Detectable or not, it has to end if the brain is to be silent and empty.
What doubts/questions/observations (if any) arise in you when you hear these words regarding the question you posed to your friend about âwhat is the right place for self and thought?â when he said âthought has its right placeâ?
And what place has thought in life, in existence? It has its place logically, sanely, effectively when knowledge functions without the interference of the âmeâ, who is using knowledge. So knowledge when used without the âmeâ, which is the product of thought, which creates the division between me and you, then knowledge is the most extraordinary thing because that will bring about a better world, a better structure of the world, a better society - you understand? We have enough knowledge to bring about a happy world, where we can all have food, clothing, shelter, vocation, no ghettos.
p.s.:
Q: Sir, is love denied by thought? Is it covered over, if there is thought will there be love?
K: He asked, when there is thought is there love? No! But if there is no thought you can be in a state of amnesia.
1 Like
Weirdly, despite getting caught up in your mistrust of Mongolians and beliefs about the paranormal, you actually hit the bullseye. 
Freedom need only be related to the authority of experience - the hidden workings affecting experience can remain hidden,
We humans are supersaturated with me-ness. Pretty much wherever we go, I is right there with us, either in the foreground driving or background lurking. I question whether we ever really think without the interference of me?
These hidden workings (unconscious thought-feeling processes) can thwart the organism and throw it off-balance, color its mood, excite or depress it, make it overflow with fear, bias, conditioned emotions. Isnât this limiting freedom?
Could we say in a nutshell as Krishnamurti implies, that our main problem, the problem for humanity in generalâ is the psychological existence of a âme imageâ in the brain?
That the âme imageâ is the cause of hunger, poverty, war etc.?
And that our vast and ever growing knowledge of the world uncoupled from the âme imageâ can solve all the problems we face?
Can we âbell the catâ?
1 Like
@rickScott youâve missed the point again (despite giving the correct answer) - lets try with Manuelâs question :
If the cat is important enough you will notice it everytime it appears; and if you know how important it is you will treat it properly, no matter what occult and mysterious drives it is being driven by.
PS. if youâre wondering about the proper way to treat the cat, just reread what fraggle posted about the proper place of thought.
What mean you by âbell the catâ in this context?
I think we are making opposite points. You seem to say what we are unconscious of doesnât limit freedom, Iâm saying it does. Impasse? Agree to disagree?
I agree this is what weâre saying - can you restate why Iâm saying it doesnât?
What you are implying is the idea that what we donât know about we cannot properly address because it is hidden - I have explained, with the hypnosis metaphor, why thats besides the point - and you understood what was being said in the metaphor, so thereâs a good chance you might get what the argument is.
Maybe Iâm asking too much - we can drop it. What the Hypnosis metaphor shows is
Thank you, @rickScott, for asking. It seems to me that if I understand myself correctly, if I am truly clear to myself, then how I think must be straight. This is my understanding, which moves me to question whether an unqualified self is to be blamed for what happens in the world.
I request we drop it for now. Iâm sure it will re-rear itself at some time in our tawks.
Please tell me what âthinking straightâ means. Also: âunqualified self.â Weâre running into language subtleties. I could guess, but Iâd rather know what you mean.
It sounds to me that each of the five of you is too caught up in his own notions to âthink togetherâ, and that your replies to each other just muddle the matter. Each one brings in his own theory or belief and defends it. Thereâs no exploration - just my beliefs versus yours, or an agreement to disagree.
If the brain must be silent and empty to perceive actuality, and all we can do is assert and defend our contents, what goes on here is worse than a waste of timeâŚitâs the antithesis of thinking together,
Sounds about right! Discussion as tennis match rather than communion. Personally I am fine with that, itâs a valid way of exploring. Just not the Krishnamurti-Bohm way.
If by âexploringâ you mean updating your own content by comparing it with the content of others.
Just not the Krishnamurti-Bohm way.
Then why are you here?
Thank you again, @rickScott, for asking. âThinking straightâ may be taken to mean to think without distortion, without deviation, without aberrations, without contradiction; âunqualified selfâ may be taken to mean a self that is complete by itself, which is different from a âcorrupted selfâ, a self that has the added quality of being corrupt. Are we clear, or are we more confused?
Let me ask, are you not included in the equation as a participant in the thread like any other âyouâ here?
Is this an actuality, or simply a reaction of thought when the discussion does not go in the direction that thought thinks it should go? Should the relationship come from others to us, or are we the ones who must be in relationship with others regardless of whether they are related to us, and be patient if the discussion is not going in the direction we think it should go? Is thinking-together starting to judge the other participants in the conversation while excluding ourselves from that judgment? Isnât thinking-together being attentive to ourselves in the conversation and in that attentiveness participating in it without trying to âimposeâ the direction that our thought may think would be the right direction? Isnât thinking-together asking questions over and over again, while moving with the other(s) without any judgment, to clarify what we both are trying to look at together?
If thinking-together is none of those things, then we are definitely not thinking-together, and you are both right (both included in the equation as well). But if thinking-together is all that, then these comments above arise only from our thought and not from an attention and a communion/relationship with others that thought may believe it has⌠at the same time that it thinks (and judges) that others donât have it.
p.s.: donât hit me too hard for saying this, itâs just an inquiry into the depths of it all.