Is it possible for us to live together without conflict?

[DavidS]

@rickScott

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 is good to ask questions and to ask about is it really helpful to strive to live conflict free. Good to see both sides of the equation.

When i decided to post/reply to this topic, I was referring mainly to the online forum and the conflict here. I have read several of your posts where you mention you have always seen or experienced conflict on all Krishnamurti forums.

So that is what I was really exploring and going into. Is there a place for conflict on these forums, is it helpful, can we learn from it? And even more so, what happens when we are in conflict and this conflict cannot be resolved? When one participant wont even listen to the other or thinks they know but the other doesnt, what then? Does that kind of conflict lead to insights and intimacy? I am sure you must have experienced this firsthand if you have been on lots of Krishnamurti forums.

BTW I am not in conflict with you for questioning conflict

[rickScott]

@James

@rickScott

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.

It shocks me to hear this contrarian take from you, Rick .

Contrarian? Me?? NO way.

I think the question is, “Is it possible to live without unnecessary conflict?”

Better, ja. But even unnecessary conflict can be beneficial. How about: Is it possible to live sans harmful conflict? Still tricky, a small harm can result in a large benefit.

Because real conflict is painful.

Yes. So is looking at the repressed neurotic memories/patterns that drive us.

It saps one’s energy.

Yes. It also stokes energy, adds coal to the fire.

It is usually unproductive, and leads - over time - to insensitivity, a hardening of one’s pro-social feelings.

It can lead to productivity and sensitivity. (You knew I was going to say that.)

I presume that the ‘positive’ kind of conflict you are talking about here has to do with personal relationship, no?

I’m talking about the friction that arises between people when they disagree about something, have different views and interpretations, do not see eye to eye. Sometimes this friction is a source of harm to the people involved. Sometimes it’s a kind of portal to something beneficial: expansion of their understanding of self and other and world, vulnerability, intimacy.

[rickScott]

@DavidS

Is there a place for conflict on these forums, is it helpful, can we learn from it?

Whether there is a place for it or not, it’s here! And it’s not going away anytime soon. (How long does it take for the universe to complete a full cycle?) So the question becomes: What to do with the conflict?

And even more so, what happens when we are in conflict and this conflict cannot be resolved? When one participant wont even listen to the other or thinks they know but the other doesnt, what then? Does that kind of conflict lead to insights and intimacy?

It might, given plenty of patience and perseverance from the participants. Having neither, my ‘solution’ to a brick-wall no-resolution-likely conflict is to pause or end the conversation. I have on occasion blocked people, but prefer not to go that far.

What do you think?

BTW I am not in conflict with you for questioning conflict

Aw shucks, I thought we might have a chance to “open a portal to something beneficial!”

[James]

@rickScott

I’m talking about the friction that arises between people when they disagree about something, have different views and interpretations, do not see eye to eye

I think we are speaking about different things here Rick. It is true that learning about differences of interpretation and nuance, differences of culture, differences of outlook, etc, can bring about low-level friction (as those differences are made explicit, requiring an adjustment in one’s view of something). But I personally wouldn’t call that conflict.

What I am calling conflict is when one or both sides has/have given up on communicating, and goes to war - figuratively speaking - whether openly, privately, or in a passive aggressive manner that keeps the conflict alive but ‘frozen’.

In the former case, there are still avenues open to resolving the basic differences (so long as both parties are acting in good faith, and are not intentionally wanting to keep their differences maintained at all costs). Some differences may be impossible to resolve, and then one agrees to disagree. While others can be dropped as soon as the evidence against them becomes overwhelming - or because what were being called differences are really no differences at all (because they are premised on a verbal or semantic misunderstanding).

But in the latter case the differences have become entrenched, egoic. Only great love, great insight, or great suffering might wear such differences down - and even then, this might not prove sufficient.

I feel that most - if not all - the differences we have on this forum fall into the former category (of low-level friction). But if such friction is not dealt with in good time by one or both parties, ordinary human psychology tells us where such differences end up.

[rickScott]

@James

What I am calling conflict is when one or both sides has/have given up on communicating, and goes to war - figuratively speaking - whether openly, privately, or in a passive aggressive manner that keeps the conflict alive but ‘frozen’.

Yes, that is a different order of mischief.

It’s not really obvious (to me, at least) that the question “Is it possible for us to live together without conflict?” is talking about grave and intractable conflict. Krishnamurti often posed similar questions about conflict, and I don’t think he limited ‘conflict’ to the dire type you describe.

I feel that most - if not all - the differences we have on this forum fall into the former category (of low-level friction). But if such friction is not dealt with in good time by one or both parties, ordinary human psychology tells us where such differences end up.

Say Jimmy and Sally disagree about something important to both of them and the conversation becomes more and more tight and strained, conflictual. What are some good ways to deal with the situation?

[James]

@rickScott

It’s not really obvious (to me, at least) that the question “Is it possible for us to live together without conflict?” is talking about grave and intractable conflict.

Well… the OP quotation opens with

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?

I think K was proposing that what might begin as low-level friction (of the subtler, non-explicit kind), if it is not given due attention, can and does turn into “grave and intractable conflict”.

So to live with the near continuous state of conflict that occasionally passes for dialogue on this forum is something to be given attention, in my view. Because to ignore it, or to ‘turn a blind eye’, is to permit it to become over time something much more toxic.

@rickScott

Say Jimmy and Sally disagree about something important to both of them and the conversation becomes more and more tight and strained, conflictual. What are some good ways to deal with the situation?

A mediator? A time-out? Some conscious breathing? Becoming aware of one’s reactions? Asking a facilitator to step in and help objectify the communication so that both parties can see clearly in front of them what they are disagreeing about?

Sometimes the mere objectification of the disagreement is enough to diffuse the tension around it, because at least it is then clear to both parties what the conflict is about (and what it isn’t about).

[DavidS]

I just want to say that I am looking at my reactions, and I see that I am frustrated with this forum and some of the participants. They dont seem to be willing to meet half way and really explore together what is going on in our interactions. I took a risk and was vulnerable and shared a lot in these posts and tried to bring people together. I was full of energy and enthusiasm at the start, but it has diminished and I am losing interest quickly. This is what these forums will do to you, if people are not willing to respond in kind and really explore together.

I dont see much changing with a few of us, how we interact. Conflict will continue. But the possibility is always there that something might change, but I think it is a very slight possibility.

I will say again too about Krishnamurti. He probably held out hope that the conflict between him and Rajagopal would end, that Rajagopal would finally change his ways, but it never happened. Krishnamurti died still in conflict with Rajagopal.

So sometimes, in this world, conflict continues, does not end, even when one of the parties is Krishnamurti.

[rickScott]

@James

I think K was proposing that what might begin as low-level friction (of the subtler, non-explicit kind), if it is not given due attention, can and does turn into “grave and intractable conflict”.

Might, but might not. Either way, it probably doesn’t do much good to anyone involved if it sits there unresolved. Onkel Sigmund taught us that.

So to live with the near continuous state of conflict that occasionally passes for dialogue on this forum is something to be given attention, in my view. Because to ignore it, or to ‘turn a blind eye’, is to permit it to become over time something much more toxic.

Agreed.

@rickScott

Say Jimmy and Sally disagree about something important to both of them and the conversation becomes more and more tight and strained, conflictual. What are some good ways to deal with the situation?

A mediator? A time-out? Some conscious breathing? Becoming aware of one’s reactions? Asking a facilitator to step in and help objectify the communication so that both parties can see clearly in front of them what they are disagreeing about?

Sometimes the mere objectification of the disagreement is enough to diffuse the tension around it, because at least it is then clear to both parties what the conflict is about (and what it isn’t about).

All useful given the right context and willingness of participants.

If everyone felt responsible for the well-being of the entire forum, not just themselves, if we all agreed to co-moderate, we might become a more harmonious self-governing community.

[James]

@DavidS

if people are not willing to respond in kind and really explore together.

I think this is the main issue. One cannot force another to be open, to be considerate, to be generous. One can only be generous (or not) oneself, vulnerable (or not) oneself. And trust that if another genuinely wants to live peacefully, in harmony with others, then they will do what they can to create this, “both in form and essence” (as K said).

@DavidS

[Krishnamurti] probably held out hope that the conflict between him and Rajagopal would end, that Rajagopal would finally change his ways, but it never happened… So sometimes, in this world, conflict continues, does not end, even when one of the parties is Krishnamurti.

Quite. But this is a cautionary tale, wouldn’t you agree? We must try to diffuse the conflict between us (whether here on the forum, or in daily life with our families and acquaintances) before it escalates in that manner. What happened with the Rajagopals was a real tragedy.

[James]

@rickScott

If everyone felt responsible for the well-being of the entire forum, not just themselves, if we all agreed to co-moderate, we might become a more harmonious self-governing community.

Agreed. Which means each of us feeling at least somewhat responsible (in the healthy sense) for what happens here. We are the forum, and the forum is us…

[rickScott]

Genau. What is the forum besides the totality of our interactions here?

[DavidS]

@James

But this is a cautionary tale, wouldn’t you agree? We must try to diffuse the conflict between us (whether here on the forum, or in daily life with our families and acquaintances) before it escalates in that manner. What happened with the Rajagopals was a real tragedy.

First off, yes the main issue is that one cannot force another to be open or considerate. It is so hard for me to accept that, especially on a Krishnamurti forum. I accept it easier in the real world, but I do have higher expectations from people on a Krishnamurti forum, especially ones who say they are transformed or have had insight into many of these things.

I am being real and that is what I expect from other K participants. Krishnamurtis teachings are all about love, compassion, understanding, listening, etc. So when I came to a Krishnamurti forum, I do expect some basic decency, openness, being real, honesty, sincerity and communication. If this is lacking and some of this is not being met, I admit I react and basically want to just leave, forget this place. I get too frustrated and reactive.

I have seen this same phenomenon is on all online forums, including Buddhist ones. Just like Krishnamurti, Buddha talked a lot about compassion and understanding and then you read the posts on a Buddhist forum and you see the same sort of misunderstanding, lack of compassion, lack of listening, attacks, reactions, conflicts, etc.

I agree the Rajagopal incident is a cautionary tale for all of us. And it is best to deal with conflict in the beginning stages before it escalates too far, where it is possible no resolution can come out of it, for the parties might have gone too far and cant reconcile. Similar to what is going on in Ukraine right now with Russia. I know it was not fair and was unjust, the whole war, but I wish Zellinsky and company would have accepted a peace deal months back when it was on the table, now it is too far into the conflict, and there is no more deals being offered and neither side is willing to make any concessions or compromise.

[Vikas]

@Vikas

Let’s just say we are not “good” people and leave it at that

@James

I am not nit-picking, but why do you say “let’s leave it at that”? Don’t you want to explore this business

@Vikas

Because your previous question was fully met with.

We should also leave it at that because there is no getting around the fact. Any additional rationalization in the name of “exploration” is to divert from the fact.

The fact is we are not ‘good’ when we divide, separate, or reinforce territorial boundaries. Goodness doesn’t appeal or seek support for such action. Whether the appeal is patent or subtle.

[Drax]

@DavidS

but it never happened. Krishnamurti died still in conflict with Rajagopal.

I don’t think K died still being in conflict with Rajagopal.
Conflict was only in Rajagopal and not in K.

This is very important especially in groups and forums like these…
Can you be without conflict with somebody even though he has conflict with you? That’s where the answer lies.
Live your life without conflict/war with others even though others may be in conflict/war with you and see the magic.

[Sean]

@DavidS

I just want to say that I am looking at my reactions, and I see that I am frustrated with this forum and some of the participants. They dont seem to be willing to meet half way and really explore together what is going on in our interactions. I took a risk and was vulnerable and shared a lot in these posts and tried to bring people together.

I think it was a very brave initiative David. It hasn’t been successful, at least for the moment, but I think you have opened up some very interesting, unexplored ground.

One point of conflict which remains unresolved is when someone posts a contribution which gives at least some of us the impression that the poster is claiming he/she has undergone the same kind of radical transformation which K underwent. Any attempt to clarify whether this is actually the case (the claim of having changed in this way) seems to have led to conflict. I don’t know if some people are claiming they have changed in this way or not and I don’t know if some people actually have changed in this way or not. I don’t understand why trying to clarify this should be so conflictive. This issue seems to be the source of a division on this forum with people falling into different groups. How do others see this?

[Sean]

@rickScott

If everyone felt responsible for the well-being of the entire forum, not just themselves, if we all agreed to co-moderate, we might become a more harmonious self-governing community.

Hi Rick. Can I ask what co-moderating would look like? What would it involve?

[rickScott]

I’d think we’d want the moderation to be light and flexible rather than rule-bound. Maybe we begin with a shared vision for the forum and all take personal responsibility for moving towards that vision? The vision could be positive: the forum as a place of collective exploration and learning. Or negative: personal attacks, proselytizing, misquoting are unwelcome.

???

[James]

@Sean

One point of conflict which remains unresolved is when someone posts a contribution which gives at least some of us the impression that the poster is claiming he/she has undergone the same kind of radical transformation which K underwent

Yes, I think this is an identifiable problem on the forum.

Some participants are basically claiming (whether implicitly or explicitly) to be speaking from truth. They are not on the forum to dialogue or to share their questions and uncertainties. They are here to tell everyone the absolute truth (with which they feel identified).

And if anyone - such as X - disagrees with something they (Y) has said, or has doubts about it, or challenges Y, etc, then then it is X who is in the wrong; not Y, because Y is living in truth.

Meanwhile others (other Xs) on the forum are basically doing what Rick has suggested - using the this online space

@rickScott

as a place of collective exploration and learning.

As Sean says

@Sean

This issue seems to be the source of a division on this forum with people falling into different groups.

Those who are claiming to speak for the truth, and those who are not making this claim.

The enlightened, and the unenlightened.

Those free of ego, and those who are still egotistic.

Those who have had K’s mutation, and those who are still ordinary conditioned people.

So this is the division. The division is actual. But is the division itself based on something actual, or is it based on self-deception?

Are some people here honestly, genuinely, already liberated Buddhas like K?

Does the online behaviour of those claiming (implicitly or explicitly) to be enlightened, reflect the language, character and actions of people who are free from all conditioning, whose minds are now supposedly vessels of intelligence and compassion?

Why do these new Buddhas seem so happy to sow discord and confusion, reacting with impatience and abusing the very people they ostensibly wish to liberate?

Honestly?

Doesn’t the whole situation seem a bit absurd?

And why would we need a forum to enquire into the teachings of Krishnamurti if we already have new Krishnamurtis amongst us?

[DavidS]

@Drax

I don’t think K died still being in conflict with Rajagopal.
Conflict was only in Rajagopal and not in K.

I appreciate what you wrote Drax, it is a very good point, about “Can you be without conflict with somebody even though he has conflict with you?” And on this forum, I think this applies, we can do it, because it is just words.

But I question if it is possible for most of us (thank God there are exceptions as K says) if we are able to do this in situations like Krishnamurti was in, a lawsuit with a fellow who was stealing funds, abusing power, etc and would not change his ways. It involved K having to do a lawsuit, court, lawyers, fees, stress, being in contact with Rajagopals, etc.

Also, I am thinking of the war right now in Ukraine. Can the people living there and the soldiers risking their lives to defend their country, with all the death and destruction around, can they live from this statement you said about not being in conflict with the other?

So yes, ideally, we can live without conflict with those who are conflictful, but it is not so easy to do in some real life practical situations, especially ones like lawsuits and war.

What do you guys/gals think, did Krishnamurti live without conflict in regards to Rajagopal, was it only one sided, within Rajagopal? Or was Krishnamurti too, influenced some, due to the circumstances of lawsuits and stress, experience some conflict too, what do you think?

[DavidS]

@Sean

I think it was a very brave initiative David. It hasn’t been successful, at least for the moment, but I think you have opened up some very interesting, unexplored ground.

Thank you very much Sean for writing and sharing this, it touched me. I agree that it has not been successful, in the sense that it brought a few people back together into communication and mutual respect.

But it may have opened up some very interesting, unexplored ground as you say, and that is good enough for me. It is a start, and planted a seed …

Conflict is inevitable on online forums and dialogue groups, but what we do with it, if we explore it, try to come to some understanding, that is in our hands, in our control.