alfa Posted March 25, 2009 Hi, J Krishnamurti asserts that there's no thinker or observer. For instance, when there's anger, we say I am angry. Or, if there's fear, we say I am afraid, and so forth. From this, it's obvious that the "I" doesn't exist as a separate entity, it simply takes the form of anger, fear, or whatever feeling or thought that comes by. Doesn't all this mean we are totally helpless, and that we couldn't possibly make any effort toward meditation etc.? If the "I" has no existence, then who's gonna make the effort? How is effort even possible, when "I" doesn't exist as a permanent entity? I'd like to hear your ideas on this. Alfa Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thelerner Posted March 25, 2009 As I understand it, you can't point to a permanent I, but you can do things. You're reading right now. Your i is reading. No permanent I but an 'ing' . You can go eating, speaking, pooping, meditating, loving. You are what you ing, so do it well with full attention. Are we Awareness surfing the now, falling off the board again and again. On the board, off the board, so what? we're all in the same ocean. Ah, but what about the big Kahunas? The ones who sit on the beach and point? Hmmnnnn. Random thoughts Michael Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goldisheavy Posted March 25, 2009 (edited) Hi, J Krishnamurti asserts that there's no thinker or observer. J Krishnamurti is wrong then. But why would he say something like that? It's because of our habit to look at particulars. If you expect some particulars of experience to represent the thinker -- this leads to disappointment. So when you have such expectation in mind and come away disappointed after realizing that no particular element of experience represents the thinker, you might declare "there is no thinker". The trouble is that you had a bad expectation to begin with. You were expecting to find a thinker that's like an element among elements. Failing that you declare "it doesn't exist". It's like saying "I expect the sky to be under my feet". Then you look down and you see earth. You keep looking and looking. Eventually you get tired and disappointed and you declare "There is no sky". In reality the sky exists, but you were making an incorrect assumption about it and thus couldn't find it. To find the nature of the thinker, one has to examine one's own experience and assumptions very very carefully. People are so used to looking for objects, that if something is not an object, it's as if it's not real or they can't find it. That problem must be addressed in contemplation. For instance, when there's anger, we say I am angry. Or, if there's fear, we say I am afraid, and so forth. From this, it's obvious that the "I" doesn't exist as a separate entity, it simply takes the form of anger, fear, or whatever feeling or thought that comes by. It's not obvious at all. When you are angry, is anger all that you are? When you are happy, is happiness all that you are? For me, the answer is no. No matter how angry I am, it's not the entirety of my being. And no matter how happy I am, that's not the entirety of my being either. So I am not my anger and I am not my happiness. If I watch a movie I am not the movie. I have alternatives. Were I to be anger, then I'd have no alternative but to always be angry. If I can be or not be angry, then anger is my manifestation but not the entirety of who I am. Being angry is like holding a fist. Is my hand a fist? Nope. I can open my hand too. I have alternatives available to me. I can hold my hand open or clenched, but my hand is neither a fist nor an open palm. My hand is a dynamic happening that transcends fixed positions and narrow-minded definitions. Doesn't all this mean we are totally helpless, and that we couldn't possibly make any effort toward meditation etc.? If the "I" has no existence, then who's gonna make the effort? How is effort even possible, when "I" doesn't exist as a permanent entity? You can make the effort. However, when you struggle in your effort, what is resisting you? Is something other than you resisting you? If true, then this "other than you" appears where? Does it appear outside of your mind or inside? If "other than you" appears inside your mind, how is it outside? One more. Let's say you see a building. It's far away. That's how you feel. You feel it is distant, right? This feeling of "distantness" -- is it distant? Where is the feeling? So then where is the house again? Think it over. Try it actually on the actual house. Edited March 25, 2009 by goldisheavy Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steve Posted March 26, 2009 Hi, J Krishnamurti asserts that there's no thinker or observer. For instance, when there's anger, we say I am angry. Or, if there's fear, we say I am afraid, and so forth. From this, it's obvious that the "I" doesn't exist as a separate entity, it simply takes the form of anger, fear, or whatever feeling or thought that comes by. Doesn't all this mean we are totally helpless, and that we couldn't possibly make any effort toward meditation etc.? If the "I" has no existence, then who's gonna make the effort? How is effort even possible, when "I" doesn't exist as a permanent entity? I'd like to hear your ideas on this. Alfa The way I understand JK's message is a bit different. He does not ask you to accept any assertions. He asks you to inquire for yourself and that inquiry must be your own affair. You must find out if there is a thinker or observer for yourself, if you are interested in that. He can guide you a bit but you must do the work - not him, or anyone else. He tells you to look for and find yourself so that you come to know exactly what "I" is. When you find your own answers, they will be knowledge, not belief. One of his core messages is that there is no path to the truth - it is a personal investigation. The guru's role is very limited. He never really says that there is no I, rather he helps you see what it is. You must commit a great deal of energy to this. It takes time, patience, and perseverance. It's worth the effort, if that is what you choose to spend your time doing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trevcaru Posted March 26, 2009 Krishnamurti never asserted that there is no thinker or observer. "MZ: Are you saying that then there is only inquiry, there is no inquired or inquirer? Krishnamurti: No, i would say that there is only infinite watching. There is no watcher in watching, but extraordinary vitality and energy in watching, because you have watched the whole psychological, subjective world. And now when you are watching, there is no background which is watching; there is only watching 'as is.' You see, that means with great attention, and in that attention there is no entity who is attending; there is only attention that has space, that is totally quiet, silent, that has a tremendous gathering of energy, and therefore there is a total absence of self-interest. Now is that possible for a human being?" One more. Let's say you see a building. It's far away. That's how you feel. You feel it is distant, right? This feeling of "distantness" -- is it distant? Where is the feeling? So then where is the house again? Think it over. Try it actually on the actual house. The feeling of 'distantness' is desire. It's not obvious at all. When you are angry, is anger all that you are? When you are happy, is happiness all that you are? For me, the answer is no. No matter how angry I am, it's not the entirety of my being.... ...I have alternatives available to me. If you use that logic, then am i everything that is an alternative option? Im not sure i understand what you are implying. I see that yes we are divided cause we are running from that which we feel. If we are able to stay with what we are, then the observer and the observed are one. Separation is the naming of a thing so i dont have to look at it, so i can distance myself from that thing. Im not talking of a physical distance, but a psychological. I agree that we are divided, when i am angry i run to happiness, i distance myself. And when i am happy i may feel bitterness as well.... so i ask, can we be that happiness? Can i feel that thing with all of me, without the separation? Effort is striving. Striving is when i have something in my mind and i want to become that thing. Im not talking of a math problem or something like this, i mean psychologically. I may have this idea of this person i want to be, or this idea i have of this virtue, or nobility, or being honorable, or nice, or compassionate. So i make effort to become all these things. This is the ego, these images that we create of these things that are based on our memories of them, and we name them things like happiness and the like. And we strive to become them. Effort, which is desire, is really the ego; the becoming of the images we have. We overlay these images in our perception, distorting it in order to act out our ideas that we think will be impressionable on others. We mistakenly see ourselves as these fragmented images, and try and play it off as a wholeness. In our mistaken identity we look for sustenance by impressing our image upon others. This is the definition of violence. We are violent. It is competitive cause it is limited. It is thought, memory, and that memory is seeking sustenance, security. It must be violent, it must be competitive cause it is quantitative, it is limited. It is my group, my religion, my country, my flag, and we defend what we think is our selves; all the things we associate ourselves with... all the things that we strive to become, our desires. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
alfa Posted March 30, 2009 Krishnamurti never asserted that there is no thinker or observer. would contradict Krishnamurti: There is no watcher in watching Which is why, I'd like some clarification. JK emphatically stated that what we call 'observer' is the 'observed' and the separation is an illusion. That's why I'd like to know who's making the effort, if there's no I. Or, if there's no observer, how can there an observation? I observe the tree, but I am not the tree. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trevcaru Posted March 30, 2009 Which is why, I'd like some clarification. JK emphatically stated that what we call 'observer' is the 'observed' and the separation is an illusion. That's why I'd like to know who's making the effort, if there's no I. Or, if there's no observer, how can there an observation? I observe the tree, but I am not the tree. Its nothing that i can give to you, or krishnamurti can give to you, or anyone else for that matter. So find out! If your really interested, then you will find out. You can read a million books, a million blogs, or whatever these are, but can they give this thing to you? what thing? is there anything? Im not trying to be smart or quirky; im looking at this. Are you? or are you meeting this with all these things, these ideologies you have; are you comparing, analyzing things in relation to other things.... the question of inquiry is inquiry. Am i right? i dont want you to accept what im saying. Thats not what we are doing. Are we inquiring, or are we entertaining? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
