It is a wrong question he was putting, that’s all. K was quick to point out this too, if you would care to consider it. He asked, ‘When the mind is free is there love?’ (I have paraphrased his question, subject to correction.) Love doesn’t need to wait for the mind to be free. That’s the whole point. Love is our responsibility right now; it cannot be postponed.
**So why didn’t you address that? But the question isn’t asserting that “love needs to wait.” That appears to be an assumption thought generated in Paul’s thought. Again, it’s a question, not an assertion that “love needs to wait.” This is what the system of thought ‘appears’ to be constantly doing, “reading things into statements that aren’t there.” It’s one of the many ways thought distracts attention away from observing what it’s doing, by implying, “The problem is over there, in ‘that’ person.” And when these judgments or comparisons happen, we are no longer observing ‘ourselves’ in relationship. We’re making judgments about the “thought projected other.”
If you know what is possible and that “it offers a way out”, the implication is that you have taken this way out and that you are now “out”, and speaking from that place.
Are you sure? ‘When the mind is free is there love?’ Is the mind free now? If it is, it doesn’t need to ask about love; and, if it is not free, it is going to be caught in illusions.
Then stop it. Just stop it. Let’s start again from scratch.
Is it reluctance that keeps the conditioned brain in its ‘tracks ‘? Is it fear of the unknown? The brain has to answer this for itself. Maybe it’s too damaged? Maybe it hasn’t the energy to move away from a lifetime of patterns? Maybe it has no desire to find out what it means to function outside of time? Maybe all this ‘spiritual stuff ‘ is just entertainment? Just another way to try and deal with the enigma of death, of not-being? The ego/self is cunning…which is probably why it persists to this day. It enjoys acting as if it is moving beyond itself, making ‘headway’ using the illusory psychological time that it created.
“If you know what is possible …” No point in speculating.
No, because your words and your actions identify you.
There does seem to be a certain attraction for the more mysterious word salad woo woo - maybe because the best dogma is meaningless dogma 
or because it resonates with some esoteric mumbo jumbo from our past 
**Yes, it seems very clear that Dan asked a question, it wasn’t an assertion. Which leads me to ask, sincerely, given the responses, “Do you see the difference between a sentence that ends with a question mark (?), and an assertion?”
Also, I don’t see where Dan or anyone said, “the mind is free now.” That appears to be a common pattern of thought, arguing against its own false argument, to defend a position. Referred to as a “Straw Man Fallacy,” I believe. Can you show me where Dan said, “the mind is free.”
The statement, “If it is, it doesn’t need to ask about love,” appears to be a psychological belief/interpretation that the conditioned mind is now asserting as a “truth.” This is what the system of thought is constantly doing. The human brain hears something that ‘sounds true’ and adds it to the ‘me-structure’ as another psychological belief, that ‘I’ know, that comes out like a reflex when the related subject occurs.
The ‘fact’ is that a question was asked, and the non-fact, that past thought created is, “It doesn’t need to ask.” Which is thought engaging in illusion.
K: So please have the goodness not to introduce the words “when,” “if,” and should. You are avoiding the question. - Saanen Aug.1966
The scientific method is all about building the best possible models (best = useful, accurate predictive power) and has proven itself to be most excellent. Though it makes no claims for stating or uncovering absoluteTruth.
Psychological freedom or ease & clarity is all about non-dependance on the known aka (very strong) beliefs.
PS - If I may say, some of the arguments on this thread are getting pretty violent, and there may even have been a few low blows in the heat of the action - may I suggest a timeout?
1 Like
Yes we are talking about the situation of “humanity”, not the person. Now is it because the brain is ‘stuck’? As children we see ‘unfairness’ for what it is. So what happens in the adult that perhaps sees the unfairness of the tribe, the society, the nation, etc. but now looks away from it if it is to ‘my’ benefit? Cheering on a despot that will make people suffer, because he/she increases my bank account? Lack of compassion, right? I got mine, too bad for you. (loser.) Only a brain that is stupid could imagine that that attitude is sustainable. So what’s wrong? Why can’t a brain that can figure out how to go to the moon and come back, miss the obvious, (or not care) what a child of four knows intuitively?
Thank you. That’s exactly what I am talking about because the question was, ‘When the mind is free is there love’? We said that was a wrong question. Now let’s move on. Or start all over again, a better move probably. The house is still on fire and we are arguing about the colour of the drapes.
1 Like
There are an awful lot of maybes here. There is one certainty: it is our responsibility to sort this out; no-one else has done it or will do it for us. Do you see this? Or is it just another maybe?
Sometimes a smile or a laugh speaks volumes, so, 
Dan,
I don’t think what we’re discussing has to do with the brain being stuck or not stuck, we don’t even exactly know what all the potentialities of the brain are. And I don’t think that what a child sees is what an adult has to see. In the particular case you refer I’m not even sure that a four year old sees unfairness so cleanly as you seem to assume. Krishnamurti said somewhere that he ‘cleaned the slate’, so I guess that’s what we have to do right away, that is, see to it that our actions are not in just our own benefit, but because we see it is the right thing to do. So, we see that the way to go is through compassion, which has nothing to do with pity, compassion is in the field of intelligence and love and that is not part of the brain, it is part of the mind which is universal. Krishnamurti in the book I referred to above says that it is dangerous to speak of a universal mind because it turns into ‘tradition’ and then of course the whole thing falls back into the field of thought (the limited brain). People are generally psychologically lazy, so it is easier to follow tradition rather than to find out for one self that what we are doing is what is right to do in the moment… that’s some sort of mental ‘fast food’, it tastes good, it’s cheap and it doesn’t need work. If by despot somehow you were hinting at someone we have heard about tweeting all the time and contaminating all the world in the recent years, I think this is the reason, lazy people vote ‘fast food’.
Sorry - not sure if this adds to your discussion, but small children and even other animals have fairness wired in - it is not learned, its deeper. - something to do with being social animals apparently
**It’s interesting that you view this as argument? I’m interested in exploring, looking, and observing together, not arguing. Argument generally requires a ‘me’ versus a ‘you’. Is that how you imagine it? Are you trying to ‘win’ or is there an interest to look together?
K objected to the usage of the words ‘if and when’, in a specific context, when people would respond to his questions by saying things like, “If you’re free you don’t react,” or, “When there’s no me there’s no problem.” It wasn’t a suggestion that the words were “wrong” in every context. For example:
K: If they don’t change now, the future will be exactly what it is now, perhaps with certain modifications, variations, but human beings, if they don’t radically, fundamentally bring about in their own attitudes, in their own lives, which is to put order, then attending to all these talks, seeing old familiar faces has very little meaning.
And, K: Chaos, that’s what I am saying. We live as human beings in chaos. I want to find out if I can live without a single problem for the rest of my life. Is that possible?
Would you also call it a “wrong question” to ask, “If I can live without a single problem?” It appears to be an invitation to “look,” to find out. It’s also not ‘asserting’, “yes we’re already there.”
Yes, the house is on fire. But what IS the nature of this fire? Is the “fire” revealed in the conditioned responses of imagining we are a centre ‘arguing’ with another centre, in all its various conflictual manifestations? Is the “fire” revealed in the resistance to listening and looking together? The false significance being given to “my psychological knowledge?”
K: Yes. I think the wrong turn was taken when thought became
all important. - The Ending of Time
1 Like
I brought this up because someone was telling me a story about a young girl who was exasperated with her uncle who resisted wearing a mask (for political reasons) to protect himself and others against Covid and even though his lungs and breathing were damaged severely from cigarettes, he would not stop smoking…she could not understand how someone could not see what was obvious to her. Regarding animals, I recall a video from a zoo that showed a group of apes quarreling over some edible branches of some kind that were left in their enclosure. The dominant ape came on the scene, stopped the fighting and carefully passed out the branches so each had the same amount, they took them and walked away.
No, you are quibbling over words, that’s all. That is why I said it is like arguing about the colour of the drapes while the house burns down around us. You turned it into this by latching on to something I said to someone else, someone whom I trust was not as bothered by my words as you appear to be. Whatever I say to you, I suspect there will be the same self-righteous response; so we are best to leave it here. If I have been rude to someone, cut them short, trodden on their toes, I apologise most sincerely; I can do no more.