It isn’t surprising, I suppose, that people take their ill-disposition to what k talks about, as something they need to make clear in their own terms, in their own thinking. Invariably this is an exercise in self expression. All the difficulty in any discussion, in dialogue, is seen as typically a social difficulty, for which a participant is at fault, or at least not participating well enough. The participant ends up trying to improve the dialogue as a format.
The conflict, the human conflict, for which we are all responsible, is continually overlooked. Inherent in the very nature of self, and self expression, is this conflict, and using self to resolve it, is more conflict. That fundamental human conflict is the ill-disposition all of us encounter. It is not made by someone other, anymore than oneself. It isn’t the fault of discussion, dialogue or another.
An ill-disposition encountered will be analyzed for its external factors, analyzed for the words, and ideas, and for the other person, as if I am separate. That separateness is the conflict. This is a radical realization. Something we are ill-disposed to understand. But, do you see, to keep with the usual round of self-expression, and all that the self sees as important, fix this and that, is a repetition, and a distraction?
The point is not to cultivate a platform for self expression, or self exploration, but to see self is the conflict and is ill-disposed to living effortlessly.
What is the meaning of “ill-disposition” as used in the OP? Is it my inherent quality of mind and character? Then, how do I, and you also, ill-disposed participants, engage in dialogue?
Living effortlessly doesn’t exist judging from the state of conflict in human society. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that ill-disposition is the cause. And Krishnamurti said not to do anything, don’t move away from it, but look at it.
It really depends on how ill the other’s disposition is. If it’s seriously ill, it needs to be addressed and attended to with care and compassion. As for one’s own illness, there’s no healing until there’s no hope.
We can look at it and not make it a lot of sentimental nonsense when we see the self center is all of us, and not the many participants each thinking about cause and effect.
Yes, just look. Don’t form an opinion. Don’t make a judgment. Above all, don’t say anything if an opinion or judgment slips out of the ill-disposed mind of the self-center. Just look at the ill-disposition of the self, the creator of conflict.
This reminds me of my grandma, a devout Catholic. When I was about six or seven, she would take me to church every Sunday. Praying silently; and with a rosary in hand, she would beat lightly on her chest as she mutters to herself “through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault.”
Are you saying that as ‘awareness ‘ is neither mine or yours, the ‘self’ is neither mine or yours? Different bodies but the mechanism of self is the same for all? The particular content is seen as more important than the fact that it is basically the same divisive thing for all of us?
the real I, consciousness, is “saying” things through a “self”.
We all have different bodies, but they are made out of the same stuff (matter).
Matter is, supposedly, unbendingly equal. “it” must follow its own laws.
Take any topic, for example, do the facts differ for different people? Doesn’t the fact of how broccoli grows, apply to all, as far as us as humans can tell?
If we are both talking about the sun, shouldn’t we be agreeing on the same facts?
In that same way, we are all conscious.
like waves on the shore, waves don’t ever change the nature of the ocean.
[quote=“DanMcD, post:6, topic:783”]
Are you saying…?[/quote]
Yes, the mechanism is not mine. A new, different seeing, and the mind is not in conflict with what it is seeing. It is the seeing free from division, inner and outer. The seeing is a matter of fact, not my inspection, not my action.
The “idea” is what we think is “real seeing”. Only, it’s not even correct to say that, since every sentence is already compared, and filtered through memory.
We all know that being conscious is real, but can never actually remember what consciousness actually is…
People wonder where they come from, and many search genealogical histories. Most of the way we live is the result of conditioning, and is not truly living. No wonder we ask, where am I coming from? Everyone is going to have their particulars. Can we look at I, me, not for my particularities, but to the full extent, conditioning is common to all, and it is not his and her, I, self, ego, psyche, soul, and all that. Usually there is an exchange of ideas and knowledge between people . They can add to each others knowledge, but be stuck with that process of accumulating knowledge. It is in the nature of thought to be working this way. Thought is creating a platform for words and ideas, echoing the concerns of a conditioned mind, and self is oblivious to the fact this is putting forward matters affected by thought.
Is this “self” that is oblivious, different than what it is oblivious of? Isn’t it thought itself that through generations of habitual operation is oblivious to its own incessant movement. Oblivious to the possibility of Silence? Oblivious to the possibility that the self image it has constructed is its own creation and the source of Man’s conflict?
We are not oblivious of thought’s “own incessant movement” - we are addicted to it. It’s comforting, assuring, soothing, etc. Living without it is unthinkable. It’s our self-hypnosis.
The question is whether we can awaken to what we’re doing and let thought take its proper place instead of empowering it to define us and determine our behavior.