The quote above from K (this part was a K quote, wasn’t it James?) was said or written many years ago and probably thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people have heard or read it. Why then, do we seemingly have such trouble in putting this into practice? Do we simply not pay much attention to things like anger, jealousy etc.? Do we treat them as inevitable and accept them as a normal part of everyday life without giving them too much importance?
Just to be clear, the bit you quoted was written by me, paraphrasing and expanding the meaning of the passage from K quoted in my post.
Yes. Probably we are so habituated to feeling these reactions that we more or less take them for granted - until either they are pointed out to us by others, or we notice them ourselves because of the conflict they create in our life.
Unless there is a movement of daily self awareness in our lives, we will not be able to catch ourselves in the moment of reaction.
We’re ambivalent about these emotions because sometimes they support our intentions and at other times they undermine our intentions. When they’re supportive (anger, desire, determination) we justify them, and when they’re not supportive (fear, doubt, distrust) we deny or dismiss them.
The relationship between will (what I want/don’t want) and emotion (what I feel moment to moment) is unaligned. Will is commitment and emotion is sensitivity, and they’re aligned only when will is subordinate to sensitivity.
I have suggested that we don’t care enough, don’t see the issue of suffering (aka comfort/progress) as of utmost importance.
But what you are saying is probably more precise : what we have been conditioned to see as being normal, appears completely normal to us.
My opinion and how I react to my experience seems completely legit & normal to me. This is not a recipe for freedom from conditioning. My reality appears to be legitimate and authoritative. (In no way the source of all suffering)
This is the ‘conditioning’ that K was trying to get across: there’s a body and there’s a brain but there is no ‘me’. No ‘I’ anywhere in this whole field of energy.
A few days ago, James posted a Bohm quote from Thought as a System where he explained the difference between I and me. I can’t recall exactly what he said, but you might want to read that.
This comes from a K and DB talk, K was talking about the material universe: no ‘I’ anywhere.
People often derive a ‘secondary pleasure’ from psychological suffering, particularly if the suffering is long-term and difficult to assuage. It’s like decorating your prison cell, making it cozy and warm and safe-feeling. Heck, you might even feel special having such a lovely cell in your very own maximum security prison, best of both worlds: gangsta credit and comfort!
1 Like
There are also people who derive pleasure from suffering itself. That’s not secondary pleasure rather primary, the direct enjoyment of the experience of suffering. Part of me celebrates the human genius for inventing ways of coping happily (or close) with the challenges of life, and part thinks that taking pleasure, primary or secondary, in suffering is a squandering of human spirit.
This is because of the absolute primacy of my continued existence. We are conditioned to abhor death at all costs. But which is preferable? Eternal torment or the ending of experience?
Causes and conditions will produce effects, but faced with a life of violence and effort to survive, the psychological effects of clinging desperately, seemingly without end or hope, are not really something to be celebrated.
Pride in the violence inflicted, self harm or psychopathy etc as a result of constant trauma is not a choice.
Fear of death is what keeps me fighting to survive, whatever the cost.
The long walk to the waterhole is fraught with violence, we shall all take what we can - where is love in a world ruled by fear?
There is an interesting Krishnamurti extract that Rick shared ages ago on his Musings thread that I think is pertinent here - just to show how differently the same word - ‘I’ - can be interpreted or understood. I will post it on the ‘What do we mean by self’ thread, because obviously it fits there better than here.
1 Like
Yes - We are all in the constant embrace of Love.
The question is whether our automatic response of fear and violence is necessary.
1 Like
The sense of self preservation inherited from the animals has to be infused with intelligence that shows that life and death aren’t separate; that they are one movement? The movement of creation?
1 Like