So, psychological thought being the stream, when psychological thought ends, the stream is no more.
As you say, if you stay in the stream, which is psychological thought, and then try to get out of the stream by trying to solve some problem created by psychological thought through using more psychological thought, the problem(s) can’t be solved. Yes, this makes psychological thought the trickster, which is false but has not been seen as false and ended. If it is not seen as false, what keeps psychological thought going is some belief that, even though the problem(s)s have not been resolved, with just a better figuring out of the factors of the problem(s) one day they will be resolved.
It is an insight. How does one describe an insight? If an insight does not occur, then everything one reads and hears passes through the intellect and nothing can happen to end the psychological process of intellectualizing other than increasing intellectual knowledge. Nothing is seen, therefore transformation is not possible.
If I might try to say this again in a less brutal and triggering manner : Existence is a whole. Even if I have an idea of myself and the world as being made up of compartmentalised parts (my psychological side, my practical side, my mysterious mystical imagined? side etc) we cannot escape its reflexive and interdependant aspect.
I arise with the force of all life behind me, and cannot be separated into the part that can be freed and the conditioned part - as long as I am not wholly freed, there is effort.
We cannot avoid fragmentation and noise, by pushing away the bad parts of me that cause fragmentation and noise. Psychological Death necessitates forgiveness and acceptance.
For silence to arise unchallenged, my demons must have surrendered on their own terms. If not there will be effort, which is noise.
In some way, both of you are suggesting that you have had such insights. The insight which K talked about which results in a mutation, the explosion of energy which courses through the body and heals the damaged genes, and ends seeing everything through the previous tendency to rely on a distorted way to seeing and behaving in the world.
One wonders about people discussing “insights” because of the danger of considering intellectual insights as being meaningful, and indicative of some kind of change (the “new mind”). So, one asks: Was this “insight” as stated above an intellectual insight or a genuine insight resulting in mutation??
You see, all one really needs to see (have a perception) is how knowledge is limited, that any knowledge that one has added to oneself is what impedes clarity. So, one’s question is: Is this really an insight or just a perception? One asks this because one has noticed that many on this site seem to have “placed thought in its right place” and believe that they have done that, and one has witnessed quite a few of them still using psychological thought (because they retain their beliefs, etc.), and are still using memory and knowledge of the past. You see, one has seen Bohm speaking “truths” such as “the word is not the thing”, and later after the death of K, doubting the validity of such statements. There is also the possibility that one has decided to go back on the “truth” of what had been perceived and gone back to the old way(s), or does this possibility exist only when what occurred was only an intellectual insight??
In this context, one is reminded of a small text of K, from my excerpt files:
"Why have human beings imposed upon human beings something, which is not true? Human beings have tortured themselves, castigated themselves to get enlightenment, as though enlightenment was a fixed point. And, they end up blind. I think that is why, sir, the so-called man of error is much nearer the truth than the man who practises to reach the truth.
“A man who practises truth becomes impure, unchaste.”
Tradition & Revolution, Dialogue 21, Rishi Valley, 23 Jan. 1971, The Guru, Tradition & Freedom
I know nothing of a mutation and healing the damaged genes. That is only supposition if I say I know. The explosion and the ending etc. is actual, is fact. I have come through the psychological birth canal, so to speak, and just as there is no possibility of an actual baby going back through its mother’s birth canal, so it is the same with the psychological birth canal for me. There is no possibility of going back. One cannot un-ring the bell even if one wanted to. Though why one would want to is beyond me !!!
Your “I” which went through some psychological birth canal is an illusion. Not exactly certain as to what you actually did to your “self”. Rebirthers (therapists) have nothing to do with what K talked about - this is a K site! And to prove that what they do is false, your “I” still exists, right? Modified continuity, right? It may have been to you a wonderful experience, but it is entirely false - just another illusion. The whole point of K is to empty the consciousness of the “I”, not to create or invent a better version of the “I”. So, my deepest condolences. One wonders whether you are also misusing the word “insight” - which was the entire point of one’s previous post - which you dismissed as a “supposition”, since K has said that all intellectual insights are meaningless, right? And, because you have so dismissed this mutation (which K talked about as something that occurs in the brain cells themselves), and which Charley also felt, one is skeptical of your idea of insight. Insight results in mutation. And this mutation brings about a change in the brain, not a change in the way the “I” sees.
Insight ends the movement of the “I” in the brain cells themselves. To repeat, that implies no “I”. Again, to repeat, you have just invented another version of the “I”. That’s all.
“And, as we said, the mutation in consciousness is the ending of time, which is the ending of the “me” which has been produced through time.” K, Truth and Actuality, Part II, Ch. 8, 3rd Public Talk, Brockwood Park, 13 Sept, 1975, ‘Suffering; The meaning of Death’
Are you hung up on the word ‘I’ ? What a crock of intellectual mumbo jumbo you spewed out all because of the word ‘I’. K frequently used ‘I’ in reference to himself or did you miss that. Of course, now I wonder about you.
You can believe all that you want about Charley, the thing is that K used the “I” as a social convenience to facilitate communication. That is something that one has done as well. It is actually easier and more relaxing to refer to oneself in the third person. It is just a matter of respect.
Now, as to Charley, Charley is irrelevant. What is important is only the content of one’s posts. That’s all.
Respectfully, are these questions about origins of listening and comments regarding brain cells and genes relevant to listening? What questions would be further inquiry into listening?
No worries @BobHearns - tricky personal stuff that is not usually brought up in public - though maybe it can be useful to hear these kind of stories as if they were not something to be hidden.
What I would say is that these kind of altered states are not some magic panacea, and can actually become a further trophy for the ego and for further confusion. They, as any experience, must be abandoned without a trace.
Those familiar with K’s teaching who “get it” conceptually, but not actually, have not lost faith in the power of reason to release us from the prison of belief.
I’m not sure I’m following? Are you saying that people who understand K should no longer have any notions of good and bad?
Oups! your statement has changed - It is not so much that thought has the power, but that it is part of the situation - and a major player - it cannot surrender unless it realises (in its own way) it is unable to escape. Thought cannot be forced by some magical outside force to obey without a struggle - the struggle defeats the acceptance - acceptance must include the intellect (and whatever other parts of the self that might or might not also exist)
I don’t always know what I should or should not do, and what I do does not always turn out well, so it’s a lot like gambling, bluffing, folding, etc. Sometimes it’s abundantly clear what to do, but most times it’s guesswork, trial and error.
So my “notions of good and bad” are always being tested by what I’m dealing with, and I’m always updating those notions because, if I don’t, they calcify and I’m stuck with them.
Krishnamurti seemed to think that morality happens when thought goes from being the authority to being the servant of something it can’t touch. This may true, but how would I know?
Thought is perfectly obedient to its beliefs because without them it is nothing but an intellect without a cause. It cannot be forced to abandon its beliefs or surrender itself to something it can’t believe in. Why? Because it quits believing when its function is to articulate what is actual.
Respectfully, what you are saying is nothing but the intellect guessing and speculating, isn’t it? Is this where you want to take the enquiry along with Charley and Inquiry?
If so, then I am not interested in continuing. Or do you not see that it is all intellectual speculation now? Or has it always been just that for you?