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

Truth,Reality and Intelligence


Displaying all 25 posts
Page 1 of 1
Wed, 22 May 2013 #1
Thumb_stringio G M Norway 81 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Starting with a K -quote:

Intelligence is to perceive what is and what is not - to perceive what is; and see the reality of "what is'', which means you don't have any psychological involvement, any psychological demands, which are all forms of illusion. To see all that is intelligence; and that intelligence will operate wherever you are. Therefore that will tell you what to do.
Then what is truth? What is the link between reality and truth? The link is this intelligence. Intelligence that sees the totality of reality and therefore doesn't carry it over to truth. And the truth then operates on reality through intelligence.

Arivalagan S made the following remark:

Truth is the mind accurately reflecting its environment

Does Krishnamurti believe in Truth beyond the mind?

Max Greene's latest post is

truth is simply what is -- now. Anything else is an image of the past. The image may be fact, but it is not truth.
An analytical search for truth will not arrive at truth because analysis is dissection of the known. Now; the truth, cannot be known; it can only be lived

Max, the question for you is,

Is the 'truth', the incessant movement to the unknown, since you say that truth cannot be known?

I feel for K, there is 'only perception and no truth'. Although, he connected it with reality through intelligence, it seems his only concern was 'perception'.

Are we all on the same page?

This post was last updated by G M (account deleted) Wed, 22 May 2013.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 22 May 2013 #2
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

G M wrote:
Is the 'truth', the incessant movement to the unknown, since you say that truth cannot be known?

Here's the way I see it, G M:

'Truth' is what is, and what 'is' is the present moment, now. 'Now' is unknown and unknowable. (Can 'now' be measured by time? Does 'now' have mass? Borders? Can 'now' even be visualized?) 'Now' is before the sequence and separation that we measure by time.

Awareness is the movement that brings the unknown (truth) into the known. Awareness is the incessant, timeless (i.e., not of sequence or separation) movement that enables the individual to discover the new.

The truth can never be 'known' because truth is always and only now, whereas the known is an image of what was.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 22 May 2013 #3
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

G M wrote:
I feel for K, there is 'only perception and no truth'. Although, he connected it with reality through intelligence, it seems his only concern was 'perception'.

We may be mired a bit in semantics. Perception, as I use the word, means awareness. Awareness is always of the present moment, now, because one can't be aware either in the past nor in the future -- and there is only one now.

Since truth is what is, and 'what is' is the present moment, awareness and truth are a unity.

Intelligence, for me, is a catch-all term for the grab bag of sensitivity, sensing, awareness, perception, understanding.

Reality, as I see it, is all of existence -- our universe caught in sequence and separation, measurable by time. The Real that we might say activates Reality is truth, which is the unity of love (I see love as the driving energy behind it all) awareness and action.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 22 May 2013 #4
Thumb_stringio randal patrick United States 3155 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
We may be mired a bit in semantics.

Ya think Max? In fact, the human mind is enslaved in semantics. Any comeing to agreement is knowledge based comfort/security.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 23 May 2013 #5
Thumb_2564 Satya Prakash India 528 posts in this forum Offline

G M wrote:
I feel for K, there is 'only perception and no truth'. Although, he connected it with reality through intelligence, it seems his only concern was 'perception'.

Yes, the total seeing/perceiving is all important as is clear from the quote below:

G M wrote:
Then what is truth? What is the link between reality and truth? The link is this intelligence. Intelligence that sees the totality of reality...

K also emphasizes that 'seeing of disorder is order' and that is alll one should be concerned with.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 23 May 2013 #6
Thumb_2564 Satya Prakash India 528 posts in this forum Offline

randal patrick wrote:
Any comeing to agreement is knowledge based comfort/security.

Not necessarily, Randal. Perceiving the fact of something first and then sharing the description of it to reach an agreement (instantly) is also possible between two persons.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 23 May 2013 #7
Thumb_stringio randal patrick United States 3155 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Satya Prakash wrote:
is also possible between two persons.

In theory satya, anything is possible.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 23 May 2013 #8
Thumb_stringio randal patrick United States 3155 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Satya Prakash wrote:
sharing the description of it to reach an agreement

Reaching agreement and sharing, are comforts of the known.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 23 May 2013 #9
Thumb_2564 Satya Prakash India 528 posts in this forum Offline

randal patrick wrote:
In theory satya, anything is possible.

randal patrick wrote:
Reaching agreement and sharing, are comforts of the known.

You passimistic view of human nature/intelligence is very deep rooted and you outrightly reject all submission to the contrary.:)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 23 May 2013 #10
Thumb_stringio G M Norway 81 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Thanks for your detailed post Max.

max greene wrote:
The truth can never be 'known' because truth is always and only now, whereas the known is an image of what was.

Max, the only question here is, is it possible for the organism to 'know' the truth as it happens in the 'now'. Not in the sense as interpretation of the mind but the organismic knowing, like how we know hunger.

This post was last updated by G M (account deleted) Thu, 23 May 2013.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 23 May 2013 #11
Thumb_stringio G M Norway 81 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Satya,

Thanks for your post.

Satya Prakash wrote:
Yes, the total seeing/perceiving is all important

Do you consider 'seeing/perceiving' same as that of 'awareness'?

This post was last updated by G M (account deleted) Thu, 23 May 2013.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 23 May 2013 #12
Thumb_stringio G M Norway 81 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

randal patrick wrote:
In fact, the human mind is enslaved in semantics. Any comeing to agreement is knowledge based comfort/security.

Randal,

Your observation is correct, it is a kind of 'intellectual' knowledge.

I am sticking with an excuse here given by Aurobindo:

"The capital period of my intellectual development," confided Sri Aurobindo to a disciple, "was when I could see clearly that what the intellect said might be correct and not correct, that what the intellect justified was true and its opposite also was true. I never admitted a truth in the mind without simultaneously keeping it open to the contrary of it.... And the first result was that the prestige of the intellect was gone!"

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 23 May 2013 #13
Thumb_stringio randal patrick United States 3155 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Satya Prakash wrote:
You passimistic view of human nature/intelligence is very deep rooted and you outrightly reject all submission to the contrary.:)

My observation of the fact of humanity/myself is quite clear and I reject optimistic/sentimental/distorted beliefs.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 23 May 2013 #14
Thumb_snapshot_20130606 john Campbell Canada 535 posts in this forum Offline

G M wrote:

randal patrick wrote:
Any comeing to agreement is knowledge based comfort/security.

Randal,

Your observation is correct, it is a kind of 'intellectual'
knowledge.G.M.

j... It is comforting that you agree-:--))

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 23 May 2013 #15
Thumb_stringio G M Norway 81 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

john Campbell wrote:
j... It is comforting that you agree-:--))

Thanks for your post John.

It is an attempt to keep one's Eyes (and I's) as open as possible.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 24 May 2013 #16
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

G M wrote:
. . . is it possible for the organism to 'know' the truth as it happens in the 'now'. Not in the sense as interpretation of the mind but the organismic knowing, like how we know hunger.

Here's how I see it, G M:

The organism, per se, is a physical, mechanical thing that obeys all the laws of physics. It has developed mechanically through the evolutionary process. It is essentially a machine.

The organism, as mechanical, as developed through the ways of evolution, is rather passive, merely obeying the laws it was created under. But the human being is more than this machine, obviously. I say 'obviously' because it is obvious -- each of us is aware, has awareness, and we can see this in ourselves and in others.

It is this awareness, in addition to the physical, that knows the truth -- the truth being what is-- now. Awareness is timeless -- not of separation and sequence as is the physical, which is caught in separation and sequence as measured by time. Awareness is, just as the truth is. To be aware is to see the truth.

We are aware much more than we realize. Unfortunately, our awareness is smothered immediately, displaced, by thinking and thought -- the known.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Fri, 24 May 2013.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 24 May 2013 #17
Thumb_2564 Satya Prakash India 528 posts in this forum Offline

randal patrick wrote:
My observation of the fact of humanity/myself is quite clear and I reject optimistic/sentimental/distorted beliefs.

Randal, the 'optimistic/sentimental/distorted beliefs.' affect humanity. You claim that you are able to observe them clearly and reject them. Then there is another (actually the great majority) person who observes them and rejects them as a reaction. Can you give reason as to why your rejection is not a reaction?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 24 May 2013 #18
Thumb_2564 Satya Prakash India 528 posts in this forum Offline

G M wrote:
Satya Prakash wrote:

Yes, the total seeing/perceiving is all important

--Do you consider 'seeing/perceiving' same as that of 'awareness'?

Reply - I see the sequence like this, G M -

seeing+thought - insight - Seeing in silence - awareness ---

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 24 May 2013 #19
Thumb_stringio randal patrick United States 3155 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Satya Prakash wrote:
Then there is another (actually the great majority) person who observes them and rejects them as a reaction.

Actually, the great majority accepts them. And no, I have no logic/comfort that will explain what I do, sorry.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 24 May 2013 #20
Thumb_stringio G M Norway 81 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
It is this awareness, in addition to the physical, that knows the truth

Thanks for your reply Max,

It seems to me, the truth is capable of being known by the organism (endowed with substantial awareness) in the 'now', without the need of thinking/or making image of what the truth is.

The following statement (from 'Matrix') touches this:

Being The One is just like being in love. No one can tell you you're in love, you just know it. Through and through. Balls to bones.

This post was last updated by G M (account deleted) Fri, 24 May 2013.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 24 May 2013 #21
Thumb_stringio G M Norway 81 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Satya Prakash wrote:
Reply - I see the sequence like this, G M -

seeing+thought - insight - Seeing in silence - awareness ---

Thanks for the reply Satya.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 25 May 2013 #22
Thumb_avatar Ravi Seth India 1573 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
The organism, as mechanical, as developed through the ways of evolution, is rather passive, merely obeying the laws it was created under. But the human being is more than this machine, obviously. I say 'obviously' because it is obvious -- each of us is aware, has awareness, and we can see this in ourselves and in others.

Except that man is aware of being aware because of thinking and animal is simply aware, what other fundamental diffenece do you find between these two organism?

This post was last updated by Ravi Seth Sat, 25 May 2013.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 25 May 2013 #23
Thumb_stringio RICK LEIN United States 4436 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

randal patrick wrote:
And no, I have no logic/comfort that will explain what I do, sorry.

no explanation is needed..the self deception is quite obvious!:)

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 25 May 2013 #24
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Ravi Seth wrote:
Except that man is aware of being aware because of thinking and animal is simply aware, what other fundamental diffenece do you find between these two organism?

It seems to me that we are all in this together. We (human beings) are just one more rung on the ladder of evolution. We humans have evolved to the point where our mechanical brains with their trillions of neurons and synapses can spin out make-believe psychological worlds and phantasmal 'selves.' So far as I can see, this ability is the only difference between humans and the rest of the fauna that inhabits our planet.

It appears reasonable to say that every living thing possesses the awareness and memory capacity that its organism will accommodate.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 25 May 2013 #25
Thumb_stringio randal patrick United States 3155 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

RICK LEIN wrote:
no explanation is needed..the self deception is quite obvious!:)

The problem with this is, yours doesn't seem to be obvious to you. With your statement, you are saying "I know".

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying all 25 posts
Page 1 of 1
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.)