The continual preference for abstract, theoretical discussion, objectifying the other, it is held, is the acceptable and virtuous way of talking together. Pretending to explore truth while proposing and cultivating an unobtainable, unreachable truth, even an irrelevant truth, is the hypocrisy.
We are not pretending to explore truth. The truth is not a commodity like an object in a rummage sale where we sift through things looking for the best bargain. The truth cannot be explored; it is only a vain mind that thinks it can explore the truth. Rather, we are exploring only that which is false, valueless, which is whatever it is that we have gathered around ourselves as psychological defence. The false is what we are; there is no reaching involved.
You say all this is a talk fest. That’s your criticism, your verdict. So why add to the talk? That’s my question. When you add to the talk you are acting against your own criticism, which is hypocritical action. Is there another action which has no trace of criticism within it?
The title of the thread is a little confused: I would say that hypocrisy is a readily available truth! But disentangling our hypocrisies can be subtle and difficult work. It is one thing to do it non-verbally - but as soon as we use words, it is difficult to say anything that will find universal agreement or comprehension.
Some people use words in a very abstract, convoluted way. This is a problem - there is no doubt about it. But even people who use words simply can be misunderstood, or can fail to communicate their non-verbal intentions. What is abstract for one person may be completely transparent and concrete for another.
This is where relationship becomes essential, to try and understand each other as concretely (non-abstractly) as possible. This is a challenge we all have in dialogue.
Yes! And we’re not sharing recipes here … we’re often talking about things on the border of ineffability. Add to that our different philosophical/spiritual backgrounds and writing/thinking styles.
What is true? In ordinary thinking it is based in a certain idea or belief. That is, I believe it to be true, and it is why I am acting in a certain way. I think what I say is an honest expression of my thinking. This truth is actually the end result of the unquestioned way of life, and a repeat of the culture, tradition, and all the social values I have inherited and been taught. It is called conditioning. Truth is not in what I use in thinking and examining ideas, it is not in what I read and discuss, and it is not in my actions. Truth is the straight forward actuality of living, effortlessly.
In life we have a conditioned way of thinking and this is constantly applying thought, the known, and hypothesising, speculating, searching, trying to establish a sound basis for life. As if the nature of truth is not attainable, has no immediacy, and that it requires some intellectual effort.
In the day to day world, where I apply my everyday thinking, truth is reserved for ideas and belief, and matters like religion and law, which limits it to particular issues, and specific topics. It is not understood for the way I am living.
When it comes to looking at violence, cruelty, despoliation, war, crime, and all the suffering in the world, and we are trying to find our way, the standard response has made truth a special case, and not a living fundament, and all thinking is setting itself outside of what is true, keeping to the idealistic, pragmatic, and theoretical, and this is the hypocrisy.
Perhaps a clearer way of articulating this might be to distinguish reality from truth (as K and Bohm did for a number of years from the mid-70s).
Everything that we think about and share in words on this forum is put together by thought. That is reality.
Truth is not a reality put together by thought.
To discover truth, we must begin - not with abstract definitions of truth - but with actuality: the actuality of what is happening inwardly (psychologically, as pain, pleasure, suffering etc), and outwardly (as social injustice, pollution, war, etc).
Being aware of, paying attention to what is actually happening, is the only way to discover what is true.
So, “Truth has a path?”, where the path is “being aware of what-is”?
Ok. Let it be - It is or it is not. Now, we are having dialogues in forums and zoom. Say, in this, Viswa is sharing ‘what-is’ in form of words to communicate. When Viswa starts to express it in words - it becomes past.
In this inquiry/dialogues, we may fail to attend/aware ‘what-is’ in both inside and outside - while expressing it in words. So, what’s the purpose in this inquiring together - if ‘word is not the thing’ Viswa/others express?
So, only inquiring alone inside, how Buddha did as we know, is the actual attention/awareness every time?
Truth has no path - but refusing to face actualities is a sure way to lose contact with whatever is true.
Communicating (in words) what is actual for us is the substance of real dialogue. Your communication with me might help me see something actual of which I wasn’t previously aware, and vice versa.
Okay. So shall we discuss about this?
What do you see as ‘actuality’ James?
But one can see only words.
Say, if I say “I ended sufferings but it’s not truth - thoughts keep on arising - I seek sensual pleasures - but I don’t suffer/regret the act”. These are just words to you and as “word is not the thing” how can you see the actuality if you too don’t experience in the same way?
My experience, whether conditioned/unconditioned, may differ from yours. In dialogues, we might not have same experience. So, when we communicate— others fail to see the ‘actual’ experience (not words) - and as they don’t- they name it as an ‘idea or belief’.
So, by taking the ‘words’ I communicate, we share/battle intellectually. If those words are taken as ‘knowledge’ for future, and compare it with upcoming experience and then acknowledging/rejecting it - then when we are out in attending/aware of ‘what-is’. Right?
So, what is there in “Inquiring together”?
Whatever is actually going on (inwardly or outwardly). It could be boredom, antagonism, pleasure, desire, joy, hurt, confusion, etc.
Words are merely a convenient tool to share our experience. The word “pain” is not the actual pain you have when someone steps on your toes, but it communicates a state which is common to all humans.
Similarly, most of your experiences are not unique to you at all, which is why we have common words to describe them.
There is no argument about what is actual (the sun is the same sun for all of us, pain is pain for all of us) - but if a person is confused about actuality, or misrepresents to themselves and others what is actually taking place (through denial, suppression, projection or escape) then there will be a failure to communicate, and inquiry ceases.
So, the objects and emotions (pleasure/pain/fear/etc…) are common to all - and so we share in words.
But, in dialogues, we can’t see/inquire the emotions/energy alone. Where those ‘emotions’ arise? - It arises only from ‘conditions’ which “i like/want/don’t want/don’t like/etc…” The ‘conditioned’ nature of one is different from others based on our surroundings/environment. So, in dialogues - how others can inquire my ‘conditions’?
Our conditionings are very similar Viswa, otherwise we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
However, I feel that you are not really inquiring Viswa - you are resisting Krishnamurti’s teaching and so are arguing about trivialities, because you are holding on to very concrete beliefs about god and surrender and controlling your senses, etc, which conflict with what Krishnamurti has said.
Why not doubt god, control, surrender etc? Why not face the fact that you have sexual urges like everyone else and find out how to meet those urges intelligently, without confusion?
Of course - I’m doubting those. And to find out that - I just have to do what it says (because through inquiry we cannot find those) - and only then I can see - it is fact/right/imaginations.
No James. If I say about ‘conditioning’ - the meaning of the word ‘condition’ differs from ‘me’ and ‘you’ based on the knowledge/experience one gathers in his life. Likewise, the form of experience, from which sufferings/pain/pleasure originates - differs from ‘me’ and ‘you’. And so I say, the form of conditioning differs - but the feelings are same.
The ‘me’ of Viswa - is different from ‘me’ of James.
Are we here to stick with Krishnamurti - or are we here to inquire ‘what we are’?
Edit - But - I’m always ready to inquire what K/the teachings says.
Well - I don’t hear you doubting those. Your main interest seems to be doubting Krishnamurti and reinforcing your prior beliefs.
You keep going back to this. Yes, all our conditions are slightly different (you grew up in one part of the world, I grew up in another part of the world, with different food, different countryside etc), but the psychological content of our experiences are more or less the same: pleasure, pain, suffering, desire, the search for security, confusion, boredom, etc. Do you deny this?
I don’t deny the feelings are same. But the form.
Take the word ‘Boredom’. By doing something one gets bored. That ‘something’s’ form differs from me and you. And to see it in it’s whole form - how can they by hearsay of words see those?
Sorry James. Those are not beliefs. I doubt everything - not just Scriptures/Krishnamurti. But only those doubting increase my more interest in learning those - by not accepting/rejecting.
The “form” is trivial Viswa. When someone whom you have loved or known for years dies, the grief that you feel is the same grief that another feels. Grief is grief.
You don’t doubt everything Viswa! I’ve never seen you doubt your beliefs in god/surrender/control, etc. You doubt trivialities, but not the heart of belief.
Okay - how should the doubts of ‘god/control/surrender’ be like?
How can we inquire those - without doing what it says?
Take Krishnamurti. He has practiced in his early age - and came to know that “They are only imaginations and beliefs”. But if I accept him as it is - It means I’m making him as a ‘guru/authority/guide’. But only through doing those what it says - I can see what it is (may be like K’s or different). Until then, how I can reject those?
Okay - had you tried to control ‘senses’ James? - How you felt while controlling those?
What do you think about ‘god’ and ‘surrender’? - Had you tried to surrender totally (i.e. ‘me’) to him? - What happened at that time?
Now you see - I’m starting to doubt it (in words).
Okay. Now, take how dialogues goes in Forums and Zoom. Is it in such a way that - we try to inquire our own form - or trying to see what others ‘form’ is?
Take one thing Viswa - if we talk about a thousand things at once we will end up with a thousand different ways to be confused.
Take belief in god. This doesn’t require knowing the biography of Krishnamurti or depending on Krishnamurti as an authority. Put your questions about Krishnamurti to one side and look at belief in god.
Where does this belief come from? It comes from tradition doesn’t it? In many parts of the world they don’t believe in god. They believe in the State, or in a political ideology, or in the power of science. And in those countries that have strong belief in god, those gods are at war with each other. The Muslims have their god, the Christians have another god, the Hindus have their own gods. In Buddhists countries they believe in bodhisattvas as well as gods, but they don’t believe in one all-powerful god.
So the thinking around god is confused, and is based on tradition (multiple traditions).
And why do people believe in god, apart from tradition? Isn’t it because a belief in god (or in the State, in a political ideology etc) gives people a sense of psychological security? But this psychological security might be a complete illusion, right? One might be living in an illusion of psychological security and not be aware of it.
And finally, what place has belief for a person who wants to find out the truth of whether god exists or not? A belief is not the actual thing it is supposed to be concerned with, right? - A belief that the sun is shining has no bearing on whether the sun is actually shining or not: the sun shines or doesn’t shine irrespective of what I believe about it.
So a belief in god has no place in truth.
What do you mean by ‘traditions’ James?
Are scriptures are not different from traditions?
Traditions are created by ‘humans’ by reading those scriptures - and from interpretations they do this. What if their interpretations are wrong?
What has ‘traditions’ to do with ‘scriptures’?
Say, K said ‘the teachings’. In this, I can interpret something and act upon it. Because of misinterpretations can I say ‘the teachings’ are wrong and reject those? - I may doubt it but it doesn’t mean I reject everything.