Question: Thinking is response of memory. Cannot a conclusion be new?

Krishnamurti: I am not sure it is. Thought is the product of conclusions, memories.

Question: Darwin's thinking led to the discovery of the theory of evolution.

Krishnamurti: How does a new theory come into being? Is it the result of thought, which is a conclusion of previous thoughts?

Question: In Science, you can only arrive at truth of things by thinking.

Krishnamurti: Do you? Do you not think up to a certain point and then you suddenly jump? Does that jumping-state come because of the thinking? What we are discussing is practical. Is thought essential to that state, when the new is perceived? Is a process of conclusions and their responses necessary before there is a jump into the new? Is the old the spring-board to the new?

Question: Unless the mind has moved through the labyrinth of the old, we cannot see the new.

Krishnamurti: When do you see a new clarity, a new meaning? Is it after serious thinking and as a result of such thinking? When does the new take place? I have thought about a problem within the field of conclusions, and I cannot solve it. Suddenly the flash comes when the mind ceases to worry. Would it not come if I had not worried?

Question: If I have a conclusion not in the field of the known, the shifting to a different field is automatic. Is it ever possible to leave alone thought, till we are sure that there is nothing to be found?

Question (2): Is the process of thought essential for discovery? Would you say that a conclusion is not a discovery? Is it possible to reach a new conclusion without thinking?

Krishnamurti: I have a problem and I search for the solution in the field of the known. I investigate into the field of the known and then when my mind is exhausted, I drop it. You say that it is necessary to exhaust the known before the new is perceived.

Question: There can be application only of known facts in Science

Krishnamurti: The Scientist is dealing with the known and not the unknown. If there is a problem which cannot be dealt with in the field of conclusions, what do you do? Must we go to the field of formulas, conclusions and then get exhausted before we see the new? We understand a problem within the field of conclusions. It is simple. When the mind exhausts itself in the field of conclusions, it has dropped the problem; and then, the new comes in suddenly. You say that the new cannot come in without the previous state of investigation. Actually, you worry and worry; and suddenly you may get the new solution. You say that there must be previous investigation and examination of all the relevant facts before the new comes in.

Question: A haphazard mind can never get anything new.

Question (2): What is a new conclusion?

Krishnamurti: It is not really new but only a new view of the old. Do you not suddenly see something which is not a new arrangement or a new view of the old, but something entirely new?
Which is true? A genius may learn a technique. All great artists and geniuses have a vision. They may learn a technique or develop their own technique. Does technique lead to genius?

Question: Does effort lead to spontaneity?

Krishnamurti: Effort can never lead to spontaneity. I have a problem which cannot be answered by merely readjusting an old answer, but which requires a completely new answer. We see that a mind that is seeking a conclusion for a problem gets a conclusion and goes on creating further problems. A mind which is still and is therefore open to the new does not need to go through these stages. We are caught either in conclusion or in readjustment of old values, and therefore we are unobservant of the new.

The mind is still when it does not want a conclusion, when it is not seeking an answer. Does that stillness come into being through cultivation?