Jean Gatti wrote:
and this 'being' mode requires inner peace and stillness ...

And what will bring this required 'stillness'? Tai Chi, yoga, meditation practice? I recall many years back when many young folk were practicing these 'spiritual' kind of excercises. It was common back in the '70's for lots of 'spiritually minded' young people to pretend to be peaceful. I suppose I myself was sucked into that to a small degree, yet I had enough self awareness to understand it was a charade...an 'act'....that underneath it all was a lot of unresolved conflict, fear, anger, etc.

Let it Be

Tom Paine wrote:
. 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.

Yes Tom, this is exactly the problem ... we have built a 'defense system' which creates the illusion that we (thought) can 'control' what happens ... the main purpose of this 'controller' (the 'defense system', which is ego) is to protect us from pain and suffering ... therefore as soon as a 'threatening' (as perceived) situation arises, the defenses are activated/triggered and we immediately react emotionally, we immediately switch to a 'doing' mode, which is an emotional reaction of self defense ...

A person who is emotionally balanced (ie. mature) does not react so easily to psychological challenges, while a neurotic (immature) person will struggle with every situation he encounters.

So what is the essential difference between those two persons ?

Why resist 'what is' ?

Channelling the energy of emotion by way of walking, for example, is very helpful and 'transformative' - especially when one gets stuck in rumination and so on.

I don't think that it is universally applicable that people run away from feelings...but it is true that in this culture (in England) people are socialised to have a stiff upper lip and that there is a gender bias. For example, women are more 'free' to cry than men...whether or not this is a useful way to proceed :)

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

Katy Alias wrote:
I don't think that it is universally applicable that people run away from feelings

True, in a more primitive culture, if you get angry you simply strike the other guy....or go to the 'shaman' who will put a curse on him ;-) But even in primitive cultures, men are often raised to be 'strong', be 'brave', etc. If they're afraid, they repress such feelings....at least around other men. They're often taught, as well, to respect the authority of the tribal chief....to obey the parental, or religious, authority without question. This can of course, lead to repressed emotions.

Let it Be

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

Tom Paine wrote:

and this 'being' mode requires inner peace and stillness ...

And what will bring this required 'stillness'? Tai Chi, yoga, meditation practice?

Yes those practices are ok, among others. But what fundamentally lies behind those practices is our 'presence', our awareness, our attention ... and for this no practice is really needed, because presence and awareness are not something to obtain, it is already there behind the 'noise' of thoughts ... this is why K never recommended any practice, because any practice re-introduces a 'doing' mode, with goals, objectives, becoming, attainments etc ...

In short, it can be said that no practice is needed to BE.

Why resist 'what is' ?

Jean Gatti wrote:
But what fundamentally lies behind those practices is our 'presence', our awareness, our attention

What 'fundamentally lies behind' ANY practice is a goal. Why 'practice' anything, otherwise? K. practiced yoga, but he stated it was only to help keep the body healthy.

Let it Be

Katy Alias wrote:
For example, women are more 'free' to cry than men...whether or not this is a useful way to proceed or not :)

:) Good point, Katy. Whether such expression(rather than repression) of our emotion by crying will resolve the underlying cause or not, isn't clear.

Let it Be

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.

.

Jean Gatti wrote:

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 ...

It's like having a pair of (..pls excuse..) blind, deaf and stupid terriers constantly yapping round your heels. There is, I would say, no K in it at all. It just seems to be at best amateur psychology and at worst wannabe guru-hood. It serves no useful purpose that I can see, and it blocks and distracts from constructive inquiry. If it's actually me at fault and reading things wrong here then one or two (or three; apart from the perpetrators) please just say so and I'll reel my neck in and keep my mouth shut.

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

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

Jean Gatti wrote:
except of course when crying is simulated in order to get some pity or attention from others, which can happen at times, no gender discrimination intended here :-)

Then why suggest it, Jean? Don't you see that in suggesting it you exposed as a fact the very thing you then try to gloss over and deny? Heavens above!

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

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

Tom Paine wrote:
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.

In the actual sense, in a factual sense, we are not separate from our emotions. It's been said so many times but nevertheless valid; we are our emotions. Stop there. To see that is enough. But what so often happens, and what is happening here, is that there is a reaction to that fact and conclusions are formed, thought kicks in and wants to organize, rationalize, intellectualize the fact. Why move beyond the fact that "we" "I" are our emotions?

Isn't it true to move beyond the fact, the moment, the present awareness of something is to no longer be in contact with the fact? To bring in thought to rationalize, to summarize, what we have seen is to bring in the past, ideas, beliefs. And when that occurs are we still in contact with the fact or are we just in contact with our image of the fact?

Katy Alias wrote:
Tom Paine wrote:

This can of course, lead to repressed emotions.

Katy: People in the U K are conditioned to repress emotions, too, though, Tom...that's why so many people take anti-feeling prescribed drugs...we are not robots, are we ? I prefer to be in he company of a person who can express emotion than otherwise, really.

I agree, of course, that we're trained to repress, as much, or more, than folks in more 'primative' cultures. But, I think we're probably no different fundamentally, than the man or woman living in a 'primitive' culture. I'm not sure I'd like to go back in time and be a member of a Viking culture, for instance....or live with the Atilla and his Huns...no, I think I'll prefer to stick with modern Western culture.

Let it Be

Jean Gatti wrote:
because the habits of our conditioned 'doing' mode are so strong ... some kind of de-conditioning might be helpful ...

But it's not clear, Jean, that any genuine 'de-conditioning' is actually going on in any kind of 'spiritual practice', like yoga, tai chi, zen meditation, chanting, etc.

Let it Be

Jean Gatti wrote:
Yes I agree Tom, no need to practice to BE ... but for some (most ?) people a practice can be helpful to start with ...

This is so wrong in so many different ways. First the statement that there is no need to practice and then....why yes it is helpful to practice for most people. Which is it? Is the means different from the end? Did K not say that the first step is the last step? Does not "practice", when it comes to understanding what is, dull the mind through repetition? And practice what? What do you have to practice so that you can understand?

Jean Gatti wrote:
because the habits of our conditioned 'doing' mode are so strong ... some kind of de-conditioning might be helpful ...

What does "de-conditioning" mean? Nothing. All it does is invent another duality: Conditioning and de-conditioning. Instead of understanding conditioning we are told to somehow de-condition ourselves. How does the self, which is conditioning, de-condition itself? That is destroy itself? Can the center, the ego, destroy itself?

Jean Gatti wrote:
Yes I agree Tom, no need to practice to BE ... but for some (most ?) people a practice can be helpful to start with ...

Today's QOTD on 'spiritual practice': "The spiritual man is also following the pleasurable, like the man of the sensate."

Let it Be

Jean Gatti wrote:
Lol ... did you lose your sense of humor John, too bad :-)

No, I don't think so Jean, though I'll allow that trolling, or at least meaningless and inquiry-blocking twaddle that is allowed to go on in perpetuity on a K site, may be robbing me of it.

In my view it would be totally out of order to bar any person or persons from any K site on the grounds of a perceived lack of intelligence, but in the best interests of the rest of the membership and express purpose of the site I think such should be curbed.

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

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

Jack Pine wrote:
What does "de-conditioning" mean? Nothing. All it does is invent another duality: Conditioning and de-conditioning. Instead of understanding conditioning we are told to somehow de-condition ourselves. How does the self, which is conditioning, de-condition itself? That is destroy itself? Can the center, the ego, destroy itself?

As you know, Jack, it's just more essentially self-interested and effectively inquiry-blocking twaddle. Nothing more.

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

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

Jean Gatti wrote:

Tom: But it's not clear, Jean, that any genuine 'de-conditioning' is actually going on in any kind of 'spiritual practice', like yoga, tai chi, zen meditation, chanting, etc.

Jean: Yes 'de-conditioning' happens because in those practice you switch from the usual (conditioned) 'doing' mode to the 'being mode'

Tom: And when your yoga time is over, the conditioning returns full blast, no? Perhaps one has some moments free of 'doing' when practicing yoga or tai chi. Later the conflict with one's wife or boss returns, unchanged. Does a brief period of time in 'being mode' really help one to understand oneself....to free oneself from the almost constant conflict of daily living? It's still not clear to me that it does. Resolving conflict comes(if it does at all) from facing inner conflict directly, and actively learning and understanding about oneself in the present moment of daily living, not from moments(or hours) of 'spiritual practice', in my experience. But you may disagree.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Fri, 24 Oct 2014.

Jean Gatti wrote:
you switch from the usual (conditioned) 'doing' mode to the 'being mode' .

No, "you" are conditioning and "you" are always conditioned. If there is no self is there conditioning? There is no entity that is not conditioned but it appears that from your many statements you believe there is an entity beyond the self. A super self. Let go of that idea because I think it may be keeping you from understanding what K was pointing out about what thought is and is it not.

Tom Paine wrote:
Tom: And when your yoga time is over, the conditioning returns full blast, no? Perhaps one has some moments free of 'doing' when practicing yoga or tai chi. Later the conflict with one's wife or boss returns, unchanged. Does a brief period of time in 'being mode' really help one to understand oneself....to free oneself from the almost constant conflict of daily living? It's still not clear to me that it does.

Yes Tom, with challenges of life, conditioned reactions come back, but they are weaker, they have been weakened by those moments of presence to 'being' ... there is an emotional cleansing process operating there ... ... you can easily experience this for yourself Tom ... this is about personal experience, not knowledge ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Tom Paine wrote:
tai chi.

You have mentioned tai chi several times and that's fine. Tai chi can't be explained in just a few words. I'm not sure I know what it really is even after training in tai chi three hours a day, five days a week for going on three years. This is just a little sidebar and not necessarily pertinent but I hope you don't mind if I put it in here.

One aspect of it is the physical relaxing and loosening of the muscles. It is the opening of the meridians, the same ones acupuncture uses, so that "chi", energy, can flow unimpeded. It is important to allow the blood to flow freely throughout the body. The blood is an important part of the immune system, the white cells and so on. Also the lymphatic fluid, which has no pump like blood has the heart, needs to not be blocked at the joints and elsewhere to flow freely. Tai chi opens the body through relaxation but at the same time strengthens the body not through the muscles but rather the tendons. I know it sounds weird but I have seen really unbelievable things people can do who know how to use what tai chi teaches.

Also, I would point out that tai chi, while based on the I Ching and the Tao Te Ching is not a religion. You can belong to any religion or no religion and still practice tai chi. Mainly it is a sort of slow-motion martial art that uses, or turns back, the energy of your opponent to block his aggression, his attack.

Jean Gatti wrote:
you can easily experience this for yourself Tom ... this is about personal experience, not knowledge ...

I edited my previous post above, if you'd like to reply further, Jean. But I am speaking from personal experience....many, many moments over the years.... when walking 'in nature'...in meditation...even riding a city bus... when the self dissolves into presence. This does not however, "de-condition" one, in my experience.

Let it Be

Jean Gatti wrote:
this is about personal experience, not knowledge ...

I really don't like to keep splitting hairs or nit pick but experience is knowledge held in memory. You can't separate the two.

Jean Gatti wrote:
Yes Tom, with challenges of life, conditioned reactions come back, but they are weaker, they have been weakened by those moments of presence to 'being'

I seriously question this. What is weaker conditioning? Is there weaker conditioning or is there just conditioning or not conditioning? Why have you invented a duality where conditioning is concerned? Also, once again, you have introduced time into transformation. Basically it appears that you are claiming to be transformed, not conditioned at times, and then revert back to a "weaker" conditioning. Is that how conditioning ends? Gradually over time? Why do you think K missed that "fact" and you didn't?

Jean Gatti wrote:
Yes, this is not 'automatic' ... meditation or other 'presence practices' will only prepare you to a deeper understanding of your own nature ... an insight into WHO you are (remember the old adage "Know yourself" Tom ?) ... from there only, you will be able to unravel/unknit the structure of self ...

Really Jean? And is meditation a "practice". By using the word practice you make it a matter of time, a process, a planned activity. All of these things are contrary to what K patiently and repeatedly pointed out over more than 60 years of talking. Can we discuss, not necessarily agree, but discuss what K discovered or will you insist that what you know is more important and must be shared continuously on this forum set aside for people interested in Krishnmurti?

Jean Gatti wrote:
an insight into WHO you are (remember the old adage "Know yourself" Tom ?) ... from there only, you will be able to unravel/unknit the structure of self ...

And that insight then becomes knowledge for the 'me'? I may be mistaken, Jean, but this is what usually happens with all the gurus, etc. as I see it.

Let it Be

Tom,

Just as you say, insight becomes knowledge. First we have awareness and insight, then immediately the thinking process intervenes. Thinking fastens on the memory formed by awareness, and the circus begins.

Is it possible to stay with awareness and not have thinking intervene? The only way I can see that this can come about is by understanding what thinking is and what it does, and this understanding is the action.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Fri, 24 Oct 2014.

max greene wrote:
Thinking fastens on the memory formed by awareness, and the circus begins.

Yes, that's how it usually goes, max. Have to run...will try to get back to the rest of your message later.

Let it Be

max greene wrote:
First we have awareness and insight, then immediately the thinking process intervenes.

At its origin in pristine form in the field of total perception, thinking is a function just like seeing/listening/speaking or motor action etc. The distortion/fragmentation occur later downwards when thinking is not an action in the field of direct perception, Max.

max greene wrote:
Is it possible to stay with awareness and not have thinking intervene?

Your inquiry is starting from wrong direction (awareness).

max greene wrote:
The only way I can see that this can come about is by understanding what thinking is and what it does, and this understanding is the action.

For this to happen, friendliness towards thinking has to be present...and this 'caring/affection' for thinking has disappeared from your posts in recent times!

The mind can deceive itself and fabricate anything it wishes

This post was last updated by Aseem Kumar Fri, 24 Oct 2014.

Aseem,

Are seeing and listening functions of the brain, or are they inborn capabilities of the brain?

I certainly agree that there must not be animosity toward thinking, rejection of thinking -- but on the other hand, hold the friendliness as well. What is essential is to be aware of what thinking is and what thinking does. This awareness is the appropriate action.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Fri, 24 Oct 2014.

max greene wrote:
Are seeing and listening functions of the brain, or are they inborn capabilities of the brain?

Leave this for the time being and share your view/understanding on the "thinking" mentioned below:

Aseem Kumar wrote:
At its origin in pristine form in the field of total perception, thinking is a function just like seeing/listening/speaking or motor action etc. The distortion/fragmentation occur later downwards when thinking is not an action in the field of direct perception, Max.

The mind can deceive itself and fabricate anything it wishes