Intellect is a tool

[atanu]

Intellect is only an instrument of the Self. It cannot help you to know what is beyond itself.

~ Sri Ramana Maharshi (Talk-618)
.............

Can we discuss this?

Note: For most Hindus, Self (Atman) is true being of an individual beyond identification with phenomena, the essence of an individual.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ātman_(Hinduism)

 

[Deathbydefault]

Speaking theologically here...

It likely means that ones intellect, no matter how great, is unable to deal or collide with spiritual matters.
Intellect being a tool (or gift depending on your religion) for you to process the physical.
However, it is the incorrect tool for delving into what is beyond your comprehension, the power of spirituality (or however you want to call it).

Did I hit somewhere in the ballpark?
Just because I don't believe in this stuff doesn't mean I can't emulate those whom do .
(I say now before someone in the thread destroys this^ interpretation...)

 

[Aiviu]

Intellect is only an instrument of the Self. It cannot help you to know what is beyond itself.

~ Sri Ramana Maharshi (Talk-618)
.............

Can we discuss this?

Note: For most Hindus, Self (Atman) is true being of an individual beyond identification with phenomena, the essence of an individual.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ātman_(Hinduism)

I am separated from beyond. When i let myself sink into the beyond my thinking thus my underlaying logic dissolves into it. This is the point where i decide that I trust my intellect as far as i can think and i believe in whats beyond as far as i can feel.

 

[allfoak]

My interpretation:
Stop trying to figure it all out and just live life.

 

[allfoak]

That would make intuition a tool as well.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Feeling, intuition, etc. involve brain and intellect.

However, it is the incorrect tool for delving into what is beyond your comprehension, the power of spirituality (or however you want to call it). Did I hit somewhere in the ballpark?

Did you? I do not think so. What benefit one can get by delving into something which is 'beyond his comprehension'? For example some one who has studied history delves into Quantum Mechanics. Either we accept that it is comprehensible or just leave it if it is incomprehensible (God, for example). Intellect is the only tool which can allow us to go beyond what we can perceive like the waves and the quantas of energy. Not using intellect with only give us stories of how one brought another to life after death or how the other rode to heaven on a white beast. How does anyone claim to understand anything in the world without using intellect?

 

[LuisDantas]

Feeling, intuition, etc. involve brain and intellect.

Pretty much this.

 

[Kueid]

Intellect is only an instrument of the Self. It cannot help you to know what is beyond itself.

Like, it is possible to "know" without intellect? Without it we wouldn't even be typing or would we?

 

[LuisDantas]

Not sure, but the OP may be implying the existence of some sort of mystical or intuitive knowledge that he somehow sees fit to distinguish from intellect.

The idea would need considerable clarification, if such is the case.

 

[Thief]

Intellect is only an instrument of the Self. It cannot help you to know what is beyond itself.

~ Sri Ramana Maharshi (Talk-618)
.............

Can we discuss this?

Note: For most Hindus, Self (Atman) is true being of an individual beyond identification with phenomena, the essence of an individual.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ātman_(Hinduism)

well if you say it is an 'instrument',,,,,,
it is then that portion of 'you'.....that can say.....I am.

 

[morphesium]

Intellect is only an instrument of the Self. It cannot help you to know what is beyond itself.

~ Sri Ramana Maharshi (Talk-618)
.............

Can we discuss this?

Note: For most Hindus, Self (Atman) is true being of an individual beyond identification with phenomena, the essence of an individual.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ātman_(Hinduism)

I disagree here. We need intellect and reasoning to know what is beyond self - whether it be self-concious or sub-consious or anything beyond that. And it is only with our intellect, we can reason ourselves. It is only with our intellect we can realize the the susceptibilities of our thought system (from individual to mass scale, from personal to general) including hypnotic behaviours, habits etc. we need intellect to learn mathematics and other sciences which again grants us tools to learn more about ourselves and nature without which it would never be possible.

I do believe in the future computers would have better AI than what we have. As complexities grow, it will have senses and even life. (I am not willing to debate on this here though).

"There is a very intimate connection between hypnotic phenomena and religion". —Havelock Ellis

 

[Kueid]

Not sure, but the OP may be implying the existence of some sort of mystical or intuitive knowledge that he somehow sees fit to distinguish from intellect.

The idea would need considerable clarification, if such is the case.

Oh, I get it. If this is the case then the quote makes sense.

 

[atanu]

Not sure, but the OP may be implying the existence of some sort of mystical or intuitive knowledge that he somehow sees fit to distinguish from intellect.

The idea would need considerable clarification, if such is the case.

Why? Do we know the whole of our conscious/subconscious mind?

 

[atanu]

Speaking theologically here...

It likely means that ones intellect, no matter how great, is unable to deal or collide with spiritual matters.
Intellect being a tool (or gift depending on your religion) for you to process the physical.
However, it is the incorrect tool for delving into what is beyond your comprehension, the power of spirituality (or however you want to call it).

Did I hit somewhere in the ballpark?
Just because I don't believe in this stuff doesn't mean I can't emulate those whom do .
(I say now before someone in the thread destroys this^ interpretation...)

No no. I mean the reverse.

Neural networks work and don't leave us any clue as to why we act the way we do, why we have certain proclivities and motivations.

How will the intellect know it's master, the network? I mean, can a character in a movie understand its creator?

 

[1137]

See like your basic passive mysticism. Sit back, relax, dissolve.

 

[LuisDantas]

Why? Do we know the whole of our conscious/subconscious mind?

Probably not. That does not remove the need for clarification. Do you realize that?

 

[George-ananda]

Intellect is only an instrument of the Self. It cannot help you to know what is beyond itself.

~ Sri Ramana Maharshi (Talk-618)
.............

Can we discuss this?

It is saying the instrument of intellect can not understand the Source of its consciousness. The eye can see out but it cannot see the eye.

 

[atanu]

well if you say it is an 'instrument',,,,,,
it is then that portion of 'you'.....that can say.....I am.

Which portion of 'me' says "I am"?

 

[George-ananda]

See like your basic passive mysticism. Sit back, relax, dissolve.

It is more like seeing the Real from the unreal dream. For a time we are interested in involvement in the less real dream world but eventually that will pall on more advanced souls and they will ask for the point of all these temporary things that come and go so quickly and they will ask if there is a higher more Real truth to experience that is more satisfying. Hence the individual soul grows from the unreal to the Real.

 

[YmirGF]

Intellect is only an instrument of the Self. It cannot help you to know what is beyond itself.

~ Sri Ramana Maharshi (Talk-618)
.............

Can we discuss this?

Note: For most Hindus, Self (Atman) is true being of an individual beyond identification with phenomena, the essence of an individual.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ātman_(Hinduism)

I'd be more inclined to call intellect a feature of consciousness or an attribute, rather than implying that it is separate from the whole ball of ethereal wax. I suppose it really gets down to how one perceives self. If self is all that is, then by its nature intellect cannot see beyond that, though it can eventually make sense of a great deal more than some might expect. If one does not see self as all that is then intellect has a much broader role to play in distilling experience.