Yes, but what so many here misunderstand is that thought is the mechanism by which the self is “put together” - not the motive, the choice, the driving force that employs the mechanism.
Our challenge is to find out if we can approach, meet, talk and live with one another in a proper healthy relationship without thought.
Talk without thought?
There is a direct perception of the truth, which does not belong to anyone. It is your perception too when you just look at it and listen to it without any reaction of thought. And you will find that a great change has taken place without any effort on your part, without any involvement of the self.
Thanks for paraphrasing what Krishnamurti said, but no thanks for not attributing Krishnamurti.
Not making the argument, but there’s no telling how many take him at his word when he steals K’s thunder by pretending it’s his.
You’re right about millions of people listening intently to people who lie, dissemble, mislead, manipulate, and ignore or dismiss those who speak honestly, truthfully.
For all we know, had it not been for the Theosophists, Krishnamurti might never have had a world-wide audience and support.
Who knows how many transformed humans today may be living quietly and anonymously, or dismissed as simpletons or cranks.
Yes, without ideas and images of each other. Just because it is something against the grain of what we have done before, it doesn’t mean that we can’t do it now. This may be the practical approach referred to by Valer. (Post 118) So the invitation to give it a go remains open.
Look, start with that and see what happens. Thought is extremely complicated. Let’s go one step at a time. Can we talk together without ideas and images of each other? Any two of us - it doesn’t matter who.
We have already talked about the importance of thinking together, which is different from thought talking to thought. Thought is talking to thought when it uses knowledge and opinions to communicate. Thinking together implies facing and dissolving this interference of thought as knowledge by being aware of the images we have of one other as they come and go, and by being aware of the ideas that pop into the mind when certain words are encountered. This awareness of what is going on inwardly is no different from the awareness of what is going on outwardly.
All this is very practical when two or more people go into it together. Until then it remains a theory.
What is truth and what is false? The question has to do with duality or opposites.
Is there an opposite?
Is there duality?
What is opposite? Opposite according to my definition is something that cannot exist at same time as the other.
For example, light and darkness are considered opposites. When there is light, there is no darkness. A completely blind person may only know darkness. Are they really opposites if they can’t exist at same time. Only memory creates the opposite. If there is night, you know day only from memory. So opposites are created by memory. What is and What should be.
Is memory truth?
Is duality truth?
Or in fact there is no opposite. There is only what is.
Through memory we create opposite of noise and silence.
Through memory we create opposite of thought and silence.
Perhaps we should question this duality.
Whether duality is fact or just creation of memory. There being only what is. In what is there being no division.
Is non duality truth?
We are very complicated. I mean that our ideas and thoughts are very complicated.
But even if we have the best beliefs (eg. God is truth, Love is truth, non-duality is truth), we are still very much under the authority of our experience. We are deluded by what we know and see.
Valer and I failed to communicate - this may have something to do with a language barrier - but I don’t think so, we were not talking of anything complicated. It was simple stuff, it was our minds that were complicated, unable to see clearly how complicated our minds were behaving.
And we are not the only ones here that fail to communicate : we see stuff on this forum full of violence and pride that is very close to madness.
None of the answers will liberate us from the known - the questions I asked weren’t about the answers, they were just an opportunity to see ourselves in relationship.
Question : If I say there are 3 marbles in the jar, and you say there are 4 marbles in the jar, can we both be right?
Marbles are great, of course.
I can tell you smth about facts. There are wars in different parts of this world. Some of us, perhaps, are very near to these places. But it may be also far away, all the same. Just try to imagine: everybody of us knows (or he just thinks so), how bad is war. People are killed, just for some shit of words. But there’s another thing you see: along with people who feel this way, there are those, who are ready to justify every kind of brutality by this shit of words and theories
Yes there is great suffering in the world - and I’m sorry if I have insulted you.
I’m not pointing you out as a bad person - I’m just saying that communication is difficult because we are suffering so much. (or at the very least : totally engaged with our selves)
No insult, Douglas. Yesterday you asked me about facts and their truth. And I said that facts are our own. Though in some cases, even with war, it may sound crazy
So, how many marbles are there? If both of us count together, the issue is solved.
However if I say 10 marbles more should be added and you say 15 marbles more should be added, there can be conflict. Why? In ‘what is’ there can be no conflict if we see together. In what should be there is conflict.
What is the cause of conflict, war? Is it division? How is division created? The division is created in the mind. How is division created in the mind? Is it because of what should be.
People are so special creatures. All of us have our special features. I also have mine. Sometimes I seem not enough specific with what a say. So, what I have meant, about facts and their objectivity: even when different people came in contact with some facts, which they think to be most objective in their nature, they nevertheless see them differently. Our “objectivity” depends on our “personal” consciousness
“All this is very practical when two or more people go into it together. Until then it remains a theory.”
Clearly, you’re saying that until two or more people go into something together, it [ the subject they explore] remains a theory.
You either believe there’s something magical about two or more people getting together to explore something, or you’re just so lonely you’ll say anything that might lead to finding your soulmate.
You’ve been using this forum for that purpose for some time now, and I think it’s time you quit doing this.
There can be different opinions of course. American and Russian governments have a different opinion on the war in Ukraine. Both opinions are considered by the governments as facts. The opinions have a possibility of being dissolved only in listening. What is that? It is the silence in which thought flows. It is the space, silence, awareness in which thought moves. That space, silence, listening has no opposite, no duality. In it there is no identity, no division,only what is and no what should be. If there is what should be, they will refuse to listen to each other, they are then caught in opinion. In space, silence thought moves, that is listening. That is what is, but generally we are caught in what should be
I am not forcing you to do anything. This is an invitation to enquire together, to think together, that is all. Thinking together is a theory until we actually do it. And we have not yet done it. Any subject remains largely theoretical until we have examined it together. What is love? Does it exist as something outside of human relationship, separate from you and me? What is war? Does it have nothing at all to do with how you and I relate to one another? Obviously, put in these stark terms it seems to bring everything immediately close and personal and I understand the natural resistance to all that. This is not the manner of academic discourse, which is perhaps where one feels more comfortable.
Is there anyone on earth who is not your soulmate? Do you know of anyone else who is not also a human being? So it is either your images and ideas that answer these questions or there is something else. This is an invitation to change, to find out. No-one is forcing you to do a thing about it.