I hear you Charley. This is a good post and you obviously have a lot of intelligence. I see it very similarly with Putin and all of that.
But please dont compare Putin with some of the people on this site who might have said something about you. Putin is clearly in a different league than the posters on here.
I am sorry that some labelled you ‘toxic’. I am sorry if you were hurt in any way by these words. They were probably frustrated at you and your responses to them, so this word was used to describe how you interact on here, the words you used. Whether it was right or not, you also used some strong words to describe others.
I guess it is your right who you chat or discuss with. Thanks for clarifying that.
Relationship, those who Love can have a relationship with those who are non-loving, it is a one way relationship. Those who are non-loving cannot have a relationship with those who love. It is one way, from Love only. That is what Krishnamurti described.
Thanks for responding somewhat and clarifying your position. I am sorry I intruded into your thread here and will leave now, considering you do not want to chat or discuss with someone like me. Take care
Comparative thinking is used exclusively by intellectuals (narcissists) to compare one idea about a psychological fact uttered by one person to the idea about a psychological fact uttered by the “other”. Thus, translating and interpreting such knowledge with what they already know, thus resulting in patently false conclusions. As such, Charley has never exercised “comparative thought”. Charley never suffered from narcissism, never experienced abandonment in childhood, or even as a young adult. So, one has observed that narcissists do not see others clearly, especially their own selves. Their thoughts about the “other” distort their understanding of the “other”, and especially about themselves. It is a tragic and unfortunate state of being. Charley has never been considered as clever, by any of Charley’s friends or colleagues. (Clever, from to cleave, to separate.)
“K: You are losing, missing, an awful lot. You are all so damn clever, that is what is wrong with you.” Pupul Jayakar, Fire in the Mind, Part II, Can the Brain Be Free of Its Own Limitation?, Rishi Valley, 4 December 1980 [Previously published in The Way of Intelligence]
After having read Pupul’s book, one noticed that quite a few of her chapters were not in the original so-called “complete” works of the CD-ROM which one had purchased from the UK many years ago.
So having read this book, and not having read so many of K books in their entirety, one has now understood that so many of the K regulars never reached the point of saying “I don’t know,” and meaning it. So, this is why so many do not “do” K, and why they never “get” K. I found this fact very interesting.
Pupul’s obvious attachment and affection for K comes out clearly in this book, but what was really interesting was the fact that the reason why she hung around him because she sensed in his presence the “immensity”, which she herself was obviously unable to come directly into contact with. This “immensity” (the great “mystery”) is what Charley has referred to as that which is “humongous”…
Thanks for clearing this up Dan. I really am not sure how much of the conflict on this forum is down to miscommunications rather than a different understanding of the teachings (not that having a different understanding of certain aspects of the teachings is in any way a bad thing). How do you see this?
The brain so abhors bafflement that it can’t help but latch itself on to the most digestible theory of the moment which attempts to explain what the hell this is all about. It used to be relatively easy: a god for this and a god for that…but we’re too ‘sophisticated’ for that now. K seems to have come up with something, pointing at an “Immensity” which sounds like just the ticket. Might give the brain the peace it seems to need?
It makes sense. The brain/mind is filled with ‘me’ crap, bursting at the seams…the theory is that when it’s ‘empty’ it can at least be open to another possibility: the Immensity. There’s no ‘method’ to bring about the emptying so everybody who’s interested in it is on their own. (That can be irritating because we like methods) We also can get a little jealous if someone comes on like they found something and they don’t have any ‘official’ certification to back it up. That’s why ‘organizations’ are necessary; to certify: the ‘K Stamp of Approval”. Almost inevitable. Anyway apart from that trap and all the others, the emptying business seems what’s called for and insight into that.
That seem right to you?
A factual thread on how relationships can break down (and perhaps be made whole again?).
As recently as June 5th-June 8th (on a thread titled Memory) James and Charley were engaged in a friendly back-and-forth conversation. The conversation was engaging and positive as far as James could see.
However, communication/relationship between Charley and James broke down sometime between James’ post 64 (June 14th) and James’ post 70 (also June 14th) on a thread titled Facts-Only Inquiry: The Unconscious Mind.
On this thread a discussion had begun about the limits of thought. James entered the discussion by replying to Rick (post 61, June 14th), and Charley joined in by replying to James about the limits of knowledge.
So, as far as James can make out, before post 64 Charley and James were still on friendly terms. Yet after post 70 Charley had become openly hostile towards James. So what happened in between the composition of these posts?
Charley had replied to James with an assertion about the nature of knowledge; and James had replied to Charley by raising a question he has long had about Krishnamurti’s use of the word “experience” (which is foundational to knowledge in Krishnamurti’s teaching).
K says that thought, memory, knowledge are limited because experience is limited. James was interested in whether the senses are involved in experience, or only memory and previous knowledge, and whether experiencing itself is necessarily limited (later on James began a separate thread about this matter to explore it further).
However, Charley seems to have found something in James’ posts (one or all of 64, 66, 68, and 70) to be so objectionable, so beyond forgiveness, that she broke off direct communication with him.
Charley did not though (at least in James’ estimation) break off indirect communication with James.
Charley’s next post on the thread came a day later (post 88, June 15th), and was apparently intended as a general response to the previous day’s discussion (about the nature of experience); but it was not addressed directly to either James or Rick (with whom the discussion had taken place) but to Dan; and it was concerned not with the topic of experience now, but with making ad hominem slights against certain nameless others (apparently James and Rick?):
They are obsessed with their thought. As you said quite a bit earlier “piece of work”… *G
They never did what K suggested (the “work”): observing without (the world) and seeing what thought has wrought in the world, then observing within (and seeing what damage thought has done in their life), then doing this again and again. To them, thought is more important and relevant than observation. And if one points this out, they make subtle ad hominem attacks… And, they lived obliviously ever after in pleasurable ignorance. The end.
So rather than respond to James directly about what he had to say about “experience”, Charley sought to appeal to Dan about a nameless “they” with whom she felt frustrated; labelling “them” as being a “piece of work”; and going on to further accuse “them” of making ad hominem attacks. All the while not seeing that Charley herself was the one resorting to ad hominem attacks herself (ad hominem arguments are a means of ignoring a person’s actual argument or reasoning - in this case about the nature of experience - by irrelevantly attacking the person who is making the argument).
Because Charley had not replied directly to James (was James a part of this nameless “they”?), James wasn’t sure if he should respond to Charley’s pointed remarks.
But, seeing that it was likely Charley had reacted to some aspect of the preceding discussion about “experience” (from June 14th), James thought to constructively address the reaction this had provoked by challenging Charley’s remarks, while at the same time laying out, as objectively as James felt able, what he felt had happened.
So in post 98 (June 16th) James wrote:
Maybe you are right Charley. - But are you so certain that the other person is not “doing the work” of observation? I wonder how you derive this kind of judgmental certainty? And I wonder, is this judgmental attitude (if this is what it is) a product of intelligence or reaction?
I have noticed before that you have a tendency to become impatient with some conversations (usually because of some misunderstanding, and a reaction to this misunderstanding); and your response is then to become highly critical of the other person (while at the same time claiming to be free - yourself - from all error, all blame).
When this occurs you usually cast yourself as being the one who has seen, while the other person is guilty of being ignorant. You are the wise one, while the other has fallen short of right comprehension. Or you are the victim, and the other person has done or said something dreadful. We all do this sometimes, but you don’t seem to admit that you yourself are doing this.
Yet, as I understand it, the situation is usually the result of some miscommunication or misunderstanding, which has then become reified as something “bad”, something “wrong” (or even malicious), when it is nothing of the kind.
So I wonder why one does this? As you claim to be “doing the work” of observation, you must be somewhat aware of this tendency of yours, right? (not that others do not have this tendency too).
Much of what you write is interesting, informed, highly lucid. You can be affectionate when you feel like it, as well as insightful, direct. So, in my understanding, there is no reason why you cannot remain engaged in a conversation without becoming impatient, and so help others (including myself - including yourself too) to understand themselves and the world better. And isn’t this what you would prefer to be doing?
James felt that this was a fair and reasonable reply to Charley’s preceding post, indicating, from James’ point of view, his belief that the immediate cause (of the breakdown in communication) had been Charley’s verbal misunderstanding of James’ previous posts, and the impatience that she displayed following this.
But James also made it clear that despite this tendency of Charley’s to become quickly impatient during discussions, Charley’s contributions are valued by James.
Charley’s reply to this post was again indirect, replying to James’ quoted text through the same intermediary (Dan) - in post 100, June 16th - in which she gave this as her answer:
This is what I meant by subtle ad hominem attack…lol
There is the seeing of what is happening on this site (clarity and intelligence) and makes a statement as regards that, and one is accused of being “judgemental”, etc. etc. etc.
Yes, you are right, one did “nail” it. And, insofar as trying dialogue again, one would like to get paid to do that with the ones who value words and thought over the “work”, which isn’t likely to happen, lol. Narcissists are too selfish to wanna pay for things like that. lol
You know, Dan, were one of these were to show up at one’s door, one would call 911 (police). (thought = fear, dark and cold, the dark side - there was the seeing of this within).
Obviously by this time the discussion had wandered very far from the nature of “experience”, and had descended into something openly reactive and personal. James and Rick (apparently the references behind the words “one of these”) are clearly being labelled here as “narcissists” and criminals.
The fact that this comment was made on the public forum (ostensibly about a nameless “they”, but really about James and Rick), and yet was being made indirectly through an intermediary (Dan), with no invitation for either James or Rick to engage in a straightforward right of reply - is behaviour is that some people might regard as toxic. Certainly James felt this was so. Charley’s post also repeats her accusation against the “they” of being ad hominem, while being itself the very essence of an ad hominem attack. James wonders how Charley can fail to see this double-standard?
James responded to this (post 101, June 16th) by calling out Charley’s behaviour:
Charley - I made an earnest attempt in reaching out to you, to attempt to meet you where you are, while at the same time challenging you in what you were saying.
Yet instead of responding in kind, you have resorted to the same toxic language as before - with the same toxic means (not even deigning to reply to me directly)
Charley didn’t reply.
Meanwhile James still wanted to discuss the nature of experience (the topic that had resulted in a breakdown of communication with Charley), so - as already mentioned - he started a thread on “experience” to attempt to inquire into that.
Since that time (it is now June 24th, so about 10 days after all this took place) Charley has been posting opinions on her (ironically titled) Relationships thread, apparently in a continuance of the disagreements she previously referenced with certain nameless others on this website. - Although, again, her posts are made indirectly rather than directly to these nameless others, and she refuses to constrictively engage with either James or Rick or Sean or David S (while being happy to reply to Dan).
And despite attempts by both James and David S to address this sudden breakdown in communication/relationship with Charley (dating to June 14th approx), Charley continues to refuse to engage constructively with either of them. Her most recent remarks on the matter make apparent reference to James’ use of the word “toxic” (from post 101, June 16th, on the Unconscious Mind thread) - which James used to describe the way that Charley was behaving. Charley writes:
on this site, and to see the word “toxic” leveled at Charley… by quite a few members of this site… Well, if anyone of them believes that for one minute Charley is in any way shape or form interested in “chatting” or discussing with anyone of those, think again!
Truth can have no relationship to the field of reality. None whatsoever.
Yet if an impartial reader recalls Charley’s post (100, on the Unconscious Mind thread) to which James had been responding, one might see why James was minded to use the word “toxic” in that instance: the word was used with reference to Charley’s language and behaviour at that time, and not as a label for Charley herself.
Perhaps because Charley so categorically identifies herself with “truth” (in this most recent passage), she is unwilling to concede that her language and behaviour sometimes falls short of “truth” (and so is, in such instances - as is shown by some of Charley’s posts already referred to - an expression of “reality”).
So, in summary, the breakdown in communication/relationship between Charley and James seems to have begun as a simple misunderstanding that took place during a discussion about the nature of “experience” (and the reactions that occurred following this misunderstanding).
James is not saying that he is blameless for the breakdown in communication/relationship, which he has already admitted on this thread and on other threads. But James feels that, in this instance at least, the initial misunderstanding was Charley’s, and might have been swiftly resolved through clear, open, patient (and affectionate) communication.
Charley may of course simply dismiss this post, or decline to even read it. This is her prerogative. But it is James’ final attempt to make the facts of the matter plain and clear, so that a line can be drawn under what has taken place.
From James’ side, the door to a normal healthy relationship (on the public forum) with Charley is open. James is not closing that door. It is up to Charley if she wishes to be similarly open, or to keep that door closed.
well, please leave me alone didn’t work, never works with certain kinds of people:
So, back to K:
“Now is it possible for me and for you to end violence in yourselves? Which means, I must find out for myself what kind of violence there is in me. Is it defensive violence to defend myself? I defend myself through my nationality, through the religion I belong to, through an ideology, whether it is Communist or Catholic or Buddhist, or whatever it is. The very process of defending and resisting is a form of violence. When a nation says, “I defend myself only,” such a concept obviously means I am prepared to fight. So there is no such thing as defence and offence, because both contain in themselves violence. That’s one form of violence.” K: Talks and Dialogues, 2nd Public Dialogue, Saanen, 3rd August 1967
I see no reason whatsoever to defend, to rationalize, to justify, etc. anything which I post!, especially with someone who is deliberately trying to discredit anything Charley posts.
Hi Dan. I think what you say makes a lot of sense here and we seem to share a common understanding of K’s teaching on many aspects of it. The part where our understanding seems to diverge is when you say the following:
I don’t understand this sentence and I don’t recognise this as having happened on this forum. Maybe I’m missing something here? Could you elaborate?
So since there is no ‘how’ to empty the mind of the ‘me’ and ‘mine’ given that ‘motive’ to have an ‘empty mind’ is a form of greed , is there anything one can ‘do’?
Being aware of the contents of one’s mind in the moment? Each moment? Tedious? “Arduous”? Watching one’s thoughts like watching a bird fly? Losing it and picking it up again?
seeing what is happening in the U.S. - observing what is without… of course, whatever happens there has an enormous impact in Canada… their Supreme Court has just reversed Roe vs. Wade; and a day or so ago, the same court has expanded 2nd amendment gun rights - so, basically in NY State, one no longer needs to apply to carry a concealed weapon… unfettered weapons rights, and a certain loss in women’s right to privacy. Condolences to my neighbour south of me.
I think this issue of imputed “jealousy” was what Sean was talking about when he asked
Someone picks up a piece of truth and moves with that. What’s wrong with that? Surely there’s nothing wrong with that. Another person could get jealous about it, but that is something secondary for the person who is moving with truth.
Personally I don’t feel jealous of someone moving along with something true they have found, and I would be surprised if Sean felt jealous about it either.
But if that person makes out that they are now something special because they have picked up a piece of truth - if that person seeks (implicitly or explicitly) to identify themselves with truth, and reacts with impatience, hostility or disdain when someone questions them about something they have said - then I think it is reasonable to ask them if they are still moving with the piece of truth they had found. Because if they are still moving with the truth, this will not be perceived as a problem.
Well said.
I too, wondered why charley has changed his tune with you after all the palaver you two seemed to enjoy. What did you say that pushed his button?
I honestly don’t know what it was that made her turn against me so suddenly. I have attempted to lay out the objective facts as I understand them in post 229 (on this thread), but to no avail.
As far as I can see, she misunderstood something I said during a discussion about the nature of experience, and then reacted to what she had misunderstood. Or she reacted to me because I was unwilling to accept her assertions about the nature of experience. Or she reacted to me because I called her out for being too preachy. I honestly don’t know which one of these was the trigger.
Her response since then has been to literally cut off all relationship with me - including on this (ironically titled) Relationships thread - and yet to continue making large pronouncements about the evils of ‘narcissistic intellectuals’ (I wonder who she could be talking about?), Nagarjuna and such, but without offering me a right of reply.
Just recently Charley has been claiming that she has never compared herself with anyone - only intellectuals apparently do this. Charley also claims to be different from others because she has never been narcissistic - narcissists being those persons who (in her words) “do not see others clearly, especially themselves.” !
Yet it would not take a thoughtful person very long to read through some of Charley’s statements and find clear evidence of a constant and preening comparison with others, as well as an endless fascination with Charley (considered in the third person).
I have tried in vain to resolve the matter, because any rupture in relationship, for me at least, is tragic. But it is as it is.
People are complex. At one level Charley is a person eccentrically (and incorrectly imo) claiming to be ‘enlightened’, who abuses the authority of K’s teachings to assert herself over others, and who never takes personal responsibility for her reactions (Charley is never ‘wrong’). Obviously I don’t agree with this aspect of her behaviour.
But she’s also a human being with some insightful things to say about awareness, about our relationship to nature, politics, and small details concerning her own biography and daily observations (which I find interesting). The first things I read of Charley’s were her political ‘sharings’, and I am mostly in alignment with her when she talks about politics. In other circumstances I could quite easily see us being friendly (as we were, momentarily) - but her unwillingness to truly engage anyone outside her immediate frame of assumptions (she would of course deny that she has assumptions!) means that any potential for such friendliness is never realised.
That is a lie, never wrote that, never made any claims whatsoever as to being ‘enlightened’.
Your insinuation that anything that Charley posts is a “reaction” instead of a response is but another example of your personal attack on Charley, instead of responding to the content of a particular post.
