And fundamentally this is a violence.
if the movement of life is fundamentally violent, then violence has no meaning.
Thought is violent if I am its slave.
Thought is violent if it is conflict with itself.
Thought is violent if it cannot flow like water and dissipate like mist in its relation with what is.
So if you are free of this “mental illness”, why not create your own discussion forum for all the sufferers?
Meaning is a verbal experience, and in this verbal thinking there is no life. It is an idea of life in the mind.
K talks about violence fundamentally as the division between thought and the thing, the division of the observer and the observed, and the action of a self center.
Let’s examine the above statements. First of all the writer assumes many things for granted . That having no such a " mental illness" implies freedom in a special sense . Secondly he assumes that everybody’s suffering, why is that? What is there to suffer from?
All concepts are of the mind - which include both the concept and the perception of violence.
Yes these can be logically shown to be conflictual. And the idea is that when they are seen to be violent (and delusional), silence is the natural conclusion.
What you call a “mental illness” is the valuing of images of self and others.
It’s necessary and practical to form images of self and others for the purpose of being apprised of the latest developments in one’s own and other['s behavior. It’s a mistake to regard these images as having any more actuality or durability than the latest update justifies. “Dying” every day doesn’t mean forgetting who you and others were yesterday.
he assumes that everybody’s suffering, why is that? What is there to suffer from?
Annoying, boring, people.
I’m not talking about perception, I’m talking about the act of human violence.
I think that the reason that you are bored is that you don’t care to understand ,you just want to have something to say. That is why you cut my paragraphs into some silly sentence that in fact is misleading.
Just one more day,
and it’ll be tomorrow.
Happy New day y’all!
That is not the right question. Once we see what is knowledge (you shared a useful inquiry above from Ojai 1982), this question is finished. It has no meaning.
May I challenge that. Especially in the start of the journey with JK, it is crucial to understand the process and structure of knowledge, not to get immediately caught up in the analysis of words and making K’s teachings into a collection of concepts.
All knowledge is limited and in the past. There is absolutely no difference in psy knowledge and any other type of knowledge.
The reason we draw attention to psychological side of inquiry is because knowledge has no value whatsoever in that realm. In the realm of relationship, love and compassion. These are timeless/actual and limitless.
The distinction has importance because most of us are conditioned and raised from the womb and before to give value to knowledge, words, language. We can intuitively see benefit and value of knowledge, and never question why knowledge would not be “good” also in the realm of human relationship. If I know I love them (or not), or that they love me (or not), why would I ever question what love is. Instead if I know 1+1=2, or that after winter comes summer, that is so.
Oh no. Everyone is not changing. No one is changing, that’s why we are stuck in this rut. People are in a process of accumulating and adapting, but they remain exactly the same - the “I” who they think they are.
The urgency for change arises from the fact that this accumulation of (psychological) knowledge can only create conflict and destruction. The change must happen in seeing the process and structure of thinking, not in the image or output created by that process. And JK gave us so much insight into this simple problem, and yet no one seems to be listening and changing! If we want to change, we must abandon knowing in the psychological realm completely.
What you say here was the message I very much wanted to convey when I first started this topic - but now I realise that the difference lies in our relationship to knowledge - whether we identify with the knowledge (my knowledge) or whether we are able to let it go immediately as need be.
1 Like
Yes that resonates with me. When we put knowledge in its rightful place as a tool for advancement, we should be fine. And keep it away from human relationship, matters of psyche.
We keep saying this on Kinfonet - but I don’t understand. For example, my relationship with different individuals is different : I treat them differently based on my opinion/knowledge of them (eg. familiarity, emotional, psychological, intellectual characteristics). As I do with my relationship with everything else (non-human)
As I think you say elsewhere, we are not really in a relation with the world out there (each other), but with ourselves (our projection/interpretation/knowledge)
1 Like
This is an example of us taking the words, as we usually do, in their everyday context, and working with them verbally. The word human can be taken to be merely descriptive, or we can understand it to mean all of us. That is, it is all of humanity, and understanding I have a fragmented perception. A human relationship is all of us together, representative of humanity, and there is no fundamental separation, and we are sharing a common experience.
1 Like
Frankly I doubt I loved anybody with burden of knowledge in my head.
Even if I loved anything or anybody, I do not have a memory. Which is natural.
All moments in life without …conflict ,duality or inattention, normally in human relationships should end up with no knowledge.
I have saved your challenge in my memory. Just kidding.
1 Like
Knowledge is definitely not good.
In Attention, being in awareness, active present, sensitive, etc is good.
1 Like
At first I wondered if you were advocating for a sort of compassion for all selves (we’re all confused humans) but,
After letting your comment sink in - I reckon you are saying that “human relationship” means : how humans relate to the world, the universe and everything; rather than merely how they relate to each other.
1 Like