May I first talk for a while and perhaps then we can have a discussion, if that is what you wish. Would you like that or shall I talk all the time? What is your wish? That I talk for a while and then we can have a dialogue, a discussion of what has been said? Which would you like?

Q: Sir, we would like you to talk completely.

K: What, sir?

Q: All the time you talk.

Q: Talk all the time, yes. (laughter)

K: I am afraid most of us are used to being talked at. And so it's very convenient just to listen and not really partake in what is being said. So I think, if I may suggest most earnestly, that I will talk for a little while and then perhaps we can discuss. I mean by discussion not merely expose one's own opinions, judgements but rather share each other's intention, each other's problems and explore together if there is a solution to these problems. That's what I mean by discussion, not just trying to show who is clever and who is not clever and so on. So I'll talk, if I may, first and then you will be good enough, if you wish, to have a discussion.

Perhaps many of you have also wondered why human beings throughout the world, perhaps the only animal that's so corrupt - I am using that word 'corrupt' in its basic sense, to be broken up, that's what the word means, to be broken up - so contradictory, so self-deceptive, so extraordinarily dishonest, self-deceiving. I wonder if one has ever asked oneself why human beings live that way: say one thing and do another, think and act totally opposite to what you think. All the indications throughout the world are that there is a great degeneration taking place. We are becoming more and more mechanical, following a routine, following certain traditions, following some leader, some guru - generally self-appointed. Why we human beings follow anybody at all? Except perhaps when you are physically ill, you need a doctor, a surgeon or a dentist. But psychologically, do we need anybody at all, inwardly to help us to step out of this corruption, this confusion, this extraordinary sense of insecurity that's going throughout the world? I wonder if you are aware of all this or you are all self-enclosed, have your own little family, your own little job, your own little guru and forget the rest of the world.

So, one asks why man, a human being, man or woman, has become so utterly degenerate. I am using the word very carefully: to degenerate, who is not creating himself, flowering in goodness, in beauty, but all the time destroying himself. If you have asked that question seriously and wish to explore the cause, the basic cause of this degeneration, of this way of living which has no meaning at all, this frightening uncertainty, insecurity. The wars are being prepared. I do not know if you have not read, four hundred thousand million dollars are being spent by all the nations for armaments. That's utter madness and we support it, we carry on. So, I am asking you, if I may, if you have ever considered seriously why human beings have become like this? They are supposed to be extraordinarily intelligent. They are supposed to have capacity, drive, energy, a continued, sustained intelligence. But apparently none of those act in our daily life.

So, we are going to talk over together the art of living a daily life properly, correctly, truly - the daily life, not a theoretical life, not an idealistic life, not a life according to some principle. Because if you live according to some ideal, as most people do, or according to some preconceived belief, then you are - one is becoming a hypocrite. You are all the time trying to be something other than what you are. I wonder if you understand this? That is, most people have ideals, I don't know why, but they have. And the ideal is something very far away. What is actual is what is happening now, in your consciousness, in your thoughts, in your feelings, what is happening around you in the world now. But if you have ideals, you are translating what is happening now according to a preconceived concept and therefore you are never directly in contact with the actuality, and so we become hypocritical. I do not know if you have you not noticed all this. And when one has a series of nonsensical beliefs - and all beliefs are nonsensical and probably neurotic - and they separate, these beliefs colour, cloud the actual happening in your life, your reactions, your jealousies, your anxieties, your fears. We know this, any intelligent man thinking about it knows this. That is, avoiding essentially facing the fact of daily life, not only externally but also inwardly. And yet we go on playing this game.

So, what is the basic cause of this corruption, this degeneration, this hypocrisy, the non-religious life? All your stuff, all the garlands and all that you put round yourself is not a religious life. Right? You are following somebody. Forgive me because you are all sitting in front of me, I can't help it. Don't laugh sir, it's much too serious. This is not a religious life. A religious life implies a life in which there is complete harmony in your daily action, in your daily life. We'll go into that if we have time later on. But all the temples, all the gurus, all the circus that's going on in the name of religion really has no meaning whatsoever. If you want to discuss that we will. But after discussion are you willing to throw all this aside? Or you say 'That's your opinion, my opinion is different' - we are not discussing opinions. We want to find the truth of the matter and to find the truth of the matter one has to have a mirror that doesn't distort your reactions, a mirror that tells you the truth of what you are so that it doesn't allow you to escape, that is, face exactly what you are, and from there move, change, radically bring about a transformation. But if one is all the time avoiding, avoiding, avoiding, then we never come face to face with ourselves.

So I am asking: what is the cause, the root cause of this destructive way of living our daily life? If you have asked yourself this - not theoretically, not when you have a moment or two, not when you have some kind of fanciful leisure, but when you are really concerned - and every human being must be concerned for the world is in a terrible mess, and we are part of that world. We are the world. I do not know if you see that too. The world is what we have made of it - not the nature, not the stars - the world of our society, the society in which we live, we have made that. And it actually represents our conditioning, psychological as well as physiological. So, we are the world and the world isn't different from me or from you. This is an actual fact. You may have light skin or dark hair, or purple eyes and so on, but psychologically, inwardly, we are similar. We have our agonies, our despairs, our hopes, our abiding sorrows.

So, we are asking what is the basic cause of this human corruption and degeneration? It appears to me - I am being hesitant, I don't want to be dogmatic but we are investigating together, you are not listening to a talk by the speaker. You are listening to find out, discuss, explore together the basic cause of this degeneration. In exploring we must both be free to look. You understand, sir? We must both be free to observe, in that observation, our prejudices, our inclinations, our beliefs have no place. When a good scientist is investigating, he doesn't bring in his personality, his wishes, his hopes. That would be a rotten scientist. Whereas a good scientist puts all that aside and investigates. That's what we are doing now: investigating, exploring so that you and the speaker have put aside their nationalities and all that nonsense, their particular point of view, their beliefs. So that enquiry demands that there should be freedom, otherwise you can't enquire. You understand that? That's absolutely necessary to investigate our whole structure of our beings, our whole nature, our whole consciousness. And to investigate there must be freedom to find out, we must have energy, you must have passion to find out. But we waste our energy in our beliefs, in our prejudices and our stupidities. So if you are willing, together, I am not exploring and you are listening, together, you and I are exploring into the cause of this utter degeneration of man. Do you understand my question? You are not just listening to me and say I agree or disagree. You are actively sharing in the process of investigation, which demands that you be free of your prejudice, free of your conclusions and then together. Then it's fun. But if you say well I'll keep my prejudice, my gods, my beliefs, my gurus and all the nonsense, and then we try together investigate, it has no meaning. So, we are asking why man has become like this, you and I, human beings?

One of the basic causes of this degenerating, frightening, corruption of human beings is his intellect. You are following this? The word 'intellect' implies the capacity to think, to reason, to choose, to have the urge to capture. Intellect is the whole, is the instrument of thought. Right? It's not my opinion I am putting forth. It's a fact. We are saying one of the major reasons of this degeneration of human beings and this corruption is the capacity he has of exercising his intellect. Which does not mean he becomes emotional, romantic, sentimental - which is the opposite of that, but that too has not solved any of our human problems. You can give all your devotion, all your blah, whatever nonsense you give to your guru or to your deities, but it has not solved your problem. So, we are saying that as long as intellect dominates, which is thought, thinking in illusion and thinking reasonably, as long as the intellect dominates there must be corruption. Because intellect is a part, not the whole. Right? The whole implies the intellect, affection, love, care and the awakening of all our senses, flowering together. But that is not possible when one part assumes dominance. You understand this? Please, do understand this. That's what is happening in your lives. You live in theories, you live in speculation, you have ideas about god, which are all speculations, which is the activity of the intellect and the intellect is always limited. Right? And when there is the activity of that which is limited, there must be a fragmentation, there must be conflict, there must be confusion, misery. You understand? Enquire into it, don't accept it. Because thought has become all important. Right? All your gods and gurus are created by thought. The churches and the images in the church or in the temple are created by thought. All the scriptures are written down by thought. Right? Everything you do is based on thought. Please, find out if what the speaker is saying is true or false, find out. Don't accept what he is saying. You know, one should have doubt, one should be sceptical. But scepticism and doubt must be kept on a leash. As you keep a dog on a leash, it must be kept but if you want the dog to enjoy itself you let the leash go occasionally. You understand what I am saying?

So, we are saying that thought, which is the very basis of the intellect, when that becomes predominant, as it has done in our life, in all our human relationships, then there must be a process of fragmentation and when there is fragmentation there is degeneration and corruption. Right? Thought is the movement of memory. Right? If you had no memory, you would have no thought. Memory is the accumulation of experience as knowledge. Right? This is simple facts. I am not a brain specialist but we have discussed with so-called brain specialists, but their investigation is not their own brain and how it operates but speculate what the brain does. And I won't go into all that for the moment.

So, thought based on memory - or rather thought is the outcome of the memory, experience, knowledge. When thought dominates all our life, as it does now, it must inevitably - whatever your actions are must be limited. Where there is limitation there must be conflict. I wonder if you see. Right. Take an obvious fact, a political, geographical fact: in that is supposed to be a nation, limited, this is all done by thought. So when India is limited geographically and says 'I am India' then it must inevitably exclude and therefore conflict. I wonder if you see this simple fact. Right? One sees that any kind of limited action must inevitably lead to conflict. Then we have to enquire why thought has made itself so extraordinarily dominant. You understand my question? Ask yourself sir, I am not asking you to ask. Ask yourself. Find out why thought, which is really the essence of the intellect - we are not saying we mustn't have thought, which would be absurd - but why human beings throughout the ages have given such extraordinary importance to thought. Thought has created the gods. Right? Would you accept that? Eh? You won't. All the rituals, all the circus that goes on in the name of religion is created by thought. Christianity, Protestantism, Hinduism, Buddhism, are all separative, exclusive, fragmentation created by thought. So, knowledge is in itself limited. Right? Do you see this, sirs? (Is that in your eyes? What sir? What are you trying to? Do you want that light out sir? Why don't you say so? This one out too. Good.)

Q: (Inaudible)

K: Just a minute, sir, I haven't finished. Sir, you see, you are not listening to what I am saying. You are eager to say what you think. We will do that presently. We are talking over together, I mean together, not me talking and you listening, but together to find out why human beings have become like this: fighting each other, selfish, intolerant, self-centred, without any sense of love. Love is not sentimental, is not romantic, it is as strong as death.

So, we are asking and pointing out that as long as thought which is limited, because knowledge however expanded, however extensive is always finite - right? - and so thought is always limited. Then the question is what is one to do? Do you understand my question? One realises, if you have explored this point, not read books about it, but actually explored in yourself the way you think, why you think, so you begin to learn the art of observation of yourself. That is, thought is always, under any circumstances, limited, because knowledge which is the accumulation of experience, yours or another, that knowledge is limited and all knowledge is the past. Right? Right, sir? So we are living in the past and that past meets the present, modifies itself and goes on. But it is basically rooted in the past. Right? So all our actions, all our activity, conscious or otherwise is based on the past - therefore fragmented. If you can understand this basically, then we can ask the question not how to stop thought, you understand? This is what all of your so-called meditation is, the attempt to stop thought, to control it. We'll go into that presently. Which awakens a question whether it is possible to live a life without a single control. You understand the beauty of the question? Oh, you don't. Because we live under controls. We are all the time suppressing, running away or trying to go beyond 'what is'. It's our culture, our education, our books and all that said, control, control, control. And we are saying: is it possible to live a life without a single control? And that is possible only when you understand the whole nature and the structure of thought. Because thought has divided itself as that which is to be controlled and the controller. You see the point? So thought is always in operation, which has divided itself as the entity which is controlling and the thing to be controlled. So there is always a conflict. Right?

So, what is the place of thought? You understand my next question? We see the nature and structure of thought, which is the whole movement of the intellect. What place has thought in life? You understand my question? Have you understood my question, sir? Now what is life?

Q: Thought is not life.

K: Eh?

Q: Thought is not life.

K: You see, how quickly he answers 'thought is not life'. Sir, you haven't understood, thought is part of life.

Q: But not

K: Yourself, sir? Or is that just another theory? So, we are asking what is the place of thought in daily life? What is our daily life? Not what you think your daily life should be, which is just another escape, but actually what is your daily life? And what place has knowledge, experience, memory, thought in your daily activity? You understand my question, sir? Which is, our daily life is based on relationship. Right? Would you agree to that, sirs? So, what is your relationship with another, intimate or not intimate? Have you any relationship? Or you think you have a relationship? Do you see the difference? We will go into it because it is very important to understand.

We are not talking about theories, philosophies or ideals. We are dealing with daily life, because if you don't have order in your daily life how can you possibly meditate, how can you possibly have any kind of real love for another? So, we are asking what place has thought in daily life? Daily life is relationship, whether you are in an office, whether you are at home, whether you are sexual, whether you are, all that, daily life. What place has thought in relationship with your wife, with your husband, with your guru - if you have one. I hope you haven't got any. If you have, what is your relationship? What is your relationship based on? Come on sir, let's explore together, not accept what I am saying. Because to me authority in spiritual matters is an abomination. Do you understand this? It's the greatest evil to have spiritual authority. It's the greatest sin when you accept a guru as the authority over your life. So, we are asking: what is our actual relationship with another? Is it based on thought? Isn't it? I'll go into it. You are unwilling to go into it, so I will go into it.

What is relationship? What does that word mean 'to be related' to somebody? - not only in blood but actual relationship with another. Have you ever enquired into this problem? Or it's all too practical? Or not enough idealistic? I am asking what is your relationship with another? Is it based on thought? Which is, is it based on memory, on remembrance, on association? You understand? Which is the whole movement of thought. Right? So your relationship, if you have gone into it very carefully, you will see is essentially based on thought, which is a remembrance. The sexual remembrances, the attachment to the wife or to the husband or to the girl or to the boy, is still the movement of thought. Right? One is attached to another because one is frightened to be alone, lonely and you cling to somebody. That's still the movement of thought. And when you say 'I love you' - do you ever say that to anybody? Do you? How extraordinary! You might say to your guru 'I love you', which is nonsense, because you are getting something from him and he is giving you something. So your relationship is based on thought, therefore your relationship is limited. Right? And because it's limited there is conflict between you and another. Right? It's not what I am saying, it's your problem, this is what you have to live with. It is what you are living with - insistent battle between you and another. So, then what place has thought in relationship? You understand my question? In your relationship with your wife, with your girl friend, with your boy, whatever it is, intimate or not intimate, what actually is this movement of relationship based on? Obviously, on knowledge, on experience, memory and remembrance. Then what happens in that relationship? It's obvious, what happens in that relationship: the wife is working for herself for her own battles, her own greed and you are working for yourself, so there is always two separate entities. They may come together sexually or live in the same house, but they are separate entities, battling with each other, battling with the world, because thought is essentially limited. I wonder, if you see this once, not as an idea, not as a principle - as truth, as a fact, the fact is that sun rises, it's not a theory and the sun sets. But if you say 'Well, it's a marvellous theory', then you are not dealing with fact. The fact is your relationship is based on thought and remembrances and therefore there is no relationship at all. Right, sir?

So, then one asks what is the place of thought? Which is, what is the place of knowledge? Because after all, you can't function without knowledge. If you are a technician, you must have knowledge. To drive a car, to bicycle, to speak a language, to do anything, to write a letter, you must have knowledge. So knowledge has its place. Right? Isn't that so? But when knowledge occupies the whole field of existence, then the mischief begins. You see this, sir? Not what I'm telling you, but see the fact that it is so.

So, one has to go into the question, can thought - please go into this with me, because it is rather arduous if you are not used to this kind of enquiry - can thought become aware of its own fragmentation? Do you understand my question? That is, can consciousness - do you understand? May I move to that word? - can consciousness, your consciousness - we'll go into the meaning of that word in a minute, a little later - your consciousness, can it become aware of its own activity? Not you become aware of your consciousness and watch it in operation. Do you see the difference? That is, I am asking, can thought become aware of its own limitation? Or another thought says, you are limited? You see the difference? Then you will have a battle. One thought says, I am limited and another says, I must put you in the right place. Do you understand? So, I am asking you: can thought become aware of its own limitation? And when it does, it has its right place. You understand? It has it's own right place, another thought has not put it in its right place. I wonder if you see this.

So, I am asking can consciousness become aware of itself? Then, what do you mean by that word 'consciousness'? You are interested in all this? Or am I talking to myself? Because, sir, if you don't understand all this, lay the foundation, then you cannot know what meditation is. You might sit by the hour cross-legged and you know, go off into some hazy nonsense, but if you really want to find out what meditation is, the depth of meditation, the quality of silence, the nature of truth, then you must have this, your house which is yourself in total, absolute order. That's what we are doing now. That is, can thought put itself in its right place. So, we are asking what is consciousness? Consciousness - please listen to it, don't agree with me - consciousness is all the content that it contains. Right? All its content: jealousy, envy, anxiety, fear, pleasure, sorrow, all the speculative ideas, the ideals, the super-consciousness, the higher, higher, higher consciousness is still part of this consciousness, because thought has put everything there. Right? Do you see this?

Q: (Inaudible)

K: Beg your pardon?

Q: Sensory perception is part of consciousness.

K: Sensory perception is part of consciousness. Of course. Without the senses, what are you? You are a paralysed human being.

Q: (Inaudible)

K: Just a minute, sir. Look: I am only pointing out. You can add more to it. I am only just pointing out the nature of our consciousness. Your ambition is part of your consciousness. Right? No? Your greed, your envy, your fears, your anxieties, your uncertainty. Or do you think consciousness is something which has nothing to do with all this? If you think your consciousness, which is superior consciousness has nothing to do with this then how do you know that superior consciousness? Is it not another invention of thought? Right? You don't know. So, your consciousness is its content. Right? The house is the walls, the roof, the windows, the furniture, the floor, the rooms, is the house. Consciousness is all its content. Your nationality, your superstitions, your illusions, your ambitions, grief - all that is your consciousness. If you view that consciousness there is divinity - right? - which most of you think so or some of you may - that divinity is the invention of thought. No? I know you might not like to think it, but it is still the structure of thought.

So, we are saying your consciousness is made up of all its content. And we are asking whether that consciousness can become aware of itself with all its content. You understand, sir? This is part of meditation, not all the phoney stuff that is going on. Because to find truth, or for truth to exist the content of consciousness must totally be emptied, otherwise there is no truth. Because consciousness, when a man is greedy, which is part of his consciousness, whether the greed for god, for enlightenment, for money, for sex or whatever it is, how can truth come into being? You understand my question, sir?

Q: (Inaudible)

K: Beg your pardon?

Q: Is there truth

K: You sir, sir, sir, sir you are speculating. I am asking, merely saying that as long as your consciousness is in operation, that is, as long as the things that thought has put in it - your greed, your sexual appetite, your desire for position, power, your urge to find God, which is part of your desire, to escape from this miserable life into something - all that is part of your consciousness. Therefore your consciousness is in a state of contradiction, wanting this and not wanting that. So your consciousness is in disorder. It's obvious, no? So, how can that consciousness which is so disorderly find absolute order? You understand my question? But unless you have absolute order, there is no beginning of meditation. You can play around with that word.

So, we are asking - are you all interested in all this? Yes? Then give up all your beads and all that. Will you? Right. Just a minute, sir. We want to carry on with our daily, you know, muck, nonsense and yet have the other. That's what makes us into hypocrites. So, I am asking, we are asking do you know, are you aware or is your consciousness aware of its own content? Which is, are you aware that you are ambitious? Right? Are you? When you put on these beads and that robe, you are ambitious, aren't you? As the man who wants power, position is ambitious. Only your ambition is directed in another direction and another in another direction, but it's still ambition, desire, greed, envy. You agree, lady? Then you must give up all this.

Q: What ambition is involved in beading?

K: Eh?

Q: What can be ambition involved in this bead?

K: What is the nature of ambition involved in putting on these yellow robes with somebody's picture and all that. Don't you know?

Q: Would you like to enlighten me, sir?

K: Ah, I am not going to enlighten you. Don't you know, sir, what is involved in this?

Q: No.

K: Don't you want enlightenment?

Q: I don’t know what is it, sir.

K: I don't know either. But you want something of that kind. (laughter) Otherwise you wouldn't be putting on this strange dress.

Q: Sir, we have come from Agra to hear you. Is it ambition?

K: Do you think so?

Q: I don’t know.

K: Sir, do you look at a rose, the flower?

Q: Yes.

K: Is that ambition to look at a flower? To smell it, to see the beauty of it, the colour of it, the extraordinary glory of a simple flower? So, if you come with that feeling, then there is not. Sir, let's go back. See, that's why, sir, unless one is terribly honest to oneself and not deceive oneself and not have any shadow of hypocrisy, then we can begin to enquire into real things. But if you are playing games, then I'm sorry, I won't play your game.

So, we are saying our consciousness is in constant battle in itself. Right, sir? Would you see that? Do you see that? Not because I tell you and you see it, but do you actually see for yourself that your whole being, your whole structure, your whole nature is in constant battle - right and wrong, this should be done and this should not be done, I want this, I don't want this, I am poor, I am rich. You follow? How is it possible to bring order in it? You understand my question? Therefore in your hearts.

Q: I don’t have heart here.

K: I better stop, probably. Yes.

Q: (Inaudible)

K: Wait, sir. Just a minute, sir. Perhaps we'll continue with this question tomorrow: which is order and disorder in our consciousness.

Q: Go on, sir, continue.

K: Sir, just a minute, just a minute. It is now eleven o'clock.

Q: No, sir, ten o’clock.

K: Ah, ten o'clock, sorry. Do you think you can tolerate me or what I am saying for another half an hour?

Q: Yes, sir, yes, sir.

K: I question it. Forgive me. I just ended up because that gentleman is very anxious to ask me questions.

Q: He can wait for a while.

K: Patience! So, we are asking: our consciousness, which is our life, which is our daily existence is in confusion. Right? And from that confusion we act. From that confusion we are seeking certainty, from that confusion we are inventing all kinds of human relationship. So, can this consciousness ever be in complete order? You understand my question, sir? Put it to yourself and find out. That means we have to go into the question: what is order? Or what is disorder? Please, listen to this. What is disorder? And the understanding and the elimination of that disorder, then there is order. Come to the positive through negation; not start with the positive, that is, we know what order is, which is a blueprint laid down by somebody. So, we say order can only come into being when we have understood the nature of disorder. When we have understood the nature of disorder - politically, religiously, in the family, in ourselves, economically, socially, the disorder that exists around us, the terrible disorder. I wonder if you know what is happening in the world - I'm afraid you don't. Terrible disorder that is going on. And we want to create order when we ourselves are in disorder, how can you create order? Do you understand? So, we are saying is it possible for me to understand my disorder? Understand it, not intellectually. What is the cause of disorder, what is the nature and the structure of disorder? You understand? Do I go on with that now?

Audience: Yes.

K: No sir, this is - you have had an hour's bombardment! I can go on because I have spent all my life at this, but you have not. It's only one hour you have given and you may be tired. Your brain may not have the capacity to continue persistently. You understand? So, I point out a little and then you can go, we can again go back to it tomorrow.

Now let's begin. That is, we said what is the cause of this disorder, degeneration of human beings throughout the world? Why are human beings so corrupt? And it is the only animal that is so corrupt. Why? Not some theoretical reason but actual reason, which we explored impersonally, scientifically, with great caution, hesitantly, not accepting anything which is not absolute factual. One sees that when intellect has taken predominance over all other faculties of man, and intellect which is the essence of thought and memory, experience and knowledge and therefore limited, which is limited takes control of the whole, then it brings about fragmentation. And in that fragmentation there is conflict. It's like the Arab and the Jew, the Hindu and the Muslim, and so on, so on, so on. So, thought apparently in our daily life, obviously, takes predominance. Thought is memory, remembrance, association. And when in relationship thought becomes all-important, then love goes out of the window. Right? When I remember my - when one remembers the insult or the encouragement or the sexual remembrances, you are living in memory and there is no actual human contact between each other.

And from that we said can thought become aware of itself and know its own limitation, and therefore it won't move in any other field? You understand? Because there is a much greater field of our existence which thought cannot possibly touch. So, one asks is love thought? Is compassion a remembrance, a structure, a nature of thought? And is consciousness with all its content, which is disorder, can that disorder, that consciousness become aware of itself? And then from that we said you cannot have order without understanding disorder. And we left it there. We'll continue tomorrow morning. Now, sir.

Q: Sir, may I take up this question today or shall we take it up tomorrow?

K: As you like, sir.

Q: It is from all of us, because it pertains to all of us.

K: What is the question, sir?

Q: The question is: actually seeing the life as it is both outside and inside, the very question that arises which is, what is the basic cause of all this. Is that question not asked from the intellect?

K: You want me to answer it, sir?

Q: If I may do away with it, what is the investigation that we have carried out just now, your exploration from us, our listening from us, isn’t it thought, investigation partial? Or is there another way in which we can do it, such as...

K: All right sir, I'll answer.

Q: This question has real reason in us, we have to ask it with our whole being, in our daily life and not only replacement.

K: Sir, the questioner asks: is the investigation into ourselves, into our problems, into our relationships, into our very ideas and all that, is that not a movement of the intellect. That's what his question is. And therefore the investigation is limited. Right? Because if it is from the intellect, it is limited. And then he asks: is there a way or is there another observation, exploration, which is not born out of the intellect? That's what his question is.

There is another way which is not the operation of the intellect. So far, this morning, we exercised our intellect, our thinking, the very thinking pushed us step by step by step, deeper and wider but it is still the movement of thought, still the movement of time, of measure. That is, measure being more and more and more and more. And is there an enquiry which is not born out of remembrance and thought? I say there is. Do you want to know? Shall we go into it? Are you interested in it? That is, there is an action which is not the action of memory, which is thought, which is of the intellect. And that action is pure - please, listen to it, don't agree or disagree, don't throw it out and say I don't believe it, which will be stupid, because we are together investigating. We say there is. That is, pure observation. Now, what do you mean when I say pure observation? What do you mean by that? I'm going to explain. The explanation is not the fact. Right? The description is not the described. Right? Be clear on this point, please. The word is not the thing. The word 'microphone' is not it. Right? We use the word to describe that but the description is not that. Right? So, we must be very clear on this point - that the word is not the thing. The word 'house' is not the actual fact of the house. Right? So, I am saying: can you observe without the word? Can you observe - listen carefully, I am going to go into it step by step - can you observe your wife, your husband, your daughter or the tree or the river without the word? Because the word is not that. Right? You understand my question? Can you observe me without the word - Krishnamurti, reputation, blah, blah, blah - just observe. Can you? That means, to observe not through the word, not through the description, but being free of the word, to observe. You understand this, sir? Can you do it? Can you look at your wife or your husband or your daughter or whatever it is, her or him without the word - wife, husband. The wife has so many associations with that word. Right? And the husband means so many associations. To put away all those associations, the word, and look.

Q: Yes, but then it creates other problems.

K: Eh?

Q: Then it creates another problem. I observe. It happens sometime

K: Not 'sometimes'. Then that is just a Can you observe now, sir? Watch it! Can you observe now your own friend, your guru, or whatever it is, without the word?

Q: Without the word moving inside.

K: Yes. Without the movement of the word inside. Can you observe that river without the word Ganga, with all the associations connected with that word Ganga? Then it's a river. So, look, we are discovering something. Then we are discovering that words, language shape our thinking. Right? Do you see this? You are not doing it sir, you are just listening and going on. You are not doing it. Just a minute sir, I haven't finished, forgive me. You are not actually doing it. If you say look, I look at my guru, your guru with all that stuff going on, can you look at him without the word?

Q: Yes.

K: Eh?

Q: Yes.

K: If you can, you wouldn't be there. You wouldn't wear all this stuff. The word 'guru', the word, his reputation, his, all that, is associated and you are part of that association and therefore you are slave to all that.

Q: Sir, is it for sure that if I can do it without the word then I am not there?

K: Absolutely.

Q: Then confirm from your side.

K: You see, how clever that is? (laughter) That's all, which means sir, you are not doing it.

Q: It is pure perception, sir?

K: Eh?

Q: Is it only perception without the word?

K: No, sir. Look sir, just see the simple fact, the simple fact. The word 'door' is not the door, is it? Now, can you look at that thing and not use the word? Now, just a minute, that's fairly easy to do. Can you look at your wife without the word, with all its associations? You can't. It's just a state. So, the wife, the word with its association is shaping your thinking, is driving you. The word 'India' with its flag, for which you are willing to fight. Which means what? The word for which you are willing to sacrifice your life. You follow? Meaningless. So, I am asking, can you observe your wife, your husband, the river, the moon of an evening without any movement of the thought, which is the word. You understand? You understand, sir? The word is associated with thought. Right? Can you look without the movement of thought?