I am not interested in wasting my time with you, but here you are with your opinions and beliefs making a mockery of what we’re doing here.
Maheshji previously I was talking about mob mentality as a significant contributor to violence. It is interesting if you think about it. In the absence of a mob people who present themselves as weaklings to get sympathy become the worst aggressor in a mob like situation, You will always notice it starts with their use of the pronoun “we” How else can a little weakling get bigger than the little weakling they actually are.
When their images and beliefs of who they are and what they “do” is threatened they will use all their time in protecting them.
So what are we without images and beliefs? What is our relationship when it has none of that distorting factor to it? There may still be flashes of anger and moments of violence between us, whether we are married for thirty years or have only just met one another. But I don’t think the anger or the violence is the distortion. It is instead an indication that there is a much deeper distortion, and an invitation to look at it, if we are willing to give it some little attention.
Yes what are you? What does the evidence show? That’s what you are.
That’s a good way to put it. Like a detective looking at the evidence around the crime. It may turn out to prove that he himself is the only criminal in the case but first he has to look.
Thought justifies violence. There might be no violence without justification of thought.
Tiger attacks physically. I defend. That may not be violence.
Violence arises from thought. Thought being unaware might justify physical violence out of the division it has created. First the division occurs, then justification, then physical violence.
Thought creates division as me and other. It is unaware and considers it real. From that violence occurs in time. Thought having created the division, also justifies the violence arising out of its own creation.
For example, media is propagating division. This is creating ground for violence in the future. Justification for war is already being created. If we live in thought, that is the logical outcome.
Peace is not division. Peace is awareness. In awareness there is no division. It is not part of all that.
Awareness is available any time, all the time, but we prefer thought. If you listen, are aware, violence is beginning to end. If we are aware of violence, we will never be violent. We have stepped outside of it
1 Like
Thanks for saying something obvious and possibly helpful (if we are able to be honest and fearless when we look at ourselves)
Thought and emotions are the basis for violence.
There is no real (actual, fundamental) justification for being a total jerk. (I am only a jerk because of my lack of awareness, because of my ignorance of self - because it feels right to me)
Yes, that’s also the answer to our original question about the basis of anger. Thought is at the root of all this. But are these not just empty words?
Who or what has stepped outside of it? Thought? Or is there an objective agency which is separate from thought? Or is there perhaps some point where violence is aware of itself?
So we have to dig a little deeper, don’t we?
I meant looking at evidence as how a rational inquiry calls for. But since criminality is the first thing that’s coming to you and seems to be heavy on your heart-mind, it appears you can only understand it if you translate what I was saying to something you can relate to, such as criminals and detectives. Sure I will work with what you are and what you understand.
For example when you responded to macdoug’s satement
Did you consider your response is criminally dismissive of any truth in macdoug’s statement without even a truthful inquiry?
Let’s examine what you did in that response. You said how something “sounds’ like to you is your final factor as to whether it is true. In two lines you not only reached a conclusion but also asserted your conclusions to be true. However no inquiry was done in support of your conclusions. Did you consider, while basing a conclusion on how something merely sounds like (but may or may not be true) is your way, but is like a criminal offense unacceptable to anyone exercising at least some reason in their inquiries?
Now let’s examine what you said in that response. You said, to you it sounds like in disgust, consciousness is attempting to judge, control and change itself therefore you don’t think ‘disgust’ gets at the truth of it, never mind the fact you didn’t clarify what truth you’re referring to. Even a kindergarten level of common knowledge should have told you, like fear, disgust is considered a primary emotion. This means you’ve as much “control and change” over disgust as you have shown in the control and change of your fears & insecurities. In a scale that number will be 0, nada, zip.
Therefore your response lacking any rational inquiry and thus irrational, really gives evidence of not only your ignorance of what is commonly known, but also your dishonest arrogance in presenting false conclusions as truth. Looking at evidence we can reasonably conclude you seem more interested in making rapid unsupported conclusions rather than any interest in finding truth. So you are not being truthful when you claim you want to find out truth. This is what evidence is pointing to.
I 100% agree with you. If criminality is how you understood what i was saying then sure you should consider yourself a criminal, conceivably even a dishonest criminal. This inquiry I did is based on evidence. Evidence of your own words and actions. It is a rational evaluation of evidence, not a quick two lined unsupported irrational reaction from criminal tendencies as how you understand it or practice. This is what i meant when i asked what are you? Where does the evidence point to? Wherever/whatever it points to that’s what you are.
I simply said that I don’t think ‘disgust’ gets at the truth of it. You have inferred a hell of a lot from one short statement, matey!
Are you married to Anti-Inquiry? It sounds like the same voice!!
Violence is a reaction, and a reaction isn’t aware of anything. No thing can be aware of itself because only awareness can be aware of anything/everything as it occurs or arises, be it violence, kindness, confusion, etc.
Awareness of violence, yes. Why not the violence of awareness? Don’t let’s limit ourselves to what we think we already know. That limitation is also a form of violence.
“The violence of awareness”? Do tell, how/why is awareness violent?
Don’t let’s limit ourselves to what we think we already know.
Our problem isn’t that we limit ourselves, but that we’re not aware of how dishonest and deceitful we are, pretending to know what we don’t really know. We are “what we think we already know”, and that’s not a limit - that’s a colossal lie we’re living, never seeing ourselves doing it. There’s no limit to how effectively we can deceive ourselves, if not others, too.
It destroys any psychological content that exists in the space between you and me. Not out of disgust with this content, as was previously mentioned, but from the fact that awareness and psychological content cannot co-exist, cannot occupy the same space. Everything is shaken up, disturbed. Awareness is love. And love is the most dangerously violent force in the universe.
You asked me to tell and I told. Yet I may be completely wrong about it. I am only telling you what I see.
You “see” what you choose to believe. You frame things to serve your argument rather than to look honestly at what is actual.
You stretch the meaning of the word “violence” to apply to every natural event that is destructive, as if the self-serving violence committed by the self-centered human brain is no different from extreme natural events.
The violence humans do is evil because it is driven by self-serving motives, whereas extremes of weather, earthquakes, wild fires, volcanic eruptions, etc., are not.
But thank you for proving my point about your self-serving dissembling.
Yes, that’s the danger. So how do we know what is actual? What does it mean to look honestly? What does it mean just to look?
These are questions you need to take seriously before posting them here.
I love the way you can see so clearly and accurately right into my mind! It’s so very gracious of you to spend your time putting me on the straight and narrow. A veritable saint. I don’t care what the others may say about you.
Anyway, moving on.
How is one to look honestly and penetratingly at the actuality of anger? Obviously, it’s no good looking at the memories of it because thought has already muddied things by then.
Thanks, Paul, for the sarcasm.
I care very much about what you say, and I wish you would plague some other K-forum than this one. Have you tried reddit?