All of us are
required to go to school, where our heads are filled with
data. We are asked to solve problems that require and
emphasize an intellectual understanding; these problems
usually involve the manipulation of symbols (language and
mathematics). We even take an intellectual approach to
psychology and therapy! In life, we are taught to use the
intellect to ensure success: "Which of three equally
competitive shopping carts should I use for my internet
business?" How can you make a decision if all other factors
(including price) are equal? Well, you have to make up your
mind somehow, and if truth be known, people make these sorts
of decisions based upon what feels better.
The intellect
is the problem poser, the goal seeker, the statistics
gatherer and the data analyst. The results of an
intellectual analysis are always statements of
probabilities, for the intellect is incapable of true
knowing.
Moreover,
nothing is this universe is perfect, and so the intellect is
never satisfied, for even when it does find a solution with
a high probability of success, the intellect can always find
fault! The intellect can always pose a new question, or a
new aspect of a situation or problem, or postulate something
different or something better. No matter how excited I am at
the computer store, for example, my intellect always
questions whether I could have made a better purchase.
“Maybe you should have gotten the other monitor!” it says.
"It was more expensive, but it had a bit better picture."
“The other hard
drive had more capacity, you should have bought it!” etc.
Of course you need the intellectual function
to perform even basic tasks. And I'm not
questioning the gathering of data to make an informed
decision. But too often, in my experience, I have neglected
that inner nudge which seems always to directed me onto the
path of least resistance. One Saturday morning I got up late
for a 9 o'clock appointment. I hadn't time for a shower or
breakfast, but my inner knowing told me to relax and have
breakfast anyway. Well, I ignored that, jumped into the car
and drove hell-bent-for-leather, arriving at about 9:04.
When I knocked on the door, I discovered a note that said
the appointment had been changed to 9:30. It was too late to
go back to the house so I had to cool my heels for 25
minutes, kicking myself for not trusting my intuition.
Knowing
Understanding
is a feeling, a knowing. Anyone who has ever just
known something can tell you that. Example: You've been
working in the basement all day reorganizing. There are no
timepieces anywhere. Your friend says:
“What time is
it?”
You say “It's
3:15”
“How do you
know that?”
“I don't know
.... I just know it!”
The question
was posed to the intellect and the intellect tries to
answer, but it cannot, for there are no logical, factual
reasons upon which to base a reasonable response.
How DID you
know it was 3:15? You felt it. You knew it with complete
certainty.
When your
friend runs up the stairs and sees '3:15', he thinks: 'just
a lucky guess'. If you try to explain to him your feeling of
certainty, he might laugh at you, unless he is one of those
people who has a little understanding of his true self.
A gifted car
mechanic can 'feel' his way around the machine and identify
a problem with no diagnostics. I've seen that, and it's
pretty amazing. "How did you know I had a bad solenoid?" I
asked. "I don't know, I just knew." Of course this
understanding comes from a lot of experience with cars, but
this mechanic has learned to trust his 'instincts.' Would
you rather have a guy with a PhD. in automotive engineering
work on your car, or that greasy mechanic? I'll take the
greasy guy any day!
Let us take a
few more examples.
The phone
rings, you immediately know it’s Uncle Harold. How do you
know? You just know. You pick up the phone and say “Hi Uncle
Harold!” He says “How did you know it was me?” Now try
explaining that to the intellect. You can't do it!
The intellect
devises solutions like this: get caller ID, and hope that
the person using Uncle Harold's phone isn't Grandma Harold,
or their son-in-law, who lives with them. Or, keep a log of
phone calls and times of calls. Then when the phone rings,
consult your log and your statistics and say 'there is a
63.2% probability that the caller is Uncle Harold'. That's
the best the intellect can do, because it deals only with
data.
The knowing of
something before it is possible to know it is often called
intuition. Or a 'gut feeling'. Or 'instinct.' Or a 'hunch.'
But this sort of rock-solid understanding is a feeling of
total certainty about something without being able to
logically or reasonably explain why. Anyone who has ever
experienced this understands what I am saying.
I'll use
another example from my own experience. I was on the highway
behind a truck which was carrying furniture. All of a
sudden, I KNEW that one of the chairs was going to fall out
of the truck, so I swerved over into the other lane. Not two
seconds later, that very chair fell out of the truck into
the lane I just vacated. Now, how did I know? Explaining it
in terms the intellect would understand is impossible,
because the intellect can always find reasonable objections
to your 'process', and because, essentially, the intellect
just deals in data, and logical extrapolation from that
data. The intellect hasn't a clue about true knowing. The
kind of knowing I'm talking about is one of the inherent
properties of consciousness. Consciousness has the ability
to know something before it has manifested. It has the
ability to know something as factual before the occurrence
of it. This knowing I am calling the understanding, as
opposed to the intellect.
The intellect
could never have predicted what happened to me, for the
intellect, through mere observation of the truck, would not
have seen anything out of the ordinary. The truck in
question had been tooling down the highway for quite a while
without incident, so there was no reason to logically or
observationally detect anything amiss.
The point I
want to make is that the intellect is detached from all
feeling, and therefore, knowing. It is sterile, and operates
only upon what it can observe.
All of us
understand this. There is a saying that goes “It's one
thing to understand something intellectually, but it's
another thing to really know it.”
The intellect
poses problems or goals, gathers and organizes data, and
that is very necessary. However, that's as far as it is
capable of going. True understanding is accomplished in
the allowing of the thought stream of knowing that comes
to you in response to your asking.
When the phone
rings, you simply pick up on the thought stream of Uncle
Harold. When your friend asks you for the time, you allow
the knowing that somehow connects you with all of the
timepieces that are displaying the correct time, and all
those who are observing timepieces in your area.
How is True
Knowing Possible?
How do you know
who is calling before the phone is picked up?
How do you know
that a chair is going to drop on the highway right in front
of you?
How do you know
that the proposal you submitted will be accepted before you
have heard anything about the final decision ?
Quite simply,
it is thought transference, combined with the Law of
Attraction (1).
Thought
transference occurs when one is aware of one’s connection to
the universal field of consciousness. Every time you feel a
sense of well–being you are connected to the energy of life,
which composes all matter and energy in the universe. The
ancients called it chi, or prana. Life force energy is the
energy of thought itself, which proceeds from consciousness,
and so connection to this stream of thought/energy can
provide us with the understanding we seek, upon any
subject. (I don’t, however, want you to build my house
without a blueprint!)
Every particle
in the universe is connected with every other particle, from
one end of the universe to the other, all at the speed of
thought, which makes the speed of light look like it is
standing still.
Thought
transference happens all the time, and it is the most
natural thing in the world. I would venture to say that
everyone reading this has had an experience which could be
described as telepathy, or prior knowing; we call this
intuition, but the word 'intuition' does not truly describe
the utter certainty that accompanies such an event. When you
know something in this manner, there is complete assurance
of what will happen, before the actual event has occurred.
In the
vibrational universe model, everything in the universe is
composed of thought, so everything in the universe is
conscious, on some level. Every energy, every object, is
composed, ultimately, of thought. A conscious being may
theoretically -- if he or she does not disallow it -- pick
up upon the vibrational signal of objects and people. If you
don't believe that, go talk to my mechanic! We have been
trained since Day One to deny ourselves this ability, and
for anyone to even suggest it invites instant ridicule. But
this ridicule comes from the intellect, which is incapable
of understanding it.
The Law of
Attraction says, ‘that which is like unto itself is drawn.’
(Esther Hicks) And so the driver on the highway who is
desirous of a safe trip, may pick up on the vibrations
emanating from the back of the truck, and sense that the
chair will fall from the truck. And so when the phone rings,
a person may know with complete certainty who is calling.
And so on.
The Intellect
Disagrees
There will be
many objections to this discussion, of course:
“Of course the
intellect can know! The sum of all 3 angles in a triangle =
180 degrees. That is knowing of the intellect, that is
certainty.”
“No, the sum
of all angles in a triangle = 180 degrees only in Euclidean
geometry. In hyperbolic geometry, the sum of all angles in
a triangle is less than 180 degrees and in spherical
geometry the sum of the angles is greater than 180 degrees.”
Oops! There is
really no total certainty, intellectually.
Even if we say
2 + 2 = 4, the intellect can say, “Yes but it has been
postulated that there are no discrete boundaries to an
object, so the object cannot be said to be a separate
thing. Therefore 2 + 2 = 4 is meaningless.”
“Yes,” says the
intellect, “But in mathematics, 2 + 2 = 4 is simply a true
statement, based upon the consistent and logical system of
thought called mathematics.”
And that's the
point. The deepest the intellect can go into true
understanding is, “This statement is true because it is
consistent, or follows logically, from that which I have
decided previously is valid.” This is not true
understanding, for understanding is, at its root, a feeling
of complete certainty.
The highest
ability of the intellect is it's power of reasoning, but
this often gets it in trouble, because it must always run
around in a circle, chasing its tail, or follow an endless
trail of thought that can have no definitive conclusion. But
no matter how many times it is stymied, it always tries to
approach the problem from another line of reasoning.
A good example
is the intellect's attempt to reason a solution to the
problem of the origin of the universe.
“Well, let us
reason that the universe originated in a singularity from
which all energy in the universe came forth.”
“Where did the
singularity come from?”
(here the
debate may range widely, but it will always fold back in on
itself, eventually).
“The
singularity does not really exist in our universe, it is a
portal to another universe.”
“But where did
the energy in that universe come from?”
“From another
singularity in another universe.”
“Yes but it all
had to start somewhere.”
“It is a
circular process.”
“Yes but who
created the circle? There has to be a starting point.”
“The origin
point is God.”
“But who
created God?”
“God is the
singularity, because it contains everything.” etc. etc.
etc.
Just a big
circular argument that goes nowhere.
Or, the
intellect tries to find the smallest particle in existence,
so it says there are atoms, but then it reasons there may be
something smaller than the atom, and so electrons, protons
and neutrons are discovered, then it reasons that maybe the
neutron and proton are composed of smaller particles, and so
the quark is discovered, but maybe the quark or even the
electron is composed of even smaller particles; because
after all, science admits it cannot clearly perceive
anything at the quantum level, and so where does this stop?
Is there a 'smallest particle'?
It is typical
of the intellectual approach, where one question leads to
another, which leads to another, ad infinitum. We can't
really know anything from this process, because no matter
how much data we accumulate, and no matter how we organize
that data, the intellect can always ask another question.
If a smallest
particle were found, the intellect would not be satisfied,
for it would think 'well maybe there is an even smaller
particle than that' and someone would go to work attempting
to discover it!
Intellect vs.
Understanding
What is true
knowing, then? What is true understanding?
If we were to
consult our understanding we would find that we are eternal
beings and that all is well, and that we are pure positive
creative potential with the possibility of creating and
experiencing, and we would know this with such certainty,
and such exhilaration, that the experiencing of life would
be continuous joy.. To know this, one has to feel it. Once
you feel it, you can never doubt your own true nature; but,
of course, you cannot explain it in an intellectual way.
Such
speculation as 'what was the beginning of the universe' or
'how small is the smallest particle' seem unimportant when
we understand who we really are. Fun to think and speculate
about, yes, but profound and vital? Hardly!
It’s like
sticking your finger into the water and concluding that you
have discovered all about the Pacific Ocean.
The intellect
can only probe shallowly. It does the best it can with the
data it has available to it. But it cannot reach the
glorious understanding of Self, for it is always looking
outside of Self. It cannot feel the energy of life, which is
the carrier wave of thought and knowing.
Why is it so
important to even mention this? Understanding, knowing, and
the intellect are all aspects of consciousness, so why
bother to separate them?
Because if we
rely solely on the intellect, as we have been taught, we
will never be satisfied! Because our technological society
glorifies the intellect and castigates intuition as
'unreliable,' 'airy-fairy,' and even 'weird.' It glorifies
the fighter and those who make war, and pillories the
reasoned voices that call for understanding and peace.
For example,
you buy a new house but then you notice that new tile in the
bathroom would be a good idea. You go over to your
neighbor’s and see how big their living room is, and that
their home theater is a lot bigger than yours. Their
basement is bigger too, and they’ve got a Brunswick 9 foot
professional pool table in there. Now your nice new house
doesn’t seem so nice anymore!
This is not a
bad thing, it is the intellect's job. The intellect's job is
to discern difference.
But the
intellect is concerned with that which is outside of Self.
Satisfaction
with anything, appreciation of anything, occurs when we turn
to another aspect of consciousness, the understanding. The
understanding says: “I am an eternal being, a perfect aspect
of universal consciousness, and I know that all is well.”
The
understanding is always satisfied, because the understanding
is concerned with what is within Self. And what is within is
pure, positive, creative potential that knows itself,
without the slightest doubt, as Divine.
I am not saying
the intellect is a bad thing, I am saying the intellect is
not the only thing! If we admit that as human beings we may
only be utilizing a fraction of our potential, then there
must be a part of us that is not fully developed. This
undeveloped part I call the understanding.
We develop our
intellect like the muscle-bound weightlifter develops his
body, but the weightlifter becomes unbalanced in the
process. He loses flexibility among all of that
overdeveloped muscle, just as we also lose contact with our
true self as we overdevelop the intellect.
The Intellect
and Society
Society teaches
us to abandon true understanding and accept the pitiful
substitute of probability and statistics, which are all
based upon the experiences of others. Society teaches tells
us never to develop the powers that each of us, as conscious
beings, possess, the powers inherent in consciousness
itself! That is because society believes that consciousness
comes from mud. Reliance upon what-is, upon those things
which can be seen and observed, is a great way to discover
the laws of matter and energy, but a crummy way to go about
trying to understand ourselves. Again, the belief that
consciousness originates in matter makes the study of matter
all–important. It places attention outside of self and
denies your basic spiritual and divine nature. The strict
reliance upon what-is, and upon data, is the bedrock belief
of almost everyone in our society. Complete and total
dependence upon the limited abilities of the intellect is
what we are taught since the first day of our birth.
“Daddy, did you
see the angel?”
“What?”
“Did you see
the angel Daddy? She is really beautiful!”
“There's no
such thing as angels, dear. And even if there are, they're
invisible.”
“I see one
right now!”
“Look, little
one –– if you see angels, people will think you're crazy.
The only thing that is real is what is in front of your
face. It's time you started to face reality and learn about
the real world.”
(frowning) “But
I saw the angel Daddy!”
“'It was just
your imagination sweetheart. Forget about it.”
Almost
everyone, from my generation at least, has experienced a
conversation like this one at some time during their
childhood. We were taught since the moment of birth that
awareness of anything not strictly observable to the five
human senses was invalid. And so we have had our natural
abilities trained right out of us. We have been taught to
rely upon our reasoning, and logic, all the while neglecting
the deep well of understanding and knowledge that proceeds
directly from our infallible inner voice, our source, which
will guide us unerringly toward our highest good.
Click Here for
more information
|