← Back to Kinfonet

The self :: A dialogue

But it seems that to me ‘you’ do have the “inclination” and the “time” to attack, demean and belittle, as you say ,“remind”. This thread is about the ‘self’. The " human condition" as you put it. K has called it, the self, “evil”. How do you see the 'self? As it relates to ‘your self’?

Sorry you feel that way, but I’m curious as to why. Could you provide a few examples of my alleged attacks, demeaning, and belittling, and how they are gratuitous and innappropriate?

Hi Inquiry
I didn’t say they were “gratuitous and inappropriate”, I said they were “demeaning” and “belittling”.
The one ‘example’ that comes to mind is those of us who are in your eyes “parroting” K. Who gave you the right to compare others to birds? Birds that imitate sounds they hear. Who are you to judge what the repeating of things said by K is not an evolving understanding in the persons repeating those things. They are “parrots” to you? And you for some reason you have assumed the role to ‘swat’ them down. As phonies, As parrots. Are you “curious” as to how that might be demeaning? Or maybe you think that this behavior is ‘helpful’?

If you repeat something K said without quotes or attribution, you’re parroting, regardless of how evolving your understanding is.


You have cited 3 paragraphs, by K.

I have tried to find the source of these 3 paragraphs, and have not been able to. When I mean source, I mean which book/talk are they are from? So, I have no idea when this was said or written, or whether or not K actually wrote or said that.

I have checked all types of sources at https://jkrishnamurti.org and get no results. I have tried various combinations of words, like blossoms, dialectical, etc.

I question the legitimacy of providing these 3 paragraphs and attributing them to K. Are these from Bohm? Or from someone who is into Bohm and re-interpreting K? Because if they are, I find that such attribution odd to say the least.

You left out two important features of the ego, of us: dishonesty and insincerity. Perhaps they are the most destructive factors in relationship. All social rituals and formalities have the function to hide, to cover our dishonesty and insincerity, that is our immorality.

It’s curious how in this forum no one talks about morality, and yet K said that the first step or the first requirement was a moral life.

Two dishonest people can get along well together, can have an apparently good relationship, each one respecting the dishonesty of the other. But an honest person can never have a relationship with a dishonest one, because an honest person cannot respect dishonesty. So 90 % of the social relationships are fake relationships.

Your statements are quite sensible, I have to agree with that. My point is that, we have to deal with all types of people in this complicated world for basic survival. Having said that,

Why should we believe someone and make things complicated?

What is the role of compassion in this regard?

I feel these questions are important, please share you experience.

@charley, share your insights.


Please see my recent post about sincerity at:



[post must be at least 20 characters]

That is a good question. But before answering your question let me ask one thing: which meaning you are giving to this word? The usual meaning one can find in the dictionary or the meaning that K gave to it?

K had his own vocabulary: intelligence, love, passion, compassion for him were something different than that which is usually meant. For him those four qualities were a single unity, that is you can’t have intelligence without love and passion, and you can’t have love without intelligence.
And he was a real example of this. He was a very passionate person, passion meaning energy, meaning feeling involved in life. So you cannot separate compassion from passion, they are the same thing.

So how a passionate, loving and intelligent person will deal with a dishonest one? He can’t accept dishonesty but he may try to wake that person from his illusions, from his falsity. A lier thinks that he will alwys be capable to hide his lies, that the other will not discover them, and invents a lot of cunning games to mask his lies and dishonesty.
For the intelligent-passionate person is very easy to recognise those games, and he will refuse to play those games, to be an accomplice of the dishonesty of the other. And being passionate he will say to the other person: look you want to have a relationship with me, but a relationship can only exist on the same plane, platform, and this common platform is sincerity. If you play those games with me you are not being sincere and we cannot be in relationship.

In my understanding, Compassion means
No attachments,
No hate,
No desire,
No belief.
No pity

In the present case, this is what I felt.

But we are aware of his thought process, judging from his actions and social movements. In such case, we will just do what is needed. (I have to admit that before listening to Jiddu, I felt in many traps)

This is very important aspect, as most people go through this stage. For this aspect, we will discuss in near future. To be frank, I am not an expert but I will try to share my view. :slightly_smiling_face:

Okay, thank you.

(This conversation went meaningful)

Thanks to you.

There is a nice Indian story which I read somewhere long ago.

A thief one night entered into the hut of a sannyasi, not knowing the identity of the dweller. Once inside he realized that there was nothing to steal and so he was going to leave when the sannyasi woke up and called him. "You took the trouble to come to my house, I don’t want that you leave empty-handed. Please take something from my house. The thief was amazed, but took the first object he saw and ran away.

After one week the thief returned to the sannyasy by day time. I’ve heard that you are a great yogi, please can you teach me meditation? I have been to other gurus but all of them told me that they will not teach me meditation unless I quit stealing. Stealing is my job and I cannot quit it.

The sannyasi told him, yes, I will teach you meditation and you don’t need to quit your job. The thief was very happy and asked so what I have to do?
The sannyasi instructed him: be aware of every thought you have and of every action you do. Is that all? Asked the thief? Yes, that’s all.

The thief went away but after one month he returned to the sannyasi:

You have cheated me, you told me that I could go on with my job, but the moment I’m aware of what I’m doing I cannot steal any more!

This, I think, was meant to point out the power of awareness.
I was thinking about it, can that be true also for a lier? I don’t think so, as far as my experience goes, a lier will never change because lying prevent awareness.

Is It Liar or Lier? | Grammarly Blog

I think a liar will lie for many different reasons. Until we know the exact reason behind his actions we cannot make him be aware of the consequences of his/her actions. As in the story, the monk realized that.

I have listened to lies many times. People around me have achieved nothing and I lost nothing in my life too. I have to see how this will go. :slightly_smiling_face:

Whatever it may be, but the content is making sense. :slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like

Do you agree with his belief that lying prevents awareness?

The only thing that “prevents” awareness is unconsciousness. A pathological liar may deny or distort what he or she is aware of, and a drug addict can dull awareness, but nothing can prevent awareness during waking consciousness.

I do not see it as a belief. If the mind is confirmed to some idea or motive, it is obvious that they will deny to accept the consequences in doing such practice. (At the initial stages)

After they realized what is important and what is not. The next obvious thing is change in the mind set.

This will happen at many different levels in our lives.

I am not getting the meaning out of it. Can you explain in a simple way?

Denying and distorting awareness is not preventing awareness. Awareness is an ongoing fact. The only way to prevent it is to lose consciousness.

Inquiry, I see ambiguity in this statement.

I always thought, I am aware of the situation but my understanding is still not holding the laws of this nature. Finally as a result there is just a conflict. Then, I am aware of my unawareness or a conclusion.

If the mind is not open to such process , it goes on with some idea/belief. Until that idea/belief has been wiped out, the mind will not change the course of actions. It requires intelligence to hit that aspect, that is the reason why we are talking about Jiddu mostly. :slightly_smiling_face:

By “wiped out” we mean the falseness of it is revealed, but it remains in the library of lies because its falseness retains.