The Social Group

There are a lot of meetings to get together and discuss and dialogue. A preference for personal expression has become standard. The other person makes a comparative assessment of what he or she hears or reads, and responds to this. That is actually a reaction.

In a meeting people are expressing themselves. For example, it could be a social, business, or community meeting. People come as they are and talk about their perspectives, interests, concerns and beliefs. The interaction people have can be therapeutic, or it is complicated. It is where each other maybe thinking about some common concern or interest, but they are viewing the world through the prism of their own personal state of mind, conditioning, beliefs, ideals, etc. We see in the way we have been taught to see, and what we have is what we have created, maybe not personally, but socially, culturally, religiously.

People expressing themselves is the repetition of the conventional mind, wanting, searching for something, or inventing something. It is this same mind that has created all the way of life. Mixed up with all of the conditions of a day to day life, this is a complex and confused mind. There is no clarity for the mind to freely look, listen, and respond to a liveliness of the world people share.

People don’t see they are looking at their own self image. They find self expression pleasing, comforting, and think talking about what’s on each others mind is helpful. I have a different reason for talking together. For me there is an urgency of awareness of a free flow of mind. Not your mind, his or her mind, but the mind we all share. It is the mind not distracted by identity, by self image. It is a mind which is alert to all the psychological habits of the conventional mind, and all the separateness and division this has created. It responds freely, not to make claim to some point of view, but because it is obvious what is not free; what is conditioned.

In this meeting, aware of the conditioned mind, there is a free flow of thought. It is not analysis, comparison, contradiction, dichotomy, paradox, and opposition, and all that. It is not expecting explanations and guidance. It is a sharing of the mind common to us all. It is a communication.

That’s a pretty tall order. Good luck.

Why do we think of receiving instructions and orders, and then following them in some way or not?

Someone talks about the mind common to us all. It is a religious comment. It is not very surprising. I can appreciate there is a common mind. The practicalities are what are difficult, but to advocate the impracticality, is what? Think about it. This is a religious discussion, looking at conditioning, and the response is opposed or contrasted, and shows no signs of actual careful contemplation of the religious.

1 Like

It’s just a discussion. No need to be sanctimonious.

We’re (some of us?) considering the ‘approach’ to a mind that is free of the false reality it has inherited and lives in. Our ideas about this possibility arise from this conditioned false reality…false because it is personal. False because it is all a product of the past. Calling it “just” another discussion like sports or politics or philosophy demeans the seriousness of the situation we are all in. What is the “new approach” that JK said was necessary?

I think that’s the wrong approach because we know nothing about freedom and we are living examples of false realities.

When it is clear that we are minds that have limited ourselves to believing for fear of seeing what-is, what is there to discuss? The mind is self-limiting, and if its self-imposed limits are not in its best interests, does it find out by consulting with others?

I’m pretty sure that talking about our condition does no harm, and may even be a good thing to do. But I don’t presume to know that it’s sacred or religious or anything special.

Please do not come here to say I am right or wrong. The religiousness is not about I, you or me. Try to see this different use of the words and not keep arguing with the conventional meanings of words.

Please read the opening posting. When I read, I am finding out what is written.

Of course the writings can be said to be stupid, annoying, provocative, disagreeable, antagonistic, antithetical, and all that, but we understand this is something of an assessment, and interpretation, which the reader has made for themselves. After all it could simply be gibberish.

Do you see I am addressing what I see as a common course of K gatherings and discussions, and looking at the inherent misunderstanding. The nature of this misunderstanding is at the nature of the conventional way of thinking, and the conventional approach to life. This point is what needs to be considered carefully.

Why does the reader compare it to a standard way of thinking? Why does the reader make it something controversial? How is it someone is opposed to what is written? Isn’t this a reaction of some kind? I read something and I react. Where is this basis of reaction? Is it in what someone says or writes? Then it is a conflict. It is the fundamental conflict in all of us, in our lives, and in society. The common nature of life is lost. [communicate ; C16: from Latin commūnicāre to share, from commūnis common]

When someone says something, or writes something, they are using language, words, and all that. This is language which comes from history, tradition, and the society. So we use a word like sacred to point to this, the nature of it. This is not the knowing of it. The knowing is in the attachment to the word, and the separateness we have come to associate with, in the mind.