Problem is , we give ourselves too much credit to things . Thinking is in the releam of happening not our doing. Just like breathing, digesting, and all the vital function of us.
Consciousness is upstream of thought. So, I'm not sure that thought is the experiencer. Thought divides perception up into thoughts. The senses and all the functions of our body operate, as you rightly point out, without thought. Perhaps K. is saying that we think thought is the experiencer and that that is cause of our sense of separateness? If he said, 'consciousness is the experiencer' it would make much more sense and would mean that All is consciousness and 'my' consciousness is not truly separate from it. So we are something like an eddy in a stream, which if it had thought, might think itself to be separate from the stream but is in fact only a temporary pattern within it.
Exactly! It's a function of the brain of an organism. You can take this to the logical conclusion: the "I" or "me" self doesn't exist at at. It's a brain function. Like the liver conjugates or the kidneys filtrates, the brain "I Am's" The I or me is not a noun, it's a verb.
Ive heard someone express it that thinking is akin to the narrator of a book or movie. Thinking is merely a reaction to the happenings of this very moment. Thinking as a reaction I've seen Jiddu express. Observing closely, free from the observer, makes what is actually happening much clearer.
😅. This is a good one. Its so simple and yet we get so perplexed by it. Perhaps the confusion can be overcome with language from K himself, the ‘thinker’ not being the body, but rather the psychological ‘self’. The ‘thinker’ thinks but also the ‘thinker’ is known by thoughts, memories and experiences. Once an insight to this is had, there is a collapse. Such a burden is lifted. Light like a 🪶.
Questo video molto interessante tra Iris. Murdoch scrittrice che ho conosciuto e Krishnamurti. Questa conversazione apre alla tolleranza verso noi stessi e l'invito al cambiamento immediato
The thinker is his/her thoughts. When you are aware of the envy , you then pay attention to that thought, that is , without thought operating , watch it but it has to be in that moment , not a moment later. Stay with it. And then it will melt . The same with anger etc..
Thinking seems in one sense voluntary and viewed another way, involuntary. Sort of like breathing. On the one hand we say "i breathe", but if you don't force it, leaving it alone, breathing goes on by itself. It is controlled by the autonomic nervous system. As it is seen, thoughts, including the i thought, happen by themselves and the sense of a controller or thinker is illusory. This is not parroting but from my own looking, but then, who is looking when there's no thoughts at all?
leaving aside a deeper awareness of aliveness, would there be an "I" story as we imagine & tell ourselves if there were no thoughts of "envy"? I can clearly see that the "I" story only appears in the company of "thoughts" like envy. So in this sense I can understand K that "I" is not separate from "envy" and hence thinker is the thought.
Con todo el respeto para la señorita Iris, es desesperante la forma que tiene de abordar una convesacion tan importante, desde luego dice mucho de ella.
Thinking is: mind. Ego, logicaly, person. Who is thinking, argues, feeds other thinks. Ego, person, mind, brain. Atman, gives energy and witnesses. Atman, doesn't think. Doens't argue. Only witness and give energy. But you have: Ego and conciouness. The inner dialog is among They two. Atmam is satchiananda.
Aqui JK casi entra en el laberinto de los filosófico cuando todo pudo resumirse con su el Observador es lo observador y este pensador no es mas que un cúmulo de neuronas que funcionan holográficamente en el cerebro y el cuerpo en si
Yes, what is the nature of the psychological "I"? Isn't it a thought? Thought creates the structure of the ego with its ambitions, desires, worries etc and then says I'm different from it. But that entity which says I'm different from it, is also a thought! You can verify this experimentally, but logically as well it has to be so right, what else can it be?
![ลองสุ่มไอโฟน 990 โกงมั้ย? [ โกงมั้ยครับ ep.101 ] | DOM](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/bfsWe0j492k/mqdefault.jpg)
Problem is , we give ourselves too much credit to things . Thinking is in the releam of happening not our doing. Just like breathing, digesting, and all the vital function of us.
Consciousness is upstream of thought. So, I'm not sure that thought is the experiencer. Thought divides perception up into thoughts. The senses and all the functions of our body operate, as you rightly point out, without thought. Perhaps K. is saying that we think thought is the experiencer and that that is cause of our sense of separateness? If he said, 'consciousness is the experiencer' it would make much more sense and would mean that All is consciousness and 'my' consciousness is not truly separate from it. So we are something like an eddy in a stream, which if it had thought, might think itself to be separate from the stream but is in fact only a temporary pattern within it.
Exactly! It's a function of the brain of an organism. You can take this to the logical conclusion: the "I" or "me" self doesn't exist at at. It's a brain function. Like the liver conjugates or the kidneys filtrates, the brain "I Am's" The I or me is not a noun, it's a verb.
Ive heard someone express it that thinking is akin to the narrator of a book or movie. Thinking is merely a reaction to the happenings of this very moment. Thinking as a reaction I've seen Jiddu express. Observing closely, free from the observer, makes what is actually happening much clearer.
@@Knifymolokonice! Thank you
@mobiustrip1400 it's an image , that thought created about self, right? I mean i have idea about myself
This is gold.. Pure gold..❤❤
One can see how one's ego can interfere with clear thinking in these interviews.
😅. This is a good one. Its so simple and yet we get so perplexed by it. Perhaps the confusion can be overcome with language from K himself, the ‘thinker’ not being the body, but rather the psychological ‘self’. The ‘thinker’ thinks but also the ‘thinker’ is known by thoughts, memories and experiences. Once an insight to this is had, there is a collapse. Such a burden is lifted. Light like a 🪶.
Thank you 🙏🙏🙏
Questo video molto interessante tra Iris. Murdoch scrittrice che ho conosciuto e Krishnamurti.
Questa conversazione apre alla tolleranza verso noi stessi e l'invito al cambiamento immediato
The thinker is his/her thoughts.
When you are aware of the envy , you then pay attention to that thought,
that is , without thought operating , watch it but it has to be in that moment , not a moment later.
Stay with it. And then it will melt . The same with anger etc..
K is expecting a very very short answer but she is giving much prolonged comprehension yet unanswered😅
Thinking seems in one sense voluntary and viewed another way, involuntary. Sort of like breathing. On the one hand we say "i breathe", but if you don't force it, leaving it alone, breathing goes on by itself. It is controlled by the autonomic nervous system. As it is seen, thoughts, including the i thought, happen by themselves and the sense of a controller or thinker is illusory. This is not parroting but from my own looking, but then, who is looking when there's no thoughts at all?
leaving aside a deeper awareness of aliveness, would there be an "I" story as we imagine & tell ourselves if there were no thoughts of "envy"? I can clearly see that the "I" story only appears in the company of "thoughts" like envy. So in this sense I can understand K that "I" is not separate from "envy" and hence thinker is the thought.
🙏❤️🌏🕊🌿🎶🎵
It seems the thinker tends to overthink. Me think the meaning of life is simply love.
Can thoughts exist independently of existence ??
Con todo el respeto para la señorita Iris, es desesperante la forma que tiene de abordar una convesacion tan importante, desde luego dice mucho de ella.
Indeed.
Thinking is not the way to expirience that.
Isn't is easily proven? A mind can be emptied and yet you remain as the observer.
Thinking is: mind. Ego, logicaly, person.
Who is thinking, argues, feeds other thinks. Ego, person, mind, brain.
Atman, gives energy and witnesses.
Atman, doesn't think. Doens't argue. Only witness and give energy.
But you have: Ego and conciouness. The inner dialog is among They two.
Atmam is satchiananda.
These videos always seem to end in the middle of a thought. I'm not sure that the editing decisions taken here give any credit to the discussion.
Aqui JK casi entra en el laberinto de los filosófico cuando todo pudo resumirse con su el Observador es lo observador y este pensador no es mas que un cúmulo de neuronas que funcionan holográficamente en el cerebro y el cuerpo en si
Krishnaji insists that the thinker is his thoughts. Does it work?
He doesn't insists, its the reality... Thinker is the thought... if there is no thought there is no thinker...
Only if you don’t dodge the question.
Yes 🙏
Not if you don’t see the truth of it - nothing works unless you verify, for yourself, not for others
Yes, what is the nature of the psychological "I"? Isn't it a thought? Thought creates the structure of the ego with its ambitions, desires, worries etc and then says I'm different from it. But that entity which says I'm different from it, is also a thought! You can verify this experimentally, but logically as well it has to be so right, what else can it be?
Too long winded. Losing my focus
She’s so afraid of giving a straight answer