← Back to Kinfonet

K: Why do we have duality at all?

K: Why do we have duality at all? There is only what is. The opposition is a resistance to what is. This resistance is the opposite and so there is conflict. Is it possible to be aware of what is without resisting it?
K: The ‘yourself’ is the result of this comparison. You are the comparative mind; and when you say, ‘When I don’t compare I’ll be myself’, what you will be is still the result of the conditioning of comparison. There can be no being yourself. Yourself is the result of the process of time, of comparison, of despair and sorrow, pleasure and fear. So what matters is not to be yourself but to live without comparison.
K: The implied question is why is there division at all? Division implies the ‘me’ and the ‘not me’. The ‘me’ is always trying to control, dominate; and the ‘not me’ must fit into the mould of ‘me’. This is the battle between human beings, nation against nation and so on.
K: Life demands that we all work together. It is part of civilization that we cannot possibly exist without the help of others. The more you are educated, in the right sense of the word, the greater the necessity of cooperation. - Can the Mind Be Quiet?

1 Like

Yes, it the conflict that creates duality is resolved, there’s no resistance because there’s no opposite.

Is it possible to have duality without resistance?

Theoretically, no, because there’s nothing to resist what-is when there is no what-should-be. I say “theoretically” because for me (as for most people), the presumption of what-should-be is still operative, thereby maintaining the conflict.

This presumption, this hubris, is deeply rooted and is not seen for the falsehood it is, in spite of the preponderance of evidence. If we really knew what should and should not be, we wouldn’t have behaved so atrociously throughout our history, and brought ourselves and all other earthly life to the precipice that anthropogenic climate change is.

The radical transformation K spoke of hinges on the stark realization that we don’t really know what should and shouldn’t be, and that only then, when it’s clear that we don’t have a clue as to what to do, is there the possibility of finding out.

It is ‘thought’ with its takeover that creates the fiction that we know what we’re doing even as it marches us off the cliff.

You blame thought as if you were not thought; as if you could do something about thought and bring about change. But there is no you apart from thought. The thinker is the thought.

Were there no conflict, no incoherence, this would be obvious. But because of the conflict between what-is and what-should-be, thought divides itself into thinker (I) and thought. Thus, I (who knows what should be) can blame thought and be the hero who slays the dragon. It’s completely mad, insane, but when the mind is conflicted, it’s normal.

Stating the fact that ‘thought’ has taken over and is in charge does not imply the presence of a ‘thinker’ does it? Stating the fact that thought’s control is leading to man’s possible demise doesn’t imply that there is ‘anyone ‘ who can do anything about it, does it?

You stated it as if you were not thought. You may as well have said that I have taken over. What has taken over what? Who is to say that there’s been a takeover? Has thought overtaken the one who says “thought has taken over”, or have I overtaken thought by following thought’s every move? The balance of power swings when there’s back and forth, but when there’s only one, there’s only balance.

Are you stating this as if you are not thought? Is this ‘thought’ speaking about itself? Can ‘intelligence’ direct thought though intelligence is not thought. Can thought agree that intelligence can see through it? That intelligence is faster than thought. Shall we no longer use ‘I’; when posting but rather “thought thinks this or that”? Or as some have, "as it is seen here…? Let’s use ‘I’ and give the ‘person’ the benefit of the doubt that they might have heard and ‘pondered’ about the ‘thinker and the thought’.

I know nothing about intelligence, but you seem to know a lot.

But there is no person to give anything to. There’s only the image of a person. Does it deserve respect and courtesy? Is it like a shrine that must be honored? Please forgive my disrespect.

I forgive you. :innocent:

**That could only exist in the imagination. If there’s only ‘what actually is’, there is no actual duality. The idea of ‘me and other’ is just that, an idea in the imagination. Once this idea/belief is confused for something “separate,” we (the human brains) erroneously assume that duality is “real.” But this duality only exists in thought.
But, if you’re asking, “Is it possible to observe that ‘what is’ includes an assortment of human forms, and other forms, and not be resistant to that fact,” sure, that’s possible.

**There’s no human being, just an image? There are no human forms that have been conditioned with the thought of being separate? What’s typing those words? An image?

1 Like

There’s a human being. It imagines itself, but its imagined self isn’t real. Imagination, thought, is forming the words that this human is typing.

**If it’s merely imagination, that seems a bit tragic. Why not observation? Why not intelligence ‘informing’ the use of language? The imagination or knowledge clearly has a place, but that seems to be a somewhat closed loop of ideas.

Your reading of what I wrote seems rather closed. I would say that observation and intelligence are always involved with imagination, that it goes without saying. But since K gave those two words special meanings, I’m hesitant to use them, lest anyone think I presume to “get” what K was talking about.