James
And i must draw your attention to what i had said in your other thread , viz. “Giving much attention to tenors might prevent one from “communicating harmoniously with each other”” . Which is what i will urge again. There is no need to read too much into things. They will only take you down the rabbit hole of assumptions and distortions. Please don’t apologize for something that hasn’t happened.
I think we should call it a day here. (friendly emoji)
The way you have quoted could mislead.
Maybe it would have been better if you said those are K’s words from your OP and not mine, though it says ‘Vikas’. This note will perhaps fix it.
Is it the case that each one of us is (at least partly) identified with certain implicit or explicit assumptions, & that an essential part of the conflict between us (or in groups generally) is the result of the reflexive defence we make of these assumptions?
Bohm made a nice analogy, that this reflexive defensiveness - picked up in the jungle, millions of years ago, in order to defend ourselves against dangerous animals - has been transferred to the assumptions and opinions we inwardly hold dear.
So we defend these assumptions as though we were being attacked by tigers (or wolves!). And similarly, we attack others:
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; that our intelligence is not operating freely. Because (as Bohm said) intelligence doesn’t need to defend an assumption. If the assumption is mistaken, the intelligent thing is to just drop it.
So is it the case that we are each one of us, in different ways, defending implicit (or explicit) assumptions with which we are identified?
This is not asked out of a space of judgement (or priestly idealism), but just in order to shed - if possible - some light on why we live (societally) in constant conflict with one another.
We are brought up to feel “special”. We are urged to become more “special”. This feeling of specialness is divisive. Society has a whole hierarchy of specialness. Specialness is worshipped whether it’s looks, power, money, cleverness, talent, fame, knowledge, athletic success, etc. Anonymity is not.
Most people have a belief system. If not conscious, then unconscious, or maybe both: Imagine someone who believes X consciously and Y unconsciously, could get confusing! We work hard at making and maintaining our beliefs. We identify with them, in a way we are them. Our survival feels like it depends on them. So, unsurprisingly, we defend them, tooth and nail if needs be! Again (as always) consciously and, probably a lot more, unconsciously.
Yes. I want to discuss this point more, but I have some work commitments today which will keep me away for part of the day.
I just wanted to briefly add something to what you say (which was touched on during the Sunday Dialogue): namely that our so-called ‘blind-spots’ often overlap with our unconscious (or partly conscious) belief systems/assumptions, so that we genuinely don’t see what is going on when they are operating. Perhaps others in relationship with us may see them before we do, although no one else can really know what is going on in another person (“beneath the hood”). So when we are defending ourselves we probably don’t know exactly why we are defending ourselves - only that we must.
Btw, these unconscious (or partly conscious) belief systems/assumptions/blind-spots may have nothing to do with what we outwardly assert as our ideological commitments. They may be purely personal, having to do with the image of ourselves that we have been carrying with us from childhood. So what you say may be very accurate:
I think the point of this “story” is that if you want to quit being what you are, nobody can help you.
Behold zee awesome power of the unconscious mind! Ignore it at your own peril! 
It does not seem possible for us to be together without conflict. Conflict seems to be part of our daily living. This forum is no exception. It is very hard to have any sort of communication on here without it turning into conflict, reactions, separateness.
James, I have read some of your posts and you are one of the best writers on here and share the most and willing to ask questions, etc. And yet, somehow you rub a few of the others the wrong way in here and they react to you and are in conflict with you.
You have gone out of your way to try to deal with and clarify the conflict and go beyond it, and yet it seems to be met with resistance and reactivity and the conflicts continue.
So I honestly feel the human condition is one where conflict will always be, despite Krishnamurti talking about it for 60 years, conflict continues in all of its forms, including on this forum and K dialogue groups.
Somehow, for some humans, despite goodwill, interest, sharing, talking it over, communication just does not seem possible between some, despite all the efforts and time trying. I wont mention names, but I have read a few exchanges between you and a few others here where despite the best attempts and efforts at coming to some kind of mutual understanding, it eluded the two of you and conflict continued.
So what do you think? Do you think it is possible to end conflict or is it inevitable to continue on in some humans?
Hello David and James. For what it’s worth, I see things very much as David does here. We often have a conflict situation on this forum but it’s rare for someone to try to “go beyond it” as David says. This is delicate ground but I think this attempt at going beyond the conflict in trying to explore where it’s coming from is definitely something worth trying, even if ultimately it is unsuccessful. Perhaps we could try to identify the roots of our conflict on this forum as this is surely something which is universal. Why are we all “difficult” to varying degrees?
Hello Rick. We all have “chips on our shoulders” which mean that our emotions are triggered by what another person says or does. Becoming aware of what is triggering our reaction and causing us to verbally lash out may be possible. How do you see this?
I appreciate your input. It seems strange doesn’t it? that a forum for people purportedly interested in the teachings of a person who spoke about the ending of conflict, should itself be an instance of the way that society at large is perpetually in conflict? And yet, from what I have seen of Buddhist online forums, this conflict goes on there too. And offline, more broadly, as we know Jesus is supposed to have said “love one another as I have loved you”, and we all see how the history of church Christianity has played itself out.
So, on a human level, as David says, conflict is “part of our daily living”, and will express itself no matter what our ideological convictions may be, whatever our ideals, whatever our conscious intentions.
And yet it seems ‘wrong’ (or unnecessary) to accept conflict as a foundation of human relationship, and ‘wrong’ (or unnecessary) to accept constant conflict on a forum like this. I feel (whether stupidly or naively) that we ought to be able to communicate with each other in such a way that we do not create or perpetuate conflict. Certainly this is already possible (to some extent at least) between people who are ‘like-minded’, so why not also between people who are ‘unlike-minded’?
There is a danger that this post will get too long with all the things there are to say about what is going on on the forum, but I will just mention 3 basic things that (to me) obviously require our attention (or sensitive awareness).
All these things contribute - as far as I can see - to the conflict that takes place on this forum (and in daily life). But if we can be inclusive and sensitively aware of these difficulties and challenges, if we can be patient with and forgiving of each other’s foibles and limitations (including our own), I don’t see why they should be insurmountable obstacles to our relationship with each other. We are all human beings at the end of the day - so our inward struggles, in their essence, are something shared.
Apologies if my post is too long.
The above post looks at what may be some of the more personal causes of conflict on the forum, but this analysis inevitably misses the more general factor of conflict, which has to do with thought and ego (as K says).
Someone on another thread has shared some pertinent extracts that may be helpful in this regard, so I thought I would share parts of them here:
PJ: Don’t also forget that conflict is the ‘I’. Ultimately society and everything else can go down the drain. Ultimately it is the ‘I’. All experience, all search, centres around that which is thought, caught in time as conflict.
K: So the ‘I’ is conflict.
PJ: I see it is so in an abstract way.
K: No, it is not so in an abstract way; it is so.
PJ: Maybe this is the ultimate thing which is stopping us…
K: Let us be very simple. I recognize that conflict is my life. Conflict is ‘me’… When you say that conflict ends, does the ‘me’ end? Or is there a block?
PJ: I know conflict.
K: You don’t know it. You can’t know it.
PJ: How can you say that?
K: That is just a theory. Do you actually realize that you are conflict? Do I realize in my blood, in my heart, in the depth of the ‘me’ that “I am conflict,” or is it just an idea which I am trying to fit into?” (Pupul Jayakar, Fire in the Mind, Part II, Compassion as Boundless Energy, Madras, 16 January, 1981)
And
K: Do you actually see that thought is incomplete and that whatever it does is incomplete? Sir, whatever thought does will—must—create sorrow, mischief, agony, conflict. (ibid)
Obviously the central factor of conflict is that each one of us, at one level or another, is implicitly acting from a separate self-centre. And this self-centre (or ego) keeps us from really seeing each other, and so caring about each other, having a sense of the wholeness of our common humanity. The problem is that - as highlighted in the quote - we tend to see this abstractly, rather than seeing that we ourselves are habitually operating from a self-centre.
The other aspect of this (which is not really a different aspect at all, but rather the same aspect explored from a slightly different angle) is the fact that our thinking will always be limited, and so our reactions and responses in relationship - right throughout life - remain incomplete. This incompleteness of the reaction (i.e. a reaction that has not been seen in its totality) maintains the reaction as a semi-permanent factor of our conditioning, which constantly interferes in relationship, causing conflict. Until the reaction is seen in its entirety, it will remain an obstacle in relationship, no matter what other parts of our thinking manage to achieve through reason and partial insight.
I found another quotation from K that might be relevant here:
One wonders why human beings have always been so cruel, so ugly in their responses to any statement they don’t like, aggressive, ready to attack. This has been going on for thousands of years. One hardly ever meets nowadays a gentle person who is ready to yield, totally generous and happy in his relationships. (Krishnamurti to Himself: His Last Journal)
I have read the above with interest and it all speaks to me.
One thought popped in my head and that is the phrase “The ego thrives on conflict.” It seems some participants in the forum thrive on conflict.
The other thing that came to me is that yes, indeed, it is possible in theory to resolve conflict with some, to end it, but equally true, it seems impossible with some.
Yes, the I or self is conflict, and as long as it is there, there will be some form of conflict. However, it appears with some participants on here, no matter even if there was no I or self, there would still be conflict.
Just like Krishnamurti still had conflict with Rajagopal for instance, not because K had a I or self, but because Rajagopal thrived on conflict. So conflict only takes one in relationship it seems.
What can one do on here when some wont even read your posts when you are trying to have a civil discussion with them and or others are constantly saying there are “wolves in sheeps clothes” etc It is kind of hard to end conflict with those who insist on keeping the conflict going.
I do keep hope that it is possible and we can meet each other and understand each other. It is possible if one were to be in a room with the individuals and try to work things out, it would happen or in a zoom conversation. Sometimes the images we form of others are just too strong to overcome unless we really meet them and see them differently, and come to know they are not as bad as you thought they were.
BTW, just to make clear, I see that James can trigger some participants and they react to him and vice versa. It was good to read that James admits he reacts and has the same issues as everybody else, is not any different or above it.
But the thing I have seen and liked about James is that he is at least willing to explore what is going on, why there is conflict going on. That is all that is needed on a forum like this or in real life. For otherwise, conflict is inevitable to continue.
I am not going to take the time to search but I remember reading not that long ago James was accused of the most blatant attacks by this one lady, when all he did, as far as I could tell, was try to have a discussion and was replying to her inquiry. He posted several K quotes and highlighted a few things and it was taken as an attack. No resolution was possible with this encounter and conflict continued here too.
It is unfortunate on an online forum, for all we have is words to go by and use, we dont have non verbal cues as he pointed out. So what to do, what can one do, when a few wont even read or consider what is said?
Maybe there is hope that in the future the person will reconsider and re-read what was said, and see it in a new light or a future encounter somehow changes their perspective on the person and they open up. Or the image stays the same and conflict just continues.
Yes. If this were a face-to-face dialogue usually a facilitator who is ‘outside’ the immediate epicentre of the conflict might help to diffuse the situation by pointing out where they feel the duality might have arisen, and by inviting each participant to reframe the situation so as to see it (and each other) in a new light.
But on a forum like this we each have to take initiative ourselves, meaning that if the other person has no wish to reciprocate then the conflict remains frozen. I feel that so many of the apparent conflicts we face here could be resolved quite easily if we could meet each other, one on one, and explain what we each feel has gone ‘wrong’, what has been misunderstood, why we have reacted or become upset.
But time and opportunity being limited in this regard, it depends heavily on each one of us being mature or sensitive enough not to permit the conflict break out in the first place. And alas, I for one am not as mature and foresighted as that! - so I depend on the mutual forbearance of others to recognise that a conflict has occurred, and to seek to address it in as simple and human a way as possible (as I expect this of myself).
Yes, nicely stated. I do hope this thread and the others can initiate a new change in the forum, whereby participants are at least more open to meet or discuss one on one, maybe even private messaging and work out what is going on, see where the misunderstanding came from and resolve it. Let us try to live without conflict and wars, to end all conflict and not carry it forward, as Krishnamurti suggests.
Hi everyone. 
If this post is not appropriate or welcome, let me know and I’ll exeunt myself from the conversation.
Behind the question “Is it possible to live without conflict?” seems to be the tacit assumption that living without conflict would be a good thing, make for a better and richer life.
Why? Clearly some forms of conflict are harmful. But some are energizing and can lead to insights and intimacy, at least for me! Striving to live conflict-free seems like a baby and bathwater thing, non?
It shocks me to hear this contrarian take from you, Rick .
I think the question is, “Is it possible to live without unnecessary conflict?” Such as conflict created (and maintained) due to simple verbal misunderstandings or matters of pride. Why be enemies when we can be friends?
But if it is inevitable for a certain conflicts (or ‘differences’) to emerge - because of directly opposing assumptions about life, or about ethics (such as how society treats refugees, or how industrialised agriculture exploits nonhuman animals, etc) - then can it be dealt with in such a way as not to create more conflict or dissension than is absolutely necessary?
Because real conflict is painful. It saps one’s energy. It is usually unproductive, and leads - over time - to insensitivity, a hardening of one’s pro-social feelings.
I presume that the ‘positive’ kind of conflict you are talking about here has to do with personal relationship, no? Because conflict has the potential - if it is seen and looked at by both parties - to expose oneself to oneself, and to transform a habitual way of relating that no longer serves the living.
But conflict left to itself is so hopeless. Look at Russia’s diabolical war in Ukraine as an extreme instance of this.