Public Talk 3, Paris, 17 April 1969
Krishnamurti: We said that we would talk over together the question of fear. I think we should bear in mind that the description, the explanation, is never the thing described, or that which has to be explained. If we merely hold on to an explanation or a description, we are like those people who always plough but never sow. And as this is rather a complex and subtle problem, there must not only be a verbal communion, communication, but also a communion between the speaker and yourself. It is always difficult to go into something that requires great care in understanding, not an explanation, not a description but in understanding what is being said. Understanding is not intellectual or verbal. Understanding requires not only an intellectual capacity to reason objectively, to think very clearly, sanely, but also understanding needs a quality of silence with it. Because when one really understands something, if one observes, the mind is very quiet, attentive, listening. And in that peculiar quality of silence, quietness, there is understanding. And that understanding is not something apart from action. Understanding is action. The two are not separate.
So what we are going to attempt to do this evening is to bring about this quality of understanding, but also in that very understanding perceive, and therefore act immediately, the whole nature and structure of fear. As we said the other day, we have to see the whole structure and the design of fear, not a particular fear. And we must be able to grasp, I think, the — not only the quality of fear but the qualitative side of it also. So, we must not only plough but sow, not only understand intellectually, verbally, but also have the clarity of understanding which is to act. When you see something very clearly, there is action and no confusion. And bearing this in mind, let us go into this question.
There are every kind of fear, from the most absurd to the neurotic, and the ultimate fear of death and cessation. And in between there are every kind of variety of fear. And it would be rather a waste of time to go into the details of it, taking every form of fear, understanding it, and through that very understanding, dispel it. But if we could, this evening, stick to the main outline of fear, then you will be able, I think, to fill in the details for yourself. So first, let us find out what is the origin of fear, when it begins, and if it is at all possible to end completely, psychological fear. Because we went into the question of physical fear the other day, so we won’t go into that again; which we said is not fear but intelligence.
So we are going this evening, together, to find out for ourselves the origin, the beginning of fear. And we are going to do it together. That is, you are not merely listening to the speaker, hearing a few words or ideas, agreeing or disagreeing, because we are not dealing with opinions or ideas, we are dealing with facts, with ‘what is’. And when you are concerned with ‘what is’, opinion, conclusion have no place at all. And we are going together, explore, freely, without any prejudice, without any bias into this question; because this fear distorts every form of living. Where there is fear there cannot obviously… no understanding, no love. And it leads to all kinds of hypocrisy, deception and illusion. So it is absolutely imperative for any serious man to understand and go beyond this fear.
What is fear, and what is the beginning of it? Is there also an end to it? There is the psychological fear at different levels of one’s own being, the fears that are fairly obvious, but there are also deep-rooted fears, of which most of us are unconscious or unaware, with their motives, deceptions, deep down. And is it at all possible to be aware of those hidden fears as well as the obvious fears. We are dealing with the totality of fear, not a fear at one particular level.
Questioner: (Inaudible) …mechanism of the brain…
K: Thank you, sir — afterwards.
As we said, we are dealing, not only at the fairly obvious psychological level of fears, but also we are going to go into these hidden fears, which does distort our thinking, our perception and action. And, as we said also the other day, can one be conscious, aware, expose the hidden fears, or does it need analysis, that is, analysing every form of hidden fear in which is involved not only time but also the entity who analyses. If the entity has certain prejudices, if the entity himself is afraid, then his analysis has no value whatsoever. So, seeing that, is it possible, without analysis, without bringing time into it — time being taking many, many days and perhaps many years to explore the content of the hidden consciousness. And if it takes time, then we shall always be caught in fear. So is there a way to understand the content and the secret fears, and deal with them with a perception which is not resisting, which is not concerned with freeing itself from fear but understanding. I don’t know if we can go so deeply into it this evening — we will try.
First, let’s try to find out what is the origin of fear, how does fear begin, and also in understanding fear, when it begins, where it begins, one also has to understand where pleasure begins. Because the two are related — pleasure, pain, fear — they are not separate. So what is the origin, the beginning of fear and therefore of pleasure? You might say, What has pleasure got to do with fear, why do you bring it in? When you are talking about fear, why don’t you not occupy yourself with fear, not bring in this thing called pleasure? But can you separate the two? Don’t they go together? When there is the prevention of pleasure then there is also fear. So we are concerned not only with fear but also with pleasure. We are not saying that we should not have pleasure, or that we must not have fear or be free of fear. If you are merely interested in trying to be free of fear, then you are thinking of resisting fear, whereas in understanding the structure and the nature of fear, then there is quite a different quality of freedom in which there is no fear at all. We are talking of freedom and that freedom is prevented when there is fear and when there is this pursuit of pleasure, therefore we must understand both and not merely concentrate on fear.
So what is fear and what is pleasure? Is fear only in the past, in the present or in the future? Is fear a movement from the past, through the present, bringing about fear of tomorrow? Is fear related to the past, or is fear always in the past? Or is it something that exists in the future, in the tomorrow, of which one is afraid? And can fear be so divided as the past, the present and tomorrow? Or is it one movement? Like pleasure — a mind thinking about the pleasure that you had yesterday desires to have it tomorrow or today. So is it not also a movement from the past to the present, to the future?
Please, as we are talking about this, look at it for yourself, in yourself, of fear — not a particular fear but the feeling of fear. One has done something in the past and you don’t want to repeat it again and I’m afraid it might happen tomorrow. Fear of having lived, unhappily or happily or richly or poorly, afraid of tomorrow — it might all end. So is fear, within the movement of time — yesterday, today and tomorrow — and can that time have a stop? Which is, time is fear. Can that time, in psychological terms, that is, having had some kind of psychological fear a few days ago, which remains in the present and goes on to tomorrow. I am afraid of the past; I am afraid of that past in the present and the happening of it again tomorrow. So one asks can time have a stop? If there is no time then is there fear? And if there is no time, is there pleasure? In the sense that the looking forward to a pleasurable excitement, a sexual excitement or some kind of future amusement, various forms of pleasurable excitement from the memory of the past through the present and tomorrow.
So can time have an end? And if time ends in the sense of yesterday, today and tomorrow, is there fear at all? So, knowing, being aware that time breeds fear, that having done or said or acted yesterday, and which has brought pain, and the memory of it, not only today but tomorrow. So memory is time. And there is fear in time. That is, I, one is afraid of dying and therefore we put it away, far away from us, which means time. So where there is a psychological time there must be fear. So can that psychological time come to an end, not tomorrow but instantly? So let’s proceed from there. I hope we are in communication with each other. So what makes psychological time? Because if time — yesterday, today and tomorrow — the memory of yesterday passing through today and the fear of tomorrow. If thought can end… if time can end, then is there fear? And what is time, apart from the chronological time, by the watch? So what is the origin of time?
Time is thought — thinking about the pleasure that one has had and wanting it to be repeated not only today but continuously tomorrow and many days. Thinking about something that gave a delight — of a cloud, of a tree, the spring flowers against the sky, or sexual pleasure which happened yesterday — thinking about it and wanting it repeated is pleasure. That is, thought breeds time and pleasure — right? — and thought also brings about, through time, fear — fear of yesterday, the memory of it, the happening of it again today and perhaps tomorrow. So thought is time, is the entity that brings pain and pleasure. This is an obvious fact. If there was no thinking when thinking about the pain or the pleasure, would there be fear as today and tomorrow? So one asks, can time stop and therefore thought stop? Because one sees very clearly thought breeds fear and pain and pleasure. When you see a lovely cloud, and the beauty of spring flowers against the darkening sky, it’s a delight, but memory says, ‘I must have it again tomorrow’, which is the process of thought.
So, time and thought go always together. And can thought end? Or is that a wrong question altogether? Not how to end thought but to understand the nature of thought. When you understand something very clearly, then it is no longer a problem. So can thought be understood. And here there is a certain difficulty. Who is the entity that understands? Is the entity that is observing thought, the nature of it, the structure of it, the origin of it, is he the result of thought also? If he is, then his observation is still part of thought, and therefore he cannot understand it. Right? Let me explain a little bit. That is, is the thinker separate from thought? When the thinker says, ‘I will understand the whole structure of thought’, can he understand it, because he’s part of it? And is there a thinker without thought? Obviously not. So how is one, knowing that the thinker is the thought, to understand the nature of thought, to observe it so completely, non-fragmentarily, that there comes into being a quality of silence that sees, not thought that observes but silence that sees?
You know, when you look at those spring flowers in the Bois as you drive against the darkening sky, with the light on the flower, if your mind is not very quiet you really don’t see the flower. If your mind is thinking of something else, if your mind is thinking of the lovely spring of last year, or the beauty of those flower in a painting, if your mind is at all active, thinking, then you really don’t see the extraordinary beauty of that flower, of that tree and the cloud and sky. So to see, there must be a quality of silence, or even to listen to anybody. If you are listening to the speaker or to your wife or husband, to the neighbour, listening, trying to find out, trying to see into the meaning of words that is being used, go beyond the words, there must be a quality of silence. Otherwise there is no understanding.
So, as long as there is an observer or a thinker apart from the thought, then the silence is not. And any examination by the thinker into the process of thought, or to find out what is the origin of thought, is utterly meaningless. He cannot be an outsider when he is identified with thought. It is only when you are outside society, not involved in all the psychological problems of society, of which one is, it’s only when you are an outsider then you can look in and see exactly ‘what is’. In the same way, to see very clearly into this process of thought, the origin, how it works, one must be an outsider who is silent, and therefore observing, looking and understanding. And it is not a complex thing at all to be an outsider, to be silent. And you are silent when you see something extraordinarily beautiful or when you see something shocking, ugly. For the moment that beauty stuns you and therefore you become very quiet. But when you see a great peak of a mountain, full of delight and beauty and light, the very majesty of it makes your mind still, but such a mind, made still by something great, is not really quiet. Here we have a problem, which is not only very great but also that requires a very careful attention, observation. And when there is complete attention there is silence.
So we are looking at thought not as a thinker but understanding it. And to understand, as we said, there must be silence. So, and when the mind is silent, completely, is there anything to understand at all? It is already understood. So we’ll play with this a little bit. You know, one must play a little, one must touch the thing very lightly, hesitatingly, tentatively, with a smile, with an affection. It is only in that state you understand something.
We are asking whether time and thought can naturally come to an end and therefore the ending of fear. So we are trying to find out thought, how it begins and what is the origin, a beginning. Which is, thought is obviously the response of memory, memory, stored up in the brain — memories, knowledge, experience of a thousand and million years — can one go back to the origin, the very beginning of it? Or can one perceive the beginning of thought now, without going into the past? We are going to do both — we’ll see. You see, this is really quite exciting if you go into it, whether the mind, which is the brain also, with all its memories of a million years and more, to see where there the origin of it is, the beginning of it. And to see if that origin, to discover it and therefore begin from there so that thought is no longer so tremendously important. We have given to thought such terrific importance, the more intellectual, the more clever, the more cunning, the more subtle, all the volumes and volumes written, all the product of thought. And is not thought very old? Thought can never be new, thought can never be free, because it is anchored in memory, it’s anchored in the past, and thought is the response of the past. And so thought can never free itself. There is no such thing as freedom of thought, except perhaps in the dictatorial world, in the world of the communist and the tyranny — there you can think what you like but you can’t put it into words. But thought, when you look at it, is very old. And thought can never create something new or bring into itself a quality of innocency.
So thought, which makes the thinker; the thinker cannot possibly put an end to thought or understand thought. So we see that the origin of thought, right… 10,000 million years ago began only in silence. There must have been silence. And it’s only a very quiet, silent mind and brain, completely quiet, that can see the nature of thought with all the memories, with all the associations, hidden and obvious, it’s only such a quiet mind that can put an end to time. And such a mind has no time, therefore there is no fear.
If you have actually followed this, not verbally, but actually did it as we go along this evening, you’ll find out for yourself, not how to put an end to thought or put an end to fear or ask the question, ‘what can we do without pleasure in this world?’. Because if you ask such a question then you are… Morality is based on pleasure, as social morality is. And is that morality? And is virtue part of thought? So one asks, is love part of thought?
So, a mind, the brain and all the rest of it, that is really extraordinarily quiet in its observation, and it can only be… there can only be the seeing and the doing and freedom in the act of silence. And therefore the ending of fear.
Now, can we discuss or talk over this question by asking questions and going into it? And do you want to?
Q: Sir… (In French)
K: Vous avez… monsieur… excusez moi… We have talked about that last time, both the physical fear and the psychological fear. We have said the two are not separate. When we understand the deeper meaning of fear, then the physical security then can be understood, tackled, we can do something about it together. But when we stress physical security first, then we create such havoc in the world. Sir, look what has happened, we have said only nations, individuals who are very strong can be secure. Therefore we built armaments; sovereign governments are concerned with separate rules and — you know all the rest of it, I don’t have to tell you — because they want to be secure, each group wants to be completely secure, and they build a wall round themselves, and they have no security at all because there is a war always hanging over their head. Physical security really for all mankind, not for you or for me or for somebody else well-off, got a house, holding onto it, to his patrimony, to his nationalism, to his particular form of security. Such security is really total insecurity. It is only possible to have complete security for all mankind — in the East, in the West, in the North, in the South, only when there are no nations, no sovereign governments with their particular glorious, proud flags and all the rest of it, when there are no politicians but only the government run by computers, they are totally impersonal, factual. That means, sir, unity of mankind. That can only happen when there is love, not legislation. And that love is not possible if we emphasize the physical security first or say, ‘Well, psychologically I must be secure’. The two go together, and to divide them is to destroy ourselves.
Q: (Inaudible)
K: Are you saying, sir, love is a fiction?
Q: No, I’m saying that… (inaudible)
K: You are saying life cannot be…
Q: Seeking any kind of security at all is seeking something fictitious…
K: Of course.
Q: …because there is no security.
K: Of course. The question is: seeking any form of security is fictitious. But, sir, that is an idea — we all agree to that, but yet we want to be secure. I want to be secure in my relationship with my wife. I want to be secure in my belief. We all of us deep down want to be secure and we never question if there is such thing as security, psychologically. Obviously one must have physical security — I must know where my house is, to sleep at least tonight, to have my next meal — but to understand the fictitious nature of anything permanent requires not mere verbal assertion, that is an illusion, but an actual feeling of it, deep down, that there is no such thing as permanency in any relationship. That requires a great deal of understanding and self-knowledge. And we don’t want to know ourselves, because to know ourselves is to know the world, because we are not different from the world. My neighbour is myself. And if I understand the whole nature of myself I understand not only my neighbour, who may be 10,000 miles away, but I understand the world, the society in which I live, with its immorality.
Q: Please, you say always ‘the mind sees’, but the mind, what will see? The mind has an instrument, isn’t that the thought, the instrument of the mind? What do you mean by ‘the mind sees’?
K: What do you mean by ‘the mind sees’. What does the mind see. Can the mind see. You always use that word ‘seeing’ and ‘mind’ — what do you mean by it. Sir, there is a visual perception, isn’t there, obviously, when you see that tree there’s visual perception — is that all? When you are driving a car, you not only see what is in front of you but you also see… the mind is also far ahead seeing, which is again visual perception. And is there not other forms of seeing, which is also part of the mind? Seeing, when you see something very beautiful, what is it that sees? You not only by the eyesight, visually, but also you see it in the association of memories — who painted that picture, like and dislike, the depth of the colour, the prospect and so on and on and on. And through argument, through word, through association, which is part of the mind also, brain, do you see, do you understand, or do you understand, see clearly when the mind, the total entity of the mind, which is the body, the nerves, the eyes, the ears, the brain, the whole of it is quiet?
Then you might say, ‘What is it that sees?’ Is there an entity at all that sees? There is no entity that sees, there is only perception. Not ‘I see’ or ‘you see’. When we bring in the ‘I see’ and ‘you see’, ‘we see’ and ‘they see’, then there is no perception at all. When the ‘me’ is silent and you are silent, then there is a seeing in which there is no entity as the see-er but only seeing. And you will… if you see so completely there is complete action.
Q: Sir, how did this silence become broken?
K: Comment?
Q: How did this silence which you speak of become broken? Memory and thought, fear…
K: How can time, that you speak of…
Q: How did thought and memory come to contaminate this silence?
K: How does thought and memory contaminate silence. It can’t.
Q: How did the silence become broken by thought and memory?
K: Oh, that… How does silence become broken by thought and memory. Again, very simple, isn’t it? When you are silent, if you have ever been, a few seconds later, thought begins, says, look, your feet are hurting you. Thought, one begins, wanders off, penetrates, breaks up, then you ask, can silence, the silence continue all the time? Right? When you have put that question: why does thought interfere with silence, break it up, then you are also putting the question, can silence continue all the time? They go together. And when you say, Can silence continue all the time, you have a perception that silence must continue, which is the invention of thought, which says, ‘I wish I could have that silence all the time’. It is another form of greed. So when the mind is silence, silent, that is, when the mind is completely attentive, there is silence. You do it, sir, it’s so simple. When you attend to something with your body, with your nerves, with your eyes, ears, with your whole being, there is no fragmentation at all. In that attention there is complete silence. And that attention may last a minute or a few seconds, then inattention begins. Then what happens? You say, ‘I wish that inattention could become attentive’. Right? Inattention cannot become attention. All that one can do is to be attentive of inattention. You see, most of us are so terribly greedy. We see that beautiful tree or cloud or a face, and we want it always. And the wanting always is the pleasure and fear of time.
Q: Sir, do you make any difference between attention and concentration?
K: Do you make any difference between attention and concentration. Yes. Is this the time and the occasion to go into that rather… We’ll touch upon it briefly and perhaps we’ll go into it another morning or evening — we’ve got two more — perhaps we can deal with that. What is concentration? To focus on a particular thing. Your thought — right? — to bring all thought into focus, upon a certain thing. What takes place there? You are preventing… Thought is saying, I am interested in that, I must concentrate on that and I must exclude every other thought. Right? So you resist, build a wall against all other thought. Right? And that is called concentration, which is a form or resistance. Attention is not. And with attention there can also be, in quotes, ‘quite a different kind of concentration’. But we are stuck with concentration. We are taught from childhood to concentrate, and that is our conditioning. Whereas if you could see what it means to be completely attentive, in which there is no frontier at all, in which there is no centre as me observing, me learning, me possessing, me acquiring. Then that attention can — again there is no word — can focus on a certain thing, then it is not exclusion.
I think that’s enough, isn’t it.
(Clapping)