On radical change


K has talked about a mutation in the brain cells, has anyone understood what it means and how it comes about?


I can only make suppositions based on my scientific background.
The radical change K. talks about is essentially the ending of the self, of ourselves, and so no more a centre which controls and programs our actions. Probably this is not only a psychological change but also a biological one as there must be a biological “support” (the brain cells) to this psychological structure. This would explain the total and definitive disappearance of this centre, something which would not happen if the change was only in the psychological field.

According to K. this comes about when the brain has a deep insignt in the nature of thought and ego with all its implications.


Let’s look into what is the nature of mutation in the brain cells even if they are suppositions. Is a mutation even possible? What happens?

It seems pretty complicated. This from the ‘SCIENTIST’ 2017:

The types of mutations that occur in the brain are diverse—including aneuploidy, single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), copy number variants (CNVs), and mobile element insertions—and vary by cell type. For example, human cortical cells contain megabase-scale CNVs,12 while NPCs contain hot spots for DNA translocations.13,14 Depending on the specific location and nature of a somatic mutation, it could have substantial effects on cell function by altering gene expression or generating novel protein content—for example, by introducing a new promoter or splice… :woozy_face:

For my part, I’d settle for: With insight into the workings of the self, the functioning of the brain can change. Not as in alzheimer’s disease, or ‘madness’ but in ‘expanding’ or ‘breaking through’ the narrow confines of the ‘self center’. K. has stated that the brain is “infinite” in its potential. This seems borne out in the practical realm where its ingenuity knows no boundary. But in the psyche realm, it is ‘stuck’. Hobbled by the ‘self-image’?

We can’t actually know, can we until it’s a fact for us, right? So we can throw out suppositions till the cows come home and it won’t bring about change/mutation. If we’re interested in change we have to do the actual work…not speculate or inquire intellectually. It’s really meaningless until we find out…find out in our own life…find out whether this change is possible.

1 Like

That’s what we are trying to do, attempting to find out the fact, hopefully you are inquiring too.

The question is: K has talked about a mutation in the brain cells, has anyone understood what it means and how it comes about?

From what I have read about neuroscience, the subtle structures of the brain (neurons, synapses etc) do change all the time - and this in direct correlation to our, personality, beliefs, behaviour, habits etc.

And with radical changes in understanding and behaviour would come radical change in the the pathways, connections, energetic interactions etc within the brain.

PS - the change from total dependance on the beliefs engendered by a purely self-centred vision of reality, to “freedom from the known” would be radical - from delusion based on fear and the need for security, to the possibility of ease, awe and compassion


What it means to me Yes. What it meant to K, only he knew. It means that through an ‘insight’ into one’s self, one’s psyche, one’s consciousness…the duality that we have been conditioned to regard as true and ‘normal’ is not that. That the separation of a ‘me’ and what ‘I’ am thinking, seeing, hearing, etc. is an illusion…a “trick created by thought” as he described it. That illusory separation is the source of conflict. When this is seen, there is a shock (to the brain?) and it changes. It no longer sees its situation in the same way. It ’ opens’. And now it must seek a new ‘security’ because the old one has been seen through. It must regroup. A new illusion, unless it sees the futility of more trickery and thought ceases?

1 Like

Let’s get some facts out of the way: The brain is an organ and therefore ‘limited’, biology has influenced the development of psychology and behavior; not the other way around.

Apart from hopes, what else do we know about this mutation he is talking about? Is the mutation a biological phenomenon as he seems to indicate? How so?

facts tend to change as we discover new things - what is known in the 20th century textbooks is not quite the same as what we can now read in current scientific litterature.

I’ll go out on a limb here and state that the hypothesis that “influence” between biology and behaviour is purely a one way street, may be contested.

PS - Not just in the field of neuroscience - see also epigenetics

I think I misread a K quote the other day, and thought that he was asking a mysterious Zen type question, namely : “What is it that is transformed?”

I thought he was alluding to the fact that, either there is no self (no entity) to be transformed - so what is transformed? Or that the the self always remains the self (ie it always performs the same functions) - so if something is transformed, what is it?

The brain is transformed would be a good answer (though the zen buddhists wouldn’t like it) our habits of belief are transformed.

No one said it’s a one way street, which is why two words (the development) were emboldened. At present it’s a two way street. However biology has contributed to the formation of psychology, not the other way around. The cortical functions are the newest addition of biology. Now let’s get back to the question on mutation.

Yes. It comes about through insight into the brain’s conditioning. It has to be ‘seen’. It doesn’t come about through ‘thought’.

It also may come about through not escaping from a psychological crisis but ‘staying’ in the face of it. The conditioned pathways of escape if not ‘followed’ in that moment could bring about a change, as he reported it did with him.

1 Like

If we are “deluded fools”, how are we to have such a liberating insight?
K seems to encourage a kind of fearless acceptance of what we are, and of our limits - I would say the self is basically the power to yearn endlesssly in order to progress toward some imagined, inexistant bliss.

The problem would seem to be thus : the self is not fearless (it is the entity that seeks security). It is not accepting (it is the center that craves progress) - so in order to be free of the self we are being encouraged to be free of the self? The solution is the solution? Tricky stuff.

My take on the subject is that only when the self ends (dies, falls away, dissapears) can there be insight into what it is - only through its absence can it be known - like pointing at the hole left by something so big and close that we didn’t even know it was there.

This is interesting and I was looking at this idea of mutation this am. When we hear about this from someone like K or someone else’s ideas we respect, we can’t help but ‘want’ it. I don’t have this ‘mutated brain’ now but hopefully I’ll ‘get’ it, ‘acheive’ it, ‘come upon’ it. Just another object of ‘greed’ right? So we have to imagine that this brain mutation is going to be a 'good ’ thing, not a ‘bad’ thing because if it was a ‘bad’ thing we wouldn’t ‘want’ it. Would we? So what would it ‘change’, right now, of the scene I’m looking at, the sounds, smells, etc., what would be different? Anything? What? That’s the trap of ‘wanting’ and ‘desiring’. It always is a matter of ‘time’. Something that happens in the ‘future’ …’Becoming". It is our ‘conditioning’.

1 Like

Can the brain operate differently? That’s basically all it means. A conditioned brain, loaded down with its prejudices, opinions and beliefs, operates from that background of conditioning. Therefore its own content is what conditions the brain’s activities through the course of its physical existence. And one of the conditioned brain’s biggest prejudices or beliefs is its assumption that it is capable of understanding the secrets of the universe. So it puts understanding before everything else: before looking and before listening. For a conditioned brain, looking and listening are merely the stepping stones to greater understanding. But the brain that has seen the fallacy of this way of meeting the world, that brain has already undergone a great change. It has put aside completely every desire to understand and every urge to gather more fragments of wisdom and knowledge because it sees very clearly that those fragments of desire and knowledge are what prevent its own essential freedom. What greater freedom is there than just to be able to look at one another and at the rest of the world with real affection? That ability just to look and listen to one another doesn’t come with understanding; because understanding takes time. Besides, it is not really understanding we actually want, deep down; what matters most to a conditioned brain is security and power. That’s all. And when you see the truth of it instantly, not take years to work it out, the brain cells have changed. That’s obvious. Because they are not using patterns to work out their next move.

You have put a question and I am answering it seriously. The answer I am seeing now for the first time; therefore it is up to you also to see it for yourself by looking at the question, listening to it and being honest in your responses. Then you don’t need a single explanation from another person; you don’t need to look to any authority, good or bad. If you have seen what it means to have a conditioned brain, then you don’t need to seek further understanding about the mutation of the brain cells. The desire to seek further understanding, further clarity, is exactly the impulse that clouds the brain and keeps it stuck in its old patterns.


It’s only ‘insight’ that can see through all that. By not including or ‘seeing’ yourself as part and parcel of the ‘self’, ‘you / we’ are always on the outside looking in. The ‘self’ goes up in smoke when ‘you’ surrender to the fact that the , as he put it so well, the observer is the observed? :innocent:

There is another way to consider this word…similar to ‘learning’, as moving with, not accumulating. Also with ‘understanding’ as in standing ‘under’ what is. Being with and moving with.

Which is why i used the word ‘hope’ mindfully. The initial responses on the thread were indicating a substitution of hope for clarity.

I am going to say a similar but not the same thing as Mac , aside from hopeful “yes”, maybe someone that has understood might be able to articulate the nature of this mutation. What exactly happens? Considering, “insight” is a cortical function.