Exactly. That’s what I am saying. Don’t bother with any of that.
And when the brain starts up again, what is it going back to? An old pattern of movement. There it can accumulate, determine more patterns, make plans, project hopes and dreams and all the rest of it. All this it calls learning, which is accumulation. But it is this accumulation that prevents the possibility of any real learning, which is perception. It can only see through the screen of what it has already gathered. Surely there’s a total insight whereby the brain can never go back to its old patterns.
1 Like
Surely? I don’t know. That’s something one can’t accept second hand. It would have to be discovered for oneself. Otherwise it’s a belief if I accept someone telling me that this ending…the freedom from the me…is possible. I think K said that one has to stay awake moment to moment. That there’s no time involved in enlightenment…it’s always now. But at times he did speak of a total mutation or transformation of the brain.
1 Like
And don’t call me ‘Surely’! 
Indeed. But is this actually what you want, something total?
The self here is like a painter, that paints a highly personal/subjective picture of what they see or of what they hope for.
The problem is that we mistake that image for reality, or what should be.
Whereas reality is flux, most of which is invisible to the eye - nearly all of it when we are focussed on a picture of the past or some imaginary futur.
But of course to conclude that the self is bad (or good) is silly.
1 Like
Thanks for the response…If the picture ‘painted’ separates us and that separation leads to violence, which it has, it wouldn’t be silly to look on that as bad would it? I mean ‘bad’ in the sense that the picture being painted (and believed) is based on ignorance of what we actually are?
The “bad” bit is not the picture, nor the painting of the picture - it is mistaking the picture for truth
The picture is just a diagram that will hopefully get you what you want - women, power, food, pride, certainty etc
The fragment wants the whole? This wanting is a result of division…of our fragmentation. And can it really lead to anything but more confusion and conflict? We’re violent and we project the ideal of non violence. What we want is a projection of thought, right?
Reconocemos la urgente necesidad de que la farsa del yo cese?
NO. No vemos eso.
Solo pensamos eso.
Verlo es transformarse.
Verlo es la revolución.
Verlo es la mutación.
Verlo es la terminación de Yo.
Nos conformamos con pensarlo,
apresar de las contradicciones y paradojas que ello implica.
Pensarlo mantiene el Yo.
Pensarlo no es suficiente.
Y todo sigue igual.
A pesar de pensarlo eso es lo que deseamos. Que todo siga igual,
a pesar de todas las contradicciones y paradojas y sufrimientos que ello implica.
Después de todo ese es el precio que pagamos para seguir siendo,para continuar, para ser.
Para no cambiar.
R.
Juventud, divino tesoro
ya te vas para no volver
cuando quiero llorar, no lloro
y a veces, lloro sin querer
R
Yes. Therefore there is no fragment. The fragment exists when it is separate from the whole; and what separates the fragment is thought as belief or feeling. So the fragment and all the various aspects of its fragmentation are put together by thought. The idea of wholeness is then just another fragment. Either the fragment wants just another fragment or it wants the whole. For the whole to come into being, the fragment has to end, which is the ending of thought as ideation. A mind that sees this very clearly has already solved the whole problem of fragmentation because it has stopped using time; then there is no distance of desire between one idea and another because it is only looking at what is and never forming ideas.
1 Like
macdougdoug is seen by Dominic to be an expression of psyche, and as such has a Dominic, a Paul, a Dan, a Thomas and everyone else in his brain, so in so far as he has someone who has some sort of understanding in his brain, macdougdoug has some sort of understanding, if understanding it be. The question then is, can the self stop itself, which relates to the question of what it is to begin with, and whether that can be seen. Related to that is whether it is willing to look. Krishnamurti who is also in the brain, as knowledge, which is memory, is understanding the brain has access to. So given uderstanding is possible, any confusion on the part of self, has to be self-generated, which is to say, it has to have a deliberate element to it. So it isn’t that the self cannot be seen, but that it doesn’t want to be seen. It is keeping itself from the sight of itself is all, as in a stand-off.
When it is said don’t listen to the psyche that sets up a conflict does it not? If one says don’t listen to the clock tower chiming right now, or don’t listen to the bird song which is occurring, that would be quite evident. The psyche is continually drawing the brain into itself, and it may be said, don’t listen to it, but that psyche is destroying a natural world as much as anything, and though everything it is, including its pitiless treatment of itself, may be considered a form of extortion, compelling attention to be given it, ignoring the question of it, does not seem possible. Obviously that feeling can be manipulated by psyche as much as anything else to keep itself in the game. So what is the response to psyche which is needed?
The brain has an operating system called Observer, which has innumerable branches. Pilgrim 13.5 got an update called Krishnamurti and is now Pilgrim 13.6. Piigrim’s question about what if we have never come across Krishnamurti, is a question about what he was before he read him is it not? But Pilgrim has read him, so the previous Pilgrim did have access, and everything in the understanding Krishnamurti is was operating whether an earlier version of Pilgrim was consciously aware of it or not, just as gravity is.
“Seeing it is transforming.
Seeing it is the revolution.
Seeing it is mutation.
Seeing it is the ending of Yo.”
Seeing it regardless of whether seeing it is revolution, mutation, the ending of it?
Sure, but if Pilgrim is operating the notion of being with other brains in an objective reality outside of his brain, which his brain has actual contact with: that is, Pilgrim has something he holds to be the case more than any other, and upon which he is relying, he can verify for himself, what that is, and if in deed it is so.
Hello again - Analysis and conjecture (as you are doing here - and me too) is probably the best that we can do - maybe someone with a higher IQ or better training in debate or philosophy, might be able to do a “better” job than what you have been laying out for us over the last few days. (But to what avail?)
So if the conclusions arrived at and the questions these in turn raise are sufficient, then the self may congratulate itself on a job well done.
The stopping and listening without relying on the ego (fear, pride, knowledge) requires some sort of need that is above and beyond what we habitually experience. We really, really gotta have some strong need to break through our own dishonesty, for us to consider such a painful solution.
Or willingness to just stop and listen because our trusted loved ones told us it was important.
Yes, and this relates to the point being made. Dominic is asking, what is the immediate and compelling reality for Pilgrim right now, the one being had throughout the day, the one which is at the fingertips. Then consider, that is the programming, that is the conditioning. Ordinarily the reality is so compelling there is no sense that it is programming or conditioning. The very notion it is programming and conditioning is to call the veracity of it into question is it not? Krishnamurti is having the programming question itself.
1 Like
There is no disagreement with the gist or tenor of what is being said here though it is not at the core analysis or conjecture. The nature of self evasion is not that hard to see, and that needs to be seen, to have sight of the inner citadel of self, and that is something else again. That is a piece of work altogether, and is unreasonableness personified, about which it is impossible to know what to do, not least because I am it. And yes it’s possible for self to luxuriate in the knowledge of itself, and to seek to walk out of itself, only to find however far it travels, it never reaches the city limits, and as Krishnamurti pointed out, the periphery is the centre still.
1 Like