I see the same thing James sees here regarding you Charley. This is not an attack nor an accusation, but said as two friends together journeying and discussing and pointing things out to each other. We all have blind spots, things we cannot see on our own. I hope you read and re-read James messages to you and stay open to the possibility of what he shared.
1 Like
Haha. Yes, Pilgrim is a good name afterall.
2 Likes
Something perhaps to consider in these interactions, the âselfâ wants to be respected, be admired, be loved etc. That is the arrangement that has been made among our âselvesâ. In society. âRespectabilityâ. Isnât it similar to âhonor among thievesâ? K has called out the âselfâ as âevilâ. When someone calls out our self for the phony destructive thing that it is, perhaps before any âcrucifixionâ thoughts cross the mind there can at least be a pause of reflection?
As Rumi put it, Be thankful not for the friendâs kindness but for his tyranny â.
1 Like
I donât get this Dan. You seem to be assuming that there are objections to âcalling out the selfâ. What is being objected to is not the issue of selfishness and self-interest, but rather the manner and mode of the communication that has become habitual for some on Kinfonet (and likely elsewhere too). The manner and mode that has been commented on is a manner that is supercilious in tone, continually belittling of others, judgemental, lacking in generosity or simple empathy, absent of warmth, the recognition of the otherâs humanity, etc etc. All of which implies - for me at least - an underbelly of self-centredness, insensitivity, inattention, lack of humility. This is part of the âevilâ we do to each other here on Kinfonet - and sometimes it is those who are the most exercised in calling out the self as âevilâ who are apparently the least sensitive to their own âevilâ (if you see what I mean).
When you say honour among thieves, you are talking about the niche groups that form on Kinfonet (as elsewhere). As has been said before, these niche groups tacitly form on all sides of the forum. This is why I attempt to interact with everyone, even those who are actively hostile towards me, or unfriendly, cold. I donât want there to be niche groups. But, for me at least, these niche groups are not premised on whether the self has been called out or not - it is largely based on personal differences, set dispositions (probably of temperament, emotional warmth or coldness, etc). The challenge - as I see it - is to be able to walk across the invisible boundary of another group and attempt to relate openly with others who are temperamentally very different from oneself.
Selfishness is not a matter of temperament or disposition (which belong to the body), it is a universal construct of our thinking, which requires attention, awareness to perceive and âcall outâ. It will not wither away through prescriptiveness, judgmental harshness, preaching, etc. It needs to be perceived.
We are not at war with each other about the dangers of selfishness or egotism, are we? So we do not need to make it a criterion for which ever niche we may happen to gravitate towards at any given moment. I hope you see what I mean.
Thank God someone has actually said this! Isnât the way we treat each other here one of the most important things, regardless of what we say about K and the teachings?
1 Like
The ânicheâ I was referring to was human society.
Charley, do you not see the contradiction in what you have said and the manner in which you say it? To have a religious mind obviously implies love, compassion. Playing nice is for children, and we are adults here. We do not need to play nice, but if we are going to talk about having a religious mind then with it must go humility, generosity, sensitivity, compassion, and inherent goodness. Being judgmental and dismissive of those with whom you interact does not communicate this religious quality of wholeness you describe.
We are not disagreeing about the âhorrorsâ going on in the world, or about our responsibility for those horrors. But what is being pointed out to you is that the manner of your interaction here is a part of everything else. If you cannot treat people with respect, with generosity here, then why talk about being holy or having a religious mind?
Can people on this forum not meet the challenges that are there to be faced - of selfishness, violence, suffering, conflict - without making our communication with each other on these matters here part of the self-same conflict we see in the world âout thereâ?
It surely is indeed. And for those poor souls that have been through it, was there enough love available to let go of the jewel that was found there?
Ok, but what is your response to the larger point I was raising? Do you not think it has any relevance for us here on Kinfonet?
I am sorry but I dont get this. I am not sure what you are pointing to? Are you suggesting I should reflect and pause before I write something like I did? I dont quite get the Rumi quote either. Not sure if Rumi is saying it is good or bad to share things with others, even if they might appear on the surface as judgemental or critical.
1 Like
I should say - I am the first to admit that I can be reactive on the forum - and elsewhere! I hope no-one will think that I am pretending to play the part of an angel - I am no angel. But it is clear that on a forum like this, if we are serious about dealing with the most fundamental human issues, that we have to take each other and our relationships here (on the forum) into account. As has been said before, the manner is the message. If self-centredness is the cause of all human destructiveness (which it seems to be) then we cannot simply treat each other like rocks at the same time as talking about having a religious mind.
Yes, we all need to mind our manners, but not to the point of stifling ourselves.
I have been saying this same exact thing for years now. The conflict we see out there, is also the same conflict you see happening in K groups and K circles. There is no difference!
There is a difference, and it is that âK groups and K circlesâ exist to address the fundamental conflict - not to modify and thereby perpetuate it.
Being acutely aware of how conflicted one is to begin with, is the difference between being more concerned with the outward manifestation of inward conflict than with the inward conflict from which it all stems.
You are responding to my saying I agree with James sharing about Charley. I dont quite get what you are trying to say here, but my feeling is that you are probably jumping in and defending Charley in some way, from what I said. Charley needs no defending nor does any self. I wish some of the posters on here would be more honest in their posts and just get to the point. Say it like it is towards me Dan, I can take it. Leave out Rumi quotes and just be honest and direct to me.
Yes Inquiry, I can only say I agree with you here. Robust challenge has an important role to play on this forum. However, as you said, we all need to mind our manners and of course I include myself in this.
You donât really exist David, but you write as if you did. Thatâs the situation we all face but some are more open to the possibility that thatâs true.
And Rumiâs point as I see it is that when someone does break through that facade, you should at least be thankful.
Sorry to jump in here. Dan, what you say above seems to imply that because David âdoesnât existâ, you or anybody else can treat him how you/they see fit. Surely you donât mean this, do you? This is an honest question as Iâm completely lost to what your point is here but would like to understand.
1 Like
Heâs saying be like the chickpea - its sweetness comes from staying in the boiling water for hours on end (with no reaction from good or bad). - thats another Sufi saying - not sure if its Rumi (or his cook maybe)
Thanks Sean for jumping in. I too am lost but would also like to understand. I sense Dan has a lot to offer, however, some of these posts are just not clear enough for me, what he is trying to get across, and at least on my end, there is only confusion, not understanding.