Yes and by the same token one could say “you are the world” because each of us is a ‘world’ unto himself.
In which case K probably meant ‘you are not the world’
Each one of us is a world unto oneself, which means all of us are The World of Self-Absorbed Humans.
That’s probably what he said: “you are the world of self-absorbed humans” and the last part just got lost in the editing?
1 Like
That rascal Rajagopal!
1 Like
It is suggested that '“the world of self-absorbed humans” has now managed to turn ‘navel-gazing’ and ‘looking at myself’ - in the name of K - into a dogma of entertainment - and then wonder why nothing changes!
Self-awareness is important - but there is a whole world of awareness in the teaching of K that appears to be totally ignored. The self had assumed centre-stage - and is contentedly playing a very petty little role there - to much applause from its multitude of adoring fans!
(Sorry - this is a reply to Inquiry - not Dan. Hello Dan!)
1 Like
The self has also assumed the co-starring role in its own petty little drama.
The Self-Important and Authoratitive Role of - (wait for it! - DRUMROLL!): “Mirror To Everyone Else”! (‘A very delicate task’ it is said.)
“Look at me - I am your mirror! And if you do not react in the manner that I predict you should, there is something very wrong with YOU! But if you get it right: not only have I understood nothing of K’s teaching, but I can make you feel really good about not bothering to understand also! And together we will valiantly destroy anyone who has dared to understand anything.” (Thunderous applause from adoring fans.)
Tricky, tricky monkey!
How on earth has the pure and honest teaching of K been permitted to deteriorate into this ridiculous charade?
1 Like
Hello Patricia. I’m just trying to understand what you are saying in the quote above. Are you saying that a group of people on this forum who have understood nothing of K’s teaching are trying to destroy one or more posters on this forum because this person or people have indeed understood some parts or perhaps all of the teachings? Is that a fair summary of what you mean here? Thanks.
1 Like
It is the dialogue of ‘self’ Sean - it is not personified.
1 Like
If I am decoding Patrica’s language correctly - and I could be completely wrong about it (precisely because it is in code!) - she is referring to a conversation between Richard and myself from another thread. Richard was responding to something I had said (in reply to someone else) about seeing oneself in the “mirror of relationship”; and he (Richard) used the word “delicate” to describe the challenges involved in this process (and in our relationship to others generally).
So Patricia seems to be making a caricature of that conversation, casting Richard or myself as the ostentatious “mirror”, and imputing to this “mirror” plainly unpleasant motives (complacency, malevolency, and an overweening need to be congratulated by “adoring fans”). Such a “mirror” is a “tricky, tricky monkey”, because it purports to be something that it actually is not.
Having drawn this unpleasant caricature, she then asks (in relation to the “tricky monkey’s” activities):
How on earth has the pure and honest teaching of K been permitted to deteriorate into this ridiculous charade?
If this were a fair and impartial representation of what the conversation between Richard and myself involved, this would indeed be a fair question to ask. However, I think any fairly neutral, fairly reasonable person, will agree that this caricature is not a faithful portrayal of that conversation.
This is what (in philosophy) is called a “straw man argument”. It sets up a clearly distorted and highly prejudiced reformulation of what someone else has said, and then attacks this obviously absurd caricature version (the “straw man”) as though it were the same thing.
So the same question that Patricia asks here is unwittingly (although apparently she doesn’t see this) entirely self-referential (i.e. it exactly applies to what she has said, and the manner in which she has said it):
How on earth has the pure and honest teaching of K been permitted to deteriorate into this ridiculous charade?
1 Like
Your question was not posed me, but yes, this is what I understand Patrica to be saying.
I wish we could all be a little more frank and a little less indirectly passive aggressive on the forum. If Patricia is honestly saying that there are a group of “know nothings” who are out to destroy the group of “know somethings”, then why not just say so clearly and explicitly, and refer to people by name? Then the whole situation might become clear and open.
Speaking personally - as I feel one must in these situations - I believe that Patricia simply dislikes certain people on the forum intensely (including unfortunately myself), and is expressing this dislike in her own terms. She is claiming for herself and a select few others the authority that comes with living in the light of truth; and is apparently casting almost everyone else on the forum (including unfortunately myself) as purely bad actors, out to darken the light of truth through ‘their’ own evil tendencies.
What this forum has taught me is that those who claim to be selfless, without ego, are usually (though not always) the most hostile, intolerant, vengeful personalities! (which seems like a grave irony). They purport to be saints, arhats, chosen ones, and yet lack basic human decency, basic charitableness, basic generosity and ordinary humility. They accuse everyone else of doing what they themselves are constantly doing - attacking, belittling, deriding, undermining - and yet are not apparently self-aware enough to see that this is what they are doing. They poison the words of K so that those words become almost tainted with the spite they employ them to communicate.
For all I know they may be right: maybe Patrica is accurately communicating the spirit and purpose of Krishnamurti’s teaching. Maybe the truth is too dangerous for ordinary people who have basic human heartedness.
But I also doubt that they speak for K.
1 Like
James -
The reference to the self being a mirror and ‘taking on a very difficult task’ is certainly quoted from the ‘relationships’ thread.
If you choose to identify yourself with the rest of the post - well that is up to you.
As written to Sean -
It is a game the self plays constantly. Of course the self does not like to have that pointed out, does It?
Are we not all playing the game of self, Patricia? What makes you so seemingly certain that you yourself are not playing this game you feel the rest of us are playing?
The movement of self is universal - not personal James.
And the self functions on conflict energy. Does it not? So it must generate that conflict energy.
Yes, Patrica, the movement of self is common to all (or almost all) human beings.
I don’t know that the self functions ‘on’ a separate ‘conflictual energy’. The self is part and parcel of that conflictual energy - right? - which has been put together by thought.
But Patricia, if I may, are you not, in your satirical post, actually mirroring, reflecting, your perception of what’s going on? Isn’t it what we are talking about ?
1 Like
Dear Richard -
Honestly! For the self to take upon itself ‘the very delicate task’ of being a mirror to someone else is a ridiculous notion, only designed to make the self even more important - to draw attention to the self as the STAR - to put the self into the limelight.
It may occur naturally in relationship that one sees something about oneself during an interaction - but that is something ONLY for the person having that private insight - it is not something that the other person sets out to DO!
Yes - the post is satirical - not personal - and shared because it is quite simply interesting to look at and to share.
Take it or leave it! It isn’t compulsory…
I have talked about this on the forum several times before, but I feel there is something essentially irrational going on here. The “mirror” (to use the analogy) is reflecting back (to me at least) something obviously distorted, almost unrecognisable. If the ‘parody’ (of Patricia’s) was truly intended as a fair representation of the recent conversation we both had, then I honestly do not recognise it.
So what is one to do?
I see my fault in all this, I’m not claiming to be above the fray (this conflict in relationship). But I have reached the end of my tether with Charley and Patricia. They seem to be unceasingly hostile to anything and everything one says, and this hostility distorts every discussion, every conversation, every dialogue. There is simply no ground of ordinary human affection on which to pursue any meaningful enquiry.
I am leaving it, thank you.
1 Like
I do want to apologize if I started anything that seems like more conflict, that was not my intention in posting in this thread in the beginning. I was trying to see if people could come together, if they could after some time see things differently, and possibly clarify any misunderstanding.
It appears conflict will continue for some participants despite the best attempts of trying to come to some kind of mutual understanding.
I am not saying anything bad about any of the participants, and I do appreciate that they took the time to respond to each other and have conversation, even if it was to say they still dont see it any different or it is best to leave me alone.
At least there was some dialogue, conversation, discussion, and the self was there in display for all to see, to learn from. Some see the self as universal and some see it as personal. At least, however we see the self, we could learn something from all these exchanges.
Thanks again for all who participated in this thread and the Relationships thread. I hope in some small way addressing these issues helped the forum move forward, even if in the most subtle, smallest way, in better relationship and affection and mutual interest in exploring Krishnamurtis teachings.
I appreciate the intention David. To see conflict playing out between people anywhere is ugly, and in a proto-religious space like this it feels doubly so. But, as you know, conflict has always been there in the Krishnamurti world. We are all coming up against our limitations - whether here, in the K-schools/foundations, or in ordinary life - and sometimes one just has to accept that these mutual limitations are functionally incompatible. In different circumstances these relationships might find a freedom to play out differently; but in this present digital space of words and text, it feels like there is no road left to travel. I’m more or less at peace with it now. Not all relationships are meant to endure for long, and none endure forever. That’s part of life I guess. The mirror has reflected back what there was to reflect; the shadows now cover it over. Someone else will find it again, and the mirror will continue its effortless and endless work of reflection.