Very well, so it is one human being or one brain talking to another or thinking it is talking to another, but what is it in that brain, which is making that statement?
There are only memories in the brain. I love you - that’s not a memory. But if you are hearing it through memory, then the memory reacts to what it hears, associations get triggered and the circus carries on. Whether I see myself as separation or as unity or as the next saviour of the world, it is all so pointless. It is merely adding more to the memory banks. None of those memory banks have value except for sorting out practical affairs. Psychologically, the brain is incapable of perception; that is not its function. Perception comes only when the brain is completely quiet. Probably you won’t accept a word of this; and I am not asking anyone to accept it. The only thing that matters is that we see it together in our relationship now. Then memory is never an issue. But we don’t even start together; we make all sorts of difficulties for ourselves right from the beginning. All of those difficulties are waiting in the memory banks. And I won’t play that game. Once one sees the idiocy of any psychological memory, conclusion, opinion or belief, the game is over; memory is a busted flush.
1 Like
Look, there is a question somewhere in the known universe to which this may be the answer, but not the one which was put. There is a lot of you, you, you in this, and when there isn’t that, there is we, we we.
A set of strong statements was made: you don’t see it, and, it is merely an intellectual position you have formed.
Now, leave aside my memory please, which you know nothing about anyway, and forget about whose statements these are, Paul or Dominic.
If it is said a brain makes these statements, what is it in that brain that makes them, and, what does it make them of?
Well, help us to see it then. Obviously most human beings don’t see that or our relationships wouldn’t be so totally out of wack…often to the point of killing one another.
This is something you keep repeating as if you know it for a fact. At best, you’re paraphrasing K, so why don’t you provide K’s words that support this idea instead of presuming to know it to be true?
The self hasn’t ended for you, so you don’t really know if it can end, or how it ends, and yet you persist in speaking as if you know. Since all you know is what Krishanmurti said, post the appropriate K-quotes instead of speaking as if you have knowledge you don’t really have.
You missed what I thought was the ‘important’ part of my post (for me):
So ‘how’ does it come about? Can it come about or was it a ‘freak’ occurence for K and some other humans in our past? Is it, that if oneself is known to oneself so thoroughly and completely that any arising of the self-image is recognized for what it is (thought/time) and is instantly negated by intelligence. Like the ‘snake in the corner’ trying to take over again but whose danger has been recognised but still must be kept an eye on? Is that the answer then, that until it is known, every game, every trick , every deception possible by self… that that is what must fill the mind and ‘emptiness’ is just another image of self-deception?
This for me ties together (rightly or wrongly) what K has repeated about the importance of ‘self-knowledge’. When (if) the self workings are known they can be ‘seen’ for what they are when they arise. In other words either there is this recognition (intelligence?) and it is dissolved or it is not recognized as such and they ‘control’. Either the ‘danger’ is seen or it is not. Either the ‘snake’ is seen and relegated to the corner, or …you carry on in ignorance, being the ‘snake’.
2 Likes
There are only memories in the brain. I answered your question.
Why do you want help with your own mind? Do you realize the terrible thing you are saying? You are creating an authority. Immediately, you have corrupted our relationship. It is our relationship that matters, not who helps whom. I can show it to you, but I may be wrong, deluded or plain evil. If this really matters, you will work it out.
Habit and memory and belief. Mix well. Fermentation will occur, bubbles will arise to make up the content for further memories, habits and beliefs.
Careful, this sounds like we must build up some vast library of knowledge before we may even start to battle the demon within. 
Actually, you are already perfectly familiar with yourself. The only question is: are you indispensable ?
Maybe there needs to first be a habit of not believing, reacting to, being carried off by every thought one has, as if each thought was essential and important and true.
Yes that says it better. Which means being present to what is taking place. Which is ‘attention’…( K was asked once if he could sum up his teaching in one word, what would it be?" “Attention” he said.)
So memory makes the statements: you don’t see it, and …you have formed.
So what you is memory addressing?
Isn’t this what K was pointing at , that thought / time must have a “stop “? In the psyche, not for practical matters. Not a judgement whether the thought is dispensable or not …but that the actual movement of all thinking must stop? That its operation in the psyche is ‘out of place’? What do you say?
OK, maybe ‘help’ is not the best word, but let’s go into it further…explore…take a journey together, to use K’s phrase. K ‘helped’ for his whole adult life by giving the talks. What the hell was he doing it for, if not to ‘help’? He knew people were coming to the talks looking for help, yet he didn’t quit talking, right? ‘Help with my own mind’? Well it’s not mine…it’s just mind…consciousness…thinking…period…thought creating this mess man is caught up in.
No, your memory is reacting to being told that it does not see, to being told that it is merely forming new memories. That’s all. You are reacting to being told that you are limited. So you are caught in this cycle of memory; and it carries on now, even as we talk. It doesn’t matter where a statement comes from; it is only ever the reaction to a statement that matters. I have said you are mistaken. So what? I too may be mistaken. But instead of questioning, you seek to defend your position, which is the essence of separation.
That’s just the point. Most people want to take a quick journey, grab the substance of it and go on their way. Will you give your life to this journey?
There is an important distinction to make here - because we are always speculating from the inside of the cage.
It might be more accurate to say that we should not be present, but rather dissapear and make way for what is taking place?
When we say that we should observe our thoughts, or be aware of our environment, this unfortunately gives us the wrong impression that we should be making some effort of attention, that we should be involved in some kind of activity of being attentive.
The trick is to see the “entity” that is being attentive, that is making the effort. And to realise that that entity (of effort, or anxiety) is neither “real” nor necessary.
Or to see and accept it for what it is - if thats possible?
I was hoping for “attention”. Attention which would take away any need for tolerence - there being nothing left to tolerate. Tolerance being the effort to live with the division born of innattention or ego.
Tolerence is the effort we make because we need to counter the division created by our own delusion of separate existences.
K was describing not promoting.
All of which is to miss the point entirely. The whole question of an I and a you, of a self and an other, of a brain and its content, its memory, and an objective reality that brain can actually touch is in play here.
Who is Paul really, and who is Dominic, and where is either of them? Dominic as an other, as a you (you this, you that) is in the brain having that you. That brain never has contact with Dominic. Dominic is entirely an invention of itself. That brain is telling its invention about together, and we, and communion, and shock at this, and shock at that, and telling it what it is, and what it is doing. The only Dominic that Paul knows is itself.