I’m not sure what you mean by this. Are you asking why an attacker takes aim? Also, I don’t see how the subject of attack pertains to what has been said so far.
Please read the opening title and comment. “The Violence of Self”. Please do not raise questions which are asking for directions. It is something to think about more deeply, not to obey. I think it is not at all clear what is the self. Isn’t it an instrument in the brain which we identify with, and assume is the way to function? This identification is not clarity. It is a mechanical way of life. This instrument is what is used as the focus of thinking about things and getting ideas and information. It is like building a library of words, and then selecting words to make more thoughts about something. This is very repetitive and prejudicial. It is using images of a world divided into things, into separate individuals, and their comments, as a source for trying to find cohesion, and comprehension. This source is fragmented and will lead only to the fragmented. Then in division we fight to put it back together. That’s why we have so much difficulty in communicating. The question is why stick to this fragmented source? You can read and experience, in many places, not just from anyone person, there is a whole living world and there is no question of any particular source. What we have done is made it personal, nationalistic, ethnic, sectarian, etc. and this is what we expect others to reflect and we fight to make it some way or another.
It’s all we know. Are you not “stuck to this fragmented source”?
Peter,
you are good at preaching but this is not a place for preaching. If you put your mouse on the subtitle: “kinfonet discussion“ below the title of your thread, it says: “talk about all things Krishnamurti with other members of Kinfonet.” This is a place for discussion Peter, not for preaching, a discussion with other members. Last year you told me, no, you didn’t say it to me, it’s not your style to address directly to people, anyway you said: “I’m not interested in a dialogue”. And all your behaviour, all your replies show that clearly. If you are not interested in a dialogue, if you don’t want to discuss, then you should not be here Peter. You are out of place here Peter, in a forum about K, gurus should not be allowed. I cannot think that you ignore what K said about gurus, I can only think that you haven’t understood him.
You know Peter I started my thread “why you are here” to see whether people like you, all the self-appointed gurus we have in this forum, had the courage and honesty to lay their cards on the table, to come into the open, into the light. The only one who did it was @charleycannuck and I acknowledge her merit in doing so, at least she’s not hiding.
But you are more astute Peter, you never lay your cards on the table, and you keep on preaching but you don’t put into practice what you are preaching. You prefer to have an ambiguous role, claiming and pretending to talk about K but actually putting yourself in a pedestal, and talking from that pedestal just like a guru, a quite snobbish guru who finds it not suitable to his dignity to reply directly to a person here. You use K’s teachings when they suit your aims, but forget them when they don’t. You talk of awareness, etc., selecting carefully your words, but you seem not to be aware how your role of guru is incompatible with K’s teachings and so with this forum. It’s just time that you and all the other members of this forum acknowledge this incompatibility, this contradiction.
I doubt you will do it, the creatures of the dark cannot afford to come into the light. But I had nonetheless to point it out, because I don’t like darkness Peter. I have not understood K like you pretend to have, I have not attained any spiritual state like some other people here have, but I think I can distinguish light from darkness, I can distinguish love from pretension and I don’t see love in the behaviour of all the self-appointed gurus here.
You and your lot have transformed this forum into a snobbish country club where you can talk undisturbed to your audience. Don’t worry Peter, I won’t disturb you anymore, you can go on with your monologues, with your preaching. This country club is not a place for me.
You advised your “public” to read the opening title of this thread. You should change it Peter, you should call it “the violence and arrogance of gurus”. A guru, Peter, is just the quintessence of the self, a very destructive self.
I don’t know why people don’t think about all this beyond limiting it to knowledge. The habit of giving a conventional personal response, which is an analysis of what was said, and not thinking more deeply and observing what is on the mind, is the wrong approach. A response coming from the conditioned psychology is a reaction, and is missing a fundamental meditation, a contemplation, on the discussion. Is observing all this too difficult, too annoying, to do? I can’t help anyone. But observing your own response and seeing the way you are thinking, what is on the mind, and wondering why it is a reaction, not free flowing, communing together, is a start.
Amen…
You have a poster who is aggressive, confrontational, arrogant , etc. and there is a reaction to what is written. Then you realize that you have reacted and that the reaction is negative and you want to say something about what the poster has said, but you know that saying what you ‘feel’ (the conditioned response) will probably bring about a defensive response from the poster. In short, conflict. So instead of that there is a questioning of your own feeling. You have no understanding of who or why the poster takes the position he or she does and that any confrontation is ‘childish’. I see the violence in myself. I can not help anyone else. That seeing seems to me to be a valuable reason for being here in a K. (or any) forum.
Why not? Self observation and reflection is not esoteric or magical. It doesn’t take 20 years of playing scales and arpeggios. If you were to tell me I’m avoiding looking in the mirror, I might not be able to understand or even hear it the first time, maybe the first few times, but if you persisted, and especially if you were patient and kind, I would definitely have a good long look. That’s the beauty of a forum of trusted friends-peers, they nudge each other when nudging is needed.
1 Like
Here in B.C., in Vancouver’s Stanley Park, there have been quite a few attacks by coyotes recently. By attack, I mean that these coyotes have approached humans (rather “fearlessly” as I have seen commented upon by journalists) and bitten them (approximately 40 attacks) by only a dozen or so coyotes !!
“I” have wondered about this peculiar behaviour myself. Because… prior to Covid, such incidents were very rare indeed. Before Covid, most coyotes avoided the frequent walkers and hikers and joggers and picnickers. What happened, well… from what I have read… is the fact that during Covid, fewer people frequented this park (the park officials refused entry to practically everyone for quite a long time).
My understanding is that animals in general are instinctively territorial. They will protect their territory by any and all means. And during the period of Covid, these coyotes - like all animals - expanded their territory into areas that were being less frequented by the humans - there were just less humans hanging out in the park (restrictions and such). So, it seems to me that all the coyotes were doing was protecting their newfound natural and expanded territory in the only way they could. Since many restrictions have been lifted, more humans are entering the expanded territory of these coyotes. And voila, attacks!
In real life, and online on other sites, one has witnessed a “top dog”, so to speak, attack anyone who appears to invade the status quo of what they believe they are there to protect. Ah, protection, such a male machismo ideal.
But not just a male prerogative, right? K spoke of the self-protective mind:
“I have explained how a self-protective mind comes into being; it comes into being as the result of the consciousness or awareness of emptiness, of void.”
K, Ojai, 12th Public Talk 1st July, 1934
So, my understanding is: “my” territory --> “my” forum. To echo K, “my” is the most violent word in the English dictionary, eh? Some people have a stronger animal nature in them than others. I have seen this in real time and online, and those very people have a very violent self (keeping in line with the theme of this particular topic). [Like Pogo said “We have met the enemy and he is us”, right?] Nothing new under the sun, eh?
Added: Up to now, there have been @45 reported attacks in this 1,000 acre park - and another coyote has been caught and euthanized. Park officials have stated that part of the reason that the coyotes appear “fearless” has been the fact that some people have been going into the park and feeding the animals (racoons, coyotes, etc.) - feeding them with birdseed, cat food and raw chicken - and taking selfies !! Presently, there is now a dusk curfew that has been implemented, as well as taped-off trails. Incredibly, despite the efforts of park officials to mitigate attacks to ensure a “co-existence” between humans and the coyotes, there are now discussions as to what to do, which includes catching and euthanizing all the coyotes - OMG!!! (sighs)
Again, your opinion, your judgment.
You react to my response to someone by concluding that it’s a conditioned response and that it’s “childish”. Maybe, maybe not, but you didn’t care to inquire because your reaction was compelling and demanded expression,
Be as interested in your own reactions as you are in the reactions of others, and you won’t feel compelled to pass judgment.
I’m wondering why you didn’t chastise Voyager for his criticism of Peter which was merciless and prolonged.
Here I was referring to myself, as a reason not to confront.
Why one takes a position is not always clear or obvious (even to the one taking it), but the position is clear and obvious, and it’s the position one responds to. In Peter’s case, it’s the position of preacher I’m responding to.
To me ‘preacher’ is someone who preaches the Bible…if he starts doing that I’ll agree with you. But he’s not, as I hear it, he’s reminding himself of his conditioning.
I hope they wont hold it against the coyotes for being unable to discern the sterling qualities of the human animals that tramp through their territories. 
Dan,
From what I understand, the park officials have caught and euthanized - I think if I recall 4 of those coyotes, yes.
Anyone can be “preachy”… even atheists.
There must have been some suggestions of relocating them, that were decided against. No?
I did just watch the report on CTV News and they mention that relocation hasn’t worked in the past and one animal rights group wants the park closed until they can solve the problem of open garbage cans, people feeding the coyotes etc. But 2 yr old toddler being bitten on face and neck means probably very little sympathy for the animals.
Oh darn,
Park officials in Stanley Park are about to launch their culling of the coyotes, so they are about to capture and euthanize @45 coyotes. They have capitulated to objections by businesses (restaurants, etc.) in the Park and the public. “I” don’t really have any feelings about this now. Feelings one way or another seemed to have disappeared. Years ago, I would have been disheartened/sad about this. “I” can only say now that is not right action.
Added: One might ask what “should” one do… All one can say is that it is incorrect action. In the same way, it is incorrect action to try and get someone to be a certain way. One can only talk about the consequences of behaving a certain way, of making certain choices. The violence of the coyotes is being answered by violence by people, the very people who did not respect the wild nature of coyotes. Violence seems to be the modus operandi of so many. It is the utmost in violence, a vileness that one witnesses all over the globe - people so unaware of the violence of their self - people trying to get others to be exactly like them. To be part of any group, one sacrifices the awareness of one’s conditioning in exchange for acceptance.