah - I, beg your pardon! Yes. (laughs) Sorry, yeah, I say, but that's the American.

Q: (Inaudible)

K: Yes, I'll show you in a minute. We'll go into it. Are you interested in it? No, no, not a cunning game we are playing with each other. This is a very serious matter because if one understands, sees the fact how thought arises, then you will see for yourself that everything that thought has created, whether the gods, virtues, everything thought has created is fragmentary. Therefore, that which thought has created and made a mess of, thought cannot solve it. This is - right? I don't know if you understand all this?

Q: (Inaudible)

K: I am coming to them, Pupulji, just a minute. I said what is the origin of thought? And Pupulji asks can you observe actually not theoretically.

Q: At the actual second.

K: The actual?

Q: The actual second.

K: Yes, the actual second.

Q: Because

K: I understand.

Q: It ended.

K: What?

Q: (Inaudible)

K: I agree. As you can observe the arising of anger which is part of sensory perception.

Q: I would question that.

K: Question it, let's find out.

Q: I would like to find out.

K: Can you observe the moment of jealousy? You know, you all know jealousy, don't you?

Q: Actually

K: I am coming to that. Half a minute. I am coming to that. The actual second of arising. Can you observe jealousy the actual second of arising?

Q: If you name it as jealousy we cannot do it.

K: What, sir?

Q: If you name it as jealousy, we cannot do it.

K: I am asking you, no, sir, I am asking you, sir. Please find out. We've said, the very usage of that word is a distorting factor. Right? So can you observe that reaction which you have named as jealousy, can you observe that reaction arising at the second?

Q: Sir, if you can observe the arising of jealousy...

K: Can you observe? Not 'if'. We can play with 'ifs' and 'whens', and all that. But can you actually observe, sir, please, the second of this thing moving, growing, flowering and action? Eh?

Q: At that time, I can’t.

K: What?

Q: I can’t observe at that time.

K: Have you tried, sir? Have you done it?

Q: Yes.

K: No, no, don't easily say, yes or no, sir. Have you done it? Have you observed anger, the sequence of anger - sequence which means the order of anger? You understand, sir? No, no, please, this is very important - sequence implies order; mathematical sequence. I won't go into that, leave that for the moment. I say you can observe the very second of arising of thought.

Q: I say you can’t.

K: You say what you like.

Q: That would imply that in the same instant there is both attention and the arising of anger.

K: Both, both, what? What, what is the first thing?

Q: Attention and the arising of thought in the same instant.

K: No, I won't use the word 'attention'.

Q: Observation.

K: No, I won't even use observation. No, I am going to - that's why I want to go slowly into it, if you don't mind. Which is, there is an awareness - that's the difficulty. You and I must understand the meaning of the word 'awareness' first. Not attention, concentration. Just, please, I want to go into this because you may be ahead of me, you may be miles ahead of me and I am a slow person so I must go behind you slowly. The question Pupul Jayakar asks, is at the moment of arising of jealousy, there needs to be a certain attention or awareness, or a certain quality of being aware. In that awareness - please, listen carefully - in that awareness is there the movement of anger at all? You understand, sir? You understand? If I am aware, I can't be angry.

Q: That’s the point.

K: Yes, sir? It's only when I am not aware, I get irritated, I get angry, I get all kinds of things. Right? Right? But before that, I want to go into it. Before I am aware or anything, I say to myself, is it possible for me to watch - casually, I'm playing with it, I am having a game with myself. I am watching the movement of anger arising. I think that's fairly simple. Right? I think you've noticed all that, haven't you? No, sir?

Q: We could not follow. The point is when I am aware there is no jealousy.

K: I am saying, sir.

Q: How can I watch jealousy?

K: I am going to show you in a minute. You are not aware, therefore you're angry. But I want to find out, I want to watch the moment of this thing arising. I'm not aware. I just want to watch it. I want to watch a flower growing. I can watch the flower growing through slow-motion picture and all the rest of it. In the same way, watch myself, as a camera watches a slow - you understand? - movement, the sudden movement of flowering. So I watch myself, I can see how jealousy arises. Right? Because I am envious of you who have got a position, money, car, this, that and as I am envious, I can see, see in you, I can see the thing arising. This is fairly simple.

Q: I am in sleep, sir. At that moment I am in deep sleep. So I am not able to see.

K: No, no, no. You are not in deep sleep. I am watching. I am watching - you see the difficulty how - wait, I am coming to your point. We are all understanding the thing in different ways. That's why don't translate what I am saying into your own language but please, kindly listen to what - of course, you say what you want and I will listen most respectfully, in the same way I'll listen to you most respectfully, which is, first listen to me. I know, one knows anger, envy. That's fairly simple. And I say how does envy arise? Envy arises through comparison. Right? I envy you because you have got a car, position, power, money, social status - you are a great man and I am a poor, little chap and I want to achieve that, comparing and I say, what is the state of my - if I don't compare, is there jealousy?

Q: No.

K: No, no. Don't say yes or no. Find out. Because all our education, all our social structure, all our religious - everything is based on envy. No? I want to be like my guru. I want to understand Nirvana or some silly rot. So I am comparing, comparing, comparing. Educated from childhood till we die - compare. So I say comparison is the beginning of envy. So is there an ending of comparison? Not theoretical, end it. Can the mind stop totally from comparing? Now, I have reached that stage. I've said I've stopped it, I don't compare. But you say something to me, about being angry or something, and I can watch it very quietly as it's coming. I am not controlling it, I am not saying it's right - I can see it coming. Right? Now in the same way, I ask you a question: can you observe at the instant when thought arises? So I must find out - please listen - before I answer that question, I must find out the source from which thought arises; the foundation from which thought arises, from the bed from which thought arises, like a flower, what is that bed? I don't know, please follow, I am talking, you are not listening to your own thinking. I am asking you, if you don't mind, what is the bed, the earth from which it grows? Unless you answer that you won't be able to find out the other.

Q: How do you contact it?

K: What?

Q: How do you contact it?

K: How do you?

Q: Contact?

K: What do you mean contact?

Q: How do you get a feeling of it?

K: What is the soil from which thought arises? That's all. Make it very simple.

Q: Sir, I can’t ask myself that

K: Yes, but you are swept away, you are carried away, but before.

Q: I am always one step behind myself when I am angry.

K: You are always one step behind yourself when you are angry.

Q: Yes.

K: Or when you are envious. But I have slowed down all my process of thinking, all my process of reaction, there is an interval between the saying and my reaction. You follow? There is an interval. When you call me a fool, I listen, and I don't react instantly. So there is an interval between the statement and my reaction to it. This is - you can observe this, you can do that yourself. No, I won't be moved away from this fact. Which is, what is the bed, the rock, the source, the soil from which thought arises?

Q: Sir, sometimes it seems...

K: What?

Q: Sometimes it seems to me that it arises from ego, a centre

K: No, no, no, no. No, no. Ego, the centre is put by thought.

Q: Sir, but I want to tell you that sometimes it seems to me that thought comes out of an ego, you see that it is thought which has put together a thing like ego.

K: Sir, what is the ego, the 'me', and also the super 'me', the higher whatever that is, the atman, super atman, you can go on climbing the ladder. What is that? How is it put together? Come on, sir, this is fairly simple. By thought. All the gods that you see around you, is by thought. Jesus, Krishna, everything that exists in the world, architecture, except nature, everything is put together by thought. So - please, stick to one point. I'll have to stop, we have talked an hour and a quarter, we'll stop in five minutes. Let's be clear on this one point. From what source, from what basis, soil does thought arise? May I go into it? No, no, meet me. I talk and you listen and go off somewhere else. But we are, both of us, sharing the thing which we are talking about. The brain registers. Right? This is an actual fact, like that Nagra machine - it is now registering on a tape all that is being said. Our brain acts along the same way. Right? It is registering - registering incidents, accidents, experiences, all that is registered. From that arises thought. Right? If you don't register, there is no thought. No? If this goes wrong, there is no registration then. But see what is happening: I can register, the brain can register that which is pleasant, discard that which is not pleasant, but it's also a form of registration. Right? Of course.

Q: Sir, it is also recorded.

K: Of course. But the brain says, I don't want to think about it, look at it. So, follow this. The function of the brain is to register. Because in that registration there is safety for it, there is security for it. Right? Pupulji, right? No, don't, please listen to what I am saying. Which is, so the brain is registering so as to be secure, otherwise it can't drive a car. It would be most insecure to drive a car not having registered how to drive a car. Right? So it can register, and live in an illusion thinking that is real. Which most Hindus do. Right? All the gods, it's just an invention, illusion, superstition, and live there. But in that there is also security. No?

So, thought arises where there is registration. Now, can you observe the registration - can the brain - will you do it as I am talking? - can the brain watch itself registering? Are you following all this? Can the brain watch itself registering, knowing why it is registering, knowing that it is a means of security, and not register anything at all except what is absolutely necessary? I need to register how to drive a car. There needs to be a registration of English language and so on. If I am a labourer and a skilled labourer, I must register, there must be registration how to use a carpenter's drill. If there is a registration necessary to earn a livelihood in an office, it's registered and so on, so on. There, certain factors are necessary to register. Why should psychologically any registration taking place at all? Right? Right? Now, having said all this, and you having listened to it, now I am watching, can you watch the second the thought arises? Of course, you can. You don't see that.

Q: (Inaudible)

K: This has to be discussed much more. Mrs Jayakar says we will but let's be clear. That's why I want to - please, as we have got a few of us here, we can go into this really happily, deeply together. At what level are we meeting? If we are business people, we'll meet at one level. We both of us know we are cheating each other, we are trying to exploit each other, we are trying to go, etc. But if two people are artists - artists - they know at what level they are meeting. They can discuss painting this and that. Or two gurus and their disciples meeting. My guru is better than your guru - we can fight it out. Right? So we must be very clear where we are meeting and why we are meeting. If you come wanting something, gaining something, it becomes a business. Right? Right? Right, madam? I go to my guru, because I want something from him. But my relationship with him is entirely different. Right? If I come to you and say, 'Look, let's talk it over, let's have a dialogue', because two friends meeting and saying let's go into this thing - that's quite a different meeting. Right, sir? So let's be clear what it is we are doing first and then we can - then it becomes factual, you follow, sir? Not theoretical - then it's like a surgeon operating actually on something. We can't operate theoretically. Right?

I hope you'll have a good time in this Valley, a beautiful valley. Right, sir.