How do you define “intelligence”? Is our species intelligent? Are we not the least intelligent of all, considering how we’ve been at war with ourselves and nature for the last ten thousand years? Now that we’re looking at anthropogenic climate change, do we still think we’re intelligent?
Krishnamurti said that intelligence is beyond the brain and that one can’t come into contact with it until/unless thought stops and the brain is silent.
Direct perception or ‘meeting the present’ isn’t possible then if there is anything static in the mind like a belief? The present is moving and to perceive it actually, any conclusion, choice, is a resistance to it, to that movement. Any desire which implies ‘time’, a time when the object of that desire will come to pass , can never be in the Presence of the moment which is always only now?
Ordinary mind can´t know what direct perception is. The way ordinary mind knows what is perceived through the senses is closely related to memory, associations, previous experiences and so on whereas direct perception doesn´t depend on any of these to know. According to Patanjali who tried to explain what cannot be explained, direct perception is knowing the essence of what is perceived by the senses beyond form and name or concepts, If you listen to K, he always makes clear that he didn´t read anything, he always says “I´ve heard”, “I´ve been told”, for these people that´s enough to grasp the whole thing, no need to go through the process of memory, discussing, debating and so on which is what most of us need to do in order to understand. Not to mention his repeated example of looking at a tree. Direct perception comes about due to clarity of mind which in turn is due to the emptiness of the content of consciousness. We use to understand emptiness of consciousness as the emptying of stored knowledge but it is not so, otherwise, K wouldn´t have emphasized the importance of our brain as being the mankind´s brain evolving over millennia as well as the importance of “reading” it. For the ordinary mind, anything that is heard, seen, said or done leaves an impression on it and they are these impressions what mechanically trigger thoughts, words and deeds because the one leads to the other, this is of what we aren´t aware and they are these impressions left on the brain what has to be cleansed up , that´s why K suggests to be attentive, fully aware, in order to follow the whole thing, either thought, word or deed, from the beginning to the end so that no impression is left on mind which is by itself going beyond mind or mind acquiring a different quality, meaning that it is not the ordinary mind anymore. According to tradition, it is a matter of going from the gross to the subtle and from the subtle to the subtlest, according to K, it is a matter of deepening. Simple.
This explanation is what one may arrive at after studying K’s teaching (whether or not one smugly claims that it’s “simple”), but it makes no meaningful difference, brings no radical change in the way the brain operates because K’s teaching is just a map - not the territory.
Even if ones map is accurate, it may not be necessary. I don’t know. We don’t know what - if anything - brings about complete awakening to the human condition, the ending of thought, psychological death, freedom from the known, call it what you will. For many it’s just fascinating to ponder. For others it’s a goal to be achieved, be it simple or arduous. But whether this transformative awakening actually occurs, one can’t know until/unless the nightmare of the human condition can no longer be escaped through the dream of what-should-be.
Apart from it to be fascinating to ponder on these things, and for me it is, aren´t you curious at all about what K claims that by being attentive the brain can be freed from the impressions left on it by perceptions, experiences and all the rest which is the true burden it´s unnecessarily carrying on? This is within our grasp, can be tested by anyone.
We can experiment, but I think we are hoping for some powerful, undeniable, shocking experience - and unfortunately these are vanishingly few and far between, I think that it might be fair to say that for most of us : they don’t happen at all.
What we get is maybe a sense of confusion, the usual sense of self imposing its conclusions, maybe some moments of peace - basic subtle non-clarifying normality.
Please feel free to share any examples of useful experimentation.
I think most of us here grasp the teaching, and maybe it can be “tested”, I don’t know. We think it may be pointing to something we can’t quite comprehend.
Thank you @Inquiry, @macdougdoug
As someone used to say, thought creates the abyss heart crosses it.
Certainly, it takes guts to be attentive just for the sake of it as you are putting on your tie.
I think it takes even more guts to be attentive to ourself when I’ve got nothing to do.
Are we ever or do we always include thought in attention? Isn’t including thought inattention?
Good question - is the answer to do with reaction? No up without down, no attention without inattention?
where is the only place one will find an answer if one is looking for one? in thought, isn’t it? in the past? in inattention?
Yes - sounds legit. Okay - If we put aside the word “answer” for the moment.
What is attention without inattention? It seems like there is either silence or noise - is the awareness of the noise (eg. experience/desire/thought/knowledge) what we call attention? How does silence fit in to the equation?
Inquiry:(from another thread)
“Dying is for the living. Self image is not alive. The mind is just imagining itself as I, me, and its content as mine. Is this inevitable, or can the mind be aware of its activity so that its imaginings are never mistaken for anything but imaginings? “
Can the mind discern between the practical and psychological which imagines itself as an individual? Or must the mind be simply empty, silent? And if so what brings that emptiness about?
No. Complete attention excludes nothing, and the conditioned brain is always thinking, consciously or unconsciously.
I can’t say anything about silence because I’m not present when/if silence is, so I don’t know what “it seems like”. All I can speak of is attention to the simultaneity of inward and outward experience; the inner ongoing stream of consciousness reacting to what’s happening outside.
Should the ongoing streaming of thought cease, I would cease to exist, and since I can’t imagine my non-existence, I can’t even speculate as to what life without I would be.
I suppose those who have spent years practicing meditation and learned to slow thought down and prolong the empty space between thoughts might have a clue as to what selflessness is, but a clue is only as good as it turns out to be, so if it doesn’t lead to the end of compulsive, incessant incoherent thought, one may as well be clueless.
Okay sounds like we might be equating : knowing whats going on eg. I am putting on my tie, I am shaving etc…either with attention (because I am paying attention to what I think is going on) or inattention/habit (because there is experience)
Far out, non?
What happens when we put aside ‘looking for an answer’?
I don’t know - we stay with what we see? In this case an inquiry into each others opinions and ideas.
That sounds accurate.
Does that end thought? What happens in that moment of seeing?