This means you are interested in transactions: what you can get and what you can give. Are these not just two forms of greed, both the getting and the giving?
Now, we have a real chance to explore this question right now in a dialogue, starting from scratch where neither of us are spiritually advanced or spiritually retarded. Or else we say, ‘I am not greedy; I have something to offer,’ and move on to the next enterprise, without ever looking at one of the very real components of human relationship.
I will add here that since you have ignored the major part of my previous comment, that would show that your “I” is still very much intact. I say that because you would have never asked:
You would have understood that the why can only be revealed after the the contents of the consciousness have been emptied, which shows that you have never done that. So, in keeping to the topic of this post, it is revealed in dialogue, that you are not into meditation - emptying the contents of your consciousness. Thank you for revealing that fact. However, tomorrow that may change, so it doesn’t really tell me who you are since we are all changing all the time. On the other hand, it is a trap to ask someone who they are. It is as K would say to the effect (if I recall correctly) that it is “impudent” to fixate on the possibility of the idea of knowing another.
Insofar as for my reason for being on this site, you obviously have no understanding of karma either. I receive a pension, for which I do nothing, and since having broken away from society, I feel that it is appropriate to give back in another way to those who have not broken away from society. It would be wonderful if everyone I talked with enjoyed psychological freedom. Having never really been into money or never having had the character defect of greed, I have no idea where you have gotten the idea of greed. Certain millionaire members of my family who never wanted to have anything to do with me since I was never into money/greed would also wonder what on earth you are talking about. Where is this coming from?
Somehow I wonder, whether when K spoke of offering freedom to the world, would you think that he was into transactions? that he was greedy? It is obvious to me that he wasn’t.
We could talk about why there is this belief on this site that dialogue is a means to an end - a path. That is a “transaction” that I would be interested in discussing with you or anyone else on this site. Is it psychological “greed” that is at the origin in the belief in dialogue? From what I have read on this site, I wonder about that on this site.
I want to be listened to and thanked for my contributions. That’s greed, isn’t it? It is a common enough attribute, one of the many attributes that make up the content of my consciousness. It has nothing to do with money; it is far more subtle than that.
Yes that’s the ordinary understanding we have of relationship. But with my conditioning, my greed, my belief, the self center, etc, if you look into it this, there is no actual relationship. We can say there is a cultural mass, a society, a unity of selves, but we all have a divided awareness, which we connect with politics, religion, education, etc.
Not just me and not just on this site. Why are we here at all? What is the point of being human? There is no answer to it. So the question has to be allowed to grow between us, not cut off dead from the start with a clever or mechanical response. The only answer is in the movement of our relationships. The whole of existence is in this miracle.
As you say Paul, the “movement of our relationships” is a thing of great importance. However, it strikes me as ironic that we, in general, pay little attention to moving with sensitivity and skill in this field. It’s a delicate thing to establish and maintain healthy relationships. Is this not the case?
True, Peter. Having gotten to the bottom of my self, through meditation, I saw why I had the parents I had, why had I had chosen my gender (female), why I had the childhood that I had had, those particular parents, the life that I had had, all of it - even all those past lives. So, for Charley, there was an “answer” - understanding it all. The person who was Charley no longer exists, thank god. The conditioning I had were lulus compared with greed, belief, etc., and unfortunately due to acting out, delayed getting to the bottom of my self, by years, and now, I have a damaged left leg, and a steel plate in my right arm, all because of that acting out. Life is fair, to the very last cent - karma. Now, I use the word “I” as a social convenience alone. I am horrified by the increasing spread of darkness over the world, the socially endorsed and accepted movement to glorify the “self”. Now, I love everyone, I just don’t like most people, and all that lies at the heart of my understanding of what “relationship” means. Charley is protected - 6 angels, that “sacred immensity” that keeps an eye on me, and the mind/heart that tells me what and what not to do. The freedom from that conditioning is wonderful. My anonymity, privacy, simplicity of life, peace of mind, psychological security, clarity, understanding - I hold all that dear. And then there is the fact that I do not have to reincarnate back, thank god. I will check in here from time to time to see where you’all are at. Bye. I’m out.
Why do you want to maintain anything? There may be no such thing as a healthy relationship. There is where we are now and the distance between us. It may be all in this one moment together, in which it requires no effort at all to establish where we stand and how far away from each other we are. The healthiest, sanest, holiest state of existence may be to have no relationship at all because at the heart of it we don’t even exist. But that’s entirely another question.
If you have plants in your house or garden (if you are lucky enough to have these things) you can usually tell if they’re healthy or not. If they are, you can take care of them and “maintain” them in a healthy state (for some time, at least). Are relationships so different from plants in terms of being healthy or not and maintaining them that way?
Look at it. In our relationships we tend to want to maintain the pleasurable shoots and cut off the painful. So usually in relationship we are maintaining our own self-gratification. That’s what comes first, isn’t it? And the other person is behaving in exactly the same manner. That’s what we call human relationship, but it is merely another form of self-expression in the guise of nurturing or caring for another.
We’ve all probably had relationships that have been more or less “healthy” but surely it’s a good idea to observe patterns in our relationships and learn from this. Are we in relationships for self-interest or is there a genuine, mutual affection based on respect and sharing?
Well, in the context of relationships, self-interest could take various forms. If I want to further my career, I might want to establish a friendship with someone in a position to help me get on in a professional sense. In general, I suppose it’s a case of me wanting something and using a relationship to help me get it - power, money, sex, status etc. How do you see this Paul?
I’m interested in allying myself with others to preclude loneliness, isolation, feel secure, get entertainment, apart from other benefits that associations may bring. But real relationship can never be my ‘content’ with yours, that will always be compromise and/or conflict. Love is the absence of division?
It’s the psychological need for security or dependance that JK was pointing at when he called the ‘family’, “that ugly little unit”. As I understood it.