So -- ignoring the "shame" aspect -- Charles raises an interesting point. I wonder how does Krishnamurti's "enlightenment" differ from Stoicism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism) or, for that matter, from the Western ideal of the taciturn individual evidenced in the personae of, say, John Wayne, in the Shootist and other flicks????? Anybody got an idea????
3 comments:
i think the difference is in the acceptance of bad into your life as part of your journey and not something to be dealt with. to put space around the bad so that it just is to sit with the bad and let it be what it is and not go out and save the world fixing it or deny that it exists
shame means to cover up
i have been covering up the bad
my whole life because my ego
would not accept the bad for what it is
merely bad i had to adopt addictive
behaviour to cover the bad
rather than just accept that bad happens
i developed shame around the bad
i am now trying to sit with the bad as
if it is another guest at the table
Equanimity would be enough for me. I'm just human.
two things i need to learn:
it is what it is
i need to give my self the right to
have a little peace of mind
stop pushing myself into conditions
where i am taking more risk than
my mind & body want to
this only leads to fear of which
i have a truck load of
i feel so much better since i did own
shame with the story shame
now for something newer and
better
Post a Comment