SATURDAY DIALOGUES August 19 (& Sun August 20), 2023 – Intelligence

Dialogue Question: Does intelligence include the intellectual and the emotional?

This week we’ll warm up with a statement from K’s early life (1933) providing one of his perspectives on the question of intelligence. In this statement he talks about intelligence in terms of both the intellect and emotionality. Examining it, do we see intelligence the same way?

Krishnamurti on Intelligence as Unity of Mind and Heart:

Training the intellect does not result in intelligence. Rather, intelligence comes into being when one acts in perfect harmony, both intellectually and emotionally. There is a vast distinction between intellect and intelligence. Intellect is merely thought functioning independently of emotion. When intellect, irrespective of emotion, is trained in any particular direction, one may have great intellect, but one does not have intelligence, because in intelligence there is the inherent capacity to feel as well as to reason; in intelligence both capacities are equally present, intensely and harmoniously.

Now modern education is developing the intellect, offering more and more explanations of life, more and more theories, without the harmonious quality of affection. Therefore we have developed cunning minds to escape from conflict; hence we are satisfied with explanations that scientists and philosophers give us. The mind - the intellect - is satisfied with these innumerable explanations, but intelligence is not, for to understand there must be complete unity of mind and heart in action.

Krishnamurti, 1st talk, Frognerseteren, Norway 9/06/33

Zoom Info & Link:

Date: 1st and 3rd Saturdays of the month
(or Sundays following the 1st and 3rd Saturdays for E Asia, OZ, and NZ)

Time: Dialogue I at 3 PM UTC
Dialogue II at 11 PM UTC

See the attached Schedule for the time in your time zone or check the time at under Dialogue groups.

Duration: 2 hours

Zoom link to join: Launch Meeting - Zoom

Meeting ID: 899 4119 3018
Passcode: 641528

                    (Reference to *Particular*, *General*, *Universal*) 

K: “I say that there is a living reality, an immortality, an eternity that cannot be described; it can be understood only in the fullness of your own individual action, not as a part of a structure, not as a part of a social, political, or religious machine. Therefore, you must experience true individuality before you can understand what is true. As long as you do not act from that eternal source, there must be conflict; there must be division and continual strife.

Now each of us knows conflict, struggle, sorrow, lack of harmony. These are the elements that largely make up our lives, and from them we try, consciously or unconsciously, to escape. But few know for themselves the cause of conflict. Intellectually they may know the cause, but that knowledge is merely superficial. To know the cause is to be aware of it with both mind and heart.Stresa, 1933

1 Like

Does this mean experiencing separateness is necessary? Or in this context does individuality mean something else like standing alone which is actually not separative.

1 Like

Can we operate in a state of harmony within ourselves that allows us to take in any conflict that comes our way and respond to it intelligently? I don’t know for certain, but the question opens up the possibility. It’s the possibility of a state of harmony in which I don’t avoid a conflict or deny that one is there, or deny my feelings or thoughts about it. And without a sense of threat or disturbance, can I see the conflict that presents itself and be able to give a response intelligently? that is, to speak to what the situation needs, rather than react out of fear or pleasure? It sounds rather ideal but I think we’ve all done this at some point or other. So it seems possible that it can be a regular, continuous way to live daily life. Excluding how we feel about what’s going on seems to impair a clear view of what’s going on. Intelligence and harmony seem to be about taking everything in and not rejecting or excluding anything.

When a baby (or a pet, or a plant) is hungry or sick, a mother or a father, or a caregiver, responds with love and affection. He/she does everything to confort the baby, it is the right thing to do, it feels natural and intelligent. Both my intellect and my heart care for the baby.
Can any problem I have (internal or external) be seen as a …”baby” I need to care for, immediately and fully ?

1 Like

What is relationship of intellect and feeling? Is the intellect ever one with feeling? Or intellect is separative. Observer and observed, experiencer and experienced, me and feeling. Is thought ever integrated with feeling. As soon as there is thought or judgement, there is subject object. Pain turns to self pity, anger turns to hate.
Then what is this integrated feeling. Is it something to do with words? Only in non-judgement, non-identification, there is oneness and that mental sensation flows. In it there is no separation as me and feeling. From that integration, there can be undivided action.
For example if I label you as British or German, I am looking at you through the word, not directly. If those countries are at war, then those words become loaded with emotion. To look directly means looking at you without that. Then you are not different than I am. It is integrated. It is not divided feeling nor divided intellect. Observer is observed in the non-labelling. It is both mind and heart. If I work for example on intellectual level without heart, then my thought is against my feeling. Thought is basically unaware, so it is not aware of feeling, other than word. If word is absent, then feeling can come up integrated as sensation without separate observer. It flows in space without division. The mind is integrated, it is not thought supressing feeling or feeling overpowering. Both are unawareness where thought is separate from feeling, observer is separate from observed. In awareness there is no feeling of division

It excludes yourself from the picture at the very least.

What I feel is that emotion (like thought) is a double edged sword.


In dialogue I’ve heard the critique that taking care of the self is inflating the ego. I don’t think that’s right. If I am disturbed, or another is disturbed, that’s conflict, that’s separation. The disturbance is understood and felt as the disconnection that it is, the alarm that says I need something. It’s natural and automatic to act to soothe the disturbance which is establishing connecting. I think meeting the needs of myself or yourself is the opposite of inflating the ego. In most cases, getting the love and attention it needs deflates the ego and that’s just common sense intelligence.

I think many people have been conditioned to believe it’s bad to feel emotions. Then the brain is used to rationalize not feeling, and denying the self. It’s ironic that one would FEEL so strongly about someone being too emotional ! and then rationalize that the self shouldn’t be inflated; the underlying message being I don’t deserve to feel good, my pain isn’t valid, I’m not allowed to cry, and neither should you because i might have to feel it too. This is a memory of being made to feel so bad (through punishment) to feel anything. Passed from generation to generation.

it’s kind of crazy that we need to have a conversation about something so fundamental as taking care of each other, and feeling feelings, but so many of us including myself are disconnected, and resist what we and others need for lack of being able to think and feel clearly, intelligently. We’re so scrambled up with conditioning. Can this scrambling be penetrated and seen clearly?

What do you mean by double edged?

They can cut both ways ie. they can lead us to harm or to help.

RE: Does Intelligence include the Particular and the Emotional?

Kinfonet Participants,

I’m writing to ask what you thought of yesterday’s dialogue. If you’d like to comment on how it went for you, or express something further about the topic, please click on the “Visit Topic” button at the end of this email to enter your comment.

Do not reply by email. The system is not set up to receive them.




Damn! I’m sorry I missed it! Heatwave has grilled my brain - I just realized today is Sunday.

On the topic though : the idea that change requires both one’s emotions and intellect pushing in the same direction is something that I’m posting regularly here on the forum these days.
Ideas that aren’t taken to heart just have no power.

In fact, I’ve realised lately that just explaining stuff to people is pretty much worthless - for a discussion to impact us we have to actually be emotionally invested - invested with real curiosity about what is on the table.

1 Like

Macdougdoug makes a very good point. It really is like walking on a knife’s edge. The mind, the heart, and the brain have to totally engage with this inquiry either on one’s own which would be a self-inquiry, or in a group which would be a dialogue. Is there an inquiry that has this open curiosity? Or has the inquiry already been hijacked by a motive to get something or to have some kind of experience or to fortify one’s knowledge? Can such a mind be aware of all these factors as they arise in relationship to the inquiry? Is there such a quality of inquiry that is very clean, orderly, and honest? Does such an inquiry need emotion behind it? Can emotion be trusted? Can ‘feelings’ be trusted? Do we see how careful we have to tread or go into this? You see, where is the common ground in which we can MEET? How can you and I move into this very carefully and yet with passion? Without this quality of passion with its alert energy, I don’t think we can truly meet one another. That is why to begin with perhaps it is better to just be with self-inquiry and really go into some of these very deep questions that K is raising for oneself. After all why do I need to be part of a group? Why do I want to be involved in dialogue? Why? Am I afraid to be alone? Am I afraid that I will deceive myself? Are these questions not important to ask? Are these questions not part of self-enquiry? Sometimes I strongly feel that we have all gone ‘dialogue’ mad :slight_smile: Is it not also important to ask what is the main driving force behind most ‘dialogues’? Do ‘dialogues’ bring about the awakening of intelligence in human beings? Are human beings flowering during the dialogue process? I think these are very important questions to ask oneself. Are you and I flowering as human beings? Do you understand what I mean by flowering? Do we understand what K means by flowering? Or are we stuck somewhere in a rut? Are we deeply attached to some experience? Are we meeting these questions with the same energy, the same passion to find out? If we are then a dialogue is taking place but if we are not then no dialogue is possible. It will be very superficial and a waste of one’s time and energy.

1 Like

Thanks Alistair - I just wanted to say that as a novice at this online dialogue stuff, the main thing I am dealing with are my emotions when listening. And that already feels like a big deal - as experience often does.

Well Douglas we are in the same boat because I am a novice when it comes to dialogues also :slight_smile:
For me also many emotions come up during the dialogue process and this can only be a good thing. In self-inquiry, such emotions may not get triggered or come up at all. I am starting to see that it is not so much what I say during the dialogue process but what is coming up inside my mind in relation to what is being said. Can you and I begin to become aware of our strong reactions? Someone in the dialogue may say something I don’t agree with and I have a very strong reaction. Is it possible to be aware of this reaction? Also what exactly is an emotion? Is an emotion also a reaction? When I feel very emotional about something that has been said is that emotion helping or hindering the awakening of intelligence? You see, emotions like feelings come and go. If they come and go can they be trusted? Do feelings and emotions colour our perception? Please try and follow this if you can. Do feelings and emotions distort clarity? When I honestly look at all this there is no doubt that they do!! And yet, K talks about being passionate right? Is passion also a feeling or an emotion or is it something quite different in the way that K uses that word? Is there such a quality of passion that has no motive? It is very rare that we do anything in this life without a motive, gross, subtle or hidden :slight_smile: Is it possible to find out if this passion can flower in each one of us so that this intelligence can begin to awaken? Does a motive prevent or inhibit this awakening of intelligence? Again, these are vital questions to ask oneself during self-inquiry. I strongly feel that each one of us must first ask this of ourselves before we bring such questions to a dialogue. Without first understanding the gross and subtle movements within myself how can I have any clarity on the matter during a dialouge? Does it not become a case of the blind leading the blind???

I agree! Thought word and deed must be in unison as should the heart and the head. Any discord leads to conflict from within leading to a duality between the heart and the head. Once that occurs we are stressed and we end up with mental problems or physical problems.
I like the way he separates intellect and emotion. He further says that intelligence is the coming together of the 2. I think as a group we could have explored how they can digress and when this happens what or how do we feel/ experience. Example getting a person out of the group for harmony. Would this have really given us a sense of harmony in the long run? In the short run yes, as we are removing the source of discord. BUT more importantly as a group how do we look at and respond to discord? Can we ever appreciate harmony without discord? So should we not embrace the harmony and the discord too for showing us that both are felt from the intellect? If the emotion is one of discord should we not find out from within ourselves what is the reason why we feel discord? If my opinion stems from the particular so does the person who I perceive as the one who is creating discord. K I think wants us to use the mind to alert us on its limitations and opening it up so that discord is not looked at negatively ?

1 Like

His use of the word emotion was the flowering of the heart and not the emotion that is created by thought. Harmony occurs when the response is from the heart when it is appropriate and from the intellect when that is appropriate. There is no psychological thought interfering. Being in that balance requires attentiveness.

1 Like

At some point K stopped using “individual” in the way he started using it. Here he was using it to describe someone who was emotionally intelligent, as we say today. Then later he said that to be an individual is to be undivided, indivisible, whole. I don’t see any significant difference between the two.

In other words, choiceless awareness.