Thankyou for your summary of K’s teaching.
Now, can you explain why the brain separates thinker and thought? Does it make this mistake because it chooses to, or because it doesn’t know what it’s doing?
It is a question I also ask, why has the brain taken an unnatural turn believing in separation as me? Is it because we have been taught to believe in separation.
As a child I did not have a strong feeling of separation from my surroundings. But later I see that feelings of separation arose in relationship. I guess the cultivation of separation as me came from outside, society, behaviour. Similar to what you see in media, there is strong sense of separation cultivated as different nations, groups, politics, so I guess at some time I started believing in this unnatural separation.
As far as I can tell, K gave his audiences “something new” every time he addressed them. Although he talked about attachment, anger, love etc. on many occasions, he seemed to be able to continually discover as he spoke about these things, as if for the first time. At least for me, this feeling of newness and discovery came across strongly as he was talking.
I understand that K pointed out that “knowing” about attachment, anger, love etc. would not lead to change. Only the seeing that comes with this discovery will lead to immediate action and the kind of change which he talked about. How do others see this?
As far as I can tell there has to be a sense of responsibility with this seeing - if we are speaking of freedom from experience ie. allowing this precious center to dissapear - a sense of responsibility that doesn’t allow for “maybe later”.
Unless we are having a pleasant careefree walk on the beach, then the self may be absent anyway - in which case there is nothing to let go of and no freedom and clarity to even notice. (it is in comparison that we notice difference)
An intellectual understanding of attachment does not lead to change? Agreed. But is seeing that enough to provoke change? Not sure.
I kinda feel that we need to see that self is the perpetuation of suffering. But maybe thats what “understanding attachment” means.
What transforms being able to talk the talk, into suddenly walking the walk? What transforms “knowing” into seeing?
For me, knowing intellectually about anger and actually becoming aware of my anger as it arises, are two completely different things.
Another example - you are chatting with a friend and you suddenly realise that he/she is very upset. On realising this, you act immediately. The seeing brought instant action. There was no gap where thinking was involved. That is what I understand to be seeing bringing about instant action. Of course, I could be wrong.
1 Like
Empathy is most excellent! As social animals, most of us would agree, I’m sure.
Caring for myself, my friends, my family, my tribe, the people in my society is most excellent. Lucky for us its instinctive. Most of us would dive in without hesitation for someone in need.
The problems start when we have a moment to consider the repercussions. The cost, the discomfort, the danger - Freedom from the known only becomes an issue when the known is present; when its me thats upset.
What happens when I am in the throes of (especially righteous) anger? Can you describe what becoming aware of being angry is usually like?
If knowing doesn’t lead to change because only the seeing that comes with discovery leads to the change K talked about, when/why does discovery come to the rescue with seeing?
If radical change means going from knowing to seeing, and seeing is preceded by discovery, do I discover because I’m digging, searching, striving to discover, or because I’m seeing for the first time, and I can’t attribute this seeing to anything I did or did not do?
If suddenly I’m seeing for no apparent reason, is it because I discovered something, or because I am seeing for the first time that I am nothing more than memory?
This doesn’t seem powerful enough to start a revolt. I’d go for something along the lines of accepting that horror can only produce further horror - with the added necessity of feeling obliged to refuse horror (eg. because of something important in your life perhaps)
Seeing for the first time doesn’t “start a revolt” - it’s the effect of revolution.
I’d go for something along the lines of accepting that horror can only produce further horror - with the added necessity of feeling obliged to refuse horror (eg. because of something important in your life perhaps)
What does this have to do with seeing that seeing isn’t what you thought it was?
Meaning that there must be something powerful to cause revulsion. That would move Hundreds of thousands of years of habit - that would cause one to drop self like a hot potato. Cleverness will not suffice.
Ouch
Don’t conflate revulsion with revolution. Revulsion is:
- A sudden strong change or reaction in feeling, especially a feeling of violent disgust or loathing.
- A withdrawing or turning away from something.
and revolution is:
- A turning or rotational motion about an axis.
- A single complete cycle of such orbital or axial motion.
If, as you say, horror only begets more horror, isn’t the same true for violent disgust and loathing?
So
is probably the best for our discussion here - and I’m proposing that there is power in emotion - and that the power is needed. So maybe a change in our emotional attitude toward the self process - a sort of keen wariness (the danger as you say, being of course the confusion of self hatred - hopefully seeing would include a complete vision that does not allow for identification with the process of self - that instead allows a freedom from self)
Yes, it doesn’t hurt to do things differently for a change, but it seems to me that until/unless I find myself seeing my self for the first and last time, I can only do what I will until my will flags and the white flag of surrender rises.
That’s quite easy. Is there only one or is there two in the mind? If there is anger, there is only that, which means that movement without duality. This is true for anything in the mind. If there is only one, there is no identification with it, just like listening to someone. If there is just listening there is no identification with that what is listened to. That listening is a movement, a space, a silence without identification of listener. Same with anger. It’s the identification, the duality as word, thinker that separates, stores, interprets, otherwise there is only one movement without division
1 Like
When anger say arises and there’s no resistance to meet it (or justification) why do you think JK spoke of it as a “jewel”?
Any ideas anyone?
(Given that ‘anger’ is generally considered to be the ‘bad guy’.)
1 Like
Jewel is something precious, cared for, affection.
If there is care, it’s nature is different than when there is division. It’s not self, it’s not selfish. This is true for any emotion. Say sexual feeling. If there is care, affection, it is different. If it is selfish, it is different.
So let’s talk about what is care, affection and what is selfishness.
Yes but what is it about anger that it could be called a “jewel”? The same for ‘discontent’?
(“Left to itself can burn away the dross”?)
1 Like
“There is no thinker, only thought.”
If that is so it is thought that is jealous, it is thought that competes, it is thought that likes arguments, we are indeed thought…
Generally we live in separation, so anger is then an immense sense of separation. Stored in mind that separation becomes hate. There is nothing about that, that can be called as jewel.
What happens to the feeling when there is no sense of separation? If there is no separation, you will never hurt. There will never be violence in any form whatsoever. You might protect without sense of separation.
What happens to the feeling when there is no sense of separation? It flows without naming. There are many times that feelings flow without naming, without separation. As all this is natural, all of us experience this. But then at other times we are caught in the separative thinker
Interesting question Douglas. I don’t know what happens when you are in the throes of righteous anger, but the question seems to be this - can you become aware of your anger when you’re in the middle of it? Can you just look at it, and understand what’s going on, where your anger is coming from? Can you perhaps understand it instantly? If you can, what then happens? Is there an immediate change?
Given that we all probably get angry at some point every day, I think this is worth looking at.
1 Like