Public Talk 2, Paris, 13 April 1969
J. Krishnamurti
Second Public Talk in Paris
13 April 1969
Krishnamurti: We were going to this morning talk over together the question of fear. You know, we can pile up words upon words, gather great many ideas and come to definite conclusions — it’s a bit loud still, isn’t it?
Technician: [In French]
K: But what is most important is not the collection of ideas and words and theories but to live without fear. And as we shall go into this question of fear this morning — I hope rather deeply — we should find out what action is, the doing. And I think we ought to begin with a very simple question with a very simple issue. Most of us are caught in habits, physical and psychological habits. Some of us are aware of them and others are not. If one is aware, conscious of these habits, is it possible to stop a particular habit instantly, not carry it over for many months, years? And becoming aware of one particular habit of any kind, is it possible to put an end to it without any form of struggle, to drop it instantly — habit of smoking, a particular twitch of the head, the habitual smile or the various forms of peculiar habits one has — to become conscious of it, like chattering endlessly about nothing, the restlessness, the chattering of the mind, and so on — can one become aware of it, and without any form of resistance, control, end them easily, without effort, and immediately?
In that is implied several things. First, the understanding that struggle against something, like a particular habit, only develops a form of resistance against that habit; and resistance in any form does breed more conflict. If one resists a habit, tries to suppress it, struggle against it, the very energy that is necessary to understand that habit is wasted through resistance, through every form of control, and so on. Then, in that is involved, as we said, the second thing: one takes for granted that any particular habit must be slowly worn out, must slowly be suppressed or got rid of, which involves time.
I’m sorry, it’s too loud.
As we said, the second thing is time, that is, the idea that we will gradually get rid of it. We have got into the habit of thinking that any particular habit can be gradually be gotten rid of. And the other is, to resist it. [Sound of P.A. system]
[Laughs] I hope you have the patience.
T: [In French]
So let’s begin again. We are accustomed to this idea that it is only possible to be free of any habit through resistance, developing the opposite habit, or to us the idea that we shall get rid of it gradually, we have accepted — resistance and the need of time to get rid of a particular habit. One sees that any form of resistance not only develops various forms of conflicts, and also one sees that time, that is, taking many days, many weeks, many years, doesn’t really end the habit, and yet we have accepted these two as a way of ending various forms of traditions, habits, and so on. And we are asking whether it is possible to end a habit, a particular way of walking and talking and chattering and so on, without resistance and without time, that is, to do it immediately. I think one has to understand this issue at the beginning of what we are going to talk about, which is fear.
What is required, obviously, is not resistance or a series of days, but the quality of energy that can meet this habit and dissolve it immediately, which is the quality of attention. Attention is the very essence of all energy. To give one’s attention means to give one’s mind, one’s heart, one’s whole physical energy to attend, and with that energy to face or to be aware of this particular habit. And you will see, if you are so aware, so completely attentive, then you will see that habit has no longer any hold, it disappears instantly. But we think various habits are not particularly important — we can have them, what does it matter? — and so we find an excuse for our habits. But if one could give this complete attention, not only at a particular moment but establish the quality of attention in the mind, that is, the mind sees the fact, the truth that energy is attention and that attention is necessary to dissolve any particular habit. When the mind really understands that then becoming aware of a particular habit or a tradition, or what you will, then you will see for yourself that it completely comes to an end. I am sure you have a particular habit or a tradition or a way of talking, or the endless chatter that one indulges in about nothing. If one becomes so attentively aware then you have an extraordinary energy. That energy is not brought about through resistance, as most energies are. But this energy of attention is freedom, and therefore when one looks at a particular habit, be aware of it, then that habit comes to an end.
Now, if one understands that really very deeply, not as a theory but an actual fact which you have experimented, seen, and be aware of it, then we can proceed to enquire into this whole nature and structure of fear. And also we must bear in mind when we are talking about this rather complicated question of fear, that communication, verbal communication between you and the speaker becomes rather difficult; if we are not listing with sufficient care, with sufficient quality of attention, then communication is not possible. If you are thinking about one thing and the speaker is talking about something else then communication comes to an end, obviously. If you are concerned with your own particular fear and your whole attention is given to that particular fear, then the verbal communication between you and the speaker also comes to an end. To communicate with one another verbally there must be a quality of attention in which there is care, in which there is an intensity of the urgency to understand this question of fear — the urgency and the intensity, otherwise we will merely communicate verbally, and therefore that will have very little meaning. And communication implies also communion. Communication is verbal and communion is non-verbal. When two people who know each other very well, without saying any words, they understand each other very well, completely, immediately, because they have established a certain form of communion between the two of them. So when we are dealing with a very complicated issue as fear, there must not only be communion but also communication verbally. The two must go together all the time or otherwise we shall not be working together.
Now having said all this, which is necessary, let’s consider this question of fear. We are not saying that you must be free from fear — please follow this carefully. The moment you try to free yourself from fear you create a resistance against fear. Right? That is fairly clear. And resistance in any form does not end fear; it will always be there, though you may escape from it, resist it, control it, run away from it, and so on, it will always be there. And the running away, the controlling, the suppressing, all that is a form of resistance, and therefore fear continues and you develop the strength to resist. So we are not talking about being free from fear. Being free from something is not freedom. Please do understand this because we are going to go into this question. And when we leave this hall, if you have given your whole attention to what is being said, you must leave the hall without any sense of fear. And that is the only thing that matters, not what the speaker says, doesn’t say, or what you think or you agree or disagree — what is important is that one should be totally, right through one’s being, psychologically, end fear.
So we are not saying that one must be free or resist fear but understand this whole nature and structure of fear — understand it. That means learn about it, watch it, come directly into contact with it. We are going to learn about fear, not how to escape from it, not how to resist it through courage and all that business, but to learn. And what does that word mean, ‘to learn’? Surely, accumulation of knowledge about something, like fear, is one thing, and learning about fear is another. Please do understand this, because what we are going to deal with will be rather useless unless you understand this completely. We think learning implies accumulation of knowledge about something which we are going to learn. That is, if one wants to learn Italian, one has to accumulate the meaning of words, the grammar and how to put the sentences together and so on — accumulate knowledge, and having gathered knowledge then one is capable of speaking that particular language. That is, accumulation and action — right? — through knowledge, through experience.
Now, such accumulation, we say, is not learning. Learning is always in the active present, not having accumulated act, but learning itself is a process of action — right? — which is always in the present. Is this somewhat clear? Am I making myself clear on this point? Because most of us are accustomed to this idea — first let me accumulate knowledge, information, experience, and from there act. We are saying something entirely different. Knowledge is always in the past; knowledge is always the past. And when you act, the past is acting. What we are saying is something entirely different to that. We are saying learning is an act in the very action itself. As you are doing you are learning, and therefore there is never an accumulation. Right? Are we meeting each other?
Questioner: [Inaudible] …learning about something.
K: Ah, bien. I see, yes. Learning about a technique requires accumulation of knowledge. If you have to learn to drive you must practise driving and accumulate it — accumulate, get used to it so it becomes natural. We are saying learning is always in the present and continues. Now we are going to learn about fear, and therefore the learning is something fresh. Right? Because if I come upon fear with past knowledge, with past memories, associations, then I do not come face to face with fear and therefore learn about it. I can only learn about something if my mind is fresh, new. And that is going to be our difficulty, because we are going to approach fear with all the associations, memories, incidents, experiences, which will prevent us from looking at it afresh and learning about it anew. Right? Can we proceed from there now?
So, what is fear? And is there only fear with its many expressions — fear of death, fear of darkness, fear of losing a job, fear of the husband, wife, insecurity, fear of not fulfilling, fear of not being loved, fear of loneliness, fear of not becoming a great success, famous — you know — or is there only fear which expresses itself in different ways? Right? If we are going to deal with fear, are we going to deal with a particular fear of yours, or are we dealing with the fact of fear itself, not with a particular form of fear? Are we meeting each other? I am not sure. Tant pis. It’s up to you.
We are concerned with fear, and not with a particular fear. When we understand the nature of fear, not how fear expresses itself in a particular direction — if we can deal with the central fact of fear then you will be able to resolve or do something about your particular fear. So don’t take your particular fear and say, ‘Well, resolve this, I must resolve it,’ but understand the nature of fear and the structure of fear and then you will deal with your own particular little… whatever fear you have. Right? And see how important it is that the mind must be in a state in which there is no fear whatsoever. Because when there is fear there is darkness — mind becomes dull, mind then seeks various forms of escapes, stimulations, through amusement, whether the amusement be in the church or in the football field or on the radio. Such a mind is incapable of clarity. And a mind that is afraid does not know what it means to love. It may know pleasure but it certainly does not know what it means to love. So fear destroys and makes the mind ugly.
So there is physical fear and psychological fear. There is the physical fear of danger, like meeting a snake, or a danger, a precipice. Then that fear — is it fear, the physical fear of meeting danger, or is it intelligence? There is a precipice there. I see it and I immediately react — I don’t go near it. Now is that fear or intelligence which says to me, ‘Be careful, there is danger’? That intelligence has been accumulated through time. That is, people have fallen over, or my mother or friend has said, ‘Be careful of that particular precipice.’ So in that physical expression of fear there is the tradition, the memory and intelligence operating at the same time. Right? Then there is the fear, physical fear, of having had pain, a disease which has given a great deal of pain, and not wanting it again. Right? That is, having known pain, not wanting to be repeated again — purely a physical phenomenon.
Now, can that fear be understood and not bring that fear into being at all? I don’t know if you are following this. I have had pain — most of us do — it happened last week or a year ago. The pain was excruciating. I don’t want it repeated and I am afraid it might come back. What has taken place there? Please follow this carefully. There is the memory of that pain and the mind, thought says, ‘Don’t let it occur again, be careful.’ Thinking about the past pain, being afraid of its repetition, thought brings upon itself fear. So that is a particular form of fear — fear, physical fear of a danger, the fear of disease being repeated with its pain. And there are all the various psychological fears — fear of what the neighbour might say, fear of not being highly bourgeois, respectable, fear of not following the social morality, which is immorality, fear of losing a job, fear of loneliness, fear of anxiety — you know, anxiety in itself is fear, and so on, so on, so on — all the product of a life which is based on thought. Right?
In this there are several things involved. First — I hope the speaker is not complicating the thing too much, but you have to face all this when you have to go into this question of fear, and we are going into it. And if you don’t understand I’m sorry but I must go on.
There is not only the conscious fears, fear of which you know consciously; then there are also the deep, hidden fears in the psyche, in the deeper layers of the mind. One may deal with the conscious fears, of what the neighbour might say, of your wife dominating you or this or that, become conscious of them, one can deal with those, but the deep, hidden fears are much more difficult. Now, how is one to bring all the unconscious, deep, hidden fears to the surface and expose them? You are following this? Can the conscious mind do that? Can the conscious mind, with its active thought, uncover the unconscious, the hidden? We are using the word ‘unconscious’ non-technically, non-Freudian, Jungian and all the rest of it — just the word ‘unconscious’ which is not being conscious or aware or know the hidden layers — that’s all. Can the conscious mind open the deep, secret, hidden layers in which there are many other fears? Can it? Please don’t answer me. Don’t say yes or no — then you don’t learn about it. We are looking at it, we are observing it, we are learning, we are seeing what actually is taking place. Can the conscious mind, the mind that is trained to adjust itself to survive, to go with things as they are, not struggle, not fight, have a peaceful life, you know, the conscious mind, how tricky it is, can the conscious mind uncover the whole content of the unconscious? I don’t think it can. It may uncover one layer and translate that layer according to its own conditioning. And that very translation according to its conditioning will prejudice the mind, conscious mind, therefore when it examines the next layer it is already prejudiced, conditioned, therefore it is incapable of examining the next layer completely. You are following all this?
Q: Can you repeat it, please?
K: Can I repeat it? I’m afraid I can’t. Oh Lord! You see, you are not… As I can’t repeat it, I’ll begin again.
Look sir, for convenience we have divided the mind into the hidden and open. Right? The open mind, that is the conscious mind, says, ‘I will examine, try to find out what is in the cellar, what is hidden, dans la cave — I must find out what there is.’ And it uncovers one layer, one spot. And in the examination of that particular groove or particular spot, it must translate very clearly, without any prejudice what is sees. If there is any form of distortion then it cannot understand it completely, and as it cannot understand it completely, with that prejudiced mind it is going to examine the next layer. And therefore it becomes more and more incapable of examination of the contents of the unconscious. Right? Is that fairly clear? So one sees the mere conscious effort to examine the deeper content of the mind becomes extremely difficult unless the surface mind is completely free from all conditioning, from all prejudice, from all fear. Right? Otherwise it is incapable of looking. So it says, ‘That may be extremely difficult or probably completely impossible. Perhaps there may be another way, altogether different.’
Comment? Please, sirs, look, this is an extremely difficult thing to communicate. If you want to talk, go outside and talk, or do something else. Please, this isn’t an entertainment. This isn’t an analysis. And if you are not interested, please have the goodness to go and do something else. Where am I? All right, sir.
So I am asking myself, is there another way, instead of the analytical process, is there another way of exposing the whole content of consciousness, both the surface as well as the hidden? You’ve understood my question? That is, is the analytical way ever going to free the mind from fear? The analysis, not only self-analysis but the professional analysis, that is, through an analyst, can the mind empty itself of all fear, through analysis? Right? In that is involved something else. Now, when I analyse myself, look at myself, analyse it, take layer after layer, look at it, examine it, judge it, evaluate it, and say, ‘This is right, this is wrong, this I will keep, this I won’t keep,’ the analyser, is he different from the thing he analyses? I can answer it for myself. You have to answer it for yourself, see the truth of it. The analyser, is he different from the thing he is analysing as jealousy? Is he different? He is not different, because he is part of that — he is jealousy, and he breaks up the jealousy into the entity who says, ‘I am different from jealousy therefore I am going to look at jealousy, try to get rid of it or control it.’ But jealousy is part of the analyser and the analysed. Right? Is this all getting rather too much? I’m afraid it is, but that doesn’t matter.
So, in the process of analysis is involved time again, that is, I take many, many, many days or many years to analyse myself, and at the end of many years I am still afraid. So, for the speaker, analysis is any form is not the way. And if you see the truth of it, it won’t be either for you, because analysis implies a great deal of time. When the house is burning you don’t analyse, sit down and analyse, take time, go to the professional and say, ‘Please tell me all about myself’ — you have to act. So analysis is a form of escape, laziness and inefficiency. May be all right — I say may be — for the neurotic to go to an analyst, but even that is not completely the end of his neurosis. So that is a different question.
So analysis of this, by the conscious of the unconscious is not the way. Right? So I have, the mind has said to itself, ‘I won’t analyse anymore, I see the valuelessness of it. I won’t resist fear anymore.’ Please do all this. I won’t be able to examine the whole content. I can’t do it through analysis, which involves time, many days, and by the end of the many years I will be dead. Therefore there must be a different approach to this altogether. You follow what has happened to the mind, when it has discarded the traditional approach, which is the approach of time, analysis, resistance, what has happened to the mind itself? The mind has become extraordinarily sharp, the mind has become through — not training or anything — because through the necessity of observation the mind has become extraordinarily intense, sharp, alive. So it is asking: is there another approach to this problem of uncovering the whole content, which is the past, the racial inheritance, the family, the cultural, the weight of the religious tradition, which has been cultivated for 2,000 years, or 10,000 years — can the mind be free of all that? Can the mind put away all that, and therefore put away all fear? Is there a different approach? Right?
Are you listening to the speaker or are you asking these questions yourself?
Q: I’m doing both.
K: You are doing both? Are you waiting for the speaker to tell you of the different approach or are you facing the problem so that you are on to the approach yourself? You know, someone can tell you are hungry, that is one thing, but to know for yourself you are hungry is another. Which is it with you — somebody telling you are hungry or are you hungry yourself? If you are hungry yourself then there is quite a different energy and action taking place. But if you are being told that you are hungry then out of that information you get hungry, then it is a false hunger. So there it is.
Is there a different way of exposing the whole content of the mind, the consciousness, including the unconscious with all its accumulated tradition, culture, various influences, and be in a state where fear doesn’t touch it at all? Right?
Good Lord, its twelve o’clock. We have spoken for an hour. Shall I go on with this?
Q: Yes.
K: I don’t know if you can stand it, after an hour.
So I’ve got this problem, the problem which a sharpened mind, a mind that has put aside every form of analysis, time, and therefore to it there is no tomorrow. Right? It must resolve it completely now, therefore no ideal. There is no question of a future, saying, ‘I will be free of it.’ And therefore the mind now is in this state of complete attention — right? — because it is no longer escaping, no longer inventing time as a way of resolving the problem, or analysis or resistance. Therefore the mind itself has become, has a quality entirely new. So how can this mind look into the content of the past, which is hidden in the consciousness, in consciousness? Right?
There is the question of dreams. It is said — the professionals, the experts, psychologists say you must dream. Not that I have read any of their books — I don’t read any books except detective novels. The professionals say you must dream otherwise you will go mad. And I ask myself: why should I dream at all? Which is much more important than saying, ‘I must dream.’ Is there a way of living so that there is no dream at all? Because then if there is no dream at all, the mind really has rest. You are following all this? It has been active all day, watching, listening, asking, questioning, looking at the beauty of a cloud, the face of a beautiful person, the water, the movement of life and the tree, and everything — it has been watching, watching, watching. And when it goes to sleep it must have complete rest otherwise when it wakes up next morning it is tired, it has become old. So one asks, not one must dream, but is there a way of not dreaming at all? So that the mind during sleep has complete rest and during sleep it can reach certain… it can come upon certain qualities which it cannot during the waking hours. So I am going to find out — the mind doesn’t dream at all — right? — is that possible? Are you also asking the question, or are you waiting for an answer for me?
It is possible only — and this is a fact not a supposition, not a theory, not an invention, or a hope — this is possible only when you are completely awake during the day — right? — when you are completely awake, watching every activity of your thought, your feeling, awake to every motive, to every intimation, hint that is deep down, when you chatter, when you talk, when you walk, when you listen to somebody, when you are watching your ambition, your jealousy, when you respond to the ‘glory of France’, when you read a book which says your religious beliefs are nonsense, to see what is implied in belief, so that during the waking hours you are completely awake. When you are sitting in the bus, watching, when you are taking to your wife, to your children, to your friend, when you are smoking, why you are smoking, when you read a detective story, why you are reading it, when you go to a cinema — why, for excitement, for sex? — and when you see a beautiful tree or the movement of a cloud across the sky, to be so completely aware of what is happening within and without, then you will see, when you go to sleep, there isn’t a dream. And when you awake up next morning your mind is fresh, intense and alive.
I think I’d better stop there, because it is ten past twelve. That is enough. We’ll continue with this question of fear tomorrow — not tomorrow, when is it? Thursday. Do you want to ask any questions about all this?
Q: Please, sir, how does the process of separating the analyser and the analysed take place?
K: How does the separation between the analyser and the analysed take place.
Q: Yes, the process going on.
Alain Naude: How does the separation arise between the analyser and the analysed.
K: Yes, that’s what I said. How does this separation between the analyser and the analysed take place. How does the separation, when you watch a tree, the separation — there is the tree, the beauty of it, the naked branch — when you watch it, why is there this separation between you and the tree.
Q: [Inaudible]
K: Wait, wait. Go slowly, sir — patience. Not that you want to become the tree. God forbid, that would be stupid — but there is this separation; how does it come about? You look at it with memory, don’t you, with your botanical knowledge, or like and dislike, or wishing that tree was in your particular backyard, or hope that you — and so on, so on, so on. So there is between you and the tree a screen of words, screen of memories, experiences, which separates. As between you and your wife there is a screen of the image. Right? So there is a separation. Now, you are asking, why is there a division, a separation between the analyser, the observer and the observed, or the analyser and the analysed? Actually is there any separation? When you look at it with clarity there is no separation. But yet there is a separation when you say, ‘I must control it, I must suppress it, I must change it, I must run away form it. I must resist it.’ That means there is the resister and the thing against which you resist. So you are asking: how does this take place? Which is a false movement. The other is real but this is artificial. How does this artificial state come into being? Right?
Q: Sir, do you mean that… [inaudible]
AN: He’s gone back to dreams — do you mean that anybody who is completely attentive has no dreams?
K: Oh la la! You are gong back to dreams, sir? Are you asking: if you are completely attentive you have no dream?
Q: Yes
K: But we are talking about the observer and the observed.
Q: [Inaudible]
K: Yes, sir, I haven’t finished the question, sir.
Q: [Inaudible]
K: Sir, to answer your question very briefly, about the dreamer, dream and attention, I said when you give complete attention during the day — right through the day, not just one part of the day — right from the moment you wake up to the moment you go to bed, completely awake so that nothing escapes you, inwardly, watching every movement of thought, watching what you say, what you think, what you feel, giving your whole attention, all during the day, the twelve hours, then you will see there is no dream at all, because you are exhausted, and also because all the intimation, all the content is exposed. We’ll go into that, perhaps, on Thursday.
You are asking why is there this artificial division between the observer and the observed. This artificial division is part of our tradition — God and the Devil, the good and the bad, the right and the wrong, the social morality which is no morality, and the immortality which is not social morality. There is division all through our life — which is the opposites. Now, when you look at an opposite, one opposite, that is, fear and courage, the two opposites, when you look at it, courage is the outcome of fear. If you had no fear there would be no courage — you would be something entirely different. The quality of non-fear is not being very courageous but quite a different quality of mind in which there is no opposites. And we are trained from the beginning of our… from the childhood to think in opposites. That is part of our tradition, part of our habit, so that we accept it, we never question it. So, this division is part of the tradition of our culture, and this division, being artificial, has not been able to solve any of the problems of division. You, the Frenchman, and another is a German or a Hindu, whatsoever it is — we keep to our own little groups, separate, we and they, and fight, fight, fight — that is what we are used to.
So it is not only traditional but also it is very convenient. Because when we say, ‘I am the observer and the thing observed is different from me,’ I can take time over it, I can say, ‘Well, I will eventually become non-violent.’ You understand? There is the ideal of non-violence, and I am violent. And it is very convenient to have an ideal, because eventually I am going to become non-violent. In the meantime I am beastly violent. It pays me — I enjoy violence, I like it, it has its own profits and pleasures. Therefore that is another form of convenience. So I divide everything into pleasure and pain. So this artificiality has its own danger which we don’t see. And when we see the danger of it there is the ending of it, and therefore no longer caught in the duality as the observer and the observed.
Sir.