Students Discussion 1, Brandeis, Massachusetts, 21 October 1968

Krishnamurti: Perhaps after I have talked a little, you might feel inclined to ask questions or discuss, talk over things together.

We have so many complex problems, and we, unfortunately, rely on experts, specialists to solve them. Religions throughout the world have tried to soften them, offered various forms of escapes; and one thought at one time that science would help to resolve the many complex issues of life. And also one considered education would help to absolve, to put an end to this complexity of life. But as one observes right through the world, the problems are increasing, multiplying, they are more, becoming more and more urgent, more and more complex, more and more, seemingly, endless. So one realises that one cannot depend on anyone, neither on the priests nor on the scientists nor on the specialists. So one has to go it alone. They’ve all failed, because wars continue, divisions of religions, the antagonism of man to man, the brutality, and the constant pervasive fear and sorrow exist.

So, one sees that one has to take the journey of understanding by oneself; there is no authority. Again, every form of authority, except the authority of the technocrats and the specialists at a different level, authority of every kind has failed. And these authorities man has set up as a guide, as a means of bringing us to freedom, peace, and all the rest of it. But also they have failed — authority of any kind have lost their meaning — there is a general revolt against spiritual, moral, ethical authority. Everything is breaking down. And one can see in this country, which is quite young, perhaps 300 years old, there is already decay taking place before maturity — there is great disorder, great conflict, there is confusion. And there is this inevitable fear and sorrow. Seeing all this, one is forced, not only by outward events but also naturally, inevitably, one has to find for oneself the answer; one has to, as it were, to wipe the slate clean and begin again, knowing that no one outside is going to help us — no authority, no belief, no religious sanctions, no moral standards — nothing. Nor the past, with their scriptures, with the saviour, with the guru, with all that, is any longer important. So one is forced to stand alone, not depending on others, and take a journey through life, examining, exploring, questioning, doubting everything, so that our own minds become clarified, so that our own minds are no longer conditioned, perverted, tortured. And whether we can stand alone, explore for ourselves, find the right political answer — not according to the communist or the socialist or the capitalist, not according to a particular pattern of thought or belief — and explore our own minds, our own hearts, which are so heavily conditioned. And in this process of exploration can we be free completely, both consciously as well as consciously… unconsciously as well as consciously, fear? Because that is one of the major problems, not only the outward fears… [sound of machine] Huh!

We live really in quite an extraordinary world, [laughter] where noise [laughs] is prevalent and so contagious. [Sound stops]

Now, can the mind be free of fear? And this is a very important question; it is probably one of the major issues of life, whether the human mind can ever be free from the contagion of fear. So, if we may, let’s go into it, not abstractly, not theoretically, but actually be aware of fear, of one’s own fears, both physical as well as psychological, conscious fears as well as the secret fears, the hidden fears. First of all, is that possible? One may be aware of the fears, physical fears — that’s fairly simple. But can one be aware of not only the conscious fears but the unconscious deeper layers of fears? Because fear in any form does darken the mind, does pervert the mind, brings about great confusion, brings about neurotic states, various perversions. In that fear there is no clarity. And can one, can the mind become conscious, aware of the hidden fears, the secret fears which have not yet been articulated by the conscious, as well as obvious, conscious fears? And please, let’s bear in mind that we are not verbally communicating about this, because that has no value at all. You can theorise the causes of fear, analyse them very carefully, go into them very wisely, intellectually, verbally, but at the end of it one is still afraid. So if we could, non-verbally but actually go step by step into this question of fear, then perhaps, not theoretically but actually be free completely of fear.

So there are not only psychologically the outward, the superficial fears, but the deeper layers of fears. Can the conscious mind uncover the hidden fears? That’s one question which we will come back to presently. Then there are the conscious fears — I am afraid of what public opinion says, I might lose my job, my wife may run away, I am afraid of being lonely, I am afraid of not being loved, I am afraid of dying, I am afraid of this terrible boredom of life which apparently has no meaning whatsoever, the everlasting trap in which one is caught, being born, educated, ending up in an office or in a factory, earning a livelihood, breeding children, the enjoyment of a few sexual interludes, and the inevitable sorrow and death — all this does breed fear, conscious fears. Now, can one deal with those conscious fears and be free of them, not in words, in theories, but actually not be afraid of death, not be afraid of being completely lonely and facing it, go through it, not be afraid of not being loved or what the public say, public opinion or what somebody says, to brush all that aside and be free? If we cannot then obviously we live in a perpetual state of anxiety, guilt, uncertainty, in increasing, multiplying problems. So that is one of the major questions.

So, what is fear? Do we know it at all? Or we know it only when it is over. Please, this is important to find out. Are we ever directly in contact with fear? Or is our mind so accustomed, so trained that it is always escaping and so never coming directly into contact with what it calls fear? And how is this fear, both conscious as well as the unconscious secret fears of which one may not be conscious, how does it come about, how does fear come about? That is, one may be afraid of what another says, public opinion — I am taking that as an example — or one may be afraid of the dark — you know, fear. It would be rather interesting and perhaps worthwhile if you could take your own fear and go into it together, then perhaps one may learn greatly, directly about fear. Because we are asking what is fear, how does it come about, what is the structure and nature of fear? One is afraid, as we said, of public opinion, because I might lose — there are several things involved in it — I might lose my job, and so on, so on, so on. How does this fear come? I do not know if I am making the question clear.

[Sounds in background] I am sorry you have to put up with this, but there it is.

Is fear the result of time? Does fear come to an end when I know the cause of fear? Does fear disappear through analysis, which is, to explore, analyse, find out the cause, and in the finding of the cause, the ending of fear? I am afraid of something, of death, of what might happen day after tomorrow; I am afraid of the past. What sustains this fear? What gives continuity to this fear? One may have done something wrong or one may have said something which should not have been said, or one is afraid of what might happen — ill health, disease, losing a job — all in the future. So there is fear of the past and there is the fear of the future. Fear of the past, which has happened, which has actually taken place, and fear of the future, which might happen — a possibility, a probability.

Now, what sustains, gives continuity to the fear of the past and also of the future? Am I making my question somewhat clear? Yes? Surely it is thought, isn’t it? — thought of what I did, what one has done in the past, or how a particular disease has given pain, and one is afraid of the repetition of that pain. Fear is sustained by the memory of the pain and thinking about it. Right? What do you say? We’ll go into it. As thinking about pleasure, sexual or other forms of pleasure, thought creates both pleasure and fear, which is pain. Is this…? Thought, thinking about the past, as pain or as pleasure, thinking about it causes both pain and pleasure. So thought gives a continuity, sustains, nourishes that which has happened, from which I have derived there has been pleasure or pain or fear. Right? So thinking about the past or thinking about the future, what might happen, or thinking about the future in terms of pleasure is the activity of thought. Right? Can we go on from there? Right, sirs? Can we go on from there? Are we communicating with each other?

I am afraid. I am afraid of the particular pain I had a fortnight ago; I hope it won’t return. Also I am afraid of something I have done. This fear of the past is sustained, nourished, given a continuity by thought. That’s fairly obvious. Right? [Laughs] And I am afraid of tomorrow, losing a job, not becoming successful, not being able to do something, and so on, so on. And also I want that pleasure which I had yesterday repeated tomorrow. So both pleasure and fear, which is pain, are sustained by thought. Right? So thought is time, because if thought said, I have had that pain, that pleasure some time ago, and thought says I shall have that pleasure and I am afraid of that pain or that particular thing that will bring about fear, that tomorrow. So thought psychologically brings about time. So time is both chronological as well as psychological. We are not talking about the chronological time at all. That must exist, otherwise you won’t be able to catch your bus, and so on, so on, so on. But thought, which has put together time as yesterday, today and tomorrow, that thought breeds fear.

So, I am afraid of what might happen with death, so there is an interval between now and what might happen. So thought is perpetuating fear and therefore time, and therefore thought is the source of sorrow. I am putting too many things, perhaps, together but it can’t be helped. So thought is the origin of fear. Do we accept this? — not merely linguistically but actually see the nature of thought, how it operates, how it functions and the structure of this whole past, present and the future, which is time. So one asks, can thought, through time — please follow a little bit, this — through time, which is through analysis, careful analysis, and discovering the cause of fear, which all takes time — it may take a whole day or a whole year or a few seconds — all that involves time — can thought through time dissolve fear? Is this clear somewhat? Are we communicating with each other? If it takes time, then between fear and the ending of fear, in that interval there is action of fear. It is like a man who is violent and has invented the ideology of non-violence, and says, ‘I will become non-violent,’ but in the meantime he is sowing the seed of violence. Right? So in the same way, if we use time as a means of getting rid of fear, being free of fear, time, which is thought, will not resolve fear. Bene? Are we understanding each other?

So thought is not the solution of fear, because thought has bred fear. Right? So what is one to do? If thought is not the way out of this trap of fear — please do understand this very clearly, not intellectually, not verbally, not as an argument with which you agree or disagree, but when one is concerned, involved in this question of fear deeply, as we must be if we are at all serious, then what is one to do if thought is responsible for fear? And thought is also responsible for pleasure. So thought breeds both fear and pleasure. Seeing that, not abstractly, actually understanding, actually seeing the nature of thought, then what is one to do? If one sees very clearly, not verbally but actually is aware of this fact that thought does breed this enormous sense of fear, and thought cannot therefore possibly solve this fear, then what is the next step?

I hope you are asking this question of yourself and not waiting for me to answer it. If you are not waiting for me to answer it then you are up against it. It is a challenge, and you must answer it. If you answer that challenge with the old responses then you are where you are; you are still afraid. And all challenges are new, otherwise if they are not new they are not challenges. How will you respond to a new challenge? Which is, thought has bred fear and thought cannot possibly end fear. When you are aware of this, what is your next response? What will you do? Right? What we have described so far is logical. It is not some mysterious, fanciful Indian thought. There is no Indian thought or Christian thought — all thought is the same, conditioned by the environment in which it has lived. So, what will you do?

No response? [Laughs]

Now first of all, if I may go on with this, when we say, ‘I have seen, understood, the whole nature and structure of thought,’ what do we mean by that ‘understand’, ‘I have understood it, I have seen the nature of thought’? You understand my question? When you say about something, ‘I have understood it,’ what do we mean by that word ‘understand’? How do you understand? What is the mind, or the state of the mind, that says, ‘I have understood’?

Questioner: Would you use thought to understand, though? You are using thought to understand.

K: That’s what we are asking: does thought understand? Please follow it carefully, don’t assert anything. Let’s examine it, let’s explore it.

Q: But to understand you usually are understanding thought. To understand something you are drawing a conclusion or something.

K: Is understanding a conclusion? Is it derived from a conclusion? Or understanding is, forms a conclusion? We are not talking of conclusions. We are saying, what is the state of the mind that says, ‘I have understood something’?

Yes, sir?

Q: It seems that understanding could be identification.

K: No, sir, no. Look, sir, you tell me something, you point out the complexity of modern life. You describe it very, very carefully, minutely, and the whole picture of modern life is shown to me. And I say, ‘By Jove, I have understood not only the description but also the content of it, also the depth of it.’ Also I see how the human beings caught in it are in a nervous, neurotic, slavery state, and so on, so on, so on, and I say, ‘I have understood the whole thing.’ I have understood it not only intellectually but also verbally, with feeling, with my nerves, with my ears, with everything I have understood something so that I am no longer caught in it. I have understood that a serpent, a cobra, is dangerous — finished. I have understood it, I won’t go near it. My action, if I do meet it, will be entirely different before I have understood it. You understand what I am trying… using the word ‘understand’?

So have I, has one understood, or is one in a state of understanding of the nature of thought and the product of thought, which is fear as well as pleasure? Have I understood it, have I come to grips with it? Have I seen actually, not theoretically or verbally or intellectually, how it operates? Or am I still with the description and not with the described? Or am I still with the argument and the logical sequence, and not with the fact? If I am merely content with the description, with a verbal explanation, then I am just playing around with it. When the description has led to the thing described — and the described is the most important — and therefore there is perception of if it directly, then there is quite a different action. Like a hungry man, he wants food, not the description of food or the conclusion, what would happen if you ate; he wants food. So, are we content with the description, with the verbal conclusion, or are we, being hungry, being earnest to resolve this question of fear totally, therefore directly in contact with the thing described?

This is quite a difficult job — rather, not difficult, arduous. Because most us are content with the description. There is war in Vietnam. You see the pictures of it, you see the description of all the horror that is going on there, and each one of us — doesn’t matter whether American or Russian or Chinese or Hindu, whoever it is — each one of us is responsible for that war. And the responsibility for man’s cruelty to man is not a description, it is an actuality. Do you and I feel the tremendous responsibility of this? If one does — the responsibility, feeling the intensity of man’s brutality to man, and not with the description, if you actually feel the responsibility, that feeling of responsibility for this horror of wars brings about a totally different action. Not just saying, ‘I don’t like this war, but I have my favourite war.’

So, are we, when we say, ‘I have understood the nature of thought, and the structure and the meaning and how thought operates, bringing about and giving continuity and nourishment to fear as well as to pleasure,’ is my mind, is the mind absolutely in contact with the thing described, so it is that, not the description? When you feel that you are being hurt, wounded, not some poor unfortunate soldier there, far away, when you yourself feel actually the complete responsibility of every war, of every distortion of human mind, through hatred, through fear, through prejudice, and so on, then your action is completely different. Then you are acting, not theorising. Right? Are we following all this? So, when one sees thought and how it breeds fear, and when you say, ‘I have understood,’ then what takes place?

What do you do, sirs, when you are hungry and someone describes to you how lovely food is, what do you do, what is your response? You say, ‘Sorry, don’t describe to me about food, give me food.’ Therefore your action is there, direct, not theoretical. So then the question arises: when we say, ‘I understand,’ which means I am learning, there is learning, about thought and fear and pleasure, there is learning. Learning is different from the acquisition of knowledge. The computer can’t learn in the sense we are learning. That means learning is a constant movement — not having learnt or having known, I act from that. I act in the very act of learning.

So, when there is a learning of fear there is the ending of fear. Right? And there are those unconscious fears, fears which are hidden, which are secret, which the mind has never uncovered. What is one to do? They are hidden there in the basement; how can the conscious mind uncover them? Can it? The unconscious mind receives the hints of those fears through dreams. Right? You are following? And when one has these dreams they have to be interpreted. And if you have an outside interpreter he will interpret them according to his particular fancy and particular education, particular specialisation. And as one cannot understand them for oneself easily — and there are those dreams, I don’t know if it has ever happened to you, dreams that, as you are dreaming you are interpreting. So, how is one to come to grips with the hidden fears, other than through dreams? You are following all this? Does it mean anything to you, all this? And why should one dream at all? I know the specialists say you must dream otherwise you will go crazy, but I am not at all sure you should dream, and why should one dream at all? Why cannot one during the day be open to the hints, to intimations of the unconscious so that you don’t dream at all? After all, when this constant dreaming, struggling goes on in sleep, your mind is never quiet, never refreshed, never new. So cannot one, cannot the mind during the day be so open, alert, awake, aware, so that the hints and intimations of the hidden fears can come out, be observed and be absolved? I suppose you have never tried any of these things.

So we are saying through awareness, through attention during the day, in speech, in act, in everything that one is aware of, both the hidden and the open fears are exposed. And when you sleep there is a sleep that is completely quiet, without a single dream. And the mind wakes up the next morning fresh, young, innocent, alive. This is not a theory — do it and you will find out.

Is that enough?

Q: Sir, if dreams are supposed to be manifestations of hidden fears, how is it possible to bring them out into the consciousness?

K: Sir, I ‘m not a specialist, I haven’t read any psychological books or been to an analyst — God forbid! — but one can observe all this within oneself if one is alert, quick, watchful. The unconscious is not only the repository of the past — the past being the racial inheritance, that is, I was born in India, raised in a certain class which is called the Brahmin, with all their prejudices, superstitions, their strict moral life, and so on, so on, all the racial content and the family content, the tradition of 10,000 years and more, the collective as well as the individual is all there. That is what we have generally said — unconscious. The specialist may give another meaning, but being a layman one can, I can, we can observe it for ourselves. Now, how is all that to be exposed? Isn’t that the question, sir? How would you do it? I’ll tell you, but my telling you has very little value. How would you do this? There is the unconscious in you. If you are a Jew, you’ve all the tradition, hidden, of Judaism. If you are a Catholic it is all there, hidden. If you are a communist you will put it in a different way, but it is there — anti-capitalist, anti-this and anti-that, pro-that, all that. Now, how will you, without dreaming — it is not a puzzle — how will you bring all that into the open?

Q: What you are talking about seems an incredible awareness of everything that is going on around you.

K: Yes, that’s it.

Q: In other words, just looking.

K: That’s right.

Q: The eyes being open.

K: That is, if during the day you are aware, alert, not outwardly only but all the inward movement of thought — aware of your words, what you are saying, your gesture, how you sit, how you walk, how you talk — you follow? — aware, your responses, then all the hidden things come out very easily. And it won’t take time, it won’t take many days, because you are no longer resisting, no longer digging, but always observing, looking, listening. In that state of awareness, everything is exposed. And if you say, ‘I’ll keep some and I will discard others,’ you are half asleep then. Like a man saying, ‘I will keep all the goodness of the Hinduism or Judaism or Catholicism and let the rest go,’ obviously he is still conditioned, he is holding on. So one has to let all this come out without resistance.

Q: Is awareness the solution to the problem?

K: Not a solution, sir. There is no pill you take and it is resolved. We are pointing out the nature of awareness.

Q: But it seems that you’ve said that if one does this, if one is aware totally of everything that one does, says, is, thinks, you know, if you are aware of everything then…

K: Obviously, sir. That awareness is without choice. If that awareness is choosing, then you’re blocking it. But if that awareness is without choice, everything is exposed — the most hidden secret demands, fears, compulsions, everything comes out.

Q: And then you cannot do a single task. As this young man was raising this question and you concentrated on the thought, he didn’t get to finish the question because you were working toward consolidating all this. So perhaps I can be aware one day of the week, one hour of a day in the week…

K: That’s enough, sir. If I am aware, if I am attentive for one minute, that is enough. Most of us are inattentive. And to become aware of that inattention is attention. Not the cultivation of attention. I am aware for a single minute of everything that is going on within me, without any choice, but observing very clearly. Then I spend an hour in inattention, not being attention, not giving attention, and I pick it up again at the end of the hour. But if I am attentive to inattention — I don’t know if I am making myself clear.

Q: I am wondering about that 360 degree attention, and I watch you and I get a focus to one degree of attention…

K: At the moment, sir, because we are talking — we have to focus it on something. But attention is not focused, it is not directed — it is attentive.

Q: Then there is no object.

K: That’s right. Then we go into a whole question whether there is the observer at all — which I don’t want to go into because that becomes too complex.

Q: But can that attention which is attention to all things…

K: I didn’t say that — wait a minute, sir — attention isn’t to all things. Attention.

Q: Can that attention exist for more than a really short time span?

K: I don’t know. Find out, sir! [Laughter] Go into it, put your teeth into it to find out.

Q: How can attention at the conscious level bring out what’s going on at the subconscious level?

K: Look, at the conscious level, being brought up as a Hindu — I am saying that; that’s dead but I am just repeating that — being brought up as a Hindu with all the religious, and all that, I say when I meet a non-Hindu, all my reactions come out, don’t they? To be attentive of those reactions. Then in that attention my reactions and the conditioning are exposed.

I think we need great simplicity in this. One has to be simple otherwise it will be too complex; we shan’t be able to solve it. It becomes tremendously complex, but we must begin very simply.

I think that is enough, isn’t it?

[Applause]