Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
General Discussion | moderated by Dev Singh

Embracing our feelings without judgement ...


Displaying posts 61 - 90 of 151 in total
Tue, 21 Oct 2014 #61
Thumb_stringio randall merryman United States 3832 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Jean Gatti wrote:
I would say this is the difference between psychological thought and practical thought K referred to ...

I will suggest that K did not refer to two kinds of thought. He refered to thought applied (or misapplied) to two areas of human endeavor.

Stuff happens

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Oct 2014 #62
Thumb_stringio randall merryman United States 3832 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Jean Gatti wrote:
However the Adult is something else, normally the true adult is not acting out of a self but rather deals with facts ...

The fact of childish immature psychological make-up (what is), causes the creation of an ideal opposite to conform to/become. In this instance, you are calling this phenomenon "adult" (what should be).

Stuff happens

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Oct 2014 #63
Thumb_stringio John Perkins United Kingdom 1094 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Jack Pine wrote:
You're right. This is a site where things relating to Krishnamurti are suppose to be discussed. But when you don't understand K and feel more familiar with something you have memorized guess what you're going to talk about instead of K most of the time?

Every time I've read or heard K speak of psychology is was not in support of it. So why do we have it constantly shoved down our throats here? Surely there must be a site for those interested in psychology.

Yeah, but I don't think he's going to hear you, Jack. He knows everything already. I think it will take officialdom. I've seen how big young Mr Gatti is on that.

Dialogue mirrors relationship; who can't, has none.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Oct 2014 #64
Thumb_stringio John Perkins United Kingdom 1094 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Nothing can, in my experience, get past this K-alternative type, the knowers. They're incapable of discursive interchange, only of a guru-style instructional 'education' of others. A veritable K site blocking Paine in the ass.

Dialogue mirrors relationship; who can't, has none.

This post was last updated by John Perkins (account deleted) Tue, 21 Oct 2014.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Oct 2014 #65
Thumb_stringio Chris Dent Australia 187 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Jack Pine wrote:
ISIS is indeed a bunch of zealots of the worse sort. But who made them?

For me, this whole business is a classic example of the very real danger that arises from belief. Belief is the most insidious aspects of the human condition. ISIS is created by belief. All (?) of the conflicts around the world arise largely from belief. Belief is what makes us think 'I am right, you are wrong'. For this, people are prepared to kill and be killed. K rightly pointed out the dangers of belief. Belief is the number one stumbling block to 'seeing'. We tend to talk more about the limitations and 'danger' of thought but thought is nothing unless it is believed to be true.

It is belief that hardens thought into 'reality'.

I can't eliminate belief in somebody else. Usually, if somebody drops a belief it is only because it becomes replaced by another belief. It is the human mode of operating. The question is, can I see it in myself and appreciate how it distorts 'my reality'? Can the seeing of the danger of it be the ending of it? (I am paraphrasing K with that last sentence - I can't say one way or the other - I'm not pretending that this is my question. Although it is certainly the question I ask myself.)

Nothing but awareness......

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 22 Oct 2014 #66
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Chris,

Yes, thinking/thought is a danger, but it is nothing if we see it for what it is and don't get caught up in the belief in it.

Unfortunately, after millenia, thinking/thought is our way of life.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 22 Oct 2014 #67
Thumb_stringio Chris Dent Australia 187 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
Unfortunately, after millenia, thinking/thought is our way of life.

Right, I think it likely that 'belief' arose concurrently with thought (the ability to create abstract concepts that represent 'reality'). In terms of Darwinian evolution, it is an advantage to the group, and so to the individual, to be able to say 'avoid the valley, there's a sabre-tooth hunting down there' or 'Ogg says the blackberries are ripe over by the mountain spring'. As well as conveying information to each other, it was essential that we believe the information was true.

Because the abstract version matched perceived reality, belief that it was true became an essential factor connected to thought. Abstract thought requires the ability to imagine. It is possible that thought/belief only became a 'danger' when abstract thought used the power of imagination to invent concepts that had no relationship to reality. 'It has rained for 5 days and our cave is flooded' became 'God is punishing us for killing the forbidden totem animal by sending the rain demon to flood our cave'. Because we believed what we thought, both statements seemed equally 'real'.

What we have inherited through our genes is the capacity for thought, imagination and belief all bundled up in one package that appears to us as a true representation of reality.

To put it more simply, we can't distinguish between imagination and actuality.

Nothing but awareness......

This post was last updated by Chris Dent (account deleted) Wed, 22 Oct 2014.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 22 Oct 2014 #68
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Chris Dent wrote:
To put it more simply, we can't distinguish between imagination and actuality.

And this quite possibly will mean the extinction of us.

"Belief" might be defined as the acceptance of the truth or falsity of something without verifying the truth or falsity of it.

As I see it, Ogg and his friends did not need to actually believe what each other said. What they had to do was to be aware of what was said and to act accordingly.

Belief has the "I," the "self," who accepts. There is no one who accepts with awareness.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Wed, 22 Oct 2014.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 22 Oct 2014 #69
Thumb_stringio Chris Dent Australia 187 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
And this quite possibly will mean the extinction of us.

Yes, it seems that the 'evolutionary advantage' of thought/imagination/belief has made us, as a species, outwit natural selection. In the 'natural order' of checks and balances, we will eventually prove to be too 'successful' for our own survival. Locusts come to mind.....

Nothing but awareness......

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 22 Oct 2014 #70
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
And any movement he makes comes from that same conditioned, emotional, background....the 'should's' and 'should nots' which he inherited from the parents, society, church, etc. I wonder if we can understand all this without trying to 'do something' about the plight of the emotional 'child' in 'me'/us.

Hello Tom,

What is meant by 'fully embracing your feelings' is NOT repression or suppression (saying it 'should' or 'should not' be so), but rather staying with the emotion, living and feeling it fully, without any judgement or resistance, until it dissolves ... then the emotion is nothing else than an energy motion which happens in the body ... and it passes away easily when it is not resisted or fed by thought, fears and desires ...

This is also what K means by 'not judge it by the frame of reference ' in the quote above ...

Unfortunately most people do not want to face their negative emotions, they look for escapes in distractions, entertainment, addictions, violence, rituals etc ... so those negative emotions come back again and again, endlessly replaying the same dramas and scenarios ... and this is called human suffering ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 22 Oct 2014 #71
Thumb_stringio John Perkins United Kingdom 1094 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Chris Dent wrote:
In the 'natural order' of checks and balances, we will eventually prove to be too 'successful' for our own survival.

I suppose it's possible to view or put it like that, though I note you've wisely put successful in inverted commas.

But before 'belief' can be, doesn't there have to be an idea? And are not 'ideas' necessarily time based. Doubtless simultaneous with ideas and belief came lies and hence mistrust; division. It would appear to be beneficial eg to send (at least some) others over the wrong hill for the blackberries.

The whole thing is the time trap is it not? Ideas are based on what was. But even 'what was' would appear to be fine so long as it stays in the realm of blackberries and tigers. It's when the personal dimension creeps in it falls apart. More blackberries for me and less for you. More sabre toothed tigers for you and less for me. Two people can't own the same dollar. Therefore what you own I, by definition, can't. I think you all would find it beneficial in the long term if you gave your dollars to me (just to look after you understand).

Dialogue mirrors relationship; who can't, has none.

This post was last updated by John Perkins (account deleted) Wed, 22 Oct 2014.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 22 Oct 2014 #72
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3169 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
This is also what K means by 'not judge it by the frame of reference ' in the quote above ...

Unfortunately most people do not want to face their negative emotions, they look for escapes in distractions, entertainment, addictions, violence, rituals etc ... so those negative emotions come back again and again, endlessly replaying the same dramas and scenarios ... and this is called human suffering ...

Unfortunately those 'frames of reference' seem very real to the 'child' in us. As in the example I gave of the man I know who is mentally ill. He alternates between believing he is damned and will burn in Hell and believing he is Jesus. Most of us have less blatantly obvious conditionings, but often just as damaging to ourselves and others. Our fears may not be as extreme as fearing eternal damnation, yet there may be very powerful subconscious fears that prevent us from 'facing' ourselves without running away....fear of extreme punishment and condemnation by the society, for instance...fear of homelessness... another consequence of not conforming to societal conditioning. I may comment further at another time on your statement about 'facing our negative emotions', since there's some question in my mind as to who would do this. Someone separate from those emotions, perhaps?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Wed, 22 Oct 2014.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 22 Oct 2014 #73
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5645 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
'facing our negative emotions' means living/experiencing/feeling them fully ... without judgement or resistance ..

But by naming it, "negative emotions" that is making a judgment. The above statement is judging by a frame of reference. I guess the person who wrote this either hasn't been reading the recent quotes featured on this forum or doesn't understand them or both. The above quote is nonsense. When you name something then you are no longer seeing it. It has become part of the structure of thought with all the influences, the past, the conditioning that thought brings forth when the self labels, names a thing.

Coming to ridiculous conclusions, especially when they are based on misunderstanding the facts, has no meaning. It also ends discussion because the person making these conclusions already believes he or she knows. Where is the discovery in that? Discussion has to be more than simply telling someone else your version of the "truth". It has to be more than simply proclaiming your own unsupportable beliefs.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Wed, 22 Oct 2014.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 22 Oct 2014 #74
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5645 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I may comment further at another time on your statement about 'facing our negative emotions', since there's some question in my mind as to who would do this. Someone separate from those emotions, perhaps?

This is a very valid question Tom. Who indeed is facing the negative emotions? Thought has invented the notion of negative emotions and thought is the who that is facing them.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 22 Oct 2014 #75
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3169 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
Tom Paine wrote:

I may comment further at another time on your statement about 'facing our negative emotions', since there's some question in my mind as to who would do this. Someone separate from those emotions, perhaps?

Jean: No Tom, 'facing our negative emotions' means living/experiencing/feeling them fully ... without judgement or resistance ... then there is no separation, there is no 'experiencer' and 'experienced' ... only experience itself ...

But what is the factor, Jean, that will bring about the 'facing' when I'm frightened or angry? Is it will? Striving for the goal of 'facing'? I'm just asking, since 'what is' is the fear, anger, depression which I'm resisting, judging, condemning. How can I NOT resist without contradiction? The ideal of 'facing' vs. the fact/resistance/'what is'? This kind of 'facing'(the ideal or goal) takes place in thought/time, of course. Are you saying that there's another kind of 'facing'? If so, what will bring it about?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Wed, 22 Oct 2014.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 22 Oct 2014 #76
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
But what is the factor, Jean, that will bring about the 'facing' when I'm frightened or angry? Is it will? Striving for the goal of 'facing'? I'm just asking, since 'what is' is the fear, anger, depression which I'm resisting, judging, condemning. How can I NOT resist without contradiction? The ideal of 'facing' vs. the fact/resistance/'what is'? This kind of 'facing'(the ideal or goal) takes place in thought/time, of course. Are you saying that there's another kind of 'facing'? If so, what will bring it about?

Hello Tom,

When we see that all our escapes don't work, what happens then ?

'Facing' means no escape, no resistance to 'what is' ...

Now what is the 'action', where is the decision, the choice ? is it when we stay with the emotion and feel it or is it when we try to escape it or resist ?

??

Of course the action, the choice, IS the resistance, the escape ... when you stay with the emotion, there is no 'doing' ... you have dropped the 'doing' mode, which implies a choice, for the 'being' mode which implies no choice at all, hence no one 'deciding', no decider ...

When you stay quiet and silent, is it a decision ? No, it is a natural state, the decision is when you choose to 'do' something ... staying quiet necessitates no decision at all ... just an 'absence' of decision ... same for silence, which is absence of noise ...

Choiceless awareness in fact ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 22 Oct 2014 #77
Thumb_stringio John Perkins United Kingdom 1094 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Jean Gatti wrote:
Now what is the 'action', where is the decision, the choice ? is it when we stay with the emotion and feel it or is it when we try to escape it or resist ?

Writing on here is escaping it. Don't expect you to see or accept that of course.

Dialogue mirrors relationship; who can't, has none.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 22 Oct 2014 #78
Thumb_stringio randall merryman United States 3832 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

John Perkins wrote:
the knowers. They're incapable of discursive interchange, only of a guru-style instructional 'education' of others. A veritable K site blocking Paine in the ass.

Does this apply also to people/posters you agree with? Or only to those you disagree with?

Stuff happens

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 22 Oct 2014 #79
Thumb_stringio John Perkins United Kingdom 1094 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

randall merryman wrote:
Does this apply also to people/posters you agree with? Or only to those you disagree with?

I don't think it's at all about agreement or disagreement, Randall. I have no problem with disagreement. But the type I highlight tend not to allow for either agreement or disagreement; they endlessly persist in telling everybody how it is. They do this as though it is first hand knowledge on their part but when asked to confirm this they will never answer.

Dialogue mirrors relationship; who can't, has none.

This post was last updated by John Perkins (account deleted) Wed, 22 Oct 2014.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 22 Oct 2014 #80
Thumb_stringio randall merryman United States 3832 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

John Perkins wrote:
they endlessly persist in telling everybody how it is. They do this as though it is first hand knowledge on their part but when asked to confirm this they will never answer.

I was just picking on you John because I noticed you gushing in agreement on another thread with someone who basically does what you are complaining about. The difference seems to be the "likeability" factor. Hugette is quite likeable and well, Jean seems somewhat less so.

Stuff happens

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 23 Oct 2014 #81
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3169 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
Now what is the 'action', where is the decision, the choice ? is it when we stay with the emotion and feel it or is it when we try to escape it or resist ?

??

Of course the action, the choice, IS the resistance, the escape ... when you stay with the emotion, there is no 'doing' ... you have dropped the 'doing' mode, which implies a choice, for the 'being' mode which implies no choice at all, hence no one 'deciding', no decider ...

This is not clear Jean. Condemnation, resistance, judgement, is a present fact for most of us. Once it's happening, an effort...choice... would have to be made to do something else, no? To face the anger(for example) without resisting,judging, condemning would seem to be an 'ideal' or goal one pursues.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Thu, 23 Oct 2014.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 23 Oct 2014 #82
Thumb_stringio John Perkins United Kingdom 1094 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

randall merryman wrote:
I was just picking on you John because I noticed you gushing in agreement on another thread with someone who basically does what you are complaining about. The difference seems to be the "likeability" factor. Hugette is quite likeable and well, Jean seems somewhat less so.

It's a possibility. Huguette and I have met before (on the KFA forum) and I've generally found that s/he resonates with me in exactly the same way K does. We've never exchanged much as there doesn't seem any need. Jean and I have much more of a tendency to clash because the things he is inclined to tell me are not only out of accord with K but don't hold any water on their own account either. It's hard to get along with a person who persists in telling you what you (try as you may not to) perceive as rubbish; especially when the person happens, to-boot, to be both vociferous and persistent.

Dialogue mirrors relationship; who can't, has none.

This post was last updated by John Perkins (account deleted) Thu, 23 Oct 2014.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 23 Oct 2014 #83
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
There is still the frightened little child in us that is afraid he will be destroyed/abandoned/punished if he doesn't conform. ...
Can we understand this 'doer'/thinker/reactor who is created by the conditioning of the parents, society, peers, church, gurus, army, etc.?

This is a correct observation Tom.

During the first years of existence in childhood (until the age of 6 or 7), we have lived quite close to our emotional self, from there we started to become more 'mental', which means that we began to build a substitute (and false) personality in order to become 'acceptable' for our parents (which for a child is of the utmost importance and vital), then the teachers and all the 'authorities' (priests, bosses etc) ... this is where we abandoned our true self and became a 'social mask', a false/fake identity ... where we have learned to say 'no' when we mean 'yes' and 'yes' when we mean 'no' ... an inauthentic self to please others ... an 'alien' to ourselves ... 'alienated' in the root sense of the word, ie. in fact neurotic ...

And awareness consists in retrieving our lost authenticity and regain access to our emotions/feelings ... and this can be done by attending fully our emotions (even the so-called 'negative' ones), instead of escaping or sedating them in distractions, entertainment, addictions, rituals, obsessions, violence and other symbolic neurotic actions ...

This is why being aware of our body (like in meditation or even physical practices like yoga or Tai Chi) is important, because the body is the home for our emotions ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 23 Oct 2014 #84
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3169 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
Well Tom, is it so difficult to stay quiet and observe ? ... if so, WHY ?

This is certainly a valid question, Jean. Most of us, even the 'spiritually inclined' find it impossible to 'stay quiet and observe' without thought/emotion interfering in....coloring... the observation. Fear....deep seated unconscious fear of punishment...of abandonment... I think is behind it. These negative thoughts/fears seem real to the subconscious mind, and one feels they must DO something....as when faced with a real bear in the woods, for instance. A negative thought can get the adrenaline pumping just as much as a real encounter with said bear, right? Even though we 'know' the thought is just a thought, the body reacts as if it's a reality.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 23 Oct 2014 #85
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5645 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
And awareness consists in retrieving our lost authenticity

Anybody know what this means?

Jean Gatti wrote:
and regain access to our emotions/feelings ...

We are not separate from our emotions/feelings so how can we regain access to something we already are?

Jean Gatti wrote:
and this can be done by attending fully our emotions (even the so-called 'negative' ones),

And now we are being given a method for rejoining what is already one. Is this a discussion or a "master" teaching his "disciple" what "truth" is? Tom don't encourage this. Patronizing someone is not helping them.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Thu, 23 Oct 2014 #86
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5645 posts in this forum Offline

Why do you suppose someone would come onto a forum for the discussion of understanding yourself, life and try so hard to appear to be an authority? Of all the forums I can think of none seem more inappropriate for this kind of self inflating activity than one having to do with Krishnamurti who so vehemently denied authority in himself and others. This line of posting is the very antithesis of what K spent 60 or more years pointing out.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Thu, 23 Oct 2014 #87
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3169 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
Jean Gatti wrote:

and regain access to our emotions/feelings ...

Jack: We are not separate from our emotions/feelings so how can we regain access to something we already are?

In one sense we are not separate from the emotion(fear, anger, etc), yet thought/thinker gives the impression of being the separate 'rational' analyzer of one's emotions. 'I' will try to 'face' my fear, which is assumed to be separate from 'me'. It's this thinking/'me' that 'separates', and prevents understanding our fear, etc. This seems to be a basic K. teaching, as I understand it. Jean is stretching the point, I think, to make the assumption that one can simply drop this separating factor and 'embrace' one's emotions.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Thu, 23 Oct 2014.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 23 Oct 2014 #88
Thumb_stringio Katy Alias United Kingdom 378 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Jack Pine wrote:
Why do you suppose someone would come onto a forum for the discussion of understanding yourself, life and try so hard to appear to be an authority?

I don't know, Jack, but what happens to me here when I try to tell another not to tell another whatever it may be is that I end up sounding like an authority, too ! :)

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Thu, 23 Oct 2014 #89
Thumb_stringio Katy Alias United Kingdom 378 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

β€œTo be free of all authority, of your own and that of another, is to die to everything of yesterday, so that your mind is always fresh, always young, innocent, full of vigor and passion. It is only in that state that one learns and observes. And for this a great deal of awareness is required, actual awareness of what is going on inside yourself, without correcting it or telling it what it should or should not be, because the moment you correct it you have established another authority, a censor.” β€” J. Krishnamurti, Freedom from the Known

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 23 Oct 2014 #90
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
It's this thinking/'me' that 'separates', and prevents understanding our fear, etc. This seems to be a basic K. teaching, as I understand it. Jean is stretching the point, I think, to make the assumption that one can simply drop this separating factor and 'embrace' one's emotions.

Right Tom, this is correct, K101 I would say :-).

The habitual thought patterns tend to avoid or escape our emotions, either by controlling them (thought and action including conflicts and violence) or by sedating them (addictions, drugs, alcohol, tranquilizers, rituals etc.).

We generally cannot simply stay with the emotion (ie. fear, anger, grief) and feel it totally, there is always an escape in 'doing' mode (and 'thinking', same thing) ... while what is required is 'being' ... and this 'being' mode requires inner peace and stillness ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 61 - 90 of 151 in total
To quote a portion of this post in your reply, first select the text and then click this "Quote" link.

(N.B. Be sure to insert an empty line between the quoted text and your reply.)