What I’m getting at is we don’t get it. As he supposedly said before he died, “nobody got it”. That hasn’t changed. There’s a ‘jump’ or a break through that has to be made and I (we) haven’t made it. Others can speak for themselves but that’s what I see, feel.
Its o.k. Dan. Personally I don’t have any opinion about that .
It’s ok Richard. Personally I think ‘attention’ is the key still. When asked if he could sum up his teaching in one word, he said “attention”.
It can be anything, whatever is your main bête noire, as they say in french, whatever triggers oneself the most. In the corrupt world we live in, there is major conditioning to everyone to “keep up with the Joneses”, hence jealousy is considered an acceptable conditioning to ensure that the “more” is part and parcel of the conditioning - the conditioning that triggers a person to react, and chase the yellow brick road.
But it could be impatience, it could be preachiness, it could be rejection, conformity, smugness, arrogance, wilfulness, insecurity, whatever, etc. etc. etc. It is the seeing within of what the reaction is (the what is) within and following it through to the end, understanding it, and saying… well, “I am that”. Then no more conflict, all conflict is over and out. Hence, the observer is the observed, and projection comes to an end. “Knowing intellectually” that the observer is the observed is meaningless, since conflict continues - one has seen nothing within. It is the seeing within of that which is, of one’s reaction… right to the end, that ends conflict within.
However, having said this, some people have so many layers and so many bête noires, they may very well have to do this more than once i.e. with each of them. Don’t know.
btw Charley was never jealous of anyone. And has no intention of talking about what exactly ended conflict within her, it was personal, right? This is something that is done alone.
If what you have written above makes sense to you, then I think that our brain is capable of rationalising whatever we want, however we want.
But sorry, seen from here, what you have written does not seem to make sense at all.
But Yes, the observer is the observed. Yes, I am jealousy (when I’m jealous). And yes, jealousy (and wanting not to be jealous) is conflict.
Maybe I should ask : What is this conflict that remains when it is seen that I am projecting my own conditioning (observer =observed)? And why is it called jealousy?
I don’t understand your question. Do you mean that observer=observed is a conditioning ?
I don’t see the point. Is jealousy conflict ? Not the word jealousy, but the thing that the word is refered to. The question should rather be : what is jealousy ? And are we at all aware of it when it occurs.
I mean that : projecting my own conditioning, or seeing what my conditioning projects (this is how the brain produces perception), is the same as saying “the observer is the observed”.
Yes jealousy is conflict, the original question was : Is conflict jealousy? or was this merely a slip of the tongue by K? (nb. we can drop this if you want - I don’t think its important)
Isn’t the main take away that if I act thinking, “I am different from my jealousy”, then my actions with regards to jealousy - i.e. to suppress it, control it, deny it, indulge it, express it, etc - will only perpetuate jealousy?
The separation between myself and jealousy - i.e. between the observer and the observed - is the foundation for all the problems that come from that.
But if I am jealousy - if myself and the quality associated with myself are not two but one - then there is no conflict of control, suppression, denial, indulgence, or expression.
And then K suggests that this inward separation between myself and my qualities may be the foundation of conflict itself (i.e. conflict more generally). Jealousy is one form of conflict, but the separation of the observer from the observed quality may be the root of all psychological conflict (and so of all outward conflict in the world of society).
Yes, this sounds like the right direction to me. A non-judgemental awareness (or direct contact with) the quality we call “jealousy” - without disassociating oneself from the sensation (of jealousy), without the label “jealousy”, without any belief or opinion about it at all; but only pure observation of, or being in communion with - or rather simply being - that quality; so that there is only the quality, and no ‘me’ observing it (as though separately).
When one realizes/sees what you have said prior to the question, the question makes no sense at all.
I think he’s trying to say that after having seen that, (trying to get rid of) jealousy is conflit.
Every conflict is essentially the same thing: the simplification and reduction of everything to duality (right/wrong, true/false, better/worse, etc.), which makes conflict inevitable.