It is more about finding a way in than about finding a way out. How does one approach the possibility than one can only ever act stupidly?
Why do you think this?
It is easy to find a way out of our stupidity and greed, an escape. Going into is another matter.
Finding a way out, truly out, that’s not easy at all. Witness: human reality!
Maybe the way out involves the way in?
The way out of what? A stupid mind has no escape from itself. A frightened mind has no escape from itself. A violent mind has no escape from itself.
Doesn’t a “stupid” mind for us humans mean a mind with a ‘self’, a center?
But this has no meaning. This is only what we tell ourselves when nothing else has worked. We say, ‘It must be the self, the centre, the conditioning,’ as though the verbal description of the problem is a satisfactory solution. Therefore we continue the conditioning; we perpetuate the presence of a centre; we keep the self alive. These answers we pose keep all of that activity going.
If one has a very stupid mind, can one stop using it to fend off the stupidity? Then surely one is in direct contact with whatever it is within us that is the most stupid, the most afraid and the most violent. When the mind is alive just to that and only to that, there is no room for any other psychological entity who wants to fight against or change it. For surely it is our fighting against it that keeps us caught in the violence, fear and stupidity. But when they are one and the same thing, everything must undergo a profound change, not just get modified through incomplete verbal descriptions. Then the stupid observer is so totally the stupid observed that the entire nature of observation is transformed.
1 Like
This is what the self tells itself when it is intent upon continuing at all costs.
It will attack ‘thought’ because the self can continue unabated if ‘thought’ is named as the enemy…
Tricks of the monkey (self). And K saw them all!
At the moment (height) of stupidity, fright, violence the mind has no way out. But once the mud has settled, it might. The way out might involve a looking within.
We are not attacking thought. Thought is not an enemy. We are saying that when one is faced with a real problem, posing verbal solutions is what keeps those problems alive.
But the mud is still there, down at the depths and at a distance. So then the way out becomes a matter of keeping the mud from being further disturbed. Any kind of looking within is therefore rather pointless because one is only looking at an idealised version of the mind.
Please, Don’t describe his capability that absolute.
He certainly pointed us to the tendency of the monkey’s tricks!
The monkey’s tricks,
Another patently false conclusion from the conditioned brain of Paul, which negates the “art of seeing” and everything K. Of course, the heavily conditioned intellectual brain which doesn’t meet K’s criteria is incapable of seeing “what is” within. So, this brain invents a new religion that has nothing to do with K.
One wonders when thought operating all the time like this from this brain is like the motor of a car running all the time (as K discussed), is the reason for Alzheimer’s… not a risk Charley is interested in…
But you have not considered the whole picture. The mind may look perfectly clear and calm but the mud is still there at the depths. Is it possible to look within at the moment when the mud once again gets stirred up, agitated? This is the question. And usually it gets stirred up by our interactions with other people, by what they say, what they do, when their behaviour does not fit in with our idealised patterns of behaviour.
The Whole Picture,
The word “whole” is related to the word “holy” - not that you have a whole brain, because one must not have any fear within in order to have such a brain. And as you have said before several times, Paul, you have fear within. You have said you are afraid. So you don’t have a whole brain, and therefore you cannot even see the whole picture. Your fear prevents this, so you cannot see the whole picture. The reason you cannot see the whole picture is that you speculate and draw so many patently false conclusions, (i.e. an entire thread: How might the war end?), in which there are also incorrect conclusions.
You wouldn’t speculate were you to have a whole brain, nor would you refer others to access a BBC article speculating as to 5 different scenarios as to what might happen in the future. One has access to BBC world news on cable TV, and had noticed that was a reference to this article about “How might the war end?”, and intelligence understood immediately that it was speculation, so didn’t bother to read it, but then you introduced this speculative article into this site, so I glanced at it. Pathetic article. You are always talking about now, but contradict yourself when you refer to something that might happen. The beginning defines the end. When the war began, one understood immediately that it was going to be a slaughter, mass murder, genocide. The “free” world is stalling, because it is stuck in thought and fear, so it has not really begun to do the right thing. It is only trying to mitigate the effects on its economies.
The reason why there is war in Europe is that the dark side has become status quo for the entire world which the conditioned brain of humanity (the “mud”) has brought about. The more that thought dominates those who cannot see within, the darker the world becomes…
Yes, that’s right. And you are not. So we cannot talk. Finished. Don’t waste any more time and effort on it.
Paul
When Charley posts anything, even though one addresses a particular person, one always has the sense that one posts to everyone who might read, so it is never a waste of time or effort. Since one had the insight “I am the world and the world is me”, one speaks to everyone. There is also the fact that Charley had the insight, “I am humanity”, one’s last insight, which obliges Charley to speak for and to those who have not yet seen that truth. K had no fear, and talked with everyone. So, one has noticed glimmers of intelligence in some of the people who have put posts since Charley joined the site - some have understood a few things. So, perhaps, one’s posts do not interest you in particular, but others read Charley’s posts. For example, one has had pm interactions where it has been clearly stated how much Charley’s posts are appreciated.
I understand all that. But suppose you have never had the insight? Then what would you do? Surely that makes for a far more fascinating and interactive conversation. Otherwise, it is no different from someone saying, ‘I am the President; I am always right’ - there is only a battle to come out of it.
1 Like
Yes, the mud isn’t settled forever, it will eventually get unsettled again. Looking within, we can see this, understand the pattern of it.
We already understand the pattern of it even before we look. The pattern of it is fairly obvious. After all, we have lived with this particular pattern all our lives. The pattern has been to minimise the disturbance; and that’s the same way we look at the disturbance when it arises again, with the same pattern reacting. The mud gets disturbed and the pattern comes in, saying, ‘Manage and minimise this disturbance.’