What did Krishnamurti mean by 'No Division'?

Damn , I don’t want to read all the comments in this blog, what is it that I have to do…

I think K is saying that the way the human mind is perceiving reality (thought and matter) appears like a succession of events/objects that come and go, passing, live and die. The mind can not see the seamless unitary movement of reality, which is the ultimate nature of the deathless ground.

So, the human mind is seeing the no division and the deathless nature of reality as divided, and ephemeral.

1 Like

If someone asks you , is there division?
If you say no, you are a free human being.
If you say yes, you are living in conflict.

If there is no division actually, then thinker is thought, observer is observed image. There is freedom, there is flow, there is flowering without conflict.

So now I ask, is there division?

What is the state of mind that answers this question.

Is the mind in division, in conflict or free in non-division with absence of conflict

Yes, choice less awareness or self less awareness ‘moves’ with ‘what is’. It is freedom from the past, from the ‘known’?

According to K…

Observer is the observed.
I think Krishnamurti used this statement for those listeners who had an observer. For them observer exists and observed exists and both are separate.

Observer is the observed, probably points to those people with observer that there is actually no observer, only observed.

For Krishnamurti there was no me, no self, only awareness, so he is pointing to people with observer, that there is no observer, only awareness.

For those with observer, there is unawareness, the unawareness of thought.

For those in awareness there is no observer but awareness from silence without observer, without operation of thought

If we are as suggested living in a state of ‘darkness’: the darkness of division, what brings ‘insight’ into that situation that by illuminating it, dispels it? We obviously don’t control insight. Why does it occur? What is its relationship to intelligence? Any? If it is the ‘key’ to the opening and dissolving of the ‘prison’, what keeps it away? Is it the enclosed complex of ‘me and mine’ occupying the brain? And believing itself to be ‘reality’?
Is it the energy needed to maintain the turmoil of the self-complex that blocks the passive awareness or flash of insight that could reveal the whole ‘structure’?

You’re so sure of what you’re saying about Krishnamurti that you might as well be speaking of yourself.

This is a good question (although in the dialogues K goes back and forth about whether it is a correct question to ask).

You suggest that one possible reason why insight doesn’t occur is because it is being actively being blocked by the movement of psychological thought (the me and mine).

This sounds reasonable. But without insight can the brain be free of this psychological movement of me and mine? So it seems a bit like a catch 22.

What is insight? Isn’t it a flash of understanding? A sudden seeing where before there was no clear seeing?

Maybe we could say that the ground needs to be prepared for insight to occur (the grounds being a sensitive body, a quiet attentive brain)?

But K also says that there is no preparation for this insight (although he sometimes hints that there is).

1 Like

I’ve written what I understand after listening to his various talks and I still listen to him

What I have seen in Krishnamurti discussion groups is that there are only very few who actually still listen to Krishnamurti, listen to his talks. Most actually don’t listen to him anymore

1 Like

Yes because most think that they got K’s message . But K is about investigation and doubt not about giving static massages and slogans…

It’s because thought is not interested in awareness. Thought is interested in benefit and there is nothing for it to gain from awareness, so thought stops listening. Thought stops listening to K because K does not offer anything to thought. Thought will resist what he is pointing to and will avoid listening to him

Yes because thought is a dead process from dead memories. The key is to catch thought in action and avoid it.

Why should we not ask about insight? How does the “don’t ask” argument go? (insight is like floaters in the eyes? the only way to catch them is by looking the other way?)

It’s like in a discussion. Thought thinks that answer lies in words, in speaking. I feel answer lies actually in listening. What is it that listens? What is that quiet, that silence that listens. It is not words, not thought. It is natural, natural in the sense it has nothing to do with thought, just like sleep or beating of heart has nothing to do with thought. Thought is talking, seeking answers, but it does not have answer for the problem it creates. Thought has created self, division, conflict, war. There is no answer to war in thought.
So how does the insight occur?
If you are listening and your mind is silently listening, that itself is insight, I feel. Insight is not thought, not reaction, not self. That silent passive listening is choiceless perception or awareness.
So how does it occur? When is your mind not caught in reaction?
K was not talking to the intellect of his audience, he was talking to the mind that listens. If you listen, that itself is the beginning of change. Unfortunately people stop listening and start making or seeking ideas

1 Like

Hello Adeen. The “problem” (for me at least) with the above statement is the separation between the writer, who apparently listens, and “the people” who stop listening. Isn’t this the separation between someone who knows telling those who don’t know? When it comes to understanding K, I feel we’re all in the same situation - none of us are experts and none of us really know. K always stressed the importance of exploring and learning together so I feel any separation is problematic.

1 Like

Difference is not division. K was different from most people but was undivided.
What is relationship between division and non-division?
There is no relationship between self and absence of self, between thought and silence.
Silence is completely different from thought.
Non-division is different from division. Awareness is different from unawareness, but thought will never accept it is basically unaware. Thought will never know silence. Intellect will never know direct undivided awareness.

What do you mean? In what way is listening actually insight?
Do you mean : its a form of insight because there is an understanding of the words being spoken, the concepts being communicated, the intent and state of the speaker?
Or do you mean something else?

Why live with thought as if it were something to avoid? If you were doing this, you wouldn’t be able to talk about it.