So, to continue with the theme of this topic, relationships - quite innocently, Charley wondered whether the mind can (after the conditioning is gone), (the mind being love) can have a relationship with the brain. That would be one of the finest of relationships one can have. So, Charley’s mind wondered whether the brain can never record any more conditioning, and only use the brain for real needs - food, clothing, shelter. Done.
Now, K said:
“Krishnamurti: Do you approve of group formation, round what we have talked about, and do you think it is worthwhile? Is that the question Sir? Do whatever you want to do! If you want to form a group, form it. If you don’t, don’t form it. If you want to understand yourself through a group, form a group. And if you say, “Well that will not help me to understand myself, to live a different kind of life”, then don’t join a group. You are responsible for yourself and for nobody else. It is your life. You stand completely alone, never asking, never begging, never seeking truth, because truth does not come to the seeker. You cannot invite it. It is like the wind, or the breezes that come if you leave the windows open you cannot invite the breeze - and if you are lucky it might come and I hope you are lucky.”
November 23, 1967
Charley was lucky 
1 Like
Whatever thought/thinking does is limited. And because it is limited, there is always conflict when one uses thought/thinking. Now, if one doesn’t mind living in conflict, live in conflict, but when one lies about it and tries to invent a kind of relationship that seems to have no conflict on the surface, one only exacerbates the conflict, the lie within, the separation, the division between truth and reality. And that is because thought/thinking creates reality. So, whatever you do, whatever you work for, whatever you can imagine, whatever you think that you can create between yourself and another, all that is in the field of reality. Thought can even imagine or invent or think that it can create truth between oneself and another - any kind of perfect world, a perfect state. However, this state is still in the field of reality. And being in the field of reality, then there is no truth.
So what I am saying is that conflict is always part of the field of reality. The very nature of reality is conflict. So, to get back to the theme of this topic, relationships, what I am saying is that as long as one operates within the field of reality (thought/thinking), truth will elude the one who lives in that reality. And that is because truth has no direct relationship to reality. So as long as one has not explored all the illusions that thought/thinking have to reality, as long as thought/thinking does not end, there will always be conflict. For conflict to end, thought/thinking must cease, and only then can there be truth. And that is because truth has no relationship whatsoever with reality. And that is why a person who is anchored in truth has no relationship with those who are caught in the web of reality. And the stronger a person’s attachment/dependence on thought/thinking, the less likelihood of moving away from thought/thinking, and the less likely can anyone who is caught in the reality of thought/thinking can have any kind of relationship with anyone living in truth.
Now, having said all this, it is only a person who is anchored in truth, who in seeing the truth or the falseness of any statement - insight meditation (as K talked about) - can effect a change in reality. So, in the end, it is only when one has come to end of one’s conditioning, when one has seen and understood all of that conditioning, is it possible to have a relationship with truth. I hope that I am correctly stating all of the above.
2 Likes
It depends on what you mean by the “mind”. My understanding is that the mind is a mechanical function of the brain. If the brain was mechanical, we wouldn’t be in awe of its complexity and how little we know about it.
A small child has no knowledge of how the brain works. It is only when one is taught about it, when one has been given outside knowledge of the brain, that one adds that knowledge to oneself. To be in
only shows that you are in awe of knowledge. And, who is this “we”, as in:
that you mention in your comment, because it sure isn’t Charley. Please list all the people who compose this “we”.
You do realize/are aware that in saying that you are in “awe of its complexity” implies that you have an exaggerated sense of self-importance - which includes the importance of certain body parts. Your knowledge of your own self’s importance stops you from experiencing just how mechanical the brain is. Charley is in awe of the beauty of nature, of the doe and her two fawns one saw recently. So, what you are saying is that you are in awe of yourself - of your “self”, right?
Oh Inquiry,
It just dawned on me that you were the one who said under the topic of Inner Voice:
Only someone who is awed at something complex is full of oneself.
I had to laugh at your throwing me a verbal tomato, when I had read that, by the way. It’s still funny.
Still think that? 
Awe is defined as, “an emotion variously combining dread, veneration, and wonder that is inspired by authority or by the sacred or sublime”.
The antithesis of being full of oneself.
The human brain is part of nature, as are the doe and two fawns you sentimentalize. Why do you separate the human brain from the rest of nature and call it mechanical? The brains of all mammals are awesomely complex. Ask any neuroscientist.
The human brain isn’t a human construct. But what is a human construct is a mind composed of unquestioned, unexamined notions and beliefs.
Inquiry,
Good grief!!!, smh,
I never said that the human brain was separate from the rest of nature (you are distorting what I said), but I did call it mechanical. It is conditioned by knowledge; it thrives on knowledge, just like a computer can be programmed by knowledge. As a matter of fact, the computer was built/designed/based on the knowledge of how the brain works. The brain is constantly recording (not Charley’s brain, Charley put a stop to that activity), and out of that knowledge, a person acts, thinks, speaks, and chooses.
This is tiresome, why don’t you read K, as follows:
“Because your mind, as I said, which is part of the brain , that brain is so conditioned, so mechanical - you’re a Hindu, you’re this, that - it’s all this tradition, this repetitive existence has made the brain mechanical. Right? You must have watched, you must know your own brain, has made it mechanical and you want to find out a new activity which is not mechanical.” K
I don’t recall exactly where but I seem to recall K talking about how the brain was like a muscle or like an engine… you can go and find the exact quote, if you are really interested in more knowledge. Of course, you can meditate and find out for yourself, which I have done, and discovered for myself. Why don’t you go and do verbal exchanges with someone else, PLEASE!!!
I knew someone years ago, who had no idea what meditation was, a business guy, who told me that he was so awed by the sight of a pink convertible Cadillac, that he had an erection. It’s kind of typical of most men that they worship things made by their hands, especially cars, which they see as sacred. Of course, it is my understanding as well, that many men look at some body parts, not only the brain, but lower down, as a “gift from God”, which awes them even more!!! 
You’re the third person in this forum who has made this request. The first one was abusive, vulgar, and was either expelled or quit. I look forward to our next exchange.
1 Like
So, back to the theme of this topic, relationships, so you can see, that all my posts that I wrote on this topic carried a suggestion to reflect upon the post - which, in effect, was a suggestion to commune with what I wrote. Apparently, no one did. So, that pretty well wraps it up for the topic, I think. Thanks to all who did read, hope those who did bother to read what I wrote got something from it, apart from all the interruptions, from those who are unlikely to go beyond thought/thinking.
A consistent contradiction is not the same as sharing.
1 Like
When people observe abuse, bullying, whatever, and “stand silent” (which is actually just pretending to be silent) and say nothing about it, you can be sure they are incapable of love, of going beyond thought/thinking, of discovering truth.
An activist is no different from an antagonist.
Peter,
You really are an expert at homily, and a homily is nothing more than a banal cliché.
I don’t mind if you ignore me, but don’t you see the reactionary approach?
Of course, need I mention that giving someone unsolicited advice constitutes emotional abuse.
To be responsible only means able to respond. But when I do, the man accuses me of having a “reaction”. This is fun, actually. So, from the man who me wanted to change the word “conditioning” just to please others. So, from the tomato thrower experiencing “awe”, it was okay, but for me to experience “awe” it was only sentimentality. I wonder what next? I had finished with the theme of relationship, and had no intention of adding anything more. And, I won’t be writing on truth, as I don’t think anyone is really interested. So, I gave back what I received. And so, that is finished. Have fun. 
Don’t you understand we are talking together, and there are things to talk about together, like the mind, like conditioning, and thought, etc, and I am not separate from any of this. Think about it. How can anyone be separate from the world? I am not separate. Think about matters not separating oneself. Not making anyone separate. So what I am talking about is not personal, and the references are a universal condition of the way of life a lot of people live. It is a condition we think is integral to life, as is the idea of our separateness, the person, individual, self, ego, him, her, you, and me, we, them, etc. So with the self image we live accused. I am this, you are that, do it this way, not that way. From the word cause. We are trying to escape from this tyranny of our own making and which we repeat.
Peter,
I understand that you are not separate from what is happening in the world, this community on this site. There was the seeing of that immediately the moment you suggested changing the word “conditioning”. That was entirely incorrect speech. No-one who understood correct action, correct speech would have even thought to suggest something like that. You still have quite the conditioning, and I see it. That brings a tear to my eye.
“Only by breaking away from the social pattern without building another can you ‘help’ society. As long as you belong to society, you are only helping it to deteriorate. All societies including the most marvellously Utopian, have within them the seeds of their own corruption. To change society, you must break away from it. You must cease to be what society is – acquisitive, ambitious, envious, power seeking, and so on.” K
The breaking away of one community includes the fact of not being a part of another community, nor of creating another community. One must stand alone, completely alone.
"“The man who is truly religious is completely free from society, he has no responsibility towards society; he may establish a relationship with society, but society has no relationship with him.” K
Here, what I write, is not really, I think, of interest to anyone on this site. This breaking away separates one from all, from everything, every thing, every thought. You are not separate from all your conditioning. Your introduction of homilies betrayed 1000’s of years of archaic Christian conditioning, and you are not even aware of it. You won’t even acknowledge it. In meditation, which began - if I recall - only in the early 40s, Charley, had not only to go through all the conditioning of this life, but so many other lifetimes. Thank god, that’s over!
What you are suggesting in your above post is what is happening on this site. It does not lead to the discovery of truth, of that what is most holy, of that which is immeasurable. Discussions with others never lead to the discovery of that which is most holy, of the eternal. I understand that you and many others feel that you are a part of a community which is discussing conditioning, thought. The relationship that the immeasurable has with Charley, a uni-directional relationship only, can only be discovered in meditation, not through the discussions of which you admit to being a part of. Your insistence on such discussions, dialogue, betrays the fact of your continued conditioning. Perhaps, you and others may get to know some aspects of this conditioning through discussions; but it is only in meditation, that such conditioning can end.
Even in the seeing of a tree, there was the seeing of the energy of the tree, extending it’s consciousness out of itself (filaments of white light) and move into Charley’s body, Charley’s emptiness and explore the heart of Charley and resonate within. So, in the same manner, is the exploration of Charley within by that which his most holy. Do you honestly believe that that which is happening on this site is at all vaguely interested in such discoveries?