← Back to Kinfonet

Hypocrisy is an unobtainable truth

Yes. No sufferings. I feel it is ended.

This sexual desire/lust/driven by senses - is actual for me - and I don’t know whether it is for you and others.

Senses drives and shit happens - like how animals - no ‘me’ in there. But not too in animal way - as there is a different habit of watching porn/etc… - and senses drives and brings back that habit.

Ok, good. We can ask ourselves: “What is this sexual urge in myself? How do I meet it? What is the relationship between sensation and thought with regards to sex,” etc.

However, as you indicated, an inquiry into this subject probably requires another thread.

1 Like

The other day I was talking with someone and they asked, why do you think what you say is right? Actually I didn’t make such a claim, and at the time had no meaningful response. Later I wondered why do people go through this examination of who is right? After quite a long self-inquiry, thinking about what is meant by right, I saw that it is fundamentally, this matter of self and the other. That is, in the way of thinking, the other is not me, and there is a question of authenticity, (edit: this raises a question of authenticity for self) and it is this that leads me to try to sort out what is right. I need to be able to continue to establish there is I, me, self. Otherwise there is no I, me, and this is a difficult thing to come to, and really we would only come to it conceptually, theoretically.
Actually it is curious isn’t it, that later I had to work through, as I said, a long self-inquiry, with no expertise, very unsure, and just guessing a lot, and then see this fundament. It is quite clearly nothing complicated, but for my way thinking. This point, self and other, usually doesn’t mean anything fundamentally, insightfully, to anyone else, and this is why long discussion is pointless. I don’t know how insight can be communicated.

1 Like

I was listening to people talking together after watching a K video together, and I noticed everyone was talking about what they had got from the things mentioned in the video. You may think, that’s not surprising. But what they were doing was thinking about what this man in the video said, and how the content related to them, and what it meant as someone being told something by this other person, perhaps someone of significance. So their questioning was all about to what degree they could take any notice of what this person said, and to what extent it had any bearing on their lives. Again you might not think this strange.
There was no understanding to realise what was said, as something simply said by another person, for whatever it meant. They simply could not listen openly to what someone said. Their approach was always an internal process, trying to answer for their own purposes, for their own reasoning, the bits and pieces of what was heard, and then satisfy their own situation.

1 Like

Usually listening is thought to be hearing the words and a focus on a speaker. Then in analysis I ask, did I hear the words or was I focusing on the speaker? Did my regard for the speaker cloud my understanding? Can I get a better understanding focusing on the words? And so on…

Then we develop an analysis which says the speaker is not any more important than many others, and asks, is there more to this greater than a speaker, greater than words and ideas? The listener is automatically cultivating this verbal construct of a speaker and a listener.

Actual listening is not limited to the words nor to any speaker at all. The actual listening is the brain receiving input without any filter. Then we have to see a speaker, and myself, don’t have a role in this. I don’t have to analyse the parts words, concepts, beliefs, authors, speakers, etc, play in the listening.

These aspects are mentioned simply as a prompt to negate all this. Then the listening is working freely, naturally. The listening is not fixed on anything, not the words and ideas, and not on anyone, or for anyone, and it is blossoming.

.