Do unto others...

Okay, so if you like hamburgers should you give them to vegetarians? That's the golden rule but it's not compassionate.

There's a much simpler rule: Be kind.

Works out much better for the world. And it is a radical revolution.

idiot ? wrote:
Works out much better for the world. And it is a radical revolution.

Yes it is a radical revolution indeed

However saying "Be kind" doesn't work well, because why would one be kind when others are not ?

The reciprocity in relationships (ie. the mirror effect) has to be understood: what you do to others opens the door for others to do the same to you ... you bear a personal responsibilty

Why resist 'what is' ?

This post was last updated by Jean Gatti Sun, 08 May 2016.

idiot ? wrote:
Okay, so if you like hamburgers should you give them to vegetarians? That's the golden rule but it's not compassionate.

This apparent paradox is solved when you consider the golden rule in its negative form "Do not do to others what you wouldn't like others to do to you" ... in this case if you were veggie you wouldn't like others to feed you with hamburgers :-)

Personally I prefer the negative statement of the rule, because it does not imply you are 'doing' something in order to get a personal advantage ... love cannot be an 'investment' hoping for some 'return on investment' ... love is not about 'doing', it is about 'being'

Why resist 'what is' ?

Jean Gatti wrote:
However saying "Be kind" doesn't work well, because why would one be kind when others are not ?

Because it's the right thing to do. And it also is an action without any expectations like your reciprocitywhich implies you expect a return on treating people well. Be kind is what K did and not this .. do unto to others etc. which is your current fixation.

You see your "kindness" is dependent on what others do which is not "kindness" at all. It's an abstract of kindness. You are only going to be kind if you think you are going to get kindness returned to you.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Sun, 08 May 2016.

Jack Pine wrote:
And it also is an action without any expectations like your reciprocitywhich implies you expect a return on treating people well.

No Jack, reciprocity in relationships is not an "expectation" ... it is a fact that has to be seen and understood ...

WHY is this 'reciprocity' inevitable ?

Why resist 'what is' ?

idiot ? wrote:
There's a much simpler rule: Be kind.

Very simple but also very good advice. In Mary Zimbalist's unfinished book Krishnamurti says "Never hurt anyone. If you do, apologize." Simple but profound.

Sean Hen wrote:
Krishnamurti says "Never hurt anyone. If you do, apologize." Simple but profound.

The problem is that some persons are hurt by hearing the simple statement of facts ... does the one who speaks the truth have to apologize for those who feel 'hurt' by truth ? This can be particularly true when it goes about religious beliefs, people are easily hurt by hearing criticism about their religion, even if this criticism is founded on observable facts or reasonable assumptions ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Jean Gatti wrote:
The problem is that some persons are hurt by hearing the simple statement of facts ... does the one who speaks the truth have to apologize for those who feel 'hurt' by truth ?

Jean,

Is someone telling the truth with the intention to hurt
not of an entirely different order than tell the truth and find out that someone is/was hurt ??

In the latter case, an apology could be or is in place, in the first case it is a lie.

If one says something which in advance already established that it is hurtful, one may - as K. regularly did - already in advance apologize for that , such as;
Excuse me ... or I do not want to hurt you, but .... or something like that...

These are still expressions of being kind too.!!

Truth will unfold itself for those who enquire their own actions and only to them and for them and to or for no one else.

Jean Gatti wrote:
The problem is that some persons are hurt by hearing the simple statement of facts ... does the one who speaks the truth have to apologize for those who feel 'hurt' by truth ?

Hi Jean, I think it's often how we say a thing that hurts more than the thing itself. As Wim says, by saying something like "I don't want to hurt you but ...." there is much less likelihood of anyone being hurt or offended. I see this as a communication skill. Communicating skillfully is something that's worth working on for all of us I would say.

Sean Hen wrote:
Hi Jean, I think it's often how we say a thing that hurts more than the thing itself.

Yes Sean I don't disagree, however if 'communication skills' are needed to communicate, it also means that the person is very 'touchy' and self defensive and not ready to face facts ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Jean Gatti wrote:
No Jack, reciprocity in relationships is not an "expectation" ... it is a fact that has to be seen and understood ...

It apparently is for you Jean. Take your sentence: However saying "Be kind" doesn't work well, because why would one be kind when others are not ? You see Jean you don't understand why you should just be kind if you're not going to receive it back from the person you're being kind to. You are expecting to receive kindness back.

Jean, you don't seem to understand the implications of the words you write. And because of that you are always contradicting yourself.

Jean Gatti wrote:
This can be particularly true when it goes about religious beliefs, people are easily hurt by hearing criticism about their religion, even if this criticism is founded on observable facts or reasonable assumptions ...

There is the case of Christof Luxenberg, a German universitary researcher, who had to publish his scientific findings about the historical Syro-Aramaic Christian origins of the Quran under a pseudonym in order to protect himself from possible death threats from Muslim radicals ...

From Wikipedia

"Luxenberg, a scholar of ancient Semitic languages, argues that the Koran has been misread and mistranslated for centuries. His work, based on the earliest copies of the Koran, maintains that parts of Islam's holy book are derived from pre-existing Christian Aramaic texts that were misinterpreted by later Islamic scholars who prepared the editions of the Koran commonly read today. So, for example, the virgins who are supposedly awaiting good Islamic martyrs as their reward in paradise are in reality "white raisins" of crystal clarity rather than fair maidens ...

Luxenberg himself claims to have chosen a pseudonym "upon the counsel of Arab friends, after these became familiar with my work theses,"[4] to protect himself against possible violent repercussions.[5]

For some people the mere scientific investigation of religious texts is considered to be blasphemy and insult to their beliefs ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Jean are you having a mental breakdown? Your above quote is completely irrelevant. Why do you think anyone cares about this? Why would you post this on a K site?

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Mon, 09 May 2016.

Jean Gatti wrote:
Luxenberg, a scholar of ancient Semitic languages, argues that the Koran has been misread and mistranslated for centuries. His work, based on the earliest copies of the Koran, maintains that parts of Islam's holy book are derived from pre-existing Christian Aramaic texts that were misinterpreted

For those interested here's a youtube video about Luxenberg's study ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UYzfQnRRHo

Why resist 'what is' ?

Jack Pine wrote:
Why would you post this on a K site?

Well didn't K speak about the dangers of religious beliefs and also beliefs of all kinds ?

It is clear that truth is the biggest threat for those beliefs ... I would say K101 here ...

But we also see how much believers stick to their beliefs and resist truth and facts ... they feel personally hurt by truth ... and this leads more than often to conflicts and violence ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Jean Gatti wrote:
Well didn't K speak about the dangers of religious beliefs and also beliefs of all kinds ?

Yes but he didn't need to quote anyone and he was asking that we look into ourselves and our own religious beliefs. Instead you looked into Wikipedia and found some obscure quote from some obscure person. Look at your own religious beliefs and the danger it causes. Understand that first Jean.

Jack Pine wrote:
Look at your own religious beliefs and the danger it causes.

What beliefs are you speaking of Jack ?

??

I prefer to stick to facts personally :-)

Why resist 'what is' ?

Jean Gatti wrote:
What beliefs are you speaking of Jack ?

You can't learn about religious beliefs by looking at what others believe. You have to be aware of your own beliefs. And Jean if you say you don't have religious beliefs after all of the times you have expressed them on this forum it would just be another lie. Another failure to see yourself as you really are instead of the way you thinks you are or wish that you were.

Jean Gatti wrote:
Yes Sean I don't disagree, however if 'communication skills' are needed to communicate, it also means that the person is very 'touchy' and self defensive and not ready to face facts ...

I'm not sure if you're talking in the context of Krishnamurti or not here Jean. The problem is that the facts themselves are often subjective. You may have your truth and I may have mine. Obviously, we both think we are in touch with the truth and that the other chap is simply refusing to "face the facts". I think, in the context of a Krishnamurti forum, that we have to avoid the "I know but you don't know" scenario at all costs or there is little chance of communication. Do you see what I mean here?

Sean Hen wrote:
I think, in the context of a Krishnamurti forum, that we have to avoid the "I know but you don't know" scenario at all costs or there is little chance of communication. Do you see what I mean here?

Correct, one can never know what another person knows or not ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Jean, can you see you react to words without understanding the context from which the words were taken? You make an ideal, an abstract of the words and focus narrowly on these words without ever understanding the meaning of the context from which they were taken. No, I suppose you do see that. If you did you wouldn't keep doing it.

You dominate this forum by either starting threads that mostly go no where. Threads that are frequently a misunderstanding or completely irrelevant. Or you barge into another's thread with inane, irrelevant or inappropriate comments. As someone pointed out on another thread you make everything about you. That same person gently, too gently in my opinion, suggested that you post somewhere else but of course you missed the subtlety of that and took his suggestion as a compliment.

Jack Pine wrote:
As someone pointed out on another thread you make everything about you.

No Jack, YOU make everything about me ... why make things personal ?

Why resist 'what is' ?

Jean Gatti wrote:
No Jack, YOU make everything about me ... why make things personal ?

No, Jean. Why can't you just look at what is without running from it because it's not what you want to hear? Someone DID point out that you make everything about you. You talk about the ego of others all the time but you can't see that it is your own ego that drives you, compels you, to put all this meaningless blather on this forum.

Sean Hen wrote:
The problem is that the facts themselves are often subjective.

A 'subjective' fact is NOT a fact ... it is just an opinion ... a fact is a fact ... it does not depend on any observer ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Jean Gatti wrote:
A 'subjective' fact is NOT a fact ... it is just an opinion ... a fact is a fact ... it does not depend on any observer ...

Is that an opinion or a fact Jean? "The Earth is flat" was a fact but now isn't. Are you and I sufficiently in touch with reality to talk with such certainty about what facts are or are not?

Sean Hen wrote:
"The Earth is flat" was a fact but now isn't.

"The Earth is flat" has never been a fact ... it was a belief ...

A fact is a fact ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Jean Gatti wrote:
A fact is a fact ...

Jean, you sound very certain about this. Is certainty a good thing?

Krishnamurti - "Either you are uncertain, confused, or you are certain in your own belief, in your own particular form of thought. Now, for a man who is truly uncertain, there is hope; but for a man who is entrenched in belief, in what he calls intuition, there is very little hope, for he has closed the door upon uncertainty, doubt, and takes rest and consolation in security."

Ojai, California | 8th Talk in the Oak Grove 24th May, 1936

Sean Hen wrote:
Jean, you sound very certain about this.

Well, it is a fact that the Earth is NOT flat :-)

Is this a belief ? Do you need to doubt that ?

??

Why resist 'what is' ?

Jean Gatti wrote:
Well, it is a fact that the Earth is NOT flat :-)

Is this a belief ? Do you need to doubt that ?

Once again Jean you have completely misunderstood both what Sean was trying to point out to you and what K was saying in the quote. You seem to be so preoccupied with defending yourself that you don't listen to what others are saying to you.

Jack Pine wrote:
You seem to be so preoccupied with defending yourself that you don't listen to what others are saying to you.

It seems natural to be preoccupied by defense when you are being attacked from all sides.

max