Right, the work is to find out. The said thread was an attempt towards that.
In the K transcript you have provided please note, “sees the whole movement … not just one particular form of greed … but the whole movement of greed” ( reading the book in one glance )
Hello again Douglas and Unied78,
We seem to be having a similar conversation to ones we’ve had before but perhaps that’s not a bad thing. Maybe we can go beyond where we got to last time.
In my humble opinion, in discussing observation we are actually discussing and perhaps understanding what the self is. To be able to become aware of anger or greed, for example, when it arises in you, you’ll need to have a mind that is tremendously sharp and alert. If you don’t have this, there’s no chance of such an observation taking place. If you are thinking, then the self is surely present. The fact that thought is operating will inevitably block any chance of observing anger or anything else as it arises. In the observation of anger in the moment that it occurs, there is surely the possibility of great understanding of the roots of anger and perhaps the “whole movement of anger”. This kind of seeing is, as I understand it, is “right seeing”, as you put it United 78, and can only happen when the mind is silent and not accupied by thought. Thought rushes in after the observation has taken place with its endless interpretations.
I’m not saying I’m an expert in this any more than anybody else. Sometimes my mind is silent and sharp and my observations clear. At other times, my mind is occupied by thought chattering away and I’m unaware of what is going on around me and within me. Alas, I predict that you may reply, “How do you kinow your observations are ever clear? That’s just the self talking.” To that, I can only reply that it’s often very difficult to know with any degree of certainty if someone has a quality of alertness and sharpness to their mind and has actually made some interesting observations or if they are complete fantasists. Krishnamurti certainly seems to be a good example of somebody who had a razor sharp mind and discovered things that are hidden to almost all of the rest of us.
Hi again United 78,
I’ve replied to this point in my reply to Doulas and you above. Yes, we’re discussing things we’ve discussed before on “reading the book in one glance” and other threads. I don’t see this as a bad thing as I said before.
This may well be the case Dan.
Hello Sean,
Bundling me with Douglas seems to be a typo, a case of mis-interpretation, or perhaps a case of conflating responses. It was Douglas; not I, who said to you, I think we’re having the same conversation again, for reasons only he knows and can explain to you.
I was merely bringing our attention to the issue brought up in that thread which happens to be relevant on this thread. Your approach to a dialogue is relatively healthy, unlike…
Hello United 78,
Sorry to have “bundled you in” with Douglas. I was trying to answer the point you made about “seeing the whole movement of greed” in the same post as I was replying to Douglas. This may have been a mistake although it seemed like a good idea at the time.
Not a problem and no worries Sean.
Yes, I can see we’re going over ground we covered before but sometimes I think this is inevitable. Thanks for saying that about my approach to dialogue. I think there’s something interesting here in our perhaps different understandings of the video “On Seeing and Action”. Let’s see …
@Sean
As i see it we did not cover much ground on that thread, and the questions i had posed there remained unanswered. In any case i have said what i wanted to say and matched it with K, if that’s relevant?
Something to ponder Sean, when you see a car erratically coming at you do you see and act the same time or no?
The “entity” is the brain and its conditioned response.
When my attention turns from the object of my anger to my anger itself, the anger loses the strength of self-righteousness because what elicited the anger matters less than the fact that I’m under its influence.
Very well said! The moment you are aware of your anger, the anger dissipates; the targets or the reasons for the anger become very trivial and loose its vitality. Only thing then remains is your awareness of your anger, your own reaction etc. One would then SEE not only the tranquility of the mind but may also feel love and compassion towards the targets of your anger.
Hi again United 78,
What do you understand by “sees the whole movement” (of greed, anger etc) in this context? Krishnamurti went very far in his understanding of anger, greed etc. He seemed to understand their very deep roots and why they arise. Can the very clear observation of one instance of anger lead to an understanding of the whole movement of anger?
Hello @Sean
Well, that will take us to the unanswered questions on “total seeing” of the older thread which, as you know had to be abandoned. However, pertinent to this thread, another question was asked at # 29.
To think there is anger to see, and an anger, greed, etc, to mollify, is a myth. It is psychoanalytical stuff. There is no division in seeing. There is no learning when it is about something called anger, or hate, or peace, or love. It is learning about the whole reactionary mind where seeing is a complete alertness, attentiveness.
Its a simple story though - therefore one that we are prone to believe.
Unfortunately the number of angry people that turn into angels thanks to their super-awareness skills are close to 0
When I get caught up in Anger and judge myself for it - the sentence is usually a feeling of guilt rather than love.
We all get angry - surely that is a fact. Do we really understand our anger? Probably not.
“That is why you should have very strong feelings - feelings of passion, anger - and watch them, play with them, find out the truth of them; for if you merely suppress them, if you say, “I must not get angry, I must not feel passionate, because it is wrong”, you will find that your mind is gradually being encased in an idea and thereby becomes very shallow. You may be immensely clever, you may have encyclopaedic knowledge, but, if there is not the vitality of strong and deep feeling, your comprehension is like a flower that has no perfume.”
Krishnamurti, Think on These Things, Part 1
THIS MATTER OF CULTURE CHAPTER 8
Hello once again United78,
Fortanately, up to now, this has never happened to me. However, I think I get your point and I assume it’s the same one as K made on the video about the cobra. There are moments when we act immediately without thought intervening. These moments usually only occur when we are faced with danger. Do you ever react like this in other situations, when there is no obvious threat or danger?
Hello Sean
Right.
The question now is, why is there a discrepancy in the *responses? (One complete and the other incomplete).
React * is probably not a right choice in words.
Reacting to a coiled rope as if it were a cobra is a conditioned response that’s as old as time. Acting appropriately to what is actual, though not apparent to preoccupied minds, is the antithesis of the survival response because it is not conditioned.
The mind that is free of illusions is free to react conditionally because it is not conditioned by the illusion of self-image and its associated falsehoods.