This is a human being who went very very deep and came back to share what he learned. This is a fine example of his brilliant, prescient mind at work. Respect.
Epic level. When this division (of conscious and unconscious) is perceived as singular movement then this is exactly the point when one begins to transcend the constant occupation of the mind (whilst one is diligently observing oneself) And reaches a point where u begin to have awareness not just awake but also when asleep (but aware).
It means when one sleeps he doesn't dream.. one is sleep.. because one is fully aware of all levels of consciousness during waking hours.. and ends all movements of the mind that very instant... almost impossible for a western mind . But possible.
Dreams can be very powerful expressions not of the mind, but of the whole. K. is doubting peoples' ability to recognize such dreams as compared to the usual content of the dreams that stem from daily routines and obsessions or desires. The "numinous" dream is very very different in nature and can reveal a psychological connection to the whole, because it is not a product of the mind or self (when I say self I mean the ego, not the "atman").
id prod you to please be careful, because to come to some understanding or conclusion like for ex: perceiving "consciousness" in any particular way (divided/undivided) is in itself a distortion guided by motive, and to 'make sense' of 'anything' is to limit sensitivity, as true observation needs to be directionless, and the 'how to' being so heavily reliant on oneself to 'figure', mandates utmost diligence so as to avoid delusionment
People, before analyzing this speech as right or wrong, think about this. Modern psychology hasn´t solved any particular mental illness until now, only "keep them under control". So we´re stuck in the same lessons given by therapists as Jung, Freud, etc. But those lessons keep attaching us into the same dilemma, the division between consciousness and unconsciousness. So, try to understand this footage without any psychological concept, and then maybe, you will find some sense on this video. It´s more simple than it looks like.
Mind blowing Because what we learned in psychology about dividing consciousness into conscious and unconscious and really apply soo much in life for analyzing..but which is creating more conflicts by dividing it the Consciousness... Observe the whole movement... It's there...not there!!!!! Thanks so much for this.❤️❤️
yayks. there is no freedom from something because it is conditioning freedom to exclude some and hold other things which is by definition not freedom obviously. is not it. am I wrong? who am I? LOL
It is very simply introducing the witness of duality, the neutral observer, then obviously, there will have to come the witness of the 3, and the observer of the etc, etc etc. He should finally explain the difference between consciousness and awareness and we are done.
there is no need to meditate to while watching his speech automatically the mind become quite what a wonderfull human being walk in this earth and i am proud his indian
Paraphrasing a few points: Practice sensitivity. Cultivate attention. Urgent dispassionate attention. Attention without motive, without direction. Free. Wherever there is an intention, a desire, an expectation, that attention is devoid of sensitivity.
Jiddu Krishnamurti, the king of profound questions. Is it possible to observe without direction, without motive or without wanting something out of it? Great question.
The moment one gives a direction or motive, one creates a division or duality, I m this I must achieve or do that. Motive by itself creates conflict in us and that leads to other problems of fear, guilt, Shame, hurt etc
This has been the very comment I was searching for. "You are not going to find it in K's words" I do think if one can apply the energy, all the energy to these questions, of oneself, one will start to ask these questions on your own and that is the transformation, the transcendence he speaks of. Just observe this for a moment. Being so aware that you begin asking these very questions just because you have total observation.
Why would he bother to explain it to us then? He would just be silent as there is nothing to share since you either have that knowledge yourself or you cant even have it.
He always reveals a new aspect to me on oneness. Our preoccupation with division traps us further and further in a convoluted pattern of living. Working out these gordian knots is really becoming my life purpose.
A gordian knot by definition is an unsolvable problem. The mind has no problems, it is that way of thinking that gives direction to problems. It is you and I that give it these problems.
I have read every comment on this video. All of these comments either ask a question desiring an answer or give opinion. I find myself watching Jiddu’s videos and the first thing I do is go to see what people have said about this particular video. It is that thinking that will keep me returning to the pattern of thought I have always had. The mind is like a monkey. It is only until one simply wants to observe and do nothing but that.
Mind is returning is not the problem Ig, we want to stop it from returning is the bigger problem. Can we allow our minds to return or not return, and leave it to take care of itself ( problem is by this one creates a new duality that "I must leave my mind to take care of itself" 🤦♂️ )
Is it wise to mix up mind and consciousness together? While you talk about the deeper unconscious -that’s nothing just a dream - the mind! It has nothing to do with consciousness! Even the so called conscious mind is not Consciounsness -it’s just the mind (it’s even worthless to use a word like conscious mind). Why we talk about mind (what is just an illusion, not existing at all) as if its a part of consciousness. Understanding it may need tremendously sensitive order of these entities- I am sure JK as a giant of this issue has made it clear. Good luck!
one is insentient, done by the actor, but has little -if any consequence; the other is the deep, fundamental animal/being which acts in spite of what we are aware of. (Very, very different -as they stand... but they can be integrated..)
Dear J.K., dividing anything into exclusive parts is a mistake, it may be convenient and/or rational but it brings fuss instead of clarity (of course I'm talking to myself, who else here?)
right in this talk K mentioned, even while sitting in a group and discussing/analysing the reactions of the so called conscious mind, is as good as talking to one self.
You cant reach full awareness of your mind just like that. Gradual training is practiced from all spiritual systems. Even in non gradual systems like dzogchen the occupation of mind's movement is gradual unless you are a bodhisattva. I dont really understand how Krishnamurti expected from casual people to reach full enlightenment in a single moment...
He never expected. He wants us to ask ourselves these questions. To give as much energy to the observation of thought as we do with our surfaced thinking. (superficial thinking) The thought behind the word enlightenment has its own desire. The state of being enlightened. A motive which gives thought a direction. Enlightenment is a conditioned word from the many past people who devoted their lives trying to discover this enlightenment.
@@stephen2219 thought can be occupied by mindfull awareness. Analyses on desires, thoughts, emotions, mind etc have been plenty throughout buddhist and vedanta literature from very very advanced meditation teachers. So, enlightenment is a word that can be used to describe sth with or without desire or motivation. In the shake of conversation we use it to describe the situation of no-distraction or meditation without meditating (in which every manifestation of mind's projection becomes the object of meditation e.g. thinking, eating, speaking, sleeping, walking, working etc). Either one way or another Krishnamurti clearly advices against gradual training in any system of meditation. He clearly says don't follow other teachers and don't practice gradual meditation, just observe. This means that he expects people to "observe", as you say, fully (non-gradually). Being against gradual training means that he is even against practicing his own advice in a gradual way. Observing...then being lost in distraction..then observing again..then being lost in distraction and so on (not ever being in distraction is full enlightenment). It is impossible even for very advanced practitioners not to be distracted ever. So, by practicing awareness/ observation gradually is the only way to advance. There is only gradual training even in the non-gradual systems like dzogchen. Working with the nature of mind, thoughts and emotions is gradual. So, advising people to not practice gradual systems is in my opinion a mistake. There is only gradual practice since gradualy you learn to observe better as your non dual mind becomes stronger. One more big mistake is to advice people not to follow teachers. There is no difference between any field of expertise regarding teachers. If you want to study economics and you find a good teacher you will advance you knowledge much faster than without or with a bad teacher. The same applies to meditation (observation). And still this is how Krishnamurti speaches operate. Like the speach of a teacher. There are hundreds of great teachers who practiced under other great teachers with enormous benefits and they say that their evolution was mainly due to their teacher's help and advice. So, Krishnamurti is very wrong to advice people to avoid teachers of all kinds. He should advice people on how to check and find if a teacher is worthy of following. If not avoid him/ her, if yes follow him/her with a critical mind. This is what will benefit people more. Apart from these I like the way he analyses things (he is still not a pioneer in what he says, analysis of all these things have been done in the past from various spiritual philosophers).
@@phantasma669 You wrote some interesting insights, but still if you say progress must be gradual, that implies that you plan to work on it through the time? I would consider this illusion, and dangerous mind play, and agree with K. What if you die tommorow, if you have cancer and dont have time to live? Then you will not have time to become "enlightened"? You just got to the middle of the way? I say drop all illusions now, be innocent like a child, and thats enlightment. But to drop illusion, first you need to realize it.
he explicitly does not believe in -nor value time-based gradualness. And many other teachers don't. It is always here and now. When/if we ever awaken, we will say in disbelief - 'but it was here all long' -perfectly pristine and full... Moreover, many teachers do not regard their 'prepration' as doing anything really for them!
An open question that must be asked! I’d argue that the best modern art and music, even math and science, was inspired without motive. Often arriving in dreams, flashes of insight, creative imagination. Yes, it seems impossible but the world’s mystical traditions speak to states of consciousness without object, motive or boundary. Krishnamurti is a practical mystic, calling to a transformation of humanity via direct consciousness. I suggest that if we don’t question the entrenched structures and assumptions of egoic consciousness on a broad scale, our species will destroy itself - along with much of the biosphere. With Krishnamurti we ask the questions that move us toward a humanity sensitive to beauty and truth.
Everything can be done without motive. Motive is the self! Once self is eliminated by the way of observation, motive also disappear. Motive is self! :)
Imho: Yes and no. You can empty yourself of all Intentions and learn to take action without thoughts in your mind. Karma Yoga/Jhana Yoga/Advaita says we aren’t the doer, we aren’t the mind. You can research these. There might still be some planning etc. happening in the mind, but you aren’t attached to it anymore. Your mind can more freely change and you are not dependent on the results of the actions anymore. Happiness flows freely :-)
I think it is important for us to look at the 5 stages of development of the ego. Consviousness under observation, is the last final development of the ego, at that point, we say 'i am. , a self made product. 'Isness' is what is, cannot be produced, it is totally unconditional. At this point Murti is wrong when he discourages meditation, it is only when we, 'consciouness are no more, that Awareness, Is.
I find it funny you say Murti. Is he a Harry Potter character? The one man who is magic. He says nothing about meditation here though. I will watch his videos on meditation tomorrow. Thank you
He says thought is the cause for the misery of mankind. He says is knowledge is limited. How can a man be without thought. It is like a blood circulation. Thought which is a biased ,prejudices ones alone can be problematic.Not the very aspects of thought itself. Similarly, how knowledge can be limited.Knowledge can give a better expanse of understanding. Mostly it is interpreted,he says only in psychological realm not in scientific or functional grounds. No psychologist or any prudent person will accept this. These are the fundamentals in which he is obviously wrong.
@@rajendranraj3621 i guess you didn't understand well what he said. in other videos he explains deeply. the duality of knowledge is ignorance, you cant have a coin with only one side therefore its always limited. he didn't say don't use thought but look what thought does.mostly people trying to find solutions through rational thinking which is only a part of human consciousness so they leave the other fragments out. so the understanding and the conclusions will always be biased as you are looking from a fixed perspective. the science is based only on thought and abstract ideas and experiments but humans are real and not based on concepts.
The gentleman is simply wrong, it's not a division between the two but a distinction between the two, there is definitely a clear difference between the two for example the unconscious sleep state is obviously not a part of the conscience state but has a huge impact on the conscience state, there are many more examples that was just one, your welcome
No sir you're wrong by dividing conciousness a person will not accept the content of his inner minds as his, he will find another way of escaping by saying this is not me this is my unconscious mind and he will keep on repeating same thing again and again.
This is a human being who went very very deep and came back to share what he learned. This is a fine example of his brilliant, prescient mind at work. Respect.
Kudos
Sooo grateful 🌞
Tears with immence Gratitude to this great man .
Epic level. When this division (of conscious and unconscious) is perceived as singular movement then this is exactly the point when one begins to transcend the constant occupation of the mind (whilst one is diligently observing oneself)
And reaches a point where u begin to have awareness not just awake but also when asleep (but aware).
It means when one sleeps he doesn't dream.. one is sleep.. because one is fully aware of all levels of consciousness during waking hours.. and ends all movements of the mind that very instant... almost impossible for a western mind . But possible.
I need to have a conversation with you😁
Dreams can be very powerful expressions not of the mind, but of the whole. K. is doubting peoples' ability to recognize such dreams as compared to the usual content of the dreams that stem from daily routines and obsessions or desires. The "numinous" dream is very very different in nature and can reveal a psychological connection to the whole, because it is not a product of the mind or self (when I say self I mean the ego, not the "atman").
id prod you to please be careful, because to come to some understanding or conclusion like for ex: perceiving "consciousness" in any particular way (divided/undivided) is in itself a distortion guided by motive, and to 'make sense' of 'anything' is to limit sensitivity, as true observation needs to be directionless, and the 'how to' being so heavily reliant on oneself to 'figure', mandates utmost diligence so as to avoid delusionment
Is this something true to you or are you just rephrasing things that is said and hoping to capture it?
It's true example of love for all mankind sat sat naman
This is a powerful talk which explains his process and how transformation is truly possible…🙏
NewCultureofPeace&Love…..Now!🙏
Amazing words by jk sir!
Thank you so much for your efforts to upload such insightful talks by J krishnamurti.
Best regards
amazing nickname either ;)
People, before analyzing this speech as right or wrong, think about this. Modern psychology hasn´t solved any particular mental illness until now, only "keep them under control". So we´re stuck in the same lessons given by therapists as Jung, Freud, etc. But those lessons keep attaching us into the same dilemma, the division between consciousness and unconsciousness. So, try to understand this footage without any psychological concept, and then maybe, you will find some sense on this video. It´s more simple than it looks like.
Unfree oneself from the conditioning of past knowledge.
right on, brother! Preach!
Lovely to listen to him
isn't this state of being open , admitting to not knowing itself intelligence
Mind blowing Because what we learned in psychology about dividing consciousness into conscious and unconscious and really apply soo much in life for analyzing..but which is creating more conflicts by dividing it the Consciousness...
Observe the whole movement...
It's there...not there!!!!!
Thanks so much for this.❤️❤️
Consciousness (both conscious and unconscious) is conditioned and the freedom from both results in the total clarity.
yayks. there is no freedom from something because it is conditioning freedom to exclude some and hold other things which is by definition not freedom obviously. is not it. am I wrong? who am I? LOL
Unconscious consciousness sounds like a contradiction.
It is very simply introducing the witness of duality, the neutral observer, then obviously, there will have to come the witness of the 3, and the observer of the etc, etc etc. He should finally explain the difference between consciousness and awareness and we are done.
there is no need to meditate to while watching his speech automatically the mind become quite what a wonderfull human being walk in this earth and i am proud his indian
Paraphrasing a few points:
Practice sensitivity. Cultivate attention. Urgent dispassionate attention. Attention without motive, without direction. Free. Wherever there is an intention, a desire, an expectation, that attention is devoid of sensitivity.
How to do that? Could you please explain?
Thank you for writing this .
Jiddu Krishnamurti, the king of profound questions. Is it possible to observe without direction, without motive or without wanting something out of it? Great question.
It is. But is it possible for everybody?
The moment one gives a direction or motive, one creates a division or duality, I m this I must achieve or do that. Motive by itself creates conflict in us and that leads to other problems of fear, guilt, Shame, hurt etc
Thank you
This is wise , brilliant.
You either understand...or you don't. If you don't understand, you are not going to find it in K's words. Or anyone else's. Freedom is rare. 😊
This has been the very comment I was searching for. "You are not going to find it in K's words" I do think if one can apply the energy, all the energy to these questions, of oneself, one will start to ask these questions on your own and that is the transformation, the transcendence he speaks of. Just observe this for a moment. Being so aware that you begin asking these very questions just because you have total observation.
Why would he bother to explain it to us then? He would just be silent as there is nothing to share since you either have that knowledge yourself or you cant even have it.
He always reveals a new aspect to me on oneness. Our preoccupation with division traps us further and further in a convoluted pattern of living. Working out these gordian knots is really becoming my life purpose.
A gordian knot by definition is an unsolvable problem. The mind has no problems, it is that way of thinking that gives direction to problems. It is you and I that give it these problems.
@@stephen2219 Agreed, just become no one and no one has a problem... .. .
I m grateful
I have read every comment on this video. All of these comments either ask a question desiring an answer or give opinion. I find myself watching Jiddu’s videos and the first thing I do is go to see what people have said about this particular video. It is that thinking that will keep me returning to the pattern of thought I have always had. The mind is like a monkey. It is only until one simply wants to observe and do nothing but that.
Mind is returning is not the problem Ig, we want to stop it from returning is the bigger problem. Can we allow our minds to return or not return, and leave it to take care of itself ( problem is by this one creates a new duality that "I must leave my mind to take care of itself" 🤦♂️ )
let yourself be intersted in the 'gossip'. I too am a bit like that. Let us just be aware of it, it is neither 'right' nor 'wrong' :)
I used to divide everything. Thought and me, my feelings and me etc.... But there is no division and hence no conflict.
without past knowledge present is nothing,,,,.tanq jk sir
This very basic understanding of human nature is a tragedy for not being taught to the populations.
It is so very basic. Like he says, "We are all just monkeys"
We are the ones who complicate.
I agree. Instead people come up with products like "love" and "fate" and so on
nice video
He on whom you depend may be far more conditioned than you! Be yourself!
--the profession of psychologists is in danger!
Plz send me the link of the full lecture
🔥🔥🔥
9:55 - "if you know how to read yourself."
❤️
He never said practice attention . In this speech he says practice attention and awareness ?
Is it wise to mix up mind and consciousness together? While you talk about the deeper unconscious -that’s nothing just a dream - the mind! It has nothing to do with consciousness! Even the so called conscious mind is not Consciounsness -it’s just the mind (it’s even worthless to use a word like conscious mind). Why we talk about mind (what is just an illusion, not existing at all) as if its a part of consciousness.
Understanding it may need tremendously sensitive order of these entities- I am sure JK as a giant of this issue has made it clear. Good luck!
Is there really any significance between shallowness and depth? Apart from
space between points it is the same thing.
one is insentient, done by the actor, but has little -if any consequence; the other is the deep, fundamental animal/being which acts in spite of what we are aware of. (Very, very different -as they stand... but they can be integrated..)
🙏🙏🙏
Wow
4:24- "the speaker is not here."
Dear J.K., dividing anything into exclusive parts is a mistake, it may be convenient and/or rational but it brings fuss instead of clarity (of course I'm talking to myself, who else here?)
right in this talk K mentioned, even while sitting in a group and discussing/analysing the reactions of the so called conscious mind, is as good as talking to one self.
You cant reach full awareness of your mind just like that. Gradual training is practiced from all spiritual systems. Even in non gradual systems like dzogchen the occupation of mind's movement is gradual unless you are a bodhisattva. I dont really understand how Krishnamurti expected from casual people to reach full enlightenment in a single moment...
He never expected. He wants us to ask ourselves these questions. To give as much energy to the observation of thought as we do with our surfaced thinking. (superficial thinking)
The thought behind the word enlightenment has its own desire. The state of being enlightened. A motive which gives thought a direction. Enlightenment is a conditioned word from the many past people who devoted their lives trying to discover this enlightenment.
@@stephen2219 thought can be occupied by mindfull awareness. Analyses on desires, thoughts, emotions, mind etc have been plenty throughout buddhist and vedanta literature from very very advanced meditation teachers. So, enlightenment is a word that can be used to describe sth with or without desire or motivation. In the shake of conversation we use it to describe the situation of no-distraction or meditation without meditating (in which every manifestation of mind's projection becomes the object of meditation e.g. thinking, eating, speaking, sleeping, walking, working etc).
Either one way or another Krishnamurti clearly advices against gradual training in any system of meditation. He clearly says don't follow other teachers and don't practice gradual meditation, just observe. This means that he expects people to "observe", as you say, fully (non-gradually). Being against gradual training means that he is even against practicing his own advice in a gradual way. Observing...then being lost in distraction..then observing again..then being lost in distraction and so on (not ever being in distraction is full enlightenment). It is impossible even for very advanced practitioners not to be distracted ever. So, by practicing awareness/ observation gradually is the only way to advance. There is only gradual training even in the non-gradual systems like dzogchen. Working with the nature of mind, thoughts and emotions is gradual. So, advising people to not practice gradual systems is in my opinion a mistake. There is only gradual practice since gradualy you learn to observe better as your non dual mind becomes stronger.
One more big mistake is to advice people not to follow teachers. There is no difference between any field of expertise regarding teachers. If you want to study economics and you find a good teacher you will advance you knowledge much faster than without or with a bad teacher. The same applies to meditation (observation). And still this is how Krishnamurti speaches operate. Like the speach of a teacher. There are hundreds of great teachers who practiced under other great teachers with enormous benefits and they say that their evolution was mainly due to their teacher's help and advice.
So, Krishnamurti is very wrong to advice people to avoid teachers of all kinds. He should advice people on how to check and find if a teacher is worthy of following. If not avoid him/ her, if yes follow him/her with a critical mind. This is what will benefit people more.
Apart from these I like the way he analyses things (he is still not a pioneer in what he says, analysis of all these things have been done in the past from various spiritual philosophers).
@@phantasma669 You wrote some interesting insights, but still if you say progress must be gradual, that implies that you plan to work on it through the time? I would consider this illusion, and dangerous mind play, and agree with K. What if you die tommorow, if you have cancer and dont have time to live? Then you will not have time to become "enlightened"? You just got to the middle of the way? I say drop all illusions now, be innocent like a child, and thats enlightment. But to drop illusion, first you need to realize it.
he explicitly does not believe in -nor value time-based gradualness. And many other teachers don't.
It is always here and now. When/if we ever awaken, we will say in disbelief - 'but it was here all long' -perfectly pristine and full... Moreover, many teachers do not regard their 'prepration' as doing anything really for them!
can anything be done without motive?
Depends what meaning you give to the word "motive"...
K. Says: Love without motive is what we need to spread ☺️
#makelovework
An open question that must be asked! I’d argue that the best modern art and music, even math and science, was inspired without motive. Often arriving in dreams, flashes of insight, creative imagination. Yes, it seems impossible but the world’s mystical traditions speak to states of consciousness without object, motive or boundary. Krishnamurti is a practical mystic, calling to a transformation of humanity via direct consciousness.
I suggest that if we don’t question the entrenched structures and assumptions of egoic consciousness on a broad scale, our species will destroy itself - along with much of the biosphere. With Krishnamurti we ask the questions that move us toward a humanity sensitive to beauty and truth.
Everything can be done without motive. Motive is the self! Once self is eliminated by the way of observation, motive also disappear. Motive is self!
:)
Imho: Yes and no.
You can empty yourself of all Intentions and learn to take action without thoughts in your mind.
Karma Yoga/Jhana Yoga/Advaita says we aren’t the doer, we aren’t the mind. You can research these.
There might still be some planning etc. happening in the mind, but you aren’t attached to it anymore. Your mind can more freely change and you are not dependent on the results of the actions anymore.
Happiness flows freely :-)
Who are all theses people? By Joe...
2000 views in 4 hours wow...
🪔👏👍
28/08/2021
That means that Freud and Jung were wrong?
Krishna Ji doesn't say that, if u r still thinking in terms of right or wrong, u live in conflict and duality
No, not wrong, but not seing biger picture like J.K.
I like C.Jung but J.K ....he is speaking from eter.
I think it is important for us to look at the 5 stages of development of the ego. Consviousness under observation, is the last final development of the ego, at that point, we say 'i am. , a self made product. 'Isness' is what is, cannot be produced, it is totally unconditional. At this point Murti is wrong when he discourages meditation, it is only when we, 'consciouness are no more, that Awareness, Is.
I find it funny you say Murti. Is he a Harry Potter character? The one man who is magic. He says nothing about meditation here though. I will watch his videos on meditation tomorrow. Thank you
Maybe far better than the religious gurus...but it seems wrong in certain fundamentals.
What are those fundamentals
He says thought is the cause for the misery of mankind. He says is knowledge is limited. How can a man be without thought. It is like a blood circulation. Thought which is a biased ,prejudices ones alone can be problematic.Not the very aspects of thought itself. Similarly, how knowledge can be limited.Knowledge can give a better expanse of understanding. Mostly it is interpreted,he says only in psychological realm not in scientific or functional grounds. No psychologist or any prudent person will accept this. These are the fundamentals in which he is obviously wrong.
@@rajendranraj3621 i guess you didn't understand well what he said. in other videos he explains deeply. the duality of knowledge is ignorance, you cant have a coin with only one side therefore its always limited. he didn't say don't use thought but look what thought does.mostly people trying to find solutions through rational thinking which is only a part of human consciousness so they leave the other fragments out. so the understanding and the conclusions will always be biased as you are looking from a fixed perspective. the science is based only on thought and abstract ideas and experiments but humans are real and not based on concepts.
@@anestos2180 .great .look like u have some k understanding.
The gentleman is simply wrong, it's not a division between the two but a distinction between the two, there is definitely a clear difference between the two for example the unconscious sleep state is obviously not a part of the conscience state but has a huge impact on the conscience state, there are many more examples that was just one, your welcome
No sir you're wrong by dividing conciousness a person will not accept the content of his inner minds as his, he will find another way of escaping by saying this is not me this is my unconscious mind and he will keep on repeating same thing again and again.
🙏
🙏
🙏
🙏❤️