恐惧的根源

1972年11月13日普: 克里希那吉，你曾说过，理智是面对恐惧时的最大保障。问题是：当危机时刻，恐惧从无意识袭来将你淹没时，理智它在哪呢？需要终止恐惧时理智才会存在。它需要倾听，查看和观察。但是，当整个的人被那无法控制的恐惧所淹没时，恐惧是有原因的，但是其中的原因无法在当下辨别时，在那种情形之下，理智它又在何处呢？人类如何处置其心灵深处最原始，最原型的恐惧呢？那些恐惧的其中之一便是自身的毁灭，恐惧生命不能保存。克: 我们要探讨的是什么呢？普: 人类如何处置恐惧？你还没回答这个问题。你曾经说过理智是最大的保障。如果是这样的话，但是当恐惧淹没你时，理智它在哪里？克: 你是说面对突如其来的恐惧时，理智不见了。那么你该如何处置这突如其来的恐惧？是不是这个问题？苏: 人们所看到的恐惧好比是看见树上的枝节。但是如果我们逐一来处置这些恐惧那就根本无法从恐惧中解脱出来。是否有一个特性使得我们可以避开那些枝节从而直达恐惧呢？克: 克确实说过，“我们是去查看恐惧的叶子、枝节呢，还是去查看恐惧的根源。”苏: 我们能不能看清楚各个恐惧的根源呢？克: 让我们一起来找出答案。普: 你也许能从一个恐惧看出整个的恐惧。克: 我明白。你是说有意识的和无意识的恐惧，而当无意识的恐惧变得非常强大并且那时理智不起作用的时候，人该如何处置那些突如其来的无法控制的恐惧。是不是？普: 这些恐惧似乎具有一种物质形态。它是身体里的某种可将你击垮的东西。克: 它扰乱你的神经系统和生物系统。让我们一起来探讨。当你感到孤独，感到被别人完全抛弃，完全孤立无援，感到命不能保，完全走投无路时，恐惧有意识地存在了或是惧怕的非常深。当最深的恐惧生起时，在那种情形下，显然理智是无法调节那一时刻不请而来的恐惧。普:有人可能会觉得对已知的恐惧他还能应对，对那无知的恐惧就难以招架了。克: 那就是我们所说的，要一起来探讨。人可以处置身体内的，有意识的恐惧。意识的边界能够处置它们。普: 你甚至可将那些恐惧展现出来。克: 那么当恐惧被展现的时候便是理智出现的时候。现在，你怎么来处置恐惧呢？为什么无意识-我们暂时先用一下‘无意识’这词-持有这些恐惧呢？或是无意识自己招来这些恐惧的？它是否持有，恐惧是否存在于传统的无意识的深处；或是无意识从环境中收集来的一个东西？现在，无意识为什么要持有这些恐惧呢？是不是因为它们都是无意识、种族、人类传统历史固有的一部分？还是它们在遗

传基因里本来就有的？你如何处直这个问题呢？普: 我们可否先讨论第二个问题，即恐惧是从环境里收集而来的？克: 首先，让我们来处理第一个问题。无意识为什么要持有这些恐惧？为什么我们认为意识的深层就是恐惧的仓库，就是恐惧的残余？它们是不是我们所处的文化强加给我们的？还是有意识的大脑因为无法处置恐惧，将它们压了下去，因而它就留在了无意识的层面上？抑或是因为大脑自身解决不了它的问题并且担心无法解决它们才造成了恐惧？我想先了解什么是无意识的含义。当你说这些恐惧是突如其来的，我认为它们自古就存在的，只是在危机来到时，你才意识到它们罢了。苏: 恐惧存在于意识中。你为什么说它们是存在于无意识中呢？克: 首先意识是由它的内容所组成的。没有它的内容，意识也就不存在了。意识的内容之一就是这个最基本的恐惧，而有意识的大脑从来没有处置过恐惧。恐惧一直存在的，但是意识从来不说‘我必须去处理它们’。在危机时刻，那一部分意识才被唤醒，于是感到了恐惧。但是恐惧一直是存在的。普: 我不认为就是这样简单。难道恐惧不是人类文化传承的一部分吗？克: 恐惧一直存在的。它是文化传承的一部分吗？比如说出生在某一国家的人他那里有不承认恐惧的文化吗？普: 没有这样的文化。克: 当然不会有这样的文化。所以我要问自己，恐惧到底是文化的一部分还是人类与生俱来的呢？恐惧是一种命不能保的感觉，因为它存在于动物体内，因为它存在于每一个有生命的体内，害怕遭到毁灭。普: 恐惧是自我保存的本能所采取的形式。克: 是不是所有的细胞结构都害怕命不能保？凡有血肉的生命体都有这种本能。即便小小的蚂蚁也害怕命不能保。我们了解到恐惧是与生俱来的，它是人类存在的一部分，只有当人处于危机时刻时恐惧的意识才变得更加强烈。当突如其来的恐惧产生的那一刻人该如何来处置它呢？我们为什么非得等到危机时才去处置恐惧呢？我只是问。普: 你是无法逃避它的。克: 等一下。我们前面说恐惧是一直存在的，它是我们人类结构的一部分。不管是从生物系统看还是从心理方面看，人的整个结构都是惧怕恐惧的。恐惧一直存在，它也是最小的生命体，最微小细胞的一部分。我们为什么要等到危机到来时才觉得它是个问题呢？这样去接受恐惧是最不合理的。我说，为什么我非得在出现危机时才去处置它呢？普: 如不是这样，恐惧就不存在了。我可以理智地面对某些恐惧。比如说面对死亡。人可以理智地面对它。那么我们是不是也可以理智地面对其它恐

惧呢？克: 你说你可以理智地面对这些恐惧。我怀疑你是否可以理智地去面对它们。我怀疑在你处理恐惧之前你是否还有理智。只有当恐惧停止时理智才出现。理智是光，当没有光时就无法处置黑暗。只有当黑暗不存在时光才存在。我怀疑当恐惧出现时你是否还能理智地去处置它们。我认为你不能。你也许能将恐惧合理化，你也许能看清恐惧的本质，从而回避它或是超越它，但那并非是理智。普: 我想说的是理智是建立在对恐惧产生时的认识上，当恐惧生起时既不去改变它，也不去回避它，而是随它去，这样恐惧就自己消退了。但是你却说有理智的地方，恐惧就不会生起。南: 不会有恐惧生起了吗？克: 问题是我们不让恐惧生起。南: 我觉得当恐惧生起时，我们容不得它完全地展现。克: 你看出来了吗，我是在怀疑当危机生起时所有的反应。恐惧就在那，为什么你需要在危机到来时才想到它？你们说只有当恐惧发生时你们才清醒。一句话，一个手势，一个眼神，一个想法，那些都是你们所说带来的挑战。我现在要问：我们为什么要等到危机时候？我们正在调查这个问题。你们了解‘调查’这词的含义吗？- 那是指‘探寻踪迹’。因此，就让我们探寻出这个问题的答案，而不是光说这个，那个和其它。我们就顺着这个问题，我问：为什么我要等到危机时刻？一个姿势，一个想法，一个话，一个眼神，一个耳语；所有这些都是挑战。南: 我并不期待危机，唯一我清楚的是，当危机到来时，我就瘫痪了。克: 为什么你会瘫痪？所以对你而言，挑战是不可或缺的。为什么在挑战之前不先接触下恐惧呢？你们说危机到来时才唤醒了恐惧。危机包含想法，手势，字眼，耳语，眼神，和字母。这些就是唤醒恐惧的挑战吗？我问自己，如果不是面临挑战为什么人们就不去唤醒恐惧呢？既然恐惧是早已存在的，那就一定是清醒的；还是说它还处在为沉睡状态？如果是沉睡状态，那它又为什么会沉睡？是因为有意识的大脑出于害怕担心恐惧可能被唤醒，所以将它处于沉睡状态，并拒绝要面对它，是这样的吗？让我们慢慢来，我们正在追踪火箭。是不是有意识的大脑惧怕面对恐惧因而让恐惧保持安静？还是你已经意识到恐惧早已存在，是有意识的大脑不愿让它完全展现？你是否承认恐惧是人类生存的一部分？普: 先生，离开了外部的经验，没有外部经验刺激的话，恐惧并不会独立存在。克: 等一等，我对你的说法很怀疑。我不接受。你是说如果没有外部的刺激，恐惧就不存在。如果对你而言这是正确的，那对我而言它一定也是正确的，因为

我也是人啊。普: 我的话里包括外部的和内在的刺激。克: 我不划分外部的和内在的。只有一个完整的运动。普: 如果没有刺激，恐惧就不存在。克: 普普，你跑题了。普: 你在问：你们为什么不正视恐惧，不面对恐惧？克: 我在问自己:‘我非得等到危机时才唤醒恐惧吗？’ 这才是我要问的问题。既然恐惧早已存在，是谁让它沉睡的？是因为有意识的大脑无法解决它吗？有意识的大脑一直在关心如何解决它，因为它解决不了，只好将它处于睡眠状态，压制它。于是当出现危机时有意识的大脑就怕的发抖。所以我要问自己，为什么有意识的大脑要抑制恐惧？苏: 先生，有意识的大脑是用于分析和识别能力的工具。用这些工具来处理恐惧是不恰当的。克: 它当然无法处理了。但是，大脑真正需要的是简朴，而不是分析。有意识的大脑无法处置恐惧，所以说，我要回避它，我不能正视它。看看你们现在做的。你们正在等待危机来时才唤醒恐惧，有意识的大脑一直在回避危机。一直是在回避，推断，将它合理化。我们是这个游戏的主人。因此，我对自己说，既然恐惧已经存在，那么就是清醒的。你不该让我们遗传中的这一部分东西沉睡了。有意识的大脑只会想到将恐惧处于沉睡的状态。当危机发生时，有意识的大脑只会发抖。因此要用不同的方法去处置它。这就是我的观点。这是正确的吗？无法生存是最基本的恐惧，一种完全无法确定的恐惧感、生命不能保存的恐惧感、死亡的恐惧感。大脑为什么不愿将恐惧摆出来并动一动它呢？为什么要等到危机时才想到？是因为你们很懒因此你们没有精力去探究恐惧的根源吗？这就是我所说的无理性？普: 这并非是无理性。我想看看它是不否是有效的。克: 我们说过所有的生命都惧怕命不能保，惧怕生存。恐惧是我们血液中的一部分。我们整个生命都惧怕命不能保，惧怕死亡，惧怕遭杀害。所以恐惧命不能保是我们整个心理的一部分，也是生物结构的一部分。于是我问自己，为什么危机是必不可少的呢？为什么挑战变得如此的重要？我反对挑战。我想走在挑战的前头，而不是落在它的后面。普: 你所说的我们做不到。克: 你为什么做不到？我来证明给你看。我知道自己会死，但是我心里存在有关死亡的理性的，合理化的看法。因此当我说我的心已超越了死亡，其实根本没有。你只有超越有关死亡的想法 - 但这并不是超越。普 ：让我们说的明白一些。一个面对死亡人，他感到离死亡只一步之遥，于是他向死亡迈了这一步，突然他意识到，他并没有超越它。克: 我明白你

说的意思。这都是挑战带来的结果，无论是昨天发生的还是一年前发生的。普: 所以问题是：用什么工具，用什么能量，他从哪一个层面去看，他能看出什么？克: 我想澄清一下。恐惧是我们结构的一部分，是我们遗传的一部分。从生物学和心理学的角度来看，大脑细胞是惧怕命不能保的。所以思想说我不想看到恐惧。当危机发生时，思想就无法终止止恐惧了。普: 你所说的‘思想说我不想看到恐惧’这句话是什么意思呢？南: 思想有时还是想看到恐惧的。克: 思想无法看到自己终止恐惧。思想只会将它合理化。我在问你为什么大脑要等待一个挑战？是不是必须这样？如果你说这是必须的，那么你就等待恐惧好了。普: 我说我不知道。我只知道当挑战生起时，恐惧也生起了。克: 不对，是挑战唤醒了恐惧。让我们坚持这点，我问你，为什么你要等待挑战来唤醒恐惧？普: 你的问题自相矛盾。你是说你不想等待挑战还是唤醒挑战？克: 不，我完全反对挑战。你不记得我的观点了吗？我的内心任何时候都不会接受挑战。挑战并不是必须的。比如说我睡着了，那个挑战唤醒我是必须的，这是一个错误的陈述。普: 不对，先生，这并不是我说的意思。克: 所以说是清醒的。那么是什么在沉睡呢？是有意识的大脑在沉睡，还是无意识的大脑在沉睡，或着说大脑的一部分是清醒的？普: 当我醒来时，我就醒了。南: 你会招来恐惧吗？克: 如果你是清醒的，那么挑战就毫无必要。所以你拒绝挑战。如果正如我们说的，恐惧是我们生活的一部分，我们都会死的，那么你就一直是清醒了。普: 我们做不到一直清醒。你没有意识到恐惧。但是恐惧总是存在的，它就藏在地毯下面。只不过你不愿去看它罢了。克: 要我说如果恐惧就在地毯下，那就掀起地毯，去看它个究竟。恐惧一直存在。这一直是我的观点。恐惧一直存在它一直清醒的。所以根本没必要去等待一个挑战来唤醒它。我无时不刻地惧怕命不能保，惧怕死亡，惧怕无所成就。那是我们生命和血液中最根本的恐惧，这个恐惧一直存在着，它始终注视着，防备着，保护自己。但它一直非常清醒的。从来没有片刻沉睡过。因此，挑战是毫无必要的。你是怎么做的又是如何处置的接着再述。普: 这是事实。阿: 看清这一切，你还不接受不关注的因素吗？克: 我说的是恐惧一直是清醒的，而不是在谈论关注。阿: 恐惧一直很活跃的在进行着。克: 它就像是房间里的一条蛇，它就在那里。我可以视而不见，但它却是存在的。有意识的大脑所关心的是如何去处置

说的意思。这都是挑战带来的结果，无论是昨天发生的还是一年前发生的。普: 所以问题是：用什么工具，用什么能量，他从哪一个层面去看，他能看出什么？克: 我想澄清一下。恐惧是我们结构的一部分，是我们遗传的一部分。从生物学和心理学的角度来看，大脑细胞是惧怕命不能保的。所以思想说我不想看到恐惧。当危机发生时，思想就无法终止止恐惧了。普: 你所说的‘思想说我不想看到恐惧’这句话是什么意思呢？南: 思想有时还是想看到恐惧的。克: 思想无法看到自己终止恐惧。思想只会将它合理化。我在问你为什么大脑要等待一个挑战？是不是必须这样？如果你说这是必须的，那么你就等待恐惧好了。普: 我说我不知道。我只知道当挑战生起时，恐惧也生起了。克: 不对，是挑战唤醒了恐惧。让我们坚持这点，我问你，为什么你要等待挑战来唤醒恐惧？普: 你的问题自相矛盾。你是说你不想等待挑战还是唤醒挑战？克: 不，我完全反对挑战。你不记得我的观点了吗？我的内心任何时候都不会接受挑战。挑战并不是必须的。比如说我睡着了，那个挑战唤醒我是必须的，这是一个错误的陈述。普: 不对，先生，这并不是我说的意思。克: 所以说是清醒的。那么是什么在沉睡呢？是有意识的大脑在沉睡，还是无意识的大脑在沉睡，或着说大脑的一部分是清醒的？普: 当我醒来时，我就醒了。南: 你会招来恐惧吗？克: 如果你是清醒的，那么挑战就毫无必要。所以你拒绝挑战。如果正如我们说的，恐惧是我们生活的一部分，我们都会死的，那么你就一直是清醒了。普: 我们做不到一直清醒。你没有意识到恐惧。但是恐惧总是存在的，它就藏在地毯下面。只不过你不愿去看它罢了。克: 要我说如果恐惧就在地毯下，那就掀起地毯，去看它个究竟。恐惧一直存在。这一直是我的观点。恐惧一直存在它一直清醒的。所以根本没必要去等待一个挑战来唤醒它。我无时不刻地惧怕命不能保，惧怕死亡，惧怕无所成就。那是我们生命和血液中最根本的恐惧，这个恐惧一直存在着，它始终注视着，防备着，保护自己。但它一直非常清醒的。从来没有片刻沉睡过。因此，挑战是毫无必要的。你是怎么做的又是如何处置的接着再述。普: 这是事实。阿: 看清这一切，你还不接受不关注的因素吗？克: 我说的是恐惧一直是清醒的，而不是在谈论关注。阿: 恐惧一直很活跃的在进行着。克: 它就像是房间里的一条蛇，它就在那里。我可以视而不见，但它却是存在的。有意识的大脑所关心的是如何去处置

置它，而当它处置不了时，就选择逃避。于是有意识的大脑接受到一个挑战试图去面对它。你能不能面对一个活生生的事物？那就用不着一个挑战了。那是因为有意识的大脑对恐惧视而不见，才需要挑战。对不对，普普？南: 当你想到恐惧时，它还只是一个想法，但它的阴影一直留在你的心里。克: 那就跟踪它，别跳到结论上去。你刚才已经跳到结论上去了。我心里拒绝挑战。有意识的大脑不会让挑战来唤醒恐惧。因为恐惧时刻都醒着。但是你承认挑战。而我不承认挑战。它不在我的经验之内。下一个问题是，当清醒的大脑觉察到了恐惧，它不能招来已经存在的东西。一步一步来。别马上下结论。所以，当有意识的大脑完全地清醒，了解到恐惧存在后，那接下来我们该如何去做呢？普: 我感到不对劲。南: 我已经醒了。克: 你没抓住整个的重点。有意识的大脑惧怕死亡。当它醒悟了，就不再惧怕了。大脑自己，是不知道惧怕的。比如说蚂蚁它就不惧怕死亡。如果被踩着了，它就被踩死了。这是因为有意识的大脑对自己说我惧怕死亡，我惧怕命不保存。但是，当我遭遇意外事故，比如说飞机失事坠毁，我就不会感到恐惧。当死亡来临时我对自己说，‘好吧，我现在终于明白了我要死了’。但是，有意识的大脑会动用它所有的思维说，‘老天，我快要死了，我不想死，我决不能死，我要保护自己。它惧怕的其实是这些东西。你们有见过蚂蚁吗？蚂蚁从来都不惧怕死亡：如果有人要杀它，它就死了。现在你该明白了吧。南: 先生，你见过蚂蚁吗？如果你把一张纸放在蚂蚁的前面，它会回避。南: 它要生存，但它不会去思考如何生存。因此，还是让我们回过头来说吧。思想创造了恐惧：只有思想才会说，‘我快死了，我很孤独。我的心愿还未实现。’看清楚了吗？思想才是无穷无尽的永恒，它才是真正的永恒。你们看这是不是很奇妙呢？大脑能不能完全地安静下来呢？大脑能不能完全地稳定？如果能的话，那么那个境界便会到来。当你悟到了那个境界，那么还有恐惧的根源吗？普: 先生，这个境界可曾发生在您的身上？克: 有几次，好多次。当大脑完全地稳定下，没有任何的畏缩，既不接受也不拒绝，既不使其合理化，也不逃避它，心里没有任何种类的运动时，那么那个境界就到来了。我们是不是找到了恐惧的根源了呢？我们有吗？THE CENTRAL ROOT OF FEARP: You have said, Krishnaji, that intelligence is the greatest security in the facing of fear. The problem is: In a crisis, when fear from the unconscious floods you, where is the place for intelligence? Intelligence dem

ands negation of that which comes in the way. It demands listening, seeing and observation. But when the whole being is flooded by uncontrollable fear, fear which has a cause, but the cause of which is not immediately discernable, in that state where is the place for intelligence? How does one deal with the primeval, archetypal fears which lie at the very base of the human psyche? One of these fears is the destruction of the self, the fear of not being. K: What is it we are exploring together? P: How does one deal with fear? You have still not answered that. You have talked of intelligence being the greatest security. It is so; but when fear floods you, where is intelligence? K: You are saying that at the moment of a great wave of fear, intelligence is not. And how can one deal with that wave of fear at that moment? Is that the question? S: One sees fear like the branches of a tree. But we deal with these fears one by one and there is no freedom from fear. Is there a quality that sees fear without the branches? K: K said, `Do we see the leaves, the branches, or do we go to the very root of fear?' S: Can we go to the root of each single branch of fear? K: Let us find out. P: You may come to see the whole, through one fear. K: I understand. You are saying there are conscious and unconscious fears and the unconscious fears become extraordinarily strong at moments and at those moments intelligence is not in operation. How can one deal with those waves of uncontrollable fear. Is that it? P: These fears seem to take on a material form. It is a physical thing which overpowers you. K: It upsets you neurologically, biologically. Let us explore. Fear exists, consciously or at depths, when there is a sense of loneliness, when there is a feeling of complete abandonment by others, a sense of complete isolation, the sense of not being, a feeling of utter helplessness. And at those moments, when deep fear arises, obviously intelligence is not and there is ungovernable, uninvited fear. P: One may feel that one has faced the fears which are known but unconsciously one is swamped. K: That is what we are saying. Discuss it. One can deal with physical, conscious fears. The outskirts of intelligence can deal with them. P: You can even allow those fears to flower. K: And then in that very flowering there is intelligence. Now how do you deal with the other? Why does the unconscious - we will use that word `unconscious' for the time being - hold these fears? Or does the unconscious invite these fears? Does it hold them, do they exist in the traditional depths of the unconscious; or is it a thing that the unconscious gathers from the environment? Now, why does the unconscious hold fears at all? Are they all an inherent part of the unconscious, of the racial, traditional history of man? Are they in the inherited genes? How do you deal with the problem? P: Can we discuss the second one, which is the gathering of fear from the environment?

K: First of all, let us deal with the first one. Why does the unconscious hold them at all? Why do we consider the deeper layers of consciousness as the storehouse, as the residue of fear? Are they imposed by the culture in which we live, by the conscious mind which, not being able to deal with fear, has pushed it down and therefore it remains at the level of the unconscious? Or is it that the mind with all its content has not resolved its problems and is frightened of not being able to resolve them? I want to find out what is the significance of the unconscious. When you said these waves of fear come, I say they are always there, but, in a crisis, you become aware of them. S: They exist in consciousness. Why do you say they are in the unconscious? K: First of all consciousness is made up of its content. Without its content there is no consciousness. One of its contents is this basic fear and the conscious mind never tackles it; it is there, but it never says, `I must deal with it'. In moments of crisis that part of consciousness is awakened and is frightened. But fear is always there. P: I don't think it is so simple. Is fear not a part of man's cultural inheritance? K: Fear is always there. Is it part of the cultural inheritance? Or is it possible that one is born in a country, in a culture that does not admit fear? P: There is no such culture. K: Of course there is no such culture. And so I am asking myself, is fear part of culture or is it inherent in man? Fear is a sense of not being, as it exists in the animal, as it exists in every living thing; the fear of being destroyed. P: The self-preservative instinct which takes the form of fear. K: Is it that the whole structure of the cells is frightened of not being? That exists in every living thing. Even the little ant is afraid of not being. We see fear is there, part of human existence, and one becomes tremendously aware of it in a crisis. How does one deal with it at that moment when the surge of fear comes about? Why do we wait for the crisis? I am just asking. P: You can't avoid it. K: Just a minute. We say it is always there, it is part of our human structure. The biological, psychological, the whole structure of the being is frightened. Fear is there, it is part of the tiniest living thing, the minutest cell. Why do we wait for a crisis to come and bring it out? That is a most irrational acceptance of it. I say, why should I have a crisis to deal with fear? P: Otherwise it is non-existent; I can face some fears intelligently. One faces fear of death. It is possible to face it with intelligence. Is it possible to face other fears intelligently? K: You say you can face these fears intelligently. I question whether you face them intelligently. I question whether you can have intelligence before you have resolved fear. Intelligence comes only when fear is not. Intelligence is light and you cannot deal with darkness when light is not. Light exists only when darkness is n

ot. I am questioning whether you can deal with fear intelligently when fear exists. I say you cannot. You may rationalize it, you may see the nature of it, avoid it or go beyond it, but that is not intelligence. P: I would say intelligence lies in an awareness of fear arising, in leaving it alone, in not shaping it, in not turning away from it, and so to the dissolution of fear. But you say that where intelligence is, fear does not arise. N: Will fear not arise? K: But we don't allow fear to arise. N: I think fear arises. We don't allow it to flower. K: You see, I am questioning altogether the whole response to a crisis. Fear is there; why do you need a crisis to awaken it? You say a crisis takes place and you wake up. A word, a gesture, a look, a movement, a thought, those are challenges that you say bring it out. I am asking: Why do we wait for the crisis? We are investigating. Do you know what that word `investigate' means? - `to trace out'. Therefore, we are tracing out, we are not saying this, that or the other. We are following it, and I am asking: Why do I wait for a crisis? A gesture, a thought, a word, a look, a whisper; any of these are challenges. N: I don't look for the crisis. The only thing I am aware of is, it arises and I am paralysed. K: You get paralysed, why? Therefore for you, challenge is necessary. Why don't you contact fear before the challenge? You say crisis awakens fear. Crisis includes thought, gesture, word, whisper, a look, a letter. Is it a challenge which awakens fear? I say to myself, why should one not awaken to it without a challenge? If fear is there, it must be awake; or is it dormant? And if it is dormant, why is it dormant? Is the conscious mind frightened that fear may awaken? Has it put it to sleep and refused to look at it? Let us go slowly, we are tracing a rocket. Has the conscious mind been frightened of looking at fear and therefore it keeps fear quiet? Or fear is there, awake, and the conscious mind won't let it flower? Do you admit that fear is part of human life, of existence? P: Sir, fear has no independent existence apart from the outer experience, without the stimuli of outer experience. K: Wait, I question it, I don't accept it. You are saying without the outer stimuli, it is not. If it is true to you, it must be so for me, because I am a human being. P: I include in that both the outer and the inner stimuli. K: I don't divide the outer and the inner. It is all one movement. P: Fear has no existence apart from the stimuli. K: You are moving away, Pupul. P: You are asking: Why don't you look at it, why don't you face it? K: I say to myself: `Must I wait for a crisis for this fear to awaken?' That's all my question. If it is there, who has put it to sleep? Is it because the conscious mind cannot resolve it? The conscious mind is concerned with resolving it, and not being able to do so, it puts it to sleep, squashes it. And the conscious mind is shaken when a crisis

kes place and fear arises. So I am saying to myself, why should the conscious mind suppress fear? S: Sir, the instrument of the conscious mind is analysis, the capacity of recognition. With these instruments it is inadequate to deal with fear. K: It can't deal with it. But what is required is real simplicity, not analysis. The conscious mind cannot deal with fear, therefore it says I want to avoid it, I can't look at it. Look what you are doing. You are waiting for a crisis to awaken it, and the conscious mind is all the time avoiding crisis. It is avoiding, reasoning, rationalizing. We are masters at this game. Therefore I say to myself, if fear is there, it is awake. You cannot put to sleep a thing that is part of our inheritance. The conscious mind only thinks that it has put fear to sleep. The conscious mind is shaken when a crisis takes place. Therefore deal with it differently. That's all my point. Is this true? The basic fear is of non-existence, a sense of complete fear of uncertainty, of not being, of dying. Why does the mind not bring that fear out and move with it? Why should it wait for a crisis? Are you lazy and therefore you haven't got the energy to go to the root of it? Is what I am saying irrational? P: It is not irrational. I am trying to see if it is valid. K: We say that every living thing is frightened of not being, not surviving. Fear is part of our blood cells. Our whole being is frightened of not being, frightened of dying, frightened of being killed. So fear of not being is part of our whole psychological, as well as biological structure, and I am asking myself why is a crisis necessary, why should challenge become important? I object to challenge. I want to be ahead of challenge, not behind challenge. P: One cannot participate in what you are saying. K: Why can't you? I am going to show it to you. I know I am going to die, but I have intellectualized, rationalized death. Therefore when I say my mind is far ahead of death, it is not. It is only far ahead of thought - which is not being far ahead. P: Let us take the actuality of it. One faces death and one feels one is a step ahead and one moves on and suddenly realizes that one is not ahead of it. K: I understand that. It is all the result of a challenge, whether it took place yesterday or a year ago. P: So the question is: With what instrument, with what energy, from what dimension does one see; and what does one see? K: I want to be clear. Fear is part of our structure, our inheritance. Biologically, psychologically, the brain cells are frightened of not being. And thought says I am not going to look at this thing. And so when the challenge takes place, thought cannot end it. P: What do you mean when you say, `Thought says I don't want to look at it'? N: It wants to look at it also. K: Thought cannot look at the ending of itself. It can only rationalize about it. I am asking you why does the mind wait for a challenge? Is it necessary? If you say

y it is necessary, then you are waiting for it. P: I say I don't know. I only know that challenge arises and fear arises. K: No, challenge awakens fear. Let us stick to that, and I say to you, why do you wait for a challenge for this to awaken? P: Your question is a paradox. Would you say that you don't wait for the challenge but evoke the challenge? K: No, I am opposed to challenge altogether. You are missing my point. My mind will not accept challenge at any time. Challenge is not necessary to awaken. To say I am asleep and that challenge is necessary to awaken me, is a wrong statement. P: No, sir, that's not what I am saying. K: So it is awake. Now what sleeps? Is it the conscious mind? Or is the unconscious mind asleep and are there some parts of the mind that are awake? P: When I am awake, I am awake. N: Do you invite fear? K: If you are awake, no challenge is necessary. So you reject challenge. If as we said it is part of our life that we should die, then one is awake all the time. P: Not all the time. You are not conscious of fear. But it is there all the time under the carpet. But you don't look at it. K: I say it is under the carpet, lift it and look. It is there. That's all my point. It is there and awake. So it does not need a challenge to make it awake. I am frightened all the time of not being, of dying, of not achieving. That is the basic fear of our life, of our blood and it is there, always watching, guarding, protecting itself. But it is very much awake. It is never a moment asleep. Therefore, challenge is not necessary. What you do about it and how you deal with it comes later. P: That is the fact. A: Seeing all this, don't you accept the factor of non-attention? K: I said it is awake, I am not talking of attention. A: Fear is active, operating. K: It is like a snake in the room, it is always there. I may look elsewhere, but it is there. The conscious mind is concerned how to deal with it, and as it can't deal with it, it moves away. The conscious mind then receives a challenge and tries to face it. Can you face a living thing? That does not need a challenge. But because the conscious mind has blinded itself against fear, the challenge is needed. Right, Pupul?N: When you think of it, it is just a thought; still that shadow is in the mind. K: Trace it, don't jump to conclusions. You have jumped to conclusions. My mind refuses challenge. The conscious mind will not allow challenge to awaken it. It is awake. But you admit challenge. I don't admit challenge. It is not within my experience. The next question is, when the conscious mind is awake to fear, it cannot invite something that is there. Go step by step. Don't conclude at any second. So, the conscious mind knows it is there, fully awake. Then what are we going to do next? P: There lies inadequacy. N: I am awake. K: You are missing the whole point. It is the conscious mind that is frightened of this. When it is awake, it is not frightened

. In itself, it is not frightened. The ant is not frightened. If it is squashed, it is squashed. It is the conscious mind that says I am frightened of this, of not being. But when I meet with an accident, an aeroplane crashes, there is no fear. At the moment of death I say, `Yes, I know now what it means to die'. But the conscious mind with all its thoughts says, `My god, I am going to die, I will not die, I must not die, I will protect myself; that is the thing that is frightened. Have you never watched an ant? It is never frightened: if somebody kills it, it dies. Now you see something. N: Sir, have you ever seen an ant? If you put a piece of paper in front of the ant, it dodges it. K: It wants to survive, but it is not thinking about surviving. So we will come back to it. Thought creates fear: it is only thought that says, `I will die, I am lonely. I have not fulfilled.' See this: that is timeless eternity, that is real eternity. See how extraordinary it is. Why should I be frightened if fear is part of my being? It is only when thought says that life must be different, that there is fear. Can the mind be completely motionless? Can the mind be completely stable? Then that thing comes. When that thing is awake, what then is the central root of fear? P: Has it ever happened to you, sir? K: Several times, many times, when the mind is completely stable, without any recoil, neither accepting not denying, nor rationalizing nor escaping, there is no movement of any kind. We have got at the root of it, have we not?