BENGALURU : Now first of all how do I examine, observe, myself? That’s what’s involved first. Do I look at myself according to what the authorities, specialists, psychologists have said, which obviously has conditioned my mind? I may not like Freud, Jung, Adler and all the recent psychologists and analysts but because of their very statements that has penetrated into my mind, and I am looking at myself with that, with those eyes. Right? And can I look at myself objectively, without any emotional reaction, just to see what I am? And to see what I am is analysis necessary? All these questions are involved when I ask myself that I must know myself, because without knowing myself completely I have no basis for any action.
Because if I don’t know myself and therefore am confused, whatever action I take must lead to further confusion. So I must know myself. I must profoundly find out the structure of my nature. I have to see the scaffolds of my activities, the patterns in which I function, the line which I follow, the directions which I have established for myself, or the society. And understand this drive, which makes me do things, contradictory or consistent, or occasionally contradictory.
I hope you understand. Right? To understand all these problems whether there is god, whether there is truth, what is meditation, what is the meditator, who is much more important than meditation, I must know completely myself. Right? You see the importance of it. The importance that you know for yourself what you are. Because without knowing yourself whatever you do will be done in ignorance, therefore in illusion, therefore in contradiction, therefore confusion, sorrow and all the rest of it. Is that clear? One must know oneself, not only at the conscious level but at the deep layers of oneself. Right? Is this clear? Not what I say, that you must know yourself.
Now, how shall I know myself? What is the procedure? Shall I follow the authorities, the specialists, who apparently have investigated, who apparently have come to certain conclusions, which they may alter, which the later analysts, psychologists, philosophers, may alter, may strengthen - shall I follow the authorities, the specialists? Wait, wait, wait, don’t say ‘No’.
If I don’t how shall I understand myself? Because whatever they have said, not only in the recent years but in the past - the philosophers, the analysts have existed before all the specialists in the western world, the Indian mind has gone into this at extraordinarily great depth, and all the investigations of the past philosophers, teachers, and the moderns, is imprinted on my mind, consciously or unconsciously. You follow? I certainly have not read Freud but people talk about it, about their conditioning, their sex - you know all the rest of the Freudian jargon - and one is familiar with all that.
So shall I follow, because they have gone ahead of me, because I am just beginning, shall I follow what they have said and go further than what they have said - you are following all this? - or I won’t follow anybody but look at myself. Because if I can look at myself as ‘what is’, I am looking at myself who is the result of all these philosophers, sayings, teachers, saviours, all the rest of it.