Sounds like you are saying that we should trust our initial conditioned responses, but not any further analysis
I have started playing the new game with my question in bold above - you may also submit the crucial question as you see it
No we should not trust. But we can observe what it does, its effects. Because it brings conflict and those conditions make us suffer the whole life. Before starting discussion we have to be free from beliefs/etc by observing.
So, you can observe you are deluded. Can you see the effects of the delusion?. Because truth cannot be described. It is there. But covered with all our ‘I’ i.e. Images/beliefs/perceptions/sufferings/pain/pleasure. We can observe the truth, only if we can negate all others which is not truth i.e. the ‘I’. And, to negate the ‘I’, we have to observe the whole movement of ‘I’. What it does, how it works, what is it root, like wise. It is more complex. We have to go step by step by inquiring it.
You inspired it, you own it 
My question about “how to get rid of ego?” I suppose questions inspire answers - and silly questions inspire silly answers?
However I thought your comment was inspired by the “small ego as part of infinite universal I” theory - like a culinary version of “we are all just a teeny part of Brahman”
Yes well the notion of dissolution, or dissolving is there, as the death of ego. When fear is one part in one (fragment) it can be toxic, but when one part in a trillion, then it is still there, but no longer problematic. I consider myself full to the gills with nervous energy, but not nervous, in the sense of too troubled to approach, fear or isolation up close and personal. The requirement for a quiet mind in order to observe, can be seen in these terms. When I am not escaping, I can take the energy ordinarily involved in that, and look more closely without flinching. It is only when I am separate from a thing like anxiety, or isolation, that they become hellish things.
1 Like
If you say so, then what’s the remaining 999.99 billion parts?
If we are an intelligent and powerful thinker - our own intellect becomes very fascinating for us.
But powerful attributes work both ways - they may give us great advantages, but power also enslaves the powerful.
1 Like
“Hellish” is a good description. A couple of things/thoughts showed up over here: As long as there is a ‘me’, there must be a ‘not-me’. No matter the size, breadth, quality, of it, as long as there is a ‘center’, there must be a periphery, something ‘outside’ of it…
The ancient Egyptians explained the appearance and disappearance of the sun each day as an action by the Goddess Nut. She gave birth to it each morning and swallowed it each evening. Is our idea / belief about death, that ‘I’ will perish one day, as quaint in its own way as theirs was about the sun?
1 Like
Here’s a story that my brain has just revealed to me - thanks in part to the recent discussions here (regarding religion and overflowing nervous energy to save the world)
Its about the metaphor of Christ’s life - being an example of the “spiritual journey” 
Stage one : become a hero - JC shows us various ways of achieving this status/self-image : rebellious revolutionary activity, top notch philosophy, protecting the weak and the elderly, magic etc…
Stage two : Build our relational conflict with the world (ie. the observed) to breaking point - and willingly surrender to the annihilation that this suffering and conflict engenders. (which is death - in this case the kind of death where you get up and walk around a couple of days later)
Stage three : Humanity is saved
2 Likes
Without a doubt yes. Given I have a vivid imagination, I am the capacity to keep myself entombed in my creations forever, and the very idea of relinquishing them for an unknown makes it easier to put up with things.
The Christian thing is all about the Christ figure dying for our sins, so as we don’t have to, which has always struck as something of a mangle psychologically, though it may have lost something in translation. There is an echo of a kind in what Krishnamurti said about if one person ends suffering then he ends it for mankind, which sets up the paradox of the suffering which ends, but which apparently carries on.
1 Like
Yes exactly so, and whereas I can apportion sentient being to this other I observe, which is to say, consider them real, and occasion them no physical harm, what am I experiencing psychologically, given their other-than-me is originating as me? By which I mean, any sense of what I as the observer of them, hold them to be, or to be doing, psychologically.
And as long as there is a centre, with an attendant periphery, there is no true space, however near or far, and so no freedom. The experience of centre or self is a remarkably claustrophobic affair once the distractions fail.
Do you mean, why is a perception by one part, not immediately felt in all others? Why are we not all having what Krishnamurti is considered by us to have been having?
No. No. I mean - you said that if fear is a part of one trillion - it is not problematic - Right?
If so, what are the other 999.99 billion parts. It is ‘pleasure,pain,belief,knowledge,etc’ which is ‘I’. Doesn’t it seem to be problematic?
All I was trying to get at is similar to what you were pointing out about suffering, and it not being ‘my’ suffering, but that of humanity. When I am fearful, have what I consider to be my fear, and everyone in the mob has likewise, has no freedom, and considers someone or something other than them has deprived them if it, the burden can be so heavy, that I am driven to violence over it, so fear is truly toxic at that moment. When I see the fear I am, the loss of freedom I am, is about something I and everyone else am, and that their reaction is because they do not see the origin of it as their self, and the universal nature of it, then my response to my fear and fear being expressed in them is changed. I was merely picturing such as a dissolution, one part in a whole, rather than one part in one.
Sorry. I can’t understand clearly what you express. Please correct me the below understanding what i got.
You say that - if you see fear alone - the burden is less and if you see fear of the whole humanity - the burden is heavy. Right?
Or you say - your view of fear changes when you see the real origin of it.
Yes, I am saying fear is different when I see the origin of it. When I am frightened, and I see someone else as giving me that fear, my fear, my experience of it can be overwhelming. In considering fear to be outside of me being given me by another, I am reinforcing both fear as mine, and fear separate from me.
Yes. Yes. But there is also a thing to be considered. The fear they feel - also should be inquired within yourself. Because we are one psychologically. You may restrict you with only your fear. But one day, you will suffer the same fear what they felt too. So - if you enquired about ‘fear’ without separating yours and mine, then you will be aware. In that awareness, you don’t suffer for any kind of fear in your whole life.
That’s correct. I must of course take what the other is experiencing into account. That was what I was alluding to in my initial response when I said my response to my fear and fear being expressed in them is changed. Being aware of what the feeling is, and allowing it to be and not react, can allow for a different response to the situation, rather than one of escalation. When I label the phenomenon as fear, it may spark memories and associations around something unpleasant which one either wishes to flee or otherwise block, but when it is simply the fact of energy being, the word association changes too.
1 Like
Thats all it is. Now - you go to see the ‘Evil dead’ movie alone in the theatre. What happens there? - will you fear?
Is your question about being triggered by something like a film, or a dream, in a manner indistinguishable from any other aspect of reality? Krishnamurti is said to have liked going to movies and to have come out of the cinema on occasion shaking.