Brockwood Park, 24th June 1979 - School Discussion 6 - Thinking Together
Summary:
What does it mean to think together?
Thinking together and thinking about something are two different things.
What does it mean to be in communication with each other?
When one is seeking one’s own fulfilment, ambition, security and success, that must inevitably create division.
A mind that is not divisive in itself has a quality of attention and therefore compassion. From that state, what is relationship?
Instead of being caught up in the objections that arise in our minds when we hear what another is saying, is it possible to just listen?
What is it like to listen without struggling, without being in conflict with what we hear?
Is it possible?
When I say X, what happens?
When you say X (spoiler alert!) - thoughts will arise in my mind in reaction to X.
Are we then in conflict? If so why? (real question, no spoilers forthcoming)
It’s like listening to a story as a child would, rather than a professional writer. Judgement and alternative wording, plotting, form don’t perturb the flow.
Shikantaza: just sit. Listening: just listen.
How would you describe the mind’s divisiveness? What are the divisions?
An example of being caught in divisiveness :
Someone says X is red.
I had previously heard elsewhere that X is blue.
If I am unable to let go of the contradiction between these 2 ideas, divisiveness has taken hold.
Why would anyone get caught in the contradiction between two ideas when we live with the contradiction of ideas constantly? If I’m aware there’s no contradiction when I know, for instance, that the earth is round and not flat, I know that contradiction is divisive only when I don’t know what is true or actual and I believe I have to believe something.
We are always caught in contradictions, our mind is habitually caught in divisiveness, why?
And is it possible to think together (rather than be in conflict)?
If I say X is red, and you thought X was blue, what causes the emotional angst?
I’m not sure what thinking together is.
“Thinking together” is when we are both (or all) seriously interested and very curious in examining what we both (or all) think - it would entail a mind free from “divisiveness”, allowing us to listen without resistence or confusion to what is being shared.
I agree with the first part of what you say, but if one is “free from divisiveness”, one is free of self, don’t you think?
We’re thinking together because we are not free. We’re all divided by what we don’t know and understand, and united by concern about our ignorance, presumption, and the division it creates.
Yes - but seeing as “self” is such a heavy, loaded word - this new word “divisiveness” is being used, so that we can look afresh at relationship.
That was good of you but it didn’t have that effect for me.
“Self” may be a “heavy, loaded word” but we live with ourselves every moment, and we think we are our selves, so why tip-toe around it?
Is not inquiry into how we sustain and perpetuate our illusions of self what brings us here?
Why are you so immediately interested in the divisions? What happens to the quality of your attention when you do this? The divisiveness starts there, doesn’t it? Which means it doesn’t need to be described by myself or by anyone else. It is right in front of you.
“Divisiveness” is being brought up by K in his talk to his friends at Brockwood school.
The resistance you are feeling to the use of this word instead of the word “self” - is the same resistance that we all feel towards the world - because our mind is caught in divisiveness.
If we always end up fighting rather than thinking together, its because the addiction to fighting is more powerful; we are more obsessed with the division than with inquiring into the divided mind.
If our problem is addiction to and obsession with fighting, we can kick the habit, but it’s more deeply rooted. The content of consciousness is so confused and incoherent that conflict is what we are in ourselves and with each other.
No. The divisions start with the content of consciousness.
Can we see the divisiveness? Is it plain to see?
If you can describe the situation - as you have above - does that mean you are sometimes aware of it - or am I assuming too much?
It’s plain to see that my thoughts don’t always support each other.
“There’s too much confusion / I can’t get no relief”.
We can’t ‘think together’ if I feel that ‘my’ thoughts are my own. They’re actually not, they’re just thoughts but if I feel, believe that they’re my property…my brain children….that they represent ‘me’…then tread lightly! 
As true as this may be, we can’t see that self and ownership are only concepts because we’re heavily invested in them as social institutions with enforcement power.