Yes, no context, no point of reference, no position from which to view the statement. ‘You are the world.’ Everything is in that statement. But with any context around it, you are still keeping yourself separate from the statement.
If I come upon a statement out of context - how do I listen to it? I will automatically associate/compare it with my past experience. I carry imaginary context around with me in my head.
Yes, that’s the question. The context maintains relationship to the statement. In the same way, we maintain a relationship to the world. They are both imaginary relationships.
The imaginary context in the head is all put there by thought. But thought itself is entirely empty, devoid of meaning, even though the head may be chock-full of ideas, memories, opinions and desires.
1 Like
Is there meaning without thought?
PS - What you said sounds legit - this is an additional question.
True or False,
It is understood that anyone who rejects even any conventional understanding of truth or falseness as meaningless (seeking to deliberately muddy the waters) can never understand Truth [Buddha], or have any Insight… [check out Truth and Actuality,]
Also, one wonders what anyone who would suggest and/or even accept that truth is meaningless is doing on this site…
K suggested to U.G. Krishnamurti to find another platform… 
Again, and again, the same entirely patently false statement…
It depends how thought is being used. I can tell you that today outside it is lovely and sunny, although a little cold; it is one of those days that signals the return of Spring. Thought is merely the messenger from one place to another, from one time to another, from one person to another. The heat of the sun has a meaning for the plants and the trees because it has an effect upon them. But the plants and trees are themselves not conscious of any meaning. They are responding to the warmth of the sun.
So a statement like, ‘You are the world,’ may be just like the sun. It has no meaning separate from its effect. It is not something that has to be given meaning, especially by an entity that is already so full of many different and contradictory meanings.
We haven’t said this. We are instead questioning our relationship to that which is true or false.
Any movement of thought in the psyche is useless. Once you make a fact into an idea then that idea is fake. So when you make a fact that " I am the world" or" you are the world " into an idea to gratify your ego then it becomes an illusion and illusions are useless to a sane man.
The question is about how we listen to the statement. I don’t know why this is so difficult. At the moment there is neither fact nor idea, neither truth nor falsehood, neither reality nor illusion. A statement only, that’s all there is. K says, ‘You are the world,’ perhaps because he is a sane man talking to other people who are not so sane. How do we, who don’t know whether we are sane or deluded, listen to this statement?
Warm Greetings.
When I see this question I tremendously feel,
“Why we have to listen to a statement?”. Why we have to start from a statement? There is no K now, so why to take K’s words and start from there?
Are you trying to find/inquire, what is “Listening”? without intellectualizing but by bringing it as an experience/action?
How do you listen to the above questions?
You haven’t got to do anything. You will do what you want to do.
listening has nothing to do in here. You read a statement which is different than listening. You write something and we read it . If it has no meaning we discard it. Listening is something entirely different. You use your ears not eyes!
Alright, how do you read the statement? It is the same question, just a different aspect of the senses. What is your approach to it? And when you discard it, dismiss it, what part of you is doing the discarding? At the moment of discarding, are you aware of what is operating? In the same way, when something has meaning, what is it in you that assigns this meaning?
Feel free to change the statement or to put your own statement.
Thought is entirely empty. Thought is nonsense. Thought is not and never can be a faculty of perception.
We have added to the statement. But the same question remains of how we approach the statement.
Adding two more statements doesn’t help. All three are opinions that require elaboration. They’re like headlines to an article that hasn’t been published. Why not finish what you’ve started?
Good. That’s exactly what I am getting to. You want me to help you make sense of it. The actively logical part of the brain is saying, ‘Give me some more information to help me process all this in order to aid my decision so that at the end I can accept or reject what is being said. Then I can put you on a pedestal or throw you back into the pit.’ So I could write an article, a book, another twenty books, and all in order to make some sense for an entity that is itself entirely nonsensical. Why do we have to go through all of that? Thought is nonsense. It is all there in this one statement.
None of this is an opinion. Thought is nonsense. Therefore, our very opinions about such matters are just more and more of the same nonsense. Is there a way of being right inside the statement so that thought itself – with its opinions, perspectives, viewpoints, arguments, explanations and all the many other attributes of thought – has no room to breathe? Then there is no longer a relationship to the statement in which the truth or the falseness of the statement gets distorted, misused, misapplied.
When ‘listening is’ it is a fact.
But then it is also a fact when there’s no listening. So the very act of listening may be precisely what is obscuring the fact.
If you’ve found that way, you should be able to demonstrate it rather than use the nonsense of thought to explain it.
The only demonstration that matters is what you do with it yourself. It has nothing to do with me or any other person. The statement is there. Either you maintain a relationship with it, which includes the rejection of the statement, or there is only the statement.
The statement contains you, me and thought as one whole movement; and in this whole movement, thought is the empty nonsense. You and I and the statement are something else.