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?
It is quite common for people to think of goals, and achievements. This is I suppose the way of getting things done, like cooking, washing clothes, going to work, and shopping etc. But then we have the psychological side to it. It has become a habit in the way of thinking. The brain is working with all things, words, ideas, emotions, as elements, and make them a known part of some established experience. It is the same with relationships. We think of this word relationship to mean the connection, the exchange, between different things, people, places, etc, and we are working to give them unity, or cohesion. But looking at this psychologically, we see the basis for this perception of separate things, people, etc, is that there is a division, a schism, a disconnection. So I ask, why is this a problem and why is there this emphasis on solving it? Or on the other hand why make the case for self-reliance, independence, or faith?
The discovery is that the brain is conditioned to use the labels for things, which we call words, and it is this process, of the internal looking at the external, the application of words, to produce an image in the brain. It is this image, and its complexities, in the brain, which we are using to understand life. The image is by its own nature, wanting to remake its performance, ( the thing outside and the internal thought), is the action we believe is the nature of relationship. There is action to do something, to think something, or be in some place, and so relationship has become, how to act in some way. It is a romantic, sentimental, materialistic, pragmatic, or spiritual, esoteric, alternative, dance, we are all performing, one way or another.
Is unsolicited advice “emotional abuse” when it’s helpful and you’re grateful for it?
So you have found Peace or Peace found you, but in your wording I feel no Love, no Compassion, I feel something is missing and don’t know what or why.
2 Likes