It may have been a mistake on my part to continue this conversation about the ‘mirror of relationship’ on this particular Relationships thread!
But I just want to make one final point that some participants may have missed (this is not directed to you Richard, but to participants in general):
No one participant has personal ownership of any public thread on Kinfonet. A participant can respectfully advise that a conversation has gone off topic; but no participant possess or owns either the conversation topic, the thread itself, or the comments made on the thread.
If you’re saying that when K spoke of the mirror of relationship he was not referring to relationship with others, but to one’s relationship with one’s self (which is imagined), you’re mistaken. The relationship one has with something that is not actual, but improvised from moment to moment, is the activity of maintaining one’s self - not exposing it.
don’t worry about him, one doesn’t foresee him in the running… Of course, there is this guy Ron…in Florida, who in another sense is even more dangerous…
Apparently, stare decisis has been discarded due to personal beliefs and it is not surprising that certain parts of my neighbour to the south appear to be leaning towards fascism.
" “K: The brain is only concerned with itself, its own security, its own problems, its own sorrow, and “the other” is also this. The brain is never related to anything. There is no “other”. “The other” is the image created by thought which is the brain.”
“K: You exist, but my relationship with you is based on the image I have created of you. Therefore, my relationship is with the image which I have.”
“K: Let us get this clear. My relation to you is based on the thought which I have about you, the image that I have created about you. The relationship is not with you, but with the image that I have. Therefore, there is no relationship.”
…
“Pupul Jayakar: We are talking of degeneration. Anyone who has observed the mind in operation sees the validity of what Krishnaji says, that you may be physically a human being but you exist in terms of an image in my mind and my relation is to that image in my mind.
K: Therefore, there is no interaction. Therefore, there is no “you” for the “I” to interact with.
Achyut Patwardhan: I have a difficulty. Unless you accept the existence of the other individual, you are by implication devaluing or negating what arises as a challenge from “the other”, which is as great a reality as my urges or responses. My urges and responses are no more valid than those of the other person.
K: You are taking away the object which sets something in motion, which is a reality." K: The Way of Intelligence, Chapter Two, In Listening Is Transformation, Part I, Madras, 14th January 1981
Here, one must recall that the only function of the brain is to secure and maintain itself. So, its only concern is with its own security. Throughout the brain’s life, it has many experiences, which build a base of knowledge. And it is this knowledge which generates thought and images. As long as thought dominates and controls everything, such a brain has no way of having any relationship with anyone. The only relationship the brain has is with its own images of other people. In other words, all these images are a reaction.
" “K: Sir, keep it very simple. I look at that brown shirt and the scarf. If I say, “I don’t like that brown shirt and the scarf,” or “I like that brown shirt and the scarf,” I’ve already created an image, which is a reaction.” K: 6th Public Dialogue, Saanen, 7th August 1967
So, when a person doesn’t “like” a statement which contradicts their sense of psychological security, they will automatically create an unfavourable image of that person.
All conflict in the world is generated by thought. And thought is forever separating itself from others. This is the divisive nature of thought. All tyrants and bullies seek to separate peoples into “us” and “them”. Hitler did it with “the final solution”. Putin did it with “denazification”. Trump did it with “stop the steal”. In the Middle East, we all see the conflict in Palestine and Israel, which began in an insidious way when the governing Brits (at that time) separated the population by creating a census which identified and separated the peoples living there into Arabs and Jews, both peoples having lived previously side by side without “thinking” they were different from each other. And, I would say it is also the case in the UK, where apart from the Guardian newspaper, all other major media outlets are owned by those whose personal vested interests were benefitted financially by the idea of separation, thus they supported Brexit and fostered this idea, much to the present economic disadvantage of the majority of the population as it is now facing.
Yes, so I wonder why Charley has set herself up for the “unfavourable image” others form of her when she implies or states that Charley has undergone the transformation K spoke of. Why did she not merely pose questions to those who make questionable statements instead of drawing attention to her status, giving others reason not to take her seriously?
When one is free, unlimited, intelligent, not only is it unnecessary to declare it, but either mindless or provocative to do so, because intelligence is self-evident.
“K: And so, what we are going to discuss together during these talks is going to be hard work on your part. You are not merely listening to a series of words or ideas, because we are not indulging in words, in theories; but we are actually going to be involved. To be actually involved means work. Therefore the responsibility of this work is on you, as a human being. You might ask: “As a human being, if I change totally, if there is a complete mutation, what good will it do to society, to another man? What good will it be to drink at a fountain that quenches all thirst? What value has it in a corrupt society?” I think that is a wrong question. When you put a wrong question you inevitably get the wrong answer. When you put such a question it indicates—does it not—that you are not concerned with a human being as he is; not concerned with bringing about a transformation within the human being who is the collective, the individual, the mass, the whole world. When a human being puts that question to himself— “What can he do in a world that is so corrupt, so violent, so brutal?”—there is no answer. But if a human being brings about this transformation within himself, then that is the most important thing in life—not the result, not how it will affect another. The cloud with the light of the sun, or the flower on the roadside, is not thinking about what good it is to another; it is there, full of beauty, loveliness, and it is for man to look and see with the fullness of his heart.” K: Talks in Europe, 1st Public Talk, Amsterdam, 11 May 1968
There is no guru in here . This is krishnamurti forum. And if you understand English he said many times that I am not your guru ,I am not your teacher. This constant talk of authority and superiority has become extremely boring in here.
It is unfortunate to see such things as personal “attacks” online. The seeing of the falseness of such comments is what awakens intelligence. Please recall that there is the seeing of what is only when there is intelligence.
The petty mind cannot see what is. The only thing a petty mind can see is its own projections:
As K said:
“How can a petty mind, worried, fearful, occupied with problem after problem, experience anything other than its own projection and activity?” K: Beyond Violence, Part II, Chapter 3, San Diego State College, 4th Public Talk, 9th April 1970 ‘Meditation’
And projection is well-known, as a verbal assault of denigration, also known as gaslighting:
“This often means projecting false accusations, information, etc., onto an individual for the sole purpose of maintaining a self-created illusion.” Wikipedia
All of this is an exercise of thought:
K: “There is a Sanskrit saying; “Ideas are the children of barren women.”” The Collected Works, Vol. 12 (1961) - There Is No Thinker, Only Thought, Ninth Talk in Saanen, August 13, 1961
“K: Thought is the child of a barren woman.” K: Talks in Europe, 5th Public Talk, Paris, 28 April 1968
I’m sure Boris Johnson, and the rest of the Bullingdon Club, would agree with you Dan.I don’t want to offend you but I did find your comment quite shocking. Maybe this is a miscommunication.
In Canada, freedom of expression is protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Charter also permits the government to enforce “reasonable” limits. Hate speech, obscenity, and defamation are common categories of restricted speech in Canada . So, in anything but private communications, one is not allowed to publish “hate speech”, and so personal attacks published openly are subject to an article in the federal Criminal Code, an indictable offense, for which one can get up to 2 years’ jail time, etc…
In the United States, free speech (and gun rights !!, etc.) is the “attitude” (K word), guaranteed under their constitution, without any real teeth in terms of being a criminal offense, apart from something related to terrorism (federally), etc. Personal attacks are commonplace publicly in the U.S. (tsk)
This being an American site, one is not surprised by those who have not broken away from what society stands for (K) from turning a blind eye to personal attacks. K himself did not tend to use blatant personal attacks in any of his talks. He was very wary of using “condemnatory” (K word) language of any sort. It is the very essence of intelligence to be as impersonal as one can be. Those who are living the Teachings don’t/can’t do that sort of thing, while those talking about the Teachings and not living them do indulge in personal attacks. Personal attacks are a well-known psychological defense mechanism, by someone who has a superiority/inferiority complex. One doesn’t have to have such a complex to spot what a personal attack is. One has mentioned in an earlier post, that one has no intention of defending oneself against such posts, as posts that are personally condemnatory are only evidence of violence in the person making such posts (as K said).
