The "prickly" what-is of Mankind

Kinfonet Discussion
1

I’ve already said on one of the threads, never could understand K’s harping about the “future of mankind”.

With his permission i’m posting some words of a friend on this subject, which i have titled “the prickly what -is of mankind”. The use of the word “prickly” shouldn’t be a surprise. It is being used on account of popular demand.

Beneath the denials, the hypocrisy, the false bravado…

Where,

each and every body is wounded,
every mind fractured,
every heart scarred,
every ‘soul’ thirsty,

confusion in the eyes,
sorrow in the heart,

where ‘human’ dignity has become a plaything,
where the dwelling is one for worshiping of death,
where death is cheaper than life,

where youth has lost its youthfulness,
where young bodies are displayed like chattels,
where love is made into a business,

where trust means nothing, friendship means nothing,
where affection is for sale to the highest available bids,

So, what is it even if you win (or lose) the uni-verse?
You are still left with nothing but ashes in your hands.

2

I don’t know what K meant, but I like the idea of potential.

Humanity definitely has both the very obvious potential of destruction, and also one of protection : giraffes for example have absolutely zero chance of addressing giant asteroids heading our way. And this has not much to do with our personal/subjective ashes, youth, bodies etc that we prize so much, but with the ashes of every pebble, leaf and desire.

3

That means you have to stand alone which is very difficult .

4

I found the verses to be an accurate description of what is.

5

The only difficulty is one’s resistance to standing alone.

6

How would Krishnamurti respond to this poem?

Members of The Dead K Society are mulling this over…

7

I didn’t find it “prickly” - I found it preachy, but in the best sense of the word. We need to hear this sermon more often.

8

Interesting comments. I had not read this thread being mentioned until now. Here are some extracts from this thread titled The Dead K Society.

The op says : I have often wandered whether there could be a ‘safe space’ (not the political kind of ‘safe space’ people talk about elsewhere, although it should also be a safe space for all), by which I mean an open, liberal space, for people to share anything they like about Krishnamurti: questions, clarifications, observations, epiphanies, complaints, doubts, gripes, etc. In short, a place for K nerds but not for K police, not for people who “know”, and not for people who just want to troll, throw mud or be cynical.

This poster with the alias ‘Inquiry’ says: I wander in this “open, liberal space for people to share anything they like about Krishnamurti: questions, clarifications, observations, epiphanies, complaints, doubts, gripes, etc.; a place for K nerds but not for K police”, and I’m of the opinion that those “who “know”, and want to troll, throw mud or be cynical”, should be banished.

Its quite interesting, this poster who seems to be in the habit of misquoting and deceiving, with a tendency for creating conflict, was asked several times in the past not to initiate any contact on my posts. At that time he had refused to refrain, trying repeatedly to create more conflict. Now he is back on my post, trolling. Once more, disguised, as a response to op.

It is interesting to observe how you can label people as trolls, cynical, authoritarian etc, yet your own actions betray everything that you condemn in others, or preach to others. It is mildly interesting, in a comical sort of way, how people throw their opinions, as if they are the center of the universe, and their opinions have some value. Guess, illusions and delusions can be powerful.

But this thread Dead K Society is really something. Tribalism and exclusivity on full display. Yet another example of a dream akin to Hitler’s Germany, where, 'either you play our game or we will banish you. Or maybe we will kill you. I suppose one should thank K. If it wasn’t for his lectures it would be hard to identify these subtle discrepancies in yourself, or your poverty. Hopefully one can learn to be more charitable.

3 Likes
9

The 'labeling" that accompanies the underlying offense or defense along with the usual bitter sarcasm, often betrays the moments when you get ‘pricked’. Kind of amusing but maybe not.

10

and less preachy.,…

11

I suppose in our consideration of what-is we can thank even trolls, for corroborating the many aspects of the prickly what-is of mankind.

Quoting the above posters own words from the thread Dead K Society, said in reference to a person he has been trolling for a while - “Individuals who are so deficient and defeated that they have nothing to lose by being intrusive and obnoxious”.

Indeed. This is definitely on display here, by this poster’s own conduct. A continuity from what was observed before.

So, we can agree, if you are so defeated that you have come in terms with your deficiencies as a human, then surely you "won’t find" the verses in op prickly. As this poster has admitted in a post above.

12

Thanks for your opinion. It’s a good example of how we see and hear what we want to see and hear.

It’s possible that I am projecting onto another the way I feel about myself, but it’s beside the point if it’s accurate and applies. If the shoe fits, as they say.

I can see things from your point of view, and though your point of view is more stilted and staid than my point of view, we are both self-centered, so even if one of us feels more enlightened than the other, both of us are limited by and confined to what we think we know.

13

For the record, this poster, has been quoting me and “replying” to my posts, even though i had stopped my first and last exchange with him months earlier. Here he is doing the same thing he was doing then, I.e. Initiating contact with me by replying/quoting to my posts, as result of which i am getting website alerts each time he is doing it…Though all my posts (including this one) here are in context of the original subject and not directed at anyone, including the poster, his are all “replies” to my posts.

There have been numerous studies done by qualified people on internet trolling since it is a mainstream phenomenon, and it is pointless to go into it as most of as aware of the type of people that engage in such actions.It would be like beating a dead horse. We will let them take their mental-emotional instability and their tantrums arising from insecurity, either to professionals that know how to help them, or their mom.It is sad moms around the world have to deal with so much drama.

But see all this is part of what-is. The what-is of mankind.

14

Taken from the Dead K Society thread -

The troll poster from above, with his usual reptilian twists and turns, perhaps under the delusion of ‘O i.m so clever’, says : Unlike organized religion where one believes arbitrarily in holy scripture, in the Dead K Society, the teachings are just words until/unless they serve their stated purpose by awakening one to what they refer to.

In response, the op says : Yes. The quality of the lives we lead is more important than the highest articulation of truth.
Ibid.

We say, indeed. The quality of the lives we lead is seen in our actions, in our conduct. And if actions and conduct is the measure, well, you know where you stand, don’t you? You have no standing! When you go around and do your, things.

Therefore, the dead words have to come alive. They come alive when you hold yourself accountable to these words. Its not the same as gleaning words from here and there being twisted and thrown around by posters like the one above> In such a case one is definitely within one’s rights to ask such trolls to put their words back into whence they pulled it out from.

These observable discrepancies, as around us, are also part of our what-is.The prickly what-is of mankind.

15

@Vikas What are you doing?

16

So we are asking. If Krishnamurti was to seriously address my objections. Objections that are based on our factual realities. The undeniable realities of our what-is.

How will he revolve or clarify about this “future of mankind” he is concerned about. And he, doesn’t seem to be the only one concerned.

Why is this concern about mankind’s future even important? When the reality of mankind, the what-is, is so ugly? Let it go where it is going. Let it perish by its own foolishness. It won’t be the first time a living world will perish in a most disgustable way.

How is there going to be a future that is going to be different than what has been in the past?

What are we not seeing?

17

There must be complete freedom from the authority of the past?

18

I’ve been inquiring, and we see, the fact is, your past and your present is ugly. It is dusgustable. This is the fact of your what-is.

19

So we see. Several questions were asked. All tied to each other, in context. Any contextual response demands that they be addressed in toto.

But what do you do? The ones you cannot touch upon, even in your dreams. Or they question your fundamental existence, Question the narratives you hold close to yourself, for your security. You go ahead ignore those, pick one that you are familiar with (your past) and like a cuckoo in the clock, out comes a parroted response within a minute, that miserable fails to address the issue at all.

This is the prickly what-is of mankind.

1 Like
20

Ah so we are talking about what-is. What about the what-is of what-is?