" In oneself lies the whole world, and if one knows how to look and learn, then the door is there and the key is in your hand. Nobody else can give one one either that, key or the door to open, except yourself. Living, learning and acting are not three separate things. When the "observer" is the "observed" conflict ceases. Learning like seeing is a great art.
It's amazing to see how inteluctualists and philosophers create and lose themselves in abstractions, a labyrinth of words... Krishnamurti's patience is incredible. Unfortunately they always end up lost un their egos, playing a tug o war, untill they see that K has got both ends of the rope in his hands. 😅
Can you observe without a observer ? Yes, babies are great example. If you observe them carefully they are truly observing without obseever. Without judging.... Once the ego is formed well so is the memory , experience etc.
True that babies are the great example BUT with years of conditioning a self is formed now whatever you see, feel, smell and so on so... Is through that self=observer=Thinker=Thought Now as explained by J in many other videos that "you" have to be completely attentive or in this video ..can "You" observe without the observer? That very You is the observer hence it becomes impossible for one negate the self totally then only observation remains no question of "You i.e. observer" theoretically it is understood but I am not able to "Be" I wonder if I am making sense... PLEASE HELP ME FURTHER 🙏
I have better words instead of observer that is sense of self . And childrens do have that ! They have sense of self it's not ego or words in there head 'I ' it's the sense of self .but sense of self can also vanish , example - listen to something which sustained for 10 seconds , pay your full attention on it and after that you will feel like there was no sense of self
@@FallenAngelsRecords In meditation it's possible people can reached to that state,some cannot recognize,so lost feeling of them as something sitting or living inside body .I don't know it's kind looks scary because we don't usually lives like this what it to live without you????
This is beautiful! It’s like saying can there be listening without a listener? Yes! Listener is only a thought….listening is the actual experience🙏 the mind can only understand something in distinction to itself but the mind itself is only a thought🙏
I completely understand this, where this level of teaching needs very deep discussion is because hpw we relate to wording. Some say consciousness, awareness or observer. These can all be internalised as either mind or the thing behind the mind, which is experiencing the mind. I relate to it as observer or my awareness. Some might see these words and automatically think I'm speaking about mind.
"Observer is the past.Can i look at something without the past?Yes.Then ofcourse its possible " which is observing without the observer.wow. This sentence concluded the whole video❤️❤️
Observe without making anything out of the observed thing. Without thought interfering to understand, to name, to measure, to make sense, etc. Just bare senses only. As if seeing, hearing, smelling, touching, tasting for the very first time. And the brain is so silent that it doesn't try to compile anything of it. Then there is only observation. No observer and the observed. They are one.
As you dream you are the protagonist of the dream and everything like the people around you the environment, object, everything. You dream everything what you see, so why not the "real life" is the same as the dream, you and others are the same thing a consciousness but in such form that can interact with each other. there is no such thing like separation or distance between objects because you are all that dream awareness scenario
What about autonomous movement like breathing or walking? We don't think about each breath all day or about each step before we take it. We don't manually beat our hearts or digest our food. That would be very tedious. Now that it is seen in this way, pretty much everything done during the day can be done without thinking 😂. As I see it, these bodies are moving around on their own, and thought makes a division within itself that says "I move", this I is also a thought, and therefore, there is no real identity as the "thinker", thinking also seems to be automatic. So, as thinking has no real stable identity, then there is no "me". As soon as this fact is grasped, the psychological monolog just stops. Trying to do anything with thought just comes to a halt.
Btw, I shouldn’t criticise too much because the time and energy it takes to put out these videos is much appreciated, but I find the title descriptions for the videos to often be misleading. The question of the observer only comes up in the last minute or so of the video, and they do not explain the issue very clearly. The topic of the extract has more to do with the nature of thought: whether thought is centred in the brain, or outside the brain 🧠 ; is thought an action, a form of relationship, a movement of the past?; and whether thought has an origin, a beginning, a ground - i.e. either in memory, in the matter of the brain, or in “limitless space” (per Varela).
It is a very arduous idea that the observer is the observed. We understand that the past is me, the me is the central point of thought. So observing without the observer mean negating the me within. Is there a person in this JK community that can observe without the observer. With all the respect to JK, he says it is possible. How can we observe without the observer, indicates a system, a method which is not the way in understanding me. Again is there a person in this community who could do this & explain us.
You observe without the known. Seeing is always new. I suspect that any instructions on this are not of much use. Either you choose the truth or you follow the illusions.
The observer is time bound in the past and That which is observed is also time bound in the past. The observation happens in the moment. In the here now the observer observation observed co emerge all at once as a single experience. There is just this All at onceness that is known
There is no “me”, that’s the whole teaching that’s never really explicitly said because that insight has to take place within the listener. The ego is the self trying to understand what it is. The ego is all knowledge as memory, conclusions, desires, etc, etc. When there is perception (insight) into this fact the whole thing unravels. The unknown becomes known and can never be put into words. The “me” is the ego, which is separate. When there’s no “me” the whole is perceived and the self which distinguishes (by thinking) vanishes into the All. There is no “sense” of “You”. You are it. You are life, life-ing. Life can’t perceive itself unless it separates(the ego). Which then begins this illusory journey of division and finding and answer to itself. This is why it can’t be explained with words as we would be caught in the very thing thats being avoided. There nothing to do or find out. When you have a question, ask, who’s asking? The same way this comment is meaningless unless there is “seeing”, “perception”, “complete attention”. In the end there should only be the question then the realization or perception. No answer. You are It!!! The Answer to all the questions is You!
Krishnamurti can often be unclear in his communication, but Shainberg and Varela are off the charts in being obfuscating. A shortened version of the dialogue: K: Would you say that the brain is the centre of thought, feelings, physical responses, one’s consciousness, fears, pleasure, anxiety, sorrow, all that? Varela: No. Thought is not [centred] in the brain, it is a relationship. K: So what is thought? Varela: Thought is a form of action which is related to separating a unit from its context. [What now?] Shainberg: *waffles something about de nouveau something* Therefore it [thought] is an emergent event. K: What is it [thought] emerging from? Shainberg: *waffles something about you cannot ask that question* What is the action [of thought]? K: Ok, so what do we mean by action, what is the movement of thought? Varela: *waffles something about obscuring something* The source of thought is an unlimited space. K: Thought must have some causation. Can there be an observation of this causation? So, to summarise, for Varela thought does not emerge from the brain, it is a form of action related to separating a unit from its context, and the source of this action is an unlimited space. Clear?
Observe atentamente isso, segundo K. o observado está separado do observador para o resto da humanidade, certo? Tudo isso com base em repetição , treinamento, propaganda, lavagem em regra etc. Do contrário a coisa escapa...
No comments? Thought comes from the mind not from the Brain since the brain is just the machinery to put the thought into words and concepts and into physical body actions.
For Krishnamurti thought is a material process taking place in the neurochemistry of the brain. This is also what neuroscientists are saying. Krishnamurti also talked sometimes (though not in this dialogue) about a ‘mind outside the brain’; but this, according to him, has nothing whatsoever to do with thought and memory, which are limited material processes centred in the matter of the brain.
@@jamesmacdougall2795 yes it is a material process not just for krishnamurti but for ourselves too... watch yourself then you will know how thought takes shape
He was almost 90 years old and this was also 2 years before he left this earth.
What a unique human being.
“The observer is the past, memory, knowledge…”
" In oneself lies the whole world, and if one knows how to look and learn, then the door is there and the key is in your hand. Nobody else can give one one either that, key or the door to open, except yourself.
Living, learning and acting are not three separate things.
When the "observer" is the "observed" conflict ceases.
Learning like seeing is a great art.
It's amazing to see how inteluctualists and philosophers create and lose themselves in abstractions, a labyrinth of words... Krishnamurti's patience is incredible.
Unfortunately they always end up lost un their egos, playing a tug o war, untill they see that K has got both ends of the rope in his hands. 😅
Exactly
precisely
Can you observe without a observer ? Yes, babies are great example. If you observe them carefully they are truly observing without obseever. Without judging.... Once the ego is formed well so is the memory , experience etc.
True that babies are the great example BUT with years of conditioning a self is formed now whatever you see, feel, smell and so on so... Is through that self=observer=Thinker=Thought
Now as explained by J in many other videos that "you" have to be completely attentive or in this video ..can "You" observe without the observer?
That very You is the observer hence it becomes impossible for one negate the self totally then only observation remains no question of "You i.e. observer" theoretically it is understood but I am not able to "Be" I wonder if I am making sense... PLEASE HELP ME FURTHER 🙏
I have better words instead of observer that is sense of self . And childrens do have that ! They have sense of self it's not ego or words in there head 'I ' it's the sense of self .but sense of self can also vanish , example - listen to something which sustained for 10 seconds , pay your full attention on it and after that you will feel like there was no sense of self
I feel babies just see they don't observe. Observation is never possible without the I, the ego formed with your experiences.
@@FallenAngelsRecords In meditation it's possible people can reached to that state,some cannot recognize,so lost feeling of them as something sitting or living inside body .I don't know it's kind looks scary because we don't usually lives like this what it to live without you????
Good example
Jiddu was and remains, one of the enigmatic beings to ever alight here on Earth. We were never ready for him, and we never will.
This is beautiful! It’s like saying can there be listening without a listener?
Yes! Listener is only a thought….listening is the actual experience🙏 the mind can only understand something in distinction to itself but the mind itself is only a thought🙏
I completely understand this, where this level of teaching needs very deep discussion is because hpw we relate to wording. Some say consciousness, awareness or observer. These can all be internalised as either mind or the thing behind the mind, which is experiencing the mind. I relate to it as observer or my awareness. Some might see these words and automatically think I'm speaking about mind.
Meu, pai. O véinho chega como kkkkkkk obrigado pra sempre, KrishnaJi
This is simply mind-blowing!!
"Observer is the past.Can i look at something without the past?Yes.Then ofcourse its possible " which is observing without the observer.wow.
This sentence concluded the whole video❤️❤️
Can anyone help me understand observing without the observer? PLEASE 🙏
Observe without making anything out of the observed thing. Without thought interfering to understand, to name, to measure, to make sense, etc. Just bare senses only. As if seeing, hearing, smelling, touching, tasting for the very first time. And the brain is so silent that it doesn't try to compile anything of it. Then there is only observation. No observer and the observed. They are one.
It is a super power.
Thoughts looking itself means thoughts observing the thoughts beacause everything r thoughts.
Great Minds
6:28 😂😂😂 man got excitedd
As you dream you are the protagonist of the dream and everything like the people around you the environment, object, everything.
You dream everything what you see, so why not the "real life" is the same as the dream, you and others are the same thing a consciousness but in such form that can interact with each other.
there is no such thing like separation or distance between objects because you are all that dream awareness scenario
What about autonomous movement like breathing or walking? We don't think about each breath all day or about each step before we take it. We don't manually beat our hearts or digest our food. That would be very tedious. Now that it is seen in this way, pretty much everything done during the day can be done without thinking 😂. As I see it, these bodies are moving around on their own, and thought makes a division within itself that says "I move", this I is also a thought, and therefore, there is no real identity as the "thinker", thinking also seems to be automatic. So, as thinking has no real stable identity, then there is no "me". As soon as this fact is grasped, the psychological monolog just stops. Trying to do anything with thought just comes to a halt.
well put
The art of dying.
3:00 being born all the time
Btw, I shouldn’t criticise too much because the time and energy it takes to put out these videos is much appreciated, but I find the title descriptions for the videos to often be misleading. The question of the observer only comes up in the last minute or so of the video, and they do not explain the issue very clearly. The topic of the extract has more to do with the nature of thought: whether thought is centred in the brain, or outside the brain 🧠 ; is thought an action, a form of relationship, a movement of the past?; and whether thought has an origin, a beginning, a ground - i.e. either in memory, in the matter of the brain, or in “limitless space” (per Varela).
Start of the video
JK - Don't you think, brain is the centre of the thought?
Interviewer - No
😅
Is it really possible?
the source is the curiosity which is not brought out ...i wish i cud tell jiddu
i agree with u ..can u through some light on it?
Help me , where can i find this entire conversation? What do i have to search ?
🙏🙏🙏❤
J k❤
🙏
where is the root indeed
Love jk❤❤❤❤
🙏😌
Action is inaction... thought is just chasing it's own tail all the time in time
there is not even a thought... there is only knowing of it. that knowing comes from being told stuff... so nobody ever had a thought of their own.
It is a very arduous idea that the observer is the observed. We understand that the past is me, the me is the central point of thought. So observing without the observer mean negating the me within. Is there a person in this JK community that can observe without the observer. With all the respect to JK, he says it is possible. How can we observe without the observer, indicates a system, a method which is not the way in understanding me. Again is there a person in this community who could do this & explain us.
You observe without the known. Seeing is always new. I suspect that any instructions on this are not of much use. Either you choose the truth or you follow the illusions.
The observer is time bound in the past and That which is observed is also time bound in the past. The observation happens in the moment. In the here now the observer observation observed co emerge all at once as a single experience. There is just this All at onceness that is known
so simple even a baby understands.observation with innocence.no corruption from past experiences
@@DorrisMwendwa👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
There is no “me”, that’s the whole teaching that’s never really explicitly said because that insight has to take place within the listener. The ego is the self trying to understand what it is. The ego is all knowledge as memory, conclusions, desires, etc, etc. When there is perception (insight) into this fact the whole thing unravels. The unknown becomes known and can never be put into words. The “me” is the ego, which is separate. When there’s no “me” the whole is perceived and the self which distinguishes (by thinking) vanishes into the All. There is no “sense” of “You”. You are it. You are life, life-ing. Life can’t perceive itself unless it separates(the ego). Which then begins this illusory journey of division and finding and answer to itself. This is why it can’t be explained with words as we would be caught in the very thing thats being avoided. There nothing to do or find out. When you have a question, ask, who’s asking? The same way this comment is meaningless unless there is “seeing”, “perception”, “complete attention”. In the end there should only be the question then the realization or perception. No answer. You are It!!! The Answer to all the questions is You!
I wonder what would happen globally if all thinking and thought ceased for at least 30 mins …please respond without thinking or thought 🤔
I failed
Krishnamurti can often be unclear in his communication, but Shainberg and Varela are off the charts in being obfuscating.
A shortened version of the dialogue:
K: Would you say that the brain is the centre of thought, feelings, physical responses, one’s consciousness, fears, pleasure, anxiety, sorrow, all that?
Varela: No. Thought is not [centred] in the brain, it is a relationship.
K: So what is thought?
Varela: Thought is a form of action which is related to separating a unit from its context.
[What now?]
Shainberg: *waffles something about de nouveau something* Therefore it [thought] is an emergent event.
K: What is it [thought] emerging from?
Shainberg: *waffles something about you cannot ask that question* What is the action [of thought]?
K: Ok, so what do we mean by action, what is the movement of thought?
Varela: *waffles something about obscuring something* The source of thought is an unlimited space.
K: Thought must have some causation. Can there be an observation of this causation?
So, to summarise, for Varela thought does not emerge from the brain, it is a form of action related to separating a unit from its context, and the source of this action is an unlimited space. Clear?
😂
I've often wondered why Krishnamurti wasted his time in these circles.
Are you self realised tho? Do you understand him here?
Observe atentamente isso, segundo K. o observado está separado do observador para o resto da humanidade, certo? Tudo isso com base em repetição , treinamento, propaganda, lavagem em regra etc. Do contrário a coisa escapa...
the guy second from the left, is speaking nonsense.
They are far from J.K s level of perception
No comments?
Thought comes from the mind not from the Brain since the brain is just the machinery to put the thought into words and concepts and into physical body actions.
For Krishnamurti thought is a material process taking place in the neurochemistry of the brain. This is also what neuroscientists are saying. Krishnamurti also talked sometimes (though not in this dialogue) about a ‘mind outside the brain’; but this, according to him, has nothing whatsoever to do with thought and memory, which are limited material processes centred in the matter of the brain.
@@jamesmacdougall2795👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Thought comes from the brain which is a material process. Insight and intelligence comes from the mind.
@@jamesmacdougall2795 yes it is a material process not just for krishnamurti but for ourselves too... watch yourself then you will know how thought takes shape
We observe with our spirit-body … ergo the observer (spirit) can observe without the physical observer