Sorry for that... but it is important that you are 100% sure and really look...Dude, you got me so frustrated there...looking and looking for something that I just couldn't find
Ok, so lets go back to this anger which is made up of these ingredients you mentioned above... Its just a process that is labelled as anger, right? Not a real thing, not an emotion that you can pinpoint...energy + I-thought + habitual pattern of response = 'anger'. Behind there is nothing. Just boundless space.
Please sit down and relax - intone your sentence and feel the sensations arise... When you are in the "gap" look if there is anything in it? Is there an "I" thought in the gap at all? Or is the "I" thought already part of the reaction?
Look closely and see what you find... Is there anything that bridges the gap from sensations to reaction? Can the I-thought do that?
The question is if "anger" really ever arises? Are the reactions that occur when you exit the gap really "anger"? Or are they simply a yell, a physical movement or a chain of thoughts? Do any of these reactions qualify as the statement "I am angry!"?But I find that when anger arises, it's very much about the idea of a separate self and also a strategy to maintain that idea
"A strategy to maintain the idea of a self..." I know there is this concept - which has often been stated in different books - that there is a self, an ego, that tries to maintain its continuity... But being perfectly honest, how would that work? A process is simply a collection of (unrelated) events that are then labelled as self, anger etc.. Can this process really have a goal? Can it have a strategy? Or is this also just a story?
No, it hasn't. That is pure story.This character has a certain pattern of reacting to anger that is triggered
There are certain triggers resulting in certain sensations and certain thoughts - then certain reactions might happen. While there seems to be pattern there is no character to be found that owns the pattern, is there? Maybe the pattern is the character?
While this is true don't make this a measurement - don't have the expectation that seeing through the illusion of a separate self automatically takes care of emotions like anger, aversion or desire - in most cases it does not. This might require more looking.How can there then be a feeling of anger present without any owner of that feeling? It can't!
It is great that you are looking for the I in the gap - you don't find it. That is great!
You know there is no owner, no I, being angry, but anger can still arise... What a paradox!
Maybe it doesn't require an I for anger to arise..? Maybe nothing requires an I to arise... Thus seeing through the I-illusion does not automatically get rid of all negative "I-traits" - BUT: it is the base for all further inquiry :-)
Yes, just a contraction. Look for this I that feels the contraction. If you don't exist, then who feels the contraction?I must exist because I can feel it in the body. But it's just a contraction.
It sounds illogical right? A contraction is being felt, but no I can be found that feels it...
When you look at a tree, a cup, an apple... Is the I looking?
Yes, it could be described like that, but better don't picture a state - otherwise you will miss the real thing when it happens as it doesn't fit into your picture.I picture that as a state of more openness. Instead of a tightening up around a separate self and a physical body that need to be protected and maintained at any cost, there must be a release of that contraction or tension and through that a dropping of the idea of an 'I' and an openness to what is.
Alex
