There’s gross and subtle reification, right? Gross reification imputes realness to the red of a rose in bloom. Subtle imputes realness to the experience of seeing red. No reification = no imputation. I guess I’m saying reification is a product of thought. ???
1 Like
As long as the fragment asks questions so this reification will continue whether gross or subtle. When the fragment falls away the questions die away with it …there never was a fragment …there is only the whole manifesting as all these supposed fragments. One self appearing as the many. The journey comes to an end and time stops…no more sorrow …no more pain…only love and compassion for all humanity who are lost in this terrible dream of separation and division. Seeing and doing …one movement. The subject is the result of the content (object) …if there is no object how can there be a subject…? Both subject and object are the result of fear …fear of falling into the vast abyss of a consciousness which knows no content …some would call it psychological death …call it what you will …the words are NOT the thing …the thing can never be known …can never be grasped…
1 Like
therefore I can only be THAT which is prior to all manifestation…
1 Like
Yes, got it. Just putting into words what came to my mind as reading it.
Etc., etc…
Given a context, was the “krishnamurtian” language really understood, all languages should be understood, right?
Subject - awareness – no thing – actuality.
I-thought – object – thing – reality or, as rickScott puts it, the gird or part of it.
OK here is the context…Is it possible to completely unplug from the ‘grid’ ?
Is the ‘grid’ still an object and is that object still creating a ‘subject’ that needs to unplug from the ‘grid’ ? Do you see what I am getting at ?
I’ll go with Yes!
For example when we realise that the grid (ie. my relation to the world) is the foundation of all experience - that I am the cause of all suffering.
I think so : Death is sacred , suicide is sin? The difference between seeing and wanting? Between surrender and effort?
Do you see how subtle this becomes …always there is a more subtle motive to somehow go beyond …beyond the ‘grid’ …beyond the ‘object’ …beyond the ‘subject’ …thought is still moving towards ‘some-thing’ …no? This is all it can do …move from one object to another object and this sustains the illusion of the ‘subject’ …the so-called ‘observer’ …interesting no?
Can I become totally attentive to the movement itself ? The context … moving from object to object and from object to subject and from subject back to object? No motive !!! No motive !!! What is the quality of such a mind that is not separate from the movement but only watches and listens like a hawk watching its prey…? Is there anything that is somehow different from the movement itself? Something ‘outside’ that still wants to change ‘some-thing’ ? Go beyond ‘some-thing’ ?
There is no me outside of experience?
No things outside of consciousness?
I wanna say : No
But maybe awareness of this experience can arise. When one realises what experience is?
There can be more space for silence, when the noise is seen for what it is?
Yes, moreover, I know already all what you have explained and could foresee that someone would write it down, thing is that that´s not what I was talking about and the reason why I tried to tell you not to jump over the words (subject-object in this case) too quickly because then, rather than a response there is a reaction to the words and what we express is simply the knowledge we have stored about them from a point of view that isn´t nor even ours, the whole thing is quite mechanical and, therefore, quite foreseeable.
I agree with K that as soon as we are being attentive we are out of the grid, it is inattentiveness or negligence what, unnoticed, creates the structure of the self with which we get, also in a unnoticed way identified because it is a very fast process (attentiveness slows down the brain´s activity allowing to see it too).
For me, being attentive is the same as being attention or awareness, otherwise, the division would persist and it wouldn´t be real attention, hence I dared to call it the subject whereas the I-thought would be the object, looking at it from another perspective, not as thought dividing itself between the observer and the observed etc. Do you see what am I getting at? If you don´t, it doesn´t matter. It´s ok, I get your point.
Any verbal, mental, visual pointer to no-thing is NOT a pointer to no-thing, because no-thing is not an object we can point to. (Right?) And yet words are the tools we use to communicate with each other. So we can either remain silent, which in a forum like Kinfonet means not participating, or embody the paradox of pointing to that which cannot be pointed to.
And so we share our stories. 
Tricky stuff for sure - many people have complained (myself included) about the difficulty of saying something completely true.
…But, I wonder, I think we can only complain about no-thing not being a thing, if we are admitting that a thing is actually a thing.
What is our working definition of ‘a thing’?
Material manifestation.
Are ideas, thoughts, images things?
Any ‘thing’ that issues from the brain which is a thing.
Damn! I hadn’t thought this through - I was hoping that everyone would just go WTF! and we’d move on to something else 
I’ll just go with what you and Dan agree on - or if that never happens, either things are thingameejigs or whotsits that exist somewhere.
How about: ‘thing’ is any perceptible (with senses or mind) object.
???
2 Likes