On Right Livelihood
Fourth Public Dialogue in Saanen
We are still continuing with our dialogues. Unfortunately it seems to me that I am talking most of the time, that you are not sharing, or having a conversation with the speaker. If I may, I would like to suggest something: we have been talking about meditation, love, thought and other things, but it seems to me that we are not talking about our daily life, our relationship with others, our relationship to the world, our relationship to the whole of humanity. And we seem to be wandering away from the central issue all the time, which is our daily life, the way we live, and if we are at all aware of our daily turmoil, daily anxieties, daily insecurity, daily depressions, the constant demand of our daily existence. Shouldn't we, I am just asking, be concerned with that this morning and tomorrow morning, and not go off into all kinds of vague, idealistic, theoretical pursuits? Could we, I am just asking, perhaps you would not like that, I am just asking whether we could not this morning talk over together as friends about our daily life, what we do, what we eat, what our relationships are, why we get so bored with our existence, why our minds are so mechanical, and so on, our daily existence. Could we talk about that? And restrict ourselves to that only. Could we?
K: At last! (Laughter)
What is our daily life, if you are aware of it? Not escape into some fantasies, cut all that out, what is our daily life? Getting up, exercise if you are inclined, eating, going off to the office, or to the factory, or some business or other, and our ambitions, fulfilments, our relationship with another, intimate or not intimate, sexual or not sexual and so on. What is the central issue of our life? Is it money? Central issue, not the peripheral issues, not the superficial issues, but the deep demand. Please look at it yourself. What is it we demand, we ask? Is it we want money?
Krishnamurti: Don't say, no, we need money. Is money the central issue. Or to have a position? You understand? To be secure, financially, psychologically, to be completely certain, unconfused? What is the main urge, demand, desire of our life? I wish you would... Right? Go on sirs.
Q: Joy of work.
K: Joy of work. Would you say that to the man who is turning the screw day after day, day after day, day after day, on a moving belt - joy of work? Or to a man that has to go to the office every morning, be told what to do, typing, every day of one's life? Please face it. That is what we are asking: is it money? Is it security? Is it lack of work? And having work, then the routine of work, the boredom of it, and the escape from it through entertainment, night clubs, jazz - you follow? - anything away from our central existence. Because the world - I am not preaching, you must know all this - the world is in a horrible condition. You must know all this. So as fairly intelligent, serious, human beings, what is our relationship to all that? The moral deterioration, the intellectual dishonesty, the class prejudices and so on. You know all this. The mess that the politicians are making, the endless preparation for war. What is our relationship to all that? Please let's have a dialogue about it, a conversation. You see when we come to that point we are all silent.
Q: We are all part of it.
K: We are all part of it. I quite agree. Do we know we are part of it? Aware of it, that our daily life - you understand? - daily life, contributes to all this? And if it does, what shall we do? Take drugs? Get drunk? Join some community? Go off to a monastery? Or put on yellow, purple, bright colours? Would that solve all this? So please I would like to discuss. What shall we do? What is our daily life, of which the society is made, the politicians are thoughtlessly using us for their own power, for their own position? So being aware of all this, what is our relationship to that, and what is our life, which obviously is contributing to that? Right? Am I saying something extravagant?
Q: We would like to change it, but we don't know how.
K: We'd like to change it but we don't know how. What is the 'it'?
Q: The way of living as we do now.
K: The way we are living now, we don't know how to change it. Therefore we accept it. Right? Why is it that we can't change it?
Q: Perhaps we wait for someone else to tell us.
K: Are you waiting for some miracle to happen? Are we waiting for some authority to tell us what to do? The priest, the guru, the whole racket of that? Or go back to the Bible? There are people are doing it; the so-called intellectuals, having written something anti- or pro-communism, totalitarianism, are going back to god. You follow? Because they can't find an answer to all this, and they think through tradition it will all be solved. You know all this.
Now why can't we in our daily life change what we are doing? That's why... Let's come back: what is our daily life? Please investigate, this is a conversation, I am not the only speaker.
Q: It's not only contribution but also escape into the contribution.
K: Beg your pardon?
Q: It is not only we are contributing, but also we are escaping into what we contribute.
K: Yes. So I am going back, madame. I am asking if we are part of this society, and society is becoming more and more horrible, more and more intolerable, ugly, destructive, degenerating, as a human being is one also deteriorating? You follow?
Q: I think we don't see it, that we are part of it.
K: The lady says, we don't see it. Why? Don't we know our own daily life?
K: How am I...
Q: Yes, because our daily life is a kind of self-centred activity.
K: I know. Our inner life, our life is self-centred activity, he says. And if that is so, and if that is contributing to the monstrous society in which we live, why can't we change that central activity, egotistic activity - right? Why can't we?
Q: We are unconscious participants in our own lives. Until we become conscious of everything that we are doing we can't change it.
K: I understand. That is what I am asking sir: can we become conscious, aware, know the activities of our daily life, what we are doing?
Q: Being a mother, and having children, it is very difficult.
K: All right. Being a mother and having children it is a very difficult life. Right? Is that one of our problems? You see, come and join in the game sir, don't just... I am a mother. I have children, and are they growing up into monsters, like the rest of the world? You understand? Like all the rest of you? (Laughter) Ugly, violent, self-centred, acquisitive, you know, what we are. Do I want my children to be like that?
Q: In big cities there is contamination and you cannot isolate children because that's where you are living in the moment. You have to face that you are there in the moment and you cannot change... (inaudible)
K: I know all that, sir, I know all that.
Q: Krishnamurti, please try perhaps to short circuit the negation of our past conditioning which we should know in its entirety by now, not fragmentarily, and think how in our everyday lives each one of us can put a sort of universal love into service without any motives, to our fellow human beings.
Q: I would say it is not jobs in the big cities that you have this problem of pollution of minds and conditioning, but all over. I think my problem, because I have this problem with my children. For me it seems that I have to wake up to the quality of my existence in relationship with my children and everything around me. This seems to be my problem, not the outside conditions.
K: What shall we do together?
Q: Can we look at fear?
K: We can look at fear. Sir, if you loved your children, loved them - you understand? - not just born, they are born, they are sent off to school, they must be conditioned this way, they must pass... If you really loved them, what shall we do? Apparently it is not a problem to you. You talk about it, but it isn't a biting, demanding, urgent problem.
Q: Sir, it seems that society is battling in one respect - to go to work everyday, most people just go to work and they don't carry on when they get out of work. In other words there is no blending of their work and their recreation. In other words they go to work, it is learning all the time and when the bell rings and you are told to leave, you can still learn. You may adapt your job to your recreation, you can adapt your recreation to your job, but there is always a learning process going on, which doesn't seem to be happening at all. It is not just going to work and doing a job, it is going to work and learning. Then when you are out of work you continue this learning. You can adapt your free time to your work time. How many people go home and consider their jobs when they are not at their office. How many people go home and try to learn more about their lives whether they are at work or whether they are at home.
K: Having said that, where am I? Where are you? Are we still dealing with what might be, what should be, what ought to be, or are we facing the fact? You understand? Facing the fact.
Q: We are facing the fact there is a big separation between our work lives and our free time.
K: Sir, do I face the fact, please kindly listen, do I face the fact, you and I, that we are part of this society? We have contributed to it, our parents have contributed to it, our grandparents' parents (laughs) and so on, they have contributed to this, and one is contributing. Is that a fact? Do I realise that?
Q: It is very, very clear that that is so.
K: No sir, let us take that one point and work that out slowly, please. Do you and we together realise, in the sense realise as you realise pain, as you realise a toothache, do we realise it that we are contributing to it? Right? Do we?
Q: Yes, we do.
Q: Yes, we are contributing to it with eyes of our own past conditioning if we are still involved in it and don't see what is not right for now, for our present position of living now. Yes, we are in that case.
Q: No, I don't see. If...
K: That's if (laughs), ought, or might.
Q: Sir, we must know how we are contributing to it, why we are contributing to it, the whole effect of what that contribution involves. How do we contribute to it?
Q: If you analyse it, you're taking forever. You must look at it, understand it, and say, 'Look, I understand it, and I'm no longer like that, and I am going to go out of it.' No, you don't! You can do it in an instant.
Q: Sir, I cannot the fact because thought intervenes.
K: Can't you face the fact? When we say, 'I am part of that society', what do we mean by that?
Q: I don't see it at all... (inaudible)
K: Sir, how are we going to talk over together when each one of us is pulling in different directions? Can't we think together about this one thing: that is, we human beings have created this society, not gods, not angels, nobody but human beings have created this terrible, violent, destructive society. And we are part of that. When we say we are part of it, what do we mean by that word 'part'? You understand my question? Just begin slowly, please. What do I mean when I say I am part of that?
Q: Sir, isn't the approach you are taking already setting up a division between me and society? In other words is there such a thing as society, or is this here society, and not I and you society? When you set up this monstrous, horrible society it is an abstraction that is different from the people in this room.
K: Yes, sir, I am saying that. I am exactly saying that: society is not out there, society is here.
Q: Right here.
K: Yes sir, right here.
Q: Well then can't we all work together and lose our past conditioning of these words that you have been saying to us for all of these years, and begin to act on sample, in some form or other that is new and creative?
K: Madame, we can't work together. That is a fact. We can't think together, we don't seem to be able to do anything together, unless we are forced, unless there is a tremendous crisis, like war, then we all come together. If there is an earthquake we are all involved in it. But remove the earthquakes, the great crises of war, we are back into our separate little selves, fighting each other. Right? This is so obvious. I saw a woman some years ago, who was English, aristocratic, and all the rest of it, during the war they all lived in the underground, you know, the tube, and she said it was marvellous, 'We were all together, we supported each other'. When the war was over she went back to her castle and - finished!
Can we just look at this for a minute. When we say we are part of that, is it an idea, or an actuality? - idea, I mean by that, a concept, a picture, a conclusion. Or is it a fact, like having a toothache is a fact?
K: No? What is one to do. Right? Is it a fact to us that I am part of this society?
Q: I am that society.
K: Oh, I am that society. Then what is happening out there to which I am contributing? Am I seeking my own security, my own experiences, involved in my own problems, concerned with my own ambitions. Right? So each one is striving, for himself - right? - as society exists now. And probably that has been the historical process right from the beginning, each one struggling for himself. Right? And therefore each one opposed to another. Now, do we realise that?
Q: What else can we do, we are small... (inaudible)
K: Wait! We'll find out what to do, madame, first start from that which is very near, and then we can go on. Right? We are talking about our daily life. And our daily life apparently, or is, not only part of the society, but also we are encouraging this society by our activities. Right? Do we know this, do we say, 'Yes, by Jove it is so'. Then what shall I do as a human being, being part of this society, what shall I do, what is my responsibility? Take drugs? Grow a beard? Run off? What is my responsibility? Yours? You don't answer.
Q: To do something about it.
K: What? First, sir...
Q: First to see. I see...
K: I can only do something about it when I am clear in myself. Right?
Q: Is it not astonishing if we are clear and logical about it, we can be excluded from the society.
K: All right. So let's find out how to be clear in oneself. How to be certain about things. Let's find out if one can have security. Right? Both psychological and physical. So how does a mind which is confused, as most people's are, how is that confusion to be wiped away so that there is clarity. Right? If there is clarity from there I can act. Right? Is that clear?
K: Now how am I, a human being, to have clarity about politics, about work, about my relationship with my wife, husband, girl, all the rest of it, relationship to the world, how am I to be clear when I am so confused? Right? The gurus say one thing, the priests say something else, the economist says something else, the philosophers say something else - you follow? The analysts say something else, primordial pain, or whatever it is. So they are all shouting, shouting, writing, explaining. And I am caught in that and I get more and more confused. I don't know who to take to be clear, who is right, who is wrong. Right? That is our position, isn't it? No?
K: So I say to myself, I am confused, out with all these people. Right?
Q: And then you become alone.
K: Look, I want to clear up the confusion. Right? That confusion has been caused by all these people, each one saying different things. Right? So I am confused. So I say, please, I am not going to listen to any of you, I am going to see why I am confused. Let's start from there. Right?
K: Why am I confused? Why are you confused?
K: No, stick to one thing sir. Why are you, as a human being, confused?
Q: Because I accept.
K: No, look into yourself madame. Don't just throw out some word. Why am I confused? What is confusion? Let's begin with that. What is confusion?
K: You say confusion arises when there is contradiction, not only out there - right? - in the world, but also in me. The world is me, therefore there is in me contradiction. Now please go slowly. What do we mean by contradiction?
K: Go into sir, look at it, take time. Why am I confused? You say because there is contradiction. I say, what do you mean by that word 'contradiction'? To contradict, to say something opposite. Right? That is, I say something and do the opposite. Right? I think something and act contrary to what I think. That is one part of contradiction. I imitate because I am not sure about myself. There is a contradiction. I follow because I am uncertain. I conform, both psychologically and environmentally because that has been my conditioning. So I realise contradiction means conformity, imitation, saying one thing and doing another, thinking one thing and quite the opposite - I believe in god, and I chop off everybody's head. Right? So this is what we mean by contradiction - 'contra dicere', to say something opposite to what is.
Now are we aware of this? Let us start from this: are we aware of this? In ourselves we are contradicting all the time. Now wait a minute. If you are aware of it, then what shall we do? You understand my question? I am aware that I am contradictory: say one thing on the platform, go home and do quite the opposite. Personally I don't, if I did I would never appear on the platform. So I go do something quite different. And I say, why am I doing this - you understand? I say one thing and do quite the opposite, why? No, find out madame, go into yourself, find out. Is it, I say one thing to please you, to make myself popular, to have a reputation of having immense knowledge, and go home, do everything contrary to that? Because I want to impress you, I want to show I am much bigger than you, I know much more than you, and go home and behave like a child. Now why do I do this? Not I - why do you do it?
Q: Sir, how to become aware of my conditioning while speaking about my conditioning, is it possible without verbalising it. Because you are always saying, go into yourself, and I try to do that, and I seem to have a great need to speak and to try to discover myself while there is a listening, and I am listening myself. Is this correct, or is this an illusion?
K: When I ask, why do I do it - please listen for two minutes - am I looking for a cause? You understand my question? I say, why am I contradicting myself in my life, one thing and another. And so I say, when I ask the question why, my desire is to find a cause. Right? Please listen for a few minutes. I've discovered the cause through analysis, and will that discovery of the cause finish the contradiction? You understand my question? I have discovered the cause why I contradict - because I am frightened, because I want to be popular, because I want to be well-regarded, I want public approval, and inwardly I do something else. The cause is, perhaps, that in myself I am uncertain. I depend on you, or something else, so in myself I am absolutely uncertain. So I say one thing and contradict myself. Right? Take it for a minute, madame, step by step, for god's sake, you people are all so... And I discover the cause and the cause is not going to finish the contradiction. Would you follow something? The cause and the effect are never the same, because the cause becomes the effect, and the effect becomes the cause. It is a chain. I wonder if you see that. So I find it is futile to find the cause. The fact is I am uncertain, and therefore there is a contradiction, wanting to be certain. Inwardly I am uncertain, and wanting to be certain, which is a contradiction. Right? So why am I uncertain? Uncertain about what?
Q: Have you not contradicted yourself? You just said looking for a cause is running away.
K: The gentleman says I have just contradicted myself, which is where? I'd like it to be pointed out. Don't just say you have contradicted yourself. I'd like to find out where I have contradicted myself - it is so hopeless! - I am uncertain.
Q: Perhaps I may say something?
K: Delighted sir.
Q: OK. I don't know why I reacted to it but I can't explain. You said looking for a cause is running away from the fact, the fact of whatever you are looking at.
K: Quite right, sir. Looking for a cause is running away from the actual.
Q: But then the next word you say, is 'why', which is looking for a cause!
K: I have explained very carefully that I am not looking for a cause.
Q: But you said 'why'.
K: I explained that, sir. I am not dumb! (Laughter) I know what he says. I purposely put that question, used that word 'why'. When you use that word 'why', you are looking for a cause. Please don't nod your head, madame.
Q: Sir, if we are not looking for a cause, why are we in the tent?
K: I explained, sir, when we ask the question, why, we generally enquire into the cause. And I explained the cause and the effect are never the same, because the cause brings about an effect, and the effect becomes the cause. So to enquire into that chain is useless. But when we use the word 'why' I am using it in a special way, which is I am enquiring, not seeking a cause. Right? See the difference, please, if you will be good enough. If you don't like the word 'why', let us say 'How has this happened?'
Q: Sir, is it possible to enquire verbally? I really would like an answer to this. I keep asking and you don't answer, and I feel that it is because you want me to find my own answer. All I am really seeking is, is it possible to enquire into the problem, while expressing the problem?
K: No. First we must understand the usage of words verbally and then go behind. Sir, please don't go off like this! You see we have spent forty five minutes. We haven't even touched and gone into the way of our daily life. We are again going off. So please hold on to this. Uncertain... what am I uncertain about? You, what are you uncertain about? Or, are you completely certain?
Q: I find myself listening to many people, and this must bring confusion in myself. So I know that all I have to do is to listen to myself. But when I say, how can I listen to myself, I am making a resolve. I must listen to my parents, everybody else, and so there is my uncertainty - who shall I listen to?
K: You are saying, are you sir, that by enquiring into uncertainty, you have found certainty?
Q: No. He says who should he listen to, his parents say one thing, other people say other things, you say another thing.
K: That is what I said (laughs). The parents say one thing, you say something else, the philosophers say something else, the politicians - right? They are all saying something different, each one. Each guru is competing with the other guru, saying something entirely different. Now - must I go back to that? - this is brought about by the constant pressure of other people. Right? The pressure of the politician, the economist, the philosopher, the guru, the priest, the parent, the grandparents, and your own - right? So please proceed. What am I confused about?
Q: About the future.
K: About the future. I am uncertain about the future, the future being what I have been, what I am now, what I might be. Right? That is the future. The future is physically uncertain, psychologically uncertain. So mind is seeking certainty. Right? Being uncertain it wants to be certain. Right?
Q: We are not aware of what we are in the moment, otherwise the question about the future wouldn't have come, I think.
Q: There is no certainty at all.
K: I wonder what is the point of this discussion. What is the point of our having a conversation, which we are not. We are saying it must be, it is so, it is not so.
Q: We might have changed the way of living now.
K: I am doing it.
K: But you won't do it. Somebody all the time interrupting according to his own way. We are not thinking together. Right?
Q: You asked, what are we uncertain about. And at that point I thought we were uncertain about different things, then the problem is not to ascertain what we are uncertain about but the fact of that, which I think arises from our unclearness about the contradiction. And if we look at it and see the contradiction, then the uncertainty would disappear.
Q: She says we should look at our uncertainty and then it will disappear.
K: We are doing that, sir. I see it is impossible to have a conversation with anybody.
So let's begin this way: are we certain in our relationship with each other? Certain in one's relationship to one's husband, wife, girl, boy? I am asking you, please.
Q: No, no.
Q: We are uncertain in our condition.
K: Yes, uncertain in our relationship with each other.
Q: And society.
K: Our relationship with each other creates the society - no? Of course, obviously. If I am against you, then I create a society which is divisive. It is so obvious this, we don't have to explain. So what is our relationship with each other? You and the speaker. Let's take that. Very simple. Or what is your relationship with your neighbour, with your wife, or with your husband, or with your girl and so on? What is your relationship? I presume you all have a husband or a wife, haven't you?
Q: And relationship.
Q: And children.
K: Or a girl or a boy.
Q: And children.
K: Sir, please answer this: what is your relationship with another?
Q: Very poor.
K: Poor? What does that mean?
Q: You want to get something from the other.
K: You want to exploit the other one, and he wants to exploit you, is that it?
Sir, look, madame, when you look at one's relationship with another, is there any quality of certainty in it? Therefore in that there is no certainty is there? You might think at the beginning of that relationship there is certainty but gradually that certainty peters out. So in relationship there is no certainty. Why? Not the cause. I am asking the 'why' in the sense, how does this come about? Why is there uncertainty in our relationships? You don't pursue, pursue that, please stick to that one thing and work it out.
Q: Lack of engagement.
K: Lack of communication?
Q: Lack of engagement.
K: Lack of engagement?
Q: We are selfish.
Q: We do not know what we really want.
K: (Laughs) What shall we do? I can explain it. What is the point of it? Will you see the actuality of it? That is, sexually one is attracted to the opposite sex. Then gradually the fascination of sex, the excitement, all that, peters out. But there is an attachment formed. And the attachment causes fear. Right? And when there is fear love has gone overboard. Right? So there is constant division between you and the other, constant division. You are asserting, and he is asserting. You dominate or he yields, or the other way round. So there is always this contradiction in our relationship, which is a daily fact.
And how is it that this comes about? You understand, that is the next question. Is it because each one is concerned about himself. Right? Why are we... why is each one concerned about himself? How? You understand my question? What is the importance of being concerned about oneself? Is it because we are conditioned that way, we are educated that way, our whole environmental, social pressure is that way. You understand? So then, can one break away from that? Break away from the self-centred relationship. You are following? Can one end this self-centred relationship? Now how is that to be done - right? Now let's stick to that.
That is our daily life, and therefore... Why is one, one human being, so terribly self-concerned? Is it his nature? Is it his biological necessity? Because when one is primitive one has to look after oneself, or one has to look after the few. And from that one may be so conditioned one is carrying on. Right? Can that condition be broken, finished? Right?
Q: It seems to me that the animal instinct has been projected into the psychological field, and that has created the 'me'.
K: Yes, sir I know that. We've said that. We have said that before. Now one has come to the point that in our relationship, each one is concerned with himself. And this conditioning, can that be broken down, changed?
Q: We have to understand it.
K: No, madame, not understand it. All right, by understanding. What do you mean by understand it?
Q: See the whole thing.
K: I can't see the whole because my mind is conditioned. That is just an idea. You don't even listen... You are off on your own, you see. So I am conditioned because I have been brought up that way. Right? My parents, my society, my gods, my priests, all have said, 'You first', your success, your business, your happiness, your salvation - you. Now, can that conditioning be broken, changed? Just a minute, I want to go into it, please follow this, step by step.
Will you do it as I am talking? How do I know that I am conditioned, first? Is it that I am accepting the word and then imagining I am conditioned? You follow what I am saying? Or is it a fact? Is it an idea or is it a fact? You follow? You understand? You understand this, madame?
Q: Accepting the word and imaging our own conditioning - is that correct?
K: Look sir, I think I am conditioned. I think. But I don't think I have pain when somebody hits me. See the difference? When somebody hits me and there is pain, I don't 'think' there is pain, there is pain. Right? Do I similarly see that I am conditioned? Please, sir, first listen to this. Or do I think I am conditioned? The thinking 'I am conditioned' is not a fact. But the conditioning is a fact. Right?
Q: Yes sir.
K: I am going on. So I am only dealing with fact, not with the idea. The fact is I am conditioned. Now, go slow. In what manner do I look at the fact? That is very important. Right? You are following this? In what manner do I observe the fact? In observing the fact do I say, 'I must get rid of it'? Or do I say, 'I must conquer it, I must suppress it' and so on? In what manner do I look at the fact? You have understood? How do you look at it.
Q: With fear.
Q: I am it, sir.
K: Is the fact - please follow this - is the fact different from me who is observing the fact? Have you understood my question?
K: The fact is I am conditioned. And I am saying, how do I look at the fact, in what manner do I look at it? Do I look at it, the fact, as something different from me? Or that conditioning is me? Please go slowly. Right? How do you look at it? Do you look at it as though you were separate from the fact, or you say, 'Yes, that fact is me'?
Q: At first you are involved in it.
K: Look, madame, is anger different from you? Obviously not. So is your conditioning different from you?
K: That's it. Now you are getting it. So you are now observing the fact as though it was you, you are the fact. Now wait a minute. So what happens?
Q: We observe the fact that we are living in the field of ideas only.
K: Sir, your minds are not trained. Your minds are vague, you know, moving all over the place. Here is a problem, look at it. That is, anger is you. You are not different from the anger. Wait. Wait. When you are angry, you are that, then thought comes along and says, 'I have been angry'. So thought separates anger from you. You understand? So similarly, you are conditioned, and that conditioning is you. Wait. What can you do if it is you? Watch it.
K: No, wait, watch. My god you're all so... The speaker's skin is a little brown. Right? That's brown. But when he says, 'I must change it to something else because white people are better', then I am in conflict. But when I say, 'Yes, it is so', what has happened to my mind?
Q: Thought has...
K: Sir, don't jump into it yet, enquire. What has happened to the mind that has said before, 'Anger is different from me', but now the mind says, 'That is silly, anger is me'. Now similarly the mind has said, 'Conditioning is different from me', and realises the conditioning is me. Right? So what has happened to the mind?
Q: It is clear.
K: Oh, sir, please don't jump to things which you don't see actually. Don't repeat anything, don't say anything that you yourself have not seen.
Q: There is no longer conflict. Conflict is resolved.
K: The mind now is not in contradiction. Right? That is all I am pointing out. It is no longer saying, 'I must do something about it'. Get it?
K: So the mind now is free from the idea, from the concept, from the conditioning that I must act upon it. Right? So the mind is now free to look. Are you following this? Just to look. What is that? The mind says, 'I am conditioned', not the mind is conditioned, but the whole thing is conditioned. So it says, 'Now observe that conditioning'. What takes place when you observe? There is no observer because the observer is not different from the thing observed, there is only observation. Right?
Q: Yes, sir.
K: Are you following this? No, not verbally, actually. Then what takes place when you observe? Observe purely, not give it a distortion. Distortion takes place when you say, 'I must change it'. Or, 'I must suppress it, I must go beyond it'. All that has ended because you are merely observing the fact that the mind is conditioned. There is pure observation. Right? There is no effort made. Then what takes place? The thing that is observed purely undergoes a change. Right? You follow this? You won't, unless you do it you won't. Unless you apply, do it, you will say, 'I don't see it.'
Look, under a microscope you can watch the cell. If you watch it carefully, without saying, 'It is a cell, it must not be this, it is that', you see then the cell undergoing change. But if you come to it with an idea the thing is not moving. You understand? The moment you come to it fresh and looking through the microscope at the cell, the cell is itself moving, so the conditioning is changing. You get it? - if you observe purely.
Now to come back: I observe, one observes one's relationship which is in daily life, to observe it purely. Can you observe your relationship with your wife, husband, whatever it is, without the image, without the idea that it is my husband, my wife, and all the rest of it, without the remembrance of sex, and all the rest of that, just to observe your relationship with another? Will you do it? Or your attraction to the other is so strong that it is impossible to look. I see what is happening here: holding hands, hugging each other, all that is going on. So those people cannot obviously observe. So if you observe very closely, without the observer who is the thinker and all the rest of it, the thing itself changes. My relationship with you, or with another, husband, wife, if I observe it quietly, without any pressure, direction, the thing itself changes, and out of that love is. You understand? Love is not the product of thought.
Q: What is wrong with holding hands sir?
K: Oh, for god's sake! What is wrong with holding hands with another. You have such infantile minds.
Q: Sir, when you look at the cell under the microscope, the cell is changing, but the cell is changing even when you are not looking.
K: Of course. Of course. We know it. You see what you have done sir? You are not applying. You have gone off to the cell. You don't say, 'Look, I am going to apply this. I am going to watch this. I am going to watch my relationship with my wife' - or husband. The fact is we are separate. He is ambitious, I am ambitious, he wants this, and all the rest, separate. I am watching this separation. I don't want to change it, I don't want to modify it, I don't want to push it aside because I don't know what is going to happen. So I observe. Not I observe, there is observation. Right? Do it, sir.
Q: Sir, the problem is when I want to observe, that is a thought too.
K: No, sir, I have explained that, sir. I can't go back to it sir.
Q: But that is a problem for us.
K: What sir?
Q: That is a problem for us.
K: What is the problem?
Q: That we can't observe, we don't know how to do it.
K: I am showing it to you. You don't...
Q: We don't live it.
K: Then you are not listening.
Q: I am listening, that is the problem.
K: Sir, food is put before you. Either you eat it, or don't eat it. If you are hungry you will eat it. If you are not hungry you will say, 'Well, that doesn't mean anything to me'. Are you hungry to find out a way of living, in daily life, without conflict?
K: I am pointing it out to you. So there is a way of living in which there is no confusion. When the mind is able to observe without direction, without motive, which is the movement of thought - just to observe. Observe the roof of this tent, the height, just to observe it. The colour of your dress, not say, 'I like it, I don't like it, I wish I had it', just to observe. In the same way if you can observe your whole psychological movement, then the thing itself changes radically. You don't have to practise anything, gurus, you throw all that aside. Right sirs.
Q: Thank you.
Q: Thank you, sir.