Author: Zhao Yun
Date: 10-21-09 17:45
((This is what I've observe so far; Intelligence don't really matter when comes to beliefs, because the more intelligent a person, the imagination tends to be more convincing and realistic, vis-a-vis lies and deceits of course.))
There is a very clear difference between being "clever" and "intelligence". Unfortunately, the definition of "intelligence" have become corrupted over time. The Oxford dictionary defines "intelligence" as "quickness of understanding". In this context, if a judge takes 3 months of deliberation to deliver his judgement, does that still mean he is intelligent? I have presented an alternative view of what intelligence means in a little discourse separately, see below. This is because I don't want this to detract from what I really want to say.
I have no doubt that Liao is highly intelligent and clever within the conventional definition of the word. However I believe real intelligence means INSTANTANEOUS understanding; in other words where no time is involved in analysis, processing, categorizing, rationalizing, etc. Let me back this up with my own real life experience.
I have been teaching Taiji for 15 years and in 99.9% of cases, intellectuals don't do well in Taiji. When I say intellectuals I mean those coming from professions such as university lecturers, doctors, scientists, lawyers, etc. Why? Because the cornerstones of Taiji are relaxness, and the understanding of yin and yang as one and NOT a duality; neither of which fits in well with their professions. Nothing shows up more clearly than in pushing hands. In pushing hands, perception and awareness (in other words understanding) of an opponent's force must be INSTANTANEOUS. An intellectual find this impossible to do because the nature of their professions coupled with years of conditioning on the job require them to take TIME to analyse, process, and rationalize before they can react; by which time, it is too late!!
Lastly, to quote Laozi, "In acquiring knowledge something is added each day; in acquiring the Dao, something is dropped each day." Hence, conventional intelligence is diametrically opposite to REAL intelligence (in understanding the Dao). Acquiring and applying knowledge takes time whereas understanding the Dao is instantaneous.
The mind functions only on the plane of duality (yin and yang). Its clarity consists in clearly defining this duality. A clear demarcation of cause and effect is the expression of this dual principle.
Understanding, however, is not of the mind. It represents a non-dual experience. While intellect functions on the plane of duality, it is intelligence which is awakened in the moment of communion, or, what may be called a non-dual experience. The clarity of intellect and the clarity of intelligence belong to two completely different categories of experience. Intellect is concerned with a clear clarification of duality, but in the clarity of intelligence there is a fusion of the perceiver and the perceived. One deals with knowledge by ideation, while the other speaks of knowledge by being. The clarity of the intellect is only structural, it is intelligence that knows the contents of the structure of things. Intellect knows cause and effect as separate, one from the other, but intelligence knows cause-effect as one phenomenon
But the question is- how is intelligence born? J Krishnamurti said, “Understanding is the beginning of intelligence.” Thus intelligence takes its birth in the ground of understanding. A person of understanding is truly an intelligent person. But since understanding is NOT an intellectual comprehension (as discussed above), one may ask what after all, is understanding?
J Krishnamurti posed the questions, “Is understanding either the process of rationalization or slow analysis (involving time)? Can understanding be cultivated as you cultivate your garden to produce fruits or flowers? Surely to understand is to see the truth of something directly, without any barrier of words, prejudices, or motives.”
Thus, according to J Krishnamurti, to see anything directly, without the intervention of words, is understanding. Understanding demands perception without naming. It must be noted that in nameless perception, there is a simultaneous existence of awareness and understanding. There can be no time gap between awareness and understanding. If there is, then what is called understanding is a mere intellectual comprehension.