How do I deal with my deep-rooted emotion? | J. Krishnamurti

Third Question: ‘My behaviour
indicates that I am afraid. Yet the actual perception
of fear is elusive. How do I reach and deal with this
deep-seated but unconscious emotion?’ ‘My behaviour indicates
that I am afraid. Yet the actual perception
of fear is elusive. How do I reach and deal with this
deep-seated but unconscious emotion?’ Do you want to go into this now? I was going to deal with it
on Saturday. It doesn’t matter,
we will deal both days. If one has observed, this problem of fear has existed
from time immemorial. Right? It has existed with man. And man has lived with it, both consciously or hidden deep
down, its roots very, very deep. And either we have escaped from it
through logic, through analysis, through any form of entertainment that helps us to avoid
coming directly into contact with it and holding it, or we have suppressed it. Right? We do this.
Or we neglect it. We say, ‘What, we have lived
with fear for million years, so what does it matter now?’ And one knows
the consequences of fear: physical shrinkage, a tendency to be hypocritical,
resistance, an avoidance of the fact
that one is really afraid. So if one really, profoundly wants
to be free from that reaction called fear, one has to go to the very root of it. There is biological fears: the body, the organism
which must protect itself, and the fear of disease,
old age, death, and the fears of past memories. So fear is again a common ground
upon which all human beings stand. So, either we deal with it
superficially or enquire into it very, very deeply. What is the root of fear? One knows various forms of fear: death, old age, fear of tomorrow,
fear of uncertainty, fear of insecurity,
fear of not being loved, or love and not receiving
that love, fear of loneliness, fear of loss, fear of not having
anybody to depend on, and so on – there are various forms of fear – the fear of the dark,
the fear of light. Do we deal
with the outward forms of fear? That is, I am afraid of my wife, or I am afraid of a bully; a bully, bullying all the time,
you lie, you do all kinds of things, and there is the fear
of that constant pressure of an aggressive,
slightly demented person. So do we want to deal
with fear superficially, which is intellectually, verbally, or do we want to go into it
very, very deeply? Please, this is a serious question
which you must answer for yourself. If you want to go into it
superficially, that is endless. It is like a tree – the moment you cut down
one branch or one twig of it there is another one rising.
It’s perpetual flowering of fear. Or, you go into it
observing its very nature, structure, how it comes into being. When we want to deal with it deeply,
go to the very root of it, what is the root of fear? Please, I am not telling you,
the speaker is not pointing out. We are together investigating into
a tremendous complicated problem which has crippled humanity. And out of fear we have done
all kinds of things; invented all the gods on earth. If there is absolutely
no psychological fear then you are beyond all gods. So what is basically
the root of fear? Is it time and thought? Please, we are investigating, I am
not telling you, I am questioning. Is it time, the future or the past? And is it also thought,
thinking about the future, thinking about the past, thinking what
might happen, or what has happened. The future is time. The past is time. The past,
modifying itself in the present, moves towards tomorrow,
the future. The remembrance of an incident
which has caused fear, and the future of that incident
awakening the new fear. You are following all this? Am I talking to myself
or we are meeting each other? So there is horizontal fear
and vertical fear. Right? So we are asking, is it time? The past,
the present and the future. One is afraid of the present: the instability, the threat of war, the bomb that some country, another great tribal country
might put it on this – and so on. So one is afraid of the past,
the present and the future. This is a movement
– right? – it is not something that is static,
it is a movement. And so a movement means time. From here to the village requires
time to travel, to go to the village. From one point to another point
means time. So, we are asking if time
is one of the factors of fear. Logically it seems so.
Rationally, sanely. And is thought also the root of fear? I think tomorrow
might bring me unemployment, I will be unemployed tomorrow. The thinking about it
while I am employed, thinking about the tomorrow
is also the beginning of fear. Right? You are following? Thinking about the past, the incidents,
the psychological accidents which has brought about
certain forms of fear, thinking about the past,
thinking about the future, thinking about
the actual moment of life in which there is such
tremendous uncertainty. Thought breeds fear. Right?
You are following all this? So time and thought,
are they the major factors of fear? And if they are, and as in reality
they are, what is one to do? You understand my problem?
Are we meeting each other? You have explained this to me, that
time and thought is the root of fear. You have gone into it,
you have explained it. Not in great detail but I’ve captured
the meaning of what you have said. Now, then you ask me, is it an idea
that you have accepted, the words that you have accepted,
or listening what you have said to me, from that listening I have made
an abstraction of it into an idea, and I’m struggling with the idea. Then I ask, how am I
to put that idea into action? You see the difference?
Vous avez compris? You have understood
what I am saying? Is this clear? No. We have the habit
of making abstractions of a fact. Those abstractions become ideals,
ideas, concepts, conclusions – all verbal. And then I ask myself, how am I to carry out these ideals,
these ideas, these concepts, that time and thought
are the root of fear. You’ve understood? I have made an abstraction
of what you have told me: time and thought
are the root of fear. And I am pursuing the idea,
how am I to carry out in life. The speaker says
please don’t do that. Don’t make an abstraction
of what you have heard, that time and thought
are the root of fear. Don’t translate into an idea
but find out the truth of it, the actuality of it. That is, I see that I really am
afraid of the past, which is so. Also I am afraid of the present, because the things are
so incredibly destructive round me. And also I am afraid
of tomorrow, the future – the atom bomb, the nuclear bomb,
the mugging, the mad terrorists
and the politicians with their game, that’s the present,
so also the future. So, I see the fact, not the idea, that
time and thought are the root of fear. Next Saturday I’ll go into it
much more, in a different way, but this is the root of fear. Now what shall I do? I realise, I see the fact. I see
the truth of what you have told me. Not romantic, idealistic, all that,
that has no meaning. I see the truth, the actual truth
of what you have told me. Then the difficulty arises,
if you have gone that far, who is the observer
who actually sees the fact? You understand all this,
or is this too difficult? All right. Who is the observer who says,
‘Ah yes, I see the truth of it’? Is the observer
different from what he sees? You understand my question? When I say, ‘Yes, I see the truth
of what you have told me, I have already played a trick,
which is: I see the truth of it. That means I am different
from the truth. You are following? Right? Is this clear? Wait a minute,
let me put it much more simply. When I am angry,
is that anger different from me? Or at the moment of anger
there is no difference. There is this tremendous reaction. A few seconds later I say,
‘I have been angry’, therefore I have divided myself
as the ‘me’ who has been angry. Right? You see? So, when you have told me
the truth, the fact, that time and thought
are the factors of fear, I listen to it very carefully and I say,
‘Yes, I see the truth of it’, and the perception of that truth
is something out there, and me watching it.
Follow this? Or, there is no observer
but only the fact of it. You understand the difference?
Are we meeting? I observe that tree. In that observation, words spring up:
‘That’s an oak tree’, and the very naming of that tree prevents me
from actually looking at it. You have understood? If I go to a museum and see a picture,
a painting by the old masters – I don’t like modern paintings,
that doesn’t matter – and I go there and look. When I compare one master
against another master I am not looking at the actual
painting of a particular master. I am comparing, judging,
I am never observing very closely without any sense of other painters,
looking. So, when I observe, when I see
the truth of what you have told me, there is no division between
the observer and the observed. There is only the truth of it.
Not, I see it. And that perception which is holistic
frees the mind from fear completely. Have you got this? Don’t look, please, so puzzled. Look, sir. What time is it? Q: Twelve thirty. K: You are not tired?
Can we go on with this? It’s very important
to understand this. I am afraid – suppose I am afraid,
psychologically – I then try to control it,
I try to rationalise it, I try to escape from it, I go
to somebody to help me to resolve it. So I am always acting on it.
Right? Is that clear? That’s what we are all doing: acting upon it either to dissipate it
or to control it or to run away from it
or to suppress it. This is what we do,
acting upon it. So there is always this conflict. Right? Is that clear? The struggle not to be afraid,
which is a conflict. Now, can that conflict end?
You understand? I am putting the question
differently. Can that conflict
between me and the fear, me controlling the fear,
suppressing and so on, and thereby this division
which inevitably brings conflict, can that conflict end?
You get the point? That’s my question. I say,
how can that conflict end? Why does this division
between the ‘me’, the I who is trying to suppress,
control, dominate fear, why is there this division? Is this division actual or is it merely semantic, verbal? Or, not being able
to solve the problem, thought has divided itself
as the ‘me’ and the fear. You understand? Am I talking to myself
or can we go on? Sorry, you probably have
never thought about all this. So, it is important to resolve this
conflict, because we live in duality. ‘I am this, I should not be that…
I should be that’. So there is always this duality
which brings about conflict. Right? Now, I want to find out
– no, I won’t use ‘I want to’ – can this conflict end? Is there – please listen to it –
is there an opposite? I am afraid. The opposite is not to be afraid
– right? – or have courage. Is there an opposite to fear? Or there is only the ending of fear,
not the opposite of fear. I wonder if you see all this. So, is there an ending of fear? – the ending being no conflict.
Right? If I end it through conflict, that
means I’ll go on, it’ll be perpetual. You get this?
So can this end? To end something, there must be no me
who is trying to end it. Right? If I try to end it,
I am in conflict with it. Right? But is there an observation
of this reaction called fear without the past interfering
with that observation? The past being the remembrances,
the many fears I have had. So the past, can it abstain
from looking at the fact without the memory of yesterdays? You haven’t understood? Look, sir: if I am married,
I meet my wife every day. Every day
– rather boring, every day. Listen carefully please,
don’t laugh – every day. So I begin to know her; I know how she looks,
what her gestures, all the rest of it, the words, so gradually I have built up
a knowledge about her, and whenever I look at her
all the knowledge comes out. Right? The knowledge is the past
– right? – because I have built the knowledge day after day, day after day,
day after day, accumulated it through various
incidents and so on and so on. So whenever I see her, this knowledge,
which is the past, looks at her. You are doing this,
this is nothing new. Only we are putting into words. And so this knowledge
is the remembrance of things past, meeting the present and so dividing.
Right? Physically of course my wife
is not like me – male and female. But psychologically
I have divided myself. Do you understand? The remembrance
of the accumulated memories, which is knowledge about my wife, has separated
as the ‘me’ and her. Got this? The past has brought about
this division. Now similarly,
the past remembrances of fears, past remembrance
of accidents of fear, the happenings of fear,
is stored in the brain, and that brain
is remembering the past, and so when the present reaction
comes, you name it immediately as fear, and record it as fear.
You follow this? Right? Is this clear? No, don’t tell me this is not clear.
I can’t help it, sorry. I’ll try to put it ten,
three or four different ways. The past is time. The past is the observer. And so the observer says,
yes, that is fear. I know it’s fear
because I have had it so many times. So, moment it recognises it,
it’s part of the past. Right? You see this fact. So can you look at that reaction… is there an observation
of that reaction without the past? And when the past observes,
you maintain the same movement. But when there is an observation
without the past, you are looking at it afresh. Which is, when you observe
fear from the past, you are using an energy which has
already been employed year after year. Right? That’s a wastage of energy. Is there a new energy that meets
this fear without the past? You understand the question now?
Oh, for God’s sake! You see, fear exists only – I realise, one sees the truth that
time and thought are the root of fear. Fear exists when there is inattention,
when there is no attention. Right? If I give complete attention to fear,
it doesn’t exist. But my brain
has been conditioned not to give attention
to this reaction. When you have sexual feelings
you – right? Whereas fear, if you give total attention to it which is not to analyse it,
not to rationalise it, not to escape from it,
not to observe it from the past – attention means
giving your whole energy to look. Right?
Then when you do, fear is not. I can’t go on into this. We can go into it
in different ways. On Saturday we’ll go into it
very much more. Because the mind that has fear
is a destructive, aggressive, neurotic mind, whereas a mind that is
utterly free of fear psychologically is an extraordinary mind.

67 thoughts on “How do I deal with my deep-rooted emotion? | J. Krishnamurti

  1. As a man was seeking Truth, he saw mountain as mountain, waters as waters ( I-see-mountain, I -heard, I named, classified,I divided, I criticized-this is such a hard to climb mountain). After he saw fleeting Truth, he saw no mountain as mountain, no waters as waters (I am mountain or there's no mountain). But after rested in absolute Truth, he still sees mountain and waters but the Observer is Observed, no more "I" in this phenomenal, relative existence. The ego, or the lack of it, moves in relation in this beautiful, totality of human consciousness. Thanks K and friends.

  2. Which talk Krishnamurti gave on the consecutive day to the present talk, as he said we will talk further on this tomorrow. Please share some link.

  3. It is so pity that Krishnamurti was not able to teach Vipassana meditation. It's exactly what he is talking about but at the experiential level. Not just talking about it. Fear is the reaction for sensations created by thoughts, and this reaction is unconscious.. Until you learn to be conscious of this phenomenon and be liberated from fear and all kinds of suffering

  4. Listening to Krishnamurti is a great joy and always brings clarity and peace. What grace to have lived in a time where this man can be heard, seen and venerated.

  5. There is no way to find you true self other than by learning the ultmate truth about life. You must embark on a lifelong inner quest for enligthenment and give up the love of the lie. Google truthcontest, click the Earth icon, read the present, nothing could be more important or worthwhile.

  6. Hello. Please do not consider this posting, and the questions therein, to be rude or inconsiderate; that is not my intention at all….

    At 22:34 of this video, Krishnamurti is using the example of viewing paintings at a museum. He mentions that he likes the old masters and not modern painting. (In another video he mentions that he does not like rock-n-roll music (actually he says that he does not see how that can be called music).) But doesn't like and dislike create conflict because it is based on the 'I' choosing?

    Or does the idea of like and dislike creating conflict apply to the psychological sphere? That is, if one is looking at anger (or any other emotion), it is important not to identify like or dislike because this creates conflict with 'what is'. Like and dislike are a form of avoiding 'what is'.
    [But then separating the psychological sphere from the totality of life is itself a form of conflict because there is no difference — all spheres are within one ocean with an ebb and a flow.]

    But where does one draw the line? For instance, I do not like noisy, congested places or, a more specific example, barking dogs, which are a problem in my neighborhood. These situations cause me anxiety, frustration, anger, and so on. Is it wrong for me to dislike noisy places (or barking dogs), just as Krishnamurti is saying that he dislikes modern paintings or rock-n-roll music? Is it wrong to avoid noisy, congested places or places with barking dogs, OR is it wrong to avoid these places only because doing so allows me to avoid looking at, and understanding, the emotions that those situations cause in me?

    If I have looked at these emotions and understood them, then those situations should not disturb me. And yet, does that mean that I should subject myself to those situations when I have options that would allow me to be in more tranquil surroundings?
    If someone does not like modern paintings does that mean they should decorate their house with modern paintings, rather than their preferred classical paintings, because not to do so implies that they are avoiding the 'what is' of their dislike for modern paintings? If someone does not like spicy foods, should they eat spicy foods because not doing so implies an avoidance of 'what is'?
    [If replying, I would appreciate connections with Krishnamurti's teachings — e.g. other videos or his books.]

  7. we are existentially separate but essentially associated. does he ask are we meeting because of that probably?

  8. How could I spot fear without the memories of the past? I wouldn’t even know what fear is without my past experiences!

  9. We are living in diverse conditions, fear is natural because we have the capacity to think. Then some of us decide that fear stands in a way to achieve own potential and we start recognizing and healing to remove ourselves from own way.

  10. I am watching this video to handle Deep Rooted unconscious emotion lets see how much helpful is this in 21 century

  11. He says thought and time bread fear , thinking about past, future, future is time the past is time , past modifies in present and goes into furure, this is horizontal fear and converted fear, it is time , we afraid of present , afraid of the past and future ,its is a movement and movement means time , travel8mg means time, time is one of the factor of fea, its thought is a root of fear , Thimking about the tommorow and past incidence the physcolifical events, thinking about the actual movement , time and thought is the major factor of fear,

  12. I'm not sure. When I say "I have been angry", have I necessarily divided myself from anger? Or has anger simply disappeared? Well, in a way, we're more than anger because awareness watches anger dissolve. Anger, like any sensation or feeling, disappears at some point. My capacity to inquire, to go into it, proves I cannot be simply anger. The question is: What exactly is watching it disappear?

  13. I may be wrong, but either I'm missing something Krishanmurti is pointing to or he's somewhat muddled. The observer is not only the observed because awareness watches the observed disappear (such as anger or any other sensation). Sensations disappear, as do thoughts. Unless he means: what I am is constantly coming and going, and awareness is not actually "me". It's true that there's no "me" one can point to, even though there's awareness. That sounds like a classic Buddhist teaching.

  14. It's true that pure awareness doesn't try to do anything. It has no intention of controlling, suppressing any kind of unpleasant emotion. Awareness simply is. Krishnamurti's point seems to be that the "controller" is part of the problem; it's just a reactive state, another link in the egoic chain. Yes, one can see that the "controller" or "suppressor" is just another guise of the "me".

  15. The answer is (and it's startlingly simple, so simple as to boggle the conditioned mind, which is accustomed to "doing"), the answer is: DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. BE NOTHING – psychologically. The end of conflict.

  16. I can't help but see parallels with physical reality and quantum physics. It's all so fundamentally unintuitive what he says. Yet, it does have some validity in science, and for the practicing soul that is trying to train ones mind. To domesticate the wild animal that is the human psyche, it all rings very true. Try what he says, which echos the wisdom of so many of our spiritual sciences, and I think we will see, it leads to an objectivity that is empowering.

  17. His one flaw is he becomes, at times, so frustrated in his delivery, and so projects he is condescending. This is not exemplary of a peaceful mind. But he would likely be the first to admit his frailties. He as he has said, is not your guru. So this reminds you that he is only a guide, a human one.

  18. My one argument would be, fear does exist. And it's beneficial to human existence. It's how that fear is interpreted and controlled. How it is harnessed that is critical. Fear, evolutionary speaking is fundamental to our survival. It's when that pressure is not controlled and harnessed and understood, as he eloquently guides us, that it becomes useless and regressive.

  19. People can't realize the great wisdom behind of what he's saying…Time and thoughts are the root of fear

  20. He talked about creating an image.. Living in fear is creating an image of self with fear and living with that image. Seeing the mirror of fear brings up the same image that is affected by it all the time. We're not afraid of fear itself, but of the image of it that mind has created.

  21. Fear of not being understood which means fear of wasting energy on both sides of the interaction. Fear consumes energy. Lets keep fear as a friend. It will keep us alive but also lets observe it and try to let it go when it is not serving us. Intelligent fear management by means of observation/attention and letting go.

  22. Its like fear is wandering around in dark without you realizing it in your brain and stealing your energy then you realize it put the lights on it. It is naked! It cannot hide anywhere and the moment you realize it, it disappear for that moment. It will come back though. Fear is one of the dear friends that will teach you how to free yourself from the mind.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *