If fear leads to anger, anger is the fear of what?

[Manjushri]

Thank you for all your answers! Precious insights.

Anger is like a thorn, which I can't pull out. 

Of course one's going to be angry when you're fragile + clinging. Anybody can come and fuck you in the ass. Clinging to your arm? Hey this dude just your arm off. Now you can't play your music hehe. ANGRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRY BIRB hahahahahahah

Everybody, wouldn't you be angry as fuck if some low life crippled you? That situation hits my core ego so hard. Would be really hard to surpass that - that somebody takes your life, basically, your and his life can't be measured in any fucking way, your potential, your enjoyment of life because of your personal development and tweaking of your own psychology, literally a different dimension.

 @Hellspeed and @Leo Gura

How do you get over the hurt? Next time anger comes, what do I do?

Just felt anger again because of fucking society with it's "a gram's better than a damn" pleasure-oriented instant gratification bullshit all around the fucking internet fucking retards. Yes it hurts. 

I ate civilization. It defiled me.

 

 

Edited November 18, 2018 by Gligorije

[Jack River]

20 minutes ago, Gligorije said:

How do you get over the hurt? Next time anger comes, what do I do?

Look at the feeling/emotion and its association to the word/concept (thought). Learn about its relationship. 

[Jack River]

4 hours ago, robdl said:

There can arrive a quality of attention where the distinctions made between fear and anger dissipate, and it's made aware that these emotions are just a unitary self-feeding loop of movement away from what-is.

Resistance|attachment|identification in movement. Yep, one unit in motion of self supplying its own structure. 

Edited November 19, 2018 by Jack River

[Jack River]

So any psychological dispute with ourselves is the above in motion. 

The dispute/conflict needs 1# the entity(me) and 2# “its” experience, and what it wants or doesn’t want in regards to that experience, in order for there to be a problem. Fear/anger/sadness/pain arise through that divison between 1# and 2#. What if 1# and 2# are the same? Then what happens? 

Edited November 19, 2018 by Jack River

[Manjushri]

@robdl But isn't then anger what is? I mean the experience we label as anger. But if we don't label it, if there is no thought, no I to be hurt/angry, do we ever experience that experience? this is what confuses me... 

[Jack River]

2 minutes ago, Gligorije said:

But isn't then anger what is?

Yes. We tend to avoid that fact of “I am angry, but I should be “not angry”. This sustains that “me’ness”. We escape what is. In this case that what is, is movement of self. 

That’s a big step. Just being able to stay with what is actually happening, which is the “anger”. 

[robdl]

16 minutes ago, Gligorije said:

@robdl But isn't then anger what is?

If anger is arising out of a negative experience/memory --- the past --- then the past is asserting-sustaining itself in the present,  which is a movement away from what-is.    Recollections of the past and projections of the future are always a movement away from what-is. 

Desire works in the same way.  Desire, arising out of positive experience/memory --- the past --- asserting itself in the present as a movement away from what-is.

 

Edited November 19, 2018 by robdl

[Jack River]

Once that what-is is seen Holistically, maybe that what is will fall away and reveal another what is

[robdl]

The mind wants to be anywhere but the present/Now, and anger is a way in which it revives the past to evade the present.

[Jack River]

9 minutes ago, robdl said:

which is a movement away from what-is.    Recollections of the past and projections of the future are always a movement away from what-is. 

It’s important to understand that we have to start with the what-is as it is manifestating itself at any given moment as it is happening. So if there is anger that is the fact. Thought will disidentify with that experience just as it will identify with that experience. 

Its like starting close before going far. The close is the experience of knowledge/memory, and maybe if that is seen through there is an experiencing without that veil. Both can be considered what-is. It’s just a way of explaining a happening. 

Would you say that makes sense @robdl

 

Edited November 19, 2018 by Jack River

[Jack River]

2 minutes ago, robdl said:

The mind wants to be anywhere but the present/Now, and anger is a way in which it revives the past to evade the present.

Fosho

[Jack River]

I know what trapped me was I would here from teachers to be in “the present”. This made me unconsciously escape any given experience as it was. I would close my eyes to anger/fear in order to avoid it, instead of looking at the experience and learning about the “process/movement” as it arised. It seems most of us will identify with what we want experience to be, which is another aspect or expression of the veil/“me” that projects its bias. 

Edited November 19, 2018 by Jack River

[robdl]

25 minutes ago, Jack River said:

It’s important to understand that we have to start with the what-is as it is manifestating itself at any given moment as it is happening. So if there is anger that is the fact. Thought will disidentify with that experience just as it will identify with that experience. 

Its like starting close before going far. The close is the experience of knowledge/memory, and maybe if that is seen through there is an experiencing without that veil. Both can be considered what-is. It’s just a way of explaining a happening. 

Would you say that makes sense @robdl

 

 Is anger what-is, or resistance (as the past) to what-is?  You can look at it both ways indeed, depending on the semantics of "what is". 

 

[Jack River]

3 minutes ago, robdl said:

 Is anger what-is, or resistance (as the past) to what-is?  You can look at it both ways indeed, depending on the semantics of "what is". 

 

Fosho dude. 

[Jack River]

Or an example would be “hey look at that illusion”!! Lol 

its gotta be a form of “what-is” to be able to spot it as such. 

Edited November 19, 2018 by Jack River

[robdl]

There's what-is (happening in thought).  Anger then is what-is; a fact.   I think this is how you mean it.  The anger can't be denied or rejected.

And there's considering all thinking (i.e. past/future projection), which includes anger/fear, as an escape from or resistance to what-is, which is the dynamic now.

[Jack River]

It’s like my mom that said she experienced Jesus. She said to me one day, “you don’t belive me do you?” I said I no I do.

She did experience Jesus. But which “what-is” might that have been? 

[Jack River]

 

4 minutes ago, robdl said:

There's what-is (happening in thought).  Anger then is what-is; a fact.   I think this is how you mean it.  The anger can't be denied or rejected.

And there's considering all thinking (i.e. past/future projection), which includes anger/fear, as an escape from or resistance to what-is, which is the dynamic now.

?

this helped me to see the difference. Especially with people here on the forum who would contest to that statement. It’s kinda a example of how confused thought makes things. 

Another subtle exclusion that thought will make.

Edited November 19, 2018 by Jack River

[Manjushri]

@Jack River @robdl @Jack River

Thank you for the clarification! Sneaky devil hehe