Krishnamurti Subtitles home


OJ74D1 - Thinking, relationship and fear
Ojai, California - 31 March 1974
Public Discussion 1



0:00 This is J. Krishnamurti’s first public discussion in Ojai, California, 1974.
0:10 Krishnamurti: This is a kind of discussion which is not a controversy but, rather, a conversation between people about serious matters.
0:43 And perhaps this morning we could take a particular subject and go into it pretty… in detail and thoroughly, instead of my talking.
1:14 Perhaps you would take a particular problem or an issue and explore it together.
1:33 This exploration of a problem is a serious matter; it is not a thing of entertainment, and it requires attention, care and a kind of affection which doesn’t… which doesn’t want to hurt or try to be clever or try to convince, but rather investigate an issue which you think is important.
2:33 So what do we discuss or explore or investigate this morning?
2:40 Yes, sir? Questioner: Yes, sir, how am I to view the weakness of my aspiration to understand the truth?
2:50 K: I beg your pardon?
2:51 Q: How am I to deal with my weakness of my aspiration to understand the truth?
2:54 K: How am I to deal with my weakness that comes in the way of understanding the truth – is that it, sir?
3:21 I wonder what you call weakness.
3:30 Is it a contradiction? Is it an opposing desire – a something you want to do and you have not the energy or the capacity or the interest to do it thoroughly?
3:51 Is that it?
4:01 I wonder why we call it a weakness.
4:10 Is it rather that we don’t see very clearly?
4:21 Is it rather that we are confused and therefore we don’t see in all clarity the issue?
4:41 We are so, unfortunately, educated to live in contradiction, in conflict, and we accept that as the way of life, both outwardly and inwardly.
5:12 Politically, in the world of business, in the world of art or science, or in the world of religion there is this everlasting duality and the conflict – one is weak, one must be strong; one is not clear, one must become clear; one doesn’t understand and one must understand.
5:42 This conflict of the opposites is part of our education.
5:53 And is there an opposite? There obviously… there is a night and day, dark and light, man/woman, and so on, tall/short, but we are talking of a psychological opposite.
6:19 Is there such thing at all? This is what we are going to investigate together.
6:37 One is – what? – envious and we are educated to cultivate the opposite.
6:54 If one is cowardly, one is… one strives to be courageous, and so on.
7:02 Now I am asking, is there an opposite at all?
7:09 Or there is only the fact, and not being able to understand that fact we escape into its opposite, and therefore create a conflict.
7:32 That is, if I am weak, if one is weak, why should we create the opposite of it?
7:49 What does it mean to be weak? To remain with that and not go into the opposite.
8:09 You understand, sir? To remain with ‘what is’ rather than ‘what should be.’ Just let me finish.
8:23 Can the mind remain with ‘what is’? Take for example: violence is becoming more and more prevalent throughout the world, violence in every form.
8:58 That is a fact. And why should we create or imagine or project a non-violence?
9:10 You understand my question, sir?
9:18 If we do not, then there is only violence.
9:25 Now, can we look at that violence, understand it and go beyond it?
9:33 That is the problem, not how to cultivate non-violence. The non-violence is non-fact, is really a form of escape from ‘what is’.
9:52 Let me finish, sir. So can we remain with violence, understand it?
10:03 Now, why are human beings violent?
10:10 Why is one violent? And what is the meaning of violence? Not only the obvious physical violence of hitting another, throwing a bomb, killing another, killing an animal or whatever you wish – that is one form of violence.
10:34 There is many varieties of psychological violence.
10:43 So, in understanding violence one has to explore the nature and the structure of violence.
10:57 Is not ambition violence?
11:10 Is not competition violence?
11:17 Is not conformity violence? Imitation. If that is so, can the mind live actually not theoretically in daily life without conformity, without ambition.
11:52 That is the real problem, not how to become non-violent.
12:04 So one has to understand why the mind conforms, imitates.
12:21 Is it because in imitation it feels secure? Please, we are investigating together, we are sharing this together. It isn’t just you listen to the speaker, accept or deny, but rather we are sharing this problem together, and so you must be equally passionately be interested in it, otherwise you can’t share anything.
12:55 So can you live without conformity?
13:04 And what does that mean, not to conform?
13:14 Does it mean freedom? Right? And what does freedom mean? To do what one wishes – is that freedom?
13:37 To be permissive, to allow anything? So, in understanding violence, one has to inquire, go into this question of conformity, tradition and the desire to be psychologically secure.
14:11 All that is implied in violence. And much more: there is not only physical violence, there is sexual violence, violence in every form in which we are educated – that’s our violent society.
14:37 So can one, not theoretically or intellectually or verbally but actually live a life in which there is no conformity psychologically, inwardly?
14:55 Go on, sir, examine it, find out it if you can.
15:06 Otherwise, talking of freedom means nothing.
15:29 Yes, sir?
15:31 Q: Why do we separate ourselves? Why do we want to be secure…? (inaudible) K: Why do we want to be secure.
15:46 It is fairly simple isn’t it?
16:00 If you have not physical security, assuring of food, clothes and shelter, you could not survive.
16:20 And need we have psychological security?
16:32 We need to have physical security, otherwise you and I wouldn’t be here, but need we have psychological security, which expresses itself in so many ways – dependency, attachment to an idea, to a person, to a concept, to a belief, to an image, and security in tradition.
17:20 Sir, look at it all – all that is involved in security.
17:27 Yes, madame?
17:31 Q: Could you explain how the conformity leads to violence, how it progresses to be violence?
17:54 K: How conformity leads to violence – isn’t that it?
18:04 When you conform what takes place? Psychologically what is taking place? I conform to a pattern, to a tradition, to a particular belief, to what others have said – why?
18:32 Because psychologically I am afraid to stand alone. Right? Psychologically I am… one is incapable of understanding the whole problems of existence, and so one depends on others, on a guru, or on some psychological belief, conclusions, various propagandistic assertions.
19:20 So, when you depend what takes place?
19:30 Then there is attachment, isn’t there? When there is attachment there is fear of losing, and when you do lose you become violent.
19:50 That is, you’re jealous, angry, hating – all that follows when there is this urge to conform.
20:05 Through conformity both political and religious and dictatorships have controlled man, and when there is the assertion of freedom then that freedom expresses itself in reaction which becomes violent, and so on.
20:39 The problem really is, can the mind, can one actually, not theoretically, live a life without conformity?
20:58 That requires a great deal of attention, a great seriousness.
21:07 But I am afraid more and more in this country entertainment is becoming a means of escape from reality.
21:23 Q: (Inaudible) K: I can hear, sir, I can hear.
22:05 Q: Not quite four months ago I lost a dear friend who used regularly to come to your talks and discussions here and in Switzerland and who you know very well.
22:25 As I watched her dying, and so her pain and her body deteriorating and fading away slowly, I realised that the thinker, during sleep and at time of death, steps out of the physical body and leaves the physical body, physical frame far behind to be burnt to ashes.
22:33 But I also realised that it is the same country and not step out of the thinker quite easily – it is the same page. Whatever the thinker tries to do and how much he makes effort, to see he cannot step out of himself because we are the thinker.
22:42 K: Sir, are you, if I may interrupt you…
22:46 Q: My question has not been asked.
22:49 K: Come to the point, sir, because...
22:52 Q: We never will be free… (inaudible) …must be a journey beyond the thinker for freedom to be.
23:00 Now my questions are: if all of the thinker is made up out of choice, and this observer and observed being one, it is end of our choice and is perhaps…
23:11 K: I don’t quite understand your question, sir.
23:14 Q: It is all of the thinker.
23:17 K: Is all thinking…
23:19 Q: Is all of the thinker made up out of choice?
23:23 K: Is all thinking…
23:24 Q: Is the thinker made up out of choice? Is he composed of choice, is he…?
23:33 K: All right, sir, I’ve got the question.
23:42 Q: And the observer and observed being one is the end of all choice.
23:55 And this…
23:56 K: One question at a time, sir. (Laughter) Q: And choiceless awareness perhaps is the stepping out of the thinker, or is the end of the thinker, so intelligence can operate through thinking...
24:10 K: Right, sir. What is the thinker; and you cannot understand what the thinker is without understanding what thought is – right, sir?
24:31 Is the thinker separate from thought?
24:39 Is there thought without the thinker?
24:50 So what is thinking? Please, it is very easy to ask questions, but to go to the very end of that question, attentively, consecutively, deeply, and try to understand it so that one lives that way, not just talk about it, becomes really very important.
25:33 Unless you really want to go into it, one should really… one should ask questions so that you share it, not merely wait for an answer.
25:44 Now, the questioner says, what is the thinker, and is the thinker separate from the observer and the observed, and is the thinker… is the ending of life, ending of choice, which is the same thing.
26:23 Now, let’s proceed. Now, what is thinking? Please, I ask you, if I may, what is thinking?
26:35 You all think.
26:42 All our activities are based on thinking. Our whole world – business, science, religion – is based on thought, obviously.
27:03 Wouldn’t you say so?
27:11 The images in the temples, in the churches and so on are based on thought.
27:21 The whole religious structure is based on thought.
27:28 So unless one goes into this question very, very deeply, merely asking what is the thinker, that has very little meaning.
27:42 So what is thought? Is it part of knowledge? Is it the outcome of experience? Is it memory stored up in the brain?
28:05 Thought is the response of memory.
28:15 Right? If you had no memory you would have no thought. Are we sharing this?
28:30 If I didn’t know English language I wouldn’t be able to communicate in English.
28:40 That English language has been stored up in the brain cells and they respond as thought expressing in English words.
28:55 Right? That is simple. Is that… can we proceed? So, thought is the response of memory. Memory is the accumulated knowledge, experience, whether the experience is personal, collective or – and so on, so on.
29:28 Now, is the thinker separate from the thought, or has the thought created the thinker?
29:44 Come on, sirs.
29:52 Obviously thought has created the thinker.
29:56 Q: The thinker is an illusion.
30:04 K: Wait. Don’t call it illusion. We are dealing with… Go into it step by step. There is thought and there is the thinker – we say so.
30:29 I am asking, is the thinker separate from thought?
30:34 Q: I would agree that the thinker is not separate from thought, but I would question about thinking being a response of memory.
31:00 Memory is very personal. If one man’s experiences are different from another man’s experience, his thinking is unique.
31:03 K: Sir, is thinking personal?
31:04 Q: If memory is personal.
31:05 K: Is it personal?
31:07 Q: What one man says to you…
31:10 K: No, look at it, sir. There is collective thinking – you are all Americans, all catholic, protestant, scientist – there is collective thinking as well as personal thinking.
31:36 So, if there is no thought there is no thinker – obvious.
31:48 And thought by its very nature and structure is divisive.
32:05 We said, thought has created… the whole movement of modern… of life, modern or ancient, is based on thinking.
32:20 This thought is divisive – you are American, somebody else is Russian, somebody else is German, one is Catholic, Protestant, Hindu, Buddhist and so on – right? – the artist, the scientist, the nationalist – based on thinking.
32:47 Right? So, thought is divisive – it brings about fragmentation.
33:00 No? And our whole life is based on thought and therefore our life is fragmented.
33:16 And this fragmentation… in this fragmentation thought says, ‘I prefer that to that fragment.’ ‘I prefer the white fragment to the black fragment,’ ‘I prefer this guru to that guru,’ and so on and on and on.
33:49 So thought is divisive, is… the movement of thought brings about fragmentation – the ‘me’ and the ‘not me’, the ‘we’ and ‘they’, the Germans, the Russians, the Catholics, the protestants, the Muslim.
34:28 And thought divides. And thought in dividing brings about choice.
34:36 ‘I choose,’ and we think because one has the capacity to choose, one is free.
34:56 And what is the necessity of choice? Do you choose when you see something very clearly? Come on, sir.
35:14 Obviously not. So, choice exists only when there is confusion, and where there is confusion there is no freedom.
35:30 So, thought has divided as the observer and the observed.
35:45 You see, sir, this becomes really very complex and very interesting, whether human mind can live without conflict.
36:15 Because we live in conflict, and to find out whether a mind can… whether human life can be carried on without a single inward conflict.
36:43 And that can only take place when there is… the observer is not different from the observed.
36:53 That is, the observation of a tree: is the observer different from the tree?
37:06 Of course, but is the observer of greed different from the fact of greed?
37:18 You understand all these things? I wonder…
37:23 Q: What happens when that man tries to come into relationship, not with the tree but with another person?
37:35 Why is it so difficult to relate to other people lovingly?
37:38 K: Why is it so difficult to relate with other people, to be in relation with others. With the tree it is fairly simple because the tree doesn’t contradict you. (Laughter) Q: (Inaudible) K: The tree doesn’t say, ‘What a fool you are!’ but my wife or my husband, my girl or whatever it is says, ‘Don’t be an ass.’ She contradicts me.
38:11 But we haven’t come to that question yet till we have finished the gentleman’s question, which is, can there be a life, intelligent, alert, capable, a life in which there is no conflict whatsoever?
38:39 But we are unfortunately educated to accept conflict – religiously, socially, economically, in every way.
38:58 And where there is conflict there must be violence. So to understand conflict and to go beyond it one has to understand the division which thought creates as the observer and the observed.
39:23 I observe you and you observe me.
39:30 In that observation there is a division based on the image you have about the speaker and if the speaker has an image about you.
39:43 Q: Sir, why cannot that observation remain without the division?
39:54 K: Why can’t there be an observation without division?
40:04 Can you observe anything without division?
40:12 Have you tried to observe something – your neighbour, your wife, your children, the birds or the trees and the lovely mountains, without division?
40:21 Q: Some say that the observer and the observed are the same.
40:30 K: That is a theory, sir. Can you say to your dominant or wife or husband, say, ‘We are both the same’?
40:48 That brings up that question of that lady who says, ‘Why is relationship so difficult with human beings?’ It is all related to your question, sir.
41:01 Q: To find out how we are the same. Perhaps you can see how we are the same though they may look different to the thought.
41:09 K: I will show it to you in a minute, sir – the speaker will go into this question. That is, why has relationship with each other become so enormously difficult?
41:35 What is relationship? Are we related to anybody at all?
41:47 We may call them wife, husband, girl, boy and all that, but are we actually related to somebody?
42:00 And what does relationship mean? To be related, which means surely, doesn’t it, to be in complete contact with another, not sexually or physically but totally.
42:27 Can a human being, related to another completely, if that human being has his own particular idiosyncrasy, his own belief, his own ambitions, his selfish motives, can he be related to another?
42:56 Come on, sir, this is your life. If I have an image about you, can I be related to you?
43:06 Q: Yes.
43:08 K: Yes?
43:10 Q: (Inaudible) …related through our images to each other.
43:18 We are related through our images to each other.
43:26 K: I am afraid we have not understood each other.
43:36 Q: I am thinking that we are related because we do retain images of each other.
43:45 K: We are related to each other because we are…?
43:47 Q: Related through those images.
43:49 K: Now, wait, just wait. Is that relationship? What is an image? I have… you have created an image about your friend.
44:04 Your friend has said something to you which is pleasurable, which is flattering, or which hurts, or which insults, and you make an image about him.
44:21 Right? And he has an image about you. Those two images have relationship, have they?
44:34 Q: Yes.
44:35 K: Don’t… look at it, sir, look at it. We said first, what is relationship? Can an image, which is projected by thought, can that have relationship with another thought, another image?
45:02 Relationship means not to have any image so that you and another are completely related.
45:13 Q: But why is one afraid to be so related?
45:16 K: Just, look at it, sir – we will come to that – just see it first.
45:24 As long as one has an image about another, you are not related.
45:35 If you are a protestant, which is the image you have about religion and so on, so on, and another is a catholic with his images, are you related?
45:51 Obviously not.
45:58 If you are surrounding yourself with formulas, concepts, another has his own concepts and formulas – you are not related.
46:15 Q: (Inaudible) …is that the only way relationships can…?
46:23 K: No, sir, first see, sir, the difficulty. (Laughs) As long as you have an image about somebody you are not related to that person.
46:39 The image is created by thought, and therefore that question arises, is thought love?
46:50 Come on, sirs. You think images have relationship.
47:03 Is thought the product of love? Does love come into being through thought?
47:11 Q: (Inaudible) K: Sir, you so easily agree, don’t you?
47:24 So can the mind be free of an image in relationship?
47:30 Q: Why shouldn’t love come from each other? Why can’t they exist together?
47:37 K: Sir, that’s one of our problems. Can the Arab and the Jew live together? We can sit here and say they should.
47:49 Q: People have… (inaudible) …by your position that love and thought do not come from each other.
48:02 K: You are talking theoretically, and theories have no place when you are dealing with actuality.
48:13 Q: Is actuality separate from theory?
48:24 K: We are not separate from fears – is that it?
48:29 Q: Is it actuality separate from the theory of it?
48:37 From the theorising?
48:39 K: The word – word is not the thing – right? – the word tree is not the actual tree.
48:50 Right? And you have an image about somebody, and that somebody is not the image.
49:03 Oh, come on, sirs, what…?
49:10 So, can the mind be free of image in relationship?
49:19 You say something to me which is flattering.
49:31 Those words and the reaction to those words create the image that you are my friend.
49:40 And somebody insults me – the word and the feeling, that image is created you are not my friend.
49:50 This happens all the time. So can you be free at the moment, free of the image, whether it is flattery or insult?
50:04 Is that possible?
50:11 And you will find it is possible only when you are really attentive at the moment of expression, or the moment of that flattery or insult.
50:23 When you are totally aware, watching.
50:24 Q: I think it is very simple, Krishnamurti. When somebody says to me, and I chop that out of the same conclusion, he wants to insult me or he wants to flatter me.
50:36 When I do not conclude anything and I just… (inaudible) K: That is possible – then it’s all right.
50:50 Do we do this?
50:51 Q: It seems to me we need to be aware – to get back to the original point – we fall asleep all the time; we are only aware every now and then.
51:07 K: That is, you are saying, is it possible to be attentive all the time?
51:15 Is that it?
51:17 Q: I am not setting that up as an ideal.
51:26 K: No, sir. Look, you have to understand now, again, what is attention and what is inattention?
51:34 Right? What is attention? Is attention something to be cultivated?
51:49 Can you practice attention?
51:57 Look at it. When you practice attention, who is the entity that is practicing attention?
52:06 Come on, sirs, move.
52:16 Is the entity who says, ‘I must be attentive and therefore I am going to practice it, watch, watch, watch, watch, train, train,’ is that entity essentially attentive?
52:38 Or he is putting on a mask of attention.
52:43 Q: (Inaudible) K: No, no, you see, please, what is attention?
52:56 Is it concentration? Yes, sir?
52:58 Q: The ‘I’ cannot deliberately be attentive. I see this but I also see that I am always falling sleep, that’s a fact.
53:04 K: The gentleman says, ‘I am always falling asleep.’ Then fall asleep.
53:22 (Laughter) No, no, no, please see it. If you fall asleep, be aware that you are falling asleep.
53:36 Then in that there is attention.
53:43 When I know I am not attentive, that very knowing is attention.
53:50 Oh, for the…
53:52 Q: But suppose I don’t know it.
53:56 K: Then go to sleep! (Laughter) Q: Could you go back to what you said about not planting or cultivating?
54:15 Could you go back to what you said about not planting, not cultivating, when you said, is attention concentration?
54:19 K: No, is attention to be cultivated?
54:24 Q: (Inaudible) …the thought is attention.
54:35 K: No, what does that word mean, first of all?
54:42 Not… let us stick to the meaning according to dictionary what that word means.
54:53 It means to attend, to pay attention, to give your mind, your heart to something, to observe completely, to listen totally, to listen to another with your heart, with your mind, with everything you have is to attend.
55:21 That is what it means. Now, do we attend?
55:34 We never do. Do you listen to another so totally – to your wife, to your husband, to anybody?
55:49 Or do you listen very casually? Which is inattention. Now, when you know you are not paying complete attention, know, be aware that you are not paying complete attention, that awareness is attention.
56:10 Q: But what is the opposite of that?
56:12 K: Opposite of what, sir?
56:14 Q: You said, you know that you are not paying attention then you are now aware.
56:29 Well, am I not aware right now that I am paying attention to what you are saying?
56:34 K: Are you aware that you are attentive to what the speaker is saying? Are you aware?
56:41 Q: Yes.
56:42 K: Wait, sir! What is the speaker saying? He is saying, attention means giving your mind and your heart to the words, to the meaning of the words, to the content of that which is being said, so that you are not agreeing or disagreeing but listening totally.
57:17 Listening, that’s what it means to be attentive.
57:23 Q: But I haven’t had an image of you. You were talking about the thought creating the image. I don’t see in myself placing an image of you.
57:32 K: No, but you have… you will have an image if I say something hard about you.
57:38 Q: I see.
57:41 K: If I say something cruel about you, naturally you will have an image about me, or pleasant.
57:53 Yes, sir?
57:58 Q: What is intuition?
58:01 K: What is intuition. I think that word is a dangerous word because most people say we have intuitions, which is their own wishes.
58:12 We…
58:13 Q: (Inaudible) …this total attention is not the purpose for the speaker so when the speaker speaks it will mean the same to me as it means to you.
58:39 K: I am afraid I don’t understand you.
58:46 Be brief, sir.
58:48 Q: I don’t know if I can, it’s very hard.
58:59 By giving your total attention…
59:04 K: Sir, to see something clearly you have to look very closely, haven’t you?
59:16 To hear a phrase, a statement and not draw a conclusion from that statement, is to listen to that statement, isn’t it?
59:32 I don’t think you are understanding what I am talking about.
59:39 Yes, sir?
59:40 Q: What is a problem?
59:41 K: What is a problem. I don’t know! (Laughter) What is a problem? Have you have problem? No?
59:54 Q: Except that one.
59:58 K: You have no problem.
1:00:00 Q: I’d like to define ‘problem’.
1:00:04 K: Oh, definition of a problem is your problem. Is that it, sir? (Laughter) Q: He wants a definition of the real problem and the problem is that we don’t have a solution. When we have something and we do not know the solution then it is a problem.
1:00:26 When we know how to solve it then it is not a problem any more.
1:00:30 K: Sir, sir, look. Human beings live in problems. They are surrounded with problems – economic problems, political problems, problems of corruption of politicians, one’s own corruptions; one lives with one’s own angers, despairs, loneliness, sorrow – that is all a problem.
1:01:04 How to go beyond it, and when the mind is not capable to go beyond these problems, these things, it becomes a problem.
1:01:17 And all of… most people have these problems. Merely theorising, say we should not have, does not solve the problems.
1:01:25 Q: I thought that intuition came from the silent mind, in the opening of the heart, and I wondered if you could distinguish intuition from what you say of intelligence.
1:01:42 K: No, sir, just a minute. Open mind and an open heart and silence, out of that silence comes intuition – are you saying that?
1:02:02 Q: That was my understanding. I was asking for you to clarify.
1:02:07 K: Now, what do you mean by an open mind?
1:02:13 Q: One that has no images.
1:02:21 K: When the mind is occupied it is not an open mind, is it?
1:02:29 Whether it is occupied with god or with whisky or with sex, it is not occupied, it is not a silent mind, is it?
1:02:41 Is your mind occupied?
1:02:50 With meditation, with god knows what, if it is occupied it is not a silent mind.
1:02:59 And why is the mind occupied?
1:03:09 And if it is not occupied, what would happen? Then there is fear, isn’t there? Of going to sleep, of not achieving, not becoming, not doing something. You follow? So the mind, out of fear, wants to be occupied with something. That is one of the factors. Right? So one has to go into the question of fear. Can the mind be free of fear? Sirs, you...
1:03:51 Q: When you are asleep the mind is silent.
1:03:57 K: When you are asleep the mind is silent. Is it?
1:04:03 Q: No.
1:04:04 K: You have dreams, don’t you?
1:04:05 Q: (Inaudible) …from your fears, the dreams are images that are coming through because of the silence. You don’t dream when you are awake.
1:04:13 K: Sir, look, can we take this problem, this question of fear, and go into it and see if the mind can be free of fear?
1:04:49 Can you give your attention, your care, your powers of investigation, not verbally but actually go into this question of fear?
1:05:02 Because that is what is dominating the world. Fear of physical security. Right? Fear, as in this country, and every other country is following this country unfortunately; money has become an immense problem.
1:05:26 Right? Money and sex. And deprive people of money and sex, they get very frightened.
1:05:42 So it is a question which must be understood, and find out for yourself whether the mind, whether one can live in this mad, stupid, confused world without fear.
1:06:01 Go on, sir, this is an immense problem.
1:06:11 There is unconscious fears and conscious fears.
1:06:21 Are you interested in going into this? Audience: Yes.
1:06:26 K: If you are, you are going to share with it, share.
1:06:36 That is, partake in the investigation, go with the speaker to find out for yourself whether the mind can be free of this question of fear.
1:06:55 So there are conscious as well as unconscious fears – fear of death, fear of loneliness, fear of not succeeding in this world, fear of what people might say, fear of not fulfilling, not becoming, not being this or that, dozens and dozens of fears one has, conscious as well as unconscious fears.
1:07:39 Right? Conscious fears can be dealt with, unless you become neurotic about the conscious fears, which most people do, because they do not know how to solve the conscious fears, which we will come to presently.
1:08:04 There are all the unconscious fears – the racial fears, the hidden fears of which one is unaware, and the question from that is: can the unconscious deeply hidden fears be exposed?
1:08:40 You are following all this? Can they be exposed so that you can look… the mind can observe them?
1:08:54 Are they to be exposed through analysis? That is, analysis, through analyzing each fear.
1:09:20 So one must understand what is analysis.
1:09:29 You are following? What is analysis? And analysis implies the analyzer and the analyzed, doesn’t it?
1:09:40 Are you following all this? Does it interest you?
1:09:44 A: Yes.
1:09:45 K: I hope so, for your own sake. Now, who is the analyzer? Is the analyzer different from the analyzed?
1:10:07 And if he is different, what is he analyzing? And who is he that is capable of analyzing? Right? That is one question in analysis.
1:10:25 In analysis there is implied time – right? – analyzing, analyzing, analyzing, and each analysis must be totally complete otherwise if there is any misunderstanding in analysis, you carry over that misunderstanding to the next analysis.
1:10:48 Right? Oh, come on. So, in all that process there is an avoidance of action – right? – which means analysis is a form of paralysis.
1:11:18 Q: But only an inability to penetrate. It is not divorced from action, it is with… it’s action itself…
1:11:25 K: You haven’t listened, sir. You haven’t listened to what the speaker has said. My goodness.
1:11:37 Q: But you separate analysis from synthesis…
1:11:38 K: Sir, I am not separating analysis from synthesis, I am only looking at this process of analyzing fear.
1:11:47 Q: But you cannot look at analysis without looking at synthesis at the same time. You are making an unnatural separation.
1:11:54 K: Sir, don’t you... (Pause) (Laughter) Historical analysis, or past history, analysis of one’s behaviour, analysis of animals’ behaviour, from which one hopes to understand human behaviour, analysis in so many different forms, and we are talking about analysis of fear.
1:12:35 And who is the analyzer of fear? Is not the analyzer himself fear?
1:12:43 Q: The analyzer…
1:12:45 K: Please, listen, sir. Is not the analyzer who is analyzing fear, is he not part of that fear?
1:12:56 Q: He is the left foot…
1:12:57 K: Please...
1:12:58 Q: …but he’s got a right foot, which is synthesizing also, which he may not be conscious of.
1:13:06 K: You are… Sir, synthesis implies antithesis. Thesis, antithesis, synthesis.
1:13:21 We are saying… we are only looking at thesis, which is analyzing. We are not saying antithesis to analysis.
1:13:33 So, analysis implies a form of paralyzing oneself – which is what is happening.
1:13:49 We have examined corruption, politically, religiously, in every way in this world we have analyzed, explained violence, and we do nothing about it.
1:14:03 Q: Yes.
1:14:06 K: So, can there be freedom from fear through analysis?
1:14:15 Or is there a different approach to this question altogether?
1:14:26 Q: Are there not some vital insights gained through that process?
1:14:27 K: Of course.
1:14:28 Q: That person’s neurotic behaviour…
1:14:37 K: Of course there are insights through analysis, but if action doesn’t proceed from inside, what is the point of having insight?
1:15:01 I can have an insight into violence but I am still violent.
1:15:05 Q: Why? I know that is very common – why is that?
1:15:12 K: Because my insight hasn’t… my insight is not real. It is a verbal insight.
1:15:19 Q: (Inaudible) K: I am pointing it out to you, madame, you just... (laughs) So there is this question of fear, which is physical security in a world that is so totally disorganized, in a world divided by nationalities which brings about wars, economic as well as physical wars, and therefore disorder, and therefore no security.
1:16:09 And fear of insecurity, fear of believing in something which you have been told – that there is god, no god, that there is a saviour, this and ten different things.
1:16:35 Right? So there are multiplications of fear. Are you going to deal all these fears one by one – fear of public opinion, fear of death, fear of your losing somebody, fear of loneliness, fear of losing a job, and so on and on and on – are you going to deal all these fears one by one, or are you going to go to the root of it?
1:17:11 Go on, sir, you have to think it out, you can’t...
1:17:18 Q: Sir, I seem quite conscious of my fears.
1:17:33 I don’t have to analyze to know that I am afraid. It seems that I have been for some time now and, well, I am still afraid.
1:17:41 K: One may be conscious of one’s fears.
1:17:43 Q: There’s only on fear.
1:17:45 K: I am asking you, sir – please listen – I am asking you, sir, whether you investigate, analyze, explore each fear or do you go to the very root of fear?
1:18:09 What is fear? When are you aware of fear? When there is danger. Right? No? Oh, come on, sir. Danger of… Physical danger, danger of public opinion, that you might be killed, might lose your job.
1:18:40 So, fear exists where there is danger, inwardly as well as outwardly.
1:18:50 Come on, sir.
1:18:55 Q: Sir, I find that fear in me has surfaced, especially the psychological fears.
1:19:05 The only glimpse of… the only glimpsing experience of freedom from it that I have ever had has come completely unexpectedly, as if just by grace, in a flash.
1:19:11 K: Yes, sir.
1:19:12 Q: But I have never been able to understand…
1:19:21 K: You will see it in a minute, sir. Sir, unless you follow or understand and keep up with the speaker – it is no good repeating this thing over and over again.
1:19:33 Is it possible to uproot fear at the very foundation, you understand, not bit by bit?
1:19:57 Psychological danger exists in different forms.
1:20:04 When you depend on another psychologically there must be fear, isn’t there?
1:20:13 Are you following, sir? Do you depend on somebody psychologically?
1:20:26 Why do you depend on another? Because in your self you are lonely, in yourself you feel you will be lost without your guru, without your priest, without your leader.
1:20:48 So you depend. So where there is dependency there must inevitably be fear.
1:20:59 Right? That is a law. Now, will you find out for yourself whether you are dependent on somebody?
1:21:17 Not on the milkman and postman and all that – inwardly.
1:21:25 Are you dependent? Of course – on somebody or on some idea or on some ideology or on some conclusion.
1:21:45 The conclusion that you are an American or that you are a catholic or that you are a protestant or a communist, that gives you great comfort, doesn’t it, to depend.
1:22:03 And when that is questioned you get angry, you get frightened and then you become violent.
1:22:15 So can the mind be free of dependency, inwardly?
1:22:23 Which means to be able to stand alone. Go on, sirs.
1:22:36 Q: Is fear a response to memory also?
1:22:39 K: A certain form, of course, naturally.
1:22:44 Q: Isn’t that very similar to the answer to the first question that you said about overcoming weakness…
1:22:50 K: That is part of… All things are interrelated, naturally.
1:22:58 Q: Would that be the way to overcome dependency?
1:23:01 K: No, don’t… If you overcome dependence, who is conqueror?
1:23:13 Who is the entity that says, ‘I must overcome dependence’?
1:23:20 But if you observe, look at dependency, not say, ‘I must overcome it, I must get beyond it,’ but just observe it.
1:23:40 Then you will see… Well, you will find out for yourself you’re dependent on a conclusion.
1:23:59 It may be your conclusion is that there is a god.
1:24:08 That is your conclusion, and on that conclusion you depend – that there is a saviour, and you depend on that.
1:24:24 And when that is questioned you get angry, which is a reaction to fear.
1:24:35 So you begin. So you say, now why do I depend?
1:24:48 Is it possible to live without a single concept?
1:24:57 Is it possible to live without depending on concept? And why does the mind depend on concept?
1:25:10 Because it feels secure. When that security is shaken then it gets frightened, and out of that fear it reacts in various forms – neurotically, violently and so on.
1:25:33 Look, one depends because one… in oneself one is totally alone, lonely.
1:25:44 Right? One belongs to the herd; one is afraid to stand alone.
1:25:56 Right? One is afraid to be a light to oneself.
1:26:08 So can you observe this whole pattern of fear?
1:26:20 Q: What do you mean by a light?
1:26:23 K: That is fairly simple. I won’t go into that now, what do I mean. We are discussing fear. Can you observe this whole map of fear? Just to observe it, not try to change the map – you can’t.
1:26:50 Then find out who is the observer that is looking at the map.
1:27:00 And the observer is the observed. Therefore, an observation which has no movement of any kind.
1:27:23 Then you will find, see, that the mind can be free totally from fear psychologically.
1:27:31 What is the time, may I ask?
1:27:38 Q: Ten to one.
1:27:41 K: I think that is enough, isn’t it?
1:27:48 We will meet again next Sunday.