Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
A Quiet Space | moderated by Clive Elwell

Anger (or What does it mean investigate?) ...


Displaying posts 31 - 57 of 57 in total
Sun, 25 Jun 2017 #31
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 755 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
This kind of understanding is much more difficult complex,

It is very complex. Because even when the 'underlying' cause is identified, the 'letting go' implies someone who is doing this 'letting go'. And that brings us to the one who is doing the 'holding on'! The 'I',the 'me', the 'self', ego, the 'center'...and to the 'I' this 'letting go' is 'dangerous'. I have always been 'attached'. I have always been 'possessive'. I have always 'needed' someone, etc. I do not know what it would be like to not be those things and that is frightening. That is the 'unknown' and that is frightening. So it is 'fear' that maintains the status quo. 'Fear' that maintains and continues the 'I', 'me', mine...(with all its connections and subterfuge)

From the QOTD:

"This "I" process, about which I have spoken, can be to you but a theory. To discern its actuality you must experience it. To experience this, you must consider it critically, analyze it and experiment with it. The intelligent comprehension of it will alone bring about right action."

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 25 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 26 Jun 2017 #32
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3805 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Why doesn't this 'effortless' seeing free us from the causes? If it's effortless, then I don't have to do a THING! right? Is it because we're always making an effort to DO SOMETHING about the conflict that we never 'see'/understand?

I have been reading this dialogue with interest without feeling any need to participate. Or rather I AM participating, in living it all, but without any need to post.

But the above from Tom caught my attention ........ I think this is exactly right, Tom. Firstly right that "effortless" DOES mean not doing a thing. Which means what exactly?

And secondly, yes, this doing something about it, this thought B, this reaction ..... arises so quickly, almost instantaneously, almost by instinct. It is a very very deep conditioned response of the mind. Is it tied up with the movement to become? Which I have been seeing of late as the very essence of the self.

So one naturally asks: can this "doing" cease? Can thought stop reacting to itself? And thought A somehow not be opposed by a thought B? Are these reasonable questions?

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Mon, 26 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 26 Jun 2017 #33
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 397 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Firstly right that "effortless" DOES mean not doing a thing.

'Effortles' DOES NOT mean 'not doing a thing' but 'doing a thing without effort', which is something completly different ...

It does not eliminate action, only that such action is different from what we usually understand-by/perform-as action ...

It's a mistake to think that 'effortless' does mean not doing a thing, which to me can even distort the whole teaching.

I'll put an example ... When i first start working in the post office, my co-workers went out at 10:30h/11h for their daily round, while myself went out 11:30/12h which caused me a lot of stress and effort to accomplish their mark ... And this lasted for two years (i only worked there in summer) ... The third one i told to myself "to the hell with that, it doesn't matter at what time i go out' ... And from then on i went out at 10:30 ...

Here you have an example of 'effort' and 'effortless' ... as you can see in both cases there's a doing, only that in a different way.

10:30, time to go out for my daily round ;-) ... bad day today for postmans, it's raining

"When i talk to audiences, they know what i'm talking about ... another thing is that they do something about it" - K. Brockwood Park (Making ideas of the Teaching)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 26 Jun 2017 #34
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2040 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
Clive Elwell wrote:

Firstly right that "effortless" DOES mean not doing a thing.
'Effortles' DOES NOT mean 'not doing a thing' but 'doing a thing without effort', which is something completly different ...

I think Clive means that I don't make any effort to solve my problem...Don't make effort in relationship to fear, anger, violence, etc. The word 'effort' is the key here. Any effort of 'me' vs the problem creates further problems....further conflict, as I am not separate from the problem. And I do NOTHING when it's realized that I am not separate from the fear. How can fear act upon fear?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 26 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 27 Jun 2017 #35
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3805 posts in this forum Offline

This is not a reply to posts above, but it comes that "doing" (ie the reaction of thought to itsef) is thought's substitute for action.

Can thought 'act'? I feel it can not.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 27 Jun 2017 #36
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 397 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I think Clive means that I don't make any effort to solve my problem

Yes, but the point is another ... I'm an overall angry human being, conditioned to do anything with effort, and someone comes and tells me "effort always limits the mind. If you see the truth of that, it is enough. That very perception will operate; you do not have to do a thing." ...

Now, does that "not having to do a thing" imply inaction?
And if it implies an action of any kind, what does it mean then "effortless action"?
Can a human mind conditioned to do everything with effort, do an "effortless action" without effort?
In which way such conditioned human mind will come into contact with an "effortless action"?

"When i talk to audiences, they know what i'm talking about ... another thing is that they do something about it" - K. Brockwood Park (Making ideas of the Teaching)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 27 Jun 2017 #37
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 397 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Can thought 'act'? I feel it can not.

What is 'action'?

"When i talk to audiences, they know what i'm talking about ... another thing is that they do something about it" - K. Brockwood Park (Making ideas of the Teaching)

This post was last updated by Juan E Tue, 27 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 27 Jun 2017 #38
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3805 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
'Effortles' DOES NOT mean 'not doing a thing' but 'doing a thing without effort', which is something completly different ...

But Juan, it seems to me that when thought tries to "do" something (let's stick to psychologically) that automatically implies effort. No? It does something - really that means TRIES to do something - to try to change what is. Do you follow me?

Juan E wrote:
It does not eliminate action,

Sorry, what does not eliminate action? Not following this.

Juan E wrote:
Here you have an example of 'effort' and 'effortless' ... as you can see in both cases there's a doing, only that in a different way

"Effortless" seems to imply that we enjoy doing what we are doing.Effort implies resistance - that our heart is not in what we are doing.It's not an effort to eat one's dinner when one is hungry!

But actually I think I was talking about psychological effort

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 27 Jun 2017 #39
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3805 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
'Effortles' DOES NOT mean 'not doing a thing' but 'doing a thing without effort', which is something completly different ...

But Juan, it seems to me that when thought tries to "do" something (let's stick to psychologically) that automatically implies effort. No? It does something - really that means TRIES to do something - to try to change what is. Do you follow me?

Juan E wrote:
It does not eliminate action,

Sorry, what does not eliminate action? Not following this.

Juan E wrote:
Here you have an example of 'effort' and 'effortless' ... as you can see in both cases there's a doing, only that in a different way

"Effortless" seems to imply that we enjoy doing what we are doing.Effort implies resistance - that our heart is not in what we are doing.It's not an effort to eat one's dinner when one is hungry!

But actually I think I was talking about psychological effort

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 27 Jun 2017 #40
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3805 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
Now, does that "not having to do a thing" imply inaction?

I think it is simpler if we use the phrase "not doing anything" rather than "inaction". "Inaction" implies that no action is taking place/has taken place. But this very "not doing" may in itself BE action.

Let us remember that by "not doing anything" I meant originally the absence of a thought B reacting to thought A

Juan E wrote:
what does it mean then "effortless action"?

isn't seeing that effortless action?

Juan E wrote:
Can a human mind conditioned to do everything with effort, do an "effortless action" without effort?

This is one of those questions where the only possible answer IS actually doing it - or rather living it.

Juan E wrote:
In which way such conditioned human mind will come into contact with an "effortless action"?

I would think only when effort - which implies conflict - has ceased

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 27 Jun 2017 #41
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3805 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
What is 'action'?

Action seems to imply that some definite change has taken place - either physically or mentally.

When thought B tries to act on thought A, does that produce change?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 27 Jun 2017 #42
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 397 posts in this forum Offline

I think that we must be specially careful in what we are discussing here, without giving anything for granted, and going slowly into it ... as it is a difficult issue that affects in a way or another the comprehension of the whole teaching ("This "I" process, about which I have spoken, can be to you but a theory.", QOTD 25.07.17).

So, may i suggest us approaching to it in another way? ...

Action and non-action require great energy. ...()... Non-action requires far more action than the so-called positive. Positive action is to control, to support, to escape. Non-action is the total attention of observation.


J. Krishnamurti Letters to Schools Volume One 15th February, 1979

Would you equate that so called 'energy' to 'effort'? ... If not, why not? ... Or in other words, why do we label that so-called 'energy' as 'effort' when there's [positive] action, and 'effortless' when there's non-action? ... What does really mean "Non-action requires far more action than the so-called positive [action]."? ... Is it related to some kind of effort too or not at all?

So, if you let me, i would like to ask to everyone here: do we actually know what is the actual meaning of words like 'effort', 'effortless', or 'energy' that we may be using in this discussion? ... Have we penetrated its full implication under any situation, or we have simply accepted that in one sense that effort must be seen/condemned as wrong or as wate of energy, while in the other such effort is worthy and not such a waste of energy? ...

What do we Actually understand by 'effort', etc.? ... Not what we have heard and accepted from K, but our own understanding/observation of the actual meaning of the word without any external influence?

"This "I" process, about which I have spoken, can be to you but a theory."


J. Krishnamurti, QOTD 25.07.17

"When i talk to audiences, they know what i'm talking about ... another thing is that they do something about it" - K. Brockwood Park (Making ideas of the Teaching)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 27 Jun 2017 #43
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2040 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
Have we penetrated its full implication under any situation, or we have simply accepted that in one sense that effort must be seen/condemned as wrong or as wate of energy, while in the other such effort is worthy and not such a waste of energy? ...

What do we Actually understand by 'effort', etc.? ...

Can we keep to the issue of 'psychological' effort, as Clive has suggested? Here in the psyche there is a problem...a conflict...of some sort. Do I need to make an effort to solve it...to understan...my anger...or make an effort to simply observe it? What do we mean by effort in this context? Don't we mean, to struggle with the problem...and this struggle is taking place in thought? As Clive and I discussed previously, thought B tries to overcome thought A. It's 'me'(my thoughts, ideals, principles) vs. the anger or jealousy, or whatever the case may be. I hate being angry....condemning it...judging myself as 'wrong' for being angry. So then what? I make an effort to get rid of it, or I take the more intelligent path and make an effort to understand it. What does this 'more intelligent' path entail? Thinking about it? Making an effort to observe it free from condemnation or justification while part of me is subtly condemning it in spite of not wanting to do so? All that is an effort in time. I will think about the anger and analyze it, or I will make an effort to observe it.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Tue, 27 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 27 Jun 2017 #44
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 404 posts in this forum Offline

42:

Juan E wrote:
Would you equate that so called 'energy' to 'effort'? ... If not, why not? ... Or in other words, why do we label that so-called 'energy' as 'effort' when there's [positive] action, and 'effortless' when there's non-action? ... What does really mean "Non-action requires far more action than the so-called positive [action]."? ... Is it related to some kind of effort too or not at all?

So, if you let me, i would like to ask to everyone here: do we actually know what is the actual meaning of words like 'effort', 'effortless', or 'energy' that we may be using in this discussion? ... Have we penetrated its full implication under any situation, or we have simply accepted that in one sense that effort must be seen/condemned as wrong or as wate of energy, while in the other such effort is worthy and not such a waste of energy? ...

What do we Actually understand by 'effort', etc.? ... Not what we have heard and accepted from K, but our own understanding/observation of the actual meaning of the word without any external influence?

I see a baby alone in the middle of the street. What do I do? Do I stop to think about it? Do I stand paralyzed with fear - for myself if I run to grab him, or for the baby if I don't? Run to grab him or push him to safety without thinking about it?

No matter what, in talking about it, looking into it, we condemn and praise nothing do we? We neither condemn or praise being paralyzed by fear, or being either conceited or humble about having saved him. Is there psychological effort in being paralyzed by fear, or not? Is there psychological effort in rushing to save the baby, or not?

What is complete action which leaves no residue? Doesn't fear leave a residue, a mark? Doesn't the action in which there is no thought or time, doesn't that action leave NO residue?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 27 Jun 2017 #45
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2040 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
Can a human mind conditioned to do everything with effort, do an "effortless action" without effort?
In which way such conditioned human mind will come into contact with an "effortless action"?

I almost missed this question, Juan, with all the messages today. Maybe someone else can start the ball rolling, or perhaps you yourself, as I'm at a loss at the moment how to answer. Busy day ahead, but I will try to return to your question later. My immediate response after reading the above was to say that it seems he can only come to it effortlessly. But I need to consider it further.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 27 Jun 2017 #46
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 583 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I almost missed this question, Juan, with all the messages today.
Maybe someone else can start the ball rolling, or perhaps you yourself,
as I'm at a loss at the moment how to answer. Busy day ahead,
but I will try to return to your question later.
My immediate response after reading the above was to say that it seems he can only come to it effortlessly.
But I need to consider it further.

Hi Tom,

Is your mind hacked by your thoughts. ;-)

Truth will unfold itself for those who enquire their own actions and only to them and for them and to or for no one else.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 27 Jun 2017 #47
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2040 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
Is your mind hacked by your thoughts. ;-)

Interesting metaphor, Wim. Of course I use thought a whole lot at work and doing things around the house, but I think you mean something else by 'hacked'....something other than using thought to cook dinner. In the thread title Juan asked, 'What does it mean to investigate?' I suspect that thought will be necessary here too. We're you commenting on my last sentence, "I need to consider it further."? Consider meaning to think about.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Tue, 27 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 27 Jun 2017 #48
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 397 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
I see a baby alone in the middle of the street. What do I do? Do I stop to think about it? Do I stand paralyzed with fear - for myself if I run to grab him, or for the baby if I don't? Run to grab him or push him to safety without thinking about it?

And yet there's still another question to add to your list that you seem to have forget:


  • Or i turn my back to it saying "It is not my responsibility" despite seeing that the baby is in danger (which is what we usually do when someone comes and tells us "you are the world" despite seeing the world in danger).

Anyway...

Huguette . wrote:
No matter what, in talking about it, looking into it, we condemn and praise nothing do we?

Are you absolutely sure of that? ... Me not!
Observe the reactions of some of the participants looking into "you are the world" in THIS DIALOGUE
It would be an interesting issue to look at it carefully, don't you think?.

Huguette . wrote:
Is there psychological effort in being paralyzed by fear, or not?

No if one don't try to get rid off of fear.

Huguette . wrote:
Is there psychological effort in rushing to save the baby, or not?

It may there be (if in spite of my fear i rush to save the baby)
Or may not there be (if it is an instant action).

"When i talk to audiences, they know what i'm talking about ... another thing is that they do something about it" - K. Brockwood Park (Making ideas of the Teaching)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 27 Jun 2017 #49
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 397 posts in this forum Offline

This is a strange world ... I'm watching a documentary about Cyborgs, a technology that it is already here ... We still have not solved the human beings' conflicts, and there's people discussing already the future conflicts this technology may create, trying to solve them ... conflict upon conflict ... this is the unresolved history of human beings ... until the final conflict which there will be no need to resolve ...

John Lennon used to ask the other members of the Beatles "Where are we going lads?!"

"When i talk to audiences, they know what i'm talking about ... another thing is that they do something about it" - K. Brockwood Park (Making ideas of the Teaching)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 28 Jun 2017 #50
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 583 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:

Wim Opdam wrote:

Is your mind hacked by your thoughts. ;-)

Interesting metaphor, Wim.
Of course I use thought a whole lot at work and doing things around the house,
but I think you mean something else by 'hacked'....

Tom, nothing personal here, it was not pro or contra something in your reply.

The hacking of 'kinfonet' and seeing both the similarity
as well as the difference made me make this remark.

There is a kind of hacking by which an overload of asking for information lays down the specific site. Within those requests for information there are serious ones mixed up with those who are meant to do the job for blocking the whole working of the site.
It's also matter moving matter.

this caused the brainwave !

Truth will unfold itself for those who enquire their own actions and only to them and for them and to or for no one else.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 28 Jun 2017 #51
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3805 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
Is your mind hacked by your thoughts. ;-)

This is quite an interesting analogy, the mind being hacked - not by thoughts, but by the idea of the thinker. But I don't think you can point to poor Tom's mind alone!

When a website has been hacked, new code has to be written. Is this equivalent to K's "a physical change in the brain cells"?

Sorry, not intending to go off at a tangent from the main thread.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 28 Jun 2017 #52
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3805 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
This is a strange world ...

Yes

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 28 Jun 2017 #53
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 397 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
When a website has been hacked, new code has to be written.

OFF TOPIC: Not necessarilly at least you want to take control of the website (wich perhaps is a better analogy) ...

"When i talk to audiences, they know what i'm talking about ... another thing is that they do something about it" - K. Brockwood Park (Making ideas of the Teaching)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 28 Jun 2017 #54
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2040 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
This is quite an interesting analogy, the mind being hacked - not by thoughts, but by the idea of the thinker.

By the idea of the thinker... and the thinker's ideas(beliefs, ideals, conclusions, principles)!

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 29 Jun 2017 #55
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3805 posts in this forum Offline

I was thinking of this business of making an effort. From an etymological dictionary:

effort (n.) Look up effort at Dictionary.com
late 15c., "laborious attempt, strenuous exertion," from Middle French effort, from Old French esforz "force, impetuosity, strength, power," verbal noun from esforcier "force out, exert oneself," from Vulgar Latin
exfortiare "to show strength" (source of Italian sforza), from Latin ex "out" (see ex-) + Latin fortis "strong" (see fort).*

Effort is only effort when it begins to hurt. [Ortega y Gasset, 1949]

I have an image in mind of a man trying to move a huge boulder. Seems to me, when effort is trasferred to the psychoogical realm, whenever the self feels it has to act, there must be effort.

AndI was thinking of the words 'act', and 'action'. I feel there is some confusion in the discussion above, because it (perhaps including K) puts two different meanings on the word 'action". There is the action stemming from the self, and there is action which stems from seeing. As I say, the former involves effort, the latter does not. The latter is pure, spontaneous.

This is why I suggested the word "doing" for action stemming from the self.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 29 Jun 2017 #56
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2040 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
There is the action stemming from the self, and there is action which stems from seeing.

There is mostly action which conforms to thought. K said that most of our actions are of this variety. I think I should be kind and I try to act kind. But this is is purely an act....like the actor in a play. Many religious people believe they should go to church on Sunday, and their actions conform to their belief. Or they believe they should help the poor, so they put a few dollars in the collection plate in church on Sunday. We believe we should fight for our country, so we join the army and kill for that belief. K, as you say Clive, often spoke about a totally different type of action. "The seeing is the acting" I think he said.

Clive: whenever the self feels it has to act, there must be effort.

T: right because it's a contradiction. I feel angry but I try(make effort) to act kind or tolerant. Thought is in contradiction to 'what is'....my anger, in this case. It takes effort to act kind when I'm not feeling kind. Or to act brave when I'm afraid.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Thu, 29 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 29 Jun 2017 #57
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3805 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
There is mostly action which conforms to thought.

Exactly Tom. It is 'action' resulting from an idea, and so it is conforming, mechanical.

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Thu, 29 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 57 of 57 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.)