In the sense that thought stops mental doing in division. Does the information that there is no division change something in the operation of thought because thought has been functioning in division
Does the information that there is no division change the operation of thought, that thought no longer acts in division after getting this information. If there is no division what can thought do? It is not a belief.
If you meet a person who is loving, what happens to you? You question your division. The fact of love, fact of non-division changes you.
I rephrase your question this way: If someone I respect tells me that I don’t actually exist, do I then disappear?
Of course I don’t. I ‘think’ “Of course I exist, I’m thinking aren’t I?”
So when thought ‘moves’ as ‘me’ it has already separated as the observer from what is observed. Observation is always in the moment and thought as ‘me’ is always the past.
Isn’t that why it has been said : Thought must end, thought must “have a stop”?
1 Like
I remember in one of the discussion Krishnamurti asks if someone genuinely deeply says I love you, how do you respond. Do you respond with thought, arguments or take those words in completely without division. They don’t meet just at level of words
Isn’t thought as you / me always just at the “level of words”?
No, if there is genuine care about the other person, then it is much more than words. It is different from argument or debate.
There is feeling. It may be deep, it may be romantic or sentimental…I’m not questioning that. What I am getting at is the veracity of the statement: “where the self is, love is not”.
Self = no Love
No self = maybe Love?
re: “For all we know, awareness may be outside the brain.”
Awareness is a field of intelligence that bodies are in.
1 Like
Thought is “always in the moment” because everything is always in the moment. There’s no other place and time to be.
Isn’t that why it has been said : Thought must end, thought must “have a stop”?
No. Thought is incoherent because it reacts conditionally to awareness instead of being choicelessly, unconditionally, aware.
Why do you believe that the conditioned brain can respond “completely without division”?
But it is still withing the limits of the brain’s conditioning, so it doesn’t matter how “genuine” it is because because it isn’t selfless.
If someone genuinely says I love you and if you are suspicious of that, what more can I say
Yes, where there is division, there is no love
Ask yourself this question:
Is the conditioned brain capable of anything more or better than genuine self-serving reaction and behavior?
According to K (and he may be wrong) the ‘self’ (me) can’t ‘love’ in the sense I believe that he is using that word. There is caring, affection between us of course and we use the word love interchangeably with those.
1 Like
Can you kindly explain what that means because there is division everywhere, constantly…it’s part of life. Are you saying that division is a bad thing? What’s wrong with division?
The conditioned brain, perhaps not. But if you meet someone that points to the fact that there is actually no division, division of conditioned brain is illusion, not fact, them something changes.
It’s like two people on the battlefield, they are caught in division. Once illusion of division between them ends, there is peace.
Division is conflict, it is sense of me separate from you. In caring about the other person there is no division.
Division can take many forms, in relationship it is aggression, two thoughts fighting each other in separation, it is a form of destruction, domination if there is no care. On a global scale it is destruction of nature, treating nature and animals as object. Actually observer is observed, object is subject. Animals or Human beings for example are not objects, but are subject. You are not different, both are subject and one of the same, observer is observed, you and me are actually same subject which is silence of nature, not subject and object and so there is no conflict.
I think there is a misunderstanding here. My point was that when thought moves as me the thinker, it is playing the role of an actual entity. It is not an actual entity or ‘person’ or ‘individual’, it is a ‘material process’ in the brain, a survival ‘tool’ like a calculator or computer…not a person with longevity. When it acts as a ‘person’ it creates problems of division and conflict and tries to solve them. So in that misguided role as ‘me’ (there is no ‘me’) its very movement supports and maintains its misplaced functioning, hence, it must stop if the ‘self’ is to end.
1 Like
re: “… if you meet someone that points to the fact that there is actually no division, division of conditioned brain is illusion, not fact, them something changes.”
If something changes, because of what someone points to, the change is just a modified thought process based on acceptance and belief. If thought actually looks at what is pointed to, then there is a transformation. There is a vast difference between the two.
re: “It’s like two people on the battlefield, they are caught in division. Once illusion of division between them ends, there is peace.”
Psychologically, there is clarity because you are no longer separate from the observed and a ton of conditioning has dropped away, BUT the observed is still a mass of conditioning.