Krishnamurti's teaching about the "awakening of intelligence"

[roger]

I thought about this teaching tonight, and I wanted to post about it here, because it seems very relevant to the times we live in. This was one of Krishnamurti's most significant teachings and he considered it to be of utmost importance.

 

His idea was that intelligence is basically the capacity to think objectively, honestly.

 

People usually "see what they want to see," believe what they want to believe, whatever serves their personal agendas.

 

Consider the evangelical Christian apologist movement.

 

The entire point of apologetics is the honest, objective, logical pursuit of truth.

 

But are the Christian apologists really and truly, objectively inquiring into truth?

 

Krishnamurti might say they haven't had the "awakening of intelligence," which is the deep realization of truly objective inquiry.

 

The bottom line is that one can simply believe whatever "suits" them, because they WANT to believe it, or they can TRULY inquire and find the truth that honesty and objectivity lead them to.

 

Is believing in creationism rather than evolution truly honest? Or is it believing whatever supports one's perspective because one wants to believe it?

[WisteriaWinds]

I don't think anyone can become perfectly objective, but it's worth becoming highly objective in reasoning. Like all things, if you take it too far it becomes bad. Research shows people who don't engage in defense mechanisms suffer from chronic depression.

 

If you become too equinimically balanced you might end up depressed and kill yourself and then for thousands of years your obsessive followers might blame your death on being poisoned while claiming you were a "perfected being"...

 

Taoists and Christians both cultivate things like joy and happiness for good reason.

[doc benway]

I thought about this teaching tonight, and I wanted to post about it here, because it seems very relevant to the times we live in. This was one of Krishnamurti's most significant teachings and he considered it to be of utmost importance.

 

His idea was that intelligence is basically the capacity to think objectively, honestly.

 

People usually "see what they want to see," believe what they want to believe, whatever serves their personal agendas.

 

Consider the evangelical Christian apologist movement.

 

The entire point of apologetics is the honest, objective, logical pursuit of truth.

 

But are the Christian apologists really and truly, objectively inquiring into truth?

 

Krishnamurti might say they haven't had the "awakening of intelligence," which is the deep realization of truly objective inquiry.

 

The bottom line is that one can simply believe whatever "suits" them, because they WANT to believe it, or they can TRULY inquire and find the truth that honesty and objectivity lead them to.

 

Is believing in creationism rather than evolution truly honest? Or is it believing whatever supports one's perspective because one wants to believe it?

 

I don't mean to sound argumentative but would like to share a slightly different perspective.

 

I think it's important to look deeper into Krishnamurti's ideas about awakening and intelligence. For JK, thought was always and irrevocably conditioned. Thought is in the realm of the known. When he spoke of awakening and intelligence, he was typically challenging and encouraging us to look beyond the known towards the new, the unconditioned experience. 

 

For sure, a component of his (non)method involved thought but generally as a tool for transcending thought. So I urge caution in describing his idea as "to think objectively, honestly" as that is a very limited portion of his approach, at least to the limited degree that I understand him. I don't claim to provide a comprehensive summary of his views and approach. His teachings are rich and profound and imperfect, IMO. I come back to them periodically and always marvel at his insight. They can be a wonderful DIY program for the right person at the right time. On the other hand, I think his "method" requires a high degree of sophistication and commitment and only takes most adepts so far, as a result. 

 

Regarding Christianity, I would agree that attempting to defend the bible, or any other creation of man, as pure and perfect truth, is a losing proposition and disingenuous. All descriptions of reality are incomplete and inaccurate and closed-minded adherence and obedience to any system, be it theistic, objectivisit, or otherwise, is stifling and self-defeating ultimately. Like JK always asked, can the mind, which is a product of conditioning, transcend that conditioning and find something new? That essentially is meditation. Getting back to Christianity, there is a beautiful teaching within Christianity that can be developed and defended with great consistency and inclusivity in the right hands - Demello, for example. And this tradition also includes the tools one needs to go "beyond the known."

 

I don't think anyone can become perfectly objective, but it's worth becoming highly objective in reasoning. Like all things, if you take it too far it becomes bad. Research shows people who don't engage in defense mechanisms suffer from chronic depression.

I agree with your comment about objectivity in reasoning but I don't follow how this relates to defense mechanisms and depression.

 

If you become too equinimically balanced you might end up depressed and kill yourself and then for thousands of years your obsessive followers might blame your death on being poisoned while claiming you were a "perfected being"...

Are you referring to equanimity here (equanimously would be the adverb)? True equanimity would not lead one to depression. This is a common misunderstanding of the state. Certainly there are those who attempt to cultivate equanimity who may suffer from depression and improper practice can lead one astray. By definition, equanimity is the quality of remaining calm, balanced, and tranquil irrespective of conditions and circumstance, it is not a precursor to depression.

 

Taoists and Christians both cultivate things like joy and happiness for good reason.

For sure, as do Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Jainis, and just about any other spiritual beings. 

I think this is why it is often said that human nature is joyful, loving, and peaceful. We observe that those who approach a very deep inner connection are typically extremely joyful, equanimous, peaceful, and loving. 

[WisteriaWinds]

Cultivating happiness, joy, etc. is not true objectivity. You're purposely creating a reality filter because you believe it's beneficial. You're deciding things ahead of time.

[doc benway]

Cultivating happiness, joy, etc. is not true objectivity. You're purposely creating a reality filter because you believe it's beneficial. You're deciding things ahead of time.

It certainly can be like that but it doesn't have to be.

And I can see how practicing in that way can lead to disappointment and depression, as you pointed to above, when we don't experience the benefits when and how we expect them to be.

 

In my practice, cultivating happiness and joy is absolute objectivity (to whatever degree that is possible).

We do not create any filter or have any expectations.

Any such creations of the mind are considered nothing more than a creation of mind and are allowed to evaporate.

 

The practice is to simply rest in unfabricated experience, to leave things just as they are.

We rest in the stillness of the body, the silence of the speech, and the spaciousness of the mind.

The instructions are to not add or subtract, not to anticipate or create.

Don't follow the past, look to the future, or change the present, just rest as you are and allow things to be as they are - nothing more.

 

The outcome is that when we connect with our true inner nature enlightened characteristics manifest spontaneously. 

That connection is elusive due to our aeons of conditioning. it takes time and patience to connect. It also takes expert guidance to help us know what the correct state is and what it is not.

Once we do connect, everything is there - all the enlightened qualities like peace, equanimity, joy, creativity, and love. 

 

There is a beautiful and succinct quote from one of the great teachings called the 21 Nails, which refers to 21 characteristics of the nature of mind which help us to clarify and stabilize our experience:

 

Its positive qualities are inconceivable,

Like the revelation of a king's treasure.

The one who rests within its true meaning

Enjoys the inexhaustible wealth of its fruition. 

 

This is what the Bönpo teachings say.

The way to develop confidence in their veracity is to work with it for a while and see the results for oneself.

If we just think about the words and concepts, it is like studying a menu without ever eating the food.

[WisteriaWinds]

You're talking about happiness resulting from objectivity. That's different from someone trying to be happy and expecting to achieve an unbiased understanding of "how things are".

Cultivating certain energies or States of consciousness is common in many traditions, including shamanism, but to be authentic with Buddha's teachings we would have to let go of these things.

Most TB practitioners will disagree with this even though it's honest. But then again, my experience of reasoning with TBs is akin to reasoning with fundamentalist Christians and the Mo Pai crowd...because ghd dynamics are the same in all those paths.

I do believe it's useful to cultivate joy, compassion, and plenty of other states, but the lack of dogmatic structure and lack of unquestioningly elevating saints in my walk has helped me see those the nature of those things with clarity.

[vonkrankenhaus]

It's a matter of associative thinking vs perception.

 

People are taught to make associations.

 

And not so much to perceive.

 

This is the beginning of the kind of uniformity required by civilization.

 

It is the kind of "seeing" required - making associations in thought.

 

Direct sustained perception is virtue, devotion.

 

Making associations is the robot. We can program machines, or people, to do this.

 

 

 

 

 

-VonKrankenhaus

[doc benway]

It's a matter of associative thinking vs perception.

 

People are taught to make associations.

 

And not so much to perceive.

 

This is the beginning of the kind of uniformity required by civilization.

 

It is the kind of "seeing" required - making associations in thought.

 

Direct sustained perception is virtue, devotion.

 

Making associations is the robot. We can program machines, or people, to do this.

 

 

 

 

 

-VonKrankenhaus

 

While one can be taught to make associations, it seems to me to be a natural consequence of the nature of thought - labeling and making associations.

It is very useful and  enhances survival (I put my hand in fire - I won't do that again; my friend dropped dead after eating that berry - I'll pass ). 

It also certainly leads to dysfunctional patterns.

Once an association is made it is very difficult to unmake and for sure it leads to robotic behavior.

[PLB]

I hear Krishnamurti on this matter as not providing an explanation but delivering a challenge. In many places, he calls on the listener to "think for themselves." He offers examples of what that is not like but doesn't tell you what to think when you are the thinker.

The approach to a limit is the provocation. But it doesn't work unless one is actually approaching a limit.

[redcairo]

"People don't see the world as it is, they see it as they are." (From The King and I / Anna and the KIng, but it's paraphrasing an eternal truth.)

 

I feel there is such thing as Truth but when experiencing it, for me it has been a Fundamental -- you might say part of Being-ness -- all the things in our reality that we could have a discussion about, don't even qualify for the discussion. Flotsam, jetsom. Whether we are discussion meditation or our grocery shopping list. It's just floating particles and waves.

 

I currently feel that there is no such thing as objective reality. We and others don't perceive each other truly, but perceive the third thing created by the intersection of our energy. So I don't really think I can opine about who has 'the truth' and who doesn't since a} Truth is a Fundamental, and has a power and origin vastly more Present than myself, and b} how I perceive people-X-who-believe-Y includes a perception that is partly of me and our 'energetic interaction', not just them.

 

RC

 

PS:  

 

"I maintain that Truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect. ... The moment you follow someone you cease to follow Truth."

 

-- Jiddu Krishnamurti

Edited August 2, 2016 by redcairo

[doc benway]

 

"People don't see the world as it is, they see it as they are." (From The King and I / Anna and the KIng, but it's paraphrasing an eternal truth.)

 

I feel there is such thing as Truth but when experiencing it, for me it has been a Fundamental -- you might say part of Being-ness -- all the things in our reality that we could have a discussion about, don't even qualify for the discussion. Flotsam, jetsom. Whether we are discussion meditation or our grocery shopping list. It's just floating particles and waves.

 

I currently feel that there is no such thing as objective reality. We and others don't perceive each other truly, but perceive the third thing created by the intersection of our energy. So I don't really think I can opine about who has 'the truth' and who doesn't since a} Truth is a Fundamental, and has a power and origin vastly more Present than myself, and b} how I perceive people-X-who-believe-Y includes a perception that is partly of me and our 'energetic interaction', not just them.

 

RC

 

PS:  

 

"I maintain that Truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect. ... The moment you follow someone you cease to follow Truth."

 

-- Jiddu Krishnamurti

 

 

Nice post

[Karl]

I thought about this teaching tonight, and I wanted to post about it here, because it seems very relevant to the times we live in. This was one of Krishnamurti's most significant teachings and he considered it to be of utmost importance.

 

His idea was that intelligence is basically the capacity to think objectively, honestly.

 

People usually "see what they want to see," believe what they want to believe, whatever serves their personal agendas.

 

Consider the evangelical Christian apologist movement.

 

The entire point of apologetics is the honest, objective, logical pursuit of truth.

 

But are the Christian apologists really and truly, objectively inquiring into truth?

 

Krishnamurti might say they haven't had the "awakening of intelligence," which is the deep realization of truly objective inquiry.

 

The bottom line is that one can simply believe whatever "suits" them, because they WANT to believe it, or they can TRULY inquire and find the truth that honesty and objectivity lead them to.

 

Is believing in creationism rather than evolution truly honest? Or is it believing whatever supports one's perspective because one wants to believe it?

I don't know his teachings, but to think objectively is to apply reason. Honesty is a virtue, a moral standard, a principle one chooses to adopt as is objective thinking. Intelligence is the application of the mind to existence.

 

Indeed it might be said that from that excerpt that he agrees completely with Objectivist philosophy. That sounds so absurd that I suggest you have misunderstood what K meant.

Edited August 2, 2016 by Karl

[roger]

Thanks, Karl.

 

Peace.

[9th]

I always felt this was the best example of Krishnamurti, in reality, in action

 

 

Its so much more illuminating than any of his books, IMHO.  

 

I dont resonate with him at all, but he is responsible for one of my favorite quotes:

 

"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society."

 

- JK