K's last statement: New Questions

One day, quite out of the blue, I suddenly realised that despite all the erudite dialogue, despite assiduously devouring K’s books, despite all the golden moments of penetrating insight, despite all that, I steadfastly remained almost completely stupid. After the initial shock had passed, I found it wonderfully liberating. I think, perhaps, it was The Awakening of Intelligence.

1 Like

Maybe. Or maybe intelligence is there in front of us but we don’t see it. For example, I am always getting into arguments. To see a pattern and to investigate what exactly is behind this, to investigate what is going on, requires awareness and intelligence as far as I can see. Or is intelligence something K talks about but we have no idea what it is? Is there a “K conditioning” which blocks us observing ourselves and what is around us?

1 Like

We think of certain people as more intelligent than others, but as specialists in one field or another. People we think of as generally intelligent we call “wise”. But when K spoke of intelligence he said it was beyond the brain, and he equated it with love and compassion and freedom from the known. So what do you mean by “intelligence”?

1 Like

Obviously, there are many different types of intelligence. My understanding of intelligence in the K sense is linked to awareness. The example I gave previously is someone who is always getting into arguments. I think that the intelligence I am talking about is the ability to “step back” and observe what is going on here as if from the outside. This intelligence asks questions such as “Why do I always get into arguments?”, “What exactly is going on here?”. This intelligence observes when the arguments are taking place, learns and goes to the root of what is causing the arguments. This process can have a strong impact on a long established pattern of behaviour. This learning through observation is what I understand this high form of intelligence to be.

You used the perpendicular personal pronoun which is slightly disingenuous if you’re not actually talking about yourself. And thought can learn by experience which, according to K, is not intelligence at all.

Glad it was only “slightly”. I think probably most people, myself included, have acted in an intelligent way at some point in their lives. Are you saying you haven’t? I was talking about the intelligence of observation. This would be observing without drawing conclusions so is different from thought learning from experience. Again, I think this is something that we probably all do, even if rarely. Maybe we do it just enough to recognise what K is talking about.

I think the point is whether we are acting intelligently here, at this moment, in this conversation. I have to say that I am not convinced that we are.

Edit:

I mean no offence btw. It’s just my observation.

Yes, this is something the self-centered, limited brain can do to conserve energy and avoid deepening a conflict. It’s a more mindful approach than reacting. Slowing down, stepping back, and responding reasonably rather than defensively or aggressively is a more practical strategy than the usual conditioned response, but I don’t think K would have called it “intelligence”. I think the Buddhists call it “skillful”, or something.

If intelligence (like love, compassion, observation), is beyond the conditioned brain, it’s beyond our ability to even speculate as to what it is.

Well, we’re discussing different forms of intelligence. This is a complex and deep subject. We can stop and do something else if you want.

It’s a bit like the tree I think. No point in speculating about what the tree is really like beyond the conditioned brain. But we could try just looking at the tree with a silent mind. That might be interesting.

I’m always a little wary of taking one thing and separating it into different things so I’ve not picked up on that.

In which case you would need to have a little intelligence in the first place in order to understand it. So, ultimately, all you will find out is that you are already intelligent. Or clever. But you have not mentioned cleverness.

Well, I’m going to stop and go back to them birdies in the churchyard. :kissing_heart:

2 Likes

Thanks for the reply Pilgrim. The birdies in the churchyard would seem an exceedingly good option to me. September is migration time and rare vagrants may be a possibility which always adds an extra dimension.

I think we could explore the whole area of intelligence and cleverness and maybe discover something new but I’ll leave this up to you. Take care.

Oh, there is nothing new under the sun. It says so in the bible. Ecclesiastes 1:9. We would just go round in circles. Better to listen to the birds.

1 Like

All things are wearisome, more than one can describe; the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear content with hearing. What has been will be again, and what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.
Is there a case where one can say, “Look, this is new”?

A bit further along in this Ecclesiastes rant, the geezer claims :

And I gave my heart to know wisdom, and to know madness and folly: I perceived that this also is vexation of spirit. For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

The birds or The Byrds? (to everything, turn, turn, turn) - The lyrics are taken almost verbatim from the book of Ecclesiastes, as found in the King James Version (1611) of the Bible (Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 ), though the sequence of the words was rearranged for the song.

1 Like

Look at the flower, listen to the birds…why is there discontent here?

It would seem that theosophists prepared the body and the masters or whomever K referred to as “they”, took care of the body and used it. It is recorded that during a flight K claimed that nothing could go wrong because “they” wouldn´t allow anything to happen to that, his, body. In another occasion, regarding to the process, he claimed something to the effect that “they” wanted to see how much of this energy the body could bear. I don´t see how any of this may have something to do with the teachings which consist mainly in being aware of the thinking process, of how thought interferes in what is perceived by the senses which brings about desire, likes, dislikes and so on, and how thought divides itself in order to create a “doer” that wants to change, control, take over and put order in the disorder created by itself which is disorder too, being this awareness intelligence beyond thought but available for anyone, in spite of some people´s attempts to make out of this intelligence something unreachable we shouldn´t even dare to talk about which is ridiculous and pure nonsense. Same with love, attention without intention or direction is love itself, these can´t be divided, all of them, attention, awareness, intelligence and love are one and the same thing.

Yes and no. Leaving the habit of smoking doesn’t take time and yet, body has to get used to not smoking and to go through a process of detox, hasn´t it?
We unnecessarily complicate things quite a lot, IMO.

The mind cannot be silent until the spell of the self is broken.

In a K-discussion forum I use the language the way K used it to suit his purpose. He gave certain words (observation, perception, compassion, love, etc.) special meanings, so why, when we’re discussing K’s teaching, use “intelligence” in the way it is ordinarily used rather than the way K used it?

From K’s point of view the conditioned brain has no contact with what he called “intelligence” because it is enclosed, self-referential, isolated and alienated. This brain can act more or less effectively and efficiently within its self-imposed limitation, and the more effective and efficient it is, the more intelligent it is from its limited point of view. But this better/worse behavior is not what K meant by the word.

1 Like