Second Question: 'You say that out
of the negative comes the positive. How does one negate the ‘I’
without suppression or denial or without conflict? Who is that which does the negating?
Can you go into this problem?' 'You say that out of the negative
comes the positive. How does one negate the ‘I’
without suppression or denial or without conflict? Who is that which does the negating?
Can you go into this problem?' You are going to go into this problem,
not the speaker. What is positive action? And what is negative action? The positive action is,
I must do that, I will do that, this is right, this is wrong, or what is considered positive
following certain idealistic cause which will eventually bring about
a different world and so on – the positive action,
positive thinking as the evangelists
and others propagate. Positive thinking. And what is negative thinking? To think of others badly? I don’t know
what negative thinking is, really. Thinking is in itself is negative, but it doesn’t matter,
we’ll go into it. So the questioner wants to know
whether the self, the essence of selfishness,
the self-centred activity, can be denied
without suppression, without conflict,
without any form of evasion. That is the question. We are not saying
that you must negate the 'I'. How can you negate the I? And who is it, as the questioner says,
who negates or asserts? When you say ‘I am’, who is it
that says ‘I am’ aggressively? And who is it that says,
‘I am not’? Both the positive and the negative,
who is it? Go on, sirs. Is there a separate consciousness,
a separate state of mind, a separate clarity
in our consciousness? You follow all my questions? Is there some element of clarity
in this messy consciousness – messy, conflicting, aggressive, with their fears, faith, beliefs,
superstitions, anxious – all that. In that confusion
which is our consciousness, is there a spot of clarity
which then can say, 'I will direct, I won’t suppress, I will change
this whole confusion.' Do you understand my question?
Is there? Please answer. If one is terribly
honest with oneself, doesn’t want to deceive oneself or accept some comforting idea,
or merely follow some tradition, then you will say there is a field
in this messy consciousness that is clear, unconfused, and that will bring about clarity
in the whole field of confusion. You understand my question? This is the old, very old story,
that there is, according to the Hindus
in the Asiatic world, a certain entity
apart from all this – they call it Atman, God,
or what you like – who is witnessing all this,
and seeing all this, through various forms of assertions,
conflicts and so on, will ultimately free the mind
from the confusion. Right? And probably here too,
in the Western world, there is this idea of permanent soul,
whatever that may mean, who is gradually asserting himself
and will ultimately go to heaven. These are all very comforting
utilitarian theories. But they have not so far cleared
man’s confusion, man’s conflict, his agonies, his loneliness,
his depression, and so on. So, why not try – when you are all
so practical in the West and the East is also trying to copy
you by becoming very practical – why not see that
this is so utterly impractical, the god within you, or the soul
within you, or the clarity within you which will wipe away
this confusion so easily. If that is not practical,
as it is not, apparently, because it has not succeeded – succeeded in the sense, please let’s
be clear in the usage of that word, succeeded, not to be something
in this world, to have more money and so on – succeeded in bringing about
complete comprehension, the ending of conflict and so on. As it has not,
let’s look at it differently. That means one must deny this,
negate this. That’s going against
all your religious tradition – the Bible, the soul. You understand what I am saying?
– negating all that. Then if you do,
then we can look at it differently, but if you have slight attachment
to all that, conscious or unconscious, then you will not look
for anything else. So, first of all,
what is the self, the ‘I’? All the attributes,
all the tendencies, the various forms
of idiosyncrasies, various beliefs,
the various hurts, the conflict in relationship,
fear, loneliness, agony, seeking some illusive security,
suffering – all that – the name, the form,
is the ‘you’. Right? Or do you doubt that? If you doubt it
– one should – then when you doubt something it means you must examine,
not just doubt. If you doubt that there is God
– doubt, I am not saying you should –
if you doubt it, then you must enquire
if there is such a thing. But merely to doubt, say,
well... – has no meaning. Scepticism has great value, but if you are merely sceptic
all the time, what’s the point, it’s like being illusory, caught in
an illusion, they are both the same. So where there is doubt there is also
the movement of enquiry. So we are enquiring together. This ‘I’, this separatist activity,
so-called individual, which is the essence of the ‘I’ – and the questioner wants to know
how to negate that, the very whole activity of me
– my possessions, my qualities, my aggression,
you follow, the whole of that – how is one to negate it? Now, the questioner asks that:
how to negate it. Then he goes on to ask,
who is it that negates? You follow? First he said
tell me how to negate it, then he says, who is it that negates. You follow? I wonder
if you understand this. So we are not negating it. We are trying to find out
what it has done in the world first, this self-centred egotistic activity,
what it has done in the world, and see the reality of it,
the actuality of it, and then enquire who is it that is
acting all the time from the centre. You understand my question? It is not that we are
negating the self, but that the activity
of the self in the world, what it has done in the world,
what it has done in the family, in the group, in the community, in
the nation, in the world, and so on, and seeing the reality of it, not the idea of
what it has done in the world, but the actual happening,
the actual activity of it, and from there
– which is our criteria – from there enquire if that self, which is creating
such mischief in the world, can that self be looked at?
You follow? Then we will enquire, what is it
that is looking at the self? It is the same question
put differently. So, first, what has it done
in the world? I don’t have to answer
that question, obviously. It has separated itself
into nations, into communities, into various forms
of social divisions, it has divided itself
from the rest of the community, society, world, as the family,
and from the family, the ‘me’: my aggression, my happiness,
my pursuit, and so on. It has brought about
division in the world, because it said, in that division
as my particular belief, my particular religion,
my particular faith, in that faith, in that belief,
in that dogma I will be secure, I will be safe. Right?
Are you following all this? So it has created vast division,
incredible divisions, and so where there is division
there must be conflict. So the 'I', which is the creator
of this division, which is the essence of conflict
– right? – can that 'I' come to an end? Not suppressing, not evading,
not avoiding, and so on. Can that 'I' which has done
all this mischief, all these terrible
things in the world – separate gods, it has brought about
a million wars, thousands of wars. Is that a fact?
For you, not for me. Is that a fact?
Or is it an exaggeration? Or is it some kind of concept, and you are adjusting yourself
to that concept? That is, we think war is cruel,
and therefore the ‘I’ must be – you follow? First conceive an idea,
then adjust ourselves to that idea. We are saying, observe what is
happening in the world without bias, without any partiality, and you see what the ‘I’, the so-called individual expansion,
the individual aggression, the individual success,
what it has done in the world. If you are very clear on that point,
then we say, now, seeing what cruelties, bestiality
is brought about in the world, can this movement
which is the ‘me’, can this movement ever stop
or radically change? When you have put
that question to yourself, then who is it that is
to bring about a change? The questioner says that. Who is it that will end
this self-centred activity. Right? That is what the questioner
is saying. That is, we have to go
much deeper into that, which is,
is there a difference from the observer
and the thing he observes? Please just listen to it.
Don’t agree or disagree or say, ‘Oh, you are repeating the old stuff.
I have heard this last year – or two years ago,
or twenty years ago – you are repeating,
move out of that rut.' We’ll move out of that rut. It is not a rut,
but you may call it a rut. When you observe a tree,
that thing, can you look at it
without the word first? Or when you look at it,
the instant response is, that’s a tree, oak tree
or whatever it is. Can you look at it
without the word? Word being the symbol,
the idea, the memory, which uses the word as the tree.
You follow? Experiment for a minute,
for a second or two to look at that thing
which is around you now. And when you so look
without the word, because we are caught
in a network of words. I don’t know if one realises that. The word, the symbol
has taken the place of reality. When you say, ‘My wife’,
you have the complete picture. Or my husband or my son,
my country, the flag, and when you use the word
‘Communist’, it is – you follow? – the whole intonation, the quality,
what is behind that word. And when you say,
I am an American, or I believe in God, I don’t
believe in God – you follow? – this vast network of words in which
the mind lives, the brain lives. I don’t know if you have noticed
all this. I hope it interests you. The questioner asks it, if you are not interested,
it is a nice day. Does one realise that? That one can never look at a thing,
living thing, or a dead thing or a thing that is moving – always with a word. To look at a river,
at the flowing water, not call it the Mississippi or Thames
or the Ganges, or the Nile – just look at the moving water. It has
quite a different quality. Now, so can you observe – not you observe, sorry – is there an observation
of the movement of the self which is anger, bitterness,
hurt, just to look at all that
without the word. Are you following all this? The word is the past. Right? The word indicates
the content of the past. ‘My wife’ – I am taking
an ordinary example – my wife. When you use ‘my wife’
see the content of that word, the enormous implications of various
incidents, accidents, ideas, hurt – all that in the past. Right? And that word ‘my wife’ indicates
the tremendous content of the past. But, can you look at the woman or the
man without the past, to look at her? Go on, sir, do it, don’t listen to me,
there’s no point in listening to me if you are not applying,
if you are not doing it. So first of all we are asking, is there an observation
of the whole movement of the self, which we have described
both outwardly and inwardly, can you look at that
– no – is there an observation
of that without the past? You get it? You understand
what I am talking about? Look, I have lived 80 years or more
– 87 years. A man who has lived 87 years
has collected lots of experience, lots of ideas,
met lots of people. There are all these past memories
throbbing away. And either he is an idiot
to live in the past, or – memory with this person
being very, very selective – not live in the past
but watch things are happening: to observe without the observer,
which is the past. Have you got it?
Am I making it clear? To observe. To observe one’s reactions without naming it
as jealousy, as anger – just to observe. When you so observe,
what happens? Go into it, sir,
I hope you are doing this, not just listening or getting bored
with the damn stuff. If you are listening,
we are asking a question, which is: when there is an observation
without direction, without motive, which is the past,
what happens? Now, to find out
what happens, actually, you must enquire what takes place
when you are directing it, when you are remembering it,
your reactions, or giving direction
to your reactions. That is, there is a separation
between the observer and the observed. Then there is a division
and hence a conflict – I must not do this/I must do that,
this is right/this is wrong, I say this is right according
to my motive – and so on. So,
when there is an observation that where there is division
there must inevitably be conflict, outwardly and psychologically,
that is absolute fact. When I call myself British
or American, and I am willing – you follow, the whole thing
you’ve right in front of you. You are willing to destroy
thousands of people, spend enormous sums of money
to do something which your national pride
or some nonsense dictates. So, can this conflict
in the human mind, which is your mind, it is not my mind
– the human mind, which is in constant travail,
constant conflict – we are enquiring
whether that conflict can end. It can end only completely when the
observer is not, only observation is. Is the thinker
different from thought? Look at it. Is the thinker different from
the thought which he has created? The thinker says, I am a Catholic,
Protestant, Hindu, I am a Democrat, totalitarian
– whatever it is. The thinker says that. But the thinker has created the Democrat, the Republican, the left, far left, far right,
far centre, and so on – the thinker has done that. And is the thinker
different from his thoughts? Oh, come on, sir,
this is so simple. Obviously not.
But we have divided it. Right? So look at another question: is the
experiencer different from experience? Ah, this is, now you – I am glad.
Now you are caught! We all want experiences:
going to the moon, experience of God,
experience of a dozen kinds – of sex, experience of going to the
Himalayas and climbing the Everest – you follow? – experiences. Now we are asking, is the experiencer
different from his experience? Experiencer must recognise
the experience. Right? Right?
Otherwise it is not an experience. You follow all this? Am I talking
some strange language? I experience – what? –
a motor accident, I have an experience
in an accident in a car, and that is recorded as pleasant,
unpleasant, as hurt, and so on, the expense of it, and so on,
that is recorded. Right? The experience of that thing
is remembered, and that experience is a memory
which is different from that which has happened last year.
Right? So the observer is that experience
of last year. Right? Oh, come on, sir. And that experiencer either wants to
avoid future incidents of that kind, or if he is prone to accidents,
he’s inviting them. We are asking, is the experiencer
different from the experience? Of course not. I have invented God, and I am going to experience
that marvellous state. Right? I have visions of – if I you are
a Christian, the Virgin Mary, if I was a Buddhist,
I would have an experience of various types
of Buddhist consciousness, or if I’m a Hindu – you follow? Being conditioned
to a particular tradition, which is the past, I experience that.
Oh, come on, sir. I have projected that
and I experience that. So the experiencer
is the experience. And if there is no experience,
what is the state of mind? Do you understand
all these questions? We are all wanting experiences, and when one actually
goes into it very, very deeply, experience, we hope,
will bring about more knowledge, more clarity,
more this and more that, but the experiencer
is the experience, therefore the mind is no longer
seeking any experience. Only such a mind is absolutely clear,
it requires no challenge. That’s a different thing. So, is there pure observation
of the movement of the self? Because in that the self is
not different from the observer, there is only observation, without the past accumulated memories
interfering with observation. When the past memories and
accumulated knowledge interfere, then there is
wastage of energy. I don’t know
if you are following all this. Wastage of energy in conflict,
in denying, in suppressing, in arguing why should I,
rationalising the whole business, which is a form of conflict. Now, that’s a wastage of energy. Whereas when there is observation
without the past, all energy
is brought into being, all energy comes in that observation,
which dispels that which is observed. It’s up to you,
I’ve said it in ten different ways. So there is no conflict with the self,
or denial of the self, or suppression of the self. It is clarity of observation, which is
the greatest form of intelligence.
