if everybody had 80% less pain and anger, how would society look?

Dhirendra Silent wrote:
if everybody had 80% less pain and anger, how would society look?

Similar to what it looks now...may be all conflicts and faults occuring at a lower scale...not sure about this as 20% remaining pain and anger would get more energy to flourish.

PS: Why the 'silent' as surname, D? Broadcasting your enlightenment? :)

FLOW WITH LIFE!

No, this or that.(either100% or 0%)
gb

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

This post was last updated by ganesan balachandran Thu, 09 Feb 2012.

Have to agree with Ganesan again.

I am sure I must be starting to sound like a Ganesan sycophant to some ... :-)))

T

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
Similar to what it looks now...may be all conflicts and faults occuring at a lower scale...not sure about this as 20% remaining pain and anger would get more energy to flourish.

But Dr. Sharma, did you give the question any contemplative thought at all? Or was the response simply an authoritative reaction?

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
PS: Why the 'silent' as surname, D?

P.S. Because D is silent.

ganesan balachandran wrote:
No, this or that.(either100% or 0%)

who is to say this, is not that? Please define "100%". And also, please define "0%". Is life really black and white, as you suggest?"

B Teulada wrote:
Have to agree with Ganesan again.

Is agreeing and disagreeing an adequate response to philosophical/spiritual issues? Or is "choice" as K would call agreeing and disagreeing, simply a comforting authoritative reaction?

Dhirendra Silent wrote:
Is agreeing and disagreeing an adequate response to philosophical/spiritual issues?

The difficulty starts with the way the original question is posed.

Firstly you introduced a numeric constant of 80%, which appears arbitrary and NOT any adequate way to POSE the 'philosophical/spiritual, therefore 'qualitative' issue.'

Issues of quality can seldom be usefully posed in quantitative terms.

Secondly the issue was set up as an invitation to speculate on what society would be like if people were less pained and angered. Speculation into an unknown future reality does not constitute inquiry into our present experiential reality.

So people reacted to the confusion with good humour - a little challenging but well intentioned.

I think this numeric and speculative approach is the main reason you have not received serious answers in terms of an inquiry. Maybe you could examine that and find a more adequate way to pose the issue.

Dhirendra Silent wrote:
Is agreeing and disagreeing an adequate response to philosophical/spiritual issues? Or is "choice" as K would call agreeing and disagreeing, simply a comforting authoritative reaction?

Dear Silent,
pain and anger feed on themselves. leave 1% and it will blow itself back to a full 100%.

Besides how adequate/serious is it to quantify things like pain and anger?

Maybe rephrase your question to elicit more meaningful replies. Just a suggestion.

T

But maybe there is some low threshold of anger and pain at which it could be dealt with and eliminated naturally, as it arises, as animals do.

We hold onto it and it accumulates. The dead (accumulated pain) outweighs the living. Maybe the percentage is 80/20, who knows? The important thing is the quality of dead pain and the quality of living pain.

I think we do have the ability to distinguish the one from the other, but we have never used it. It is latent in us. Awakening that intelligence, that sensitivity, is the important thing.

B Teulada wrote:
Maybe rephrase your question to elicit more meaningful replies. Just a suggestion.

Oh, BT, we have said the same thing without either agreeing or disagreeing - which comes later.

But what do you make of my saying there is live and dead pain?

Peng Shu Tse wrote:
Oh, BT, we have said the same thing without either agreeing or disagreeing - which comes later.
But what do you make of my saying there is live and dead pain?

Well, yes, I now realise we said - in essence - almost exactly the same thing. You must have hit 'post your reply' while I was still typing mine.

As for your question, dear Peng, I really couldn't say. Pain is just pain. Some 'dead' pain as you call it, is just as forceful and destructive as the living one.

Also pain is so subjective, you know. One can have a really dreadful life and still feel blessed and fortunate while others have everything in life anyone could wish for and still end up comitting suicide.

So, someone please come up with a trustworthy, accurate, objective 'painometer' and then we can start this thread all over again.

T

B Teulada wrote:
So, someone please come up with a trustworthy, accurate, objective 'painometer'

. . . which would be an instrument for measuring the quantity of pain, I suppose.

You cannot measure quality, you can only discern it.

Look at it this way, if you please:

If I tread on a pin right now I will feel the pain as a living pain. It means it is neither a memory nor an expectation. It is a direct communication of actual damage happening in the present. It is as it should be, a healthy response to actuality.

But if I hold onto that pain and suffer the rest of my life with the dreadful memory and my lip curls each time I think of it and my body is swamped with adrenaline each time I pass move the spot and I lose sleep etc etc, well, this is rather different, although it may pass for live pain. When you hold the thing past its sell by date you create a suffering which is indirect or dead pain, still experienced after the event.

Dhirendra Silent wrote:
who is to say this, is not that?

we ,to ourself.
gb

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

Dhirendra Silent wrote:
Please define "100%". And also, please define "0%".

everything and nothing.
gb

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

Peng Shu Tse wrote:
The difficulty starts with the way the original question is posed.

Maybe the difficulty starts with your interpretation of the original question?

Peng Shu Tse wrote:
Secondly the issue was set up as an invitation to speculate

Yes, the question was an invitation to speculate. As is every post at Kinfonet.

Peng Shu Tse wrote:
Maybe you could examine that and find a more adequate way to pose the issue.

No, I won't rephrase to give comfort to the confused. The confused must find their own path to clarity.

B Teulada wrote:
pain and anger feed on themselves. leave 1% and it will blow itself back to a full 100%.

How did you come to such expert knowledge about pain and fear (anger)?

B Teulada wrote:
Besides how adequate/serious is it to quantify things like pain and anger?

Besides quantification, how else do you look at things around you?

B Teulada wrote:
Maybe rephrase your question to elicit more meaningful replies. Just a suggestion.

Respond to the question or don't, but please don't ask to have it answered (rephrased) for your benefit (quantification).

Peng Shu Tse wrote:
But maybe there is some low threshold of anger and pain at which it could be dealt with and eliminated naturally, as it arises, as animals do......

You see, you didn't need to have the question rephrased. Just to give it some attention.

By "dead pain" do you mean the memory that elicits the response of pain? We have no interest in "living pain", whatever that is.

What is "quality", utility?

So how does one go about awakening this thing you say is needed to be awakened?

Peng Shu Tse wrote:
f I tread on a pin right now I will feel the pain as a living pain.
.......

Can we compare psychological suffering to physical suffering? Isn't this an "apples and oranges" comparison?

On a Krishnamurti forum isn't physical pain, a non-issue?

ganesan balachandran wrote:
everything and nothing.

Please define "everything" and also "nothing". If we are playing "patty cake" here, then please, bake me a cake as fast as you can.

ganesan balachandran wrote:
we ,to ourself

In other words, by the authority of our own thinking? Very good, carry on.

Dhirendra Silent wrote:
Please define "everything" and also "nothing".

It is purely technical. 100% = everything, 0% = nothing.

Nothing mysterious about that. It is simply the measurement of thought at its purest, and in its place.

Dhirendra Silent wrote:
In other words, by the authority of our own thinking?

do we need then somebody else thoughts as authority. if you have one , you go ahead.

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

Dhirendra Silent wrote:
Respond to the question or don't,

80% will do:)
gb

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

Dhirendra Silent wrote:
How did you come to such expert knowledge about pain and fear (anger)?

It does not need any expertise. allow one thought, it will completely occupy.100% is limitation for it.
gb

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
It is purely technical. 100% = everything, 0% = nothing.

Nothing mysterious about that. It is simply the measurement of thought at its purest, and in its place.

GB was getting at something else altogether. His implication was that no, either one loses 100% of their anger or none. I simply wanted him to expand on his point. That seems pretty obvious.

What do we use as a base from which to measure that thought is in or out of place? Peng implies we have extraordinary powers called "discernment" by which we cut through all the bias and reactions of our thinking. But K would say that is imagination. Just saying....

ganesan balachandran wrote:
do we need then somebody else thoughts as authority. if you have one , you go ahead.

We don't distinguish between the authority of someone else and the authority of our own thinking. They are the same. But rejection of the other and acceptance of our own, is a common occurrence in the world, the same world that is in chaos and confusion. Is this what you meant?

Dhirendra Silent wrote:
They are the same.

If they are true.
gb

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

ganesan balachandran wrote:
Dhirendra Silent wrote:

Respond to the question or don't,
80% will do:)

Don't give in so easily. You must go into battle with the tools/weapons/beliefs that you have, in order to see how inadequate they are.

Dhirendra Silent wrote:
either one loses 100% of their anger or none.

if some one has 20% angger it is as good as they are 100% angry.iam anger 100% and anger vanishes 0%.

gb

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK