Is it possible to live entirely without fear?

[sree]

@Inquiry

Right. The problem is not fear, but our resistance to that which is the opposite of what-should-be.

Resistance is denial, a refusal to accept reality.

@Inquiry

Fear is intense, and the more we feel it, the less we like it until we fear Fear itself: a self-perpetuating extreme sensation loop. One propels the other.

To be afraid of fear is to distance ourselves from it and attempt to get rid of it in order to live freely without it.

Fear is part of our nature as much as the storm is part of the sea. Is it possible to have the sea entirely without storm?

[sree]

@anon78228991

Does it matter how we feel?

Of course, it does. Feelings define our very existence. Feelings of love, feelings of fear, feelings of bodily sensations.

@anon78228991

We seem to have made our feelings the central part of our human existence and communication.

Is there any other part of our being other than feelings?

@anon78228991

But what is a feeling?

A feeling is an emotion, an intuition, a sensation. It is what we are.

[Viswa]

@Dominic

I would have to say that is lost from sight at the point self-preservation is reached, which on the face of it constitutes a block. The self-preservation that psyche constitutes is the same inhibition the animal is when standing at the cliff edge. I have said previously that things are hidden, but it is more that I hide from things in myself, and my intellect is my chief means of accomplishing this

Why there is ‘self-preservation’? What this ‘self-preservation’ brings/rewards us in our life?

Come on Sir- Don’t stop answering it is nature - Pierce into the nature by questioning it - then everything will reveal itself

[Dominic]

@Viswa

Why there is ‘self-preservation’? What this ‘self-preservation’ brings/rewards us in our life?

Why hardly matters. It is there is all. Self-preservation is the limit of thought on this matter and cannot address this, hence something else is required besides questions.

@Viswa

Come on Sir- Don’t stop answering it is nature - Pierce into the nature by questioning it - then everything will reveal itself

Do I really believe that after millennia of striving after answers by humankind, my questions and intellectual formulations are even remotely piercing?

[Viswa]

Sorry Dominic. These asking questions helps to move further without stopping and so I said those.

So after questioning that ‘nature’ why?, we see that this ‘fear’ is unconscious and ‘self-preservation’ blocks it to come in contact with unconscious ‘fear’ - isn’t it?

Can we see fear’s movement with thoughts and knowledge/intellect which are conscious?

i.e. When there is ‘self-preservation’ can we meet the fear?

[anon78228991]

@sree

Feelings define our very existence. Feelings of love, feelings of fear, feelings of bodily sensations. … Is there any other part of our being other than feelings? … A feeling is an emotion, an intuition, a sensation. It is what we are.

I am not so sure about it. That is why I am asking these questions. When you present the answers so quickly and cleanly, how can we enquire into it? You have already made up your mind. So let’s approach it differently.

Do our feelings matter at all? This is a new question. Before thought comes in with any of its answers, what feelings are evoked by the question as it is being posed?

[DanMcD]

What is the relationship of ‘Being’ to the ego, the I / me. Are the feelings, sensations, thoughts, memories, of the body / brain what we are? Or are we Being / Awareness itself? Isn’t it the ‘feeling’ that ‘I am’ that has been the constant throughout our life? Isn’t it the ‘noise’ of thought that ‘drowns out ‘ the silence of Being?

[Inquiry]

@anon78228991

Do our feelings matter at all?

Our feelings always matter, but we don’t always know what a feeling signifies or is a response to. That’s why one stays with a feeling until it is clear why it has arisen.

[Dominic]

@Viswa

So after questioning that ‘nature’ why?, we see that this ‘fear’ is unconscious and ‘self-preservation’ blocks it to come in contact with unconscious ‘fear’ - isn’t it?

Can we see fear’s movement with thoughts and knowledge/intellect which are conscious?

i.e. When there is ‘self-preservation’ can we meet the fear?

There is the unconscious and the question of why everything unconscious is not fully integrated by me into my consciousness. And there is the question of whether that means the root of things is seen, and there is an end to things at that point, or whether that is simply an initial step enabling the mind to be sufficiently gathered so as to investigate the much subtler and swifter movements. But there is also the sense that in rising to the challenge, and taking the bait, the very attempt at uncovering things I am hiding from to begin with, is what actually maintains the movement self is.

[Viswa]

@Dominic

There is the unconscious and the question of why everything unconscious is not fully integrated by me into my consciousness. And there is the question of whether that means the root of things is seen, and there is an end to things at that point, or whether that is simply an initial step enabling the mind to be sufficiently gathered so as to investigate the much subtler and swifter movements

This question is so important to discuss with. Shall we?

From our childhood days - i.e. from the year of 1 to 5 - we are provided immense security by our parents physically. But there is this unconscious fear - which makes us to seek ‘security psychically’. And so we are gathering knowledge,etc… and making ‘self-preservation’ to not get into contact with this fear. When we start to suffer - we make an idea that another form of ‘self-preservation’ in this consciousness can bring pleasure and this circus goes on and on.

One day, we come to see all this sufferings - but we trying to see the unconsciousness(which is the basement) with consciousness(which is ground-floor) - but we couldn’t see it.

So in order to see this basement(that is unconsciousness) - we can only by destroying the building blocks and see this whole movement of unconsciousness.

So, only if we see this 'self-preservation(which is ‘me’) as a whole - we can ‘end’ it and come into direct contact with unconsciousness. Until then, whatever we try with conscious thoughts/intellects - it’s useless.

[Dominic]

@Viswa

From our childhood days - i.e. from the year of 1 to 5 - we are provided immense security by our parents physically. But there is this unconscious fear - which makes us to seek ‘security psychically’. And so we are gathering knowledge,etc… and making ‘self-preservation’ to not get into contact with this fear.

The reality for us as children though is that unless our parents happen to be aware of the whole process of fear the society is, they along with all the other adults, including teachers, are in fear, and all their responses, and the arrangements they make for children, speak to the fear they all are. In this sense the child is exposed to an entirely false consciousness of things. It’s as debilitating as growing up next to a hazardous waste dump.

@Viswa

So in order to see this basement(that is unconsciousness) - we can only by destroying the building blocks and see this whole movement of unconsciousness.

So are we saying there is no unconscious without a conscious, which is of necessity exclusive in nature? and so is the concern with integrating all that is unconscious into consciousness a false move, since it is consciousness as all it is identified with and attached to, which is responsible for this stand off? That were it not for the existence of this consciousness, there would be no division as unconscious and conscious? which is to say, is consciousness rather than unconsciousness the issue here?

And is this where resistance as wanting to end a thing, just as to avoid or evade, all plays into the process?

[Viswa]

@Dominic

The reality for us as children though is that unless our parents happen to be aware of the whole process of fear the society is, they along with all the other adults, including teachers, are in fear, and all their responses, and the arrangements they make for children, speak to the fear they all are. In this sense the child is exposed to an entirely false consciousness of things. It’s as debilitating as growing up next to a hazardous waste dump.

Yes. So there is the need for Right Education which K felt and started K schools.

@Dominic

So are we saying there is no unconscious without a conscious, which is of necessity exclusive in nature? and so is the concern with integrating all that is unconscious into consciousness a false move, since it is consciousness as all it is identified with and attached to, which is responsible for this stand off? That were it not for the existence of this consciousness, there would be no division as unconscious and conscious? which is to say, is consciousness rather than unconsciousness the issue here? And is this where resistance as wanting to end a thing, just as to avoid or evade, all plays into the process?

Exactly Dom. And so wants, dont wants, evasion happens.

It’s this ‘consciousness (i.e. me)’ is born from ‘unconsciousness (i.e. deep fear)’ and the ‘unconsciousness’ hides within. So, we are practically living in ‘consciousness(me)’ and trying to search the ‘unconsciousness(fear)’ which this ‘consciousness’ doesn’t know what it is.

So, only after ‘consciousness’ observes the whole movement of itself - it can end it’s own movement and the hiding ‘unconscious fear’ comes out. Only then we can see the whole movement of ‘unconsciousness’.

[sree]

@anon78228991

Do our feelings matter at all? This is a new question. Before thought comes in with any of its answers, what feelings are evoked by the question as it is being posed?

Thought is always there. This conversation is conducted (through the use of thought) in the English language. Even if you are having a dialogue with yourself, you would still be formulating your question in English in your head.

“Before thought” is prior to the beginning of life as we know it. We are the movement of thought. The only part of us, now, that can act without thought is the body in attending to its physiological processes.

Crossing the symbolic threshold transformed consciousness enabling it to use speech for constructing narrative structures. It created self-awareness and the realization that we are now “alive”.

What feelings are evoked by your question before thought? I can’t know that. You would have to ask the zebra, the giraffe, and the flowering plant for the answer.

[DanMcD]

@sree

We are the movement of thought.

Hi Sree,
It was interesting to me that JK pointed to the opposite of that. Thought is a material process, a thing. You are “nothing”, he said, “not-a-thing”.

[anon78228991]

@sree

What feelings are evoked by your question before thought? I can’t know that. You would have to ask the zebra, the giraffe, and the flowering plant for the answer.

But you have only just told me that feelings define your existence. Now you are backing away from it.

[sree]

@DanMcD

It was interesting to me that JK pointed to the opposite of that. Thought is a material process, a thing. You are “nothing”, he said, “not-a-thing”.

What do you mean by the opposite of that? Are we not the movement of thought? The awareness of self may be a projection of thought, but this is the necessary use of knowledge in moving the body to go to the bathroom, to brush our teeth, to drive the car, and go to the store. Even though I am “nothing”, dying to the self while driving on the road could land me in a ravine with a destroyed car and a broken body.

I understand your point, Dan. This thread, started by Paul, is pushing that very point: the ending of thought is the ending of self (imagery). Consciousness crossed the Rubicon when man ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge. Going back cannot be done willy nilly.

Krishnamurti is not easy to understand. David Bohm, who was grounded in rational thinking, spent decades in direct dialogue with Krishnamurti. Bohm wrote:

“ You see the way of looking is conditioning . . . our visual perception is conditioned. And then Ouspensky and Gurdjieff and Krishnamurti . . . they raised the hope that you get free of this conditioning.”

[DanMcD]

@sree

And then Ouspensky and Gurdjieff and Krishnamurti . . . they raised the hope that you get free of this conditioning.” (Bohm)

For all three, breaking through the conditioning was all that mattered.

[sree]

@DanMcD

For all three, breaking through the conditioning was all that mattered.

In the case of Krishnamurti, I don’t think the breakthrough he intimated had to do with dying to thought (i.e. the self, images, noises) or rooting out of fear in the literal sense. He said:

“It is not a matter of what to do about it; because if you attempt to do something about it you are then acting from a fragment and therefore cultivating further fragments and divisions. Whereas, if you can observe holistically, observe the whole movement of life as one, then conflict with its destructive energy not only ceases but also out of that observation comes a totally new approach to life.”

[DanMcD]

@sree

In the case of Krishnamurti, I don’t think the breakthrough he intimated had to do with dying to thought (i.e. the self, images, noises) or rooting out of fear in the literal sense. He said:

“It is not a matter of what to do about it; because if you attempt to do something about it you are then acting from a fragment and therefore cultivating further fragments and divisions. Whereas, if you can observe holistically, observe the whole movement of life as one, then conflict with its destructive energy not only ceases but also out of that observation comes a totally new approach to life.”

Sree, for me it is the state of observation that is important, that it is “holistic”. Anything short of that is one fragment watching and reacting to another: conflict. The fear and conflict and psychological thought all take place in our conditioned ‘reality’. It is only an awareness of the totality of that reality in the moment that is the freedom from it. That is the “new approach” as I see it. There is no ‘me’ who can do it.

[Dominic]

@Viswa

It’s this ‘consciousness (i.e. me)’ is born from ‘unconsciousness (i.e. deep fear)’ and the ‘unconsciousness’ hides within. So, we are practically living in ‘consciousness(me)’ and trying to search the ‘unconsciousness(fear)’ which this ‘consciousness’ doesn’t know what it is.

Yes, I only know what is available to my consciousness, and humanity only knows what is available to the group consciousness, and in neither case is there the knowing how to end self, since the thing concerned to end self, is self.

The exact formulation of self-preservation likely differs from person to person, as well as being fluid in the sense that it can shift. In the case of extremis for example, it can even be shifted ‘out’ of itself into concern for another, like a child, to ensure its continuity that way.