What is it that gets hurt? This is the moment where the fire begins. What is the spark that ignites the blaze? Suppose you call me a fool or I call you a fool. That’s a spark. But the spark cannot start a blaze where there is no fuel for that spark to catch. The self-image is the fuel, isn’t it? All the knowledge I have about myself, or that you have about yourself, is the fuel we carry with us. We cannot temporarily put it to one side and say, ‘Just for tonight I am not important.’ I think that’s a false move, don’t you?
If one doesn’t distinguish any difference between the two arenas of conflict, the inner and the outer, one doesn’t number and name them. The conflict is in the human brain, and it manifests outwardly.
That’s what we said: conflict stems from the activity of the observer.
I suppose, as always, that it’s the ego that gets hurt. We can look at hurt egos in the context of this forum. Let’s face it, most of us who come here have spent many years in contact with K’s teachings. We feel we have a pretty good understanding of the teachings and may even feel that we understand more than other forum members. When what we say about the teachings is challenged, this can feel like a threat as it seems we are made to look like we have missed something or misunderstood. Perhaps we all have rather fragile egos regarding some things.
Given the above, I think there is a certain skill in challenging the postings of others here and responding to critical posts. Being too direct will normally lead to an aggressive reply and close the door to further exploration. Does anybody have any thoughts on this?
1 Like
Why? Why does the ego get hurt? What is it that is being attacked?
The bigger the guru, the harder the fall?
Maybe a rarer occurence are those that seem to be attracted to the high flying mystical lyricism that some of our forum members are capable of producing. Blinded by woo?
Personally I am always a bit wary of incomprehensible mysticism - especially when the speaker also seems to be showing signs of confusion and anger. But that doesn’t seem to put everyone off.
I don’t like it if you think I’m stupid - and I presume this is evolutionary baggage : respect = survival?
It’s a little more than that, isn’t it? I may think you are stupid, but keep it hidden. But to bring it out into a forum I am exposing you to a wider audience. You see, in personal emails where there are just the two of us, I doubt these problems arise in the same way; the very fact that we have agreed to correspond privately already makes a difference to our dialogue. Whereas in a discussion that is open to the whole world we are far more vulnerable. So it is the image we are presenting to the world that gets threatened.
This comes from a talk, 1947 (Madras): 'The leader is created by the follower, by you, and since you yourself are confused, you can only create a confused leader. Circumstances, forces, help to bring about the leader, but you are responsible for the forces, for the circumstances; a man who is enlightened, clear, does not need a leader, he does not create him, but he who is confused demands a leader and so creates him out of his own confusion. Why do you want a leader? Does he not come into being to tell you what you should or should not do, to direct your conduct? Because you cannot understand the confusion, you look to another to lead you out of it. Being confused, you can only hear the voice of confusion. Confusion is bred by you, you are responsible for it, within and so without, and you alone can clear it up, not another, political or religious. There is confusion, there is misery, and instead of facing it, we want someone to direct us. This desire for authority arises when you seek an easy way of life, when you are lazy, when you are thoughtless. It is this very thoughtlessness that has brought about this aching confusion, and you only perpetuate it by seeking authority, by following. ‘What you are that you project and not another can save you.’
If you tell me I’m stupid, that’s annoying. If you tell the whole tribe that I’m stupid - you really are putting my life at risk. Or so it would seem to my non-modern brain - so its quite understandable that I should fight for my life.
This is understandable if one looks at juveniles. For many animals, the learning curve is highest in childhood through imitation.
There is a theory which states that homo sapiens is a juvenile form of the homo genus. Juveniles being often cuter, more playful, communicative, trusting.
We are to Neanderthals as Dogs are to Wolves, as Friendly foxes are to Foxes, as Bonobos are to Chimps.
It’s true, we are pretty cute. But what happened to those nine or so other homonid types that used to be around? Did we ‘out-cute’ them all…or did we eat them? 
We don’t know - as mentioned earlier: it does seem that the need to belong is far stronger than the need to be good. (though both are strong primal urges)
Dogs can be persuaded to fight to the death more often than Wolves.
Other theories are that they became us, or that we out-performed them (our communication skills far outweighing Neanderthals bigger brain - Domestic foxes being smarter than silver foxes despite having only been bred for friendliness)
PS - It would seem that all out war (and thus chances of genocide) only really got going with the advent of agriculture and private property - hunter gatherers habitually moving on when the going got tough.
If you are on one of those wagon trains coming across the mountains, you better have a ‘leader’ that knows the route…but here with K., some have wanted him to chart the course out of our fear and confusion, and maybe they read and listen to him in that way…but he said early on that “truth is a pathless land”. He said he wanted to “set man unconditionally free” which means no dependance upon another (or anything) for this ‘freedom’.
But the fight begins at the formation of the image. Does there need to be any image at all?
Is this the same question as “should there be an image?”
One thing for sure : there is an image - if people have the “wrong” image of you, they are apparently capable of hanging someone up in a tree (by the neck!)
But sure, I am told that I would be better off without an image (of myself? of others?) in my head - that I would be less deluded (?)
Macdougdoug,
There are theories of all sorts, some we agree more with than others. About the evolution of man, I must say I don’t really know, I don’t see why we have to come from monkeys, for example. Also, dogs don’t have to be compared to wolves, I think. Some dogs are just as dangerous as wolves and you can always think you can tame wolves and foxes if you change their environment for that purpose. As to children learning by imitating, yes, they do, it’s the easiest way to learn the ways of the society where one is brought up and it’s proved that belonging to a group is a first priority for a human being. Anyway, we’re dealing with life as it is now and Krishnamurti is not talking to children here, he’s addressing adults like us, it’s us who have to take action now and be responsible for it. By getting someone to tell us what to do doesn’t take the responsibility away from us, on the contrary. When we want to pass the buck we’re only being dishonest both in relation to us and in relation to society.
Dan,
Yes, maybe people misunderstand what Krishnamurti means by saying that he wanted to set man unconditionally free, but if one is honest one will admit that one is confused and in fear and faces it, doesn’t try and hide it by appropriating other people’s words.
Jess I can barely tell why I do what I do let alone having a judgement about what and why someone is doing what they are doing e.g. following Donald Trump.
Coming here on to this forum with any image one may have about oneself, or about any of the other people here, is bound to mean that one has already prevented oneself from entering into any kind of dialogue. One can engage in battles only, because any image in the psychological field must inevitably result in conflict. What is an image? It is a fragment to which one can cling, saying, ‘This I know.’ But all knowledge is worthless because the psychological field is always moving and changing. Therefore everything within this field is unreliable. So whether I am a fool or you are a fool is totally irrelevant. It is the whole psychological movement of humanity that is the foolishness - that is, moving from one concept, idea or image to another.
Are we together in this? We are simply looking at the facts, not forming new images.
Agreed - Do we also agree that we all are holding an image? Or are you implying that some of are coming on to the forum without holding on to any images - or at least not dependant on any?
Agreed - But why is this not just another image/concept held by the self ? Thus just another internal conflict.
To put it another way : maybe I won’t be fighting the images I hold of you, but I will still be fighting the images of what the I should be?
Or to put it another way : what makes this concept (ie “knowledge is unreliable/subjective etc”) different from any other knowledge - why is this more akin to understanding?
I said “agreed” but actually you might want to explain this bit some more if its important.