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

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?

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.

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?

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.

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

Yes, allow one thought, but we are discussing pain and anger. Do you suggest that we cannot use thinking, without having all the violence and cruelty and brutality that goes on in the world? They are mutually inclusive? What prevents us from thinking, without wanting to kill/win at all costs?

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

Sorry, but we can't accept your authority on the subject. Krishnamurti had anger. Why do you suggest anyone would be 0% anger? Would you really want to be 0% anger? Do you suggest we graze in the field like a cow?

ganesan balachandran wrote: If they are true.

No, true and false are not the issue. The fact that we believe our thinking is a tool to find spiritual well being/comfort/authority, is.

ganesan balachandran wrote: I remeber K saying thoughts are deadly in relationship.

If you see the fact of it, then don't use them there, very simple.

Ravi Seth wrote: ...that silence which is dangerous to thought or that which thought imagines?

Silence of flute.;)

Ravi Seth wrote: .........of course an authoritative reaction...... and not that it happens with dr. sharma ...it happens with most of us who now know by heart what & how to say that it looks like an appropriate reply.

Yes, everyone responds with an emotional reaction, very good, with memory involved as you suggest. Can we see the fact of it, really? Or are we involved with our memory (authority) here telling us what to say? If we see it what else do we need?

This thread was started with a question, but the particular question is unimportant. Isn't the fact of how we address the question, the essential ingredient?

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote: D, does contemplating make one any wiser in these matters? The 'looking' at question and answering is a process/movement different from analysing and answering. And 'looking' involves looking at and ending of authoritative reaction.

But my good Dr., we are not asking for wisdom, or any particular response. We simply want to engage you seriously.

And so, if what you say here is a fact, why isn't anyone doing this "looking"? It seems analysis/reaction is the norm. And so maybe this looking is a figment of imagination? A sort of "what should be" created in our mind to compensate for the reality/what is, that is our reactive responses, what do you say?

B Teulada wrote: Dhirendra Silent wrote:

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

Besides quantification, how else do you look at things around you? all the essentially important things in life are unquantifiable. anything you can quantify is irrelevant.

I would just respectfully suggest that experience, is an unreliable indicator of reality. The human mind has one function, to quantify. What you call "essential", is a reaction to that fact. We could go into it, if you like.

@ Dr. Sharma, post 58

I pretend no humility, in the sense you know it. The fact is that your own belief/authority, shows in the logical way you respond with all the right K words and phrases. If we admit our being lost, we are in a better position to take a step.

Please don't feel offended by the way you are addressed here. It is uncompromising, and relentless.

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote: I can only say that functioning of human brain is very similar in all and it can be studied like any other science. Repetition of words will come.....

Yes, thinking is common to all. The responses of thinking, are common to all. And, can be watched, as they occure, as the individual life unfolds. But the confused mind, watching the behavior of another confused mind, is not the same as reading a chemistry text book. Yes, some human behaviors are predictable. And some words are interchangable, but isn't all this a bit like a blind person, explaining sight and color, to another blind person? If I say(as a blind person to another blind person), "the sky is a deep rich blue", isn't it like saying, "the observer is the observed"? They both may make their respective audiences swoon with joy and wonder, but both are fundamentally meaningless on deaf ears, no?

dhirendra singh wrote: Why/how there will be/can be 80 % less pain and anger...

"why". Humanity is in need of a change in course. "how". Very simply, very easily. Watch your anger, see how it is constructed. See all the elements that go into the making of your life. See how you bully and are bullied to get things and to modify behaviors. You have to be a part of your own life. Anger/fear is a BIG entertainment, get watching! But don't just take a seat, with a bag of pop-corn, and fall back asleep.

Peng Shu tse, came up with a "V-8 moment" (but then walked away from it), when he asked if there might be something akin to how the other animals function. Expressing fear/anger, in the moment, but not carrying it into the next.

If the human mind had a lot less (a permanent 80%) anger-frustration-anxiety-guilt-self pity etc., would it have more energy/time (chronological) to be concerned about the plight of other human beings? Would the real ability to be concerned about others (and not just if some "reward" is offered) be what K called "compassion"?

As the mind is situated now, it seems to have little or no ability to be genuinely concerned about others. Except of course, as an idea/what should be.

Patricia Hemingway wrote: All thought can do is measure.

Yes. That is why most here measure/compare what is said with what they already know/believe. And when that measurement is complete (billionths of a nano-second) what is said is either accepted or rejected. Which is it for you, here, now?

Peng Shu Tse wrote: Either you are concerned with 'plight' or you are not. You do not need chronological time to become concerned.

We are not promoting a gradual process. 80% is a number to represent the state K spoke of. As the mind is situated now, there is ONLY self concern, there is NO concern for others (except maybe a small circle of friends and family, which are the essence of your "I") except as an ideal. And so, we ask, if there were time for things other than self concern would the mind feel ACTUAL concern for others?

The question is not posed to hear various personal explainations/opinions, it is posed to have the mind stop and just ponder a moment.

Patricia Hemingway wrote: Exactly! Or more or less. Or something measurable! :)

Exactly, otherwise, how would it be understood so clearly? And so, for instance, what would that say about something not so clearly understood? That is, is beyond measurement?

Peng Shu Tse wrote: I think that by dealing with what is essentially an issue of quality (fear) in a quantitative way (80%) ...

So then, maybe it would be benificial to you (and others) to read these posts in the WC.

Why do you insist that who you are (fear) is a matter of "quality"? Does this not mean, "I like-don't like"?

Also, why do you blame the question for your inability to stay with it without judgment (wrongly posed)?

Are you saying you have an extra ability to decide what is a right and wrong question? I suspect that Krishnamurti would say that you do not.

Ravi Seth wrote: Patricia is right,'All thought can do is measure.' Kindly see where the lady is pointing to.

"the lady" is simply repeating back at me something I posted to someone else. Very clever indeed.