J.Krishnamurti

[sravna]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

The reality of thinker is not created by thought. He does not come into existence because of thought. It is the thought that comes into existence because of the thinker. It is just that the cause is understood because of its effects.

 

[Iyest]

The reality of thinker is not created by thought. He does not come into existence because of thought. It is the thought that comes into existence because of the thinker. It is just that the cause is understood because of its effects.

Theories and ideas are creations of thought. The claim of an independent thinker is also a claim of thought. The thinker only arises together with thought.

 

[sravna]

Thinker cannot have no thoughts. That is a thinker thinks. Just in the same way a body acts. Irrespective of actions body exists and gives rise to actions just as thinker gives rise to thoughts. Thoughts are the potential of the thinker just as actions are the potential of the body.

Theories and ideas are not creation of thoughts. They are carried by thoughts but produced by the thinker.

If we consider mind as the thinker then we can say that before thoughts are produced they inhere as potential in the mind. As thoughts separate from the mind we are said to think. The mind or the thinker so can be seen as the cause and the thoughts which separate is the effect or created by the mind.

 

[renuka]

Thinker cannot have no thoughts. That is a thinker thinks. Just in the same way a body acts. Irrespective of actions body exists and gives rise to actions just as thinker gives rise to thoughts. Thoughts are the potential of the thinker just as actions are the potential of the body.

Theories and ideas are not creation of thoughts. They are carried by thoughts but produced by the thinker.

If we consider mind as the thinker then we can say that before thoughts are produced they inhere as potential in the mind. As thoughts separate from the mind we are said to think. The mind or the thinker so can be seen as the cause and the thoughts which separate is the effect or created by the mind.

Well, lets look at it a little less technical..cos thoughts, thinker , what exists and what does not can go on and on and everyone can be right or wrong or a combination of both.

Adi Shankara gave us a big hint when he sang " Bhajo Govindam! Nahi Nahi Rakshatin Dukren Karane"

Dukren Karane is a grammar rule from Ashtadyayi of Panini..from that the root word कृ(kR) comes which means " to do" and we get words like Karoti, kriya etc.

To me it seems that Adi Shankaracharya was hinting " why waste time of technicality and nitty gritty details which only creates endless thought waves..instead just recite the name of God as its only the name of God that will overhaul your system"

So Sravna..the mind has a function.
It is for thinking.
Thinker exists because of thoughts and vice versa.
The Dharma of the mind is to think but we have the option not to become the thought...since the Dharma of the mind is to think..just recite God's name...it would auto regulate the system and the mind would cease to be agitated and would be like a sea sans waves...so where is then the question of " does thought or thinker exists or what gives rise to what"

 

[sravna]

Renuka,

Agree. I would say mind can be described as a form and by its function. The function of the mind is to produce thoughts. So the thinker is defined not by thoughts only but by its form too.

Also as you said thoughts which are the effects can be still and be one with mind when we achieve perfection. In that case we are omniscient and aware of everything all at once. Thoughts are unmanifest at that point. The thinker changes as just experiencer of mental energy which is actually spiritual energy and he also becomes a spontaneous actor.

 

[Iyest]

Claims are not facts. Why claim only one thinker, thought can imagine there are 2, 3, and multiple thinkers. And then theorize that the first thinker has the potential to create the second and so on.

The thinker is entirely dependent on thought and has no independent existence. It is a product of thought. When thoughts cease the thinker disappears.

No more from me on this.

 

[Iyest]

Well, lets look at it a little less technical..cos thoughts, thinker , what exists and what does not can go on and on and everyone can be right or wrong or a combination of both.

Adi Shankara gave us a big hint when he sang " Bhajo Govindam! Nahi Nahi Rakshatin Dukren Karane"

Dukren Karane is a grammar rule from Ashtadyayi of Panini..from that the root word कृ(kR) comes which means " to do" and we get words like Karoti, kriya etc.

To me it seems that Adi Shankaracharya was hinting " why waste time of technicality and nitty gritty details which only creates endless thought waves..instead just recite the name of God as its only the name of God that will overhaul your system"

So Sravna..the mind has a function.
It is for thinking.
Thinker exists because of thoughts and vice versa.
The Dharma of the mind is to think but we have the option not to become the thought...since the Dharma of the mind is to think..just recite God's name...it would auto regulate the system and the mind would cease to be agitated and would be like a sea sans waves...so where is then the question of " does thought or thinker exists or what gives rise to what"

Renuka ji, I don’t think Shankara says that there is an independent thinker who creates thoughts because that would be permanent duality. Krishnamurti, Ramana and the Buddha are similar. Buddha talks of dependent arising where the thinker arises along with thought. There is a similar sloka of Patanjali.

“If one postulates a second mind to perceive the first, then one would have to postulate an infinite number of minds; “

- Patanjali yoga sutra 4-21

I will post more passages and hopefully they will clarify.

 

[sravna]

Claims are not facts. Why claim only one thinker, thought can imagine there are 2, 3, and multiple thinkers. And then theorize that the first thinker has the potential to create the second and so on.

The thinker is entirely dependent on thought and has no independent existence. It is a product of thought. When thoughts cease the thinker disappears.

No more from me on this.

How does thought originate without the thinker? If it is independent it does not need a thinker.

Shankaras non dualism is with respect to the ultimate reality. He does accept relative reality. In the ultimate reality there are no thoughts just a state of still experience.

 

[Iyest]

How does thought originate without the thinker?

That is why it is important to enquire and understand the nature of thought and the thinking process. Instead of postulating the existence of one or more independent thinker(s) and sticking to that belief.

In the ultimate reality there are no thoughts just a state of still experience.

Exactly. When there are no thoughts the thinker also disappears and there is only stillness. If there is an independent thinker who remains permanently then there won’t be stillness.

 

[sravna]

That is why it is important to enquire and understand the nature of thought and the thinking process. Instead of postulating the existence of one or more independent thinker(s) and sticking to that belief.




Exactly. When there are no thoughts the thinker also disappears and there is only stillness. If there is an independent thinker who remains permanently then there won’t be stillness.

I understand but the issue is more of whether thinker produces the thoughts or thoughts produce the thinker. In the ultimate reality the thinker is fully evolved and that is the reason he just experiences stillness. Thought is not the experiencer. Thinker can be.

 

[Iyest]

Thought is sensation, is it not? Through perception and contact there is sensation; from this arises desire, desire for this and not for that. Desire is the beginning of identification, the 'mine' and the 'not-mine'. Thought is verbalized sensation; thought is the response of memory the word, the experience, the image. Thought is transient changing, impermanent, and it is seeking permanency. So thought creates the thinker, who then becomes the permanent; he assumes the role of the censor, the guide, the controller, the moulder of thought. This illusory permanent entity is the product of thought, of the transient. This entity is thought; without thought he is not. The thinker is made up of qualities; his dualities cannot be separated from himself. The controller is the controlled, he is merely playing a deceptive game with himself. Till the false is seen as the false, truth is not.

"Then who is the seer, the experiencer, the entity that says, 'I understand'?"

As long as there is the experiencer remembering the experience, truth is not. Truth is not something to be remembered, stored up, recorded, and then brought out. What is accumulated is not truth. The desire to experience creates the experiencer, who then accumulates and remembers. Desire makes for the separation of the thinker from his thoughts; the desire to become, to experience, to be more or to be less, makes for division between the experiencer and the experience. Awareness of the ways of desire is self-knowledge. Self-knowledge is the beginning of meditation.

- Commentaries on Living, Series II.

 

[renuka]

Thought is sensation, is it not? Through perception and contact there is sensation; from this arises desire, desire for this and not for that. Desire is the beginning of identification, the 'mine' and the 'not-mine'. Thought is verbalized sensation; thought is the response of memory the word, the experience, the image. Thought is transient changing, impermanent, and it is seeking permanency. So thought creates the thinker, who then becomes the permanent; he assumes the role of the censor, the guide, the controller, the moulder of thought. This illusory permanent entity is the product of thought, of the transient. This entity is thought; without thought he is not. The thinker is made up of qualities; his dualities cannot be separated from himself. The controller is the controlled, he is merely playing a deceptive game with himself. Till the false is seen as the false, truth is not.

"Then who is the seer, the experiencer, the entity that says, 'I understand'?"

As long as there is the experiencer remembering the experience, truth is not. Truth is not something to be remembered, stored up, recorded, and then brought out. What is accumulated is not truth. The desire to experience creates the experiencer, who then accumulates and remembers. Desire makes for the separation of the thinker from his thoughts; the desire to become, to experience, to be more or to be less, makes for division between the experiencer and the experience. Awareness of the ways of desire is self-knowledge. Self-knowledge is the beginning of meditation.

- Commentaries on Living, Series II.

I have a question, i hope you dont mind answering.

Isnt the works of Shri Jiddu Krishnamurti a bit way too convoluted?
I do understand his teachings but at one point one starts to feel that even Shree Krishna kept things so simple and direct to the point in the Bhagavad Gita.
Adi Shankaracharya's works is totally deep but yet within the ability to grasp.

I might be wrong but JK's work do seem to be a mental exercise which could reveal or may be even conceal.

 

[Iyest]

Renuka ji, I can relate to your questions. I also felt that way for many years. Then it dawned on me. Krishnamurti was being extremely direct and simple. I had read the Gita, some Shankara, Buddha, Bible, and quite a bit of Ramana. But what I got from them all was a few concepts, call them Maha Vakyas if you like. May be it was due to my ignorance. With Krishnamurti I could not hide behind those traditional ideas like ‘You are the Self’, ‘ There is no duality’, ‘ Surrender and do your duty’ etc etc. Nor could I take shelter in some technique or repetitive practice. He made me face myself.

With Krishnamurti one’s daily living was the starting point (not some sound philosophy or knowledge of religious texts or even a traditional background) - Relationship, conflicts, comparison, desire, fear, anxiety and so on. Socrates and Ramana taught people to probe ‘Who am I?’. Krishnamurti was actually doing it by exposing and unraveling the contents of the mind (I, ego, self, thoughts). From any starting point he could lead to the highest. Although it may seem like a mental exercise or vichara at first, the essence of his teachings is total surrender or Para Bhakti (in traditional terms). At every step he only emphasises one central point - that thought is the root of all problems in daily life - desire, fear, conflict, suffering. And any activity or effort of thought (including spiritual practices) cannot resolve them. One has to face the complete helplessness of thought (ego, I, mind). It is only the complete understanding of this truth that can silence the mind and set one free.

Don’t know whether you find any of this useful but that is just my honest answer.

 

[Iyest]

The real is near, not far. We are blind, blinded by things which prevent us from seeing that which is near. Truth is life, truth is your relationship with your wife, truth is to be found in understanding the falseness of belief. You must begin near to go far. Action must be without motive, without seeking an end, and action which is not seeking an end can come only when there is love.

Love is not a difficult thing. There is love only when the brain understands itself, when the thought process with its cunning manipulations, with its adjustments, with its search for security comes to an end; then you will find that the heart is rich, full, blissful, for it has discovered that which is eternal.

- Poona, 1948

 

[Iyest]

Why do we insist on separating the perceiver from the perception, the rememberer from the memory? Is this not at the root of our trouble?

K: We separate it because the rememberer, the experiencer, the thinker, becomes permanent by separation. Memories are obviously fleeting, so the rememberer, the experiencer, the mind, separates itself because it wants permanency. The mind that is making an effort, that is striving, that is choosing, that is disciplined, obviously cannot find the real because as we said, through that very effort it projects itself and sustains the thinker.

- Bangalore, 1948

 

[Iyest]

Q: Memory, you say, is incomplete experience. I have a memory and a vivid impression of your previous talks. In what sense is it an incomplete experience?

K: What do we mean by memory? You go to school and are full of facts, technical knowledge. If you are an engineer, you use the memory of technical knowledge to build a bridge. That is factual memory. There is also psychological memory. You have said something to me, pleasant or unpleasant, and I retain it; and when I next meet you, I meet you with that memory, the memory of what you have said or not said. So, there are two facets to memory, the psychological and the factual. They are always interrelated, therefore not clear cut. We know that factual memory is essential as a means of livelihood. But is psychological memory essential? And what is the factor which retains the psychological memory? What makes one psychologically remember insult or praise? Why does one retain certain memories and reject others? Obviously, one retains memories which are pleasant and avoids memories which are unpleasant. If you observe, you will see that painful memories are put aside more quickly than the pleasure able ones. And mind is memory, at whatever level, by whatever name you call it; mind is the product of the past, it is founded on the past, which is memory, a conditioned state. Now, with that memory we meet life, we meet a new challenge. The challenge is always new and our response is always old because it is the outcome of the past. So, experiencing without memory is one state, and experiencing with memory is another. That is, there is a challenge, which is always new. I meet it with the response, with the condition of the old. So, what happens? I absorb the new, I do not understand it, and the experiencing of the new is conditioned by the past. Therefore, there is a partial understanding of the new, there is never complete understanding. It is only when there is complete understanding of anything that it does not leave the scar of memory.

- Poona, 1948

 

[Iyest]

When there is an interval between two thoughts, between two memories, when that interval can be maintained, then out of that interval a new state of being comes which is no longer memory. We have memories and we cultivate memory as a means of continuance. That is, the ‘me’ and the ‘mine’ become very important as long as the cultivation of memory exists; and as most of us are made up of ‘me’ and ‘mine’, memory plays a very important part in our lives. If you had no memory, your property, your family, your ideas would not be important as such; so, to give strength to ‘me’ and ‘mine’ you cultivate memory. But if you observe, you will see that there is an interval between two thoughts, between two emotions. In that interval, which is not the product of memory, there is an extraordinary freedom from the ‘me’ and the ‘mine’, and that interval is timeless.

- Poona, 1948

 

[renuka]

When there is an interval between two thoughts, between two memories, when that interval can be maintained, then out of that interval a new state of being comes which is no longer memory. We have memories and we cultivate memory as a means of continuance. That is, the ‘me’ and the ‘mine’ become very important as long as the cultivation of memory exists; and as most of us are made up of ‘me’ and ‘mine’, memory plays a very important part in our lives. If you had no memory, your property, your family, your ideas would not be important as such; so, to give strength to ‘me’ and ‘mine’ you cultivate memory. But if you observe, you will see that there is an interval between two thoughts, between two emotions. In that interval, which is not the product of memory, there is an extraordinary freedom from the ‘me’ and the ‘mine’, and that interval is timeless.

- Poona, 1948

Its like storing our memory in an external memory card and not in internal storage.
External memory card does not really " belong" to the system but it can provide a back up when relevant data is needed.
But since its not part of internal storage it does not form vasanas.

 

[Iyest]

When you understand life, you will find the unknown, for life is the unknown, and death and life are one. There is no division between life and death; it is the foolish and the ignorant who make the division, those who are concerned with their body and with their petty continuity. Such people use the theory of reincarnation as a means of covering up their fear, as a guarantee of their stupid little continuity. It is obvious that thought continues; but surely, a man who is seeking truth is not concerned with thought, for thought does not lead to truth. The theory of the ‘me’ continuing through reincarnation towards truth is a false idea, it is untrue. The ‘me’ is a bundle of memories, which is time, and the mere continuation of time does not lead you to the eternal which is beyond time. The fear of death ceases ceases only when the unknown enters your heart. Life is the unknown, as death is the unknown, as truth is the unknown. Life is the unknown, sir; but we cling to one small expression of that life, and that which we cling to is merely memory, which is an incomplete thought; therefore that which we cling to is unreal, it has no validity. The mind clings to that empty thing called memory, and memory is the mind, the self, at whatever level you like to fix it. So, mind, which is in the field of the known, can never invite the unknown. It is only when there is the unknown, a state of complete uncertainty, that there comes the cessation of fear and with it the perception of reality.

- Poona, 1948

 

[renuka]

When you understand life, you will find the unknown, for life is the unknown, and death and life are one. There is no division between life and death; it is the foolish and the ignorant who make the division, those who are concerned with their body and with their petty continuity. Such people use the theory of reincarnation as a means of covering up their fear, as a guarantee of their stupid little continuity. It is obvious that thought continues; but surely, a man who is seeking truth is not concerned with thought, for thought does not lead to truth. The theory of the ‘me’ continuing through reincarnation towards truth is a false idea, it is untrue. The ‘me’ is a bundle of memories, which is time, and the mere continuation of time does not lead you to the eternal which is beyond time. The fear of death ceases ceases only when the unknown enters your heart. Life is the unknown, as death is the unknown, as truth is the unknown. Life is the unknown, sir; but we cling to one small expression of that life, and that which we cling to is merely memory, which is an incomplete thought; therefore that which we cling to is unreal, it has no validity. The mind clings to that empty thing called memory, and memory is the mind, the self, at whatever level you like to fix it. So, mind, which is in the field of the known, can never invite the unknown. It is only when there is the unknown, a state of complete uncertainty, that there comes the cessation of fear and with it the perception of reality.

- Poona, 1948

Could you explain a little?
He says that the theory of " me" continuing through reincarnation is untrue.

I do get it that we as in who we think we are for eg Mr X wont continue as MR X ..in a past life he could have been Mr W and the next life as Mr Y.
But does rebirth happen or not? As in the karma takes on a new body?

 

[Iyest]

Could you explain a little?
He says that the theory of " me" continuing through reincarnation is untrue.

The sentence in question is: “The theory of the ‘me’ continuing through reincarnation towards truth is a false idea, it is untrue. “

Actually here the key is ‘towards truth’. In other words the ‘me’ may continue with a different form and accumulating more memories. But it will forever remain memories. Truth is when there is freedom from memory ( thought, I, ego, time).

This is confirmed by the next sentence, “and the mere continuation of time does not lead you to the eternal which is beyond time.”

 

[Iyest]

The mind both conscious and unconscious, is a bundle of memories, and when the mind says to itself, “I must be free of memory in order to understand reality,” that very wish to be free is part of memory. That is a fact. Therefore, the mind no longer wishes to be anything - it merely faces the fact that it itself is memory; it does not wish to transform, it does not wish to become something else. When the mind sees that any action on its own part is still the functioning of memory, and therefore that it is incapable of finding truth, what then is the state of the mind? It becomes still.

When the mind perceives that any activity of its own is futile, is all part of memory and therefore of time, seeing that fact, it stops, does it not? If your mind sees the reality of what I am saying, that whatever it does is still part of memory, and therefore it cannot act to be free of memory, it does not act. When the mind sees that it cannot proceed that way, it stops. Therefore, the mind, the whole content of the mind, the conscious and the unconscious, becomes still.

- Poona, 1948

 

[renuka]

The sentence in question is: “The theory of the ‘me’ continuing through reincarnation towards truth is a false idea, it is untrue. “

Actually here the key is ‘towards truth’. In other words the ‘me’ may continue with a different form and accumulating more memories. But it will forever remain memories. Truth is when there is freedom from memory ( thought, I, ego, time).

This is confirmed by the next sentence, “and the mere continuation of time does not lead you to the eternal which is beyond time.”

Thank you..in other words we need to reset to factory settings.

 

[Iyest]

In that awareness there is no choice but merely seeing things as they are - red as red, blue as blue, without any distortion. In that state which is peaceful, choicelessly aware, and alert, you will find that all verbalization, all mentation, or intellection has completely stopped. There is a stillness which is not induced, a stillness in which the mind is no longer using thought to revive itself; therefore, there is neither the thinker nor the thought. There is neither the experiencer nor the experienced because the experiencer and the experienced come into being through the thought process, and the thought process has entirely stopped. There is only a state of experiencing. In that state of experiencing, there is no time; all time as yesterday, today, and tomorrow has completely stopped. If you can go further into it, you will see that the mind which was the product of time has completely transformed itself and is now without time; and that which is without time is eternal, that which is without time is immeasurable, it has no beginning and no end, it is without cause and therefore without effect - and that which is without cause is the real.

- Poona, 1948

 

[Iyest]

So, when this process of identification - which revives memory and gives continuance to memory in the present - when that ceases, then there is a possibility of rebirth, renewal, creativeness; and in that renewal there is no continuity. That which renews cannot continue. It is from moment to moment.

- Ojai, California, 1949