← Back to Kinfonet

On the difference between observing and thinking about oneself

Krishnamurti talks about this for almost 16 minutes here.

On the difference between observing and thinking about oneself
K says the careful watching, observing, attentiveness, with the freshness of mind, brain, is required. When we hear about this ordinarily, we are then applying our way of thinking, our self expression, and looking for an ability, and this is all I, self, ego. K talks about all this. To be looking without the word, without the image, is not the ordinary way of seeing. This seeing without the word can make sense, intellectually, but not be actually realised. It is necessary to understand it is different to the way we see now, and that’s why K says careful observing is required. This seeing without the image will not be found the way we think, nor the way we inquire intellectually. What’s more any talk, as clever as it may be, has nothing to do with the actual seeing without the word, and therefore there is no actual understanding of the way the word and image are affecting our way of thinking. Generally this point seems to be ignored in favour of smart repartee, self expression, self promotion.
K makes the point about observing oneself, and talks about seeing nature without the word. It is left up to serious observing. But usually we are enthralled by the new prospects, question the possibilities, and speculate about ability, etc. The serious observing is completely ignored, or defeated by more words.
Is it the wind that blows, or the tree that moves?

How do we tell the difference between observing ourselves in the sense that you mean, and merely thinking about ourselves?

The question above is the one K addressed in the video I posted. I thought it was an interesting one and really had no idea how K would answer. At minute 15:28 in the video, K says “I’m finding all this as I talk - right?”

Do we ever do that here? Do we come to this forum and see it as if for the first time and find out as we read and dialogue? Or do we always just exchange knowledge?

The fundamental awareness that there is thought and I using thought, is not in a framework of thought.

Have you just discovered this Peter? Or are you repeating something that you knew already?

Think about it. Is it making sense to you. Don’t look to others to confirm something, or worse, spend your time in debate…

Peter, if that’s your attitude why bother to come here at all? You seem to be saying that exploring the teachings together is a waste of time.

Everyone is saying something. Look at what is written, see what you think. See what the mind is doing. Is the learning about accumulating comments and responding to them? Or is it the mind learning about what it is doing? Not his or her mind, the mind that is observed.

1 Like

They certainly are. But are they listening?

Is “I” not a product of thought? Isn’t “the fundamental awareness” that thought personified is I, and this creates the illusion of separation?

If separation is an illusion, so is the opposite side of the coin, oneness. The coin, both sides, is a conceptual construct. What is when there is no separation and no oneness? (This.)

All actual things are separate, though related, but the separation we talk about here is that of illusory separation. We know there is no I without thought, so…

Which coin? The actual coin or the metaphorical coin?

This question of the use of "I " has been talked about many times. It is the first person singular, a grammatical way of saying it is me speaking, writing, thinking, experiencing, etc. That’s all. I have asked people many times not to use my postings to pursue a comparative, verbal interpretation, or to infer a doubtful use of those words which are in a common use for writing and communicating. It is obvious we are here talking in a K discussion platform and so there is no point being in that context, and then assailing people with clever repartee.

No ego-I. But do we (can we) know with certainty that there is no I of any kind?

We use the word “person” to refer to a particular human being, and every person has a sense, an idea, of who they are.

The person I think I am is not the person others think I am, so who’s to say who I am? I should be the one to know, but my perception is as distorted as the next person’s, so who one actually is can only be determined by the evidence.

Evidence is good. Though errors can (will) be introduced in the gathering and interpreting.

The evidence to establish that the I is dependent on thought is relative easy to find.

But what about evidence to establish that there isn’t (or is) another type of I?

I don’t know what you mean “another type of I”

An existent (physical, mental, hybrid, other) that presides over the organism. True self, source, universal consciousness, whatever. The entity (energy, force) that we really are.

If anything “presides over the organism” it is one’s conditioning.