Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
General Discussion | moderated by Dev Singh

For the thinker only thinkers exist


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 79 in total
Mon, 16 Feb 2015 #1
Thumb_stringio Mina Martini Finland 749 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

The thinker can only see other thinkers around it.

It cannot see anything else.

...

Can we look into the above statement afresh, without any judgement, any conclusion, any bias?

"But you already know, you just stated a judgement yourself", could be a good example of a reaction.

Can we please see that also, which of course does not mean that the statement is taken for true..

Can we look into it, together, to see together whether it holds water or not? But not know, not know!

Can we discover together what can be behind that statement?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 16 Feb 2015 #2
Thumb_avatar Ravi Seth India 1573 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
The thinker can only see other thinkers around it.

It cannot see anything else.

Does not the thinker accept / see that there is thinking too?

...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 16 Feb 2015 #3
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 1362 posts in this forum Offline

" The thinker can only see other thinkers around it.
I cannot see see anything else"

I do.

I see the dust he/she is thinking of, or the fact he is enquiring, investigating and so the thinker is not important at all it is what and how he/she is thinking off is of interest.

Truth will unfold itself to those who enquire their own actions.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 16 Feb 2015 #4
Thumb_stringio Mina Martini Finland 749 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Ravi:Does not the thinker accept / see that there is thinking too?

Mina: What do you mean by 'thinking', do you mean something separate from the thinker?

The original statement 'the thinker can only see other thinkers' in other words means that for as long as we look from division, division is all that we can see, even if we were looking at or listening to something that does not originate from that division.

So, what is 'thinking' for a thinker other than a movement of itself?

This post was last updated by Mina Martini (account deleted) Mon, 16 Feb 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 16 Feb 2015 #5
Thumb_stringio Mina Martini Finland 749 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dear Wim,

Mina:" The thinker can only see other thinkers around it.
I cannot see see anything else"

Wim:I do.

I see the dust he/she is thinking of, or the fact he is enquiring, investigating and so the thinker is not important at all it is what and how he/she is thinking off is of interest.

Mina: There is some mistake, perhaps unintentional, in my quoted words above. Was saying:

The thinker can only see other thinkers around it. IT cannot see anything else.

Have a look, if you will, at a further clarification in my reply no.4 to Ravi.

So, the seeing of anything else than thought/thinker is already a different movement, not thought.

This post was last updated by Mina Martini (account deleted) Mon, 16 Feb 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 16 Feb 2015 #6
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Mina Martini wrote:
Can we look into the above statement afresh, without any judgement, any conclusion, any bias?

Probably not, Mina. The moment one starts to consider the statement, associations are made with previously formed ideas, realizations, interests, etc, such that many linkages are renewed which inform exactly how the statement is looked at. Probably, all one can do, as one moves along, is to notice and question the associations that come up and see freshly whether they are relevant, valid and verifiable.

Most of what 'comes' to one arises from past experience, mediated by unconscious emotional content. Being as there is no method to avoid this, the observant thinker is always sensing the past in the present and questioning it anew.

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 16 Feb 2015 #7
Thumb_stringio Mina Martini Finland 749 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

'Probably not, Mina. The moment one starts to consider the statement, associations are made with previously formed ideas, realizations, interests, etc, such that many linkages are renewed which inform exactly how the statement is looked at. Probably, all one can do, as one moves along, is to notice and question the associations that come up and see freshly whether they are relevant, valid and verifiable.

Most of what 'comes' to one arises from past experience, mediated by unconscious emotional content. Being as there is no method to avoid this, the observant thinker is always sensing the past in the present and questioning it anew.'

Mina: Right, you are very well describing the subtlely of thought as the past experience being carried on to present, unconsciously and consciously. This clearly implies all that you point to above. That is the very movement of the thinker, yes? It is the leftover or the outcome of things not fully seen.

Is it possible NOT to 'consider the statement', but simply to look at it, being totally attentive to all this movements you describe? (it IS)(adding that because this is not some theoretical invitation)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 16 Feb 2015 #8
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

This is a great topic, Mina.

Mina Martini wrote:
The thinker can only see other thinkers around it.

The thinker's milieu is the known and the past, and this is the milieu of all thinkers. Yes, they have this in common.

But there is more than the known, the past, memory. There is the present, and thinking/thinker/thought can never approach or understand the present because the past cannot be brought into the present -- it is a matter of sequence. The present unfolds, it does not rewind and retract.

The thinker is a construct of the brain, and so the thinker is incapable of seeing, incapable of action or reaction of any kind. Thinking/thinker/thought are one, an inert psychological creation of the physical brain.

It is the physical human being that identifies itself as "separate" through its thinking. Take away thinking, and the human sense of separation disappears.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 16 Feb 2015 #9
Thumb_stringio David T United Kingdom 124 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dear Minnie,
This maybe relavent,then maybe not.
It was once seen that what others were thinking was not what they were thinking but rather what I thought they were thinker. Hence not only do I create the thinker in me but also the thinker in others. The thinker is an illusion creating an illusion. therefore the thinker in you is the thinker in me,a delussion caused by an illusion.

I am a figment of my and your imagination

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 16 Feb 2015 #10
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

David T wrote:
The thinker is an illusion creating an illusion.

Only the physical brain can create the thinker. Only the physical brain can create illusion. The entire psychological is imaginary. Through belief and ignorance, we give the psychological "self" the reality of being . . . ourself.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 16 Feb 2015 #11
Thumb_avatar Ravi Seth India 1573 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
So, what is 'thinking' for a thinker other than a movement of itself?

If it was, the whole world would know it since you have been repeating the 'World is One'?

Kindly muse over it before uttering any word from the state of Romanticism.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 16 Feb 2015 #12
Thumb_avatar Ravi Seth India 1573 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
Only the physical brain can create illusion

Max is a special case whose brain creates illusion without being aware that it is the culprit.

Dear Max, kindly reply why would the brain create illusion for itself that gives it untold miseries?

There are better ways to end the body for example jhuttka than halal.

This post was last updated by Ravi Seth Mon, 16 Feb 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 16 Feb 2015 #13
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Mina Martini wrote:
Is it possible NOT to 'consider the statement', but simply to look at it, being totally attentive to all this movements you describe? (it IS)(adding that because this is not some theoretical invitation)

All I can say is that, to the extent one can observe the reactive movement in oneself, that movement loses its vitality, its power to 'do.'

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 16 Feb 2015 #14
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

David T wrote:
Hence not only do I create the thinker in me but also the thinker in others.

Not quite: What you create is the image of their being a separate thinker in the other, as there has been created the image of a separate thinker in yourself. But you create nothing in the other, neither anything actual nor anything illusory. You have the power to share illusions, but it depends on the other to accept them.

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

This post was last updated by Pavil Davidov (account deleted) Mon, 16 Feb 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 16 Feb 2015 #15
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Ravi Seth wrote:
Max is a special case whose brain creates illusion without being aware that it is the culprit.

"Please forget the past, the future is bright ahead. Don't be cruel, to a heart that's true." Elvis Presley

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 16 Feb 2015 #16
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Ravi Seth wrote:
. . . reply why would the brain create illusion for itself that gives it untold miseries?

Why does the child stick its finger into the electric light socket? Out of ignorance.

Why does the adult become an alcoholic, create such untold misery for himself? Out of ignorance.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 16 Feb 2015 #17
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
Why does the adult become an alcoholic, create such untold misery for himself? Out of ignorance.

Yes I agree, still there is a missing link ...

Why does an adult become an alcoholic ? ... out of suffering (alcohol alleviates some of his pains and psychological suffering, in this sense alcohol is kind of 'self-medication' like all other 'addictions') ...

and why does he suffer ?

... out of ignorance

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 16 Feb 2015 #18
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Absolutely correct, Jean. We suffer out of ignorance. We hurt physically.

We do what we understand. When we don't understand, we act out of ignorance. Out of ignorance we create chaos in our lives and in the lives of others.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 16 Feb 2015 #19
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
We do what we understand. When we don't understand, we act out of ignorance.

Yes, and when we understand, ALL addictions collapse by themselves, without any effort ... just because there is no need for addictions any more ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 16 Feb 2015 #20
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
Why does the child stick its finger into the electric light socket? Out of ignorance.

Out of curiosity, obviously.

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 16 Feb 2015 #21
Thumb_stringio mike c United States 941 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Jean Gatti wrote:
Yes, and when we understand, ALL addictions collapse by themselves, without any effort ... just because there is no need for addictions any more ...

Voila!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 16 Feb 2015 #22
Thumb_stringio mike c United States 941 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Mina Martini wrote:
The thinker can only see other thinkers around it.

It cannot see anything else.

It projects everyone, out of images.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 16 Feb 2015 #23
Thumb_stringio Mina Martini Finland 749 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

'It projects everyone, out of images.'

mina: Bravo, good to read clarity before going to sleep :-)

Would add: Being a projection by itself, the thinker cannot but project everyone else too, out of images.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 16 Feb 2015 #24
Thumb_stringio Mina Martini Finland 749 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Paul:All I can say is that, to the extent one can observe the reactive movement in oneself, that movement loses its vitality, its power to 'do.'

Mina: Beautiful, yes.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 16 Feb 2015 #25
Thumb_avatar Ravi Seth India 1573 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
Why does the child stick its finger into the electric light socket? Out of ignorance.

Why does the adult become an alcoholic, create such untold misery for himself? Out of ignorance.

max greene wrote:
Absolutely correct, Jean. We suffer out of ignorance. We hurt physically

Now it must be clear to you dear Max, that Illusion is not Ignorance.

I have never considered you to be illusioned, but ignorant, yes. Thus the brain does not create any illusions. It acts out of Ignorance.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 17 Feb 2015 #26
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Ravi Seth wrote:
. . . the brain does not create any illusions. It acts out of Ignorance.

The brain, acting out of ignorance rather than through intelligence, creates illusion. For example, the illusion of the self. The brain creates the self and then believes this imaginary creation is real.

If the brain is not the source of illusion, then where does illusion come from? The brain mistakes something for what it is not. I call that illusion.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Tue, 17 Feb 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 17 Feb 2015 #27
Thumb_avatar Ravi Seth India 1573 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
The brain, acting out of ignorance rather than through intelligence, creates illusion. For example, the illusion of the self. The brain creates the self and then believes this imaginary creation is real.

LOL.

Thus the brain first is in Ignorance and out of this Ignorance creates an illusion and that Illusion then creates misery. Was Ignorance not enough to create misery in the first place?

Are we not missing something obvious again, dear Max?

If the brain is not the source of illusion, then where does illusion come from? The brain mistakes something for what it is not. I call that illusion.

The brain does not create any illusions since it cannot as it is a machine a mechanical / biological robot. For the robot to work there is creation of the self by intelligence that tells the body it is hot, it is cold, it is OK for the body that is not OK for the body, through senses. Otherwise senses had no role to play if there was not 'another' that could understand what senses convey. Without that self there wouldn't be any movement. It would be, in the absence of self just a mechanical contraption like a camera that clicks pictures without anybody to understand those pictures. This is called Davita in Hindu philosophy. Dvaita is as Advaita is. There is no difference between the two. In both there is intelligence from bottom to up.

In other words oneness and Duality are same yet different.

Ignorance of the same creates misery. There cannot be any illusion when intelligence is in play though every possibility for the information to travel and time dependent for travel in a time dependant world.

This time dependence for the information is broken through the fire inside that twenty four hours says No this is not it, this is not it.

Net.... Neti

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 17 Feb 2015 #28
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5547 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
The thinker can only see other thinkers around it.

It cannot see anything else.

Maybe this is just another pointless, dead end statement by someone obsessed with appearing to be an authority? Someone who wants so desperately to appear to be deep and profound. Maybe this statement is just pure gibberish and not worth the time and effort?

Why not discuss what is the thinker and thought? I know these words have been discussed relentlessly on this forum but maybe you need to go through it again.

Do you just make this junk up while brushing your teeth or what? Or did it "come to you in the night"?

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Tue, 17 Feb 2015.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 17 Feb 2015 #29
Thumb_stringio steve sds United States 746 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Jack wrote: "This is a site for the discussion of what Krishnamurti pointed out about life."

Hey Jack, i have a suggestion: Why dont you initiate some more threads, share some more about your understanding of Krishnamurtis teachings, what he pointed out. I am most interested in hearing more and i am sure others are too.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 17 Feb 2015 #30
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
The thinker can only see other thinkers around it.

It cannot see anything else.

...

Can we discover together what can be behind that statement?

Hello Mina,

I come back to your initial question (as I feel inspired :-).

Thought creates a limitation, a fragmentation of the whole, the totality ... this limitation means that thought identifies awareness with a limited form (ie. a body, a fragment), which is ego or self: the 'me', the 'thinker' ... creating an 'inside' and an 'outside, a 'center' and a 'periphery' ... a division, a duality, a fragmentation ...

Hence because of this identity as a limited 'me', thought also creates 'identities' in the 'others' (as limited forms too) ... and the 'thinker' thinks that there are other 'thinkers' all around, in the 'periphery' ...

... and thought never questions this fundamental postulate ... until 'something' happens ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 79 in total
To quote a portion of this post in your reply, first select the text and then click this "Quote" link.

(N.B. Be sure to insert an empty line between the quoted text and your reply.)