What don’t people understand about what K says is conflict? He is not talking about a conflict we might have and relate to an insult, disappointment, disagreement, or misunderstanding. The conflict we may perceive is not the conflict with someone, about something, or the results you may feel. This may all be happening, but he is pointing to the deep conflict within the human being.
We are aware of conflict in the way we live, and this is what concerns us. We may approach conflict with this day to day understanding, and think we need to find a deeper understanding of conflict that can be identified. But looking at all the various factors is not actually looking at this deeper conflict.
The conflict is in the division we have in our way of thinking. I, me, you, self, ego, psyche, all these take a position in the mind, and from an internal point of view, we look at the world, externally. I look at the world of things and with thought I name things. It is a separateness from the world and separated, I am in a conflict I want to solve, and with this thinking, I cultivate conflict.
In the Teachings there are lots of insights into conflict. I can’t provide anything better, than to point out the way of thinking about conflict is wrong, and to recommend a serious reading of the teachings. But we have to drop the approach of the thinker who can examine all the words and ideas, produce a legible understanding, and with this have made some progress. The beginning is in not knowing, completely, mentally, psychologically, emotionally, what comes next.
Another aspect of conflict is that it can have a positive valence and feel exciting, thrilling, real. Drawn towards pleasure and away from pain, the lure of conflict can be a powerful force in one’s life.
I can observe this in myself. If I’m discussing something with a person and we agree on it, there’s warmth and rightness. If there’s disagreement, adrenaline enters the fray, and things get exciting and energized. It’s kind of like the dialectical approach: thesis + antithesis (conflict) yields synthesis.
Does this “freedom from the known” depend in any way of the level of knowledge one has accumulated? Is more (or less) ‘sophisticated’ knowledge needed to bring about such a freedom? Is thinking logically a value if, as I read Peter’s post, “The beginning is in not knowing, completely, mentally, psychologically, emotionally, what comes next”?
Why we couldn’t understand the conflict? - Is it because of ‘immense & instant pleasure’?
We feel ‘unimaginable pleasure’ at the start from everything - right?. Whatever the form is, like belief,idea,image,knowledge,experience,fight,alcohol,woman,etc, - there is pleasure and we feel this ‘instant pleasure’ is the real security from our day-to-day stress, pain & sufferings.
This pleasure acts as a drug/chemical for us - which keeps in touch with those beliefs,etc… and so we couldn’t understand the conflict - right?. Like a banana given to a monkey, dancing around joyfully with this pleasure at that moment. But in time, we regret the pleasure of these beliefs,fights when we suffer - then again another idea because of another instant pleasure and so again an ‘unconscious conflict’. If we use knowledge - it becomes a ‘conscious conflict’ and as a reaction we engage in another ‘unconscious conflict’.
So, until we ‘negate’ this pleasure and security from those beliefs,etc… we can’t meet the conflict/sufferings as it is - right?
The conflict in the world is obvious. All the fighting, killing, inhumanity. I have separated myself from this. I have developed tradition, culture, technology, and society, and this is where I live. Isn’t all the conflict I have the same world conflict? I say I am a good person, to some degree, but this is only temporary and superficial, until there is conflict. Then I say I am acting aggressive, hostile, angry, violent, because of the conflict. We know about conflict. We just don’t see it is, fundamentally, in our conditioning.
Here you say, “I am a good person”. This itself a conflict Peter. Isn’t it?. Whatever we are - why we have to say “I am a good”?. This “I am” is a belief/image of ‘me’ and creates an ‘unconscious conflict’ between the ‘belief/image’ and ‘what is’. The ‘what is’ may be good/bad/happy/sad/pleasure/pain/angry/etc… but we create “I am this/that” and get satisfaction/security/pleasure from that. Isn’t it Peter? What do you say?
Another thing I thought to say is, “Why couldn’t we come out of our beliefs,ideas,images,knowledge and experience before any dialogue starts? K asks others to come out from their religious ideas,beliefs before having a dialogue and gets disappointed when they again bring those scriptures, because we fail to see what-is. This is a pre-requisite for a dialogue - right?. So, likewise, how K thrown away those scriptures - we have to throw away the knowledge of the teachings - right?. It is a hinderance for us to see what-is when we constantly quoting “K said this/that” and becomes an idea/belief so we fail to meet what-is and there an unconscious conflict is created - isn’t it?. We unconsciously become a disciple to K by making him our authority and praise his life, his views or the teachings and believe that whatever he said is true without inquiring within, as we unconsciously make him a guru - right?”
Disclaimer - These are my view, and I don’t know whether it’s true/wrong/fact - and so I ask this as a question and we may discuss about that.
The deeper and more entrenched the knowledge, the more resistance there will be to letting it go?
Letting go of the known might not depend on the sophistication of what is known, but it requires a certain kind of intelligence that might be called sophisticated?
Logic only goes so far. I’m not sure if it works for or against what Peter said?
The way the conditioned mind works, is the logic, is the guru. The way of thinking is conditioned and the knowledge is authority. What don’t we get? We don’t see this reliance on knowing, wanting to know, to accumulate knowledge. Where is the conflict? Is it between the different beliefs, ideas, words and meanings, or is it in the thinker, not living freely?
So, when we look at ‘what-is’, somehow thought arises but there is no conflict in it. At that time of arousal, when one see/listen to/observe the thoughts, in this very seeing “the movement of thought stops/ends”. It is like when we see/feel that the heart beats at a rapid speed, in this very looking the heart beat slows down. Then we can directly perceive “what-is” without any thoughts.
But when one fails to look/listen/aware of the thoughts, there is differentiation between thinker and the thought, only then the thinker (full of knowledge,experience,beliefs,ideas,images including the knowledge of the teachings) acts upon the thoughts and tries to control/end it.
So, whether it is ‘what-is’ or ‘thoughts’, the only thing one has to do 24/7 is,“LOOK/LISTEN SERIOUSLY”. Isn’t it Peter?