Krishnamurti - In the demand for freedom is fear

AM69T3 - In the demand for freedom is fear
Amsterdam - 10 May 1969
Public Talk 3

0:00 This is J. Krishnamurti’s third public talk in Amsterdam, 1969.

0:08 Krishnamurti: I think it is rather curious and odd that we should talk about these things at all, that we should listen to somebody at all, that we should pay any kind of attention to what another says. It seems so odd that we cannot for ourselves find a way of living in which there is no conflict, no misery, no confusion but a great abundance of love and consideration. We read books about all this by the intellectuals – how society should be organised economically, socially and morally. 1:36 We read books by the religious people and by the theologians with their speculative ideas. And apparently it seems very, very difficult for most of us to find a way of living which is quiet, alive, peaceful, full of energy and clarity, without depending on others. We are supposed to be very mature and sophisticated people.

2:42 We have lived – those perhaps little bit older – through two wars, appalling wars, through revolutions, upheavals, revolts and every form of confusion and misery. And yet here we are sitting on a beautiful morning, talking about all these things, waiting perhaps to be told what to do, to point out a practical way of living, to follow somebody who might give us some kind of opening into the beauty of life and the greatness of something beyond that which we have every day.

4:10 And I wonder – and perhaps you may too – why we listen to others at all; why is it that we cannot find for ourselves in our own mind and heart clarity without any distortion, not be burdened by the books, however old, however modern, so that we can live unperturbed, live fully, with great ecstasy and really at peace. And it seems to me very odd indeed, but there it is. I do not know if you have ever wondered if one could live a life completely, without any effort, without any strife. We are endlessly making effort to change this, to transform that, to suppress this, to accept that, to imitate, to conform, to follow certain formulas, ideas, but always with great struggle, conflict, contradiction.

6:34 And I wonder if we have ever asked of ourselves if it is possible to live without conflict. Not an intellectual isolation or live in an emotional, sentimental, rather woolly way of life but to live without any kind of effort at all. Because effort, however pleasant or unpleasant, gratifying or profitable, does distort, does pervert the mind. It’s like a machine that’s always struggling, never running smoothly and therefore wearing itself out very quickly. 8:12 So one asks – and I think it is a worthwhile question – to ask ourselves if it is at all possible to live without effort, and not become lazy, isolated, indifferent, lack of sensitivity, become a sluggish human being. Because all our life, from the moment we are born till we die, is an endless struggle to adjust, to conform, to imitate, to follow, to change, to become something. And this strife and struggle and conflict makes for confusion, dulls the mind, and obviously there is no sensitivity of heart. 9:57 So is it possible, not as an idea or as a... something hopeless, beyond our measure, whether it is at all possible to find out a way of life not only in the daily ways but also deep down in the so-called unconscious, deep within ourselves, whether it is possible to live without conflict. And if I may this morning, perhaps we can go into that question very deeply.

11:06 First of all, why we make for ourselves conflicts, pleasurable or not pleasurable, and if it is at all possible to end it. And in the very ending of it, live a totally different kind of life with great energy, clarity, intellectual capacity, reason, and have really, non-verbally, a heart that’s full of abundant love. I think we should find out, we should apply our minds and our hearts to find out, get involved in this completely.

12:23 There is obviously conflict because of contradiction in ourselves, which expresses outwardly in society in our activity: the ‘me’ and the ‘not me’. The ‘me’ with all its ambitions, drives, pursuits, pleasures, anxieties, guilt, competition, fears, and the ‘me’ other... and the other which is ‘not me’, which is the idea, a way of living without conflict, this opposing contradictory desires, pursuits, drives. One can see this in ourselves if we are aware of this, the tension between two opposing desires, the pulls of contradictory demands, the opposing beliefs, ideas and pursuits. 14:24 And it is this duality, this opposing desires with its fears, contradictions that bring about conflict. I think that is fairly clear in life if we watch it for ourselves. The pattern of it is repeated over and over again, not only in the daily living but also in the religious, so-called religious living – between heaven and hell, the good and the bad, the noble, the ignoble, love and hate, and so on.

15:22 If I may suggest, please not merely listen to the words or ideas but observe yourselves non-analytically. But merely observe using the speaker as a mirror in which you see yourselves actually, not theoretically, abstractly, but factually so that you become aware of your own workings, of your own mind and heart, how you look in that mirror.

16:35 So, one can see any form of division, separation, contradiction within oneself and without inevitably brings conflict – between violence and non-violence. And realising this state of affairs as it is actually, is it possible to end it? Not only at the superficial level of our consciousness, in that of our daily living, but also deep down at the very roots of our being so that there is no contradiction, no opposing demands and desires, the activity of the dualistic fragmentary mind. Now, how is this to be ended? Either one builds a bridge between the ‘me’ and the ‘not me’ – the ‘me’ with all its ambitions and drives and contradictions, and the ‘not me’ which is the ideal, which is the formula, the concepts. 19:01 And we’re always trying to do this, build a bridge between ‘what is’ and ‘what should be’. And in that there is contradiction and conflict and all our energies are wasted in this. So can the mind not divide but remain entirely with ‘what is’? And in the understanding of ‘what is’, is there any conflict at all?

20:01 If I may, I would like to go into this question looking at it differently, which is: freedom and fear. Most of us want freedom though we live in a self-centred activity, though our days are spent in concerning about oneself and one’s activities, one’s failures, fulfilments, miseries, one wants at the same time to be free, not only politically, which is fairly comparatively easy except in the dictatorial, tyrannical, dictatorship world, but also one wants to be free from the religious propaganda. After all, the modern... any religion, ancient or modern – modern, two thousand years or five thousand years – is a work... is the work of the propagandists 22:02 and therefore not religion at all. There too, one wants to be free. The more one is serious, the more one is involved, the more one is concerned with the whole business of living. One is always seeking freedom, the more intelligent, the more sensitive, the more questioning, not accepting, not believing. One does want to be free in order to find out, find out if there is a reality or not, if there is something eternal, timeless, or not. There is this extraordinary demand to be free in every relationship. But that freedom generally becomes self-isolating process and therefore not freedom at all.

23:34 And in the very demand for freedom there is fear. Because freedom may involve utter, complete, absolute insecurity, and one is frightened of being completely insecure. Because insecurity is a very dangerous thing. Every child demands security in its relationship and as we grow older we keep on demanding security, certainty in all relationships – with things, with people and with ideas. And that security inevitably breeds fear, and having fear, we depend more and more on things to which we are attached. 25:09 So there is this question of freedom and fear, and whether it is at all possible to be free of fear. Not only physical, physically but psychologically, inwardly. Not only superficially but deep down in the dark corners of our mind, in the very secret recesses in which no penetration has been made. Can the mind be utterly, completely free from all fear?

26:14 Because it is fear that destroys love – which is not a theory – it is fear that makes in all relationships the anxiety, the attachment, possessiveness, domination, jealousy.

26:51 It’s fear that makes for violence, as one can observe in the overcrowded cities and exploding population. There is great insecurity, uncertainty, fear, and it is this that makes for violence, partly.

27:23 So can we be free of fear that when you leave this hall this morning you walk out without any shadow of the darkness that fear brings? And to understand fear not only physically, physical fears, but the vast network of psychological fears. And perhaps we can go into it.

28:30 The question is: how does fear arise? What keeps it sustained, gives it a duration? And is it possible to end it? Physical fears are fairly easy to understand, like when you meet a snake or a wild animal or confronted, face a precipice or any other physical danger. There is instant response physically and that response is the condition, is the response of great conditioning of many centuries, because without physical survival life is... ends. 30:01 Therefore, physically one must survive. And through tradition of thousands and thousands of years, tradition says be careful, memory says be careful, there is danger, there is a destructive thing, act immediately. And such a response to danger physically, is it fear? Please do follow all this carefully because we are going to go into something rather, though simple, rather complex unless you give your whole attention to it as we go along.

31:00 We are asking whether that physical response, sensory response to danger and the action, immediate, is it fear? Or is it intelligence and therefore not fear at all? And is intelligence a matter of the cultivation of tradition and memory? And if it is, why doesn’t it operate completely as it should in the psychological field where one is so terribly frightened about so many things? Why doesn’t that intelligence which we find when we observe danger operating, why doesn’t that same intelligence operate when there are psychological fears? And is that physical intelligence applicable to the psychological nature of man? Right?

33:10 That is, there is fear, which we all know, of various kinds – afraid of death, darkness, what the wife says, what the husband will do, or of the neighbour or of the boss – you know, fears, a whole series and network of fears. We are not going to deal with the details or go into the description of various forms of fear, but fear. But we are concerned with fear, not with a particular fear. And when there is fear and we become aware of it, there is a movement of escape from it, either suppressing it, running away from it, taking a flight through various forms of entertainment, including the religious entertainment, or developing courage, which is resistance to fear. 34:49 The escape, entertainment and courage are all various forms of resistance to the actual fact of fear. And the greater the fear, the greater resistance and therefore various neurotic activities go on.

35:25 So there is fear and the mind or the ‘me’ that says there must be no fear, so there is duality. The ‘me’ different from fear, the ‘me’ who escapes from fear, who resists fear, who cultivates energy, theorises, goes to the analysts, and so on. The ‘me’ and the ‘not me’. The ‘not me’ is fear; the ‘me’ is separate from that fear. Right? So there is conflict immediately between the fear and the ‘me’ that is overcoming that fear. 36:34 There is the watcher and the watched. The watched being fear and the watcher is the ‘me’ that wants to get rid of that fear. So there is an opposition, a contradiction, a separation and hence there is conflict between fear and the ‘me’ that’s not... that wants to be rid of that fear. All right, is this...? Are we communicating with each other?

37:22 Shall we go on? So the problem is: can this conflict end between the ‘me’ who thinks he is different and resists fear, or in trying to overcome it, escape from it or suppress it or control it? And hence this division will invariably bring conflict, like between two nations with their armies, with their navies, and all the rest of it, their separate sovereign governments, and therefore there are always division and conflict. Like two well-organised beliefs which are called religions in opposition with each other, and therefore conflict. So the watcher and the thing watched. The watcher saying, ‘I must get rid of this terrible thing, I must do away with it’. And therefore is always fighting, fighting, and conflict.

39:04 And this has become our habit, our tradition, our conditioning. And it’s one of the most difficult things to break any kind of habit, because we like to live in habits. Either it’s smoking, drinking or sexual habits or psychological habits, as the nation, sovereign governments, my country and your country, my God and your God, my belief and your belief. So this is our tradition, to fight, resist fear and therefore increase conflict and therefore give life more to fear.

40:10 If this is clear, then we can go to the next step, which is: is there any difference, actually, between the watcher and the watched? In this particular case the watcher who thinks he is different from the watched, which is fear – is there any difference between him and the thing he watches or are they both the same? Obviously they are both the same. Right? The watcher is the watched.

41:00 If it is something new, then it... totally new, there is no watcher at all. But because he recognises it as fear, which he has known previously, there is this division. Right? And as you watch it, as you go into it very, very deeply, you discover for yourself – which I hope you are doing now – that the watcher and the watched are essentially the same. And therefore if they are the same, you eliminate altogether the contradiction, the ‘me’ and the ‘not me’, and therefore effort. Therefore you totally wipe away all kind of effort. Which does not mean you accept fear or identify yourself with fear. 42:09 Right? So there is fear – fear, the thing watched and the watcher is part of that fear. So what is to be done? Right? Are you also working as hard as the speaker is working? If you are not, you won’t be able to follow it. If you are merely listening to a lot of words, then I am afraid you will be left and you will not have solved completely, deeply, this question of fear. So there is only fear, not the watcher who watches fear, because the watcher is fear. Right? Then what is to be done?

43:33 There are several things that takes place. First, what is fear? We are not talking about the results of fear or the cause of fear, how it darkens one’s life, and all the rest of it, the misery of fear, the deadliness, the ugliness, but what is fear, how does it come? Must one analyse it endlessly to discover the endless causes of fear? Because when you begin to analyse fear, to find out the various causes of fear, the analyser must be extraordinarily free from all prejudices and conditions. He has to look, observe. 44:54 Otherwise whatever he analyses, if there is any kind of distortion in his judgement, in his observation, that distortion increases as he begins to analyse more and more and more. So analysis of... in order to end fear is not the ending of fear. I hope there are some analysts here.

45:44 Because in discovering the cause of fear and acting upon that discovery, the cause becomes the effect and the effect becomes the cause. Because what was the effect and acting upon that effect in order to find the cause and discovering the cause and acting according to that cause becomes, the next day, the effect and the cause, and so on – it’s an endless chain. So we can put aside the understanding of the cause of fear and the analysis of fear. Then what is one to do? You know, this is not an entertainment. It is a great... there is great joy in discovery, there is great fun, literally great fun in understanding all this. So what is... what makes for fear?

47:13 Time and thought makes for fear – time as yesterday, today and tomorrow. Tomorrow, I am... there is the fear of something happening – losing a job, death, my wife, husband running away, leaving me, or the disease that I have, pain that I have had many, many days ago and that pain coming back again – time. Time – of what my neighbour might say against me tomorrow or to cover up something which I did many years ago. Afraid of some deep, secret desires which might be... not be fulfilled. So that time is involved in fear, 48:41 fear of death which is at the end of life or may be waiting around the corner, and I am afraid. So time is fear and time is thought. There is no time if there is no thought. Thinking about that which happened yesterday, being afraid that it might happen again tomorrow or today – thinking, which brings time as well as fear. Do watch it, please, look at it for yourself. Don’t accept anything, don’t reject anything but listen, find out for yourself the truth of this thing. The truth, not the words, not whether you agree or disagree, 50:02 but to find the truth you must have a feeling, a passion, to find out, the energy. Then you find that thought breeds fear. Thinking about the past or the future. The future may be the next minute or the next day or ten years later. Thinking about it, an event, and thinking about an event which was pleasurable yesterday sustains or gives continuity to that pleasure today and tomorrow, whether that pleasure be sexual or... sexual, sensory or intellectual or psychological. 51:12 Thinking about it, building an image, as most people do, sexually, therefore giving to that event in the past a continuity through thought and therefore bringing, breeding more pleasure. So thought breeds fear as well as pleasure, which are both matter of time. Right? So thought engenders this coin of pleasure and pain, which is fear.

52:22 Then what is to do... what can... what is there to be done about thought? which we so worship, which has become so extraordinarily important. The more cunning it is, the better it is. In the business world, in the religious world or in the world of the family: thought. The intellectual who indulges in the coin, in the garland of words, of thought. And how we honour the people who are intellectually, verbally clever in their thinking. And that is, that thought is responsible for fear and the thing called pleasure. We’re not saying we shouldn’t have pleasure; we’re not being puritanical or Calvinistic or all that kind of silly stuff. We are trying to understand 53:49 and therefore in the very understanding of it, of this whole process, fear comes to an end. And you will see pleasure then is something entirely different, which we’ll go into if we have time. So thought is responsible for this agony. One side agony, the other side pleasure, the continuance of pleasure, the demanding of pleasure, the pursuit of pleasure – religious, every form of pleasure.

54:35 Then what is thought to do? Can it end? Is that the right question? And who is to end it? The ‘me’ who is not thought? But the ‘me’ is the result of thought. And therefore you have again the same old problem: the ‘me’ and the ‘not me’. Which is, the watcher who says, ‘By Jove, if only I could end thought then I would live a different kind of life’. Probably he’ll end as a stupid being, but that’s irrelevant. So there is only thought, and not the watcher who says, ‘I want to end thought’, because the watcher is the product of thought. So there is thought. And how does thought come into being? 56:06 What is the origin of thought? Thought, one can see very easily, is the response of memory, experience, knowledge, which is in essence memory which is the brain. The brain is the seat of memory and when anything is asked of it, it responds in terms of reaction which is thought. Response of memory and recognition. And the brain is the result of millennia, of million years of evolution, conditioned, and there is the seat of all thought. And therefore thought is always old, thought is never free. Thought is the response of all conditioning. So what is to be done?

57:45 When thought realises that it cannot possibly do anything about fear because it creates fear, then there is silence, then there is complete negation of any movement, for any movement breeds fear. Right? Therefore the mind, with the brain, observes this whole phenomenon of habit, tradition, contradiction, conflict, struggle between the ‘me’ and the ‘not me’. And realising the ‘me’... the ‘not me’ is the ‘me’, the watcher is the watched. And seeing that fear cannot be merely analysed and put aside – it will always be there, therefore analysis is not the way. 59:14 And then one asks: what is the origin of fear? How does it come? We said time, thought. Thought is the response of memory and so thought creates fear. And fear cannot end with the mere control of thought or suppression of thought or trying to transmute thought, and all the tricks one plays upon it, on itself. So realising this whole pattern, watching it choicelessly, objectively in oneself. Because oneself is the world. The social structure human beings have created through their fear, through their anxiety, through their despair, greed, envy.

1:00:28 Seeing all this, thought itself says, ‘I’ll be quiet, I will...’ without any enforcement, struggle, control or suppression, having watched this whole movement of thought, thought itself says, ‘I will be still’. And so there is the ending of fear, which means the ending of sorrow, which means the understanding of oneself, self-knowing. And without knowing oneself there is no ending of sorrow and fear. And it is only a mind that is free from fear can face the real.

1:01:45 Perhaps it might be worthwhile, if you are not too tired or lack of energy after this talk, or talk with yourself, perhaps you would care to ask questions. One must ask questions. The very asking a question is the exposing of oneself to oneself, whether you expose it here or when you are by yourself in your room or in your garden or sitting quietly in the bus or walking, you must ask and therefore find out. But to ask, one has to ask the right question, and the very asking of the right question is the right answer.

1:03:03 Questioner: Would be accepting the right thing to do?

1:03:09 K: Comment, madame?

1:03:12 Q: Would the accepting yourself, your pain, whatever, would it be the right thing?

1:03:19 Q: Is accepting yourself, your pain, your sorrow, is that the right thing to do?

1:03:27 K: Would accepting one’s pain, one’s sorrow, one... as one is, is that the right thing to do. How can one accept what one is? You mean to say you accept your ugliness, your brutality, your violence, pretensions, hypocrisies? Can we accept all that? And don’t you want to change all this? And mustn’t we change all this? And therefore how can we accept it? Then if you accept that, you accept the established order of society which is... 1:04:16 its morality which is immorality. How can one accept all that? Isn’t life a constant movement of change? And when one is living there is no acceptance, there is only living. You are then living with the movement of life. And the movement of life demands change, revolution, psychological revolution, a mutation.

1:04:56 Q: I don’t understand.

1:04:59 K: Then I’m sorry, then perhaps... You use the word ‘acceptance’ and in ordinary English that means to accept things as they are. Perhaps you would put it in Dutch.

1:05:18 Q: As they come.

1:05:18 K: Ah! Accept things as they come. What? Would you accept – not you, madame – would I accept as things come when my wife leaves me?

1:05:31 Q: Yes.

1:05:34 K: Yes? When I lose money, when I lose my job, when I am despised, insulted? Accept as things come, which is war? How can I take things as they come? To take things as they come actually not theoretically, one must be free of the ‘me’, the ‘I’. And that’s what we have been talking about this morning, the emptying of the mind of the ‘me’ and the ‘you’ and the ‘we’ and ‘they’. Then you can live from moment to moment endlessly, without struggle, without conflict. But that is real meditation, real action, that is the way of life, but not the conflict, the brutality, the violence.

1:07:13 Q: My question is: don’t you think that as long as man has contact with his fellow men and as long as man has expectations in his life and as long as man thinks, then he cannot get rid of fear because fear remains in every step that we must take? And when we think...

1:07:35 K: Yes, I understand, sir. The question is, we have to think, it is inevitable. Are you saying that we mustn’t think at all? To do my… to do a job you have to think, to go to your house you have to think. To listen, to communicate, there is the verbal communication which is the result of thought. So, what place has thought in life? Thought must operate when you are doing something. Please follow this – again, this is a rather complex business. To do any technological job, to function as the computer – not so proficiently – thought is needed. The more you think clearly, objectively, non-emotionally, without prejudice, without opinion, think very clearly is necessary to act clearly.

1:09:14 But we also know thought breeds fear. So – and that very fear will prevent acting efficiently, clearly. So can one act without fear? And act when thought is demanded and be quiet when it is not. Do you understand? To have a mind and heart that is... that understands this whole process of fear, pleasure, thought and the quietness of the mind. To understand all that and act thoughtfully when it is necessary and not act thoughtful... and not be thoughtful when it is not. Surely this is fairly simple, isn’t it? That is, can the mind be so completely attentive, awake? 1:11:05 When it is awake it will think when necessary, act when necessary, but it is awake in that action, it’s not asleep, it’s not mechanical. So the question is not thought, we must think or we must not think, but to keep awake. And to keep awake one has to have this deep understanding of thought, fear, love, ache and loneliness. All of this way of living one has to be completely involved, as one is – understand it deeply. And one can understand it deeply only when the mind is completely awake without any distortion.

1:12:24 Q: Do you mean to say that actual danger you just react of experience?

1:12:36 K: I didn’t quite hear, sir.

1:12:41 Q: You said that… So I gather that you mean to say you just react from experience.

1:12:56 Q: In face of danger do you just react out of experience?

1:13:02 K: In front of danger do you react out of experience. Don’t you, when you see danger, when you see an animal, dangerous animal, don’t you react out of memory, out of experience? Perhaps not yours but the racial inheritance which says be careful. What, sir?

1:13:39 Q: That’s what I had in mind.

1:13:39 K: Yes, but why don’t we act equally when we see the danger of nationalism, when we see the danger of war, when we see the danger of separate governments with their sovereign rights and, you know, armies, all that business? That’s the most dangerous thing that’s taking place in the world – with their atom bombs and guns and dictatorships and – that’s the most deadly thing. Why don’t we react? Why don’t we say, ‘For God’s sake, let’s change all that! ’? 1:14:26 Which means change yourself. Do not belong to any nation, to no flag, to no country, to no religion, so that you are free human being. But we don’t. We act, react to physical dangers; to psychological dangers which are much more devastating, there is no reaction at all. We accept things as they are or we revolt against them to form another kind of fanciful utopia, which comes back to the same thing. So we are not awake to danger. We are awake to the habitual danger – the animal, the tram car, the violence, but we are not awake to the psychological dangers which are so extraordinarily destructive. 1:15:43 Like those people who talk about brotherhood, holding on to their beastly little religions and saying, ‘We must love each other’. Or hold on to their particular prejudices and conditioning and say, ‘Let’s shake hands’. The two cannot go together. To see danger inwardly and to see danger outwardly is the same thing, which is to keep awake. Which means to be intelligent, which means to be sensitive.

1:16:36 Comment, madame? I’m afraid I don’t understand Dutch or English that’s spoken Dutch. Look, sirs, I don’t...

1:17:29 Q: She says the flowers are singing and the trees are singing. She hears the whole life, everything singing.

1:17:35 K: What?

1:17:38 Q: The flowers and trees are singing. She’s been hearing this all her life.

1:17:41 Q: Yes, but she’s actually deaf.

1:17:43 Q: And she’s deaf.

1:17:46 Q: She’s not hearing you, she’s deaf, but she hears the flowers and the trees.

1:17:49 K: Bien. She hears – she’s deaf, she hears birds and flowers and trees singing. I’m so glad. Is that finished?

🢁