As I’ve said, you know nothing about love but you would have the reader you know all about it. Prove it. Tell us what you know about love or quit “banging on about it”;.
This is a good post, Huguette…thanks for clarifying the issues involved. ‘Knowing ahead of time’ is the way man has functioned for thousands of years and we know the result of that, right? We act according to a pattern…and we also impose that pattern on others creating terrible conflict and division with the inevitable suffering. But when we actually do not know then we have to actually look…observe…since we DO want to face the issue, whatever it is. My insecurity at work or my anger with my spouse or whoever. Can I solve that according to a pattern? If I act by conforming to a pattern, then I’m back to contradiction and inner/outer conflict. And what is the pattern but thought…knowledge? Belief, conclusion, ideals, etc.?
Yes, many things he said were strange because he did not elaborate and no one asked him to. His audience just sat mutely while he said strange things, and now, decades later, we’re arguing about what he meant by the strange things he said.
I use the word “mind” the same as Krishnamurti used “thought” because its common usage. K cared less for common usage than for his own special meanings for words, e.g., “religious”.
Then what is love? What meaning does the word have? That is all I am trying to get at; and nobody is answering this most simple question. If I didn’t love you I wouldn’t start a dialogue with you. For me that is so obvious. But I put it round the other way and everyone runs for the hills.
By introducing love, is your intention to bring back attention to the fact that the mind is 100% mired in self-enclosing activity? And how we appear numb to the horrific implications of that?
I wonder why, seeing as how you are an excellent example of the ongoing process. Most of what you say implies or states that you know more about love, etc., than the rest of us. You’ve been doing this for years and it’s grating. That you can question whether the self is an ongoing process when it is clearly going on with you is risible.
Partly, Emil, yes. But they are not two separate issues: love and the self. When we understand the one we also understand the other. And mostly we are confused about both. That’s clear from the way we live.
Are you as confused about both as “we” are, or are you telling us we are confused?
First of all, whom do you say you love? Leave me out of it altogether. Whom do you love? A parent, a partner, a friend? So there is already a history there and a cause for what you call love. This is so, isn’t it?
We’ve been doing this for two weeks only. If it seems like years, sorry.
In that they cannot co-exist?
Exactly. To me it is so obvious. But we have made love into something so small and personal; and all the while everything around us is burning.
No, literally, years. You were running the same shtick a decade ago in a K forum.
You didn’t listen then; so don’t bother listening now. It’s simple. Don’t make a problem of it.
I listened to your irksome routine until it became so insufferable I spoke up. It’s simple.
I am glad you spoke up. There would be no dialogue otherwise. But can you not also question it? Your suffering may be self-induced. It may not be, but it is a possibility.
1 Like
The fundamental issue may be that we continue listen to our reasoning despite the ‘realization’ that thought is untrustworthy in non-relative matters. This may be the insight that is escaping us.
We have said it umpteen times that thought in relationship is destructive. To see this - actually to see the bright, pristine truth of it - has to be a shock. If it is not a shock, it is still within the field of thought. In the same way, the realisation that actually, deeply, I don’t love anyone. It is the same shock.
1 Like
Yes the perception of the observer is flawed, which is why it is said the notion, I get hurt in relationship, is inaccurate. The experience of getting hurt that the observer is, is as convincing to it as it is immediate, yet it is an incomplete and partial perception. When there is a pause in which there is observation, the sense that I am hurt in relationship is not then all it seems.
Yes. When this insight occurs, thought is quiet. Then it resumes after having ‘concluding’ and put into words that which was seen? That ends the insight and this is now relegated to memory (our knowledge) and we haul this up in future and speak about it but it is a dead thing. The present moment is a danger to thought because it cannot ‘move’ with it. Because thinking is always the past. But as you say we (thought) “continues to listen” to itself as the ‘thinker / thought’ and that is the insight that is needed to silence thought / time?
1 Like