So the answer is yes. You are meeting your own self-induced fear.
Hi Dominic
Why do the manner and responses being made here, signify that the self-image or ego is present?
sree had been expressing a concern at the fact of death, and specifically the potential physiological aspect of it, in suffering a long, and drawn out death, and not just the psychological.
Obviously death is something we all have to contend with and Paul, who didnât have to respond, told sree dying is now, but that sree was putting it off. Given there is no ego present, and no fear of death, and there is a concern to answer, can there not be a response which is more humane and compassionate than the one made. It isnât enough to be technically correct, and the facts concerning the reality of self are not an excuse to dismiss another simply to shore up oneself out of an inability to draw close to the matter.
Krishnamurti put this question in one of his small personal groups. It was something to the effect of this man is dying, and he is telling me he is frightened of death, what will I say to him? And one of the group gave an arid intellectual response, and Krishnamurti took him to task, and ended by telling him, Iâll hold his hand and tell him, donât worry old friend Iâll die with you.
So you have managed to steer it all the way from a question about your own response to someone here, to making it about me.
You intervened right at the start of this conversation, getting all upset about something I said to another person. Since then this has been all about your reactions. Never once have you asked for clarification; youâve just jumped in with one assumption after another. So you have an image of me based on all that. And all I said to him was that dying is now, but he is putting it off. The procrastination brings in time; and fear thrives in time. I donât give two hoots about sounding compassionate or not. I am now saying exactly the same thing to you. Will you die at once to all these stupid images? Or are you happy to continue living in fear, which is just another form of self-indulgence?
Hi Paul
Isnât this saying, will you die to all the habits that you have? Doesnât more have to be said than "Will you dieâŚ? How? What is the âactionâ in the moment of this âdyingâ, dropping, letting go. etc. Even dropping one small habit can meet with great resistanceâŚso what is this âdyingâ to everything in the moment. You are saying do it so how do you do it? (Understood about âhowâ, timeâ, etc.)
Nobody can meet you because the meeting must be on your terms.
Dying is the cessation of all action. Therefore it means there can be no dropping or letting go, no movement whatsoever, no deliberate action. We form images merely to protect other images; this is their only purpose. So any image we may have about another is formed in order either to protect an image of oneself or an image of how the world should be; and at root these two probably are the same thing. We seem to go through life being hurt without ever questioning what it is that keeps getting hurt. But when you look at it carefully, it is only ever an image that gets hurt; and the further formation of images is what keeps the whole structure in place. The moment one sees that any image must inevitably keep one separate from the rest of the world, causing pain both to oneself and to the world, the image no longer has any importance, and there is nothing more to do about it; for then you are the world and the world is you.
1 Like
Donât be so ridiculous. I have no terms. I just want to meet you. It is you who keeps putting terms in the way - terms and conditions, excuses and justifications, reasons and suspicions, the whole gamut of fear. When we meet one another there is no such thing as fear; there canât be.
Your abhorrence of fear has you convinced that fearlessness is what-should-be.
There is no such thing as fearlessness. That is just another lazy image founded in fear about what it might be like to be free of that fear. When the image-making is revealed for what it is, fear and fearlessness are replaced by something altogether different.
1 Like
You have answered your question, âIs it possible to live entirely without fear?â
Yes. Quite right. To live entirely without fear has nothing to do with fearlessness.
What if @anon78228991 is correct and image making is the crux of the matter? What if we are consistently looking in the wrong place because we so trust our reasoning?
K: One has to find out whether it is thought that has bred fear; not how to be free of fear. freedom from fear will inevitably come about when one understands the structure, the nature, and the functioning of thought.
I donât see this as being about that. Everyone here understands as much about images as Paul. This is about weaponising the issue and using it against other human beings, while treating them as if they are figures in a virtual reality, where nothing has any value besides his pleasure. But thatâs self for you.
JK has said that âthought is fearâ. DB has said that the core of the ego process is the desire for satisfaction.
When thought projects images of future âsatisfactionsâ which it can do because of our new brain, , it also projects the possibility that these images can be threatened, that is what I read in Sreeâs post about the possible suffering of the body. These projections about future âsatisfactionsâ are for security but if they are possibly threatened, a âfear reflexâ as Bohm calls it, is activated and solutions must be sought. But then arenât we âlooking in the wrong placeâ as Emile is asking, if itâs not seen that the thought projection / image itself, seeking satisfaction for psychological security, IS the fear itself?
Where is anyone looking to see fear if not in being? Fear exists in relationship to psychological time as becoming, and just as fear cannot be seen when the concern is to look past it at a projected end to it, so the process of image making cannot be seen and understood when there is the concern to end it. Paulâs continual weaponising of the issue in order to confront others with it is not only fake on account of telling others to be something he is not himself, it is also misleading in that it is not what is required.
Speaking strictly for myself, I can unequivocally say that I donât understand the process of image-making at all. Not in any real, vital sense. That kind of understanding though is an underlying interest.
I wonder why we are on this forum? A Krishnamurti forum. Do we all share an interest in investigating whether it is possible to bring about a radical change in the human mind, that is, in our own minds? With the operative word being âradicalâ. An entirely different way of thinking, of being, Not imagined but real. Can we assume that of each other? That we are all coming from that place?
Then everything we individually air here would be fair game for examination, as if one human mind is putting it forward. To be accepted or rejected or further delved into on its merit alone. Not based on an image we have of the person saying it or on our own self-image for that matter. If we make things personal, communication on matters that challenge self-image at its core is impossible.
Most likely though we donât all have a common interest, or else our interest is not clear - hence the troubles. As @Dominic put it, thatâs self for you.
1 Like
Where you see weaponising, I see impatience. Nothing quite so malicious. Either way, they are both images.
Until desire and fear are one and the same, âtheyâ wreak havoc.