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 associations, 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?

K: You are quite sure? Right? Isn't that 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 is, 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 say, ask '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?

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: No, no, 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? Not clear? Let me make it clear. (Laughs) 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 etc., etc., 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? Wait, go slow. 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, 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? Now, it can come to an end only when the observer says, when the observer realises that which he is observing is the observed. The observer is the observed. You understand? Right, sir? No, no. Go slowly. I'll explain. 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?

K: What? Qu'est-ce quille dit? Look, sir: how do you observe your wife, or your girlfriend, or your boyfriend, husband, how do you observe it? 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? 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 rot, what you are talking about. But I am just asking, when you observe your boyfriend or girlfriend 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?

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, if 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? Phew! 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 realises 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.

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 realises the observer is the observed then what takes place?

K: Yes, sir. We said from the beginning, sir, that the observer, when you observe your wife or your girlfriend, the observer is made up of the past, past memories, past hurts, past insults, the image that you have made about her. Right? 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?

K: (Laughs) You've changed... 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 removing totally all that division 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.

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. So 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 realisation 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 realises 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 expended, 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. No. 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?