What did Krishnamurti mean by 'No Division'?

What is the mind that listens? Say you are listening to the chirping of the birds in a clear crisp morning or listening to a beautiful musical composition, what is the mind that listens? It is peaceful, in that peace there is a beauty, there is silence, there is no conflict, no division.

What is the mind that says the above to itself and believes it to be true?

Okay, thanks - this brings me back to the question I was getting at with @Sean on another thread : I often wonder whether the non-special sense of spaciousness of zazen or sunsets in nature is at all sufficient to transform the dictat of self.

The absence of the discriminating self in moments of calm (eg.hiking, daydreaming, zazen etc) is probably essential for the brain - just like rest is essential for the body.

The weakness of this state as a means of transformation, is that it does not provide a spectacular demonstration of the effects of psychological death - in fact its not a death at all (there is no dying, no abrupt ending) its just an absence.
Also, it does not address the issue of the subjectivity (or delusion) of reality - there is no demonstration of the falseness (ie.conditioned subjectivity) of my reality. There is still the sense that the reality I experience is a precise representation of what is.

Sean wrote:

Adeen’s response to what Sean wrote:

Is Adeen implying - as his statement can be interpreted as suggesting - that the difference between himself and “the people” Sean mentions, is equivalent to the difference between Krishnamurti and the people he spoke to?

A selfless indivisible silence speaking to divided selves?

Or are we exploring the terrain of human consciousness as equal parties?

Obviously it depends on what we mean by “insight”. But if we take what K said about insight, is it a “feeling”? or is it an absolute irrevocable fact that empties the contents of consciousness at one blow?

Have you had an insight that has emptied the contents of consciousness?

I am not dividing. You are dividing. What can I do?

I am not dividing - you are dividing. That’s why I’m asking you.

I reckon you’re both dividing - I’m the most undividing one here - I don’t even know what dividering is!

1 Like

I don’t object to the essence of what Adeen has been sharing - the value of silently listening, of a quiet listening brain, and how thought interferes with this listening.

What I object to is the implication or assumption behind his words that he is speaking from this silence, he is capable of listening, etc, while others are not. Which leads him to imply that he knows the mind of Krishnamurti and can speak for him - and makes him assume he knows what insight is, etc.

If I remember correctly, Adeen has stated in a previous post that he is not an enlightened being.

If this sounds like I am standing up for Adeen, its because I am. I have listened to him on Zoom dialogue and interacted here for a while now, and feel that his engagement with the teaching is fascinating, sincere, highly engaged. However he does not respond well to strong interrogation. But @Adeen, testing your understanding benefits all our understanding (including your own)

1 Like

Hi James. In this forum, there is always a strong possibility of misunderstanding occuring. For me, the fact that we are all equals, exploring together, is an essential starting point in any investigation. Sometimes, statements are made that suggest that this is not the case and I think it’s important that this is cleared up if we are to be able to go into things together. So maybe this is just a misunderstanding and we both are seeing an implication that isn’t there. Who really knows?

1 Like

In believe in alcoholics anonymous meetings people introduce themselves to the group by saying “I’m [their name], and I’m an alcoholic.”

We can’t do this here, but it would be useful if we could each introduce ourselves by saying “I’m [one’s name], and I’m someone who hasn’t had total insight.”

I think that would clear up so much misunderstanding!


If statements are useless because it comes from imagination.

I have not said this, it is your interpretation.

I did say that K had a silent mind, which was completely different from those operating in thought.

All I said is that listening is not related to thought. Silence is unrelated to thought. Thought cannot know awareness or silence as they are completely different.

You are creating divisions here. What can I do about that.

1 Like

Adeen, maybe it is just the way you express yourself on a web forum like this (where one cannot interact face to face and clarify things directly and simply), but I feel you make very sweeping and generic statements, stated as absolute facts, without much nuance.

I know that K sometimes spoke like this, but he was K - that is, we give him some leeway with making generic pronouncements because he was the world teacher. But even K was never quite as generic as you generally are! K would quite happily clarify his statements, sometimes modify them, sometimes retract them, provide nuance, shift gears, become very granular.

So for instance you have said things such as ‘in awareness thought, reaction, cannot exist’. You claimed that is an incontrovertible truth - and that this is what K meant by awareness. And when it was pointed out to you that K taught that one can (and indeed must!) be aware of one’s thoughts and reactions you simply ignored this and continued with your view. - This, for me, creates a division.

You also regularly write about silence; but K talked about silence in a more nuanced way, usually when talking about meditation (at the end of his sequence of talks). - He talked about a silence that can only exist when thought has completely come to an end.

So I read you as claiming to be speaking or writing from that same silence K talked about. - Which is a big claim to make. You also talk about insight. But for K insight also means the complete ending of thought and time. So when you use these words so emphatically and generically, I read you as implying that in Adeen’s brain thought and time has completely come to an end.

But is this true? K never accepted people’s claims of ending thought at face value - he questioned their claims to know what silence is, what insight is, etc. He was sceptical.

So by implicitly making these claims, and not clarifying these matters simply and modestly, I feel it is you who are (unwittingly?) creating a division. I don’t know if you see this?


What was there before thought, or consciousness?

We are here now, with the power of thought and meaning.
Intellect, emotion and imagination have entered this cosmic dance of creation and destruction. Where once galaxies collided without a care for all that were consumed (or for the benefit of those to come) - now we are here to shed a tear.

What good are mechanical tears? Is there an intelligent mind hidden in this machine?

Why would intelligence hide in a machine?

K said intelligence is beyond the brain and that if/when the brain awakens to its machinations and sees the error of its way, it empties itself of its confusing, corrupting contents and is in contact with intelligence.