Thanks for the quotes - the above is the only bit that appears mysterious. Are we saying we don’t know how “mind” as we understand it, arises? And that any correlation between brain states and states of mind are not indications of causation?
The second bit (that brain does not cause mind) does seem to go against the empirical facts.
I’m not sure that this is the best place to get into a discussion about the “correlates” of consciousness and the whole problem of consciousness (these issues can perhaps be addressed in a future thread).
As K says in the quote, as far as science is concerned, this proposition (of mind outside the brain) is disputed - and in principle, how does one test for a phenomenon that is non-material?
So the only thing we need to know for the present thread is that - for K - love, compassion, insight and intelligence ultimately arise from ‘beyond’ the brain, or are ‘outside’ the brain.
And that the realisation of this love or compassion can only come about through a global insight into the nature of thought and suffering.
I agree with you that this is a little mysterious, which is why I didn’t want to go into it very much here, as it would inevitably be speculative.
But to answer your questions as simply as I feel able to:
I hope this answers your questions. Does this help to move the conversation onwards? 
Yes it does - I was going to try and couch the “beyond the brain” as : not arising from evolutionary instinctive behaviour, nor psychological (cultural/environmental) conditioning.
So, I can accept that (special) compassion does not arise from the above - is beyond the brain.
The second point was :
Which is fine - but will paraphrase anyway as : compassion does not come from seeing what I want, but rather that we want. (if this is an inadequate rewording of the concept, it shoud be expanded upon)
So, is that all the intellectual understanding we need? (It could well be) - is the next step now to put it into practise via attention?
Hi James and everybody. Is it fair to say that compassion (a) is in some sense partial? There seems to be a degree of insight present in compassion (a) but also an element of intellectual rationalisation of compassion meaning that this type of compassion only goes so far. Compassion (b) perhaps requires some kind of crisis or revolutionary change which breaks through this partiality and ends separation once and for all. Does this make sense?
We can say that something is partial, in the sense that we can (conceptually) draw a frontier around this and that.
Instinctive compassion being the movement of conditioning, we can say it is only that, thus partial. In what way is normal compassion the result of insight?
Special compassion can be said to be total in that it is a an understanding/insight that englobes me (not just my beliefs and reactions, but the source of my reactions) and thus all the me’s. (other folk)
Yes. This sounds right. But Krishnamurti was usually dismissive of partial insight, in a way that he wasn’t of the need for sensitivity, consideration, care, the feeling of responsibility, awareness etc - all of which contribute to compassion (a).
My own sense is that we can do nothing at all about compassion (b). As you say, it requires a fundamental mutation of the brain to have any actuality.
We can discuss about compassion (a) - about what it means to feel responsible, to feel concern, to be aware. And we can discuss about human suffering - the content in human consciousness we call “human suffering”, and our relationship to it.
But we cannot say very much about compassion (b) itself - except to say that according to K it exists, and (according to K) it consists in a passion for all things, a pure energy without any sense of self or personal egotism.
Does compassion have to do with what “we want”?
Or does it have to do with the comprehension that our consciousness is not separate from the consciousness of the rest of humanity? - And so ‘my’ sorrow is not ‘my’ sorrow, but the sorrow of the whole world? It is human sorrow.
Yes - Thats what I was pointing at - not having what I want being sorrow.
Hi Douglas and James, thanks for your replies. Could the partiality involved in compassion that we talked about (if that is the right word) be one of endurance/time rather than degree? Or both? Is the difference between compassion (a) and compassion (b) a matter of how strong the compassion is felt or how long it lasts and how often it is present? I mean, could it be that there are moments when we are sensitive and attentive and compassionate because we are fully connected to the suffering of others? Is that always compassion (a)? Is compassion (b) always connected to a high level of attentiveness and awareness and does this level determine both the degree to which the compassion is felt and how often it is present??
Now it’s my turn to be thinking out loud but it may help to raise these questions.
Or, more simply put, is it the degree to which there is a sense of ‘I’ in this state of compassion?
In compassion (a) the sense of ‘I’ is probably still latent, or merely in temporary abeyance.
Whereas in compassion (b) the ‘I’ is totally absent. - ?
Maybe - but this could be due to our instinctive animal make-up as social animals remember? The “goal” is to see if freedom from conditioned exigence is possible.
I have difficulty with both the idea of high and low level attention and degrees of special compassion.
In terms of levels of attention, this could mean effort. And also attention does not mean noticing and reacting to something thanks to our senses and beliefs.
Degrees of special compassion would mean that we are feeling degrees of union whilst still being partially separate.
Who/what is going “to put it into practise via attention”? Wouldn’t that be a choice, a tactic, a technique, more of the ego’s desperate attempt to ascend to the next level?
Just a reminder of what is “put into practise” : Compassion/Love does not arise from cultural nor biological condtioning - is beyond the brain - is therefore not something that is arrived at through instinct, habit nor thought. It arises when we see the process of wanting, trying, knowing, thinking. (which includes the agent, its experiences and motive)
So, either I say that it is the self (though this is reductionist and reifying, seeing as I haven’t defined, and maybe do not know what self is) that by having this intellectual understanding, may just automatically “put it into practise”.
Or I say that attention arises automatically via the seeing - the seeing provokes the action (is the action some say).
Or someone else might have a better idea
So sorry, I don’t know is my answer.
I feel that although we have not designated/named the practiser, an important question might be : what is the practise? what does it entail? what does the understanding provoke in terms of action? (same question 3 times)
Hi Douglas. Surely there are moments when we are much more attentive than others. This is something which is observable as far as I can see. Are you saying that our level of attention remains constant all the time?
I see 2 levels of attention : on and off.
Unless by attention we mean : sensation, interpretation, and reaction? Where it is also difficult to gauge levels - complex subjective stuff and all.
Can you describe what you mean, what you have observed in terms of levels of attention ?- that might help.
This is what we’re told by those humans more concerned with general identity than particular identity, and it sounds plausible, so we assume it’s true. But the conditioned mind can’t be compassionate, so we really don’t know anything about compassion except what we believe it is.
When you say, “the agent”, are you referring to the self? If so, and the self is an illusion, the agent is the mind that creates and sustains the illusion of the agent.
My response was that I didn’t know, which seemed like the most useful answer to your question… If the self is an illusion, yet achieves so much - maybe our descriptions about entities doing things is not accurate. The word “agent” is also a tool used for communication purposes. Like the possibly inexistent “practiser” that arises only via the practise of compassion that we are inquiring into. I will consider using the idea of a “process” instead of “doer” and things “done” from now on if it seems practical.
nb. I don’t think we need to assume that our statement is true to inquire into it.
It’s not the illusion that “achieves” but the creator/maintainer of the illusion that achieves or fails in its name. It’s like doing the will of God. The believer attributes its achievement to its faith in God (an illusion), and attributes its bad behavior to Satan. Why feel completely responsible for everything you say and do when you can imagine your best and worse self?
Are you saying that because we can imagine the possibilty of “special compassion”, we are somehow less harsh with our actual behaviour?
If so, I’m not sure that feeling guilty for our bad behaviour, is useful for inquiry. Surely it is at best a partial response - a habitual response from the known.
However, if you mean that the illusion of self is responsible for our lack of compassion - Yes, this seems to be what we are agreeing on so far.