!

I also post to: http://kfa.org/forum/viewforum.php?id=2 and http://jkrishnamurti.ning.com/forum

This post was last updated by Dev Singh Sat, 13 Mar 2010.

mark exley wrote:
feelings as other or as the observed

Can you elaborate on this. I don't understand what you mean here.

Awareness is touch of what is.

mark exley wrote:
You are saying I didn't include any good emotions? All emotions are good. We are about to prove it.

The etymological meaning of the word 'emotion' is 'agitation of the brain'. Go ahead and prove that an agitated brain is 'good'.

ganesan balachandran wrote:
Iam neither attached to war nor peace.. gb

What does that have to do with anything?

The "I" IS war - trying to BECOME peace - that is the fact of it.

You become a pool of water when you are sad. You are the pool.
It is neither good nor bad. Besides it is not upto you to come out of it. You just have to stay with it until you come out.
But yes, you can perpetuate the pool without discontinuity using thought. (Not staying with the real feeling).

There is a certain beauty associated with conditioning.

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
The "I" IS war - trying to BECOME peace - that is the fact of it.

Thanks Patricia,It is just that!

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

ganesan balachandran wrote:
The 'I' iam pointing out is beyoond emotions , and opposites, war and peace, love , hate, good , bad, pat, future.

There is no 'I' beyond all that. Have you fallen for the trap of a 'higher self'?

Where you are, the other is not. (K)

mark exley wrote:
You are just behind a little, not having read everything as it arrives. WE are on about emotion as the observed, which is as of percpetion. If you perceive that I am angry att he sight of you, you are not sorry you found this anger while I was pretending to be cool, calm and collected.

On the other hand, if you peceive I am a serial killer, you have no proof. Sometimes that can be annoying. That brings us to what our other friends is saying, not war nor peace.

Sorry - but that is all illogical self-centered ramblings. What ARE you going on about? What does it have to do with the teaching of K?

This post was last updated by Patricia Hemingway Fri, 19 Feb 2010.

mark exley wrote:
So easy to translate higher life into higher self as the accomplishment. There is K, for example, rich and famous, groupies on every side. Who would suspect that it is a higher other, so high that the K has vanished, that makes him so joyful?

Assumptions! Nothing more.

mark exley wrote:
nothing is obscure except the stealth of the predator.

Yes, we are in a forest. That is awareness. K gave us a tool to observe, but it is for us to see what it shows.

There is a certain beauty associated with conditioning.

Patricia,

Mark wrote, "You are saying you have read my work with perfect understanding of it."

For god's sake, let the rest of us know how you did this!

max

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
mark exley wrote:
You are saying I didn't include any good emotions? All emotions are good. We are about to prove it.
The etymological meaning of the word 'emotion' is 'agitation of the brain'. Go ahead and prove that an agitated brain is 'good'.

Bonjour Patricia and Mark,
I would like to comment on this and ask some questions for clarity. My understanding of what emotion is, is 'inner-motion'. By agitation, do we mean to agitate? or do we mean agitation as in stimulation of the brain? Clearly, happiness cannot be born from an agitated brain. So do we mean stimulation in the brain madame?

Also sir, Im not sure we can be so quick to surmise that all emotions are good. Anger is an emotion, and if I act on that anger and kill someone- is it good? Perhaps I have misunderstood you. Please kindly clarify or elaborate.

-SM

Is emotion an evolutionary necessity for memory in all living beings, as some scientists are discussing. If they are correct then emotion 'as energy in motion'happened before humanity walked this earth.Human beings, an animal with language have labeled this movement to the experience they have had resulting in fear that 'I' may not get that pleasure again unless 'I' accumulate more.The fight flight instinct for survival is a legitimate instinct for all animals.

Our responses from our attachments to what we know i.e. our past, with language conceptulizing pleasure and fear, are all responding to each other on this forum, continuously taking the wrong turn that Krishnamurti and Bohm pointed out so well in 'The Ending of Time'.

Is there language without attachment?

Averil

Averil,

You wrote, "Is there language without attachment?"

I would say that there is, when the self, the psychological 'I,' is absent. Without the self there is no vested interest to protect or enhance.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Sat, 20 Feb 2010.

Did this answer your question, Averil?

max

Mark, when you say- 'those of you following my posts', 'my students', You've assumed an authority here. Your acting as if you've 'arrived'. Yet you've expressed some hostility. And you have. Even the manner in which you write (speak) proves this. We have here from what I've seen in my recent arrival, the drunken jester (Randal), the self proclaimed guru (Mark), a delusional vedic mythology poet (Ganesh#*&%@) and they are all telling me what to think. I skim through these posts and in the blur of that action, my posts seem to be the only ones with actual question marks in them (?). Because im sincerely asking questions. Ive even understood much of what was said, Ive thanked many for what they have shared, etc. I have been tremendously polite. I haven't personally assumed or proclaimed anything. Im asking questions because I want to learn.
If there is no compassion here, then there is no truth here, no real intelligence.

-SM

mark exley wrote:
Here is how one of my students put it to me: "Emotion is how finding out happens. But it can't happen if we indulge in emotion as pleasure and pain, which is as ourselves."

Mark, isn't that just saying the observer is the observed or the thinker is the thought? I understand that means looking has no past but memory has its place without naming.

What I think the scientists are seeing with technology is that an action has already happened before naming takes place and this I have experienced in a limited way.

Averil

Max,

I will not get into this discussion as I pointed out in my previous post that we are all reacting to each post as if its personal. If I do not understand every posting that appears i do not feel the need to react if i have looked at it and seen it is wrong. Usually though it is my own lack of understanding to what has been said that is the problem. Seeing that i have made it into a problem that requires me to solve it, it is not a problem.

Agreeing and disagreeing with something one has said does not have the taste of freedom as 'my' feelings get hurt .Lets dialogue with language that has no past.

Averil

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
Sorry - but that is all illogical self-centered ramblings. What ARE you going on about? What does it have to do with the teaching of K?

Thanks Patricia,Has B.M. been reincarnated,One senses a familar spirit here!

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

santos madrid wrote:
By agitation, do we mean to agitate? or do we mean agitation as in stimulation of the brain? Clearly, happiness cannot be born from an agitated brain. So do we mean stimulation in the brain madame?

Yes - exactly that. A brain never still - common to humanity which values 'emotions'. Emotions are nothing more that thought attached to and owning feelings.

RICK LEIN wrote:
Thanks Patricia,Has B.M. been reincarnated,One senses a familar spirit here!

Could be - wait and watch my friend. :) All will be revealed eventually - cannot help itself.

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
Emotions are nothing more that thought attached to and owning feelings.

Most excellent!

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
Emotions are nothing more that thought attached to and owning feelings.

Is there a proper function of the emoting phenomenon? Or is it a total construct of imagination?

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
Go ahead and prove that an agitated brain is 'good'.

But what if an agitated mind has a function for the survival of the biological entity? That might be construed by some as "good"! ;o) And why must one prove a question, put forward in the spirit of enquiry?
People wrote the dictionary and so the root of words, are still just words.

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
All will be revealed eventually - cannot help itself.

If all is revealed in the forest and no one is able/there to hear/see it, did it happen?

Randal Shacklett wrote:
Patricia Hemingway wrote:
Emotions are nothing more that thought attached to and owning feelings.
Is there a proper function of the emoting phenomenon? Or is it a total construct of imagination?

If I may comment;
I think the question asked here is how are emotions and instinct related. Is defense when one is being attacked, 'good'? Is fear and, or, aggression a part of our 'animal instinct' to survive- and if so, is it good to 'survive' out of fear and aggression? Or is fear that is felt when in danger different from the recollecting emotion of fear?
I want to inquire in to this.

If im goin' through the woods, and I come upon a rattle snake for the first time and the snake tries to strike at me, it my instinct for survival to back away- because there is danger. From that instinct, at the same time, does the brain then create a feeling of fear and sends it into the whole body, and so now with the stimulation of fear I am trying to survive with every fiber of my being.

We know that its a fact that the brain is always trying to seek security. So, the brain records the whole event, along with that feeling of fear, and every time I see a rattle snake I have fear. Because I feel that I have to survive. My question is, is my recollection of the fear of the snake the same as when fear was first felt when I was actually in danger of the snake? Or is that feeling of fear that I have recorded as memory, an illusion created by the brain to be secure?

So, the emotion of fear has its proper place doesn't it?

-SM

Santos,

You wrote, "So, the emotion of fear has its proper place doesn't it?"

I can't see that it does. Knowledge, memory, and the wisdom of the physical organism is all that is needed to help us avoid danger.

The emotions are associated with the self, the psychological 'I.' It has been pretty well established that the self is unnecessary and, in fact, dangerous both to the individual and to society. We would be better off without it. With the self out of the picture, where is fear?

max

max greene wrote:
Santos,

You wrote, "So, the emotion of fear has its proper place doesn't it?"

I can't see that it does. Knowledge, memory, and the wisdom of the physical organism is all that is needed to help us avoid danger.

The emotions are associated with the self, the psychological 'I.' It has been pretty well established that the self is unnecessary and, in fact, dangerous both to the individual and to society. We would be better off without it. With the self out of the picture, where is fear?

Thats exactly my point sir! So real fear, not the recollection of fear, has its proper place. When there is danger, there is fear at that moment, and so I act on that fear to survive right? But when I am safe, that fear has died. And THAT fear is born from instinct. So the other fear, the recollected fear that I have saved in my 'knowledge', is an illusion.
SO my next question is: Can 'instinct' be designated as good or bad? Should it be designated at all?

-SM

This post was last updated by santos madrid Mon, 22 Feb 2010.

"When there is danger, there is fear at that moment, and so I act on that fear to survive. . ."

Do you need fear "at the moment" to survive? I would say that it is just the opposite. For example, you see an oncoming car. You swerve instinctively, reflexively, and you live. If you had hesitated in registering the emotion of fear, you would be dead.

It is not fear that is needed in an emergency. Fear actually paralyzes and inhibits action. Fear can even lead to wrong action. It is awareness and memory and the health and wisdom (instinct; reflexes) of the organism that is needed.

So it would appear that fear is something we don't need at all, either in the first place or later!

max

This post was last updated by max greene Mon, 22 Feb 2010.

max greene wrote:
Do you need fear "at the moment" to survive? I would say that it is just the opposite. For example, you see an oncoming car. You swerve instinctively, reflexively, and you live. If you had hesitated in registering the emotion of fear, you would be dead.

That is what I was asking monsieur. Is that feeling that is born from instinct, 'fear' as we know it. Or, is 'fear' something else when we recall it?
Better question; what IS it im feeling between the happening of danger and my reaction(ing) to danger. Is it pure instinct? If a bear is chasing me and my reaction is to run, what is my feeling while im running? What is my feeling when I am swerving away from an oncoming vehicle? Is there a feeling at all? When I am in danger, much adrenaline arises. Is it related to that?

And,

is the hesitation of registering, 'fear', as you put it, the reason why some people DON'T make it out of the way of an oncoming vehicle? That the mind has become so accustomed to registration that instinct is dulled?

-SM

This post was last updated by santos madrid Mon, 22 Feb 2010.