K: I would put it this way: Is it possible for a human being to be a physicist and
be self-consistent without fragmenting himself? I see that time is the central
factor here. Thought is the response of memory; thought is time.
GS: For the experiencer.
K: The experiencer is the experienced, the observer is the observed. But the
observer separates himself through conclusions, images, formulas, etc., and so
creates space and time, and this is one of the major fragmentations.
Can one look without the observer who is the maker of time, space, distance?
After all, sir, how do you as a physicist discover anything?
GS: I am peculiar, I invent.
K: There must be a period in which the inventor is silent.
GS: Yes.
K: If he is constantly in movement, there is continuity. But there must be a break
in which he sees something new. The observer sees through the image, and the
image is continued in time. And so he cannot see anything new. If I look at my
wife with the image of years, and I call that relationship, there is nothing new in
that.
So is it possible to see something new without the observer? The observer is
time. Can I look at ‘what is’, the fragmented, without the observer that is time?
Can there be a perception without the perceiver?
GS: There is no perception without the perceiver, but the perceived is sort of
waiting to be perceived.
K: The tree is there all the time without the perceiver, and the perceiver is
looking at it through fragmentation, through the censor. Can the censor be absent
and, yet, can there be observation?
GS: Certainly not. Perception is a single act. There is no possibility of breaking it
up.
K: Who is the censor? Who is the perceiver? Who is using the verb ‘to
perceive’?
GS: When you are perceiving, you do not talk about the perceiver.
K: I look at the tree with knowledge. Can the observer observe without the past?
Who is the thinker, the examiner?
GS: When you perceive, you do not need all this.