I know nothing of "intelligence", though I assume it is not just a fanciful idea. I consider this a reasonable assumption because life, as far as I can tell, is more intelligent than I. What I do is commonly construed and measured as being more or less intelligent, but it's more accurate to say that what I do is more or less reasonable, given my circumstances and conditions, not all of which can be known and taken into consideration by the measurer. What I do is limited and governed by available information and the peculiar way I process it. Given enough accurate information and fair-minded processing, I get by. But over time, what I can't do has disastrous consequences, and what I can't do is see the whole truth and nothing but the truth. What I can't do is step out of myself and perceive the whole of what-is without special regard for anything in particular. What I can't do is be "choiceless awareness", intelligence, or call It what you will.

I am what I am, and what I am is limited. I can be no more than what I am. I can get better at what I do, be more reasonable, logical and fair-minded, but even the most reasonable, logical, fair-minded thought process is as structurally limited as the least. This is not to suggest that one shouldn't aspire to perfectly rational, non-delusional thinking, because one should. It's an ongoing, never-ending, enjoyable learning process, and the more one enjoys this process, the more familiar one gets with one's fundamental, structural limitation.

But can I, thought, ever realize my limitation, the whole truth about what I am? If I can, it isn't just because I diligently discover and honestly acknowledge what I can't do - though that's essential. It's because for some unknowable, inexplicable reason, the brain is illuminated and the whole truth about the human psyche is laid bare, exposing I, thought, as the factotum I am. Logically, this is the only way it can happen.

But were it not for Krishnamurti or some other guru, would one even entertain the idea of illumination, enlightenment? I think not. My function is to find out what I can and cannot do, and for me to entertain the idea that I don't really need to do this because something bigger and smarter and better than I can relieve me of the job is equivalent to trading the cow for a handful of magic beans. This failure of rationality, this defection we commonly refer to as religion, faith, or some other respectable word, is the capitulation of reason to the seductive power of wishful thinking. Just how many factotums have gone this route and are religiously watering the arid soil of desperation into which they've planted their precious beans, I shudder to think.

This post was last updated by nick carter Sun, 19 Sep 2010.

nick carter wrote:
and not a few are to be found in the congregation of Krshnamurtians.

Could also be Krishna Martians!

Agree with what you have taken time to explain here, Nick.

It has seemed to me that although thought alone cannot see a thing, when thought, emotion and body intelligence are brought together the sensitivity of mind as a whole to 'what is' is vastly increased. Mind is not just thought. But mind is divided and even 'mind as a whole' lives in limitation.

It is this sense of its own limitation that causes mind to quest for freedom from those limits, yet such freedom cannot be had by mind. This is the living paradox we are in that can only be resolved at a higher level of order where that which appears contradictory here exists there as harmonious aspects of the whole.

Dreadful philosophising! Apols!

What are you waiting for?

This post was last updated by Paul Davidson (account deleted) Sun, 19 Sep 2010.

Paul Davidson wrote:
when thought, emotion and body intelligence are brought together the sensitivity of mind as a whole to 'what is' is vastly increased. Mind is not just thought. But mind is divided and even 'mind as a whole' lives in limitation.

I don't know anything about "mind" or what happens when "thought, emotion, and body intelligence are brought together". It all sounds speculative and fanciful.

Just remain with what-is: thought is operating for better or for worse, and the body does what it must, often in spite of what madness or high-minded confusion thought is indulging in.

This post was last updated by nick carter Sun, 19 Sep 2010.

nick carter wrote:
I don't know anything about "mind" or what happens when "thought, emotion, and body intelligence are brought together". It all sounds speculative and fanciful.

There may be just a tiny bit of Georgie G's conceptual frame work thrown in,he used much of the same key phrases as our disingenuous fellow poster.

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

RICK LEIN wrote:
disingenuous fellow poster.
THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE
Recommend

Who's Georgie G?

nick carter wrote:
Who's Georgie G?

A person who was considered a Guru by a small handful of people. He authored "Meetings with remarkable men",and other books.Another common element was the line self remembering. I read some of it back in college.He had a student who wrote some books trying to explain what it meant,his name was P.D.Ouspenski. I probably miss spelled the last name,its been years since I have heard anyone refer to his idea's.

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Gurdjieff

"See thought arising; watch it. Without that, all else is illusion and becoming."

Rick,

So, what about Bob? :)

"See thought arising; watch it. Without that, all else is illusion and becoming."

Dean R. Smith wrote:
Dean R. Smith Canada 264 posts in this forum Online

Gurdjieff

Thank Dean!

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

nick carter wrote:
I don't know anything about "mind" or what happens when "thought, emotion, and body intelligence are brought together". It all sounds speculative and fanciful.

I'm not sure why you don't know anything about 'mind' but you are very knowledgeable about 'thought,' Nick. I won't quote K on it but he rather uses both words and most people do too.

Generally 'mind' is the whole thing. Thought is one process within it. When you have a strong emotion, did you think it into existence? When sexual urges began to appear in adolescence, did you think them into existence? When you stub your toe and feel the disturbance of that pain, is it thought that is hurting?

K often tells his audience to 'put your whole self into it, your heart, your body and your mind . . . until it is in your very blood.' I don't think one has to run to any other 'guru' to understand what K means. It is plain.

When I said that our minds are divided it is because we have divided them. So, we have to bring them together as they should be.

Is it speculative and fanciful? Probably if you've never done it it would be.

What are you waiting for?

Paul Davidson wrote:
K often tells his audience to 'put your whole self into it, your heart, your body and your mind . . . until it is in your very blood.' I don't think one has to run to any other 'guru' to understand what K means. It is plain.
When I said that our minds are divided it is because we have divided them. So, we have to bring them together as they should be.
Is it speculative and fanciful? Probably if you've never done it it would be.

You're letting K do your thinking for you. Get out of the K corral.

Paul Davidson wrote:
When I said that our minds are divided it is because we have divided them. So, we have to bring them together as they should be.

Its because of conditioning sir,and it is added to by the desire of the self to imagine self can bring anything together,it is an all too common aspect of conditioning that it seeks security in the IDEA of what should be!

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Paul Davidson wrote:
Generally 'mind' is the whole thing. Thought is one process within it. When you have a strong emotion, did you think it into existence? When sexual urges began to appear in adolescence, did you think them into existence? When you stub your toe and feel the disturbance of that pain, is it thought that is hurting?

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

nick carter wrote:
You're letting K do your thinking for you. Get out of the K corral.

This is quite funny, Nick. Here you are trying to convince me that I am stuck in the Oh, K corral while over there is Rick claiming that I am one of the Gurdjieff hole in the wall gang. In the past on this site whenever I refer to the name of some teacher, whether it be K, G or JC I am told I am conditioned by them. Some weeks ago we had one Madhu Sadheer on site who flew off in a rage telling me I was conditioned by my English Imperialist background.

Let me tell you all that I am conditioned by the most ridiculous of people, namely, one Paul Davidson, who I have to carry around with me all my life, it seems. It is no joking matter, I assure you!

Now, who are you all conditioned by?

Name your conditioning!

Incidentally, that quote 'The truth shall set you free.' Isn't it one of JC's? Wonder if we'll ever get the citation.

What are you waiting for?

Paul Davidson wrote:
Incidentally, that quote 'The truth shall set you free.' Isn't it one of JC's? Wonder if we'll ever get the citation.

Right, it was Jesus who said it. Whether it was Mark, Matthew, Luke, or John, I forget.

But we are conditioned; conditioning is what we are. All of those influences you mentioned are valid, and their influence may be more noticeable to others than to yourself.

nick carter wrote:
But we are conditioned; conditioning is what we are. All of those influences you mentioned are valid, and their influence may be more noticeable to others than to yourself.

Oh yes, I am conditioned by every condition I have ever met up with. I am conditioned by capitalism and by communism, by male supremacy and female resistance, by racism and by anti-racism etc etc. But what would be the point of charging someone else with being conditioned when I am so conditioned myself. It would surely come from a mind that is making a posture about the thing. It is itself a conditioned posture and reeks of something not nice. Apols!

'Don't point to the splinter in your neighbour's eye when you have a beam in your own.' JC (Don't know that citation either!)

Now, if I could just get that Paul Davidson monkey off my back . . .

What are you waiting for?

This post was last updated by Paul Davidson (account deleted) Mon, 20 Sep 2010.

Paul Davidson wrote:
But what would be the point of charging someone else with being conditioned when I am so conditioned myself.

There's no "charging". One's conditioning is just more obvious from the outside than from inside. We live inside with our conditioning and are barely aware of it, but viewed from outside...

nick carter wrote:
We live inside with our conditioning and are barely aware of it, but viewed from outside...

I don't usually comment on my comments, but this statement is a good example of how our language engenders confusion. If I am my conditioning, there is no I to "live inside with" it. There's only conditioning and the thought process that expresses it. Conditioning is an inside job and there's no I, no central agency involved. All there is, is thought's ability to monitor its movement and make informed, conditioned, observations about what it is doing and why.

nick carter wrote:
There's only conditioning and the thought process that expresses it.

Nick, isn't the nature and structure of the thought process determined by conditioning ? Can thought process express/point towards that which has given birth to it ?

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
Nick, isn't the nature and structure of the thought process determined by conditioning ? Can thought process express/point towards that which has given birth to it ?

The structure of thought is not conditioned. It is a function that operates according to mechanical, mathematical principles, like a computer. What it does with the information it processes, the rationale employed, is determined by conditions.

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
Can thought process express/point towards that which has given birth to it ?

Sorry, I don't know what you mean. Can you find a better way to pose this question?

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
Can thought process express/point towards that which has given birth to it ?

Obviously, it can.

"See thought arising; watch it. Without that, all else is illusion and becoming."

nick carter wrote:
Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
Can thought process express/point towards that which has given birth to it ?
NIck - Sorry, I don't know what you mean. Can you find a better way to pose this question?

Thought is acting on thought in becoming, seeking, in projecting future or comparing past with present. These are allconditioned reactions because thought devides itself in to observer/observed, thinker/thought etc.

It is the basic conditioning that is making thought to express itself (conditioning) but the description is not what is described, is it ?

So, can thought process ever actually express the true nature of conditioning ?

FLOW WITH LIFE!

nick carter wrote:
Right, it was Jesus who said it. Whether it was Mark, Matthew, Luke, or John, I forget.

Hey, I got it. It's from a guy called Jesus of Nazereth. I heard about him in kindergatan. Some Jews considered him a Guru. He had a handful of followers. Never heard about him since then.

But here it is in Latin from John 8-22

"veritas vos liberabit"

Sounds more educated in Latin, don't you think?

What are you waiting for?

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
Thought is acting on thought in becoming, seeking, in projecting future or comparing past with present. These are allconditioned reactions because thought devides itself in to observer/observed, thinker/thought etc.
It is the basic conditioning that is making thought to express itself (conditioning) but the description is not what is described, is it ?
So, can thought process ever actually express the true nature of conditioning ?

Doctor, with all due respect, you're a mindless K-parrot.

Paul Davidson wrote:
"veritas vos liberabit"

If only it were true.

nick carter wrote:
Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
Thought is acting on thought in becoming, seeking, in projecting future or comparing past with present. These are allconditioned reactions because thought devides itself in to observer/observed, thinker/thought etc. It is the basic conditioning that is making thought to express itself (conditioning) but the description is not what is described, is it ? So, can thought process ever actually express the true nature of conditioning ?
Nick - Doctor, with all due respect, you're a mindless K-parrot.

Nick, I don't mind your saying so. Certain responses can not be understood intellectually. One has to live them to understand.Your mind measures up a reply, compares it with past knowledge and reacts, usually aggressively. Like everybody else, you can not end your conditioning until you understand its lightening speed of reaction.

FLOW WITH LIFE!

nick carter wrote:
you're a mindless K-parrot.

so what if one can't be a mynah.may be truth is a pathless land , but there is only one truth.Who knows hymns are being chanted with such connotation only!
gb

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

This post was last updated by ganesan balachandran Tue, 21 Sep 2010.