Yes, a kind of stay indoors, don’t venture outside, and don’t upset the neighbours. So can we look at fear? I say fear is a label attached to energy. What is called fear is simply energy, but with associations bundled up with it which tend to be unpleasant, and based on memory obviously. Connected with that is an observer of it who is separate from it, thinking to act on it, even if just to avoid or escape the feeling or sensation. When the separation is examined, which requires the feeling to be present, and the greater the separation the greater the fear, then the fact of the thing labelled fear simply being energy, can be more apparent. How do you see this?
1 Like
Yes. Yes. Exactly. When there is this separation within ‘self’ as one ‘centre’ and another ‘centre’ - and energy is put by one ‘centre’ to look another ‘centre’ - then this energy turns as ‘fear’ and try to escape.
So - we have to be cautious and put all our energy in this ‘looking’ of ‘whole centre’ without differentiating observer and observed. If there is no differentiation - this energy may not turn as ‘fear’ in ‘looking’.
You see - there is a beauty in this ‘looking’ as a ‘whole’.
1 Like
Indeed, the nature of that separation needs looking at, and what that is sustaining. To the centre accustomed to the things of that separation, to the world view, and to the reality, the erosion of that separation creates its own issues, and arouses its own fears, since it confronts the brain with a certain something that it has to acclimatise to and find its bearings with, and to which there can be a strong resistance. And yes looking deeply at fear, and at isolation has its own quality to it.
If we ‘accept’ as it is accustomed to separate - we are setting a ‘belief’ and escaping from ‘looking’ the ‘whole’.
But if we are so intense and strong in our ‘looking’ as a ‘whole’ - not one by one by ‘looking deeply’ first fear, second isolation, then etc… - but as it is - in our very seeing - no strong fear arises.
In that ‘looking’ - there is only beauty of learning about the ‘centre’ as it is - and many excitements and amusements we go through in this ‘looking’ - you know - it’s a kind of joy in this ‘observation’ as a ‘whole’.
1 Like
First of all, I am pleased to see you because we haven’t seen one another for quite a while. It’s a simple enough pleasure. I might talk of getting excited if I felt attached to you and you were fulfilling some psychological needs; but in that attachment there is also the sting of disappointment if you don’t arrive. Similarly, if I already have an image formed about someone I dislike or feel afraid of, the pleasure of the meeting doesn’t even come into it. Therefore what is important in all of this is to be aware of the feelings that emerge as excitement or fear and watch what is happening.
As for our daily needs, those are fairly self-evident: water, food, shelter, clean clothes, a comfortable bed and some degree of human contact, probably with a small group of friends. Would you add any more?
1 Like
Yes, but the centre is only there when pleasure has its opposite. Joy comes uninvited as a gift; so not every drink of tea is attended by joy, nor is every occasion when I spot the squirrel jumping along the branches in the tree outside, but these are both pleasurable moments.
1 Like
Yes. Absolutely.
No. Not more. But to delete this “some degree of human contact, probably with a small group of friends.”
You see - it is like seeking a security for pleasure - because we are accustomed with spending time with people - with whom we have some pleasure(not joy/beauty) - and so we call them as ‘friends’. If we contact accidentally(not preplanned) and spend time - it’s of no issue. But if we classify this as a ‘need’ - then we become bound to them - and attached - and those ‘friend’ may also become an ‘enemy’ too (because the pleasure may somehow become pain of the activities of other person) - which we cannot digest - and all conflict arises - and we seek for another friend and goes on (Same in case of spouse too). We are bound, not only to friends, but also parents,children,siblings,spouse,etc… - in this way - and miss to feel ‘joy’ of spending time ‘alone/ with stranger/ with any person’.
In my view - It is not a ‘daily need’ - but if it is an accident - we don’t have to run away from it.
If they (freinds/parents/etc…) ask us to join them - we can and don’t have to be alone. But if we ask them - it is a psychological need - in my view. What do you say?
Right but I’m calling the conditioned background which reacts and craves and hopes and fears and desires, the ‘me’.
Isn’t it possible to live with someone for many years and not be attached to them? I say it is.
Of course - it is. That’s the beauty of ‘seeing’ this ‘whole centre’s movement’.
It’s like seeing a person - moment to moment - as a ‘new’ or ‘stranger’ - even with whom we live with - without as a ‘need’.
Edit:- if we say - it is a ‘need’ - we may suffer in our isolation when we lose them in our life. It happens all around.
Which implies there is another part of you that does not belong to this ‘me’ and can therefore identify it as something separate from itself. It is like saying, ‘I am 99% conditioned,’ or, ‘I am 1% free.’ But I’m not free.
1 Like
No, the ‘me’ is all of me…what ‘I’ am. There’s no 1% free who/which can analyze or change himself.
1 Like
No, if we see it as a need we make sure we have it, that’s all. We don’t just cut ourselves off from human contact. It would be like denying ourselves fresh water.
So I am not free. I can’t analyse and change. So what is change? What is the real revolution?
Yes. Yes. Yes. We don’t have to cut it off.
But we don’t have to run for it - if it is not there at times.
See - we work on weekdays - and when weekend comes - automatically the conditioned mind seeks for pleasure - to spend time with them - by going to movie/mall/etc. or to chat - with them. If a situation arises of losing them - and happens to be alone in our whole life - we will suffer of that attachments - and search for another friend to spend time with.
So I say that - if we live with contact - we don’t have to run away. As you said - we can live without being attached. But if we fix a ‘belief’ that - we cannot live with spending time with people - then we may suffer on losing them regarding this condition.
I live with you for twenty or thirty years, suppose. One day you or I must die. So what matters is to live with that fact, not avoid it.
Yes - right. So now i’m gone. What will you do next?
- be alone with fact ? or
- seek for another person like me as it is a ‘need’?
But there is a deeper issue here is there not about isolation. What does contact have to do with isolation not being? Isolation is there before, during and after contact, for the other just as for the self. So the being or not being of contact, the seeking or the cutting off of it, does not change the underlying reality does it?
But you’re not gone. So I don’t know what I will do. I shall face it then. It is what we are doing now that matters, not what we might do in a year’s time. What is our relationship now to death and loss? What it is now is what it will be in the future.
2 Likes
It is only the self that ever feels isolated; it is a psychological experience. The sensation of isolation may be the result of a thwarted desire for contact, but already in this desire for contact there are a lot of images attached to it. That’s why I am not talking of desire for human contact; I am saying it is a basic need.