Dead K Society

Kinfonet Discussion
163

I have to admit I dont know anymore, haha, about what I was talking about. I just wanted to bring up that K did admit, when pressed, that there are exceptions. And without the exceptions, humanity would have destroyed itself by now. I dont know if it applies or not to what Rick is talking about, but just wanted to throw this in here, which I did. I didnt mean to cause any conflict or disagreement and honestly I think we are all seeing pretty much the same thing.

Yes, I am talking about exceptions like Buddha, Jesus, K, etc but also thinking of lesser people but who also have some insight like David Bohm, Samdhong Rinpoche, Dalai Lama, etc.

I just will say again, and it has nothing to do with Ricks statements, but EXCEPTIONS are out there, and K did not concentrate or focus on them, but spoke about the general human condition, what is for the masses, for most people. I was so happy when I noticed this for myself, or else it seems so negative and pessimistic the situation. But there is hope, and some of us might be these exceptions :slight_smile:

164

This may or may not be useful, but sharing nonetheless. Here is a excerpt from the discussion between Krishnamurti and Jonas Salk:

K: What exists today: I am an individual, I must fulfil my own desires, my own urges, my own instincts, my own - and all the rest of it, and that is creating havoc.

JS: Now we want to transform one state to another.

K: You can’t transform.

JS: All right, what can you do?

K: Change, mutate. You can’t change one form into another form. See that you are actually, the truth, that you are the rest of mankind. Sir, when you see that, feel it in your - if I may use the word - guts, in your blood, then your whole activity, your whole attitude, your whole way of living changes.

JS: All right.

K: Then you have a relationship which is not two images fighting each other, a relationship that is living, alive, full of something, beauty. But again we come back - the exception.

JS: They exist. Now let’s focus on the exceptions for a moment because we have already established those that are the predominant species, shall we say, the predominant variety. And let’s, as a practical matter, address ourselves to the role that the exceptional ones might have in bringing about the kind of change that would be tantamount to a mutation event for the species as a whole.

K: Suppose, sir, you are one of the exceptions.

JS: Yes.

K: I am not supposing, please, I’m…

JS: I understand.

K: What’s your relationship with me who is just an ordinary person? Have you any relationship with me?

JS: Yes.

K: What is that?

JS: We are the same species.

K: Yes, but you have stepped out of that. You are an exception. That’s what we are talking about. You are an exception and I am not. Right? What is your relationship with me?

JS: I am…

K: Have you any?

JS: Yes.

K: Or you are outside trying to help me.

JS: No, I have a relationship with you and a responsibility because your wellbeing will influence my wellbeing. Our wellbeing is one and the same.

K: No, sir. You are an exception. You are not psychologically putting things together. You are out of that category. And I am all the time gathering - right? - putting, you know all the rest of it. There is a vast division between freedom and the man who is in prison. I am in prison, of my own making and the prison made by politicians, books and all the rest of it - I am in prison, you are not, you are free. And I would like to be like you.

JS: And I would like to help liberate you.

K: Therefore what’s your relationship? A helper. Or you have real compassion, not for me, the flame of it, the perfume, the depth, the beauty, the vitality and the intelligence it - compassion, love. That’s all. That will affect much more than your decision to help me.

JS: I agree with that. We are in complete agreement. That’s how I see the exceptional. And I see that the exceptional individuals possess the quality of compassion.

K: Yes, sir. And compassion cannot be put together by thought.

JS: It exists.

K: How can it exist when I have hate in my heart, when I want to kill somebody, when I am crying how can that exist? There must be freedom from all that before the other is.

JS: I am focusing my attention now on the exceptional.

K: I am doing that.

JS: And do those have hatred in their hearts? The exceptional ones?

K: Sir, it is like the sun, sir. Sunshine isn’t yours or mine. We share it. But the moment it is my sunshine it becomes childish. So all that you can be, like the sun, the exception like the sun, give me compassion, love, intelligence, nothing else - don’t say, do this, don’t do that - then I fall into the trap, which all the churches, religions have done. Freedom means, sir, to be out of the prison; prison which man has built for himself. And you who are free, be there. You follow? That’s all. You can’t do anything.

JS: I hear you say something very positive, very important, very significant. I hear you say that there does exist people, individuals, a group of individuals, who possess these qualities for emanating something that could help the rest of humankind.

K: You see that’s the whole concept - I don’t want to go into that, that’s too irrelevant - that there are such people who help, not guide, tell you what to do, it all becomes so silly. Just like sun, like the sun giving light. And if you want to sit in the sun, you will sit in it; if you don’t, you will sit in the shade.

JS: Yes. And so it’s that kind of enlightenment…

K: That is enlightenment.

JS: …that we are on the verge of receiving. And I think that that is what you have given us today.

165

I feel separate, different, and slightly superior to my neighbour (except in terms of taking out the trash - in that she is superior) - she’s a bitter old bat, but I smile and wave hello - no conflict?

The horse in the field does not attack nor try to seduce the horse in the next field - thanks to the electric fencing. When ridden, the horse is very well behaved - thanks to its bridle and training.

The horse and I are acting in an enlightened manner, whilst still experiencing the world from this center of separateness - are we different (exceptional) from the poor folk actually firing their Kalashnikovs?

What are better examples of what you mean @rickScott ?

166

We are using the word “division” in a different way. This is why I drew attention to the distinction between differences and division. I will not explain the distinction again as I have already done so several times over. People who have differences - of culture, food, clothing, etc - can of course live with others “peacefully and compassionately”; but if they have actual division between themselves and others, then their ‘peace’ is really a superficial peace, and their ‘compassion’ is not compassion.

This is why I drew attention - right at the beginning of this discussion - to the big picture of life on the planet earth (with photographs of the earth taken from the moon and from behind Saturn’s rings). If one looks at those photographs, one sees a beautiful though fragile planet, a blue and green marble shimmering with mystery and life in a solar system otherwise empty of life.

On our planet human life has evolved from the animal, and we are totally dependent on the earth systems for our own survival. And over the history of human existence - as homo sapiens - we have done amazing things. We have created amazing, complex civilisations, we have developed language, technology, produced exquisite art, built intricate buildings, composed beautiful music - and more recently, we have accomplished miraculous things for a member of the primate order, exploration into outer space, landing on the moon, on mars (at least by robots), we have built thinking things like us (computers), we can manipulate genes, etc.

But - and it is a but - we have also killed millions and millions of other human beings; we have destroyed most of the land mammals on the planet earth (over 83% in fact; of all the mammals living on earth, 60% are livestock, 36% are us humans, and only 4% are wild animals); we have decimated the natural ecology of the earth, so much so that very few ecosystems have been left unaltered by human activity; and we have of course, through the use of fossil fuels, paved the way for an unprecedented alteration of the earth’s climate, with potentially life threatening consequences for future human beings and nonhuman animals and natural systems.

We don’t need to look at ancient history to see the brutality that human beings are capable of. Recent history includes bloody wars in the Balkans, in the Middle-East, in Yemen. What is taking place right now in Ukraine is a reminder that war can take place at any time, no matter how developed a society might be. China is threatening war with Taiwan right now, and may well start a new global war over it sometime in the near future.

And politically the democratic world looks very fragile right now. Poorly educated voters across the world, who are prey to being manipulated by partisan media and television, have elected people like Modi in India, Bolsonaro in Brazil, Trump in the US, Putin (of course) in Russia, and have voted to isolate themselves from their neighbours at a massive economic cost to themselves simply out of xenophobia (Brexit).

Seeing all this (and more) it is completely natural to ask whether what is going on is simply the outward expression of a fixed, unchangeable human nature, or whether these disastrous and bloody consequences stem from some human made cause that can be undone.

From what you write Rick, it seems reasonable to deduce that you feel the human condition to be more or less set and unchangeable. People feel separate because they are separate. People kill each other and destroy their environment because humans have always done so. You feel - perhaps - that all this tragedy is part of the natural order of things, and so it doesn’t move you to see these things happening all around us.

Or, you believe in some ‘spiritual’ notion you have picked up somewhere along the road, perhaps that the Self, the Atman, the ‘Me’ is ok, is untouched by all this human made chaos, and that everything else (apart from this ‘Me’) is an illusion anyway, so why get distressed by it. Is this your actual view I wonder? It certainly seems like it from all you have written.

For myself, I don’t accept the human condition as some unchangeable reality - as something fixed like granite or adamantine. I see that much or most of what divides human communities is simply the invention of human thinking. Religious dogmas and tribal identities (whether at the level of football or nation states) exist only in our thinking. If we stopped thinking them, they would disappear.

When people identify strongly with what differentiates them from other people, they tend to make other human beings - who are practically identical to them - into the ‘other’. This ‘othering’ is the root of all xenophobia, racism, scapegoating, and, ultimately, war and genocide.

So when K points out that the root of all this division and hatred in the world may be due to something very simple that most of us have never considered very deeply - like thought - I pay attention. I pay attention because it sounds reasonable, it fits the facts as I understand them, and it coheres with what I myself have observed (both in myself and in others).

And as I understand it, the thought that K is talking about is not something ethereal or abstract; it is in fact what has been put together psychically as egotism in each one of us. And it is this basic egotism that divides us psychologically from each other.

Egotism can be expressed through a flag, through identification with a nation, a religion, an authoritarian or ethnocentric political party; or it can simply be putting my own interests or the interests of my own family and friends first at all costs. Left to itself this egotism obviously leads to conflict. The conflict between my image of you, and your image of me.

This is the big picture I am concerned with exploring. Yes, the Dalai Lama seems like a lovely chap even though he identifies with being a Buddhist, just as Mother Theresa seems to have been a big hearted woman even though she identified with being a Catholic. Maybe we can get to these so-called ‘exceptions’ once we have captured the main issue - which is our individual and collective thought-created self-centredness.

But my sense is, Rick, from all we have discussed during my time on Kinfonet, that you are genuinely not interested in what I am calling the “main issue”. You seem to accept war and bloodshed etc as normal, to be expected; just as you accept the sense of separation between human beings as normal, to be expected. And it obviously isn’t my place to control you or persuade you or force you to see or think anything that you don’t want to see or think.

So I leave it up to you. I know you are a “less is more” kind of guy, so you may not have read this far! (:slightly_smiling_face:), but I thought it worth saying all this anyway, just to make it as clear as I feel able to.

Speaking for myself, I am open to the possibility that all this division and separation between people - between human beings like us - is thought-created and so capable of being dissolved. So this is what I would like to continue to inquire into, even if it doesn’t interest others.

1 Like
167

Just to be clear David, the ‘exceptions’ that K is talking about here are those rare cases of human being who have ended the psychological division - created by thought - in themselves, and so operate from compassion, not division.

168

Someone (maybe Paramartha or Ashvagosha in the Awakening of faith) said that enlightenment is the meeting of intelligence and conditioning, in the moment that one lets go of the other.

(in another language a long time ago)

God is not more real than its creation - Its actions and its being necessarily touch, and affect what it is.

PS @DavidS the stuff in bold above is probably why we say : zazen is enlightenment.

169

Perhaps? - although I’m not sure of the context. Does intelligence ‘let go’ of conditioning? Or is the presence of intelligence the simultaneous emptying or dying away of the conditioning?

1 Like
170

I feel both separate from and connected to the members of this forum. Sometimes when someone writes something, I have a conflict-rich psychological reaction to it: I feel uncomfortable, stung, annoyed. But I usually (not always!) refrain from acting on that initial feeling, I give time for the mud to settle, return for another look later, when I can take in the message with less conflict, more like: We’re in this together, separate and connected, like nodes of a network.

That’s me, and I’m hardly a saintly/enlightened person! It stands to reason that there are those who are more skilled in this than I am, people whose initial reactions are weaker and/or over with quicker, people who, when the mud has settled, are more or less conflict-free.

1 Like
171

Ok. Then can we look at this a little bit, in the spirit of dialogue?

(I am not objecting to talking in private about any nuances in our disagreement, but it may be worth briefly dwelling on the obvious places where we are mis-communicating, as this is relevant to the current topic of division - no?).

I feel that you don’t take much of what I write very seriously; and you might feel similarly about me (it is difficult to judge). I feel that you see me as some kind of K-robot just spouting a party line, which gives you license to ignore most of what I write, and to just hone in on small little pockets of contrarian disagreement you have to what I write.

You may see me as someone who is conditioned by Krishnamurti-ism, someone who has made a belief system out of K’s words. I see you as someone who doesn’t care about the destruction of nature, war, social division, etc. And you may see me as someone who has identified themselves with self-righteousness, or perhaps with a political ideology of some kind. I see you as defending some private form of Hindu belief, and you see me as defending some form of Krishnamurtian belief. I see you as defending separatism between people, and you see me as defending non-separatism (or unity) between people.

There may be elements of truth in all these images and reactions we have towards each other. So how are we to communicate with one another? What is our relationship towards each other?

When we reach these cul de sacs we feel separate from each other, divided from each other, right? There is a sense of being misunderstood, disrespected, needing to justify or defend ourselves against the other person - right?

One approach would be to drop these defences and try to see what we have in common. We obviously have things in common because we can be friendly, on good terms with each other, warm hearted. Perhaps we can set aside - at least for the time being - what separates us or divides us. If what divides us is the idea that self-interest or psychological division creates conflict, then we can perhaps set that aside for the time being, as this has become a source of contention and misunderstanding.

This doesn’t mean we cannot return to the topic another time, but if you strongly object to the idea that egotism or self-interest is a cause of division, and that such divisions do not generate conflict, then there must be something wrong with the way I have communicated it, or with the way I myself understand or live it (i.e. it is just an idea for me, and not a reality).

So is there anywhere on this thread where you felt some sense of communication with anything I have written? Have I said anything at all - a single sentence - with which you can feel some common acceptance, a common seeing of the same thing?

Would this be the right approach? Or could you suggest another approach? Maybe we could ask why we identify with any ideas we have, and whether we can go beyond such identification with ideas?

If you don’t feel like going into this publicly, that’s ok too. We can chat about it in private. I’m not interested in creating drama.

172

“Let go” is the first word I came up with here. The present context has to do with touching and meeting - aka relationship.
The idea is that enlightenment only has meaning in the relationship happening in each given moment.

Instead of “let go”, a better word would be free of the notion of “subject doing to object”. But rather with the notion of arising from circumstance.

173

I’d say the range within which humanity (as a whole) can move/evolve/devolve is limited. It’s got one foot in heaven, one in hell. The range within which an individual member of humanity can evolve is less limited, maybe even quasi-unlimited.

… You seem to accept war and bloodshed etc as normal, to be expected; just as you accept the sense of separation between human beings as normal, to be expected.

I see the positives (love, kindness, intelligence, creativity) and the negatives (inequality, hatred, war) and everything in-between as actuality. Can this actuality be changed, by ‘fixing’ thought or being choicelessly aware or cultivating love? On the individual level, maybe, probably, with great effort and perseverence. On the whole-of-humanity level? Who knows! But my guess is global change for the better, if it happens, will be very slow and very modest. Evolution, not revolution.

174

Rick, I think it is important and helpful for all of us, if you can share from your perspective what you think is going on. James shared some of the images he has formed about you and what he thinks is going on, I think it would be very helpful to hear how you perceive what is going on.

This is a great example of how images or thoughts about something can cause apparent division or conflict between people. You two are friends and are working this out, I know that, but for learning for all of us, can you fill us in a little from your side. I only see James side posted in this thread, but havent heard what caused you to write the above, to feel and perceive this way that you two are stuck, both getting defensive, and an attack on what you both hold dear/truth.

175

Ja!

I feel that you don’t take much of what I write very seriously; and you might feel similarly about me (it is difficult to judge). I feel that you see me as some kind of K-robot just spouting a party line, which gives you license to ignore most of what I write, and to just hone in on small little pockets of contrarian disagreement you have to what I write. … You may see me as someone who is conditioned by Krishnamurti-ism, someone who has made a belief system out of K’s words.

Wow your image of my image of you is pretty dire! I do take what you write seriously, though our flavors of seriousness probably differ quite a bit. I usually read what you write at least twice, more sometimes if I’m responding. I don’t see you as a K-robot spouting a party line, I see you as someone touched deeply by Krishnamurti. I do think you are conditioned by your engagement with Krishnamurti, we all are. Is your conditioning deep enough to have made a belief system out of it? I don’t know. What do you think?

I see you as someone who doesn’t care about the destruction of nature, war, social division, etc. And you may see me as someone who has identified themselves with self-righteousness, or perhaps with a political ideology of some kind. I see you as defending some private form of Hindu belief, and you see me as defending some form of Krishnamurtian belief. I see you as defending separatism between people, and you see me as defending non-separatism (or unity) between people.

These all have a grain of truth to them, I think. But they’re all nuanced, and that’s not obvious from the above.

So how are we to communicate with one another? What is our relationship towards each other?

Yes! That, for me, is the heart of the matter. Views, shmiews!

When we reach these cul de sacs we feel separate from each other, divided from each other, right? There is a sense of being misunderstood, disrespected, needing to justify or defend ourselves against the other person - right?

Yes, but for me these feelings also hold a kind of invitation to, opportunity for connection. (They might even be connection.) Aversion to intimacy keeps me from engaging most of the time, I escape instead, defer the resolution to the future.

Perhaps we can set aside - at least for the time being - what separates us or divides us.

Sounds good. Our version of epoché!

Another possibility: We work through it, don’t stop until it’s resolved. No escape! This would require its own thread, here or privately. And it’s likely to get intense, ‘worse before better’ kind of thing. We’d both have to be really up for it. ?

176

I need time to let things settle before I answer this.

If you want, please share your impressions about the interaction between James and me that led to this situation. You might see things we don’t/can’t see from our perspectives.

177

According to Krishnamurti, compassion is beyond the brain that has not purged its psychological content and come into contact with the Mind.

178

If this is where you stand, what’s your interest in Krishnamurti’s teaching?

179

Epoche: In the modern philosophy of Phenomenology it refers to a process of setting aside assumptions and beliefs.

James is coming from an open-minded inquiry into whether the human brain can awaken to intelligence, thereby freeing itself from the limitation of its intellect - not a belief or assumption. You have made it clear that you think of change as evolution rather than revolution (the radical transformation K spoke of) - an assumption, if not a belief.

180

Rick, this is where I see the interaction between you and James becoming a little confrontative or defensive or stuck.

We were talking about exceptions, and James was sticking more with how Krishnamurti talked about exceptions, which he later went into more detail.

My guess, and it is just a guess without your sharing what triggered it for you, but my guess and speculation is that you did not like how James was speaking like an authority and seemed inflexible and stuck with his views, approach, which you saw differently. It seemed to close down communication and you felt there was nowhere to go with this. You like Krishnamurtis teachings but you dont stick to them and also think for yourself and James is in more of a line with Krishnamurtis teachings and this creates conflict at times and difficulty communicating.

Those are my impressions, but I could be totally wrong, off, and am open to hearing more from your side, perspective how you saw this when you are ready.

All of this is said only in trying to learn from this and not to take sides with anybody or put anybody down. We are all friends and respect each other greatly and appreciate their participation in the forum.

181

This wasn’t my impression.

Rick made it clear that he can’t take K’s teaching seriously enough to be open to the possibility of radical, instantaneous transformation; that he’s more inclined to see evolution as the only instrument of meaningful change. Nevertheless, he spends a lot of time and energy here in a K-forum, which indicates that he may take the teaching more seriously than he says.

182

Thanks Inquiry for sharing your impression. It adds to the mix. We had very different impressions.

It reminds me of what Bohm dialogue is supposed to be, many different voices, images, ideas, impressions, conditioning, etc so as to see all different facets of humanity conditioning, instead of just a select few. (I might be totally wrong here about Bohm dialogue, but I thought I read something like that)