Speaking indirectly leads to chattering. (Jiddu taught me)
I do not believe some statement, until I perceived it.
What kind of mood does it imply?
Why are you comparing with others?
I see that this is the real investigation of self. We can move further if you are interested.
Mood? The fact of you perceive or not perceive the world is not a mood. It may be an illusion of thought, yet that is what was there. Why you think it was a mood?
I didn’t compare with anyone. There is no trace of comparison in my statement.
Yes, but at two conditions: absolute sincerity and willingness to reply to all the questions asked. I’m only interested in a serious and scrupolous dialogue.
I don’t like people who ignore a question and go on with their ideas.
We have to dance together, not separately.
There is duality in the above two statements.
You asked many questions in a single reply. It is impossible answer all of them.
This is not a straight answer to my question.
It will happen only both are synchronized.
What do you want to say?
In English “complement” (not compliment) means: (from Cambridge dictionary)
“to make something else seem better or more attractive when combining with it: Strawberries and cream complement each other perfectly.”
What has that to do with comparison?
The fact that I know of the existence of other creatures (I can see thousands of them daiily) is NOT a comparison. Comparison means: I am tall, they are short.
Sivaram,
for a real communication between two people there must be a minimum common cultural background otherwise it’s bound to occur innumerable misunderstandings. And one must also be able to reason with logic. And when those misunderstandings are too many I get fed up of the conversation. Simply it’s not possible. Do you understand?
This is another example of cultural gap. My answer was very stright and very precise.
At those conditions I feel that this dialogue can’t continue any longer.
I have changed the reply please go through again.
Its okay, lets end this discussion here. 
I might say a dialogue is any exchange of words between two or more people. Someone else might say a dialogue is the process that Bohm proposed and worked with.
What is a dialogue for you?
Given your understanding of what a dialogue is, do you still think you can have one with me?
What is the purpose of this forum in the mind of who made it? And what is the purpose of it for you? If the purpose is that of arriving at a better comprehension of the nature of ourselves, which was the work of K, then only a dialogue in the sense K (and Bohm) meant will satisfy this requirement.
About the possibility to have a dialogue with you is something which must be seen in practice. Who can tell in advance? The good intentions are not enough, there could be differences in the cultural background (as happened with sivaram) which prevent an effective communication or there could be incapacity of both parts to face the challenge in a decent way.
I’m happy you haven’t given up!
I don’t agree that “only a dialogue in the sense K (and Bohm) meant” will allow us to get a better understanding of our nature. But I’m open to engaging in such a dialogue to see where it goes.
You should probably provide some guidelines for how the dialogue works before we start.
Dialogue, is a word referring to people talking together, but it will nearly always suffer from the conditioned mind. The attempts to clarifying what it is can become a sidetrack. But what can be done? Well, the point is, it is not the words and their ideas, or the manner of self expression. It is going alone, all-one, not the measured, quantified, comparative state, we think is where we are, and from where we want to escape. Going alone, all-one, is the clarity to start with.
NO Mind .Just observe without judging, giving no value
K-Observe without observer.
Hey Voyager,
Well…
K was “over there” (without an “I”) and Bohm was “over here” (with an “I”). K was the bridge between There and Here. How do you intend to reconcile that difference between “dialogue” between two people - both of whom are “over here” - with what K did with “the other”?
You see, the problem is that when two people try to emulate what K did with anyone else, aren’t they both just doing it from an intellectual standpoint, and that being in sync just means that both are just relating to each other from their particular layer of consciousness - that is, their intellectual layer? Because if that is what you are hoping for, I must say, that what I understand as from what I have seen on this site is that this attempt is nothing more than an attempt which results in more knowledge and better articulation, but in no way leads to real insight.
As mentioned earlier in one of your posts, you said you were “fed up” with discussions, and so you seem to have decided to return to give a “different form” of discussion a chance - in other words, “dialogue”. Do you not see that self-expression in any form is an impediment to real insight? This dependence on self-expression is but another illusion, playing with things that are not real. I am not saying that this process of “dialogue” is bad or good, just saying that this kind of process only offers a modified continuity. And any form of modified continuity is not what K was really into. He offered freedom - freedom from the known, freedom from any form of continuity of the “I”.
Please understand that intellectual insights are meaningless. They are meaningless because there is no real change - the purpose of life being to discover reality.
From Charley’s viewpoint, the problem is that you may very well succeed in finding someone to be in sync with - with the result that you just modify the continuity of what you are. Personally, Charley understands that it would be better were you to fail !!!
Hence, I must echo what Peter said:
Yes, going alone is the only clarity to begin with.
Absolutely true! That is what I realized long ago, emulation does not work, and most of the people in KF who organize forums or meetings, perhaps don’t realize that. Yet something must be tried, one cannot just sit back and let the world go rotten.
The example you mention of K. and Bohm is something which should make us reflect. At first I, like you, concluded that that kind of dialogue could only take place and function in that smooth way because of the let’s call it “karisma” of K and the sharp intelligence of B. Surely K had the power to influence (he admitted that once replying to a question) people, to create a deep communication which often overcame the barrier of the self. So our conclusion would be: how can we, “normal” people with limited capacities. with our conflicts, with our clogged minds, estabilish a real diague which stimulates a real enquiry or exploration and may be conducive to an insight? Yet K., many times, in many occasions, prompted people, teachers, etc. to try to estabilish such a dialogue with their students.
Just yesterday I was watching a video with dr A. Anderson, where Anderson asked a similar question: do I have to be free of conflict to be able to have that kind of relationship, dialogue with my strudents?
K replied: if you are waiting to be free of conflict before acting you’ll be waiting untill doomsday!
So he thought that we can do something in this line, and the key was the sincerity and not to put oneself in the position of autority (by the way this requirement is much needed in this forum too). He said to Anderson: say openly to your students, "I am in conflict just as you are in conflict, but can we see together if there is another way to be in relationship?
There is alway the danger of falling in this trap. There is no certainty that that dialogue can be estabilished. Nothing can be planned even if one may set gudelines. I think it may happen spontaneosly when the conditions are favorable. My statement was a “a posteriori” one (can’t remember this expression in English, perhaps afterwards?), that is, I just acted out of an sudden impulse, without much reflecting if I was doing the proper thing and - mind -without any intention to continue this discussion. I guess what I had in mind was a kind of “hit and ran”. Then, when I got some replies I had the curiosity to find out what kind of people where there.
This is another good point which had to be underlined. I expressed a similar concept in replying to Nobody:
I’m a solitary person, Mr Cannuck, and I’m fully aware of the tricks we play to ourselves in thinking to do good in these discussions. During the year in which I was absent from this forum, I had the opportunity of looking into the flow of consciousness, overcoming the psychological resistence, and what’s more important, the tendency to get results. I don’t know if I’ll stay here. I just let the things evelove by themselves.
Thanks for your meaninful remarks.
Hey again dear Voyager,
Thanks for your clarification. I still hope you fail !!! lol That is what Charley has meant in one previous post about being lucky !!! If you do fail at finding others to be in sync with, Charley will consider you lucky as well. 
(This emoji of ‘joy’ was the closest one could find to instead of one expressing absolute delight.)
But I will keep on eye on what happens here. One never knows when/if someone will wake up, or someone innocent as to the ramifications of having a modified continuity will walk in the door. I do understand that joining the site for Charley has also been on a sort of impulse. Some months ago, Charley received an email saying something to the effect that there was a new site by “kinfonet”. And out of curiosity, Charley joined (too funny, eh?).Charley had been a member of the old kinfonet but had not really been interested in what was going on there - was too preoccupied with meditation - being in meditation is the most interesting thing that Charley had discovered in all of Charley’s life, in all of Charley’s previous lifetimes as well.
Charley is biologically female, but non-binary is also okay. Anything that is non-dual is preferable to all the silliness over gender identification.
Added: “looking outside” - someone mentioned that. To Charley, looking outside means only being passively aware (choiceless awareness) of what is happening in the world (which includes this site). Charley has cable TV and observes and is very well-informed thru various news channels (MSNBC, CNN, Global News BC, CBC, BBC, etc.) as to what is going on in the world - absolutely horrified by the way, but not surprised, trust you understand. You see, it is always the same, one starts (freedom) by looking outward, then one looks inward. There is only observation. One observes, always.
Having replied to your questions, now it’s my turn to ask you a few ones:
How do you think to find clarity, if not insight, going alone?
What actually YOU mean with “going alone”? Loosing yourself in a kind of meditation? And so falling into the trap of thinking you have understood everything? We have some good examples of this kind of people here, and they have the impudence of present themselves as an authority! This is surely the worst obstacle we can have to comprehension and to an instructive dialogue. Actually these people are preventing dialogue and spoiling this forum.
K said we must stand alone, that means simply that we have to count only on our own resources, on our own judgement, on our own work. But surely it does not mean we can understand the intricacies of the self – our psychological reactions, our stupidity, our turkey’s flights, sitting in the solitude of our room, even if that is necessary. K stated clearly and repeatedly that one can know oneself in the mirror of relationship. Granted one has eyes to see.
In India they have a saying: when the pupil is ready, the master comes. Usually that is interpreted literally, and the naïve people expects to find a guru round the corner. But we can interpret this sentence in the sense that If you have an open and receptive mind, every occasion in life, every people you meet can be your master. In our daily relationships we have plenty of chances to observe and learn. We don’t need to look for reality, reality manifest itself at every moment of our life.
Now, if we have understood what I said above, then failure is a wonderful chance for learning. Failure shows all our wrong attitudes and behaviors if we have the necessary humility to acknowledge it.
This forum is a kind of relationship, isn’t it? So it CAN be a place for learning if all those people stop playing the role of the guru.
Let me add just one small - innocent - (in the sense that no harm is intended) remark: You used more than once this expression: “modified continuity”. Now it seems to me that it can be perceived as a kind of fault on the part of the poor devil who has not yet managed (shame on him/her) to change his/her mind…
I’ve abandoned since long time the pretence of changing myself, and I don’t judge the people on the basis of this requirement. We are what we are and we cannot be anything else but what we are. We can observe the implications of being as we are and the way we act but there must be no condemnation or drive to be different. I appreciate a person for being powerless (regarding the understanding of oneself), or disoriented. What I cannot stand are the persons who pretend to be what they are not. I have an I - that 's what I’m born with - I’m not ashamed of it - but too many people in the K circles speak as if they don’t have an "I " or are ready to point the finger to someone who has it. Misery!
Well… dear Voyager,
As @Peter also mentioned the same phrase - alone, from Germanic, literally “all one” - in other words, when Charley says “one”, one means whole, all one, holy. Hence, observing only facts. The observation of facts alone, no speculation whatsoever. Hence, a religious mind. The religious mind is only concerned with facts.
Observation, passive awareness (in other words, choiceless awareness) means no judgement, no conclusions. It is only passive awareness that awakens intelligence. Our only real resources are that what we (all human beings) have - are facts. And the only facts that we need to be aware of are those with which we are all born with - eyes, so as to observe; we have all ears, so as to listen, and there is also the physical aspect - touch. A child is constantly looking, observing, listening, and touching - putting things in their mouth 
. Go and find some child, and observe the child closely. And you will immediately see that that is exactly what they do - all the time. So, one begins only with those simple resources: observation, listening, touching - all of which is to remind everyone, that the beauty of what K gave to all of us is to end up exactly like a child with the wisdom of someone who has seen everything - outward and inward, observing one’s conditioning as one is observing outward, and who is constantly still observing everything - in other words, in a world where mostly everyone else is behaving badly because they still have their conditioning, one is only using one’s relationships with others to see oneself. So, that is the true and only way to use others. So, one puts everything else on the shelf, and begins like a child, not knowing anything - observing, listening, well (lol) no hugging with anyone on this site (lol). Sorry, but some of the people on this site … (cough)
As to what you say: “on our own work”, that too implies that one has arrived at conclusions, etc., which effectively blocks further observation. So, one puts all those things on the shelf (so to speak), and one is left with only one’s real resources. One has to strip oneself of anything and everything that gets in the way of observation… and not bother about those who are not interested in doing that. That is the clear difference between those who are constantly asking what does K mean or what did K mean, and those who are only observing. It is thought that asks that question. I am not saying that enquiry itself is good or bad, I am saying that one puts enquiry on the shelf with everything else that might impede (block) observation. You see, the moment one puts enquiry on the shelf, that can itself awaken intelligence. Because the moment one puts enquiry on the shelf, one is also putting thought away. When one embarks on a voyage, dear Voyager, you can’t take the house with you, eh? (pun intended)
I cannot agree more with that, and that was implied in my sentence “to count only on our own resources”, wasn’t it? Unless you assume that I’m not familiar enough with K teachings…
Quite right. But now it’s me who have to warn you about the danger – or mistake - to start at the end instead that from where you are. A mistake many K. followers do. We set for ourselves an ideal taken from K and pursue that ideal, forgetting the real. “I’m observing all the time” How that assumption can deceive us! Awareness is really an elusive thing, the moment we think we are aware we are not, and we can’t observe all the time. I’m not saying that what your present as our sole resources is misleading, actually it’s a necessary thing of course. But it’s not as simple as that.
I really don’t understand what you mean here. In which way enquiry should impede observation? To me enquiry, in the sense K used this word, means observation.
Are you saying that inquiring is ONLY a matter of thought? I don’t think so, as I said, to me enquiry implies a great deal of observation, and any way you can’t exclude thought intentionally, which would be thought excluding itself. But perhaps it’s only a matter of usage of words, are you using enquiry in the sense of doing a search? And of course, one must put aside searching. As I said in my previous post, you don’t need to search for reality, it’s always there wherever you are.
“As to what you say: “on our own work”, that too implies that one has arrived at conclusions, etc., which effectively blocks further observation”. (your words)
For our own work I meant exactly what you said: observation, etc. I’m really surprised of your interpretation.
Let me go back to our initial topic: the possibility of doing something useful in this forum. What actually can one do? I feel – maybe I’m wrong, you tell me – We can see the false in the false, the false in the truth, and the truth in the false. There are a lot of half-truths being said here and presented as the ultimate truth, there are personal “truths” passed off for K’s teachings, and there are false truths which are claimed to be better than what K taught. All that must be exposed pitilessly. (Robespierre? 
)
And another thing is to be an example of healthy debate (something which I failed to do up to now) if not of useful dialogue.
I would like to hear your thoughts about all that.
I’m happy to give it a try. It would help if you provide some guidelines for the kind of dialogue you have in mind.
I don’t think that any guidelines (which are necessary in a forum like this) can create the right atmosphere and the right relationship. I advice you to read or listen to K.videos about this topic which he tackled endeless times. One example is the conversation with dr Allen which I quoted above in my conversation with charleycannuck. There are no shortcuts in this matter and one must have the concern and seriousness to study the teachings in their entirety and not be satisfied of few discourses here and there.
I have already stated here what is wrong in this forum and which prevents a real useful dialogue. But it’s something that few people want to listen and pay attention to: lack of sincerity, pretensions, the pursueing of power, putting oneself in a pedestal as the one “who knows”, hypocrisy in regard the absence of an ego, competion with the interlocutor which means that one is not listening but is only interested in showing his/her ideas. This forum is in a pitiful state, it’s an ironical paradox that a forum dedicated to K. has become the field for gurus and followers. Nobody can kick out those guru-followers and so there is no hope to do something good. People talk about awareness but apparently few people are aware of what is happening. If we are not aware of what takes place in this country club how can be aware of more remote or difficult things like the question you asked?
It is not easy to find people you can truly commune with, especially when it comes to the topics in this forum and because all we have is words. So I understand your doubts about the viability of having the kind of dialogue you want to have. I would have liked to try, but it takes two!