Awakening of Intelligence

Chapter 2
2nd Public Dialogue Saanen
5th August 1971
Is Intelligence Awake?

Krishnamurti: We were discussing the question of the conscious and the unconscious, and the content of consciousness. Shall we go on with that, or would you like to discuss another problem this morning?

Questioner (1): Go on with that.

Questioner (2): I would like to discuss more about the relationship between intelligence and thought, and between silence and death.

Questioner (3): I don't know if we have finished with what we discussed yesterday, and if we really went to the bottom of the question of motivation in one's life.

Krishnamurti: I wonder if we cannot discuss this question of consciousness more deeply by considering what is the relationship between intelligence and thought; and perhaps we can also go into the problem of silence and its relationship to death. But before we go into that, there are several things involved in what we were discussing yesterday. I do not know if you have gone deeply into it yourself: what you have understood, how much of it is a reality?

We said yesterday, that most of us are conditioned by the culture, by the environment, by food, clothes, religion and so on. The conditioning is the content of consciousness and consciousness is the conditioning. What relationship has thought to that conditioning? Can there be intelligence where there is conditioning?

If one has examined and observed oneself objectively, not with any kind of condemnation or judgment, one realizes that one is conditioned superficially and in great depth. There is deep conditioning, which may be the result of the family, the racial accumulation, the influences which have not been obvious but nevertheless have penetrated very deeply. Is it at all possible for the mind ever to be free of all that? When it is conditioned, can the mind uncondition itself totally? Or can the mind prevent itself - not through resistance - from ever being conditioned? There are these two things which we have to examine this morning in relation to thought and intelligence, and also with regard to silence and death. If we can, we shall go into this, cover this whole field.

Why does the mind ever get conditioned? Is it so sensitive, so capable of being hurt? It is a tender, delicate thing, and in relationship it gets invariably hurt, invariably conditioned. Is it possible for that conditioning ever to be washed away? One realizes the mind, the brain itself, is conditioned, evolved through centuries upon centuries and the brain is the store house of memories. You can watch it yourself, you don't have to read philosophical or psychological books - at least I don't, though you may. The brain which has evolved through time, which is the past, which is the accumulation of memory, experience, knowledge - responds instantly to any challenge according to its conditioning, superficially or in depth. I think this is clear.

Now can that response from the past be delayed so that there is an interval between the challenge and the response? I am taking a very superficial conditioning: one has been brought up in a particular culture, in a particular belief or pattern, and when that is questioned there is an instant response according to the background of the particular person. You tell me I am a fool. My response is immediate, saying, "You are another", or getting angry with you, or this or that. Now when you call me a fool, can there be an interval, a space, before I respond? So that the brain is quiet enough to respond in a different way.

Questioner: Or to observe its own response.

Krishnamurti: The brain responds all the time according to its conditioning, according to various forms of stimuli: it is always active. The brain is the response of time, of memory; in the brain the whole past is contained. If the brain can hold itself and not respond immediately, then there is a possibility of a new response.

The brain operates in the old habits established by the culture we live in, by the past racial inheritance and so on; that responds all the time, to any stimulus - judging, evaluating, believing, not believing, discussing, protecting, denying and so on. The brain cannot be denied its past knowledge; it must have that, otherwise it can't function. So I am asking whether that brain - which is the old - will allow itself to be quiet so that a new part can operate. When you flatter me, the old brain says, "How lovely." But can the old brain listen to what you say and not respond, so that perhaps a new movement can take place? That new movement can only take place when there is silence, when the machinery is not operating in terms of the past. Is that clear - clear in the sense of watching yourself, otherwise it is no fun? I am not explaining this for myself, we are working together.

I find, when one examines one's activities, that the old brain is always responding according to its limited knowledge, to its tradition, its racial inheritance, and when that is operating nothing new can come about. Now I want to find out whether that old brain can be quiet so that a new movement can take place. I can do that when I am in relationship with another, watching the old brain in operation, and when it understands the truth that it must be quiet in order that a new operation can take place.

The brain is not forcing itself to be quiet. If it is forcing itself to be quiet then it is still the operation of the past. In that there is division, there is conflict, there is discipline and all the rest of it. But if the old brain understands, or sees the truth - that as long as it is in constant response to any stimulus, it must operate along the old lines - if the old brain sees the truth of that, then it becomes quiet. It is the truth that brings about quietness - not the intention to be quiet. You see, this question is very interesting because one finds there are certain brains that are never conditioned. You may say, how do you know? I only know because it has happened to the speaker. You may believe it, or disbelieve it! Just take the fact.

I am asking why the brain must always function in this old pattern. If it does not function in its old pattern, it sets up a new pattern according to its memories in opposition to the old. We only use a very small part of the brain and that small part is the past. There is a part of the brain which has not functioned at all, which is open, empty, new. Do you know anything about it? Don't agree to this. You only know the old brain in operation, when you are at all conscious of it. Now I am asking whether that old brain can be still to stimuli, so that a new response can come. And the next question is: how can that brain, which has been so conditioned, hold back a little? Can I go on?

Questioner: It is very clear.

Krishnamurti: And one finds the brain does hold back when, there is the necessity, the urgency, when this question is vital - so that a new quality of mind, of the brain, which has never been touched, operates. This happens, this is not only my experience. Any top-level scientist who is free from the desire for success, or position, must have asked this question, because how does he discover new things? If the old brain is in operation all the time it can't discover anything new. So it is only when the old brain is quiet that something new is seen, and in that quiet state something new is discovered. This is a fact.

Now, without forcing the brain, how can that quietness come and the brain be voluntarily quiet? It can discover something new only when it sees the truth that the old cannot find anything new and therefore the old becomes quiet. The truth makes it quiet; it does not wish to be quiet. Is that very clear? Then, can that quietness operate all the time? - and the old conditioning with its knowledge operate only when it is necessary. Have you understood my question?

Questioner: You say, "Operate all the time"? Will that not bring conflict?

Krishnamurti: Please listen, Sir. I want to find out, I am enquiring, I am not saying, "It must be quiet". I see the old brain must operate, otherwise I can't speak English, drive a car, or recognise you. The old brain must operate functionally. But, also, as long as it is not quiet, no new thing can be seen. Are you following?

Audience: Yes.

Krishnamurti: I am asking myself: what is the relationship between the new quality of the brain, which functions in quietness, and the old? The old is thought - right? The old is the collection of memories and any response according to these memories is thought. That thought must function, otherwise you can't do anything.

Questioner: Aren'tyou making a division?

Krishnamurti: No, it is not a division. It is like a house, it is a whole, but there are divisions in it.

We have discovered two things. That the old brain - we'll call it that for the moment - is the conditioned brain which has accumulated knowledge through centuries upon centuries. We are not dividing it as the old and the new, we just want to convey the meaning that there is this whole structure of the brain, one part of which is the old - which doesn't mean it is separate from the new - it is different. Now I am saying to myself: I see that if the old brain is in operation nothing new can be discovered. The new can be discovered only when the old is quiet. And the old can only be quiet when it sees the truth that the new cannot be discovered by the old. Now we have this fact: the old must naturally be quiet to discover something new.

Questioner (1): Is the discovery made by the new or the old?

Questioner (2): By neither of them.

Krishnamurti: Answer it, Sirs! My brain says, "I really don't know, I am going to find out." You have asked a question, which is: does the old brain recognise the new, or does the new use the old? The old brain is quiet because it has understood completely that it can never discover anything new. We won't even use the word "discover". No new movement can take place if the old is constantly in operation. The old sees the fact of that and is quiet. And a new movement, a new happening takes place. Is that happening recognised by the old, or does it open the door for the new to utilize it?
Look Sirs, this is really quite important, even though you don't follow it, because I want to find a totally new way of living. I realize the old way of living is terrible, ugly, brutal. I must find a new dimension which is unrelated to the old. Any movement on the part of the old to discover a different dimension is not possible. Realizing this, it becomes quiet. Now what takes place in that quietness? Let's proceed along that way. What takes place when the old brain has understood that it cannot find a new dimension?

Questioner: The unknown?

Krishnamurti: No, don't invent. Unless you experience this, don't guess.

Questioner: There is space.

Krishnamurti: Now wait a minute. When the old brain is quiet, the gentleman says, there is space. Let's examine it. What do you mean by space?

Questioner: Emptiness.

Krishnamurti: Please don't invent, don't guess, observe. Is your old brain quiet?

Questioner (1): No.

Questioner (2): If the old brain is quiet, canyou ask that question?

Krishnamurti: I am asking you. It may be a wrong question, but we must find out.

Questioner: The part of the brain which is not used starts operating.

Krishnamurti: Just listen to what he is saying. When the old brain is quiet, perhaps a new part of the brain which has not been used comes into operation. That is, we are only functioning with a very small part of our brain and when that small part of the brain is quiet, the rest of the brain may be active. Or, it has been active all the time but we don't know it because that one part which has accumulated knowledge, tradition, time, is always super-active, and therefore we don't know the other part at all; it may have its own activity. Are you following this?

This is really a very interesting question. Please give your minds to this a little bit; don't say, "I don't understand" and just drop it. Apply yourselves! You see, having used the old brain so much we have never considered any other part of the brain, and what that part is, which may have a quality of a different dimension. I say that quality of a different dimension can be discovered when the old brain is really quiet. That's my point. You follow? When the old brain is completely quiet, not made quiet, but has naturally understood that it must be quiet and therefore is quiet, then we can find out what takes place.

Now, I am going to investigate - not you - because your old brain is not quiet. Would you agree to that? It has not understood the necessity of being completely quiet under any stimulus, except of course physical stimuli - that is, if you put a pin into my leg it will respond. But as nobody is pricking my leg with a pin the old brain can be quiet.

I want to find out what is the quality of the new brain - that quality which the old brain cannot recognise? Because the old brain cannot recognise anything which it has not experienced, which is not the outcome of memory. Therefore what the old brain recognises is still the old. Is that clear? So I am asking: what is the new? The old brain does not know anything about it, therefore it can only say: I really don't know. Let's proceed from there - do some of you follow this? The old brain says, "I can't touch this and I really don't know." Because I cannot touch it, because I cannot recognise it, I am not going to be deceived by it. I know absolutely nothing about the new dimensions of this new brain. When the old brain is quiet and incapable of recognition, it can only say, "I really don't know." Can the old brain remain in that state of not knowing? It has said, "All my life I have functioned with knowledge and recognition." In functioning that way it has said, "I know" in terms of what I do not know, of that which I will learn, but always within the pattern of knowing. Now it says, "I really don't know", because something new is taking place. The new cannot be recognised, therefore I have no relationship to it yet. I am going to find out.

Now what is the nature of not knowing? Is there fear when there is a state of not knowing? - which is death. You follow, Sirs? When the old brain actually says, "I don't know", it has relinquished all knowing. It has relinquished altogether the intention of knowing, of wanting to know. So there is a field in which the old brain cannot function, because it does not know. Now what is that field? Can it ever be described? It can be described only when the old brain recognises and verbalises it to communicate. So there is a field in which the old brain cannot possibly enter; this is not an invention, this is not a theory, this is a fact when the old brain says, "I really don't know anything about this." Which means there is no intention to learn about the new. You see the difference, Sirs?

So now I want to find out non-verbally, because the moment I use a word I am back in the old. Therefore is there an understanding of something new non-verbally? - in the sense of not inventing a new word, or intending to describe it so as to capture it and hold it. So I am just enquiring, the mind is looking at something which it does not know at all. Is that possible? It has always looked in terms of learning about it, resisting it, avoiding it, escaping from it, or overcoming it. Now it is doing nothing of the kind. Do you understand? If this is not possible you cannot understand the other.

What is the something which the old brain cannot understand and therefore cannot possibly know or acquire knowledge about? Is there such a thing? Or is it just an invention of the old brain wanting something new to happen? If it is the old brain wanting something new to happen, it is still part of the old brain. Now I have examined it completely, so that the old brain has understood its structure and nature and therefore is absolutely still, not wanting to know. That is where the difficulty lies. Is there something real, not imagined, not invented, which is not a theory? Something which the old brain cannot possibly understand, or recognise, or want to understand? Is there anything like that? For the speaker there is - but that has no value, he may be deluding himself. It has value only in the sense that it is for you to discover it. So you have to find out what is the relationship of the new - if you see the new - to the old, which must operate in life objectively, sanely, non-personally, therefore efficiently. Does the old capture the new so that there is a different life? Or does the new operate in a way that the old cannot possibly recognise, and that operation is the new way of living?

Go slowly, take time, look! This old brain, with its consciousness, has lived for thousands of years; the consciousness of this old brain is its content. Its content may have been acquired superficially or in depth and that is the old brain with all the knowledge, with all the experience of centuries of human endeavour, of evolution. When it is functioning within that field of consciousness it can never discover anything new. That is an absolute fact, not a theory. We know nothing about freedom, about what love is, what death is; we know nothing except jealousy, envy, fear, which are all part of the old content. Then this old brain, realizing its utter limitation, becomes quiet, because it has found it has no freedom. And because it has found no freedom, a new part of the brain is in operation. I don't know if you see that?

Look! I have been going South, thinking I was going North, and suddenly I discover that. At the moment of discovery there is a total reversion - not of the old, it is a complete reversal. The movement is neither to the North nor South, it is in a totally different direction. That is, at that moment of discovery there is a totally different movement, which is freedom.

Questioner: Could you discuss the difference between the intensity to find out, and the desire of the old for the new.

Krishnamurti: The desire of the old for the new is still the old; therefore the desire for the new, or the experience of the new - call it enlightenment, God, what you like - is still part of the old; therefore that's out.

Questioner (1): Krishnaji, do you realize that you have been speaking of the highest philosophy and that we, here in this tent, are not even able to have the smallest relationship with each other.

Questioner (2): Who are we?

Krishnamurti: We have been through that - we are monkeys! Look, Sir, this is not talking of the "highest philosophy", it is the pure thing. Do you realize actually, not theoretically, that you have no relationship one with another, that your relationship with another cannot exist as long as the old brain is in operation, because the old brain functions in images, pictures, past incidents; when the past happenings, images, knowledge, are strong, then relationship comes to an end - obviously. If I have built an image about you - who are my wife, or my friend, my girl or whatever it is - that image, that knowledge, which is the past, obviously prevents relationship. Relationship means direct contact immediately in the present, at the same level, with the same intensity, with the same passion. And that passion, that intensity at the same level, cannot exist if I have an image about you and you have an image about me. So it is for you to see if you have an image about somebody else. Obviously you have; therefore apply yourself, work to find out - that is, if you really want a relationship with another, which I doubt. We are all so terribly selfish, enclosed; if you really want a relationship with another, you have to understand this whole structure of the past - which is what we have been doing. And when that is gone, you have a relationship which is totally new all the time. And that new relationship is love - not the old, beating the drum!

Now what is the relationship of that quality, of that dimension which is the new, which is not known, which cannot be captured by the old, to my daily life? I have discovered that dimension, it has happened because I have seen that the old brain can never be free and so is incapable of finding out what truth is. Therefore the old brain says: my whole structure is of time and I function only with regard to that which has time - machinery, language, all the rest of it - so that part will be completely still. So what is the relationship between the two? Has the old any relationship with freedom, love, the unknown? If it has relationship with the unknown, then it is part of the old - you follow? But if the unknown has relationship with the old, then it is quite a different proposition. I don't know if you see that?

My question is: what is the relationship between these two, and who wants relationship? Who is demanding this relationship? Is the old demanding it? If the old demands it, then it is part of the old, therefore it has no relationship with the other. I don't know if you see the beauty of this. The old has no relationship with freedom, with love, with this dimension. But that new dimension, love, can have a relationship with the old, but not the other way round. Do you see it, Sirs?
So the next step then is: what is the action in daily life, when the old has no relationship with the new, but the new is establishing relationship as it moves in life. The mind has discovered something new. How is the new going to operate in the field of the known, in which functions the old brain with all its activities?

Questioner: Would that be where intelligence comes in?

Krishnamurti: Now wait Sir, perhaps you are right. When the old brain sees that it can never understand what freedom is; when it sees that it is incapable of discovering something new, that very perception is the seed of intelligence, isn't it? That is intelligence: "I cannot do." I thought I could do a lot of things, and I can, in a certain direction, but in a totally new direction I cannot do anything. The discovery of that is intelligence, obviously.

Now what is the relationship of that intelligence to the other? Is the other part of this extraordinary sense of intelligence? I want to find out what we mean by that word "intelligence; the mind must not be caught by words. Obviously the old brain, all these centuries, thought it could have its God, its freedom, it could do everything it wanted. And suddenly it discovers that any movement of the old brain is still part of the old; therefore intelligence is the understanding that it can only function within the field of the known. The discovery of that is intelligence, we say. Now what is that intelligence? What is its relationship to life, to a dimension which the old brain does not know?

You see, intelligence is not personal, is not the outcome of argument, belief, opinion or reason. Intelligence comes into being when the brain discovers its fallibility, when it discovers what it is capable of, and what not. Now what is the relationship of that intelligence with this new dimension? I would rather not use the word "relationship".

The different dimension can only operate through intelligence; if there is not that intelligence it cannot operate. So in daily life it can only operate where intelligence is functioning. Intelligence cannot function when the old brain is active, when there is any form of belief and adherence to any particular fragment of the brain. All that is lack of intelligence. The man who believes in God, the man who says, "There is only one Saviour", is not intelligent. The man who says, "I belong to this group", is not intelligent. When one discovers the limitation of the old, the very discovery of that is intelligence, and only when that intelligence is functioning can the new dimension operate through it. Full stop. Have you got it?

Questioner: May I put another question? I don't completely agree with you. What you say about intelligence applies only to primary intelligence. But we need also secondary intelligence; that is, the ability to integrate what is new with the old.

Krishnamurti: That is what takes place when there is not intelligence. I won't use the word "integrate"; the new operates when there is that intelligence which is not only primary but fundamental.

Questioner: But you see, in your talk today I always heard the word "primary". I think what you call "new", is in a certain sense primary. If I play a game, throwing a coin, I cannot predict what will appear and one says one's game here is a random event. I want to know what you think about the relation of what you call "completely new" with what is random in the sense I have explained it.

Krishnamurti: I understand. The professor asks, what is the relationship of randomness, of chance, to something totally new. There are events in one's life that appear to happen by chance, events that occur at random. Is that happening new, totally unexpected? Or is it the result of unexamined, hidden, unconscious events?

I happen to meet you by chance. Is that chance at all, or has it happened because certain unconscious, unknown, events have brought us together? We may consider this chance, but it is not chance at all. I meet you, I did not know you existed, and in the meeting something has taken place between us. That may be the result of a great many other events of which we are not conscious, and we may then say, "This is a random event, this is an unexpected chance, this is totally new." It may not be that. Is there chance in life at all? - a happening which has not a cause. Or have all events in life their basic, deep, causes, which we may not know and therefore we say, "Our meeting happens by chance, it is a random event." The cause undergoes a change when there is an effect. The effect becomes a cause. There is the cause and the effect which becomes the cause of the next effect. So cause-effect is a constant chain; it is not one cause, one effect, it is undergoing constant change. Each cause, each effect, changes the next cause, the next effect. So as this is going on in life, is there anything which is unexpected, chance, a random event? What do you say?

Questioner: The very concept of randomness is based on causality.

Krishnamurti: Causality? I don't think life works that way. The cause becomes effect and the effect becomes cause - you can see in this life. So we can never say, "Cause and effect" there it is! The professor asked about the relationship of the unknown - not in the sense of a new dimension - to a chance event.

Questioner: The unknown is outside the world of relativity.

Krishnamurti: You can discuss it. I know nothing about all this, I am talking about human relationships, human beings, not mathematical problems and chance events and mathematical order. All that does not seem to affect our daily living. Here we are concerned to bring about a change in that daily living - the way we behave. And if our behaviour is based on that past it still brings conflict and misery; that is what we are talking about.

Chapter 3
4th Public Dialogue Saanen
7th August 1971

Questioner (1): I would like to discuss fear and death and their relationship to intelligence and thought.

Questioner (2): Could you go into the statement: the world is me and am the world?

Questioner (3): Could we discuss - but not theorise - about what happens after death if it is actually possible to die to things known?

Krishnamurti: Fear is a complex problem and we have to enquire into it, not come with any pre-conceived ideas, but really penetrate into this whole question of fear. Now first of all, in enquiring into this problem, we are not trying to deal with it as collective fear, nor are we discussing it as group therapy to get rid of fear. We are going to find out what fear means and what are its nature and structure; whether the fear deep down at the very root of our being can be understood, and whether the mind can ever be free from fear. How do you approach this problem? Have you got any kind of fear - physical or psychological? If you have psychological fears - we shall come back to the physical fears a little later - how do you deal with them?

Suppose I am afraid that I shall lose my position, my prestige: I depend on an audience, on you, to bolster me up, I depend on you to give me vitality by talking. I am afraid, as I grow older, I may become senile. I will be faced with nothing and I am afraid. What is this fear? Or I am afraid that I depend on you - a man or a woman - and that dependency makes me attached to you, so I am afraid to lose you. Or I am afraid because I have done something in the past, which I regret or am ashamed of, and I don't want you to know; so I am afraid of your knowing it and I feel guilty. Or I feel terribly anxious about death, about living, about what people say, or don't say, how they look at me. I have a deep sense of foreboding, anxiety, a sense of inferiority. And in this anxiety about death, living a life that has no meaning, I seek assurance from somebody through human relationship. Or out of my anxiety I seek a sense of security in a certain belief, a certain ideology, in God, and so on.

Also I am afraid that I shan't be able to do everything I want to do in this life. I have not the capacity nor the intelligence, but I am tremendously ambitious to achieve something; so I am frightened of that too. And of course I am afraid of death; and I am afraid of being lonely, of not being loved; so I want to establish a relationship with another in which this fear, this anxiety, this sense of loneliness, this separation, does not exist. Also I am afraid of the dark, of the elevator - innumerable neurotic fears!

What is this fear? Why are you, why is anybody, afraid? Is it based on not wanting to be hurt? Or is it that one wants complete security, and not being able to find it - this sense of complete safety, of protection, physically, emotionally, psychologically - one becomes terribly anxious about living! - so there is this sense of uncertainty. Now why is there fear?

One of our major problems is fear, whether we are aware of it or not, whether we run away from it or try to overcome it, try to withstand it, develop courage and all the rest of it, there is still fear. I am asking myself, I am asking you, whether the mind is so delicate, so sensitive, that from childhood on it does not want to be hurt. And not wanting to be hurt one builds a wall. One is very shy, or aggressive; before you attack I am ready to attack you verbally, or with thought. I have been hurt so much in my life, everybody hurts me - everybody treads on one's toes - and I don't want to be hurt. Is that one of the reasons why fear exists?

You have been hurt, haven't you? And out of that hurt you do all kinds of things. We resist a great deal, we don't want to be disturbed; out of that feeling of hurt we cling to something which we hope will protect us. Therefore we become aggressive towards anything that attacks what we are holding on to for protection.

As a human being sitting here, wanting to resolve this problem of fear, what is it that you are frightened of? Is it physical fear - fear of physical pain? Or a psychological fear of danger, of uncertainty, of being hurt again? Or of not being able to find total, complete security? Is it fear of being dominated, and yet we are dominated? So what is it that you are frightened of? Are you aware of your fear?

Questioner: I fear the unknown.

Krishnamurti: Now listen to that question. Why should one be afraid of the unknown, when you know nothing about it? Please enquire into it.

Questioner: I have an image of what has happened to me and there is the fear that it might happen again.

Krishnamurti: But is it the fear of letting go the known? Or fear of the unknown? You understand? Fear of letting go the things I have gathered - my property, my wife, my name, my books, my furniture, my good looks, my capacities - to let go the things that I know, that I have experienced: is that the fear? Or is it fear of the future, the unknown?

Questioner: I find that my fear generally is of what will happen, not of what is happening.

Krishnamurti: Shall we go into that?

Questioner: It isn't that one is frightened of what might happen tomorrow, but of losing one's own recognitions, one's satisfactions, today.

Krishnamurti: Look, the gentleman asked a question which was: "I am not frightened of yesterday or of today, but I am frightened of what might happen tomorrow, in the future." Tomorrow may be twenty-four hours away or a year, but I am frightened of that.

Questioner: But the future is the result of all the expectations one has because of the past.

Krishnamurti: I am frightened of the future, how shall I deal with this? Don't explain it to me, I want to find out what to do with this fear. I am frightened what might happen: I might get ill, I might lose my job, a dozen things might happen to me, I may go insane, lose all the things which I have stored up. Now please enquire.

Questioner: I think perhaps it is not the future that we fear but rather the uncertainty of the future, new events which cannot be predicted. If the future were predictable there would be no fear, we should know what would happen. Fear is a sort of defence of the body against something completely new, against the whole uncertainty of what life is.
Krishnamurti: I am afraid of the future because the future is uncertain. I don't know how to deal with this uncertainty, with my whole being, therefore I am afraid. Fear is an indication of this uncertainty of the future, is that it?

Questioner: That's only a part of it. There are other fears too.

Krishnamurti: Sir, we are taking one fear; we will discuss various forms of fears presently. The gentleman says, "I am not really frightened of anything except of the future. The future is so uncertain, I don't know how to meet it. I have the capacity to understand not only the present but also the future." So it is this sense of uncertainty that indicates fear.

Whatever the explanation be, the fact is I am frightened of tomorrow. Now how shall I deal with it? How shall I be free of that fear?

Questioner: Looking at one's response to the uncertainty of the future it seems it might be inadequate.

Krishnamurti: I am frightened of tomorrow, of what might happen. The whole future is uncertain, there might be an atomic war, there might be an ice age - I am frightened of all that. How am I to deal with it? Help me, don't theorize about it, don't give me explanations!

Questioner (1): Need uncertainty breed fear?

Questioner (2): We are frightened because we are pretending, playing games, and we are afraid, of being exposed.

Krishnamurti: But you are not helping me! Aren't you frightened of the future, Sir? - stick to this.

Questioner: Yes, perhaps.

Krishnamurti: Now, how are you going to deal with it?

Questioner: By living in the present.

Krishnamurti: I don t know what that means.

Questioner (1): For me it has been helpful to realize what I have been afraid of in the past, and why I have been afraid, and to submit this to examination. This helps me to face the future.

Questioner (2): First of all we have got to understand what we mean by the future.

Krishnamurti: That's what I am trying to find out.

Questioner: The first thing we have to do is not to be afraid of being frightened.

Krishnamurti: Oh, that is a cliche, that doesn't help me!

Questioner: One has to realize you can't help me out: fear is always there. One has to understand fear is going to be a life companion.

Krishnamurti: Sir, you have not fed me. You have given me a lot of words, ashes. I am still frightened of tomorrow.

Questioner (1): That is just the problem. You can't help anyone.

Questioner (2): Can't you waitfor tomorrow and let things come, see what happens?

Questioner (3): I know the necessity for physical security, but I want to understand my need for psychological security.

Krishnamurti: He means that, Sir. He probably has some security physically, but psychologically he is frightened of tomorrow. He has got a little bank account, a little house and all the rest of it, he is not frightened about that; he is frightened of what might happen in the future.

Questioner (1): Is it possible to live with your uncertainty?

Questioner (2): If we knew what was going to happen, we should not be afraid.

Questioner (3): Sitting here I am not afraid, but thinking about tomorrow I get frightened.

Krishnamurti: Thought does it.

Questioner: Thought does it. When we are frightened now, it is a fact. If we accept the fact and if we live totally in the present, we forget the future.

Krishnamurti: Right, let's look. I want to find out what causes this fear of tomorrow. What is tomorrow? Why does tomorrow exist at all? You understand? I am going to answer it.

I want to find out how thought arises, how fear arises. I think about tomorrow, and the past has given me a sense of security; though there may have been a great many uncertainties in the past, on the whole I have survived. Up to now I am fairly safe, but tomorrow is very uncertain and I am frightened. So I am going to find out what causes this fear of tomorrow. The response of my whole being to that insecurity of tomorrow being uncertain, is fear. So I want to find out why fear arises when I think about the future. Which mean the future may be all right, but my thinking abou the uncertainty. I don't know the future, it may be marvellous, or it may be deadly, it may be terrible, or most beautiful, I don't know; thought is not certain about the future. So thought, which has always been seeking certainty, is suddenly faced with this uncertainty. So why does thought create fear? You follow?

Questioner: Because thought divides and creates a distance between past and future, and fear enters into this space.

Krishnamurti: The questioner says, "Thought separates the future from the past and divides what might be. This separation of `what is' and `what might be' is part of this fear." If I did not think about tomorrow, there would be no fear, I would not know the future, I would not even care. Because I think about the future - the future which I don't know, the future which is so uncertain - my whole response, psychologically as well as physically, is to say, "My God, what is going to happen?" So thought breeds fear.

Questioner: Is thought the only psychological function that is able to bring about fear? There are some other irrational functions like feeling; that might bring about fear as well.
Krishnamurti: I am taking that one particular thing, there are other factors too.

Questioner (1): There is fear of the unknown, fear of tomorrow; it is based on attachment to a belief, or some formula. The fear can be understood if I see why I am attached to a particular convention or belief.

Questioner (2): What about fear of existence?

Krishnamurti: All these are involved, are they not? The attachment to a belief, to a formula, to a certain ideological concept which I have built for myself, all these are part of this fear. Now I want to find out by seeing what is fear.

I said to you earlier I have done something in the past of which I am ashamed, or of which I am frightened: I don't want it to recur. Thinking about what I have done in the past breeds fear, doesn't it? Thinking about what might happen in the future also breeds fear. So I see - I may be wrong - that thought is responsible for the fear, both of the past and of the future. And thought is also responsible for fear by projecting an ideal, a belief, and holding on to that belief and wanting certainty out of that belief; it is all the operation of thought, isn't it? So I have to understand why thought thinks about the future, why thought goes back to some event which has brought fear. Why does thought do this?

Questioner: Thought can help itself by imagining all the possibilities of terrible things that could happen in the future, so it can make some plans to prevent these things happening. It tries to protect itself by imagining.

Krishnamurti: Thought also helps you to protect yourself, through insurance, through building a house, avoiding wars; thought cultivates fear and also protects, doesn't it? We are talking about thought creating fear, not how it protects. I am asking why thought breeds this fear; thought also breeds pleasure, doesn't it? - sexual pleasure, the pleasure of the sunset which happened yesterday and so on. So thought gives a continuity to pleasure and also to fear.

Questioner: Man, seeking pleasure, follows the choice of his thoughts by discriminating. "This would be good" and " That would be bad". And fear seems to come directly from what man does to make the good things happen and to avoid the bad.

Krishnamurti: Surely the whole process is based on thought, isn't it?

Questioner: Fear comes from the discriminating aspect of thought.

Krishnamurti: Yes, but it is still thought, saying, "This is good, this I will keep, this reject." The whole movement of thought is the demand for pleasure and discrimination in that, saying, "This will give me pleasure, that will not." So the whole movement of fear and pleasure, the demand, and the continuity of both, depends on thought, doesn't it?

Questioner: But how can you be free from it?

Krishnamurti: Wait, first let's get this thing going.

Questioner: Thought is fear.

Krishnamurti: We are going to find out. I am safe today. I know I am going to have my meals, there is a house, there is a room; but I don't know what is going to happen tomorrow. Yesterday I had a great deal of pleasure in various forms, and I want those pleasures repeated tomorrow. So thought both sustains fear and gives a continuity to the pleasure which I had yesterday. Then my question is: how am I going to prevent the continuity of fear, but yet let pleasure continue? I want pleasure, want it as much as possible, all the time in the future; and also I have had fears, I want to get rid of them and I don't want future fears. So thought is working in both directions. Sir, this is your job, not mine, look at it!

Questioner: This gives thought a kind of energy.

Krishnamurti: Thought is energy.

Questioner: This gives thought a different kind of energy.

Krishnamurti: Go into it, it is both.

Questioner: It is accumulating memories.

Krishnamurti: The memories that have been pleasurable I hold on to, and the memories that have been painful - which are fear - I want to throw out. But I don't see the root of all this is thought.

Questioner (1): Thought seems to resist its termination - fear and pleasure seem to be somewhat similar - but that state where thought doesn't exist eludes me.

Questioner (2): Do what you are doing so totally, that you think about the thing that is giving you pleasure while it is happening, and don't think about the things which may not happen.

Krishnamurti: Don't say: not to think about those things which might not happen. How am I to prevent myself from thinking about them?

Questioner: Think about what is happening, rejoice!

Krishnamurti: So I force myself to think about things that are happening and not about things that don't happen?

Questioner: Think about what is happening.

Krishnamurti: But my mind is always watching what might happen. Doesn't this happen to you? Let's be quite simple and honest. We want to think about the things that are happening but thought also keeps an eye on what might happen. And when I am not thinking about this, that pops up!

Questioner: Sir, the feeling "I am" has nothing to do with pleasure and nothing to do with fear and thought. I think only "I am". I don't have fear. This feeling "I am" has nothing at all to do with thought.

Krishnamurti: When you say "I am" - what do you mean by those words?

Questioner: The feeling to be present, to be sitting here, and there is no fear in it.

Krishnamurti: That is not the problem, Sir.
Questioner: First of all we must find out if certainty exists, then there won't be fear.

Krishnamurti: How shall I find out?

Questioner: I see the whole process of thought as a trap.

Krishnamurti: Go into it; each person pursues something else. Let me state what I feel the problem is.

I am frightened of tomorrow because tomorrow is uncertain. So far I have been fairly certain in my life; though there have been occasions on which I have been frightened, somehow I have got over them. But the sense of fear of tomorrow, which is so uncertain - atomic war, the casual wars that might explode into all kinds of horrors, losing money - I am in a state of convulsion about the future. Now what am I to do? I want to be free, if I can, of the fear both of the past and the future, of the fears deep down and the superficial fears.

Don't give me explanations, "Do this", "Don't do that." I want to find out what fear is; whether it is fear of darkness, of uncertainty, whether it is the fear of attachment, holding on to something, or to some person or idea. I want to find out what is the root of it, how to escape from it, not how to smother it. I want to see the structure of fear. If I can understand that, then something else can take place. So I am going to investigate what fear is. Let me go on a little while, may I? Fear exists for me because I am thinking about tomorrow; despite your assurance that tomorrow is perfectly all right, I still feel fear. Now why am I thinking about tomorrow? Is it because the past has been so good, has given me a great deal of knowledge and this has become my security, and I have no knowledge about the future? If I could understand the future and reduce that to my knowledge, then I would not be frightened. Can I understand the future as knowledge, as experience, so that it becomes part of my knowledge, of which I shan't be frightened?

I see also, that I want a great deal of pleasure, sexual pleasure, the pleasure of achieving, fulfilling, of being somebody. I want those pleasures, which I have had, repeated. And when I get bored with them I want wider, deeper pleasures. My principle drive is pleasure - in every direction. So I want to avoid fear and I want more pleasure. This is what we all want. Is pleasure separate from fear? Or are they the two sides of the same coin? I must find out, not say "Yes" or "No", I must put my teeth into it and find out whether pleasure does breed fear and whether fear is the result of my demand for pleasure. You have understood my question?

Questioner: But pleasure could be something else, a learning process.

Krishnamurti: No, that pleasure is also painful; but I will overcome that in order to have more pleasure. Haven't you noticed this in your life, how we want pleasure?

Questioner: Yes.

Krishnamurti: That's all I am talking of. We are demanding, pursuing, pleasure; everything is based on this. And when that is not fulfilled, I become uncertain. So I am asking myself whether pleasure and fear don't go together. I never question pleasure, I never say, "Should I have so much pleasure?" "Where does it lead?" but I want more of it, in heaven, on earth, in my family, in sex - it is driving me in everything. And fear is there also. Look at it please, don't stick to your particular opinion, for God's sake move from it! Find out!

So follow this: I want certainty of tomorrow, and certainty can only exist where there is knowledge, when I say,"I know". Can I know anything except the past? The moment I say "I know" it is already the past. When I say "I know my wife", I know her in terms of the past. In the past there is certainty and in the future there is uncertainty. So I want to draw the future into the past so that I will be completely safe. I see fear arises where thought is operating; if I did not think about tomorrow there would be no fear.

Questioner: Fear seems to me to be something instinctive. I feel that fear is an energy, that some force is there.

Krishnamurti: You see, each of us has an opinion. Each of us is quite sure we know how to deal with fear. We explain it, we give causes, we think we understand it, and yet at the end of it we are frightened. I want to go behind all that and find out why fear exists at all. Is it the result of thought thinking about the future? Because the future is very uncertain and thought is based on the memory of the past. Thought is the response of memory, accumulated as knowledge, as centuries of experience, and out of that comes thought. Thought says, "Knowledge is my security". And now you are telling me to be free of tomorrow, which is uncertain; if I know what tomorrow is, there will be no fear. What I am craving for is certainty of knowledge. I know my past, I know what I did ten years or two days ago. I can analyse it, understand it, live with it; but I don't know tomorrow and therefore not knowing it makes me afraid. Not knowing means: not having knowledge of. Now can thought have knowledge about something which it does not know?

So there is fear. Thought trying to find out the future, and not knowing what its content is, it is afraid. Why is thought thinking of tomorrow, about which it knows nothing? It wants certainty, but there may be no certainty. Please answer my question, not your question.

Questioner: The living system needs to think about tomorrow, this is a fundamental rule of life: it needs some sort of prediction.

Krishnamurti: I said that, Sir.

Questioner: We must follow this rule of life. There are psychological disturbances due to imagination which project awful fears, as you say, but it is impossible to prevent human beings from thinking in a logical fashion.

Krishnamurti: If I may say so, we did say thought is necessary to protect physical survival. That is part of our life, that is what we are doing all the time.

Questioner: I don't agree, I think thought is not necessary for survival. Animals have the instinct for survival without the fear which is our trouble.

Krishnamurti: Madam, we are mixing up two things. Please, we tried to explain this at the beginning.

Questioner: She's right; human thought replaces instinct.

Krishnamurti: I agree with you. One must know that tomorrow the house will be there. Physical survival and planning for the future are essential, aren't they? Without that we can't survive.

Questioner (1): When you see it all so clearly, fear has no time.

Questioner (2): Thought thinks of living in the present, and must also think of tomorrow.

Krishnamurti: The weather is hot; I must plan to buy some trousers that will be cool. That means planning for tomorrow. I have to go to India in the winter. I shall plan, which is the future. We are not denying that, on the contrary. What we are talking about is the fear of uncertainty.

Questioner: We have no confidence in ourselves.

Krishnamurti: That I really don't understand. Who is "yourself" for you to have confidence in? Are you such a marvellous human being to have confidence in yourself?

Questioner: Why not?

Krishnamurti: What is yourself?

Questioner: Humanity.

Krishnamurti: What is humanity? The good and the bad, the wars - we have been through all that. We are concerned with fear. We must use thought to survive. But to survive, thought has divided the world as my country, your country, my government, your government, my God, your God, my guru and your guru: thought has created this. Though it wants to plan to survive, thought has divided the world which destroys itself, of which I am part. So I have to understand the nature of thought, where it is necessary, and where it is diabolical, where it is destructive and where it creates fear - that is my problem.

I said thought must function, otherwise you can't survive; but in the desire to survive it has divided and is therefore destructive. I see thought must function clearly, objectively, without any distortion. So my question is: why does thought think about tomorrow? It has to think about tomorrow in one direction, but why does thought think about the future and breed fear?

Questioner: To be safe.

Krishnamurti: You see, thought must think about tomorrow in order to be safe, that is clear. And also you see that thought, thinking about tomorrow, creates fear. Now why?

Questioner (1): Because we want to continue.

Questioner (1): Because we are tied to pleasure.

Krishnamurti: We haven't solved this problem because we refuse to leave our particular little opinions, judgments and conclusions. Let's abolish them and think anew.

For me it is very simple. Thought must create fear because thought cannot ever find security in the future. Thought has security in time; tomorrow has no time. Tomorrow exists in the mind as time, but tomorrow may not exist at all, psychologically. And because of that uncertainty, thought projects what it wants for tomorrow: safety, what I have acquired, what I have achieved, what I possess, all that. And that too is completely uncertain. So can thought be quiet about the future? That's my point. Can thought be quiet, which means: function where it is necessary for physical protection; and therefore no divisions into nationalities, no separate Gods, no war mongers. Let thought be quiet so that time as tomorrow does not exist.

Therefore I have to understand what it is to live now. I don't understand what it is to live now, nor have I understood what it is to live in the past, therefore I want to live in the future, which I don't know, as I don't know what the present is. So I am asking, can I live completely, wholly, today? I can only do that when I have understood the whole machinery and the functioning of thought, and in the very understanding of the reality of thought there is silence. And where the mind is quiet there is no future, no time.

Chapter 4
5th Public Dialogue Saanen
8th August 1971
Fear, Time and the Image

Questioner (1): You have covered enough ground, couldn't we consolidate? I am not quite sure in myself about the relation between thought and fear; could we discuss this some more?

Questioner (2): When thought meets the unknown, it doesn't know what to do. Now if you have thought without time, if there is no time, then there is no fear.

Krishnamurti: Would you like to talk about that?

Audience: Yes.

Krishnamurti: What is time? I had to be here this morning in spite of the bad weather at half past ten and I was. If I did not come on time, I would keep you all waiting. There is time by the watch - yesterday, today and tomorrow. There is time to cover a certain distance - between here and the moon, to go from here to Montreux, and so on. There is also time to cover the distance between the image of myself - or the image I have projected of myself - and what "I should be", and the distance between what "I am" and what "I should like to be", between fear and the ending of fear. We must understand this.

Questioner: Can you give practical examples as you go along?

Krishnamurti: I am not good at giving practical examples. What I am saying is fairly simple. I am not a philosopher, I don't spin theories.

So there is time as yesterday, today and tomorrow; and there is time - at least we think there is time - between what I am and what I should be, between the fact of fear and the eventual ending of fear. Both are time, aren't they? - chronological time, and time as invented by thought. "I am this" and "I should change to that" and to cover that distance between what I am and what I should be I need time. That also is time. It will take me many days, or many weeks, to do certain exercises properly, to loosen up my muscles - to do that I need time; I shall take perhaps three days, or a week: that's time.

So when we talk about time, let us be clear what we are talking about. There is chronological time, as yesterday, today and tomorrow; and there is the time which we think is necessary to achieve an ending to fear. Time is part of fear, isn't it? I am afraid of the future - not of what might happen in the future but of the idea of the future, the idea of tomorrow. So there is psychological time and chronological time. We are not talking about chronological time, time by the watch. What we are talking about is, "I am all right now, but I am afraid of the future, of tomorrow." Let's call that psychological time.

Now I am asking, is there such a thing as psychological time at all, or is it merely an invention of thought? "I shall meet you tomorrow, under a tree, near the bridge" - that is chronological time. "I am afraid of tomorrow and I don't know how to meet that fear of tomorrow" - that is psychological time, isn't it?

Questioner: How about if I say, "Why must this beautiful thing come to an end?"

Krishnamurti: That is also psychological time, isn't it? I feel a particular relationship to something beautiful and I don't want it to end. There is the idea that it might come to an end and I won't like it to end, and I am afraid of it. So that's one part of the structure of fear.

The other is, I have known security, certainty, and tomorrow is uncertain and I am afraid of that - that is psychological time, isn't it? I have lived a life of quasi-security, but tomorrow is dreadfully uncertain and I am frightened of it. Then arises my problem: how am I not to be afraid? All that is involved, surely, is it not, in psychological time? The knowledge of yesterday, of many thousand yesterdays, has given to the brain a certain sense of security, knowledge being experience, remembrance, memories. In the past there has been security for the brain; tomorrow there may be no security at all, I might be killed.

Knowledge as time gives to the brain a sense of security. So knowledge is of time. But I have no knowledge of tomorrow, therefore I am afraid. If I had knowledge of tomorrow I would not be afraid. So knowledge breeds fear, and yet I must have knowledge. You are following? I must have knowledge to go from here to the station, I must have knowledge to speak English, or French, or whatever it is; I must have knowledge to carry out any kind of function. I have accumulated knowledge about myself as the experiencer, and yet that experiencer is frightened of tomorrow because he does not know tomorrow.

Questioner: What about repetition?

Krishnamurti: It is the same thing, it is mechanical. After all, knowledge is repetitive. I add to it or take away from it, but it's a machinery of accumulation.

Questioner: What about the people who have terrible tragedies, who have seen people slaughtered and tortured?

Krishnamurti: What has that got to do with what we are talking about?

Questioner: Well, you see, they remain with that fear.

Krishnamurti: We are talking about the relationship between thought and fear.

Questioner: But even so, people have been telling me how their fear remains in them and they can't get rid of it because for them man is a beast.

Krishnamurti: It is the same problem, surely. That is, I have been hurt, by a snake or by a human being. That hurt has left a deep mark on my brain and I am afraid of snakes or of human beings - which is the past. Also I am afraid of tomorrow. It is the same problem, isn't it? - only one is in the past, the other is in the future.

Questioner: It's only difficult when you say, "Knowledge of yesterday has given security." Some people find the knowledge of yesterday has given them insecurity.

Krishnamurti: Knowledge gives security and it also gives insecurity, doesn't it? I have been hurt by human beings in the past - that's knowledge. That remains deeply rooted and I loathe human beings, I am frightened of them.
Questioner: One isn't speaking of psychological knowledge but of physical torture.

Krishnamurti: Yes, physical torture which is again in the past.

Questioner: But you know that in the present people go on doing it.

Krishnamurti: You are mixing up two facts. We are talking about fear and its relationship to thought. There are physical tortures going on in the world, people are extraordinarily brutal and I like to think about it and get terribly excited. I feel morally righteous about it and I can't do anything, can I? Sitting in this tent I can't do anything about what is happening in another place. But I like to get neurotically excited about it, and to say, "It's terrible what human beings are doing." No? What can I actually do? Join a group that is going to stop this torture of human beings? Make a demonstration in front of somebody? - and yet the torture will go on. What I am concerned with is how to change the human mind so that it will not torture human beings physically or psychologically in any way. But if I am neurotic I like to keep on thinking, "How terrible this world is."

Now let's come back. I am afraid of what human beings have done to me, or to another human being, and that knowledge is a scar in the brain. That is, knowledge of the past not only gives certainty but also uncertainty, that I may be hurt tomorrow, therefore I am afraid. Now why does the brain retain the memory of that hurt of yesterday? In order to protect itself from future hurts? Let's think it out. That means, I am always facing the world with that hurt and therefore I have no relationship with another human bring, because the hurt is so deep. And I resist every human relationship because I might get hurt again. Therefore there is fear. Knowledge of the past hurt brings fear of future hurt. So knowledge brings fear - yet I must have knowledge.

Knowledge has been accumulated through time. Scientific, technological knowledge, knowledge of a language and so on need time. Knowledge, which is the product of time, must exist, otherwise I can't do anything, I can't communicate with you. But also I see that knowledge of a past hurt says, "Be careful not to be hurt in the future." So I am afraid of the future.

So how am I, who have been scarred very deeply, how am I to be free of that and not project that knowledge into the future, saying, "I am afraid of the future." There are two problems involved, aren't there? There is the scar of pain,

Can the mind be free of that scar? Now let's examine that.

I am sure most of us have some kind of psychological scars. Haven't you? - of course. We are not talking about the physical scars which affect the brain - we can leave that aside for the moment. There are the psychological scars of hurt. How is the mind, the brain, to be free of them? Must it be free of them? Is not the memory of being hurt a protection against the future? Verbally, in many ways you have hurt me; there is a memory of it. If I forget that, I come innocently to you next morning and you hurt me again. So what am I to do? Think it out, Sirs, go on.

Questioner: Isn't it important for me to find out why I am psychologically capable of being hurt?

Krishnamurti: It is fairly simple. We are very sensitive, there are a dozen reasons. I have an image about myself and I don't want you to hurt that image. I think I am a great man, you come along and put a pin into it and it hurts me. Or I feel terribly inferior and I meet you, who feel extraordinarily superior, and I get hurt. You are clever, I am not - I get hurt. You are beautiful, I am not. The knowledge of being hurt, not only physically but psychologically, inwardly, has left a mark on the brain as memory. Memory is knowledge. Why should I be free of that knowledge? If I am free, you are going to hurt me again. Therefore that knowledge acts as a resistance, as a wall. And what happens in relationship between human beings when there is this wall between you and me?

Questioner: We can't meet.

Krishnamurti: Exactly. So what do we do? Go on Sir, pursue it!

Questioner: Take away the wall.

Krishnamurti: But you are going to hurt me.

Questioner: It's only the image that is hurt.

Krishnamurti: No, Sir. Look, I come to you quite innocently. The root meaning of that word "innocent" is that you cannot be hurt. So I come to you open, friendly, and you say something to me which hurts me. Doesn't this happen to all of you? And what takes place? That leaves a mark - that's knowledge. What is wrong with that knowledge? That knowledge acts as a wall between you and me. Of course! Therefore what shall I do?

Questioner: You've got to break through.

Krishnamurti: First look at it, don't say, "Break through" - just look at it. You've hurt me and the knowledge of that remains. If I have no knowledge of it, you will hurt me again; and if I have that knowledge strengthened, it acts as a wall between you and me. Therefore between you and me there is no relationship. So knowledge of the past prevents a relationship between you and me. What shall I do?

Questioner: Examine it.

Krishnamurti: I have examined it, I have taken ten minutes in the examination of it and I see that examination, that analysis is totally useless.

Questioner: Is this where time comes in?

Krishnamurti: I have taken ten minutes - analysis implied ten minutes - and that ten minutes is a waste.

Questioner: If there were no time...

Krishnamurti: I have used time. Don't say there is no time.

Questioner: But if there were no time.

Krishnamurti: I don't know, that's a supposition. I have ten minutes to see why I am hurt, to examine the hurt, to see the necessity of keeping that hurt as knowledge. I have asked myself: if I remove that hurt, won't you hurt me again? And I see, as long as that hurt remains, there is no relationship between you and me. All that has taken more than a quarter of an hour. And I see I have achieved nothing at the end of it. So I have found analysis has no value at all. What shall I do, having been hurt and remembering that hurt prevents all relationship?

Questioner: We have to accept being hurt.

Krishnamurti: No, I'm neither accepting nor rejecting, I'm looking. I don't accept or reject anything. My question then is, "Why am I hurt?" What is this thing that is being hurt?

Questioner: The knowledge of being a fool in fact.

Krishnamurti: Sir, say something that's actual, don't imagine and then verbalize. First find out what it is that is being hurt. When I say I am hurt because you call me a fool, what is it that is being hurt?

Questioner: Your pride. The knowledge of being a fool is there.

Krishnamurti: No, Madam, it is not only that, please look at it, it is much deeper than that. I am hurt because you called me a fool. Why should I be hurt?

Questioner: Because of the image I have of myself.

Krishnamurti: Which means I have an image of myself as not being a fool. And when you call me a fool, or a blackguard, or a whatever it is, I get hurt because of my image. Why do I have an image about myself? As long as I have an image about myself I'm going to be hurt.

Questioner: Why do I have to care about the image that the other has of me, whatever that be?

Krishnamurti: The other has an image of me as a fool, or he has the image of me as a great intellect - it's the same thing, you follow? Now why do I have an image about myself?

Questioner: Because I don't like what I am.

Krishnamurti: No, first why do you have it? Because you don't like yourself as you are? What are you? Have you looked at yourself without an image? Let's be simple. I have an image about you as being very clever, bright, intelligent, awake, enlightened - a tremendous image. And comparing myself with you I am dull. Measuring myself against you I find I am inferior - obviously. That makes me feel I am very dull, very stupid, and from that feeling of inferiority, of stupidity, I have many other problems. Now why do I compare myself with you at all? Is it that we have been brought up from childhood to compare? In schools we compare, through the giving of marks, through examinations. The mother says, "Be as bright as your elder brother." There is this terrible comparison going on all the time throughout life. And if I don't compare, where am I? Am I dull? I don't know. I have called myself dull in comparing myself with you, who are not dull, but if I don't compare, what happens?

Questioner: I become myself.

Krishnamurti: What is yourself? Just see the cycle we go through, repeating these things over and over again without understanding them. So I come back to this: why do I have to have an image about myself - good, bad, noble, ignoble, ugly or dull. Why do I have an image about anything?

Questioner: It's a means of conscious acting. A man who is conscious and aware must automatically become involved in comparison.

Krishnamurti: Sir, I am asking: why do I compare? Comparison implies not only conflict but imitation, doesn't it?
Questioner: But surely it is necessary to evaluate.

Krishnamurti: Watch it please - comparison implies conflict and imitation, doesn't it? That's one side of it. In comparing myself with you I feel I am dull, therefore I must struggle to be as clever as you are. There is conflict and I then imitate what you are. That's implied in comparison: conflict and imitation. But also I see I must compare between this cloth and that cloth, this house and that house, measure whether you are tall or short, measure the distance between here and another place. You follow? But why do I have an image about myself? Because if I have an image about myself it's going to be hurt.

Questioner: Perhaps this image doesn't exist at all.

Krishnamurti: That's right, go on, investigate it. Why do I have an image about myself as something or nothing?

Questioner: I want to be secure, that depends on how secure the image is.

Krishnamurti: You are saying that you are seeking security in an image. Is that it? That image has been put together by thought. So you find security in the image which thought has built, and in that image thought is seeking security. Thought has created an image because it wants security in that image, so thought is seeking security in itself. Which is: thought is seeking security in the image which it has built, and that image is the product of thought; thought is memory, which is the past. So thought has built this image about itself? No?

Questioner: Sir, may I ask what to do with education? Because even parents start to compare their own children and say, "This child is cleverer."

Krishnamurti: I know. Parents are the most dangerous human beings! (Laughter) They destroy their children, because they are uneducated.

So the image is built by thought and thought is seeking security; so thought has invented an image in which it finds security, but it is still thought and thought is the response of memory, of yesterday. What has happened? Knowledge of yesterday has created this image. How am I not to be hurt? Not being hurt implies not having any kind of image - obviously. Now, how am I to prevent images? - images of the future, of which I am going to be frightened. Thought is time, thought is fear of the image of tomorrow in which there is no certainty. How is the mind, or the brain, not to have images at all and yet not be hurt? The moment it is hurt, it is to have an image. And being hurt, it protects itself with another image.

So my question is: apart from the physical aspect, where it has to protect itself against danger, polluted air, wars, etc., where protection is necessary - can the brain not be hurt at all? Which means, not to have any kind of image. Not to be hurt implies having no resistance. Having no resistance means having no image. Not to be hurt means vitality, energy, and that energy is dissipated when I have images. That energy is dissipated when I compare myself with you, compare my image with your image. That energy is dissipated in conflict, in trying to become your image, which I have projected for myself. That energy is wasted when I am imitating the image which I have projected about you. So the dissipation of energy is this factor. And when I am energetic, which can only take place when there is attention, I am not hurt. I don't know whether you are following all this? Let's understand it differently.

One observes that one is hurt. One is hurt because basically one has an image about oneself. That image has been built through the various forms of culture, education, civilization, tradition, nationality, economic conditions and social injustice.

That image is the past and therefore knowledge. Thought - whether it is my thought or the collective thought - has imprinted on the brain this sense of comparing an image with another image. The mother, the school teacher, the politician does it, as well as the mythology of the Christians; the whole civilization is based on building this image. And there it is, in the brain, which is thought. Now one discovers, one understands, that as long as one has an image, there must be hurt.

Questioner: The image is the hurt, isn't it?

Krishnamurti: So can the brain be free of all images and therefore never be hurt? That means to be free of the knowledge of the past as image. Knowledge of the past is essential to speak a language; but as long as there is knowledge as an image, put together by thought, which is the "me" - which is the greatest image - and as long as I have the greatest image in "me", you have a perfect right to put pins into it. And you do!

So can the brain never be hurt? Sirs, to find this out for yourselves and live a life in which the brain is never hurt! Then only can you have relationship. But if in the relationship you are hurting me and I am hurting you, it comes to an end. And if in that relationship between you and me there is hurt and that relationship comes to an end, then I go to find another relationship - divorce you and join somebody else. And again there is going to be hurt. We think by changing a relationship we are going to be completely invulnerable. But all the time we are being hurt.

Questioner: If the images are gone, between what is the relationship? Relationship means a relevant word, and if the images are gone, what is the relationship between man and wife?

Krishnamurti: Why are you asking me? Find out if your image has gone, not because you want to ask me a question which I should answer. Find out if the images, which you have, have gone; then you will find out what your relationship is with another. But if I say, "It is love", it is just a theory. Throw it out, that has no meaning. But if you said: "I know I am hurt, all my life I have been hurt." Don't you know this? - a series of inward tears, a series of anxieties. These images exist!

Our question is: can the brain never be hurt at all? And that you have to apply yourself to, not just talk about it. Go after it, say, "Have I got an image?" Obviously you have, otherwise you and I wouldn't be sitting here. And if you have an image, examine it, go into it and see the futility of analysis, because that prevents you from action. Whereas if you say now,"I move with the image", to move with the image means the thought that is building this; and thought is knowledge. So can the brain be full of knowledge in one direction and have no knowledge in the other? That means complete silence. You understand, Sir? To be completely silent, and out of that silence to use knowledge. You won't see this.

Questioner: What place is there for established relationship? Is there such a thing?

Krishnamurti: Go to the Registrar and get married. That establishes legally a relationship, and what goes on, my God! And what goes on also not legally! So it's your torture.

To come back, what is the relationship of thought to fear? We said, thought springs from knowledge of the past, knowledge is the past. In that knowledge thought has found security: I know my house, I know you, I am this, I am conditioned or not conditioned. I have asserted what I am in knowledge. But tomorrow I don't know, I am afraid of tomorrow. And also I am afraid of the knowledge which I have of the past, because I see there is also tremendous insecurity. If I live in the past, as most of us do, I am already dead and that feeling of living in the past is suffocating, and I don't know how to get rid of it and I am frightened of that, as I am frightened of tomorrow. So I am frightened of living and I am frightened of dying. What am I to do with the fears I have? Or is there only one fear. Apart from the physical fears and psychosomatic fears, is there only one fear, taking different forms?

Questioner: Is it the fear of nothingness, of the void?

Krishnamurti: Is it the fear of not being? The fear of not having any image: the being is the image, isn't it? Let's apply our minds and see actually whether the mind can be free of fear, both of the physical fears and the psychological fears which are much deeper, more neurotic. Let's apply ourselves, put our teeth into it, because one sees that when there is fear of any kind it is the most appalling thing. One lives in darkness, in a sense of void, disassociated, having no relationship, everything becomes ugly. Haven't you fear? - not only of the past, but also of the future; not only the fears of which one is conscious, but deep down.

Now when you look at this whole phenomenon of fear, at the various forms of fear, physical and psychological, with all their divisions, in all their varieties, when you see the whole structure of fear, what is the root of it all? Unless I discover the root of it, I shall go on manipulating the parts, modifying the parts. So I must find the root of it. What do you think is the root of all fears? - not just of one particular form of fear. Please don't answer me. Be sure for yourself, what is the root of it, discover it, unfold it, look at it.

Questioner: Sir, I would like to say that as an exercise we should hurt each other. I would like to hurt you, and you should hurt these people; because of the conditions here - I feel the whole atmosphere is polite - you don't want to hurt these people.

Krishnamurti: The gentleman says, this atmosphere is polite, a bore. I don't want to hurt you and you don't want to hurt me; therefore it's a form of politeness and it doesn't amount to anything. Is that so? I don't mind your hurting me.

Questioner (1): I think relationship is not just sitting here and listening to you. I think if I hurt you, there would be a relationship between you and me, because then I have destroyed part of the image.

Questioner (2): That's nonsense! Is it possible for you to continue, as we have so little time?

Krishnamurti: You see, Sir, it's not a reaction, he is telling you something, he says, look: we have been through all this. We have examined the images - you having one, I having one, you hurting and I hurting, we've been through all that; it's not politeness.

Questioner: But you described images and we did not look into the images.

Krishnamurti: You were supposed to. How do you know?

Questioner: May be the others did.

Krishnamurti: How do you know? You see, how do I know that you have not washed away your images? It's my conceit which says you have not. Who am I to tell you whether you have, or not. It's up to you. So let's go back.

I want to find out about fear - not the parts of the various fears - but I really want to find out the root of it. Is it "not being"? - which is the "becoming", you follow? That is, "I am becoming something", "I want to be something". I have been hurt and I want to be free of hurts. All our life is this process of "becoming". Aggression is part of this becoming. And the "not becoming" is an immense fear; "not being" is a fear, isn't it? Is that the root of it?

Questioner: Sir, I try to find out the root of fear. I see I can't think about the fear, so the mind becomes silent so that I can just feel that fear; and then all I feel is a deep, inner tension; but I can't get beyond that point.

Krishnamurti: But why is one tense about it? I just want to find out. Why should I have any tension about it? Because if there is tension I want to go beyond it, I am so eager, so greedy! Sir, just look. We think, don't we, each one of us, in terms of becoming - becoming enlightened, breaking down the images: "You don't listen to my image", "I don't listen to your image" - you follow? This whole process is a form of "becoming" or "being". When the "being" is threatened - which is "not becoming" - there is fear. Right?

What is there to become? I can understand that I can become healthier, I can grow my hair longer, but psychologically, what is there to become? What is becoming? Changing images? Changing one image for another image? - obviously. But if I have no image at all and I see the reason for not having one logically, I also see the truth, that images prevent relationship, whether it is the hurt image, or a pleasant image - it is both, obviously. If I have a pleasant image about you, you are my friend, if I have an unpleasant image about you, you are my enemy. So not to have images at all! Work this out, apply it, not just accept it, but actually apply it. Enquire and apply and live it. Then one finds - if you do apply, do work at it - there is a mind, there is a brain, that can never be hurt, because there is nothing to be hurt.