Relationships

[charleycannuck]

Doug,

@macdougdoug

True - the intellectual narrative does not lead to freedom from the known.

(cough)… freedom is at the beginning. Why is it that intellectuals work from the premise? - the premise being there is a system of reward/punishment, or in other words a goal, freedom at the end. It doesn’t seem to stop such people to believe in free unfettered verbal expression as a modus operandi in the exercise of their thoughts.

@macdougdoug

If there is no actual realisation, the words, even when said correctly,

It’s not just that the words are “said correctly”, but the manner of expression as well, which appears so much to mimic K - all of which one finds utterly absurd. The masks of those who mimic K seem incredible. At first, one was under the impression that they had actually done the work, or at least some of the work. But as things progressed, one realized that some were actually hiding who they were, all behind a series of cleverly phrased sentences. In doing the work, one finds one’s own voice, and interestingly enough, one doesn’t end up sounding like K at all. One noticed their bullying (and was horrified by such behaviour, even though they seemed to do it did it in such a polite way), the subtle and not so subtle ad hominem attacks (making personal their conclusions and judgements - all of which were projections of the mess of what lay within their psyches). So, in the end, the only thing one learned on this site so far about the “other” were the projections of their psyche, and all the really scary character defects they have.

K said not to bother with those not doing the “work”. And so one has been accused of not being patient with such people !! Please understand that patience is not an ideal to practise or cultivate, just so that one gives the impression of being kind, and reverential to the opinion of the “other”. Indulging someone blathering on about what X, Y, or Z said is nothing but foolish.

[charleycannuck]

One’s excerpts file,

One is slowly going through these published works which one now has on file, most of which one has to convert from epub/mobi/pdf into docx, and then do some minor editing (punctuation, etc.) so as to conform to each other. One is altering the font into a bold-faced Arial 16pt. dark blue font and adding a pale sky blue background colour (easier on the eyes). One of them is actually an abridged version of something which one already has! So there is some checking to be done. And all the while doing this, one is adding a few excerpts to one’s files, which will be posting in the future, as one goes through them. There are also extensive books written about K…

[charleycannuck]

Nagarjuna,

One has not studied Nagarjuna, but one did see a few videos about him. Interesting fellow. He lived on one little spot of the world and walked daily around a little hill surrounding the little area where he and his “friends” lived (villagers, and the “cow” ) lived.

• “K: That’s it. But after all, Pupul, especially in the Indian tradition, from the Buddha, from Nagarjuna, and the ancient Hindus, there is that state of nothingness, in which, they said, you must deny the whole thing. Nagarjuna came to that point. As far as I’ve been told and understand—I may be mistaken—he denied everything, every movement of the psyche.”
  Pupul Jayakar, Fire in the Mind, Part I, Brain, Mind, Emptiness, Brockwood Park, 25 June 1983

So, in the above, one sees that one doesn’t have to travel the world (like K) so as to be regarded as the sole embodiment of truth. [One had noticed that this fact was completely misunderstood by someone who because, he exercised thought (comparing Nagarjuna to K), judged and concluded that it was only K who was worth “studying”.] You see, comparison is an activity of the brain (thought), of a brain, of someone who is in essence “judgemental”. In effect, one has seen K use the phrase “judgemental comparison”… in the new docs one now has on file.

After the insight that one is the “ground” (… of humanity), there was the understanding that it really doesn’t matter where one lives, or how much one travelled, how many languages that one speaks or understands, etc. which would determine the validity of what was said by anyone deemed “illumined”.

[macdougdoug]

@charleycannuck

Why is it that intellectuals work from the premise? - the premise being there is a system of reward/punishment, or in other words a goal, freedom at the end.

This premise does not seem to arise from “intellectuallism” - reward/punishment is there in a lot of so called religious systems for example - which predate faith in logical philosphies. Goals and motivation also do not seem to be dependant on any “advanced” system of logic and reasoning.

People will be people, with their habits and personalities - there is no reason to defend who we are, and how we act (we : includes you and I)

[charleycannuck]

Doug,

@macdougdoug

People will be people, with their habits and personalities - there is no reason to defend who we are, and how we act (we : includes you and I)

Of course, the cattle ranch owner in B.C. and the poor laborer who toils in the field in the Far East have their “habits and personalities”. One wasn’t asking anyone to defend who they are. However, one was referring to those who have been “into” K for 10-20-30 years and have not even negated anything in their psyches. And their very promotion of their various beliefs (which they have acquired through their “diligent” study of other so-called “religious” philosophies) is nothing but propaganda and maintenance of their intellect, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the message of K - this being a K site.

[macdougdoug]

If I look at this Religious scholar - I probably won’t see the same person you do.
Which could mean we are reacting (getting upset, interested, bored etc) to a projection of our own brain - or it could mean that one of us (you or me) is seeing clearer than the other.

Both hypotheses seem necessarily true - but in order to find out who has the clearer vision, we would have to do the work of demonstration via the facts (in this case being the words on the screen and how they may be reasonably interpreted)

PS. Let’s not bother

PPS .

@charleycannuck

promotion of their various beliefs (which they have acquired through their “diligent” study of other so-called “religious” philosophies) is nothing but propaganda and maintenance of their intellect,

This is of course a very real and common danger for us all - especially for those of us who have seen the light (intellectual, spiritual, cultural or otherwise)

[charleycannuck]

Doug,

@macdougdoug

they may be reasonably interpreted

Interpretation or translation of any statement does reveal more about the person who translates their reaction to any post.

@macdougdoug

If I look at this Religious scholar - I probably won’t see the same person you do.

Have no idea whether you are a pundit or not. But, you do intellectual very well. Perhaps, even amateur “evolutionary psychology” too. *G

[James]

Charley,

@charleycannuck

You see, comparison is an activity of the brain (thought), of a brain, of someone who is in essence “judgemental”.

This thread is on the topic of relationship. So is judgmental comparison healthy in human relationship?

Perhaps at the periphery such judgements do not matter greatly; but when one employs these judgements as a premise in relationship, they become destructive, don’t they?

So when you write:

@charleycannuck

There are so many posts here where the members expend so much energy trying to understand what K meant by x, y and z. This is something which Charley never did.

do you not see that this constant comparison of Charley to others on the forum is also a form of judgemental comparison?

Is it truly the case that other people on the forum are denying that understanding involves

@charleycannuck

Look[ing] at [one]self, go[ing] into [one]self, enquir[ing] into what there is

?

Is it truly the case that other people on this forum are denying that inquiry is principally concerned with

@charleycannuck

Perceiving, observing, watching

?

Is the image Charley has of others on this forum - as wearing “masks”, “mimicking K”, “hiding behind a series of cleverly phrased sentences”, of working within a “system of reward and punishment” from clearly stated “premises”, etc - truly synonymous with a perception of people as they actually are?

Is Charley’s stated image of the other an absolute fact, as the sky above our heads? Or might it be an image created by thought?

When Charley asserts of these people that they

@charleycannuck

believe in free unfettered verbal expression as a modus operandi in the exercise of their thoughts

is Charley aware that this judgment would also seem to include the following verbal sharings:

@charleycannuck

One is slowly going through these published works which one now has on file, most of which one has to convert from epub/mobi/pdf into docx, and then do some minor editing (punctuation, etc.) so as to conform to each other. One is altering the font into a bold-faced Arial 16pt. dark blue font and adding a pale sky blue background colour (easier on the eyes). One of them is actually an abridged version of something which one already has! So there is some checking to be done. And all the while doing this, one is adding a few excerpts to one’s files, which will be posting in the future, as one goes through them. There are also extensive books written about K…

?

When Charley accuses the other people on the forum of

@charleycannuck

bullying (and was horrified by such behaviour, even though they seemed to do it did it in such a polite way), the subtle and not so subtle ad hominem attacks (making personal their conclusions and judgements - all of which were projections of the mess of what lay within their psyches)

is Charley’s assertion of what occurred based on a true perception of what actually took place, or might it be influenced by the reactivity of one’s conditioning?

And by responding to these perceived “bullies” indirectly - yet publicly on separate threads - while all the while continuing to accuse them of being “foolish”, “absurd”, “blathering”, “scary”, etc, does this not count as “subtle ad hominem attacks”; and can it be ruled out that this whole response is a projection of Charley’s own “psyche”?

So Charley, I’m just asking you - as one person attempting to relate to another person on this forum - must we be so judgmentally comparative of each other in relationship?

Why must we hold so strongly to our images of each other, even though we can see the damage this causes in relationship?

[charleycannuck]

James,

@James

as one person attempting to relate to another person on this forum

Not interested. You made it perfectly clear elsewhere that Charley was not welcome in your verbal forays unless they were at the same level as you are, and therefore one was not “acceptable”. I must say that I do not relate to 99% of what you post (I zone out, “je décroche”, as I am not an intellectual (i.e. narcissist). Have absolutely no idea what some of the words and complicated posts of which you are a part of actually mean, words which you and others use, and have no intention of googling them. Have fun elsewhere.

Considering your ad hominem “projection” posts re: Charley, please leave me alone, and post elsewhere.

Thanks.

[James]

Charley,

@charleycannuck

James,

@James

as one person attempting to relate to another person on this forum

Not interested.

Ok. But this is a thread on relationship. Just a week ago we were having a conversation on the forum about something or other (to do with our personal history), and it was perfectly amicable.

Then, perhaps just a day later, we had a discussion about the nature of experience (as part of a discussion on another thread exploring the limits of thought), in which I expressed my perplexity about K’s use of the word experience - a perplexity that I have subsequently sought to grapple with on a separate thread. And it was during that discussion that you reacted to my expressed perplexity with what I perceived at the time (and still do) to be impatience.

I then reacted to what I perceived to be your impatience, and you reacted to my reaction. So here we are.

I still don’t believe that you actually understood my original difficulty with the word experience (not that you lack the ability to understand what was being said), and that your impatience merely reflected this misunderstanding.

But it seems you have abstracted from that misunderstanding - which resulted in mutual reactivity - an image of me that you are now holding to with what I can only call a fierce certitude. And I can only assume (though I may be wrong) that this is because of the way you have been treated by others in your own past.

I genuinely do not recognise myself from the invectives and hostility (at least verbally) you have shown me since then.

We have both had difficult relationships with others (I know I have), and I am for sure not asking you for any kind of intimacy or even friendship. But I am asking you - as a human being to another human being - to reconsider this aversion to relating to me (even if this doesn’t lead to any verbal or explicit relationship).

And if you genuinely feel that you cannot do this, or if you do this but still feel unable to verbally (or explicitly) relate, then I promise not speak to you again on this forum (until or unless, that is, you change your image or feeling towards me).

But if so, then, out of respect, I would ask you in turn not to continue to make implicit judgements of me on this or other threads, as I will have no right of reply.

Sincerely (or earnestly! ),

James

[charleycannuck]

James,

Haven’t even bothered to read your post.
So I will say again, please leave me alone. And will add, since you ignored a simple request. What part of “please leave me alone” didn’t you get?

[charleycannuck]

Conflict,

• “K: Do you actually see that thought is incomplete and that whatever it does is incomplete? Sir, whatever thought does will—must—create sorrow, mischief, agony, conflict.”
  Pupul Jayakar, Fire in the Mind, Part II, Compassion as Boundless Energy, Madras, 16 January 1981 [Previously published in The Way of Intelligence]

Thought being the result of knowledge, and as knowledge is limited, so thought is limited.

• “So, if we completely reject, not intellectually but actually, all so-called spiritual authority, all ceremonies, rituals and dogmas, it means that we stand alone and are already in conflict with society; we cease to be respectable human beings. A respectable human being cannot possibly come near to that infinite, immeasurable, reality.”
  K: Freedom from the Known, Chapter 1

• “A religious man, or the man who is seeking truth, is in revolt against the society which is based essentially on respectability, acquisitiveness and the ambitious search for power. He is not in conflict with society, but society is in conflict with him. Society can never accept him. Society can only make him a saint and worship him – and thereby destroy him.”
  K: Bombay, 5th Public Talk, 24th February 1957, Collected Works Vol. 10 – A Light to Oneself 1956-57

• “Now, you are good enough to listen to, or hear, what is being said. But to go much deeper into the issue, you have to reject it, not intellectually but actually, completely – no ceremonies, no organized religions, no dogmas, no rituals – you have completely to deny all that. This means you are already standing alone. Because the world follows, accepts the traditional approach, and you deny totally that approach; and therefore you are already in much deeper conflict with society, with your parents, with your neighbours, with your world. And you must be in conflict, otherwise you become a respectable human being; and a respectable human being cannot possibly come near that infinite, immeasurable reality.
  “So, you have started by denying something utterly false – not as a reaction; if it is a reaction, you will create a pattern into which you will be trapped. You deny, because you understand the futility, the stupidity of a mind that has been tortured. And because you deny the way which religions have asserted, you may be called irreligious. But that is the path of true religion – to deny completely the false. You have to do it. If you pretend intellectually that it is a very good idea and do not do it, then you cannot go any further. When you do it, you do it with tremendous intelligence because you are free, not because you are frightened. Therefore you create a great disturbance in yourself and around you. Therefore you step out of the trap of respectability.”
  K: Madras, 4th Public Talk, 25th January 1967, Collected Works Vol. 17 – Perennial Questions

• “Pupul Jayakar: He may put it in a different way. Don’t also forget that conflict is the ‘I’. Ultimately society and everything else can go down the drain. Ultimately it is the ‘I’. All experience, all search, centres around that which is thought caught in time as conflict.
  K: So the ‘I’ is conflict.
  Pupul Jayakar: I see it is so in an abstract way.
  K: No, it is not so in an abstract way; it is so.
  Pupul Jayakar: Maybe this is the ultimate thing which is stopping us…
  K: Let us be very simple. I recognize that conflict is my life. Conflict is ‘me’.
  Achyut Patwardhan: After accepting the futility of cause and effect, what remains is an identification with a certain habit reflex. Does that identification break or not? If it does not break, then our dialogue is only at the theoretical level.
  K: Don’t introduce more words. When you say that conflict ends, does the ‘me’ end? Or is there a block?
  Pupul Jayakar: I know conflict.
  K: You don’t know it. You can’t know it.
  Pupul Jayakar: How can you say that?
  K: That is just a theory. Do you actually realize that you are conflict? Do I realize in my blood, in my heart, in the depth of the ‘me’ that “I am conflict,” or is it just an idea which I am trying to fit into?”
  K: Pupul Jayakar, Fire in the Mind, Part II, Compassion as Boundless Energy, Madras, 16 January 1981, [Previously published in The Way of Intelligence]

Without seeing and understanding, and truly realizing that one is conflict, those who promote the idea that conflict exists because of the “other” miss the point completely… So, in the end, the followers chose and accept a leader who wants us all to be at the same level, hold hands, sing kumbaya, and pretend we are all friends. … Charley doing her very best at shaking up all the “respectable” members of the tribe - even having gone in all her posts as far as discouraging quite deliberately the possibility of having any followers whatsoever (followers - what a horror that is! - K referred to followers as being abomination btw).

[DanMcD]

Thanks for posting this. The ‘I’ IS conflict…the most dangerous wolves are the ones disguised as sheep!

[Sean]

Canis lupus, or the Iberian Grey Wolf, still roams freely in some remote areas of rural Spain. However, they are very difficult to see as they stay as far away as possible from human beings. Wolves know very well what the most dangerous animal is.

[DanMcD]

Yes that’s the point being made. The most dangerous people are the ones who think that they are good, fair, etc. Who cover the truth so completely in themselves that the image they have of themself (and that others have of them) gives them a place of ‘respectability’ in their own eyes and in the eyes of a rotten society.

[Sean]

That’s probably everyone on here then is it? Or are there some who are above all this? In the end there is always a “them” and “us” division, isn’t there?

[DanMcD]

@Sean

That’s probably everyone on here then is it? Or are there some who are above all this?

If the ‘I’ process is, as he said IS “conflict” , and “evil” as he also called it, then it’s not a matter of being “above” it, it would be a matter of not having it, wouldn’t it? For me the ‘I’ process is involved with a feeling of being ‘special’, feeling as if I’m somehow special. That may seem innocuous but I think it’s a deep conditioning. That no one actually IS ‘special’ is obvious when you spend enough time in nature. But that feeling I think , is a hallmark of the presence of the ‘I’. Aka ‘self-esteem’.

[Sean]

@DanMcD

@Sean

are there some who are above all this?

If the ‘I’ process is, as he said IS “conflict” , and “evil” as he also called it, then it’s not a matter of being “above” it, it’s a matter of not having it.

Dan, are you saying that you or some other people on this forum don’t have the “I” process but there are others here who do have this?

[DanMcD]

I didn’t mean to imply that. I’ve edited my post and maybe it’s clearer.

[Sean]

@DanMcD

If the ‘I’ process is, as he said IS “conflict” , and “evil” as he also called it, then it’s not a matter of being “above” it, it would be a matter of not having it, wouldn’t it? For me the ‘I’ process is involved with a feeling of being ‘special’

Hi again Dan. I’m just trying to clarify what you’re saying here. What you write seems very true - any one of us who goes around feeling “special” is creating a separation and dividing themselves off from other human beings. But don’t we all do this?