I see a problem and that is, you have took that line (Conclusion) and put it out of context while ignoring the rest. And now the thread has no meaning, for me, at all but the conflict going on. I am not interested in such an exchange so excuse me if I won’t participate any longer in this 
Peace Ayham - it is very difficult even in face-to-face discussions to respond adequately to what the other person has said (and put it in the right context); in these virtual forums - with often hours between replies - it is almost impossible to remember what the other person was disagreeing with us about!
Have a good day man. 
1 Like
The other day I was at a gathering and someone asked, how do you know what you say is right. There is no answer to this question, because the question of right is raised in the thinker. But I wondered, what is the point of talking together when everyone wants to know, is it right? In this situation, the question, ‘what is right?’ would be really an exercise in getting someone’s confidence, or bypassing the distraction. All I can ask is, am I listening? Am I listening to whomever is speaking, and flowing with the communication, or am I analysing and reacting to words, ideas and concepts?
1 Like
Yes. Isn’t that when we see things for the first time? When someone is speaking and it is all fresh. But we have this image process and put all the past around what we are looking at.
I think it is indeed overwhelming for one to attend. Overwhelmed by the excessive mental movement which takes place in us. Overwhelmed by what I know and how much others don’t. How irrelevant what is outside to what is inside. There seems to be a great deal of distance between me and you, so many thoughts/ content stand between us. So meeting you is almost impossible if my content is between us. So the question comes?
Can I listen to my thoughts as if they were taking place for the first time?
It is what is called, a flow of thought, isn’t it?
Is listening to my thoughts causing division? If so, would not listening to my thoughts end division? Or is there still something more that divides?
Understanding ‘I’ here to mean the ‘state of observation’ or awareness, say, as was said in the other thread, it takes “energy” to not do anything about the “flow of thought”. When the energy is not there, thought divides into the 'thinker / me and the thought associations. That duality uses up the energy necessary to observe thought as it moves.
Am not sure of what you are referring to, but yeah thought has its own flow. Can you elaborate on what you mean?
If there is listening then there is no duality logically. no?
If ‘I’ happen to be divisive then I am divisive.
Something other than thought?
I don’t know if I personally agree to that. Thought has its own energy and charge, which so many of us are primarily dependent on.
What do you mean by ‘when the energy is not there’?
If there is the attempt to simply watch the flow of thinking as you said as if for the first time, what happens? It can be seen for a bit and then the ‘normal’ duality of you separate from the thoughts returns, as if ‘you’ are having them. JK is pointing out, as I understand it, that it takes energy to remain in the state of choiceless awareness where the flow of thought is effortlessly seen. It is ironic that it takes energy to be effortless. We don’t have the energy to be in this state of choiceless awareness (or whatever you want to call it) because the energy necessary to be in such a state, is being constantly dissipated (by the “friction”) in the illusory separation of thought / thinker or observer / observed. It has to be “picked up” again and again in order to as you say, to observe one’s flow of thought as if for the first time.
Thanks I understand your point now. It defiantly takes energy, I see myself when I am tired, due to various reasons, how my thoughts go on a rampage. However, It must be asked:
Why am I watching thought as if it is for the first time? The reason behind is crucial to be exposed.
When this effortless energy is discovered, there is a realisation this is in the fundamental nature of careful listening, watching etc. It is a sense of integration, in touch with a living energy, not with any focus, purpose or reason. The movement of thought is not of interest for any information, not for details, it is running like a machine in the background.
I wonder Peter. It sounds beautiful and puts things in perspective. But, I wonder if such a description and reasoning could be helpful in clarifying the watching even more. Because, to me, it sounds like a description. I catch myself more often than not displaying such narratives which seem to be true, but in fact my situation didn’t change. Also it seal the door shut.
I had a question in mind today morning regarding this topic:
Does listening to thought, now, manifest them in the future?
When there is thought in words and ideas, in bits and pieces, various themes, particular matters, that is thinking. Can I hear thinking and engage with it, or is it thinking, and that’s what I am occupied with, and the engagement is time? Thinking is not what is meant by the movement of thought.
Effortlessly, the ‘what is’ is. It snowed here yesterday. A record smasher. This morning the tree outside my bedroom window is spectacular wearing its winter coat.
It has no choice! Or to put it a different way: Whatever is chosen is … what-is.
It’s unfortunate that Krishnamurti spoke of “the ending of thought” because thought, per se, cannot end if one is to function as a human. What K meant, of course, is the ending of what he called “psychological thought”, but only students of the teaching know this. It’s a little like belonging to a cult where only cult members know the special meanings of certain words and phrases.
1 Like
Yes - this is a confusion that people seem to run into all the time. It is psychological thought that K is principally concerned with, not functional thought.
However, I leave open the possibility that there are certain states of meditation which really are entirely empty of cognition - what K sometimes refers to as total nothingness. Some Buddhists have written about this also - so it is not something that only K has pointed to. According to what K has said about that state of total emptiness, the mind is no longer “human” in the ordinary sense, and it really does sound like being empty of all thought in the literal sense.
It’s interesting that in Buddhist tradition there has always been a question mark concerning how the mind (or thinking) can return after being wholly immersed in nothingness (what they termed nirodha-samapatti). So maybe there is some truth in the confusion after all?
1 Like