Public Talk 3, Rome, 7 April 1966

Krishnamurti: You know, really, this should be a discussion; that is, exchange of thought and talking things over together, rather than a continuous talk by the speaker. So if we could, during or after what I have to say, if we could possibly talk over things together, it might be more beneficial and for greater clarification.

We were saying the other day that pleasure is the very root of our outlook on life, and with it invariably goes pain; and hence our whole structure, both outwardly and inwardly, is based on conflict. And a mind in conflict is a distorted mind. And in that way man has lived for centuries-upon-centuries. And we have — obviously, if we are at all serious — to bring about a complete revolution, not only inwardly but also outwardly. And the inward revolution is of primary importance because from there a new society can be born… brought into being, and so on, so on. And we have to re-learn or observe the whole structure of society, and therefore of ourselves, quite differently. And we were talking about learning the other day, what is meant by that word and so on.

Now, perhaps we could come upon that from a different point altogether. Apparently, man has not been able to free himself from fear. And he has, not being able to understand it, built a network of escapes and has never been able to resolve this question of fear. And if we could discuss it this evening, or this afternoon, perhaps we might go into it deeply. Because I can talk about it; the word is not the thing. The word is never the actuality; the symbol is never the fact, the reality. So one has to, kind of, brush aside the word, though taking the importance of the word, and go behind the word. And if we could do that this evening, it might open a door which will help us to put an end to fear.

Because most of us are afraid, and we have to learn about it, not resist it, not avoid it, not try to find formulas which will give us comfort, but actually resolve it completely and totally, consciously as well as unconsciously. And to do that, we must be able to communicate with each other, and our communication naturally is verbal. Unless we talk it over and not merely negatively or attentively listen, it has… it doesn’t lead us very far. So I hope we can talk it over together.

Man — you can see it historically and in every way — has avoided this question of fear. It’s this fear that creates gods, the religious institutions, the priest, the various ceremonies, the whole… — I was going to use the word *circus* but I’ll be a little more respectful — the whole circus of religion. And not being able to resolve or understand or go above and beyond fear, naturally he has developed a psychological and unconscious resistance.

I mean, there is this fear, enormous fear of death — we’ll come to that a little later, when we discuss it — and the people, the so-called religious people have invented such marvellous theories, hopes, ideas, concepts. And those who have… who are not at all inclined, temperamentally or conditionally inclined towards religion say, ‘Well, that’s the end of it; one life is good enough; let’s get on and make the best of it,’ but there is still the fear; the fear of death and also the fear of actual living. The fear of facing life as it is, actually, and, having faced it, to go beyond it. So there are innumerable fears: the most childish and the most complex, conscious as well as unconscious. The conscious ones one can fairly deal with; I mean, what the public opinion… public says — I’m taking that as an example; I mean… who cares? Especially if you’re living in a big city, (laughs) it doesn’t very much matter; but if you’re living in a small village, then it counts a great deal what your neighbour thinks of you — and there are the fear of fulfilment, not being able to fulfil, not being able to achieve what you want, be successful. You know, the various types of fear.

And mere resistance to fear is not an end to fear. We all know that. Intellectually we assert it; we have… we are clever enough to rationalise fear intellectually and build a wall against it, and yet behind that wall there is this constant gnawing of fear. Because unless one is free from fear, you can’t think, feel, live, have your… it is not possible; it’s living in a darkness. And religions have cultivated that fear through hell and all that business. And there’s the fear of the state, the tyranny; you must think what the public, the state, the dictators, the people who know what is good for you, the Big Brother and the Big Father — you know, all that business. And is it at all possible, not verbally, to be actually be free of fear, totally? So if we can discuss it in order to learn about it; not say, ‘Well, I can’t get rid of it; what am I to do?’ then there is no problem; then you will… if somebody tells you what to do, then you will always be dependent on that person; you enter into another field of fear.

Unless one sees this very clearly that as long as there is any form of fear, both the bodily pain — of which most… many people are afraid, which interferes with the mind, thinking, which is psychosomatic fears — and the fears that one has built through thought, through imagination, through experience, through various forms of memory and so on, so on; unless one is completely free of it, obviously you can’t see anything clearly; you can’t feel clearly. Where there is fear, there can’t be affection, there can’t be sympathy, there can’t be generosity, there can’t be — you know? — a sense of love and all the rest of it.

So it is a human necessity, as much as food, as much as shelter, it’s a necessity to be free from fear. And is it possible? When we put that question of a possibility, we put it not as an intellectual problem to be answered by an intellectual concept or argument, but rather to learn about it. If we could learn about it, then I know the whole structure of it and I’m not afraid then. I don’t know if I… And we should be able to talk over this together. I sit here talking and you listen, that doesn’t lead us anywhere. But if we could go into it. Now, so I’ll begin; I’ll go into it.

Obviously the word is not the fact, but the word creates the fear. The word *revolution* creates fear. The word, if you are conditioned as a Catholic or whatever it is, *hell* means an awful lot. It means… the word stimulates memory, memory which is associated with certain conditioning and that reacts. When you see a snake or a wild animal, the immediate reaction is fear — which is a natural, self-protective response which must be there; but need there be a psychological response to a word? I don’t know… Like the word *death*, it immediately awakens a whole series of associated memories, thoughts, ideas, and the fear of it. So the word is not the fact, but the word creates the fear also. I don’t know if you are…

Questioner: The awareness of a danger you don’t foresee, like the serpent… (inaudible)

K: No, that is a normal, healthy response, otherwise you’ll be killed. When you come to a precipice and you just… not afraid or don’t pay attention, you… of course. But that fear, the bodily fear, creates a psychological fear, too. So it is not… it’s a very complex problem; it isn’t just saying, ‘I have a fear about something or other, and let me wipe it out,’ it is a very complex process. So to understand it, first one must be very clear about words, that the word is not the fact, fact of fear, but the word engenders, breeds fear also; and unconsciously, the whole structure is verbal. I don’t know if you’re… Like the word *culture* is a deep response to that… response of memory — the Italian culture, the European culture, the Hindu culture, the Japanese, the Chinese…

So it’s very interesting if you go into it; the unconscious is made up of memories — obviously — memories of experiences, traditions, propaganda: all words. An experience; take an experience. You have an experience. And you react. That reaction is translated into words: ‘I was happy; I was unhappy; he hurt me,’ translated into words and that word… those words remain. Those words awaken the dead experience — of course — and strengthen, through the word, the past. I don’t know if you…

You have insulted me; it has left a mark, and that mark is strengthened, deepened by the word, by the memory associated with that feeling, which is really a word, a tradition — this is important to understand this — a tradition; say, for instance, in India or in this country or wherever it is, the more heavy the tradition… like in certain countries in Asia, in India, among a certain group of people, tradition is immense, much stronger than here, because they have lived longer, their whole culture — if I may use that word — is much more deep-rooted; they have… their tradition for ten thousand years and so on. So the word brings up a lot of associations, memories, which are all part of the unconscious, and brings about fear. Like, take the word *cancer* — oh, immediately — you hear the word and all the ideas, thoughts about cancer: the pain, the agony, the suffering, and, ‘God, have I got cancer?’ I don’t know if… So the word is extraordinarily important for us. The word, the sentence, which is, when it is organised becomes an idea, an idea which is based on a formula and that holds us. This is all fairly simple to understand.

So the word is not the fact; the word *microphone* is not the microphone, but the word brings into being, through association and so on, so on, fear or pleasure or a remembrance. Oh, this is all… So we are slave to words. And to examine anything fully, one must be free of the word to look. If I am a Hindu and a Brahman — you know… It doesn’t matter if you know something about it — or a Catholic or a Protestant or an Anglican or a Presbyterian and all the rest of it, to look I must be free of that word — the word with all its associations — and that is extraordinarily difficult. The difficulty disappears when you are passionately inquiring, examining. Right? Now, let’s… we can go into it much more, but we won’t, otherwise it gets too… we’ll wander off too far afield.

The unconscious is stored-up memory; so the unconscious, through a word, becomes alive. Or through a smell, seeing a flower, you associate immediately. So the stored-up… the storehouse is the unconscious — obviously — and we make a tremendous lot of ado about the unconscious; it’s really nothing at all. It is too… it’s as trivial, as superficial as the conscious mind. I don’t know if you… Both can be healthy and both can be unhealthy.

So the word brings on fear and the word is not the fact. So what is fear? What am I afraid of? If… — please, we are discussing; you take your own fear — I may be afraid of my wife or… oh, I don’t know, losing my fame or some silly thing. I’m afraid. What does that mean? Fear of losing a job; fear — you understand? — you know what I’m talking about? Yes? Can we…? Can I go…?

Q: *Si*, *si.*

K: Do we understand each other?

Q: *Si*, *senor*.

K: No, please, you must discuss with me; it’s no good saying…

What is fear? And to understand it, I must come into contact with it. And how does this fear arise? Take… I am taking a problem like death for the… a very complex problem but I will take that as a… I’m afraid of death, of not being loved or whatever it is. How does this fear arise, of death? Obviously through thought. I have seen people die and I also know I will die, painfully or quietly, and thinking has brought this fear on. No? No? Please…

Q: Certainly, it has, sir.

K: I don’t know, sir. No; don’t say, ‘Certainly,’ because we are going to go into this; don’t…

Q: One of the strongest fears is the fear of the unknown.

K: It is the unknown; death is the unknown. Please, I’m taking that as an example. Substitute your own fear: husband, wife, neighbour, ill-health, not being able to fulfil, not being… not loving, not having enough love, not having intelligence… Oh, God knows.

Q: Surely, in some cases, it’s justified.

K: Fear?

Q: Yes. For instance… take, for instance, if a man is afraid of his wife…

K: Ah wait; no, no… Yes, all right; a man is afraid of his wife.

Q: Or he’s afraid of his boss, he may lose his job or… (inaudible)

K: No… ah, wait sir; why should he be afraid? We are discussing the fear, not of the job, of the boss, of the wife. Fear exists always in relation to something; it doesn’t exist abstractly. I am afraid of my boss, my wife, my neighbour, of death — right sir? — so it is in relation to something. I took death as an example. I am afraid of it. Why? What brings on this fear? Thought, obviously. That is, visually I have seen death, people dying; and associated with that… identified with that fact myself: I will die one of these days. So thought thinks about… there is a thinking about it. So death is something unavoidable and something to be pushed far away, as far away as possible. I can’t push it far away except with thought. This is… So I have a distance: so many allotted years for me and when it comes time for me to go, I’ll go; but I have kept it away.

So thought, through association, through identification, through memory, through the religious, social, environmental, economic conditioning, there is that fear. Obviously, sirs. And thought rationalises it, accepts it or invents hereafter. This is all very simple.

So can I come into contact with a fact? I’m afraid of my wife — now, wait a minute, that’ll be much simpler (laughs) — I’m afraid of my wife…

Q: (Inaudible)

K: What’s the joke?

Q: She was talking… (inaudible)

K: Ah. Why? I know: she dominates me, or a dozen reasons I can give. Now, how do I…? I see how fear arises — right? — now, how am I to be free of it? I can ask her… I can walk out, but that doesn’t solve the problem. So how am I to be free of that fear? Look at it; I’m afraid of my wife. She has an image about me and I have an image about her. Simple, right? And there is no actual relationship, except perhaps physically, but otherwise it is purely a relationship between image and image. Oh, this is… I’m not being cynical but this is a fact, isn’t it? No? Perhaps you… those who are married know better than I do, so…

Q: Now, well, she has a picture of you being weak and you have a picture of her being tough.

K: Tough, strong; and you don’t want…

Q: (Inaudible)

K: You know, dozens of reasons, sir. So there is this question of relationship. And there is no actual relationship at all. That means actual contact; to be related means to be related. How can one image be related to another image? Image is an idea, a memory, a recollection, a remembrance. So if I really want to be free of fear, I have to destroy my image about her and she has to destroy her image about me. I may destroy it or she may destroy it, but one-sided doesn’t bring about freedom from the relationship which may awaken fear. I don’t know if I’m… I break my image about you, totally; I don’t… I say, ‘Absurd,’ and I look at you and then I understand what relationship is or not; I break it completely. Then I am directly in contact with you, not with your image. But you may not have broken it, because that gives you pleasure.

Q: But that’s the rub: *I* haven’t broken it.

K: Of course, of course; that’s the rub. So you keep on and I say, ‘All right; I have no image about you,’ so I’m not afraid of you. So we come to the point: fear ceases only when there is direct contact. Right sir? That is, if I have no escapes at any level, then I can look at the fact.

(Pause)

Look at the fact that I’m going to die, ten years, twenty years. And the fact — I mean, this is very complex; I’m just… — there I have to understand death, come into contact with it; and I can’t come into contact with it physically, organically, because I’m still alive; I’ve got plenty of energy; I’m still active, healthy. Bodily I can’t die, but psychologically I can die.

I mean, please, this requires… I mean, it requires tremendous — you know? — observation, going into, working; it’s not just… To die means you have to die every day, not just twenty years later you die. You die every day to everything you know, except technologically. I die to the image of my wife; I die to the pleasures I have or to the pains, to the memories, experiences, every day; otherwise I can’t come into contact with it. Therefore, fear has come to an end; therefore there is a renewal, a new state… all that.

Q: *Lei prima ha detto che può esistere un conscio e un inconscio ‘healthy or non healthy’. In questo inconscio che è diventato sano, se l’inconscio o il conscio, se la mente, in tutti e due gli stati, muore ogni giorno e non è quindi più un deposito di memorie o di immagini, che tipo di mente è?…Che significato è questa mente, che cos’è, solo un corridoio di passaggio rapido delle immagini…?* [You said earlier that a healthy or unhealthy conscious and unconscious can exist. In that unconscious which has become healthy, the unconscious or the conscious, if the mind, in both states, dies every day and is therefore no more a storage of memories or images, what kind of mind is it? What is the meaning of such a mind. What is it? Is it only a corridor of rapid passage of images?]

K: Ah sir; wait a minute, sir. You see, all consciousness — unconscious, conscious — is conditioned. Right?

Q: *Si*. *Sì, condizionato nel senso che vive di memoria e di ripescare dalle esperienze passate…* [Yes, conditioned in the sense that it lives of memory, pulling out from past experiences…]

[]{.mark}

K: *Si*, *si*; it’s conditioned; conditioned in the sense it is the result of the past acting through the present and creating a future; and all that within a pattern: the pattern of time. I mean, this leads to… Now, is it possible to totally uncondition it, to be totally free of the past? Which means I have to understand time. Oh, this leads… Right? I don’t know if you are interested in all this.

Q: *Ad esempio, fra le due persone esiste il conflitto in quanto entrambe non si fronteggiano realmente ma sono due immagini. Supponiamo che in una delle due…* [For example, conflict between two people exists because they don’t really confront each other but they are two images. Suppose that one of the two…]

K: *Si*.

Q: (Inaudible)

K: Ah no; don’t suppose. Then you are entering merely theory; then you can speculate till doomsday. I mean, after all, man has been speculating if there is God or not God.

Q: *Mettiamo la cosa in un’altra maniera: perché il conflitto, lo stato di conflitto cessi, occorre che l’immagine cada da entrambe le parti, o è sufficiente che cada da una delle due?* [Let’s put it another way: for the conflict, the state of conflict, to cease, is it necessary for the image to fall on both sides or is it enough for it to fall from one of them?]

K: No sir.

Q: (Inaudible)

Q: *L’esempio pratico del famigliare che domina l’altro, e questo avviene perché entrambi giocano con due immagini, con tutte le cose nate precedentemente e i conflitti che perdurano. Se soltanto in uno dei due questo processo cessa, con ciò cessa anche il conflitto o no?* [Take the practical example of one relative who dominates the other; this happens because both are playing with two images, with all the past incidents and conflicts that persist. If this process ceases only in one of the two, does the conflict cease or not?]

K: *Si*, *si*. *Si*, *si*.

Q: (Inaudible)

K: Of course you can; not with her… Sir, sir, you and I are in conflict; you have an image about me, I have an image about you. You break your image about me — if you can; you break it — you have no conflict. You are meeting me every day factually, without the reaction of your memory about me. That is dying to your memories each day.

Q: Yes, but since you haven’t broken the image…

K: No.

Q: …you still try to dominate me.

K: Of course. So I say, ‘Look…’ I tell her, ‘You can’t dominate; it’s over; that game is over. I’m not afraid. If you want me to go and sweep the floor, I will, but psychologically that has come to an end.’ But that’s very difficult, because if it’s a woman and a man it’s a relationship not only of pleasure but… sexual and all the rest of it, but also for economic reasons. She keeps the house — you follow? — the whole business; children and all the rest of it; so I become dependent, not only physically but psychologically, because I have identified myself with the family. The family is my image, and if I break the image, the family is not important then. No, but this is too…

Q: Then you become psychologically independent.

K: Psychologically you are free, and therefore no fear.

(Pause)

So the word is the response of memory. The thought is the word. You can’t think without word, without an image, without a symbol. So thought breeds fear. Of course; this is… Like the word — what? — *communist*, or a dozen…

Q: *Earthquake*.

K: Earthquake. If there is an earthquake, there is an earthquake. I face it. But this whole mechanism… So I see then that there is no end to fear as long as time exists between the fact and me — I don’t know if you… — as long as there is the division created by thought between the fact and the observer. I don’t know if you’re… Are we meeting this at all or am I talking…?

Look sir, I said there is fear of death — I take death as an example — I know I’ll die but thought has pushed it far away, distance — tomorrow or ten years, it’s the same — and thought creates the time interval — surely? — and if there was no thinking with regard to death, death… — you follow? — there is no time at all. It is a fact. Oh well, that…

(Pause)

So that means I have to learn, understand, observe, listen to the fact — the fact I’m afraid; the fact is I’m afraid of death, my wife, my… losing my job, my wife not loving… — you know? — afraid; darkness and all kinds of things I’m afraid. And I never come into contact with it, because thought again has created this division between the observer and the observed. I don’t know…

So there is an interval of space between the observer and the observed. ‘I am afraid; fear is something outside of me and I am going to overcome it or I am going to escape from it or I resist it,’ so there is this division between the fact and the observer. The moment you say, ‘I am going to overcome fear,’ which means resist fear, you need time; and thought has created time, and thought has created fear; it’s all interrelated. So then the problem arises, the questions arises: what is thought and what is time? And is it possible to look without thought? Which doesn’t mean I become vague and abstract and woolly and blank and all that silly stuff, but to look; to look actively, passionately, fully, without thought, and therefore without the observer and the observed.

I’m afraid of being ill. I have known illness, and I know all the unpleasantness of it; the memories are stored up in my unconscious; it’s there. And each time I get some pain, I’m stirred by the fact… by something which I have remembered. So the entity that remembers separates himself from the fact of remembrance and says, ‘I am going to be ill.’ I don’t know if you’re following all this. Is it too complex? So thought remembers the past illness, the thinker says, ‘By Jove, I’m going to be ill again; be careful,’ because he has had memories of it, therefore he’s afraid. And so he keeps this battle going on — fear. But if he says, ‘All right, let it come; I’ll meet it,’ which means dying to the past. It’s fairly easy to put away the pain but the pleasure of it, also. So one has to learn about it, as we are doing now… (inaudible) …learn. Not having learnt and then approach the fact, then of course we are back again in the same old position. I don’t know if you’re… So learning is a constant moving, movement; not having learnt is an ending to which you can add. I don’t know if you’re following all this.

So can I take… can I observe the fear I have, whatever it is, and come directly into contact with it, which means not identify yourself with it — that’s another trick of the… thought — but actually…? And you can only come into contact directly with the fact, any fact, as long as thought with its memories doesn’t divide the observer and the observed.

Q: Perceiving without analysis.

K: Yes… if you like to put it that way; perceiving…

Q: (Inaudible)

K: Ah wait; one must be awfully careful here, because the word *perceive* and *analysis*….

Q: If you don’t start analysing and then you have a thought… (inaudible)

K: Ah no, no, there is no… You see, I have analysed it — now, wait a minute — I have analysed sufficiently; I can analyse much more; we have analysed it, but the analysis hasn’t brought you to the fact. What brings you to face the fact is the act of listening. And you say, ‘By Jove, I understand now what creates fear: thought.’ Which doesn’t mean I become thoughtless.

Q: Analysis uses thought, doesn’t it, uses memory?

K: Of course; the whole business, sir. Why should I analyse? When I’m faced with… — sir, take… exactly — when I am faced with a danger, physical danger, I don’t analyse; I act. It is only psychologically when there is… when we do not face the danger directly then we have the time to analyse, play around, get unhealthy, go to the analyst and play all the tricks.

Q: Yes, but if you’re faced with a situation, experience will help you.

K: Beg your pardon?

Q: If a memory of a previous experience has been unpleasant, it may help you to avoid the next one.

K: It may avoid you… it may avoid, but it will not help you to learn. I have had an experience about you: you have insulted me or flattered me or whatever it is. I have that in my memory, that memory. I meet you next time, that memory responds.

Q: Yes; well, then you avoid me, because you have a memory of it.

K: Yes, now, wait… You might have changed.

Q: Oh well, yes…

K: Life is… I can’t say that you have not changed.

Q: Yes.

K: It’d be stupid on my part to say you have not changed. I can only say yesterday at such and such a time you insulted me, but when I meet you the next day, in that interval you might have completely changed, or you might not. But I must meet you, and I can’t meet you if I have my memories of your insult. Therefore, I can never say to another, ‘I know you.’ Or you can say, ‘Well, I know the Germans; I know the Russians; I know my wife,’ or the husband. It’s absurd. You can say, ‘I only know her by this incident at such and such a time,’ in that interval you might have changed and I might have changed.

Q: Sir, if you pursue that thought that you were taking, let’s take the position of a debtor and a creditor. Now… and it’s not just once; each time you encounter the creditor, he’s going to remind you and that creates an unpleasantness.

K: Yes, and if you say…

Q: And the point that he raised there, would you not, by experience, know that although he was a friend when he lent you the money, circumstances have changed and now every day he reminds you, which is unpleasantness; the thing would be to avoid him?

K: No. You say, ‘I’m sorry, I can’t pay you.’

Q: And still continue the unpleasantness?

K: Or you say… take… Sir, the moment you say, ‘Avoid him,’ you have the beginning of fear. Right?

Q: Yes.

K: I don’t want to have fear, at any cost.

Q: At the expense of the unpleasantness each time?

K: At any time. So I have to find out why… If I can’t pay, I can’t pay; I’ll try to pay. If I am double-crossing myself and him, well… there is no end to it. No, the question, sir, is really whether it is possible to be free of fear, completely — you follow? — meet life as it arises, not with fear, not with all the structure which I have built within myself, which is my image.

Q: Well, who is to forget your experiences then?

K: Ah no, no; sir, wait a minute. What is experience? Now, wait a minute; isn’t that, again, the word? I need… of course I must have… I mean, my experience of having lived in this house I can’t forget, because if I forget, each time I have to… — you follow? — I won’t know where I am. I can’t be in a state of amnesia. But what do we mean by *experience*? Apart from that — you understand, sir? — I must know where I live; I must know my name, passport, technological knowledge and my… etc., etc., the outward…

Q: Technical purposes, yes.

K: If you like to use that word. I must know. Apart from that, what is experience? What value has experience?

Q: (Inaudible)

K: No, no; don’t say… What value has it? Man has lived, oh, nearly two million years and he has battled, wars, wars, wars, and he’s still going on. What has it taught him? Nothing.

Q: He has improved at it.

K: Yes; it used to cost twenty-five cents to kill a Roman soldier; now it costs thirty thousand dollars or whatever it is. It becomes too absurd. So where does… has experience psychologically any value?

Q: No, none at all.

K: No, no, don’t say… Then but that means — wait a minute, sir — that means you live in a state where experience has no value at all, which means you are a light to yourself, completely. No, no, this requires a great deal of…

(Pause)

You see, sir, psychologically, if I had no experience, I would go to sleep. Right? If you didn’t push me, if you didn’t tell me, if you didn’t challenge me, I’d soon fall asleep, psychologically. This takes place all the time. When I’m completely psychologically secure, something takes place to disturb that state. This is obvious, sir, isn’t it? So to keep me awake, I depend on challenge and response, experience. Otherwise, I would soon go off to sleep, comfortably, within a wall which I have built around myself; and it’s very difficult to break down that wall, because that wall is built of ideas and to break an idea is much more difficult than to break anything else. So I depend, to keep awake, on experience. If I see the absurdity of being awake through a drug, through an experience, through something, I have to be awake outside of experience. I don’t know if you…

Q: People have reference to memory. To experience, people… they have reference to memory.

K: With regard to everything. I meet it; why should I have memory — except technologically, etc., etc. — why should I…? What’s the value of memory otherwise? This… sir, one has to think about all this anew, that’s why you may not go into this. I mean, after all, the electronic brains have memories, banks of memories, association and all the rest of it, electronic responses and so on; and we function on the same way. This memory that we have built up is a form of resistance against society, against everybody.

So can… There is the obvious physical danger against which there must be protection; obviously. I protect myself when I see a precipice, a bus coming near or a snake and so on; that’s a normal, healthy response. But that, if I’m not very careful, that is translated into a psychosomatic affair. You will see this. Sirs… Right? So there is a psychological fear; that’s what we are talking about. And I have to learn about this fear anew, which means to come directly into contact with that thing called fear; and is there is such thing as fear? No, don’t… Sir, this is…

(Pause)

I have lied. I say, ‘All right…’ Why should I be afraid of it? It’s a fact and I know; and next time I’ll be… I might, I might not — you follow? — but that’s a fact. But if… I don’t want you to discover that I have lied, therefore I’m afraid of you, so I avoid you, and so on and on and on and on.

(Pause)

I mean, the fact that there is fear and it is possible totally to be free psychologically from any fear cannot be proved. I don’t want to prove it to anybody. You follow, sir, what I mean? We’re all so eager to prove that you are free from fear. So it is possible, if one can go at it with tremendous alertness; and that very alertness is a process of disciplining. I don’t know if you… (inaudible)

After all, sir, life disciplines you; life being society. You have to get up at a certain time to go to the office and all the rest of it. Society disciplines you, therefore society makes you conform, brutally; and we accept such a form of brutality, such a form of discipline. Therefore there is this constant imitation, constant standardisation, constant — you know? — folding ourselves to conform, to adjust, to comply, to obey. Now, if you see all that… and to see itself is discipline. To look at that flower — to look, actually look, and not have thought between you and the flower — to look is an intense discipline, non-conforming. I don’t know if you…

Q: We need to look at it without naming it.

K: Naming, all the rest of it; thought and all that.

Q: It’s difficult to look at the thing without naming it.

K: That’s it. Yes sir; you look at it, see that flower near you without naming it.

Q: Without knowing it’s a flower, in other words.

K: Ah no, no! You see, you have already stipulated what it is. Your thought has already interfered. Sir, experiment — I mean, not experiment — try… if you want to, sit near a tree and look at it. Look at a tree, without naming, without thought. You follow? Not that you’re asleep, not that you become blank; you’re intensely aware but without verbalisation.

Q: Without saying to yourself, ‘That’s a tree; what a nice tree…’

K: Ah no, no! Of course.

Q: I said without saying that.

K: Of course, all the…

Q: Just looking at it, without thinking.

K: Yes; yes. Then you will find out whether there is an observer and the observed. As long as there is an observer, there is the thinker.

Q: Yes.

K: The thinker with his thoughts, and therefore never coming into contact with the tree.

Q: So it’s only the observed that remains.

K: Of course. So that’s fairly easy looking at a tree, a flower, something objective, but inwardly, to look at yourself or to look at your wife without all the responses.

(Pause)

So I… so learning implies a movement in which there is no accumulation, which becomes knowledge, and from that knowledge I act. I don’t know if… Learn as you are going, doing; not having learnt, do.

(Pause)

That means you have to be tremendously alive, alert. And the other is much easier because then you can just repeat, repeat, repeat; having learnt, you can keep on repeating. Having learnt is the experience — you follow, sir? — and learning is not an experience. It’s a movement.

(Pause)

So that brings up a problem of what is new. You understand, sir? Is there anything new? I mean, man has been seeking in different ways, giving it a different name, at different times, according to his culture and his conditioning, according to his tendency, the word *God* — you know? — he has done that for millions of years, and believing, denying, not knowing. Now, if you have to find out, you have to learn, you have to discard everything, haven’t you? Everything man has said about God, which doesn’t mean you become an atheist or a theist. You say, ‘No, this is all out; I want to find out.’ Which means you must be completely free, free from fear, free from what people have said, from knowledge and therefore move; otherwise your belief in God or not belief are the same — who cares? You are conditioned one way and the communists are conditioned the other way. So to the believer or non-believer, God is dead. Sorry. (Laughs) It has no meaning.

So sir, as were saying the other day — we must stop — freedom is essential, psychological freedom, not freedom from… you know, I don’t have to go into it. Therefore, where there is freedom, there is peace. The two must exist, otherwise you’ll have disorder. Oh, I won’t go into it. And when that is really… is a fact, not an idea, a theory, a hope, an utopia, or saying, ‘It’s impossible,’ unless that exists, mind cannot go any further. It can go distorted, it can go sideways, it can go any way, but it can’t go straight.

Q: When you speak of conditioning, do you refer only to outside conditioning? I mean, when we are born, do we have some… or do we already have conditioning?

K: Obviously, I should think; inherited…

Q: And the conditioning we are given when we come into the world is a religion, a nationality and a social label.

K: Social… yes, family…

Q: Right, and the rest comes afterwards; but before…

K: They say it’s already pre-natal; it’s already in the germ… the genus is already conditioned.

Q: We already have… we’re already partly conditioned.

K: Partly. But sir, whether we are conditioned from the beginning or whether you’re conditioned now, the fact is we are conditioned; and whether it’s possible to be free? Otherwise you’re a slave; otherwise for ever and ever we are slaves. It’s decorating more and more the prison. And if you really want to be free, you have to… — you follow? — you have to tremendously be active about it, not just theorise. And… this is very… this, of course, begins the whole problem of time; which is, does this conditioning take time? To uncondition, does it take time?

Q: To uncondition does it take time? (Inaudible)

K: Or is it a matter of instant perception and breaking? If it takes time…

Q: It’s not de-conditioning.

K: Not… I mean… Sir look, if it takes time to uncondition myself, there is an interval between now and then. In that interval, there are a great many incidents, accidents, strains, stresses which are going to alter the fact.

Q: Yes.

K: I mean, it’s like a man who is violent, angry, violent, trying to be non-violent; this lovely, Utopian, non-violent, idealistic state. He is violent and at a distance is the non-violence. To achieve non-violence, he allows himself time and in the meantime he’s sowing violence. It’s so… But to see violence, and not through an ideal — I don’t… — not through comparison. Oh, this leads too far, this.

(Pause)

Sir — I must stop — this is, we function in a habitual way. We have been taught to live with fear, to comply, to resist, to escape. If… people have… I mean, society has conditioned us; we have conditioned society; we have made society, so we are caught in that. So unless one is tremendously aware of this fact, we keep on going round and round in circles. (Inaudible)