Krishnamurti: As Asit is involved in the manufacture of computers, whenever and wherever we met in different parts of the world, we have been talking about the relationship of the human mind to the computer. We have been trying to find out what intelligence is, and whether there is an action which the computer cannot possibly do – some action that is far more penetrating than anything man can do externally. I thought that this morning we could go further into this matter.
Asit Chandmal: You see, sir, the Americans are developing supercomputers. Now we, as human beings, have to, in a sense, be more intelligent than the technology of the Americans to counteract the threat of that technology. And the technology is not only in computers, it is also in genetic engineering, biochemistry, etc. They are trying to control genetic characteristics completely. I’m sure it’s only a matter of time before computer-brain interfaces are created. Then, in Russia, there is a great deal of research being done on the ability to read thoughts and transmit them to someone else.
I would like to speculate a little bit. I am using the word ‘speculate’ in the sense of seeing certain problems now which will be, in the next few years, solvable technologically. I think it is important to do this because you are not merely talking to us, but you are also talking to those in the centuries to come, to whom all this will be a reality. For example, consider the role of the teacher today. You can get a small computer, put a magnetic strip in it and it will communicate with you in French. If you were to put another strip in, it would communicate, fluently, in Arabic, Japanese, or whatever, instantaneously. Suppose the strip could be put into a human brain; the problem is only the interface between the brain and the strip, because the brain operates as an electrical circuit. The question is: What then happens to the role of the teacher?
The next point is that in affluent societies, because of the tremendous increase in physical appliances like motor cars and washing machines, the body has deteriorated. Now, since more and more mental functions are going to be taken over by the computer, the mind is going to deteriorate not only at the level of what you are talking about, but even in ordinary functioning. I see this as an enormous problem. How does one cope with the problem in a world which is moving in this direction?
K: If learning can be done instantaneously, say, for example, if I can be a linguist when I wake up in the morning, then what is the function of the brain? What is the function of the human being?
Pupul Jayakar: Is it not a problem of what humanness is? Is it not a question of what it is to be a human being apart from all this?
K: Apparently a human being, as he is, is a mass of accumulated knowledge and reactions according to that knowledge. Would you agree with that? If the machine, the computer, is going to take charge of all that, what then will the human being – man – be? And, what is the function of a school then? Please, think a great deal about this. This is not something that needs a quick response. This is tremendously serious. What is a human being if his fears, his sorrows, his anxieties are all wiped away by chemicals or by some implanted electric circuitry? Then what am I? I don’t think we get the fullness of it.
PJ: If you take a strong tranquillizer, your anxieties are temporarily over. That is not arguable. But if you can clone, you can do anything. We are missing something in all this. I don’t think we are getting to the central thing. There is something else also involved in this.
K: Look, Pupul, if my anxieties, if my fears and my suffering can be allayed and my pleasure increased, I ask: What then is a human being? What is our mind?
Achyut Patwardhan: Do I understand that while on the one hand man has developed these extraordinary capacities, there is also a corresponding process of deterioration in the mind which is a side-effect of super mechanization?
AC: If you have a car and you stop walking, your body will deteriorate. So if the computer takes over mental functions, the mind will deteriorate. I mean just that.
K: I don’t think we understand the depth of what is happening. We are arguing over whether it can happen. It is going to happen. Then what are we? What is a human being then? And then, when the computer – I am using the word ‘computer’ to include the chemicals and so on – takes us over completely and we no longer exercise our brains, they – our brains – will physically deteriorate. The question is: How shall we prevent that? What shall we do? We must exercise our brains. At present, the brain is being exercised through pain, through pleasure, through suffering, through anxiety, and all the rest of it. Through pain, through pleasure – it is working. It is working because we have problems. But when the machine and chemicals take over, it will cease to work. And if it is not working, it will deteriorate.
Can we start with the assumption that these things are going to happen, whether we like it or not? In fact, they are happening right now. Unless we are blind or uninformed, and we don’t, therefore, know about it. So let us inquire whether the mind can survive at all if it is deprived of its problems either chemically or by the computer.
AP: I am not quite clear about one point. There is in each human being a feeling of a void, of emptiness, which needs to be filled.
K: It will be filled by chemicals.
AP: It cannot be filled; no, sir.
K: Oh yes, it can be.
AP: I am questioning that. There is a strange void in every human being.
Radha Burnier: What he is saying is that there will be other forms of LSD, other drugs without the side-effects which will fill that gap.
K: Take a pill and you will never feel the void.
AP: At some point you have to see that there is something which will remain untouched.
AC: What if you don’t find that?
AP: Before you come to that, the finding of that, at least you must posit a need for that.
K: I am positing a need.
AP: What is the need?
K: The need is for chemicals, for the computer, both of which are going to destroy me, my brain.
AC: I am saying something slightly different, and that is, if this technology continues, there won’t be any void in any human being because eventually they – human beings – may die out as a species. At the same time, as a human being, I feel that there is something else which I don’t know but which I want to find out. Is there something which is different, which needs to be preserved? Can I understand intelligence? How am I going to preserve that against all these dangers?
K: Asit, it may not be preservation at all. Look, sir, let us take for granted that chemicals – the computer – is going to take man over. And if the brain is not exercised as it is being exercised with problems, anxieties, fears, etc., then it will inevitably deteriorate. And deterioration means man gradually becoming a robot. Then I say to myself, as a human being who has survived several million years: Is he – man – to end like this? It may be so, and probably he will.
AC: It seems to me that the movement of this technology is a very evil thing because there is a certain goodness which is being destroyed.
K: Agreed.
AC: The technology is created by human beings. There seems to be a movement of evil, and the evil thing is going to take over.
K: Why do you call it evil?
AC: Evil because it is destroying the world.
K: But we are destroying ourselves. The machine is not destroying us. We are destroying ourselves.
AC: So the question is: How is man to create this technology and yet not be destroyed by it?
K: That is right. The mind is deteriorating because it will not allow anything to penetrate its values, its dogmas. It is stuck there. If I have a strong conviction or opinion, I am deteriorating. And the machine is going to help us deteriorate faster. That is all. So what is a human being to do? Then I ask: What is a human being deprived of all this? In other words, if he has no problems, and is only pursuing pleasure, what is he? I think that is the root of it. This is what man seeks now, pleasures in different forms. And he will be nothing. He will only be involved in the pursuit of pleasure.
AC: And the computer and television will provide the pleasure right in his home. Sir, right now there are not only computer scientists but also genetic scientists and multinationals engaged in entertainment electronics and they are going to converge at a point where man will end up either by destroying the capacity of the human brain or as a human being in a constant state of pleasure without any side-effects. And the pleasure will be obtained through the computer and chemicals, and a direct relationship with other human beings will gradually disappear.
K: Perhaps no chemist, no computer expert has gone so far as yet but we have to be ahead of them. That is what I feel. So what is it that man has pursued all through his existence? From time immemorial, what is the stream he has always followed? Pleasure.
AC: Pleasure, yes, but also the ending of sorrow.
K: No, pleasure. Avoid the other, but essentially pursue pleasure.
AC: He pursues pleasure and at some point he sees the need not merely for pleasure, but in the negative sense, the ending of suffering.
K: Which means pleasure.
AC: Is the ending of suffering pleasure?
K: No. You are missing my point. I want pleasure at any price and suffering is an indication to me that I am not having pleasure. Dispute it; don’t accept it.
AC: What I am saying is that historically man has always pursued pleasure.
K: Which means – what? Go on, analyse it.
AC: The self has pursued it.
AP: When you say the ‘self’, are you talking of the physical self or of the psychological self?
K: Both. I want to survive physically and psychologically, and to survive, I must do certain things, and to do certain things, they must be pleasurable. Sir, please look into this very carefully. Ultimately man wants pleasure. The pursuit of God is pleasure. Right? Is that what is going to be encouraged by the machine, by drugs? And will man be merely an entity that is concerned with pleasure? Is the conflict to find a balance between the two? Pleasure is the most destructive thing in life.
I don’t think you understand the significance of this. The conflict between good and evil has existed from time immemorial. The problem is to find a balance or a state where this conflict does not exist, which is pleasure. And pleasure is the most destructive thing in life. Right?
AP: In terms of what you are saying, does the search for freeing the mind from bondage fall in the realm of pleasure?
AC: We in fact reduce everything to that: that is what human beings have done. Attachment, bondage, create suffering. That is why we want freedom. Can we see that all human action ultimately ends in wanting happiness or pleasure, and that they are enormously destructive? They have ended up in a technology which is also a 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. I don’t know if there is, but there must be.
K: Asit, let us get this clear between ourselves, you and I. It is a fact that human beings, historically, have always been in conflict; there has always been the conflict between the good and the bad; their ancient paintings indicate a struggle. The spirit of conquering pervades, which ends up in pleasure. I have looked at it and I realize instantly that the whole movement of man has been this. I don’t think anybody can dispute this. I am saying that the whole of it, not only physical but also psychological self-preservation is part of that movement. That is a fact. Is that destructive of the mind, of the brain?
RB: Sir, what do you mean by ‘good’ and what do you mean by ‘evil’ when you say that pleasure is nothing but trying to balance the good and the evil?
K: You have seen those paintings in the caves of France and Spain. They are thousands and thousands of years old. And in those ancient paintings you see man struggling against the bull.
RB: Yes. It exists everywhere in some form or other.
K: Yes. This conflict between the two – what is called good, and what is called evil – has existed from time immemorial. Right? And man has invented good and evil. Watch it, watch your own mind. Don’t theorize. Look at yourself if you can, and see what good and evil are. The fact is never evil. Right? Anger is anger. But I say that it is evil and that I must, therefore, get rid of anger. But anger is a fact. Why do you want to name it either ‘bad’ or ‘good’?
RB: Whether you name it bad or not, it can be terribly destructive.
K: It can be very destructive, but the moment I have called it bad, it is something to be avoided – right? And then the conflict begins. But it is a fact. Why do you call it anything else?
PJ: Take the pursuit of black magic. Would you or would you not say that the pursuit of that in its very nature is evil?
K: What do you call ‘black magic’?
PJ: Black magic is the pursuit of something with the intention of destroying another.
K: Which is what we are doing, though we may not call it black magic. You see, Pupul, what is war after all?
PJ: Let me go slowly; you are rushing us. What I speak about brings into operation, supposedly, powers which are not physical powers.
K: I had seen here at Rishi Valley some years ago, stuck under a tree, a figurine of a man, or a woman, in which they had put pins. I asked what it was about, and they explained it to me. Now, there was the intention to hurt somebody. Between that and the intention to go to war, what is the difference?
You are losing, missing, an awful lot. You are all so damn clever, that is what is wrong with you. Light is neither good nor bad. Which means – what? Look, sir, the computer, the chemicals, are taking over man. This is neither good nor bad – it is happening. Of course, there is cruelty; of course, there is kindness. It is obvious. The mother beating up a child and somebody with compassion who says
‘Don’t hurt anyone’ – there is a difference, that is obvious. Why do you call it good or bad? Why do you call it evil? I am objecting to the word, that is all.
Can we move to something else? Pleasure is always in the known. I have no pleasure today but the day after tomorrow it might happen. I like to think that it will happen. I don’t know if you see what I mean. Pleasure is a time-movement. Is there pleasure that is not based on knowledge? My whole life is the known. I project the known into the future. The future is the present modified, but it is still the known. I have no pleasure in the unknown. And the computer, etc., is in the field of the known. Now the real question is whether there is freedom from the known. That is the real question because there is pleasure, there is suffering, there is fear. The whole movement of the mind is the known. And it – the mind – may project the unknown, it may theorize, but that is not a fact. So computers, chemicals, genetics, cloning are all the known. So can there be freedom from the known? The known is destroying man. The astrophysicists are going to space from the known. They are pursuing the investigation of the heavens, the cosmos, through instruments constructed by thought, and they are looking through those instruments and discovering the universe, they are watching but all that is still the known.
PJ: The mind of man at present is threatened, is being destroyed, because of the way in which it is functioning. A very interesting thing has struck me just now, namely, that the present functioning of the mind – as we know it – will be destroyed either by the machine which will take it over or by the other, namely, freedom from the known. So you see, sir, the challenge is much deeper.
K: Yes. That is what I said. You’ve got it. What Pupul is saying is, if I understand rightly, that the known in which our minds are functioning is destroying us. The known is also future projections such as machines, drugs, genetics, cloning; all that is born out of these. So both are destroying us.
AC: She is also saying that the mind of man has always moved in the known, in pursuit of pleasure. That has resulted in technology which will destroy the mind. Then she is saying that the other movement, which is freedom from the known, will also destroy the mind as we know it now.
K: What are you saying?
AC: There are two movements, she says. The movement of the known is leading to greater and greater destruction of the mind. The way out is freedom from the known, which is also destroying the movement of the known.
K: Wait. Freedom is not from something. Freedom is an ending. Do you follow?
AC: Are you saying, sir, that this freedom from the known is of such a nature that you are not destroying this movement? Are you saying that in this freedom from the known thought has its place, that the mind has its place? Are you saying in that there is freedom?
K: I say that there is only freedom, but not from the known.
PJ: I say that what we call the mind operates, functions, in a particular way. That human mind is put under pressure by technological advances. This other, namely, the freedom from the known, is also totally destructive of this function of the mind. Therefore, a new mind – whether born of technology or one which is free of the known – is inevitable. They are the only two things; the present position is out.
K: Let us be clear. Either there must be a new mind or the present thing is going to destroy the mind. Right? But the new mind can only exist actually, not theoretically, when knowledge ends. Knowledge has created the machine and we live on knowledge. We are machines; but we are now separating the two. The machine is destroying us. The machine is the product of knowledge; we are the product of knowledge. Therefore, knowledge is destroying us, not the machine. So the question then is whether knowledge can end and not whether there can be freedom from knowledge.
AC: The question is: Can knowledge or the action born of knowledge end? Action out of knowledge can end. Knowledge can’t end.
K: It can. You see, action is freedom from knowledge.
AC: Knowledge can’t end.
K: Yes, sir.
PJ: What do you mean when you say that all knowledge ends?
K: Knowledge is the known. Can knowledge end? We are now not talking of technological knowledge. Who is to end knowledge? The person who ends knowledge is still a part of knowledge. So there is no entity apart from knowledge which can end knowledge. Please go slowly.
AC: There is only knowledge?
K: There is only knowledge, not the ending of knowledge. I don’t know if I am making myself clear.
AC: So, sir, there is the tremendous force of self-preservation and there is only knowledge. And you are asking: Can knowledge end – which means self-annihilation?
K: No, I understand what you are saying. I am leaving now, for the moment, the ending of the self. I am saying that both – the computer and my life – are based on knowledge. So there is no division between the two.
AC: I follow that.
K: This is a tremendous thing. And so long as we are living in knowledge, our brains are being destroyed through routine, the machine, etc. So the mind is knowledge. There is no question of saying that it must free itself from knowledge. See that. There is only the mind which is knowledge.
I am going to tell you something. You see, you have blocked yourself. Don’t say that it is impossible. If you had said that it is impossible, you couldn’t have invented computers. Move from there. Whatever the mind does – including saying that it must be free – will always be within the field of knowledge. So what is the state of the mind that is completely aware, or knows, or is cognizant that it is entirely knowledge?
I have moved. Don’t you see it? Now what has taken place? Apparently knowledge is movement. Knowledge has been acquired through movement. So knowledge is movement. So time, and all that, is movement.
AC: You are speaking of the state of mind when time comes to a stop.
K: That is freedom. Time is movement. Which means – what? It is very interesting, sir. Let me put it together. The mind has invented the computer. I have used the word ‘computer’ to include all technology – genetics, cloning, chemicals, and so on. All that is born from the knowledge which man has acquired. It is still the known, the product of the known, with its hypotheses, theories and refutals, and so on. Man has also done exactly the same thing as the machine. So there is no division between the two. The mind is knowledge. Whatever it does will be born of knowledge – his Gods, his temples are born of knowledge. Knowledge is a movement. Can the movement stop?
That is really freedom. That means, perception is free from knowledge and action is not of perception, not out of knowledge. The perception of the snake is based on centuries of conditioning about the snake. The perception that I am a Hindu, with all that has gone on in that name for three thousand years is the same movement. And we are living in the field all the time. That is destructive, not the machine. Unless that machine of the mind stops – not the computer – we are going to destroy ourselves.
So is there a perception which is not born out of knowledge? Because when this movement stops, there must be action.
AC: In other words, it is to act in the world, but nothing sticks, no marks are left. Nothing takes root.
K: Which means – what? – a perception which is not of knowledge. Is there such perception? Of course; there is perception which cannot be computerized. Is this inquiry born out of the instinct for pleasure? We are all inquiring.
PJ: I don’t know whether it is for pleasure or for something else.
AC: It doesn’t matter whether the computer can do it or not. It is essential that we do it.
PJ: Which leads to the position that there is something to inquire into.
K: You see how deep-rooted it is!
AC: The question is: What is the mechanism of the mind, what is the structure of the mind which operates with perception, with insight, and with absolutely no accumulation?
K: But look at what we have done – to come to that point, which is perception without record, how long it has taken! Why? Because we function in time.
AC: In other words, what you are saying is that you don’t have to go through this process. If we have come to this point, and do not act, it is very dangerous, much more dangerous than not having a discussion at all.
K: That is what I am saying. It is a tremendous danger. Have you come to a point where you see what the mind has invented? – The machine which is the computer, drugs, chemicals, cloning – all this? And do you see that all that is the same as our minds? Our minds are as mechanical as that. And we are acting always in that area. And therefore we are destroying ourselves. It is not the machine that is destroying us.
PJ: One can say at the end of it, tapas, tapas, tapas. It means we have not done our homework.
K: I am not sure if you are not back in time. You know, sir, a pianist once said, ‘If you practice, you are practicing the wrong thing’.
PJ: It is not a question of practice.
K: Pupulji, all the teachers are sitting there. What are they going to do? – Put a bomb here? Do you follow what I mean? We are handling a bomb, and it may go off at any moment. I don’t know if you realize this. It is a tremendous thing.
AC: It is far more dangerous.
K: This is really frightening. I wonder if you realize it. What will you do? This is real revolution.
AC: And not only for teachers and students.
K: Of course, of course.
AC: I wanted to ask you: Does the mind which has gone with you up to a point, the mind which reaches this point, become much more vulnerable to evil?
K: I understand what you mean. We won’t discuss it now. So, sir, the question is stopping movement, ending movement, and not ending knowledge. That is the real question.