Chapter 8: Aha!
This strange experiment has finally come to the conclusion that when you see a color as red, it is all colors except red. Why does it look red? Because the sunrays fall on your bodies, on your flowers, on your trees; every flower absorbs rays from among the seven colors of the rainbow. Perhaps if all colors are absorbed, then the flower will look black. But if the flower resists and does not allow the red to be absorbed, the flower will look red. The red is the rejected ray of the sun that reaches your eye. And if the flower rejects the whole range of seven colors then it will look white.
It is not coincidental that in all the traditions of the world white has always been thought to be something pure - without knowing exactly why; the reasonings that science has produced are very new. But white somehow represented purity, innocence, cleanliness. And every religion has depicted the devil as black. These are symbolic. The devil is nothing but greed. He goes on absorbing everything; he never rejects anything. The white is non-greed. It never accumulates anything, it goes on reflecting it back to its source. The devil is a beggar; hence he has been depicted as black. But the white is utter simplicity. These symbols have persisted for thousands of years, but their implications and their scientific reasons have become available only now.
When you say, Amrito, “Suddenly I saw there was only talking,” you forgot the seer, the listener. You became so much focused on listening that you forgot “who” is listening. This is what I call mind’s very subtle cunningness. It was still two, but it managed to deceive you as one: “There was no talker.” These are the rationalizations of the mind. It said, “Look, there is only talking, no talker!” But what about the listener?
Wherever there are two, there are three. And you became impressed by the fact that there is no talker and the talking is going on, and you forgot - who is being aware that there is no talker? And who is being aware of the talking? You were there, perfectly there, and the duality had not disappeared.
“For years I had listened to the statement that the observer and the observed were one.” You have listened to that statement by J. Krishnamurti. But sometimes I feel so strange that J. Krishnamurti perhaps talked more than anybody else before him.I am saying before him, not after him - I am still alive; that poor fellow is dead! When he said the observer and the observed were one, who was making this decision? Who was being aware that the observer and the observed are one? Who was the witness?
And not a single person throughout his fifty years of continuous teaching ever raised the question, that “I can understand the observer is the observed, but who is the witness?” Certainly a witness is needed, somebody who is standing behind and seeing that the observer and the observed are one. Again he has fallen into the same fallacy. That’s why I said I am going to refute it completely.
You say, “I saw there was no room.” Then where were you?