How do we arrive for each other?

Kinfonet Discussion
1

Meeting of Saturday 24th April 2021

The topic, or initial topic of the meeting, was to investigate our perception of ‘Discussion and Dialogue’.

I mention initial topic because there was a startling absence of cohesion to our gathering. It for the most part was moved by reactivity and division. There was an erratic jumping from one subject to another; interjection and speaking over each other. The energy was divisive; and where there is division there is conflict. Where there is conflict there is fear and where there is fear there is a need to control. We all as followers of Master Krishnamurti are fully aware of this pointing: And this was beautifully exhibited.

‘How’ we come to a meeting must surely be considered. If our meeting is ultimately to share in sacred wisdom, then how do we arrive? If we are coming with fear; a need to make ourselves heard then the energy is not conducive to the openness required to ‘listen’ with kindness; to be open, available and receptive, to give space for the other and to move together in the flow of present moment Wisdom.

When there is disconnection from our availability for each other; division, there is reactivity, a need to hold one’s perceived personal position. There can be no interconnectedness as Consciousness when we come in defence and self-survival.

Dialogue becomes redundant. Indeed, the ability to share in any topic does, when we cannot come together ready to ‘listen’ with openness and availability, to what is fundamentally the revealing of our self through the exchange in relationship with others.

Krishnamurti said that when he speaks, we must ‘listen’ to ourselves. That he, Krishnamurti, is holding the mirror for us until it is no longer required, until ‘he’ is no longer required. Surely our meetings should be based on his words.

I look forward to our future meetings; to our availability and receptivity for each other, and to the gifts that are offered in them.

This is written from my open heart. Thank you, Marie

2 Likes
2

I think the challenge in “how we arrive for each other” is that we each bring with us a host of assumptions which we find difficult to leave at the door.

In dialogues/discussions of this kind, we invariably, each one of us, bring our own background of Advaita Vedanta, Buddhism, New Age thinking, spiritual commercialism/professionalism, or personal brand of philosophy or scepticism - and dropping all of that is a tremendous problem for us. It means that when we use certain words - like consciousness for instance - we may not realise that there are a multitude of different ways of using that word which are mutually contradictory, and which different members of the group might be acting on.

Added to this, we have the inevitable challenge of different personalities, psychological wirings, preferences etc, which sometimes makes for cohesion, and other times does not. It may be that one particular set of personalities is more abrasive than another set - but none of these personal differences can be swept aside without consideration. To create an ideal or sentimentalised state of non-conflict or unity when contradictions are genuinely present in the group, is not to listen to what is actually taking place. These contradictions have to be met and heard (though - as was pointed out on Saturday - not necessarily by verbalising what we hear).

It just so happens that this week, partly because Jackie had already been facilitating a week-long dialogue, it was proposed that the meeting take a relatively free-form approach. Usually we do try to begin with a question, so this was a different experience.

But in general, all the difficulties I mentioned above are present at every meeting, and have to be met with as much intelligence and care that we have access to. This, of course, is the responsibility of each one of us.

3

Of course I wasn’t at this meeting. But the Kinfonet forum exist since the 90’s and ever since , it always been like that , as far as I remember. Would it be that failing to understand what K. is pointing to, we, you , me interpret, analyse, exploit what we read ?

If I may Marie,are we followers of Master Krishnamurti ? Since we take the time to read him, to listen to him, what would be the truth regarding what he says about followers.

K. : So, gradually the followers become blind and merely accept dogmas, and the leaders destroy the followers, and the followers in turn destroy the leaders. Gradually we create another set of stupidities based on a new set of dogmas which were originally theories, and we become slaves to them. (end of quote).

As for the Master. Why do one call K. the master ?

If I may Marie, what is sacred wisdom?

2 Likes
4

Today I came upon another way to look at ‘choiceless awareness’ : not-caring. …It doesn’t ‘care’ about whether I’m happy , sad, suffering, joyful, lusting, etc. Freedom is not freedom from something, it is freedom!

5

“Followers of Master Krishnamurti” Lets not get too bent out of shape out of this statement by Marie. They are just words, and can be taken very loosely and not made a big deal out of. Here is one translation of this statement: “We are interested in Krishnamurtis teachings, and Krishnamurti had great insight.”

6

Yes (although this topic may not be strictly relevant to the OP).

There is freedom in being choicelessly aware: whatever is happening is already happening, and one has no control over what is already happening (choice and control come in only afterwards). There is no moralisation or judgment in such awareness. However, precisely because of this, part of this freedom might be the choiceless awareness of things that I don’t want to see; feelings, sensations or thoughts that make me uncomfortable. So the freedom in involved in choiceless awareness is a rather impersonal freedom! It is the freedom of no escape.

7

My experience with meetings is affected by the other peoples experience. Sometimes, rarely, there is a shared intelligent inquiry, with all the features you might hope for, careful, attentive, insightful, and a discovery. But mostly the meetings are not like this, and there is a lot of conservative, reactionary, thinking. It is the normal, standard, interaction between people. We don’t seem to be able to do any thing different with the ordinary meeting experience, and to look to a situation where there is a gifted individual who can show the light, has become a further antagonistic ideal.

1 Like
8

Thank you James

Reply

J: I think the challenge in “how we arrive for each other” is that we each bring with us a host of assumptions which we find difficult to leave at the door.

Our level of Awareness; the revealing of our inner impulse that moves each one to realise the longing to be free of our conditioning, is what moves us to join groups under the direction of such as Krishnamurti. Each one present is looking for direction towards inner exploration, to be free from exactly what you have written below:

J: “challenge of different personalities, psychological wirings, preferences etc…,” and

“ we invariably, each one of us, bring our own background of Advaita Vedanta, Buddhism, New Age thinking, spiritual commercialism/professionalism, or personal brand of philosophy or scepticism - and dropping all of that is a tremendous problem for us.”

All of us are bringing our ‘psychological’ self. However, is it not the purpose of our gatherings; this shared space, ultimately to go beyond our conditioning, to find through our own effort of inquiry and true listening; that will assist us to ‘drop’ the above?

“…But if you share what is being said, which doesn’t mean you agree or disagree, because in sharing together we are enquiring, thinking, observing, investigating together. Together is important because we create the world together, we are together in our relationships, we cannot do anything by ourselves, it is only together we can create, we can build, we can investigate.” Krishnamurti

J: “It may be that one particular set of personalities is more abrasive than another set - but none of these personal differences can be swept aside without consideration.”

Many people go to many groups, not just ‘spiritual’, for the purpose of finding inner truth, each one with their personal differences and reasons: as we have come together under the direction of Krishnamurti. There should never be a sweeping away of anyone, ever, in any setting. Each one has been moved to come, that is enough. It is not down to any individual there with their own psychological baggage, to be inconsiderate or judging, or thinking themselves, by position or profession or intellect etc, better than another.

J: “To create an ideal or sentimentalised state of non-conflict or unity when contradictions are genuinely present in the group, is not to listen to what is actually taking place…”

Are you saying that we need conflict to have dialogue or discussion? Are you saying that unless there is conflict then we are unable to listen?

If so, then should we not ask, how are we listening? How do we arrive to listen? Are we here purely for intellectual stimulation; a comparing of stuck viewpoints?

Further, I’m not sure I understand what you are describing as a ‘sentimentalised state of relating’. Do you mean as love?

Are you saying that one state, sentimantalised or challenging, is more preferable than the other? Doesn’t both sentimentality and challenging behaviour; or conflict, breed division and fear?

“Have you noticed that sentimental people are violent? Not the people who have affection, who care, but people who are swayed by opinions and belief, which is sentimentality. Have sentimentality, romanticism and emotionalism anything to do with love? Sentimentality and romanticism breed violence, for they are based on pleasure. When your pleasures are stopped, you become violent. You become violent when your ambitions are thwarted. Ambition is a form of sentimentality, not rational thinking. So, love has nothing whatever to do with sentiment, opinion, judgement, justification or romanticism. Which means love has nothing whatever to do with violence.” Krishnamurti

Thank you, Marie

9

Thank you Richard

Reply

You wrote:

K. : So, gradually the followers become blind and merely accept dogmas, and the leaders destroy the followers, and the followers in turn destroy the leaders. Gradually we create another set of stupidities based on a new set of dogmas which were originally theories, and we become slaves to them. (end of quote).

I also wrote in my post: Krishnamurti said that when he speaks, we must ‘listen’ to ourself. That he, Krishnamurti, is holding the mirror for us until it is no longer required, until he is no longer required.

‘Followers’ could perhaps be substituted for the word ‘inquiry’. Inquiry into the truth through his wisdom, the wisdom that Krishnamurti offers, until we no longer have to… my intention was simply to make this point.

As for your other points I have decided to reply through the beautiful words of Krishnamurti, so that my words are not misconstrued.

R: As for the Master. Why do one call K. the master ?

Master – dictionary definition: maestro, an eminent composer, conductor, teacher, director…

There are, what I would consider, Masters (maestros) of poetry, art and music of whom I have deepest respect and gratitude for, and what they offer.

As I have deepest respect and gratitude for Krishnamurti and his offering of sacred wisdom.

R: If I may Marie, what is sacred wisdom?

“Does wisdom come only when suffering ends?.. wisdom isn’t in the accumulated knowledge of others’ experiences…” Krishnamurti

“… a mind that is really concerned in the discovery of what is truth, what is sacred,” Krishnamurti

Therefore, I believe that the discovery of our truth, as Krishnamurti had, is sacred wisdom.

“Wisdom comes, surely in self-understanding …in self-discovery of the whole structure of oneself and in the understanding of oneself…the ending of sorrow is the beginning of wisdom.” Krishnamurti

“That, the mind, your mind can only discover, or come upon it, when you have this strange thing called love, compassion - not only to your neighbour, but to the animal, to the trees, to everything. Then such a mind itself becomes sacred.”

“Nothing that thought has created is sacred…” Krishnamurti

Thank you, Marie

10

No - I was merely saying that if contradictions are actually present in the group, then to ignore the fact is not to listen to the fact. The fact may be that there are no contradictions in the group, in which case to ignore this fact would be to no longer listen. You have yourself expressed the feeling or observation that conflict was present in the dialogue:

So this was the fact - the what is - in need of attention or listening. It may not be a desired fact, an ideal reality, but to create an ideal of what should be, is no longer to be in a state of listening to what is. Isn’t that clear?

Each person has to ask this kind of question for themselves. I myself am not in dialogue for intellectual stimulation.

No - I don’t mean love. I was merely saying that a sentimental hope or expectation of unity, when there is no actual unity, is to engage in a false relationship with the group. Love would be the true relationship of course.

No - I am not saying that either sentimentality, or merely challenging, disruptive behaviour, is preferable. The former denies honesty, while the latter denies affection. In dialogue we are attempting to question our own dishonesty and lack of affection.

11

Marie,
I hope there wasn’t too bad a ‘hangover ‘ after ‘the party’!
I’ve noticed over many years of attending/ participating in group Krishnamurti based dialogues, that once participants go beyond very basic and conventional‘discussions’ that conflict is apparent… sometimes ‘visible’ at a low level, sometimes very high.
Sometimes it takes a few meetings (with the same participants )before it’s noticeable … apparently with the loosening of inhibitions , sometimes it happens sooner.
Surely it’s clear that it’s where there is a clash of opinions. By now , in ‘theory’ we should all have understood ( at the level of ‘knowledge’ ) that attachment to our particular view or what we know… is a source of conflict. But this is ‘theory or knowledge’ . We can see and understand it at the very overt level where it’s out in the open where we see the clash of ideas and knowledge at work… from politicians to family squabbles etc. Perhaps we may fail to see it in ourselves … when we are alone, that attachment is still ‘conflict ‘ ,and still may be there ready to surface :——with the potential / possibility of being seen whenever we have the separation of observer and observed in the way we respond … or really ‘react’ to whatever the mind is confronted with.
Group dialogue it seems has the potential to wake up our attention to see the more subtle forms within , which in ‘our day to day ‘ existence we may lose sight of. The potential to actually gain some sensitivity that may be needed for insight .
Perhaps, if the conflicts within the group get very extreme , it can become very difficult to listen beyond the ‘noise’ … get too close to resembling a bar room brawl… where a bouncer has to take action!
A fine balance perhaps… too ‘formal’ and it can be too ‘sterile’
Too loose and it’s the brawl.
This may be what is current in human/ which is our own consciousness !
A ‘recipe’ might be to remain serious but also to keep it light with humour and goodwill. However , that is theory only unless made actual.
In the ‘heat ‘ of argument there is psychological thought in action… both seemingly thought from the illusory centre . One ‘seemingly’ rational, intellectual… the other tied to emotional feelings… both appearing as from the illusion of ‘me’.
I didn’t say anything during the dialogue…which as an analogy was a moving train with many different carriages… with small connection links ( some probably with baggage blocking them) a couple of times I felt like I might jump on the train ( to speak) but it was moving quite quickly … and by the time I jumped on… I’d have been in the wrong carriage …a few seemed to be trying to jump onto the engine ! …while only having the skills of a cyclist …!?.. most of the passengers had enjoyed a bit too much to drink… giving the conductor a very difficult task… … keep checking tickets… or be tempted to take a drink too…

1 Like
12

Which is a totally different thing than : We all as followers of Master Krishnamurti , if I may pointed out.

13

A good student doesn’t come to class with the hope of learning something, but with the assurance that no matter what happens, something will be learned.

1 Like
14

Freedom from everything one can be enslaved to…including K.

15

There is no “enslaver”…only the self image with its attachments.

16

Thanks for the clarification Marie.

17

Reply

Hello Clive, thank you for your message

Yes indeed, humour is not only necessary but essential! Spontaneous laughter loosens us, frees us up, makes us vulnerable, like in play, in dance and so on. ‘Something’ inside is allowed to express, to release. Laughter is most certainly healing…

“Laughter is a lovely thing – to laugh without reason, to have joy in one’s heart without cause, to love without seeking anything in return” Krishnamurti

I love your analogy of the train, it made me laugh - out loud!

Indeed, our gathering was like an express train that continuously screeched through ever darkening tunnels.

What I was left with; the hangover, was the crescendoing energy of conflict and conditioning witnessed while participating in a dialogue under the banner of the teachings of Krishnamurti.

However, the ‘party’ was a beautiful, perfect, expression of conditioning and reactivity in each, I include myself in this, and so, perhaps it has offered greater insight for each of us. It has brought us to here; if we choose to listen.

Perhaps trying to work out the best recipe, or how we structure to meet, would bring with it its own problems: Expectation of how things should be, and so the dissatisfaction when this is not met. Yes, a space of light hearted kindness is preferable. However, if we are prepared to meet in honesty with a willingness to open to our inner longing for freedom, then the dialogue and silence(s) would in itself be free; where space is made for everyone. In these exchanges, I believe, the dialogue would take its own form, offering awareness for everyone…when we are willing to get out of the way.

I agree with you that to really see our own attachments we must be together in relationship. However, it is my direct experience that meditation too, allows us to sit deeply in awareness, to remain alert in that stillness, willing to meet our suffering as it arises.

Thank you for sharing your humour and joy, Marie

1 Like
18

No one said anything about an “enslaver”.

19

Marie,
Meditation and also dialogue concerning the nature of meditation would be good to explore as/when the occasion arises.
Clive