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

Why can't we face the actual ?


Displaying posts 31 - 55 of 55 in total
Tue, 03 Jan 2017 #31
Thumb_3137 Brian Smith United Kingdom 204 posts in this forum Offline

Jean do you not identify with your beliefs and opinions then? And also is it right that you're saying that there is an alternative to having emotions and reactions? You've got to explain this because it sounds pretty wierd to me.

This post was last updated by Brian Smith Tue, 03 Jan 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 03 Jan 2017 #32
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Brian Smith wrote:
Jean do you not identify with your beliefs and opinions then?

Exactly so. But first of all why feed opinions at all (as said in Zen teachings: "Do you still cherish opinions ?")

And also is it right that you're saying that there is an alternative to having emotions and reactions?

Of course there is an alternative else we would be doomed to remain in unconsciousness forever ...

So can we investigate the nature of this alternative ?

But first of all we have to understand the nature of our emotional reactions ? Why do we react emotionally when something 'wrong' happens ? When something is not as it 'should' be ?

Isn't an emotional reaction a resistance to 'what is' ?

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 03 Jan 2017 #33
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 2963 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
So can we investigate the nature of this alternative ?

Not really....the alternative to what is is an idea...it only exists in thought...in time. We can possibly look at what actually is. You might choose to label that looking as an alternative to endless fighting against or... escaping from... 'what is'.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Wed, 04 Jan 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 04 Jan 2017 #34
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 4825 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
Is it very clear to all of us that our addictions are merely an escape ?

Is it clear to you what your addictions are?

Jean Gatti wrote:
Can we answer this question from K ? Why don't we realise that ? Why do we go on with addictions (which include drugs, alcohol, entertainment, search for pleasure and security, beliefs, imitation, social conformism etc) ?

Why do you, Jean, go on with your addictions?

Jean Gatti wrote:
Why can't we face the 'actual' ?

What, for you, is the actual Jean? Is it just another concept, an ideal, that you have? When you can answer the questions you have posed to others instead of trying to lead others in the direction of your conclusions then you will see, maybe.

Jean, didn't you write the other day that questions won't lead you anywhere, or something like that, when Tom asked a question? Is there a double standard here? Is it alright for you to ask questions and not alright for others to ask questions?

Do you really want to find out Jean or are you just proselytizing?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 04 Jan 2017 #35
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 4825 posts in this forum Offline

Can we start by saying that addiction is a repetitive, habitual activity? A physical and psychological dependency? Something that is comfortable, familiar that we identify with that provides a temporary shelter from our worries and problems?

Instead of asking why we maintain our addictions can we be seriously attentive to what these addictions are at the time they are occurring? If we understand what addictions are will we still ask why we continue on with them?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 04 Jan 2017 #36
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Not really....the alternative to what is is an idea...it only exists in thought...in time.

Well not exactly so Tom because one does not react emotionally to every situation ... one reacts only to very specific situations which 'trigger' reactions, and those situations vary from one person to another ...

So why do we react to some situations and not to others ? What is the nature of this 'trigger' mechanism ?

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 04 Jan 2017 #37
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 2963 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
Tom Paine wrote:

Not really....the alternative to what is is an idea...it only exists in thought...in time.
Well not exactly so Tom because one does not react emotionally to every situation ... one reacts only to very specific situations which 'trigger' reactions, and those situations vary from one person to another ...

What you just described is what is! Reacting to some situation which triggers emotion. When that reacting(anger) is happening there's no alternative. Anger(fear, etc) IS. Only after the reacting do we think of an alternative.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Wed, 04 Jan 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 04 Jan 2017 #38
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Reacting to some situation which triggers emotion. When that reacting(anger) is happening there's no alternative. Anger(fear, etc) IS. Only after the reacting do we think of an alternative.

And then what is the nature of those 'triggers' ? ... why do we react emotionally in some situations and not others ? ... what are those 'buttons' that are being pushed ?

Doesn't it point to some hidden fears or traumas stored in our unconscious memory ? sometimes dating from a very early age in childhood ... like the fear to be abandoned ?

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 04 Jan 2017 #39
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 1171 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
And then what is the nature of those 'triggers' ? ... why do we react emotionally in some situations and not others ? ... what are those 'buttons' that are being pushed ?

Doesn't it point to some hidden fears or traumas stored in our unconscious memory ? sometimes dating from a very early age in childhood ... like the fear to be abandoned ?

Doesn't 'thought' feed itself on these kind of questions: the 'whys', the analysis...is it about getting 'answers' to why things happen in us that is the point or is it the 'ending' of psychological thought/time itself?

When there is only fear without any hope of escape, in its darkest moments, in the utter solitude of fear, there comes from within itself, as it were, the light which shall dispel it."

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 04 Jan 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 04 Jan 2017 #40
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
is it about getting 'answers' to why things happen in us that is the point or is it the 'ending' of psychological thought/time itself?

It is about SEEING ... as long as emotional reactions are triggered (which is a resistance to 'what is') there will be no ending of psychological thought ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 04 Jan 2017 #41
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 1171 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
as long as emotional reactions are triggered (which is a resistance to 'what is') there will be no ending of psychological thought ...

It is thought that is behind the "emotional reactions", the likes, the hates, the fears etc....looking for 'causes','triggers' etc. gives thought 'justification' for what it does best: to continue unabated.

When there is only fear without any hope of escape, in its darkest moments, in the utter solitude of fear, there comes from within itself, as it were, the light which shall dispel it."

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 04 Jan 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 04 Jan 2017 #42
Thumb_me_3_reduced_copy Patricia Hemingway Australia 1797 posts in this forum Offline

The actual is not at all what we would like it to be. The actual is that humanity has completely misunderstood the natural world, and from that misunderstanding, seeks to control it.

The actual is that we, as human beings, have it all wrong. Which brings us to 'negative thinking'.........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 04 Jan 2017 #43
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 174 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
It is thought that is behind the "emotional reactions", the likes, the hates, the fears etc....looking for 'causes','triggers' etc. gives thought 'justification' for what it does best: to continue unabated.

Hi Dan. It is not thought that is behind the emotional reaction. If one look closely, it is our attachements. It is partly what we are attach to that trigger fears, hates, like and dislike. I suggest an interestiing quote from K. ( as always, sadly :) ) that I feel goes in detail at the doorway of what is observation....which is fundamentally quite different than intellectual debate.

Question: Emotions are strong. Our attachments are strong. How does looking and seeing reduce the strength and power of these emotions?

Trying to control, suppress, or sublimate emotions and attachments in no way reduces the conflict, does it? Are one's emotions so extraordinarily strong that they act? First one has to be conscious, aware, to know or recognise, to see, that one's emotions are strong and also that one is attached. When one is so conscious, what takes place?

One is conscious of one's attachment, or of one's strong emotions of hate, jealousy, antagonism, like and dislike. Now, do they, being so strong, overshadow and control one's actions? One is examining, looking at the emotions and attachments which are apparently very strong and one sees that they act as barriers to clear unconfused thinking, to clear action, Is one aware of that or does one take it for granted? Does one say, "Yes I have very strong emotions, I am terribly attached, but it does not matter, it is part of life. I do not mind struggling. I do not mind having quarrels with everybody''? Now when one says one is aware, what does one mean by that - to know, to recognise? Is thought recognising the attachment? One says,"Yes, I am attached'' - is it the activity of thought that says, ``I am attached''?

When one says, ``I am attached'', is it an idea or is it a fact? The fact is not the idea. This microphone: I can create an idea of it but the microphone is a fact. I can touch it, see it. So, is my attachment a concept, a conclusion, or is it a fact? Now, when you observe the fact, not the idea, not the conclusion about the fact, but the fact itself, is the fact different from you who are observing the fact?

When you are observing the fact through an idea, or through a conclusion that you have heard from somebody, you are not looking at the fact. If you are looking at the fact you are not verbalizing the fact. So, how do you look at it? As something separate from yourself? Is attachment something different from yourself or is it part of yourself? The microphone is something apart from yourself, but attachment, the emotion, is part of yourself. Attachment is the "me'. If there is no attachment there is nome'. So awareness of your emotions, your attachments, is part of your nature, part of your structure. If you are looking at yourself there is no division, there is no duality as the me' and attachment. There is only attachment, not the word but the fact, the feeling, the emotion, the possessiveness in attachment. That is a fact; that is"me'.

So, what am I to do with the "me'? When there was division betweenme' and attachment I could try to do something about it; I could try to control it, I could say, `I must suppress it'', - which we do all the time. But if it is"me', what can I do? I cannot do anything; I can only observe. Before, I acted upon it; now I cannot act upon it because it is `me'. All I can do is observe. Observation becomes all important, not what I do about it.

So there is observation, not, "1 am observing''. There is only observation. If in that observation I begin to choose and say,"I must not be attached'', I have already moved away, I am now saying that it is not `me'. In observation there is no choice, there is no direction, there is just pure, absolute, observation, and then the thing that is being observed dissolves. Before, you resisted it, you controlled it, you suppressed it, you acted upon it; but now in that observation all energy is centred. It is only when there is the lack of that energy that there is attachment. When there is complete observation without any interference of thought - why should thought come in? - you are just observing as you observe the thing that you call the fly. Just observe in the same way your emotions and attachments, then there is the gathering of all energy in that observation. Therefore there is no attachment. It is only the unintelligent who are attached, it is only those who do not see the full implications of attachment who are attached. They pervade the world, they are the stronger element in the world and we are caught in that. But when you come to examine this closely, then you are no longer caught in that and you are no longer dissipating energy in something which has no meaning. Your energy is now centred completely in observation, therefore there is total dissipation of attachment. Test it, do it and you will find out. You have to examine the thing very, very closely so that your mind is absolutely clear in the observation. It is only the unaware who jump over the cliff. The moment you are aware of danger, move. Attachment is a danger because it breeds fear, anxiety, hate and jealousy, being possessed and being not possessed - the whole of that is a tremendous danger. And when you see that danger there is action.

J. Krishnamurti Questions and Answers 4th Question Brockwood Park 1st Question & Answer Meeting 28th August 1979 `Words'

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet Thu, 05 Jan 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 04 Jan 2017 #44
Thumb_2777 randall merryman United States 3826 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
So why do we react to some situations and not to others ? What is the nature of this 'trigger' mechanism ?

The human biological entity has evolved survival mechanisms. The confused psychological entity has created imaginary explanations as a means to not face the reality of its situation.

Stuff happens

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 04 Jan 2017 #45
Thumb_2777 randall merryman United States 3826 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
emotional reactions are triggered (which is a resistance to 'what is')

The fact of biology (emotional reactions, the actual) gets drowned out by wild and crazy explanations created out of imagination (resistance to what is (the actual)).

Stuff happens

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 05 Jan 2017 #46
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
The actual is that we, as human beings, have it all wrong.

What is it exactly that is "wrong" ? What is the 'original sin' (so to speak) ?

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 05 Jan 2017 #47
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

randall merryman wrote:

Jean Gatti wrote:

So why do we react to some situations and not to others ? What is the nature of this 'trigger' mechanism ?

The human biological entity has evolved survival mechanisms.

So it is the biological entity which reacts emotionally when someone says you are an idiot ?

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 05 Jan 2017 #48
Thumb_me_3_reduced_copy Patricia Hemingway Australia 1797 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
What is it exactly that is "wrong" ? What is the 'original sin' (so to speak) ?

The 'original sin' is that humanity transitioned - did not evolve - the 'wrong turn' which is forever avoided.

Out of that avoidance is invented a world-wide human belief system (disguised within many religions over many centuries) in which everything is delusion. It can only be delusion because it is rooted in denial of the actual - the actual being the original 'wrong turn'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 05 Jan 2017 #49
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 2963 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
And then what is the nature of those 'triggers' ? ... why do we react emotionally in some situations and not others ? ... what are those 'buttons' that are being pushed ?

Doesn't it point to some hidden fears or traumas stored in our unconscious memory ? sometimes dating from a very early age in childhood ... like the fear to be abandoned ?

Do we have to go back to some hidden trauma from childhood? A young child gets attached to their toy. Try and take it away and see what happens. I'm attached to my golf game. I wake up on Saturday and it's raining. My anticipated fun is canceled. I feel depressed. I get satisfaction from my religious belief. You tell me it's B.S., and I get angry.
Do you think fear, anger, greed, etc. originated in some early childhood trauma? Just questioning this.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 05 Jan 2017 #50
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Do you think fear, anger, greed, etc. originated in some early childhood trauma? Just questioning this.

Well Tom, we have been 'educated' and 'conditioned', isn't it ? Isn't this 'traumatic' enough ?

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 05 Jan 2017 #51
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I get satisfaction from my religious belief. You tell me it's B.S., and I get angry.

I think this 'explanation' is rather simplistic Tom.

Why would you be angry because someone doubts your beliefs ? I think we have to go deeper in this ...

First of all your beliefs are based on a trust of what 'others' told you ... those 'beliefs' do not result from your own personal experience, therefore somewhere deep within you, you know the fundamental fragility of those beliefs, right ? And precisely because those 'beliefs' are 'fragile', you have to fight this incertitude by an emotional reaction of anger, rejecting all counter-arguments of doubt ... but this emotional reaction still does not change the fact of the fundamental incertitude of beliefs ...

And secondly, you cannot afford to question those beliefs, because those beliefs condition your belonging to a community in which you feel 'safe' ... that's what religion is about, a conceptual cocoon, a 'safe haven' ... and you certainly do not want to abandon this security ... and be left alone ...

That's why K said (from memory)

"Can you walk alone, psychologically totally alone ?"

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 05 Jan 2017 #52
Thumb_3137 Brian Smith United Kingdom 204 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
Well Tom, we have been 'educated' and 'conditioned', isn't it ? Isn't this 'traumatic' enough ?

That's interesting Jean. You say you have been conditioned. Are you still conditioned? If so, then how are you aware of it when you're conditioned?
Or if you're no longer so conditioned then when and how did this awakening of yours take place?
What differentiates your experience from someone who is merely deluded? After all, you were conditioned at the time.

This post was last updated by Brian Smith Thu, 05 Jan 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 05 Jan 2017 #53
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Brian Smith wrote:
Or if you're no longer so conditioned then when and how did this self awareness take place?

Oftentimes self awareness arises when something goes wrong in your life, some huge suffering (loss of a dear one, some big health problem, maybe a divorce or a job loss etc) might make you question your way of life ... I would even go so far as to say that suffering is probably the greatest life teacher of all ... suffering forces you to a 'stop' and initiates a questioning of your so-called 'certitudes' ... a doubt ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 05 Jan 2017 #54
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 2963 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
Well Tom, we have been 'educated' and 'conditioned', isn't it ? Isn't this 'traumatic' enough ?

Haha, yes, in some instances, likely so. But speaking of religious beliefs, the little child accepts this very easily....the idea of a father figure God in Heaven who rewards the 'good' with eternal life. In fact they accept totally much of the beliefs and prejudices of the parents. If the parent says Jews or Muslims are evil, the child may simply accept this as fact. Of course the Catholic notion of Hell might be incredibly traumatic for the child. Fortunately my parents never believed in that.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Thu, 05 Jan 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Jan 2017 #55
Thumb_2777 randall merryman United States 3826 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
So it is the biological entity which reacts emotionally when someone says you are an idiot ?

Jean, you are comparing apples to oranges. My post was directed to your assertion that emotional reactions are a resistance to the actual/what is. They are in fact an evolved survival mechanism. And because the human biological entity has no clue what it is, we mistake these evolutionary mechanisms, for a soul.

Stuff happens

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 55 of 55 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.)