I’m interested in finding out about the role of authority and revolt in the context of deeper insights, intelligence, love and inner liberty. There is this political and institutional authority and the violence and domination all around us. I’m not talking of religious organizations, but all institutions that seek to shape or regulate public behavior.
As average peace-loving human beings we’re more or less conformist or avoidant in response to those who wield punitive powers. There are many brave people among us, and they may be doing great work in dealing with the abuse of power, but is it really relevant in the context of our fundamental human depth?
Krishnamurti lived for a long time as a conformist within the folds of the theosophical society, until he broke away from them. Interestingly, there were also problems with the early institution that developed around him (KWINC?). And my sense is that such challenges might have always been there in the functioning of the K foundations.
There is also the authority of belief, dogma, and one’s world-view… and that may be the more relevant form of authority that K talked about. But I’m not clear about the link with intelligence or love. Does all belief and dogma inhibit the deeper intelligence? Does it apply to some specific kinds of belief and dogma? is the capacity for critical thinking a necessary requirement for this intelligence?
While i’m bringing the focus on intelligence, its less about intellectual development, but more about the wisdom that brings love, good behavior, and clarity of thought.
I’d say that they have no effect on intelligence, love, awareness…they ‘inhibit’ in that they occupy the brain with the past. They take up precious ‘space’. Instead of the truth which is, in these matters always, ‘I don’t know’, they say ‘I know and this is it’. Like dead leaves. Attachment in these matters, closes the windows and ‘inhibits’ the fresh air of intelligence?
If I believe that x is true, does this stop me from entertaining the argument that x is false, or enquiring into whether y is true?
If one point of view resists another, whats the source of that resistance?
Yes, because it occupies the brain, and an occupied brain is not open and receptive to intelligence, which is beyond the brain.
is the capacity for critical thinking a necessary requirement for this intelligence?
I’m inclined to think so, but I (this brain) doesn’t really know because, attached to its beliefs and conclusions, this brain is not silent and empty, and I don’t see how a brain that is constantly streaming consciousness of its contents can know much more than how inadequate thought is, and how totally dependent on thought the brain is until/unless thought stops, allowing for silence and emptiness to make it clear what thought’s place is.
…it is thought that prevents the enquiry into the unknown.
Krishnamurti
Paris 7th Public Talk | 19th September 1961
Not necessarily, it all depends on the extent to which one questions the dogma (which is a mere belief) in order to discover for oneself its truth or falsity. In so questioning, one may discover that what one originally considered a dogma (which is a mere belief) ceases to be a dogma and becomes a fact, or that the dogma (which is a mere belief) is totally wrong. So not only may the dogma (which is a mere belief) not inhibit the so-called ‘deeper intelligence’, but it may awaken it. It all depends on oneself whether one turns Krishnamurti’s teaching into a dogma (which is a mere belief) just because one is not capable of questioning oneself deeply. Or to discover its truth or falsity for oneself, questioning not only the dogma but also oneself. It does not depend on anyone else.
No, it is applicable to any dogma (which is a mere belief).
Yes, questioning everything (including the questioner) is at the root of awakening that deeper intelligence.
Yes especially the ‘questioner’… and that is difficult because it is ‘me’ or what thought has invented as ‘me’. What has always been taken as me. But the me/thought is only a material movement in the brain.
thank you for your responses. i’m unable to directly engage, but what is emerging from this is the question of agency or responsibility in these matters… is there anything that can be done or ought to be done along these lines?
sometimes the enquiry or insight is spontaneous and organic… but when it’s not, this somehow goes in the direction of trying to judge what is right and wrong, which in turn gets linked with whether the thinker is right or wrong… and that brings about really crazy mental movements, relationship, behavior, etc…
maybe there’s a need to approach this problem in a way that is non-confrontational and maybe even indirect?
the problem of unnecessarily trying to judge whether something is right or wrong… krishnamurti talked about trying to arrive at conclusions - probably it’s the same thing
i think i get a hint of where you’re pointing at, but even in this “looking” there’s this impulse of striving for a productive outcome in terms of personal growth… maybe this is the sort of drive that props up the concern about agency and responsibility…
a part of me goes forth in such a direction, while another part sounds an alarm (and this latter part of me has probably grown stronger by reading krishnamurti)… and this seems to be a new structure of inner conflict which keeps becoming more complex even in the process of trying to resolve it…
What I meant was that sometimes the implications of what we mean make no sense - if by examining what we we know, we find that what we know is often a load of nonsense, hopefully we will be less inclined to fight for what we know.
Of course, this is a step by step intellectual method, and as such is based on time, and is never a complete picture of the known/self
If the truth is that there is actually no division, the divisive mind is obviously not the ‘instrument’ that can dispel the confusion. If thought then is not the instrument that can do away with the ignorance of the truth, what is that instrument? Does it have to do with the ending of unnecessary thinking? Awareness of its perpetual movement that has been normalized? That creates and sustains ‘me’ as the divider? The divider seeking to end the division?
Is the fear and dread in my reality, signaling that a wrong path was taken?
To be honest I don’t really grok this idea of an incorrect or bad decision made in the past.
Its the harm caused now that needs addressing - all we need to see is the harm that we are enacting.
Do we see it? Do we see it in its totality, ie the complete model of the suffering system (its basis and actions)?
Do we care?
PS. or are we engaged in the usual continuous power and/or pleasure grab?
No I don’t. Intellectually perhaps but not viscerally. What I meant by ‘wrong path’ taken was the path that saw the world divided (which may be, though K thinks that it isn’t ) and ‘me’ at the center. Where could the harm be in that? Why don’t we see ‘the harm that we are enacting’? We each have to see why that is, in ourselves. He said that calls for a ‘serious investigation’ which is what I think we’re talking about here? The ‘dividing mind’ obviously starts in childhood. We inherit it from our parents as they did from theirs. Society upholds it and ‘individuality’ is applauded. And fostered. And prized. That’s what is. Can that view of the world and ourselves change. No one can change it for me. Do I see the harm in thinking, believing, hoping, that someone can?
Thanks - whether this was a “wrong” path at the time is debatable - it could be seen as a useful path that led to where we are now (being able to switch on the air-conditioning) - thanks to the opportunity it provided for interacting with the world in terms of logic and motivation.
But now, in the world and the interactions with that world we have now - is it sustainable? Is it desireable? or is it actually too primitive and causing more harm than necessary? The primitive process wielding such power is dangerous.
And is the human brain capable of addressing that? Do we need to constantly oppose our fears? beat our children? challenge each other? hold our ground?
Can we see that the self-obsessed instrument is counter productive?
Intellectually we do seem to be able to recognise the harmful situation.
Reading an article about the increase of elder people living alone, the problems of aging and finding oneself alone, the pursuit of finding ways to enable us to live longer and longer with no or little thought what that can mean down the line. The ‘incoherence’ of progress without the thought of consequences…plastic comes to mind!
As old folks with old brains - the best we can do now is to remind people of the concept that harm is not inevitable - that suffering is dangerous and that liberation from suffering is a possibilty.
Don’t forget to say “I love you” to the young’uns - and that they don’t have to become astronauts. That freedom from fear is just one step away.
Let us say I believe in a dogma - "my father in the heaven ". Then I started questioning it.Now of I find the dogma to be a fact, what awakened it ?, it is not my belief in dogma but my questioning awakened me to the fact. So dogma never awakens one to fact, it is questioning that does.
This is the effect Krishnamurti’s teaching has on the conditioned brain, and this seems to be a good thing because the brain is not operating in a way that allows for clarity…quite the opposite, it seems.
this seems to be a new structure of inner conflict which keeps becoming more complex even in the process of trying to resolve it…
I don’t see it as “a new structure of inner conflict” because the built-in conflict of the conditioned brain creates enough confusion. I see it as a reminder that the brain can’t be trusted to do the right thing because it is rarely, if ever, silent or quiet enough to allow for the insight of clarity, emptiness.