I am also not liberated, but as one gains strength in practise,
this becomes increasingly easier. One will also begin to see the
illusoriness, dream-like and transiency of worldly phenomena.
When one becomes angry.. observe the anger without labeling. You do
not have to deny the anger, but observe. Just observe it like you
observe any other things, without reacting or analysing the content
of the anger.
When you fully experience any negative emotion, with no story,
it instantaneously ceases to be. If you think you are fully
experiencing an emotion and it remains quite intense, then
recognize that there is still some story being told about it - how
bit it is, how you will never be able to get rid of it, how it will
always come back, how dangerous it is to experience it. Whatever
the story of the moment may be, the possibilities of postponing
direct experience are endless.
For instance, when you are irritated, the usual tendency is to do
something to get rid of the irritation or to place blame either on
yourself or someone or something else as the cause of irritation.
Then the storylines around the irritation begin to develop. It is
actually possible to do nothing with the irritation, to not push it
out of awareness or try to get rid of it, but to directly
experience it. In the moment that irritation arises, it is possible
to simply be completely, totally, and freely irritated, without
expressing it or repressing it. ~ Gangaji
One of the most common expressions of violence is anger. When my
wife or sister is attacked I say I am righteously angry; when my
country is attacked, my ideas, my principles, my way of life, I am
righteously angry. I am also angry when my habits are attacked or
my petty little opinions. When you tread on my toes or insult me I
get angry, or if you run away with my wife and I get jealous, that
jealousy is called righteous because she is my property. And all
this anger is morally justified. But to kill for my country is also
justified. So when we are talking about anger, which is a part of
violence, do we look at anger in terms of righteous and unrighteous
anger according to our own inclinations and environmental drive, or
do we see only anger? Is there righteous anger ever? Or is there
only anger? There is no good influence or bad influence, only
influence, but when you are influenced by something which doesn't
suit me I call it an evil influence.
The moment you protect your family, your country, a bit of coloured
rag called a flag, a belief, an idea, a dogma, the thing that you
demand or that you hold, that very protection indicates anger. So
can you look at anger without any explanation or justification,
without saying, `I must protect my goods', or `I was right to be
angry', or `How stupid of me to be angry'? Can you look at anger as
if it were something by itself? Can you look at it completely
objectively, which means neither defending it nor condemning it?
Can you?
Can I look at you if I am antagonistic to you or if I am thinking
what a marvellous person you are? I can see you only when I look at
you with a certain care in which neither of these things is
involved. Now, can I look at anger in the same way, which means
that I am vulnerable to the problem, I do not resist it, I am
watching this extraordinary phenomenon without any reaction to
it?
----------------
To investigate the fact of your own anger you must pass no
judgement on it, for the moment you conceive of its opposite you
condemn it and therefore you cannot see it as it is. When you say
you dislike or hate someone that is a fact, although it sounds
terrible. If you look at it, go into it completely, it ceases, but
if you say, `I must not hate; I must have love in my heart', then
you are living in a hypocritical world with double standards. To
live completely, fully, in the moment is to live with what is, the
actual, without any sense of condemnation or justification - then
you understand it so totally that you are finished with it. When
you see clearly the problem is solved. ~ J.Krishnamurti
