If I haven’t broken out of the enclosure of self concern, can I know what form ‘love’, ‘compassion’ would take when the tiny prison of my conditioning is left behind?
1 Like
Then relationship is a tool to be used for self-understanding? But how can there BE relationship where there is no self-understanding? Isn’t THAT what is being talked about here — self-ignorance? Isn’t it a fact that there cannot BE relationship without self-understanding, without facing the fact of what one IS inwardly at every moment - seeing the greed, fear, total isolation, and so on? So it is clear to me that as long as I am afraid, greedy, self-important, hard-hearted, unkind, uncompassionate, and so on, there cannot BE relationship in the sense we are talking about. Relationship to me means actual contact or touching between different forms of life and matter, between hearts and minds. To see, to be aware that my heart and mind actually has NO contact with anything “outside of me” is the only thing that matters, as I see it.
As long as I see and face the fact that I am in this condition, it is absolutely clear that I can give no advice or guidance, nor can I receive any. Can I “help” or “guide” anyone if I am ignorant of my own reactions, desires, pretenses, isolations, fears, incapacities, conceits, and so on? It is clear to me that I can’t: the helper and the helpee are exactly alike psychologically - broken into contradictory fragments. Then who is the helper and who is the helpee? What distinguishes one from the other if both are self-ignorant?
But if I (that is awareness, not self) face the fact of my fear and isolation, and you face yours so that neither is trying to “BE” or “DO” anything one isn’t, isn’t that facing of the fact the beginning of self-understanding, and of communion or communication? Isn’t the very awareness of the inner condition a spontaneous action which is not forced, planned or anticipated? Or is this just another fantasy?
3 Likes
Good morning Huguette,
I think the word “tool” is better replaced by the word “mirror”.
Yes, this is communion. As I mentioned above, the tree, sensing that Charley saw the whole of the tree, responded and moved to establish a relationship with Charley. One wonders amusedly whether the tree wondered whether Charley was a sort of moving tree. 
Trees are so beautiful, so harmless & innocent!
and
Right!!!, the observer is the observer. The words “helper” and “helpee” open a big can of worms - As I recently discussed with a psychologist here where I live while waiting outside the pizza store, it is more important to discover where the urge to help (or to be helped) is coming from. I did add after saying that, that she might - after discovering where that is coming from - that she might have to find another job! 
A big if!!! especially, since you are referring to the perceptions and goodwill, and the kinds of conditioning and intensity, and (oh, the list is long…, so, etc. etc.) of two people! Perhaps… Awareness of the inner condition must be unconscious, unplanned; otherwise, it is only an intellectual awareness - knowledge; awareness is only possible when it is natural.
I say, to plan or participate in any situation consciously where that might reveal any conditioning - in the hope that that particular conditioning unfolds itself naturally - might only risk adding to the conditioning. Wouldn’t it be more interesting to discover why one chooses to believe that one hopes to get something out of such an exchange? When it is natural, isn’t that the beginning, the awakening of intelligence?
Hello Charley,
It might be that the word “mirror” is better than the word “tool” here - but I see no point in going into that here since what I was questioning is whether relationship HAS a “point”, an explanation or a reason for being at all. Aren’t points, ideas, explanations, and so on, engendered by thought itself? Where thought is watching and measuring relationship so as to gain understanding, isn’t that fragmentation? Then what is such relationship? Can one truly BE “in relationship with someone, something” WITHOUT self-understanding?
So to me, relationship has no point, just as self-understanding has no point. Isn’t it seen that where relationship and understanding are engendered by thought, they are of a different nature or quality than relationship and understanding which flowers without the “help” or intervention of thought? If so, isn’t the perception or awareness of this insight or self-understanding? And doesn’t that act in relationship? I could be mistaken.
Dear Huguette,
No, relationship is a key to life, to living, to being in love with life. Relationship is a key to life because it is a state of being where one has the possibility of revealing oneself to oneself. It is not that there is self-understanding first so that one can be in relationship with the other. It is that relationship can be used (and it is the only wholistic way to use others) as a mirror to see oneself. That is why K said repeatedly to use him as a mirror to see oneself. To use others in any other way would only be tantamount to exploitation.
So, again, I say, of course it has a point. The only process that can yield self-understanding is through relationship to the other, to something. This constant process awakens intelligence, and can initiate the beginning of meditation. Now, when one uses contact with others in verbal exchanges, just to acquire knowledge of oneself, that is not the proper use of relationship. Most people “know” who they are, “know” what they are about, and that doesn’t stop them from acting out. As a matter of fact, that self-knowledge is encouraged by others (parents, psychologists, business interests, corporations, big money interests, culture, entertainment, etc.) so as to enable them to “succeed” in life. People who are analytical are encouraged to work in industry where they can use this characteristic - and I would say, character defect - to earn a living. The same could be said of one who has characteristics of ambition, greed, ruthlessness, selfishness, etc. Sadly, to me, all of this encouragement is only an indication of a lack of love in one’s heart - the heart of those who encourage such behaviour, and those who accept such encouragement. When one uses one’s contact with others in verbal exchanges to bypass a rather painful self-revelation (and it can be quite painful) that is what happens when one uses thought/thinking as a “tool” in one’s idea of what relationships are, or could be.
Some years ago, I knew a Buddhist who was “mentoring” (his word) a young boy. I noticed that the goodness (love in his heart) in this Buddhist seemed to waning - flickering and diminishing. I warned him about this, which he ignored. Some short time after, I was horrified to notice that the white light in him had gone out! So I asked him what had happened, and he revealed to me that in his “mentoring”, he had begun teaching the boy “survival skills”. (Please note that the word “survival” literally means to live on the surface.) In effect, he had begun to teach to boy how to live! He told me that the boy had reacted badly, started crying and left. Thankfully, the boy’s mother had ended his “relationship” with the boy. So, you see that where thought/thinking interferes in a relationship, it is always destructive. What had started out as just a simple friendship ended badly, all because of thought/thinking. Now, what happened also was that my friendship with this Buddhist ended as well. I didn’t really have to do anything (like ending the friendship I had had with him). He moved away, from me!
Isn’t the dawning realization or awareness of the fact that thought cannot produce understanding of the thoughts and emotions that arise and of their ensuing actions — isn’t that realization or awareness one sort of action in which there is no conformity to any idea or ideal, no pursuit of any self-centred desire? And isn’t willfully seeking self-understanding with the intention of finding a solution to suffering and ending the inner turmoil, an altogether different sort of action which is formed by the very thing one is trying to understand?
One’s actions have been based on the indoctrination of our human traditions. I did not question the nature of self and so I thought I knew myself; I thought I knew what to do to tackle my problems, or at least that I could eventually find out what I should do. I accepted the traditional theories and explanations about self, about suffering, about fear, about evolution, and so on. That is the effect of the indoctrination of tradition.
And now I realize - there is the dawning awareness - that all these theories and explanations do not and cannot truly solve the issues of suffering, fear, conflict which life throws in my face. So in an instant, the traditional methods and approaches which man has turned to for thousands of years have crumbled away. I am completely alone, still lost and confused but it is a new movement which is facing life, not actions shaped by tradition but actions which are neither premeditated or reactionary. I realize that all the traditional methods and approaches and the supposedly new and modern methods and approaches (which are still the old methods with a “new” twist) which I have tried are powerless, impotent, are inherently part of every problem. Isn’t this understanding of my predicament the dawning of intelligence?
I do agree that for this realization to flower, it is necessary to look in the mirror of relationship. But the quality of the looking matters, doesn’t it. It cannot be motivated by greed or desire for transformation because anything that greed or desire touches is corrupted by greed or desire. It comes to this that nothing else matters but to understand. It is just like that. It is seen that it is only the understanding which is not engendered thought which does not crumble to dust. The heart-and-mind - the wholeness of the human being cannot be fooled by pretenses, beliefs, conclusions, desires, hopes, and so on. I don’t know if I’m expressing myself clearly.
1 Like
Recently, I read the following:
“Clarity in the seeing of these biases and limitations” of thought “would seem to be of key importance.”
So others. writing on thought, have said the above. Notice the word “key”. A key is a metal object that opens a door to a closed structure. I use a key to enter my apartment. So when I mentioned in my above posts that relationships are a key to life, to living, I meant literally that they are the only way to use relationships - as a “mirror” - to open the door to the contents of the consciousness. One uses any reaction, any trigger, etc. that one has because of a relationship with someone, something (even reading a post by someone) so as to open up to oneself the events of one’s life that underlie that reaction.
So, again, to the above quote, notice that the analysis of one’s reaction to thought never opens the door to the contents of one’s consciousness. It is only constitutes an intellectual analysis of what thought may be, in other words it is an afterthought on thought. In that analysis, which is an afterthought on thought, there is no change, no ending of thought. So, that is why K is famous for the phrase analysis paralysis. In other words, intellectual analysis of thought paralyses one and blocks the seeing of the contents. In other words, intellectual analysis of thought is meaningless. Hence, K’s famous expression modified continuity.
So, Huguette, writing above, saying:
is an accurate (correct) understanding of the dangers of thought and the analyses of thought.
One glanced at a post - someone asked, what is love, hmmm
Firstly, love (compassion) is not warmth, affection.
Secondly, this love is exactly like life. As life is indifferent to one’s likes and dislikes, so this love is completely indifferent to the likes and dislikes of the other. One uses this word specifically, and it has nothing to do with the callous and selfish indifference of so many human beings.
Interestingly, Charley has never been able to feel compassion for people who are on the dark side. Charley feels nothing for people like that.
Hey charley
The images of the person having a dark mentality may provoke the self inside as we are having the same self in different bodies. Compassion is the only way of life in this society, otherwise, there will be chattering inside the mind.
I mentioned in another thread, that love is not related to the mind.
Hi sivaram,
re:
What do you mean by that? Please be so kind as to write the above using other words, not sure what you mean by “provoke”, perhaps that might be sufficient to clarify. You also mention something to the effect that “we are having the same self”. Where on earth did you get that idea? When Charley discovered that the “I” wasn’t there any more, that did not mean that other’s selves also disappeared. By the way, Charley’s “I”/self went missing spontaneously, naturally, unconsciously - without any perception, observation, insight, thought, without any effort whatsoever, etc. It went of its own accord, like a dead leaf that falls off a tree. It was no longer needed. Charley is entirely skeptical of anyone who does something to make the “I” or thought end… Doing anything always involves the “I”, a part of the “I” doing something to another part of the “I”… is a clear indication of illusion - playing with things that aren’t real.
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 
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.
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.
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?
Hi Charley,.
As the mind is same for human beings. The ‘I’ is same for everyone.
May be I have work on this topic .
I had a meaningful conversation with you.
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…
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
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.
Watching the chattering inside, will reduce the intensity. I do agree that on what you said.
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