If by “guts” you mean manly, brave, fearless, defiant. determined, having “backbone”, etc., attention would take note of this attitude rather than depend on it.
As far as I can tell, thoughts always arise.
Also to the previous question about answers - I’m not sure why we would put aside looking for an answer, nor whether we could (unless we didn’t really care in the first place)
Also by “see” I probably used the wrong word, I meant the habitual seeing, rather than some clear intelligent sight.
All this to say maybe we need to take a step back, and shine a light either on to our own selves and motivations, or maybe just start with some simpler concepts, if we are to have a chance of communicating something other than the confusion and conflict that we have been so far.
If there is a motivation for listening (ie. there is a wanting to learn something) then is there always thinking and thought? Is that listening? Or does listening only occur when there is no motivation, when the mind is quiet?
When what I thought was true is proved false, I have learned something without wanting to or thinking.
Hi,
May I know the difference between ordinary and extraordinary mind?
You have said something about perceptions and experience, can you elaborate on that?
Anyways thanks for your contribution’s 
Hi @sivaram,
Talking on an ordinary mind and an extraordinary mind would imply that there are two minds when truth is that there is only one mind - brain, either in conflict or in stillness, i.e., without conflict and the movement it brings about in order to solve it, it is only one, so it can´t be said that there are two minds nor that, depending on its state, it is exactly the same mind, either.
I wrote “ordinary” to refer to the mind-brain in conflict along with the subsequent struggle to solve it, because that´s the mind most of us know and are used to which doesn´t mean it to be the natural state of mind but rather the opposite. The natural state is the state of peace, quietness, stillness not disturbed by thoughts arising in order to be used as a tool to function in the relative realm. In the first case, thought divides itself engaging in a fight with itself, in the second one, there is not division or struggle. You don´t get into an argument with a harm that you use to hammer in a nail, do you?
It´s also true that a still mind-brain knows and perceive in a different way, moreover, it can know and perceive things that a mind in conflict, the “ordinary” mind can´t, so for this mind or a mind in a state of conflict , the still mind or rather its skills, may appear as something extraordinary but they aren´t, not really. This is why K didn´t give much importance to it, for K, stillness of mind was just a requisite, what makes mind-brain a qualified mind-brain for what he called “intelligence” to act through it which means that that which considered itself as the user of a tool becomes the tool itself. Not everybody is ready to assimilate this.
How to get a still mind? Just common sense, all of us know what is right and what is wrong, so it´s just a matter of aligning thoughts, words and deeds with this knowledge. Easier to say than to do, in case you to be interested in testing it by yourself.
Sorry about the confusion.
Why do you believe we all "know what is right and what is wrong?
Can right and wrong be codified? If not, how can one know the right/wrong way to respond in any situation or circumstance? Can right/wrong response be known only in the moment, or must one refer to experience and knowledge to determine how to respond?
To transform oneself , he must begin with nothing. If he begin with knowledge, thought will let new thought, new thought is not creation because it it has source from the known.
In daily, we need thought in labor but to transform oneself, thought is a obstacle.
1 Like
It is a pity that you knew K´s teachings before reading this discussion so that you could have responded by yourself with your own understanding starting from the fact that we can´t begin with nothing, unless you to be the same as K who considered himself as a human being born with a brain not conditioned nor subject to be conditioned by anything, because that´s the point in here, how to recondition rather than to transform ourselves since, as long as we are conditioned there is not room for transformation. I don´t mean to attack anybody, just pointing out to the conditioning and how it works without being seen nor even when it is oneself who is explicitly expressing it as reacting to words, either right/wrong, knowledge or whatsoever.
@Inquiry ,
Is it a believe or a fact that we are perfectly equipped with a natural intelligence shared by all human beings , since it doesn´t depend on knowledge, training and so on to discern between right and wrong? This natural intelligence is not mere instinct, it is related to what we call ethical and moral because it has been expressed that way all around the world, it is something basic likewise everything that is universal, not based on personal stuff nor a byproduct of thought, the self or ego although it has been and is misused by ego but this too can be seen, or is it that because of something is subject to the inference of ego it has to be put aside which, on the other hand, benefits the very ego itself. Mind is so tricky and reluctant to responsibility which is what implies to respond to situations, moment to moment regardless of what others, including K, may do and say. I have a hangover and the year still is not over. I´ll stop here.
Now my brain is wondering about cannibals. and slavery. and sexual equality.
Sorry to hear about that, it must be something chronic seeing Penrose triangles all the time, everywhere. 
We have our animal intelligence, yes, and we are social animals, too, so our intelligence devises thought to articulate and express what we need to communicate to ourselves and other humans.
Why do we need to communicate with ourselves, one might ask, and one might answer, “Because thought is a language, and if we’re not “speaking” it correctly, honestly, without any motive other than to avoid mistakes (or at least, correct them), we must be practicing our common language all the time so as to communicate effectively”. We are talking animals.
So who’s to say what “effective communication” is? If my way of thinking is very different from your way of thinking, are we both doing it wrong? If we knew how to think, we’d know how to answer this question. But we don’t really know how to think…we just think we do.
Mind is so tricky and reluctant to responsibility which is what implies to respond to situations, moment to moment regardless of what others, including K, may do and say.
Why is mind, “tricky and reluctant to responsibility”? Could it be that the brain’s failure to learn how and when to think is attributable to the emotional reaction of desire/fear? Could it be that emotions can override intelligence, and that until/unless one learns emotional intelligence, “intelligence” is just an emotionally stimulating word?
To a large extent, intention is what defines our actions and that, intention, only one can know, so judging others is meaningless. Your thoughts are yours and they only affect you, even when your thoughts are thoughts about other´s thoughts, still they are your thoughts, I guess that´s why this native intelligence says all around the world that when we talk about others, we are talking about ourselves, actually, and the reason why K says that outward conflict isn´t but inner conflict of mind. Perhaps it is ourselves that we should listen to in order to learn? Likewise in the internet, each one of our thought, word and action leaves an impression on our mind, that´s our conditioning.
“There is a way of living in which there is not conflict; because there is no conflict there is intelligence which will show the right way of living.” JK
Lovely thought, but what use is it when all we know is conflict, confusion, and perpetual incoherent thinking?
I read the first version of your text, insults included. That was my response to it.
I see that you continue in the same vein, next time I shall report it to the Adm. of the forum.
What “vein” might that be?
next time I shall report it to the Adm. of the forum.
Report that I deleted my “insults”?
That you are using the kinfonet forum to send insults to some people´s e-mail-box, as you know we only receive your original comment. Some who are really interested in K´s teachings and whose comments were well worth reading have left because of this. Maybe it is time to do something about it.
I don’t send anything “to some people’s e-mail-box”. Why are you making this accusation?
Have you ever experienced no thought moment without trying or depressing ? Why one have a believing that he can’t do that ?
What are you thinking of? can you give an example?