21. The Awakening of Intelligence

First published in the summer of 1973, The Awakening of Intelligence contains a wide range of Krishnamurti's teachings. It opens with two conversations with Professor Jacob Needleman from March 1971. The first is about the role of the teacher.

Needleman asks Krishnamurti whether he sees any hope for a new flowering for modern civilisation. K is sceptical.

"For a new possibility of growth, don't you think, Sir, that one has to be rather serious, and not merely jump from one spectacular amusement to another? Young people don't strike me as being very serious, mature, with great intent. I may be mistaken, naturally. For something new to take place there must be a nucleus of really devoted, serious people, who go through to the very end."

K thinks that people generally do not question enough.

"We accept, we are gullible, we are greedy for new experiences. People swallow what is said by anybody with a beard, with promises of a marvellous experience, if you do certain things. You are deceived when you want something."

What would people do if no one helped them? What if there were no books or gurus? Then we would have to rely on ourselves. But we don't seem to be able to do that, so we look for help. We often follow instructions without success.

Why do we need guidance? Because we don't know how to live properly. We're not satisfied with what we have and we want more, but we don't know how to get it.

"The state of 'not knowing' is intelligence. Then it can operate in the field of the known and be free to work somewhere else if it wants to."

The Centre Is the Default

The second dialogue is about inner space and dependence.

K often says that we must have space in order to function; yet we operate from the centre and within a limited space.

"Is it possible to be free of the centre, so that the centre does not create space round itself, build a wall, a prison round itself? Can that centre cease to be? Otherwise, the mind cannot go beyond that limitation."

The centre is the observer who creates the object of observation, the 'not-me'. The self tries to bridge the space between the two. It will not succeed as long as the centre exists.

Needleman says that both the centre and the space it creates are illusions. K rejects this view assuming that Needleman has learned it from someone else. The space created by the centre seems very real to the mind. However, the mind cannot possibly imagine an infinite state – it is literally sacred.

"To imagine that sacredness is folly."

The essential question is whether the centre can be completely empty. Can the content of consciousness empty itself without effort or an operating agent, whether internal or external?

"Of course it can", K replies. "Otherwise we are doomed."

"There is no house if there are no walls or roof. The content is consciousness, but we like to separate them, theorise about it."

What is beyond the walls of the centre? Speculating about that has no meaning, it's just the philosopher's amusement.

When the mind does not form images and is not related to past images, there is space for something sacred that is not invented by thought and has nothing to do with any religion.

The Only Problem

The second part of the book contains three talks delivered in New York in April 1971. The first talk deals with the necessity of an inner revolution, the second, with relationship; and the third, with religious experience and meditation.

During the second talk, K was asked when he is discussing relationships between a man and a woman, whether the same principles apply to relationships between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.

K replied that all love is love; the object is irrelevant.

In the third part of the book, K discusses the nature of human struggle and then the concepts of good and evil with Alain Naudé in March 1971. Naudé worked as Krishnamurti's assistant from 1963 to 1968, but was not involved in the work of the Krishnamurti Foundation at the time of these dialogues.

Naudé begins the first dialogue by stating that humans struggle with three types of problems: ecological, political, and social.

K argues that there is no reason to make this division; these problems are all part of one total movement. He asks why we are interested in an imaginary world that we cannot know anything about. Ultimately, all human problems boil down to one and the same basic problem.

While it is true that there is pollution and war in the world, these are also inner problems. Conversely, internal issues cause us external difficulties in the realm of interaction.

We act in society and create it through our reactions. So why do we want to draw boundaries that don't really exist?

People are used to reacting to the external factors, but they have ignored the internal factors. Our crises stem from human consciousness – the inner self – even though they manifest in the external world.

"When one realises that the world is me and I am the world, then whatever action takes place, that will change the whole consciousness of humanity."

Consciousness is made up of all its content, and all the parts are interconnected. Outside of this content, there is nothing that can be called consciousness, there is no entity to juggle. In India, they talk about super-consciousness, but to K, this is just speculation.

Without content, there is no consciousness. This is not clear to us. We have built up the idea in our minds that there is a self that is separate from consciousness, observing and guiding thought. This idea dominates our thinking.

When a problem is identified, the self does not understand its own role in creating the problem and begins to solve it as if it were an external problem. This is a mistake.

The quickest way to resolve an inner conflict is to understand how the mind creates it. When we see this directly, the problem is solved because the self ceases to divide consciousness. When we stop playing tricks with the contents of consciousness, there is a radical reversal in

the way consciousness works, and the mind is released from its prison. It no longer looks for a solution within, without, or beyond itself.

Evil Is Relative

Naudé begins the second dialogue by asking whether good and evil exist, or if they are simply conditioned points of view. Is there such a thing as evil and if so, what is it? And is there goodness?

K says he recently thought about the same thing while watching baby seals being killed on television. There is evil in the world, but where can real goodness be found? Are these opposites?

K does not like the word 'evil' because it has strong Christian connotations of condemnation and prejudice. In India and Asia, it also has a loaded meaning.

K suggests that goodness means absolute order, whereas evil is disorder – both in the mind and in the external world.

Most human beings live in disorder. Society is organised disorder created by human beings. There is a real intent to hurt people, whether it is organised as war or not. This rejects the good.

According to K, there is absolute good, but absolute evil cannot exist.

Goodness implies total abnegation of the self because the 'me' is always separative. It is the centre of disorder. Remaining in a self-centred circle breeds disorder and conflict.

"Order means behaviour in freedom. And freedom means love, not pleasure. When one observes all this, one sees very clearly that there is a marvellous sense of absolute order."

No Need for a Guru

The two conversations with Swami Venkatesananda explore the world of gurus and spiritual awakening.

Swami begins by asking K about the role of the guru. A guru is supposed to remove darkness, but K believes this cannot be done for another person. Therefore, there is no need for a guru.

According to Vedanta, seekers are classified by their maturity, and an appropriate method is determined for each one.

K rejects this idea. Maturity is neither a matter of age nor something that can be developed. It requires the absence of the self.

A self-centred person will not listen to anyone. He lives in his own world and does not want to give up his sense of the self. An immature person fills his mind with entertainment. He is asleep and does not want to wake up. You can't force anyone to understand you.

Swami believes that you can help people in their search for happiness. K disagrees again. The idea of helping others is based on the notion that the helper knows something that the person being helped lacks.

However, you cannot find truth or happiness by following someone else's instructions or using any method. There is no map or means of reaching the truth. It is everywhere around us.

Only a free and alert person can face the truth and live in happiness. Freedom does not come through another person; quite the opposite. Authority prevents insight. Once we understand this, we no longer accept spiritual guidance. The guru is no longer needed.

But: as long as we don't understand, we listen to gurus.

Everyone Uses His Own Gun

Swami begins the second discussion by presenting the Upanishads' descriptions of truth, and asks whether they are still valid or if need to be revised or renewed.

K replies that there is a danger of repeating these writings without knowing what they mean. For example, we say "I am that", but not "I am also that". We identify with the high rather than the low.

Secondly, why do we want to identify with anything at all?

"Can one actually experience something which is not experienceable? Can one actually experience the feeling of supreme ecstasy? Can one experience the infinite? This is really a fundamental question, not only here but in life."

We can only experience something what we already know. In all experiencing, there is an element of recognition; otherwise, it is not an experience.

When I meet someone for the first time, I form an impression based on my background, values and prejudices.

K asks, what would happen if we had no prejudices or reactions to others? When we say we "experience the highest", how can a conditioned mind recognise it? It cannot.

So why is there the need for experience at all? Why does the 'I' demand the experience of the highest, of happiness, ecstasy or bliss?

"Being in the state in which there is no peace, we want to experience a state which is absolute, permanent, eternal peace."

If the mind can free itself from this demand to experience, it is living in a different dimension. When that desire ceases, you are what you are, and you ask for nothing more.

Swami asks whether anyone can pass on Krishnamurti's message to another person. K wonders what there is to transmit. After all, he is only asking people to look at themselves. When a person sees what he is, he changes without being told or guided by anyone. There is no special message in it.

"I just offer a flower, let them smell it, let them destroy it, let them cook it, let them tear it to pieces. I have nothing to do with it."

We are all responsible for the state of the world, yet we are all too eager to pass responsibility onto others. We ask others how we should act, but each of us carry and shoot our own gun.

Read Between the Lines

The India section contains three talks and four dialogues from Madras in January 1968. Topics include the art of seeing, freedom, sacredness, and the fundamental question that everyone should ask themselves.

The Europe section includes seven talks and five dialogues from Saanen in 1971, and two talks and one dialogue from Brockwood Park in the same year.

The highlight of the book is the final conversation, in which K explores the nature of intelligence with David Bohm in October 1972.

Bohm opens the conversation by saying that he likes to look up the origin and the meaning of words in a dictionary. He explains that 'intelligence' comes from the words inter and legere, meaning 'to read between'.

"Thought is like the information in a book, and intelligence has to read it, the meaning of it. This is very different from what people have in mind when they measure intelligence."

Intelligence is not a learned skill that can be used to solve logical problems; rather, it is an essential ability for everyone. We all have the potential to be intelligent, and need intelligence in our daily lives.

K often used this word in his talks, emphasising that intelligence has nothing to do with thought.

Thinking takes place in the 'old brain'. Our thoughts are the products of physical and electrochemical processes that are strictly material, concrete, and mundane, not abstract or spiritual, as is often suggested.

Intelligence gives meaning to words and feelings. True meaning can never be produced by thinking, because thoughts are mechanical and measurable, whereas intelligence is neither.

K argues that there can be no intelligence when we are thinking. Therefore, the cessation of thought is a prerequisite for the awakening of intelligence; for intelligence to operate, thinking must stop. This is almost the opposite of how we usually see intelligence.

Bohm points out that our conditioning is based on the idea of living in time. Time is the essence of our existence, and perhaps provides even stronger conditioning than the idea that the observer is different from the observed.

Thought functions in time, but intelligence is out of time. Yet there is a relationship between them. Intelligence can 'read' thought, but thought cannot interpret intelligence. Thought can move either intelligently or unintelligently; but to recognise an unintelligent thought requires intelligence.

Bohm says that, although intelligence cannot depend on conditions, it cannot operate if the brain is not healthy. Therefore, in a sense, intelligence is dependent on the brain. Nevertheless, the brain is merely an instrument or a tool for intelligence. Thought functions as a pointer to intelligence, pointing beyond the domain of time. Without intelligence, thought has no value.

Why Does Thought Take Over?

Intelligence can only operate when the brain is quiet, yet there is no way to make it quiet. This seems an insurmountable obstacle. As thought has unfortunately conquered the world, leaving intellect to dominate, there is very little space left for intelligence.

Bohm asks why intelligence allows thought to dominate.

K answers: "Thought must have security; it is seeking security in all its movement. But intelligence is not seeking security. The idea of security doesn't exist in intelligence. Intelligence itself is secure."

Thought seeks pleasure, comfort, and physical security. The whole Western world is based on measure, while the Eastern world tried to go beyond the material world, but exercised thought and got caught.

Physical security is necessary. Our animal instincts make us seek pleasure and security. When we don't get them, thought takes over and dazzles the instinct. This creates a world of illusion, miasma, confusion, and intelligence is put aside.

Thought cannot produce security or sustain happiness because it always involves measurement, comparison, and conflict. It is bound to produce fear, sorrow and destruction.

Thought is responsible for the chaos in the world because it promotes fragmented action rather than activity of wholeness.

Nationalism is a frightening example of a product of thinking. Seeing its falseness would be an act of intelligence. Sadly, thought can never be controlled or dominated by intelligence; it moves on its own.

As long as thought dominates us, we will continue to function in terms of measurement, comparison and conflict, and there is no chance for intelligence to act.

Bohm reckons that religious people may have used the word 'God' as a metaphor for intelligence. This concept originated from a primitive fear of nature and gradually evolved into the idea of a super-father. 'Trust God, have faith, then He will operate through you', they said.

The image of God is so total that it overrides rationality, producing unintelligent behaviour, disharmony and chaos. Millions of people have been killed in the name of God.

The same applies to politics. Within their limited framework, they fight for their own unintelligent purposes, unaware of or indifferent to the consequences. There is no intelligence there either.

A Common Source

Is there a common source of intelligence and thought, and can thought find it? Both thought and intelligence are energy, but thought is confused and polluted, dividing and fragmenting itself.

Intelligence is not polluted. It cannot be divided as 'my intelligence' and 'your intelligence', because it is common to everyone.

When we realise that it is important to be free of the mechanism of thought, we try to control, subjugate or suppress it.

All these are still the operation of thought. Then what can we do?

As we enquire into it, we may come to this source. This perception, this insight has nothing to do with thought. The conclusion based on insight is thought, but insight itself is not in the order of thought.

Insight takes place when we see the whole thing. Then we listen not only to the words used, but also to their meaning. It is the seeing that changes us, not all the verbalisation, but "listening with ears that hear much deeper". This is the way to break conditioning, habit, or image.

The conscious mind is not interested in any of this. It is hard, clever, subtle and brittle. It can never be intelligent or have an insight. Intelligence can act on thought, but, paradoxically, not when we are thinking.

There is a common source to thought and intelligence. If we find it, there is no me and you. To see it, we must be free. As long as we are caught up in thought, we are not free to see it. Thought can never touch the source because a limited instrument can never hold the immeasurable.