Krishnamurti - Fear in consciousness

Krishnamurti Subtitles

ML70DSG6 - Fear in consciousness
Malibu, California - 22 March 1970
Discussion with Small Group 6

0:14	K:Shall we go on where we left off yesterday? We must go through it, whether we like it or not, sorry. We were asking: how does it happen that the deep layers hidden in consciousness be exposed? That was the question we were asking and I'm afraid we didn't go into it completely. Whether it is through dreams, through attention, through awareness, through analysis, and so on. I don't know how far you have gone into it, about it yourself since yesterday. So can we discuss it, open it up?
1:48	Q:Sir, I don't think we exhausted the question of dreams.
1:54	K:We are coming to that, sir - we haven't even touched it. We just touched it yesterday. You know, this is a very serious matter, all this. I don't know how lightly you take it. What we are discussing is very, very serious because once you go into all this you can't just play with it. Either you go to the very end of it or don't touch it. Right? Please, I really mean it. Either you go to the very end of it or don't touch it at all. You can't take little bits of it and say, 'I'll use this.' Either you go from the beginning to the end or don't begin at all. Please... One can see that it is... that one can non-analytically observe the superficial conditioning. We're using the word 'conditioning' to explain all that we discussed yesterday, so that we don't have to go all over it again. But it becomes extremely subtle and arduous to explore the hidden things of life. How does one do this? The concealed motives, concealed drives, ambitions, and all the destructive, deteriorating factors that lie in the unconscious, deep down.
4:38	Q:When you're involved in something, the hidden is apt to come out when you are involved… [inaudible]
4:43	K:When you are involved, Dr. Weininger says, they come out. So you must, according to him, commit yourself, involve yourself in some action, in order the hidden parts of one's being are exposed. That is, commit yourself in some activity, and through that activity watch your own responses, and these responses will be from the very deep layers. That means one depends on action, on a commitment, on an involvement in some activity. Right, sir?
6:11	Q:Or in a relationship. K:In some relationship. I don't know what you all feel. Please, sir, don't let me talk endlessly.
6:37	Q:It seems to me - I don't know if the wording is quite right, it could sound like we have to do something in order to, but to me it seems like we're relating all the time, and when we... And I don't know if I exactly understand this idea of commitment, what you mean by commitment, but if you… Usually I think, or... we resist commitment - life is commitment, I think, in the sense that we're talking about, and that we resist commitment because of those... because of what's… the hidden, because of the hidden. You don't say, 'I'm going to commit myself,' you just are aware of relationships from moment to moment. You're aware of relationship with everything. And that is commitment, in a way.
7:41	K:What do you say, sirs? Are you saying, sir, that all life being relationship, living is relationship, and therefore you're already committed, involved?
8:01	Q:In a sense... K:Yes. You're already involved, and there it is.
8:05	Q:But we hide from it. We sort of hide from it, withdraw from it.
8:10	Q:And that's when you can see the hidden of it. As you see you're hiding you can see that's the hidden.
8:27	K:What is it we are discussing? I'd like to be clear about it once again.
8:38	Q:Aren't we discussing resistance to... we call resistance the hidden thing, what we call the unconscious, the things that prevent us from relating, or from...
8:58	Q:I think we're talking about the revelation of the unconscious and whether one needs to be committed to any particular action or to be involved in activity in order to see oneself.
9:12	Q:Could we be talking about simply those parts of our being we're just unaware of? For instance, I'm in a certain situation and I start behaving in a certain manner, and I'm not at all aware of how I'm behaving, almost asleep to it. And then I can think that I'm aware by all of sudden talking to myself, and pretend like I'm watching, but actually all the actions, if you saw them in a mirror, you wouldn't even be aware that you were doing them. And then, I notice when I go through a day oftentimes, that my mind tends to concentrate on things, and as it starts to concentrate things, it starts to screen out other things, and just starts to focus itself on one particular goal or on one particular activity, that I lose awareness of sound, and sight, and all sorts of activity that's happening around me. And even I lose awareness of how I'm actually behaving in that situation, and so my mind is so set on a certain thing that it's occupied with. I'm aware... unaware... Almost asleep.
10:29	Q:Which, I think, might raise the question if, you know, further activity is actually a distraction rather than a process of self-revelation.
10:44	Q:Isn't life action. Life is action. I mean activity, if we think of it as a conference, something we do, but we act all the time. We are acting. That's part of the problem, I think - we're separating… like action is something that we do, not that we are action.
11:13	Q:Well, isn't it true that action may come out of conflict or it may come out of wholeness? And if it comes out of conflict then there are parts of us of which we're not aware.
11:37	Q:But we see it. We are aware of it the minute we act, the minute it comes up. You can feel it, you can feel resistances.
11:51	Q:Yes, but action can sometimes be a way of shutting out the mind, some part of us.
11:59	Q:But then you're aware of it. Q:Of the part that's denied?
12:03	Q:Because it seems to me that whenever we act in order to go somewhere else than where we are then there's a resistance, because you're torn. I'm always torn between... I can feel it the minute that I'm acting, when I'm not acting in accord with, what you say - wholeness. You can see it and then you're aware of resistance.
12:28	K:Sir, weren't we discussing yesterday afternoon that one of the fragments - because we are broken up - one of the fragments assumes the responsibility of the actor, of the censor, the one who resists, and dominates other fragments of which we are made up. We were asking yesterday: how does it happen to observe without the censor? To observe all the many fragments, not let one fragment assume superiority over the others but to observe. In this observation, we were saying, there is no censor, no resistance, nor the past, with all its knowledge, and tradition, and experience. That's what we were saying yesterday, to which we all - not agreed - we saw what is involved in it. And this, we said, is attention. Right? We are saying what we... This we called attention. In this attention there's no concentration - concentration being a form of resistance, exclusion, building wall against the other - thoughts, impulses, and so on. And we said that's fairly easy to do superficially. It's fairly easy to observe one's nationalistic idiocy outwardly, and wipe it out. But we were inquiring into the more, or deeper layers of this whole structure which is called the 'me.' We were asking ourselves whether these layers can be exposed without analysis. Because we said analysis implies time, and there are… God knows how many layers one has, and you take an infinite number of days, years, and by the end of it one is ready for the grave. So we said: is there a perception which sets aside or which is not involved in time, in analysis, in resistance or judgment? That's what we said.
16:35	Q:Didn't we also say, Krishnaji, that any act of description was an act of the censor.
16:41	K:Oh yes, of course. Any act of description, explanation, is not the thing described or explained. So the word is not the thing. That's what we said. Right. Now, how does this happen? One sees very clearly if there is any division, separation, between the layers of the... deep-down layers and the superficial layers, then there must be constant conflict. And apparently that's our life. Superficially we may be highly polished, because circumstances demand it, society, industrialisation, this or that, that we should be more or less outwardly civilised. Civilised in the sense not spit at each other actually. But deep down we do spit at each other. We do tear each other apart verbally and non-verbally. Bearing in mind that in this observation there is no naming, no verbal application to that which is seen - right? We're all following each other?
18:24	Q:We examined that point, because, say, the simple thing, we always say that nationalism is easy to see, but how in fact do we perceive nationalism in ourselves without words, without naming it? What happens in the thinking? K:Oh, that's fairly simple, isn't it? Born in a particular culture, society, economic strata, and so on, all the rest of it, nationalism, which is a form of tribalism, is deeply rooted in most people. Some tribalism, not... Right. Surely by becoming aware of it, one has the feeling for it, hasn't one? The feeling without the word: 'my country.'
19:24	Q:But that is in itself the word. K:Ah, no, no - the feeling.
19:29	Q:The concept arises with the feeling.
19:31	K:Wait, look, is the feeling the result of the concept, verbal idealisation, or is the feeling 'my country' separate from the word? You have to work this out. Q:Isn't it a concept in either case? It's either a feeling that one has, on looking at the mountains or the flag, whatever it is, it is brought about by a concept, because there's no such thing as a country - it's a concept that is man- made. So isn't there a concept inevitably in that, in order to be aware of that at any level?
20:10	K:Madame, are you saying: we are ruled by concepts, formulas, and one of the formulas is nationalism. Is there a feeling of nationalism without the formula? Is that what you're...
20:42	Q:It's possible. It's possible to be directly conditioned without even knowing that you're being conditioned.
20:49	Q:And then you have a concept going anyway.
20:52	K:Yes, you're still ruled by a concept.
20:54	Q:Separate.
20:55	Q:No, you wouldn't have a concept, you're just directly conditioned to...
20:58	K:Which is the result of a concept.
21:00	Q:Well, that's the layers of the concepts, isn't? Conditioning is a concept. If you are conditioned...
21:05	Q:Only if you think about the conditioning, but you may be conditioned to have an emotional response and all you have is the emotional response without any idea...
21:14	Q:If you're conditioned to it, doesn't that establish one or a multiplicity of concepts? What otherwise would condition you except...
21:23	Q:It may be a band playing or a flag waving.
21:27	Q:Yes, but there has to be, for a reaction in you, that must have some association, which is the concept.
21:36	Q:It's a response of the conditioning.
21:38	Q:You're frightened that something's going to wipe away...
21:40	Q:If I respond to a band playing, that my perception of the band playing, you're saying that's a concept?
21:48	Q:Well, if you have an association with the flag, or the band, or whatever it is, that is something already established in your memory, whatever it's linked up with, whatever your chain of association is.
22:01	Q:Or you wouldn't react.
22:03	Q:No I don't have to have... I don't have to be associated to a concept. I may be directly conditioned without any concept in it at all.
22:14	Q:If you never heard a band at all, the moment you heard it you'd be conditioned by it?
22:22	Q:I think that could happen.
22:25	Q:By the time it reached your consciousness, would that have been conditioned?
22:31	Q:By the time it reached your consciousness, would that have been conditioned?
22:36	Q:If it's a reaction, isn't that the same as conditioning, that the time element isn't necessarily intrinsic to conditioning. It can be awfully quick. I can make a face at you right now and you can instantly be conditioned by that in a moment.
22:55	Q:Yes.
22:57	Q:So it's the same process. I don't know, is this the same...
23:02	K:I think it's all right. We will continue in the same manner.
23:08	Q:But is there a difference between perception of a so-called objective thing, such as the tree, and the moment we are going to something like nationalism, which is an abstraction, aren't we immediately in a realm of concepts as opposed to...
23:30	K:Surely. One can look at that tree non-verbally, without the image of the tree which I've seen before - naming it, and all the rest of it. Can I... to observe the tree without the word, that's comparatively easy if you have played with that thing. Now, the nationalism is subjective, inward, and it is an idea, a formula - my country, my government, my people, my tribe, with its particular rituals, and so on, so on, so on. All that is... from childhood has conditioned me. I may outwardly wipe it away but deep down it's still there - the formula, it still exists.
24:42	Q:In other words, when you say you look at that formula without words, you can still look at your relationship to the concept but you don't use words in looking at that relationship.
24:52	K:We're asking, sir - that's the whole point - how to... We're asking... an observation in which there is no verbalisation or formulation.
25:08	Q:But that doesn't mean you have to get rid of the word 'country'...
25:11	K:Leave that for the moment. See it. As you can observe the tree without the formula, therefore in that there is no resistance, there is no division, and if you really have watched it very closely, the space between the observer and the thing observed disappears.
25:42	Q:Sir, that may be true of the tree but when one is looking...
25:45	K:Wait, sir. Do it, sir! Do it first with the tree. You will see what is implied in it. You want to go immediately into something a little more complex. Look at that tree, or any bush, or any flower, and see if it is possible - no, not 'possible' - to see, observe without the formula, without space, without the word. And when you do so observe, watch the state of the mind that observes it - not as you as an observer but the mind itself watching the tree.
26:47	Q:May I ask why, once somebody has done this, why it is more difficult for somebody to observe nationalism...
26:56	K:I'm coming to that, sir. First let's do this, see what is implied in it. An observation in which the formula doesn't exist - the formula being the past, the past with which one of the fragments of the 'me' has identified itself as the observer, the censor, the knower, the actor, the experiencer, and with those eyes of the past I look at that tree. And so there is the tree separate from the observer. The observer, by watching without the word doesn't become the tree, which would be absurd, but watches without any interference of thought - thought being the response of memory, which is the past. Now, do it, see what happens. Then inquire into the state of the mind that watches it, watching that tree with that quality. Now, if we can call that attention, in which the observer with all its commitments, associations, is absent - that is fairly easy to do because it is unrelated to me, it won't interfere, it won't insult me, it won't hurt me, it won't butcher me, it won't do all kinds of things to me. But to observe the whole movement of myself in that way becomes incredibly difficult.
29:21	Q:The moment you suggest observing one's observation of the tree, then I think, at least many of us, get in trouble, because immediately there becomes another thing, when there was just the tree, and then suddenly there becomes: what is my action, what is my awareness, what is my observation - and that becomes a separate... K:No, no, but you see… Look, please do listen to this, it's quite... To look, to observe the whole movement of myself is necessary for the learning of the 'me' - right? To learn about myself, which is essential because myself is the society, the world, the family, the wife - I am all that - to watch myself with the past is always either condemnatory or justifying, and therefore there is never an ending to conflict. I don't know if you're following all this. But to observe without the observer is to learn - which is not to accumulate because the thing which is being observed is in constant movement. Right? I can only observe very dispassionately, objectively, with something that's dead, which doesn't interfere, arouse various reactions in me. Can I... is it - these words! - to observe without the reaction of the past. I don't know if you have tried all this, or have done it. If you don't do this, conflict is inevitable, obviously. Because where there is an observer separate from the thing observed there is not only space, time, and all the reactions, and therefore division, and so conflict. This is simple. I have an image about my wife and she has an image about me, which each of us have built through twenty years, thirty years, or ten years, or ten days, and the relationship is between these two images, and therefore conflict. Therefore all relationship will inevitably breed conflict. Right? This is so. Everybody's silent. You're all much married, aren't you? [Laughter] I'm not, so it's all right. Now, these images - I have an image about myself, and I have an image about the world, and I have an image based on innumerable formulas of what should be - what was, what is and what should be - I have so many images. All these images are me. Right? And these images invariably divide each other, therefore the conflict within. Each image is inevitable - that's one's way of living. Now, to find out a life in which there is no image and no conflict - that's what we are inquiring. As one can observe the tree dispassionately, without naming, and all that, and if you observe more attentively, the space also disappears - really does disappear, if you've ever played with that kind of thing. The space, which is the time interval between the observation and the contact, totally disappears. This also can be brought about through chemicals - LSD and other forms of chemical warfare [laughs] - which is artificial and on which one depends more and more, and then there is a great deal of fear, and all that's involved. Now, one is asking oneself whether it is... one is asking: an observation of oneself, which is in constant movement, without the time element, without the verbalisation of what is seen, without the censor, the resistance, and so on, so that between the observer and the observed space disappears inwardly. I wonder if you've got this.
35:57	Q:I have a question, sir. Is that observation within the field of the known? I mean, is it, if you are observing at that level yourself, is that - well, that's the only way I can put it - does it make any sense? - is it within the field of the known?
36:16	K:No, it's not, obviously. The known is the past. All knowledge is the past. One is adding all the time to the past, and one's life is the past, isn't it? And the past, modified in the present: the future - and so on, so on. Now, to learn about oneself requires this quality of attention in which there is no distortion in observation. Right? When there is an observation of condemnation, of the censor, of resistance, the resistance, condemnation of the censor, is a distortion. Right? And I learn about distortion. So one is asking oneself to observe without distortion.
37:53	Q:May one ask if there isn't before the approbation or condemnation - which could be a sort of judgment - a second step? In the actual perception of what happens, is there an image in that? This is where I get it… How do we perceive?
38:13	K:How do you observe... Q:Not saying it's good or bad…
38:16	K:How do you observe with - ah, no - are you asking: is the very observation the product of the image?
38:36	Q:Isn't there an image factor in that?
38:39	K:I don't think so. I don't think so. Do it. You'll find out if you do it.
38:45	Q:That was what my question was, what I was asking before: is it within the field of the known. That immediate, that perception, that has to be in the field of the known...
38:56	K:Am I looking, sir, am I looking at myself with an image which I have? The very look is the product of the image. Are you asking that?
39:15	Q:I'm trying to ask what actually happens when we look. If we look at an objective thing, surely an image goes through the optic nerve, and so forth. Then it either activates associations, knowledge, and so forth, which as I understand it you call the known, the image, and that is either brought into play, in most of us, or if you are looking directly we somehow perceive without activating all that. But when we look at something that hasn't that simple mechanism of an outward thing, it's an abstraction. I cannot seem to see how you can examine that, examine...
39:58	K:No, no! The point is: then is there anything to be examined at all? As long as I have an image then there is examination of another image. If there is no image at all - image being the censor, the resistance, approbation, all the rest of it - what is there?
40:32	Q:There are no instructions then. K:No, no, please, do...
40:36	Q:Apart from… [inaudible]
40:45	K:If I have no opinion about you, no opinion at all, what's our relationship? Or rather, what is the state of the mind that has no opinion? It is not a dull mind, it is not a vague mind, anthropomorphic mind, it has seen the futility of opinions and is free of it. So such a mind can look much clearer than the mind that's cluttered up with dozens of opinions.
41:41	Q:But, sir, in that example there at least is an objective human being, a 'you,' somebody sitting there. Whereas if one tries to look at an abstraction - nationalism, or any abstraction there isn't, in our realm of thinking, there isn't a thing, another thing, it is a concept. Therefore I am still hung up on how you examine without fragmentation.
42:13	K:I'll show you. I'll show you. Why do we have concepts at all? Why do we have formulas at all? Do, please… Why do you have them? There is God, there is no God, the State is the most... etc. - you know, dozens and dozens of formulas - why?
42:40	Q:It gives us security.
42:43	K:I don't know. Don't guess at it, find out. Why do we have formulas? As an American citizen, as a Hindu, Catholic - what for?
43:04	Q:It's just conditioning. K:Ah, no, sir, look: living in Italy, if you're not a Catholic, belonging to the established order, you'll find it awfully difficult - you don't get jobs so easily, you can't marry your son or daughter, or whatever it is - things become extremely difficult. You may laugh at the Church - you follow, sir? - but the formula of the Catholic becomes very important, so you stick to it - it's profitable. So there is physical security on the one side and psychological security on the other. Formulas are for security. There is God - finished. I believe in it. Or there is no God, and I believe in it. Tremendous safety. But if you believe in no God in a very believing community then you're thrown out. So we have formulas - right? Are we aware of these formulas, first? Not how to get rid of them, is one aware of these formulas?
44:52	Q:Not if we're conditioned to them.
44:57	K:Ah, you can point to me and say, 'Look, you are conditioned by a belief as a Brahmin living in India with certain tradition.' That's been repeated. I say, 'You are perfectly right, I can throw them out.' Not that I'll become a Catholic - I'll throw it all out. If I'm fairly intelligent or aware I throw it all out. But the roots of it, the deep, instinctual responses of the conditioning are still there. So we come back to that question: how to expose all the content of the layers? You haven't answered my question. You're the experts, sirs.
46:05	Q:Could we perhaps look into the possibility of there being a root cause for all...
46:12	K:Of course, sir, there is. Q:A singular root cause.
46:15	K:A singular root.
46:18	Q:That would make it simpler.
46:19	K:Ah, no, not a question of simplicity! [Laughter]
46:28	Q:Fear seems to be at the root of almost all of it. Fear. We have obvious concepts and formulas and the reason we stick to them is because we become very dependent on all of them...
46:40	K:All right, sir, I'm afraid - take that. I'm afraid and therefore I depend - on a formula, on a friend or on my wife, and so on. This dependence I call love, and all the rest of it. Right? There is fear behind it. Now, I can observe superficial fears and perhaps wipe them out. The deeper layers of fear, very deep fear, of which I may be unconscious, not aware, now how do I bring it out? Because until I bring it out I'm living in darkness - you follow? - I will depend on some formula, not on this particular formula but on something else. How do I... how does the mind deeply root out fear?
47:52	Q:Sir, I notice that in my own particular case, what generally is productive of this bringing out of the symbols or the censor, is that I divide the world up into the bits that I like and the bits that I don't like. And in order to get to the bits that I like, I have this symbolic universe that I have created in order to get to them. But that leaves the bits that I don't like on the other side then. But I have a question which arises out of that, if I may. That is that there's no getting out of that, because we're sort of stuck in that, living in a society such as we have, and most of us work in some kind of technological area in which we spend most of our time and in which we have to live in a symbolic universe, so to speak. Well, now, my question is: how can one live in a symbolic universe, technological universe, think in a technological way in order to earn a livelihood, and so on, and yet be aware of that process at the same time?
49:05	K:One has to earn a livelihood in the technological world and also one has to live a life in which there is no fear. Right? That's what we are inquiring. We are saying: deep down there are many fears. The releasing of these fears makes the mind obviously extraordinarily intelligent. And that intelligence will operate both in the technological field and yet not bring about fear. I don't know if... So that's why we have to inquire into this question whether fear can totally be exposed, right down at the very roots of our being. Go on, sirs, I'm doing it. Proceed. How does this happen?
50:35	Q:My question before, or my statement before with regard to a root cause - perhaps if we were to find a root cause of all fears...
50:44	K:We're coming to that, sir, we're coming to it. You'll see it in a minute yourself.
50:55	Q:Is there perhaps almost like a bottleneck in the procedure at which there is, say, a mass of unconscious fears, and all the rest of the conditioning? But the moment when that operates, the moment when that enters your thinking, enters your action, really, isn't that the moment when it can be dealt with? As you said yesterday, we cannot explore the endlessness of one's own unconscious...
51:27	K:Look, madame…
51:28	Q:The moment that it comes up, like a bubble to the surface, can't we deal with it then?
51:36	K:That means one by one.
51:38	Q:No - well, one by one in that every moment of living...
51:42	K:Ah, I've no time, that's too long. I want to get rid of the beastly thing altogether.
51:49	Q:Yes, but would time be a factor in it at all if it were immediately...
51:54	Q:Well, it might take a year for a certain feeling to rise up.
51:57	Q:All right, but we...
51:59	K:We'll find out, we're going to find out.
52:01	Q:Sir, could it be that to really look at it…
52:04	K:Don't guess, sir, don't guess…
52:06	Q:I'm not guessing. K:...because then we're lost.
52:09	Q:But I notice that I keep escaping from looking at this, these things, because the very thing that I escape from, as I'm looking at fear I become afraid. But if I'm not looking at that fear, that fear that keeps me from going deep down...
52:23	K:We're going to find out, sir.
52:27	Q:It seems to me that fear has a sort of stigma attached to it, so that I can't look at it without condemning it. I mean - you follow? - that seems to be the real problem.
52:37	K:No, do let's be more efficient and practical. You have fears, haven't you? What do you mean by that - fear?
52:55	Q:Resistance. K:No, no. You see, don't verbalise it immediately. You have a fear.
53:06	Q:Doesn't it mean, sir, of a pair of opposites that we create, or a pair of alternatives, a polarity, we want one side but we want to avoid the other? And in the course of pursuing the one side we have a fear that the other might happen.
53:23	K:Yes, sir, I understand all that. What is, to you, fear?
53:28	Q:It seems to me that fear is grave insecurity.
53:33	K:Is it an abstraction?
53:35	Q:Reaction. An action where you...
53:40	K:Is it an abstraction or is it in relation to something?
53:47	Q:In relation to the unknown.
53:49	K:Known, unknown, future, past, present. It is in relation to something, isn't it? It's not an abstraction by itself. Right? Now, in relation to what?
54:11	Q:But isn't it… K:Watch it! I just want to go… just go slowly a little bit, a little bit slowly. I don't want to hold the field by my... You can have your... a little second later. It is in relationship to something - right? - the past, the future, job, you know, your wife running... death, love. Right. In relationship between what?
54:37	Q:Myself?
54:39	K:No, do look at it, sir, don't... Between what?
54:53	Q:We have our image of the world and we have our image of ourself, and the conflicts that those images produce in us, the feeling, is fear.
55:01	K:My dear chap, just a minute. I'm asking you - move away from that corner - I'm asking you: when you're afraid, two things take place. You and the thing afraid of, the fear of something. These two, what is the relationship of these two?
55:29	Q:Delusion. Q:There's space.
55:34	K:Look at it, sir, don't... Look at it a little more close, take time, a little bit. I am afraid - fear. Fear exists only in relationship to something - the relationship between two. Now what are these two? What are these two?
56:01	Q:Fear of the consequences.
56:04	K:One is permanent - do see it! - one is permanent, the other is a relationship with the impermanent which might bring danger.
56:23	Q:Could you say that again in another way?
56:28	K:I'm lost. Look, sir, I am afraid of the past, fear of the past. Therefore, a relationship between something that is permanent, which is now, and something which has happened yesterday. Right?
56:57	Q:I don't see how the permanent can be threatened by...
56:58	K:Wait, sir, do look at it, I may be saying it wrongly. You'll find out. You follow? There is a division between yesterday and today. The today is afraid of yesterday, and the today is afraid of tomorrow. Today has compared itself with the past, which says, 'I don't like it, it's tremendously dangerous, that. That I was unhealthy, painful, had pain, today I don't like it.' Today doesn't like yesterday. So today is more important than yesterday. Right?
57:49	Q:That means that there is no today. K:Wait! That's a theory, sir. Do look what is taking place. I wish you would go slowly - you're not... Sir, today is judging the past, the relationship is between today and yesterday. Today is - let's call it for the moment - permanent. Today is the only thing that matters, because I'm unhurt at this moment. At this moment I'm healthy. At this moment I haven't lost a job. At this moment my wife hasn't turned away from me. At this moment I believe. This moment, in relation to the past, says, 'There's fear.' Obviously - this is simple. No?
58:55	Q:Or tomorrow, you said, fear of tomorrow.
59:00	K:Of course, of course. Q:But fear is in the future, because you can't fear something that is right now. We have to fear it happening.
59:08	K:So today in relation to tomorrow is afraid. Today in relationship to yesterday is afraid. Comparing today - perfect health, perfect happiness, I'm living. Yesterday I wasn't living - I did something terrible, it mustn't happen again, I'm afraid of that. You know, all that business. Right? No, don't accept this, please. Right, sir.
59:45	Q:Can I ask for five minutes? K:Yes, sir. So can we say that the comparison between today, and yesterday, and tomorrow, comparison is fear? Right? Q:Can't one be afraid of today?
1:00:13	K:No, you will see in a minute, sir. Don't ask - see what we do, what is happening in oneself. If there were - these words! Comparison has done this. Yesterday I was unhappy, today I'm happy. Yesterday I was not healthy, pain, today I'm all right. 'For God's sake, it mustn't happen again to us' - I'm afraid of tomorrow. This comparison between 'what is' with 'what has been' and 'what will be,' is the process of fear. Right? Now, can the mind be free of comparison?
1:01:27	Q:To be free of comparison you would have to be free of thought.
1:01:30	K:No, wait, don't complicate it, sir - look, investigate, see the problem involved in it. How difficult it is to be free of comparison, because we are brought up from childhood conditioned to compare. You are clever, I am not, you have better marks than I, you're the... I'm the lowest in the grade, you're the highest - grade A, B, C. You follow? We are conditioned from childhood to compare.
1:01:59	Q:And the comparison is conceptual.
1:02:02	K:No. First see how we compare, not what it does. This is a better car than that. You are more beautiful than I. This is a better cream for your face than this. Everything is comparison. Better writer, better critic, more money. You follow? So comparison. And one's whole life is based on this, it's conditioned by this. So I'm asking: fear exists as long as there is this comparative look, and comparative look exists as long as there is a measure. Right? Measure means, measure according to one's like and dislike - which is an illusion. You're getting all this? No, sir.
1:03:27	Q:Is it always according to like and dislike, Krishnaji? For instance, if I have to do a task, if I have to open a can of beans, if I fail to do it, it doesn't occur to me that I'm being stupid about it, that I'm doing something wrong. Is that comparison?
1:03:47	K:No, no. No, please, comparison - please stick to this thing. I compare two materials for a shirt. And I choose. I say, 'I like this better.' There is no conflict in that. There's no fear in that. But when you come along and say, 'That shirt looks terribly ugly on you, old boy,' then you say, 'By Jove…' - all the rest of it begins. Now, here I see very clearly - please, don't agree with me, this requires a great deal of penetration - that fear exists as long as there is comparative outlook, comparative observation between today, and yesterday, and tomorrow. So today is the measure of yesterday and tomorrow. Right? Right? Why does the mind have this measure? Because mind must be completely free of fear, otherwise it's a dead mind - right? - otherwise one lives in darkness, all the rest of it - fear. The moment there is fear one seeks security - in belief, in this or that, in neuroticism, in different ways. So fear is absolute blockage to life. And mind must be totally free of it. Now, I see comparison, so there is a measure. The measure is the permanent. Right? I'll vary it, I'll cut it into a long measure or short measure, but there will always be a measure. And that's the cause of fear. My measure may be an inch long and yours may be a yard long, but it is still a measure. Am I overpowering you? No, please, sir…
1:06:21	Q:Isn't it necessary to shift your attention away from the fear to the comparison?
1:06:27	K:Ah, no! Who is to shift it? Don't be caught in that again. I see the simple fact that as long as there is a comparative outlook there must be fear. Let's hold on to that. The comparative outlook being: today is important because today I feel well, there's no danger, I've still got my job, my wife is still with me, there is no war, there is no... a beautiful day, Sunday. [Laughs]
1:07:10	Q:Even if she left it's still a beautiful day.
1:07:14	K:Ah, no, no, no. Then the day becomes dark, I'm depressed, I'm lonely, I lack companionship, I've nobody to bully me or I bully - you know, the whole business of it. So, the measure is today. See, sir, what it's leading to. Right? The measure is the state of my mind of today. Today nobody has discovered the lie or the thing which I have done yesterday. They might discover it tomorrow, I'm afraid. So, today. Right, sir? Are you sure? Don't agree with this, please. Q:No, no, I'm not sure about this. Because if I really compare an action with something that I did yesterday, say, for instance, yesterday I gossiped about my neighbours and today I was in a situation where I could gossip but I didn't, so I learned.
1:08:40	K:Ah, wait, see what has happened. Yesterday you gossiped about your neighbour, and if the neighbour gets to hear of it, says, 'You are another…' - you are afraid of that.
1:08:58	Q:No, I'm not afraid, because today I learned that I did not have to gossip about my neighbours...
1:09:05	K:Yes, but you have done it. But you have done it.
1:09:08	Q:I did...
1:09:09	K:Therefore the neighbour hears it today, and therefore comes back to you and says, 'What the hell did you mean by it?' So you are afraid. You might have learned.
1:09:19	Q:No, I wouldn't be afraid if I were totally aware of what I had done yesterday - and that is comparing.
1:09:24	K:No. If you had... You have learnt not to gossip. But you have gossiped. That will hurt you. And you hope your neighbour won't hear of it.
1:09:37	Q:If you change your behaviour then maybe you're not afraid. If you really change your behaviour. If you change your behaviour why would you be afraid because you feel free?
1:09:48	K:Today I've changed my behaviour - right?
1:09:51	Q:Yes.
1:09:52	K:But I've done something wrong yesterday. I hit you yesterday.
1:09:55	Q:It didn't matter if you learned. If you learned that something...
1:09:58	K:Ah, no, no! Q:Sir, aren't we…
1:10:00	K:No, look, look what has happened.
1:10:05	Q:We're associating what we are right now with what we were before. There it is. And if you don't associate, you're through with it.
1:10:16	K:That is, if you say, 'I'm sorry, I've finished, I will never again gossip.'
1:10:23	Q:Well, yes... K:Wait, wait, wait. That is, to learn completely about gossip - you will never gossip. And when the lady comes back, or neighbour comes back, and says, 'What the devil do you mean by it?' I say, 'I'm awfully sorry I did it,' it's finished. There's no fear in that, if you have finished.
1:10:46	Q:But that's because what we saw and what we did yesterday, we think that's permanent. That's us today and it'll be us tomorrow, but that's not true. K:Yes, sir, yes, sir. But if I...
1:10:56	Q:Why isn't it true? Q:Because we're not... I'm not what I was yesterday...
1:10:59	Q:But if you have learnt, why isn't it true?
1:11:01	Q:If you're not a gossip, what I'm saying is coming back I'm saying you're a gossip.
1:11:04	Q:Your not listening. Q:Yes.
1:11:07	Q:No. Q:OK, go ahead - what?
1:11:11	Q:If you have learnt, why isn't it true?
1:11:16	Q:It is true what you were yesterday - the fact is there. But they're coming back at you saying, 'Look, you did this to me yesterday.' That 'you' is a spirit now, it's... that 'you' isn't...
1:11:27	K:Yes, sir, but you've taken my money away yesterday.
1:11:34	Q:OK, they can punish you, they can do despicable things.
1:11:37	K:No, wait. What we are saying is: fear - not they can do this or that - fear. Fear exists if I haven't finished with yesterday. And I cannot finish with yesterday as long as I'm comparing everything with it… with the present to yesterday. That's all. If I have finished with yesterday, all right, sir, what can you do? I've done it, I've done it. But as long as I have comparative evaluation there will be always fear.
1:12:27	Q:But what she was saying... K:Ah!
1:12:29	Q:No, wait. What you were saying when you were looking at... Like you can forget... The action was done. It was done. And we're trying to be secure, we're trying to say, if we forget about... if we don't gossip today no one will come back tomorrow and say that we didn't gossip ten years ago, when we were gossiping. There's no security in that. You can't say that somebody isn't going to come and punish you, or whatever you want, for... we don't know. They could come back, the neighbour could come back.
1:13:05	Q:You want security. You have learned nothing. You want some contracts and guarantees.
1:13:09	Q:No, I'm saying what you're saying. I'm saying we're worried about it - we don't know. The fact is we don't know if someone will come back because we've gossiped before.
1:13:20	Q:But it doesn't matter, if you have...
1:13:23	Q:That's right, it doesn't matter.
1:13:26	Q:Wonderful. [Inaudible]
1:13:46	K:That is, sir, to die to yesterday each day, then there's no comparison and therefore no fear. Right?
1:14:11	Q:And therefore love?
1:14:13	K:We'll come... Wait, sir, not 'therefore.' So, fear. We are discussing, we're trying to understand if it is... whether the mind can be completely rid of fear - not 'rid' - understand fear and once and for all never be afraid. Dying each day to every day - right? - so that there is no comparison.
1:15:12	Q:You once said that if you were in the process of a terminal - you know, dying - you will be watching to see whether the hidden fears arose.
1:15:24	K:We are doing this now - wait, sir. When there is no comparison at all - at all, except in technical things, not psychological things - where is fear then? So we go back to the word, to the verb 'to be.' The verb 'to be' has conditioned us so deeply - idea of achieving, becoming, reaching. Right? So, with that verb goes also comparative evaluation. I was yesterday unhappy, I am happy today, I hope to God I'll be happy tomorrow. And tomorrow is so uncertain, therefore I'm afraid. So I'm asking myself whether the mind can observe without comparison - myself with another, myself with - you know, comparison. You try it, do it, and you'll see that one can live completely that way. And therefore much more alive, more efficient, more direct, more energy.
1:17:44	Q:Sir, may I cite a personal experience here on this point? I have tried it, and I find that the stumbling block is technological work, because there seems to come a conflict between non-comparison, non-bringing-up of yesterday, just awareness of now - in a trite term - and having to work in a symbolic sort of job. It seems that I can't do them together - I either have to just be inefficient in work or I have to live a kind of schizoid existence - one now, one now.
1:18:25	K:No, sir, we said this. We go back to the same problem. We said the mind that has no fear can work in the technological field efficiently because it's an intelligent mind. No? Now - please, go on, sirs - now, how deeply is this comparison rooted? As we come back to the same problem. What, sir?
1:19:10	Q:Something in me tells me to survive.
1:19:13	K:Is survival matter of comparison?
1:19:16	Q:I think so. I think they are related. I think if I don't have this command to survive, I have no fear.
1:19:25	K:Is survival, sir - is survival a matter of comparison?
1:19:28	Q:I think the mind thinks that way.
1:19:31	K:Please just look at it. I survive because I compare?
1:19:37	Q:I think I compare because I need to, to survive. It goes with to survive.
1:19:47	K:To survive one must compare?
1:19:50	Q:But my mind doesn't think in the physical world, technical world... [inaudible]
1:19:56	K:Ah, that's a different thing.
1:19:57	Q:OK, but on top of that I've created an image of myself, my ego, whatever, and I take the same processes that worked out here and I make them work up here, and I say, I have to protect this just like I do my body, and therefore I compare, make images, and so forth.
1:20:09	K:Therefore you're living in everlasting fear.
1:20:12	Q:That's right, but they seem to be piled on top...
1:20:14	K:Obviously, sir, obviously. The same mechanism is carried over.
1:20:17	Q:Right.
1:20:26	K:Is survival, I mean, comparison necessary to survive? Or because we have compared, and thinking that it is necessary to survive, using comparison as survival has brought about danger of non-survival. America is stronger than Russia, India is stronger than some other beastly little country, and so on - divide, divide, divide, which is destroying us. The very demand for survival through comparison - I'm stronger than you - is destroying us. Therefore it is not giving us survival. No, no. It's not helping us to survive.
1:21:36	Q:I think he's talking about success, as compared with survival.
1:21:40	K:Ah, success - that's another one of those awful words.
1:21:47	Q:I think I would have no fear at all if something didn't tell me to survive.
1:21:53	K:You mean, survival you are equating with success, are you, sir?
1:21:58	Q:No, success is a separate issue for me, but something says survive, drive - something within.
1:22:06	K:What do you mean survive? You are surviving.
1:22:08	Q:Yes. And that's the origin of my fear. If I were not afraid to die, I would have no other fears at all.
1:22:16	K:Wait, sir, look - afraid to die. Q:Yes.
1:22:19	K:What does that mean? You are living. Tomorrow something may happen and you will die. Not you, I mean, of course. Therefore you are afraid, which means compare. Sir, it's so…
1:22:37	Q:Yes.
1:22:40	K:So can the mind observe without comparison? Sir, do it and you'll see it. Which means no hero, no principle, no formula, no ideal. You follow, sir? No tomorrow. Try it, you'll see. Do it, you'll see what extraordinary thing, it happens - no factor of comparison. Therefore if there is no comparison, what is evil and good? Oh, mustn't enter into that, that's too difficult. You follow, sir? What is virtue? We only know virtue through comparison. Right? If the mind is free of comparison altogether, therefore fear, what is virtue? Ah!
1:24:30	Q:I have a question and I'm not sure how to ask it clearly. I'm wondering if one can innocently approach a technical problem, that is if one may have a clear mind without comparison.
1:24:48	K:Then you are learning about the technical thing each day that you're doing it.
1:24:51	Q:Yes, but now let's say, here's a mushroom, and I'll either eat it or I won't eat it. Now I have to compare.
1:25:01	K:Sir, we said that. Of course, otherwise you'll be killed.
1:25:04	Q:Right, right. So at the technical level I can... K:We said that. Absolutely, I must compare, otherwise I'll be...
1:25:14	Q:You have to know a mile is bigger than a yard.
1:25:16	K:No, no, this is very interesting. If there were virtue at all, in the ordinary accepted sense of that word, when there is no fear and therefore no comparison, or rather, when there is no comparison, therefore no fear.
1:25:43	Q:No good or bad at all. K:No, don't… No, don't... There is obviously good. I mean, you see, the moment you... We'll meet again Sunday… next Saturday, and thrash this out. No, we mustn't leave it. We must go into this, whether fear, comparison, so deeply rooted, is it... To expose it completely and be free of it. Otherwise fear must exist. Does that exposure take place through dreams, with all the complications of dreams, and the analysis of dreams - though the analysis may take place while you're dreaming. All that implies gradualness and therefore time, and therefore fear, not achieving. Yes, sir! Have you got it? So, is understanding a matter of time? Or seeing the truth or the falseness of fear, comparison, seeing it, the truth of it, the understanding of it, is it a matter of time? If I understand it, I've understood the whole structure of the unconscious.
1:28:19	Oh, we'd better stop. Right? Sorry.