The questioner asks: Is not the investigation into ourselves, into our problems, into our relationships, and into our very ideas, a movement of the intellect and, therefore, limited?—because whatever is from the intellect is limited. Therefore, is there a way, that is, another observation, another exploration, which is not born out of the intellect? That is what the question amounts to.
There is another way which is not the operation of the intellect. So far, this morning, we exercised our intellect, our thinking, and the very thinking pushed us step by step, deeper and wider; but it still was the movement of thought, the movement of time, of measure. The question is whether there is any enquiry which is not born out of remembrance and thought. I say that there is. Shall we go into it? There is an action which is not the action of memory, of thought, of the intellect, and that action is pure observation. You ask: What do we mean by ‘pure observation’? I am going to explain. The explanation is not the fact. The description is not the described. The word is not the thing. The word ‘microphone’ is not the microphone. The word ‘house’ is not the actual fact of the house. So, I am asking: Can we observe without the word? Can we observe our wives, our husbands, our daughters, or the tree, or the river, without the word?—for the word is not the thing. Can you observe me without the word ‘Krishnamurti’, and all the reputation that exists around that word? ‘To just observe’ means to observe not through the word, not through the description, but to be free of the word. Can we do it? Can we look without the word? The words ‘wife’ and ‘husband’ have so many associations. Can we put away all those associations, those words, and look? Can we observe that river without the word ‘Ganga’? Can we observe it without all the associations connected with that word ‘Ganga’? You see, we are discovering something. We are discovering that words, that is, language, shapes our thinking.K