The root of Krishnamurti message - the observer is the observed; the thinker is the thought. It is best explained here:
i can not see it. For example, i understand the violence is me, or ego is me, but I’m not sure how much i see it and if i really interest it, Because i don’t see the importance of the thought trap. I believe you understand my English
is there anyone who sees that the observer is observed? It’s true? i don’t want Krishnamurti’s explanations in your words. Can you show me the truth about the observer is the observed and importance of this?
Juryno, I’m not sure when Krishnamurti first mentioned the ‘observer is the observed’, but he had this altered state experience in his early years in Ojai that came to be known as ‘the process’. I think this is where he best describes being the observed himself. This is from a Mary Lutyens’ biography.
“On the first day while I was in that state and more conscious of the things around me, I had the first most extraordinary experience. There was a man mending the road; that man was myself; the pickaxe he held was myself; the very stone which he was breaking up was a part of me; the tender blade of grass was my very being, and the tree beside the man was myself. I almost could feel and think like the roadmender, and I could feel the wind passing through the tree, and the little ant on the blade of grass I could feel. The birds, the dust, and the very noise were a part of me. Just then there was a car passing by at some distance; I was the driver, the engine, and the tyres; as the car went further away from me, I was going away from myself. I was in everything, or rather everything was in me, inanimate and animate, the mountain, the worm, and all breathing things.”
It’s an altered state that can be transformative when one experiences it. It seems much of K’s teachings came out of this experience.
I agree that altered states of consciousness that can sometimes accompany an ending of the psychological self might be transformative as DeNiro says above - but these are states that are difficult (and maybe not useful) to force.
However we can start with an intellectual understanding of the concept. What might it mean “the observer is the observed”?
For example, we think - there is self and anger - two “things” - good self and bad anger
Ego (thought?) says I’m just good person and anger has nothing to do with me. But anger is an expression of my being, and that being is me. So I am anger. Intellectually simple. It’s hard to see because we get angry often.
This is the basis and the formula should be the same observer is observed.and thinker is thougt or i am anger it is the same probably
Welcome. He does a pretty good succinct description of the “observer is the observed”.
What takes place in my mind right now is a ‘fact’. If I separate myself as “I am the thinker and these are ‘my’ thoughts” a division has been introduced…and that division is the source of conflict and suffering in myself?
But that’s all just ‘description’ not what the description is pointing at. That has to be discovered in myself. This relationship with psychological ‘time’. It can’t be ‘shown’ to me by another. In my opinion.
DanMcD yes going beyond this division is all that is needed according to K
The question is: it is really true? why no one sees it?
The observer is observed is a difficult description. Better is the thinker is thought. There’s myself and then there’s something else: thougt. I don’t see the relationship between me and the thoughts, in fact I think I am more than the thoughts. But the thoughts controls me and therefore, thought is more than me.This is the division.
Yes but that “division” ends with the realization that ‘you’ the thinker and the thoughts, are one and the same? As I see it the psychological ‘you’ / thought and the psychological ‘me’ / thought , is a false division created by thought? A false duality?
I, the observer, am the contents of my consciousness, so whatever I perceive is interpreted by that content. All I can perceive is what my contents can make of it. I exist as a bubble of beliefs, suspicions, fears, desires, etc., and what is outside of the bubble I am is distorted to fit inside my bubble, or rejected as unacceptable. My bubble is my version of reality, and its continued existence is dependent on my confidence that my bubble is the best.
Here is a quote from Anil Seth (top university neuro-scientist) just to show that science does have a similar model of perception to K (ie. observer is the observed)
“It seems like there’s a mind independant reality ‘out there’, full of objects and people with properties, like shape and colour… But what we experience is built from our brain’s predictions, or ‘best guesses’ about the causes of sensory signals” (from “Being You” faber books 2022)
So for example, what I see when I see a slice of bacon, is not the same as what a Muslim sees when they see a slice of bacon. We are both seeing our own projections.
K’s point in the video is that when we become aware of our violence, anger, etc, there is an immediate ‘projection’ of our attitude toward the “fact” of what is happening and that projection or judgement moves us toward its opposite? Away from the fact. And that movement away is ‘conflict’?
Is there knower/known? Or only: knowing? We think-feel we are entities having experiences. And yes there are experiences being experienced, only a madman (like Rick or maybe Douglas) would question that. But is anyone/anything doing the experiencing? Awareness is not an anyone/anything, right?
My consiusness consist of my experiences my opinions my conditioning. My thoughts are a reflextion out of this consiusness With my interpretation’s my beliefs and so on.
Here you have the split.
Consciousness is a collection of past beliefs, opinions, knowledge, interpretations, etc. A ‘storehouse ‘, and from this issues thought / feelings? Where is the “split”?
