We can make things up, cann’t we? In fact we do it most of the time. Almost automatically, mechanically.
The word, in itself, has an immens power to mislead us. It leads to misunderstandings even in practical life. It has acquired different meanings in the course of time, reflecting the cultural, political, economical situation at a partical time in history.
It might be handsome (especially in an inquiry ) to go back to the original meaning of the word.
Not so much that there is truth in the word (which the Greek thought) and not to mention the bible : “in the beginning there was the word”.
But rather what K said about it : the word is not the thing and as long as we are caught up in words, no proper communication is ever possible.
So, we have to bear this in our minds, no? Not that you accept this , but at least try it., for the benefit of the experiment itself.
So, am I all-one? Which means that I am not seperated. Is this a fact? Or is it simply a belief? The only thing I know is that I have to question it and since we are here, put it to you as well.
Do we have an answer? Or let us dwell on the question. What do you think?
I think this is a belief isn’t it? It may be the objective truth that we are all “one”, but one could only know this for sure if there were no longer any particle of self, of ‘I’, interfering in perception, right? And can one truly say for oneself that there is no longer any sense of ‘I’?
This is the danger of taking deceptively simple statements that may be true as though they were in fact true:
One can see here that Dan takes a statement by Krishnamurti (that there is no separation, no division, but only an all-one-ness), and then proceeds as if it were true. If it were true, Dan is saying, that there is no division, then certain consequences necessarily follow (which he outlines in his post).
But these consequences only follow if the statement ‘no division’ is an objective fact that has been grasped by the mind: If statements are invariably speculative, not statements of actual fact - even when they “make sense” or sound logically attractive. This is because, as already mentioned, the statement “no division” can only be a fact for the mind of a person in whom there is no longer any particle of ‘I’.
But how many of us can truly say that there is no longer any particle of ‘I’? - Many people claim this of themselves, but I think they are mostly deluding themselves, lost in some kind of make-believe of the imagination.
As Dev says:
I continue to find it amazing that even here on Kinfonet we cannot arrive at a consensus that the self is still operating in us, that we are still acting in large part out of a deep rooted egoism which hasn’t yet been dissolved.
Some of us seem to want always to claim that we are out of it already, that we have flown the net and are free from the self. And as I don’t think this is true, and because it muddies the waters at every point, I ask myself why we do this? We want to believe something to be true which is not true. And yet we are deadly serious about this illusion. Why?
How can we begin to deal with our egoism - which is the egoism of the world - if we do not clearly, openly, honestly admit to it?
Is it that we want to be special? To be “in the know”, set apart, superior to other people? Is it because we have found security in these statements that we are “all one”, that there is “no division”, that “the self doesn’t exist”? And having found peace and stability through these beliefs, we are unwilling to give them up, or admit that they are beliefs and not facts that one has deeply realised for oneself? - We don’t seem to want to admit that we are still operating out of a sense of ‘I’, rather than from truth.
And yet, unless we can acknowledge and face our own egoism - which implies facing it cleanly, without distortion, without illusion - how can we even hope of perceiving in such a way that there is “all-at-one-ment”, “no division”, etc?
I wish we could all be simple and honest about this for once.
Who knows? The possibility may disappear altogether. His “the house is burning” may eventually go completely ignored. But if you do feel “an acute sense of urgency “ you will be on your own, totally to discover the false ‘refuges’ , the fear, and go beyond them…not to a goal or prize which is just more of thought’s trickery….It is as someone said ‘undiscovered country’.
Hmm. 6 hours ago @anon77654962 wrote (on the ‘insight’ thread):
So we are talking about “The undiscovered country from whose bourn no traveler returns”. Death. Or, more specifically, the death of the self. To go to the very root of it and be done with it all. It’s not something you dip in and out of. One can have one’s partial insight and put it in one’s pocket but with total insight one cannot go back because no traveler ever returns.
So again, Dan, you are implying that you have died to the self?
It amazes me, this arrogance you continue to show about this! Have you really died to the self, honestly?
You seem to be above responding to me these days, but I leave it up to others to smell the coffee.
Would we acknowledge that this is a fact ? Or do we accept it because someone say so ? Is it observable ?
This is harassment James. Look, I think this is a wrong question.
The moment you say, ‘I am free,’ you are not free. ‘I’ is the essence of knowledge. When ‘I’ says, ‘I am free,’ it is still knowledge.
I’m being direct, Richard. If you recall, a week or two ago you called me “arrogant” for what you perceived to be my intellectual pride. I don’t remember you being so fussy about this then.
Similarly, I find there is an arrogance about what we might call spiritual pride. This is what I am calling out here.
Dan has likely blocked me on Kinfonet - which is like blocking someone on social media. It means he never sees my posts or attempts to reply to anything I write.
The fact that you find spiritual pride something worth coddling is a matter for you.
Isn’t the point that there is no one to accept or reject what humanity is doing: murder, pollution, hatred, conflict? It is humanity’s problem. It is the ‘contents of consciousness’ that the brain has been stuffed with and in some cases attempts to empty itself of and be ‘free’. Human brains are similar, the various ‘stuffings’ create the false division. All organized religions have tried to change this and failed. This just causes more conflict in the brain as it tries to follow the different ‘paths’. Krishnamurti’s message about all this is very clear: “You don’t exist “. “There is no division”. “Freedom is essential”, “The house is burning” etc. It is insight into the truth behind these words that brings about a different kind of seriousness in relation to the situation mankind is in as I see it.
I have to go to work now so I cannot respond properly but I don’t understand why you say what James is saying is harassment and then quote something from K that re-iterates the very point he is trying to make.
I think we all need to take a step back or we will be throwing away a rare opportunity to go into this very difficult problem together.
Harassment is just that: harassment. Harassment shouln’t be tolerate on this forum. The quote just explain why Dan will never answer this wrong question. But have it your way.
I’ll just say this. I have no interest in engaging in what some are doing here. They are free to do it but I will flag those comments that challenge me. This is to me a kind of intellectual hen-pecking out of which a false hierarchy will arise and I feel Krishnamurti would reject all that. How and when I engage here is up to me, only me. Personal attacks , harassment, will be flagged because they are ‘inappropriate’ for this or any forum.
To repeat myself: was it harassment a couple of weeks ago when you called me “arrogant”? Double-standards?
All I am saying (to repeat myself again) is that to claim to be free in some special sense - free from the self, free from ego, undivided, all-one, etc - when this is not a fact, leads to unnecessary confusion and obfuscation.
I don’t think anyone on Kinfonet is free in that sense. If they were then there would be a tremendous light shining on the platform, and we would be incredibly lucky to be able to be in the presence of such light. But I don’t think this light exists here - just the little lights that each one of us has.
So to protect the rights of people to imply, insinuate, obfuscate, that they are free in a special way, is, I feel, completely wrongheaded: it is as wrongheaded as one can get on a platform like this.
If the topic is ego, and 4 or 5 people are claiming (indirectly, implicitly, insinuatingly, obfuscatingly) to be without ego when they are not in fact without ego, then the inquiry is pointless.
Yet it is clear to me that there are a few people who are determined at all costs to continue to make this claim (implicitly, insinuatingly, obfuscatingly), or to defend it where it is made, which stops all genuine dialogue in its tracks.
As I said, were it a fact, then we would be fortunate to find ourselves bathing in this piercing light. But if it is not a fact then this needs clarifying. I don’t feel it is a wrong question to ask of people whether they are still in this dialogue, or if they, having found the answers, are now out of it.
I will repeat a simple question which is very dear to me : human beings can make things up, cann’t they?
I wonder wherher we can see the depth of this question?
It is all “made up” in a way…perhaps the only truth then is in Silence and in Freedom.
Stories stories everywhere, all the way up, all the way down. And yet …
What is going on here on earth: ‘life’ and throughout the rest of the physical universe is a ‘story’ but one we can’t probably ever ‘know’ but the unconditioned silent brain can “participate in the immensity” according to Krishnamurti.
I’m a bit lost here. Can you just say what the “wrong question” is Richard? Asking if someone is implying that they have died to the self?
They can and they do. Religions exist because of this, both old and new.
I do wonder why we can’t be straight about these things?
Is a story real?
Intellectually one can spin a whole theory about why everything is a story, and some people will fall for it. Because many people prefer stories rather than reality. The religion of story-making - that everything is a story - is also a story. This doesn’t change the fact that a story is not real.
The apple in my hand is there. It is real. I can touch it, taste it, smell it, see it.
The apple I recall from yesterday is not there, is not real. It is only a memory, a story.
The wars in Gaza, in Ukraine, are not stories: they are happening. Stories can and are being told about these wars, but this doesn’t means that the actual killing of people daily is not occurring.
Is “participating in an immensity” happening? Or is this a story? Are we allowed to ask whether it is real or made-up? - Which is not to say that there is no immensity, but to draw attention to the fact that claiming it to exist (which is a story) is not the same thing as it actually existing.
We are all (part of) the immensity, and in that sense we are all participating in it. … ?