Relationships

Kinfonet Discussion
123

Not being K has distinct advantages - the main being that although one can build a bridge from yours truly to practically anyone, there has been the seeing that there are still those who are caught in the web of thought - in other words, those who use thought to communicate with others while believing that because they have placed thought in its place, they can now behave as if they are a law unto themselves (the proverbial “being a light to oneself”, which actually means being enlightened) - absolute rubbish !!

One sees the disdain for citing K as a subtle ad hominem attack on one’s posts. Somehow, I have wondered why on earth would one mind citing K, right? - on a K site? "I’ must say, that one doesn’t “think” - oddly enough - boy, is that ever interesting, I must say !! One had read much earlier in this particular topic, two strange lines, and couldn’t understand what on earth they were - what they were trying to convey. So, nothing, and went and washed dishes; after which, one stood there by the sink, and one word came up, “homilies”. So, one went and googled and discovered what they were, and because there was an understanding of what a homily was, one was able to respond with clarity. Such is the movement of intelligence.

Recently, one wondered as to the meaning of a rather long exchange, and in the same way, one word floated up, “attachment”. So, one googled the K library, and just posted a reference to the first mention. This is the movement of intelligence. It is so efficient, so remarkable. This movement is but a flutter in the stream.

One has no interest whatsoever in duplicating/emulated the K and Bohm dialogues. It was done, so, why repeat? eh?? And no real change had ever came about because of these exchanges, and this in spite of the fact of K’s friendship with Bohm. So despite K’s building of a bridge with Bohm, it never resulted in any real change in Bohm.

In general, one glances at posts and has no thoughts whatsoever, and the reason for this is that most posts do not demonstrate a wholeness of energy. In the main, there is only the seeing of thought in operation, and one wonders to what extent do people realize just how disingenuous such activity is. Thought in operation is so, how can I say this… so cold-blooded and detached, and especially clever. I wonder whether other people see this as well, eh?

So, one wonders as to the legitimacy of building a bridge between oneself and that of a detached mind, a disingenuous person, understand?? It just seems like such a waste of energy. Perhaps, one is wrong, I don’t know. You see, K did it, but that was because that was why he was on the planet, it was his job. It is not why Charley is here. :grinning:

124

I doubt that anyone who has undergone the transformation K spoke of would publicly state that they have undergone it, too. To do so creates a separation between oneself and one’s audience. Wouldn’t one who has undergone this change ask questions rather than talk about how they see things?

1 Like
125

It is so interesting to see people form “relationships” based on the fact that they have a felt connection with each other - in other words, they sync with each other because they are on the same wavelength, intellectuals finding comfort and acceptance with other intellectuals. They like each other because they are alike. They speak in the same way, speak the same language (so to speak), use the same way of thinking. They relate and reinforce each other’s conditioning, so fascinating to observe. Of course, this has absolutely nothing to do at all with what K offered. As a matter of fact, it is only the same ole same ole that millions of humans have been doing for hundreds of thousands of years. I wonder whether both or either of those involved in this exchange realize this at all, eh?

126

the common ground

I don’t recall whether or not I discussed this before, but, after all the infrastructure that held the “I” has been seen, there is nothing left but the ground, the ground upon which the infrastructure had stood. This ground is the ground upon which all humanity has arisen from. Everyone loves that feeling, standing with bare feet on ground, and wriggling one’s toes in the earth. So, understanding that everything that is seen within is oneself, there is the last insight of the “I” within, the seeing that one is the ground, the ground of humanity, the common ground of all that makes for being a human being; hence, one said afterwards, “I am the ground”… Well, there was the incredible surge of peacefulness that flowed throughout every cell of the body, and other side effects. Of course, the mirror that one had created within is now gone, as well - forever. It disappeared after this insight, this last insight.

One brings this up because one has observed that the word “separation” has come up again, as it does from time to time on this site. There seems to be a misunderstanding of what that word means and implies. People seem to wonder why and how this “separation” exists between each other. Some people have even invented an idea of connection with others in order to evade the truth and fact of how they are separated from themselves - rather unfortunately.

One notices how the clever ones, the ones who play with words… are the ones who have separated themselves the most from the truth about the themselves. You see, the word clever comes from the word “cleave”, and it really means that which separates itself from the truth about themselves - in other words, thus resulting in a lack of wholeness. Of course, what caused this separation, and hence the cleverness, was the conditioning that one lived. What I am saying is that the separation that one feels with each other is due to the initial separation of oneself from the ground of oneself.

So, again, I say, that the only relationship which one must be concerned about is the relationship one has with oneself - seeing within the truth about oneself and owning that truth. And, I add, it is only then that one can have a true relationship with “the other”.

127

The truth can’t be held without a fair trial every moment.

128

Inquiry,

Since you have already admitted (see below) that you have never had an insight on this site (which leads to a mutation), i.e. seeing the truth and saying “I am that” with what is seen, which is what I was saying when I mentioned the word “owning” that truth, I find it absolutely mind-boggling that you make any statement about truth - a conclusion that is also utterly false and incorrect.

You see, here is the fact, that seeing the false as the false and the true as the true, and of course, the truth of the false, is what K referred to as having an insight, and which I have had multiple times. So, when I use the word “truth” it is because one has experienced insights… and you have not! And yet, you choose to talk about truth as if you have experienced truth, when you never have.

129

I use the word “truth” for what actually is, from moment to moment. What is true now may not be true now, and this is no insight…it’s just a self-evident fact. The unfolding of events cannot be captured and held, but only followed at best.

130

Yes, facts change

As I said, you have never had an insight… and seen the truth.

You have seen that facts change, not truth. Knowledge changes. All scientific knowledge is constantly being updated. Events change, but all of these things are just facts. They are not truth.

The truth is: I am the world and the world is me. That never changes.
The truth is that no matter what you do sitting on one side of the river, you can never get to the other side. So, all becoming is false. That’s the truth. That never changes, because it is a truth.
The truth is that the word is not the thing. Words are just referents. That truth never changes, not today, not tomorrow.
Etc. etc. etc.

What the “I” can catalogue, remember, analyze and critique, speculate upon, theorize upon, conclude upon are only facts, not truth. And, yes, that is all you do on this site.

131

Yes, a mere mortal who can only aspire to the illumination you so modestly express.

132

There appears to be this new religion, a kind of thought experiment, a religion based entirely on thought. Mind-boggling when one comes to observe and discover it in operation… a kind of stillbirth of a new religion.
It uses words to construct a surreal belief system such as believing that the self doesn’t exist (it doesn’t, but that is something that one can only discover when the self is truly gone - when there is the mutation…). In a way, it’s sort of like magical thinking. One has observed/perceived analysis going on for several months, which is all orchestrated by thought (which, of course, is all held together by fear - that cold black emotion). So, it is not surprising that one of it’s high priests (guru, to use another word) would have a reaction of being left cold by one of the posts of his followers, when the follower doesn’t or can’t buy into the same belief. But to see the actual conditioning or the guru, such as the pressure tactics, the strategy, the manipulation, the control of all of the verbal exchanges, makes one understand how all organized religions get their start. Not only organized religions, but political systems as well.
One’s go-to example, always being the big-fat-lie guy, Trump… one has read how he used what he ‘learned’ in Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf’ as a practice model upon which to hone his speech-making abilities, constantly repeating the lie. And, so the would-be guru is a liar first and foremost - he or she can say anything, do a 180 degree turnaround, at the snap of his or her fingers, saying one thing one moment and the exact opposite the next. The thing is that is not just a question of having misspoken (a slight error). The fact remains that the “guru/leader” would never really own up to, because it would show him or her up for who he or she really is and thereby weaken his or her authority. It would also mean that that he or she would have to drop the fake persona, and demonstrate real vulnerability, that oh so necessary quality that means a person is capable of “love”. That so very few question such authoritarianism only goes to show how the “guru” knows his base !!
All of this is easily shown by how little regard this guru (leader) has for the meaning of words. While the word is not the thing, words being only referents, words do point to certain facts, truths. Of course, this fake leader couldn’t care less about truth. What I am saying is that such a person has never experienced truth. They only care that they have followers to buy into their lies - just like the big fat lie guy.
What I am saying is that this is the reason that such people have so little regard for meaning, for meaningfulness. They neither say what they mean nor mean what they say. They haven’t got a clue, as they are making it all up as they go along. It doesn’t matter to them whether or not they contradict themselves (lie), as long as the conversation continues. Not only that, they couldn’t care less when exposed for their contradictions, which they so easily dismiss as not being part of the party line. It’s not like they are going to have a self-imposed period of reflection. They just go on an on just like that battery…
One could say that such a person lacks integrity, that they are insane. (The very word ‘integer’ means: “whole, sane, rational”, etymologically speaking.) Their entire behaviour reflects a most terrible conditioning. The problem remains that their followers accept such a person as a leader/guru - which also shows the same tragic conditioning, only the other side of the same coin, the coin being ‘follow the leader’, so deeply ingrained.
I would say that such a ‘guru’ always has an agenda, a vested interest, which is always power. Their very lack of transparency betrays this agenda. Moreover, the silent majority is just as culpable for their lack of transparency, because their silence reflects a tacit acceptance of this arrangement. Here, one must really see that this is in no way any kind of real true relationship.
And one can ask why is the majority so silent, eh? Is it the charming comfort and fake friendship that such a guru offers? It’s not like such people have read K when he warned of the danger of those who offer psychological comfort.
Charley understands one thing very well. Were Charley to have a small child under her care, Charley would never allow a guru/leader such as this within arm’s length of such a child.
Personally, one’s most interesting discovery on this site is that of understanding that there are those who use thinking as a part of a skill that enables them to earn a living and fulfil real needs - food, clothing, shelter - (aka practical knowledge), and there are those who develop thinking as a modus operandi for conversation/debate (aka psychological knowledge)…
Please understand that one is not saying that the latter form of thinking is either good or bad, it is just that there are consequences to this approach which exacerbate and reinforce the state of the conditioning - a bigger and better wall, to which one adds one brick (thought) at a time.

EDIT: One is unable to shake another false conclusion that lies at the heart of the false guru, and that is because that person also dismissed the word “patience” as meaningless. This very word lies at the source of compassion [as well as sympathy (aka kindness) and empathy]. The latter 3 words find their source in that very word “patience”. That word itself derives its origin from the root word passio-, which we all know has given rise to the word passion, a word which means love - love for one thing. Originally, patience also implies sorrow, hence compassion implies sorrow with “the other” - love with the other. So, when the fake guru dismissed the word patience, he/she was entirely unaware that they were also dismissing love… It is important to understand that the very language we use and its original meaning give us a clue as to the meaning of words - of what they refer to; and if one is really interested in uncovering, discovering the why of it all, one must respect the origin of words. I would add here that it is impossible to have passion for one thing unless one knows oneself. Nosce te ipsum or temet nosce originally meant know thy measure. So, without knowing one’s own measure which can only be discovered through awareness, it is impossible to discover that which is measureless. In the end, one can only say that thought is the wrong tool, the wrong approach.

As K has quoted: ‘Thought is the child of a barren woman’. And, what K said with Prof. Anderson: ‘So I see thought and its products are the children of barren women.’

133

Tricky stuff relationships - especially since everybody seems completely bonkers. (apart from me, strangely enough) :face_with_monocle: :partying_face:

I suppose the most puzzling thing about the special method of dialogue as it is practised here, is that it seems to set up a hierarchy, distance and artificiality which is obviously anathema to its stated purpose.

1 Like
134

Please elaborate. How would you describe this “hierarchy, distance and artificiality”.

135

Just the usual in group, out group, thing - the separation and hierarchy between those that are familiar with the cultural code and those that aren’t. And the artificiality of being constricted by the code, whether by unfamiliarity or dogma.

Aside from the special dialogue (Bohm dialogue) which sounds excellent in theory - there is also the ultra in group of one : The speaker that doesn’t seem to be wanting (or able) to communicate at all, apparently because they have been so affected by some psychological insight.

Wonderfully excentric community we have here - I thank you all.

136

Traditionally, this is where the trusted teacher/guru worth their salt, does some of their most important work - the work of freeing the practitioner from their “amazing insight” and back to the boring silence of choiceless awareness.

137

Rack em! :slight_smile:

138

Could you give some examples of this code and how it constricts?

139

Just in the same way any method constricts us - and in this case I am just expressing my opinion as an outsider - I am not familiar enough with the practise to comment on the inner workings

140

Loose Ends,

A small note about loose ends. Right action doesn’t leave loose ends. It is only choice that leads to a confused mind, and lots of loose ends. One experimented many years ago, when - having read that K said that choice leads to confusion - one created a situation (a small investment) to see whether or not this was true. And sure enough, there arose a most horrid feeling of confusion. Fortunately, one was able to undo the “choice” without too much effort and that awful feeling disappeared. So, one understands how important it is to do right action, correct action. Originally, prior to being into K, one used to employ a complicated method and effort to try and work out what was the best action (right action) to do. Now, it’s so easy, for any important decision, one only does what the mind/heart suggests, now that they are fused. It is so wonderful to go to sleep and realize that there are no loose ends pending, that everything important that had to be done has been done, accomplished and finished - neat and tidy, every day being a new day. So, one is saying that right/correct action are acts that never need remedial action. Right action is forever.

I would add here that speculation, using incorrect methods, choice, leaving situations in an ambiguous state, making false statements, and even posts which are contradictory, treating some persons in one way and others differently, etc. are all examples of incorrect action. Just look at my go-to example: the big fat lie guy, Trump, with his >20,000 lies, and the mess which he left behind. Such acts are so messy, eh?

141

“Small”?..

142

Thought, knowing oneself, right action:

  • “Thought cannot look at the ending of itself. It can only rationalize about it.”
    K, Exploration into Insight, ‘The Central Root of Fear’

  • "Q: … consciousness… does it ever see anything for itself?”
    K: No.
    …I tell you that thought is fundamentally limited, and whatever it does within the area of
    consciousness is still limited…
    He says: Is it not intelligence that realizes the limitations of thought?”
    And we said, “Yes”. "
    K, Ojai, 4th Public Dialogue, 14 Apr. 1977

  • “Can one know oneself – not only at the conscious level but also at the deeper, secret levels of the mind? Without self-knowledge, surely, one has no basis for any real, serious action, no foundation upon which to build clearly. If one doesn’t know oneself, one lives such a superficial life. You may be very clever, you may know all the books in the world and be able to quote from them, but if you do not know yourself, how can you go beyond the superficial? Is it possible to know oneself so completely that, in the very observation of that total self, there is a release?”
    K: You Are the World, Ch. 10, 13 Feb. 1969, 3rd Public Talk, Stanford University

  • “A mind that is not highly moral, a mind that is not embedded in righteousness, is not capable of being free. That’s why it is important to understand oneself, to know oneself, to see the whole structure of oneself – the thoughts, the hopes, the fears, the anxieties, the ambitions, and the competitive, aggressive spirit. Unless one understands and deeply establishes righteous behaviour, there is no freedom, because the mind gets confused by its own uncertainty, by its own doubts, demands, pressures.”
    K: You Are the World, Chapter 7, 6 Feb. 1969, 4th Public Talk at University of California, Berkeley

One can know about oneself, know who one is, through thought. However, thought is not the proper tool to understand oneself, to know oneself - deeply, and - as everyone here knows - thought is limited. It is only through intelligence that one can know oneself. Then, there is the possibility to discover what one is. And, intelligence is only awakened through right action, correct action. So, as the old adage goes, character is indeed destiny.

1 Like