“No one can lead you to truth…you alone have to toil, search out, and discover.” from “The Mirror of Relationship” by K.
It may be useful to consider here what relationship I am with in and of myself. That is, what is the nature of the relationship I am with all the various fragments of myself of which I may be aware. Then consider, in what way are things different, when confronted with the reality of self in other, who is considered other than myself, or external to me. Is there in the immediate experiencing of it a qualitative difference? Is the sense of polarisation more pronounced than it is between elements of what I see as just myself, and if so, why is that? What factor is at work which is making for that difference, that sense of greater intensity if you will?
Are we aware that we are violent? Or are we aware of it only after the thought has come in that says, ‘I must not be violent’? At the moment of anger there is only anger: there is nothing to be aware of. It is only later on that the observer comes in who says, ‘Why did that happen? How can I prevent it happening again?’ Also with fear, when one is truly afraid there is only the fear; and any action arising from that fearful incident comes about without the interference of thought. It is only afterwards that the observer interprets what has taken place. So the observer himself is at the root of the problem, not what happens to him, but his interpretation of events. From this interpretation he attempts to change the nature of the problem; but the whole problem lies in his interpretation because it sows the seeds of time: the ideal of self-improvement and of becoming a better human being. Why does one want to become a better human being? It is only an idea we are chasing.
1 Like
Because we are violent and our violence is directly related to the violence in the world. We see the horrific violence man is capable in the news or read in a history book about the horrors of the Holocaust or the slave trade and want to know if we can change. It’s unthinkable that man can kill millions of his fellow man with nuclear weapons. ‘The house is on fire’, K. ‘What will you do?’ K., again…speaking about the fact of our violence. ‘How far will you go to get to the root of violence…to be free of violence?’ ( this one is a paraphrase of K from a book ‘On conflict’). If I don’t interpret …if I don’t resist or judge the violence, I won’t be any different from the primitive man who kills with no regrets, right? Like the infamous ‘headhunters’ in New Guinea. Yet resistance hasn’t freed us from violence…not in the least. So what will we do?
Is this altogether true though? What is there before the moment of anger? Is there not an action or reaction of which the anger is an expression? Is it really the case that an observer separate from what is observed only comes in after the anger? Is it not there all along?
There is an angry observer who thinks he is separate from the thing which is causing his anger. The I always feels separated. (even, at times, from parts of itself)
Without the observer, there is no anger. But at the moment of anger there is only anger. It is not the observer being angry.
But in the moment in which there is anger, what has brought about the anger, if not an observer separate from what is observed? If there is no observer prior, what then is the brain, and what then is the cause of that anger?
last I heard the brain was a probability calculator, and the cause of the anger was whatever the brain says it was.
Quite possibly so, but what I mean is, it is a reaction is it not? It doesn’t arise out if nothing as it were, or come out of a void, or the brain in a ‘state’ deep in meditation, which is what I meant by what is the brain, as in what is the brain in the moment prior to anger being?
according to neuroscience : calculating its next move based on the probabilities (x and y being the data stored in its banks compared to its calculations of what is happening “out there” - “out there” being a variable calculated “in here”) 
That’s as may be too, but the point is, the anger is still a reaction is it not?
I’ll go with : Yes.
The brain is reacting to its content and conclusions.
Anger is a habitual reaction to recognised stimuli.
Stimuli being the habitual reaction to recognised content.
Right, so the reaction is the same thing any reaction is, which is an observer separate from what is observed, which occurs within the space/time that reality is each moment. The point I am trying to make being, an observer separate from what is observed, which is the reality, was there throughout, and the anger is a reaction in it, and the observer who may then perceive I am angry, I must not be angry, is a further reaction in turn. But that observer did not just appear with the anger, and the anger pop out of nothing. So the nothing prior to anger that Paul appears to picture, is the inattentive brain, in which the observer that is there all along, all the time reality is, was lost to awareness, and the anger jolts the dull brain somewhat, and hey presto! the observer is back. But the observer has not just emerged, it was there throughout.
I’m seeing the same Dominic. The conditioning is there in the brain whether we’re aware of it or not. It lies dormant in the brain cells and an external stimulus jolts it back to the forefront
Yes, that’s right. But the anger wipes away the observer. That’s why anger is perceived as something so dangerous because its energy is total. There isn’t anger and an observer; there is only anger.
1 Like
One of the principles in the teachings is you don’t react, you act. So, this means actually that you take responsibility for all your actions, that is what Krishnamurti means by being absolutely honest and serious… to be alone. Ultimately, this means the individual is simultaneously the observer and the observed, not the anger. If anger takes place in that condition, being the observer and the observed, it can only mean the right action has taken place. For that to happen, there must be what Krishnamurti called ‘the miracle of attention’.
Now I am confused.
Are you saying that when there is attention, the observer becomes the observed? As if the “observer is the observed” is a kind of goal?
I was always under the impression that it was a description of the movement of self.
Isn’t it that as long as the duality of observer/observed or thinker/thought, etc. continues, there is friction and inevitably conflict…all this is a wastage of energy. When (if) this duality ends, the energy that was wasted is now available for observation aka ‘attention’