It is real in the sense that it carries on long after death: Buddha, Jesus, Tutankhamun, Cleopatra, Cromwell, Gandhi, etc.
No, it has nothing to do with that. The moment he comes in, he immediately has strong images about me and we are then left spending hours on that nonsense. I have no image of him or her. But his images of me are hurting me. For I am nothing but the relationship I have with him.
It is just like with someone I met at Brockwood a few years ago. We had never met one another before and yet his first words to me were, ‘You are a serious person!’ What followed was a disaster! But, fortunately, when we met again a few months later, it was all forgotten. Now we have great fun together!
Maybe you are just being rhetorical, but how can a person who feels afraid and hurt by another be said not to have an image of that person? The hurt is an image, the fear is an image.
The ordinary explanation for this situation is that Fraggle has an image (or series of images) about Anon, and Anon has an image (or series of images) about Fraggle. Those images may be distorted (images are always subtle distortions), or they may contain an element of fact. But an image is still an image and not the truth.
So doesn’t it make better sense to think of this situation in terms of the images involved in relationship? We have images of each other, and we have images of ourselves, and these images are not truth. We have a relationship of images.
It is not rhetorical. I don’t have any images of him or her. But he reacts to certain words that I write or say - ‘love’, ‘friends’ and ‘strangers’, as specific examples - and from those reactions he relates to me. Otherwise, I am nothing to him. Does this make sense? I am nothing but the relationship I have with him or you or anyone else; and when this relationship is founded on words, there are bound to be difficulties. These difficulties are not insurmountable. Once we are aware of them they soon fade away. In the meantime fear, hurt and conflict is real enough, if we are sensitive to it.
I doubt anyone here has no images of anyone. If you don’t form images of other people, you’re free and wasting your time here.
It’s not a waste of time when you too don’t form any images. It is something quite marvellous. For then we are both free to spend our time here without all of the other nonsense that passes for communication. The images fade away as we spot them. Did you notice how you are doing it yourself with the image you hold of what it might mean to be free? Spotting and dropping the image as it arises is the very beginning of freedom, which is right here and now.
For someone who presumes to be more adroit at conversation than those of us here, you come across as someone who conveys extreme egocentricity, someone starving for attention who will say anything to get it.
Yes, that’s what you see. Everyone else here will see something slightly different. The question is if it is possible to be aware immediately of these images we have of each other, to drop them and to move on. Either we choose to go back and attempt to correct our crude attempts at communication, explain things, adapt the language, clarify our definitions, try to establish a better foundation or basis for enquiry etc., or we move on right now without any of that game. The first choice is merely a continuation of the old; the second choice isn’t really a choice at all because it is something we have never done before. Do you see the difference? The first choice is about providing the other person with an improved image of ourselves and continuing to communicate from that better place. Or no images are necessary at all.
We said the same thing earlier on: Can we relate to one another from a state of being nothing? Good Vibrations - #5 by Anon
We know it’s possible to “be aware immediately of these images”, but “to drop them and move on”, is wishful thinking. Some would say greedy. It’s enough to be aware of them and understand why one has them. There are things we need to know about each other, things we’d like to believe about each other, and we need to know the difference. We can’t just condemn images and decide we must be free of them.
Either we choose to go back and attempt to correct our crude attempts at communication, explain things, adapt the language, clarify our definitions, try to establish a better foundation or basis for enquiry etc., or we move on right now without any of that game.
If you don’t like this game you shouldn’t be where it’s being played. Start your own game or take your gamelessness to those who might appreciate it? Why remain with those you have superseded?
Do you see the difference? The first choice is about providing the other person with an improved image of ourselves and continuing to communicate from that better place. Or no images are necessary at all.
I see what you’re saying and though I don’t believe you’re beyond image forming, it’s what you believe that matters. So why not take your thoughts to an appreciative audience and leave us to the game you have no further use of?
Then let’s think about it and work it out. What do we need to know about each other? I am not sure there is anything at all we need to know. I am starting from that basis, of not being sure about it. Our own names are hidden here; we haven’t even got that knowledge to start from. It doesn’t stop us from looking at the world, talking to one another, asking questions, contemplating the nature of things and even looking at what K said about it. How do you feel about it?
My image of you as someone with a pathological need for attention prevents me from doing anything more than urging you to get professional help.
Any image one holds about another is only ever about oneself. This is an indisputable fact. As I said, we can go into it, look at it and think it out together; the offer remains. But there is a big difference between interacting with someone from a distance and meeting them in person. There are too many variables here in such a limited forum to allow us to gain a clear perspective of the other people with whom we are communicating. So it is only with those whom we have met in person, and have established something much more real, that this question of images starts to make more sense and become something very different from a theoretical approach. Such people exist who are interested in all this, who are keen to experiment, who are not scared of the flame of transformation.
So a ‘pathological need for attention’ is actually a good way to put it. It is a cry for help and a cry of help at the same time, no doubt about it. It is time to break through. Professionals, however, can be of no help at all. This requires amateurs in the true sense of that word: those who do it for love.
Not always. It may be projection or it may be an accurate observation.
Are you aware of your tendency to be absolutist and defensive?
As I said, we can go into it, look at it and think it out together.
As I said, you need help.
So it is only with those whom we have met in person, and have established something much more real, that this question of images starts to make more sense and become something very different from a theoretical approach. Such people exist who are interested in all this, who are keen to experiment, who are not scared of the flame of transformation.
And yet you prefer to do what we’re doing here rather than to meet people in person. You’ve been doing this for years. Why do you persist? It’s as if you’re trapped in a cage and begging anyone who can hear you to release you from your chosen trap. Are you too proud to talk to a therapist?
Professionals, however, can be of no help at all. This requires amateurs in the true sense of that word: those who do it for love.
You love the drama of your chosen predicament more than anything.
An accurate observation is not an image because there is no observer in the mix. It is the observer who uses images; for the observer himself is an image. You seem to know all the theory of this and yet refuse to look at it directly.
Do you hear the absolutism in this statement? Are you aware of your arrogance? What makes you so sure you know anything? You know nothing about the observer and observation other than what Krishanmurti said.
You seem to know all the theory of this and yet refuse to look at it directly.
We all know the theory because that’s what we’re here for. You say you don’t want to play this game because you’ve graduated. Yet here you are.
Apparently so, and yet you don’t go beyond it. It’s the wrong motive for being here.
1 Like
You say you have gone beyond it, but clearly you have not.
I have not said that; you are putting those words into my mouth. It has nothing to do with me going anywhere. I am saying that you have not gone beyond the theoretical exploration of all this, which means that there are motives and images galore. You can’t say, ‘Clearly you have not,’ unless the whole picture is clear, and it isn’t. One can’t have clarity in just one corner and darkness everywhere else.
Look, we are nothing but the relationship we have with one another. Why are we content with theoretical relationships of any kind? An image is a theory. The images you have of me or the images I have of you are all theoretical. And from these images of each other arise our own psychological motives for power and security. Are we aware of all this in an instant, ending it and moving on? Or are we going to continue the stupid game?
How would you know, seeing as you are in your corner in darkness?
Until you see how presumptuous you are, you know nothing but what you think you know.
Are we aware of all this in an instant, ending it and moving on? Or are we going to continue the stupid game?
I will continue the stupid game. You need to go where you can pretend you’re beyond the stupid game.
Darling, there is absolutely nowhere else to go. The whole of life is right here.