That doesn’t seem to be quite to the point. You had been referring to a problem you call ‘being too sure of ourselves,’ and I used the metaphor of a snag in a hosepipe to illustrate it. If ‘being to sure of oneself’ can be accurately perceived akin to a snag in a hosepipe then the answer is easy: Trace one’s way back to the snag and relieve it.
With regard being too sure of oneself on any particular issue, once one is aware that it has become a problem one is halfway to solving it, no? So, the main issue is to do with become aware that one has become too confident in one’s own opinion of something. Gaslighting does not aid self-awareness. It obfuscates it by exploiting the lack of self-awareness of a person and manipulating that lack, exploiting it, in order to control that person in some way.
If the hosepipe has already been snagged then gaslighting will only snag it again. That was my point.
Yes, but on what basis do you say there is such a thing as this communion, which you define as being sacred? Here, we are discussing it. Is this discussion ‘communion?’ Is it sacred? I wonder if you might see how much subjectivity is involved, Peter. See how, when the question is posed in such a straightforward way, one’s mind is driven to judge and to choose. So maybe start with this: What do you mean by ‘sacred?’ Do you mean, in the common sense, ‘touched by God?’
Before becoming enthralled by a word, look at the emotional baggage it carries.
When you say emotional “baggage”, do you mean conditioning?
The use of words, and being precise with words is so important, so that everyone understands to what one is referring to. Witness that footballer playing with words, playing with semantics, who misled everyone on his team, saying he was “immunized”, thereby suggesting that he was “vaccinated” when he wasn’t. This caused conflict, misunderstanding, and he has been suspended.
Dear Charley, you have answered a question with another question. I had asked Peter what he meant by ‘sacred.’ Instead of considering the question you have added another. Ok.
Emotional baggage has not the same meaning as conditioning. I was saying that the word ‘sacred’ carries emotional meanings on its back. It means, literally, ‘touched by God.’ God’s touch has imparted on ‘communion’ something of himself, according to those who may use the word in that way. This bestows upon ‘communion’ the nature of it being ‘of God’ and therefore untouchable, invulnerable, unquestionable and holy. Now, that’s quite a load to put on any word.
With regard conditioning, that is neither about the word itself or the practice it is said to describe. It is about us, the speaker and the listener. It is about how we react when hearing the word ‘sacred.’ Would you agree that we react according to our conditioning? I think we do. If we have learned to be in awe of that which is sacred, then the naming of a thing or of a practice as ‘sacred’ brings it into the scope of that awe. Merely by the thing being called ‘sacred’ we become in awe of it. A switch has been turned on. That is conditioning.
So, maybe we should ask whether or not there is anything in us that is not conditioned. Is there any part of me that is not part of a learned pattern of sensation and response? I, for one, cannot see it. And if that is the case and I am not delusional, then communion too is a patterned response to whatever challenge leads to it and there is nothing ‘sacred’ about it at all.
While ‘in communion with oneself,’ one can fool oneself ten times over. Please investigate, who is the ‘one’ that is in communion with oneself and who is the ‘oneself’ that the one is in communion with? It is the same entity, no? So, an artificial division has been made.
If you take away all the highfalutin language, what has really been stated? That a conditioned mind has tried to look at itself and in so doing has become in awe with itself and calls that state of being in awe with itself by a fancy title, ‘communion.’ And that, my dear friend, is why such ‘communion’ has nothing at all sacred about it.
You say that in communion it is possible to discover the sacred. Reducing that down, you seem to be saying that through self-reflection you can find God, which is what the monks have been doing for centuries, with not much success.
I did not comment otherwise on your post which was directed to Peter.
What I mean by sacred is that which is holy. While in communion, that which is most holy (sacred) touched my right shoulder. It moves fast (never saw anything that moves that fast), “it” doesn’t use words, and knows everything. It was in the touch of my right shoulder, that the body had a felt memory of it. It was (if I can call it so) energy, an energy without form, and I only glimpsed a corner of it to my right in my peripheral vision as I was lying on my bed in meditation and fell asleep immediately.
One of the best sleeps of my life, btw. And, one had the sense that it was humongous. It is that which I would call sacred (or holy). I trust that answers your question. I would add that I was not in awe of it. there was no switch that was turned on. There was no conditioning.
You have asked various questions:
To me, all baggage is the conditioning.
Yes, the “I” is composed of all the conditioning - in other words, everything that has happened in one’s life. And all that conditioning is held together by fear.
All reactions are because of conditioning. Reading the book of oneself will cause the conditioning to disappear, then no reactions - only response.
Conditioning itself is not the “word”, it is only a referent that points to all the memories that have happened in one’s life Without the seeing of them, the conditioning remains.
You seem to believe that one can bypass examining and the seeing of the conditioning - hence, understanding why one is the way one is, and why one had such events happen to oneself, which of course would lead to having a sense of the meaningfulness of one’s life.
One sees that you have found refuge in the conditioning of dialoguing itself, and the beliefs engendered by such a process - hence, speaking and listening, and hence caught in the web of thought. My deepest condolences, Paul. Dialogue, conversations, discussions are endless, and to my mind, only reinforce psychological dependence on “the other”, therefore stymie any further discovery, other than intellectual insights, which are meaningless in themselves. The only value that I could see in dialogue would be the possibility of filling one’s heart with goodness. That’s all.
For what it is worth, whatever “communion” you understand, is not the “communion” one has lived. While in communion, there is no “I”, there is only observation.
I never suggested that “communion” was an activity of the “I”. It is most definitely not, which suggests to me that you have never been in communion with another, let alone with what is happening within.
I said " I use words to point to the nature of something. I ask, what is the conflict with this? The conflict with this, is not it, right?"
It is clear. Nothing to do with me or you, nothing to do with definitions, nothing to do with subjectivity, nothing to with meanings, nothing to do with emotion. .
Don’t you get it? Analysis has nothing to do with the nature of living. Working with conclusions is not the free flow of sharing together.
Oh dear, I need to be put in the ‘naughty chair,’ then.
What I would say is that I have never experienced that which you say happened to you. Nothing ‘holy’ has ‘touched’ me on the right shoulder and led me to fall into a deep sleep. I was simply suggesting the possibility that your ‘experience’ may have been an artifact of your own imagination. What a relief when the mind supplies itself with the exact same signal that it has been seeking and hoping for. The stored energy is thereby released and one can sleep. Marvelous.
No, not you, … in the naughty chair. lol You don’t know me, and “I” don’t know “you”. One doesn’t really bother to respond to the naughty ones. Isn’t it unfortunate that there is an assumption on this site that one should only be an intellectual? lol … and meet others in a particular manner, while K met “the other” where they were? Oh, darn thought… all this thinking together is so … oh god, smh
I pointed out not too long ago to the one … one (and only one of quite a few) incorrect conclusions, which he ignored, and then chastised me for not participating in his thought experiment. What rubbish! And they follow him… good grief.
Btw, I was quite prepared to die… physically, I really didn’t mind what would happen.
I will say that the meditation-while-sleeping has still continued but at a much slower and quieter rate since then, i.e. less intense. I guess there was an understanding deep within, that at my age, and considering my health, there are now limits as to how much the body can cope with. Presently, am 71. Interestingly, I will also say (btw I am only using the word “I” as a social convenience for “the other”), I still wonder why I am still hanging around. The only thing that has changed apart from the subtle day-to-day deeper understanding movement is that “I” have joined this site.
I will no longer be posting much on this site. My mind/heart is kinda reeling from the horror of the Cop26 cop out. I run water out of my tap as I wash dishes and tears come to my eyes because of what has been seen where people are abandoning their places of birth because they can’t dig far enough in the dry earth to find enough water enough just to drink and stay alive. The constant migration of humans, the rise of autocracies, the deterioration of democracy (even here in Canada). It’s too much. I can relate to K who stayed out of conflict during WWII. Break time… have a good day, Paul.
That is a belief on your part, but see how you have presented it as fact. This is also a trick of the mind. What is most important to me is to understand the ways of my own mind, the patterns that form and reshape, the ways in which the mind loads itself and then attempts to discharge everything that does not comply with the patterns it feels to be most important. In this case, K has supplied you with a thought that conforms to your own pattern and you feel comfort and therefore record K’s thought as fact. See how we are doing this all the time. This is why we need to stay awake to what is happening. So much happens automatically that self-delusion becomes almost a way of life.
Thanks for your response, I now understand where you are coming from. You could have just said that you don’t believe me. (full stop…) That would have been understandable and a correct manner of responding. But now, you have chosen to respond by using comparison.
Ah, the intellectual layer of consciousness and all of its conditioning is all active and fully operational in you. I will do a walk-around you. Bye The intellectual layer (nice/“naughty” duality). The way you responded is indicative of your acting out the conditioning. Enjoy your “naughty chair”.
There are shrinks who refer to this layer of consciousness as narcissist (or bipolar), some therapists call it the abandonment complex. Abandonment prior the age of 7. And, thought arises then and plagues the person for the rest of the days of their life. Never had that happen to me. Had other things. K offered a solution to all of the conditioning, he called it freedom.
Yes Charlie, fortunately I have all the layers of consciousness working very well. Nevertheless, I am neither a narcissist nor bi-polar. You sprinkle your response with labels and emoticons. Why? It does appear, contrary to the claims of ‘freedom’ you make, that you are caught in a reaction. I say ‘appear’ because I am referring to the appearance. I do not know you and cannot claim to have discovered anything about you or made any kind of diagnosis, but thank you for yours all the same.
Thanks for the invitation to join in the discussion Paul. I’m not exactly sure what the “it” is, as in, “How do others see it?”. Are we talking about conditioning? Krishnamurti seemed to have discovered a way to to be free of past knowledge and experience. Perhaps we can all agree on that. As he talked to audiences he seemed to be discovering what he was talking about as if for the first time. This quality of newness and freshness shone through, at least for me, and was very communicative. Does this freedom from the past always manifest itself in a quality of fresh, new communication which is very much alive? Please excuse me if I’ve gone off topic here.
You are not off-topic at all, Sean. My last points have been about our own relationships to the words K imparted and whether they become incorporated into our own conditioning.
For instance, there would be a difference between saying (as you have put it) ‘Krishnamurti seemed to have discovered a way to to be free of past knowledge’ and saying that K was free of it. The word ‘seemed’ implies appearance. In other words, it appears to you that K was free of it. You are not stating it as fact but as appearance. When it is stated as fact, it is obviously a belief. And we may ask whether or not belief is useful in this matter.
Personally, I am not a believer. This does not mean that I say it is not true. That would also be a belief, albeit a negative one. The truth is that I simply do not know if K found freedom or not. It may appear to me that he did not and it may appear to you that he did.
The other question raised is whether K “offered a solution” to the human predicament. From what I have read and seen of his talks and writings, he did not presume to offer any solution. He said it was up to each of us and that there was no method or ‘way’ to what he said he had found.
The important thing, in my mind, is that we learn to distinguish, in ourselves, between facts, beliefs, impressions and opinions. They are four distinct categories. The human mind engages regularly in all four practices and tricks itself all the time, presenting opinion and belief as fact.
Mostly what the mind produces is impressions. Reality is broken down into discrete ‘things’ and ‘events’ in a process of constant abstraction. This works well for many practical affairs. If you eat a banana it helps to distinguish the peel from the flesh. But at higher levels of abstraction, and with emotion thrown in, we cannot rely on the automatic functions for they begin to throw up anomalies, contradictions and mistruths, which is why all experience needs to be questioned, especially enlightenment experiences.
I was tempted to flag Charley for ad hominem when he accused you of mental illness, but resisted because I’ve been flagged many times for my comments to other K-believers, and anyway, your response was elucidating.