← Back to Kinfonet

Intimacy

Can there be intimacy among K participants when trust is fragile, perspectives varied and the forum is often volatile? Intimacy has been defined as “deeply knowing someone while also feeling deeply known”. Intimacy can develop over time through connection, care, and comfort in being together. Can that happen here?

1 Like

I think there are moments when I feel close to the group, when my senses are sensitive and free from wanting/desiring anything in return.
But to me true intimacy means a sense of feeling whole, in relation to everything that surrounds me in that moment; such state is difficult to occur in a dialogue, when thinking occupies my mind.

Intimacy and TRUST…

When one can say there is love, trust is automatically included… in that kind of love…
And, therefore, there is true intimacy, right?
That kind of love is the real deal !!
Such a beautiful thing to live, btw :blue_heart: and a beautiful thing to witness
Charley had two relationships where there was love… ah… :slight_smile:

When the “I” is the deciding factor, as in “I love you”, “I love this forum, this group, etc.”, one can understand that it would be difficult (if not silly) to believe or even hope that there can/could be trust. So, the question remains, why trust a group where thought (the “I”) is the operating factor?

1 Like

Yes, to be in a circle of trusted friends, it’s good soil for intimacy.

When it’s realized that “you are the world”,could there be a greater ‘intimacy’?

1 Like

Crina, Your post reminded me of a K quote on intimacy, " One may commune with a tree, for example, or with a mountain, or a river. I do not know if you have ever sat beneath a tree and really tried to commune with it. It is not sentimentality, it is not emotionalism: you are directly in contact with the tree. There is an extraordinary intimacy of relationship. In such communion there must be silence, there must be a deep sense of quietness; your nerves, your body are at rest; the heart itself almost comes to a stop. There is no interpretation, there is no communication, no sharing. The tree is not you, nor are you identified with the tree: there is only this sense of intimacy in a great depth of silence."

2 Likes

Charley, I love thought. How will that change intimacy?

Nobody, your sound very grounded. Not lost in K Thought.

Dan, Isn’t K’s coined phrase another way to avoid real intimacy?

I suppose it can happen here, but I don’t know if it’s necessary. I’m here to find out what I can about K’s teaching, what he meant by certain things he said, what exactly he was trying to get across. At the end of his life when he said that no one “got” what he was trying to get across, there were many who believed they did get it, and today there are even more. A few of them participate in this forum and feel “intimacy” with each other.

So, if you’re capable of believing you’ve got it, you’ll be welcomed by the successfully self-deceived K-followers who have nothing better to do than preen for the few people on earth who know what they’re doing, and that’s a kind of intimacy.

But if you’re unable to believe you’ve got it, you will be in good company with unconvinced K-aficionados for as long as you can resist the temptation to find intimacy with the true believers.

1 Like

“A rose by any other name would smell as sweet” :bouquet:

Inquiry, thanks for the clarity. It could be that if we quit pretending we “got it”, we could develop real intimacy and not be limited by the K jargon.

Ceklata, I’ve never observe such a thing as intimacy in this forum. Not sure intimacy is at all possible in a discussion forum. Discussion are sometimes friendly at best, or hostile at worst. But the forum have been design for discussion between people interested in Krishnamurti teaching, or works. If one have to discuss or study his work, his words and the meaning he gave to them , his jargon , as you put it, is inevitable. As Dev put it:

About Kinfonet / Forum

A place to explore and discuss the meditations of J. Krishnamurti

1 Like

Quite right. Many here quote K without “quotes”, as if what K-said is as true for them as it was for K, when all they’ve got is a familiarity with K’s use of the language, and their conviction that K was living proof of it.

Do we know what “it” is? ln so many words, yes, we’ve got a handle on these words. But having a handle on K-s teaching is not “getting” what his words refer to, but just handling them, over and over, like a string of precious beads.

Anyone who gets what K’s words were trying to convey, is beyond words, where there’s nothing to get…and perhaps nothing to say about it.

Are we talking about intimacy between two egos, what value does that have, soon they break apart?

1 Like

I think that’s the first time anyone here has accused me of being grounded. :wink:

Been there, done that!

Richard, I doubt intimacy can happen in a place like this. But it was a topic in a dialogue I attended. Wanted to see what the writers had to say about it.

Two egos or more. Odds are against it.

If one identifies with K, there can be no actual intimacy with anyone.

And even if one identifies with no one but oneself, there cannot be intimacy with anyone else.
I would go so far as to say that for the brain with a center, an ego, the only intimacy possible is with itself.