ANGER is not mine.
Anger is ungraspable.
I am anger when the “me” is not.
THE STORY ABOUT ANGER IS MINE
When there is a “me,” I can’t be anger.
When I can’t be anger the “me” invents
a story about anger, which appears to be mine. Whatever is mine appears to be capable of being changed. Anger is seen as mine. While in fact what is mine is only my story about anger. I made my self the owner of a story. I think I have the ownership of anger. Ownership is separation.
I can’t own/grasp anger, I can only be anger.
But I can own a story.
And this is what the me is doing, grasping. Grasping brings separation.
Anger (the emotion) & the theoretical models about anger, are different things.
There is the emotional response to an experience.
There is sensation of self.
There is the emotional response to the emotional response of anger. (eg.guilt, righteousness etc)
There is the condemnation of, or pride in the self image.
So much going on, so many knots happening between all the details. Tricky stuff.
K asks if it is possible to see all these contradictory, conflicting, confused parts, as a whole movement.
To see the suffering self, the angry self, you…and see it as a “whole”. Then there could be a ‘going beyond’ as he suggests. When there is ‘direct perception’? This ‘seeing the whole’ is real meditation, isn’t it?