Thinking is our salvation, nothing else

Kinfonet Discussion
1

Thinking has nothing whatsoever to do with thought. Thinking means the complete absence of thought. Then only is it possible for us to communicate with one another clearly and wholly, and thus to live with one another with complete honesty and sanity, which means the total lack of conflict. So thinking is our salvation, nothing else - not awareness, not listening, not God, not compassion, not love, not silence, not intelligence, not attention, not perception, nor any of the thousand other things we have cleverly concocted to get ourselves out of the mess of living. Thinking alone is what matters.

Thought is merely a limited, self-enclosed and reactive energy. Thinking is infinitely responsive and responsible, open to the skies. This may be a difficult thing to hear or to read but it is so. And for human beings thinking is only possible when there is no thinker at all involved - that is, the thinker who has been put together by thought, the thinker who is merely thought in another guise with all its opinions and prejudices.

In order to find out the truth about this - to test the validity of what is being said - thinking is necessary. And thinking is a shared activity; it is not something that can be done alone. Therefore the implication of all this is that actually we have never, or only rarely, been in a situation with other people where thinking is taking place. What we generally call ‘thinking’ is merely our limited reactions to our environment put into words. We readily employ thought - there is no doubt about that - but we do not very often discover what it is like to put aside thought completely and to allow the brain to think. For it is only an empty, quiet brain that can think non-reactively, non-judgmentally, unconditionally and freely.

Generally what happens when we meet each other is that we employ thought to maintain a certain psychological status quo. And it is this activity which we call ‘thinking’. Our psychological status quo is usually a very flimsy affair, based on a lot images we have of ourselves as well a collection of contradictory feelings about ourselves and other people. We have become very adept at keeping this mental activity going, probably because we have never taken the time and the trouble to think about all of this for ourselves. That is, to find out in the company of one or two other people - as we are doing now - exactly what it is that our brains are doing and to observe directly in relationship the interferences of our own noises and clutter.

So thinking is a shared activity or, better still, a shared action. Together then we can work out what love is, not carry on telling each other all the lies about it which we already know have very little meaning. And then compassion and intelligence we can also work out together - by our own thinking, not by being told what they are or by half-heartedly accepting some cold definitions.

It is going to be very difficult to think together here, yet we must try, and hopefully, as time goes on, we shall learn a little bit more about what it means and what is the significance of all this for our daily lives. First, there are going to be a lot of reactions and noise, which is alright, because we are all so sure about ourselves, which is that we are all so sure about our precious preformulated ideas. Those ideas cannot help us think together, as clever as they may sound and as old or as new as they may appear. There are no ideas in thinking. Ideas belong only to the past; and thinking is possible only in the moment.

For God’s sake, let’s have some fun with it.

Brockwood Park, 4th December 2024

2 Likes
2

Thank you for sharing these thoughts. I wish to visit Brockwood next year again.

There’s much here to explore together. However, a gentle caution might be worth considering: when we divide “thinking” from “thought” in the way described, we risk creating an abstraction = an ideal separate from what is actually happening. This can lead to further conceptual confusion rather than clarity.

To frame thinking as “infinitely responsible” while rejecting other aspects of human capacity, like awareness or compassion, might unintentionally narrow the very understanding we are seeking. Could it be that this distinction is itself a product of the same conditioned process it seeks to escape?

Rather than forming conclusions about thinking or its nature, could we instead simply observe how thought operates within us, without division or judgment?

There’s wondering if such a shared exploration can truly happen in a text-based forum. A few years ago there was questioning whether this medium allows for the depth and immediacy required for genuine inquiry… maybe not.

Furthermore, the idea that time will develop the “skill” of thinking together seems inherently problematic. Wouldn’t this reliance on time only reinforce conformity and tribal patterns of behavior? These tendencies are already evident here and elsewhere.

Perhaps the real challenge is to step outside of these patterns altogether and question whether true dialogue free from conditioning can arise in any structured or delayed interaction.

3

I don’t see how this makes sense - that thinking has ‘nothing to do with thought’. If thinking means the complete ‘absence of thought’, then why call it thinking?

There may be a creative form of thinking which is relatively free from ordinary fixed perimeters of thought - as musicians, artists, and those involved in Bohm dialogues attest to - but it is still an expression of thought, or at the very least involves thought.

Moreover the kind of social thinking described in the OP is dependent on the presence of other people - and I don’t see how something dependent on others can be a source of ‘salvation’.

1 Like
4

Howdy James,

If we define thought as “fixed knowledge” and thinking as the movement of the intellect - especially a movement that is not constrained by fixed knowledge or solid opinions - then maybe we can get a sense of what the geezer above might be on about?

As for my salvation being intimately linked to the salvation of others, how might this be correct? Certainly if I am focussed on my salvation, there might immediately be some danger of self-centeredness?

5

Hi Douglas :slight_smile:

As far as I understand it, thinking always has its roots in some kind of knowledge, and knowledge is always rooted in some kind of experience or sense-perception from the past.

Can there be a ‘thinking’ without any content of thought? I doubt it. If there is such a thing, I would call that awareness, not thinking (but the OP denies this).

Thinking can be relatively free from past knowledge - like a donkey can be relatively free from post it is tied to - but only up to a point.

6

‘Being as nothing’ understands thinking, understands feelings, understands movements, understands sensations etc. It is ‘meditation’ without a meditator. It’s ‘essential’ because it is the only true freedom.

The disagreement here is that it is not ‘thinking’, but being nothing that is our salvation…nothing else.

1 Like
7

Thanks Dan - being as nothing I will not squash you, even if you say my diamonds are poop

8

Squash away!! :smiley:

1 Like
9

No, sir, that’s the whole point. I am not interested in sharing a single thought about all this. If you don’t get this very simple point then our thinking is going to be impossible. We have been down that path too many times not to realise that just sharing our thoughts is a complete waste of time. This is instead about no thoughts at all, no thinker involved, no points of view whatsoever from a place of yesterday. There is just this one central point where we are now, which is not to share a single thought because that very impulse to share will destroy us.

1 Like
10

Again, forgive me, that is the whole point. The sense comes later; first there is just the thinking. Our thinking may or may not bring about something that makes sense, that is tangible, that is actual, that has vibrancy and strength and endurance. But first we have to think. And we don’t think. We employ thought in the place of thinking. Thought is the denial of thinking.

I said this was difficult.

I am struggling with it too. We are not in two different places here. But I see the fun in it and therefore also the struggling is fun. I wonder if you see this. We are engaging in a completely new game of life. That’s what it means to think: it is something we have never done. There is the old game where thought shows us what to think and then guides us in what to say; and there is this new game where thought is neither a player nor a referee. When thought gets involved in any of our human games of communication it always assumes a position of strength from the very beginning, either by the direct assertion of a principle, a belief or an ideal which can then be defended ad infinitum, or by appearing as a model of humility and virtue, which is just the disguising of its own sense of strength and aggression. There is always a motive behind it, one way or another, when we use thought to communicate. And there is always thought when there is a motive. If you have come here to share something, find something, do something, learn something, then you have a motive and so you will employ thought. This is fairly obvious. But if you don’t know why you are here then thought is of no use at all. This too is fairly obvious.

Either we come here deliberately to do something, which then has motive attached to it and thus a dependence on thought, and then conflict with all the other people here because their motives will fight ours for dominance; or, not knowing why we are here, we do something only once we have found out with complete certainty and clarity exactly why we are here. And we cannot know why we are here until we have been able to think about it and find out. We cannot think about it by any employment of thought, however subtle or subdued. If we employ thought we shall merely discover something already known because thought cannot go in any direction except backwards, back into our conditioning, back into our dreams, back into our fears.

I hope this is a little clearer now. It doesn’t matter if it is not. What matters is to have fun with all this, to enjoy our life.

1 Like
11

If there is “no thought, no thinker,” what is being communicated? Is it possible to explore this central point you mention without the intrusion of memory, perspective, or an impulse to convey?

Let’s stay with this, not as a reaction or resolution, but as a shared inquiry into what is actually happening now.

1 Like
12

What does a tree communicate? Or the wind through the trees? Or a bird alive with the morning? It may be dead by evening time; it doesn’t care. So what exactly are you hoping to explore or to stay with? It’s just an idea from inside yourself, isn’t it? It has nothing whatsoever to do with the rest of life, which is what is happening now whether we explore it or not, whether we stay with it or not. So thinking is not about a shared enquiry. There is no such thing. Our sharing of anything is what destroys us. When we share food, money, property, medical aid, help of any kind, it is already too late; the damage has been done. So we have to find out if there is something that cannot be broken up and shared out, something so complete that our whole life is no longer about sharing, about charity. It is the lonely thinker who operates in terms of sharing. When there is no thinker there is no thought of sharing. So when we actually think about it, as we are now so doing, not from the perspective of a thinker, we start to see that sharing is an abomination. It is just a concept we have arrived at as a way of bridging a gap between us. But it is only the gap between us that is conceptual. The gap between the rich man and the beggar on the street, the gap between the sick and healthy, between the clever and the stupid, between you and me. We share because we see a gap; and yet the gap is never filled by sharing.

13

Sharing, as a reaction to the perception of division, might not resolve that division. But does this mean sharing is inherently destructive, or does the destruction arise from the division that precedes it?

Is it possible to move beyond the concept of sharing? Not by rejecting it or calling it an abomination, but by understanding the root of division itself? Only then, perhaps, is there a way of living that is whole, without gaps, and beyond the need for concepts like sharing or bridging.

14

Sir, if we are truly divided then we can think. Right? Only then does it make any sense. Seeing the division between us, the gap, the distance - call it what you will - thinking is necessary. Not to bridge the gap but just to communicate with one another and to work out a way of living that will end any sense of conflict. The gap between us is conceptual but it is very real. So employing a lot more concepts to fill the gap is useless. So what will fill the gap? It is a real gap, a real distance, a real division. What will bridge this gap so completely that it is no longer a problem in our lives?

I hope this is all clear. There is a very real gap between us, you and I, as there is between any other two human beings. Unless we solve the problem of this gap, which is wholly conceptual, but also very real, our lives are going to remain somewhat neurotic and unhealthy.

1 Like
15

You see, the desire to bridge the gap assumes its existence as a fact.

Krishnamurti often pointed to the fact that humanity is one, that there is no fundamental division between “you” and “me”.

So the question arises, my friend, do you perceive this division as factual? Something irrefutable in life? If we cannot inquire into this together, then what is ‘this’?

16

Sir, first of all, don’t pretend or assume that you are my friend. You know nothing about me. I may not be friend material at all.

Or, what is a friend? Let’s think about it and find out. Then everything is so much simpler.

Or, we can explore this question of whether the division is factual. You ask if I perceive the division as a fact. I do not. No-one can. The perception of any fact of this nature is outside the remit of the human brain, because the human brain is only capable of dealing in ideas, images and concepts. That is why we said that the division is both conceptual and real - that is, it is a product of our conceptual way of meeting the universe and it also affects deeply our own daily lives as we interact with others who are also caught up in this conceptual way of meeting life.

17

If the brain were only capable of dealing in ideas and concepts, how could we even question the nature of division, let alone its existence?

So the question is not whether the division is real or conceptual, but whether we are willing to remain with this paradox without seeking immediate resolution. Look at it.

18

You seem to be suggesting that there is a way of communicating without any motive, sharing without an impulse to share, and that this is what you mean by thinking without thought.

It may be the case that there is a way of communicating without motive; but as far as I can see, a thinking without thought has no meaning as a statement.

If I may point out, isn’t this precisely what is being done here by asserting, without plausible explanation, that thinking has nothing to do with thought (and is our only salvation)?

19

This is not about thinking with thought or thinking without thought. This is about thinking per se, the act of thinking. And what will help us to think? Ideas? Concepts? Beliefs? Which are all the products of thought. For example, at some point perhaps in the past we may have been thinking about what it means to be a friend; and after a period of thinking about it we arrive at a conclusion about what makes a good friend. The conclusion has then put an end to our thinking and has moved the whole thing into thought, which can then be accessed from memory at a later date when the word ‘friend’ appears on the horizon or crops up in conversation.

But what is a friend? Is there really such a thing as a friend who is a specific, identifiable human being - or a group of human beings - separate from the rest of humanity, separate from strangers? Do you see what I am saying? Thought makes us very lazy very quickly. We say, ‘He’s my friend,’ and that’s it finished; all the work is done - until he hurts me, bores me, challenges me, disappoints me, deserts me or whatever it is that happens in our so-called friendships.

So may we go on some more to talk about what it means to be friends? I did not raise the word originally; it came from Juha-Matti; but it is a very important word indeed, far more important in our daily living than abstract words like division and motive. And I feel that if we begin with words that really matter to us, the importance of the other words will either fade away altogether or be so much easier to get to grips with later on when we come back to look at them again.

Because we said that thinking has nothing to do with thought; and therefore, in finding out what it means to be friends, thought will be of no use at all. Thought has only a collection of ideas and images about friendship. And there may be no such thing as friendship. For if human beings understood for just one minute the meaning and the significance of the word ‘friend’ there would be no wars upon this earth, no need to cast people out, to bomb them, to cut off their water supply, to hold them to ransom; if this thing called friendship really mattered to us we would make sure there was no-one without it. So, actually, the word ‘friend’, although we use it quite flippantly, has little or no meaning at all. And therefore we must think about this, not just argue over or try to improve the definition of friendship.

This is so, isn’t it? This is an obvious thing to do. There is no assertion involved in this. There is no-one saying, ‘This is the right thing to do.’ It is the right thing to do - full stop. Then it is very much easier and one doesn’t feel forced into it, coerced, manipulated into one particular corner or another. For when we use the word ‘friend’, what meaning we attach to that word is perhaps more aligned to the word ‘ally’, someone who is on our side against all the rest of the world; which then makes clearer the hidden tribal and warlike elements of our so-called friendships, even though we have given them such a lovely sounding word.

Thought says, ‘Friendship is…’ But in our thinking about it we have begun to question whether anything approaching the definition of friendship actually exists outside of thought. So I hope the difference is becoming a little clearer. It is still going to be difficult though. It’s a strange new landscape we are looking at and we cannot rely on thought to steer a course through it.

1 Like
20

I would rather look at friendship, wouldn’t you? I have gone into it a little more with James. Why not join us and see what happens. We can come back to this question of division later, keeping, as you suggest, the paradox in abeyance.