Is the thinker his thoughts? | Krishnamurti #shorts

__

We are a charity registered in the UK (Charity Number 312865)

[kumarji]

The intelligence of Krishnaji is unmatched even to this day

[satnamo]

Yes because without thought, there is no thinker ❤

[fineasfrog]

One thing he may be suggesting is that the deeper pattern runs through both the ordinary thinker and his thoughts. The thinker seems relatively different from his thoughts yet the deep pattern of separation is generating both the thinker and the thoughts. If one sees himself as a separate entity, then all his thoughts will be patterned from this perspective of separation. The subject is not fundamentally different from his thoughts until the person realizes to a significant degree the reality of non-duality, then there is a more real difference. Now the thoughts may be fragments or a pattern of separation while the subject is a sense of unity. The subject is no longer caught up in the perception of seeing only duality and all his thoughts are of the same fundamental nature, that is to say patterned by separation rather than Unity. Ordinarily, the thinker is apart from the whole and does know the sense and pattern of simple unity, and all his thoughts have the tinge of this separation. In this way thinker and his thoughts are not different.

[arunagreen]

I would say for me no. They are not different. But... this could be where my anxiety lies as I need to have thst distance to think clearly. Not having that causes confusion.

[AmanHouse]

Thinker and thoughts are the same thing, what separates i ( thinker or observer ) from thinking ( thoughts or objects ) is elusive, because thinker is absent when there's no thought, example when we sleep, there's no thought, hence no thinker i.e I am, so the concept is we are not i, we are just accumulation of experience of past, means There's no I as we think, we think it's our bad karma because we did wrong but the actual thing is we are wrong, I is wrong, it's deep concept which comes from vedanta in Hinduism and present in many other religions too

[SIEBEGORMEN]

To watch this knowing that Iris died of Alzheimer’s disease is v sobering

[Sinful_Lich]

The thinker is a much their own thought, as human is the universe around them. Their level of difference only comes down to perspective. For example, we can choose to live through altruism or evil. But we must have a clear understanding of both in order to really choose. This suggests; our thoughts are no different than us, in terms of the amalgamation of thought that is intrinsic to being human. HOWEVER, our ability to choose suggests a certain "spark" or catalyst. This spark allows us to alchemically change ourselves. Like turning Iron into gold; does the ability to change properties mean that there was really no iron at all? If a person decides to be good, does that mean there is no evil within them?

[jonjeskie]

The answer is already in the question:

No one would say "I am thought xyz" they would say "I am thinking xyz" or "I have thought xyz" ... clearly indicating that the thought is influencing the thinker, but it *is not* the thinker.

[침돌이-mp]

This is k's essencial massage, but i can't understand yet.

[ninjanico]

The thoughts one has are a part of the thinker, but not the whole thinker. An entity tends to be made up of many properties. One part of who I am is a human, a biological organism, a son, a brother etc., But I am not just one of these entirely. Similarly, my thoughts are a part of me, the agent/thinker, but are not me as a whole. What I am is the set of all my attributes, including those I have had, do have, or will have, in the past, present and future.

[spiritualitymeetscomedy]

For that we need to QUESTION what is DIFFERENCE

[BartvanderHorst]

One does not think thoughts, one can identify with thoughts or observe them like an antropologist.

[tooshallpass]

Really wish you’d also share the original talk these are from. I’m interested to watch the whole video but don’t know how to reach that now. Please consider adding the source with your videos. Any idea where is this taken from?

[raphaelreichmannrolim]

This comments section seems a bit confused. In my understanding, JK has the opinion that oppositions like object versus subject are creations of the mind, illusions. He means that we live in relationship with ourselves, and that thinker and thought always exist together, in any event, and so aren't different things. Every control exerted by the controlling thinker is part of the same thought that is controlled. Isn't It simply thought controlling itself?

[Hermetic_]

Yes. Because not all thoughts in our head are our thoughts. For example intrusive thoughts.