I am your friend. You are never going to understand what this means until you can say exactly the same words to me without a trace of fear or doubt in them. In the meantime we have fear and doubt in our relationship, as do any other two human beings. So can we say it anyway, regardless of whether or not we understand what it means? Because I have to say something to you: we are living on the same earth at the same time. So it’s a risk either way. If we wait for total understanding, we shall all be dead before it comes. If we don’t wait, if we speak rashly, if we say, ‘I love you,’ something else happens.
Thanks for the clarification. I understand your fervent belief that we should “speak rashly” and say “I love you”, to each other. It feels right for you to believe it and to live it, and I respect that. You may believe that you don’t believe it, but know it to be true (for you), which it undoubtedly is.
Well - that’s a belief for a start Paul.
And why does transformation only make sense when it ‘directly affects another’?
The ‘transformation’ that you are speaking of here Paul clearly has nothing to do with the transformation that K pointed towards.
And what does genuine transformation have to do with friendship?
You make it all sound like a cosy little self-satisfied club. Surely that is not what the serious and deep teaching of K has become today? Has it?
1 Like
Patricia,
One isn’t at all surprised, lol. The high priest of the new organized religion is so full of hisself that he can’t resist recycling the old Christian propaganda, “Believe in me - because I love you - and you will be transformed (saved).”
Unconscionable was the word Charley would have used prior to getting into K, such was Charley’s horror of organized religion. Now, one sees this as K would - abomination, on two different levels, one of the “guru” - can you imagine the arrogance !?!; secondly, in a subtle and indirect way, “helping someone change”…?
No doubt, there are the gullible ones so desperate to believe someone else loves them that they will buy into this… You do recall how K railed against the phrase “I love you”, saying that it wasn’t “love” at all… Since filling one’s heart with compassion, one understood K immediately re: such a statement.
The horror is that this self-styled guru actually believes it !!, right?
So the “I” which is full of fear demands of the other’s “I” to believe in his words - completely dismissing the truth that the word is not the thing. (smh)
1 Like
No, you are making it sound like this by standing far away and looking on. What does transformation mean to you? Can you please tell me without borrowing a single phrase from K? I know all about that, what K says. I want to know from you what it means.
‘Transformation’ is your word Paul - it is not a word that I would use.
There is only one human brain on the planet and it is in complete disorder.
The nature of that disorder is ‘self’.
So the question is: Can the human brain end this disorder - alone - without relying on any other ‘selfs’?
This cannot occur unless thought is in it correct place - technically.
1 Like
Then how do you know what I am talking about?
I suppose because transformation necessarily affects relationship?
Relationship being the doorway between subject and object, me and you, the observer and the world it observes.
Relationships,
First, the observer is the observed.
So, relationship is not “the doorway between subject and object, me and you, the observer and the observed.” Because, one part of humanity is observing another fragment. When the “I” observes another, one has divided the mind of humanity into parts. And that is why there is so much conflict in the world.
Second, the doorway (key) to observation is “what is”. And that is why “what is” is considered sacred. “What is” is sacred because it doesn’t divide, it doesn’t separate, it doesn’t strengthen the “I”.
So, there is only observation of “what is” - awareness of “what is happening” outside in the world, and then moving inward to awareness of “what is happening” within. What comes out of that is understanding, which it is not intellectual understanding - it’s the real deal - real understanding of the heart and mind and body. When that is not being done, what results is a desire to know and finding others who think and believe that truth can be reached through words - in other words finding chat buddies and lying to them.
So, the observing of “what is” is the only thing that awakens intelligence. And intelligence is not intellect. One can be as clever, as cunning that is possible, with a remarkable IQ, but intellect makes so many mistakes, draws so many patently false conclusions, and intellect is just more of the same, the same “wrong turn” that is the source of all the conflict and horror that is going on in the world. Intellect uses knowledge, memory and is constantly adding to one’s think tank, without realizing that knowledge is limited, and therefore, all its conclusions will reflect this limitation.
1 Like
Dear Pat,
He doesn’t even realize that what he has offered another is just a transaction, much like the conclusion that derives from transactional analysis, where everything is understood intellectually in terms of reward and punishment. One doesn’t even have to know how exactly hisself defines “transformation”, it is sufficient to understand that he has offered some kind of reward, get it? - do this and you get that…! rubbish.
1 Like
Paul - just because I do not use the word does not mean it is not understood for the delusion that can arise when speaking of it.
The reward that everyone is hoping for! So busy concentrating on the promise of ‘transformation’ that the understanding of disorder is totally neglected. Short cuts.
Tricks of the monkey(self) who can so easily fool himself into believing that ‘transformation’ is nothing more that changing one’s image of another so that one is no longer afraid of her!
And then the need to ‘help others’ by preaching this secure little theory to them - in the name of K - on a K discussion forum.
When disorder ends there is no ‘transformation’. What is there to transform?
2 Likes
The dissolution of the ‘deformity’ which is the illusory self image is ‘transformation’. K put it succinctly, “thought is fear”.
1 Like
Yes - well spotted - relationship would be the fact, with “me” and “you” being the nebulous concepts acting within the fact.
Is our relationship conflictual due to the process you have laid out? Or Inquiry’s relationship with Paul?
Changing one image for another is no change at all; it is then merely an exchange of concepts. So please don’t put on to me your own images about all this. Don’t you think it is rather pointless to join in a conversation right at the end, as seems to be the case here? It would be much better for us to start again. However, if you already have the answers tied up and boxed, we shall never be able to start at all. You would be better off sticking with Charley.
The Royal “we”,
There is no “we” when the person who introduces the term “we” is only full of “I” and thought.
Et voila!
Good luck to you both. I am out of it.
mac,
The first and most important relationship is with oneself, understanding the “self”. Unless that is being seen, there is only the most superficial of relationships with another, just another perpetuation of illusions - playing with things that aren’t real.
On the surface, this is why everyone is here - to discover reality.
One cannot speak of Inquiry’s relationship with Paul, obviously.
When a human being is doing the work as one “laid out”, so to speak, no matter where that person is on their journey, there is inherently in that person the beginnings of intelligence, and that intelligence has an inherent honesty that is not looking to strengthen their “I”, so there is a healthy sense that conflict is not usually part of any kind of that connection/tie/relatedness/relationship, trust you understand this, mac.
You know, when two people fall in love, both are “love”; so, in general, in the beginning year or so, there no conflict to be seen. A year or two after, the "I"s (their selves) begin to assert themselves, and then there appears some conflict, and if too strong, well… divorce.
Being connected with others is part and parcel of friendship, one doesn’t have to do anything, say anything, even exchange anything, to be friends with another, friendship is always there.
Once again, Yes. I think most of us here have grasped this (at least intellectually) - I’m asking whether our own relationships are of the same order.
The image you have of someone that gets your goat, for example, might that also be producing a conflictual relationship?
mac,
Huh?
You are asking what? Which relationships in particular are you talking about, sorry not sure one understands…
Do you know this or are you assuming? I ask because I don’t know what, if anything, awakens intelligence, seeing as how I have only intellect, which is prone to cognitive bias.
For all I know the awakening of intelligence is as fanciful a notion as the second coming of Christ, the Apocalypse, or salvation.