Macdougdoug,
Why do you think Krishnamurti called this a ‘monstrous society’?! Exploiting others is seen by many as being cool or clever or both.
Yes to that. The feeling that we are ‘individuals’, me against the world…you can see it here on the forum. Compassion is ‘seeing’ myself in the other. It doesn’t mean I am the other, but that the ‘contents of consciousness’ are different. The brain is the same, the body, the troubles, the fears all basically the same.
For both of us. It is then something of a crisis to be dealt with in our relationship; it can’t be glossed over.
Hello - could you do that again please? Either you didn’t answer the question or I didn’t understand your answer.
For example, did we chooseto be monstruous?
Maybe I do see an answer : we think it is cool to be monstrous.
This may be a “turtles all the way down” problem.
This coolness may be an adhoc excuse one gives oneself - in any case, did I choose to think it was cool?
What does this mean?
I get the impression you do focus on this issue (the relationship in dialogue) and I don’t think I have fully grasped what you are pointing at.
But… isn’t this the difficulty? The various identities involved (both of us) prevent a seeing (and acceptance, proper action) of what is?
This refers to the great A’tuin : Being the giant turtle upon whose back the Discworld rests.
Sometimes in geography class a young wizard might ask : “but upon what does the great A’tuin rest?” - to which the answer is of course “another Turtle”…
We are talking about the house being on fire. Relationship is the house because relationship is where all our difficulties and conflicts arise. Do we see this together? If we do see this together, then that is the first step to bringing about a relationship where there is no conflict at all. If we don’t see this, it must mean there is another more important house, which I doubt very much that there is.
There may not be a conflict between you and me because we like each other , are compatible, etc. But what about the conflict caused in me by the duality of thought and the ‘thinker’? As long as it is not seen that there is a false duality between me as observer and what is observed, there will continue to be a friction or conflict. Isn’t that the false relationship that needs to end?
1 Like
If there is conflict in me at any level it will inevitably manifest in my relationship to you. So I don’t distinguish any difference between the two arenas of conflict, the inner and the outer.
1 Like
Right…conflict is conflict. 
Macdougdoug,
I did answer your question, it seems I didn’t meet your expectations for which I am sorry. It’s interesting just today I came across an interview Prince Charles of UK gave in which he stated that exploiting nature is insanity. Exploiting others if you accept that the world is you is just as insane… you don’t have to live that way. Krishnamurti spoke all his life of a different way of living. He started schools for young people to come and understand about this art of living. I mentioned here already this book ‘A flame of learning’, you’ll find interesting discussions there on the matter.
I couldn’t see how your answer was addressing the question at first - but as I added at the end : I saw that your “cool or clever” bit was probably how you answered the question - as for expectations, you are correct, I was trying to push the inquiry a bit further, as “choosing to be monstrous” is pretty much the same as “thinking that being monstrous is cool”.
Conflict always has its roots in the observer; its effects are seen in relationship. In daily life, we concentrate on the effects and thus tend to blame others for our disappointments, frustrations and hurts. When I call you a fool, what is it that gets hurt? We don’t ever explore this question in daily life, but here in a dialogue it is really the only question worth exploring because then we are looking into the heart of the fire.
Hello Dan and all. One thing that strikes me is how conflict can be carried into the present because of negative past experience. For example, I get into an argument with someone and decide I don’t like the person. The next time I see that person or have contact with them, I don’t interact freely as my dislike in the past is carried over into the present. Perhaps the disliked person has changed since I last argued with them, after all. Is the emptying, at least in part, a kind of wiping the slate clean all the time? That would mean coming to this forum and putting aside all previous knowledge of both the subject being discussed and the people who are discussing it.
1 Like
Howdy Sean,
Innocence is one thing - Maturity is another. One usually negates the other which is a shame and a loss. (but is it inevitable?)
My understanding of the world is obviously incomplete and based on erroneous, self-centred beliefs - but even if my idea of a brick wall is a delusion, I try to avoid smashing into one.
Hello Douglas. I don’t know if we are ever innocent or can approach something or someone with new eyes and see them as if for the first time. What do you think? Putting aside previous knowledge before discussing something, at least to some extent, is surely both possible and helpful wouldn’t you say?
Yes. If our goal is to understand what is being said, see where the other person is coming from, appreciate more fully what is going on - Usually of course we seem to be involved in some sort of ego trip debate, or comparison of knowledge, which is all to do with our primal need to belong (make friends, assess whether we belong to the same group/belief system and where we stand in the hierarchy of that group - or if they are heretics/enemies)
Primal instincts are powerful - last hypothesis I heard is that the “need to belong” is the most powerful (which includes the need to destroy the enemy) - followed only second by our need to be good (help our friends - which is actually the same motive as the first).
Innocence is basically another way to point at : Freedom from (non-dependance on) the known.
Maturity is basically learning from patterns - ie knowledge of the known
It would seem that both are excellent skills.
1 Like
Let’s say you have hurt me and I put aside the memory of that hurt for the sake of the dialogue. But the hurt is still there. It may appear to be a clean slate, but on the other side of the slate, hidden from view, the memory remains; therefore this memory is bound to affect the dialogue. So can I come to the dialogue with a totally innocent mind, incapable of being hurt?
1 Like
Hello Paul. I don’t know about putting the hurt aside if this means suppressing it. Not giving great importance to it might be a good way to approach things. Anyway, as we’ve said before, if someone hurts us then looking at that hurt, observing it and understanding it will surely help us be free of becoming trapped by past hurt. Also, understanding why someone else chooses to hurt, lash out and be verbally violent may help us not to automatically react with verbal violence. What do you think?