Now, is the analyzer different from the thing he analyzes? The analyzer
examines his anger, his jealousy, his ambition, his greed, his brutality, in order to
get over it or in order to suppress it or in order to resist it. He examines in order
to produce a result, negatively or positively. And who is the examiner and what
is the thing examined? Who is the examiner? Who is the analyzer? Is he not one
of the fragments of the many fragments? He may call himself the super-fragment,
he may call himself “the mind,” “the intelligence,” but he is still a fragment. He
may call himself the Atman or whatever he likes to call it, but it is still a super-
fragment. Is that clear?
It is not a question of agreement or disagreement but of observing what goes
on in our life, because we have to change our life, our living. Not your ideals,
your conclusions, your convictions—who cares? It is like a man saying, “I am
tremendously convinced that we are all one”—which is sheer nonsense. We are
not. That is just an idea, which is another fragmentation.
So is the observer, the analyzer, different from the analyzed? Are they not
both the same? Please, it is important to understand this very clearly and deeply
because if they are both the same—you will find out that they are the same—then
conflict comes to an end. Look, we live in conflict from the moment we are born
till we die. We are struggling, and we have never been able to solve that problem.
We say that as long as there is division between the analyzer and the thing
analyzed, there must inevitably be conflict. Because the analyzer is the past; he
has acquired knowledge through various experiences, through various influences.
He is the censor who judges and says, “This is right; this is wrong; this should
be; this should not be,” all that. The censor is always the past, and the censor,
according to his past conditioning, then dictates to what he observes what it
should do, what it should not do, how it should either suppress or go beyond.
Probably you are not used to this kind of examination. Unfortunately, you
have too many gurus in this country. They have told you what to do, what to
think, what to practice. They are the dictators, and therefore you have stopped
thinking clearly. Gurus destroy, not create. If you really saw that, you would drop
all spiritual authority completely; you wouldn’t follow anybody, including the
speaker. You would really observe with your heart, with your mind, find out,
examine, because it is you who have to change, not your guru. The moment he
asserts that he is a guru, he ceases to understand; he is no longer a man of truth.
So the past, which is the censor, which is the analyzer, examines. So the past
creates the division. Analysis also implies time. You can take days, months,
years to analyze, examine, and therefore there is no complete action. The action
of a mind that is introspective, a mind that merely follows, a mind that functions
according to the past, according to the analyzer, is always incomplete and
therefore always confused and therefore brings misery. So you see for yourself
the truth that analysis, that is, introspection, finding out the cause, is not the way
to be free. All that implies time, taking many days, many months—and before
you know where you are, you are already dead.
So if you see the truth that analysis is not the way for a mind to be completely
free of its conditioning, then you will drop completely the analytical process. If
you see the danger of analysis as you see the danger of a serpent, actually see the
michael s
(Michael S)
#1