The psychologists have their construct "Intelligence" and they measure &compare the the intelligence of individuals. I ask, is there an "INTELLIGENCE" common to us all?It is not"my" intelligence or "your"intelligence here we are concerned about, out there, is there an INTELLIGENCE, for example coordinating all the plnetary,cosmic activity as well as our ,mean,mundane existence on this beauttiful planet called Earh?

Life is like the tamarind fruit bound in its shell

Greetings Krishnan. In keeping with my welcoming and spirit of the overall forum, I will just state my position on the topic. Psychology does rate intelligence with intelligence testing and I have just searched everywhere for an article I just read last week that brain researchers have found that people who are more intelligent seem to have pathways of the brains 100 billion neurons that go straighter than those who have less intelligence. I have no clue how they are finding this out, though; it didnt say.

But the intelligence you are speaking about is much more the K intelligence as in "awakening of intelligence," which I think has nothing to do with the intelligence as in smartness which is pretty much probably biological proveable. A cosmic intelligence, it would seem to me to be something beyond the brain and an order that physics is looking for. Our mean, mundane existence on this planet is certainly our main concern as we attempt to destroy everything from having a lack of basic intelligence. And all those smart people with their straight neurons dont seem to be able to do much about it, leaving those of us who are a little more convuluted to find some solutions.

Good luck with your discussion. Phil

This post was last updated by phil K Mon, 22 Jun 2009.

phil King wrote:
And all those smart people with their straight neurons dont seem to be able to do much about it leaving those of us who are a little more convuluted to find some solutions.

Life is like the tamarind fruit bound in its shell

There lies the difference in that the so.called-smart are not smart at all in intelligent way of living. Just now on the TV I saw how in Alberta, smart-sand.gropers are suking oil from sands & killing people, flora&fauna on that beautiful river&forest- area. That is not intelligence at all,I wonder the Intelligence out there I am referring to, has its own mighty way of teacching these smart people, may be sudden may be insidiously gradual,So smart by IQ or neuronal count does not count with this INTELLIGENCE, This INTELLIGENCE is communicating to us in many dimensions, but are we listening to it?

Life is like the tamarind fruit bound in its shell

Hello Krishnan:

I have been engaged in an inquiry into 'intelligence' on another forum and I wonder if you would be interested in an extract from that inquiry?

Anyway, I will paste the relevant sections here and you can tell me if it is of interest or not:

e*dward: I see it in a similar way to you (ie the person with whom I'm inquiring on the other forum whom I shall call 'X') We have a model of 'intelligence' . which goes beyond the usual notion that it is simply 'intelligence quotient' which is a 'given',varying from brain to brain. Rather, we're talking about the way the brain operates rather than it's muscle power, aren't we?
If this is so, a question that strikes me is why do some people seem to have brains that are able to access this intelligence to a greater degree than the brains of others? Einstein, Bohm, Krishnamurti, Newton, Shakespeare, Beethoven, Jesus, there is quite a list isn't there? That is if we're talking about people who seemed to be able to access this "newness" of perception that you speak of.
Yet, if you go into it a little more, according to K and Bohm the key to accessing this intelligence is an understanding the obstacle of the self and its creation of psych. time, becoming, etc. Now, if we consider this as a prerequisite to accessing intelligence, the above list becomes problematical. Newton, for example, was a rather egotistical person capable of vicious behaviour in order to gain his own ends. Nevertheless he seems to have had access to insight in abundance. With a little probing we could no doubt find many people who had tremendous access to 'intelligence' yet were not what we'd call spiritual or selfless or abounding with love. So maybe I'm not asking the right question.
Do you have a different take on the above?
edward

X: Yes it is interesting. Perhaps it is the type of question being asked. What k calls 'partial insight' may account for the scientific, artistic etc insights. The focus there is on discovering something within a particular field. Einstein seems a little more 'spiritual' than Newton according to some of his writings in questioning the 'ground' of his discoveries. He did not regard himself as particularly intelligent but open to the 'mystery' of the universe. Seeing conceptualization as a limiting factor seems essential to seeing through the psychological self as a thought construct, doesn't it?
edward: We seem to be touching something here. To recap a little: We're talking about 'intelligence', aren't we? Not in the usual sense of the word, meaning the human capacity to manipulate concepts, but the creative energy that is the ground of everything. And 'everything', in the sense that I'm using the word, must include the self and psychological suffering.
But if intelligence includes the potential for suffering it seems to follow that it must include the potential for ending suffering. Perhaps this ending might be regarded as wholistic insight into the ground which we are calling ' intelligence'. And for such an insight perhaps great brain power in terms of the ability to manipulate concepts is not only unnecessary for wholistic insight, but maybe an obstacle to it.
This is not to scorn the insights of intellect, but to draw attention to the limitations of thought no matter how elevated. The following extract from Robert Powell's 'Zen and Reality' is perhaps apt for what I'm saying in that it recognizes that limitation without denying the human capacity for the achievements of human intelligence:
"...what Krishnamurti has done in the psychological sphere may well be compared with the revolution of physics affected by Einstein. The latter's theory took as its point of departure the simple fact that the speed of light is observed to be constant under all circumstances, independent of movement from or toward the source of light. Krishnamurti's point of departure was the equally simple observation that all psychological suffering begins and ends through the mind: 'the mind is it's own prison'. Therefore transformation, liberation from suffering can only be achieved by the ending of the ceaseless activity of the mind." edward

I see it in a similar way to you. We have a model of 'intelligence' . which goes beyond the usual notion that it is simply 'intelligence quotient' which is a 'given',varying from brain to brain. Rather, we're talking about the way the brain operates rather than it's muscle power, aren't we?
If this is so, a question that strikes me is why do some people seem to have brains that are able to access this intelligence to a greater degree than the brains of others? Einstein, Bohm, Krishnamurti, Newton, Shakespeare, Beethoven, Jesus, there is quite a list isn't there? That is if we're talking about people who seemed to be able to access this "newness" of perception that you speak of.
Yet, if you go into it a little more, according to K and Bohm the key to accessing this intelligence is an understanding the obstacle of the self and its creation of psych. time, b ecoming, etc. Now, if we consider this as a prerequisite to accessing intellgence, the above list becomes problematical. Newton, for example, was a rather egotistical person capable of viscious behaviour in order to gain his own ends. Nevertheless he seems to have had access to insight in abundance. With a little probing we could no doubt find many people who had tremendous access to 'intelligence' yet were not what we'd call spiritual or selfless or abounding with love. So maybe I'm not asking the right question.
Do you have a different take on the above?

X: Yes it is interesting. Perhaps it is the type of question being asked. What k calls 'partial insight' may account for the scientific, artistic etc insights. The focus there is on discovering something within a particular field. Einstein seems a little more 'spiritual' than Newton according to some of his writings in questioning the 'ground' of his discoveries. He did not regard himself as particularly intelligent but open to the 'mystery' of the universe. Seeing conceptualization as a limiting factor seems essential to seeing through the psychological self as a thought construct, doesn't it?

edward: We seem to be touching something here. To recap a little: We're talking about 'intelligence', aren't we? Not in the usual sense of the word, meaning the human capacity to manipulate concepts, but the creative energy that is the ground of everything. And 'everything', in the sense that I'm using the word, must include the self and psychological suffering.
But if intelligence includes the potential for suffering it seems to follow that it must include the potential for ending suffering. Perhaps this ending might be regarded as wholistic insight into the ground which we are calling ' intelligence'. And for such an insight perhaps great brain power in terms of the ability to manipulate concepts is not only unnecessary for wholistic insight, but maybe an obstacle to it.
This is not to scorn the insights of intellect, but to draw attention to the limitations of thought no matter how elevated. The following extract from Robert Powell's 'Zen and Reality' is perhaps apt for what I'm saying in that it recognizes that limitation without denying the human capacity for the achievements of human intelligence:
"...what Krishnamurti has done in the psychological sphere may well be compared with the revolution of physics affected by Einstein. The latter's theory took as its point of departure the simple fact that the speed of light is observed to be constant under all circumstances, independent of movement from or toward the source of light. Krishnamurti's point of departure was the equally simple observation that all psychological suffering begins and ends through the mind: 'the mind is it's own prison'. Therefore transformation, liberation from suffering can only be achieved by the ending of the ceaseless activity of the mind."

Krishnan: Sorry if that extract is a long one. It is part of a much longer inquiry and I thought the extract was the most relevant to your post.

I promise, if you reply, my response will be direct and shorter:-). The main purpose of sending you the longish extract was to show how we conduct an 'inquiry' and to give you a flavour of where the question 'what is intelligence?' has taken us. We try not to begin from a fixed point of view and so our understanding tends to change as the inquiry goes on and the question unfolds itself. In line with both K and Bohm we try not to 'conclude' about anything.

All the best, edward

There is a divinity that shapes our ends, rough-hew them as we will

Sorry Krishnan, my post seems to have a life of it's own! It has repeated itself and also shifted the names (edward and X) around so that it will no doubt be confusing to you. Anyway, not to worry. If you get the gist of it we can ignore or go into anything you didn't understand. edward

There is a divinity that shapes our ends, rough-hew them as we will

Edward, I am so pleased you posted this under this topic. I think it is right on and it has so much good stuff in it. I would like to summarize what I got out of it along with how I view things.

The intelluctual process of the so called great thinkers has nothing to do with change. Change has to do with the ending of conceptualizations! (this is by far the most significant thing). Within the process of intellecutalization, a person needs certain conceptualizations and abstractions. Change is just the observation of the incorrect conceptualization of the I as center and the self image as the "me." Any scientist may come up with understanding of the brain or physics or medicine while still having the illusions just mentioned. In fact, biological intelligence may be a distraction because if one does not see the illusions of self, then the self is increased as the person thinks he is "becoming" more intelligent. Becoming is an illusion of a mind that has the center or the self image.

Maybe, Einstein was more humble because he was looking at time and perhaps he had seen the element of becoming. I mean how can a stagnant process like thought "become" anything over chronological time. It remains stagnant. Accumualtion of knowledge does nothing to the human until his neurons fire and information comes forth for observation. The intelligence that K talks about is the individual is intellegent who uses the information logically and sanely. Thought works linearly or through pictures. If one has a concept of himself which is protected by the self preservative processes, then he will always filter decisions through that concept and the thing that comes out the other side will be destorted even if it is brilliant as when an intellectual may think, i.e. that intellectual will always think he thought it up. Now if that intellectual also has a self image, it will be doubly distorted because he is protecting the pictures he has of himself which we know have much more impact on the mind.

Thanks to lengthy extract of Edward Morrison and interpretation of JKs sane use of intelligence&information by Phil K. Both explanations are very interesting and relevant to the point which I have raised above: Is Intelligence Individual or Common to us all? If there is river, every villager takes a share of the water from the Common River nearby,just like that, are we able to do or is the capacity to draw from THIS COMMON INTELLIGENCE is limited to few individuals? You have mentioned Newton,JK etc.If it is common for us all why we bother about this individual intelligence? May be, we are all tuned up in our brains differently, for obvious reasons of genetics as well as environ&culture and so on. But why are we not opening ourselves to recieve from the COMMON SOURCE OF INTELLIGENCE? What prevents us from being a JK or NEWTON or EINSTEIN? Is it a perspective of observation we are lacking or not familiar with?

Life is like the tamarind fruit bound in its shell

phil K wrote:

Edward, I am so pleased you posted this under this topic. I think it is right on and it has so much good stuff in it. I would like to summarize what I got out of it along with how I view things.

The intelluctual process of the so called great thinkers has nothing to do with change. Change has to do with the ending of conceptualizations! (this is by far the most significant thing). Within the process of intellecutalization, a person needs certain conceptualizations and abstractions. Change is just the observation of the incorrect conceptualization of the I as center and the self image as the "me." Any scientist may come up with understanding of the brain or physics or medicine while still having the illusions just mentioned. In fact, biological intelligence may be a distraction because if one does not see the illusions of self, then the self is increased as the person thinks he is "becoming" more intelligent. Becoming is an illusion of a mind that has the center or the self image.

Maybe, Einstein was more humble because he was looking at time and perhaps he had seen the element of becoming. I mean how can a stagnant process like thought "become" anything over chronological time. It remains stagnant. Accumualtion of knowledge does nothing to the human until his neurons fire and information comes forth for observation. The intelligence that K talks about is the individual is intellegent who uses the information logically and sanely. Thought works linearly or through pictures. If one has a concept of himself which is protected by the self preservative processes, then he will always filter decisions through that concept and the thing that comes out the other side will be destorted even if it is brilliant as when an intellectual may think, i.e. that intellectual will always think he thought it up. Now if that intellectual also has a self image, it will be doubly distorted because he is protecting the pictures he has of himself which we know have much more impact on the mind.

Yes Khrisnan, I'm in accord with what you say. I think it is easy to get confused with word meanings because everyone uses words differently, including Krishnamurti. 'Intelligence' is one of those words. It can set going different and sometimes conflicting trains of thought into an 'inquiry' which can lead to ego- inflation rather than diminishment. Would you agree with that?

The common use for the word 'intelligence' is the ability to acquire and manipulate the accumulations of knowledge that are stored in books. Krishnamurti on the other hand regarded knowledge and learning as an "impediment to the understanding of the new, the timeless, the eternal". (The First and Last Freedom).

Lest we misunderstand him, he usually qualified his meaning of 'intelligence' by excluding technical knowledge, such as driving a car, running machinery from being impediments to 'understanding'. Such areas of knowledge are part of the modern human way of life. And he never recommended living in isolation from civilization as we know it.

So what did h e mean by 'intelligence'? He meant a mind that is "capable of receiving something new, sudden,
spontaneous ,creative'....To be free of the past from moment to moment because it is the past that is continually shadowing the present."

So knowledge and learning -which most of us regard as intelligence -are useless, in fact impediments, to touching the truth which has no path. Intelligence for Krishnamurti has a religious connotation rather than a reference to erudition. edward

There is a divinity that shapes our ends, rough-hew them as we will

edward morrison wrote:
So what did h e mean by 'intelligence'? He meant a mind that is "capable of receiving something new, sudden, spontaneous ,creative'....To be free of the past from moment to moment because it is the past that is continually shadowing the present."
So knowledge and learning -which most of us regard as intelligence -are useless, in fact impediments, to touching the truth which has no path. Intelligence for Krishnamurti has a religious connotation rather than a reference to erudition. edward

Life is like the tamarind fruit bound in its shell

Thanks Edward. I will just quote here below the aphorisms of J.Krishnamurti collected and discussed by Mr.Kalidas Joshi in his book"UNDERSTANDING KRISHNAMURTI",Rupa&CONew Delhi.2002.ISBN:81-7167-854-8.
"Knowledge, belief, conviction, conclusion and experience are hindrances to truth.
A mind that is occupied with knowledge can never discover"what is".
Truth is not to be comprehended with the passage of time.
Wisdom is when knowledge ends.
INTELLIGENCE is the capacity to perceive the essential, the "what is".
The fundamental understanding of oneself does not come through knowledge.
A mind burdened with knowledge cannot possibly understand that which is real.
The more knowledge a mind is burdened with, the less capable it is of understanding.
To know is to be ignorant, not to know is the beginning of wisdom.

You can see the totality of yourself only when the mind is not fragmented.
When the brain is completely awake, there is no fragmentation, no separation, no duality."

I ask, such completely awkened brain, how does it connect with the Universal Intelligence?
regards
Krishnan

Life is like the tamarind fruit bound in its shell

Krishnan Srinivasan wrote:
"Knowledge, belief, conviction, conclusion and experience are hindrances to truth

Hi Krishnan,
They certainly can be hindrances to the truth about yourself,depending on how they are held in the mind, would you agree? If you are using knowledge and experience to bolster the self you are screening awareness from self-truth, and this will surely seep into your insight into truth in general.

You also ask how does the "completely awakened brain connect with the Universal Intelligence?"

Of course you are not really asking for a conclusive answer. You are raising the question for inquiry, which will always be partial and inconclusive. edward

There is a divinity that shapes our ends, rough-hew them as we will

edward morrison wrote:
You also ask how does the "completely awakened brain connect with the Universal Intelligence?"
Of course you are not really asking for a conclusive answer. You are raising the question for inquiry, which will always be partial and inconclusive. edward

Life is like the tamarind fruit bound in its shell

Hi Edward,
I agree it is an inquiry because i do not know. But to connect these two things, are we assuming, there are two entities i.e. "an awakened alert brain/intelligence of the individual" and the other" Universal Intelligence(which Jk often talked about)"?

Life is like the tamarind fruit bound in its shell

Krishnan Srinivasan wrote:
Krishnan Srinivasan
Fri, 26 Jun 2009, 11:30am

Hi Edward, I agree it is an inquiry because i do not know. But to connect these two things, are we assuming, there are two entities i.e. "an awakened alert brain/intelligence of the individual" and the other" Universal Intelligence(which Jk often talked about)"?

Hi Krishnan. A good question, if I understand it correctly. You seem to be asking a question with dualist implications. I would think there is a connection between the 'intelligence' of the individual, whether awakened or otherwise, in the sense that universal intelligence is the ground of everything. So from this universal viewpoint there cannot be two entirely separate and autonomous 'entities'.

Having said that, there are qualifications to be made, or put another way, further questions that arise from this. One might be: Why is one manifestation of the universal intelligence 'asleep' and one in an awakened state? What has awakened one yet allowed the other to continue in sleep? To continue with our premise that universal intelligence is the ground of everything, it would seem to follow that universal intelligence is ultimately responsible for both the sleeper and the awakened one. Why? Perhaps we can never know. Perhaps, to resort to an old philosophical arguments, the universal intelligence is not omnipotent. Or, is omnipotent but has allowed the human brain choice.

Of course this seems to go against Krishnamurti's teachings which suggest choice-less awareness is the key to transformation. But maybe this is an instance where words can be tripped over. Does one make a choice to b e choiceless? Etc. edward

There is a divinity that shapes our ends, rough-hew them as we will

edward morrison wrote:
Why is one manifestation of the universal intelligence 'asleep' and one in an awakened state? What has awakened one yet allowed the other to continue in sleep? To continue with our premise that universal intelligence is the ground of everything, it would seem to follow that universal intelligence is ultimately responsible for both the sleeper and the awakened one. Why? Perhaps we can never know. Perhaps, to resort to an old philosophical arguments, the universal intelligence is not omnipotent. Or, is omnipotent but has allowed the human brain choice.

Life is like the tamarind fruit bound in its shell

Thanks Edward for incisive analysis here. Let us take our premise that universal intelligence is the ground. Yes it is, in the sense, that there is an innate nature in everything in the universe organic/living& inert things . That is all permeating uniting thread
of ONEENESS-is it GOD? I don``t know. While some "sleep" at a level, others are"AWAKENED" to other levels as evident among humans and even in animals.As a diver ,who dives into the sea at a particular spot , to bring forth, the mother of pearl/oyster, scientists are probing (like Newton et.al without any philosophical/spiritual background) at a particular spot on this universal Intelligence(ocean) and able to recover invaluable things for humanity. Whereas, totally AWAKE persons are in a continuum of contact or communication with this all permeating UNIVERSAL INTELLIGENCE.If it is all pre-ordained by this Universal Intelligence, what is there for"us" to do except to accept things as they are, and be satisfied. JUST BE(HAPPY)!
Regards
Krishnan

Life is like the tamarind fruit bound in its shell

how does the 'completely awakened brain connect with the Universal Intelligence?"

Is the question a wrong question a question that will only lead to speculation?

Why do you speculate? To inquire is surely to stay with a question that is a fact i.e something that is happening now or has happened.

Is it knowledge or a negation of knowledge the only inquiry we can undertake to ask 'what is intelligence'
Averil

averil harrison wrote:

how does the 'completely awakened brain connect with the Universal Intelligence?"

Is the question a wrong question a question that will only lead to speculation?

Why do you speculate? To inquire is surely to stay with a question that is a fact i.e something that is happening now or has happened.

Is it knowledge or a negation of knowledge the only inquiry we can undertake to ask 'what is intelligence'
Averil

Life is like the tamarind fruit bound in its shell

The completely awakened brain has no separation from the UNIVERSAL INTELLIGENCE.IT IS. It has a FLOW of CONTINUUM&COMMUNICATION---this is my guess-work.Dual existence has disappeared for this individual brain/intelligence.Any comments?(Religious people have various names in various religions for this.)

Life is like the tamarind fruit bound in its shell

Could intelligence be nothing more than clear observation--that is, observing step by step, through and through, point by point without the shadow of thought? Just observation itself.

To see is to observe, and we use the expression, "I see" to mean "I understand."
In other words, we say, "I observe" to mean "I understand." Maybe we're nearer the truth than we know!

max

max greene wrote:
To see is to observe, and we use the expression, "I see" to mean "I understand." In other words, we say, "I observe" to mean "I understand." Maybe we're nearer the truth than we know!

Life is like the tamarind fruit bound in its shell

max greene wrote:
To see is to observe, and we use the expression, "I see" to mean "I understand." In other words, we say, "I observe" to mean "I understand." Maybe we're nearer the truth than we know!

Life is like the tamarind fruit bound in its shell

max greene wrote:
To see is to observe, and we use the expression, "I see" to mean "I understand." In other words, we say, "I observe" to mean "I understand." Maybe we're nearer the truth than we know!

Life is like the tamarind fruit bound in its shell

max greene wrote:
To see is to observe, and we use the expression, "I see" to mean "I understand." In other words, we say, "I observe" to mean "I understand." Maybe we're nearer the truth than we know!

Life is like the tamarind fruit bound in its shell

max greene wrote:
To see is to observe, and we use the expression, "I see" to mean "I understand." In other words, we say, "I observe" to mean "I understand." Maybe we're nearer the truth than we know!

Life is like the tamarind fruit bound in its shell

Quote from JK(The Wholeness of life,London.1978.Victor Gollanz ltd.page 207):
"To observe holistically is to observ or to listen to the whole content of something.Normally, we look at things partially, according to our pleasure, or according to our conditioning, or according to some idealistic point of view.We always look at things fragmentarily.... It is important to understand how the mind creates illusions of self-importance and all the various types of illusions which are comforting and safe."

"When the brain is completely awake then the mind becomes quiet.Then there is no fragmentation, no separation, no duality.The quality of this quietness is of the highest importance..This is awareness, this is attention, this is love, this is the highest.the brain must be completely awake, that`s all.as the man in the jungle must keep terribly awake to survive, so the man in the jungle of the world must keep terribly awake to live completely."(THe Second Penguin Krishnamurti Reader.Londfon.(LUTYENS,MARY(ED)1973-Krishnamurti FoundationPages-250-252.
Dear Max, I have not much to add...

Life is like the tamarind fruit bound in its shell

There's a real difference between "observation" and "clear observation." Observation we do every day. Clear observation is the same observation with the Self, the psychological "I," absent. Clear observation is the best we can do, so far as being intelligent is concerned.

max

Dear Max, your emphasis on "clear observation" is what JK calls for"understanding" the " "what is" "as it is".So we agree on that. So there are no fragmentations in that process. Completely awake brain perceives/observes clearly without fragmentation/intrusion of the"I" etc. and understands.That is the functional Intelligence.

Life is like the tamarind fruit bound in its shell