← Back to Kinfonet

The conversations we have

In most conversations, written or spoken, there is inevitably a position of the one or the other engaging in this conversation. Such a position is what can be called self, psyche, individual, and person, etc. Any such position is the result of upbringing, education, society, and is called conditioning. As the conversation develops the conditioning is what is being expressed. I, you, and me, have knowledge and an ability to talk about knowledge. As the conversation goes along, I am following lines of thought, and gradually the various complexities, conundrums, dilemmas, become the different positions, the different ideas, which each of us take up. This is actually the conditioned perspective of separate competing selves in society. The conversation may leave us with opposing or agreeable views, amiably or not, but actually the separate selves is a much more fundamental condition, inherently the nature of self.

So, in our conversation, from the word con-verse, this is where we can begin to see the nature of the self, as it is for all of us, undivided. Observe we have been conversing about some issue, a problem, bringing up morality, politics, all of that stuff. See the way we are talking together is because we think in terms of looking for explanations, solutions, remedies, answers, or wanting change and reorganisation. So, what is it we are trying to solve actually for our ourselves, not abstractly, not theoretically, not moralistically? Is it that the nature of self is the root of our unease and concern?

Now can the people in a conversation, can they wake up to the self, and with self-reflection, not keep turning to the way of expressing knowledge, not keep following a line of thought, and see themselves as the one who is the thinker, and fundamentally the source of their life, where the knowledge and ideas are arising? Thoughts arising from the brain, and knowledge expressed verbally, is the conditioned state. When I see this for myself, not because it was mentioned by someone, what happens? Can I see there is this basic human being, in a position, and aware, there is no other place, no other time, and effortlessly, this is where I am? Carefully, I can use thought, like a tool, with no need to develop a point of view, or a clever constitution. There is no more of the con-vers-ation; there is listening, observing, and thinking together.

1 Like

It may be worthwhile to go over the discussions between Krishnamurti and Swami Venkatesananda (The Awakening of Intelligence). These are quite unique because the simple swami is able to make K acknowledge certain basic truths. Something that nobody else including exalted scientists and psychiatrists were able to do.

  1. There are three categories of human beings - the immature, the partly mature, and the mature.
  2. The key attributes required for anyone who is serious are Honesty and Humility.

You have raised an important issue no doubt. The above truths may be our obstacles. Any serious self reflection must begin with a reality check and we must begin where we are. Anything else is only the endless pursuit of illusion.

Since you have brought this up, who is to determine who fits into these ‘categories’? Which are you, in your opinion, e.g.? And are you “honest” and “humble”? (or are you dishonest and proud?) Or somewhere in between? What use is it to have labels like this? Doesn’t it just become a ‘racket’? A hierarchy?

If the thinker is the thought, there is no I using thought.

1 Like

Oh that’s easy, ask yourself that. What am I? Not what are you! The second sentence gives a clue

Therefore look at yourself, say when one is reactive, pursuing cunning agendas, participating in the racket of petty groupisim, suffering from inferiority complex and it’s painful to accept the beauty in factual superiority (reality) or; the heirechal nature of the cosmos which is alluded to as the vertical relationship between things, a second hand parrot that steals other’s words and; labels factual realities as labels, a dishonest person that is propagating ideas/beliefs of oneness while demonstrating all the signs of fragmented action……and the list can go on. So like K says if one is serious then they will start from a humble honesty, but if one is getting ready for the grave and trying to keep the 2 brain cells alive by arguments/banter, or entertaining oneself because he/she has nothing else to do, well…

Your post reminds very much of a poster that was thrown off every one of the old forums. He had several names (one was John Perkins). He was quite abusive. Your attacks are identical. He wrote obscene private messages to a number of the posters there. I don’t know if he is you, but given the above, I will ask you once only to not respond to any of my posts.

It is Krishnamurti, not me. Follow the discussion and you may find your answers.

True. It is very easy to convince and condition oneself by daily repetitions of “you are the world, and the world is you” and similar catch phrases. The reality is very different for most.The key is also to observe this fact of self deception without condemnation or frustration.

I have no idea who this person is that you mention, however when you continually focus on people on every thread, like the present one, asking them suggestive personal questions like:

in light of your recent labeling, won’t this be considered an “attack”? Should @Twocents consider this an attack? Did he?

This one’s post on the otoh has touched on the general human condition that affects all of us and includes all. It’s too bad that the shoe fits and you had to pull out some labels out of thin air like “abusive” and “attacks”. According to your borrowed logic/posts you shouldn’t be using labels as these are simply labels! Not to mention, fictitious! In any case, i think this one has made the points clear, hasn’t he? Please don’t hesitate to come back, if you can, anytime you want a civil discussion .

Correct. See one of the problem it seems to me is we don’t question. Say the statement “you are the world and the world is you”. The people that parrot it, can we ask them what’s their contribution to the world? That is aside from empty words? What does that statement mean? Does it imply sharing your bank account? Will they? Have they?

What does that statement mean? If i am the world then logically my enlightenment will be everyone else’s,’ won’t it? K’s enlightenment ought to have been enough for the world, right? Is it? Has it?

…and the list will go on…

My understanding is that Enlightenment or whatever else it is called is a feeling of oneness that takes place when the mind is empty of all images. An image (K terminology) is body + thought(s). So if I have an image that I am clever it means there is a picture in my mind of my body plus the notion that I am clever. And if somebody else is stupid in my mind, I have a picture of the body of that person plus the thought that he is stupid.

Emptying of images means a feeling of oneness, not co-joining of my physical body or bank account with all other bodies and bank accounts in the world. It also means there is no entity to claim enlightenment or this or that. It may also be accurate to say the enlightened man looks at all in a matter - of - fact manner without justification, condemnation or frustration at their self-deception.Something that we are unable to do when we look at ourselves.

A closer scrutiny of this one’s previous post will reveal that the questions asked had a tempo, which goes into, or illustrates; the art of questioning, and is not seeking metaphysical speculations or answers.

The scrutiny may also reveal, the questions are based on a foundation of realty/facts (Real life), and the evidence of “oneness” (between that of insight and conduct) IS in the living of it, (bank account, used as an example),

Finally, the scrutiny will reveal, that the art of questioning leads to the impossible question, which will have no answer or escape, and the only resolution is to live with it or to dissolve it.

Thanks for the response.

Krishnamurti’s answers may or may not be labeled as metaphysical when he for instance spoke about emptiness, oneness and so on. He was certainly pointing to something beyond the everyday reality as experienced by most. But it would be speculative to say how such an empty mind would or should demonstrate oneness in the world.

What do you mean? Are you wondering whether we would recognise someone who was able to love?
If so - I gotta say maybe not. Recognition is dependant on the recogniser - its not dependant on what is.

Yes, why don’t we ask why we have to fill in the punctuation and correct the mistakes of those who say we don’t question?

What is this habit of saying something about the other, while what the writer is writing is repeating the same thing? Is it that we don’t see the human being, only the individual? And as the individual, oblivious to the fact that we are all in this fragmented condition, project ourselves on others? Yet it is a strange mechanism that we can say something, about others, and not see we don’t think it is ourselves.

1 Like

Please be specific. Substantiate your oblique allegation.

It is a question of observation, not an instruction and not something to evaluate. The question and the observation is in the posting.

The “observation” is a baseless allegation.

Friends talking together is not an allegation. Please look at what is written and see if you share the questions and observations or not for yourself, thinking about it, not taking any hostility.