Relationships

Kinfonet Discussion
92

Hi Charley

My point is that images related to some situations or person may lead to chattering. Compassion is the only way to move on in life.

By the way in the previous reply, I used the word provoke. As some situations may intensify the emotions, beacuse of that reason I used that word. May be, l should use different word I don’t know.

You mentioned that there is no “I”. How you know that “I”, is not there inside?

When there is thought, there is “l”, in my opinion. Explain if I am missing something. Hope you understood what i mean :slightly_smiling_face:

93

Hey sivaram,

Ah, then, you mean reactions which are triggered by situations, right? Do you look at the chattering, is there a looking, a seeing of oneself chattering, are you able to see inside the sivaram chattering and going on?

Charley was having lunch with someone, and as we looked at our plates, and then at each other, he asked Charley, “How are you?”; and Charley smiled, opened her mouth, and sat there mouth agape and … nothing. And for a few seconds sat there and didn’t know what to do, because usually one says, “I’m fine.” So Charley went looking inside for the “I” and it wasn’t there, so Charley wondered how to answer, how to respond, so Charley shoved some food in her mouth, and smiled at friend, and chewed, and wondered what to say; and finally Charley said, “Fine,” without the “I”… and then “How are you?” and we talked, and enjoyed our meal.

94

Hi Charley,

“Ah, then, you mean reactions which are triggered by situations, right? Do you look at the chattering, is there a looking, a seeing of oneself chattering, are you able to see inside the sivaram chattering and going on?”

Yes, I am talking about reactions only, as I observed dynamic inside my system. Now, I feel it like a mechanical process. As it is same for everyone.

"finally Charley said, “Fine,” without the “I” ".

I got your point, but why seperating the l again.

95

Hey sivaram,

Yes, it is a “mechanical process”.

One says this because the “I” is very much in existence in everyone else. sivaram, one is and must be alone in this journey. Being alone is not the same thing as being lonely. Alone - all one, whole, holy. Who told you that your “I” is the same “I” as everyone else? Where did you get that idea?

96

Hi Charley,.

As the mind is same for human beings. The ‘I’ is same for everyone.

May be I have work on this topic :slightly_smiling_face:.

I had a meaningful conversation with you.

97

sivaram,

The particular “I” of sivaram is not the same as anyone else’s. When you hold the idea that it is the same, that is a belief. Charley had the insight, the seeing of the truth that “I am the world, and the world is me”. Charley tried for months prior to the insight to see the truth of this and couldn’t. Charley sat in the courtyard of a govt building, very early in the morning, morning after morning, observing the workers coming to work, and looked inside people and saw that they all had an “I”. At that time, Charley had an “I”. But each of the people that Charley saw those mornings had an “I” which differed from Charley’s “I” and from each other’s “I”. Some were just developing an “I” - the young ones. Others had a very well-developed “I” - layer of consciousness, understand? Charley couldn’t relate that they were “the same” as you suggested. They were not identical. So Charley gave up on that, and then on a web/chat site, Charley noticed that when Y talked, Y was greedy, always looking to gain more. So Charley noticed that everyone had differing traits - ambition, aggression, selfishness, greed, fear, jealousy, pettiness, kindness, etc. - all sorts of human traits, and all in different proportions. And then suddenly, Charley realized that of all those people, Charley had similar traits, not all of them but some, and not in the same proportions. So there was the seeing that Charley had one trait, and X had the same trait, for example, fear; and Charley itemized all of them in Charley’s mind. It didn’t seem to matter the proportions, or the differing kinds, but that in general, it was the human condition to have some similar traits. Everyone has fear in them, etc. And everyone has character defects and some have some good stuff. And so, then there was then the seeing of, “I am the world, and the world is me.” It was an insight. Then the explosion and the release of trapped energy and ensuing mutation. This insight did not imply that Charley was X. As K would say, that would be silly. It was that everyone shared some similar human traits within. So when K would say, “I am you”, he meant that one is also the youness of another, but not that the “I” of one is exactly the same as the “I” of another. Trusting that is clear… :slightly_smiling_face:

98

Hi Charley,

I got your understanding on the people’s psychology around you. I will put the same thing in other way. The ‘I’ is same to everyone but the psychological Structure is different. As the conditioning is different.

For example X want to be a sports person and Y wants to be novelist. In both the cases X and Y want to be identified with something, in which they find security. But the “I” in X and Y is still the same.

I understood your point as well :slightly_smiling_face:

99

Again sivaram,

chattering itself is only a superficial indication of some conditioning deeper within - usually events in the past, that for many are in their childhood. When following (in meditation) the chattering inside, it will lead to the seeing of the event(s) - could be a chain of events. The seeing of such events is what dissolves the memory of the event, and hence the related chattering also ends.

100

Watching the chattering inside, will reduce the intensity. I do agree that on what you said.

101

Intelligence is impersonal - always. As well, compassion is also impersonal. However, any movement of compassion towards “the other” will also be personal. In terms of relationship, establishing a friendship with “the other” is both impersonal and personal. It is only then that the impact of such a movement can be felt by “the other” - like a breathe of fresh air… Compassion is the rarest of flowers that exists on this planet.

However, I will now say, and quite emphatically, should “the other” be an unloving unprincipled person, should “the other” be lacking in integrity, should “the other” be mean/cruel/wilful, should “the other’s” ground be barren, fallow, empty (in other words, no foundation of goodness), they will be entirely incapable of using anything said or written by one to see themselves. In such an instance, anything said or written by one will only cause a trigger/reaction that “the other” has and is likely to be entirely in line with their particular “conditioning”, resulting in drama and ridiculous comments by them.

In meditation, one lies on one’s back (very comfortable position, by the way), and there is silence. One wonders as to the drama that one has witnessed on this site, and there one had no thoughts at all about any of it. I am not a guru, and I have no followers - thank god! In my mind, K was the guru of all gurus. That was his job - world teacher, which I see that he fulfilled admirably and most excellently. Why anyone would reject K to think or believe that they can understand “what K meant” by sharing opinions/thoughts/beliefs with each other in discussion is shall I say “beyond my pay grade”. Actually, the word, “guru” literally only means the one who points at “the other”. It is important to remind everyone that the only healthy/wholistic/holy way to use another is as a mirror to see oneself. From what I have seen on this site, there is very little of that going on. I use the word “I” strictly as a social convenience. I must say it is more relaxing for me to speak in the third person.

I will also add (on reflection) that the worst thing one can say to another is that one part ways with them. This is, of course, the ultimate in separation. K experienced being trashed in some of his talks. I recall how he suggested to U.G. to find another place to express his disdain…

The rejection of any comments that I have posted is in line with the rejection which “the other” may have experienced in their past. I recall how Pupul repeatedly asked K about how he was unable to resolve the hatred he had in himself, to which K replied that hatred is very interesting when one goes into it. However, K himself did not elaborate with Pupul on that point there and then - in the context of what is published that I am aware of. I have no idea whether K took Pupul aside to actually elaborate on that point. Actually, it is very interesting when one does go into it. Rejection is a fused combination of anger and sadness (held together, of course, by fear), manifesting outward in such a person (“the other” who acts out) as hatred, materialism, greed, suspicion, etc. etc., and, of course, oddly enough: jealousy - coveting what they know or believe that they can’t have.

Added: Should anyone be interested in feeling the impact of compassion moving towards them, please feel free to private me, which may lead to exchanges off site. Obviously, I am not interested at all in “helping anyone”, or anyone who has blocked themselves with their beliefs, ideas, opinions, etc. - you know, a blocked-head - blockhead.

1 Like
102

For being compassionate, first, a person should notice the state of mind in the opposite person. After that, he has to display some sensible action for alleviating the person of interest. I do not think that most people know this social activity but it is an important aspect in one’s social life in present society.

For noticing the opposite person’s state of mind, one should have the ability to read the person’s thought process. I think this requires a silent mind for the person who wants to perceive the suffering person’s state of mind. This is the one, most of us are lacking in most situations.

I observed that kind of situation most of the time, as you said. I think for practicing compassion one should have a dettached mind set.

If you are not convinced with my assertion, we can reason it out to until we get appropriate understanding. :slightly_smiling_face:

103

One either is compassionate or one is not. There is no advice or guideline for “being compassionate”. Compassion acts. It is not a strategy or a quality to be cultivated.

104

sivaram,

I have observed that you go quietly about in various topics appearing to fulfil what you said, to the effect of being here: to understand how the mind works.

Added: From your latest post below, I have understood that all you are doing on this site is asking questions to confirm/compare your own personal knowledge with what you think is the personal knowledge and experience of others - all of which is meaningless. I would add that your constant repetition (what you have called below re-iteration) is something you have done before. In that sense, I doubt highly that you have learned anything at all in any of your exchanges with anyone on this site. None of which has anything to do with what K talked about. So, I have to conclude that you haven’t really read K, and are not serious. I must say you do a really good job of pretending to understand.

Firstly, one cannot practice compassion. For that matter, one cannot practice kindness, empathy, love.

I recently saw a TV interview by a journalist of an Afghani woman stranded outside of Afghanistan in another country due to the onset of Covid. Since then, well, we are all quite aware of the Taliban taking control of the country. While working in Afghanistan, if I recall correctly I hope, she supported and helped (physical help - not psychological help, understand?) Afghani women there with education and such. She broke down in the interview and began to cry, all the while speaking so passionately, with all of herself - because of recent developments and her constant online contact with many women she knew there who were absolutely terrified as to what life lay in store for them. As she spoke, one saw the genuine sorrow in her face - she was weeping but it wasn’t self-pity or pity for others; one heard the sorrow in her voice, and tears came to one’s eyes, to match her sorrow. That is compassion, her compassion for her sisters who were left behind, and my compassion for her and all the women she spoke of. The one and the same compassion.

Not everyone is in touch with their sorrow. Some people are in touch only rarely and in certain circumstances, right?

Several years ago, during a Christmas supper with an acquaintance, we were joined by two others, neither of whom did we know. One person began speaking and speaking directly to my acquaintance and began a long and intense verbal self-expression of the horrors that she had lived through and that she was still reeling from. Never in my life had I seen such a wanton display of a human being wallowing in self-pity. Not a tear dropped from her eye while she was verbalizing all the details of her horrid experience. No, she was speaking completely out of touch with her sorrow - detached from any sorrow, so to speak; and, she was speaking from the memory of her experience, in other words from her knowledge of what she had experienced. My acquaintance was entirely incapable of discerning that it was self-pity and only listened intently, which only added fuel and energy to the continued airing of this bully’s dirty laundry in public. (K would see such airing of dirty laundry in public as he referred to it as “abomination”.) It was an absolute horror for me to witness. I fell into an absolute silence and ate my meal quietly. I felt nothing for this bully, nothing at all. Eventually, she and her friend got up and left, her with a self-satisfied smile on her face and her accomplishment of self-expression.

So, you can see that compassion is no way that of a detached mind, as you put it.

105

No, Sir, I am not either giving advice or explaining compassion as a strategy. My point was for valuing another person’s emotion, first his/ her state of mind must be noticed. Otherwise, it is impossible to value the pain he/she is going through.

Sometimes, it requires intuition to understand what a person is going through. I observed this quality in very few people of my life.

106

I agree that compassion is not a practice. Actually I wanted to say that, if the opposite person is unloving or having views which differ from our view, valuing such a person to some extent for the sake of stability in the mood, requires some sort of detachment.

By observing the sorrow in situations, some people will just shed tears, some people will go wild and destroy items around (For example in the film hunger games, in a scene the lead actress will grieve for the fellow competitors death. By watching that people start breaking the items related to government. (empathy turned into violence)), some people will just think of the possible solution to make the person come out of the situation or just leave. I all the above cases the person will react according to his/her conditioning. In all three cases, there is empathy towards the sorrow but the outcome is different.

I feel that a detached mind will react according to the situation, without any kind of bias.

Maybe I am wrong, I do not know. :slightly_smiling_face:

107

I think I resonated with your explanation. Sometimes reacting in such situations will increase the intensity of distress.

108

hi sivaram,

You have mentioned the phrase, “detached mind”, twice! Here, we see the idea of duality in full mode of operation, right? So, do you realize, that there are many ideas that exist in our society that perpetuate the idea of duality, ideas such as attachment/detachment, and violence/non-violence? There are others, but I think just mentioning these two will be sufficient for the purposes of this discussion. And, please note that here, one is putting into bold the phrase “idea of duality”. I am doing this to stress duality as a psychological idea, instead of certain physical facts, such as short/tall, young/old, male/female, etc., etc., etc.

But, is non-violence a reality in itself? Is it a fact? People practise non-violence these days. Ghandi like Martin Luther King were well-known proponents of non-violence. The problem is that violence is a fact, while non-violence is only an idea, which many people try and practise, thus avoiding and escaping looking at themselves, at their violence. In general, most people will not ask themselves whether or not there really is a duality such as violence and non-violence. The fact is that there is only “what is”, right? And, because they don’t question themselves, violence continues; and as we can see in the world around us… seems to be getting worse. Here, I am not going to go into all the aspects of violence in this topic (as it is not really in line with the present topic of relationship), okay?

So, in analogy, people also have a tendency to see attachment/detachment as a duality as well, right? So, I am saying here that attachment is a fact, one which everyone indulges in, right? That is “what is”. People are attached to family, wife/husband/partner, friends, children, objects, things they own, their beliefs, their opinions, their way of living, this forum, verbal exchanges with each other (laughs here!), one’s computer !! (You have no idea how I laughed at myself quite some years ago, when the hard drive on my computer died, and went to the store and pitiably whined to the salesman about that, then suddenly realized how attached I was to the darn thing!) Funny, eh?

Many years ago, I was quite struck by the following excerpt, where K said:

“He is caught in Aristotle. Aristotle apparently, according to him, has said, “Opposite must exist; otherwise ‘what is’ is non-existent”. Listen to it carefully, please. The opposite must exist otherwise ‘what is’ is non-existent. I am attached, and the opposite is detachment, and if there is no opposite there is no attachment. I am afraid even Aristotle can be mistaken!”
K: Saanen, 2nd Public Dialogue, 1st Aug. 1974

So, I trust you can see that detachment, as in a “detached mind”, is not a reality, and not the opposite of attachment. Personally, I think that having a detached mind is an aberration of what it means to be a human being, a horror. Under such a detached mind, all kinds of horrors are committed on this planet. Such a detached mind is only someone who has separated themselves from “what is”. So, I ask you, would you rather have a doctor with a “detached mind”, rather than a compassionate doctor…?

109

Okay, if there is duality I have to pay some attention and ask you some doubts.

I will reply to you after sometime. :slightly_smiling_face:

110

Compassion is not about noticing or evaluating. It has nothing to do with the intellect, thought. It comes with the awakening of intelligence. Prior to that, it’s just a word, a concept, like “love”… food for thought, but incomprehensible to the conditioned mind.

111

Thought is nothing but the reflection of self in which there is attachment. If the mind is evaluating the validity of such a thought, then we can say that detachment took place inside (This is not natural thing of course).

Psychologists say that compassion is a process happens between two people and there are three things are involved in it, which are noticing, feeling and acting accordingly. An empathic response towards the sufferer may lead to two types of response, which is personal distress and concern.

Hey, there is a lot of other things involved in the above paragraph. I think I do not know the role of detachment then. :slightly_smiling_face:

Again I have to re-iterate myself.