if this intelligence is in operation would it matters to it who is specifically available to transports it in the material world.
I’m sorry, I don’t understand this statement or question. Do you mind rewording it for me? Thanks.
Intellect is as K and Bohm stated in the ending of time a movement in the brain , ‘thought’ at work so to say.
Intelligence is of an other order, it can’t be learned it acts or not.
1 Like
And if it acts it also make use of the brain!
And as such the brain is in harmony with the whole and not a disturbing solist playing it’s own tune!
1 Like
Where does this ‘intelligence’ come from?
I’m afread if I knew I gonne get some 
1 Like
Don’t we have to throw all this out Wim? JK is dead and DB ended his life in depression.We still are here. They may have missed the point.
I think it can be still valuable Dan, if we are to study what these guys meant by intelligence. Here’s another interesting quote from the same chapter.
Krishnamurti: Yes. Sir, one can see politically, religiously, psychologically, how thought has created a world of tremendous contradiction, fragmentation, and the intelligence that is the product of this confusion tries to bring order in this confusion, not the intelligence which sees the falseness of this. I don’t know if I am making myself clear. You see, I can be terribly intelligent though I am chaotic.
Bohm: Well, in some ways.
Krishnamurti: That is what is happening in the world.
Bohm: I suppose it is rather hard to understand that at this moment, but you could say that in some limited sphere it seems that intelligence is able to operate, but outside it doesn’t.
Krishnamurti: After all, sir, isn’t it we are, after all, concerned with living, not with theories, not theories of insight and so on. But one is concerned with a life in which intelligence operates. Intelligence which is not of time, which is not of measure, which is not the product or the movement of thought, or the order of thought. Now a human being wants to live a different kind of life. He is dominated by thought, his thought is always functioning in measurement, in comparison, in conflict. He says, ‘How am I to be free of all this in order to be intelligent?’ 'How can the ‘me’, how can ‘I’ be the instrument of this intelligence?
Bohm: Obviously it can’t be.
Krishnamurti: That is just it!
Bohm: Because this thought with time is the essence of unintelligence.
Krishnamurti: But I am thinking in terms of that all the time.
Bohm: Yes. Thought is projecting some sort of phantasy of what intelligence is, and trying to achieve it.
Krishnamurti: Therefore I would say that thought must be completely still for the awakening of that. There can’t be a movement of thought and yet the awakening of that.
Do we throw out relativity because Einstein is dead …?
Is the sun not still turning around the world because Copernicus died …?
DB was suffering his whole life from depression and Saral was so keen to keep it hidden for his fellowscientists for a long time and by the way he died from hartfaillure in a taxi from work to home and not from depression.
We should take DB far more serious, abanded by his collegues because they did not understand his hidden variabels proposal and thanks to the publication of Schrodinger Cat is now accepted. There first reaction was: ‘If we can’t contradict him we should negate him’.
The first twelve dialoques in 1975 with K are still not publiced as a whole, why …?
Why were they not publiced in the first place…?
They are available as audiotapes!
Thanks for this quote Richard, it’s still crystal clear !
Wim and Richard,
It’s true that today’s scientists don’t throw out relativity because Einstein is dead (as for me, I don’t really understand it). But they don’t keep the theory just because “Einstein said”. The same with Copernicus. Today’s scientists also say that the world turns around the sun, but not because Copernicus said so, it seems to me. (As for me, I rely on the scientists , but not always.)
So do we say that “intelligence is of another order” because we SEE it for ourselves? Or do we say it because Bohm and K said so? The truth of it IS clear in the quote Richard gave. But it is seen directly, not accepted because K says so.
As for the Earth turning around the sun, personally I’m ok to take the word of the scientists even though (and because) I can’t see it for myself. But as for intelligence being of another order than thought, as for thought being able to solve suffering, and so on, I can’t just take anyone else’s word for it. Where it is crystal clear, then I don’t need K. And if it is not clear, I can listen to K and others and talk things over, without relying or depending on them.
K says that “…the intelligence that is the product of this confusion tries to bring order in this confusion, not the intelligence which sees the falseness of this”. Then if I merely accept this without seeing it, isn’t this “acceptance” also the product of confusion? Richard, I do see K’s words as valuable. But I also see that one must listen and look without allegiance to K, without accepting his authority and that one must also question what he says.
Dan will correct me if I’m wrong but when he asked whether we shouldn’t throw all this out, I took this to mean that it’s necessary for us to throw out any dependence we might have on them as authorities. As you know Wim, I myself have often quoted K at length. But isn’t there a difference between quoting something to talk it over, to look into its meaning — and quoting something in the sense of it being authoritative? Maybe I misunderstood what you mean. It wouldn’t be the last time I misunderstand someone or something.
Yes, I know and appreciate your comments and it is clear that there is a huge and fundamental difference between quoting in the sense of recall an authority and quoting for the search of meaning.
that’s one of the reasons I prefer to reply with a question instead of a statement.
There is also much confusion between intelligence and intellect which for me seems the deifference between what we can train and learn and what is acting through us.
I’ve just translated An Uncommon Collaboration which one could call a stupid action because of my not linguisted training both in English and Dutch and when asked someone to come up with suggestions to better my work, it transformed in such a good coworking, that I feld he should also be mentioned as translater.
Krishnamurti: Therefore I would say that thought must be completely still for the awakening of that. There can’t be a movement of thought and yet the awakening of that.
This is a brain, theorizing, speculating, that an activity or movement within it has to end in order for another order of something, a finer vibration (?) to be received…Another brain reads hears this and asks how does the activity or movement of ‘thought’ end? The question itself is the movement of thought and subsequent ‘thinking’ about this (the search) is the movement of thought which a brain has stated must end. The very ,even the slightest desire to bring about this so-called awakening of intelligence, negates its possibility of arising, according to the brain that has presented the theory. Then thought asks “what is one to do”?
Obviously, if any of this is ‘true’, nothing.
Then the brain that has become interested in all this can speculate that this 'doing absolutely nothing" IS the ‘awakening of intelligence’?
This is fundamental Huguette. No authority. Freedom to look from the beginning. Not accepting anything that we don’t see by ourself. Otherwise, it becomes intellectualize about, speculation. Yes.
Is it a brain theorising, speculating, or a brain trying to describe what intelligence is ? Can intelligence act whether we can descibe it or not ? If on sees that division between human being as nationaly, race , believes… ,as an example, is the cause of the wars , of the conflicts , would you say this is intelligence in action? Not the description but the insight itself. And does this require the self ? Doesn’t this intelligence act by itself? Lot of question I agree 
Exactly. So such a brain is conditioned to find a mean to acheive a goal and have miss the point, would you say ? But this is speculation isn’t it?
Another interesting quote in the same chapter:
Bohm: Then would you say that we could do entirely without thought?
Krishnamurti: I would put it round the other way. Intelligence uses thought.
In this case describing what took place in his brain but speculating that a similar ‘transformation’ could take place in others, somehow, through awareness and understanding?
Could be . Or it could be an invitation. But we are speculating right now 
An invitation to do absolutely nothing…
Rather to inquire. This is what they are doing in this dialogue .
This is the very fundamental difference between thought running on its own and thought used by intelligence!
When there is some way to disguintish this difference, that activity seems to me thought working on its own!