Does the first and last step lead to what "undoes what has been put together by thought, or is it the undoing of what has been put together by thought?
re: " Does the first and last step lead to what “undoes what has been put together by thought, or is it the undoing of what has been put together by thought?”
… and I quote: “… the end of the illusory psychological division is the beginning of an observation of the mind of brain, consciousness, without a separate observer. That unfolds the mind, undoes what has been put together by thought.”
From which K-talk, dialogue, or writing does this quote come from?
re: “From which K-talk, dialogue, or writing does this quote come from?”
I’m quoting myself from the method thread.
This is an interesting question.
What happens with regard to absorptions?
Does the mind get absorbed into something like a toy?
Generally mind gets absorbed into a story, the stream of thought which is inside and outside.
re: " What happens with regard to absorptions?"
There is a density shift, but the separation is an illusion to begin with, so I can’t really say anything is absorbed. Could you clarify or rephrase the question, please?
A child is absorbed in toy and such a mind might say there is no division. A religious person may get absorbed into some chanting, prayer or song and say in it there is no division. Mind gets absorbed into toys, watching a movie might be an act of absorption.
A mind that sees that there is no division, does it get absorbed like that or there is awareness that has nothing to do with stream of absorption of thought.
Awareness= non division of silence that is not thought activity
Absorption= Thinker which is thought activity as observer and observed in division.
Thought can get absorbed and feel there is no division. Religions have done that, invent thoughts as absorption.
So does a mind that sees there is no division get caught in absorptions, thinker, thought, habit?
re: “So does a mind that sees there is no division get caught in absorptions, thinker, thought, habit?”
No.