I’m following as best i can all your exchanges…I’m not sure if this applies but in a dialogue with PJ, he said the mind is separate from the brain. The mind of the “cosmos”. But when the brain is free of the ‘self’, it is the mind…And in another place he has said “where the self is, the “other” is not.”
Granted, when new information, whatever its source may be said to be, is added to existing information, that is the old information amended, but that is not say there is not at that point, an amended outcome. Consider if you will two brains. One brain is convinced it is in touch with something outside of itself, and by outside I do not mean Krishnamurti’s other at the time being, simply an other than self, with whom I may fight. Another brain questions the validity of there being any other outside itself right now, and observes the first brain which continues to correspond to things in that way, is the brain at its most volatile and unstable. That brain may not be able to address the conditioning the first is, but it can at least point out what it sees as the fact of the different perception, and that it is about something closer to home, than fairies at the bottom of the garden.
It depends if you are playing games or not. I said don’t listen to anything here, including the speaker. Don’t listen to anyone. Then there is only the psyche and nothing else. That’s common-sense; and there is no conflict in it. There is only conflict when you want to keep hold both of the psyche and also of the game of psychological interactions. When you drop one you drop the other because they can only exist together; they don’t exist apart.
1 Like
Who makes the question? Can self
come to an end?
The self. The I.
The same I who wants an answer
So,the I,keep going on through the
question and the answer
R
It doesn’t matter who puts the question. If the self is serious enough it will demand an answer to its question; it won’t just be content to engage in a lot of intellectual chicanery. It is serious about a lot of other things in life; when we really want something we generally get it, be it money, sex or some other form of pleasure. Mostly, we seem to put this question and others like it merely to prove that it is all too difficult and cannot be done; and so the self carries on with its travail. Or else we arrive at a theory about how it is all so easy to end the self; and again the self carries on with its vanity. The self has to come to an end; there is no other way forward for the human race. Then the question is serious; and there is action from the energy of the question because it is no longer being asked from the perspective of the petty little self.
1 Like
Isn’t that what I quoted above? No actual division…but there is an ‘apparent’ division when the ‘self’ is present. When the self is absent as he said was the case with him, mind and brain are one. The way I see it is that the ‘self-love’ precludes the Love that he often speaks of. Self- love is exclusive Love is all inclusive.
Why can’t both be done? We can’t really “leave K out of it” since we have heard what he had to say. Through inquiry and insight into ourself, we can find out perhaps if what he and others have pointed out is true. That is the way I listen to you also. It is one ‘self’, one brain, after all, isn’t it?
‘the whole’ is only another idea…a fragment…for the fragment/me. But you said the same yourself right before saying the above that I quoted you as saying.
K said that the brain has “infinite” potential. But it has been “damaged”. I ask how has the brain been damaged, hobbled, limited. Is it so? I realize that it is so because it, the brain has been ‘conditioned’? The conditioning no matter the kind or quality, acts as an impediment a ‘governor’ to realizing the ‘total’ potential of the brain. That is our condition as I see it rightly or wrongly. We are asking here if this ‘conditioning’ (psychological not practical) can end? Can the brain be set free from the restraints that have un-wittingly and wittingly been placed upon it? Is that possible while the organism is alive? Do we see the ‘limitedness’ in ourselves? Past the quality of the intellect?
Roberto,
As I see it, it might BE the brain/self which has not paused in its calculations, comparisons, efforts, desire, self-interest, and so on. It might be the brain which has not glimpsed into the nature of the self: that whatever the self does is a continuation of the past, that the self is an illusion that it (the brain) has been conditioned to; that whatever the illusory self does cannot produce the new action which is needed, and so on.
But it might also be “the brain which has discovered its fallibility” by observing its own movements, by observing that it cannot free itself of fear, and so on. Then when the brain which has discovered its fallibility asks the question “can the self come to an end”, it is aware of the limitations and dangers of intellectual effort, as I see it.
Awakening of Intelligence - Jiddu Krishnamurti
Intelligence comes into being when the brain discovers its fallibility, when it discovers what it is capable of, and what not. Now what is the relationship of that intelligence with this new dimension? I would rather not use the word “relationship”.
The different dimension can only operate through intelligence; if there is not that intelligence it cannot operate. So in daily life it can only operate where intelligence is functioning. Intelligence cannot function when the old brain is active, when there is any form of belief and adherence to any particular fragment of the brain. All that is lack of intelligence. The man who believes in God, the man who says, “There is only one Saviour”, is not intelligent. The man who says, “I belong to this group”, is not intelligent. When one discovers the limitation of the old, the very discovery of that is intelligence, and only when that intelligence is functioning can the new dimension operate through it. Full stop. Have you got it?
1 Like
K,use the word "mind’ with different meaning.
One,mind,Is the psyche,Is the memory,Is brain
The other,mind ,is not in the brain.
Is not matter ,is not physical.
But, asking is from limitation, isn’t it?If such a brain is aware of its limitations it doesn’t ask anything at all… as I see it. It’s silent.
It might be or it might not be, as I see it.
When the brain discovers what it CAN do, what it CANNOT achieve - i.e. its limitations - this perception, understanding or awareness is immovable, isn’t it? “Immovable” in that it is not merely an idea or a fantasy which can evolve or change. One looks at the whole thing again and again, and the limitations are still there to be seen: the patterns of thought and behaviour, the psychological mold from which I cannot break free, the compulsions, habits and obsessions, fears, hatreds, desires, which I am powerless to end, the problems I cannot solve, the nature of self/time/consciousness, and so on. All this is seen as clearly as the sunset is seen, as clearly as the bird’s song is heard, isn’t it?
Yet isn’t it also seen that this immovable perception does NOT end thought’s endless preoccupations, repetitions, compulsions, fears, deceits, pretenses, pursuits, escapes, and so on? The subconscious reactions don’t end: the patterns and habits are still there subconsciously and they are observed by the conscious brain or mind as sorrow, fear, anger, depression, anxiety, unsought repetitive thoughts, and so on. And this inner state flows outwardly to create the world’s chaos, which in turn flows back inward to affect consciousness.
So the brain observes its own endless, repetitive, compulsive, conditioned movements. It also perceives that these unstoppable and contradictory reactions cause exhaustion, confusion and disturbance, doesn’t it? It realizes that there can be no inner peace as long as it is a slave to these psychological patterns and yet it is powerless to stop them.
So there is both the immovable perception and the irresistible reactions and patterns which the brain is powerless to end. What does the brain - the conscious mind - do at this point? Does it still rebel? Does it conclude that it does not see what it sees?
The brain CANNOT act consciously on its subconscious patterns to end them - that is its fallibility and limitation. The question “can the self come to an end” might arise spontaneously. And can’t the conscious brain or mind just stay “there” - aware of the whole thing - the spontaneous question, the unconscious reactions and processes which it cannot end, the danger and futility of intellectual effort - without chattering about it in an endless loop, without opposing what it is powerless to oppose? The fact is, it CANNOT bring about total silence to the deep layers of consciousness. But it can be silent consciously - not through will, resistance, force, effort or a vow. Conscious silence is the action of the perception, of awareness itself, as I see it.
2 Likes
Awareness and perception of the whole scope of the problem brings silence to the brain, yes, we both said the same thing I think. I’m not sure what the last two sentences are saying about ‘conscious silence’. And how does that relate to what I wrote above about asking the question, “can the self come to an end”? Or not asking?
Tom,
When I say, “consciously silent”, I don’t mean willfully or deliberately silent — which is the meaning that “consciously” usually has, I think.
What I mean is that “the conscious mind” is the part of consciousness whose memories or knowledge are easily observable by the brain. I don’t think it can be seriously disputed that there is the surface consciousness of which one is aware. Can it? There is awareness of thoughts, images and memories which arise, awareness of fear and anger, awareness of pretense and contradiction, and so on. One is conscious of these movements. And the part of consciousness which IS effortlessly observable and observed responds to the memories, knowledge, challenges, fear, anger, pretense, and so on. It responds as “the self” if it has not discovered its nature, fallibility and limitations. But if it has observed itself and discovered its nature, can it still do that, take the self as reality?
And there is the hidden part of consciousness of which one is aware through intimations only. The events which originally shaped the patterns and habits of consciousness are not accessible or observable.
I don’t know if this makes my meaning clear or more obscure about “conscious silence”.
As for the question, “can self come to an end”, it arises spontaneously as I see it. Whether it arises in the course of self seeking a solution to its problems, or whether it arises because the brain has had some insight into its own nature, processes, fallibility and limitations, it arises spontaneously, as I see it. The action which follows the question depends on the source of the question - the fragmented self or insight. I could be wrong.
The idea of wholeness is just another fragment - yes, we said that. I asked if you want total transformation of the brain. If you do there is no problem because it means you have dropped all ideation. Seeing that ideation is partial, you won’t ever go that way again. The problem is when one only wants partial transformation, a modification of the ‘self’ wherein one gets to keep all the good bits.
Let’s put it another way: it is the limited activity of the self that keeps the whole from coming into being and maintains a self-centred, separate existence; and part of that limited activity is to form an idea or a concept of wholeness. So the very idea of wholeness prevents the actuality of wholeness. And this is all that prevents it, just as the idea of death prevents us from living happily and freely. The actuality is not the idea; the word is not the thing.
1 Like
More than that, Paul. There are countless ideas and beliefs, no? Identifications…religion…economics, politics, family, self image, images of wife, neighbor, child, enemy, friend, guru, saint, etc. The whole content of conscious is the ‘me’. The idea of wholeness is one of countless ideas we identify with. And death, too, yes. An idea of death as we don’t know the actuality of it.
Yes…this makes sense, at least intellectually. The idea is a fragment of the whole. it must be a fragment. An idea can’t fathom what the totality…the whole… is. It divides …from other fragments and from the actual…from the fact…the truth.
And an idea operates in time; no idea can exist without time. Time is the denial of love, wholeness, sanity and intelligence. To see that I am suffering and not to move from it, that changes everything.
2 Likes
Union with this miraculous universe, is not something that is achieved through effort over time.
The brain (the organ inside our skull) is forever planning our next move - it does not know that sometimes, no next move is required.