Are all of these things a manifestation of the need for security? More money equals more security is a widely held view. What about the enjoyment of high status? Is that connected to security?
Yes, we seek psychological security through our relationships. But I am not talking of that kind of security. At a simpler level there must be security before any form of relationship can begin: to know that you won’t hurt me and I won’t hurt you. Right?
As far as I see things, relationships are formed as soon as we come into contact with other people. The nature of the relationship and how it develops will depend on how we interact with each other. If someone is aggressive and defensive, that will probably have a limiting effect on the relationship. For a relationship to deepen, there will probably have to be mutual respect, interest, openness and a common sharing. How do you see this Paul?
Hi Dan. Of course, as ever, Krishnamurti makes an important point here. However, I suppose there are families and families. Some may be “ugly little units” but others are probably caring and loving. Wouldn’t you agree here?
When I, the see-er, observer, thinker, look at the world what do I see? What do I actually see for myself? Do I see hypothetical situations, concepts, generalities, and all that? Think about it. Is this way of thinking about the world, not my actual seeing, but an abstract? When I am thinking about some aspect of life, why do I introduce hypotheticals, concepts, generalities, abstracting myself, and not see life as actual basic human condition? Why do I think life has to be a plan, a strategy, a performance?
I think his point with that shocking description is, is that the family is an ugly little unit…but as to your point, some families, are really ugly little units.
I had a laugh there Dan. Are you basing this comment on the American TV show “All in the Family”? You probably don’t even remember that programme but the British series it was based on, “Till Death Us Do Part”, was a real comedy classic.
Affection may be the highest form of self-interest. That’s what I am trying to get at. Affection, intelligence and self-interest working together.
It might be or it might not be. Surely nobody can tell us this. The only way to find out is to observe as carefully as we can. Is the affection in our lives given and received freely or with strings attached? Are we capable of seeing this?
Is it that affection is given out and exchanged with another, rather like a currency that passes between us? Or is one affectionate to other people regardless of whatever else is going on? That’s the difference. One can’t see that one is affectionate. But one can see the pretence, the hypocrisy, the fear and all the other things that deny affection. This seeing is part of the intelligence of a mind that wants to be an excellent human being, whatever this may mean. (We can talk about all that later.) Wanting to be an excellent human being, that’s genuine self-interest, isn’t it? It means wanting only the best for oneself, starting with this first and moving from there.
1 Like
We seem to have jumped from talking about affection, to talking about wanting to be an excellent human being. I don’t see a clear connection here. Looking at how we give and receive affection, and whether it’s given and received freely or with strings attached, seemed worth sticking to if you ask me.
They are all tied together. Affection cannot be cultivated. The desire to be affectionate is a crooked desire, like most of our so-called good intentions. Is there a self-interest that is not crooked? That’s why I brought in this question of being an excellent human being.
I think that on this forum, this is an accepted truth. We say things like “Humility/affection etc cannot be cultivated” with a certain amount of regularity here. I’m not saying it’s wrong to say this and it certainly appears to be true. However, I’m not not sure it really helps us to understand what’s blocking us. Maybe it does, who knows?
The desire to be affectionate blocks any chance of real affection because it is more about the desire to be seen as affectionate, either by others or by oneself as a positive image. Can we see this rather obvious fact about ourselves and not seek to change it, just being aware of the nature of desire and the role that images play in this movement of desire?
Yes, it does seem pretty obvious. Do we actially go around desiring to be affectionate? I think it’s a bit more complex than this.
Of course it is complex. But this is about the nature of desire and intention, which is perhaps the most difficult part of ourselves to see with absolute clarity. Whenever we posit what is necessary for enquiry to take place - affection, sensitivity, seriousness and so on - we always frame these criteria in positive terms. But I am suggesting that there is the need for something much simpler than any of these rather abstract positive attributes. It is first of all the need to be safe.
Put away that gun
This part is simple
Try to recognize
What is in your mind
God help us!
Help us lose our minds
These slippery people
Help us understand
Backsliding!
How do you do?
These slippery people
Gonna see you through
See for yourself (the Lord won’t mind)
We’re gonna move (right now)
Turn like a wheel inside a wheel
It seems that the idea of a forum like this, to some extent at least, is that some kind of shared discovery takes place regarding Krishnamurti’s teachings. We can see that this kind of investigation often results in communication breaking down, sometimes at an early stage of a dialogue. I can’t see that qualities such as seriousness, sensitivity and affection are anything but positive in a situation like ours where we are inquiring into and discussing the teachings. You talked about “the need to be safe”. What do you mean by this Paul?
1 Like
I don’t know. Don’t you want to feel safe?
When we admit this to each other, a lot of our difficulties in relationship have already begun to dissolve.
1 Like
To console each other is to normalise the difficulties, that’s all. I may find this comforting, but it does nothing to actually look carefully, responsibly, at oneself. All this reveals is a common condition, which we identify with, but the thinker does not see the thinking is conditioned.
1 Like