If intelligence can “fall prey” to anything, how intelligent is it?
Even Einstein was wrong from time to time. Maybe God is fallible, that would be cool.
You say pot-ah-toe and I say po-tay-to.
K says factual thought and Buddhas say dirty bowls?
Seriously, though the question is whether psychological thought/the psyche can come to terms with the fact that it is irreparably corrupt.
While the character Kurtz in the film Apocalypse Now (which is loosely based on the novel, Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad) accepts and indulges the darkness within the soul, this darkness is what eventually breaks him down. His last words, “The horror, the horror,” suggest that he is seeing clearly for the first time and that he has greeted death so willingly because only death can liberate him from his hopelessness.
Is psychological thought incoherent in and of itself, or is our thinking incoherent because it is the fusion of psychological thought and practical thought?
I don’t know the answer to this question, but if I’m not mistaken, Bohm said that what we assume is practical thought is infused with psychological thought, making all of our thinking incoherent, making us confused.
For all I know, psychological thought is as practical as practical thought as long as it is consistent with the belief it is based on, i.e., that I,me,mine, are actual, not conceptual, illusory.
It seems to me that the incoherence is in the fact that these two individually coherent ways of thinking cannot be combined without creating incoherent thought. Psychological thought can be coherent in itself, but if I, me, mine, are illusions, it cannot be coherent with actuality, whereas practical thought is coherent with actuality.
If I am so familiar with the litterature about the process of self & suffering that I have an excellent working model that I can riff on endlessly about (here on kinfonet for example) - that is a form of “coming to terms”, non?
Maybe some of us here, might recognise themselves in the description above.
If so what are the effects of this intellectual grasp of the teachings? Apart from being able to discuss the matter? Does it ever lead to awareness and letting go of pain and discrimination? Even for short moments?
Does anything “lead to awareness”, or is the brain either choicelessly or conditionally aware of what’s happening inwardly and outwardly?
If I am so familiar with the litterature about the process of self & suffering that I have an excellent working model that I can riff on endlessly about (here on kinfonet for example) - that is a form of “coming to terms”, non? Maybe some of us here, might recognise themselves in the description above.
Yes, the snide reference is duly noted, but aren’t we students of K’s teaching, pursuing an increasingly better understanding of what he was trying to convey to his audience so that at some point we will have no further need of his teaching?
If so what are the effects of this intellectual grasp of the teachings? Apart from being able to discuss the matter? Does it ever lead to awareness and letting go of pain and discrimination? Even for short moments?
Are you asking because you’re too impatient to find out?
I was aware of the danger - but I mean you no ill will, it wasn’t aimed at you, and I hope you can participate with lightness of heart in this question.
I suppose we don’t even know what we mean by the words we say? How could we?
Suffering acutely seems to be the door to relief, so there is an immense respect and awe. If there ever was impatience, it has disappeared.
We know what the words mean, but their total significance is lost on us because we are limited by our precious contents.
Suffering acutely seems to be the door to relief, so there is an immense respect and awe. If there ever was impatience, it has disappeared.
One can’t know what “the effects of this intellectual grasp of the teachings” are until/unless one grasps what K was trying to convey without interpreting it and adding it to one’s precious content. It was his teaching, and it’s ours to acknowledge it for what it is - not for what we think it is.
Once that is done, one is done with the teachings. Whether they do or do not have their intended effect is beyond one’s control.
1 Like
Are we of the opinion that grappling with the ideas presented by K, might lead to the liberating insight?
I don’t see how that might happen.
I mean : wouldn’t we just arrive at conclusions?
Surely it is only by having our conclusions crushed at every turn, that the space for silence may be preserved - for those in need.
This is something done alone, intimately, honestly, grappling with a reality bigger than ourselves.
If there is a recognition of the truth in the teachings, I think this is a result of having seen them in our life.
If you’re so sure about it, why are you here?
Why do you keep asking me this question? What are the images/presuppositions that keep bringing this question back on the table? If I remember correctly : its that super buddhas should be speaking at the intergalactic conference to billions of beings. 
Because I’m speaking to you.
Because we are living here all together on this, the only planet currently available.
Because inquiring into the human condition seems essential.
Because kinfonet is a rare and precious space where we are invited to do so (the fact that violence and confusion is present here is merely a facet of our humanity)
Why should my expressing an opinion on the matter disqualify me from participating?
Why don’t you engage with the inquiry rather than the image you have of me?
1 Like
Because when you say, “This [inquiring into the human condition] is something done alone, intimately, honestly, grappling with a reality bigger than ourselves”, the question naturally arises.
I’m not here to inquire into the human condition - I’ve been doing that for some time on my own. I’m here to “get” what K was trying to convey without interpreting it, customizing it, to suit myself.
Why should my expressing an opinion on the matter disqualify me from participating?
It doesn’t disqualify you - it indicates confusion. Why, if inquiring into the human condition “is something done alone”, are you doing it here? I don’t mind that you’re doing it here, I just wonder why you say one thing and demonstrate something else.
I agree that the inquiry that is self-knowledge can only be done alone, and that inquiry into K’s teaching can involve communicating with others, but I don’t think it’s necessary and may be a hindrance.
It takes a lot of time, patience, and persistence to peruse K’s teachings and come to an understanding that isn’t mine or yours or any one person’s conclusion, but the indisputable facts of what he was saying.
If I was a better student I would not have spent much time in K forums. The teaching is available to anyone who wants to go through it and come out with a clear intellectual understanding of what he was saying and what he meant by it.
Okay - I get it now, thanks.
How would my conclusions be challenged outside of relationship?
By alone, I did not mean physically quarantined or distanced from other humans and their ideas.
It was more that this, by its very nature, was an endeavour that could not be done for you, That it was an act of personal introspection - an honest inquiry into one’s own subjective experience
So, if you honestly believe what you say, why are you here?
Yes, and that question may be what brought me to K forums and kept me participating in them.
Okay that also answers the last question.
So before we got into all that confusion, my actual question to you was (and remains pertinent considering what you have added) :
If K’s teaching isn’t something that the intellect can’t grasp, why would he have spent his life talking about it? Whether it leads to “liberating insight” or not, I don’t know…you’d have to ask K whether he thought it would.
I mean : wouldn’t we just arrive at conclusions?
Is it a conclusion to make no mistake about what K meant by what he said?
So we want to acquire the correct understanding of the teachings. This is understandable. Don’t we all want that? Being right feels good, solid, empowering. We can even tell others that they are wrong, that feels nice too.
This is a normal human impulse, we all recognise it (the movement of self) even if we are, due to neurological and psychological divergencies, more or less weighted towards our different experiences of reality.
So we are all hoping that we will one day grasp the ideas correctly, and maybe even rewarded for our achievement (?) If only to be part of a very select club of knowers.
My suggestion is that wanting to align exactly with the highest authority, be it spiritually or intellectually, is a movement arising from ourselves (desire, imagination) - and that to see honestly what we are saying and doing (and the source of what we say and do) necessitates an enormous urgency that is not available on command.
The Horror is that humans are like zombies that just want to devour the most delicious brains.