What did the teachings say about anger (the main human problem)?
Who says anger is the main human problem, you or the teachings? So where are the teachings? Are they in you or are they out there in some other place? If they are in some other place, if they belong to K or to someone else, then the issue of interpretation will always be the greatest human problem, wonât it? It will be far greater than anger or fear or loneliness or depression or any other of the thousand psychological difficulties which plague mankind. We shall then argue endlessly over who has the best interpretation, the finest understanding, the smartest perception.
Seeing this, is it possible to abandon altogether the teachings and stand totally alone with whatever it is that one is being faced with? Thatâs right: abandon altogether the teachings.
Or do you get angry at this suggestion? Do you resist it without even permitting one momentâs breath of consideration? For the abandonment of the teachings may be their very essence; their abnegation may be at the core of them.
1 Like
Why are you concern with"who"? You are the problem not who or what.
Sir, your game is up, Iâm afraid. You cannot hope to remain here in any serious capacity if all you are doing is picking on words and objecting to them. Last week it was the words âmeâ and âyouâ and now it is the word âwhoâ. Yet you seem to have forgotten very quickly your own objection to the word âyouâ, because you have used it twice already. This is what happens when we play such terrible hands: we forget which cards have already appeared from the pack.
I asked you if you are angry. Are you? Donât fudge it.
By the way, I feel I am entitled to be as rude as I like, not because I have decided to hide behind a cloak of anonymity like yourself but because I have no idea who - âwhoâ - or what, if anyone or anything, is talking to me.
Pray continue, sweetheart.
Yeah, you need to get off this forum if all youâre gonna do is make stupid vague comments that carry zero weight. Especially when itâs directed in such an arrogant way, as if youâre some guru who is the only one that understands anything. Either youâre a troll or youâre so deluded that you cannot bear to seriously listen to anything that anyone else besides yourself says.
Okay - so Examiner has some issues - but why the aggression? Fighting fire with fire? What is at stake : the purity or level of the ideas, the quality of the people on kinfonet? What are we defending?
Who is the aggressor? It may be him; it may be me; it may be both of us. Or, aggression is always self-aggression. There is actually no aggressor at all. Just as there is no-one who is angry with the world; there is only anger, which is self-directed anger.
So we are not saying that anger is not a vital issue. On the contrary, this demands the highest responsibility from each of us. Because surely there is a point where or a moment when aggression and anger are imperceptible from passion. Then everything starts to look very different.
For me, when someone here hides behind any form of pseudonym or pretence of anonymity, they are denying me the right to form my own opinions and images about them as real human beings with all the flaws and frailties this involves. This denial hurts me. Anger may start there as nothing but a lack of love. Not their lack of love for me - I donât mean that - but me being put into a position where any expression of love is made impossible. Thatâs at the heart of this. They are asking me to respect and engage with an abstraction. Love is impossible then. And I think it is quite right to get angry about this. I canât understand anybody who doesnât. I donât know why one would tolerate it for even one second, especially now it is all out in the open.
It seems that Paul and Lightenthedark need to post in Jesus forum . Krishnamurti is too much for them.
Paul , I have decided to ignore your future comments because they are based on the illusion of the self. So find someone else to lecture. I refuse to read people who write or talk out of hurts.
So much for the teachings then. To whom do you think K was talking throughout the entire course of his life? You are merely condemning yourself to an eternity of utter loneliness if you are truly serious about such a refusal. I have been here nearly 70 years and have yet to find someone who doesnât communicate from hurt. It is embedded in our common human language, whether we are from Paris or Poland, from Birmingham England or Birmingham Alabama; it is therefore impossible to write or talk about anything else without a great deal of self-deception.
Arenât âweâ living in the energy realm or field of aggression? âThingsâ fighting, eating one another, murder, cruelty, torture, out doing one another, territoriality, etcâŚSomeone realizing this said âALL is sufferingââŚanother said âThe house is burningâ. We are part and parcel of it all no matter what stories we make up about ourselves. ButâŚthis brain is the only one that can reflect upon its situation and ask if there is a way out.
Is the brain seeking a way out, a way in, or just a way of being that does not create or tolerate confusion? It may be that if the brain did not tolerate confusion, thought would stop every time it is confused; every time practical thought is infused with psychological thought. This way psychological thought could not develop or persist.
If the brain was silent, empty (which it isnât) then the arrival of âpsychological thoughtâ would be rejected as a disturbance, confusion. It would not be entertained as it is now. Because the brain has identified itself with the ego?
Silence and emptiness may not be possible until the brain can discern the difference between psychological thought and practical thought. Psychological thought is the cause of noise, i.e., confusion.
If you are angry and say I am angry who is the entity that says I am angry or I am hurt? Is it not the observer separating itself from anger and says I am angry or hurt? So as long as the observer separates itself from the observed (which in this case is anger) there must be conflict and wastage of energy therefore no observation.
There is anger. There is no âifâ and therefore there is no, âI am angry.â Then anger is imperceptible from love. Everything else is just a theory.
I wonder if someone can possibly live in lala land these days.!!
But you talked about there being neither conflict nor wastage of energy. Anger without the additional conflict and interference of the self is no different from love. We are not saying two different things, you and me. You have presented the theory; I am showing you what happens when you step inside the theory and take it apart for yourself. Donât get angry with me unless you understand exactly what it is that I am saying. Then anger is perfectly alright.
No ,I have stated the fact ,not theory Sir.
@Examiner Youâve probably just been thinking inside your own krishnamurti box for too long. Krishnamurti too much for us? LOL. Hilarious yet pathetic remarks. Remember what he said? If you make him your guru then stay away. So you should probably break open your box and stay away