Truth needs no verbal discussion but yet we like to do it , why…
Our ‘job’ is to perceive the ‘truth’ and put labels on it when we do…somebody has to and we’re the only animals here that can do it. 
Why do we read so-called “spiritual books” about so-called “truth” if they raise many doubts and unanswered questions that invevitably lead to discussion… like the question you yourself ask?
1 Like
We are confused and conflicted and we don’t know why, so we communicate with other similarly afflicted folks to see if we can find out why we are this way.
If I believe, feel, think, habitually that I am an individual, when ‘actually’ I am not , confliction and confusion (and worse) are inevitable.
Right, which would imply that the initial question is incoherent, since we can’t argue about something we don’t know (which would be speculating), but we can (should?) question/discuss about how what we know relates to that supposed “truth”, trying to figure out together what that “truth” is that supposedly negates what we both know about the life we both live.
And another thing that could be implied by the initial question is the assumption that the teaching is the absolute truth. Therefore, that truth would not need to be questioned/discussed… when it was precisely the one who gave the teaching who insisted over and over again that we question his teaching to find out for ourselves the truth or falsity of it (and I don’t just mean K).
When I “believe, feel, think that I am an individual”, the possibility of “when ‘actually’ I am not” is totally absent.
Therefore, even though it is obvious that I “inevitably have conflicts and confusion (and worse)”, I happen to know perfectly well how to justify all that by offloading my responsibility on others and continue as an individual… not without claiming, of course, that I am a Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, or follower/reader of K to support my justifications.
So the question is, how am I going to find out if it is true or not that I am not really an individual but just a human being who shares the same emptiness with everyone else, dedicated all my life to try to fill that emptiness (individually) without ever succeeding?
Is that true or false ? I say that it is a mere reaction which is false as usual…
While K to me makes a strong case that it is so, how do we prove it to ourselves that it is so? Can it be done scientifically like proving that the earth revolves around the sun and not the seeming opposite?
Thought has no relation with awareness, but awareness has relation with thought.
K is on the shore of awareness and uses words to describe what he sees, feels.
We are on the shore of thought, are unaware, mistake words for awareness but are actually blind and in illusion.
He asks to see from the shore of awareness, when we are on the shore of thought. We want to build a boat of words to cross to the other shore with the tool which we have on this shore, which is thought. We are using tool on this shore to reach other shore. We need to switch to other shore. There is no tool on this shore. If we are on the other shore we are aware choicelessly which means awareness uses thought. On this shore thought is choosing in blindness
1 Like
Thought’s relationship with awareness is its total dependency on awareness. There is no thinking without awareness. Awareness uses thought for communication when necessary.
Thought is the problem, thought mixes things that don’t go together and creates conflict. Thought is fear, confusion. Thought is the cause of all conflicts.
Thought has to stop spilling over the truth .