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

Choiceless self-awareness


Displaying posts 151 - 180 of 233 in total
Sun, 21 Jan 2018 #151
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 689 posts in this forum Offline

We really need to be clear about the spectrum of intensity. You can be scared to the depths of your being or vaguely, mildly nervous about something, and everything in between. It's all fear. But it much easier to be aware of and transform the mild, because it is less visceral.

Similarly, there is a spectrum from full on rage to mild annoyance. It is all anger but the degree of intensity can make a tremendous difference.

Also, notice there is always a cause: a perceived or actual threat. We need to go into that, too, yes?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 21 Jan 2018 #152
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3169 posts in this forum Offline

I think fear is difficult to transform because deep down in the unconscious, the fear is VERY intense. If they weren't so intense we'd perhaps be able to face them.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 21 Jan 2018 #153
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3169 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
Also, notice there is always a cause: a perceived or actual threat. We need to go into that, too, yes?

Can you give a specific example? And will understanding the perceived threat be of any help in transforming the fear?

Continuing...

My spouse of 20 years tells me "It's over between us. I want a divorce." Or I worked at the same company for 25 years and they go out of business. I'm angry and frightened...worried. There's fear and insecurity....fear for my future...my children's future. How will I pay for their college tuition, etc.? I don't see how identifying the perceived threat will help me to understand the fear.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 22 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 22 Jan 2018 #154
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 689 posts in this forum Offline

Usually we fear a specific thing. We could have underlying, deep seated fear with no specific cause, but probably that, too, has a cause that goes back to childhood or something. Usually, however, there is a local cause and we are not always good at telling what is real and/or imagined in it.

Here's K from The First and Last Freedom, On Fear:

"What are we afraid of? Are we afraid of a fact or an idea about a fact? Are we afraid of the thing as it is, or are we afraid of what we think it is?"

That's part of a very interesting chapter with insight into fear. As you know, K discusses fear in depth many places.

But we started trying to understand anger. K doesn't talk as much about anger. So we have to see if anger and fear are basically the same but with a different reaction: one with fight and one with flight. Are anger and fear the same? How so and how not?

Or maybe K talks directly about anger somewhere and that may help us. Or should we investigate anger for ourselves without running to K as an authority?

Perhaps we need to be less theoretical and look directly at anger in ourself first?

This post was last updated by idiot ? Mon, 22 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 22 Jan 2018 #155
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3169 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
No Tom, you run. That's 'real' fear not the psychological variety.

Of course. My point is, that the psychological fear feels identical to the 'real' fear. The body feels the same strong emotion and the desire to run away....to do something....anything ...to escape from the sense of impending doom or disaster....or pain.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 22 Jan 2018 #156
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 1398 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
Perhaps we need to be less theoretical and look directly at anger in ourself first?

Commentaries on Living, First Series | Chapter 30, Anger

Anger has that peculiar quality of isolation; like sorrow, it cuts one off, and for the time being, at least, all relationship comes to an end. Anger has the temporary strength and vitality of the isolated. There is a strange despair in anger; for isolation is despair. The anger of disappointment, of jealousy, of the urge to wound, gives a violent release whose pleasure is self-justification. We condemn others, and that very condemnation is a justification of ourselves. Without some kind of attitude, whether of self-righteousness or self-abasement, what are we? We use every means to bolster ourselves up; and anger, like hate, is one of the easiest ways. Simple anger, a sudden flare-up which is quickly forgotten, is one thing; but the anger that is deliberately built up, that has been brewed and that seeks to hurt and destroy, is quite another matter. Simple anger may have some physiological cause which can be seen and remedied; but the anger that is the outcome of a psychological cause is much more subtle and difficult to deal with. Most of us do not mind being angry, we find an excuse for it. Why should we not be angry when there is ill-treatment of another or of ourselves? So we become righteously angry. We never just say we are angry, and stop there; we go into elaborate explanations of its cause. We never just say that we are jealous or bitter, but justify or explain it. We ask how there can be love without jealousy, or say that someone else's actions have made us bitter, and so on.

It's easier to deny than to confess.

Truth will unfold itself to those who enquire their own actions.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 22 Jan 2018 #157
Thumb_stringio richard head United States 332 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Tom Paine wrote:
....would save time typing.

My primary concern in posting at Kinfonet, is not saving time. What might save you time though, is to not post ridiculing rejection responses to the things I write. I get the same response, almost verbatim, from you and Jack every time. So we are all stuck in the cycle of relationship by explanation/knowledge/image. What else we got?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 22 Jan 2018 #158
Thumb_stringio richard head United States 332 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Sean Hen wrote:
Is thinking that you are right and see K's teachings clearly while others do not, something of a common occurence on this forum?

Everyone feels that way. Some go so far as to use violent abusive language to enforce the belief in their own authority. Some post long detailed explanations and/or long quotes of Krishnamurti to validate their belief in themselves. Some try to disguise the assertion of their authoritative belief by using phrases like "we're investigating" and/or "sharing insights" and "enquiring together" and such. Some escape the responsibility of their own activities by pointing the finger at little old me. Making a big commotion and raising a hell of a ruckus over....what? Do I post long detailed explanations about what you should or shouldn't do, how you should or shouldn't proceed? No. A few sentences here and there, that's it. But for some reason most people feel enraged and affronted by my meager inputs. Out of all reasonable proportion I might add. So just remember, when you point the finger at me (depending of course, on which finger you are pointing), there are three pointing back at yourself! ;)

This post was last updated by richard head (account deleted) Mon, 22 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 22 Jan 2018 #159
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5755 posts in this forum Offline

Richard/Randall. We all have complaints and objections to what others have written about us and for various other reasons. It's time for all of us to stop whining about it and go beyond ourselves, our hurt feelings and join the topic discussion.

I don't think anyone is persecuting you but perhaps only objecting to your constant haranguing and complaining about what others have written.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Mon, 22 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 22 Jan 2018 #160
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5755 posts in this forum Offline

Wim your quote from K is fantastic, to the point and extremely interesting and for me, and probably everyone else too, helps us to understand anger in a way most of us have never realized before. Thanks for the post.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 22 Jan 2018 #161
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3169 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Tom Paine wrote:

My point is, that the psychological fear feels identical to the 'real' fear.

That's what is up to us to be discerned, the false from the true, and not run from the psychological

Well if the tiger is charging at you, it's not the time to stop and try to discern whether it's a real tiger or only an imaginary one. As as I implied, the body is sending signals to the brain that we're about to be eaten. Can you say something about discerning the false from the true....in regard to fear?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 24 Jan 2018 #162
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 329 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
Usually we fear a specific thing. We could have underlying, deep seated fear with no specific cause, but probably that, too, has a cause that goes back to childhood or something. Usually, however, there is a local cause and we are not always good at telling what is real and/or imagined in it.

Are we talking about the fear of the tiger ? The body natural reaction to a danger, that we call fear ? Or all the psychological fear ? Do we know , are we aware of our fears, like fear to lose our job ? Fear for our kids ? Our home , our possessions ? Can those fear be observed through our day to day lives ? And those about our social life. Fear not to be recongnize, or to not achieve our goals. To be judge, to be reject and so on. All which can lead to anger ? I'm just asking. Time seems always involved: the past and the future. Can this be observed ? Fear seems to be a projection, something that might happen in the future, that we are affraid of; or a fear of something that have happen in the past . So time is involved, and so the self, which is also the past and his fear of the future. Of course, I just mentioned some of what fear can be.

Anger is an indication of a conflict. That seems obvious, is it ?.

It can't be an intellectual exercise,as you've mentioned, but rather a close observation of our thoughts ,that can reveal our psychological fears. Just some thoughts.

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet Thu, 25 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 24 Jan 2018 #163
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 329 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
K says, be aware of the emotion, see that you are the emotion - that you are not separate from it, stay with it, and it transforms. But with personal experiment, I have found that fear and anger are deep in the gut when they happen. It's not just something mental I can watch, play with, unify with, and poof! it goes away. As aware as I am during it, it lingers, and doesn't instantly transform. It is a powerful physical feeling, a cascade of chemicals in the body, and not just mental. Your thoughts?

Interesting. Something is missing though: the understanding of fear. If the fear of the future appears and one sees that future is time, and that this time is a creation of the mind which have no reality, there is no division, a perception without division as the thinker interferring. What happen then ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 24 Jan 2018 #164
Thumb_stringio richard head United States 332 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Jack Pine wrote:
It's time for all of us to stop whining about it and go beyond ourselves, our hurt feelings and join the topic discussion.

Jack, pointing out the fact is not whining. I will continue to point out the facts where appropriate. For instance, I stayed away for a few days to see where this "topic of discussion" will lead.

And so....???

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 24 Jan 2018 #165
Thumb_stringio richard head United States 332 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Rich Nolet wrote:
Anger is an indication of a conflict.

Conflict is an indication of anger I would say. Anger is an indication of confusion, I would suggest.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 24 Jan 2018 #166
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 329 posts in this forum Offline

I would say that conflict can lead to anger, in certain extreme condition. And anger is conflict, obviously. But why saying that anger is confusion ?

Which is another interesting thing : the fact that we put a name on a sentiment. We label it as anger or fear, but it exist before we name it, before we call it jalousy or anger. What happen if we stay with it without any mouvement ? If we don't like it, the sensation, we try to get rid of it ? By naming it, by analysing it, by justify it, or by trying to control it. I know it sounds like what K. said, though, am I talking from memory or from seeing it for myself ?

However, has anyone ever experience this ?

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet Wed, 24 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Thu, 25 Jan 2018 #167
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5755 posts in this forum Offline

Rich you have brought up a very interesting and valid point. When we name something we are separating ourselves from it. When we call something anger or violence then there is that feeling, that emotion, and there is the "I" which is separate from that emotion. When we name something it includes all of the baggage that goes with it. All of the conditioning which is the memories and experience we have of anger or whatever it is we are feeling.

When we are angry then stay with that feeling, watch it and stay with it right to it's roots. Much easier said than done. Most of us don't do this because we have been conditioned to want to change, to become something else, to become non angry, non violent. We are violent now and we aim to be non violent in the future. This is why we never understand violence. We never change because the "me", this movement in time, is always trying to be something else and never stays with what it is now.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 Jan 2018 #168
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 329 posts in this forum Offline

richard head wrote:
Jack, pointing out the fact is not whining. I will continue to point out the facts where appropriate. For instance, I stayed away for a few days to see where this "topic of discussion" will lead.

And so....???

Basically, it will always lead us back to ourselves. This is only conversation between friends, at least I hope. So, why this cynisism richard ?

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet Thu, 25 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 Jan 2018 #169
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 886 posts in this forum Offline

Rich Nolet wrote:
Basically, it will always lead us back to ourselves. This is only conversation between friends, at least I hope.

I completely agree with both these sentences Rich. We were looking at anger in ourselves. Krishnamurti asked if we can see anger (and other things) as it arises in us and not just look back on our anger, as it were, after it has passed. Can awareness be on to the arising anger immediately? Has anybody anything to say about this?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 Jan 2018 #170
Thumb_stringio richard head United States 332 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Rich Nolet wrote:
But why saying that anger is confusion ?

The mind works like a computer. It can recognize 1 and not 1. K called this phenomenon of the mind "choice". Others have called it "duality". Now when the computer cannot fit input into one of those two positions, it has a default space. We call that default space in the human mind anger/fear.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Thu, 25 Jan 2018 #171
Thumb_stringio richard head United States 332 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Rich Nolet wrote:
So, why this cynisism richard ?

You may label what I do as cynicism of you like rich, I don't mind.

Can anyone give us a clear concise definition of the word cynicism?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 Jan 2018 #172
Thumb_stringio richard head United States 332 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Rich Nolet wrote:
This is only conversation between friends, at least I hope.

Krishnamurti used the reference to coming together as friends because people came to him to worship as an idol. So he frequently tried to calm people down. But he did not intend it as a model or method for his followers 30 years after his death.

People at Kinfonet are generally very friendly until you disagree with their opinions/beliefs. If you question or challenge what people say (even in a friendly manner) then their pretense of friendliness turns very quickly.

This post was last updated by richard head (account deleted) Thu, 25 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Thu, 25 Jan 2018 #173
Thumb_stringio richard head United States 332 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Sean Hen wrote:
Has anybody anything to say about this?

What have you to say about it Sean? Can you be aware of the spark/flush of anger as it begins? Many/most people enjoy the rush of power/self that comes with a violent temper. Many use it as a tool to control those around them. So for some it has utility as well. Very complex yet very simple at its core.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 Jan 2018 #174
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5755 posts in this forum Offline

richard head wrote:
Can anyone give us a clear concise definition of the word cynicism?

Cynicism is the practice of being cynical:
Definition of cynical
1
: having or showing the attitude or temper of a cynic: such as
a : contemptuously distrustful of human nature and motives
… tb : based on or reflecting a belief that human conduct is motivated primarily by self-interest a cynical ploy to win votes

Of course Randall I know you most likely have a ready reply to anyone so foolish as to define cynicism but I did it anyway because the word seems a propos to your posting style. No offense intended.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Thu, 25 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 Jan 2018 #175
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5755 posts in this forum Offline

richard head wrote:
The mind works like a computer. It can recognize 1 and not 1. K called this phenomenon of the mind "choice". Others have called it "duality". Now when the computer cannot fit input into one of those two positions, it has a default space. We call that default space in the human mind anger/fear.

I question and refute that most minds operate only as switch on, switch off. For one thing if it did it wouldn't be so confused most of the time. Confusion often comes when there appear to be multiple choices.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Fri, 26 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 Jan 2018 #176
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5755 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
Can awareness be on to the arising anger immediately? Has anybody anything to say about this?

To the first question...Yes. If you don't see anger as it happens then what you are seeing is the memory, the image of anger which is not anger. One is anger and seeing this at the moment of anger is crucial to understanding anger.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Thu, 25 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 26 Jan 2018 #177
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5755 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Is this the same as saying that "anger" is seeing itself? Since there is no-one apart from the 'anger' that can see 'it', that anger "understands" itself, in the moment?

No. At the moment of anger there is not the person who is angry and anger. There is just anger. K did not separate the two. To think about anger after it occurs at some later date with the expectation of understanding it is ludicrous because it is not anger you are seeing but the remembering of anger. The experience of anger.

You do understand that this is what K is saying don't you? That to be aware of something one has to be aware when it is actually occurring; anger, violence, loneliness, fear and so on. We are not separate from what we think. Remember the often repeated "the thinker is the thought", "the experiencer is the experience"? That's what all this means.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 26 Jan 2018 #178
Thumb_stringio richard head United States 332 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Jack Pine wrote:
the word seems a propos to your posting style.

Krishnamurti, if you read "Krishnamurti to himself", had a similar style. It was reflected in other places also but that book seemed to sum it all up quite nicely.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 26 Jan 2018 #179
Thumb_stringio richard head United States 332 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Jack Pine wrote:
I question and refute that most minds operate only as switch on, switch off.

It seems quite obvious that the mind has a "like-dislike" filter through which sensory data passes. K called this phenomenon "choice". The confusions arise when the mind acts as if this information is a separate entity that can act upon itself.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 26 Jan 2018 #180
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 329 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
This is made more complicated because of the lack of integration between the 'new' and the 'old' brain.

Aren't you making it more complicated Dan. I must admit that I don't see what you are saying here.

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet Fri, 26 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 151 - 180 of 233 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.)