It’s not a need. I can’t help it. When you drink fresh water, that’s what happens. There is no such thing as an innocent motive.
And I can’t help insisting that you modify your behavior by quoting Krishnamurti instead of impersonating him.
I am the wrong person to speak to about this. You need to speak to the moderator of the forum.
In other words, you’re incorrigible.
No, sir. If the moderator says, ‘Change your behaviour,’ I shall listen to him or her and change my behaviour if it is of benefit to the forum. If it is merely for your own personal benefit that you want me to change, that’s another matter. So the moderator is the one to decide all this, not me or you.
You say you can’t help doing what you do unless you’re told to stop by an authority. So you can help it.
You’ve drunk your own kool-aid.
There’s a difference between psychological authority and the authority of those who have to run public institutions. This is not my forum, nor is it yours. There are rules here; and I am happy to abide by them.
Could you explain this to me more fully please? I’d like to understand exactly what you mean.
It is ‘paradoxical’ , if that’s the word, that the ending of the ‘self-formation’ occurs with the ‘emptying of the mind’ which I take to be what K has said. But the ‘filling’ of the mind has taken place over a lifetime and the ‘emptying’ cannot be a process over time but has to take place in the moment. Now ‘how’ does that ‘emptying’ come about? Now. Is it a ‘secret’? We gather that there can’t be an ‘empty-er’ because the empty-er’ would still be there after the cleaning was done…Paul is saying as I hear it, that it has to be done now in this moment but Inquiry is saying that he is impersonating K … So ‘how’ does it come about? Can it come about or was it a ‘freak’ occurence for K and some other humans in our past? Is it that if oneself is known to oneself so thoroughly and completely that any arising of the self-image is recognized for what it is and is instantly negated by intelligence. Like the ‘snake in the corner’ trying to take over again but whose danger has been recognised but still must be kept an eye on? Is that the answer then, that until I know every game, every trick , every deception possible by myself… that that is what will fill the mind and ‘emptiness’ is just another image of self-deception?
So you can help it.
No. It means I would go elsewhere.
As I see, conflicts of this type which prevents communication are due to psychological types in characters as put forth by Jung. Being systematic and factual, deferring to authority, recording communications and publishing it as books, a sense of puritanism in one’s convictions etc are typical of ISTJ’s. The other side is an introverted thinking ISTP/INTP. When we recognize consistent patterns in action, there needs be an understanding that the ‘psychological’ is at play. No doubt that this very observation is a perfect example of image making but this needs be said. When we are intend to communicate something which we consider as serious and urgent, and listener isn’t oriented towards that, we need to find different ways to achieve the same rather than being dogmatic about it. In attempting to relate through dialogue on an equal footing, it is not that the ideal should be forsaken but it needs to adapt to reality which might appear as corrupting.
Looking at the examples of our forum, maybe the we could say that conflict and lack of dialogue (as in ability to communicate ideas despite opposing viewpoints) is due to ego
Egos clash due to fear - fear that listening might somehow corrupt me - that if I listen to you, you have won - and if you listen to me, I have won.
And sometimes because we’re having a bad day, in which case its due to pure bloody-mindedness.
You said, ‘I see that I am separate’ - whose perception is this? It is still about a centre perceiving some aspect of itself. But to perceive that we are separate from each other, it doesn’t involve the centre at all.
??? Can you explain simply, as if to a child
What is the self? It is the whole psychological content of my consciousness. This content is composed of fear, desire, hope, regret, envy, jealousy and everything else that is not love. You are telling me something. Can I listen to what you are telling me without any of that content becoming active? If I can, that’s love right there in the listening. But if I can’t listen to you, what is the distraction that takes me away from you? It means that either I am listening to you with a motive - I want something from you - or that there are other issues in my life far more pressing than this which I have not yet attended to: an unresolved quarrel or a particular worry, for example. Either way, thought is at the heart of the distraction. Thought has brought about the quarrel, the worry and the motive, whatever it may be. There is nothing complicated about this; and there is certainly no secret to it. When one looks directly at the content without any further distraction of thought, the whole content is gone, evaporated or whatever word you want to use. Attention dissolves the content; distraction keeps it in place.
2 Likes
I love you. A child wouldn’t hesitate for one second on hearing this, even a child of 10 or 11 years; after that, it gets more difficult. The child says, ‘I love you too,’ and means it. For some reason, adults get terribly upset by the word ‘love’.
We were standing one afternoon outside the entrance to the Study Centre at Brockwood. A woman whom I had only met briefly, she said to me, ‘I love you,’ and it was finished. It didn’t require a response, an explanation, a lot of heart-searching. And when we meet again, if we do, we’ll start from there, which is the only sane place to start.
But to come back to the statement: Then you don’t see it.
What makes that statement, and what if anything does it make it to?
It is one human being talking to another. Why make it any more complicated than this?