I think these questions are related.
If I am angry (and rightly so from my point of view) what changes when some form of “awareness” of the situation I’m in dawns on me?
I mean in a practical sense not theoretically, do I immediately dissapear into pure awareness? Why not? what is going on? I mean : can we describe the mechanics (not the teachings)?
What do we really feel when we recognise that we are caught in anger? Recognition? Conflict? Sheepishness? Guilt? Righteousness?
I saw a nature video that had a scene that was unforgettable. A female tiger was sunning herself in the grass at the edge of a forest. A large male tiger saw her and approached her cautiously. When he got just a few feet away from her, she exploded with such a furious roar that it literally sent the male flying backwards into the air! Then he turned and walked away and she lay back down in the grass!
Was that the pure (uncivilized) form of the sensation we humans have named ‘anger’?
Thank you, danmcderm, for allowing me an opportunity to share. In one of his public talks (Public Talk 2 Brockwood Park, England - 26 August 1984), JK speaks about fear saying, “Fear is an extraordinary jewel, extraordinary something which has dominated human beings for forty thousand years and more. And if you can hold it and look at it, then one begins to see the ending of it. Not the gradually, the ending of it completely.” I understand that the same could be said about anger, jealousy, envy, despair, and those other feelings, emotions, and ideas that bring about suffering, because it is precisely through the suffering associated to these that they acquire great transformative value, but to precipitate the change they must be pushed to their limits.
What is awareness? Awareness is what is, not what should be, so we are not enquiring into what should be, but what is.
In what is, there is no separation.
What is, is moving in space, freedom, without separation.
To see what is, it is natural. What should be is separation, unnatural, separate thinker, ego.
As awareness is not what should be, it is now, direct, so this question does not arise, because the answer is already there now in what is.
@Adeen just in case our discussion is going the way it is due to some language problem, what I’m asking is : have you ever been really angry? what happened when you realized that you were very angry? Could you (if you want) tell us the story of what happened in your head during that moment?
The question is not about our opinions about the concept of awareness. (its about what actually happens when people like us with lots of beliefs about awareness, get angry)
Well, I would say that I sometimes get angry in quite a childish way and can find myself reacting to a reasonable suggestion quite snappily. Sometimes I’m completely unaware of this and sometimes I become aware of the anger some time after it has passed. Sometimes l, probably rarely, I can catch myself becoming aware of the anger while it’s rising within me. In this last case, I think there’s some sort of automatic action that happens and the anger changes to a different, perhaps more articulate response to the suggestion. Maybe it’s like when you realise your posture is terrible and you immediately change it and straighten out your slouched position. Does this make sense?
It’s an interesting question. Maybe discovery is connected to understanding. When something is completely understood, does some kind of “correct” action automatically follow? We commented on smoking a while back. It seems that knowing all about smoking often doesn’t result in us stopping smoking. We know all about psychological thought, but, as far as I can see, we all continue to think most of the time. Is the problem that our understanding of many things is really only partial? Is it discovery and clarity of seeing on a moment by moment basis, that ends psychological thought and other things?
Thought is a mechanical process. It doesn’t feel, doesn’t have emotions, doesn’t like or dislike, decide what to do, etc. Thought just articulates and expresses the brain’s responses and reactions.
When the brain identifies with thought, it blames thought for the worst things it does, and credits itself for the “good” things it does.
If I’m not mistaken, that’s what “completely” means.
Is the problem that our understanding of many things is really only partial?
It isn’t a problem - it’s the beginning of the solution.
Is it discovery and clarity of seeing on a moment by moment basis, that ends psychological thought and other things?
So it would seem since there is occasional partial insight. Perhaps with every partial insight, every lapse of conditioned response, the brain’s awakening is a series of partial insights that cascade into total insight.
The brain is as identified with its thoughts as it is unaware of thought as a mechanical system. The more identified with its thoughts the brain is, the less aware it is of the mechanical nature and structure of thought.
This is not to say or imply that the brain is a helpless victim of its thoughts, or that it’s inseparable from its thoughts, but to make it clear that identifying with something is not seeing something for what it is, but mistaking a part for the whole. Someone afflicted with a disease, for instance, is not the disease.
Thank you, danmcderm, for asking. In his talk in Alpino, Italy, in 1933 (The Collected Works, Volume 1), JK said, “Freedom does not come to him who seeks freedom. Truth is not found by him who searches for truth. Only when you realize with your whole mind and heart the condition of the prison in which you live, when you realize the significance of that prison, only then you are free, naturally and without effort. This realization can come only when you are in a great crisis, but most of you try to avoid crises.” So, what I mean by “pushed to their limits” is that the feeling of anger, fear, etc., must be so discomforting, distressing, upsetting, painful, etc., to the extreme that either thought stops without any effort and attention takes over, or one goes mad.
I’m not so sure that this is what Krishnamurti meant when he said, “Only when you realize with your whole mind and heart the condition of the prison in which you live, when you realize the significance of that prison, only then you are free”.
This is like when I have an ideal image of myself - as a reasonable adult, or as someone with good posture - and manage to correct for perceived errors - which is great.
In order to transform lead into gold, we must first find the lead. And then there must be a great need for gold.
If we want to describe the difficulty with anger (or conflict in general) thats what needs to be pinpointed.
Yes realising that there is a huge, unbearable problem, is necessary - but does not necessarily lead to freedom from suffering. There also needs to be an understanding that the suffering is me.
I don’t know what you mean here Douglas. Finding the lead and turning it into gold sounds like a thing of the intellect. If your posture is bad, and you become aware of it, you act. If you are distracted in thought and you become aware of it, you automatically act, don’t you? The alternative is to continue with your bad posture and your thoughts. That’s how I see it, anyway.
The allusions to alchemy refer to what is being said by others in this thread regarding suffering.
Apart from that I am just saying that no one seems to want to describe any problems that we might have with regards to self - in its expression as anger for example - the closest we’ve got are the examples that you’ve provided, but managing to stay calm and stand up straight are not problems.