Varanasi 3rd Talk to Students 17th December 1967
Perhaps we can go on with what we were talking about the other day. We were saying that the quality of mind which recognizes a fact and pursues that fact without creating the opposite will not be in conflict. And it is important, I feel, that one should understand the structure and nature of conflict, for most of us, whether we are very worldly, or have taken the robe of a monk or a sannyasi, are still in conflict - perhaps not so much with the world as with ourselves. The conflict goes on, and the mind that is in conflict, in contradiction, is a twisted mind; it cannot see very clearly. And so the question is: whether it is possible to live, not only in the outside world, but also in the world inside the skin, as it were - whether it is possible to live there completely without any conflict at all? Most of us have accepted conflict as inevitable, as part of our daily human existence, as part of our inheritance. We have accepted conflict, like war, as the way of life. But renouncing the world, or merely identifying oneself with certain mythological or ideological states, does not resolve this conflict.
So the problem is whether it is possible to live peacefully - not ideologically but actually at peace in everyday life; in thought, in feeling, in action, in movement.
When we say peacefully we do not mean in the sense of going to sleep, or accepting a dogma and living within that dogma, forgetting or being oblivious to any other question; or living in a fragment and identifying with that fragment. That, obviously, does not bring about a quality of mind that is meditatively peaceful. One must have peace, but not through drugs, not through a self-hypnotic process of repeating certain words, or by resting on tradition. Minds which do that are obviously asleep. They are dull minds which do not have the quality necessary to find out what is true. If one seeks peace with a motive it is no longer peaceful. Peace with a motive is an escape from conflict, and so is not peace at all, but another form of violence.
So seeing all this, is it possible to be rid of conflict - completely? This is not an ideological demand, not a hypothetical searching for some state of mind which is not in conflict - for that would be another form of escape from actuality. Is it at all possible - not only consciously but deeply, in what may be called the unconscious - to be rid entirely of this everlasting struggle, strife, competition, comparison, measurement, seeking; all of which entails conflict? I do not know if you have asked that question of yourself - if you have actually put it to yourself. If you have, you either say it is impossible, and therefore block yourself from further inquiry; or you say it is possible, in which case you must have the capacity and energy for it. Capacity and energy really always go together; the two are not separate. When one has the energy one has the capacity to find out.
So, have you asked yourself whether a mind can be completely rid of conflict, and therefore live in a state which is really meditative alertness - a meditative awareness? And if you intend to go into this question you must be quite serious, because if you are not serious you are not alive. One may think one is alive, but actually it is only the very earnest people who are alive. By earnest people I do not mean those who are committed to a certain course of action or to a certain ideological plan. An unbalanced person is quite serious, quite sincere, quite in earnest - and the hospitals are full of them. These people who are committed to a certain course of belief or action, but are neurologically and psychologically unbalanced, are dreadfully serious. The idealists, also, consider themselves serious, but I do not think they are serious at all. To be really serious is to comprehend the totality of the whole process of life, not just one fragment of it.
There are people who devote their lives to a fragment, to a part of life. They say that even if one cannot understand the totality one can still have love in one's heart. So they say, "In the meantime I will do something. I will plan, I will help my neighbour, I will do something. "They are the `meantimers' - meantime, while the house is burning, they will do something or other. They are concerned, not with the house itself which is burning, but with a side issue; and they are very serious, too.
So the question is: what is it to be serious - to be really, completely, earnest? Obviously the man who has a principle and lives according to that principle is not serious, because his conception of a principle is a projection of his own desire, his own pleasure. He lives according to his pleasure, and therefore is not serious. But by the denial of what is not serious you are serious. Through negation you find what is the positive.
Now, humility is the total denial of authority. It is not a partial denial but a total denial, because when you have no authority at all, either inwardly or outwardly, you stand alone, and then you are in a state of mind that is learning. It is only a mind which has this quality of humility that can learn. To learn, authority must obviously come to an end - the authority of a tradition, the authority of a principle, the authority of what others have said - Shankara, Buddha, Christ, it does not matter who - including the authority of the speaker. If one does not set aside authority, then one follows the path of another - and truth has no path whatsoever. The mind that accepts authority - the authority of the scripture, of its own experience, of tradition, of whatever it may be - such a mind, when it accepts authority, is basically afraid. And a mind that is afraid can never know what humility is.
So now we come to the question of whether the mind can be free of fear. You know, freedom is not from something. If there is freedom from something it is merely a reaction, and therefore is not freedom.
I wonder if we are communicating with one another, or not? To commune with another, to understand another, there must be not only the comprehension of words, but also a state of attention in which there is affection, care, love; so that you are listening with your nerves, your heart, your mind. Then we are in communication with one another and words do not matter so much. We have to be in that state of communion when we talk about a question which is quite complex - then the word is not the thing, the word does not impede.
Most of us, then, are afraid, and to understand this basic question of fear one must give one's total attention to it, so that there can then be no possibility of an escape from fear. After all, when you are afraid, it does not matter of what - of darkness, of losing your job, of what the neighbours think about you, of snakes, of death - if you escape from that fact, whether through drink, through rituals, through repetition of words, or through that cultivation of the opposite which is called courage, all such forms of escape prevent you from looking at the fact of fear. To understand something I must look. I cannot avoid it, or give it a dozen explanations, or find the cause of it. The discovery of the cause of fear does not dissolve fear. What does dissolve fear is the actual contact with it, the actual perception of what fear is.
From this question arises another - for, again, so many questions are involved with one another - the question of how to look.
We look at things as the observer and the observed. You look at a tree as the observer, with the image that you have about that tree, and therefore you do not look at the tree at all. You look at the image you have about the tree; it is the image that looks. You look at your friend with the image you have about him, an image which has been built up through time, through many days. That image is made up of the insult, the hurt, the friendship, and so on, that you have experienced with him. The image is there, and with that image you look; in the same way you look at the tree with the image you have about that tree, the image being, among other things, your botanical knowledge about this particular tree. Actually it is not you who are looking at the tree, but the knowledge you have about the tree that is looking. So you have no direct relationship with the tree.
Let us put it more inwardly. You have an image about your wife, or your husband - watch it in yourself, sir; don't, if I may point this out, merely listen to a lot of words. Words have no value at all. But if you are following this actually, inwardly, seeing yourself with your heart and your mind - seeing yourself as you actually are - then this has immense significance. So, then; you have an image about your wife or your husband, and this image which you have built up has been put together through time - through many days of irritation, pleasure, annoyance, boredom, and so on. That image which you have about her, and the image she has about you, are related, aren't they? Actually you are not related; it is the images that are related. So there is no actual relationship, and - please follow this a little more - you yourself, who have built the image, are yourself part of the image.
In the same way, you have an image about fear. You, the observer, the thinker, the experiencer, have an image of what fear is - but the image is different from the fact. The image may be a symbol, a word, and that image is the actual observer. The thing he observes is looked at through the image, which is himself. So he, the observer, separates himself from the thing that he observes, so that there is a division between the observer and the observed. Is this too complex? I think one has to understand this, not intellectually, but actually, if one is to go beyond and above fear; otherwise one will be caught in it.
Is fear, then, different from the observer? Obviously not. The observer is the entity that has, through association and memory, known what is fear - otherwise he would not be able to recognize it. So the observer has become an entity, and an entity is static. Look at it this way. Memory is the accumulation of experiences, pleasant or unpleasant, and the accumulation of knowledge. It is this memory - accumulation which responds and is the observer. Now this observer, though he may add to that memory, or take away from it, is always himself static, whereas the facts which he observes are always changing.
Look - I have an image about you. You have said pleasant things to me, or unpleasant things; you have patted me on the back or you have insulted me, so I have a memory of you which is static - which is not dynamic, alive. Tomorrow, when I look at you, it will be with that memory. But tomorrow you may have changed - probably you have - but my memory of you remains what it was. So the observer, though he thinks he is alive, is always static.
So, when you observe fear, how do you observe it, how do you know it, how do you recognize it? You recognize it, know it, observe it, because you have had it before, and it is the image you have made of it from past experiences which looks at the new fear, the fear that has just taken place.
The observer, then, though he thinks he is separate, is the observed, and when the mind divides itself into the observer and the thing observed, in that division there is conflict. All division is conflict. When India says, "I am a nation", and Pakistan says it is another separate nation, there is bound to be a clash. So, nationality, with its rag which is called the flag, is really the cause of conflict.
As long as there is a division between the observer and the observed there must be conflict, and therefore no understanding of fear. But if one examines the situation very closely one finds that the observer is also changing, though generally he does not want to. His images are so strong, his prejudices are so vital, so energetic, his conditioning is so deep, that he does not want to change. Yet, in spite of his conditioning, in spite of his limited, fragmentary outlook, there is also change going on in him, while what he looks at is also changing. But so long as one does not know how to observe how to see a thing, there must always be division, and therefore there must always be conflict.
After all, love is not conflict, love does not know jealousy, hatred, anger, ambition, the desire for power and position, the demand for self-expression. And to come upon love there must be the free to look at that which is not love - at hatred; to look at it, to observe it, to know the whole psychological structure of it, to observe it actually. When one understands the whole business of hatred, then there is love. Hence there is no conflict between love and hatred. That is, through the denial of all that is not love, such as jealousy, envy, greed, ambition, power, hatred, and so on - by observing very closely all that is not love, in daily life, (not in some mystical world but in daily existence), then out of that clear perception of what is not there takes place what is.
So, fear can only be understood and gone beyond - completely, totally, not fragmentarily - when the mind is no longer afraid, psychologically, about anything. If such a mind makes a mistake it recognizes that it has made a mistake; if it has told a lie it knows it has told a lie, and is no longer afraid of it. Fear is the product of thought.
Take the question of death, which is really quite an extraordinary thing of which we are so frightened. Thought carefully avoids that thing which we call death; thought has put it at a distance, and thought says, "I do not know a thing about death. I can invent theories - you know, that there is reincarnation, resurrection, a future hope - but the actual fact is that I do not understand it and I am afraid of it." This fear is the product of thought, for all that thought knows is what has been, not what will be. What has been is the memory, pleasant or unpleasant, of the life one has led - the turmoil, the anxiety, the guilt, the despair, the hope, the misery, the immense sorrow. That is all thought knows. But death is the unknown. You cannot be frightened of the unknown, since you do not know what that means. What you are frightened of is leaving the known - leaving your family, your house, your experiences, all that you call living. The living of everyday, with all its tortures, its boredom, its loneliness, and the tricks you play upon it - the escapes through drugs, through temples, through mosques, through churches - that is what you call living; the agony of it! You are frightened of that living and you are also frightened of that death. You are frightened of life and you are frightened of something called death. This is the actual fact.
So you do not know what living is because you are frightened of it - frightened of losing your job, of losing your wife, of losing your son, of not fulfilling, of not becoming - you know, the everlasting struggle born of fear, with occasional spots of light. So one is frightened of that, and of something one calls death, of which one knows nothing. Can one then understand the fear of both these things - the fear of life and the fear of death?
You can only understand them when you comprehend, or are aware of, or see, the totality of fear, not the fragments of it. As we were saying the other day, you can see something totally only when the mind is completely quiet. You can only listen to the speaker and what he says when you give your total attention to it; that is, when your nerves are quiet, when your mind is not chattering, comparing, or saying that what the speaker says has already been said by Shankara or Buddha or by this one or that - when you are not actually translating what you hear into terms of your own technological or linguistic comprehension, But when you are really listening.
In this same way you can look at fear - totally, completely. Then you will see a very strange thing happen - actually happen, not appearing as an idea. When there is no fear of what one calls living and no fear of what one calls death, then you will see that living is dying - that you cannot live without dying to yesterday. After all, sirs, the new is the death of the old, not the continuity of it. Life is not a continuity of yesterday - life is tremendously, passionately alive now. But if you look at life with the fear of yesterday, with its memories and knowledge, then living becomes a meaningless, frightful tangle and misery.
So, to a mind that can observe in total awareness - an awareness in which there is no choice - death is life and living is dying to everything of yesterday. Such a mind is fresh, young and innocent, and it is only such a mind that can see what truth is - not the Upanishads and always comparing. All that is immature nonsense. It is only the innocent mind that can love, because it has no authority and therefore has humility.
Questioner: Sir, will you....
Krishnamurti: Just a minute, sir. If I may ask, were you concerned with what was being said, or with your question?
Questioner: I was listening to you totally.
Krishnamurti: If you had been listening to the speaker totally there would have been a space between the listening and the question.
Questioner: I asked....
Krishnamurti: Just a minute, sir. What we are talking about is very serious. What we are examining is concerned not with words but with daily living. We are concerned with life, not with words and questions. When a man is tortured, or hungry, or in deep despair or sorrow, he must have space to look. He is not concerned with explanations or definitions; he is not asking anybody. That does not mean that we should not ask questions; on the contrary, we should ask, we should question, we should doubt - everything everybody has said. If you do so, your mind is sharp, alive, inquiring. But if you live merely on words, then you can spin out questions endlessly.. Now, sir, what was your question?
Questioner: My question is - what are the positive definitions of humility and freedom?
Krishnamurti: I think you will find the positive definitions in the dictionary - but the definition is not freedom or humility. The word is not the thing. When you are actually in a state of humility definition does not matter, what matters is seeing how vain you are. If you do not know or are not aware that you are vain, conceited, violent, ignorant of yourself, you may pretend to be humble, but humility, as we said, comes from the actual fact of observing honestly what you are. But it is very difficult to observe something honestly, especially yourself. To know when you are stupid, to know when you have told a lie, to know completely that when you want to help another there is in your wish ninety-nine per cent of self-concern; this is honest observation of what actually is. With that observation comes humility - not a definition, positive or negative.
In the same way, the definition of freedom is in the dictionary. But to understand what it is to be a slave, what it is to be conditioned - by your food, your tradition, your culture - what it is to be held by a nationality, by a religion, by a group; actually to know that you are conditioned and to go beyond all this - not in ideas, but actually, totally denying it all; that is freedom. Totally deny that you are a Hindu, or a Muslim, or a Christian, or a communist; deny it totally. For when you call yourself a Hindu you are separate from the Muslim, and when the Muslim calls himself a Muslim he is separate from the Buddhist. It is these separate states of mind which cause conflict. And to be honestly aware of all this brings about that quality of freedom.
Questioner: Sir, if one man is honest and the others are dishonest how can he continue in a brutal and destructive country?
Krishnamurti: How can one be honest if the other is dishonest? - and how can one be honest in such a brutal and destructive country as this? asks a little boy. Do you understand the implication of this question? This little boy is concerned about his future, the future that you of the older generation have built. You are responsible for this brutal, destructive world, and the boy says, "Am I growing up into that?" So already for him there is the despair and the fear of facing this monstrous world which the older generation have built. I think you should have tears in your eyes.
He asks; if one is honest and the others dishonest, what is one to do?
One cannot do anything about another. What one can do is to be honest in spite of the dishonesty around one. If you are honest because others are honest, that is dishonest, for then your honesty is a profitable thing, leading to your advancement, and so you become dishonest. Sirs, in this country, as elsewhere, there is a great deal of corruption, both outwardly and inwardly; but when one is not corrupt inwardly no amount of outward corruption can touch that inward quality of mind that is not corrupt.
If I love you because you hate me, or if I love you because you give me food, clothes and shelter, or give me pleasure, psychologically or sexually, is that love? So to the question that young boy asked whether one can be honest in this dishonest world - he will find the right answer when he is completely honest with himself. Then it will not matter who is honest or who is dishonest.
But the responsibility for this brutal and destructive world is not his business; it is the responsibility of the older people. What our business is is to see that he is educated rightly - not merely to pass some silly examination, to add a few letters after his name, which helps him to get a job in an overpopulated country like this. Our business is to see that he really has right education, so that intellectually and in his feelings he becomes mature. He will not become mature by reading books and gathering other people's ideas, but by being intellectually free to think, to observe, to reason, objectively, precisely, sanely. This education is something total, all-round - not just the cultivation of memory. It means that he knows that he is in touch with nature - with the trees, with the birds, with the flowers, with the river - and because he is in touch with nature he is in touch with human beings. Then, perhaps, he can create a world which is not destructive, which is not brutal
Questioner: How can one see anything directly, without the help of the image?
Krishnamurti: First of all, know you have an image; then discard the image. Then you will know how you can look directly.
You all have images, haven't you? You certainly have an image about the speaker - otherwise you would not be here. Your image about the speaker is preventing you from listening to what is being said. If you had no image about the speaker you would say, "Well, tell me. I will listen, and see if what you are saying is true or false." Or, you would see what is true in the false. So long as you have an image you are not in relation with anything. To be free of that image you must know how images are built up - how images, words, symbols are constructed by thought every day. You look at somebody and it gives you a delight, a pleasure. It gives you a feeling of warmth, and you think about that person and imagine what he is. So you have built an image which is giving you pleasure. If you can be free of that image you can look at that person very clearly, very simply. But first you must know the image you have, in order to be free of that image.
Questioner: Science is leading mankind to destruction. How can this be changed?
Krishnamurti: Is science at fault, or is it man himself who is at fault? What is wrong with atomic power? It can do enormous good, but, because we are stupid monkeys, we are using it for war - to destroy. So it is man who is wrong, not the atom bomb or science.
Man has divided himself into nationalities - the Indian, the Pakistani, the Chinese, the Russian, the American - and into separate religions based on theories, not on facts; on dogmas, not on actual living. By separating himself he creates conflict. You insist on being a Hindu, because your culture, your ways of thinking and acting and even of eating, have conditioned you to being a Hindu - just as a Catholic is conditioned by his. Yet the two of you are not very different - you are both human beings, with human agonies, miseries, loneliness and despair. And still you insist on being a Hindu, or a Muslim; who cares? What matters is what you are, not what your label is. What you are is the human being who is in agony, in despair, who is lonely, bored, frightened. The other man is also bored, frightened, and in despair. Therefore there can be a decent world without brutality only when you no longer have separative frontiers, either in the mind, or in the heart, or geographically.
Sirs, wait a minute. You have listened to this - if you have at all listened - and what are you going to do about it? Go back to your Hinduism? Go back to your tradition? Go back to your rituals? Repeat all the old tricks? Will you go back to your guru and prostrate yourself at his feet - when actually he is a stupid old man, repeating something he has learnt from others? What he has learnt is Hinduism, as you have. He repeats what the ancients have said - his superstitions - and you are caught in that same tradition. So you say, "Well, leave us alone", and so does the Muslim, the Catholic, or the communist; so does everybody.
So what are you going to do? - not the young people, but the older generation, who have made such an awful mess of the world? Will you go back? I am afraid you will, because you do not see the danger of this. You do not actually see with your heart what you are doing and what misery you are creating for yourself and for your sons and your daughters.
Questioner: All except a few do not want war, so why do they prepare for war?
Krishnamurti: I am not at all sure that the majority do not want war. Do you know what war means? War means destruction - killing and maiming one another, with the noise, the brutality, the ugliness, the appalling misery of pain. You have seen it on the films, that is war. Do you know how war has come into being? It has come because in our daily lives we destroy one another. Though in the temple we talk about the love of God, in our business dealings we are cutting one another's throats. Also, we have wars because we have armies, and it is the purpose of an army to prepare for war. Do you mean to say that an army man would want to give up his position, his job, his money, in order to have peace? He would not be so stupid.
So all of us, in one way or the other, are preparing for war. You can prevent war only if, in your daily life, you realize that you are no longer a Hindu, a Christian, a Buddhist, a Muslim or a communist. If in your daily life you are kind, generous, affectionate, loving, then you will have a different world. Then, instead of squandering money on armaments, you can make this world into a paradise. But it is up to you. You have the government you deserve, because you are part of that government, because you are politicians in your daily lives, and you want position, power, and authority.
Questioner: Sir, if I look at a tiger, the image and the fact are the same, but if I look at a human being he appears different from what he really is. So I cannot establish a relationship with him. Krishnamurti: The question is this: when I look at a tiger the image corresponds with the fact, but when I look at a man the image I have about him may contradict the fact. So how do I establish a relationship with another human being?
The image I have about the tiger is identical with the fact - but do I want to establish a relationship with a tiger? This is very important. Have you ever come across a wild animal? If you have - as the speaker has - what takes place? You turn the corner and there it is - a bear with four cubs. The mother bear chases the cubs up a tree. They climb like little squirrels, and the mother turns round and looks at you to see what you are going to do. If you are frightened any movement by you is a disturbance to her. She will interpret it as an attack on the cubs and on herself, and she will at once attack you. But if at that moment you have actually no fear whatever, and just look, she will leave you alone, and you can turn your back on her and go home. This has actually happened. As long as there is no fear you have communion with nature.
Now, with regard to human beings, the question is how to establish a relationship between two people, both of whom have images about the other. These images are usually contradictory, and so there is conflict between the two people. They may be married and have sex, children, and all the rest of it, but each of them, the man and the woman, is working for himself and herself. The man wants a better position, a better job, better housing, and more and more he is driven by his ambitions, as the woman is also, by her ambitions. They may sleep together, have children together, live in the same house, but each is separately working for the self. You cannot possibly have relationship when each human being is fighting the others, which is the simple fact of what is happening in daily life. So when, in a family unit - father, mother, and children - each is separately working for himself, and also separately working for the family, that family unit becomes a danger to society. And society is built on this danger, and is therefore basically founded on disorder, in which each man is seeking to realize his own ambition through greed and envy.
The intellectuals, the communists, have seen this, and said there must be a revolution, a break-away from all this. This has happened in Russia, but they cannot get rid of this separative conflict. In that country there is freedom for the scientist, but the rest of the human beings there are slaves, just as they are here.
As long as you have no love in your hearts you are going to destroy the world. Love is not a word and has no definition. It comes only when you have understood fear. When you have understood that, then you create a marvellous world.
Questioner: Sir, what do you believe in - peace with weapons or peace without weapons?
Krishnamurti: You know that I do not believe in anything, and it is marvellous to have no belief whatsoever. But can there be peace with weapons? Why do you have weapons - armaments, cannons, guns, bayonets, aeroplanes loaded with bombs? To maintain peace, you say - as a defensive measure against your neighbour; and your neighbour says exactly the same about you. Pakistan says, "Well, India is arming and therefore I must arm." But there can never be peace with armaments.
There is no such thing as a defensive war. All wars are offensive, because we have created a world in which we have accepted war as a way of life. There have been within the last five thousand years about fifteen thousand wars. How the mothers have cried - how the wives, lovers, children have cried when their man has been killed! This has been going on for at least five thousand years, and is going on now in this country. You will cry when your son is killed by a bomb - but you do not really care what happens to your children. What you care about is your own personal security - this security being your nationality, your religion, your gods and your rituals. So you are perpetuating war.
Questioner: With regard to this definition of freedom - that one must know all aspects of fear at once and go beyond it - is this possible?
Krishnamurti: Is there any short cut to be free of fear? - is that it?
Questioner: Well, can one know all the aspects of fear?
Krishnamurti: You cannot know every subtle form of fear, nor every crude form, either, but what you can know is fear.
Questioner: Yes, but that is not all.
Krishnamurti: Sir, just listen. What you can know is one fear. If you know one fear you know all the others. Fear may take different forms, but it is still fear. If you know the nature of desire, of one desire, and know that desire completely, in that one desire are all the other desires. Desire takes different forms with different objectives. One year I want a house, and the next year I want something more; but it is still desire.
Similarly, fear does not exist in isolation. It exists in relation to something. I am afraid of my wife, or of my husband, or of my job, or of the government, or of death. Fear is always in relation to something. Now, can I understand that one fear which I have? - because, if I understand one fear completely I have understood the whole structure and nature of fear. Let us take one fear, then. What shall we take?
Questioner: The fear of death.
Krishnamurti: Most extraordinary! Fear of death - not fear of living! But let us go into it very carefully, step by step.
First of all, what is fear, and how does it come into being in relation to what one calls death? It is a very complex problem. One is afraid of death. In this there are two factors - fear of something you do not know, and fear of something which you have seen, observed, and felt.
One has seen many deaths. An animal dies; brutally killed by a gun; or a leaf falls, turning yellow - beautiful, lovely to look at - veering away and absorbed into dust. One has seen other people die - the relative, the neighbour - taken away; buried, cremated. So thought asks, "What is going to happen to me? Am I also going to disappear like that?" Follow this carefully. It is thought which has put this question to itself. It says, "Am I, who have lived a miserable struggling life, or who want to write a book, or paint, or fulfil myself in some way, but have never done it; or I, who have cultivated my character, but have lived sloppily, sluggishly, and have been frightened of so many things; am I going suddenly to come to an end?" So it is thought, not the fact of death, which is responsible for that fear. Thought, dwelling on something which implies an ending, is frightened of that. But thought is not frightened about pleasure. I think about a lovely tree, or about the river with its reflection, and the light on the water, and it gives me great pleasure. One thinks about the sexual experiences one has had - with the images, the pictures, the stimulations - and that creates pleasure. But thought, which creates pleasure, also creates the pain of death, which is fear. So it is thought which is responsible for the fear of death.
December 17, 1967
Varanasi 3rd Talk to Students 17th December 1967
Texts and talks of Jiddu Krishnamurti. Krishnamurti quotes. Books about
J Krishnamurti. Philosophy.