Leave our guts out of it, for the moment. Let’s apply only our intellect. Once the intellect has it clear, the rest comes easily.
The fact is the intellect doesn’t know any answer to this question. So when it panics or gets flustered a little by not having a convenient answer it calls on the rest of the body for support, including the feelings, the instincts and the guts. These are also intermediate elements, aren’t they? I have a gut reaction to you; I feel uneasy when I see you; my feelings tell me to keep away from you; and so on. So it seems in order to have any relationship with another we have to have some sense of connection at whatever level it is, either superficial or deep, verbalised or inchoate.
Have we missed anything out? Is this picture clear enough before we proceed?
That is but another example of a false conclusion. One may appear to address and respond to one particular post. However, when one posts anything, and because of compassion, love for all, one writes a post for everyone to see and read. Because compassion is behind everything one writes, it may be a waste for X to read, but perhaps, not for Y to read. So, one reader of any post may pick and choose to ignore what one writes, that is up to them. However, someone else may come around and glance at what one has written, perhaps now or at another chronological time… One never knows who is reading and who is ignoring. The brain records everything. And this is the common brain of all humanity. So, one always has a sense of speaking to humanity. There is never a separation.
Beautiful. That is why Krishnamurti spoke, gave his public talks too, out of compassion. Most will not get it, but it is for everyone, it is all impersonal sharing/offering freely.
What about love for just one single other human being? The actuality of this is far more important, difficult and dangerous than any lofty ideal of compassion.
Now who is mimicking Krishnamurti?
Look, I am here; I am in the room with you. This is not some strange and twisted game we are playing about who is the most enlightened. This is not a competition. This is not an argument even. This is a dialogue between two people - and nobody on this planet knows fully what a dialogue can reveal and to where it may lead. And this is obvious. This is a fact. Can we face it together, and not make a lot of angry ideas about it?
Yes, but the repetition only tells us about you and your conditions. It is all about your terms. That means whatever I do or say I am in a box. Is that what you want from relationship, somebody in a box?
You believe you’re special, exceptional, free, qualified to teach us about the teaching, but you’re just more deluded and confused than those who know they are in a box.
I have noticed that this phrase has been used a few times in this thread: “A game we are playing.”
It is possible, unless one is absolutely free like a Krishnamurti, most of us, whether consciously or unconsciously are caught playing in some ego/self games.
After further reflection and interaction with Paul, who knows, this maybe true or maybe not. None of us really knows what goes on in his mind.
Some of what he writes is helpful to some and some enjoy it and some enjoy interacting with him.
You have made your point many times now, and is it possible to try a different approach with him now, for obviously how you are going about it leads to a dead end.
I pointed out to him what I saw, and I admit I can be wrong, but it is what I saw and now I dropped it, it is up to him to look or not, as I shared previously.
Maybe it is time for you to drop it too. Just something to consider. Let Paul be Paul, whatever that is. As Krishnamurti would say something like “It is your life, not mine, live it as you want.” He saw how foolish most of it was, how we lived, but he did not try to change us.
By now, anyone who does not know " what goes on in his mind" has either been ignoring his posts are mindlessly going along with them.
Some of what he writes is helpful to some
Give some examples.
how you are going about it leads to a dead end
This is your opinon, but his reply today proves otherwise. Clearly, he believes he is not limited by/to his content.
I pointed out to him what I saw, and I admit I can be wrong, but it is what I saw and now I dropped it, it is up to him to look or not, as I shared previously.
So leave it at that instead of suggesting that I do the same.
You are free to do as you please, to continue going after Paul as you see fit. I just was trying to bring in some compassion or understanding or something. To not be so hard on him, if possible. We all have our blind spots and areas we are still working on.
But I will heed your suggestion to let Inquiry be Inquiry
Yes that is the whole point of Ks teachings, but he did not force us or tell us how to live our lives. He left it up to us, he gave us freedom to do as we please. He pointed out things, and then it was up to us to live it or not. He knew most of us would not change our ways, live a different kind of life, but he still spoke nonetheless.
Yes, but I’m not forcing or telling Paul what to do - I’m just reminding him of what he’s doing.
Isn’t knowing what we’re doing the most important thing since we can’t know all the implications of what we’re doing, or all the unintended consequences?
I am still trying to wrap my head around how at one time Inquiry thought Paul was the successor to Krishnamurti and now has gone to the total other extreme and thinks the opposite.
I am reminded from Buddhism how they tell us that things are impermanent and constantly changing, including our views and relationships. They tell us that friends can turn into enemies and enemies can turn into friends, one never knows how things will change, what will happen in time.
