I am not sure what the purpose is of all these exchanges. That’s something we find out as we go along. If we know the purpose in advance, that’s what makes it all rather pointless, isn’t it?
What does we signify to you here?
Hi @Dominic
As much as this is a ‘question’ - you are safe here. If it becomes a suggestion/statement like @presence or @united78 - your replies might also be flagged as ‘argumentative’ - even if @anon78228991 or @Inquiry don’t feel that way.
And if you question that, ‘proofs’ will not be shown and no indication/linkage of “which point in ‘terms & conditions’ is violated” will be shown. But, you may also be suspended and your threads may also be deleted. 
So, it’s advisable - if this ‘we’/‘I’ issue stops (or) continues in questioning level. 
But who knows what happens next . Even ‘Viswa’ may be thrown out of this forum too - because of his feedbacks. 
So be safe. 
Thanks 
Self is a very difficult thing at times, unfathomable even, and full of contradictions, so it is understandable when we get irritable at one another. I have the sense of others feeling blocked, but that can indicate the presence of a desire or movement being thwarted, and it is only in coming up against a block that I may become consciously aware of it, and learn of it, which would not have happened otherwise. So I can see all sides of the thing here, as well as something like avoiding even the appearance of knee-jerk contradiction as outlined in the FAQ going under the radar perhaps in a way that other behaviour does not, but the flag mechanism is there for this purpose, so it’s about who sees fit to flag what and why in certain respects, and that naturally will accord with the perceptions of others. Personally I consider there is an onus on me to not be overtly hostile, but also to examine anything in myself that may provoke it.
Dom, see if their posts being flagged - it doesn’t affect me - but we feel responsible as we are humans and cannot be differentiated from them psychologically. Because if this act continues, this may affect anyone in this forum.
We learn from these. obviously. But this what happens in politics/etc… We may think that our desire is blocked - but more than that “we feel responsible for the acts of all (including who blocked)”. So to show them their act as a feedback - is our responsibility - isn’t it?
K,Vivekanandha would have lived a life that - “it is a want/desire to change the world to stop war, to change the people fighting. So we should go to a cave/forest and sit without these”. But they felt they are being responsible - and what’s happening is also contributed by them directly/indirectly. So, they condemn those fights/war/etc… and tried to show them what’s happening.
Is it right?
And do you think I’m advicing here? - Sorry, I should clarify here. This is a ‘sarcasm’ from the incidents what happens here. I’m not pointing you personally here. Sorry
Without a doubt yes, and flagging is a form of censorship, but in this instance the one paying the bills gets to make the rules and interpret them, and is doing so as much as anything else with a view to reputational damage to the web site, and its concern to promote the work of Krishnamurti, by the presence of too much arguing.
The principal rule which applies would appear to be: “You may wish to respond to something by disagreeing with it. That’s fine. But remember to criticize ideas, not people”. And the main difficulty at times is differentiating between a person, and their mode of expression, which really amounts to the same thing, at least as far as their words are experienced.
But now we are in danger of hijacking the thread which is intended to be about love, compassion and feeling! 
1 Like
You and I in the same place.
So by the same place do you mean the same situation psychologically?
Yes. Rapt by what grips me; be it welcome or unwanted (perhaps even unbearable), it still holds me captive.
Yes. That’s only possible if we have no conclusions, no motives for looking.
Are you saying if I look at things without motive, I see that I am actually in the same situation as all others, even when they don’t, and that myself and others are actually we at all times, and not really me?
Is this saying that what ‘we’ are is not the personal histories, not the particular reality but the awareness without “motive”, the awareness without choice?
No. We have to begin by exploring our own motives, which may be hidden as well as overt motives. In other words, are we searching for something while we are in dialogue with one another? Then the search will distort or deflect the dialogue.
But let’s make this simpler by relating it directly to the question we posed at the start. What is your feeling about dialogue? What is the feeling you have when you come here?
Is this not putting obstacles in the way of things here? If I have a motive which distorts my perception at any point that is my responsibility. If I cannot see it in myself, or I will not see it for whatever reason, there is nothing any other can do about that is there? So what sort of a concern really is this?
Well this is by the book. First you socialise the question saying that we posed it, then you immediately swap it out to the private, and hand over responsibility for answering it to an other. You never properly answered the question of what you consider we to be, and have now diverted into something else.
Can’t the same be said of any extreme emotion?
When we feel those extremes, we feel them as ourselves being disrupted by them. For example, take jealousy. Some might feel the disruption of jealousy to the point where they are driven to some violent action. But, of course, that action is actually the denial of jealousy. But, if one could attend to jealousy without turning away from it or deciding to discard it as just another manifestation of a confused ego, then one might find that the meaning of jealousy is more than just feelings of inadequacy or ill use or misunderstanding, along with the desire for a return of another’s affection. For, if we attempt to shut down and foreclose on what jealousy has to offer than we might simultaneously shut down the feelings of adoration that overwhelm us. For it isn’t possible to feel envy or jealousy without also feeling admiration and adoration. In other words, destroying jealousy without understanding, we also destroy new ways we might feel the adorable and the admirable. And the act of love becomes further impoverished.
1 Like
I was really trying to clarify what @anon78228991 meant by his use of we. He had said, you and I in the same place, and I had sought clarification of whether same place meant same psychological situation, to which he agreed, but with the caveat that such a we was only possible without conclusion or motive.
This implies we is only when there is a you and I in the same psychological situation but with no conclusion or motive. I was seeking clarification about this when Paul did his usual thing of abruptly changing channels
Thank you. I am tending toward the situation. as radical as it is ,is that what we are is actually, Awareness. Pure Awareness. As is all other ‘life’, etc. But we, with the brain that has evolved in us , are unlike them, able to ‘realize’ it. This is the difference between us and the other forms. By not coming to this realization of what we actually are, we "hang back with the apes’. (Tennessee Williams) And suffer for not being the one or the ‘other’. Caught ‘between two stools’ as it were.
Yes, this consciousness we find ourselves as is common to all, and it can be approached directly but we (that word again) are mounting a three-ringed circus around or over it all the time, putting up barriers and obstacles, in an attempt at stage managing the situation. All that is required is for me to desist from what I am doing, which is both the opportunity and the threat.
We are composed of two entities, you and me. I am asking you a question about your feelings in relation to what we are doing here. If you don’t want to answer, that’s fine. I can tell you my feelings about it. Then we may find out if we are in the same place or in two different places.