This is the last talk: there will be dialogues starting on Wednesday for five days.
     We have been talking over together for the past six gatherings, so many human psychological problems, and I would like this morning, if I may, to talk about something that I think is quite important. The word meditation has been so misunderstood, at least I think so, both in the east and in the west. The word itself means to think over, to ponder over, to enquire into, and not all the things that we have made of it. It is a very complex problem, as all human problems are, and meditation has very little meaning if you have not laid the right foundation for meditation. The very laying of the foundation, which is righteous behaviour, to be free from fear and so on, in the very laying of that foundation is meditation. Meditation isn't something away, isolated from daily activity, it is all-inclusive. I think this must be understood right from the beginning. It is not something that you do for 20 minutes in a morning or afternoon and at night and then forget all about it and then carry on your daily mischievous life. When meditation takes place it is something extraordinary and we must investigate it together, we are going into it together, sharing it together.
     I am not telling you how to meditate - that is too silly, that is too infantile. Because one of the first things is that one must be free, to be completely a light to oneself - you understand? A light to oneself. And this light cannot be given by another, nor can you light it at the candle of another. If you light it at the candle of another it is just a candle, it can be blown out. But whereas if we could find out what it means to be a light to oneself then that very investigation of it is part of meditation.
     So we are going together to investigate first what it means to be a light to oneself, and see how extraordinarily important it is to have this light. We are so accustomed, and our conditioning is, to accept authority. The authority of the priest, the authority of a book, the authority of a guru, the authority of someone who says he knows, and so on. In all spiritual matters, if one may use that word 'spiritual', in all those matters there must be and there should be no authority whatsoever, because otherwise you can't be free, you can't be free to investigate, to find out for yourself what meditation means. So if you are really deeply interested in this question, because this question of meditation, not how to meditate, that is again too childish, but the movement of meditation, the act of meditation, the flow of meditation, to discover what it means, authority, that is to find out from another, what and how to meditate, is one of the questions of authority. Where there is authority there can be no freedom, either in the tyrannical world of dictatorship, the totalitarian state - there is no freedom; in the same way if there is no freedom from authority, that is, the word 'authority' means one who originates something, the author, the word comes from the word author, the one who begins something, originates something, and the rest of the people follow it, make it into an authority and then it is dead. So one must be very careful if you really want to go into this question of meditation, to be completely, wholly, inwardly free from all authority, from all comparison. I don't know if you can do it. Including that of the speaker - especially that of the speaker, that is me, because if you follow what he says it is finished. Therefore one must be extremely aware of the importance of authority in one direction, that is the doctor, the scientist, the man who - and all the rest of it; and understand the total unimportance of authority inwardly. Whether it is the authority of another, which is fairly easy to throw off, or whether it is the authority of your own experience, knowledge, conclusion, which becomes your authority, which then becomes your prejudice. So one must be equally free from the authority of another and also one must be free from conclusions, which become one's own authority, from one's own experience. We shall go into that word 'experience' presently. From one's own understanding, "I understand therefore I am right". All those are forms of authority. You understand how difficult this is going to be if you really want to go into this extraordinary complex question; otherwise you can never be a light to yourself. When you are a light to yourself you are a light to the world, because the world is you, and you are the world. I wonder if you see that?
     So that is the first thing to understand: that there is no one to guide you, no one to tell you that you are progressing, no one to tell you that or to encourage you. You have to stand completely alone in meditation. You understand what it means? And this light to yourself can only come when you understand, or investigate into yourself what you are. That is self-awareness, to know what you are - not according to psychologists, not according to some philosophers, not according to the speaker, but to know, to be aware of your own nature, of your own structure, of your own thinking, feeling, find out the whole structure of it. Therefore self-knowing becomes extraordinarily important. Not the description given by another, but actually 'what is', what you are, not what you think you are, or what you think you should be, but what actually is going on. Do you know how difficult that is? Have you ever tried it? To be aware actually of what is taking place, inside, inside the skin as it were, because we observe through the knowledge of the past - right? So what you have acquired as an experience, or what you have gathered from another, with that knowledge you examine, therefore you are examining yourself from the background of the past, therefore you are not actually observing 'what is'. So there must be freedom to observe. And then in that observation the whole structure and the nature of oneself begins to unroll. You are following all this? Please give for this morning at least an hour's attention. Because very few people will tell you all this because they have self-interest, they want to form organizations, groups - you follow, the whole structure of that business. So please, if you don't mind, give your complete attention to what is being said.
     So to understand oneself there must be observation, and that observation can only take place now. And the now is not the movement of the past which observes the now. You see the difference? I can observe the now from the past, from my past conclusions, prejudices, hopes, fears and all the rest of it. Which is an observation from the past of the present, and I think I am observing the now. But the observation of the now can only take place when there is no observer who is the past. You understand this? So observation of the now becomes extraordinarily important. Which, as we said the other day, the movement of the past, meeting the present must end there, that is the now, But if you allow it to go on then the now becomes the future, or the past, but never the actual now. I hope you understand all this.
     So observation can only take place in the now; in the very doing of it when you are angry, when you are greedy, to observe it as it is. Which means not to condemn it, not to judge it, but to watch it and let it flower and disappear. You understand the beauty of it? Oh, come on! Traditionally we are educated to suppress, or to move within a certain direction. What we are saying is: to observe your anger, your greed, your sexual demands, whatever it is, and to observe without the past so that the anger flowers and disappears, withers away. And when you do that you will never be angry again. I don't know if you have ever done these things: do it some time and you will discover it for yourself. To allow, through observation, in which there is no choice, just to observe your greed, your envy, your jealousy, whatever it be, and in the very observation of it, it is flowering and undergoing a radical change. The scientists are saying too that when you examine through a microscope, the very act of the observation of the cell, or whatever it is, undergoes a change. You understand this? The very observation without the background brings about a change. You understand?
     So to be aware of oneself without any choice, and to see what is actually happening in the now, is to allow the whole movement of the self, the 'me', to flower, and as you observe it undergoes a radical transformation, if there is no background, if there is no observer who is the background. You have got this somewhat? Have you understood it sirs? Go at it!
     So in doing that, obviously authority has no place. The man who says, "I know, I will do this or do that" - that is out, completely, for ever. So there is no intermediary between your observation and truth. We are going to find out presently, what truth is, if it can at all be described. So in doing that one becomes a light to oneself, so then you don't ask anybody at any time how to do something. In the very doing, which is the observing, there is the act, there is the change.
     So that is the first thing to learn - because we are learning - the first thing to learn is, that one has to be a light to oneself. And it is extraordinarily difficult to resist the tradition that you must be guided. You understand? That is why gurus from India are multiplying like ugly mushrooms, all over the world. Sorry but they are really bringing old tradition and putting it in different words and offering it. It is the old. In India this has been going on for thousands of years. I have seen many of the so-called pop gurus, they have come to see me, and they leave with great respect but they go on their own way.
     So freedom to observe, and therefore no authority of any kind, is essential.
     Then the search for experience, which we all want, must come to an end. I will show you why. We have every day various kinds of experiences. We have had sexual experience, experiences of various kinds through books, through - you know the whole demand for experience. The word 'experience' means to go through, to go through and finish, not to record it. The recording of it becomes a memory, and that memory distorts observation. Say, for instance, if one is a Christian, you have been conditioned for two thousand years, in all your ideologies, beliefs, dogmas, rituals, saviours, and you want to experience that which you call whatever it is. So you will experience it because that is your conditioning. As in India they have various gods, hundreds of them, and they are conditioned to that and they have visions of them, because according to their conditioning they see. So the demand for experience, when you are bored with all the physical experiences, we want some other kind of experience, the spiritual experience, the greatest demand to find out if there is god, to have visions and all the rest of it. You will have visions, experiences, according to your background, obviously, because your mind is conditioned that way. And to be aware of that, and to see what is implied in experiences.
     What is implied in experiences? There must be an experiencer to experience. Right? The experiencer is all that he craves for, all that he has been told, his conditioning. And he wants to experience something which he calls god, or Nirvana, or whatever it is. So he will experience it. But the word 'experience' means recognition, recognition implies that you already know, therefore it is not something new. So a mind that demands experience is really living in the past, and therefore can never possibly understand something totally new, original. So there must be freedom from that urge for experience. Do you understand? You know this is going to be tremendously arduous, to go into this kind of meditation, because we all want rather easy, comfortable, happy, you know, an easy going life. And so when something difficult, which demands your attention, your energy, you say, "Well that is not for me, I'll go another way."
     So no authority; no demand for any kind of experience. That means there is no experiencer - you understand? Are we sharing this together somewhat? Then to observe your fears, your pleasures, the sorrows and all the complexities of daily living in relationship, to observe all that. To observe very carefully. And we said to observe implies that there is no observer, therefore there is no question of suppressing, denying, accepting, but merely observing your fear, because when there is a fear it always distorts perception. When you are merely pursuing pleasure - again that is a distorting factor. Or when there is sorrow - again that is a burden. So the mind which is learning what is meditation must be free of this, and understand the daily, everyday relationship, which is much more arduous. Because, as we said, our relationship with each other is based on our own image of the other and so on. So as long as there is an image-maker, that image-maker prevents actual relationship with each other - right? So this is essential before we can go very deeply into the question of meditation. And that is why very few people meditate properly, rightly. They just play as an amusement, something that you add to that which you already have.
     Now when that is carefully well established deeply - which is part of meditation - then we can proceed to find out whether thought can be controlled. You understand? Wherever you go either in India, or in a Zen monastery, or various forms of meditation, Tibetan, you know they are bringing all the stuff over from Asia because we are all so gullible, so ready to accept something you think is new, it is just as old as the hills. You give up Christianity and take on that burden - you follow? It is the same old game.
     So the question is: whether thought can be controlled. All systems of meditation, systems being practice, method, day after day, day after day, they all assert that thought must be controlled, because thought is the disturbing factor for a still mind. You understand all this? Are we meeting each other somewhere? Is there a common ground between us? So thought, they say, must be absolutely held so that it cannot possibly chatter, go off. Therefore, they say, in order to control it various systems are necessary: the Zen system, the Tibetan system, the Buddhist system, and the various forms of Hindu meditation, which is in essence: control your thought. Right? I do not know if you have gone into this question at all. If you have, and if you have read something about it, or listened to gurus - if you have any gurus and I hope none of you have gurus, at least you won't at the end of the talk - they all insist, because I have listened to all of them, they have come and told me a great deal about it, they asked the speaker to join them - oh, I won't go into all that rubbish. They all insist that thought must be controlled and therefore thought must be held. One of the systems is Mantra yoga - you have heard of that. You know, Transcendental Meditation. Give it a good name like transcendental and then you change that into something marvellous. The word 'mantra', the root meaning of it is a sentence, a formula, a word that will bring about concentration - you understand? It can be Coca-cola (Laughter) - don't laugh please, don't laugh, you are caught in it, that is what I am objecting to, you are caught in it. It can be that drink, it can be another word, or a Sanskrit sentence, given to you by your guru for a hundred and fifty dollars and so on and so on and so on. The idea being to help to bring about concentration so that your thought is completely held - you understand?
     Now when you look into it, who is the controller? You understand? You want to control your thought, you see the importance of controlling your thought, and you say "I will try to control it", and all the time it slips away. You spend forty years in controlling - you understand? Every moment it is slipping away. So you have to enquire: who is the controller? And why is it so important to make such tremendous efforts to control? Effort - you follow? Which means conflict between the thought that moves away and another thought which says, "I must control it", which is a battle all the time, struggle, conflict. All that goes on. So we must enquire into who is the controller? You understand? Is not the controller another thought? Right? So one thought, which assumes the dominance, says, "I must control the other thought". One fragment trying to control another fragment. Please see this very carefully, because if you don't see it what we are going into you will miss.
     That is, thought has divided itself as movement, chattering, thinking about various things. When you want to look at something, concentrate, it goes off thinking about your shoes or something or other. And another thought which says, "I mustn't do that, I must control it." So both are thought. One assumes the dominance and tries to suppress the other. See this. See the validity of what is being said, not because I say it, it is so. That is, thought says, 'It would be marvellous if I could control the thought which is wandering, so that I can experience Nirvana.' - or whatever it wants to experience. So there is a division - please observe it - between the controller and that which needs to be controlled, and so there is a conflict between the controller and the controlled. And there are various systems that will help you to control. One of the systems is: become very slowly aware of everything you are doing, your breathing, your posture - oh, it's all too... I can't bear with that kind of stuff.
     So what is important is to find out whether there is only thinking, not the thinker and the thought, and so the thinker controlling thought. So there is only thinking - you understand? Whether you think about boot laces or about god, or about your wife, or about some future happiness, or whatever it is, it is still thinking. So we are concerned not with how to control thought, but with what is the whole process of thinking? Now if one is aware of all that, then there is only thinking. You understand? Not the thought which is wandering, and the controller which says, "I must control it". So there is only thinking. Why should it stop? You understand? If there is only thinking, why should it stop? So thinking is a movement, isn't it? Thinking is a movement, a movement in time, from here to there and so on. Thinking is a movement as time. Now, can that time come to an end? That is the question; not how to stop thinking. Have you understood my question first? We have laid emphasis in meditation, people have, the gurus and all the rest of that group have laid emphasis on control. Where there is control there must be effort, there must be conflict, there must be suppression. And where there is suppression there are all kinds of neurotic behaviour and so on and so on.
     So is it possible - please listen - is it possible to live without any control? You understand? Which doesn't mean to do what you like, be completely permissive - you understand? We are asking a much more serious question, which is: in your daily life, psychologically can you live without any control whatsoever? You can. We have done it. Please this is a very, very serious thing because we don't know a life, in which there is no shadow of control. We all know only control. So to understand a life without control, one must go into it very, very deeply. That is, control exists where there is comparison. I compare myself with you and I want to be like you, because you are more intelligent, more bright, more spiritual, god knows what else. So I want to be like you, so I make an effort to be like you. If there is no comparison whatsoever psychologically, what takes place? I am what I am. I don't know what I am but I am that. There is no movement towards something which I think is more. So what takes place? When there is no comparison what has taken place? Am I dull because I have compared myself with you, who are clever, bright, and therefore I have become dull? Or the very word 'dull' makes me dull? You understand? I wonder if you understand all this?
     You know when you go to a museum you look at various pictures, and you compare them, Michelangelo - you know various artists and say "This is better than that" - we are traditionally trained that way. In the school we say we must be better than 'A', and you struggle, struggle to be 'A'. And college examinations and the whole movement of that is comparison, make effort. Now we are saying that when you understand the movement of measurement, and when you see the unreality of it, psychologically, then you have 'what is'. You understand? You have exactly 'what is'. You can only meet 'what is' when you have energy. That energy has been dissipated in comparison - right? So now you have that energy to observe 'what is'. To observe the now with that energy. Therefore 'what is' now undergoes a radical transformation.
     So thought has divided itself as the controller and the controlled. But there is only thinking. There is no controller, or the controlled, but only the act of thinking. Thinking is a movement in time as measure. And can that naturally, easily, without any control, come to an end? You understand my question? When I make an effort to bring it to an end, thinking is still in operation. I am deceiving myself by saying that the thinker is different from the thought. So my question is entirely different. Which is: there is only thinking. The thinker is the thought. There is no thinker if there is no thought. And therefore can this thinking, which is a movement in time, come to an end? Which is, can time have a stop? Now I'll show it to you if you'll go into it.
     We said time - please pay attention, if you are tired take a rest and I will stop too, if you are not tired we will go on - time is the past. Right? There is no future time. There is future time only when the past meets the present, modifies it and moves on. So time is a movement from the past, modified but still moving on. We are saying that movement must stop. You understand? Which is the whole movement of knowledge - right? Which is the whole movement of that which has been known. Unless you are free from that movement there is no freedom to observe the new - you understand? So we are saying that movement must stop. Now you can't stop it by will, which is to control. You can't stop it by desire, which is part of your sensation, thought, image. And so how is this movement to come to an end, naturally, easily, happily, so that it comes to an end, without your knowing?
     Have you ever given up something that gives you great pleasure at the moment, dropped it instantly? Have you ever done it? You can do it with pain and sorrow, I am not talking of that, because you want to forget it, put it away. But something that gives you immense pleasure. Have you ever done it? To drop it instantly without any effort. Have you? I'll show you. The past is always our background. We live in the past. He has hurt me, he has told me, I want this - you follow? - our whole life is spent in the past. The incident of now is transformed into memory, and memory becomes the past. So we live in the past. The movement of the past - can that stop? That is what we are asking. You understand? Now it can stop only - this is not a trick, this isn't something you repeat and say, "Yes, I have stopped it", that is too damn silly - it means that the past, which is a movement, and the now which is non-movement - you understand? You have understood this? I have just discovered something.
     The past is the movement, modified through the present, to the future. That is the movement of time. The past is a movement, always moving, moving, moving, moving, going forward, meeting the present and moving. The now is non-movement, because you don't know what the now is; you only know movement. Right? When that movement meets the now there is no movement at all - you understand? Please this is not a verbal communication, it has to be felt, known deeply, understood. You see the immovable is the now. The now is the past meeting the present, we said that, do you remember? - the past meeting the present and ending there. That is the now. So the movement of the past meets the now, which is immovable, and stops. You understand? So thought, which is a movement of the past, meets the present completely, and ends there. This has to be meditated over, thought over, you go into it.
     So the next thing is: the mind, which is not only matter, which is the brain, which is also sensation, which is also all the things that thought has put into that mind, which is consciousness, in that consciousness there are all the various unconscious demands. And we are asking: can that totality of consciousness be observed as a whole, not fragment by fragment? Do you understand my question? Because if we examine fragment by fragment it will be endless. It is only when there is an observation of the totality there is an ending to it, or leading to something else. You understand? So can this totality of consciousness be observed, totally? It can if you will do it. Which is, when you look at a map, you are looking at it with the desire to go to a certain place. So there is a direction. So when you are seeking a direction it is very simple - right? You are in this town, you want to go to Bern, or Zurich, or Geneva, whatever it is, and the direction is there. So to observe the whole map is to have no direction. That is simple. See how simple it is, for god's sake don't make it complex. So in the same way, to look at this whole consciousness is to have no direction. Which means to have no motive, because the moment, when you look into a map and want to go from here to there you have a motive for going there, your pleasure, this or that. So your motive gives the direction. But when you can observe totally anything, yourself or your consciousness, it is to have no motive and therefore no direction, then you see the whole, as you see when you look at a map wholly. Right? Then you don't misplace Germany with Italy, or Italy where England is. So you look at the whole map when there is no direction, which means no motive.
     So to observe your consciousness wholly there must be no motive, no direction. And is that possible when you have been trained to do everything to act with a motive? There is no action without a motive - that is what we are trained to do, educated for, all our religions, everything says you must have a motive. But the moment you have a motive, which is either pleasure or pain, reward or punishment, that gives you a direction and therefore you can never see the whole. If you understand that, see that actually then you have no motive. Not, "How am I to get rid of my motive?" You understand? You can only see something totally when there is no direction.
     All this is part of meditation, so that there is no centre from which a direction can take place - you understand? The centre is the motive. If there is no motive there is no centre, and therefore no direction. Therefore what then? Then there are all the systems of yoga - you know what yoga means? Yoga means to join. I think and I have been told too, it is quite a wrong meaning. It had originally, as I suspected, something totally different. Which is: total harmony. Not by doing exercises, breathing, you will get harmony, but the way of living itself is harmony - you understand? And you can only do that when you have understood relationship - you follow?
     Are you following all this? So the mind - I must go into something else here too. In doing all this, in living that way daily, you have certain powers - you understand? In Sanskrit they are called siddhis, which is, you become clairvoyant, because your body becomes astonishingly sensitive, your mind becomes very clear, you can read other people's thoughts, you have certain capacities which you have never had before, telepathy, and you know, all the rest of it. Now we have been through all that. But to be caught in any of that means you can't go further - you understand? If you are caught in all that rather childish stuff - and it is quite childish - if you have a very sensitive body, you understand, you can almost hear what people are thinking, all that, and it gives you certain power, certain capacities, but if those become important then you have lost the whole thing.
     And also they are now talking about, unfortunately, these people who know nothing, they are talking about Kundalini - I won't go into all that.
     So now the mind is prepared. You understand? It is prepared to observe without any movement. You have got it? Because you have understood authority, you have understood all the rest of it - I won't go into all that. It stands completely alone, to be a light to yourself, therefore no impingement. Therefore the mind is not registering, the brain, which we went into the other day. So the mind now is without a single movement - right? Therefore it is silent; not imposed silence, not cultivated silence, which has no meaning, but a silence that is not the result of stopping something, stopping noise. You understand? It is a natural outcome of the daily living. And the daily living has its beauty. And this beauty is part of this non-movement. I must talk about beauty.
     What is beauty? Is it the description, is it the thing that you see, the proportions, the heights, the depths, the shadows, a picture by Michelangelo, or a statue of his? What is beauty? Is it in your eye? Or it is out there? Or it is not in your eye, or out there? You understand what I am talking about? We say that is a beautiful thing, beautiful architecture, marvellous cathedral, and a lovely painting - it is out there. Or is it in the eye? Because it has been trained, it has been observing, it is seeing that which is ugly, that is not proportionate, not having any depth, no style? Is it out there? Or is it in the eye? Or it has nothing to do with the eye, or with that outside? I am asking. Beauty is when you are not - right? You understand? When you look, it is you are looking, you are judging, you are saying "That is a marvellous proportion", "That is so still, it has got depth, it has got such grandeur", but it is all you looking, giving it importance. But when you are not there, that is beauty. You understand? Oh, you don't. And when that beauty is there, that expression of it may never take place. You understand? But we want to express it because that is self-fulfilment. I am an artist, I am a great - you follow? Therefore beauty may be when you as a human being with all your travail, your anxieties, pain, sorrow, are not there, then there is beauty.
     So the mind now is still, without a movement. Then you ask - we are investigating, not investigating because all investigating, all movement has stopped - then what is there when movement stops? You understand? Is compassion a movement? One is compassionate, one goes and does something for another, goes to some Indian village and helps the people because you are compassionate - so all that is various forms of sentimentality, affection and so on, but we are asking something much more important, which is: when there is no movement then what takes place, what is there? We are asking is it compassion? Or is it beyond all that? Which is, is there something that is totally original and therefore sacred - you understand? Because we don't know what is sacred. Our images are sacred, whether you go to a church, a temple or a mosque, our images are sacred, but the images are put together by thought. So thought is a material process, movement; so when there is no movement is there something totally original, totally untouched by humanity, untouched by all the movement of thought? Therefore that may be that which is original and therefore most holy. You understand? This is real meditation. To start from the very beginning not knowing - please if you start with knowing you end up in doubt. You understand? If you start with not knowing you end up with absolute truth, which is certainty. I wonder if you capture this. Because we began by saying we must investigate into ourselves, and ourselves is the known, therefore empty the known. So from that emptiness all the rest of it flows naturally.
     So where there is something most holy, which is the whole movement of meditation, then life has a totally different meaning. It is never superficial, never. You may have ten suits or a house, but if you have this nothing matters. Well sirs, that is it.
     Questioner: May I ask a question?
     K: Yes sir.
     Q: Is a motive necessary in business, and if so how does one choose the right motive?
     K: What is the right motive in earning a livelihood. That's right, sir?
     Q: Yes. Is it necessary to have a motive?
     K: I'll show you. What is the right motive in earning a livelihood. Which means: what is the right livelihood, that's right sir?
     What do you think is the right motive in earning a livelihood? Not what is the most convenient, not what is the most profitable, or enjoyable, or gainful, but what is the right livelihood? Now how will you find out - please just listen - what is right? Because you asked what is the right livelihood. What is right? The word 'right' means correct, accurate - you understand sir? Accurate. It cannot be accurate if you do something for profit or pleasure - right? Accurate, therefore correct, therefore right. Now what is right?
     Now just a minute. This is again a very complex thing. Everything thought has put together is reality - right? The tent has been put together by thought, it is a reality. The tree has not been put together by thought, it is a reality. The illusions are reality. The illusions that one has, the imagination, all that is a reality. And the action from that illusion is neurotic, which is the reality. So we must see first, when you ask this question what is the right livelihood, you must understand what is reality - right? Reality is not truth - we will go into that a little later, if we have time. So there is reality. Now what is correct action in this reality? Now how will you discover what is right in this reality? Discover for yourself, not to be told, if I tell you go and do this, then you might regret it and then curse me at the end of it. So we have to find out what is the accurate, correct, right action, or right livelihood in the world of reality. Reality includes illusion, don't escape, don't move away, illusion and the activities of illusion, like belief is an illusion, and the activities of belief are neurotic, believing in nations and all the rest of it is another form of reality but an illusion. So taking all that as reality, what is the right action there?
     You understand? Who is going to tell you? Nobody, obviously. So when you see - please listen sir - when you see reality without illusion, which is also reality, the very perception of that reality is your intelligence - right? - in which there is no mixture of reality and illusion and all the rest of it. So when there is observation of reality, which is reality of the tree, reality of the tent, reality which thought has put together, including visions, illusions, when you see all that reality, the very perception of that is your intelligence - isn't it? Right? So your intelligence says what you are going to do. I wonder if you get this? Do you understand this? Intelligence is to perceive what is, and what is not. To perceive 'what is' and see the reality of 'what is', which means you don't have any psychological involvement, psychological demands, which are all forms of illusion. To see all that is intelligence; and that intelligence will operate wherever you are. Therefore that will tell you what to do.
     Now: then what is truth? Reality we said - right? Then what is truth? Certainly not reality. So there is truth. One has to go into it, I haven't time now. There is truth. Then what is the link between reality and truth? You understand? The link is this intelligence. That intelligence that sees the totality of reality and therefore doesn't carry it over to truth. And the truth then operates on reality through intelligence. Got it?