Krishnamurti Subtitles home


NY71T2 - What you think, you are
New York - 18 April 1971
Public Talk 2



0:25 Krishnamurti: We were considering yesterday the importance of relationship, and how we always live in the past, and to find out if it is at all possible to radically change one's way of living.
1:04 And we are going to examine together the question of what is hidden in the consciousness, the deeper layers of the mind, which is generally called the unconscious. Because we are concerned with bringing about in ourselves and so in society, a radical revolution. The physical revolution, which one is advocating all over the world at the present time, doesn't bring about a fundamental change in man.
2:12 And though it is necessary that a corrupt society, such as this and Europe and in India and elsewhere, there must be fundamental changes in the very structure of society. And if man remains corrupt himself, his activity, he will overcome whatever the structure be, however perfect it be, therefore it is imperative, absolutely essential that he change.
3:01 And is this change to be brought about through the process of time, through gradual achievement, through gradual change, or does the change take place only in the instant? And that is what we are going to examine together.
3:37 One sees that there must be change in oneself. The more sensitive, the more alert and intelligent one is, one is aware that there must be a deep, abiding, living change. And the content of consciousness is consciousness, the two are not separate. What is implanted, what is in consciousness makes up consciousness. And to bring about a change in consciousness, both the obvious and the hidden, does it depend on analysis, does it depend on time, does it depend on environmental pressure, or is the change to take place totally independent of any pressure, of any strain, of any compulsion?
5:24 You know, this is going to be rather difficult, to go into this question because it's quite complex, and I hope both of us will be able to share what is being said. I don't know quite where to begin this whole business, do you? You see, unless one goes into this matter very seriously, really taking trouble, deep interest, with a passion, I'm afraid one will not be able to go very far. Far in the sense not in time or in space but within oneself very deeply. One needs a great deal of passion, a great energy, and most of us waste our energies in conflict, and when we are examining this whole business of existence you need energy. And energy comes with the possibility of change. If there is no possibility of change then energy wastes away.
7:24 We think we cannot possibly change, we accept things as they are and thereby become rather dispirited, depressed, and uncertain and confused. It is possible to change radically, and that is what we are going to examine. And if you will not follow exactly what the speaker is saying, but using his words and using those words as a mirror to observe yourself and enquire with passion, with interest, with vitality and a great deal of energy, then perhaps we can come to a point where it will be obvious that without any kind of effort, without any kind of motive, the radical change takes place.
8:58 As we were saying yesterday, there is not only the superficial knowledge of ourselves, but also there is the deep, hidden content of our consciousness. And how is one to examine that? How is one to expose the whole content of it? Is it to be done bit by bit, slowly, gradually, or is it to be exposed totally and understood instantly, and thereby the whole analytical process comes to and end?
10:04 Now we're going to go into this question of analysis. To me, to the speaker, analysis is the denial of action, action being always in the present, active present. Action means not 'having done', or 'will do', but doing. Analysis prevents that active action in the present, because in analysis there is involved time, a gradual peeling off, as it were, layer after layer, and examining each layer, analysing the content of each layer. And if the analysis is not perfect, complete, true, then that analysis, being incomplete, must leave a knowledge which is not total. And the next analysis springs from that which is not complete. Are we following all this?
12:06 Look, I examine myself, analyse myself, and if my analysis is not complete, true, then what I have analysed becomes the knowledge with which I proceed to analyse the next layer. And so, in that process each analysis becomes incomplete and leads to further conflict, and so to inaction. Shall I go on? And in analysis there is the analyser and the analysed, whether the analyser is professional, or yourself, the layman, there is this duality, the analyser analysing, analysing something which he thinks is different from himself. And the analyser, what is he? He is the past, he is the accumulated knowledge of all the things he has analysed. And with that knowledge, which is the past, he analyses the present.
14:05 So, in that process there is conflict, there is the struggle to conform or to force that which he analyses. And in analysis, there is this whole process of dreaming. I don't know if you have gone into all this yourself, or probably you have read other people's books, which is most unfortunate, because then you merely repeat what other people have said, however specialist, however famous they are. But if you don't read all those books, as the speaker doesn't because they're rather boring, then you have to investigate yourself, then it becomes much more fascinating, much more original, much more direct and true.
15:30 In the process of analysis there is this world of dreams, and we accept dreams as necessary, because the professionals have said, you must dream, otherwise you go mad, and there is some truth in that. And what are dreams? Because all this we are enquiring into, because we are trying to find out whether it is possible to change radically. When there is so much confusion, so much misery, such hatred in the world, and brutality, where there is no compassion, one must, if one is at all serious, enquire into all this. And we are enquiring not merely for intellectual entertainment but actually trying to find out if it is possible to change. And when you see the possibility of change, whatever we are, however shallow, however superficial, repetitive, imitative, if we see that there is a possibility of radical change then we have the energy to change. And if we say it is not possible, then that energy is dissipated.
17:34 So we are enquiring into this question, whether analysis does produce a radical change at all, or is it merely an intellectual entertainment, an avoidance of action? As we were saying, analysis implies entering into the world of dreams. And what are dreams? How do these dreams come into being? I don't know if you have gone into this. If you have, you will see that dreams are the continuation of our daily life. What you are doing during the day, all the mischief, the corruption, the hatred, the passing pleasures, the ambitions, the guilt and so on, all that is continued in the world of dreams, only as in symbols, as pictures and images. And these pictures and images have to be interpreted, and all the fuss and the unreality of all that comes into being.
19:58 One never asks why should one dream at all. One has accepted dreams as essential, as part of life. Now we are asking ourselves, if you are, with me, why you dream at all? Is it possible when you go to sleep to have a mind that is completely quiet? Because it's only in that quiet state that it renews itself, it empties itself of all its content so that it is made fresh, young, decisive, not confused.
21:03 And if dreams are the continuation of our daily life, of our daily turmoil, anxiety, the desire for security, the attachments, then inevitably, dreams in their symbolic form must take place. That's clear, isn't it? So, when one asks why should one dream at all, can the brain cells be quiet, not carry on all the business of the day.
22:07 To find that out, experimentally, not accepting what the speaker says and for goodness sake don't ever do that, please, because we're sharing together, investigating together. To find out experimentally, you can test it out by being aware totally during the day, watching your thoughts, your motives, your speech, the way you walk and talk. When you are so aware, there are the intimations of the unconscious, of the deeper layers, because then you are exposing, inviting the hidden motives, anxieties, all that, the content of the unconscious into the open. So when you do go to sleep, then you will find that your mind, including the brain, is extraordinarily quiet, it is really resting because you have finished what you have been doing during the day.
24:01 That is, I don't know if you have ever done it, if you take stock of the day as you go to bed, lie down. Don't you do this, go over the day, taking stock? Saying, I should have done this, I should not have done that, it was better said that way, I wish I hadn't said this. That is, when you take stock of the things that have happened during the day, you are trying to put order, please do pay a little attention to this, you are trying to bring about order before you go to sleep. And if you don't put order before you go to sleep, the brain tries to put order when you are asleep. Because the brain functions perfectly only in order, not in disorder. It functions most efficiently when there is complete order, whether that order is neurotic or rational. You are following all this? Because in neurosis, in imbalance, there is order, and the brain accepts that order.
26:10 And if you take stock of everything that has been happening during the day, before you go to sleep, then you are trying to bring about order, and therefore the brain hasn't to bring order while you are asleep, you have done it during the day. And if you bring that order every minute during the day, that is, if you are aware of everything that is happening, outwardly and inwardly. You are following? Outwardly in the sense, the disorder about you, the cruelty, the indifference, the callousness, the dirt, the squalor, the quarrels, the politicians and their chicanery, you know, all that is happening. And your relationship with your husband, wife, with your girl or boy, aware of all that during the day, without correcting it, just being aware of it. The moment you try to correct it, you are trying to bring disorder, but if you merely observe actually what is, then what is, is order.
27:52 It is only when you try to change what is, then there is disorder, because you want to change according to the knowledge which you have acquired. That knowledge is the past and you are trying to change what is, which is not the past, according to what you have learnt. Therefore there is a contradiction, therefore there is a distortion, therefore there is disorder.
28:31 I hope you are working as hard as the speaker is. May I take my coat off?
29:02 So, during the day, if you are aware of the ways of your thought, your motives, the hypocrisy, the double talk, doing one thing, saying another, thinking another, the deception, the masks that you put on, the varieties of deceptions that one has so readily at hand, if one is aware of all that during the day, you don't have to take stock at all when you go to sleep, you are bringing order each minute. So when you do go to sleep you will find that your brain cells, which have recorded and which hold the past become totally quiet, and your sleep then becomes something entirely different. In that sleep, the mind, when we use the word the mind, we are including in that the brain, the whole nervous organism, the affections, all the human structure is the mind. When we use that word, we mean all that, not something separate. In that is included the intellect, the heart, the whole nervous organism. When you go to sleep then, the analytical process has totally come to an end. Then when you wake up you see things exactly as they are, not your interpretation of them or the desire to change them.
31:59 So analysis, to the speaker, prevents action. And action is absolutely essential, now, in order to bring about this radical change. So analysis is not the way. Don't accept, please, what the speaker is saying, but observe it for yourself, learn about it, not from me, but learn by watching all the implications of analysis: time, the analyser and the analysed, the analyser is the analysed and each analysis must be complete otherwise it distorts the next analysis. So seeing the whole process of analysis, whether it is introspective or intellectual analysis, is totally wrong. It is not the way out. It maybe necessary for those who are somewhat or greatly unbalanced, and perhaps most of us are unbalanced. So, that's not the way out.
33:56 So we must find a way of observing the whole content of consciousness without the analyser. You are following this? You know, this is great fun if you go into this, because you have then rejected totally everything that man has said. No, please, don't laugh. Because then you stand alone, then you find out for yourself. It will be authentic, real, true, not dependent on any professor, any psychologist, any analyst, and so on, so on.
35:01 So one must find a way of observing without analysis. I'm going to go into that. I hope you don't mind my doing all this, do you?
35:22 Audience: No.
35:24 K: This is not a group therapy. This is not an open confessional. This is not that the speaker is analysing you or making you change or you becoming marvellous human beings, you have to do this yourself. And as most of us are second-hand or third-hand human beings, it is going to be very difficult to put away totally all that has been imposed on our minds by the professionals, whether religious professionals or the scientific professionals. We have to find out for ourselves.
36:22 And if analysis is not the way, and it is not, as far as the speaker is concerned, because he has logically explained it, then how is one to examine or to observe the total content of consciousness? And what is the total content? What is the content of consciousness? Please don't repeat what somebody else has said. What is your total content? Have you ever looked at it, have you ever considered it? If you have, is it not the various recorded incidents, happenings, pleasurable and non-pleasurable, various beliefs, traditions, the various individual recollections, memories, and the racial, family memories, the culture in which one has been brought up, all that is the content, isn't it? Being born in India as a Hindu, Brahmin and so on, with all its traditions and superstitions, with its dogmatism, beliefs, all that culture of thousands of years is stored up. And the incidents that take place every day, the memories, the various pains, the unhappiness, the incidents, the insults, all that is recorded. And the content of all that is my consciousness, as your consciousness. You as a Catholic, Protestant, living in this Western world with the search for more and more and more, the world of great pleasure, entertainment, wealth, incessant noise of the television, the pictures, the brutality, all that is you, that's your content.
40:25 How is all that to be exposed, and in the exposing of it, is each incident to be examined, each happening, each tradition, each hurt, each pain, one by one, or is it to be looked at totally? You are following all this? If it is to be examined bit by bit, one by one, you are entering into the world of analysis, and then there is no end to that, you will die analysing, and giving a great deal of money to those who analyse, if that's your pleasure. Or is it to be looked at totally?
41:40 We're going to find out how to look at these various fragments, which are the contents of consciousness, totally, not analytically. We are communicating with each other?
42:03 A: Yes.
42:08 K: So we are going to find out how to observe in which there is no analysis at all. That is, we have looked at everything, at the tree, at the cloud, at your wife and your husband, the girl or the boy, everything as an observer and the observed. Right? Please do give a little attention to this. You have observed your anger, your greed or your jealousy, whatever it is, as an observer looking at greed. The observer is greed, but you have separated the observer because your mind is conditioned to the analytical process, therefore you are always looking at the tree, at the cloud, at everything in life as an observer and the thing observed. Have you noticed it? You look at your wife through the image which you have of her. That image is the observer, that image is the past, that image has been put together through time. And the observer is the time, is the past, is the accumulated knowledge of the various incidents and accidents and happenings, experiences and so on, that observer is the past, and he looks at the thing observed as though he was not of it, but separate from it.
44:42 Now, can you look without the observer? That is, can you look at the tree - please listen to this - can you look at the tree without the past as the observer? That is, when there is the observer then there is space between the observer and the observed, the tree. That space is time, because there is a distance. That time is the quality of the observer, who is the past, who is the accumulated knowledge, who says, that is the tree, or that is the image of my wife. Now, can you observe without the observer?
46:10 That is, can you look, not only at the tree but your wife or your husband, without the image? This requires tremendous discipline. I am going to show you something, which is, discipline implies generally a conformity, a drill, imitation, conflict between what is and what should be. And so in discipline there is conflict: suppressing, overcoming, the exercise of will and so on, all that is implied in that word. But that word means to learn, not to conform, not to suppress, but to learn. And the quality of the mind that learns has its own order, which is discipline. We are learning now to observe without the observer, without the past, without the image. When you so observe the 'what is,' the actually what is, is a living thing, not a thing looked upon as a dead thing, as recognisable by the past event, by the past knowledge.
48:33 Let's make it much simpler than this. You say something to me which hurts me and that hurt, the pain of that hurt is recorded. That memory of that continues and when there is a further pain it is recorded again. So, the hurt is being strengthened from childhood on. Whereas when there is pain, you say something which is painful to me, to observe it so completely that it is not recorded as a hurt. You are following? The moment you record it as a hurt, that recording is continued, and for the rest of your life you are being hurt, because you are adding to that hurt. Whereas if you observe the pain, and to observe the pain so completely without recording it, is to give your total attention at the moment of the pain. Are you doing all this?
50:50 Look, when you go out for a walk, when you walk in these streets there is all kinds of noise, all kinds of shouting, the vulgarity, the brutality, this pouring in the noise, that is very destructive. The more sensitive you are the more destructive it becomes, it hurts your organism. And you resist the hurt and therefore you build a wall. And when you build a wall you are isolating yourself, and therefore you are strengthening the isolation, which you will get more and more hurt, whereas if you are observing that noise, being attentive to that noise, then you will see that your organism is never hurt.
52:12 Please, if you understand this one radical principle you will have understood something immense, that where there is an observer separating himself from the thing he observes, there must be conflict. Do what you will, as long as there is a division between the observer and the observed there must be conflict. As long as there is division. As long as there is a division between the Muslim and the Hindu there must be conflict. As long as there is a division between the Catholic and the Protestant there must be conflict. You may tolerate each other, which is an intellectual covering of intolerance. As long as there is division between the black and the white and the purple and the blue and the yellow and the black, there must be conflict.
53:28 As long as there is division between you and your wife there must be conflict. This division exists fundamentally, basically, as long as there is the observer separate from the thing observed. As long as I say, anger is different from me, I must control anger, I must change anger, I must control my thought, I must change, do this, that, in that there is division, therefore there is conflict. Conflict implies suppression, conformity, imitation, all that is involved in that. If you really see the beauty of this, that the observer is the observed, the two are not separate, then you can observe the totality of consciousness without analysis. Then you see the whole content of it instantly.
55:14 That is, the observer is the thinker. And we have given such tremendous importance to the thinker, haven't we? We live by thought, we do things by thought, we plan our life by thought, our action is motivated by thought. And thought is worshipped throughout the world as the most extraordinarily important thing, which is part of the intellect.
56:26 And thought - again, please follow this a little bit - thought has separated itself as the thinker. The thinker says, these thoughts are no good, these are better. He says, this ideal is better than that ideal, this belief is better than that belief. It is all the product of thought, thought which has made itself separate, fragmented itself as the thinker, as the experiencer. Thought has separated itself as the higher self and the lower self. In India they call it the atman, the higher, here you call it the soul, or this or that, but it is still thought in operation. That's clear, isn't it? This is logical, it is not irrational.
57:43 Now I am going to show you the irrationality of it. We have lived, all our books and all our literature, everything is this, thought. And our relationship is based on thought, just think of it. My wife - I haven't got one - my wife is the image which I have created by thinking. That thinking has been put together by nagging, you know all the things that go on between husband and wife, the pleasure, the sex, the irritations, the exclusions, all that goes on, all the separative instincts that go on. And our thought is the result of our relationship. And what is thought? If you were asked that question, what is thought? Please don't repeat somebody else, find out for yourself. What is thought? Surely thought is the response of memory. Memory as knowledge, memory as experience which has been accumulated, stored up in the brain cells. So the brain cells themselves are the cells of memory. If you didn't think at all, you would be in a state of amnesia, you wouldn't be able to go to your house.
1:00:26 So, thought is the response of the accumulated memory as knowledge, experience, whether it is yours or the inherited or the communal and so on. So thought is the response of the past, which may project itself into the future, but it is still the past going through the present, modifying it as the future. But it's still the past. Bene? Shall I go on? So, thought is never free. How can it be? It can imagine what is freedom, it can idealise what freedom should be, create a utopia of freedom, but thought itself, in itself, is of the past and therefore it is not free and it is always old. Right? Please, it's not a question of your agreeing with the speaker - that's a fact. And thought organises our life, based on the past. And that thought, based on the past, projects what should be tomorrow, and so there is conflict.
1:02:43 From that arises a question, which is, for most of us thought has given a great deal of pleasure. Right? Pleasure is a guiding principle in our life. We are not saying that it's wrong or right, we are examining it. Pleasure is the thing that we want most - here in this world, in the spiritual world, in the world of heaven, if you have a heaven - pleasure. Pleasure in any form: religious entertainment, going to Mass, all the circus that goes on in the name of religion, and the pleasure of any incident, whether it is of a sunset, sexual, or any sensory pleasure, is recorded and thought over. Right? So thought as pleasure plays a tremendous part in our life. Something happened yesterday which was a lovely thing, a most happy thing, it's recorded, thought comes upon it, chews it and keeps on thinking about it and wants it to be repeated again tomorrow, sexual or otherwise. And so thought gives vitality to an incident that is over. I hope you are following all this.
1:05:16 And so, the very process of recording is knowledge, which is the past. And thought is the past. So, the thought as pleasure is sustained. And if you have noticed, pleasure is always in the past, or the imagined pleasure of tomorrow is still the recollection projected into the future - the past.
1:06:06 And also you can also observe that where there is pleasure and the pursuit of pleasure, there is also the nourishing of fear. Haven't you noticed it? Fear of the thing I have done yesterday, fear of the pain which I had, physical pain, a week ago. Thinking about it sustains the fear. There is no ending of that pain. When it's over it is finished, but I carry it over by thinking about it.
1:07:10 So, thought sustains and gives nourishment to pleasure as well as to fear. Right? Thought is responsible for this. I had pleasure yesterday and I want it repeated again tomorrow. I have done something, or I had pain, physical pain, and I mustn't have it again, it's too awful. I think about it. Fear not only of the present, of the future, fear of death, fear of the unknown - oh, so many fears - fear of not fulfilling, fear of not being loved, wanting to be loved, all the machinery of thought. So there is the rationality of thought and the irrationality of thought. Are you following?
1:08:33 There must be exercise of thought in doing things, technologically, in the office, when you cook, when you wash dishes, knowledge must function perfectly. There is the rationality, the logic of thought in action, in doing. But also thought becomes totally irrational when it sustains as pleasure or fear. And yet thought says, I cannot let go of my pleasures, and yet thought knows, if it is at all sensitive, aware, that there is pain coming with it.
1:09:33 So, to be aware of all the machinery of thought, the complicated, subtle movement of thought. And this is not difficult. It really is not at all difficult once you say, I must find out a way of living that is totally different, a way of life in which there is no conflict. If that is the real demand, as your demand for pleasure, if that is your insistent, passionate demand, to live a life, inwardly and outwardly, in which there is no conflict whatsoever, then you will see the possibility of it. Because we have explained conflict exists only when there is division, between the me and the not me, when I am a Hindu and you are a Christian, communist, socialist, the racket that goes on in this world. Then if you see that, not verbally or intellectually because that's not seeing, but when you actually realise that there is no division between the observer and the observed, between the thinker and the thought, then you see, observe actually what is. And then when you see actually what is, you have already gone beyond it, you don't stay with what is. You stay with what is only when the observer is different from the what is. You are getting this? A moment, sir. I don't know what the time is, we'll ask.
1:12:21 But just see this. It's rather complex, but quite simple really.
1:12:27 A: Could you repeat the last part again?
1:12:32 K: Could I repeat the last part again. I don't know what I said. Please don't laugh. I'm not putting this on. I've really forgotten what I said. I'll repeat it differently. I'll say it differently. We have divided life as the me and the not me, we and they, geographically, nationally, religiously, family, division. This division takes place inevitably, basically, as long as there is the observer different from the thing observed. When I look at myself as an observer different from the thing observed, then 'what is' I want to change, I want to suppress it, I want to get over it, make it conform to what I think should be, the ideal which I have projected as the observer. In that there is conflict, but to observe actually what is without the observer, which is the past, which is time, all that, when you so observe actually what is, the what is has undergone a tremendous change, because it's no longer what is, what you thought what is, it is something totally new. I'll show it to you in a minute. Need I give examples? I'm not good at giving examples. You see this, don't you? We understand each other?
1:14:54 Q: May I ask a question?
1:14:58 K: Let me finish and then you can ask. I don't know what time it is. What we have talked about this evening is, very simply, how to totally eliminate in oneself, every form of conflict. It is only then you know what love is, and this can only take place when you can observe the total content of yourself, non-analytically. Analysis must come into being when there is an observer, a thinker who is analysing. But the thinker, the analyser, the observer, is the analysed, is the thing that he is going to analyse, is the thought. So when there is this complete cessation of division between the observer and the observed, then what is, is no longer what is, you have gone beyond, the mind has gone beyond it. Now proceed, what's the question? What was the question?
1:16:33 Questioner: I think I follow what you're saying about the separation between the observer and the observed. I was wondering, what do I do when I get up in the morning, realising that I observe, and there is the object that I observe - I am the observer and there's the object that I observe - what do I do to change this? Basically I can understand what you are saying but I don't know what to do.
1:17:02 K: I understand the question, is this what you're saying: I wake up in the morning, tired, exhausted - I don't know why you laugh - lazy, and I observe. And I don't want to get up and do all the routine. What am I to do? Is that the question?
1:17:39 Q: That is not exactly the way that I necessarily feel when I wake up in the morning. I see the separation between wanting to observe the object and yet being identified with the situation. I do not know how, I don't understand how do I change this phenomenon of the observer and the observed? Can't I change it? I can't just agree with you and say, yes this is true. Somehow I have to do something.
1:18:12 K: Quite right. That is, there is no identification at all. When you identify yourself with the observed, it is still the pattern of thought, isn't it?
1:18:28 Q: Precisely. How do I get out of that?
1:18:32 K: I'm going to show you. You don't get out of it. I'll show it to you in a minute. Do you see the truth that the observer is the observed? The truth of it, the fact of it, the logic of it. Do you see that, the truth of it, or don't you?
1:19:15 Q: It's still only a comment which arises. The truth does not exist.
1:19:24 K: The fact doesn't exist?
1:19:26 Q: No. A comment arises. A comment of agreement arises.
1:19:30 K: Don't agree. You see that fact, don't you? Please don't agree or disagree, this is a very serious thing. I wish I could talk about meditation, but not now. This is implied in this. Just a minute, let me finish this. See the importance of this. The truth is that I am anger, not I am different from anger, that's the truth, isn't it? That's a fact, isn't it? I am anger, not 'I' separate from anger. When I am jealous, 'I' am jealous, not I am different from jealousy. I make myself separate from jealousy because I want to do something about jealousy, sustain it or get rid of it or rationalise it, or get bored with it, whatever it is. But the fact is, the me is jealous. That's a fact, isn't it?
1:21:07 How am I to act when I am jealous, when 'me' is jealousy? Before, I thought I could act when I separated myself from jealousy, I thought I could do something about it, suppress it, rationalise it, or run away from it, do various things. I thought I was doing something. Here, I feel I am not doing anything. That is, when I say, I am jealousy, I feel I can't move. Isn't that right? I'll show it to you. Look at the two varieties of activity, the action which takes place when you are different from jealousy, which is the non-ending of jealousy. You may run away from it, you may suppress it, you may transcend it, you may escape, etc., but it will come back, it will be there always, because there is the division between you and jealousy. Now, there is a totally different kind of action when there is no division, because in that the observer is the observed, he cannot do anything about it. Before, he was able to do something about it, now he feels he is stumped, he is frustrated, he can't do anything. If the observer is the observed then there is no saying, I can't do anything about it. He is what he is. He is jealousy. Now, when he is jealousy, what takes place? Go on, sir.
1:23:59 Q: He understands something.
1:24:01 K: Look at it. Do look at it for a minute, take time. When I realise I am different from my jealousy, then I feel I can do something about it. And in the doing of it there is conflict. Here, in the other side, when I realise the truth of it, that 'me' is jealousy, the observer is the observed, then what takes place?
1:24:41 Q: There is no conflict.
1:24:44 K: Then what takes place? The element of conflict comes to an end, doesn't it? The element of conflict ceases. Here conflict exists, here conflict doesn't exist. So conflict is jealousy. You've got it? Just see what I've said. Please take time. Why do you clap?
1:25:25 Q: May I ask a question?
1:25:27 K: Sir, wait a minute, please. There was conflict, and conflict has been part of my life. I've lived with conflict from the moment I am born until I die, I know nothing but conflict. Here, when the observer is the observed, the thinker is the thought, then there is no conflict. When there is no conflict there is no jealousy. Jealousy is conflict, isn't it?
1:26:11 Q: In a way, yes.
1:26:15 Q: May I ask a question?
1:26:17 K: Have you got this?

Q: Yes.
1:26:21 K: There has been complete action here, an action in which there has been no effort at all, therefore it is complete, total, it will never come back.
1:26:42 Q: May I ask a question?

K: Yes.
1:26:51 K: What did you want to ask?
1:26:55 Q: You said analysis is the deadly tool of thought, or consciousness. I perfectly agree with you, and you were about to say that you would develop the argument that there are fragments in the brain, or thought or consciousness which would be anti-analytical. I would grateful if you would continue to develop that thought.
1:27:23 K: Of what?
1:27:26 Q: You mentioned that the fragments would not constitute any conflict or struggle. They will be anti-analytical...
1:27:39 K: You are repeating something. What is the question?
1:27:43 Q: I only request to continue what you mean by fragments that will be anti-analytical. Thank you.
1:27:56 K: I just explained. There must be fragmentation when there is the observer and the observed as two different things. I've explained it. No? Look, this is not an argument. This is nothing to develop. I have gone into it fairly thoroughly. We can of course spend lots more time because the more deeply you go into it, the more there is. We have broken up our life into many fragments, haven't we. The scientist, the businessman, the artist, the housewife and so on. What is the basis of this fragmentation, what is the root of this fragmentation? The root of this fragmentation is the observer and the observed. He breaks it up, he breaks up life. I am a Hindu and you're a Catholic, I am a communist, you are a bourgeois, so there is this division going on all the time. And I say, why is there this division? What causes this division? Not only the external, economic, social structure, but much more deeply, what causes this division? This division is brought about, this fragmentation, the me and the not me, the me that wants to be superior, more famous, ambitious, the greater, the more, and 'you', different. So, the me is the observer, the me is the past, which divides the present as the past and the future. So, as long as there is the observer, the experiencer, the thinker, there must be division. We explained together that when there is division there is jealousy, conflict with jealousy, and so sustained conflict in jealousy. Where the observer is the observed, conflict ceases, and therefore jealousy ceases, because jealousy is conflict. Jealousy is conflict, isn't it?
1:31:06 Q: Is it human nature, jealousy?
1:31:15 K: Is jealousy human nature. Is violence human nature? Is greed human nature?
1:31:24 Q: I wanted to ask you another question, if I may. Am I right or wrong, according to what you've been telling us, and to put it succinctly: as a man thinketh in his heart, so is he. So watch our thoughts and profit from experience.
1:31:49 K: What? I haven't quite understood what you said. What was the question?
1:32:15 Q: As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he. We should watch our thoughts, shouldn't we, and profit from our past experience?
1:32:25 K: That's just what I was saying: as you think, you are. That's just it. As you think, what you think, you are. What you think - that you are greater than somebody else, that you are inferior to somebody else, that you are perfect, that you are not beautiful, that you are angry - what you think, you are. That's simple enough, isn't it? And until you find out whether it is possible to live a life where thought has its rational function, where thought becomes irrational. We'll go into that tomorrow. No, next weekend.
1:33:27 Q: To continue in the same vein with the jealousy, when the jealousy is me, and me is the jealousy, the conflict ends because I know it's the jealousy and it disappears. But when I listen to the noises in the street and the me is the noises and the noises are me, how can conflict end when that noise will go on forever?
1:33:53 K: It's fairly simple. The question is: I walk down the street and that noise is terrible, and when I say that noise is me, the noise doesn't end, it goes on, isn't that the question? I don't say the noise is me. I don't say the cloud is me or the tree is me. Why should I say the noise is me? No, please don't laugh. I don't know why you laugh about this silly thing. We pointed out just now that if you observe, if you say, I listen to that noise, listen completely, not with resistance, then that noise may go on forever, it doesn't effect you. The moment you resist, that is, you as separate from the noise, not identify yourself with the noise. I don't know if you see the difference. The noise goes on. I either can cut myself off from it by resisting it, putting a wall between myself and that noise, then what takes place? When I resist something what takes place? There's conflict, isn't there? Can I listen to that noise without any resistance whatsoever?
1:36:01 Q: Yes, if you know that the noise might stop in an hour.
1:36:05 K: No, that's part of your resistance still.
1:36:11 Q: That means that I can listen to the noise in the street for the rest of my life, with the possibility I might become deaf...
1:36:21 K: No, I am saying something entirely different. We are saying, as long as there is resistance there must be conflict. Whether I resist my wife or my husband, whether I resist the noise of the dog barking or the noise in the street, there must be conflict. Now, how to listen to the noise without conflict? Not whether it will go on indefinitely, hoping it will come to an end, but how to listen to the noise without any conflict? That's what we are talking about. You can listen to the noise when the mind is completely free of any form of resistance, not only to the noise but to everything in life, to your husband, to your wife, to your children, to the politician, listen. Therefore what takes place? Your listening becomes much more acute. You become much more sensitive. And therefore noise is only a part, it isn't the whole world. So the very act of listening is more important than the noise. So listening becomes the important thing and not the noise.
1:38:10 I think I better stop, it's ten past seven.