Krishnamurti with Asit Chandmal

Episode Notes

This conversation took place at Brockwood Park in 1982. Krishnamurti asks: Do you accept that intelligence is not the product of thought? What do you have you left when you don’t use the brain to inquire? What is not contaminated by thought? Can your brain observe something whole without any kind of fragmentation?

Krishnamurti and Asit Chandmal were friends for many years, and Krishnamurti would often stay with him when in Bombay. Chandmal studied engineering in London, where he later taught mathematical economics, before becoming finance director at Tata Motors. His interest in computing led to Chandmal’s involvement with many Silicon Valley start-ups. A trustee of the Krishnamurti Foundation India, he was also a keen photographer and in 1985 published One Thousand Moons, a book of photographs illustrating a year in Krishnamurti’s life.

Transcript

Krishnamurti: Would you accept real intelligence is not the product of thought? Right?

Asit Chandmal: Is it the product of anything at all?

K: Anything at all.

AC: Are you saying it exists?

K: If intelligence is the product of thought, then thought is mechanical. Thought can never be non-mechanical.

AC: No sir, there are two separate things; one is whether intelligence is the product of thought…

K: Which is generally considered product of thought.

AC: That’s right.

K: That’s why they’re investigating into the process of thought.

AC: Because it’s…

K: You follow what I’m saying?

AC: Ah, I see. You’re saying that they want to know what is intelligence and therefore they want to know what is the thinking process, because they feel that intelligence is…

K: …is the product of thought.

AC: …based on the thought process, yes; is the product of, related to. Now…

K: Is that clear? Please, discuss it.

AC: Yes. Yes…

K: I’m not saying it is so.

AC: Quite. So…

K: I’ll say it to you, so a little later on…

AC: I understand. So one has to talk about what is thought and what is intelligence.

K: No; if you once admit that intelligence is not the product of thought – right? – then thinking has no importance.

AC: Yes, so…

K: You understand?

AC: Not quite – I’ll tell you why. I think you’re going a little fast for me.

K: I just caught it there when I went to the toilet (laughs).

AC: But sir, even if intelligence is not the product of thought – you said that if intelligence is not the product of thought…

K: Not the product of thought.

AC: Then thought has no importance.

K: I stick to that now.

AC: No, but sir, negatively it could be important; thought could destroy intelligence.

K: What?

AC: Thought could destroy intelligence.

K: That’s just it.

AC: So you are… Are you saying…?

K: Ah, watch it, watch it.

AC: Yes. So thought is important, because it could destroy intelligence.

K: Yes. So thought is a mechanical process, that will keep it to the machinery.

AC: That I… Yes.

K: So you want to find out what is intelligence. Don’t introduce thought into it.

AC: All right.

K: So inquire what is intelligence, which is not touched by thought.

AC: Yes, I understand that.

K: Right?

AC: Yes; inquire what is intelligence.

K: Yes. Not using thought to inquire. Then you stymie yourself.

AC: I follow; I follow it. I follow it in the sense that you are saying, ‘Don’t use thought or the thinking process to inquire into intelligence.’

K: Yes, because intelligence is not the product of thought.

AC: I don’t know that, at the moment.

K: No, no, you don’t. But inquire.

AC: Yes. So if you say that don’t use thought to inquire, what do you use?

K: That’s just it; I’ll go into it. But be quite sure that thought cannot produce intelligence. It has produced the atom bomb, it has produced war, it has produced the telephone – thought has produced all that.

AC: Yes, that’s clear.

K: But you are inquiring into something which thought cannot inquire. You’re asking what is intelligence, but it’s not the product of thought. If it is, then you’re operating with it.

AC: I accept it; all right. That’s clear, when you said that…

K: Of course; you caught it — I could see it in your eyes.

AC: I caught it; it’s clear. So if it’s not that – which it is not – and you can’t use that tool, the thought process, to inquire into it, what are you left with? How do you inquire?

K: That’s just it. Now… But we must, both of us must be quite sure the other.

AC: Yes, I accept it. I can see that now. I can see it, obviously, because if it is, then everything would be intelligence, because everything is thought and…

K: Of course.

AC: It’s not intelligence. Yes. There’s no such thing as inefficient thought, good thought, bad thought, it’s all… That’s clear.

K: So what the computer makes – I mean the business, Japan, America – are inquiring into thought.

AC: Yes, because they feel that is intelligence.

K: Yes.

AC: They’ll understand intelligence if they understand the thinking process, which they want to do for their other reasons, yes. And you are saying that’s the wrong approach.

K: Yes.

(Pause)

AC: I see; and that’s why they’re stymied, because they’ll never reach…

K: That’s right; you’ve got it. Therefore – you follow? – the Indians have said, ‘Suppress thought, control thought.’ You follow?

AC: I know they’ve said it, but I don’t follow — why have they said it?

K: Because they say if thought stops the other may exist.

AC: Yes, they’ve said it.

K: Yes, of course. All their meditation is that.

AC: Does that mean, sir, they had an insight into this other thing, then?

K: No. They thought they would have an… Look sir, perhaps the Buddha may have mentioned the other intelligence is non-thought, and so they said from the… before, pre Buddha, ‘Thought must be suppressed, controlled.’ That’s meditation.

AC: Yes, I know all that. I know all the things they said, sir.

K: Which means what? That which is intelligence cannot be found through thought. Therefore suppress it.

AC: No, I accept that; I just want to ask you, do you feel that they had some intimation, some insight into this other thing?

K: Perhaps, perhaps. I don’t know enough about it. The pros would say they had. (Laughs)

AC: Who would say?

K: The pros, who believe all that stuff. And those who are sceptic about it say, ‘They don’t know nothing about it.’ The scientists would say, ‘That’s all rubbish.’

AC: But purely as an aside, as a digression, if somebody told you, ‘Suppress thought, curtail it, end thought,’ wouldn’t you feel there… the person had some insight into something? Because everyone else is saying, ‘Refine thought, improve its quality; think better, think more,’ and here’s somebody who’s saying…

K: No, but they might have said this; thought… Okay sir, I must tell you this: thought is the child of a barren woman. I’ve heard this statement: thought is the child of barren women. Which means what?

AC: It’s not creative, it’s not…

K: It’s thought.

AC: No, what I was saying, the reason I’m pursuing this is what I said a little earlier to you, that if the computer scientists in the West wrote everything about computers and have reached a point where they could create a computer like the human brain, but say they can’t do it because they don’t know the thinking process and they don’t know intelligence.

K: Those two – stick to those two.

AC: Yes. I wonder whether Indians who are supposed to have done research – in quotes…

K: Don’t, that’s a wrong word: research.

AC: They are supposed to have investigated for five thousand years the human mind, and Nirvana – you know, all that – could there be a possibility of the two getting together, to create this?

K: What? Two what together?

AC: Indians don’t understand this computer technology.

K: No. Listen quietly: pre-Buddha, man might have said there’s something, intelligence – might, I don’t say… – and the rest, except the Buddha, or the rest of them read the things which they have said or transmitted to them, and they’ve repeated it.

AC: And it’s second-hand, so it has no meaning.

K: They have repeated it. There wasn’t one original man who said, ‘Look, I won’t go into all this because that’s… I don’t know. But I’m going to go into it.’ You follow what I’m saying? That’s the real research.

AC: I understand. So you answered that question of mine, so that part is out now; I follow that. So we’ll come back to this: you are saying the computer scientist…

K: I’m glad to have a good mind to meet you. (Laughs)

AC: You’re saying the computer scientist is approaching it wrongly.

K: What?

AC: You are saying the computer scientist, or whoever is doing this research, is approaching the problem…

K: Wrongly, yes.

AC: …wrongly; it’s the wrong approach. He’s approaching intelligence through the thinking process and he can never reach it, and therefore they are stuck, all of them.

K: Which means the thinking process is mechanical.

AC: Yes, I accept that.

K: Ah no, be careful. Because it’s based on knowledge – right? – knowledge is limited.

AC: I accept that.

K: You accept, yes. So thinking process cannot…

AC: Yes. In other words, even if they understand the thinking process, and put in a computer, they still won’t have intelligence. So then we come back to this question: how does one inquire into intelligence?

K: You can’t inquire. Because your inquiry is with the brain.

AC: So it starts with…

K: The brain is conditioned to think.

AC: And therefore it cannot…

K: If this is clear…

AC: So are you saying that if you really see this you don’t inquire with… using the thought process, then there’s no inquiry into intelligence, intelligence is, it exists, it’s there.

K: No, no.

AC: Then?

K: Then you have to inquire: what is to investigate. You understand? If I’m not using the brain to investigate, and it may be there, it may not be there – the intelligence – so I have to discard the employment of the brain – you understand? – discard the employment of thought, which is the brain…

AC: Yes.

K: …which is mechanical. There may be in the brain a part which is not mechanical – I don’t know, that we can leave all that out – but intelligence is not the product of the brain.

AC: So if one discards thought…

K: Not discards; see it can’t produce that.

AC: It can’t produce that, sir.

K: I want a baby, I can’t have a baby.

AC: I follow.

K: So what have you left when you are no longer using the brain to inquire?

AC: Would you call seeing and listening, which you’ve talked about a great deal…

K: I’ve talked about.

AC: …would you call that the use of the brain?

K: No. That’s… no. Uh?

AC: The use of the brain? Seeing.

K: Seeing is not use of the brain.

AC: And listening is not.

K: Seeing – I don’t… leave, take one word into it. Look, I have seen the world through my thinking. I’ve seen what it has done in the world, what it will do in the world, if it goes on this way: atom bombs, destroying it, etc., etc. – right? – which is all the movement of thought.

AC: I follow that.

K: It has done good things, like… sanitary and so on, it has done evil things and good things – we’ll use the word evil for the moment and good for the moment. Right? So, but that is not intelligence, because it’s not producing…

AC: I follow.

K: So thought can never be intelligent. Therefore, I’m saying to myself, I wonder if they’re approaching it wrongly. Because they are used to this: thinking, thinking, thinking, thinking, thinking.

AC: Yes. You’ve convinced me, sir, that they won’t reach intelligence that way. But they might certainly simulate the human process, the thought process. They would certainly – not certainly – but they would get to know the thought process and…

K: Yes.

AC: …maybe use it to go into…

K: I can tell you the thought process – it’s damn simple; I don’t know what they’re fussing about.

AC: And that in itself could be, you know, dangerous and all that.

K: This is what is happening.

AC: Quite. The computer will do it instead of the human mind.

K: Much better, quicker (laughs). Destroy people much quicker.

AC: But the much more important question is still intelligence.

K: Did you…? I don’t know if it is true – who was telling me about it? Doesn’t matter – there have in a flyer, you know, the fighter pilots, they have either in their brain or outside the brain, the moment they think, ‘Shoot,’ it is shot.

AC: Yes; and they look at the target and that’s it, aim it; yes.

K: So if you are really clear that thought, under no circumstances – I maintain that, under no circumstances – can have intelligence. Right? If that’s clear, then what is the instrument that will investigate that? Right? We have used thought to investigate that. Now I’ve discarded thought; which is – you follow what I mean? – discarded; not waiting for thought to pounce on it (laughs).

AC: I follow.

K: Discard it in the sense, it has its place, and in my inquiry into that, it’s not possible. Thought cannot investigate into intelligence. If you tell that to these IBM experts, Dr people, they would say, ‘What the hell are you talking about?’ Right? Fortune magazine is based on thought. And they are still pursuing that. I don’t know if you get…

AC: Yes, I understand this.

K: Then what will you… what instrument which is not thought, can perceive, investigate, look into intelligence? Come on, sir.

AC: Seeing.

K: No, don’t use those words, use your own words. Then you will be more clear. You follow what I mean?

AC: I follow. It’s very difficult.

(Pause)

There is nothing except thought.

K: That’s just it. So you’re back again in the circle. And that’s why they’re stymied, because they are moving in the same circle, in the same area of thought, and they want to see what’s the process of thought; the process of thought is very clear — it is based on memory. Right? Memory is knowledge and so on; the brain is conditioned to that. It has operated for a million years on that basis.

And now you… these experts come along and say, ‘We are going to investigate into intelligence, with our brain which is highly trained’ – you follow what I’m saying? – which is still based on knowledge, which is limited, therefore the thought investigation can never find it. Right? Now, is there an instrument that will investigate, that will see what is intelligence? Or no instrument at all? You get what I’m talking…? Am I making…? I’m always saying, ‘I’ve used this intelligence – thought – to investigate that’ — we’ve discarded that. Now I say, ‘I’m searching for an instrument to investigate that.’ You follow? Which I am still fiddling… (laughs).

AC: Yes… That’s what I meant: there is only thought. Yes.

K: So I say there is no process of investigation. Right? Now, what is that, that’s not contaminated by thought? Right? Are you following?

AC: Yes.

K: What is that that has not the past, the future, the present time element? Right? Are you clear? Because time element is thought.

AC: Yes, I follow.

K: So it has not that quality of mind – we’ll use that word for the moment – which is not of time, thought, tomorrow, yesterday, memory. You follow? Right? Right? That mind is intelligent mind.

AC: Why do you call it…?

K: That is intelligence.

AC: Why is that intelligence?

K: I’ll show you in a minute. First of all, we have admitted thought cannot produce it. And there is no instrument that can investigate it.

AC: Yes, because the instrument would be thought.

K: Not only thought. Surreptitiously, unconsciously, inquiring – you know? – waiting, waiting, waiting to catch something. Right? All that is not investigation; it cannot investigate into that. Right? If you admit that once – no, logically; I mean, reasonably, sanely – it cannot be done. Right? Then what happens to your brain, what happens to your inquiry? What are we inquiring? You want to know what is intelligence. Right? Right? Moment you deny totally thought, that is intelligence.

AC: May I ask you, sir? One doesn’t know what is intelligence, obviously, so one wants…

K: Why do you say one doesn’t know?

AC: One doesn’t, because one doesn’t…

K: Ah! You are not answering my question. Because you’re saying… thought must know.

AC: No; no sir.

K: Wait sir — don’t say, ‘No.’ When you say, ‘I don’t know what intelligence is’ – right? How will you know it? You can never know it. Knowing means accumulating, seeing, accumulating, acting.

AC: I follow that; I follow that.

K: Yes. If you have followed that, then what is…? There is no instrument of inquiry.

AC: I follow that, sir.

K: Right? Therefore what? That state of the mind which has put away thought, which is not inquiring – inquiring is based on all kinds of things – so what has happened? I’ll use… we’ll use another word for it — insight. Insight is not remembrance, is not the accumulated knowledge which is thought; it has nothing to do with time. To see something instantly and act instantly, that’s intelligence.

AC: Yes. Are you saying that…? Yes, that…

K: To see war, all the complications of war, the appalling…

AC: Are you saying that that intelligence or that state of mind doesn’t exist because one approaches it through the thought process?

K: Yes. If you are clear – you know, like a cobra is poisonous, if you’re as clear as that – that thought can never, under any circumstances, produce that… Therefore you wipe away all inquiry.

(Pause)

You see, these people, IBM – we’ll use IBM, for the moment, Japan – are using thought to create a machine which will be… what is it?

AC: A super-computer, which can…

K: Super-computer, which is…

AC: …towards the human brain, mind…

K: Intelligence – what did you call that intelligence?

AC: Thinking process.

K: No, intelligence, which is unnatural intelligence?

AC: Artificial intelligence.

K: Artificial — that’s the word. They are working to create a brain which will be like ours, which will be mechanical. Right? They are using the brain, with their tremendous knowledge of computers have been working at it, to produce a brain which is based on thought.

AC: Absolutely. In fact, they are using the model of the human brain to copy it. So everything the human brain does, they’re trying to copy, therefore they’re trying to understand how the brain…

K: The brain, which is thinking, thinking, thinking.

AC: I followed that part of what you said.

K: Now, if you’re very clear – not follow it; I mean, it’s like seeing something true. There is a pond out there — that’s a fact. You’ve got two children — that’s a fact. So this is a fact, not to be argued, discuss… We can go into it, we can argue endlessly, but the fact is that still, at the end of it: that thought under no circumstances will have the other. And so, you have to have no thought as an instrument of inquiry, then you have nothing else to inquire. You can’t inquire; the very word denies… Right?

AC: Right.

K: So then: what is intelligence? Not inquire – you follow I mean? Look sir, I want to inquire into what is truth. I don’t know what truth is – I know I’ve read about it in philosophies and so on – I don’t know anything about it; I don’t want to depend on anybody, all these birds. So I wipe my mind clearly of all the past intimations and descriptions and some people who have God and so on — I discard all that. They may be totally wrong, they may be right — I don’t know. Right? I don’t know. But I want to find out what is supreme intelligence – that’s what they are working for, not casual intelligence, not the intelligence of the Pope – right? – or Mrs. Thatcher; they want to find out what is intelligence. So do I. Right? My brain says, ‘Inquire, go into it; find out.’ First I discard everything I know, I’ve been told. Right? Now, the only instrument is thought, clear thinking I have. Because I’ve been trained – it doesn’t matter how it comes; that’s of secondary importance – I’ve got a very good brain to think clearly, objectively, not sentimentally, personally, etc — think objectively, very clearly. So. And thinking… I say, ‘By Jove, if thinking can produce that, then it’s on the same level as thinking which has produced war, which produced Mrs Thatcher…’ (inaudible)… it’s on the same level. Therefore it’s not intelligence.

So thinking under no circumstances will have perception of that. I must be absolutely clear on that, because if I am not, unconsciously, deeply, thought is going to interfere. Right? Right? Before anything else I want to clear the board – is that possible?

(Pause)

I see what they are doing — they won’t get this. They’ll create a mechanical, artificial intelligence, which will be better than our intelligence. And our intelligence may use it to destroy the world. Right? So thinking and all the instruments thought has invented to investigate into that: meditation, various types of meditation, various types of silence, various types of self-denial — these birds won’t accept all this. But their inquiry has been that, and they haven’t found it. They have translated Jesus, Vishnu in India or some saint – you follow? – they are attached, anchored in Jesus, and from that anchorage they move, which is thought. I don’t know if you follow what…

AC: I follow it.

K: So if I’m very clear that thought has not… can under no circumstances come to that, then what have I left? You follow what I mean? What have I left? To see that thought cannot produce that is part of intelligence – right? – which is non-mechanical. I don’t know if you’re following this.

AC: I am following it. K: You didn’t use thought to see this. You said, ‘Thought is limited.’ Right? You accepted a fact; you saw a fact. There is no thinking in seeing a fact.

AC: I understand that.

K: Ah!

AC: I understand it. My problem is slightly different, sir. It’s not enough to see that thinking is not intelligence.

K: Ah, but that… To accept that is fairly simple.

AC: It’s fairly simple.

K: But the implications of it, the inwardness of it.

AC: That’s what I want to know.

K: That’s what it is. If you pointed out to the writers of Fortune – that article – your statement, what would their reaction be? This is a kind of mystical…

AC: Yes, quite; it would be… But what I am saying, sir, is…

K: No – and yet these are the people trying to find that.

AC: Sure, exactly. What I’m saying is, sir, these are the people trying to find that, and it’s clear they won’t find intelligence in that… repeat the thinking process. There are other people also trying to find that, people you’ve been talking to for so many years.

K: They are not.

AC: They’re not trying to find intelligence or whatever you call it.

K: No, because they haven’t really gone into it. They repeat what I’ve said.

AC: Yes. So this is what I’m saying, sir: when you said thought is mechanical, intelligence cannot be the product of thought, it is clearer.

K: What?

AC: It is clearer.

K: Yes, because you have applied your brain to go into all that ruddy stuff — sorry.

AC: Yes, but it is not enough.

K: No.

AC: It does not mean…

K: It’s not enough.

AC: Yes, it does not mean that thought has found its proper place – to use your words – or that there is intelligence. You see, this is the problem: to see something is not enough.

K: No, to see that you don’t know. Right? Because they’re always saying, ‘We know; so far we know. We have progressed from twenty years ago to its present state which has been so rapid.’ Right? They know.

AC: Sorry.

K: They are starting from a basis of knowledge — that’s what I’m objecting to.

AC: Who are you talking about, sir? The computer scientists?

K: Computer people.

AC: Leave them aside, sir, the computer people.

K: And look at… No, no. All right.

AC: Because…

K: I want you to see this, that’s what I…

AC: Yes, that is what I want to talk about.

K: Of course.

AC: The person who has listened to you, who sees what you say, sees what you say about thought and intelligence, does not become intelligent.

K: No.

AC: So there is something missing in this, you can’t…

K: Of course there is.

AC: And what is that? That is why I say it’s not enough to see…

K: No, they don’t see, sir. You take it for granted they see.

AC: No, I’m talking about myself now.

K: Do you say… that’s what I keep on repeating.

AC: Yes, yes.

Mary Zimbalist: Sir, you said, ‘And see the implications.’

AC: The inwardness.

MZ: This is to me the danger point. The seeing of the implication must be still within the insight realm and not lapse back into seeing through thought the implications of what has been perceived as the truth.

K: Of course. Sir…

MZ: That’s the danger.

K: I see a map – right? – the whole of Europe. It is there. I don’t have to investigate into the map, it’s all there. But I want to investigate the particular point where I want to go to. I don’t know if you follow.

AC: I follow that.

K: Their minds or one’s human mind is the point where they want to go to.

AC: I see that.

K: They don’t see the whole of it. Now, when you see whether thought is not the instrument which will produce intelligence, you have seen the whole of it. Or you are only seeing one direction, one village in the map? I don’t know if I am conveying this. Right? That means can your brain observe something whole – right? – without any kind of fragmentation? You understand what I…? Intelligence is non-fragmentation – we’ll put it that way for the moment – and the brain which investigates is fragmented, broken up, whatever word you… functions in a very small field of knowledge. So this cannot see that. So you have to really feel this in your blood.

AC: What does that mean, sir?

K: Sir, wait a minute. Do you see something like organised religions have no place?

AC: Yes.

K: Why?

AC: Because you see what has happened with organised religions.

K: No. That means what? You are approaching it by reason. You get what I’m talking about? You see what is happening: the division of religions, division of blah, blah, blah, and from that you comprehend how absurd this is.

AC: I follow what you’re saying; it’s possible…

K: You don’t have the insight to see it’s wrong.

AC: Yes, I see what you’re saying.

K: So when you do that – reason, reason, logic – you are exercising thought. And through thought you come to a conclusion. Right? And then you say, ‘This is all absurd.’ Now, can you have an insight which sees, without logic, wrong, but having seen that it’s wrong, use logic?

AC: I follow that, sir. I see what you are saying.

K: You are getting it. So in the same way, see thought cannot do this. Of course you have exercised… in talking it over, we’ve exercised logic, reason, and say, ‘Of course, it’s quite clear.’ It’s not. Your logic has made it clear. Not perceiving it… You see the difference?

AC: I see that, sir.

K: So perception has nothing to do with this.

AC: I see.

K: Right? So is perception not arrived at through logic? Is perception intelligence? Right? If it is, the machines can’t do it.

AC: That’s clear.

K: It can logically work out…

(Break in audio)

AC: No really, I mean it. Only a person who has done that, who’s gone out of it, can convey it to me.

K: What?

AC: Only a person like you can convey it to them; I can’t, obviously.

K: Why can’t you?

AC: Because it would be…

K: Ah! That’s what I’m saying – those ten thousand… Sixty years I’ve talked, they don’t see this. They are using this, this. ‘You’re repeating; I can’t repeat what you’re saying. It is for you to do it.’

AC: No, the reason is simple, sir, unless I stop doing that, I can’t…

K: Do… I’m saying that. See this logic, reason, conclusion, that conclusion is intelligence. Right? That’s what they’re saying. And we see that that process doesn’t lead anywhere. Mrs Thatcher has concluded – very clearly, very strongly – that you must be very strong, not weak to fight. And God Almighty might talk to her and she won’t even listen.

So what do we do? If you who have exercised – you follow? – thought about all this, computer, gone into it, worked with them, discussed with them, you’re still following the same… employing thought, reason, logic, facts, conclusion. Right? Can… You see that…

AC: May I ask you something else, sir? In order to see that and to live like that…

K: No, just first see it. Then you live it, naturally.

AC: No, that is my question, sir; wait.

K: Don’t put it the other way round: to live like that I must do this.

AC: That’s what I’m asking, is it? To see… Is there an environment which is important in order…? No.

K: This is our environment. We’re always our environment. If we were in a hotel room in London, we would be in a room, sitting there, it would be that’s our environment; we’d be talking there.

AC: Okay, I follow it. I see what you are saying. But – sorry, to come back to this business of environment – if I’m with you it’s different from when I’m not with you…

K: What?

AC: If I’m with someone else. Or if I’m with you, it’s totally different.

K: Of course.

AC: So if the environment is different, really…

K: No.

AC: What is different?

K: Not environment.

AC: What is it, then?

K: Here, I’m forcing you to look.

AC: Yes.

K: ‘Forcing’ in quotes. Pushing you, pushing you, pushing you. There nobody is; they’re not pushing you. There they are thinking in the same way. Therefore, you are used to that, that you say, ‘That’s…’

AC: Yes. So it becomes very important – sir, this is a trap – to have you push.

K: Ah, yes. It’s very important to go to the right doctor.

AC: That is what I…

K: Of course it’s important. If I have eye trouble I go to the right doctor, if you can find him. Sir, don’t bring in the environment. That’s…

AC: No, I’ve left that out now.

K: We are now stimulating each other. Right? I’m stimulating you.

AC: Yes.

K: Listening. When that stimulation is gone, you’re back. Which is your environment. Right? Now, to see this is no stimulation. You see it or you don’t see it; it doesn’t require stimulation. We have been stimulated, I have been… We have discussed this for nearly an hour, and so you’re beginning to see the nature of it. Right? If we had a couple of days here, steadily working, thinking, you would say, ‘By Jove, that is so,’ you’ll begin it.

AC: Yes, that’s the feeling I had when I was talking to you.

K: Yes.

AC: So that’s the sense I meant about environment. So that is important.

K: But if you treat it as a drug, then…

AC: No, of course. No, of course. Because I feel that when I’m with you it’s different from when I’m not with you.

K: Of course, naturally.

AC: When I’m not – which is most of the time – not with you, it completely overwhelms, over-powers, whatever… (inaudible).

K: Of course, naturally.

AC: And it comes back when I’m with you. So what is the sensible thing to do to stay?

K: Or, not stay. I would – as you have other things to do – I would meet very often, till you’re soaked in it. (Laughs) I mean soaked in the sense – you understand what I… (inaudible) not repeat… – until you have it, you’re burning with it. Maria has been with me for years. For fifteen… how many years?

MZ: Sixteen, seventeen.

K: Seventeen years. Could you go in… or discuss this with him, like this?

MZ: With Asit?

K: Asit. Not discuss in the sense, so that you see it and are conveying what you have seen — that thought cannot produce intelligence. Would you? Now, be serious. This… I’m not just fooling the question.

MZ: I can’t guarantee it, but…

K: No, no, no. No, there’s no question of guarantee. Either you can or you cannot.

MZ: You can only do it when you’ve done it; I mean…

K: So you haven’t done it. So you have to listened, listened, listened, listened. And what? You haven’t done this, say, ‘Look, this is so.’ You follow what I’m talking?

MZ: I mean, done it in the sense of discussing it?

K: No, no.

MZ: You mean discuss… Have I done, because I’ve seen this?

K: See it and discuss from there, not the other way round.

MZ: Right. I understand that; absolutely.

K: So we can do this a great deal while you’re at Saanen. You follow? Or when you come back from… (inaudible) Take a man like Jha, he’s a pretty bright man. He’ll be stumped when he comes to this. Or he will recollect what some ancient has said and say, ‘That is so.’ You follow this?

AC: Yes, I follow.

K: I say… (laughs). That’s like flying a kite without a string. That’s a good simile, by Jove!

MZ: Krishnaji, haven’t you laid out the very difficulty or the very reason that people who’ve listened to you for years and years haven’t really grasped it, is that they have listened to the words, they’ve absorbed it and so forth…

K: Logic.

MZ: …but they’ve put it through the whole…

K: Of course.

MZ: …existing pattern and process.

K: So… Now, wait a minute. Of course. How will Asit transmit this thing to those people with whom he’s closely associated, and say, ‘Look, Old Boys, don’t do this, you’ll get nowhere.’ Would they listen to you?

AC: They wouldn’t listen to me, no.

K: Why not?

AC: Sir, this they’re going to do in any case.

K: What?

AC: See, this is the frightening part of it, you see. You can’t stop that research; they’re going to do that, because…

K: What?

AC: They are going to do that research, through thought, into creating a super-computer that can function…

K: Thoughtfully.

AC: …far superior than most people’s brains, and robots, because it’s economically, financially, etc., etc. So they will end up doing it and they will end up creating a world which will make the human mind obsolete. You know, like Darwin’s theory of evolution. That is the threat to the human race which I’m totally convinced about.

K: What?

AC: I’m totally convinced that that is an incredible threat to the human race.

K: Yes, I agree.

AC: And also, I’m convinced that they will do it, there’s no way of stopping it.

MZ: Asit, will they consider that they have cracked the mystery of intelligence then?

AC: Yes. You see, that is the…

MZ: They will say, ‘We know intelligence…’

AC: That’s right. Yes.

K: What, what?

MZ: They will have answered the question that Asit said is being posed now: what is intelligence.

K: They’ll answer it.

MZ: They will create the mechanical thing and say, ‘Here it is.’

AC: See, because thought is mechanical, and they can do anything mechanically or electronically…

K: Of course, of course.

AC: …they will reproduce the thought process, better than the human brain, and say they are more intelligent. They use that synonymously.

K: Of course.

AC: And with all the implications of… (inaudible).

K: Of course, of course.

AC: But… and that is frightening, and most people don’t realise what’s happening. But this is much more exciting and interesting, as a human being, as one person, individually, my… the nature of this intelligence and what happens when a person has that intelligence.

K: Ah. Yes, of course.

AC: And I’ve been… (inaudible) …to myself a lot, you know, why this dichotomy of what I call the environment that essentially is you. A total love, change taking place every time.

K: Suppose sir, you were here for a fortnight or a month, and we discussed every other day – or every day, doesn’t matter – an hour a day, would you stand it?

AC: Yes.

K: No, no — careful.

AC: You mean during that period would I stand it?

K: Ah yes, of course. But carrying it out of the…

AC: That’s the problem, sir. When you say, ‘Would you stand it?’ would I be able to do it during that? Yes.

K: Of course, of course.

AC: That’s not the problem. The problem is when I go out of the door; that’s when the problem is.

K: Which means you haven’t seen this.

AC: Yes. Obviously.

(Pause)

K: The turning your back on thought, the whole mechanism of it – you understand? – the inwardness, the very turning is intelligence. I don’t know if you… If you tell them – the IBM people – that you’re approaching the problem wrongly, because you’re still employing thought as a means of creating intelligence – right? – they wouldn’t even listen to you.

AC: They might listen, sir. It doesn’t… (inaudible) …you know.

K: Listen. They are bright people.

AC: Bright people.

K: I know, of course.

AC: But they will still continue doing that.

K: Yes.

AC: They are also… They are pushing the frontiers in their own way, and they’re very bright, and they’ve reached this point, sir, which is astonishing.

K: Of course they’re intelligent, otherwise they wouldn’t create all this.

AC: Quite.

MZ: If you were to say these things, like turning a light on, if they’re so intelligent, wouldn’t they see that this is a totally new direction that is necessary to pursue? No matter how that they would pursue it wrongly, perhaps, if they are that bright and can see even part of the implication of this, wouldn’t that be enough to light a fire?

AC: One would imagine it would be, but when you see that so many of Krishnaji’s books have been published and they’re available…

MZ: They haven’t read them.

AC: Why? Because the other kind of people who’d go into book stores, read books…

K: No, because it’s not Dr Krishnamurti, Ph.D. working in Boston (laughs).

MZ: Probably, I don’t know, but these sort of people don’t read…

K: Of course, not.

MZ: …books that Krishnamurti writes.

AC: Maybe they will begin to read them now, because now they’ve reached this point and maybe methodically now they’ll go through all the literature on the human mind and the thought process. Well, maybe now they’ll start doing it. Till now they didn’t need to, probably, for their research. Maybe… It’s quite possible now, because they are trained to be methodical.

K: Sir, would you, with some of them, would they come? Forgetting I’m nobody – you follow? – I’m just an Indian who has got some kind of something to say.

AC: I can find out, whether one or two people would want to meet. I can find out. I can find…

K: You see, you are going to Canada, I mean, New York to meet these people, some of them, and then move it to India.

AC: Yes; the technological aspect of it.

K: Yes. Which is the… They are going to repeat that. And the Indian mind, it’s just like any other mind. Probably much cleverer, because they’ve been at it for four thousand years (laughs).

(Pause)

What?

AC: This is very interesting. If most people who have got a mind that is trained, a trained mind, if they have a problem or if they want to know about something, the first thing they do is to read everything they can about it, to read everything they can about it. Then they find something very interesting – the article or a book – then they try and meet that person and talk about it. It’s an instinctive, creative process.

K: Of course, of course, of course.

AC: So maybe this will begin to happen now, in terms of these people — maybe. I feel very strongly it will happen. That if they come across this block, now: what is the thinking process, what is the mind, it’s almost like they’re tapping their own computers and saying, ‘Please print out everything that has been written about the human mind: who has done it, where are the books…’

K: (Laughs) Quite, quite.

AC: And I would be surprised if within the next two or three years they do not in fact come on their own.

K: They might.

AC: Yes. But…

MZ: Maybe you could speed it up?

AC: Yes, maybe; if I meet somebody I will talk about it and try and see it, because it would be a very, very interesting thing to do. With you. There are the actual people doing it, you see?

K: What?

AC: They are the actual people trying to put the human mind on the computer.

K: You remember that chap? I met him at Pupul’s house last time I was there, which was in January.

AC: Who?

K: I’ll tell you; Alexander, was it?

AC: Alexander; he is a top civil servant.

K: Indian.

AC: Top civil servant.

K: Top civil… Helping Mrs Gandhi. He, Jha and I were discussing – something, I’ve forgotten what it was – he went and told Pupul, ‘By Jove, this man has the greatest brain in the world,’ or whatever he said. Now – you follow? – he doesn’t say, ‘By Jove, this is important. Now, I’m going to go into this,’ he’s too occupied, too top secretary – whatever it is – and Jha too, he’s a damn clever man.

AC: Oh, absolutely. But I was thinking to myself…

K: What?

AC: Instead of flying to New York tomorrow, to meet Jha and meet a few Indians, to transfer technology to India, which I’m totally convinced will not happen, because no matter what my aunt says, the Indian government will not change its position, and because it won’t change its position, this won’t take place.

K: But if you said that… you’re going to meet them all, tomorrow; if you said that… I might… I have to stop.

AC: I know; you have a meeting with…

K: If you said to them, ‘Look here, sir, thought cannot produce this.’

AC: Sir, let me tell you, these Indians are not even…

K: What?

AC: The Indians we are going to meet haven’t even reached that point. They are interested in technology and making money, sir.

K: Oh, to hell…

AC: What we were talking about are people operating at a totally different level.

K: I’m talking about that.

AC: Yes. I’m not meeting those people in New York.

K: Ah, you’re only meeting…

AC: Indians… The whole idea is to meet Indians who have done extremely well…

K: Take you to it.

AC: Take their technology to India with their money. And the Indian government presumably will help them to set up industries.

K: Yes sir, I understand.

AC: So that they transfer…

K: Oh, they are merchants.

AC: Merchants, of course. They are very clever, technological merchants.

K: Of course.

AC: It’s a different level. This is also very clever technically, technological merchandise, but it is done by a different set of people. IBM realises the importance of doing it, for commercial reasons. People who are entrusted with the job of doing it are not interested in the money part of it.

K: Of course.

AC: They are the interesting people.

K: If you couldn’t…

AC: They are the ones, they are paid by IBM, but they work quietly because they get all the funds they need to do this.

K: Of course, of course.

AC: …and all the equipment they need.

K: But if you came to those people…

AC: …that’s the people I want to meet.

MZ: Yes.

AC: Or a man like Simon who is in Philadelphia, who got the Nobel Prize for modelling systems, you know, human systems.

K: Come in, I’m coming.

AC: A man like that will do…