We are talking about the primary impulse that exists before it is joined by a secondary impulse of memory, which recognises and immediately labels the first impulse. In the very first post, Hermann called this the actual and the memorial impulses. We are taking anger as our example of what happens when the two impulses converge. The difficulty is that by talking about it as anger we have already ceded to the secondary impulse of memory, which is our embedded habit. We are already talking about it in recognisable and familiar terms, giving far greater weight to the memorial impulse and ignoring altogether the significance of the actual primary impulse. Probably we would be wiser to throw out all such examples and simply look at what impulse exists right now. This however is only really possible when we all occupy the same temporal and physical space; it is rather tricky to go into it over the wires. Therefore letâs stick with our example of anger for a little while longer and see if we can work it out until the three of us are clear about it.
Others are very welcome to join in, but I am sure you are already aware of the resistance to all of this from certain quarters. This resistance itself is the essence of awareness. They are reacting to something which is a challenge to the status quo, to their world view, to their philosophical ideas, to whatever it is they assume they already know, however they want to put it. To be aware of this resistance without immediately moving into the realm of thought and memory is what we are talking about. It is all about what happens to any primary impulse when it is left undisturbed and untouched by the secondary impulse of memory. Suppose there is a great flash of illumination, a lightning bolt of emotional sensation where everything about oneself gets revealed in an instant. Either the revelation completely subsumes the self or the self subsumes the revelation. It depends which is greater.
You are walking down the road, somebody passes you by, you observe and you may say to yourself, âHow ugly he is. How he smells. I wish he would not do this or that.â You are aware of your responses to that passer-by, you are aware that you are judging, condemning or justifying; you are observing. You do not say, âI must not judge; I must not justify.â In being aware of your responses, there is no decision at all. You see somebody who insulted you yesterday and immediately all your hackles are up. You become nervous or anxious, you begin to dislike. Be aware of your dislike, be aware of all that, do not âdecideâ to be aware. Observe - and in that observation there is neither the âobserverâ nor the âobservedâ â there is only observation taking place. The âobserverâ exists only when you accumulate in the observation, when you say, âHe is my friend because he has flattered meâ, or, âHe is not my friend because he has said something ugly about me, or something true which I do not like.â That is accumulation through observation and that accumulation is the observer. When you observe without accumulation, then there is no judgement. You can do this all the time. In that observation naturally certain definite decisions are made, but the decisions are natural results, not decisions made by the observer who has accumulated.
Todayâs Quote of the Day. From 5th Public Talk, Saanen, 26th July 1970.
Impulse is a reflexive reaction, a conditioned response. It is not primary.
Suppose there is a great flash of illumination, a lightning bolt of emotional sensation where everything about oneself gets revealed in an instant. Either the revelation completely subsumes the self or the self subsumes the revelation. It depends which is greater.
This is fantasy. No such thing has happened to you and you really donât know what youâre talking about. And if by ârevelationâ you mean partial insight, we know it changes the brain and canât be âsubsumedâ.
We have not said that it is. All we have said is that a secondary impulse from memory usually comes in after an impulse first arises from a reflexive reaction or from a conditioned response. When we say âprimaryâ that is all we are referring to, in order to distinguish it from the âsecondaryâ impulse. One hopes this is clear. In the example from 1970 quoted above, there is a reaction or a response as one is walking down the street. That is the first or the primary event. To be aware of this reaction without any further accumulation, without any secondary response from memory - and K says you can do this all the time. This is what we are talking about and have been talking about now for the last nine days.
Well, itâs easy for my mind to close as thought rushes in and draws a conclusion based on my past knowledge and experience. I think weâre all in the same boat here. I agree that having an open mind is really all about awareness. I always liked how K asked his listeners to put aside everything they knew about a certain subject before him and the audience went into it deeply.
Wouldnât that apply also to ourselves? Put aside everything you know about yourself and see yourself as if for the first time? Let all that accumulated past knowledge go and see how you talk and walk and eat and think etcâŚwith no judgement about any of it!
Will the brain let us do it?
As he said in the QOTD, not âdecideâ to do itâŚjust do it!
Suppose there is a great flash of illumination, a lightning bolt of emotional sensation where everything about oneself gets revealed in an instant. Either the revelation completely subsumes the self or the self subsumes the revelation. It depends which is greater.
It is not fantasy when you react to something which you see or hear. It is not fantasy to be aware of this reaction without adding to it another layer which says, âI should not have reacted like that.â This other layer is the voice of the observer, the judge, the censor who pretends to know all about right behaviour. The first reaction is the only moment of awareness and insight into oneâs actual behaviour; there is no other moment. So it is not necessary for the brain to supply any commentary on it.
If this is clear we can continue to discuss it. But if you donât accept even this very simple stuff we should leave it here.
Whatâs clear is that youâve modified and toned down your statement, âa great flash of illumination, a lightning bolt of emotional sensation where everything about oneself gets revealed in an instantâ, to, "you react to something which you see or hear. It is not fantasy to be aware of this reaction without adding to it another layer which says, âI should not have reacted like that.â
Youâre either unaware of how grandiose and performative you are, or youâre too dishonest to acknowledge it.
Nothing has been modified or toned down. We are asking if the simple things are clear before we go on into the deeper stuff. If even the simple things are not clear, there is no point carrying on. Thatâs all there is to it. We are saying that there is no fantasy involved either in the reaction to events or in the denial of any extra layer of commentary. If this is clear, weâll carry on. Then we can open up exactly what it means when we talk about illumination and revelation. That is, we can open it up without any risk of fantasising.
We are saying that there is no fantasy involved either in the reaction to events or in the denial of any extra layer of commentary.
Youâre saying it now, after spraying the reader with crap.
If this is clear, weâll carry on
The only thing thatâs clear is that you will never stop polluting this forum with your
self-serving bullshit.
Then we can open up exactly what it means when we talk about illumination and revelation.
If you had a clue as to what âillumination and revelationâ might be, you might be worth putting up with. As it stands, you are ignorant of and uninterested in what youâre actually doing because youâre consumed by what youâre trying to do, and desperate enough to keep popping up as someone elseâŚas if you could disguise what you are.
Before you wrote any of these things, there was a reaction within you to what you read; the fact that you misread or misunderstood what was being said to you is irrelevant. That initial reaction is the important thing. What you then thought, felt and wrote in response to that reaction is the commentary upon it. They are both conditioned reactions but the first is the actual illumination of oneâs conditioning and the second is a conditioned way of dealing with it.
Maybe someone else can come in and help here. This may indeed be rubbish; though it seems unlikely. It is difficult to keep repeating the same thing. First we react; then we justify our reaction. The whole question is about what happens when there is the reaction alone and nothing else added to it.
Do you feel " loved " ? âŚ
listened to, so that someone is listening what you sayed. whether wright ore wrong .
i say there is not only one stream , but the streams come from different places .
my thoughts, nature and your message .
what can you tell , report from this what we all contact.
i ask because there should be thought behind some of those streams we send and receive .
that is about the beginning of my question .
can we look together after communicating what we gonna look at .
thank you for reading Sir
This is an opinion. When you state an opinion, you should acknowledge thatâs what youâre doing. Itâs deceitful to state an opinion as it is a fact.
There was a reaction within you. Just as now there is another reaction. These reactions are facts, otherwise you would be unable to write back. We are asking what happens when there is only the reaction and nothing added to it. Not that you shouldnât write back - we are not saying that - but first to find out if it is possible for just the reaction itself to exist in its totality without any other addition.
If you are not looking at your reaction before you react to your reaction, youâre not interested in why you react and what your reaction tells you about yourself.
What is your reaction to the fact that you keep changing your identity on this forum? Why do you want to confuse those of us who take Krishnamurti seriously? Youâve reacted so many times and so publicly, I donât see how you can lecture us on reacting.