James,
Go away, I don’t want to have anything to do with someone like you, who has spread “hate speech” on this site… GO AWAY.
Charley,
You are accusing me of “hate speech” - for what? For having questioned your aggressive behaviour two months ago? Tell me, who is the one being hateful here? I responded to a post you had made about affection with some extracts from Krishnamurti on the subject. Rather than reply to that, you have brought up a situation that occurred two months ago, and which I attempted to communicate with you about fairly and rationally at the time (but which you declined to address or even apologise for). I have left that situation in the past, but clearly you have not. Which means that you are still carrying an image of me as someone who called your behaviour back then “toxic”. Why are you still carrying this image in your mind and heart?
You wrote 9 days ago that
Can you see that this is what you may be doing here? I don’t believe myself guilty of hate speech, but I do believe you are still carrying an image of me for questioning your behaviour (which is of course not the same thing).
This is a public thread, not a personal blog; so if someone brings up a topic - such as “affection” (as you have) - other people are of course free to comment on it, respond to it.
1 Like
More hate speech,
You are projecting, all the time.
You never look at your reactions (projections) to the contents of any post I make. You make everything personal.
For everyone on this site, a troll is someone who is always mudslinging, always calling others names (which says more about the person doing the name-calling - projecting), as well, as someone completely incapable of honoring a simple request.
You see, one doesn’t have to interact with everyone who happens to be online. Your insistence to impose yourSELF into anything one posts is just how you treat everything and everyone on this site. You won’t take a hint. You ignore a simple request. In other words, you can’t learn anything about yourself.
There are people on this site, who will never be able to empty the contents of their consciousness. I usually just do a walkaround such people, refusing to respond. Waste of time and energy.
I just don’t want to interact with someone like you. PERIOD FULL STOP.
Charley, this is absurd. According to the dictionary “hate speech” is
public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation.
However, what you are accusing me of is simply questioning you (in the past) about your aggressive behaviour - which you are demonstrating here, right now!
Apparently you don’t see that, when you write
…it is you in fact who are projecting (“all the time”), and it is you who apparently “never look at your reactions”, making “everything personal”.
The post I made - to which you have completely over-reacted (by making it personal, image-based, etc) - was simply a quotation by Krishnamurti on the subject of affection that you had brought up.
The quote was:
One wonders why human beings have always been so cruel, so ugly in their responses to any statement they don’t like, aggressive, ready to attack. This has been going on for thousands of years. One hardly ever meets nowadays a gentle person who is ready to yield, totally generous and happy in his relationships.
(Krishnamurti to Himself: His Last Journal)
What is your objection to this? Is it not a reasonable extract to share on the topic of affection? Why did it bring out such a strong reaction in you?
Waking up and seeing this on kinfonet surprised me this morning. I thought we moved on from this awhile back.
I am surprised that Charley is still carrying this image of you. It is time to let it go. That is the teachings of Krishnamurti. Even the Buddhists have stories like this, about letting go of carrying images. Here is the story to help you let this go:
A senior monk and a junior monk were traveling together. At one point, they came to a river with a strong current. As the monks were preparing to cross the river, they saw a very young and beautiful woman also attempting to cross. The young woman asked if they could help her cross to the other side.
The two monks glanced at one another because they had taken vows not to touch a woman.
Then, without a word, the older monk picked up the woman, carried her across the river, placed her gently on the other side, and carried on his journey.
The younger monk couldn’t believe what had just happened. After rejoining his companion, he was speechless, and an hour passed without a word between them.
Two more hours passed, then three, finally the younger monk could contain himself no longer, and blurted out “As monks, we are not permitted a woman, how could you then carry that woman on your shoulders?”
The older monk looked at him and replied, “Brother, I set her down on the other side of the river, why are you still carrying her?”
1 Like
Here we go again!
Have you ever taken the trouble to read about ‘non-violent communication’? With very educational suggestions on how not to get caught up in previous breakdowns of communication and not to get in the way of the possibility of a relationship
Wim, if you have read about nonviolent communication, and you feel it is useful, maybe you might suggest how to proceed here?
Given that Charley has said she has no wish to communicate, I’m not sure your approach can take root in this conversation; but if you have some useful suggestions anyway, then by all means please share them.
There is a lot more in it, but One of the most striking things I took from it is that ‘you are, …’ raises defence and ‘I feel you …’ raises the issue.
The tricky thing about this is that as soon as ‘you’ or ‘I’ are used in K circles, people immediately start talking about the imaginary of it, apparently overlooking the fact that we are talking meta-level. Krishnamurti circumvented dať problem by talking about the speaker or K.
Exclusion from communication is more a sign of deficiency and isolation than showing an openness to anything!
What you suggest sounds eminently sensible, Wim. But the question is, what one does one do when one side refuses to make themselves available to this kind of communication (or communication at all)?
The irony of course is that this is a thread on relationship, and yet we seem unable to have a frank, open conversation about our relationships with each other here on Kinfonet. There is obviously a relationship ‘wound’ that has displayed itself here, and yet there seems to be no willingness to meet it, investigate it, to see if it can be resolved.
In a healthy relationship (of course) one attempts to address these relationship ‘wounds’ directly (negating the element of time), so that they do not fester and turn into embedded images, resentment (which maintains separation). Whatever images we have formed of the other (through getting hurt, through being misunderstood, through conflict) can be met with attention and dropped.
But in an unhealthy relationship there is no space to address the ‘wound’ that has arisen, and no awareness of the damage that it causes. So the wound festers on as acrimony, resentment, hostility, aggression, anger (all fed by mental images).
I feel it’s a shame that - on this thread - we are using Krishnamurti’s language to describe the nature of relationship, affection, compassion, etc, and yet there seems to be a lack of willingness to actually meet the problems of our relationships here.
Does it make sense to talk about affection when we do not show it to those with whom we interact with on Kinfonet? Does it make sense to talk about relationship when we refuse to face what our relationships are here, and to relate beyond what divides us?
Surely we are the world. So how we interact with each other here, on Kinfonet, is what the world is - right? So however much we may quote K, and talk about goodness, it is our actions that are our actual contribution to the world. If we are defensive, hostile, suspicious, isolated, resentful, then the world is just that. So if we want to change the world, we have to change our relationship to each other. Starting here (or with whomsoever we are in immediate relationship). No?
This is my view anyway.
1 Like