Audio | J. Krishnamurti – Saanen 1971 – Public Discus. 2 – The old must be silent to discover the…

Audio | J. Krishnamurti – Saanen 1971 – Public Discus. 2 – The old must be silent to discover the…


This is J. Krishnamurti’s second public
discussion in Saanen, 1971. Krishnamurti: We were talking over together
yesterday the question of the unconscious, conscious, and the content of consciousness
and what to do about it. Shall we go on with that? Or would you like to discuss another problem
this morning? Questioner: Go on with that. K: You are sure? Q: Yes. Q: Sir, I would like to discuss a bit more
about the relationship between intelligence and thought. And the relationship between the intelligence,
which is stillness, and death. K: Now let me get the question clear. Mr Signorini is asking, what is the relationship
between intelligence and thought, silence and death. Bene. Do you want to discuss that? Q: Yes. Q: Sir, could we go into the question of freedom. How does freedom live in a society which ever
encroaches upon it? K: I would like to discuss, he says, what
is freedom and whether freedom can exist in a modern society. Q: I personally don’t know if we have completely
finished with the question of yesterday and if we really went to the very bottom of no
divisions in life. K: The questioner said, I don’t think we
have gone sufficiently deeply into the question of the motive, the deep down intentions and
so on. I wonder if we cannot discuss this question
of consciousness more deeply by considering what is intelligence and thought, the relationship
between intelligence and thought, and perhaps if we can then go into the question of silence
and its relationship to death. But before we go into that, there are several
things involved in what we were discussing yesterday and I do not know if you have gone
deeply into it yourself and what you understood, or how much of it is a reality. We said yesterday that most of us are conditioned
by the culture, by the environment, by the food, the clothes and so on – we are conditioned. The conditioning is the content of consciousness
and consciousness is the conditioning. What relationship is thought to that conditioning,
and can there be intelligence where there is conditioning? Right, sir? Right. One is aware, if one has sufficiently examined
oneself quite objectively, not with any kind of condemnation or judgement, if one has observed
oneself one realises one is conditioned, superficially or in great depth. And is it at all possible not only to be free
of the deep conditioning, which may be the result of the family, the whole racial accumulation,
the influences which have not been obvious but nevertheless have penetrated very deeply,
whether the mind can ever be free of all that. That is one question. And if it is conditioned can the mind unconditional
itself totally? Or – this may be a relevant question – can
the mind prevent itself, not through resistance, from being conditioned ever? You follow? There are these two things which you have
to examine this morning. In relation to thought and intelligence, and
what is said also with regard to silence and death. We’ll go into, if we can, cover this whole
field. Is that all right, signor? Q: Bene. K: I am sorry you are going away today. Why does the mind ever get conditioned? Is it so sensitive, so capable of being hurt,
it is like a tender delicate thing, and in relationship it gets invariably hurt, invariably
conditioned, and whether that conditioning is ever possibly to be washed away. So, one realises the mind is conditioned,
the brain itself is conditioned – time evolved through centuries upon centuries, and the
brain is the storehouse of memory. You can watch it yourself, you don’t have
to read philosophical or psychological books, at least I don’t, so you may. And it
is always responding, the brain which has evolved through time, which is the past, which
is the accumulation of memory, experience, knowledge, responds to any challenge instantly
according to its conditioning, superficially or in depth. I think this is clear. Now can that response from the past be delayed
so that there is an interval between the challenge and the response? It is not so difficult, is it? That is, one has been brought up – I am
taking a very, very superficial conditioning – in a particular culture, in a particular
belief or pattern, and when that belief or pattern is questioned there is instant response
according to the background of the person. I am asking, can that response be delayed
so that there is an interval between the challenge and the response. That is fairly simple, isn’t it, no? No? Q: Yes. K: You tell me I am a fool – my response
is immediate, calling you, ‘You are another’, or getting angry with you, or this or that. Now, when you call me a fool, can there be
an interval between your calling me and my responding, a space – right? – so that the brain is quiet enough to respond
in a different way? Am I making my… Q: Yes. Q: (Inaudible) K: Just let me… Hold on a minute sir, hold on, one moment. The brain responds all the time according
to its conditioning, according to various forms of stimuli, it is always active. The brain is the response of time, memory,
it is the content of it. Right? In the brain the whole past is contained. If the brain can hold itself and not respond
immediately then there is a possibility of a new response. Right? Q: But this time itself is responsive. K: No sir, you are missing my point. Don’t pick me up in words, just look at
the meaning for the moment. The brain operates in the old habits established
by the culture I live in, or by the past racial inheritance and so on. That responds all the time – judging, evaluating,
believing, not believing, discussing, getting angry, violent, prejudiced – that is its
response all the time to any stimuli – protecting, denying and so on. I am asking myself whether that brain can
momentarily be in abeyance and not respond instantly. Right? I am asking, I don’t know, I am going to
find out. The brain cannot be denied of its past knowledge,
it must have past knowledge – I don’t know if you are meeting all this – otherwise
it can’t function. So I am asking myself – myself being… I am asking whether that brain which is the
old, will allow itself to be quiet so that a new part can operate. Right? When you flatter me the old brain says, ‘How
lovely’. But can the old brain listen to what you say,
the flattery, and not respond so that perhaps a new movement can take place? Right? Right, sir? That new movement can only take place when
there is silence – right? – not the machinery operating in terms of
the past. Is that clear? Q: Yes. K: No, clear in the sense watch yourself,
sir, otherwise it is no fun. I am not explaining for myself, we are working
together. I find when one examines one’s activities,
the old brain is always responding – as a Catholic, as a Protestant, whatever it is,
all according to its limited knowledge, to its tradition, to its racial inheritance,
and when that is operating nothing new can take place. Right? Now I want to find out whether that brain
can be quiet, the old brain, so that a new movement can take place. Right? I want to find out. I can only find out when in relationship with
another, watching the old brain in operation – right? – and the old brain understands
the truth that it must be quiet in order a new operation can take place. The brain is not forcing itself to be quiet. If it is forcing itself to be quiet then it
is the operation of the past still. In that there is division, there is conflict,
there is discipline, all the rest of it. But if the old brain understands or sees the
fact, the truth that as long as it is in constant response to any stimuli it must operate along
the old lines. If that brain, the old brain sees the truth
of that then that old brain becomes quiet. It is the truth that brings about the quietness,
not the intention to be quiet. Have you – get it? Q: Yes. K: Because you see sir, it is very interesting
this question because one finds there are certain brains that are
never conditioned. You say, ‘How do you know?’ Naturally. I only know it because it has happened to
the speaker. You may not believe it, or disbelieve it. Just take the fact. I am asking why the brain must always be functioning
in this old pattern. If it is not functioning in its old pattern
it sets a new pattern according to its memories and setting a new pattern in opposition to
the old. Right? Aren’t you following all this? No? Q: How do you know that you have not been
conditioned? K: Oh lord! You see you have gone… I ought not to have brought that in. I thought you couldn’t get it. It doesn’t matter, leave it for the moment,
we’ll come to that. You see we only use a very, very small part
of the brain – right? – and that small part is the past. There must be and there is parts of the brain
which has not functioned at all, which are open, empty, new. Right? Do you know anything about it? No sir, don’t agree to this. We only know the old brain in operation, when
you are at all conscious of it. Now we are asking whether that old brain can
be still to a stimuli so that a new response can come out. That’s my question. I know… one knows the old brain either superficially
or in depth is conditioned. Right? There is no question about that. Right? Is there any doubt? Q: But how can you speak of conditioning if
you say you are not conditioned? K: Don’t bother about me, sir. I said leave it, throw it out in the wastepaper
basket. Let’s start. You see you are going back to something which
you haven’t understood. You will understand perhaps. Don’t bring that in. If I brought that in, I am sorry. Forget it. I am asking myself, the old brain is constantly
active, and responding according to its background, its conditioning. And the next question is, how can that brain
which has been so conditioned not always respond to any stimuli, hold back a little? Right? Hold back a little. Can I go on? You seem to be so lost. Q: No sir, it is very clear. K: Very clear? Q: Yes. K: Thank god. And one finds when there is the necessity,
the urgency, and the importance of this question is vital, the brain does hold back – right?
– the old brain, so that a new quality of the brain which has never been touched, operates. This has happened, sir, this is not my only
experience. Any top scientist – top scientist, not a
scientist who is a slave to government – but top scientists free from government and environment,
and the desire for success, position, those are not scientists at all, they are merchants
– but the scientist who is free of government and the demands of government and so on, he
must have asked this question because how does he discover new things? If the old brain is in operation all the time
it can’t discover anything new. So, it is only when the old brain is quiet
something new is seen. Right? Like the man who invented the jet, though
he had tremendous knowledge of the piston, internal combustion machinery, though he knew
it all he had to find something new, and therefore the old brain said, ‘All right I’ll keep
quiet with all my knowledge I have acquired, I am going to look’, which means the old
brain must be quiet, and in that quiet state something new is discovered. Right? This is a fact, you don’t have to fight
with me. Now without forcing the brain how can that
quietness come, and the brain voluntarily is quiet? You have understood, sir? I want to find out whether the brain sees
the truth that as long as it functions in the old pattern it can never discover anything
new. It can discover something new only when it
sees the truth that the old cannot find anything new and therefore the old becomes quiet. The truth makes it quiet not it wishes to
be quiet. Right? If that is very clear, then can that quietness
operate all the time and not the old conditioning, and the old conditioning with its knowledge
operates only when it is necessary? Have you got my question rightly? Q: Yes. K: Have you got my question? Q: You say operate all the time, sir? K: All the time. Q: Does that bring a conflict? K: No. Please, just listen sir. I don’t say it must – I want to find out,
I am enquiring. I am not saying it must be quiet. I see the old brain must operate. Right? Otherwise I can’t go home, otherwise I can’t
speak English, drive a car, recognise you. Right? The old brain must operate, functionally,
and as long as the old brain is not quiet no new thing can be seen – as I explained. Right? Have you gone to sleep? (Laughter) You are following? Audience: Yes. K: Good. I am asking myself, what is the relationship
between the new quality of the brain which functions in quietness and its relationship
with the old? The old is thought. Right? The old is the collection of memories and
any response according to that memory is thought, and that thought must function otherwise you
can’t do anything. Q: Sir, aren’t you making divisions? K: No, no, it is not, it is not. No. No. No, it is not division. It is like a house, it is like the tent. The tent is a whole thing but there are divisions
in it. Q: And yesterday there weren’t… K: No, no, no. You are wrong sir. You are missing the whole point. You haven’t moved. Oh lord! You have got it, sir? Q: Give an example. K: Don’t give examples, sir – I am lost
with examples. I have found two things, sir. We have discovered two things. That the old brain is the conditioned brain,
which has accumulated knowledge through centuries upon centuries. That is the old brain we’ll call that for
the moment. It is just giving it a name, nothing more,
just giving it a name, not dividing as the old and the new, its just to convey the meaning
that there is this whole structure of brain, one part of that is the old, which doesn’t
mean it is separate from the new. It is different. Q: But yesterday you said that from the unconscious… K: Wait sir, we come back to that. We’ll come back to the whole business of
consciousness. I am not contradicting myself. If I am contradicting myself from what I said
yesterday, I will tell you I am contradicting. I am not such a silly person. I will go into it. Now I am saying to myself, I see this factor,
that if the old brain is in operation nothing new can be discovered. The new can only be discovered when the old
is quiet. And the old can only be quiet when it sees
the truth that the new cannot be discovered by the old. Right? When the old sees the truth of that then it
is quiet. Right? Are we together? Q: Yes. K: Now, it has been proved by scientists,
by others, that a new thing can be discovered only when the old is silent. Right? That is, when the old knows all the knowledge
of internal combustion machinery, when it wants to discover something new the old must
obviously be quiet. Now we have discovered this fact. The old must be naturally quiet to discover
something new. Right, sir? Q: Yes. K: Right? Q: Is the discovery made by the new or the
old? K: Is the discovery made by the new or the
old. Q: (Inaudible) K: That’s enough, that’s enough… Is the discovery made by the new or by the
old? Q: By neither of them. K: Answer it, sir. My brain – you see – now wait a minute! My brain says, ‘I really don’t know whether
it comes or not, I am going to find out’. Right? You have asked a question, which is, does
the old brain recognise the new – right, madame? – or does the new use the old? You follow that, sir? Just, sir, you don’t enter into this because
you haven’t followed… Q: (Inaudible) K: No, therefore keep quiet. You haven’t entered into it at all. Q: (Inaudible) K: The old brain is quiet because it has understood
completely that it can never discover anything new, no new thing can happen. We won’t even use the word ‘discover’. No new movement can take place if the old
is constantly in operation. The old sees the fact of that and is quiet. And a new… a new happening takes place. That happening, is it recognised by the old? Or that very happening opens the door for
the old to utilise it. Q: Is that so? K: Lord, you are stuck in here, aren’t you,
all of you? Look sir, this is really quite important. It is really quite important, if you will
forgive me saying so, even if you don’t follow it, this is really quite important
because I want to find a new way of living, a totally new way of living. And I realise the old way of living is terrible,
ugly, brutal, violent and all the rest of it, the old way. I must find a new way – not a way, a new
dimension which is unrelated to the old. Right? Any movement on the part of the old to discover
a different dimension is not possible. So that old realises this, any movement from
it cannot possibly discover a new dimension, so it becomes quiet. Right? Now what takes place in that quietness? Let’s proceed along that way. What takes place when the old brain has understood
that it cannot find a new dimension, what takes place when it has realised that? Right? What takes place? I am asking, what takes place, sir? You talk so much, tell me. Q: Listening. Just listening. Just look, listen… K: What takes place? Q: The old brain remembers. It is committed to memory. K: No, sir. No, sir. Q: It lives in order. K: All that is memory, word, response, trying
to capture the new is still part of the old. And I said when the old has understood that
no new thing it can discover, it naturally becomes quiet. That is a fact. Right? That is a fact, not an invention. Now what takes place when the old brain is
absolutely quiet? That is my next question. Q: (Inaudible) K: No, don’t invent, sir. Unless you experience this don’t guess. Q: Action. K: The gentleman says, action. I don’t know what you mean. Q: (Inaudible) K: Now wait a minute. When the old brain is quiet, the gentleman
says there is space. Wait a minute, let’s examine it. What do you mean by space? Q: An emptiness. K: Emptiness. Right? When the old brain is completely quiet, we
are asking what takes place. Right? Sir, please don’t invent, don’t guess. Observe. Is your old brain quiet? Q: No. K: I’m gone off. Q: But can you ask that question? If the old brain is quiet, can you ask that
question? K: I am asking you. May be a wrong question but we must find out. Q: Surely it cannot ask that question because… K: Sir, I am… Somebody… Sir, don’t… Q: A truth. Find a truth. K: No, no, madame. Q: (Inaudible) K: I am sorry, I can’t hear. If somebody has heard, please repeat. Q: (Inaudible) K: He is saying – just listen to what he
is saying – when the old brain is quiet perhaps a new part of the brain which has
not been used comes into operation. Just listen to it! Right? That is, we are only functioning with a very
small part of our brain. And when that small part of the brain is quiet
the rest of the brain may be active. Or it has been active all the time but we
don’t know that it is active because one part which has accumulated knowledge, tradition,
time, that is always active, super-active and therefore we don’t know the other part
at all – which may also have its own activity. Right? Are you following this? So. This is really a very interesting question. Please give your mind to this little bit,
don’t go off, say ‘I don’t understand’, and just drop it. Apply it. You see, having used the old brain so much
we have never considered any other thing… any other part of that brain. And what is that part which is so… which
is always… which may have a quality of a different dimension? And I said that quality of a different dimension
can be discovered when the old brain is really quiet. That’s all my… You follow? When the old brain is completely quiet, not
made quiet, but naturally it has understood that it must be quiet and therefore it is
quiet, when it has understood that, then we can find out what takes place when that old
brain is absolutely quiet. Right, sir? Now, I am going to investigate, not you. Right? Because your old brain is not quiet. Right? Would you agree to that? You don’t know… I mean, it has not understood the necessity
of being completely quiet under any stimuli, except of course physical stimuli, that is
if you put a pin into my leg it will respond, naturally. But as nobody is putting a pin into my leg,
I can… the old brain can be quiet. Right? Now I want to find out what is the quality
of the new brain. Right? The quality which the old brain cannot recognise. Right? If it is able to recognise the new, then it
is part of the old. Right? Because the old brain cannot recognise anything
which it has not experienced, which is not the outcome of memory. Right? Therefore when the old brain recognises then
it is still the old. Right? Is that clear? So, I am asking, what is the new? The old brain doesn’t know anything about
it, therefore it can only say, ‘I really don’t know’. Right? Let’s proceed from there. Some of you follow this. The old brain says, ‘I really can’t touch
this and I really don’t know’. Because I cannot touch it, because I cannot
recognise it, I am not going to be deceived by it – right? – I know nothing about it. Right? I absolutely know nothing about the new dimension
of the new brain. Right? So when the old brain is quiet and is incapable
of recognition, and therefore it can only say, ‘I really don’t know’. Right? Can the old brain remain in that state of
not-knowing? Right, sir? Because it has said, all my life I have functioned
with knowledge and recognition, all my life in functioning that way I have said I know
in terms of what I do not know, which I will learn, but always within the pattern of knowing. Now it says, ‘I really don’t know because
something new is taking place. I really don’t know’. The new cannot be recognised, therefore I
have no relationship to it yet. I am going to find out. Is this so far – or can we go on a little
bit? Now what is the brain that says, I do not
know, the nature of not knowing – you follow, sir? – the nature of not knowing, what is
that? When there is a state of not knowing is there
fear in it? Which is death. You follow, sir? When the old brain actually says, I don’t
know, it has relinquished all knowing. Right? Q: Yes. K: All knowing – don’t say, madame – this
is the most… It has relinquished altogether the intention
of knowing, of wanting to know. So there is a field in which the old brain
cannot function because it doesn’t know. Right? Now what is that field? Right? Can that field ever be described? It can be described only when the old brain
recognises it and verbalises it, to communicate. Right, sir? So there is a field in which the old brain
cannot possibly enter and this is not an invention, this is not a theory, this is a fact when
the old brain says, ‘I really don’t know a thing about all this’. Which means there is no intention to learn
about the new thing. You see the difference, sir? So. Now I want to find out, non-verbally, because
the moment I use a word I am back in the old. Therefore is there an understanding of something
new non-verbally? You follow? Non-verbally in the sense of not inventing
a new word, or the intention to describe it so as to capture it and hold it. So I am just enquiring, the mind is looking
at it, looking at something of which it does not know at all. Right? Is that possible? You understand my question? I have always looked at something in terms
of learning about it, resisting it, avoiding it, escaping from it, or overcoming it. Now it is doing nothing of that kind. Is that possible? You understand? If it is not possible you cannot possibly
understand the other. Right, sir? Bene? Q: (Inaudible) K: I don’t know. What is the something which the brain cannot…
which the old brain cannot possibly understand, and therefore the old brain cannot possibly
know or acquire knowledge about – is there such thing? Or is it still an invention of the old brain
wanting something new to happen? Right? If it is the old brain wanting something new
to happen it is still part of the old brain. Now I have examined it completely so that
the old brain has understood its structure and nature and therefore it is absolutely
still, not wanting to know. That is where the difficulty lies. Q: Sir… (inaudible) …it’s only love. K: Don’t, sir, don’t use words. You are missing the whole thing. I am so sorry. This should be discussed really with very,
very, very few who go into this. It doesn’t matter, we will go on. You see, when you disturb, it breaks. Is there something real, not imagined, not
invented, not a theory, something which the old brain cannot possibly understand or recognise
or want to understand? Is there anything like that? For the speaker there is, and therefore that
has no value. Right? He may be illuding himself, deluding himself,
wanting to sit on the platform – it has no value. But it has value in the sense only for you
to discover it. Right? Therefore you have to find out what is the
relationship – please listen – what is the relationship of the new, if you see the
new, to the old, and as the old must operate in life, objectively, sanely, non-personally
therefore efficiently, what is the relationship of the new to the old? Does the old capture the new and therefore
live a different life? Or the new operates in a way that the old
cannot possibly recognise and that operation is the new way of living? You have got it, sir? Q: Yes. K: No, just a minute, sir. Go slowly, take time, sir, look. This brain has lived for thousands of years,
this old brain, with its consciousness; the consciousness of the old brain is its content. Its content may have been acquired superficially
or in depth, and that is the old brain, with all the knowledge, with all the experience
of centuries upon centuries of human endeavour, evolution. And when it is functioning within that field
of consciousness it can never discover anything new. That is an absolute fact, not a theory. And so any enquiry into freedom, into what
love is, into what death is – you follow? – of which we know nothing, except jealousy,
envy, fear, which are all part of the old content. This old brain then realising its utter limitation
becomes quiet because it has found there is no freedom in it. Right? And because it has found no freedom in it
a new part of the brain is in operation. I don’t know if you see that. Look sir, I have been going south, thinking
I am going north, and suddenly it discovers south is not north at all. At the moment of discovery there is a total
reversion. The reversion is not of the old, it is completely
reversed. Right? It is neither going north or south, it is
moving totally in a different direction. Right? That is when it discovers that its movement
can never bring about freedom, at that moment of discovery there is a totally different
movement, which is freedom. I don’t know if you get this. I don’t know how much you have understood,
I am awfully sorry. Q: Sir, could you discuss the difference between
the intensity to find out and the desire of the old for the new. K: Intensity to find out or the desire of
the old for the new. That we have gone into, sir. The desire of the old for the new is still
the old, therefore the desire for the new or the experience for the new – call it
enlightenment, god, what you like, it is still part of the old, therefore that’s out. Q: Krishnaji, do you realise that you have
been speaking of the most highest philosophy, and that here we are not even able to have
the smallest relationship with each other. K: Do you realise that you have been talking
of a highest philosophy and at the same time do you know that we have hardly any relationship
with each other. Q: Who are we? K: We have been through that, sir. We are monkeys. (Laughter) Look sir, look sir what you said:
you are talking of the highest philosophy – no, it is not talking of the highest philosophy,
it is the pure thing, but that doesn’t matter – and you say you are talking of the highest
philosophy and yet do you realise that we have no relationship with each other. If you realise that you have actually no relationship
with each other – actually not theoretically – that your relationship with another cannot
exist as long as the old brain is in operation – right? – because the old brain functions
in images, pictures, past incidence, and when the past incidence, happenings, images, knowledge,
is strong then relationship comes to an end, obviously – no? No? If I have built an image about you, who are
my wife, or my friend, my girl or whatever it is, and that image, that knowledge, which
is the past, obviously prevents relationship. Relationship means direct contact, immediately
at the present, at the same level, with the same intensity, with the same passion. And that passion, intensity at the same level
cannot exist if I have an image about you and you have an image about me. Full stop. It is for you to see if you have an image
about somebody else. Obviously you have. Therefore apply, work to find out. That is if you really want a relationship
with another – which I doubt anybody does because we are all so terribly selfish, enclosed,
and if you really want a relationship with another you have to understand this whole
structure of the past, which is what we have been doing. And when that is gone you have a relationship
which is totally new all the time. And that relationship new is love, not the
old – you know, beating the drum. Now, you see. You see, sir, what is the relationship of
love, which is the new, which is the different dimension, which is not known, which cannot
be captured by the old, what is the relationship of that in daily life? Right? That’s my question, hold to it. What is the relationship of that quality of
that dimension to my everyday life? I have discovered that dimension, it has happened,
because I have said the old brain can never be free, therefore the old brain is incapable
of finding out what truth is. Therefore the old brain says, my whole structure
is of time therefore I’ll function only with regard to that which has time – machinery,
language, all the rest of it, but the other part I will be completely still. Right? And what is the relationship between the two? Has the old any relationship with freedom,
love, the unknown? Right? If it has relationship – please listen – if
it has relationship with the unknown then it is part of the old – if it has relationship
– you follow? But if the unknown has relationship with the
old then it is quite a different proposition – I don’t know if you see that. Bene? Are we meeting each other somewhere? Q: Yes we are. K: My question is, what is the relationship
between these two? And who wants relationship? You are following? Who is demanding this relationship? Is the old demanding the relationship? Right? If the old is demanding it then it is part
of the old, therefore it has no relationship with the other. Right? I don’t know whether you see the beauty
of this. The old has no relationship with freedom,
with love, with this dimension. But the dimension, love, that new, can have
a relationship with it, but not the other way round. See, sir, see it do you? The – whatever it is. So my question then is, the next step is:
what is the action in life, daily life, when the old has no relationship with the new but
the new is establishing relationship as it moves in life. You have understood this, my question? I have… the mind has discovered something
new. How is that new going to operate in the field
of the known? Right? In the field of the known is the old brain
with all its activity – you follow? – how is that going to operate? Q: (Inaudible) K: He says that is where intelligence comes
in. Now wait a minute sir, perhaps you are right. When the old brain sees that it can never
understand what freedom is – right? – when it sees that it is incapable of discovering
something new, the very perception that it cannot is the seed of intelligence, isn’t
it? Right? That is intelligence – says, I can’t do. I thought I could do a lot of things, and
I can in a certain direction, but in a totally new direction I can’t do anything. The discovery of that, the experience… the
seeing of that is intelligence, obviously. Now, what is the relationship of that intelligence
to the other? Is the other part of this extraordinary sense
of intelligence? Right? Now I want to find out what we mean by that
word ‘intelligence’ – the mind mustn’t be caught by words, or the root meaning of
the word ‘intelligence’, so I am just enquiring. Obviously the old brain, all these centuries,
thought it could do, it could have its god, its freedom – everything it wanted. And suddenly discovers that any movement of
the old is still part of the old, therefore intelligence is the understanding that it
cannot function… it can only function within the field of the known. Right? The discovery of that is intelligence, we
say. Now what is that intelligence, what is its
relationship to life, to a dimension of which the old brain doesn’t know? Have you got it? You see, intelligence is not personal, isn’t
the outcome of argument, belief, opinion, reason. Intelligence comes into being when the brain
discovers its fallibility, when it discovers what it is capable of and what it is not capable
of. The discovery of its capacity and incapacity
is intelligence. Now that intelligence… what is the relationship
between that intelligence and this new dimension? Right? Its relationship – wait I have got it, just
give me a minute, will you? I would not use the word ‘relationship’. The new dimension… the different dimension
can only operate through intelligence. Right? If there is not that intelligence it cannot
operate. Right, sir? So, in daily life – I have got it, see how
it works out sir, beautifully – so in daily life it can only operate where intelligence
is functioning. Intelligence cannot function when there is
the old operation, old brain is active, when there is any form of neurotic or non-neurotic
belief and adherence to any particular fragment of the brain. Right? All that is lack of intelligence. The man who believes in god is not intelligent. The man who says there is only one saviour
– not intelligent. The man who says I belong to this group – Jew,
Hindu, Muslim – is not intelligent, and therefore that cannot operate. It is only the man that discovers the limitation
of the old and the very discovery of that is intelligence, and only when that intelligence
is functioning can the new dimension operate through it. Full stop. Good morning. Have you got it? (Clapping) No, don’t clap, please. Don’t, this isn’t… this isn’t fun. Have you got some of it? Q: Yes. Q: A question, please. Is it possible to have a question? I don’t agree completely with you… (inaudible) …but you need also secondary
intelligence, that is the ability to integrate what is new in the old world. K: Sir, that is what takes place when there
is that intelligence. The new – I won’t use the word ‘integrate’
– the new operates when there is that intelligence which is not only primary but which is fundamental. Q: (Inaudible) K: Yes sir, I understand that. Q: (Inaudible) K: I understand, sir – chance, random, yes. Q: And I want to see what do you think about
this relation between what you call completely new and what is random in my experiences. K: I understand, sir. He is a professor. The professor says, random, the happening,
the chance, what is that, what is its relationship to something totally new. That is what he is asking, if I have understood
it rightly. The mathematical chance, the possibilities,
the random, the unexpected happening, like tossing a coin, head or tail, not knowing,
he says, what is that and what is its relationship to something which is totally new? That’s right, sir? Q: Yes. K: I don’t know. That is, there are events in one’s life,
happenings, that appear to be a chance, happens by chance. Events that occur in random, you know, not
knowing, it happens. Is that happening new, totally unexpected,
or is that happening the result of unexamined, hidden, unconscious events? Just a minute, just a minute. I happen to meet you, by chance. Is that chance at all, or it has happened
because certain unconscious, unknown events that has brought us together? Which we may consider chance but it is not
chance at all. I meet you. I didn’t know you existed, and in the meeting
something has taken place between us. And that may be the result of a great many
other events of which we are not conscious and we may then say, this is a random event,
this is a chance, unexpected, it is totally new. I don’t think – it may not be that at
all. And is there chance in life at all, a happening
which hasn’t a cause? Or all events in life have their basic deep
causes, of which we may not know, and therefore we may say our meeting is by chance, it is
a random event. And the cause undergoes a change when there
is an effect. The effect becomes the cause. Right? You understand? There is the cause, there is the effect, and
the effect becomes the cause for the next effect. So cause-effect is a constant chain, it is
not one cause, one effect. It is undergoing constant change. Each cause, each effect changes its next cause,
next effect. Right? So as this is going on in life, is there anything
which is unexpected, chance, an event random? What do you say, sirs? Q: The earlier statement, it may be random. Q: (Inaudible) K: The gentleman says the whole thing is based
on causality. I don’t think life works that way. The cause, sir, becomes the effect, and the
effect becomes cause – you can see this is life. So we can never say, cause, effect and there
it is. And the doctor, professor said there, he said
what is the relationship of the unknown, not the sense of new dimension, to this chance
events, to a causality… Q: The unknown is outside the relativity… K: I don’t know. He and you discuss, sir, but I know nothing
about all this. I am talking about my human relationship,
human beings, not mathematical problems and chances and events, and the mathematical order
– and mathematics is order – all that doesn’t seem to affect our daily living. We are concerned about our daily living and
to bring about a change in that daily living, the way we behave. And if our behaviour is based on the past
it is still… it brings conflict, misery – that is all we are talking about. I am sorry I have to stop, I can’t go on.

About the Author: Garret Beatty

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *