Good I like agreement. 
This is regurgitating Krishnamurti: âthe description is not the describedâ. What would you gain if I answered that I know this for a fact? I would be providing you a piece of information that will not help you in any way, information that cannot be proven to be true, information that the moment you take hold of it will add not only to your knowledge but also to your confusion, and with more confusion more questions. This is why it is not intelligent to ask this kind of question, but there it is.
1 Like
So you know what intelligence is and when and where oneâs intelligence (or lack there of) is demonstrated. Arenât we blessed to have someone like you here with us!
Hi Rick
There is talk of dying in this discussion - what dies, what ends when the inner authority, i.e. what we know, ends?
All of our thinking is based on what we know, our perspective, our memories, etc.
Without the known we are neither able to evaluate, compare, hope, there is no basis for decisions of will, there is no inner entity or authority that says: this is good, this is bad, I want this, I donât want that.
The question is then perhaps: do we exist if we donât think? And how do we find out?
âAnd thinking? Here I now find: itâs thinking, it alone cannot be separated from me: I am, I exist, that is certain.
But how long am I? As long as I think.
For it might be possible that if I were to stop thinking altogether.
I would soon cease to be.â
René Descartes
It may help if we can remember that we are speaking (as we can only speak) of the relationships between different images (eg. the images of me, the images of other things like death).
The relationship with life and death changes as soon as our attitude towards those images changes (nb. if this seems complicated look again, its a simple tautology)
Acceptance is a kind of relationship between images - a desperate need to control is another kind of relationship - these are very different relationships (ie. polar opposites) they are not the same.
Wanting death and desperately wanting to escape this moment is not the same as acceptance.
The term âpsychological deathâ may help - no one should consider suicide or the death of the body as a form of awakening (strange what we have to say in discussions here 
) neither buddha nor K nor anyone else is proposing this. (not true, some are, please donât listen to them)
I assume you mean does the ego-I continue to exist when thinking is absent, because the body named Ute undeniably continues. Right?
Itâs within our powers to eliminate (or close) thinking in our conscious mind, the inner world we are able to observe. But some people believe (me for example!) and there is solid evidence that a great deal of mentation happens outside our conscious awareness in the unconscious mind. This adds an (insurmountable?) challenge to observing, in yourself, a state free of thinking.
My perception says that the âyou" that lived in time/world neither ends nor transforms, but simply returns to its rightful place, leaving behind the unnecessary burden of the self.
This rings true. But I still have no answers for the questions:
Is all thatâs required for awakening acceptance of death or does some kind of death need to happen?
Have people who committed suicide not accepted death?
Does a door open on its own when you accept death?
What is its rightful place? Is any aspect of its psychological nature rightful?
Imagine that you are on stage with a hypnotist and that they are about to hypnotise you.
All that you are conscious of is the stage, the theater, the hypnotist, yourself and whatever else you are aware of - eg. the curtains, the audience, the noise and smells from the lobby etc
Now, unbeknownst to you, the hypnotist has been paid by your boss, your spouse and a conglomerate of mysterious oligarchs living in outer Mongolia that you have never heard of, to hypnotise you in a very particular fashion. You are not at all conscious of this stuff that is about to affect you.
The question is : does the stuff that you are unaware of make any difference to the outcome (of hypnosis)?
I estimate the dastardly intentions of the Mongolians, were I to be utterly unaware of them, would make little to no difference to the success of the hypnosis. But I question whether being utterly unaware of them is likely. My unconscious mind could grab onto them and start percolating, and some percolations could rise to my conscious mind.
So which is it? Can one âeliminateâ the stream of consciousness, or just turn down the volume? Or is the brain of two minds? One is silent, the other is the stream of consciousness?
Are you suggesting that monks who work at meditation create the illusion of silence and emptiness by muffling the stream of consciousness?
Isnât it said that thought, which is the engineer of that âyouâ, has its own right place once the so-called âmiracleâ, âenlightenmentâ, or whatever you want to call it, occurs? Or are you trying to say that thought disappears completely the moment âenlightenmentâ (or whatever you want to call it), is achieved? If not, what would you call âthat somethingâ that relates to all other human beings, from that moment until its physical death, with words and concepts like âitâs hot in hereâ in the middle of a talk?
I would say they have accepted defeat.
Does a door open on its own when you accept death?
Why so much talk about doors and keys and acceptance?
Death is awakening from the stream of consciousness to the timeless silence and emptiness of awareness.
I dunno, what do you think?
Are you suggesting that monks who work at meditation create the illusion of silence and emptiness by muffling the stream of consciousness
Again I am unable to know, with any certainty, what goes on in anotherâs mind.
But you believe that the stream of consciousness can escape detection.
What is the right place for the self and thought?
Or are you trying to say that thought disappears completely the moment âenlightenmentâ (or whatever you want to call it), is achieved?
Iâm wondering whether psychological thought persists as anything more than an old habit that has lost all its power?
I believe the unconscious stream escapes conscious detection. By definition. When thoughts and feelings are detected, they are no longer unconscious. Are you talking about the stream that is conscious/detectable or unconscious?
How does the brain know it has an unconscious stream of thought if it canât detect it?
Great question this is!
I asked my go-to AIs for help, but most of this is home-brewed.
The individual brain that has no external help (detection devices) may be able to âsenseâ its own unconscious processes through a combination of internal monitoring mechanisms, implicit memory, inference, intuition, and neural activity. I often have the feeling there is something roiling away in the background of my mind, I donât know exactly what, but I can feel the roiling viscerally.
The brain is also capable of learning how to detect the previously undetectable by developing high sensitivity. Essentially the unseen can become the seen under the right circumstances, with the right degree of sensitivity. Rarely but sometimes I get quiet and sensitive enough to observe (what I think is) the cause of the roiling.
What the brain cannot do is directly experience/know unconscious processes. You cannot directly detect the undetectable (in a reality where logic holds), but you can intuit, infer, feel its presence.