Thanks Douglas, that made me laugh out loud. Humor is good and needed to lighten the mood.
1 Like
Donât you know how much violence has been done to people in spiritual communities by people claiming to have no ego? The sentence you use hereâŚ
is laden with assumptions. Who gets to judge whether someoneâs writing is free from self? You, Dan? So you are claiming to be free from self yourself, right? Are you? Are you so completely free from self that it is only intelligence and compassion speaking through your words? Are the words you used to communicate to David suffused with intelligence and compassion?
Why assume that others like David are not equally concerned about the dangers of self-interest? Has he not been pointing out very gently to you and others how you may be unwittingly acting out of unconscious self-centredness? Do you not extend Rumiâs saying to include the possibility that you yourself may be limiting your awareness through a narrow dogmatism (a narrow dogmatism you have created about the self)?
Religious people are often the least aware of their own limitations, because they have trained themselves to mask those limitations with self-righteousness. Those who are genuinely not self-centred will show it by their attentiveness to others, their lack of obstinacy and withdrawal, their generosity. So we donât need to make an ideology out of who is or isnât acting out of self-interest.
This is a surprisingly common thing I have seen among a few K people. They take for granted that the self is an illusion, and then treat other people terribly because that is how they think deluded people who think they are individuals (when they are not) should be treated. Of course, only a few K people are like this, but there is this danger that when one becomes convinced that the self is evil, one can treat other people as though they were evil. I donât think Dan is doing this, but he seems to be making space for others who might.
Yes, someone like K.
No not at all. K somehow got across to me that I dont âexistâ and I was just passing that along. (He never said as far as I know, âDonât tell anyone about this?) David asked me about what I felt and I told him what K related to me and passed it on to him, that he actually doesnât exist. I think that itâs a point worth considering.
I think there may have been some miscommunication somewhere. When you made your original post you said - âas something to consider in these interactionsâ (by which I think both David and I took you to mean the discussion with Charley) - âthe self wants respectabilityâ etc. No one was disputing that the ego wants to be cradled, admired, etc - so this seemed a rather tangential observation to make in the circumstances. Charley was perfectly correct to say that the self is disorder, the self breeds conflict - but what was being pointed out to her is that the manner of her communications on Kinfonet are in fact quite divisive. So your post seemed like an attempt to nix this concern being raised against Charley by moving attention back to the self. You said
By this I take it that you meant that we should chew on what Charley had said about the divisiveness of the self, and ignore the divisiveness of the communications she has made. But just this divisiveness of the communication was what was being raised as a possible expression of self, which you have called âevilâ. So this was the âevilâ being addressed in that moment, not the ârespectâ that others on this thread stand to get out of talking about it. Your Rumi quote was as relevant to Davidâs challenging of Charley and Paul, as it is to what Charley said about the self.
But to return to your most recent post, the non-existence of individuality is certainly something to consider, to look at. But I donât understand why you have made the assumption (if you have made such an assumption) that David is not interested in looking at that? The question for us is, can we look at what K has said about individuality without making personal judgements about each other, or making conclusions about the non-existence of the self before we have even discussed it together. Pax romana.
I think we can - but it means not making enemies of each other over so little. Enemies are an illusion too, right?
1 Like
Thank you James for the couple of posts dealing with this miscommunication. If you look at Danâs original reply to me, he quoted what I said to Charley. So yes, I was under the assumption, rightly or wrongly, that that is what he was addressing and trying to communicate something to me.
But yes, I have no problem with Dan bringing up about the non existence of the self, that I dont exist, and I appreciate his sharing about this for my benefit.
Ironically, I did a search on google for the Rumi quote he posted, for I am interested in what Rumi meant, and it actually led me back here to Kinfonet and to another thread where Dan mentioned this same quote as his first quote he read of Rumis
1 Like
Good. So now you understand what he was trying to get across?
yesâŚ
So much image making happens on here and in all K circles, as in all of life. But the person we have an image of on here, is much more than the image we have of them. If we met them in real life, we probably would like them or get along with them. But on here, it is more difficult, since all we have to go by is the written word.
1 Like
When we look back over our lives, we can all see moments of hurt in our relationships with other people. Has there ever been a moment of hurt which we have just left alone? Or have we always said to ourselves, âThis hurts so much that I must do something about itâ? Then we look back on it a few months later and say, âI suffered,â which is the memory of what happened and how we dealt with it. But only by not dealing with it would one really suffer. Then there is absolutely no trace of the hurt. From there it makes no further sense to say, âI suffered,â because actually I had nothing to do with it.
The fact is I have never suffered. I have never been hurt. Seeing this, facing this fact, the whole nature of human relationship is changed. Only then am I truly free to look at the world.
1 Like
I think this is because the actual comprehending of what K has said is different than memorization. Itâs a journey into the self, not a journey into the âphilosophy of Kâ. There is no âteaching of krishnamurtiâ because it isnât krishnamurtis invention, heâs just observed it.
Choosing to identify with what krishnamurti says would make it a hell of a lot easier to take the thorns and not the roses from it. Since identification is like possession, ownership, the mind wants to defend the cause it has âidentifiedâ with. When your mind revolves around something itâs identified with, there is categories placed around it. E.g- Those who agree, and those who donât.
I think the issue is that the identification being pointed to here is incredibly subtle; so subtle in fact that even those who are the most certain of their own capacity for insight are unaware of the fact that some subtle identification with their point of view may be colouring their response. And all identification of course involves self, ego. But when you point this out to them, that they may be unconsciously identified with their position, they reject this because they genuinely feel that what they say does not come from ego, does not come from memory. So it is a very subtle problem.
Then you have wiped out all hurts Paul? All suffering?
This implies that you have met your own suffering, which is the suffering of mankind, and not moved away from it at all. The suffering, the hurt, was met with total attention, without any sense of an observer acting upon it. And so the content of consciousness we call âsufferingâ was emptied, which is why you - Paul D - can say âthe fact is I have never sufferedâ (which is what K said about himself, incidentally).
Is this right? Have you completely ended suffering in yourself Paul?
What Charley writes above here is surely correct, right Dan?
So isnât the issue we are discussing the fact that it is sometimes very difficult, very subtle, to distinguish between what is here being called âtechnicalâ and âpsychologicalâ understanding?
The ego, the self, the âIâ is divisive. It takes sides in a dispute, it holds grudges, it labels others who it dislikes or feels threatened by, it casts judgements based on its limited knowledge, its limited conditioning, it is prejudiced, it takes an âus and themâ approach, it conceals its true nature, it is often unconscious of its own activities, it rejects being challenged by others, it lacks affection, generosity, it wants to appear superior, perfect, it holds onto images of other people, it is obstinate, unyielding once it has taken a position, it acts callously towards other people who it perceives as enemies or inferiors, it is full of its own sense of importance, it can be incredibly self-righteous, it finds security in a sense of âI know and you donât knowâ, âI have experienced and you havenât experiencedâ, âI am clear/silent/intelligent/transformed and you are notâ, âI have no ego and you are pure egoâ, âI am good you are badâ⌠Right?
Now look at the way we conduct ourselves - all of us - on this forum. Have we not detected at least some of this behaviour in at least some of the posts of every poster who has posted on Kinfonet? Must we give detailed evidence of this fact (by trawling through previous comments we all have made), or can we not have an immediate sense of it?
There are some participants who might deny that they have ever acted out of simple egotism, or who claim to be currently free from egotism. Does this mean that they are actually free from egotism when they judge other people, make sweeping generalisations, claim to be speaking from insight, a religious mind, or claim to have ended suffering, etc?
And if they arenât actually free from egotism when they make such claims, does this not show us how subtle a thing it is to be identified with a position, with a psychological judgement that - at the moment of communicating it - we believe to be merely the technical pointing out of a fact?
Do you see the subtly of this issue? This isnât of course an issue for the shark or the flower, but it is an issue for those of us posting on Kinfonet. Because the consequences of such a subtle identification (with a position) - with the âIâ - is that it will inevitably lead to conflict, division, as it has done on Kinfonet. Right?
3 Likes
This is why I asked if we could just first of all listen to the question: Has the self - which is you - ever suffered? Before moving outside, before looking at what is going on in the world with all its chaotic madness, to be very clear about what is happening right inside. But you didnât want to start with what is happening inside. Why have you come back to it now?
An interesting observation James. I have come across one or two vegans who think meat eaters are sub human and should be treated with utter contempt. This is obviously completely contradictory as veganism is based on caring and respecting all living creatures and most vegans probably do indeed approach life with a sensitive outlook to their fellow creatures. My point is that any belief which ends up with the believer seeing their fellow human beings as âsub humanâ in some way, is very dangerous.
I think that there are several other reasons why we treat each other with a lack of respect and sensitivity in general, and on this forum. Some are the following:
-
The person who has been treated badly in the past by others. Why should they treat others with sensitivity and respect?
-
I follow what everyone else is doing around me. For example, I come on to this forum and see members verbally abusing each other so I do the same as it seems to be the norm.
-
I justify being nasty to someone else as I have seen role models do this. K was sometimes quite forthright in how he expressed himself. Some Kinfonet members may adopt a K persona when posting and feel justified in admonishing people they feel are ânot getting itâ.
Iâm sure this list could be added to.
2 Likes
I didnât want to start with what is happening âinsideâ because then we lack a reasonable criterion for looking âinsideâ. Anyone can indulge in illusions about what is taking place âinsideâ, which is the danger of not taking the time to understand what is happening âoutsideâ.
As one can observe, the approach you have followed (by focussing only on the âinnerâ) has already arrived at something false - unless, of course, you truly have ended psychological suffering. Have you?
This is why Krishnamurti invariably began his talks and discussions by observing the facts âout thereâ, on the understanding that the inner and the outer are not separate, but like a tide moving back and forth. When there has been the establishment of the facts âout thereâ, then only can we begin to establish the facts âin hereâ.
You cannot just reject the outer, for you are not something apart from the world. The world problem is your problem, and the outer and inner are the two sides of the same coin. (Talk 1, Paris, 1961)
I donât know if you saw Charleyâs earlier post (from a day ago), but she put it quite well:
Yes, the danger of limiting oneâs focus to just one idea or one problem in the world is that this creates a distorted picture of other people.
Speaking as a vegan-vegetarian (or mostly vegan I should say, because I do sometimes eat eggs and dairy), I can see the danger of only concentrating on the suffering being done to animals (in factory farms, in abattoirs, in science facilities, in zoos, etc). There is so much suffering there that one can feel powerless to create change, and of course the cause of this suffering is human ignorance, human insensitivity. So some vegan activists (a vocal minority) can very quickly get lost in the idea that human beings are essentially evil, and act from there - not seeing that the human beings are suffering too, and that often those on the front line working in slaughter houses and factory farms are the most marginalised people themselves, immigrant populations who cannot get work elsewhere.
I see the same thing among a vocal minority of environmental activists. Their legitimate concerns about what industries and governments are doing to destroy the planetâs ecosystems, pollute rivers and cause climate change can exclude an awareness of the wider human confusion that has precipitated these destructive acts.
Any narrow vision will create victims and aggressors, the good and the bad; and when this turns into an ideological conviction, an observation that is exclusive and not holistic, enemies are created very quickly and treated as such.
This doesnât mean that there arenât real villains in the world. Of course there are: the Koch brothers, Rupert Murdoch, Donald Trump, Putin, Bolsonaro, etc. But when one looks at the whole picture it is clear that it requires a holistic response, one that has to take into account the mind of human beings, the failure of education and religion globally, and the nature of thought.
1 Like
And yet even such words never came across as offensive, at least to me?
Is that only due to my state of being or is that possibly the merit of Kâs wording or possibly also of mutual understanding?