The three words “dead k society” is not a sentence.
1 Like
You can certainly try try going easy on what K was “all about”, can’t you. Considering that you are measuring the “all about” from your “all about”. You make a system when you classify something as “all about”, yes? So see if you can go easy, eh. But no, K was also about goodness, about sanity, and so on…
Dear James, thanks a lot and I have read the posts. It is clear what you are exploring and to me it also is a very relevant question. Really it is at the basis of my work in the different fields I am engaging - teacher, psychological counseling/therapy and journalism, but also in private meetings. It is something I always ask too and for me it has a close relation to my question about change. I agree with you that perception, awareness, observing - stopping and looking - is a central aspect of the teachings. Without it there will be no exploration. But I have the feeling there are more practical aspects. It is the meeting of life - not only of people - with a passion. The passion to understand, to discover and to get in touch. To get in touch with everything, especially the fears, the suffering and sorrow, the violence etc. and all the beauty. Passion for the what is. And another thing is to meet without knowing, to meet something or someone as if one encouters it for the first time. This needs stopping and observing and realizing how many prejudices or imaginations there might already exist. But I then would see these prejudices for the first time new as what they are. I will go into it more.
2 Likes
I believe that I was quite careful in the OP - and in my subsequent replies - to explain what I meant by the word “practical”. All it means is effective doing, efficient doing (not pleasurable ease). Personally I don’t see this as an evil.
For myself, there are certain clear and evident actions (not as a method) that K pointed out to people. As I summarised in the OP, they boil down to no authority and seeing (which can of course be elaborated). Expressed a little differently these two pointers relate to his teaching that what is has no opposite, and to his teaching on choiceless awareness.
But perhaps it might help if I give you a little context (as you haven’t participated on the forum for a while) for why I asked the question in the way I did?
I have been participating here on Kinfonet for about a year now, and I have seen every conversation, every dialogue, every discussion - as I’m sure you did when you were active on Kinfonet - and I almost always come away with the feeling that it just goes round and round in circles, and remains at the level of the head.
Having lived and worked at Brockwood Park for a number of years, having attended the annual gatherings in Switzerland for a number of years, and having spent time in the colourful K-retreats and schools in India and California (not to mention attending the Kinfonet Zoom dialogues that began during Covid), I have a good enough sense of what K dialogue means to most people who are drawn to K. And my sense is that it also stays mostly at the level of the head.
So I’m a bit bored with all that. I have discussed time, thought and self endlessly here (and elsewhere), and somehow the conversations never drop down to the level of the heart and the senses. And as from September my work commitments will make it difficult for me to spend much time on Kinfonet, I thought to myself, “well to hell with that, I’m going to ask a question that is taboo in K circles, but that I actually see some sense in”. And this is the question I asked. For me, when I use the word practical I mean something related to the immediacy of life, to immediate awareness, the senses, the heart. If this makes me a heretic, then I am a heretic.
However, to be fair, I am not the only one to have asked these or similar kinds of question.
I read a little through the archives here, and I found some stirring statements by one Voyager which I actually found quite helpful and inspiring. Perhaps you will permit me to share some of them? I take for granted of course that there are probably a great number of differences in our approach to K, and you have made clear your distaste for the word “practical” (like most people who read K!); but I have selected a few extracts where I believe there is actually a lot of overlap between your sympathies and mine (I hope you don’t mind):
There is a widespread confusion about what awareness is or should be. This confusion comes from not having understood the basic difference between thought and perception. Most of us have difficulties to distinguish them, to differentiate them at every moment because we shift very quickly from one to the other. So some of us formulate the wrong conclusion that all is the outcome of thought.
The base for awareness is perception, physical perception or factual perception, just like hearing the sound of a river. This is our anchor, the place where we can safely start from for our enquiry into the phycological field. If we are not able to differentiate and so to dwell long enough in this state then our enquiries will be senseless…
Let’s examine a bit this state of having all our senses fully awake. We are fully aware of the outward reality, which is something happening now. This sense of the now is self-evident, it is proved by itself. No reasoning can prove it or not prove it. You will know it because your senses are fully operating without hindrances…
This is the state we all must start from. And starting from this point, with this life-belt, we can adventure into the psychological realm without losing our orientation. (Start from there)
I’m not in favour of the “all or nothing” theory so popular in K circles. The possibility of a deep perception lies in our normal, day to day, functioning of our senses and brain, otherwise no real insight would be possible. We feel it’s so difficult to take place – if not impossible – only because we are not really interested in moving our focus from the allures of thought to the apparently boring ongoing perception. K defines this lack of interest as ”not being serious”. (Unfortunately we are not dogs)
My approach to illusion, conditioning, thought, etc, it’s very pragmatical, while yours is very intellectual. When K. asked questions, he didn’t mean to have an academic debate about it but just to invite the people to discover the truth of what he said in daily life… You cannot understand awareness and so reality, what is actual, through thought, through reasoning. Awareness is or should be self-evident or self-proved. If it’s not … no reasoning will make you see the truth. You don’t use thought or reasoning to see the truth of a flower, of its perfume… all you need is just smell it. (Thought is the very denial of love)
Many people I met in K circles thought that it was useless to sit and observe one’s thoughts, so they did nothing. It’s true that K warned us of the dangers of a mechanical practice, especially when it’s done with a motive. And furthermore one can observe one’s own thought during the whole day, while walking, eating or doing anything, so sitting is not so strictly necessary, yet he often stressed the necessity to stop and sit down for a while. (Why don’t we change after all these years?)
Of course there are other more difficult aspects in K.s message but we must start simply otherwise we’ll get lost. Start where you are and don’t ask anybody’s help. (Is there any virtual group?)
2 Likes
I mean the actual context. Where can I read what you’ve quoted?
Yes. This is my feeling.
This is where I’m not so sure I follow you. I mean, it is clear that a change needs to occur in society, in the world. But we tend to make change something away from ourselves, away from what is, and this is the thing that seems to me a mistake.
So I would tend to agree with Dan when he says that
Do you see what I mean? All the passion, the sorrow, the fears - as well as meeting another for the first time, etc - that you talk about, are in what is, in remaining with what is, not in the movement away from what is.
I think you will agree with this, but I just thought it worth being explicit about it.
Dear James, it is interesting what you are writing because I feel the same. I have been in all different kinds of dialogue and got bored. That is why I stayed away and only rarely come back. Because of my work I also organized a lot of dialogues with people who never had any contact to Ks teachings and book and even never had heard of him. In those groups I rarely mentioned K but just explored with these people and very often I found that these groups really go far and are not so much in the head. Therefore I was wondering whether over the years the groups which specifically discuss K are blocking themselves because they are not free to explore anymore. K has become the authority or better his books and words and that prevents from seeing what is.
A practical thing to me is therefore also the exploration itself. Really delving into something, observing ist, finding out about it, understand it and discover it is very practical thing as in science. And this exploration is only possible if we are aware of what is, when we stop, look and listen (that is also a practical thing), and observe.
1 Like
Yes I agree with that. Would you say, that this seeing of “what is” is the change? The moving away is no change, that is what we humans do for ages. So seeing “what is” is stopping to follow the old road and with that change there will also come the change in the outer, the physical world we live in.
I don’t recall these comments of Voyager. What’s the time frame?
In these comments, Voyager seems to have grasped K’s message, and is thereby unusually sensitive to actuality, which is to say, completely physical, being entirely here now…though accompanied by thought… which is the problem since thought matters more than just being.
Why does thought matter more than physical being?
Is it because I am better at thinking than at anything else? Or is it because I can’t tell how badly I think, which means I can always believe I’m a great thinker if I never stop thinking.
It seems there is no greater thinker than I for as long as I can’t stop proving it by never being quiet. I say it seems that way because if I did stop, there’s no telling what I would see, and I’m more afraid of finding out what a fool I’ve been than I’m afraid of having no foolery. I’m more afraid of being mentally serious than seriously foolish. Why would I be ready and willing to put an end to me if it wasn’t for something better?
Yes. For some people K has become an ideology, a screen of words and ideas that interferes with simple observation. I remember K saying something like take one thing, one thing you have grasped, and go all the way into it. I think this is what interests me at present.
Yes. I think a few months ago - or even up until a few weeks ago! - I was willing to do this in dialogue. But right now I feel as though there’s little to discover in that direction, and just living with no authority and seeing (as I put it) is sufficiently rich.
I have an intellectual tendency myself, and so just slowing down and being interested in the basics - perception, awareness, listening to what is, is kind of enough. As I said before, I realise this sounds boring, but actually I find it really interesting, meaningful, grounding.
I don’t know. I’m a bit sick of that word “change”. Everyone and their aunt (excluding your good self) talks about the importance of change, and it just tends to get bogged down at the level of ideals, ideas, values, future lust. The future is over-rated in my book. So what is happening in the daily round has more and more of my attention.
Be the change you want to see, right? (I think it was Gandhi who said that). The world is in a mess - as we both know. I’m quite a political person, in the sense that I keep abreast of what is going on and have strong opinions about it. But change cannot begin ‘out there’, and it cannot happen through outrage, guilt or through persuasion. It can only happen freely, voluntarily, like a flower opening. So I’m interested in what will water this flower (I’m not talking about the ego; I just mean what will water the sensitivity and awareness that are the basis for anything worthwhile).
So I want to be super simple, basic, and approach things with a ‘beginner’s mind’ (if you don’t object to this phrase). Does this make sense to you?
1 Like
I didn’t really look at the dates, but I put the thread headings (the OP titles) for each quote in brackets, so you can look them up using the search function if you want.
Yes, this is what I felt too.
Isn’t it partly the way we are educated and brought up? Our thinking is something we have become accustomed to; it is familiar, something - to use a dreaded K word - “known”.
Whereas exploring the world - and ourselves - with just our senses, our sensitivity, and our awareness, is something relatively alien, unfamiliar, and so “unknown”. We don’t feel super-secure with that; and perhaps because we feel unfamiliar with it, we naturally project our fears onto it. Such as:
“what will happen if I just use my senses and sensitivity? What will happen if I am no longer using thought? Will I break down, be flooded by fear, anxiety, emptiness, shame; get overwhelmed, be totally bored, become dull and useless? Will people no longer respect me if I’m just basic and simple?”, etc.
But we forget that we are animals. We were born to sense, to be sensitive, to see and hear and smell and feel. Thinking is actually what is alien; not perceiving, not sensitivity.
So, as the wise Yoda often said, we must unlearn what we have learned, right? 
Instead of adding to our store of experience and knowledge, we must be able to subtract from it, and become less. Blessed are the poor in spirit, etc.
I don’t know. Is it a matter of this rather than that? Or is it beyond comprehension? If I’ve done something extraordinary, did I do it?
Apologies Inquiry. I was just generalising out loud to myself there. I’ve had a long day at work and my mind is a little fatigued.
My main point was summarised in the previous paragraph:
Yes it makes great sense, because that is exactly what I am interested in. I wrote a song which I called “Keep it simple” and therefore I understand you well. Also why you have problems with the word “Change”. It is so misused over the past years. As you said everybody talks about it and nothing happens. It can only happen in ourselves and nowhere else if there could be a change in the outward world. And I worked as an economic/political journalist. I have seen the mess first hand, touched, smelt it etc. It is a terrible mess. Change is necessary if we do not want to blow the whole world up. But this change can only happen in ourselves and everyone has to do it. Noone can do it for someone else. So will water the flower, the sensitivity and awareness? I posed that question myself in different wording. As you said in one post we can only percieve now. Our body can always only percieve now through its senses. And actually it does. We cannot shut hearing, smelling etc. off. We can do that with the eyes. But not with the other senses. Only if thinking comes in, we can distort this feeling. Would you say it is the openness to be touched by what we are related to in the moment? Inwardly as well outwardly. Is the watering the openness to be vulnerable from moment to momentn? I often say it is like walking on a tightrope and every step could be our last one. Is it the openness to die in every moment?
1 Like
Yes, but the alien nature of thought can only be known physically. That’s why people go to live in the woods or a monastery. They try to quiet thought, tone it down, put it in its place by means of the physicality that embodies it. Maybe it works. I don’t know.
Can thought be anything more than a system of words and images? If not, why does it have the power to overtake the cognitive faculty and establish a tyrannical regime…from which it longs to escape and be free?
1 Like
Yes if you want to be merely literal. But the dead k society is false thing to say,
K was not about love like Buddha or Jesus. He made us aware of so many things that up to today we are not aware of . I don’t remember K telling us to love your neighbor. He gave us awareness of why we don’t love.
Life , truth is all about awareness. Life is not about money, relationship,climate,social medias, kind words and so on. In my opinion life is about how deep you are self-aware.
Not all thought are evil. K used thought sanely and impersonally.
He didn’t say “evil” - he said “alien”.
Not sure how “love” got added into the equation, must be a case of lost in translation, or in cognition. But since you mention it, just like you can never be sure of the authenticity of the K memories (which you heartily agreed to on the memoir thread), likewise you can never be sure of the authentic words of Jesus or Buddha. No one can. No use pretending you can. So, ya know, this flip flopping…no bueno…will leave it at that.
If i could be bothered i would go a bit more into your "post’, but unfortunately i’m not. You may end up not posting at all or start deleting threads like last time. See if you can go easy Mr. Examiner, you are living in a glass house. Up to you.