Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
General Discussion | moderated by Dev Singh

Are we really "progressing" in our understanding?


Displaying posts 121 - 150 of 206 in total
Thu, 16 May 2019 #121
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 539 posts in this forum Offline

One Self wrote:
The problem is that intelligence which is neither personal or impersonal is not operating in the world

If it is intelligence saying so, then intelligence is NOT prevented from “operating in the world”, then intelligence is not denied. It is acting and so there is seeing and understanding. Intelligence, being non-personal, doesn’t THINK it is intelligent. It acts without stepping back and assessing its own actions. Intelligence acts without conceptually separating itself from the whole, without self-image. It is not personal, not "mine" or "yours".

Or is it ignorance which is saying that intelligence is not operating in the world? Does ignorance - not being intelligent - HAVE the ability to see that intelligence is not operating in relationship, in society? Ignorance thinks that “IT is” or “I am” intelligent, that intelligence is an attribute of "me" and so it blames “the problem” on “others”. Ignorance does not see the fact. It sees its images and ideas.

One Self wrote:
It is ignorance that is needed to be understood.

I agree. So isn’t ignorance our psychological conditioning - which is the illusion that there is a separate self independent from the brain? Under this illusion, the mind views relationship from a self-defensive, self-centred, self-isolating, conflictual, comparative, judgmental perspective of “me against the world”. Isn’t that more or less ignorance? Can the ignorant mind see the process, the movements of its own ignorance? Isn’t such perception or understanding the dawning of intelligence which is not self-centred, non-personal, non-confrontational, non-reactive, not based on the past, on knowledge, fear, attachment, desire, and so on?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 16 May 2019 #122
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 862 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Intelligence acts without conceptually separating itself from the whole, without self-image. It is not personal, not "mine" or "yours".

Hello Huguette. What you say above may be true. This is not a criticism, but I wonder if you have actually discovered for yourself the truth of this statement. It just sounds to me more like a theory rather than something that we have direct experience of. I may well be wrong about that and perhaps this really is something that you have found out for yourself.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 16 May 2019 #123
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 539 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
What you say above may be true.

What deeply matters to you and me is understanding directly whether this is true, isn’t it? How can anyone "know” for himself or herself whether this or anything else is true? Can the mind look at this question with intensity and actually see for itself whether or not intelligence acts without "separating itself"? Isn’t it seen that "separating itself" is what thought does when it is under the illusion that “I’m smarter (or stupider) than you are”? So DOES intelligence separate itself? Is that what you see? That it does? If it does, is it intelligence?

I don't want to convince anyone that what I say is so or that I have discovered anything. It is not a static conclusion. It is something I see. I may be wrong. There is no certainty about it. Maybe you also have discovered it and don't realize it! Discovering it is not an accomplishment. It does not indicate that either you or I is intelligent.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 16 May 2019 #124
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1300 posts in this forum Online

We can inquire into what intelligence is. Will start by looking into what that word means in the dictionary and from there we can go into what Mr krishnamurti said about it and then going beyond. This going beyond is as important as the explanation is.As always the explanation of intelligence is never the thing. The word is never the thing.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 16 May 2019 #125
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5659 posts in this forum Offline

One Self wrote:
The word is never the thing.

Aside from the fact that the above statement is making something K pointed out a cliché which the poster may not understand, if the "word is never the thing" then why look it up in the dictionary?

Your plan for examining "intelligence" seems like a rambling blue-print leading to irrelevancy based on thought and opinion.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 17 May 2019 #126
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1300 posts in this forum Online

intelligence
Also found in: Thesaurus, Medical, Legal, Financial, Acronyms, Idioms, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia.
Related to intelligence: intelligence test, military intelligence
in·tel·li·gence (?n-t?l??-j?ns)
n.
1. The ability to acquire, understand, and use knowledge: a person of extraordinary intelligence.
2.
a. Information, especially secret information gathered about an actual or potential enemy or adversary.
b. The gathering of such information: "Corporate intelligence relies on a slew of tools, some sophisticated, many quite basic" (Neil King and Jess Bravin).
c. An agency or organization whose purpose is to gather such information: an officer from military intelligence.
3. An intelligent, incorporeal being, especially an angel.
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
intelligence (?n?t?l?d??ns)
n
1. (Psychology) the capacity for understanding; ability to perceive and comprehend meaning
2. good mental capacity: a person of intelligence.
3. old-fashioned news; information
4. (Military) military information about enemies, spies, etc
5. (Military) a group or department that gathers or deals with such information
6. (often capital) an intelligent being, esp one that is not embodied
7. (Military) (modifier) of or relating to intelligence: an intelligence network.
[C14: from Latin intellegentia, from intellegere to discern, comprehend, literally: choose between, from inter- + legere to choose]
in?telli?gential adj
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014
in•tel

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 17 May 2019 #127
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1300 posts in this forum Online

I don't think that I need write what Mr Krishnamurti said about the word 'intelligence' . We can all use jkrishnamurti.org .

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 17 May 2019 #128
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1300 posts in this forum Online

Positive and pleasurable thinking has brought human beings to a dead end that we are facing in the present state of the world. The positive and hopeful thinkers are in actuality the enemy of mankind but it takes intelligence to realize that. And I don't expect us to be intelligent people in this site...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 17 May 2019 #129
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1300 posts in this forum Online

People who create images in other people are evil . I don't know what else I can tell about those who deliberately and consciously strengthen their own selves by advocating falsehoods ....

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 17 May 2019 #130
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 862 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
How can anyone "know” for himself or herself whether this or anything else is true?

Hello again Huguette. I think the truth about a lot of what Krishnamurti says can be seen to be true through observation. For example, when he talks about attachment we can see in our own lives that what he is saying is indeed what we have gone through, what we have experienced. If this wasn't the case, I don't suppose Krishnamurti's teachings would mean very much to us all.

Huguette . wrote:
Can the mind look at this question with intensity and actually see for itself whether or not intelligence acts without "separating itself"?

To be honest, this question doesn't really make much sense to me. Maybe that's my problem or maybe we are jumping too far ahead. Perhaps giving an example might make things clearer if you're interested in going into this.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 17 May 2019 #131
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5659 posts in this forum Offline

One Self wrote:
And I don't expect us to be intelligent people in this site...

In your preoccupation with intelligence you seem to believe that if you gather enough information, enough facts that you will, in time, arrive at a conclusion of what "intelligence" is. And then that conclusion becomes a belief, a concept, a dead thing that you store away in your memory. And, all this is based on thought which is limited. Though is limited because what we know is limited. Therefore any conclusions based on thought will be limited. Is the intelligence K often spoke of the result of thought?

Can intelligence be understood this way? To set a goal, to come to a conclusion? Or is intelligence, in part, the absence of all of this? K seems to suggest that intelligence is not the product of thought, not related to thought but rather maybe the ending of thought.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Fri, 17 May 2019 #132
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 539 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
I think the truth about a lot of what Krishnamurti says can be seen to be true through observation. For example, when he talks about attachment we can see in our own lives that what he is saying is indeed what we have gone through, what we have experienced. If this wasn't the case, I don't suppose Krishnamurti's teachings would mean very much to us all.

Sean,

You say that observation can reveal the truth about attachment and other things because you and I can look inwardly and see that what K says is there to be seen in our consciousness. We know it is so because it is seen. So, for example, we can see directly the source and nature of attachment in ourselves - fear, desire, time, the thinking processes which put attachment together. And this observation or perception is not one part of thought/self looking at another part of thought/self. This observation is not the action of one fragment of thought/self which has separated itself from another fragment. Then isn’t perception of the truth the action of intelligence? And does this intelligence separate itself into fragments or images? It doesn’t, does it? Observation is not fragmentary, it is not made of images, thoughts or ideas, is it?

Like I said, I'm not trying to convince you if it doesn't make sense to you. We can leave it at that if you want to.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 17 May 2019 #133
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 862 posts in this forum Offline

Hi again Huguette. Thanks for the latest reply.

Huguette . wrote:
You say that observation can reveal the truth about attachment and other things because you and I can look inwardly and see that what K says is there to be seen in our consciousness. We know it is so because it is seen. So, for example, we can see directly the source and nature of attachment in ourselves - fear, desire, time, the thinking processes which put attachment together. And this observation or perception is not one part of thought/self looking at another part of thought/self. This observation is not the action of one fragment of thought/self which has separated itself from another fragment. Then isn’t perception of the truth the action of intelligence?

Well, I think there has to be a certain clarity of seeing and an understanding to see the truth of what Krishnamurti pointed out about attachment. It does seem to be a certain kind of intelligence.

Huguette . wrote:
And does this intelligence separate itself into fragments or images? It doesn’t, does it? Observation is not fragmentary, it is not made of images, thoughts or ideas, is it?

All I can say is that for most of us, this clarity of seeing and understanding is not present all the time. You could say that this intelligence doesn't act all the time. When a thought arises, our minds do not see or understand quickly enough that thought is present. This means that we often don't act in an intelligent way. I would say that for most of us, this is where we are.

Huguette . wrote:
Like I said, I'm not trying to convince you if it doesn't make sense to you. We can leave it at that if you want to.

I wasn't under the impression that you were trying to convince me. I'm very happy to continue with this if you are.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 17 May 2019 #134
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 539 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
Well, I think there has to be a certain clarity of seeing and an understanding to see the truth of what Krishnamurti pointed out about attachment. It does seem to be a certain kind of intelligence.

Can there BE clarity of seeing, and understanding of the truth of the matters that we look into here, if intelligence is not operating? In these matters, is there one kind of intelligence for one thing and another kind of intelligence for another thing? Or is there only intelligence which is impersonal - not your intelligence or my intelligence?

Sean Hen wrote:
All I can say is that for most of us, this clarity of seeing and understanding is not present all the time. You could say that this intelligence doesn't act all the time. When a thought arises, our minds do not see or understand quickly enough that thought is present. This means that we often don't act in an intelligent way. I would say that for most of us, this is where we are.

Yes, it is observed that we alternate between attention and inattention.

Where there is inattention, the ignorance of “self” operates. The efforts of self IS inattention.

Where there is attention, intelligence is not obstructed. Attention is not brought about as a result of me making the choice to be attentive. Intelligence acts without effort of the self, doesn’t it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 17 May 2019 #135
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1300 posts in this forum Online

Intelligence is the capacity to understand . And this capacity diminishes when there is an end in view. When there is becoming. Because becoming denies 'what is'. The other factors that effect one's understanding are old age,diseases,hearing problems, and many other things. A mind that is healthy can understand what life is all about because a healthy mind is not caught in the self-protective activities of thought. Thought takes over when there is lack of intelligence .

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 17 May 2019 #136
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1432 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Where there is attention, intelligence is not obstructed. Attention is not brought about as a result of me making the choice to be attentive. Intelligence acts without effort of the self, doesn’t it?

Can you clarify this? K. has said that 'attention' is arduous. We start out with it and lose it in the middle. So it comes and goes. When it 'goes' as you say the ignorance of 'self' operates...we go on 'autopilot'. So something brings the 'attention' (which at some talk he said when asked if he could describe his teaching in one word, his answer was:"attention".) Is it the awareness of conflict, suffering that brings it? And is attention intelligence, are they one and the same or is attention 'personal' having to do with the brain and intelligence something else?

Looking at it now there is an awareness that comes and I see that I have been 'lost in thought' then there is the wish to be present to the thinking...this takes a certain 'effort' which is different than the non-effort (or effortless) of thinking without awareness. I am seeing this effort (or desire or wish) to stay with the thought, not suppress or change it, but be 'attentive to all that is going on...I am understanding this as 'attention'. Then it fades and the thought goes on, now without awareness. The 'attention' only stays so long. Is it because it is arduous that there is a laziness and a preference in the brain to go with the non-arduousness of the 'automatic' thinking without awareness?

This may be all wrong of course

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 17 May 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 18 May 2019 #137
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5659 posts in this forum Offline

One Self wrote:
A mind that is healthy can understand what life is all about because a healthy mind is not caught in the self-protective activities of thought. Thought takes over when there is lack of intelligence .

What is not clear is why do we continue to post these arbitrary and vague proclamations about thought or countless other things? Why do we feel the need to come to so many conclusions based on thin air? Where is the basis for these conclusions?

Thinking is absolutely essential to our lives. There is practical thinking which we need in order to do all those everyday tasks to maintain ourselves. Then there is the kind of psychologically conditioned thinking that seems to endlessly form images, opinions and comes to conclusions. Can we ever just sit and observe without thinking? Observe without thoughts constantly organizing and categorizing and forming opinions about reality?

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sat, 18 May 2019 #138
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1300 posts in this forum Online

Jack Pine wrote:
What is not clear is why do we continue to post these arbitrary and vague proclamations about thought or countless other things?

Rubbish,if you don't understand something why make a comment about it. Stop acting like Krishnamurti. You can't imitate him because you do lack intelligence:)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 18 May 2019 #139
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5659 posts in this forum Offline

One Self wrote:
Rubbish,if you don't understand something why make a comment about it.

You're not that hard to understand.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sat, 18 May 2019 #140
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1300 posts in this forum Online

Jack Pine wrote:
You're not that hard to understand.

That 'you' exists only in your head.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 18 May 2019 #141
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5659 posts in this forum Offline

One Self wrote:
That 'you' exists only in your head.

No. It exists in all of your ego driven posts. You want so badly to be the expert, the authority.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Sat, 18 May 2019.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sat, 18 May 2019 #142
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 862 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Can there BE clarity of seeing, and understanding of the truth of the matters that we look into here, if intelligence is not operating? In these matters, is there one kind of intelligence for one thing and another kind of intelligence for another thing?

I would say that when there is great interest and attention, a lot of learning and understanding can take place. Some people love to take machines apart and put them back together again. If they do this with a radio they will probably learn a lot and maybe be able to go further and invent a new machine and we end up with the most complex, sophisticated computers. There is certainly intelligence operating here. Does passionate interest and a high level of attention bring this intelligence into play?

Here we are talking about observing ourselves inwardly as well as observing outwardly. Does this involve a different kind of intelligence? It seems that we are able, at times, through attention and a high level of interest, to observe ourselves and learn from this. We can sometimes be highly aware of our behaviour and our reactions and this observation seems to immediately lead to action - I observe my anger, understand it and act. The thing that I find interesting here is our inability to sustain the level of awareness required to maintain this self-observation. Krishnamurti, apparently, was constantly aware of thought as it arose. Most of us seem to be aware of thought for some periods of time. We have silent minds some of the time but the chatter of thought is often present without us being fully aware of it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 18 May 2019 #143
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 539 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Is it because it is arduous that there is a laziness and a preference in the brain to go with the non-arduousness of the 'automatic' thinking without awareness?

http://jiddu-krishnamurti.net/en/1962/1962-08-0...:

We respond [to sorrow] by trying to explain the cause of sorrow, or by escaping from sorrow; but our sorrow doesn't end.
...
We know very well what causes sorrow - poverty, ill health, frustration, the lack of being loved, and so on. And when we have explained the various causes of sorrow, we haven't ended sorrow ...

"We know very well what causes sorrow” because self-observation has revealed it. In the very seeing of the cause of sorrow with total clarity, the mind also sees the futility of making efforts to end sorrow, doesn't it? It is one perception - seeing the cause and seeing the futility.

Understanding this, the mind is naturally alert for the slightest movement of thought, as it would be alert for the cobra. And to be alert is arduous, isn't it? Even in watching for the cobra, might the mind not get understandably tired and become inattentive?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 18 May 2019 #144
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 539 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
Here we are talking about observing ourselves inwardly as well as observing outwardly. Does this involve a different kind of intelligence?

There is intelligence, which is impersonal, and there is personal talent or capacity, which is personal. Can intelligence be broken down into different parts? One kind of intelligence for mechanics, art, science, music, education, politics, and so on? We can see that people who are “gifted” in these different fields are just as self-centred, afraid, aggressive, cruel etc. as the rest of us. So talent or capacity is not intelligence, it seems to me.

Sean Hen wrote:
Krishnamurti, apparently, was constantly aware of thought as it arose.

I don’t want to provoke a controversy but I don’t think that this is so. So it is better to leave K out of it in this respect, isn’t it?

Is it the fact that we drift in an out of attention that prevents us from understanding ourselves? We start where we are. We start as we are. We are attentive and then we are inattentive and then attentive again. We are selfish, greedy, afraid, angry, loving, patient, impatient. When we realize that we are inattentive, we are attentive. And when we are attentive, we can learn.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 18 May 2019 #145
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1300 posts in this forum Online

Attention doesn't exist as love doesn't exist in the world. What exist is ignorance and inattention. Let's admit it that we are loveless human beings. Krishnamurti spoke for sixty years and we are still empty handed. The desire for pleasure has dominated the mind. The main problem is our inability to think correctly. In our desire for an end we think positively and sentimentally. We think that a good person is the one who thinks positive and a bad person is the person who thinks negative. The positive thinking has brought the present state of the world ,cruel and dangerous. I think that if one is serious one has to investigate how the mind is caught in the pleasure or pain of positive/negative thinking.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 19 May 2019 #146
Thumb_patricia_may_2014_reduced_ Patricia Hemingway Australia 1925 posts in this forum Offline

One Self wrote:
Krishnamurti spoke for sixty years and we are still empty handed.

K was not handing out feel-good treats.

K was pointing to the truth of the disorder of humanity - which is never what any subjectively-minded, self-satisfied human being wishes to see or hear. Let alone explore and discover whilst standing all alone.

This post was last updated by Patricia Hemingway Sun, 19 May 2019.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sun, 19 May 2019 #147
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 862 posts in this forum Offline

What is intelligence? Here is a short video of Krishnamurti talking about this.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sun, 19 May 2019 #148
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1300 posts in this forum Online

The above k talk is interesting. But can sorrow and ignorance of mankind ever end?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 29 May 2019 #149
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5659 posts in this forum Offline

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
K was pointing to the truth of the disorder of humanity - which is never what any subjectively-minded, self-satisfied human being wishes to see or hear. Let alone explore and discover whilst standing all alone.

It seems what you have written above is also at play in the almost complete failure of humanity to address the climate crisis and the general destruction of the earth. It appears, from several sources of readily available evidence, that we are well on our way to destroying ourselves. But to act the common citizen has to see, to admit, that everything once held scared in life, everything one believes in is partially or wholly responsible for this seemingly inevitable destruction.

Welcome to the Anthropocene. A new geologic era in which mankind's destruction of the earth is now part of the geologic record.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Thu, 30 May 2019.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Thu, 30 May 2019 #150
Thumb_patricia_may_2014_reduced_ Patricia Hemingway Australia 1925 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
But to act the common citizen has to see, to admit, that everything once held scared in life, everything one believes in is partially or wholly responsible for this seemingly inevitable destruction.

Exactly Jack. We just held an election here in Australia and the man who won it recently lovingly waved around a lump of coal in the parliament. He won by assuring the electorate that they had NO RESPONSIBILITY for the destruction of the planet, and so of course they voted for him.

Same mentality that voted for your Mr Trump.

Humanity has moved even further away from confronting the truth of our disorder than when K was alive. Unfortunately for us all - and the planet, because now the consequences of human blindness, inability to listen, lack of perception, and base stupidity and greed are well and truly manifesting.

K said the house was burning back then. Now the fire is out of control.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 121 - 150 of 206 in total
To quote a portion of this post in your reply, first select the text and then click this "Quote" link.

(N.B. Be sure to insert an empty line between the quoted text and your reply.)