I am afraid the you has to be substituted by we, unless you are claiming to be free from this defect. It wasn’t asked prior to the agreement to conclude, but one is sure if you keep trying you will find out. Besides, like this one said before, he does not partake in forms of interesting entertainment.
I’m not claiming anything at all. I just asked some questions. It’s pretty clear that you find that problematic. Good luck with your future enquiries United78.
This is a great moment for awareness and complete action Sean, right when you are being reactive and projecting your reactions.
BTW, the words "never been able to have any kind of “complete action” indicating only a past tense were never used, but the response at #56 you quoted, includes all of time i.e. past, present, and future with a finality derived from our inquiry that unless the danger is seen there cannot be complete action. Again, i think if you read the responses without being reactive and keep trying i am sure you will figure it out. Good luck to you.
Edit: i see you are still typing, go ahead and have your last word. 
Yes, very true. These are the very moments that there is an opportunity to look at how we are reacting and truly learn. Why are we reacting the way we are? In general, we can see others reacting but can’t see ourselves being reactive. This nine minute video is really interesting.
That is an interesting reaction.
Ideally, yes, but in fact, when your attention turns from the object of your anger to your anger itself, it puts responsibility where it belongs instead of where it’s projected. The cause of my anger is of less importance than my anger because my anger may be excessive or mistaken, and I need to look at that first. And even upon determining that my anger is inappropriate, I still have to determine whether expressing my anger is more or less prudent in light of the likely consequences.
Anger, like any strong emotion, when not tempered with reason, can do harm.
Complete awareness of my anger no longer needs justification, or ramification. If you are going to determine on those things, the answer you get will be the response of your own conditioned mind and that leads to another subject such as “The Thinker and the Thought”, if we were to accept that both are the same. The awareness of anger ends the anger and no further action is needed.
If I may expand into other question raised by some contributors on why our action is complete when we see imminent danger and act immediately whereas psychological conflicts such as anger jealousy or greed , our action is incomplete. We can examine both issues separately.
(A) Imminent Dangers : Approaching car, train or cobra etc.
Here we are dealing with SELF preservation, a physical self. This is inherent basic instinct in all living creatures . The organism’s intelligence is operating here . It is not an action of thought and is not a conditioned reflex such as Pavlov’s pouch in a dog. The action is complete because it is the result of awareness that requires immediate action without intervention of thought.
(B) * Psychological Conflicts: Anger, Greed, Jealousy etc.
Here, we are dealing with the preservation, protection of the SELF IMAGE (as opposed to the PHYSICAL SELF) .This image is thought created, it is fictitious and has no reality and we see that there is no imminent physical danger and we do not act immediately. Not only that, because of lack of awareness, our action at that time may even fight more vigorously to strengthen the image that the psychological “ME” has created.
Awareness from Moment to Moment and living in the PRESENSE appears to be the answer to the psychological conflicts
…
No. Our survival is dependent on conditioned response.
Is it possible to reflect, consider, then take appropriate action?
Yes. It’s only when one must respond reflexively that conditioned response is appropriate…and even then it may be inappropriate, as in mistaking a rope for a snake.
I was not opposing them but pointing out that they’re complementary. One is impossible without the other.
2 Likes
Hello,
I agree that everything comes back to awareness from moment to moment. As far as I can see, we can explore both the reasons we are not aware most of the time and also the effect which awareness has when it is present. Both very valid lines of inquiry I would say.
One effect when awareness is present to one’s thoughts and desires is, that they become ‘transparent’ as movements of ‘habit’? And as a result of the awareness, they may not be ‘followed’ or identified with. They can dissolve. Fear images for me are like that. They arise but don’t take ‘hold’ as when there was no ‘attention’ to their presence. Not always of course. Awareness it seems, comes and goes.
1 Like
First, what is the real difference (if any) for the ignorant mind (the one that believes in a self-existent self, whether physical or created by thought) between the preservation of the SELF (case (A)) and the preservation of the SELF-IMAGE (case (B)) when that ignorant mind takes both instances as the ACTUAL SELF without any division between the SELF and the SELF-IMAGE?
And second (case (B)) … “This image” is neither a thought created nor a fictitious image for the mind in anger, jealousy, etc., but an ABSOLUTELY ACTUAL SELF … Up to the point that it acts IMMEDIATELY with anger, jealousy, etc. (in the same way that it acts to preserve physical self) in the very moment that it feels in danger (attacked somehow) like when someone calls it “Son of a Bitch” for example.
That is, in both of your two cases ignorant mind is IDENTIFYING itself with the SAME SELF, without any division at all, acting IMMEDIATELY before any danger to preserve what for it is the ACTUAL SELF without any distinction between a PHYSICAL SELF or a SELF-IMAGE, as you have exposed.
Something to say about this? 
Let us examine the questions raised:
- Ignorant mind’s inability to separate the real SELF and the IMAGE of the self.
- And that the Ignorant mind acts immediately with anger when insulted because it feels in danger.
- It acts without any distinction the real SELF and the IMAGE of the SELF.
-One of the meanings of the word Ignorant is Lack of Awareness. Because of the lack of awareness
the mind is ignorant and therefore mistakes the thought created image to be the real and not the real self. It is a failure to recognize 'WHAT IS" and indulges in WHAT SHOULD BE"
.
-Ignorant mind acts immediately when insulted and feels it is in danger.
Let us examine it closely.
The ignorant mind acts immediately because it is a Conditioned reflex; some body said unkind words. What exactly is hurting? It is the Image , ego etc. It is a psychological trauma. There is NO harm done to the REAL SELF, the body. There is no cut, bruise or bleeding. In reality, the danger the ignorant mind perceives is not the PHYSICAL danger. That mind is trying to preserve and protect the image of the SELF(and not the REAL SELF), that his own thinking has created. Obviously, one must protect oneself from physical danger.
-Finally, why the SELF and SELF IMAGE appear to be one and the same:
When the thought is so deeply entrenched in the mind, one begins to identify with that thought. Thought becomes ME. Any attack on that thought is perceived as an attack on the REAL SELF.
And that has been taking place for thousands of years and still going on. The thought that is planted in young developing innocent brain by parents, teachers, preachers and leaders makes a Thinker with that ideology, who in turn propagates it to others over generations. That is why the world, the humanity is in turmoil. Humans are killing to protect their thoughts and their believes rather than themselves.
Only the mind that is free of Ideology can think clearly. Awareness comes when that mind is fully alert and constantly vigil. Only then, the Ignorance is dispelled and one will see what is REAL and that which is an IMAGE.
1 Like
Is the “real self” the body? Is the real self the physical brain? I agree that there is an image of a ‘self’, the “bundle” of experiences and memories, the name, etc, that has a certain continuity. It is a product of thought, yes? The physical body has its own ‘brain’, its own intelligence. It reacts to perceived danger immediately. The intellectual ‘brain’ is quite separate from it. It may be just a matter of labels but for me, if there is a ‘real self’ that you seem to be saying, all ‘real selves’ would be one. What the poet Rumi was getting at, I think, when he wrote “There is only room for one ‘I’ in my father’s house.”
What I am trying to say here is that there is an ‘organism’ but there is no ‘real self’ associated with it, physically or psychologically. The idea of there being a ‘real individual self’ is just a further projection of thought based on fear.
The body is material, matter, a ‘thing’. Thought / feeling is also, a “material process”, a ‘thing’… What Krishnamurti is saying is, that “you are nothing”, …(not-a-thing).
Like when the earth was found to be round, instead of flat…it changes everything.
1 Like
By the “real self” you seem to mean the body, the organism. But what about the mind’s effect on the body? When you’re mistaken, confused, uncertain, at a loss, angry or resentful, those emotions are who you are in the moment, and they “hurt” because the mind’s knowledge and ability is not always adequate or accurate. Every movement of the mind affects the body. The mind isn’t always up to the task at hand, is deficient in many ways, and its errors and failures are felt by the body as emotional stress.
Your feelings are who you are at that moment. Your sense of who you are has to do with the feelings generated by what the mind does, and how those feelings, in turn, affect the mind. There’s constant feedback between the mind and the body. A quiet, attentive mind is good for the body, whereas an occupied, nattering mind has an enervating effect on the whole organism.
1 Like
Hi @ckapdimd,
Let me tell you first that the next time you reply to a post, try to make at least some kind of reference to the name of the author of the post you reply to (a simple @<username> is enough). Otherwise you run the risk that the person referred to does not find out that someone has answered him and you wait for a response that does not arrive (when one does not have much time, most of the time one comes to the forum, check if there is some message for him or her and if there is none, one leaves. And it may take a few days, or even a week, until one has time and goes around the threads, to realize then that someone answered a week ago to one of his posts) 
According to Merriam-Webster online dictionary “Real” means:
- having objective independent existence
Now, if according to you the body is the REAL SELF, what’s this body independent from?
Is it independent from a mind that identifies itself all the time with that body as being “MY” body, “MY” head, “MY” hands, “MY” stomach, “MY” liver, and so on? When the body is at the edge of a cliff what is that which has fear to fall down and die? According to you it should be the body itself as independent from a mind that is labeling it as " ‘I AM’ going to fall down the cliff". But is the body what has actually fear to fall down?
And if the body according to you is the REAL SELF, which means that it has an objective independent existence from the mind, what is the cause for it to smile or cry or fight or feed or to embrace another?
In a word, could you explain why the mind should be interested in protect that which has an objectively independent existence from it when a car erratically come at the body?
Thanks!
Can you prove that that so-called own intelligence of the body is something different from the mind itself? That that so-called own intelligence of the body acts on it’s own independently of what the mind thinks?
Could you explain who sees that car erratically coming at the body and who moves away from it and why, when the ‘actor’ of the former part of the question sees that the car is comming at “ME”?
I don’t know about proof fraggle but I’ll share an experience which to me dramatically shows the separation of the ‘thinker thinking and the memory intelligence of the body / brain…I was walking in the woods, thinking about one thing or another, not very aware of my surroundings, more aware of what I was thinking about…all of a sudden the body had stopped and the right foot was poised in the air…the shock stopped the thinking and a snake was seen lying in the path right in front of the upraised foot. ‘I’ had not seen it.
The eyes had obviously seen the snake and the brain was aware of the danger and reacted immediately by ‘freezing’ all movement…only then did the ‘thinker’ / thought , ‘me’, become aware of the threat.
Hi Fraggle,
REAL is “Objective Independence Existence”. However , the SELF implies Living, Thinking and Feeling Autonomous Being that is Physically separate from the others. Putting it together perhaps would be more appropriate.
The BODY really was meant to represent “SELF” as described above and not separate from the mind. It was never intended as a separate from the mind.
As to why there is immediate instinct to protect one self from immediate danger was discussed at length in Forum item #66.
DanMcd
REAL SELF was meant to imply a Living, Thinking and Feeling Autonomous Being that is Physically separate from the OTHERS.