Krishnamurti Subtitles home


OJ81DSG - Computers, thought and insight
Ojai, California - 1 April 1981
Discussion with Small Group



0:00 This is a small group discussion with J. Krishnamurti, in Ojai, California, 1981.
0:10 Krishnamurti: Asit, you know him of course. I’ll talk for a while, so as to give you a rest. He and I have been talking about the nature of computers – I also met several experts from America and India – and, as far as I can make out, what thought can do the computers can also perform: they can learn, they can correct themselves, they can beat the master chess players, they have their own artificial intelligence. They can be programmed, and the more astute, clever and informed the programmer, the greater the capacity of the computer, and it can solve problems quicker than the human brain. And... thought creates its own intelligence, and the intelligence of the computer is perhaps equal to that of the intelligence which thought has created. As we are programmed to a certain extent – like the Catholic, Protestant, the Hindus, Buddhists and so on – so is the computer. And then what is true intelligence? The artificial intelligence of the computer and perhaps the thought which creates its own intelligence is also artificial. So what is intelligence which is not... which doesn’t belong to either? And if the computer can do almost all the things that thought can do, then what happens to man? (Pause)
3:46 Man has lived by thought, has created this world of thought, not nature; he’s created the world – economic, social, religious world – and the problems which thought has created, thought cannot solve them. And it may solve the economic problem, it may solve social problems but I question whether it can ever solve the psychological problems. It can’t. So if the computer takes over the activities of thought and it can diagnose, correct itself, learn and so becoming more and more and more informed, function on its knowledge – as human beings do – then what is man then? That’s the real question. What is a human being who has lived on memory, on experience, on knowledge, which the computer can have all that, because it can learn, correct itself and increase its own knowledge and perhaps discover new things, then what’s going to happen to man? Now you carry on from there.
6:10 Asit Chandmal: Well sir, you have stated the problem...
6:18 K: Yes.
6:20 AC: ...and if Dr Bohm agrees with what you have said, then only the questions have validity and we can explore the questions further. So the first...
6:31 David Bohm: Perhaps, we should first discuss whether this is true; you know that...
6:36 AC: Exactly.
6:37 DB: Because not every person who works in computers accepts all this. So... I mean, it doesn’t look likely that the computer would solve the economic or political problems, because they are connected with psychological problems.
6:54 K: Of course, of course; I said that.
6:58 DB: And the... But I think, you know, there’s no doubt the computer can do a great many things that thought is doing and can do much more, but whether it can do the whole of what thought is doing is not clear.
7:14 K: See, as in Japan – what I read a little bit about it in Time magazine, or one of these magazines – the computer and the robot are cooperating together to build a car. When the computer discovers the robot is not doing it properly, the computer corrects the robot and the robot functions correctly.
7:49 DB: Yes, well, all those operations are analysed, you know, beforehand.
7:54 K: Of course, of course, of course; programmed completely.
7:59 DB: Yes; but, you see, there is some question as to how far this could go – you see, that... you see, in the nature of thought itself – that, you see, in order to carry out a logical train of thought, it is necessary to make certain assumptions and categories and axioms or whatever you want to call them. And there’s a man called Gödel who has shown that it is not possible to get a closed set of assumptions, you see, that if you say the assumptions are complete, they will be inconsistent. In order to be consistent, they must be incomplete: there are more of them and more and more. Now, the... so the system is open rather than closed, you see? Now, this sort of problem is... it’s like this: that a certain set of assumptions may be consistent in a certain context, but if you want the computer to go outside that context, to run everything, then the assumption... then it’s necessary to change the assumptions as you go along.
9:08 K: Now, you were saying... Repeat what you said... that question.
9:12 AC: Yes, it’s true. Gödel’s theorem is a limitation on computers, and my contention is the same limitations would apply to the human brain.
9:18 DB: No... Well, it doesn’t; I should think that there’s an ability to... You know, see, with the human brain we can change the assumptions when we find they’re not working.
9:27 AC: I’ll explain what I mean.
9:28 DB: Yes.
9:29 AC: There’s also a second limitation on computers, which is the speed of electricity.
9:32 DB: Yes.
9:33 AC: We’ll leave that aside for the time being.
9:34 DB: That’s not so important for the moment.
9:36 AC: Okay. Now, to start with, we are not saying that computers will ever become omniscient or omnipotent or become god and solve all problems. We are saying that whatever human thought can do, computers can do. And human thought itself has tremendous limitations. So Gödel’s theorem, quite rightly, is the limitation on any logical system. So two questions arise: one is, is the human brain also operating in the same way, based on assumptions, extrapolation, deductive or inductive logic, and therefore has the same limitations as imposed on a computer by Gödel’s theorem — that’s the first question. The second is: at what point to these limitations start applying to these very large computer systems? Do they get to a point where they’re already performing much better than human brains are performing, before these limitations start applying? And the third point is that, essentially, I think what Gödel says is that a system on its own cannot be consistent and complete. It has statements which you can neither prove nor disprove.
10:46 DB: No finite system. Right?
10:48 AC: No finite system. But if the system is unable to tackle a certain set of problems because you run into contradictions or incompleteness, you could have other computer systems tackling those problems.
11:01 DB: They will run into the same problem.
11:04 AC: Yes, they will. This is the way human beings function at the moment. A human brain has a limitation: say I don’t know much about medicine, so I go to another human brain who knows a great deal about medicine, and together we try and solve my medical problem.
11:19 DB: What...
11:20 AC: But his brain also has limitations. So all I’m saying is that computers do have limitations, but so do human brains.
11:28 DB: Well, I question that. You see, that is, I think people may... happen to work that way but it’s not necessary. You see, that people may work in terms of fixed assumptions but there’s no reason why they should accept whatever habit or tradition; that when you see an assumption is not working then you see that it... you know, you can see the contradiction; whether a computer can see contradiction I don’t know, but...
11:50 AC: I think that could be done. You could program a computer to ensure that there are no self-contradictory assumptions within it, but you would have the other problem...
12:00 DB: Well, there’s no way to do that...
12:01 AC: ...the incompleteness problem would be there.
12:03 DB: Yes.
12:04 AC: But the consistency problem could be solved.
12:05 DB: Well no, because, you see, the computer would have... there would always be new situations where any set of assumptions would fail to be consistent. You see, that any set of assumptions is consistent in some limited set of contexts, and in some new set of contexts it may fail.
12:21 AC: Are you saying that the human brain doesn’t operate that way?
12:25 DB: No, I think a computer is a sort of a tremendous simplification of the human brain; that I think the human brain is infinite myself and the computer is finite.
12:36 AC: How would you...? I’m not clear on this. The human brain is programmed.
12:44 DB: Well, partly.
12:46 K: Yes. Programmed...
12:48 AC: Sorry.
12:49 K: No, go ahead, sir.
12:52 AC: You are born with a set of programs – right? – the inherited programs: your heart starts functioning... The child is obviously programmed to learn. A six month old baby can’t speak English or can’t play chess, twenty years later it can, so obviously some programming process is going on.
13:12 DB: Well, it’s not certain that any program has made it learn – you see, that’s an assumption which... You know, it’s very hard to prove a thing like that, that there exists such a program.
13:18 K: No, you said something just now, that the human brain is infinite. I think it is, personally.
13:24 DB: Yes, I think so too.
13:28 K: Just a minute. But to... for that infinite to move, work, live, thought must come to an end.
13:44 DB: Well, we have to look at that; you see, what is thought and...
13:49 K: Yes, we know.
13:50 DB: Because in some... you may say there’s a certain kind of thought, which is programmed, but then there may be a more open kind of thought that is not fixed on programs, you see?
14:00 AC: Is there such a thing? I have been questioning it.
14:02 DB: Well, how could you show there is or isn’t, you see?
14:04 K: (Laughs) You see... Asit, what he is saying is, since the brain is infinite...
14:13 AC: Which is also an assumption; we don’t know.
14:16 K: No, no, I wouldn’t call it an assumption.
14:18 DB: Well, let’s treat it as one for the moment. We could treat it that way...
14:21 AC: There’s no way of proving that, either.
14:22 K: Ah, I think one can prove it.
14:23 AC: Let’s treat it as an... We’ll accept it for the time... All right. All right.
14:28 K: We’ll accept... assumption; let’s call it an assumption, for the moment.
14:31 AC: Okay.
14:34 K: And, as he says, there may be a different kind of thought, which is not born of knowledge.
14:44 DB: Not limited by knowledge, right?
14:48 K: No... of course.
14:49 AC: Are you saying there will... there may be a different kind of thought not limited by knowledge – then one would need to define thought – or there might be a different kind of operation of the brain, not limited by thought?
15:04 K: Yes, all right, put it that way. Right?
15:07 DB: Yes; well, you see, I think we have to try to understand thought and, you see, if we were to take an example like the body, which might be non mechanical, but it produces the bones by depositing calcium and the bones have a mechanical structure which can be approximated by stainless steel or plastic, right?
15:28 K: Agree. All that.
15:30 DB: Although only approximated. Now, then nevertheless the bones are not mechanical, right? Now, the bones are necessary to give a certain firmness to the body, but if you deposit calcium in the wrong place, like the arteries, it’s wrong, you see? Now...
15:43 K: (Laughs) Arthritis.
15:44 DB: ...but we could say that we have calcified thought.
15:46 K: Yes.
15:47 DB: Mankind has been caught in calcified thought, but there might be another kind that is not entirely calcified.
15:52 K: So is there another kind of thought, which is not born of knowledge, which is limited?
16:01 AC: Yes.
16:02 K: Right?
16:03 AC: So if we are using the word thought, what do we mean by thought? Thought, as I understand it, is a process of memory and knowledge, and playing around with...
16:14 K: I think we are... if I may introduce another word: insight. Right sir? Insight is not the result of thought.
16:30 AC: Sir, before we come to insight, I would still like to find out whether it... let me put it this way: would you be uncomfortable with the use of the word thought in another form – thought which doesn’t act upon knowledge and memory? I am uncomfortable with it, and therefore we have chosen the word insight – or you have chosen it. I think it’s an important issue, because...
17:03 K: Which is an important issue?
17:05 AC: The issue being that thought can never act, excepting out of knowledge and memory. Because if that is so, then the implication is the computer can do it and can do it much better; and then what happens to human beings, because then it becomes very important to find this other thing: insight.
17:25 K: That’s... the other thing. Yes.
17:27 AC: Yes. So... but if one says that there is a process of thought which is not born out of knowledge and memory – which is the other thing, which cannot be repeated by a computer – then one is saying something quite different, because then one has to examine that statement, if you see what I’m getting at.
17:50 K: Would...? Now, wait a minute. Thought is the result... is the reaction or response or the outcome of memory, knowledge, experience. Right?
17:59 AC: Conditioning, yes.
18:00 K: It’s a material process. We agree to that.
18:05 AC: Yes, okay.
18:06 K: Right sir?
18:07 DB: Well, I think we should, you know... there’s some more that... You see, I think we could discuss the distinction of thought and intelligence and how sharp it is; you see, I think there are three words which are very closely related: one of them is select, the other is collect and the third is intellect. You see, they are based on one root, legere, meaning to gather. Now, you see, when we... we gather things into categories, which are different, selected from other categories; now, if they are rigid, then we have ordinary thought, but in intelligence, I think, the categories are not rigid. You see, you gather from in between and you do not form fixed, rigid categories.
18:51 K: Yes.
18:52 DB: But then they may gradually fix – you know? – as memory takes hold of them.
18:57 K: So let’s go into the question of intelligence first and then come back. Apparently, from what Asit and others have said, that the computer has – by being programmed, learning and discovering for itself new axioms and so on – has its own artificial intelligence.
19:25 DB: Yes, I wonder. I wonder if it has intelligence in that sense.
19:29 K: They say it has.
19:31 DB: Yes.
19:32 AC: In that sense meaning computers have done several things which – you know? – five years ago nobody would have imagined them doing. Examples of which I can give – which are given in that book also – which to most people would mean that it has discovered or it has invented new things or it’s capable of thinking. To quickly run over these examples: one is that it is certainly demonstrated that it can find totally novel proofs for various theorems, which nobody else has thought of before. And if the process of discovery can be defined as something which has not been taught to you, nobody else has thought of it and you think of it – that’s a reasonably good definition – then the computer certainly has discovered very elegant and novel proofs for theorems which no human being has thought of. And the example given in this book – it’s a very simple example – is that if you want to prove that the base angles of an isosceles triangle are equal, the computer flipped it to over by one eighty degrees and proved the two triangles were congruent, and according to this book a famous mathematician when told about this said that, ‘If one of my students had done it I would have called him a budding genius; such an elegant way.’ Now, nobody had programmed the computer to do it this way. The other example the book gives is the four colour problem. You know if there are lots of counties in England or states in the US, if you want to draw a map and if you want to ensure that no two states or no two countries have the same colour – no adjacent countries – it’s quite easy to work out that three colours is too few and five colours is too much, that four colours you can do it, but nobody was ever able to prove this. People knew it; nobody could find a... (inaudible) ...example. Well, they programmed a computer to do it and the computer was able to prove it; which, according to this book, happened in ‘77 and rocked the mathematical world. Then the third thing – this is like the Turing test – the third thing it said was this: the Turing test is – I’m sure you know about it – is essentially... so if there’s a human being in an other room...
21:56 K: Oh yes.
21:57 AC: You have a computer terminal...
22:00 K: Tell him this.
22:01 AC: ...and there’s a computer in the next room and a human being at the next room, and you converse on the terminal and you don’t know whether it’s the computer responding or the human being responding. If you can’t make out who is responding, then – Turing said, and most people accept this – it’s a valid test that the computer can think. So now what happened was that three years ago they took an international grand master – his name is given: Ivan Lendel – and they had him play a match in Toronto with, three years ago, the leading chess computer champion of the world, the computer champion of the world, chess champion. Two things happened: it doesn’t say who won the match, but Lendel said after the match that the computer made uncannily human moves. He really didn’t know whether he was playing against a computer or a human being and, as far as he was concerned, it had passed the Turing test. And they have shown this move-by-move chess game to many chess experts and no expert can really make out which side was the computer and which side was the human being; and this was an international chess master playing. He has given other examples like this and this was three years ago; the rate of growth in this technology is so phenomenal that by now they’re already, I’m sure, doing many more things. So one does find that... and he says that anybody who has really programmed a computer to talk, converse with itself, comes up with the most... even if he has programmed the computer himself, is astonished at the unpredictability of the computer’s responses. So – now, this is still in its infancy; you know, computers have been around only twenty five years, human being have... but the rate of growth is so fast that it’s inevitable that before the end of the century, at least, you would have computers capable of carrying on conversations on virtually everything and nobody would know the difference.
24:04 DB: Well... Yes, I mean... yes.
24:07 AC: So what I’m getting at is (laughs) that if this is so, and computers are much faster and have more infallible memories than human beings – that everyone knows – then two things could happen: one is that one might abdicate more and more of the thinking functions to the computer, like children do with calculating machines and forget how to multiply, or never learn how to. One doesn’t know the effect of that. Will that atrophy the muscles of the mind? One doesn’t know. If it does, the consequences can be very dangerous, like the body atrophying because you have got cars. However, if it doesn’t atrophy the human mind, what is left of the human mind if computers can do it much better? Is there anything left at all? Are we, in fact, then an endangered species (laughs) which so far has survived because of the use of the brain and improving the brain, but now something else is going to be much better at it, so the dying out of the species.
25:12 DB: Yes, well, I think that there are two questions, you see: one, that the computer will take over all these more mechanical functions of thought. You see, I think formal logic is mechanical, you see, and I’m not surprised that a computer can do it better than a man. That, you see, any formal logic consists of making certain assumptions and coming out with whatever is implied, and as long as the assumptions are fixed, the computer should eventually – or even now, perhaps – do it better than any human being.
25:38 K: He says... You say the... it’s not an assumption.
25:43 AC: No, I think Dr Bohm agrees that the computer, probably even now, can do a much more rigorous, logical analysis of a situation, given certain assumptions.
25:56 K: Yes, yes.
25:57 AC: Am I right?
25:59 DB: Yes.
26:00 AC: Okay. Therefore, the question arises that only in the irrational area the brain might be better than a computer, which I... if I may state it that way.
26:13 DB: No, only when the assumptions are not fixed, you see; that the... if there’s... as long as you can fix the assumptions the computer will work out all the consequences, but when you come to an area where the assumptions can’t be fixed, then I’m not convinced that the computer can handle it.
26:29 AC: How do you mean by the assumptions not being fixed? How... when does a human being change his assumptions? For example... let me try and give an example, if I’ve understood you correctly: I try to run from here to Los Angeles and I find I can’t do it, so I change my assumption that I can run from here to Los Angeles and I try and catch a bus. Is that an example of changing an...?
26:57 DB: No, I think that would rather trivial; you see, then...
26:59 K: No...
27:00 AC: Okay. Can we give a better example then?
27:02 DB: Well, you see, I think that there has been a tendency in modern mathematics to treat it as nothing but formal logic; I think that is a very backward step, you see, which is mechanical, and it’s not surprising that eventually the computer will do it better. The... you see, I think mathematics is more of an art form than it is a form of logic and that, basically, in mathematics you have an equation: you say a equals b, but it’s only interesting when a is not equal to b, you see. You assert the equality of things that are different. What that means is that it becomes interesting just when logic has broken down, when this indicates some new implicit structure, which you perceive, you see. So I think that the interesting point of mathematics is not logic or proof – you know? – which never is perfect anyway, because you can’t be certain of it.
28:02 AC: This friend of mine who worked at Lawrence Livermore and at Stanford told us – told Krishnaji and me – ...but I must get hold of the exact paper, but he said this: he said they programmed a computer in Stanford, they fed it some axioms and asked it to deduce various theorems from it. They also built into the computer criteria about what was an interesting theorem and what wasn’t, and drop it if it isn’t interesting and pursue it further if it’s interesting. And then they asked the computer to work on all this for a period of time and print out everything it had ‘thought of’ – in inverted commas.
28:44 K: Yes.
28:45 AC: Not only did it print out several novel proofs of known theorems, it evidently printed out theorems which hadn’t been known before.
28:51 DB: Yes. Well, you see, I think that anything that you can organise in that way the computer can do, but the interesting thing in mathematics is always that any programme you put up beforehand is limited and that it will lead to something new which was not in the programme; you see, that is the interesting feature.
29:09 K: You see, that...
29:10 AC: Are you...? I think what we are really...
29:12 DB: A great deal of what mathematicians do is... I mean, what you have demonstrated is that a lot of what people are doing is mechanical. I’m very ready to agree to that.
29:20 AC: What do people... what do human beings do – the human brain – which is not mechanical?
29:27 DB: Well, just what I said, that when the logic breaks down and you discover some new implications, that no computer could do it – you see? – unless it was told that that was the sort of things it should look for, you see. (Laughs)
29:41 K: I would say, Asit, I would say, insight is not mechanical.
29:51 AC: Insight being the ability or the process of instantly seeing through a problem.
30:01 K: Yes.
30:02 AC: That’s what you...?
30:03 K: That’s...
30:04 AC: So no process...
30:05 K: Immediately.
30:06 AC: ...of thought or logic is used?
30:07 K: No.
30:08 AC: No. It is not intuition, it’s insight.
30:10 K: No, no; insight.
30:12 AC: Insight.
30:13 K: That’s not based on knowledge, not based on experience, remembrance; it’s not involved in time; it’s an insight, perception.
30:23 AC: It’s a instantaneous...
30:26 K: Immediate perception and action; that’s not mechanical.
30:32 AC: And are you also saying that, in order for that to take place, the mechanical must come to an end?
30:41 K: Obviously. Right sir?
30:44 DB: Well, you can’t be dominated by the mechanical; you see, the computer is controlled entirely by the mechanical, although you may make it more and more subtle.
30:54 K: Tell him about the computer plugging itself. (Laughs)
31:00 AC: (Laughs) Yes. Yes, you know... this was also a stunt, but they made a computer if you pull the plug out it will go and look for a socket and plug itself, but...
31:10 DB: Yes, but I mean, I think, you see, all those things can be worked out; you see...
31:14 AC: Yes. But I think the key question – what Krishnaji is saying – is that there is such a thing as insight which has nothing to do with knowledge, memory, experience and thought.
31:25 DB: Well, I wouldn’t say nothing; I would say that it’s not based on those; you know...
31:30 K: Yes. It’s not based on that. Put it that way.
31:33 AC: Okay; it’s not based...
31:34 DB: So not based on assumptions which thought makes – you know? – or...
31:38 K: That’s right.
31:39 AC: Now, in order for insight to take place, my question is: does this process have to come to an end?
31:47 DB: Well, I think the logical... the mechanical-logical process must come to an end.
31:54 AC: Must come to an end. Now, if that is true intelligence, why do we continue in this process; why doesn’t it come to an end?
32:02 DB: What?
32:03 AC: The mechanical... the laborious...
32:04 K: Ah well...
32:05 DB: That’s another story; you see, I...
32:06 K: That’s a different question.
32:07 AC: No, no...
32:08 K: That’s a different question altogether.
32:10 AC: It is a different question; but sir, this is the reason why I’ve got so interested in computers. We only function in this. It doesn’t come to an end.
32:23 DB: Well, unless you pull out the plug. (Laughs)
32:27 K: (Laughs) Yes. No, and also now...
32:29 AC: See what I’m...?
32:30 DB: What?
32:31 K: Now they are saying...
32:32 DB: The computer will stop you from pulling out the plug.
32:35 K: No, no. The computer now... say... they are... (laughs) solar energy.
32:39 AC: No, but see the point...
32:42 DB: What? Solar energy.
32:44 AC: Sir, let me make my point clear, sir. We are caught in this process, we are not coming out of it into insight.
32:49 K: No.
32:50 AC: So we only know this.
32:51 K: Yes. That is why... We are programmed to that.
32:55 AC: Yes. And this the computer will be able to do much better, so what is left of us?
32:59 K: Yes. That’s what... we are saying the same thing.
33:02 DB: The more mechanical features of thought clearly can be done by a computer which is...
33:08 K: That’s all; that’s all.
33:09 DB: ...but, you know, thought isn’t... many of these features which people thought were not mechanical are; you see, a lot of mathematics is mechanical. You see, I think proofs are mechanical; you see, they are merely working out from the assumptions to the conclusions.
33:23 AC: Would you say Einstein’s theory of relativity was something different from a child proving a theorem for the first time?
33:33 DB: It wasn’t a proof, you see; there’s no way to prove it. See, the perception or the insight of the need for relativity was a flash of perception, and from there on he began to work it out and a lot of that was mechanical, you see.
33:44 K: Yes. Insight is... and the working out is mechanical.
33:47 DB: Well, relatively so anyway; you know, he may need a bit more insight as he works it out, but...
33:50 K: Yes. Quite right, quite right, quite right. Quite.
33:54 AC: So you are saying that the concept of relativity is insight? Beethoven’s symphony is insight?
33:59 DB: Or Mozart, yes.
34:00 K: (Laughs) Mozart; include all the...
34:03 AC: And then the actual writing it out and playing it is mechanical.
34:06 K: What? What?
34:08 AC: The actual working it out later on is mechanical.
34:10 K: Mechanical.
34:11 AC: But there is this process of insight.
34:14 K: What are you trying to say, Asit?
34:16 AC: All I’m trying to say, sir, is this happens, obviously, extremely rarely. How many Einsteins or Beethovens have there been? Okay? For almost all of us, we are caught in a process which the computer can do much better.
34:31 DB: Well, I think the rarity is irrelevant, you see; it just happens that people tend to be caught in the mechanical.
34:37 K: Yes.
34:38 DB: But, you see, the fact that it’s rare doesn’t make it less significant.
34:43 AC: No, no. What I’m saying is that to virtually all... most people in this world, the only thing they have which makes them really function is their brains – that’s the reason they’ve dominated this earth, as opposed to any animal species – and if there is going to be another species which has a better brain in this sense...
35:10 DB: Well, I’m not sure it will, you see?
35:13 K: That’s an assumption. Now, Asit, let’s get to something which is clear and simple – as far as I can make out; correct me; please sir, too – thought is mechanical. As we know... as we now use thought, it’s mechanical; that’s based on experience, knowledge, memory...
35:35 DB: Logic.
35:36 K: ...action, logic and all the rest of it. From that there is action; from that action you learn, which is the same process going on. Right? That is mechanical.
35:48 AC: Clearly.
35:50 K: And the machine can do that far better than us.
35:53 AC: Yes.
35:54 K: Right?
35:55 AC: Yes, I...
35:56 DB: There’s always a limit to that, in the sense that any mechanical system being limited and reality being unlimited...
36:02 K: Yes. Of course.
36:04 DB: ...there must be some check by some human being who is beyond the mechanical. At some stage the computer may do something disastrous.
36:12 AC: Yes.
36:13 DB: And the computer... right?
36:15 AC: But so will human beings. (Laughs)
36:17 K: (Laughs) Of course. Of course, of course.
36:19 DB: Yes, but that’s because human beings are imitating computers; but, you see...
36:21 AC: Well, what I am saying is that – I’m perhaps repeating myself – the computer is not going to be perfect but neither are human beings.
36:29 DB: Well, that’s another question...
36:32 AC: I think this question... Sir, let’s get back to this question of Einstein or Beethoven. Those I wouldn’t say are insights, they are partial insights, sir; because look at their lives.
36:43 K: Of course. That’s understood. Now, don’t... let’s...
36:47 AC: Okay, go on.
36:48 K: So we are saying, thought is mechanical, because it’s based on... all that, and is there thought which is not mechanical?
37:01 AC: Is there thought which is not mechanical?
37:04 K: That’s what he raised.
37:07 DB: Perhaps there is; you see, there may be...
37:11 K: There may be; that’s... we are inquiring.
37:13 DB: ...because perhaps thought has become mechanical because it’s being used wrongly.
37:19 K: Even if you used it rightly, it is still based on knowledge.
37:23 DB: No, because... no, if you hold the assumptions absolutely fixed, that is what makes it mechanical, you see; then it’s like a machine. You see, people have made assumptions about everything and say they are absolutely true, they’re absolutely fixed, right?
37:36 K: No, of course not.
37:37 DB: That makes it mechanical. Now, you see, I say intelligence does not make such fixed assumptions but it reads between the lines; so intelligence will gather information from all over without putting it into fixed categories. Now, thought being... is mechanical because it puts information into predetermined, fixed categories – do you see what I mean? – which are absolutely fixed; now, that’s what the computer does. You see, in order to classify your information, it has to be gathered and put into categories, like ‘here and there’ and ‘now and then’ and ‘before and after,’ ‘inside and outside’ and so on, you see.
38:15 K: Quite, quite, quite, quite.
38:16 DB: Now, if that is absolutely fixed, a computer could... it could be programmed...
38:18 K: It can do better.
38:20 DB: ...can do it better, you see? But... so we have... What happened, it seems to me, is that man became a computer...
38:26 K: Became a computer.
38:28 DB: ...and then he made another computer, which may be better eventually, I don’t know.
38:32 K: Yes. That’s all my... You follow what he is saying?
38:35 AC: Yes. What he’s saying is that human beings have become badly programmed, slow computers.
38:38 K: (Inaudible) And therefore, he has created computers which are... etc., etc.
38:43 AC: Which can do that better. But are you also saying a computer couldn’t work in an unstructured situation? Is that what...?
38:50 DB: Unless there was some predetermined structure, I don’t know what... How could it work?
38:56 AC: That’s what I’m not sure about.
38:57 DB: I mean, what could it do? I mean, it must be given some instructions.
39:01 K: It can learn.
39:06 AC: It can learn.
39:07 DB: But only if it’s given instructions before, you see; it cannot learn from nothing, you see?
39:12 AC: But is that different from human beings?
39:14 DB: Well, I think human beings have insight which can remove wrong structures – you know? – dissolve them or alter them or... You see, if you could make a computer with insight then... (laughs)
39:23 K: You see, the human being may have the capacity for insight. The computer has not that capacity, because it’s essentially programmed by the human mind, which is itself limited...
39:40 DB: Yes.
39:41 K: ...and so on, so on, so on.
39:43 DB: But it’s also... In the mechanical structure itself there’s a limit to what can be done, you see?
39:46 K: Yes, quite.
39:47 AC: It’s a mechanical process, so it’s limited — the computer.
39:50 DB: Even if you had a human being with insight, he could not do better than the limits of the machine, you see.
39:55 AC: Yes. In other words, the question is: can you program insight?
39:57 K: Yes.
39:58 AC: Let’s assume, for the moment, you can’t.
39:59 K: Yes.
40:00 AC: And come back to the human being. He is functioning as a computer, programmed computer.
40:06 K: Now, now.
40:07 AC: Now.
40:08 K: Yes.
40:09 AC: Now, we are saying that he also has this capacity for insight.
40:13 K: Capacity... Yes, he may have; let’s...
40:15 AC: He may.
40:16 DB: Potential, possibly.
40:18 K: Potential.
40:19 AC: Potential. If he doesn’t have it, he’s doomed — would you agree with that?
40:24 K: Oh, yes. Of course.
40:26 DB: Oh, yes.
40:27 AC: So it becomes very important to find this capacity.
40:28 K: That’s right.
40:29 AC: How... how does one go about that.
40:31 K: Ah, well, that’s a different... Now we are entering quite a different question.
40:33 AC: Yes. But that is, ultimately, the question we keep coming to, isn’t it, sir?
40:37 K: Yes.
40:38 AC: That then it becomes vitally important to find that capacity, especially because the computer is being developed so fast. It wasn’t as important two hundred years ago, perhaps. Perhaps.
40:49 DB: Yes, perhaps not. Yes, it’s hard to say; one doesn’t know about the... you know, every development rises up and then it falls... reaches a curve and falls. I think there are no linear developments that just go on forever.
41:04 AC: Yes.
41:05 DB: The computer will go a long way but then probably will reach a limit.
41:08 AC: At the moment, it’s kind of exponential.
41:09 DB: It’s going way up, yes; but someday it’s going to turn down.
41:10 AC: Yes, yes. Yes, but maybe it will reach a point above the human brain, in that... in the function.
41:17 DB: Well, in some ways; I mean, it may do mechanical thought better than the human brain.
41:23 AC: But...
41:24 DB: Mechanical functions.
41:25 AC: Yes, but leaving the time frame out of it, it becomes vitally important to find this other capacity, if it exists.
41:33 DB: Yes.
41:35 AC: If it exists.
41:36 K: Yes sir.
41:38 AC: Absolutely, vitally important. Right?
41:41 K: So how... what do we do?
41:44 AC: Now you are addressing a programmed, slow computer to find a process of insight.
41:51 K: Yes. Put it to the computer; see what...
41:54 AC: You’re putting it to me who is a programmed computer. (Laughs)
41:59 K: Yes. Yes.
42:01 AC: You are telling me...
42:02 K: That’s right.
42:03 AC: ...find a process, find its...
42:04 DB: But you can’t accept that that’s all you are, in the sense that you don’t have a potential for more.
42:08 AC: No. I have the potential, but how do I express that, find that potential; how do I express it? Do you see the problem?
42:17 K: I see the problem.
42:18 AC: You are, in fact, asking a computer...
42:21 DB: It’s not the same, because if you asked a mechanical computer to have insight, it would be impossible, you see. (Laughs)
42:28 AC: No, because it doesn’t have the potential.
42:29 DB: It’s just limited potential, right?
42:31 AC: So, so... but you are asking a programmed system...
42:34 K: No, no; I am asking, as he pointed out at the beginning, that there may be a thought which is not programmed.
42:49 AC: There may be a process which is not programmed?
42:54 K: And that may be the insight. And that insight... You are asking, as that is so important, how does it come about?
43:07 AC: How can it come about in a system, which is operating in this manner?
43:14 K: Yes sir; yes sir. It cannot.
43:20 DB: Cannot.
43:21 K: Obviously. If my mind... my brain is programmed to function in a certain pattern, in a certain category and so on, all that has to stop.
43:37 AC: All right. Now, may I...
43:39 K: You see, that’s where the Hindus and the meditation began; I’m pretty sure that. To stop the whole process of...
43:51 AC: Thought.
43:52 K: ...thought.
43:53 AC: Yes. Now – may I ask you a question? – you know me extremely well.
43:58 K: Yes, yes, I hope; (laughs) I think so. Yes, go on.
44:02 AC: Have you ever seen anything in my process of operation of my mind which is different from a programmed conditioned mind?
44:11 K: Yes.
44:12 AC: You have?
44:14 K: Yes.
44:16 AC: I’m asking very seriously, sir.
44:20 K: (Laughs) Yes, quite.
44:21 AC: (Laughs) Because... all right, let me put it another way: people only operate in this mode, sir, programmed conditioned mode...
44:35 K: No...
44:36 AC: And you are asking them...
44:37 K: No, no, no. I am asking something else, that when you’re completely... you are not hearing with the sensual ear, but hearing it inwardly, and therefore you’re absolutely silent – right? Absolutely silent – then insight may take place; perception in which there is no division as me the perceiver and the perceived – right? – so conflict ends, and so the whole mechanical process of thinking with its conflict and... that comes to an end.
45:27 DB: Well, it’s an interesting question, would you think that a computer has a division of the observer... of the thinker and the thought.
45:34 K: (Laughs) Of course, not. It can be programmed to say, ‘The observer is the observed.’
45:40 DB: Well, I think the programmer is the observer, really, isn’t he? (Laughs)
45:44 K: Yes, yes.
45:45 AC: No, I would like to say something to this, sir.
45:46 K: Yes, go on.
45:47 DB: Yes.
45:48 AC: If a computer passes this Turing test, why... what is there to say that it doesn’t have consciousness? Would you destroy such a computer?
45:56 DB: Well, what is that insight, you see?
46:01 K: What are you saying?
46:03 AC: Sir (laughs), what I am saying is this: if there was a computer in the other room and the human being... and I’m interacting from here and I don’t know whether it’s the human being answering or the computer, sir, I feel fairly certain that the computer is at least thinking as well as that human being is.
46:20 K: Mechanical.
46:21 AC: Sir, it’s thinking as well as that human being.
46:25 K: Yes, yes; mechanical.
46:26 DB: Well, mechanically only. Suppose... If we could see the computer does not have insight... You see, you would have to give it a much more subtle communication, which would see whether the computer has insight or not. (Laughter)
46:39 AC: Yes, but how would you find out if I had insight or not?
46:41 DB: Well, that’s a question, right?
46:43 AC: You see?
46:44 K: Oh yes, you can.
46:45 AC: How sir? If you could find out if I had insight...
46:48 K: Ah! Not if you had an insight; you may have the potentiality of it.
46:54 AC: Yes. Could you find out by talking to me?
46:57 K: Oh yes, I think so.
46:59 AC: Now, suppose... if a... This is what I’m saying; you’re talking to a computer...
47:03 K: I know what you’re getting at.
47:05 AC: ...so you might feel the computer has a potential for insight. What I’m saying is what is consciousness? Why would you think the computer doesn’t have consciousness? If it prints out, ‘I am conscious,’ why would you say it isn’t?
47:19 K: May have. But what? Where is that leading us?
47:25 AC: I’ll tell you where it’s leading us, sir. Why are we assuming – why should I assume, not you – ...
47:31 K: Go on; let’s assume.
47:32 AC: ...that anything else exists?
47:34 K: No. No. I don’t assume.
47:37 AC: You don’t assume. You don’t assume?
47:39 K: No. No, I don’t assume because I have an insight, and do it... all the rest of it.
47:46 AC: No, I find that I don’t have these insights.
47:50 K: Why? Why?
47:52 AC: You must accept this when I say.
47:55 K: No, why do I... why should I accept it?
47:58 AC: Because you see the way I live, sir, that’s why.
48:02 K: No. No. Well, you may have a partial insight.
48:05 AC: It’s not insight really.
48:06 DB: Well, why do you say, ‘No’? I mean, you see, there would be a difference: the computer would not have a partial insight.
48:12 K: But he says... the computer expert says it has.
48:18 DB: Well, I don’t agree with that; I think that you could see the difference.
48:23 AC: No, what I’m saying, sir – we’ll leave computers aside for a moment – but I’m saying if the computer passed this Turing test, then there is no reason to believe... that if it says, ‘I’m conscious,’ why should you say, ‘You’re not conscious’? I mean, in what way would it become different from a human being? If it passed the Turing test, I’m assuming...
48:41 DB: Well, suppose we’re having a discussion of this kind – you see? – with the computer, you see...
48:46 K: It’s there taking it all in.
48:47 DB: Yes. And the question is, what answers will the computer come up with? (Laughs)
48:51 AC: No, I’m assuming that the computer has passed the Turing test. The Turing test...
48:56 DB: No, but I don’t... the Turing test is not good enough because, you see, you say the full test for a human being is: does he have insight?
49:02 AC: But (laughs) again, I ask my question: how would you know if a human being has insight? How would you know if I have insight?
49:09 K: Ah, I wouldn’t ask a human being if he has insight.
49:13 AC: Yes.
49:14 K: That would be the wrong question, I should think; but I would say, does the mechanical process of thinking stop? Ever? Or is... the brain is perpetually occupied?
49:31 AC: No, supposing the human being – most human beings are perpetually occupied – were to say, ‘Yes, it stops’ — what next?
49:41 K: Now, wait a minute; either it stops because it’s weary, tired, for various reasons, lack of oxygen and so on and so on — that’s not insight.
49:52 AC: No, that’s not insight.
49:53 K: Of course, not.
49:54 AC: Because the computer can do that.
49:55 K: Which... of course it can.
49:56 AC: Yes, it can be in a wait state with nothing going on. Okay.
49:59 K: Yes, yes; of course it can.
50:00 AC: So how would you find out if I have insight, sir?
50:02 K: Why do you...? No, are you putting the right question?
50:06 AC: The reason I’m putting that question is – we go back to computers – how do we find out if computers can think? That was the Turing test. Now we are saying, how do we know it has insight, the computer. So my question is, how do you know a human being has insight? How will you find out?
50:24 K: You, yourself, said Beethoven and Einstein had partial insight.
50:32 AC: Sir, what I would like to state is they did things which nobody has done before; it’s extremely rare what they did it, very significant. I wouldn’t call it partial insight.
50:48 K: I don’t follow you.
50:50 AC: Sir, they did something extraordinary. There are, I think, four billion people on the earth today and there have been a lot in the past and, you know, something happened to them and they... something happened to them. That’s all I’m willing to state. I’m not even willing to say that they did it; I don’t know what happened.
51:10 K: I don’t quite follow you.
51:12 AC: Sir, you said that I said earlier – which I did – that they had partial insight.
51:17 K: We all said that.
51:18 AC: We said that because, in a sense, I wanted to move on. But one really doesn’t know what happened. Does one... can one work out what happened to Einstein...
51:29 K: Not Einstein.
51:30 AC: ...at that time? Or to Beethoven?
51:32 K: I think one can observe it in oneself. (Pause)
51:40 AC: Sir, may I ask you a question. If you understand something, can you teach it to another human being?
51:50 K: If the other human being is willing to listen. Listen.
51:56 AC: Yes sir. In other words, we are saying that if one could understand the process by which Beethoven composed his symphonies or Einstein caught his flashes of perception, even if they could have understood it, they could have explained and taught it to others.
52:14 K: Yes, I should think so.
52:15 AC: They obviously were incapable of not only teaching it to others but not doing it themselves later on.
52:21 K: Sir – wait a minute – it must be... insight can’t be something totally... lack of harmony, it must be your life, your way of – you follow? – your behaviour, everything must be as a whole. Right? When that is... when that wholeness takes place, there is immediate insight. I think that’s how it operates.
52:54 AC: That’s how it operates.
52:55 K: Right sir?
52:56 AC: Now, suppose...
52:57 K: Would you agree to that?
52:58 DB: Yes, everything has to be together, right?
52:59 AC: Okay.
53:00 K: The decks have to be clear. (Laughs)
53:02 AC: Yes. You are saying it’s an integral process, it’s not fragmented; okay. Now I’m asking you – and let’s make an assumption that you have this insight...
53:16 K: Doesn’t matter.
53:18 AC: If you understand the process...
53:22 K: Ah, not the process.
53:25 AC: Okay. If you understand...
53:27 DB: No, it’s more than a process.
53:28 K: Yes, more...
53:29 AC: Okay, if you understand... – I think it will get clear if I try and find the right word and if you say it’s the right word.
53:35 K: Yes; go on.
53:36 AC: If you find the conditions under which insight could come into being
53:38 DB: There are no conditions.
53:39 AC: Okay.
53:40 K: You see, you can answer it yourself, Old Boy.
53:45 AC: So – I’m trying to clarify – are you saying it happens...?
53:52 K: No. It is not by chance.
53:57 AC: It’s not by chance.
53:59 K: It’s not by calculation.
54:00 AC: Not by calculation. It’s not by conscious effort.
54:02 K: No.
54:03 AC: As you’ve said in your books, it comes uninvited.
54:04 K: Yes.
54:05 AC: Now...
54:06 K: No; uninvited in the sense, you see the problem – there is the problem – and you don’t analyse; you see it as a whole.
54:20 AC: Now, I’m saying to you, sir, that I’m unable to see it as a whole; help me. How... what would you do now?
54:26 K: Oh... (laughs)
54:27 AC: No sir...
54:28 DB: Well, could I ask you a question, you see, is the computer talking? (Laughter)
54:32 AC: It is, you see; because I’m asking you, literally, to program me to have insight. I am.
54:38 DB: But I mean, the computer can’t do it.
54:39 K: The computer can’t do this.
54:40 AC: The computer can’t do this.
54:42 K: I don’t know, it may...
54:44 AC: Wait a minute.
54:45 K: ...eventually, when it reaches the peak. (Laughs) I don’t know.
54:47 DB: Well, not presently.
54:48 AC: What I’m saying – the computer can’t do it; I’m willing to accept that – I’m stating that a human being can’t do it, also.
54:52 K: I’m not sure, sir.
54:55 DB: But if the computer is saying this, it just could be the program, couldn’t it? (Laughs)
55:01 AC: So... I accept the computer can’t do it; I’m saying the human...
55:03 DB: No, but I mean I’m asking another question, that this very statement... You see, we’re doing, as it were, the Turing machine, or the... (inaudible) ...argument now – not Turing machine – to say that... suppose I say we’re talking with the computer, right? See, you have said that you’re a computer, so it’s up to us to talk with the computer to see if it’s a computer or not. Do you see the question?
55:25 AC: No. Okay, I’m willing to state that I’m not a computer, I have the potential for insight.
55:30 DB: But that... Yes.
55:32 AC: I will have a completely open mind on this – because I want this insight; I really do – and I’m saying can you help me, can you teach me, can you show me; is there any way you can do this? That’s what I’m saying. (Pause)
55:51 K: I’m asking you... You’ve got it; you’ve got quick insight, some... about many things. I come to you and say, ‘Look, I would like to have that capacity. I may have the potentiality of it but I’d like it to flower.’ Right? Would I... what would be my question? That I would like to have it? When I ask that question, it becomes mechanical. I don’t know if you follow what I mean.
56:34 AC: I follow that. That I follow.
56:37 K: So don’t ask the question.
56:39 AC: I’ve not asked...
56:41 K: Ah!
56:42 AC: No sir. My question is: can you...?
56:47 K: Wait; I understand. Don’t... No. When you ask that question, you are asking for a system...
56:57 DB: Yes.
56:58 K: ...for a method – wait, wait – for some kind of information which you can manipulate, which you can organise, which you can categorise, all the rest of it. Now, if you ask the question without any of that...
57:14 AC: Yes.
57:15 K: Right?
57:16 AC: Yes.
57:17 K: Would you ask it?
57:19 AC: Yes...
57:20 K: Wait! No.
57:22 AC: Yes sir. Sir, my question is – it’s very simple – give me an insight into insight, for a moment; that’s all.
57:29 K: (Laughs)
57:30 DB: No...
57:31 AC: I don’t want a system to be able to repeat it. That is my question.
57:33 K: I understand your question very well.
57:35 DB: But, you see, I think you’re approaching it the way the computer would; as if the computer wanted an insight, it would ask how it could... what to do to get... You see, that’s just the question the computer would ask. (Laughs)
57:47 K: You follow what he’s saying?
57:49 AC: I follow completely. (Laughter) In fact, sir, it is confirming what I am saying, that I can only operate like a computer. That’s what I’m saying!
57:58 K: Therefore, don’t operate like a computer. (Laughter)
58:01 AC: Then my next question is: show me; this is the only thing I know. (Laughter) This is the only thing I know, sir.
58:10 K: David, can I... can you teach me... – seriously – can you teach me a thing which you have grasped – I’m... put it back; just get my meaning – something which you have grasped immediately, something whole – you know, sir, what I mean – can you... can you inform me about it, teach me, so that I can learn it?
58:47 DB: Well, not step-by-step. Not through a series of steps, I mean.
58:52 K: Can you convey that to me? That you have seen something so... as a whole, and therefore acted as a total human being, without any contradiction – etc., etc., etc. – and you act from there. Right? And I come to you as your disciple, as your whatever it is, and I say, ‘Please, inform me about it; tell me... whatever words you use, I want to capture that feeling of that something instantly taking place.’ Right? That’s what you are asking.
59:46 AC: That’s what I’m asking.
59:48 K: Now, wait a minute; we’re going to inquire into this. What is the state of my mind that’s asking this question? (Pause) It’s wanting something – right? – it’s grasping something; it is... it says, ‘If I could have that, my problems would be solved.’
1:00:17 AC: That’s one state; but the state... I’m not in that state right now. Shall I tell you the state I’m in? Here is a man, whom I’ve seen...
1:00:28 K: X.
1:00:29 AC: ...whom I’ve seen in his daily life, for so many years, and he has been talking about it for so long, and obviously he has something and I want a glimpse of that; not so that my problems would be solved...
1:00:44 K: No, no; no.
1:00:45 AC: ...but I’m really, deeply interested, curious – deeply, seriously – what is it? What...? He’s been saying it for so long, he’s living it, he’s doing it; what is it, why is it escaping me? You follow? That’s the state; not that I want him to solve my problem.
1:01:01 K: No, no; I’m asking what is the state of your mind which is asking this question. (Pause) You’re getting it?
1:01:14 AC: No.
1:01:17 K: Go slow. What is the state of my mind when I go to David – I hope... I’m going to call you David; for a long time I haven’t; now... – I go to David and say, ‘Look sir, you have this insight, you see things as a whole — I can’t. I’m not asking to... having insight will solve my problems – I’m not interested in that – I want to learn or comprehend or feel that quality of a mind that is – right? – whole.’ You see what has happened? I have reached a certain point in myself to ask that question. I don’t know if I’m making it clear.
1:02:17 DB: Okay.
1:02:18 K: It’s not mechanical; I’ve dropped the mechanical. Right? I’ve dropped it, because I’m much more interested in that, sir. This is not... this is in abeyance.
1:02:32 AC: Ah, yes. I think that’s right; I might not have dropped it, but...
1:02:38 K: It’s in abeyance; it’s down in the basement. Right? So is your mind...
1:02:48 AC: Not sure about that.
1:02:50 K: You’re getting what I’m talking about? Is your mind free of... when you are asking the question, that it’s not functioning mechanically. That’s what he is telling me.
1:03:08 AC: I’m not sure of it, sir.
1:03:14 K: Are you asking this question mechanically...
1:03:17 AC: No.
1:03:18 K: ...or non-mechanically? Wait; steady. That’s what I’m... I go to him, and I say, ‘Sir, I’m quite sure I’m not acting... I’m... non-mechanically. I am not asking this question mechanically.’
1:03:37 AC: I can’t make that statement; I really don’t know whether I’m asking it mechanically or non-mechanically. I really don’t know.
1:03:47 K: Because I want to capture that.
1:03:50 AC: That I want to do.
1:03:53 K: I want to understand what that thing is, so my mind is absolutely not knowing.
1:03:57 AC: Yes...
1:03:58 K: Ah, not knowing.
1:04:00 AC: Yes.
1:04:01 K: Not expecting.
1:04:03 AC: Wait.
1:04:04 K: Not wanting.
1:04:06 AC: Wait; how can you say not wanting, not expecting...?
1:04:13 K: Of course; not expecting something from him. I come to him and say, ‘Sir, I want to understand... this insight may transform every... etc.
1:04:28 AC: Isn’t that expecting, wanting?
1:04:30 K: No, no. I want to understand it, I want to feel it. I want to feel the contours, the smell of it.
1:04:38 AC: Yes.
1:04:39 DB: I think we should make it clear the difference between expecting and this; you see, the...
1:04:43 K: Expecting and....?
1:04:44 DB: And what you say. You see, that expecting would be already to have some notion or idea...
1:04:48 K: Of course, of course, of course.
1:04:49 DB: ...or feeling, right?
1:04:50 K: Of course; I’m not expecting.
1:04:51 AC: Okay. So in that sense, I’m not.
1:04:53 K: I... No! I don’t know what it is.
1:04:58 AC: I don’t know; I really...
1:04:59 K: Wait; no. Therefore, I’m not waiting; as he said, not expecting... You know?
1:05:07 AC: No, I’m not... When I come to you...
1:05:11 K: Yes.
1:05:12 AC: ...and I tell you that...
1:05:13 K: Are you coming mechanically or non-mechanically?
1:05:19 AC: I don’t know, sir.
1:05:22 K: Find out, sir. Is your question born out of a mechanical response...?
1:05:32 AC: No.
1:05:36 K: No. Therefore.... (Pause) I go to David – I’m very clear on this – I see he has got this quality of insight. Very strongly. He takes decisions, he does things without the operation of thought entering into his decisions. Right? See when he says something it’s not thought-out. What he says is non-mechanical, but he works it out mechanically.
1:06:22 AC: It can be supported by thought later on.
1:06:26 K: So I am asking the question: knowing all this, I say, ‘Sir, what is this insight? (Pause) I’m already in communication with it. I don’t know if you... You understand, sir?
1:06:53 DB: Yes, but why do you say you’re already in communication?
1:06:57 K: Because my mind is free of the mechanical.
1:07:00 DB: Yes. Well, that’s the essence of insight.
1:07:02 K: Yes.
1:07:03 DB: I mean, that the... You were saying insight is natural if the mind is not mechanical.
1:07:10 K: It’s not mechanical, it’s not – what do you call it? – born out of knowledge, it’s not of time, it is immediate perception. (Pause) And I’m not sure... the computer can’t do this. If my brain, which is mechanical, which has... for a million years has been mechanical, and David tells me, ‘Your brain is infinite,’ I see that immediately. Because when he said that just now, I saw, ‘By Jove, it is so.’
1:08:11 AC: That was insight.
1:08:13 K: Ah, that...
1:08:14 AC: That is insight.
1:08:15 K: That has nothing to do with logic.
1:08:17 AC: I know. Now...
1:08:19 K: Right?
1:08:20 AC: Yes. You saw it.
1:08:22 K: I saw – not see it, the... no, the infiniteness of it.
1:08:27 AC: For you, it was absolutely true instantaneously.
1:08:32 K: Yes.
1:08:33 AC: My reaction is: ‘I don’t know. Why do you say that? Prove it.’ You know? ‘How do you go about doing it?’
1:08:40 K: Yes. Which is mechanical.
1:08:42 AC: Yes, absolutely.
1:08:43 K: Which means what? You are not... you are listening with the sensual ear.
1:08:48 AC: Yes.
1:08:50 K: Which is mechanical.
1:08:52 AC: Yes.
1:08:53 DB: Which ear did you say? The central...?
1:08:55 AC: Sensual.
1:08:56 DB: Sensual ear, yes.
1:08:57 K: Yes.
1:08:58 AC: Yes. I’m saying that sir; I’m saying that I’m doing that, and I see somebody else having insight and so I say...
1:09:05 K: Wait! So he... No, I’m... You see? If you say... if one... if David tells me, ‘Meditate,’ if he says, ‘Make your mind quiet,’ if he says, ‘It is necessary to have an absolutely quiet brain when there is insight... for insight to take place, which is non mechanical.’ Right? So all those are time-binding – I don’t know if you...?
1:09:50 AC: Yes.
1:09:51 K: ...so I dispense with all that. (Pause) Because when he said, ‘Infinite’... Right?
1:10:05 AC: Yes, I saw you light up, yes. But you say you dispense with all that — that itself is the process of insight, the instantaneous... (inaudible)
1:10:23 K: Sir, when he said, ‘Infinite,’ why didn’t you jump?
1:10:27 AC: I explained why: my reaction...
1:10:29 K: Ah! No. No.
1:10:32 AC: It’s still so, sir. It is still so.
1:10:36 K: You...?
1:10:38 AC: It is still... If you tell me the mind is infinite, I would still go through this: ‘Why do you say that? How do you prove it? What makes you think...?’ I don’t see that it’s infinite.
1:10:52 K: Which means what? The mechanical mind... the mechanical brain is tremendously active.
1:10:59 AC: Yes.
1:11:02 K: Argument, logic, reason, opposing opinions and so on; it’s moving, moving in that... you are being... you are functioning with that programme.
1:11:15 AC: Yes.
1:11:16 K: Pull the plug out. (Laughs) (Laughter)
1:11:20 AC: You are back, sir. We are back to that point.
1:11:23 K: I’m back to... of course, we are back to that point. David tells me one thing, which is the brain is infinite; because it’s infinite, it’s not personal. Ah!
1:11:46 AC: You see, sir...
1:11:48 K: Capture it?
1:11:50 AC: No sir. (Laughs) No, intellectually I capture the... You have an insight the brain is infinite; somebody says the brain is infinite, you have an insight. And then you move from that: from insight to insight, so your next insight is therefore... (inaudible) Your process – please let me call it process – is moving from insight to insight. My process (laughs) is moving from logic – maybe bad logic, assumption logic...
1:12:19 K: Good logic; yes, I understand.
1:12:21 AC: ...observation, all that. Now, I am saying that this stream and that stream...
1:12:27 K: Can’t go together.
1:12:28 AC: ...can’t go together.
1:12:29 K: Absolutely.
1:12:30 AC: I also see that this stream creates a lot of problems. And so obviously most of the time when I want this insight it is to be free of problems – though when I was asking you half an hour ago, it wasn’t. Now, you are saying that you are in this... you are telling me, ‘You are in this stream, come into... jump out...’
1:12:55 K: You can’t.
1:12:56 AC: You can’t.
1:12:59 K: No! You can’t jump out of it.
1:13:02 AC: End the stream.
1:13:03 K: Ah!
1:13:04 AC: That’s what you’re saying. And I am saying...
1:13:07 K: Pull the plug out.
1:13:08 AC: Yes, I’m saying – deeply, subconsciously, as well as consciously – that I can’t do it; it’s the only thing I know; it would be almost tantamount to committing suicide. You know, I can amplify that, use different words...
1:13:25 K: Of course, of course, of course.
1:13:28 AC: You are saying, ‘Drop the only thing you know,’ and I’m saying that I would like to do it, but I can’t.
1:13:35 K: No, no, no. (Laughs) We are getting excited about the damn stuff. I must go back. (Laughs)
1:13:50 AC: Sorry.
1:13:53 K: He’s saying... David is telling me, ‘As the brain is infinite, it’s not personal; it’s not your brain and my brain.’ That’s very clear; I’ve been saying that earlier. It’s not your brain. It’s not my brain. Right?
1:14:22 AC: Yes.
1:14:23 K: Therefore, it has nothing to do with persons.
1:14:26 AC: Yes.
1:14:28 K: You see that very clearly? Wait, wait! No, see it immediately!
1:14:33 AC: No sir. The difference between your... – please, let me explain this. I start by saying, ‘If the brain is infinite, the rest follows what you are saying.’ Whereas you are saying, ‘It’s obvious the brain is infinite, therefore this is obvious, this is obvious.’ But my if is at the beginning of the whole process...
1:14:49 K: Ah! No, because... because when he said that, I was listening to him. You follow? I wasn’t arguing it; I can argue afterwards.
1:15:04 AC: I know.
1:15:06 K: When he made that statement, I was on the top of it.
1:15:15 AC: I know.
1:15:18 K: Why? No, analyse why. I was listening; my mind was inquiring, listening, looking; and David drops a stone in that, and it... (Pause) Right? You were not listening. You were arguing: ‘Is this so?’
1:15:53 AC: You, when you say you were listening, you... did you examine that statement at all?
1:16:01 K: No.
1:16:03 AC: Whereas…
1:16:04 K: I didn’t examine it — it’s so. From that, immediately I say, ‘It’s not personal.’ Because it’s infinite, it can never be personal: brain; which the mechanical thought says, ‘My brain.’
1:16:23 AC: I follow that, sir. What you were saying is insight is perception or listening without any examination, which implies any analytical process at all.
1:16:39 K: Of course.
1:16:40 AC: But then, how can you... how do you know it’s so?
1:16:45 K: No; because from that insight you can argue logically.
1:16:52 AC: No sir. Are you saying that logic is necessary... No. If you couldn’t argue it logically, wouldn’t it still be there?
1:17:00 K: It wouldn’t be there.
1:17:01 AC: It wouldn’t be there?
1:17:02 K: No.
1:17:03 AC: Sir, you are saying you see something and you can support it with logic.
1:17:06 K: Yes.
1:17:07 AC: Then why isn’t the converse true? Why can’t you...
1:17:09 K: Ah! Course not.
1:17:11 AC: ...come to it through logic?
1:17:12 K: Logic is... Of course. Logic is brain... I mean, thought.
1:17:16 DB: Well, logic depends on assumptions. You see, if you start with logic, you are starting with your past assumptions which are wrong, right? You see, the difficulty... when you start from insight, you start from something new, a new perception; from there, you can go on to reason with the new perception. But if you start from logic, you must be starting from what you know, which is always wrong, fundamentally.
1:17:33 K: Yes, of course, of course. Move.
1:17:36 AC: I won’t accept this so easily, but... (laughs)
1:17:38 K: Of course, sir, this is simple.
1:17:39 DB: It’s bound to be wrong, anything fundamental...
1:17:42 K: You said just now, ‘Thought is limited. Thought is mechanical. Logic is mechanical.’ Right?
1:17:52 AC: Yes sir. But...
1:17:55 K: Wait. Through logic, you can’t come to the other.
1:17:58 AC: All right. That I accept.
1:18:01 K: Once you have that insight, thought can operate logically.
1:18:06 AC: All right, sir. But how far can it go...? At some point, it comes to a self-evident assertion which I know of already.
1:18:17 K: I don’t follow.
1:18:18 AC: What I mean is: sir, you’re on the top of a mountain and you can climb down to it; I’m at the bottom of the mountain. What I am saying is that either we are on parallel paths and there’s no meeting point at all, or if you can come down logically to this point, I can climb up logically to that point.
1:18:42 K: It has nothing to do with logic; the insight has nothing to do with logic.
1:18:47 AC: No, when you say it can be supported by logic later on...
1:18:51 K: No! You used the word support, I didn’t.
1:18:55 DB: I think you could say it can be unfolded logically to communicate it. It’s not really identical with the insight; it’s a way of communicating insight by a logical discussion, right?
1:19:05 K: That’s all.
1:19:06 AC: Yes, it’s a way of communicating...
1:19:07 K: Communicated in action and so on.
1:19:09 DB: Yes.
1:19:10 AC: Yes. I’m saying – please correct me if I’m wrong – you cannot communicate it logically.
1:19:17 K: Logically, you cannot communicate it. Because logic is thought.
1:19:26 AC: Exactly; so we come back: you either have it or you don’t, sir.
1:19:32 K: No!
1:19:33 DB: You see, I think that insight changes the basis on which you reason. You see, one begins by reasoning on a false basis, you see – that’s the normal basis – therefore, from where you are, you can’t get anywhere. You see? There’s no where to get from where we are to anything else. But if you have insight then that is gone, and your reasoning is coming from insight not from what you know, right?
1:19:56 AC: Yes. In fact, if you have insight, there is no reason... I mean, there’s no reason to reason it out — you have it. The reasoning process would be there only if you were trying to communicate it to somebody.
1:20:06 DB: Well, or else to work... to do... to apply it, right? If you want to apply your insight to make a computer, for example. Suppose you want, from your insight, to do something – right? – like insight into gravitation, then you might use it for something.
1:20:27 AC: To find an application for that insight you would need logic. But... sorry.
1:20:33 K: Look sir, we started out saying thought is mechanical, the computer is mechanical. Right? Right? What thought can do, the computer can do, up to a certain point. Thought is... being mechanical, it can never capture that which is non-mechanical. Insight is non-mechanical. Right? Totally non-mechanical. Now, you listen to that; don’t argue. You have argued enough now; we say thought is mechanical, the computer is mechanical, whatever thought can do, up to a certain point the computer can do: it can learn, it can re-learn, it can adjust, it can do all that kind of thing which thought can do. All based on knowledge and so on, so on. We both agreed to that. Right? Right? David tells me, ‘That’s perfectly right up to that point, but that doesn’t bring about insight.’ He tells me that. So I say, ‘All right.’ I don’t say, ‘What am I to do?’ The moment I say, ‘What am I to do?’ you’re back in the cycle. Right? He tells me that. He said, ‘See that very clearly and don’t let it... don’t move away from that.’ Right? Right? We have argued about this, this mechanical process, in and out sufficiently. We can go much more in detail and so on, but that’s... we’ve got the principle of it. Right? He says, ‘That’s all.’ Don’t move from there. Don’t say, ‘What is insight?’ If you don’t move, it’s there. I don’t know if you...
1:23:08 AC: Now I’m beginning to get... I’m beginning to get... I’m not saying I’m beginning to get it, sir, but...
1:23:14 K: No, no...!
1:23:15 AC: ...I’m beginning to see what you are saying.
1:23:16 K: Yes. (Pause)
1:23:19 AC: Are you saying you see the mechanical process of your mind and just see it, that’s all. And don’t move from it; see it.
1:23:30 K: See it.
1:23:31 AC: That’s all; no movement at all.
1:23:34 K: You see it completely. You can add little bits and little bits here and there; add, subtract, but you see thought is mechanical. (Pause) The moment you move away from that, it becomes mechanical. Right? If you see that and stop there... You understand?
1:24:21 AC: Yes, that I see: any movement away from it... (Pause) Yes. (Pause)
1:25:02 K: You see, movement is time – we discussed this with David some years ago – movement is time. Right sir? (Pause) If there is no movement of knowledge... After all, the ancient Hindus had this idea – what is it? – vedanta. Anta means to end knowledge. So we say, ‘How am I to end it?’ and, ‘I’ll practice this, do this and do that,’ which is still the same wheel going round and round. I think this exactly happened when the brother died: absolutely no moving from that...
1:26:07 AC: From that sorrow?
1:26:08 K: From that sorrow. From that shock, from that feeling; which is, he didn’t go after comfort, he didn’t go after reincarnation, he didn’t go after somebody... masters. I don’t know if you follow what I mean.
1:26:30 AC: Yes sir.
1:26:32 K: There is no other fact except that.
1:26:40 AC: And the mind stayed with that fact.
1:26:43 K: See what happens if you stay with it; what vitality you get out of it. (Pause)
1:26:57 Better stop; he’s tired. What time is it?
1:27:04 AC: Just past six.