Who told you to fight “what is”? I just told you the opposite, let it be, live it. If you want to escape, Ok, do escape. Why we should torture ourselves with the disconfort our emotions create?
So this is settled. Now there could be a different approach which does not trigger the reaction/necessity to escape? That approach lies in the discovery of the state of alertness, of having all your senses awake. One has to be grounded in it, that means you cultivate it everyday in safe situations of course. Once you can easily shift to that state at every moment, because you are grounded in it and you have given importance to it (which we usually don’t) then you can switch to that state at the moment of strong emotions. The passion, the vitality connected with that state will make the escape not so necessary and you will be able to embrace your emotions.
Of course one can’t accept this on your authority. And I DO question it…that one can ‘switch to that state at the moment of strong emotions’. When one is being carried away by strong fear or anger, one can make a decision to ‘stitch’ over to some other state? That implies a separate decider or observer…a division between ‘what is’ and ‘what should be’…or ‘what I’d prefer to be the case’.
It’s not a matter of accepting it, it’s just a matter of trying it. I know that it seems an unlikely thing to happen. That is the problem of being in the dark, nothing looks feasible. And of course you don’t have to do it out of my authority, that will be ridiculous. Did you read my answer to Sean? (Where I quote a sentence from you). I tried it for years and never worked. I quit the whole thing and occupied myself with other things. It’s a vicious cirlcle, I was depressed and so obviously my perceptions were dimmed, so I had no possibility to find the right approach, even if I heard K. talking about it innumerable times.
I don’t know how it happened. Perhaps it’s a matter of health and so of vitality, perhaps it was pure chance but just recently I discovered this state of having all the senses fully awake, and since then things have changed. I may be wrong. It’s nothing so special, it’s nothing that requires special capacity. I do think it’s a normal state for a human being. The problem is that with most of us we don’t live in a normal way but we are half-asleep and in that half-sleep state we want to find a solution. That is not possible unless you awake.
My policy when I see that I’m hitting a wall (or going around in circles) is that of forgetting the whole thing and find a better way to spend my time.
There is no decision to take, no choice, and so no division between what is and what should be.
I don’t know if I’ll be able to explain a thing which requires to be experimented to be understood. Anyway, I’ll try and probably I’ll fail.
You are simply observing everything in and out. You are aware of the environment around you and of what is happening inside your head. The difference with what we usually do is that your perceptions are clearer, neater, especially the perception of the now, the new. You see that the outer world is always new, there is a sense of freshness in your perceiving it, and also of a rock-hard reality. At the same time inside you there is this emotion, or sorrow, or fear. It’s a reality completely different from the now, the new. And this explains why K. called it the past. Previously, I could not see in myself that my thoughts, my fear were “in the past”, I could not accept his statement. To me they were the present. But once I got the sense of the new, the now, I could see that those realities did not belong to the present. The quality is different, and not only that. They were weaker and less intimidating. I could handle them. This, I think was the consequence of being grounded in the present, in actuality.
Yes, I understand. Those thoughts about the fear or anger are conditioned by the past…understood. And my thinking about what to do about the fear is from the past. How does the ‘sense of freshness…’ come into the picture? So is there some sort of division then? Between the inner(fear/thought) and the outer(the world around me). I can see this intellectually and yet be carried away by the pain of fear or anger. This seeing mentioned in the last sentence is insight? Insight which then becomes knowledge, right? And I try to repeat this insight when fear arises again…but it’s gone…it’s a thing of the past…knowledge. Just exploring, voyager…not coming to any conclusion, but trying to understand your message.
I perceived it like a difference in quality, but yes, probably there was division.
I don’t know, but I don’t think it was a real insight like that K. spoke about. It was more like when your glasses are dirty and then you clean them and so you vision is clearer.
Just so. That small insight is gone and I can’t recreate it. I only have the memory of it. I was meditating this evening but that quality was not there. So I’m not really permanently grounded in it. Never mind, I stay with whatever is there. However that sense of the new came several times, and I played with it a bit. I don’t know what will happen if a strong emotion will come. Up to know the fear I had didn’t come back. I’m curious to see whether it will appear again…
Think about it. Seriously. Don’t react personally. Think about this point of view. Not thinking, he or she has a point of view, or why is someone saying you have a point of view, or why is there an antagonistic point of view, etc. . No. Think about any point of view, and that there is this phenomenon, which we can’t see, or ignore, which is in the mind. In the mind, there is this way of looking, a point of view, and that is clouding the observation. I don’t hear what someone says as relative to a human condition, but as something I have to accept or deny. That is the nature of authority. As fragmented minds we don’t have authority, and we struggle to cope with an invented authority of one person against another. In this fragmented condition what we have is a false authority of a point of view.
Your whole post is a masterpiece of nonsense. You should be coherent with your statement " On the whole question of talking together, I differ." And stop talking to me, to us.
Good to have a challenging example that I’m sure we can all relate to. I would say that if your or my spouse insults us, there are a number of very complex things going on that raise questions such as the following: Why is your spouse insulting you? Is she/he angry? Where is this anger coming from exactly? How do you react to the insult? With anger? With another insult? With silence? In another way?
Is the way to be free of ingrained patterns of behaviour to observe closely what is going on around us and within us? Through watching and listening with great attention, can we learn about and change these fixed patterns? I think that is what K was saying. In the moment you are receiving an aggressive insult, is it possible to be aware of how we are reacting? Watching the anger rise within us and understand where it is coming from? Do we actually ever do this?
Ego - That I am being unjustly disrespected sometimes causes the habitual defense reaction - anger etc - this happens more often when we are tired and unaware. So we start disrespecting our interlocutor (anger) and saying its their fault that I am angry. Or if we look at the recent insults here on Kinfonet - Its your fault I’m angry (you’re not respecting what I say, you’re mad, you said this: “strawman your position”, I’m so wonderful)
Yes, that all makes sense as an after the event analysis. However, I understand that Krishnamurti said that if you can actually observe the anger in the moment it is arising in you and understand it, there is an immediate change in behaviour. The seeing is the acting as it were.The seeing brings about action that is not bound in thought and past conditioning.
Of course - where there is one there cannot be the other. Where there is awareness there is not ego.
And the effect is instant - seeing has immediate effect on confusion
However, being angry and at the same time trying to observe myself being angry, is conflict and confusion.
“…but if I want to observe there must be no movement of thought…
In observation there is a certain sensitivity. If you observe very closely, without prejudices, the sensory activity becomes very acute and therefore there is much more sensitivity. Now the question is: when you are sensitive do you have more pain? More suffering?
When there is sensitivity, not that you become sensitive, see the difference please. I said through observation, without prejudices and so on, there is the sharpening of all the senses, therefore there is a greater sensitivity… and being sensitive acutely, when there is greater sensitivity, is the suffering much greater? Or when I am sensitive, then everything affects me, either create pleasure or greater suffering. I wonder if you see the difference, right?
The senses being seeing, hearing, etc. right? How does this come into play when there is fear or great suffering? How do the senses come into the picture. Do I feel the pain more acutely in the body as sensation is more acute? That’s no help in understanding the cause of fear is it? I 'm sorry, I don’t know where K is going with this increased sensitivity. Observing the trees and the sky…yes, the senses can become more awake…but how do the senses enter into the picture when I have great conflict…an immense problem like anger in relationship?
And the second question is: must there be complete transformation - listen to the question - must there be complete transformation, psychologically, all that we have talked about, before you put out the fire? You understand the question? I see the fire in the world, and the fire inside myself - the misery, the confusion, the idiocy, the pettiness, my arrogance, and all the rest of it. Until - the questioner says - until I radically transform myself it is not possible to put the fire out.
K: Sir, listen to the question first, find out what is implied in it: I cannot do anything until I become perfect. Right? And the house is burning in the meantime. And the house is me. I am being burnt, so I wait until I become perfect. Right? This is the question that is asked not only by that gentleman but by everybody. Which is, can I teach, can I start a school, can I do anything until I have completely transformed? You see the absurdity of the question, need I explain it? I am not being rude to you, sir. But need that question be answered? Do you mean to say you wait until you become transformed; or you see the importance of putting an end to the fire, and that very essential urge to put out the fire is transforming you. You understand? Right.
[…]
Are you doing this? So in other words, sir, you want to remain mediocre which means - I am not condemning you, I am just pointing out - mediocrity means climbing half way up the hill; excellence means going right to the top of it.
So most of us would rather remain in our stagnant pools of little conditioning, and knowing that very conditioning is destroying the world. Right?
We remain in our stagnant pools of conditioning, knowing that our conditioning is destroying the world because knowing what is, is not seeing what is. We know that the observer is the observed because we know why it is so, but we don’t actually see it because we’re conditioned to separate and fragment the whole. Knowing that we’re doing this amounts to nothing if we can’t see it.
Observing the reactionary mind, there is nothing to say. It is basically my own interest in communicating this nothing-less-ness of the reactionary mind.