Is it possible for us to live together without conflict?

Why do we live with this sense of duality, opposing each other at all levels of our existence, resisting each other and bringing about conflict and war? This has been the pattern of human activity throughout the world, probably from the very beginning of time, with this sense of separation dividing the artist, the soldier, the musician, the scientist, the so-called religious man, the man of business. Although they talk of love and peace on earth, in this way there can be no peace, in this way men must be at war with each other; and one wonders whether it must always be like this.

So is it possible for human beings, who are at all serious, to find out if they can live in a state of non-duality - not ideologically or theoretically, but actually, both in form and essence? Is it at all possible for you and me to live a life in which this sense of duality ceases completely, not only at the verbal level, but also in the deeper layers and recesses of one’s own mind? I feel that if this is not possible, then we must continue at war with each other - you with your particular opinions, beliefs, dogmas and conclusions, and I with mine - so there is never real communication or contact.

Here we are actually confronted with this issue, not ideologically but actually. One of the major political problems is the unity of mankind. Is it at all possible? Can individuals, you and I, live a life in which there is no duality at all, in which opinions, beliefs and conclusions do not divide people or bring about resistance? If we put that question to ourselves, deeply with all our heart, our whole being, I wonder what our response would be?

Communication and relationship always go together. If there is no communication, there is no relationship - not only between you and the speaker but also between yourselves. If we merely remain at the verbal level, the formal level, communication remains very superficial, and doesn’t go very far. But to be related at the non-verbal level requires the ending of this isolating, dual existence, the ‘me’ and the ‘you’, the ‘we’ and the ‘they’, the Catholic and Protestant and so on. Therefore, to enquire into the question of whether it is possible to live a life in which there is no sense of separation or division, one must be aware of oneself, because as we are, so is the world. (Public Talk 1, Brockwood Park, 1969)

1 Like

What interests me is that despite our collective goodwill, mutual interest in Krishnamurti, earnestness of endeavour and sustained attempts at communication, many of us seem unable enquire together or think together without conflict, reactivity, duality.

Perhaps if we could at least address this matter - without attempting to resolve it or find a solution - it might be possible to find a healthy perspective (or even insight) concerning this collective incapacity to communicate harmoniously with each other.

3 Likes

There is a story that comes to mind. I may have posted it before but it seems appropriate:
There was a priest in a village whose sheep were being killed by a wolf. He thought if he could talk to the wolf he might change his ways and save his sheep. He invited the wolf into his church and began giving him sermons about being good and kind and loving. The wolf came every day and sat in a pew and listened to the priest. The priest was pleased and the killing of the sheep stopped. It went on like this for some time. Then one day as the priest was sermonizing and the wolf was looking lazily out the window at the flock grazing in the field, he thought angrily, “Oh get on with it priest or I shall miss my meal!”

2 Likes

I find myself chuckling because the whole scenario is so surreal :sweat_smile:, but I confess that I don’t yet get the punchline. I will report back when I have grasped it.

1 Like

I don’t get the point of the story – is it saying that communication is inherently impossible between conditioned beings? Unless the conditioning overlaps?

1 Like

Hmm…maybe I shouldn’t quit my day job. :shushing_face:

2 Likes

Ha! - I’m usually slow with jokes anyway. I now want to know though if the wolf eats the sheep or the priest? - but I have probably got the wrong end of the stick… Or is the priest the wolf all along, and his sermons are to himself? - and the wolf is now waking up to his actual wolfish nature after a period of becalmed peaceableness?

But please don’t feel that you need to explain it if it ruins the joke.

1 Like

It is silly to want to change things from what they are to what you think they should be. (wolves are wolves)

And as to living together : only those who are capable of comprehending (or compassion, or socially correct behaviour) are in any way bound to do so. (the rest eat sheep)

1 Like

Bingo!..,…

1 Like

PS - If I can’t see what’s going on (that I’m sermoning a wolf) - there’s no point insisting that the wolf must.

This happens a lot though.

In a past life I was a wolf. I know this because I experienced it in a past life regression session. For proof I offer this drawing of me and my mama (I was a howler, still am):

1 Like

Ahh - I get it (I think)!

Yes. But we all have a wolfish aspect don’t we? We are both the wolves as well as the sheep. And some of us might make pretty good priests too :sweat_smile:

Thanks for the joke Dan.

1 Like

There is some interesting imagery going on in the preceding posts.

Not to rain on anyone’s parade but the highlighted parts in op perhaps needs to be highlighted again.

Why do we live with this sense of duality, opposing each other at all levels of our existence, resisting each other and bringing about conflict and war? This has been the pattern of human activity throughout the world, probably from the very beginning of time, with this sense of separation dividing the artist, the soldier, the musician, the scientist, the so-called religious man, the man of business. Although they talk of love and peace on earth, in this way there can be no peace, in this way men must be at war with each other; and one wonders whether it must always be like this.

So is it possible for human beings, who are at all serious, to find out if they can live in a state of non-duality - not ideologically or theoretically, but actually, both in form and essence? Is it at all possible for you and me to live a life in which this sense of duality ceases completely, not only at the verbal level, but also in the deeper layers and recesses of one’s own mind? I feel that if this is not possible, then we must continue at war with each other - you with your particular opinions, beliefs, dogmas and conclusions, and I with mine - so there is never real communication or contact.

Here we are actually confronted with this issue, not ideologically but actually. One of the major political problems is the unity of mankind. Is it at all possible? Can individuals, you and I, live a life in which there is no duality at all, in which opinions, beliefs and conclusions do not divide people or bring about resistance? If we put that question to ourselves, deeply with all our heart, our whole being, I wonder what our response would be?

Communication and relationship always go together. If there is no communication, there is no relationship - not only between you and the speaker but also between yourselves. If we merely remain at the verbal level, the formal level, communication remains very superficial, and doesn’t go very far. But to be related at the non-verbal level requires the ending of this isolating, dual existence, the ‘me’ and the ‘you’, the ‘we’ and the ‘they’, the Catholic and Protestant and so on. Therefore, to enquire into the question of whether it is possible to live a life in which there is no sense of separation or division, one must be aware of oneself, because as we are, so is the world. (Public Talk 1, Brockwood Park, 1969)

It is obvious if one comes to a discussion with all these images of each other, dividing separating the me and the mine from the not me, reinforcing territorial boundaries, then “opinions, beliefs and conclusions” will “divide people”. No need to read K, we ar living examples.

Maybe you can use your experience to help us see what we are to do with out own wolfish tendencies :slightly_smiling_face:.

Cherish them. :slight_smile:


1 Like

Yes. I was reading recently something by Bohm, and I was struck by something he said (I am only paraphrasing it here):

Is it the case that each one of us is at least partly identified with certain implicit or explicit assumptions, & that part of the conflict between us (or in groups generally) is the result of the reflexive defence that we make of these assumptions?

Bohm made a nice analogy - which is also relevant here! - that this reflexive defensiveness that we picked up in the jungle, millions of years ago, inn order to defend ourselves against dangerous animals, has now been transferred to the assumptions and opinions we each of us hold.

We say that there are some dangerous opinions out there - just as there might be dangerous tigers [or wolves!] (The Essential David Bohm)

And yet, when we find ourselves defending our opinions, we know that something has gone wrong, and intelligence is not operating freely. Because

intelligence requires that you don’t defend an assumption (ibid)

I don’t know if this is a helpful pointer, but it seemed to shed some light for me.

1 Like

Perhaps in the present context your post is better directed ‘to whom it may concern’?

But i don’t see any reason to make it as complicated as you are trying to make. Let’s just say we are not “good” people and leave it at that. I am using the word “good” how K has defined it.

My comment wasn’t directed exclusively to you - it’s just that your reply elicited the response I gave (which was for everyone: this is a public forum).

I am not nit-picking, but why do you say “let’s leave it at that”? Don’t you want to explore this business of why those of us on a forum like this - most of whom are sincere, educated, thoughtful, often insightful, even considerate - so often seem to come to blows?

Yes, I agree, we are not “good” people. But I still feel that part of it can be explained non-moralistically - which is why I raised the issue of assumptions.

Anyway, I have been told by others that i can be a little OCD about these matters, so I’m happy to let it go if it doesn’t resonate with you! (friendly emoji)

1 Like

Well, being a veteran member you ought to know when you are quoting a poster and responding to them, they are getting pinged. There is no reason to take it any different. Nor is there any evidence in preceding posts of you pointing to what i brought up. Seems like you were having a merry time dancing in the parade.

Because your previous question was fully met with.

These are assumption i am not interested to make quickly. Frankly there isn’t much proof supporting ii, as far as i can tell.

K has approached goodness in different ways and not only “moralistically”. That said he has also talked about morality. But if one is allergic to morality then they have to ask why… It would mean they aren’t “good” people. They want goodness without the obligations that come with it.

Sounds good. Thank you.

Vikas, I have dropped (at least with you) the issue of assumptions, because I see that it hasn’t resonated.

But I must draw attention to the ‘tone’ of your remarks…

To me at least - and I am not a veteran member of this forum, so I may be mistaking your energy - your reply comes across as somewhat prickly, argumentative, even accusatory.

And yet I honestly don’t know what it is I have said or done to irritate or upset you. If I have irritated you, then I apologise. It was certainly not my intention.

The quotations you drew attention to from the OP are

and

and

and

This is what I am wanting, or trying, to address here. And I assumed that by mentioning these quotations you felt similarly and wanted to address them too.

All that happened was that after reading your reply, especially the part where you said that we are constantly

I was reminded of the passage I mentioned to you from David Bohm, about how our brains are still in the jungle even though we are modern, sophisticated humans. That is why I shared it then.

Maybe I shouldn’t have shared it, or maybe I should have put it to the whole group instead. I really don’t know. But whatever I might have said that missed your meaning, I apologise. I will attempt to be more sensitive to what you have to say in future.

1 Like