On Fear

SORROW EXISTS WHEN there is fear. So one must go into the
question of fear. What does a particular human being fear? What
does fear mean basically? The sense of insecurity? A child demands
complete security; and more and more the mother and the
father are working, hornes are broken up, the parents are so
deeply concerned about themselves, their position in society, having
more money, more refrigerators, more cars, more this and more
that, they have no time to give complete security to the child. Security
is one of the essential things of life, not only for you and
me, but for everybody. For those who live in ghettos or those who
live in palaces, security is absolutely necessary. Otherwise the
brain can't function efficiently, sanely. Watch this process. I need
security, I must have food, c1othes, and shelter; so must everybody.
And if I am lucky I can arrange it physically. But psychologically
it is much more difficult to become completely secure. So I
seek that security in a belief, in a conc1usion, in nationality, in a
family, or in my experience, and when that experience, that family,
that belief is threatened, there is fear. There is fear when I
have to face psychological danger, which is uncertainty, meeting
something I don't k~ow, the tomorrow. Then there is fear. And
there is fear also when I am comparing myself with you whom I
think are greater.


From The Impossible Question



Krishnamurti: I realize I am frightened-why? Is it because I see
that I am dead? I am living in the past and I don't know what it
means to observe and live in the present; therefore, this is something
totally new and I am frightened to do anything new. Which
means what? That my brain and my mind have followed the old
pattern, the old method; the old way of thinking, living, and working.
But to learn, the mind must be free from the past-we have
established that as the truth. Now, look what has happened. I
have established the fact as truth that there is no learning if the
past interferes. And also I realize that I am frightened. So there is
a contradiction between the realization that to learn, the mind
must be free of the past, and that at the same time I am frightened
to do so. In this there is duality. I see, and I am afraid to see.

Questioner:Are we always afraid to see new things?

K: Aren't we? Aren't we afraid of change?

Q:The new is the unknown. We are afraid of the unknown.

K: So we cling to the old and this will inevitably breed fear because
life is changing; there are social upheavals, there is rioting
there are wars. So there is fear. Now how am I to learn about fear?
We have moved away from the previous movement; now we want
to learn about the movement of fear. What is the movement of
fear? Are you aware that you are afraid? Are you aware that you
have fears?

Q:Not always.

K: Sir, do you know now, are you aware of your fears now? Youcan
resuscitate them, bring them out and say, 'I am afraid ofwhat peopIe
might say about me'. So are you aware that you are frightened
about death, about losing money, about losing your wife? Are you
aware of those fears? Also of physical fears-that you might have
pain tomorrow, and so on? If you are aware, what is the movement
in it? What takes place when you are aware that you are afraid?

Q: I try to get rid of it.

K: When you try to get rid of it, what takes place?

Q:You repress it.

K: Either you repress it or escape from it; there is a conftict between
fear and wanting to get rid of it, isn't there? So there is either
repression or escape; and in trying to get rid of it there is
conftict, which only increases fear.

Q:May I ask a question? Isn't the 'me' the brain itself? The brain
gets tired of always seeking new experiences and wants relaxation.

K:Are you saying that the brain itself is frightened to let go and is
the cause of fear? Look, sir, I want to learn about fear; that means
I must be curious,I must be passionate.First of all, I must be curious ans
I cannot be curious if I form a conclusion. So to learn
about fear I mustn't be distracted by running away from it; there
mustn't be a movement of repression, which again means a distraction
from fear. There mustn't be the feeling 'I must get-rid of
it'. If I have these feelings I cannot learn. Now, have I these feelings
when I see there is fear? I am not saying you shouldn't have
these feelings-they are there. If I am aware of them what shall I
do? My fears are so strong that I want to run away from them. And
the very movement away from them breeds more fear-are you
following all this? Do I see the truth and the fact that moving
away from fear increases fear? Therefore, there is no movement
away from it, right?

Q:I don't understand this, because I feet that if I have a fear and I
move away from it, I am moving towards something that is going
to end that fear, towards something that will see me through it.

K: What are you afraid of?

Q:Money.

K: You are afraid of losing money, not of money. The more the
merrier! But you are afraid of losing it, right? Therefore, what do
you do? You make quite sure that your money is weil placed, but
the fear continues. It may not be safe in this changing world, the
bank may go bankrupt, and so on. Even though you have plenty
of money there is always this fear. Running away from that fear
doesn't solve it', nor does suppressing it, saying, 'I won't think
about it; for the next second you are thinking about it. So running
away from it, avoiding it, doing anything about it, continues fear.
That is a fact. Now we have established two facts: that to learn
there must be curiosity and there must be no pressure of the past.
And to learn about fear there must be no running away from fear.
That is a fact; that is the truth. Therefore, you don't run away.
Now when I don't run away from it what takes place?

Q: I stop being identified with it.

K: Is that what learning is? You have stopped.

Q: I don't know what you mean.

K: Stopping is not learning. Because of the desire not to have fear,
you want to escape from it. Just see the subdety of it. I am afraid,
and I want to learn about it. I don't know what is going to happen,
I want to learn the movement of fear. So what takes place? I am
not running away, I am not suppressing, I am not avoiding it: I
want to learn about it.


Q: I think about how to get rid of it.

K: If you want to get rid of it as I have just explained, who is the
person who is going to get rid of it? Youwant to get rid of it, which
means you resist it, therefore fear increases. If you don't see the
fact of that, I am sorry, I can't help you.


Q:We must accept fear.

K: I don't accept fear. Who is the entity who is accepting fear?

Q: If one cannot escape, one must accept.

K: To escape from it, to avoid it, to pick up a novel and read what
other people are doing, to look at television, to go to the temple or
to church-all that is still avoidance of fear, and any avoidance of
it only increases and strengthens fear. That is a fact. After establishing
that fact I won't run away, I won't suppress. I am learning
not running away. Therefore, what takes place when there's an
awareness of fear?

Q: Understanding of the process of fear.

K:We are doing it. I am understanding the process, I am watching
it, I am learning about it. I am afraid and I am not running away from it; now what takes place?

Q:Youare face-to-face with fear.

K: What takes place then?

Q:There is no movement in any direction.

K: Don't you ask this question? Please, just listen to me. I am not
running away, I am not suppressing, I am not avoiding, I am not
resisting it. There it is, I am watching it. The natural question
arising out of that is: Who is watching this fear? Please don't
guess. When you say, 'I am watching fear, I am learning about
fear', who is the entity that is watching it?

Q: Fear itself.

K: Is fear itself watching itself? Please don't guess. Don 't come to
any conclusion, find out. The mind isn't escaping from fear, not.
building a wall against fear through courage and all the rest of it.
What takes place when I watch? I ask myself naturally: Who is
watching the thing called fear? Don't answer me, please. I have
raised the question, not you. Sir, find out who is watching this
fear: another fragment of me?

Q: The entity who is watching cannot be the result of the past, it
must be fresh, something that happens at this moment.

K:I am not talking about whether the watching is the result of the
past. I am watching, I am aware of fear, I am aware that I am
frightened of losing money, of becoming ill, (;>fmy wife leaving
me and God knows what else. And I want to learn about it; therefore,
I am watehing and my natural question is: Who is watching
this fear?

Q:My image of myself.

K: When I ask the question: 'Who is watching', what takes place?
In the very question there is a division, isn't there? That is a fact.
When I say, 'Who is watching,' it means the thing is there and I
am watching, therefore there is a division. Now why is there a division?
You answer me this, don't guess, don't repeat what somebody
else has said, including myself. Find out why this division
exists at the moment when you ask the question: 'Who is watching?'
Find out.

Q:There is a desire on my part to watch.

K: Which means the desire says, 'Watch in order to escape'-you
follow? Yousaid before, 'I have understood that I mustn't escape',
and now you find that desire is making you escape subtly; therefore,
you are still watching fear as an outsider. See the importance
of this. You are watching with an intention to get rid of fear. And
we said a few minutes ago, to try to get rid of fear means first censoring
fear. So your watching implies trying to get rid of fear;
therefore, there is a division that only strengthens fear. So I am
again asking the question: Who is watching fear?

Q: Isn't there also another point: Who is asking the question 'who
is watching fear'?

K: I am asking that question, sir.

Q:But who is asking the question?

K:The same thing, only you push it further back. Now, please listen:
this is the most practical way of going about it. Youwill see if
you follow this very carefully that the mind will be free of fear,
but you are not doing it.
I am frightened of losing money and therefore what do I
do? I escape by avoiding thinking about it. So I realize how silly it
is to avoid it, because the more Iresist it the more I am afraid. I
am watching it and the question arises: Who is watching it? Is it
the desire that wants to get rid of it, go beyond it, be free of it,
that is watching? It is. And I know that watching it that way only
divides and therefore strengthens fear. So I see the truth of that;
therefore, desire to get rid of it has gone-you follow me? It's like
seeing a poisonous snake: the desire to touch it is finished with.
The desire to take drugs is finished when I see the real danger of
them; I won't touch them. As long as I don't see the danger of it,
I´ll go on. In the same way, as long as I don't see that running
away from fear strengthens fear, I´ll go on running away. The moment
I see it I won't run. Then what happens?

Q:How can a person who is afraid of being involved look? One is
scared.

K: I am pointing it out to you. The moment you are scared of
looking at fear, you won't leam about it, and if you want to leam
about fear, don't be scared. It is as simple as that. If I don't know
how to swim I won't plunge into the river. When I know that fear
cannot possibly be ended if I am afraid to look and if I really want
to look, I´ll say: I don't care, I´ll look.


Q: It was said, it is desire to get away from fear that constantly
breeds more fear. When I'm afraid I want to get away from it, so
what I always do is to let it be relative so that I can identify with
it, so that I can unify myself.

K: You see that! It is all these tricks that we are playing on ourselves.
Do listen, sir. Who is saying all this? You make an effort to
identify yourself with fear.

Q:I am that fear.

K: Ah! Wait. If you are that fear, as you say you are, then what
happens?

Q:When I come to terms with it, it begins to diminish.

K: No. Not coming to terms! When you say that you are fear, fear
is not something separate from you. What takes place? I am
brown. I am afraid to be brown, but I say, 'Yes, I am brown' and
that's the end of it, isn't it? I am not running away from it. What
takes place then?

Q: Acceptance.

K: Do I accept it? On the contrary, I forget that I am brown. I want
to learn about mys~lf. I must know myself completely, passionately,
because that is the foundation of all action; without that 1'11
lead a life of utter confusion. To learn about myself I cannot follow
anybody. If I follow anybody I am not learning. Learning implies
that the past does not interfere, because myself is something
extraordinary, vital, moving, dynamic; so I must look at it afresh
with a new mind. There is no new mind if the past is always operating.
That is a fact, I see that. Then in seeing that I realize I am
frightened. I don't know what will happen. So I want to learn
about fear-you follow? I am moving all the time in the movement
of learning. I want to know about myself and I realize something-
a profound truth. I am going to learn about fear, which
means I mustn't run away from it at any price. I mustn't have a
subtle form of desire to run away from it. So what happens to a
mind that is capable of looking at fear without division? The division
being trying to get rid of it, subtle forms of escape, suppression,
and so on. What happens to the mind when it is confronted
with fear and there is no question of running away from it? Please,
find out, give your mind to it.

Saanen, 2 August 1970

Pensamientos Puros

Por Fernando Uribe S..

«Todo es Mente»

Primer principio hermético de los Siete del Kybalión

Los pensamientos son entes vivos, ondas de energía muy sutil que se desplazan por el aire a increíble distancia y gran velocidad. Y de ello es posible encontrar referencia en algunas tradiciones orientales. Por ejemplo, en el budismo tibetano. Los pensamientos ajenos ingresan en nosotros, de manera absolutamente inevitable, en cada inhalación. Procesados, digeridos o no, alquimizados o no -son cosas diferentes-, exhalamos pensamientos ajenos y propios. De esa manera, hago mi aporte a la masa de aire circundante circundante que contribuyo a enriquecer con delicados aromas de mi amante corazón o a ennegrecer aún más con mis limitaciones actuales...
Para mí, de esta manera se explica y se comprende muchísimo mejor el famosísimo "inconsciente colectivo" que descubriera el genial C.G. Jung, cuya teoría al respecto goza hoy aún de bastante aprecio entre los buscadores de la verdad del mundo entero. La masa de información circundante, contenida en el aire que respiramos, implica que haya "inconsciente colectivo" familiar, organizacional, local, regional, etc. Y, sobre todo apoyado por el desarrollo tecnológico de los medios de comunicación, el que Jung concibió: el inconsciente colectivo planetario, o universal para quien aún tenga una concepción geocéntrica del casi infinito por vasto (y en continua expansión) Universo de Dios.
La respiración, sinónimo de vida y de lejos la más importante función corporal, es, entonces, el principal medio por el cual intercambiamos información entre el mundo externo y nuestro mundo interno. Esa portentosa cantidad de información de muy diferente nivel vibratorio, de frecuencias de onda variadísimas, recibida con el aire que ingresamos en cada inhalación, la "seleccionamos" de acuerdo a nuestros pensamientos (emociones, sentimientos, o razonamientos), a nuestras creencias en general y, sobre todo, a nuestras actitudes.
El cerebro es sólo la herramienta física que utiliza la mente. La mente, nuestro primer archivo no físico, es un cuerpo sutil que cubre todo el cuerpo y hasta sus "auras". Por lo tanto, eventos bioquímicos y biofísicos, emociones (del instinto), sentimientos (del centro ídem) y razonamientos, todos se convierten en pensamientos. Aún así sólo un escaso 5% de los pensamientos de mi mente son propios: es decir totalmente autónomos, producidos por mí, y de estos, la mayoría son simple procesamiento de las impresiones sensoriales, o sea, de lo que pienso de lo que percibo por mis cinco sentidos físicos.

Con motivo del drama en Nueva York, transmitido a todo el mundo en vivo y en directo a través de la televisión, jamás en la historia de la presente civilización terrícola tantas personas han estado simultáneamente pensando y, ante todo, procesando pensamientos con lo mejor que pueden y lo mejor que saben -siempre todos hacemos eso- sobre un mismo tema. ¡Estamos respirando odio, venganza, confusión y muchísimo MIEDO, en abrumadoras cantidades!! Si no hacemos nada con ello, nuestra energía vital se baja al piso, produciendo primero que todo oscuridad mental, y luego, angustia, enfermedad, malas relaciones, miseria, etc.

Sin embargo, y por la perfección de nuestro diseño, hay remedio -individual- al alcance de cualquiera que quiera remediarlo, para la "oscura e inquieta tiranía" mental. Esa mente humana poderosa antes descrita es no obstante muy similar a un receptor de radio, y los pensamientos respirados, de naturaleza vibratoria, son ondas -repito-, como tales tienen una frecuencia determinada.
El punto donde quería llegar es que es sólo cuestión de decisión personal y de ACTITUD, sintonizar en mi mente Amor Estéreo o Caos F.M. ¡La frecuencia de recepción la escojo yo! Tengo el control del dial... Y nadie, absolutamente nadie, puede hacer eso por mí. Así funcionan las cosas, nos guste o no.
El mecanismo de sintonía se llama no admitir sino Pensamientos Puros. Se llaman Pensamientos Puros, aquellos que producen paz interna, y hay de dos clases: pensamientos de satisfacción que son los que pienso para excluir de mi mente todo aquello que, no comprendiéndolo, no trato de digerirlo. Son, por ejemplo, bellos recuerdos o visualizaciones futurísticas estupendas para mí y mis seres queridos. La otra clase, que implican una frecuencia mucho más elevada que los anteriores, se llaman pensamientos de amor. Esos requieren de muy buena información y bastante Armonía y Belleza Interiores, ya que consisten en ver perfecto todo lo externo, así todo sea un "desastre". Para poder tenerlos hay que tener aparte de información de primera, muy bien establecida la diferencia entre los duales y traicioneros sentimientos que producen el drama y el sufrimiento del ser humano y el Amor Comprensión, que no es -en absoluto- algo senti-mental...

El verdadero significado de la famosa ALQUIMIA , era el de un proceso absolutamente mental: el de un hombre que había alcanzado, mediante el entrenamiento interno y con buena información, convertir el más denso (plomo) pensamiento que a su mente llegara, en ORO PURO. O sea, encontrar en todo un profundo propósito de amor. No creer en Dios, sino llegar a Verlo y Sentirlo en todas partes.

Lo que se llama "algo misteriosamente", estar o ser iluminado, es que gracias a la paz interior invulnerable, que no es espontánea sino resultado de un entrenamiento, la energía vital sube, literalmente, y sube y sube hasta hacer algo que se representa con la aureola de la iconografía de los santos. La persona, cualquiera de nosotros, en ese estadio, aumenta la finura de su dial y empieza a conectar las mejores emisoras, los pensamientos de las dimensiones superiores... Los pensamientos de Dios.

El mencionado entrenamiento comienza con aprender el manejo y los beneficios del Pensamiento Puro.

The intellect is a fifth wheel…
-Henry Miller, in conversation

He might have said the ego is a fifth wheel. Or self-consciousness is a fifth wheel. Or self-criticism is a fifth wheel. When you write you want to become a conduit, a channel, a pipe from muse into matter. You as a writer do not exist. Only the writing does.

Erica Jong

When I first started to write, as a teenager in the suburbs, I
wanted to be a novelist. I thought that writing books in a
room on my own was all I would do. The work was self sufficient.
For me, as a young man, that was the point. There
were no intermediaries or interpreters - the reader just read
what you wrote. Some people, I guess, become writers
because they're afraid of others or addicted to solitude.
Perhaps they read a lot, or drew or watched television alone
as children. Being with others might be the problem that
isolation can solve.

However, when you are writing at last, the same questions
appear repeatedly. Why am I doing this? Who is this for?
Why write this rather than that? I'm sure people in other
professions don't have an existential crisis every moming.
It's as if you are seeking any excuse to stop. You can, of
course, grow out of these questions, or tire of yourself and
your own preoccupations. Or you can hope that collaboration
will push you past them. A director will have different
doubts and fears. You want to see how others work, and -
why not? - be changed by them.

What will you think or say if you free associate, if you let
your mind run without inhibition? There are plenty of anxieties
there. What, then, will it be like making mistakes, saying
daft things, having strange ideas, in front of someone else?
Will you be overwhelmed or forced into compromise by the
other; or vice versa? Will you feel liberated by them, or will
new fears be aroused? Which fears might they be?

The challenge of collaboration is to find a process where
both of you can be fearlessly foolish; to see whether your
union will be a dilution or expansion of your combined
abilities. Youwant to be surprised by the other; not limited
by them. Neither of you wants to waste time pursuing an
idea that is uninteresting.

However, collaboration is like friendship or like writing;
you can only start off with a vague idea of where you are
going. After a bit, if you're lucky,you begin to see whether or
not there is a worthwhile destination ahead.

I can think of scores of good collaborations. The ones that
come to mind are from dance, or theatre, or music. I think of
Miles and Coltrane; Miles and anyone; and of Zakir Hussein,
John McLaughlin and Jan Garharek; of Brian Eno and David
Byrne. The list could be endless.

It would be amistake to put the purity of isolated creativity
on one side, and collaboration on the other. In a sense all
creativity will be collaborative: the artist works with his
material, with his subject and with the history of his chosen
form.

As weIl as this, most artists, I assume, relish a certain
amount of the unexpected, of chance and contingency of
something odd but useful that might just turn up. What did
you see, hear, say yesterday? How might it be incorporated
into the present work? Something going wrong in the right
way can be fruitful. Another person could be the 'contingency'
that helps this to happen. Maybe all artistic activity
is a kind of collage, then, the putting together of various bits
and pieces gathered from here and there, and integrated
into some kind of whole. How are the elements selected or
chosen? I don't know. It has to be an experiment.

Hanif Kureishi