← Back to Kinfonet

Is there an I without thought?

The impression of self is dependent on thinking being present. The only constituent of the impression of self is thinking, therefore the ending of thought can be the ending of the only self in one’s world. Why then do I continue sustaining a delusion,by thinking, when the solution is simply the ending of unnecessary thought.

In my experience, if the person who does not think straight and having inner attachments will go delusional quite often. The best solution for such a case is listening to Jiddu and understanding his speech to the core, such that content inside the mind will start changing. :slight_smile:

As you said, “simply ending the thought”. It is nothing but space inside between mind and memory, which happens if everything is in order. It is not “SIMPLE”

Please share your view.

The “ending of thought” is the key as has been pointed out over and over. As I see it, this ‘ending’ only takes place in the presence of another quality of energy. A finer energy (?), the energy of ‘silence’. This is the energy that can stay with what is taking place. It is motiveless, nonjudgemental , always new, etc. The energy of thought/self is different in that it is the past, memory, images…In ‘staying with’ what is, the energy of thought is dissolved. Thought is always a movement away from what is because what is, is the now and thought/thinking is the past. Thought by naming what is taking place puts it in the framework of past memory. This energy of ‘silence’ or whatever word is used to describe it, does not name what is taking place and the usual chain of reactions created by thought / chatter can be “denied” and whatever is ,fades.

Hello John and all,

In the fields of logistics, organization, planning, know-how, technique, skill, and so on, it is seen that thought/memory has its proper place. It is also seen that, in the field of action in relationship, those same thought processes are of no help. That is, in relationship, I don’t know what to do. I don’t know what action to take in the face of problems of relationship, and they fester recurrently, endlessly.

You say that thought is the sole factor which produces the impression of self. Therefore, THIS understanding itself is thought (the brain function) understanding itself, isn’t it. So thought (the brain) itself - the same brain which has the ability to solve technical problems - is able to see the nature of self.

But you then ask, “Why then do I continue sustaining a delusion,by thinking…” Who is THIS “I” who continues to think? Is it different from thought? Am “I” deluding myself, or is the brain deluding itself? Isn’t it the conditioned brain which is producing that impression of a self separate from thought/brain/itself? In asking this question, isn’t thought trying to solve a problem which a moment ago it seemed to realize that it is impotent, powerless, out of its depth to solve?

So in observing itself, its activities and processes, the brain realizes that IT is the producer of that impression of a separate self; that IT CANNOT solve problems of relationship. That is, the brain realizes its abilities and limitations - what it can do and what it can’t do.

Then the question, as I see it, is no longer, “ Why then do I continue sustaining a delusion,by thinking, when the solution is simply the ending of unnecessary thought.” In fact, there is no further question, is there. If these facts are clear, then the brain has NO choice but to face and “submit” to the facts. To simply observe what is going on inwardly. That is enough, as I see it.

And isn’t that a different, a new approach to “the problem”? Not the old approach of effort, desire, analysis, goal, achieving, and so on. It’s the approach of silence, as Dan mentions, which is not a dead silence but a silence which acts, in which there is energy. This energy is not the energy of effort and desire.

1 Like

Thought cannot end because thought is necessary. The problem is that “you”, the thinker, are conjured by thought, and thought can’t see what it’s doing.

Thought can review its activity, acknowledge its mistakes and correct itself. but its activity as “I”, the thinker, can’t be seen for the mistake that it is. For this error to be seen, intelligence must awaken and put thought in its place.

If “thought can’t see what it’s doing”, how can it say that “thought can’t see what it’s doing”? That’s confusing, isn’t it?

Thought doesn’t know it can’t see - it surmises as much because it is perpetuating the illusion of I, the thinker, and can’t quit doing it.

But yes it can end and happily so, when it sees the conflict it causes by being where it has no business being. Though its activity is quite habitual, when it is seen that it is itself the past projecting into the present, it can quite happily cede the field.

But it does all the time in solving tech problems. The ‘I’ doesn’t come into the picture when there is cooperation with other brains on a project. So it can “quit doing it”.

Then how can it make that statement?

Yes, when this is actually seen, but thought can’t see. It can acknowledge what it has done, and what it can’t quit doing since it can’t actually observe it’s reflexive, conditional response as it occurs. As Bohm pointed out, with thought there is no proprioception. It is operating conditionally, compulsively, not freely.

According to Krishnamurti, only intelligence can see, and thereby bring an end to what thought is doing. Whether this is true I don’t know, but it’s plausible, given what we know about the brain and its capacity for different modes of consciousness.

It is thought which creates the complication, and the cleverness of the thinker who can just keep talking about the complexities. These complexities are thought. So aren’t we thinking, how do I stop thought? But really the difficulty is I haven’t seen the world free from thought. Or haven’t I? We see it all the time, in a moment of beauty, and naturalness, but reduce it to an experience. The complete seeing of the world is not an experience as we know it. It is timeless, limitless. Then the question is, can I live in this world completely? Again we reduce it the thinker.

But there is no you to sustain or to desist. There is only thought.

The same way it can acknowledge any of its mistakes: it reviews the evidence. Thought can see what has happened, but it can’t see what is happening without recourse to more thought, which only enables an explanation or identification based on memory. This is why Krishnamurti said that thought is time.

Direct perception is instantaneous. To see what actually is requires no thought, and thought can only see what it can recognize, what it knows. That’s why when you see something you don’t recognize, you’re stumped until you can make sense of it through thought.

When you speak of the “complete seeing of the world” and how this seeing is “timeless, limitless”, are you not just parroting Krishnamurti?

What is anyone saying? Is it some kind of pure self expression? Or is it, as has been noted, the accumulated thoughts of all the ages, which is called conditioning? Within this there is an ability to maintain an idea of individuality, a self, ego, etc, but this is a separateness from the world. Occasionally we experience a non-separateness, a merging with world, and sense the beauty and wonder effortlessly. But why is this separateness maintained and cultivated? For any one interested they can read the writings and watch the video’s of J Krishnamurti. But be careful, reading books and watching videos can become part of the conditioning.

You pose the above question, then answer it with “read the writings and watch the video’s of J. Krishnamurti”, as if your job is to promote the teachings.

Why not just admit that you can’t answer the question with your own understanding because, like everyone else here, no one completely comprehends Krishnamurti’s teaching?

It is not about morality, not about right and wrong, it is talking together without emotion, sentiment, and paranoia.

You’re confused. I said nothing about morality, right and wrong.

We have to see, I am the thinker, and the words I use are what is on the mind.