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

Embracing our feelings without judgement ...


Displaying posts 121 - 150 of 151 in total
Fri, 24 Oct 2014 #121
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Aseem Kumar wrote:
The distortion/fragmentation occur later downwards when thinking is not an action in the field of direct perception . . .

How can thinking be an action in the field of direct perception? First there is perception, which is contact and unity. Thinking is the identification and consideration of what has been perceived. Thinking is subsequent to the perception; it is sequential, "caught in time."

As I see it, the identification and consideration is the distortion.

max

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 24 Oct 2014 #122
Thumb_2820 Aseem Kumar India 2033 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
Thinking is the identification and consideration of what has been perceived. Thinking is subsequent to the perception; it is sequential, "caught in time."

As I see it, the identification and consideration is the distortion.

max, you are missing two step that come before 'identification/attachment.

Bringing technical/factual information in verbal form up to the conscious level from memory is the first...And the consideration/reflecting upon/measuring/comparing/modifying/analyzing this stored data is the second...Then only comes the identification/attachment as the I/self center comes into existence.

The mind can deceive itself and fabricate anything it wishes

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 24 Oct 2014 #123
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

You may be right, Aseem. I don't know because there is no end to all of this.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 24 Oct 2014 #124
Thumb_2820 Aseem Kumar India 2033 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
You may be right, Aseem. I don't know because there is no end to all of this.

Understanding/perceiving/seeing and not the goal as ending...

The mind can deceive itself and fabricate anything it wishes

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 24 Oct 2014 #125
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:

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'?

More exactly Tom, it would rather be the knowledge of who you are NOT ... in other words as long as you identify with a fragment of the totality (ie. ego), there can be no 'de-conditioning', no 'de-struction' ... because as long as the center is still active it will continue to accumulate and live in time and division ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 24 Oct 2014 #126
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3169 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
More exactly Tom, it would rather be the knowledge of who you are NOT

OK, perhaps this makes more sense then...not sure. It still sounds like knowledge....the known. I'll have to look further into your message. However I was responding to your exact words in your previous message: "an insight into WHO you are (remember the old adage "Know yourself")". Which is it then, knowledge of 'who you are' or knowledge of 'who you are not', or both?

Let it Be

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 25 Oct 2014 #127
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Which is it then, knowledge of 'who you are' or knowledge of 'who you are not', or both?

Tom,

As soon as you have created a knowledge of WHO you are, you have created a center, ie. a separation between the knower and the known, a duality, a division ...

In fact you cannot 'know' who you are ... you can only BE it ... and this can only happen here and now ... in presence to this moment ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 25 Oct 2014 #128
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5645 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
In fact you cannot 'know' who you are ... you can only BE it ... and this can only happen here and now ... in presence to this moment ...

You say the words but they ring hollow because your personal actions belie your understanding of them.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 25 Oct 2014 #129
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1271 posts in this forum Offline

it is difficult to draw the line between thought and feeling, it seems like they both create each other so what k is suggesting to me is to separate the feeling from thought and look at the feeling objectively and none-emotionaly .

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 25 Oct 2014 #130
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1271 posts in this forum Offline

And thanks for thE K quote.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 26 Oct 2014 #131
Thumb_avatar Ravi Seth India 1573 posts in this forum Offline

Goodman

it is difficult to draw the line between thought and feeling, it seems like they both create each other so what k is suggesting to me is to separate the feeling from thought and look at the feeling objectively and none-emotionaly .

Muse it over again.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 26 Oct 2014 #132
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Goodman B wrote:
it is difficult to draw the line between thought and feeling, it seems like they both create each other . . .

In fact, aren't they one and the same? Isn't emotion just thought?

Take away the thought, where is emotion?

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 26 Oct 2014 #133
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1271 posts in this forum Offline

The word creates the feeling for example the word communism or the word imperialism create certain feelings .Can one look at these feelings without the word? That is my question.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 27 Oct 2014 #134
Thumb_avatar Ravi Seth India 1573 posts in this forum Offline

Goodman

The word creates the feeling for example the word communism or the word imperialism create certain feelings .Can one look at these feelings without the word? That is my question.

What is there to look at without the word?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 27 Oct 2014 #135
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 1228 posts in this forum Offline

Max, Take away emotion isn't there still thought?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 27 Oct 2014 #136
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Peter,

You are asking whether thought and emotion are the same thing. I would say that there is some emotion in all thinking. Why? Because the ego, the self, is present to some degree in all thinking. In the absence of awareness, the brain invariably acts in the best interests of this self. The brain, through the surrogate self, is fearful of harm and longs for comfort and the best (in its view) outcome of every reaction. All of this is emotion.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 27 Oct 2014 #137
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 1228 posts in this forum Offline

Max, there was a time in my life when I held this view ..."everything I do... everything is selfish" I saw this clearly. But then I happened onto something else. No doer.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 27 Oct 2014 #138
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Then what happened to the selfishness?

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 28 Oct 2014 #139
Thumb_stringio Chris Dent Australia 187 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Jean Gatti wrote:
it would rather be the knowledge of who you are NOT

The 'knowledge' of who I am is only an abstract description. All descriptions are simultaneously inclusive and exclusive. If we say 'I am this' we are also saying 'I am not that'. The division between this and that is a thought-generated abstraction.

Nothing but awareness......

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 28 Oct 2014 #140
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 1228 posts in this forum Offline

Max, it's possible to be without identification with the body and the brain. These are there...matter. Matter is conditioned, programed. Organisms are biological machinery. Evolution has produced organisms programed to survive and reproduce in competition for scarce resources. There is circuitry that identifises self as organism from what not self. If you were to build a robot you would design into it some way for it to identify itself, to distinguish what it can eat from its own body that it shouldn't. What to protect from what it can use. So the organism is self. It even goes to genes, Richard Dawkins The Selfish Gene, mechanically not consciously.

But one can discover that awareness, this light in oneself is what one actually is. That alone is the Self. That beingness has no atributes. It is not matter. What it is here in this one is exactly the same one that is there in that one that is reading this. It is not an I. It is the empty seer. It has no past. It is nowness itself. It is not male or female. It can't suffer. It is not the person. There is nothing in it can be used to distinguish it here from that that is there.

The mechanical is programed and acts mechanically. It is not seperate from the rest of the material world all of that is physics. That is the universe in motion. The whole of the material universe as a oneness is the doer there, not any seperate part, not a you.

But there is this light in oneself that is the true self. Without it there would be nothing there in you just black, nothing, machinery only, in darkness. This light sees, where ever it is not over shadowed, covered up, hidden by the mechanical. It sees and that seeing acts. Not you act. So there is no doer as I. In that there is no self (always the true condition however much it may seem otherwise). So seeing all of this, seeing this completely, deeply, not partially, not superficially,
there is no identification, no selfishness.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Tue, 28 Oct 2014.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 28 Oct 2014 #141
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

That is a good post, Peter

Yes, the only "self" that there is is the mechanical physical body.

You call it "light," I call it "awareness," but this is Being, the real, as differentiated from reality, the material universe.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Tue, 28 Oct 2014.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 28 Oct 2014 #142
Thumb_stringio Bob D. United States 273 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Peter Kesting wrote:
But one can discover that awareness, this light in oneself is what one actually is. That alone is the Self. That beingness has no atributes. It is not matter. What it is here in this one is exactly the same one that is there in that one that is reading this. It is not an I. It is the empty seer. It has no past. It is nowness itself. It is not male or female. It can't suffer. It is not the person. There is nothing in it can be used to distinguish it here from that that is there.

This to me illustrates why seekers are so effectively disappointed. You are all looking for some ideal, other than the physical, to be a part of. Realistically...it also addresses Max's question of "why do we continue to war?" The falsity of the belief that one is more than just physical will keep seekers forever in conflict. All wars are wars of ideals at their heart. It is absolutely depressing to see folks so intent on understanding, go so far off track.

If you can roll in it...it's gotta be healthy.

This post was last updated by Bob D. (account deleted) Tue, 28 Oct 2014.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 28 Oct 2014 #143
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
Yes, the only "self" that there is is the mechanical physical body.

No Max, this is not what peter said, he says:

Peter wrote:
But one can discover that awareness, this light in oneself is what one actually is. That alone is the Self. That beingness has no attributes. It is not matter.

It is not matter therefore it cannot be the physical body Max, awareness is formless, immaterial ... the mis-take is precisely the identification (by thought) of awareness with the physical body, and this mistake is called 'ego' ... a thought-created sense of self, an erroneous identity ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 28 Oct 2014 #144
Thumb_2820 Aseem Kumar India 2033 posts in this forum Offline

Chris Dent wrote:
The 'knowledge' of who I am is only an abstract description.

What gives life to this 'knowledge' of who I am is not abstract description but a "sensation" (thought generated) that is felt as a reality/actuality.

The mind can deceive itself and fabricate anything it wishes

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 28 Oct 2014 #145
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Jean,

The first paragraph of what Peter wrote points out that evolution has created the self -- the organism.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 28 Oct 2014 #146
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Aseem,

I don't see how thinking can give life to anything. Thinking is the massaging of memory; it does not create, it reflects and considers.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 28 Oct 2014 #147
Thumb_2820 Aseem Kumar India 2033 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
I don't see how thinking can give life to anything.

Max, you missed completely the way "life' has been used .

The mind can deceive itself and fabricate anything it wishes

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 28 Oct 2014 #148
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Sorry, Aseem. Appears that I did.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 19 Feb 2019 #149
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1271 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
The quote of the day touches a very important issue:

"What would happen to a feeling if you did not judge it by the frame of reference - that is, if you do not name verbally that feeling or quality?"

JK. - Group Discussion 13th December, 1947 | Madras, India

The problem is our judgements about our inner experiences and feelings, we live in dichotomies, polarities: looking for good feelings and experiences (pleasure etc.) and rejecting/resisting the bad feelings (anger, fear, grief etc.).

This resistance to what we label 'bad' feelings (or so-called 'negative' emotions) creates tensions and emotional reactions and conflicts, inside and outside ... often leading to 'substitute' irrational behaviours like addictions or mental disorders (neuroses, depression, obsessive behaviours, phobias etc.) ...

So can we learn to embrace all of our feelings and experiences, without judgement, without resistance to 'what is' ?

And remain in choiceless (ie. non-judgemental) awareness ?

I think that you have done a great job on this post. Not only u put the K's saying but you elaborated on it.
One of the problem that we have in this forum is that people put K's saying and don't or can't elaborate further .

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 19 Feb 2019 #150
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1271 posts in this forum Offline

One Self wrote:
it is difficult to draw the line between thought and feeling, it seems like they both create each other so what k is suggesting to me is to separate the feeling from thought and look at the feeling objectively and none-emotionaly .

That sounds very simple and logical but why do we always go back to the thought? Why has thought become so dominant?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 121 - 150 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.)