That might be the most intelligent thing to do. Otoh maybe exploring the unknown and perhaps unknowable can bring deep understanding, a glimpse of the true nature of reality.
This is where it puzzles me Rick why you aren’t open to reading some of K’s stuff about these matters? I’m not an expert on the depths of stillness, but K has discussed with Bohm for example about a ‘non-movement movement’, a ‘movement’ that is not of thought, a ‘movement of stillness’, dynamic stillness, the explosive energy of a mind in which thought as movement has completely come to an end, etc (all of which resonates with T.S. Eliot’s intuitive verse).
Looking at it more generally, there is obviously the kinetic energy of the brain - for instance, the energy of the blood pumping through the carotid arteries and the vertebral arteries to the brain. This is one kind of movement.
Then there is the movement of thought - which includes the constant synaptic transmissions being made between neurons, the relationship between the various centres of the brain (such as the amygdala, the hippocampus, the cortex, etc).
And then there is what takes place when the movement of thought is drastically reduced. This is what I mean by a quiet brain.
So K says that when the brain is quiet, there is a movement in stillness, a non-movement movement, something tremendously active like a dynamo that has the quality of stillness and no time. This non-movement movement is distinct from the ongoing kinetic movement of the brain, and is distinct from the movement of thought (which has its own rhythm according to K).
I was hoping we could discuss the notion of a universal mind without drawing from Krishnamurti. Though I’m driven to inquire into many of the same topics as Krishnamurti did (the existential biggies) and drawn strongly to the deep freedom his talks were steeped in, I’m interested way more in the views and feelings of the people here than in Krishnamurti’s. For better or worse, turning to Krishnamurti is kind of like ‘cheating’ for me, it’s borrowed wisdom.
It depends on the people…
Why do we talk about anything? That’s the first point to get clear. This will then show us everything we need to know about the universal mind without any fuss or effort involved. Why do we talk about anything like this?
1 Like
Rick, I believe we had moved a little bit in the discussion, and were talking about a quiet brain. Would you acknowledge this?
Macdougdoug had said that the universe manifests more “efficiently” through a quiet brain (or words to that effect). And - picking up something you had said about religions - I mentioned that it is widely acknowledged in cultures and peoples as diverse as ancient China, India, Medieval Europe and Persia, that a quiet brain or mind is essential for any significant inward discovery.
You challenged this, saying that
Which implies that you assume a quiet brain to lack dynamism and energy.
I was surprised by this assumption of yours, because you have recently quoted a short extract from T.S. Eliot where he explicitly draws on contemplative (Christian) language to articulate a form of stillness in which there is movement. Because your following reply doubled-down on your assumption that a quiet mind lacks energy and movement, and because Eliot’s language reminded me so much of what K has talked about when discussion these matters, I thought to share with you that the assumption you have been making (about the quiet mind lacking energy and movement) is not a universally held assumption. I.e. it is your assumption, an assumption you have not apparently yet questioned. - Are you willing to question it? If you are, then we can proceed to discuss more about what is implied by a quiet brain.
I thought I had begun to discuss this ‘more’ (about the quiet brain) in my last reply, where I discussed at least two other movements in the brain (distinct from the ‘non-movement movement’ K and Eliot refer to): those of the brain’s physical self-regulation (the blood pumping to the brain), and those of the movement of thought and the various different centres of the physical brain. These are both distinct kinds of movement that can be observed in the first-person as well as through the third-person observation of brain mechanism.
Once we have established a common meeting place here, we can then proceed to discuss whether or not there can be a further kind of movement (one that belongs to stillness). But we haven’t yet established this commonality.
Remember that this whole discussion began on another thread with Dan saying that thought has no place in the space of the mind (or words to that effect). So this is the direction I am still pursuing.
How have you interpreted them? - Occam’s razor advises us not to go directly to the weird magical undemonstrated interpretations.
the idea I’m using is that every concept/phenomenon exists/manifests thanks to the existence of everything else. eg. Water eddies could not exist in the absence of long dead stars, mountains and valleys, pebbles, language, etc… Long dead stars could not exist without etc…
The big miracle is not the mind that succeeds in attaining magical abilities, the big miracle is in the magical powers of pebbles, water eddies and mountains that give rise to mind. (nb. I am finally channeling Dogen 
)
What is a quiet mind? Is it a mind that wants to touch the unknown - or at least touch something imagined by the known to be unknown? Is it a mind that is separate from all those things?
So what would it mean for us to talk to one another without any reason or motive at all? Where would we start?
Seeing as language/speech can be defined as the symbolic representations of thought - and thought being an expression of conditioning and motive - I have no immediate answer to this question.
One reason is probably the desire for knowledge - inquiry can often be the expression of fear, search for security, confirmation etc… the exigence of the known;
If one starts with an inaccurate or incomplete definition of language/speech the outcome will also be inaccurate or incomplete.
So my question is what exactly is the function of language/speech?
Even dialogue uses this function and in dialogue all the other events can be expressed like egocentrism, LOVE, etc. etc. …b
Perhaps you are seeing too much. Do you see me? That’s our start, isn’t it?
Hello? (Is this word - and my use of it, motive free?)
That’s what we’re going to find out. Unless we are sure about the nature of our relationship to the world, moving on to consider things like universal mind makes very little sense. Because if we are already creating stories about each other, about the things that are right in front of us, goodness knows what we might do with the other less tangible aspects of our lives.
How would we know that we have a motive?
Okay, I’ll bite. Why?
You’re biting because you don’t know. So that’s a big part of what is behind our talking to one another. Are we therefore talking in order to reach a place of knowing? That would be one reason.
Wouldn’t the most logical thing - for those people raising this point - be to remain silent or set up separate thread where they can talk about how useless it is to talk?
Although this thread began with a question about “universal mind”, it seems clear to me that the topic moved on to what is meant by a quiet mind or brain. As K says in one of the extracts above
can our brain, to understand all that immensity be quiet?
This is the current question I thought was being explored.
However, if no one is interested in this topic anymore - as now seems to be the case from the ensuing conversation over the last few hours! - I would be happy to begin a separate thread with the topic of a quiet brain.
Would a universal mind be bothered about where it went? That’s the first point. Therefore don’t we have to be completely aware of the workings of the personal mind first before we are free to go off to look at the universal?
No-one is saying that it is useless to talk. On the contrary, we are finding out the very value of talking, which includes all its dangers and distractions.
I’m resisting interpreting them, because I think my interpretation might be quite different from your intention. And for me “the universe manifesting mind” doesn’t convey much without interpretation.
the idea I’m using is that every concept/phenomenon exists/manifests thanks to the existence of everything else.
Dependent origination sounds like, ja? I don’t see how this relates to “universe manifesting mind.”
Is that not what we (you) mean by quiet mind?
What is a quiet mind? Is it a mind that wants to touch the unknown - or at least touch something imagined by the known to be unknown? Is it a mind that is separate from all those things?
There are different kinds of quiet, right?
- There’s the quiet of no phenomena, silence. This kind of quiet can be sleepy or alert.
- There’s the quiet of flow, full self-less immersion in a task.
- The quiet of phenomena coming and going without a trace.
And so on.
For me ‘quiet mind’ means, in the context of this discussion, the alert version of 1/3: Few phenomena arising, those that do arise come and go without a trace, general sense of alertness and openness.