Krishnamurti: I believe this is a dialogue or a conversation between us. We are not offering one opinion against another, or one thought against another, or one judgement or conclusion against another, but what we must do, I think, is to talk over as two friends our problems, friends who are concerned with their life, with their problems, with their relationship, with the whole of life. So what would you like, if I may ask, that we should begin to discuss or have a dialogue about?
     Questioner: Some of us have written a question here.
     K: Before I answer this what would you like to talk about or have a dialogue or conversation about? Yes, sir?
     Q: I was wondering if you could elaborate on how to create interest in students to learn something they are not interested in.
     K: The questioner asks, how to create an interest in something that you are not interested in. Right, sir?
     Q: I wonder if we could go into the question of the mystical, mysticism and so forth.
     K: You want to discuss mysticism, occultism, telepathy, levitation and what else, kundalini - is that what you want to discuss, sir?
     Q: I want to discuss education, especially the different ages of children, how they should be educated at different ages because I think they are not all the same.
     K: How children of different ages should be educated. Yes, sir?
     Q: I want to discuss how do you listen to the movement of thought without getting caught.
     K: How does one listen to the movement of thought without getting caught in the meaning and the associations and so on.
     Q: The gentleman who preceded you said that he felt that moving here was the most important thing he did in his life. Can you tell us how we each can make every moment in our life the most important thing?
     K: Are there questions enough? Yes, sir?
     Q: I have fear and isolation.
     Q: Could you talk about meditation and whether it is good to set a time to practise every day, keep a kind of schedule, to put aside other activities?
     K: If I understand it rightly, the questioner asks, is it possible to meditate without giving a special time to it and not putting other activities aside. Is that right?
     Q: I think it is obviously possible to relax but I am asking is it also beneficial to set aside a time every day.
     K: Is it also beneficial to set aside a period of time every day to meditate. Yes, sir?
     Q: How to live without belonging to anything.
     K: Now that's enough.
     Q: You have said that to observe you have to be free, but isn't it also true that to be free you have to learn how to observe. So could you comment on that and also perhaps on the context in which you use these words which might have created a conflict between those statements.
     K: How to?
     Q: To be free, you say, one must observe, but to observe one must already be free. How can that be?
     K: Which came first, the egg or the other? Now that's enough if you don't mind. Which of these questions would you like to talk over together? The questions are, if I can repeat them: if there is no interest how is one to create interest. Right? That was one of the questions. How to meditate, is it beneficial to meditate at certain periods of the day and all that; and would you also talk over mysticism, occultism, telepathy - what else is there - kundalini and levitation. Would you also talk over how to educate children at various ages. What else?
     Q: Observation.
     K: Observation, how to observe without association, without remembrance. Right? Now which of these questions would you like to talk over together?
     Q: Observation without association.
     K: Would you like to discuss observation, perception, seeing without introducing words with their associations? Do you want to discuss that?
     Q: Yes.
     K: Why?
     Q: Why not?
     K: You say, why not. Are you interested in this question, does it mean anything to you to find out seriously how to observe - is there a way of observing without the interference of words with their association, with their condemnations and approval, the whole movement of verbal remembrances. Are you deeply interested in this, does it mean anything in your life? Because if it does then we could discuss it seriously. May we go into that, is that what you want to discuss?
     Audience: Yes.
     K: You are quite sure? Isn't one of our difficulties when you listen to a statement to make an abstraction of it, to make an idea of it - isn't that a fact that one listens to a particular statement or opinion or judgement or evaluation and immediately there is a conclusion away from the actual statement. Has one observed that? Which is, making an abstraction of a fact into an idea. Right, sir? So when we talk about observing, is that observation an abstraction or an actual perception, seeing? You understand? I hope I am making myself clear. You tell me to observe without the association that observation brings about. I hear that and from that I make an idea and from that idea ask myself, please tell me how to do this. Which is, I have moved away from the fact to an idea and want to find out how to carry out that idea. So let us be very clear right from the beginning, if one may point out, are we making an abstraction, that is, away, to abstract, away from observation, making an idea of it, a conclusion of it? Or one wants to discover the actual, if I may use the word, purity of observation. I wonder if I am making myself clear? Which is it that we want to do, which is it that we are doing? Are we making an abstraction, or do we want to find out for ourselves the act of observation, what is involved in that? Not the idea of observation. Am I somewhat making myself clear?
     So if we are not running away or abstracting or moving away from the act of observation then we can ask, what is the act of observation. What is the actual fact of observation? Do we see anything, the hills, the mountains, the rivers, the sky, the wife, the husband, the girl and the boy, the nation, anything without the idea interfering with it, without the image coming in between, without my conclusion about it? Now which is it we do? Is there an observation without interference, interference of thought, the thought being the word, the word awakening the associations connected with that word and denying the associations and trying to go beyond the word and therefore now in that process you never observe. Can we go on from there? So which is it that we do actually? Do I observe those flowers, does one observe those flowers without naming them - look at them, you will see how extraordinarily complex a problem it is - to observe them without naming them; the moment you name them there comes the association of like and dislike, that they are carnations and I don't like that particular colour, or I like that colour, all that interferes with the actual seeing. Right? In the same way, can I look, observe my friend, my wife, the girl and so on - not mine, one's - observe without the interference of the various imaginative, thoughtful associations that I have had with that person? It is a very complex problem this because for most of us observation is always through an association, through memories, through images.
     Then the problem arises - won't you discuss with me, I might make a statement and then you can discuss with me - then the problem arises: is it possible not to create images, pictures? You understand my question? Because they interfere with the clarity of perception. So one asks is it possible not to have these images, these pictures. You understand?
     Q: Up to a certain point there is clarity of observation but some mechanism at some certain time takes over and clarity disappears.
     K: That's right. At some time the mechanism of thought, the mechanism of images, takes over and clarity disappears. That's what you were saying, sir.
     Q: My condition is that the associations are there, one is becoming aware of them all the time. Then what, in the sense of observing without association?
     K: Can we go into this very slowly and carefully, in detail, then perhaps we can understand each other. Please I am not persuading you to think the way I observe or I think, I am not fostering something upon you. We are together looking into the whole complex problem of perception. First of all there is the perception through the optical nerve and so on, and then you see. When does the mechanical process of creating images about what you see take place? When? You asked that question. Sir, let's make it much more simple. In your relationship with another intimate, or not, when does the mechanism of creating an image about that person take place? How does it happen? You understand my question?
     Q: Possibly when the mind first recognizes something and creates part of the relationship and brings it back into the foreground, that's when the images may take over, or memory.
     K: Sir, look: let's keep it very simple, still simpler. One meets a person, is introduced to that person, then that name, the face is remembered, recorded. Then when you meet that person next time that recording says, you are so-and-so, I met you the day before yesterday. That's this whole mechanical process of registration, which interferes with perception. Right? Go slowly. Wait a minute, lady. Right, sir? Are we clear on this point? You insult me, it is registered, and when I meet you next time I am a little bit nervous, withdrawn; or you flatter me, it is registered, and I say, how nice of you. We are friends. So this kind of registration is going on all the time. Right? Which obviously, logically, reasonably, shows all this interferes with observation. Right?
     Now the question is - please, let's find out - the question is, how is it possible - not `how' - is it at all possible to observe without the whole mechanical process of remembrance interfering?
     Q: It should be possible.
     K: It should be - I am hungry, you should be able to eat, but there is no food!
     Q: What I mean is you should be able to learn how to do that.
     K: We are going to find out.
     Q: It doesn't have to be a question, sir, that's all.
     K: We are going to find out. That's why I want to go step by step into it.
     Q: Sir, it seems to me that as long as we are concerned with the accumulations surrounding the perception we cannot.
     K: Yes, we are stimulated and so on. All that is another form of remembrance, registered and that registration is memory and that memory interferes. Sir, you are married, some of you, or you have got girls, or boys, haven't you images about that person? Don't those images interfere with your actual relationship with that person? Right? Obviously. Now we are asking, the mechanism which is constantly operating, can that mechanism stop for a few seconds even? You understand my question? Am I making it clear? Please I want to get on with this because it is very complex as we said.
     So one sees there is the registration taking place when the name is remembered, the face is remembered, the particular association with that person is remembered. Right? That goes on all the time, pleasant or unpleasant, dangerous or safe and so on. So we are asking, can this mechanism come to an end so that I can look?
     Q: It is impossible to observe without making a judgement, or naming it, and accept it for what it is.
     K: No. Is it possible to observe without judgement, just to look at `what is' - is that it? Is that the question? Right? We are doing that, we are exploring that. Why does this mechanism operate? You understand my question, sir, just listen to my question first. I am not stopping you from discussing or have a conversation with the speaker but I am asking, why does this mechanism of creating images, conclusions, opinions, why does this mechanism operate, why?
     Q: If we don't pay attention then the mind starts to move.
     K: Yes, sir, but we are saying, why does this mechanism function instantly?
     Q: Experience.
     K: Are you sure it's not guesswork?
     Q: Sir, when I have a strong emotional reaction, only then if I hate someone or admire someone, or am afraid of someone, then the image persists. Otherwise if there is no reaction the person is new to me every single moment. Now the emotion, if I ask myself why do I have the emotion, then I have to ask myself why do I have hands and feet.
     K: No, no, why do I have hands is different from why do I have emotions.
     Q: But I have them, they are just there.
     K: Why? We have emotions of anger, hatred, resistance and so on and so on, why? Is it inherited from the anthropoid apes, right from the beginning? Or is it a temporary passing thing? You understand? Please go into this a little bit. You are going too far ahead.
     Q: Is not love a faculty equal to hands and feet which we have allowed to atrophy?
     K: Is not love, like any other faculty, been atrophied. You see, sir, we are talking about perception, sir, love is something which we have to go into it, if I may suggest, perhaps after this question.
     Q: But sir, I am answering you question. You asked why, where does it begin, where does the mechanism begin. I say it began when love was atrophied.
     K: Yes, it began when love was denied, was dead, was killed.
     Q: I don't think it is dead.
     K: Atrophied, all right, it is paralysed, any other word you like to use. Are we answering that question, sir, if I may ask, why does the mind, the brain create images? The images are very active.
     Q: From fear.
     K: Fear, which means what? As the gentleman suggested it may be because in remembering, in association, in the image there is great security. Right? Somebody has robbed another of his things, that is registered, the next time you meet that person you are very, very careful, which is security. So is the brain registering all these things in order to have security?
     Q: Sir, if someone can rob me of something that provides me with security, am I not already lost?
     K: Lost? What do you mean by that?
     Q: If I establish myself on a basis of something, if I have my security involved in a thing which somebody can rob me of, am I not already lost?
     K: Yes, sir, probably. If somebody takes away all your things you are obviously lost, but we are not discussing for the moment that. We are asking why does the brain register at all. You follow? Please go into this, please, for a few minutes. This is very important because we are always living in the past and the past is the registration movement. Right?
     Q: As the future.
     K: As the future or the past.
     Q: Anything to do with time.
     K: So do we all understand clearly that this registration takes place because the brain can only function when there is security properly, clearly, efficiently. Right? No sir?
     Q: I am not sure I understand that. Security...
     K: When it is safe, when it is not damaged, when it is not hurt.
     Q: Physically you are saying?
     K: Both physically as well as psychologically. If it is hurt then you behave neurotically, if it is damaged in any way all its actions will be deformed. So the brain says to itself, thought says to itself, there must be security. Right, sir? No?
     Q: But isn't it that the desire for security is seen as being hurt.
     K: We are going to find out, sir. Of course. First see how the brain demands, asks that it should be completely secure, whether it is secure in actuality or in an illusion, in a fancy or in `what is'. One might find security in a belief - it has no validity, I believe the earth is flat, but the belief in the earth being flat gives it security until you come along and say, `Don't be foolish it is round'. I am frightened, then I begin to investigate and say, `Yes', and in that I also seek security. This is simple and clear. So the brain - have you watched a child, it wants security from its mother and so from the original ape the instinct is to be protected, to find safety, to have somebody to hold you so that you are comfortable. You have seen all this in a baby.
     Now what do we mean by safety? You understand? What do we mean by being secure? Right? We say the brain must be secure, must have security to function efficiently. Right? Has it found security?
     Q: No.
     K: I am asking, sir. Has it found security?
     Q: Yes.
     K: Yes? Physically? Has it?
     Q: Physically.
     K: No, just listen, sir, has it.
     Q: I think it probably hasn't.
     K: Not your particular brain, your particular brain is the result of millions of years of evolution, growth, it is not your particular brain, it is the brain of man, of a human being. And - just a minute, let me finish what I am saying, forgive me - we are saying, it needs security, it must have security, but has it? It has said there is security in tribalism. Right? Belonging to a tribe. Glorified nationality is the continuation of the tribal instinct. Now when there are nations separate from each other and each group belongs and says, I am safe here, then is there safety? There are wars, so you are not even physically safe.
     Q: There is just an idea of safety.
     K: That's what I am coming to. So what are you saying when you say the brain needs safety, at what level, at what depth, or vertically, horizontally, is there any safety at all in what we are doing? The rich and the poor. You follow? The whole social structure, does it give you safety, not for your particular period of life, it may be thirty years, of fifty years, or a hundred years, but for the brain of a human being, of humanity, of which you are.
     Q: Sir, we are discussing, I believe, the fact that the brain wants self-preservation.
     K: Yes.
     Q: Then I have briefly security. But also the brain, I believe, strives more than this, and that is self-perpetuation.
     K: We are coming to that.
     Q: It is coupled with the problem of acquisition, wanting more.
     K: Self-perpetuation because in perpetuating itself in another, separating itself and thinking it is separate and perpetuating in another, that idea gives it safety.
     Now we are asking, is there safety in what we are cultivating, what we are demanding, what our society, politicians, economics, etcetera, etcetera, is creating around us - which we have created, not somebody else has created it but we in our desire to be secure, the brain has created this extraordinary society which thought etcetera, etcetera. Yes, madam?
     Q: I wanted to ask is there security, psychological or physical, because what we are doing all the time is creating these images which are at variance all the time. Our life is false security from illusions.
     K: I understand. Look, madam, is it an illusion when you have got a husband and a wife and each person seeks security in the other? Actually face it. Do you call that illusion? This is what we are doing. I wish you would go step by step. All right.
     So we are saying the brain needs security. It has found security in religion, in conclusions, in concepts, in ideas, in images, which prevent seeing clearly. Right? That is our question.
     Now can this desire or the urge or the compulsion to be secure, can the brain activity stop for a few seconds even? Do you understand my question? Am I explaining myself clearly?
     Q: How can we answer that question without it already being a conclusion from a previous experience?
     K: No, no. That's why, if you conclude it is from a previous experience, so we are saying without conclusion. Sir, can you observe that flower without conclusion, without naming it? Can you observe your girl or your boy, the politician, the priest, whatever it is, can you observe without some kind of opinion, reaction, judgement, evaluation, jumping and interfering with your observation?
     Q: It seems to me that all we are concerned about is stimulation.
     K: Yes, sir, it is part of simulation. We all agree. But would you please consider this for a few minutes: that's why we asked from the very beginning if you are serious in the pursuit of this question you will have to find out for yourself whether this perception can ever be clear, not distorted. It can only be clear, not distorted when there is no interference from the past, the past being the remembrances, the associations, the ideas, the images and so on and so on. So to make it very simple now: can you observe without the past? That is, can you observe your friend, your girl, your husband, your wife, or your man, without all the remembrance of the past interfering with your observation? Yes, sir?
     Q: Without the past I wouldn't be able to understand a word you are saying.
     K: No, sir. Look, sir, may I put it differently. The observer looking at that flower, the observer who looks, is not the observer the past? Is that clear? You observe, you observe your wife, the observer, the `I' who says, I am observing, is not that observer made up of all the images, of all the remembrances, of all the insults, of all the pleasures, of all the sexual etcetera, etcetera, which is all the past, so is not the observer the past? Right? That's simple. Now, so the past is looking at the flower and saying, that is a chrysanthemum, that's a rose, that's pink, that's violet and so on, so the past is always observing the present. Right? I don't know yet, sir. We are asking when one sees the observer is the past, which interferes with perception, then one asks, is it possible for the past, the observer, to end and look? This is complex and if you want to go into it I will go into it much more deeply. We must come to this point first. So the past with all the memories, hurts, insults, happiness, boredom, tears, everything is the past, that is the essence of the observer. Now the observer then says, that is a chrysanthemum, names it and thinks it has understood it, thinks it has seen it. Right? Now I am asking, can that observer come to an end? I have asked the right question therefore it must be the right answer, you will get it in a minute. Do you understand my question? Am I making myself clear?
     So is love a remembrance? No, don't shake your head, please. Go into it, see what we are all doing. So I won't bring in love, because that's complex. So can that observer come to an end so that there is clarity of perception? It can come to an end only when the observer says, when the observer realizes that which he is observing is the observed. The observer is the observed. You understand? Right, sir? No. Go slowly. Now wait a minute, sir. How do you listen to that idea, to that statement? The speaker said just now, the observer is the observed. Right? It is a statement. You don't understand it, you say, what the devil are you talking about. But how do you listen to it? Do you listen to find out or you are listening saying, I don't understand? Are you resisting? Are you trying to make it into an idea? You follow what I am saying? Which is it that you are doing? When the speaker makes the statement that the observer is the observed, how do you listen to that, how do you approach that statement?
     Q: You don't want to approach it. You don't want to listen.
     K: All right, don't approach it. Who cares? Don't listen.
     Q: When the observer is the past, the accumulation, the memories, the hurts, everything from the past, then you say the observer is the observed.
     K: I said to you, sir, how do you listen to it? How do you listen to any statement which you have not heard before?
     Q: I see images.
     K: I am asking a question: how do you listen to some statement or some fact which you have never heard or listened or seen, how do you come to it, how do you receive it?
     Q: With joy.
     Q: I believe it.
     Q: It seems that the way I look on it is that I form an image, you say, the observer is the observed, I form an image of something which is the observer.
     K: Therefore you have already come to a conclusion. Therefore you are not listening. I am not saying you should.
     Q: No, I don't know what listening means.
     K: No, sir. Look, may I put it in a different way: how do you approach a question which you have not heard before, a statement which you have not listened to before? How do you approach it.
     Q: Sir, it seems a little odd to look for an answer.
     K: What is your actual approach, because your approach is going to dictate the answer. Right? If you are frightened your answer will be a thing that will be frightening; if you approach it saying, I must get agitated about it, your answer also will have no meaning. So you must find out for yourself, if I may ask, what's your approach to a statement like, the observer is the observed?
     Q: Sir, one is with the observed, on the same vibration.
     K: Look, sir: how do you observe your wife, or your girl friend, or your boy friend, how do you observe them? Please, I am asking you. You are observing the image that you have created about that person. Right? So the observer is the observed which is the image. Do you see that? It's very simple. Don't move away from it for the moment, please hold on a minute, you can discuss it a little later, I am not preventing you from discussing or contradicting, or saying, you are rotten, what you are talking about. But I am just asking, when you observe your boy friend or girl friend or your husband or wife, the observer is the past, the memories, all that, when he observes the wife, or the girl or the boy, he is observing, the observer is the observed, is the picture. Right?
     Q: Yes.
     K: Wait, wait. So the past has created the present, which is the wife or the girl or whatever it is. All the churches are filled with this. The past has created all that and when you observe the past is observing. So the observer is the picture, is the image which he has created. Clear? Have you got it? This is really very important once you get this. So the observer is the observed, which means there is no longer the difference between the observer and the observed. Right? And so you remove the conflict, the division. Right? Is this clear? May we go on with this? I am working, I hope you are also working.
     So we have found something extraordinary. Right? You have found something extraordinary, which is, you have removed the cause of conflict which arises when there is division - the Arab, the Jew, the Muslim, the Hindu, you follow?, the communist, socialist and so on. So you have removed the conflict that comes about when there is division. Right? That is, when the observer realizes that which he is observing is himself. Right? So we are left now with the fact that the observer is the observed. Right? The fact.
     Q: So what takes place with the observer?
     K: We are coming to that. First see the fact, sir, what happens. So the observer is the observed. Right? Then what happens to the observer? Listen, I have put you a question, if I may, what happens to the observer?
     Q: He becomes the observed.
     K: Look at yourself. You have a girl friend and so on, I don't have to repeat this eternally, you have an image about her and the image is the past and the observer is the past, so the observer when he looks at her or him is seeing himself as the observed. Right? Then what happens? Go slowly. Then what happens actually?
     Q: There's...
     K: No, sir, go into it very slowly, patiently.
     Q: If you make a judgement you create another conflict.
     K: So don't make judgements. You don't struggle with it, so it is. Right? So it's a fact for the first time you are seeing, a fact. Wait, go slowly, what happens?
     Q: Sir, after a judgement is made a person, a mind, is no longer able to enquire anything about the observer.
     K: Look, let's move in another direction for a second. The thinker is the thought. Right? If there is no thought there is no thinker. Right? So the thinker is the thought. So before he divided thought and the thinker. We said the thinker is the thought, without the thinker there is no thought. So there is no division between the thinker and the thought. Right? There is only thinking, not a thinker. Right? Now wait a minute, go slowly. The experiencer is the experience. Now you are going to rebel against this! Right? Go into it carefully because most people are seeking experience, super or physical experience, various forms of experience, thinking that the experiencer is different from the experience. Right? But we are saying, the experiencer is the experience. The experiencer, if he doesn't recognize the experience it has no meaning. Right? He can only recognize and explain the experience according to the past memory, so the past is the experience. Right? I wonder if you see this clearly. So there is no seeking of experience. You won't like this! Right? Before you went out seeking experience, went to India, followed the gurus, did all kinds of silly nonsense thinking that was experience, but when you realize that the experiencer who is the past, with all the memories, goes out there, he recognizes the guru or the experience according to his conditioning, the past. So the past is that which he is experiencing. No? So the mind then says, I have seen this, I am not asking any further experience. This is a tremendous thing if you discover this. Then you are a light to yourself - I won't go into that, leave that for the moment.
     So we said, the past is the observer who thinks he is separate from that which he is observing and so he says, I am looking, I am examining, I am drawing a conclusion. Right? All that is the action of the past. So when one realizes the observer is the observed then what takes place?
     Q: No more images.
     K: Sir, talk from direct...
     Q: If I observe the flowers with an image, do we mean I am in contact with the image and not the flowers, then I am the image?
     K: No, sir. If you understand, if you realize that you, that the observer is the observedwe have gone into it enough for the moment - when you realize that as a fact then what takes place?
     Q: I become the observed.
     K: Then what takes place?
     Q: (Inaudible)
     K: Wait, go slowly, madam, you are too quick.
     Q: The tension of accumulation round the observation ceases to be added to. There is no additional accumulation around the observation.
     K: So what does that mean?
     Q: To go beyond.
     Q: That means we are free to...
     K: Not, we, not we.
     Q: When this happens to me my mind relaxes.
     K: Please, you haven't really seen this. You haven't actually seen, realized, as you realize pain, hunger, sexual demands, you haven't seen the actual fact that the observer is the observed. Then what takes place?
     Q: We are no longer taking any more sickness into our body. Then the sickness that is present in our body at the moment is not being added to. There is no more sickness, there is only that that is. We are not reinforcing the accumulation, we are not reinforcing the sickness any more.
     K: Do please, if I may request you most kindly and respectfully, do you actually see the fact that the observer is the observed?
     Q: Sir, if I see that, then at that moment there would be a...
     K: No, not, `at that moment'. Always.
     Q: I see that fact and I don't know what to do with it.
     K: Not, `what you' - you see you have separated yourself and said `I don't know what to do with it'. So you are acting still as the observer.
     Q: When you say, observed, you mean the observed as image?
     K: Yes, sir. We said from the beginning, sir, that the observer, when you observe your wife or your girl friend, the observer is made up of the past, past memories, past hurts, past insults, the image that you have made about her. When you observe those images, those hurts, those remembrances are observing, you are observing that, not your wife, not your girl, you are observing that, so the observer is that. Right? Just a minute. If that is absolutely clear then what happens?
     Q: (Inaudible)
     K: No, madam.
     Q: I feel alive.
     K: Who is `you' feeling alive?
     Q: There is aliveness.
     K: You haven't gone into this. Look, this is part of meditation, you want to know about meditation, this is the beginning of meditation, the vitality of meditation, if you don't understand this you can go off into meditation and go off into all kinds of illusions and silly nonsense. Because we are eliminating totally the division between the observer and the observed who creates conflict, me and you, we and they, the Arab and the Jew, the American, the Russian, the Indian, and the Muslim, we are eliminating totally all that if you see the observer is the observed. Look: the Hindu in India and the Muslim in Pakistan divided by a boundary, divided by nationality, divided by language, divided by their religious beliefs, all that is created by thought. Right? The thought is memory, the past. So when you see that, that one is conditioned by belief, whether it is Hindu, Muslim, Jew, you are then observing the belief. So what happens when the observer is the observed because there you have eliminated - there is the elimination, not you have eliminated - there is the elimination of all conflict.
     Q: There is no direction.
     K: Oh, no, you are guessing, madam, please.
     Q: Doesn't the mind become quiet?
     Q: There is silence.
     K: I don't know, sir. I don't know what happens, you have to find out.
     Q: At this moment there is a feeling one must experiment with this more.
     K: There is no experiment. May I go into it a little bit? Please, I am not trying to influence you, I am not trying to make you think the way I think - I don't think. If you think, you are going your own way. There is only the observation of the fact that the observer is the observed. Right? That's the fact. And that realization has come because I have carefully examined the whole process, it was not a stupid conclusion, an illusory conclusion, a desired conclusion, it has been logically, reasonably, sanely examined. And that examination shows the observer is the observed. Right? So what has happened? Before the observer tried to do something about the observed, he tried to control it, he tried to shape it, he tried to deny it, he tried to suppress it, he did everything to conquer it one way or the other. Here there is none of that because he realizes the observer is the observed. So the central point of conflict has been eliminated. Right? Have you? Therefore what has taken place? Through conflict you have wasted energy. Right? The mind in conflict which is division, the observer and the observed, in that division energy has been expanded, wasted. Right? Through conflict. When there is no conflict what takes place? There is no wastage of energy. Right? So what happens? Then that which is observed, because there is only pure observation not the image observing itself. I wonder if you see all this. Look, sir, when there is no observer, there is only observation, isn't there. Not conclusion, not opinions, not fixations, just observation. Then when there is that observation that which is being observed undergoes a change. I wonder if you see this. Look, sir, take a very simple example - you are interested in all this?
     Audience: Yes.
     K: Good, good. Am I stimulating you? I am afraid I am. That's why, you all have depended so much on stimulation and you add another stimulation to it, but I am not acting as a stimulation at all, I am just showing it to you, and if you want to look at it, look at it, if you don't, don't. It's very simple.
     I am greedy, let's suppose, I am greedy. So far my conditioning has said, I am different from greed. Right? I can control greed, I deny greed, I say, what's wrong with being greedy. But when there is the realization that the greed is me, of course, right?, then what takes place? There is the observation of that reaction which has been named as greed. Right? There is only observation of that feeling, of that reaction which has been named as greed, I don't name it now, I just observe it. In the observation that feeling is undergoing a change. I wonder if you realize this. So the thing that has been called greed is non-existent. I wonder if you see this. This requires - right, sir? The very thing you observe - the very thing that is being observed undergoes a radical transformation if there is no observer. We don't change fundamentally as human beings because we have divided the observer different from the observed. Right? So there is no fundamental change. But there is a fundamental change radically and at great depth when the observer is the observed so there is only pure observation. When there is that pure observation that which is being observed undergoes a radical change because there is no naming it, no conclusion about it, no abstraction, no escape, just observe. Have you got this? Are you doing this?
     Look, sir, let me put it round another way: we are used to self-analysis or professional analysis. Right? Introspection, or inspection by another, which is called analysis, professional analysis or self-analysis. Now is the analyser different from the analysed? I am sorry, there are here some psychoanalysts, I hope I am not pulling the rug from under their feet. This is a fundamental question even the analysers must ask. I am analysing my greed. Right? Is greed different from me? Obviously not, I am greed, then what am I examining and who is it that is examining? Right? So the analyser is the analysed. No? So I don't analyse. There is pure observation of that which before was being analysed. Right? So there is no analyser at all. Right, sir? That means you are denying the whole concept of division, the analyser and the analysed, you are my patient and I am analysing you, or you are analysing me. But when you and I realize that the analyser is the analysed, that greed is me, how can I examine the `me'. I can only examine the `me' if there is a higher `me', which is another part of my invention. I don't know if you follow this. So I invented god, or super ego, or super consciousness which is examining. That super consciousness, or super self, or super god, is still me. Right? So I stop analysing - not, I stop, analysis stops. Then what happens to that reaction which I called greed? You follow? I have analysed greed and I say, it is right, wrong, good, bad, why shouldn't I and all the rest. Now I realize - not, I realize - there is the realization that greed is the observer. So there is observation of that thing called a feeling. Right? Just observation. When there is this clear observation that feeling undergoes a radical change, it must because you are not naming it, you are not denying it, you are not suppressing it, that changes. I wonder if I've made this clear. Right, sirs? Have I made this clear? Not, I - do you see it clearly for yourself, therefore you are out of this conflict, greed and not greed, you follow, the battle that goes on inwardly all the time.
     So when this takes place there is always clear observation without any motive, without any conclusion, just to observe. Sir, you don't know what it means. To observe a flower without naming it, to observe the person whom you think you love, to observe. Perhaps the lady or the man won't like it because you have suddenly brought about a radical transformation in yourself.
     Now to observe without association, that was the question. This is part of meditation, to remove totally the observer who is seeking god, seeking enlightenment, seeking, fighting, fighting, fighting. Right? So meditation comes then as you live - we will talk about it later.
     Is it time, sir?
     Q: It's five to one.
     K: I hope it will not rain Thursday and we might meet in the Grove or another place. May I go?