There is the question.
There are the claims and/or arguments.
And there is the clash of personalities, the psychological battle between you and me.
These are 3 different aspects/items.
All of which have to be adressed by those that are able to.
Its not up to the other person to stop being the way they are being.
Its up to me to admit defeat (I am not capable of getting my point across - I am obliged to say the things I say in the way that I say them) - or to act according to what the situation dictates. (which means I can see whats happening and do not have to be exactly the way I am - I can express myself in a different way at least, maybe even in a useful way?)
1 Like
The question is: how do we listen to a statement? It could be any statement. The claims, arguments, clashes and battles are not the product of either the statement or the question, are they?
I’ll say No. Because on Kinfonet the understanding is that the observer is the observed.
I am reacting to my perception and interpretation of the statement. Not the statement itself. My relation is with my vision of the world, not the world out there.
Most of us here do recognise this - the ongoing fight here is about something else. The words used and the attitudes perceived. Despite delusion being in the eye/brain of the beholder, we all share one space - we all share responsability.
nb. Of course we also forget the question. Other questions seem so much more important : is the statement true? does the speaker think the statement is true? is the speaker enlightened/delusional? does he think he’s better than me? etc
That’s right. Whenever there is reaction at any level, either positive or negative, either of attraction or rejection, it means the statement has already been passed over and ignored. And then a whole host of other questions come into play, which have absolutely nothing to do with the original statement. So the statement has triggered a reaction in thought, which results in the bypassing of the statement. Why is thought so touchy about such statements? Touchy in the sense of wanting either to demolish or defend whatever statement is presented. Or, if there is insufficient substance to the statement, demanding more substance in order to make a judgment on it. And, all this time, the fact to which the statement may be pointing - whether it is the emptiness of thought or the nature of our relationship to the world - remains less important than the possession or the discarding of the statement about such facts.
The fact is that everything is very complicated. There are no simple answers. Humanity is gradually being destroyed and eliminated. The house is indeed on fire…
But these are all very cold words. Where is the fire?
Words are not warm or cold and if they are then those words are false. You ask where is the fire as if you are unaware of what is happening to the Earth by greed and human exploitations. It hasn’t rain for over a month in California due to global warming. We had the driest January ever recorded, fires are getting worse every summer. There are Russian invasions.
Also inwardly there is a total void and disbelief. A sense of hopelessness and the meaninglessness of life.
2 Likes
Is it your fire? Or does the responsibility lie with those who are already irresponsible? Do you understand the question? Is it your house that is burning, not mine or anyone else’s? Then there is no question of what to do. The very fire is its own action. Or is it merely a theoretical fire based on a thousand reactions to what is happening in the world? Then come those feelings of disbelief and hopelessness, which are themselves also theoretical reactions.
Now can we look at this together responsibly? We cannot wait for the irresponsible to become responsible. That will never happen. Can we, you and I, share the same fire of responsibility?