Small Group Discussion 2, Rishi Valley, 4 December 1980

Krishnamurti (K): Mr. Asit and I, if I may just introduce all this, have been talking about the relationship of the human mind to the computer. He has been involved in computer structure and manufacture of it and so on, so on. And we have been trying in different parts of the world, wherever we met, to find out what is intelligence, is there an action which the computer cannot possibly do, or any chemical introduction into the body, something far more penetrating than anything that man can do externally. Am I putting it right? And that’s where our conversation has been for over several years. So I thought this morning we should meet and go into this matter. He and I will continue our conversation. Please listen to it and if you don’t understand, if I may suggest, don’t get confused, just listen. Something you don’t understand, leave it alone. What you understand, understand, but you may not have thought about all this. So it may be rather confusing at the beginning—confusing, and disturbing and saying, ‘I don’t understand, I’ve got confused.’ Don’t get confused, just listen. [*Laughs*] And if there are some of you like Mrs. Jayakar and a few of us were this morning at the table—*Where is Narayan? Oh, there you are—*we were talking about this. So we are more or less, some of us, familiar with this. So perhaps they will talk and the rest—please, I am not asking you not to talk or suppress your thinking, but as we develop the problem perhaps you would join later on. Is this clear? So just follow this, even verbally. Right, sir? Please go ahead.

Asit Chandmal (AC): Sir, if I may start by quickly reviewing this morning’s discussion, quickly, it will be the starting point.

K: Yes.

AC: There are several starting points in fact. One is, you were saying, quite rightly, that in terms of armaments of defence, the Russians are banking on heavy weaponry, a very large standing army—four million people. In other words, not sophisticated technology, but massive manpower and heavy tanks, that sort of thing. The Americans cannot possibly recruit four million people for their army, so their approach to the Russian problem, the Russian armaments problem, is to develop super sophisticated brains, computers for their missiles, for their submarines, to counteract the massive power of the Russians.

K: Yes, sir, that’s what I was saying.

AC: I am saying that as Americans are developing this technology in this direction where they are creating super brains, we as human beings have to, in a sense, do the same thing. We have to be more intelligent than the technology of the Americans…

K: That’s right.

AC: … to counteract the threat of that technology. And that technology is not only in computers, sir, it is in genetic engineering, cloning, that sort of thing, biochemical engineering.

K: Some of you may not have heard all this. Have you? Genetic, cloning. Just a minute, I must, otherwise they’ll get lost. Briefly, sir.

AC: A great deal of research is being done in manipulating genes so that hereditary characteristics can be controlled completely, and cloning as you know is to produce an identical image of yourself, another human being, without any interference from a second human being or second source. You split yourself essentially.

G. Narayan (GN): I believe they have succeeded with frogs, in cloning frogs.

PJ: Toads.

K: Yes, they know about it, go on.

AC: Then tremendous research, sir, in biochemistry. If fear is a chemical reaction, if fear creates a chemical reaction can you neutralize fear through chemical reactions, or create fear through chemical reactions. Then say in Russia, there is a great deal of research being done on the ability to read your thoughts and transmit them to somebody else because for espionage purposes they are working on this. And if I may speculate a little bit, I am using the word *speculate* in the sense of seeing certain problems now which are solvable technologically—they’ll get solved in the next five years, certainly in the next twenty years. I think it is important to do that because I feel you are not merely talking to us but you are talking down to the centuries also when all this will be a reality, sir. It will be a reality very soon, in fact. For example, the role of the teacher. Today you can get a small computer anywhere in the world, where you put a small magnetic strip in it and it will speak French to you; put another strip it speaks Arabic to you, Japanese to you— instantaneously. I see it as a solvable technological problem that those strips could be put in a human brain. The problem is only the interface between the brain and the strip, because the brain operates as an electrical circuit. And then what happens to the role of the teacher in imparting knowledge? It’s gone instantaneously.

GN: Are you suggesting that this thing can be placed inside the brain…

AC: Yes.

GN: …and the chap would have learnt French.

AC: Instantaneously.

K: That’s a good point, just…

AC: I am not saying it is happening today. It is a solvable, technological…

GN: It will happen…

AC: If you can have heart-lung machines, you can have heart transplants, this is even… [*Laughs*]

K: You understand? Something is implanted in my brain and I don’t know French, next morning I speak French or Arabic, or Chinese, or Tamil or whatever it is.

AC: Or history or geography or mathematics.

K: So what is learning? You follow? That’s what I was—Yes, we will go into all this. Go on, sir.

AC: The third point. Sir, just as in affluent societies because of the tremendous increase in physical appliances, the motorcar, washing machine, the body has deteriorated…

K: Physically.

AC: …physically. Because more and more mental functions are going to be taken over by this, the mind is going to deteriorate even in these things.

K: Quite, quite.

AC: Today a calculating machine is available to students. At any level the mind is going to deteriorate, not only at the level you are talking about, but even in the ordinary functioning.

K: Quite, quite, quite.

AC: So I feel this as an enormous threat and how does one live intelligently in a world which is moving in this direction?

K: So what. If learning can be done instantaneously—I can be a super mathematician when I wake up next morning, or do anything next morning, fly, you follow?, then what is the function of the brain? What is the function of a human being?

Pupul Jayakar (PJ): Isn’t the problem, sir, what is humanness? Apart from all this. What is it to be a human being apart from all this?

K: Apparently what a human being now is: a mass of accumulated knowledge, and reactions according to that knowledge. Right? Would you agree to that?

AC: Accumulated knowledge in all fields—psychological…

K: What?

AC: In all fields.

K: Of course, of course. I am not limiting it to one field. All human existence…

AC: …is accumulated knowledge.

K: Yes. Based on knowledge. Right?

AC: Yes.

K: Right. And that has been his role in society. And the machine—if I may use—computer is going to take charge of all that. You can’t dispute about it. There is no *question* about it. So, what is then a human being? You follow? [*Laughs*] I wonder if you understand it. What is the function of a school then? No, sir, don’t answer me. Think a great deal about this. This is not just quick response and back and forth. This is tremendously serious. We have to meditate about it. You understand? I am using the word *meditation* in the sense, ponder over it, mull over it, go into it slowly, not say this is so, this is… So then what is a human being? If my fears, if my sorrow, if my anxiety is all wiped away by a chemical or by some implanted machine, then what am I? I don’t know if you see all this: I won’t quarrel with you then, because I’ve got this machine. [*Laughs*]You understand, sir? I’ll live completely—what! I don’t think we get this fullness of it. You understand, sir?

AC: Yes, sir, that is the question.

K: You see, Narayan?

GN: May I say something?

K: Don’t, no, Narayan, don’t say anything. We are trying to understand what is a human being when the machine can take us over completely.

GN: My suggestion is, actually, even in terms of science and progress: how far can the machine take over? That would be the first question.

K: Narayan, don’t dispute that. They say it can take completely over. Don’t dispute it.

GN: I am not disputing, I want to relate to it. As it is being suggested, if a French micro thing can be kept inside and I know all French, or a mathematical thing can be kept, I become a mathematician, if it goes to that extent, I think it is very difficult to answer, if it goes to that extent…

K: We *have* gone to that extent.

AC: No, sir, no, we *will* be going to that extent.

K: We will, I mean, take it for granted. Don’t discuss it even.

GN: I only want to posit this because is this going to be an actuality in fifty years, hundred years, ten years?

K: Within the next ten years.

Mary Zimbalist (MZ): What difference does it make if it is five, ten, fifty or even hundred, what’s the difference?

AC: Quite right. That’s the point. Quite right.

K: You see how our mind—This is what I mean. We are not penetrating this immediately. Within the next five or eight years the thing will be finished.

Sunanda Patwardhan (SP): Sir, that point which you said, that computers or any machine can eliminate our fear and anxiety, and eliminate sorrow, chemicals can…

K: Chemicals, chemicals can do it.

SP: …eliminate our whole anxiety?

K: Yes.

SP: I can’t understand this.

AC: They are already doing it.

K: They are doing it!

AC: Anti-depressant pills have already started on that.

SP: Then what is the meaning of perception? What is the meaning of observation of ‘what is’?

K: Stop it. Stop it. Stop it. That’s what we are asking.

MZ: Could we not discuss the role of technology, but assume that it’s moving in this direction?

AC: Quite right. I think that’s important.

K: I don’t get this.

PJ: It’s already moving in that direction.

AC: …direction.

PJ: If you take a calmpose pill, your …

AC: Yes.

PJ: …anxiety gets lessened. Another calmpose pill tomorrow it will completely remove it.

AC: Yes, without any side-effects.

PJ: That is not arguable.

SP: No, Pupul, I don’t understand.

PJ: If you project your own mind, you can see it happening.

AC: Of course.

PJ: If you can clone, you can do anything.

SP: You mean all psychological problems will be solved by the computers?

K: Chemicals.

PJ: You produce people who do not have psychological problems. I think we are missing something, because I don’t think we are getting to the central thing.

K: No, we are not.

PJ: There is something else involved in this.

SP: How is it, Pupul?

K: Look, Pupulji, if my anxiety, fears, suffering, and my pleasure increased—follow that—I may release my fears, sorrows, anxieties, uncertainties, but give me the chemical that will pursue, that will give me greater, greater pleasure. This is going to take place!

AC: Sir, there is nothing new in this.

K: Nothing new in this.

AC: In the past…

K: Yes. [*Laughs*]

AC: … there have been side-effects, after-effects that they are going to eliminate those, that’s all. Right from ‘soma’*[^1] till Huxley’s…

K: …book…

AC: …book, I mean, LSD, everything. LSD is your vision of Nirvana, sir. There are side-effects, that’s all. They can eliminate those. So it is moving in that direction and that’s a solvable problem because they are material problems, physical problems.

K: Yes, physical problems.

K: So I am asking then: What is a human being? Then what is our mind?

Achyut Patwardhan (AP): Do I understand you right, Asit, to say that while on the one hand we are advancing in terms of capacity like this, there is also a corresponding process of deterioration in the mind which is a side-effect of all this super mechanisation of the brain?

AC: I am saying that is a great threat to the human mind.

AP: I would like you to expand a bit on that because you see, in order to understand the problem of intelligence that also has got to be clarified.

AC: But that’s obvious. If you have cars then you stop walking, so your body deteriorates. So if the computer takes over mental functions, the mind deteriorates. That’s all. I meant just that. Nothing else.

MZ: There have already been warnings about: don’t use the calculator all the time, add it up, because your brain is like a muscle, it must be used.

AC: Right, sir.

K: There you are. There you are. I don’t think we understand the depth of what is happening. You follow, sir? We are arguing ‘can it happen’? It is *going* to happen. Take it for granted. A multimillionaire wanted himself reproduced before dying, and they are going to do it. Right, sir? Right? Then what are we? What is a human being then? And if the machines are going to—machine, chemicals, I am using the word *computer* to include all that, don’t let’s break it up again—when the computer is going to take us completely over, and we are not exercising our brain and therefore deteriorate, and therefore physically deteriorate, how shall we prevent all this? You follow? I don’t know if you follow what I mean. Right, sir? Am I explaining? Uh? Asit? Achyutji?

AP: Yes, yes, I follow.

K: What shall I do? I must exercise my brain. Right? Now it is being exercised through pain, through pleasure, through suffering, anxiety, all the rest of it. It is working. And when the machine takes it over, it is not working. And if it is not working, it will deteriorate—it is a muscle and all the rest of it. Watch. You follow the danger of it? I wonder if you see the danger of this. All about spirit, God, [*Laughs*] you follow?—I will take a pill and I will love you forever. You understand, sir?

MZ: Today’s activity, as you explained, would you say is largely concerned with what is called problems?

K: With problems. And the computer is going to take away all our problems.

AC: Technology is going to take away.

K: And chemicals will take away all our problems. And because we have problems, it is active.

MZ: You also said yesterday, we talked about it a little bit, that there are some perennial problems, really.

K: We’ll come to that a little later. Can we start, Asit, that these things are going to happen.

AC: Yes.

K: Whether we like it or not, it is *happening*. Unless you are blind and uninformed, keep quiet, it is happening! Dr. Bohm, various scientists, they say it is, under your nose it is happening. So let’s take that for granted. Then let’s enquire whether the mind deprived of its problems—chemically, computer—whether it can survive at all. I don’t know if you follow this. Right, sir? Uh? You are doubtful? Come on, sir, join.

Questioner 1 (Q1): Sir, in other words, we are mostly depending on challenge to keep us awake and alive.

K: Yes, yes. That’s all that you’ve got.

Q1: If the challenge is removed then what?

K: That’s all implied, in all this. Every question you raise is being answered, you follow?—chemically or computer.

PJ: I am not quite clear on one point. There is in each human being this feeling of a void, or an emptiness which needs to be filled.

K: It will be filled by chemistry.

PJ: It is not filled, sir.

K: Oh yes, it would.

PJ: No, sir. [*K laughs*]I am questioning that. There is a seed…

K: Pupul…

PJ: …listen, which is groping. In every human being there is a seed that gropes.

Radha Burnier (RB): He is saying is that there will be other forms of LSD without the side-effects which will fill that gap.

K: Take a pill and I will never feel anything.

PJ: I don’t—At some point you have to see that there *is* something which will remain untouched.

AC: We have to find that. If you don’t the human nature will be destroyed.

K: That’s what I am getting at.

PJ: Before you can come to that, finding of that, at least you must posit, you must posit a need.

K: What? I am positing a need.

PJ: What is the need?

K: The need is chemicals, the computer is going to destroy me, destroy my brain.

PJ: So, all right. Then you would ask, if this need was not there, that, what’s wrong?

AC: That’s why we are…

PJ: What’s wrong?

K: Nothing!

PJ: There is a universal bliss. Then all our wants will be satisfied. What’s wrong?

K: No! No!

PJ: You question it, because there is that seed which says it cannot be.

AC: I am looking at it slightly differently.

K: Yes.

AC: I am saying that if this continues, which is going to—this technology, there won’t be human beings left; there won’t be any voids in any human beings because there won’t *be* human beings. They will die out as a species. Please listen. At the same time as a human being I am saying, I feel there *is* something, which is, I don’t know, I feel, is there something, I want to find out. Is there something which is different which needs to be preserved? And that is to act intelligently. How are you going to preserve it with all these dangers? First, is there something? Second, if there is, how are you going to preserve it against all these things?

K: Asit, it may not be preservation at all.

AC: I used the word *preserve*…

K: I know. I am just looking at it. Look, sir, let us take for granted that the chemicals, computer and other things are going to take man over. It’s understood. I won’t even discuss it any more. And if the brain is not exercised, and now it is being exercised—with problems, with anxieties, all the rest of it, then it will inevitably deteriorate. Obviously. And the deterioration means gradually man becoming a robot. Right? Now, that is a fact. I take it as a fact, happening *now*. Then I say to myself, what is then the human being which has survived, you follow?, three thousand, five million, several million years, to end up in this, end up like this? It may be, and probably it *is*. Go ahead, sir.

AC: A thought occurred to me. May I express it now? Sir, it seems to me that the movement of this technology—I am using two words specifically now—is a very evil thing, sir…

K: Yes, sir.

AC: …because there is a certain goodness which is…

K: Agreed.

AC: …which is being destroyed.

K: Agreed. But it is going to destroy. You see? You follow?

AC: Because the technology is being created by human beings, sir. There seems to be a movement of evil in human beings and there is a movement in the evil sense seems to be taking over, sir.

K: Is that evil? Why do you call it evil?

AC: Evil because it is destroying the good, sir.

K: But we are destroying ourselves.

AC: Yes. So…

K: No, the machine isn’t destroying us, we are destroying ourselves.

AC: We are. Yes, yes. So the question becomes: how is one to create this technology and yet not be destroyed by it.

K: That’s the problem.

AP: Asit, may I ask you a question? Is it possible to fabricate a computer which can be fed with the perception which is central to human existence, that the well-being of man is totally indivisible?

K: What?

AP: The survival and well-being of man is totally indivisible.

K: I don’t understand what you are talking. Sorry, forgive me, I don’t follow what you are saying.

AP: It is one of the achievements of human intelligence that man has come of his own volition to the perception that human well-being is totally indivisible.

K: Human…?

AC: …well-being.

AP: Human well-being and survival is totally indivisible. It is this perception which is lacking in the pursuit of capacity. The pursuit of capacity is pursuit of separated talent, but the summary of all the parts does not make the whole. So it does not produce this. Now do you think the computer can also come upon this? Or can be educated.

RB: That is going back again to what the computer can do or not do.

AP: No, I am just asking because I want to know.

AC: Achyutji, are you saying that can a computer can be programmed to…

AP: No, I am just asking…

AC: Can I just say, if I have understood you. Can a computer be programmed to ensure the survival of the well-being of human being? Is that what you are asking?

K: Of course it can.

AC: Is that what you are asking?

RB: More or less…

AP: I don’t think so.

GN: May I say something?

K: He hasn’t finished yet. He hasn’t finished, Narayan.

AP: It is a perception in man, it is an insight. In man it is a perception that arises in him. That is his flowering in goodness.

AC: I’ll tell you why I don’t—You see, human beings are not interested in the survival and well-being of human beings.

K: Not at all. Take it for granted, they are *not*.

AP: I cannot agree to that because in that case the human race would not have survived forty million years.

AC: You know, Achyutji, more people were killed in the first world war than in all wars in recorded history? And more people were killed in the second. You follow what I am saying? Now with the weapons of destruction you have got, a machine can wipe out the world, okay? So don’t say that… And these machines have been created by human beings. Don’t say human beings are truly interested in the survival of other human beings, their well-being.

AP: No, what I want to say is that when I say a human being has a potential, it does not mean that that potential is equally developed in all, but he has the potential.

K: Potential for what?

AP: For perception that human well-being is totally indivisible.

K: No, we haven’t got it! Otherwise we wouldn’t have wars.

AC: Exactly.

K: Otherwise Mao wouldn’t have killed three hundred million people, Stalin. This is idealistic! Sorry.

AC: The same human beings programme computers. So it will be programmed for violence and not for well being. Can we go on with…?

GN: May I say something in this context? Because Dr. Bohm was telling me that all the latest technological development is an extension of the human mind.

K: It is, all right.

GN: Right. And as Asit says, the human mind has a capacity for evil.

K: Why do you call it evil?

GN: No, no. I am just repeating. I am not saying it is evil. The evil comes in this sense: While on the one hand computers make for, say, some progress, they also bring in new problems because of the constitution of man. Right? Now, if the computer takes over the mental functions…

K: It is going to take over *everything*. Take it for granted.

GN: Yes. I am not saying it is not. As and when the computer is going to take over the mental functions man is going to deteriorate more.

K: But we said this, Narayan. You are not…

GN: Yes. But this is the evil aspect of that, that is being talked about.

K: I object to your word *evil*.

GN: No, I too don’t like *evil* but*…*

K: But don’t use it. [*Laughs*] Get going, sir!

PJ: I want to know one thing. A motorcar. We have a faster motor car and a faster motor car and a faster motor car and an aeroplane—you don’t object to that. Now, what are you objecting to? What are you objecting to. You are objecting to certain functions of the brain…

K: Yes, you have stated it.

PJ: …being taken over. Now, why are we challenging it?

K: What? What.

PJ: Why are we challenging it?

K: I am challenging it because…

PJ: I want to ask you.

K: …I am wondering, if my brain is taken over by chemicals and everything else, the brain is going to deteriorate.

PJ: But the brain may have ceased to have the kind of function it had when it first came into being.

K: They have gone into this too. Probably you wouldn’t know this. May I just say something? Brain has the capacity, when it sees danger to protect itself by throwing up some chemical or whatever it does. They have gone into this. You follow this? Am I right? I don’t know if you have read about it. Again I don’t want to go into all this.

AC: I know. The basic thing, Pupulmaasi, is that there is a great danger to the human race being completely wiped out.

PJ: So I am coming back to what I said. Please listen. The only reason why one challenges is because there you feel a threat to something.

AC: Yes.

PJ: Now what is that something.

K: That is what we are trying to get it.

PJ: I am trying to bring it down to something concrete, Krishnaji. It is becoming a little diffused. Otherwise what is there? Speed and everything the brain changes the nature of its functioning because something else becomes more capable of functioning.

AC: No. If there is speed, there is physical deterioration. This is known that people who use cars are physically deteriorating. Similarly this is going to happen to the brain and the emotions. So you are going to deteriorate to a point where you don’t exist. The human race will be wiped out. I really feel it. Or become an automaton.

PJ: If the human race is violent, cruel, evil, destructive, then what are you trying to say?

AC: That’s what we are coming to. That’s exactly. How does one live intelligently? In other words, what is there—I used the word *preservation*. Krishnaji didn’t like it—Is there anything different from this?

PJ: Yes, that’s all.

K: Of course not.

PJ: Is there any…

K: Therefore we have to find out!

MZ: Is there anything worth preserving, if it’s all organic?

K: Maria, look, we are going round and round. Come to the point. Which is, let us take it for granted. For God’s sake, you are all objecting to that. That is the real objection. I don’t object to it. I see it’s happening. It’s happening in different ways, you understand? Catholic mind is deteriorating, you follow?, because it will not allow anything to penetrate its beliefs, its dogmas. It is stuck there. That means deterioration. If I have a strong conviction about, opinion, this, I am deteriorating. We *are* deteriorating as we are. Right? And the machine is going to help us to deteriorate faster. That’s all. Right?

AC: Yes, sir.

K: So what is a human being to do? I don’t want to go back over and over again about the computer. You go ahead if somebody wants to, but I wouldn’t join you again.

AC: I also don’t want to.

K: What is my relationship with you is settled by chemistry—chemical process. I’ll sleep with my wife beautifully. They will tell me what to do and I’ll just lay it. I now will have marvellous relationship with everybody else, because I have taken chemicals and I am peaceful. You understand this? Take it *for granted*.

AC: Quite right.

K: Then, I am asking, ‘What is a human being deprived of all this?’ You understand? He has no longer problems. Right? He is only pursuing pleasure. I think that is the *clue* to it which we are doing *now*. You follow what I am saying, Asit? Am I right, sir? This is what we are seeking now, in different forms, doesn’t matter. And that will be encouraged by the machine, by the drug. Right? And I will be a human being with nothing but pleasure.

Kabir Jaithirta (KJ): Is it relevant to point out that a computer scientist might say that he will use the computer to help him to solve intellectual problems. I am not talking about pleasure, pain, sorrow and all that. I am not talking of the technological problems of survival. But he would say it is such great fun to use the computer, to go up to the stars, to do this, to do that. Would you call that a pursuit of pleasure as well?

K: What is this? I don’t understand.

AC: Kabir, what we are saying is, we are not only talking about the computer, we are talking about all type of things.

KJ: I am talking about the whole thing.

AC: And if you see that it is leading, it is leading to a point where a human being…

KJ: That I see, but I am asking. I am saying a computer scientist might respond that way.

AC: A computer scientist. But we are saying that there are not only computer scientists, there are genetic scientists…

K: There are chemicals, genetic…

AC: …they are all operating and they are going to converge to a point like doctors use electronics, you know, they are all going to converge to a point where you will end up with a human being, either you will destroy the human race or you will end up with a human being in a constant state of pleasure without any side effects.

GN: There won’t be any side-effects?

AC: Yes, they are working on that very hard.

K: What?

AC: No side-effects. You can get pleasure now but you have side-effects. So they working on removing those. [*Laughs*]

GN: That’s a big task.

K: Narayan, look, sir, let’s get once and for all clear. The drugs, chemical drugs, computer, genetic control, all that is going to—that’s a fact, that’s coming, don’t let’s discuss it any more. Now we are at a place when we have realized that, which perhaps no chemists, no computer experts have gone so far as that, but we must be ahead of them, that’s what I feel. Right? To be ahead of them we have to accept that. Not say, well, can they do it, can they not—out. So, what is this thing that man has pursued all his existence? You follow what I mean? From the time immemorial what is the stream he has always followed?—pleasure.

AC: I would say pleasure and it’s the other also.

K: Pleasure. Avoid the other, but pleasure.

AC: He has pursued pleasure and at some point he sees that it’s not merely pleasure, but the other, end of suffering, the negative of it.

K: Which means pleasure.

PJ: Is the end of suffering pleasure?

K: Oh, no. Oh, no. You are missing my point. I want pleasure at any price, and suffering is an indication that I am not having pleasure. Dispute it, sir, don’t accept all this.

AC: In that sense…

KJ: Again it comes back to the point, if I may—Pursuit of pleasure, avoidance of suffering, but he would also say the intellectual solving of problems…

K: Uh?

KJ: The intellectual grappling with problems. I am not using ‘problems’ correctly.

K: Yes, yes, yes, I understand, I understand.

KJ: He would say, ‘I am doing that also’, and therefore ‘I want to do that more and more’. He would say that.

K: No, but your drug is going to take that over.

PJ: There won’t be problems.

K: There won’t be any problems, there won’t be any challenges.

KJ: The drug is going to take over what I want to avoid.

K: No! You see…

KJ: No, no…

K: No, sir.

PJ: The problem is created out of pain.

KJ: Which is why I probably shouldn’t have used the word *problem.* I didn’t mean *problem* in that sense.

Questioner 1: You see, all scientific research can be done by the computer.

KJ: It can be done, but you want to do it nevertheless, is it not?

AC: But Kabir, if you are in a state of pleasure or bliss, you don’t want to fool around with a computer and have intellectual satisfaction. [*Laughs*] You haven’t still…

KJ: Why not? I mean, do you say people haven’t got to intellectual satisfaction?

AC: They can get it from there just now because their lives are not in a state of bliss. But if they were, you wouldn’t waste your time with a computer. You see? That’s all. So, sir, you were saying…

K: You are full of—Go ahead, sir, go ahead.

AC: Go ahead.

K: I mean if you look into yourself, the pursuit is avoidance of pain, suffering and all the rest of it, and the pursuit of pleasure, constant endeavour, pushing, pushing in that direction.

AC: Perhaps one more thing.

K: Add any more things.

AC: Self-preservation.

K: Yes.

AC: Because a person will put up with a lot of pain if he can preserve himself.

K: But that can be avoided by chemicals.

AC: Yes. No, what I am saying, they are talking historically…

K: Historically, yes.

AC: …what people have tried to do—they have pursued pleasure, and avoided suffering.

K: Pleasure and self… Which means what, sir? Go, analyse…

AC: They like to try to preserve themselves. Even if they haven’t been able to…

PJ: When you say themself—*self*, are you talking of the physical self or the psychological self?

AC: Both.

PJ: Both.

K: Both. I want to survive physically…

PJ: …and psychologically.

K: …and psychologically and to survive I must do certain things, and to do certain things must be pleasurable. That’s what I am getting at.

MZ: But as it is, from what you are describing, this self-preservation isn’t functioning because the momentum of what you describe is a destruction of what we now consider humanness.

AC: That’s right.

MZ: Therefore it’s not working now.

AC: Yes, it isn’t. We are ending up in self-destruction not self-preservation. I am saying human beings over recorded history, I think have pursued pleasure. Where they couldn’t get pleasure at least they’ve tried to avoid suffering and even where they couldn’t avoid suffering, they have acted to preserve themselves even though they are suffering.

K: Yes, sir.

AC: Neurotics commit suicide, but…

K: Move it, push it to its ultimate—man wants that. God is pleasure. [*Laughs*] Right? You follow, sir? Is that what is going to be encouraged by the machines and the drugs? You follow what I am trying to get at?

AC: Yes. To start with, certainly, sir.

K: Yes. So man will be merely an entity that only has pleasure. Right? Right? What do you say, sir? Yes, sir, I am looking at you.

KJ: This brain doesn’t want pleasure all the time. You have made the statement. I am not disputing it. But it sees it is not interested in pleasure all the time. You asked me to respond…

K: Sir, look into it very carefully.

AP: Sir, I want to question whether the probing into the unknown has not been also an inalienable urge of man.

K: Maybe, sir.

AP: And do you think that after all, all that we are doing through the conflict, and everything, is expanding the field of our ignorance? But there is deep within man this urge for probing the unknown.

AC: May I come back? Sorry.

AP: Yes, please.

AC: May I come back to this?

K: Yes, sir, I haven’t moved. You…

AP: I want to know whether it is relevant to your…

AC: Sorry, I was going to come back to where Krishnaji had left off.

K: Go ahead, sir, go ahead.

AC: Sir, you were saying and I accepted, that man has pursued pleasure.

K: The conflict between the good and the bad, you follow?, evil and so-called, all that is…

AC: …that.

K: That.

AC: And that is self-destructive, sir.

K: That’s what I am going to get at, you follow? I don’t think they understand the significance of this. Explain it, sir.

KK: The good is for man, now, the good is pleasurable and evil is painful probably.

K: No. The conflict between good and evil has existed from time immemorial. Even the Sumerians had this. I won’t go into all that. And this conflict is to find a balance or a state where this conflict doesn’t exist, which is pleasure. I keep on repeating. You follow? And pleasure is what is the most destructive thing in life. Right? Now. Explain if you can.

PJ: Sir…

K: Wait, wait, I’ve said something, I’ve not assimilated myself.

PJ: No, sir, in terms of what you are saying, would the *search*—I’ve used the word—for freeing the mind from bondage, come into the realm of pleasure?

Krishnan Kutty (KK): May I say something, sir?

K: No, sir, I am not, please, don’t ask me.

KK: Probably even this search into the unknown is probably a search for certitude and this search for certitude may again be a pursuit of pleasure, for we want to become… sorry.

PJ: You see, you can reduce everything to this. I say, if you once reduce everything to this…

K: No, no. No, no. Please, I don’t reduce everything to that.

PJ: …therefore I am raising this question.

AC: Pupulmaasi, if you in fact reduce everything to this, this is what human beings have done. To sever a human attachment or bondage is because it creates suffering. That is why we want to, I am saying that all human action ultimately ends up in wanting happiness or pleasure, whatever you call it. And it is enormously self-destructive. It has ended up in this technology which is also the pursuit of pleasure which is self-destructive. There must be some other movement of the mind which is not seeking pleasure, which is not self-destructive.

K: Which is not self-destructive.

AC: Yes. There *must* be. I don’t know if there is, but if there isn’t, then we are going to be destroyed.

K: Asit, just a minute, let’s get this clear between ourselves, you and I. Is this a fact that human beings historically up to now, have always been in conflict between good and bad? Their paintings, you know, all that indicates the struggle. The conquering of the bull among the Minonians, it is that. You follow what I am saying? The spirit of conquering which ends up in pleasure. I beat this nation; everything, I have examined it—My examination is quite different. I am not going to go into what my examination is—I have looked at it and I’ve realized instantly that the whole movement of man has been this. Right? I don’t think anybody can dispute this. I am saying whole movement—not only physical, but psychological. You may dispute it. I am ready to go into it a little later. And the self-preservation is also part of that movement. That’s a fact. Is that destructive?—destructive of the mind, of the brain, of the mind. You understand what I am asking?

RB: Sir, what do *you* mean by good and evil? When you say it is trying to balance the good and evil, which is pleasure I think that’s what you said.

K: Yes, yes, yes.

RB: What do you mean by good and evil?

K: You have seen those frescoes and all those fifty thousand years or more paintings in the caves of France and all that. There you see man struggling against the bull.

RB: Yes. It exists everywhere in some form or another.

K: Yes. This conflict between the two has existed from—right?—what is called the good, what is called the bad. Right? And man, I think he has invented this.

AC: Invented what, sir?

K: The good and the bad.

RB: That’s part…

K: Wait, wait, wait. Don’t jump on me yet. I’ll stick to it.

RB: Has he invented it or is it his pursuit which is the evil?

K: He has invented—I must be careful. I used the word *invented* in the sense it is covering up of something else.

GN: Are you saying that this basic drive for pleasure brings forth the opposites of good and evil? They don’t exist per se.

K: You watch it, watch in your own mind, Narayan. Don’t theorize.

GN: But is that what you said?

K: Don’t. Forget what I said. Look at yourself, in yourself—if you can, and see what is good and what is bad. The fact is never bad. Right? Anger—I am just—go slowly, please don’t jump on me yet—anger is anger. But I say it is bad, therefore I must get rid of anger. Which is, anger is a fact. Right? Following, Asit? Anger is a fact. Why do you want to name it good and bad?

RB: Whether you name it or not, it can be terribly destructive.

K: No. It can be very destructive, but the moment I have called it bad, it is something to be avoided. Right? And the conflict begins. But if it is only a fact, right?, it’s a fact. Why do you all call it anything else?

PJ: Sir, I won’t talk of anger.

K: Violence.

PJ: No, take the pursuit of black magic.

K: What?

PJ: I’ll use the example: the pursuit of black magic.

K: I don’t know anything about black magic. I only know pure, white magic. [*Laughter*]

PJ: Sir, it exists, it is practised, would you give that a name or not? Would you say that pursuit in its very nature is evil or not?

K: Look, Pupul, what do you call black magic?

PJ: Black magic is pursuit of something with the intention of destroying another.

K: Which we are doing! Though we may not call it black magic, war is doing that, all the generals are doing it, the whole government is doing it. Of course it is! What are you people *playing* at!

PJ: No, sir. There’s much more in that. No, sir, let me go slow, sir. You are just rushing us. It is not quite the same, because it brings into operation powers which are not physical powers. It brings into operation, supposedly—I don’t know enough about it, I have never practised it, from what one understands—supposedly, powers which are not physical powers.

K: I know something about it.

PJ: So what would you say that is?

K: I know something about it.

PJ: You see, we must eliminate everything. You can’t, when you put it, when you say evil has no existence.

K: Wait, Pupul, I have seen here at Rishi Valley some years ago, under a tree, a doll—a figure of a man, or a woman, I have forgotten now, in which they had put pins in. You know all this. Everybody knows about all this. And I asked what it was all about. They explained to me. Now there was an intent to hurt somebody. Right?

PJ: Yes.

K: Wait. Intent to hurt somebody. There is intent in government to hurt Pakistan. Right? Obviously, sir, don’t…

AC: Yes, of course.

K: What is the difference? What are you people playing at!?

AC: You are getting at something else?

PJ: I am getting at something else. Both may be the same, if you can stretch it and say they are evil.

AC: Are you saying there is an evil force that is operating?

PJ: There is in both of these things essentially there is something different to the nature of good. And therefore evil exists. You cannot say good and evil do not exist.

MZ: Are you saying that, Pupulji, or are you saying what we don’t like we project and call *bad*. What we like we say *good*. There is that level.

PJ: No, he made a statement…

SP: No, he said, if I remember rightly, if I understand rightly…

K: You are missing an awful lot.

SP: No, sir, didn’t you say…

K: You are missing an awful lot. You are all so damn clever. That’s what’s wrong with you. Light is neither good nor bad—light. Darkness at night is neither good nor bad. Right?

AC: Yes.

K: Which means what?

RB: Sir, yes, beauty is neither good nor bad. Happiness is neither good nor bad. But the pursuit of pleasure or happiness which is destructive, self-destructive, isn’t that evil? Or is it an invention?

MZ: Are you saying cruelty is neither good nor bad?

K: What?

MZ: Cruelty is neither good nor bad?

K: You see what they are…

AC: I think I am beginning to see what you are saying. I think so. What Krishnaji is saying is, there is a fact of cruelty, there is a fact of self-destruction. Why do you call it good or bad? Just look at the fact of it. That’s what he is saying.

K: Look, sir, computer, chemicals, are taking over man. It is neither good nor bad. They are *happening*. I, a religious man—suppose—say you are destroying my soul [*Laughs*] and therefore it’s bad. Right?

AC: Yes, I understand this.

K: Of course there is cruelty, of course there is kindness. I mean it is obvious. A mother beating up a child, and somebody saying with compassion don’t hurt anybody—that’s obvious. Why do you call it good or bad? Why do you call it evil? That’s what I am objecting to—to the word, that’s all.

AC: All right, sir. I understand. Then what, sir?

Questioner 2 (Q2): Sir, I would like to say something. You said, our main objective is to pursue pleasure. If we can’t get that, we want to end suffering and we will still suffer to preserve ourselves. Now, we are pursuing pleasure, we have got all this technology, what are we doing here, sitting here? We are trying to preserve ourselves. We have reached the ultimate. Our basic need is just to preserve ourselves, that’s what we are doing here, trying to preserve ourselves.

AC: For pleasure.

Q2: Not for. No, we know that this pleasure is going to destroy us, so ultimately what we are doing, discussing here is we are trying to preserve ourselves. We are trying to see how we can preserve ourselves.

K: No, no. I am not. I am not preserving myself.

Q2: Sir, if you don’t want…

K: Now, listen carefully, old girl, I am not preserving myself. My body needs certain food, you have to give it what is necessary, which doesn’t mean *I* am preserving my*self*. I don’t know if you see the distinction.

Q2: Am I preserving mankind? We want…

K: I am not trying to preserve anything, old girl. [*Laughs*]

AC: Krishnaji is not assuming anything, not even self-preservation.

Q2: Maybe *we all* have a motive of self-preservation, that’s why we…

AC: Yes, we are operating: pursuit of pleasure, self-preservation.

Q2: So that’s why we are discussing it. We want to preserve ourselves. That’s what you said. You want us to survive.

K: No.

Q2: We have a motive.

AC: Sir, what she is saying is: why are we discussing all this. She is saying, in some sense we feel there is something in human beings which is worth preserving and therefore we are discussing this.

K: Could we move to something else, which is, pleasure is always the known—*in* the known. I have no pleasure for day after tomorrow, it might not happen. I like to think it would happen. I don’t know if you capture, if you see what I mean. Pleasure is a time-movement. Right?

AC: That is true.

K: Wait a minute. No, no, no. Wait, wait. That’s true, right? See what is implied in it. Right? Which is knowledge. I am moving to some other—It is the same movement, but I am moving to something else. The known, right? Is there pleasure not based on knowledge? Right? I am just asking. You follow? I won’t go… So, my whole life is the known. Of course, sir. I may project the known into the future, modifying and all the rest of it, but it is still the known. I have no pleasure in the unknown. Right? And the computer, etc. etc., is in the field of the known. I don’t know if I am…

AC: Yes.

K: Right? Now, is there—that is the real question—is there freedom from the known? Which means the freedom of the machine. See, sir. See the beauty of it. You follow? That is the real—mustn’t get too enthusiastic. Because pleasure is the known, suffering is the known, fear is the known, you follow? The whole movement of the mind is the known. And it may project the unknown, theory, but it is not a fact. Right? So computer, chemicals, genetics, cloning, all that, is the known. And man has said ascension to heaven is through the known: Bronowski—you know all that. So is that the real question?: Can man be free from the known? The known is destroying man, not—you follow what I am saying? Ah, got it! Right, sir? The astrophysicists are going into space, right?, from the known. Right? They are pursuing the investigation of heavens, cosmos, and all the rest of it, through instruments constructed by thought, right? and looking through those instruments and discovering all the—Saturn, what it is, is still the known. I don’t know if you are following.

AC: I follow this completely. Why has this taken place?

K: Oh, that’s very simple. Known is safe.

PJ: A very interesting thing struck me just now, sir, and I must tell you.

K: Oh, go on darling, don’t waste time.

PJ: This is that the human mind as it is functioning today is threatened. Destruction of its present way of functioning is in peril.

K: That is it, Pupul dear, that’s what I am saying.

PJ: Sir, listen to what I am saying.

K: I am sorry.

PJ: It is either going to be destroyed by the computer or it is still going to be destroyed—its present way of functioning. This other is also going to destroy it.

K: Yes. That’s what I said.

AC: Wait, wait.

PJ: You please see this.

AC: What other is going to destroy it?

K: You got it?

PJ: The present mind of man and the way it is functioning is threatened.

K: I saw it come, I am sticking to my…

AC: By technology.

PJ: Threatened. It is being destroyed.

K: You see…

PJ: Now, what is the position? Either the machine takes it over and it is destroyed. This other, freedom from the known, is also going to destroy this functioning. The challenge is much deeper than you think. This will not survive.

Q2: What we have now will not survive.

K: You see, Pupul, what she is saying really—please, if I understand rightly—the known in which our mind is functioning is destroying us. Right? The known being the future also, projection and all the rest of it. And the machines, drugs, genetics, cloning, all that is born out of it. So both are destroying us.

AC: May I say it, sir?

PJ: You say what I said.

K: What?

AC: May I explain, sir? She is saying, the mind of man has always moved in the known…

K: Of course, I have said that, we’ve said that.

AC: …which is the pursuit of pleasure. That has inevitably resulted in a technology which will destroy the movement of man in the known.

K: Yes.

AC: It will inevitably do it—this.

K: So the challenge is…

AC: No, no, wait, sir. Then she is saying, the other thing, the other movement is freedom from the known. When you have freedom from the known, the known is also destroyed.

K: Yes. Freedom from the known—Wait, wait, wait. What are you saying?

AC: She is saying…

K: Just a minute, let me—What?

RB & AC: She is saying…

K: Yes, I understood. There is certain objection on my part.

AC: I also have one. The movement in the known is going to be destroyed. She is saying, there are two movements. The movement in the known which is leading to greater and greater means of self-destruction, so it will end in the destruction of the mind which is moving in the known.

PJ: This is today.

AC: It is inevitable because of technology.

K: Yes, yes.

AC: The way out…

K: …is freedom.

AC: …is freedom from the known, which is also destruction of the movement of the known.

K: I say it is not.

PJ: You see, this is…

K: Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait! Right. I’ll stick to it.

AC: The way it is hinted at is very subtle.

K: Yes, sir. Freedom is not *from* something. The ending. You follow?

AC: Let me ask you one or two questions. Then I will know if I follow.

K: Yes.

AC: Are you saying, sir, that this freedom from the known—for a minute—is of such a nature that you are not destroying this movement, that thought has its place, mind has its place…

K: Ah, that’s too silly. Move.

AC: …are you saying that there is freedom?

K: There is only freedom, not from the known.

AC: But in that there is no movement of the known. That’s what she is saying.

K: Aha, I know what…

PJ: Let me put it. I say the mind has been functioning in a particular way, what *we* call the human mind operates in a certain way. That human mind is under pressure. It is being pressured by technological advances and is bent on destroying itself. This other, the freedom from the known, will also be totally destructive of this function.

AC: That’s what you are saying.

PJ: That’s what I am saying. Therefore a new mind, whether the new mind of technology or the new mind which is free of the known is inevitable. There are only two things.

AC: No, there are only two things. A new mind or destruction.

K: That’s simple. That’s clear.

PJ: The present thing is out.

K: That’s clear, clear. Either there must be new mind or it’s going to be destroyed.

AC: That’s right.

K: Wait, wait. Right. But the new mind can only exist, actually, not theoretically and all the rest of it, can only exist when knowledge ends. Knowledge has created the machine, right? and we live on knowledge. We *are* machines. Ah, no! Ah, ah. You follow what I am saying? We have now separated the two. The machine is destroying us. Right? The machine is the product of knowledge. We are the product of knowledge. Therefore knowledge is destroying, not the machine. You understand, sir, how we moved?

AC: Yes, I understand this. Clearly.

K: Hm. So, the question then is: Can knowledge end? Not freedom from knowledge. Then you are avoiding or escaping from knowledge.

AC: The question is: Can knowledge end or can action out of knowledge end? Knowledge can’t end, sir.

K: What is that?

AC: Knowledge can’t end. Action out of knowledge.

K: Wait a minute. What? What? Slowly, slowly.

AC: You said the question is, can knowledge end.

K: Now, I meant that—knowledge end. Right?

AC: Knowledge can’t end.

K: I’ll show. It can.

AC: Action out of knowledge.

K: Action is freedom from knowledge.

AC: Yes, that’s right.

PJ: He is saying no?

AC: Knowledge can’t end, sir.

K: Yes, sir!

PJ: You mean all science ends? What do you mean when you say ‘all knowledge ends’?

K: Knowledge being the known, right? Except technological, we won’t enter that.

AC: Yes. That’s all I meant.

PJ: That’s all we meant. As long as you leave out technology, science and all that…

AC: …factual knowledge.

PJ: …factual knowledge.

AC: That doesn’t end.

K: Yes. What was I saying?

AC: You were asking, ‘Can knowledge end?’

K: Which is what? Ask the question. Put it to yourself. Go on, explore it. Can knowledge end? Who is to end knowledge? Right? The person who ends the knowledge is still part of knowledge. Right? So there is no entity apart from knowledge which can end knowledge. Please, go slowly. Right? Right?

AC: There is only knowledge, at the moment.

K: Yes. There is only knowledge, not the ending of knowledge. I don’t know if I am making myself clear.

AC: So, sir, this tremendous force of self-preservation.

K: Ah, ah…

AC: No, please let me see what I, Pupulmaasi is saying.

K: Yes, yes.

AC: There is only knowledge. And you are asking, can knowledge end? Which means self-annihilation, sir.

K: No, no, no, no!

AC: No, sir.

K: I understand what you are saying. Leave self for the moment—the ending of the self. I am saying, both— computer, which includes all that—and my life, is based on knowledge.

AC: I follow that, sir.

K: So there is no division between the two.

AC: I follow that.

K: Wait, wait, wait, wait. That’s a tremendous acknowledgement, you follow?

AC: I follow that, sir. That I follow completely.

K: Now wait a minute. And as long as we are living in knowledge, our brain is being destroyed. Right?

AC: Yes.

K: Routine, machine. So the mind *is* knowledge. There is no question of saying, it must free itself from knowledge. Right? See that. There is only the mind which is knowledge.

AC: I am saying, the mind which is knowledge, only knowledge, is incapable of anything else.

K: I am going to show you something. You see you have stopped, you’ve blocked yourself. Right? Don’t say it is impossible. If you say it is impossible, you wouldn’t have invented computers.

AC: I see that, I see that, sir.

K: Right? Move from there. Mind, *whatever* it does is within the field of knowledge when it says it must be free. So what is the state of the mind—I won’t put into words, you look at it yourself. What is the state of the mind that is completely aware, or know, or cognizant, that it is entirely knowledge? [*Pause*] What, sir? I am not impatient. Move. Don’t you see it? [*Pause*] Find out. You see what has taken place? Do you? Asit, come on. Ah, I’ve got it! Knowledge is movement. Right? Right? No, careful, don’t admit it. Movement—acquired, disciplined, it is a movement. So knowledge is movement. Right? Get it? You get it?

AC: I get it, sir.

Q2: Sir, do you mean to say if you have knowledge you move away from it?

K: No, no, darling. Just, as I told you, learn, first learn, don’t ask questions yet. Find out what the other fellow is saying. Knowledge has been acquired through movement. Right? So knowledge *is* movement. Don’t say yes so quickly, be careful.

AC: Movement is time…

K: So time, all that, is movement. Getting it?

AC: Yes, sir. You are saying that the state of the mind—the time comes to a stop in that mind.

K: That’s it. *That* is freedom, not—Get it? What is that?

AC: 11.15, sir.

K: Time is movement. [*Laughter*] You get it? Which means what? It’s very interesting, sir. Let me put it together. Man, mind has invented the computer. I have used the computer to include *all* that—genetics, chemicals, cloning—*all* that is computer. That is born from the knowledge which man has acquired. Right? And pushed it, pushed it, pushed it, till he has come to that point. It is still the known, the product of the known, the product of the known with its hypothesis, theories and proving the theory and all that. Man has also done exactly the same thing as this has done—experience, right? So there is no division between the two, which we have been making all along. Right? So, man is knowledge. Whatever he does will be born of knowledge—his Gods, his temples, what*ever* he does. Right? Of course this is simple. Move? So it is a movement. Can the movement stop?, not knowledge. I don’t think you follow.

AC: I follow, sir.

K: Are you up with it? Are we moving together? That is really the—That means—may I go on little bit? Perception is free from knowledge, and action is out of that perception, not out of knowledge. Wonder if you got it. Is it all Greek?—no, no, no, no. Perception of the snake, the danger, action. But that perception is centuries of conditioning about the snake. Unless that machine stops, machine which is this, not computer, unless this machine stops, we are going to destroy ourselves. [*Long pause*] So, is there a perception which is not of knowledge? Because if the movement stops, there must be action. I am not just saying the movement must end—Silly.

AC: In other words, you act in this world, nothing sticks, no knowledge is acquired. There is no mark, nothing takes root.

K: Which means what? A perception that is not out of knowledge. Is there such perception? Of course there is.

MZ: Sir, doesn’t this answer the question about the human mind versus the computer? The innate something in the human mind, it can move into this. It’s almost like…

K: That can only happen…

MZ: …a frontier between knowledge and the computer world and something within the mind and…

K: Ah, I won’t even say—You see, you are projecting something. I object…

MZ: You were asking me in this discussion, is there something in the human mind that the computer cannot touch.

K: I don’t know, I am not—Computer is me! [*Laughs*]

MZ: All right, but…

K: Computer is my mind. If you say, is there something in the mind which is not born of computer, I say, I don’t know. I am not interested in that.

MZ: I am not saying…

K: It’s not… You follow? That leads to—to me they are theories. Then we will go to Brahman, Atman, soul. You follow what I am saying? I won’t enter…

AC: One more question…

PJ: This question does lead you to the query: then why does one inquire.

K: Oh no!

PJ: *Must* lead you to the query.

K: What makes you enquire?

PJ: If the human mind is the computer and nothing else…

K: Wait a minute, Pupul, listen. Go ahead.

PJ: The computer doesn’t enquire.

K: Oh yes, it does. [*Laughs*]

PJ: Not inquire as to why it has come into existence.

K: Of course it does.

AC: I think the question which really arises is, Pupulmaassi, what is the mechanism of a mind which can operate with insight and perception, and nothing sticks to it.

K: That’s all I—that’s much more.

PJ: That’s different.

AC: No. But what is this mind? Structurally what is this?

PJ: How can your mind which is a computer posit this?

SP: Ask that question.

AC: I could answer it in terms of self-preservation. It seems to me that is the only way to preserve yourself.

PJ: The very fact that Krishnaji says that the mind is nothing but a computer, then the computer never asks such a question.

K: Oh, it does.

AC: It’s in terms of self-preservation.

K: It does.

PJ: The computer doesn’t ask this question.

K: Of course it does!

AC: Everything can be done.

K: He’ll tell you it does.

PJ: If you feed it that question it will ask.

AC: It’s the same thing ultimately.

KK: May I say something? It is a very interesting question. May I say something, sir?

K: Yes, sir, don’t even ask me.

KK: Jaya also raised almost a similar question. So is this enquiry born out of the instinct for pleasure or are we enquiring like a machine?, out of our insistence for pleasure, ultimately, or are we enquiring out of something else? Is this enquiry, they are all enquiries.

PJ: This is an enquiry. I don’t know whether it is from pleasure or from something else. How do I know?

K: Pupul…

KK: That’s precisely the question.

AC: It doesn’t matter whether the computer can do it or not. It doesn’t matter at all I think. [*K laughs*]

KK: Exactly.

AC: It is essential that we do it.

PJ: If it is that then that will lead to the question whether there *is* something.

K: Aha, you see, the deep-rooted…

PJ: I am not convinced by it. This discussion is not ended.

AC: I think the next question would be what is the mechanism of the mind, the structure of the mind which operates, sir.

K: Operates?

AC: Like this, sir. Which operates like this—with perception, with insight, with no accumulation of memory…

K: Yes, I would…

AC: That is right.

K: …if we can go into that. But look what we have done. To come to that point, time has—you follow? I don’t know if you are following this.

AC: What is your question?

K: To come to that point, which is perception without record, look what we have done, how long it has taken. Why? Because we have always functioned within time.

AC: That’s it. This mind *is* caught in time.

K: We don’t realize it.

AC: In other words, what you are saying, sir, is that you don’t have to go through this process to see this.

K: Yes, sir. But you see, what will you do in a school? These are the gentlemen from Bangalore, and there is Narayan, that lady and so on. What are you going to do with all this in a school where you are pumping into the child knowledge [*Laughs*] like hot air in a tyre? Sorry. And we are talking about this. You follow, sir? Whether they are pumping knowledge into the poor children or the rich children, it is the same.

AC: I think if teachers became clear that what they are actually doing, imparting knowledge, can be done much better, then they might question their role because they are obsolete otherwise.

K: Yes, sir. I wonder if they realize this. Well, Narayan, what are you all going to do? Don’t pass the buck. What are you going to do, all of you who are teachers?, and the Foundation, what are you all going to do? Well, sir? Go on, sir, what will you do? You’ve got five minutes. You have turned the tables, you understand, sir? You know what that phrase…? You have turned upside down everything. Right, Narayan? Come on, sir! Mr. Kabir, what are you going to do?

KJ: Is it a matter of rich and poor children?

K: What?

KJ: Can this be done without any compromise whatsoever?

K: Why do you use the word *compromise*? I don’t understand.

KJ: Because all the time we seem to be saying…

K: No. Don’t ask that question, you’ve put a wrong question. Then you have to find an answer which will not be compromising. I don’t know if you… If I may most respectfully point out, I wouldn’t put that question. We have found that our brains are mechanical as the computer. And if we function in that realm, as we are doing now, that is our destruction. Right, sir? Now what shall we do with regard to the student? [*Pause*] You see, Asit, we haven’t thought about it. You understand, sir? You understand? Now you have given your mind to this, within the hour and half, two hours, whatever it is, from there you have to *act*. Otherwise you are going to destroy yourself—and the student. Do you realize what we are doing? Sir, do you realize what we are doing, what we have said, what are the implications of it?

KJ: May I just put one more question?

K: What, sir?

KJ: One more question?

K: Yes, sir.

KJ: Mr. Chandmal ended the discussion by asking, he said, now the question is, what is the structure and the…

AC: …mechanism of…

KJ: …mechanism of the brain which can act out of perception? Would it be a relevant analogy to say, what is the structure and the mechanism of a school which has this? Is that a relevant question?

PJ: Kabir, unless the first question is answered, the second does not even arise. If the first is seen, the second will be answered.

AP: …You have blocked yourself. But if you put the second, you have not begun.

AC: Kabir, I think the feeling I get from Krishnaji at the end is, that if we hadn’t come to this point, coming to this point and not acting is very dangerous. It is much more dangerous than not having had this discussion at all and gone on as before.

K: That’s why it’s tremendously dangerous. That’s what I am saying.

Q2: Sir, I may have misunderstood, but I just want to know, once you have showed us the point, we are acting from the known again. We know…

K: No, no, no, you have come to a point—just listen—we have come to a point when we see the machine the mind has invented, the machine which is the computer, drugs, chemicals, cloning, all that is part of the mind—invented, which is the same as our mind. Right? Our mind is mechanical as that. And we are acting always in that area. Right? And therefore we are destroying ourselves, not the machine. Ah, that’s a tremendous thing to realize.

PJ: Your saying it is one thing, and the actual, the structure itself becoming aware of this totally…

K: Of course, of course, of course, of course. The moment I realize, Pupulji, the moment I realize, I hear Asit say to me, ‘Both are the same’, you understand? I don’t *realize* it. You follow? This is where we are making a mistake.

PJ: What are the implications of realizing?

K: I won’t even say I realize it.

PJ: No, no, but…

K: I withdraw the word. It is a fact. And I see all the implications of it—both in the governments, both in my relationships, both in the school, in everything I do—I see. You follow?

AC: And yet the mind doesn’t jump out of it like it jumps away from a cobra. So we have to go into that.

K: Yes.

Rajesh Dalal: Sir, you seem to see the fact first and the implications flow from that. I have seen the implications of what you are saying, I do not see the fact.

K: What do you mean? What do you mean?

PJ: Nothing.

AC: That is what Krishnaji—you see Rajesh, Krishnaji sees the implications. He doesn’t go through this two-hour process which we do. He *starts* with this perception.

PJ: The only thing one can say at the end of this is *Tapas, tapasya.*

K: What is that? What is that? Tapas*[^2], tapas what? [*Laughter*] She is dead unfortunately.

PJ: No, sir, it’s very alive.

AC: No, he said Tapas…

PJ: You do your home work. Do your home work.

K: I am not sure. [*Laughter*] If you do…

AC: …back in time.

K: …back again, and you are doing—You know, sir, a pianist once said, if you practise, you are practising the wrong thing. [*laughs*] You follow, sir?

PJ: But here it is not a question of practice. Maybe just…

K: Pupulji, these are all the teachers! What are we going to do! We’ve put some bomb here. You follow what I mean? We are handling a bomb. It might go off any moment. I don’t know if you realize this.

AC: I realize it.

K: It is a tremendous thing. You follow?

AC: It is much more at this point than it was before.

K: This is really frightening. You follow?

AC: Yes.

K: I wonder if you realize it. Narayan, don’t sit there smug. Out! What will you do? Do you realize, sir, what we have said? This is real revolution. You follow, sir?

AC: And not only for teachers…

K: Not that cheap revolution of communists and all that. This is real revolution!

AC: And not only for teachers and students.

K: Of course, of course. [*Pause*] What is this tapas, tapas, would you explain to me?

AC: One question I wanted to ask you, seriously, is that, the mind which reaches this point…

K: What?

AC: The mind which goes with you up to a certain point, becomes sensitive to it, does it become much more vulnerable to evil?

K: I understand, I understand. We won’t discuss it. I understand, I’ve captured your meaning, quite. Have you understood his question?

Q: Yes.

K: Have you? Sir, Narayan, meet together and go into this, for God’s sake!

You see, Mr. Kabir used the word *compromise*. You follow what that means? He has already—forgive me. Sir, I am not saying…—he has already seen how the thing is and the thing, you follow?—compromise, which means—forgive me, I am not talking about you—a mind that is thinking in terms of compromise, is still operating.

Q2: Sir, I have one question, sir. Sir, one does not see it at once. What is this way of observation for enquiring into this?

K: We are going to go into that tomorrow—another day, not tomorrow. See, sir, stopping movement, you follow?, ending of movement, not ending of knowledge. That is the real answer.

PJ: You see that?

K: What?

PJ: I was telling Asit to see this.

AC: Physically also one can feel it, actually, physically slowing down of thought, sir. We can feel it, sir.

K: We’ll go into it another… It is now twenty to—right? You are going to be here sometime or you are running back?

AP: Anyway you will have it in Madras.

K: What?

AC: When are you going, madam?

Q2: Saturday…

AC: She is going on Saturday.

K: What is today? Today is Wednesday.

AC: Thursday, day after tomorrow.

K: Today is Thursday?

PJ: Yes.

K: No exercises tomorrow. So when can we meet. Tomorrow there is all that.

AC: The teachers’ meeting?

K: We’ll arrange something. Madras can wait too.

[^1]: An intoxicating drink from a plant extract used in ancient times.

[^2]: Tapas was a sannyasin, originally from Ramakrishna Math. Very devoted to Krishnaji, she worked for him in India and accompanied him to many places there.