...is it our culture, our education, which has so emphasised the 'me'...
...so strongly, and the 'you' equally strongly?
You follow? That is, my ego and your ego.
Right?
The ego being created by thought, thought which is limited.
Now when you look at yourself as an ego...
...the self, the self-centred entity, what is it?
Actually, what is it?
Is it the name, the form, the shape, the idea, the concept, the image?
Right?
That is the 'me', with all the tendencies and all the rest of it.
Essentially it is the product of thought.
Do you see that?
Or do you say, 'No, no, that is not it.
It is God, in me, and God in you'?
You see, that is too silly.
To maintain this division man has invented so many concepts...
...the Hindus have extraordinary concepts...
...the Atman and so on, so on - I won't go into all that.
You follow?
To maintain this division and to continue in the strife...
...and no way out of it, man has invented gods and all the rest of it...
...the saviours, the - all that nonsense to me.
So, can you observe this 'me', which is created by thought...
...observe it without introducing the movement of thought in that observation?
Have you got it?
Please see first of all the logic of it. The logic.
Thought is the response of knowledge and memory, which is the past.
So thought is the past...
...modifying itself all the time, but it is rooted in the past.
And therefore it must always be limited, narrow, can never be whole.
Right?
And thought has created the division in its action...
...the 'me' and the 'not me', the 'you' and 'I', 'we' and 'they'.
And has also created various kinds of divisions:
...the technological action, the personal action...
...the ideological action, the supreme action and so on, so on.
Right? That's a fact.
Now can you observe that fact - please listen carefully - can you observe...
...that fact without thought entering into that observation?
Q: It is the only instrument I have to use.
K: One moment sir. I am coming to that, sir.
First go slowly.
The gentleman says it is the only instrument that I have...
...and therefore how can I look without employing that instrument?
You have understood? Right?
That is a wrong question you have put.
Because we have not clearly understood the limitation of thought.
If you see clearly the limitation of thought...
...so you recognise the instrument is itself limited - right?
And is it possible not to employ that instrument?
If you find a particular drill cannot dig a hole...
...you find other means to dig a hole.
But if you say, 'I have only this instrument'...
...then you cannot dig a hole. You understand?
So do we realise the instrument itself...
...is useless to investigate into this question of conflict?
That is the whole point. You understand?
I wonder if you understand this?