Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
General Discussion | moderated by Dev Singh

On Relationships and Conflict


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 136 in total
Wed, 09 Oct 2019 #1
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 882 posts in this forum Offline

'One cannot live outside of relationship, and yet in all forms of it there is conflict. Why is this so?'

Krishnamurti talks for almost 29 minutes on this subject here.

Perhaps we could talk about what he says.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 09 Oct 2019 #2
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5742 posts in this forum Offline

Hi Sean. I don't have time to watch the whole video right now because of an appointment. But I think many of us have noticed how divided we all are. Most civilized human beings, assuming there is such a thing, readily see that racism and the bigotry and hate that goes along with it, for example, is divisive and destructive. But do we see that nationalism and organized religion is no different than racism? My country and your country. My god and your god.

Has there ever been a war where one or all of these institutionalized divisions have not been the cause? Yet, from the time we are born we are taught, conditioned to believe, that racism is wrong while almost nothing is said about the other two institutions; nationalism and religion. Actually, most of us are taught the latter two institutions are good and necessary. We keep these latter two institutions alive because they give us the illusion of security and belonging to something larger than ourselves.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 09 Oct 2019 #3
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 677 posts in this forum Offline

Thank you, Sean Hen, for sharing the video about conflict. It's obviously appropriate since clearly we have conflict here in this forum.

For me, several things stood out. K says people will NEVER be free of conflict. Not in heaven, not anywhere. This is obvious and simple. But we don't like to face it and want a more complex answer.

As long as we are self-centered, there will be conflict. As long as there is division, conflict is. Humanity is one. We are humanity. And we are self-centered, divided, and conflicted. The momentum, the tidal wave, is enormous.

Only the very rare individual steps out of the wave, not by being apart, not by retreating like a monk, not by a path, not by a method, not by a savior. The rare individual sees what is true and the truth transforms. The truth is that division of any kind is conflict.

Only such an individual can really meet conflict. What does that mean? Where there is no self, there is no place for conflict to strike. Where there is love, there is no separation.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 10 Oct 2019 #4
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 882 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
But do we see that nationalism and organized religion is no different than racism? My country and your country. My god and your god.

Hello Jack. I don't know about this. All I can say is that in the circles that I move in there are not many people who believe in organised religion or nationalism in the sense of one country being superior to another. Most people I know are internationalists rather than nationalists. However, there is still a lot of conflict in those aforementioned circles. I've seen the most "alternative" people at each other's throats. Division, conflict and strife seem to pervade all aspects of our lives. So while organised religion and nationalism are undoubtedly two major sources of division between people, there seems to be much more to it than that. Well, I'm sure you are already well aware of that.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 10 Oct 2019 #5
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 882 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
Only the very rare individual steps out of the wave, not by being apart, not by retreating like a monk, not by a path, not by a method, not by a savior. The rare individual sees what is true and the truth transforms. The truth is that division of any kind is conflict.

Hello idiot?. Is there a question of degree here? We all know people who are skillful in being able to flow along and have minimum conflict in their lives whereas others are constantly in conflict with many people around them. Even Krishnamurti seemed to have a certain amount of conflict in his life with Rajagopal and others. I don't mean that as a criticism, only that perhaps a certain degree of conflict is inevitable and all we can do is be aware of when we are creating division around us. What do you think?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 10 Oct 2019 #6
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 677 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
Even Krishnamurti seemed to have a certain amount of conflict in his life with Rajagopal and others.

Sure. Besides the Rajagopals, a number of people seemed to have a falling-out with him and stopped seeing him. For example, David Bohm. And there were others.

So he either was not free of conflict as he claimed, or he was inwardly free of conflict yet outwardly conflict still apparently happened.

Sean Hen wrote:
We all know people who are skillful in being able to flow along and have minimum conflict in their lives whereas others are constantly in conflict with many people around them.

Yes, and those who are skillful necessarily have a level of awareness. Certainly with more awareness there is less conflict. Because awareness and love are not really separate.

Conflict around us, conflict within us, are they different? In other words, if we divide the inner and outer, we have created conflict! And what is inner conflict? It's none other than thought, yes? That is, thought divides. It separates this from that. That is the functioning of thought. Where thought is, division is. Where division is, conflict is. So the silent mind/heart alone is unconflicted, aware, loving. And there is no path to that.

Therefore we see that K teaching on conflict is not separate from K teaching on everything else.

One more thing: to notice that you are in conflict is touch your own conditioning. Conflict always points to your conditioning if you look really, really closely. But we don't like to do that, do we?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 10 Oct 2019 #7
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1450 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
One more thing: to notice that you are in conflict is touch your own conditioning. Conflict always points to your conditioning if you look really, really closely. But we don't like to do that, do we?

Yes, any 'things' in the consciousness will be a source of conflict. Because they will be the past meeting the 'what is', the now. That is the radical teaching we stumbled upon. But the 'teaching' or maybe better, the 'pointing out' doesn't empty the consciousness, that is left to us. 'Holding on' IS conflict. Holding on IS fear.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 11 Oct 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 11 Oct 2019 #8
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5742 posts in this forum Offline

>Yes, and those who are skillful necessarily have a level of awareness. Certainly with more awareness there is less conflict. Because awareness and love are not really separate.

>One more thing: to notice that you are in conflict is touch your own conditioning. Conflict always points to your conditioning if you look really, really closely. But we don't like to do that, do we?

These above two quotes are just two quotes picked at random from a whole slew of similar quotes by this poster, whom I won't name, and others who have posted opinions that have no proven basis in fact, at all. They are idealistic assertions from people who are obviously convinced that they have seen everything K has seen and are now here to advise the rest of us. Another forum, on this site, is full of these kinds of self aggrandizing posts.

Is not the essence of observation and understanding the "quiet mind" K referred to? He talked about the emptying of the mind not filling the mind, the consciousness full of endless opinions and baseless conclusions.

These kinds of reactions of thought inevitably seem to lead to more images of the thinker which is the expansion of the center, the ego and obviously not the emptying of the consciousness as K has so often pointed out.

Understanding is fluid. It flows. Thinking one knows seems to lithify that understanding like rigor mortis stiffens a dead body.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Fri, 11 Oct 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 11 Oct 2019 #9
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 677 posts in this forum Offline

Krishnamurti, Commentaries On Living, Series 2, Chapter 2 Conditioning:
Conflict exists when there is no integration between challenge and response. This conflict is the result of our conditioning. Conditioning is attachment: attachment to work, to tradition, to property, to people, to ideas, and so on. If there were no attachment, would there be conditioning? Of course not.

...

“How can one be free from conditioning?”

Only by understanding, being aware of our escapes. Our attachment to a person, to work, to an ideology, is the conditioning factor; this is the thing we have to understand, and not seek a better or more intelligent escape. All escapes are unintelligent, as they inevitably bring about conflict.

...

Freedom from conditioning comes with the freedom from thinking. When the mind is utterly still, only then is there freedom for the real to be.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Fri, 11 Oct 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 12 Oct 2019 #10
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 882 posts in this forum Offline

Yes, and those who are skillful necessarily have a level of awareness. Certainly with more awareness there is less conflict. Because awareness and love are not really separate.

Hi. Above is a quote from idiot?. The question that I think Jack raises is whether such a quote is based on observation or is purely theoretical. Please correct me if I got that wrong Jack.

I would say that what is said in the quote can at least in part if not completely, be directly observed in one's daily life. An example - I spend hours cooking a vegetable lasagna after having invited on old friend to dinner. My friend comes and shows no interest in me or the lasagna. He spends the entire dinner boasting about what he's achieved over the last few years.

This situation could lead to conflict by me feeling offended at my friend's lack of sensitivity. I could make a barbed comment intended to deflate my friend's ego and he may react with anger. I would say that with greater awareness I could understand that my friend has had many very bad experiences in the last few years. I understand that his boasting is a kind of defence mechanism. I gently guide the conversation away from his achievements and on to something that interests us both.

Greater awareness and understanding in the example above has avoided potential conflict and there is at least compassion.

Of course I could be completely wrong about this.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 12 Oct 2019 #11
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5742 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
Hi. Above is a quote from idiot?. The question that I think Jack raises is whether such a quote is based on observation or is purely theoretical. Please correct me if I got that wrong Jack.

Sean, the above quote you cited from idiot is not his quote but one from K as the citation he provided clearly states. What I am questioning is the habit that several people have on this K site. It is individuals lecturing the rest of us on things such as love, conflict and much more. They seem to be trying to project the image that they have transformed and see things like K saw them. They are trying to help us become as "enlightened" as they believe they are. I do question this and this kind of posting is almost inevitable on this kind of site.

Most of us have been conditioned all of our lives to believe that spiritual attainment is the result of effort, which is time. That "we", "I" the center will eventually become a highly spiritual and enlightened human being. The snag is that for K as long as there is a center there can be no understanding, no realization of truth. The more the individual professes to "see" the less likely it is that they see anything but their own delusional beliefs.

As anyone can observe, organized religion is based on attainment. A positive accumulation until one reaches spiritual enlightenment. What K has pointed out is the exact opposite. One doesn't accumulate experience and knowledge but rather the mind is emptied. And not emptied by individual action or effort but by something else that releases, empties the mind of conditioning. And this is extremely difficult to do because it necessarily requires dying to all those images we have of ourselves. The emptying of the consciousness requires the death of the psychological human being.

We don't attain understanding of love, as one example, by learning everything we can about it but rather dying to everything we think we know about it. I'm suggesting that telling others what "love" is or "conflict", etc and putting these things into words is the denial of that understanding one may profess to know.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 12 Oct 2019 #12
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 677 posts in this forum Offline

The following quote that Sean Hen refers to are my words, as you need only to scroll up to see:

idiot ? wrote:
Yes, and those who are skillful necessarily have a level of awareness. Certainly with more awareness there is less conflict. Because awareness and love are not really separate.

The quote I posted in post #9 from Commentaries on Living are K's words, as I indicated. Hope that clears up the confusion.

I don't claim to be enlightened. I have never posted such a statement. I am not responsible if someone misinterprets what I say as implying something I haven't said.

I question whether there is such a thing as an enlightened human being. Rather, in any moment, there is the opportunity for the mind to naturally still and for reality to be. Anyone may discover this. And vanish.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Sat, 12 Oct 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 13 Oct 2019 #13
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5742 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
I question whether there is such a thing as an enlightened human being.

Yeah, I do to. Enlightenment is one of those loaded words describing and idea that many people chase after in not only organized religion but other hustles like those from self anointed gurus from the east. For what K pointed out, the emptying of the consciousness, I don't think there is any word for it. At least I'm not familiar with any. How do you name something that is, basically, the ending of thought; a dying of the psychological consciousness? And why name it anyway?

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Sun, 13 Oct 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 13 Oct 2019 #14
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1417 posts in this forum Offline

So what is the conclusion of this blog about conflict. Is conflict the result of one's attachment to things and people or there is more to it? I say there is more to it. Our lives are so empty and boring that conflict with its excitement entertain us. At list the conflict that we have in this forum is about that.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 14 Oct 2019 #15
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5742 posts in this forum Offline

Idiot?. Today you posted this line in a post on another forum. It was as follows:

idiot? wrote: When the truth is clearly seen there is transformation.

This is what I was trying to point out in some other posts of mine recently. Have you been transformed?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 15 Oct 2019 #16
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 677 posts in this forum Offline

Krishnamurti, The First and Last Freedom, On Criticism:
Why do we criticize? Is it in order to understand? Or is it merely a nagging process? If I criticize you, do I understand you? Does understanding come through judgement? If I want to comprehend, if I want to understand not superficially but deeply the whole significance of my relationship to you, do I begin to criticize you? Or am I aware of this relationship between you and me, silently observing it—not projecting my opinions, criticisms, judgements, identifications or condemnations, but silently observing what is happening? And if I do not criticize, what happens? One is apt to go to sleep, is one not? Which does not mean that we do not go to sleep if we are nagging. Perhaps that becomes a habit and we put ourselves to sleep through habit. Is there a deeper, wider understanding of relationship, through criticism? It doesn’t matter whether criticism is constructive or destructive—that is irrelevant, surely. Therefore the question is: “What is the necessary state of mind and heart that will understand relationship?” What is the process of understanding? How do we understand something? How do you understand your child, if you are interested in your child? You observe, don’t you? You watch him at play, you study him in his different moods; you don’t project your opinion on to him. You don’t say he should be this or that. You are alertly watchful, aren’t you?, actively aware. Then, perhaps, you begin to understand the child. If you are constantly criticizing, constantly injecting your own particular personality, your idiosyncrasies, your opinions, deciding the way he should or should not be, and all the rest of it, obviously you create a barrier in that relationship. Unfortunately most of us criticize in order to shape, in order to interfere; it gives us a certain amount of pleasure, a certain gratification, to shape something—the relationship with a husband, child or whoever it may be. You feel a sense of power in it, you are the boss, and in that there is a tremendous gratification. Surely through all that process there is no understanding of relationship. There is mere imposition, the desire to mould another to the particular pattern of your idiosyncrasy, your desire, your wish. All these prevent, do they not?, the understanding of relationship.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 15 Oct 2019 #17
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1417 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
k:Unfortunately most of us criticize in order to shape, in order to interfere; it gives us a certain amount of pleasure, a certain gratification, to shape something—

This explains what jack pine does. He interferes in order to shape ,not to understand. And he gets pleasure out of that. The site is set up so that people can easily criticize and shape each other's thought through criticism and nagging . We are all stuck in criticizing each other in here.
If I understand what you write there is no need to repeat part of what you write and nag about it ,is there?

This post was last updated by One Self Tue, 15 Oct 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 15 Oct 2019 #18
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5742 posts in this forum Offline

idiot?: Wouldn't it just be a lot simpler to answer the direct question I asked instead of digging up something K said about criticism? It's your judgement that I'm criticizing.

This is not a criticism it's a question. You recently wrote on another forum in another post the following: idiot? wrote: When the truth is clearly seen there is transformation.

idiot?, are you transformed? If not then how do you know what you wrote in the above statement?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 15 Oct 2019 #19
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1417 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
idiot?: Wouldn't it just be a lot simpler to answer the direct question I asked instead of digging up something K said about criticism?

Let's not forget that we are in Krishnamurti forum. And yes you keep criticizing and nagging to shape and control people's writings..

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 15 Oct 2019 #20
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 882 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
Idiot?. Today you posted this line in a post on another forum. It was as follows:

idiot? wrote: When the truth is clearly seen there is transformation.

This is what I was trying to point out in some other posts of mine recently. Have you been transformed?

Jack's post above was followed by some posts talking about criticism. Well, I may be missing something here but I can't see any criticism in Jack's message. He seems to be asking for clarification. I for one am very much in favour of clarity when we discuss K's teaching.

Far be it from me to answer on idiot's behalf, but I understood the transformation that idiot? was talking about as the change that occurs when something is seen clearly. For example, you are offended and see anger rising inside you. You become aware of this anger, understand it and there is instant change and action. This is something that anyone can observe. I assumed that idiot? was not talking about a transformation of consciousness of the kind Krishnamurti seemingly went through and that he was not implying that he had gone through this himself. However, only idiot? can clear this up.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 15 Oct 2019 #21
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1417 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
are you transformed?

Who would ask such a stupid question from somebody. If that somebody says yes I am transformed would you be satisfied. And what stupid person would say I am transformed. Krishnamurti indeed had no effect on the ego -centered people.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 15 Oct 2019 #22
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 677 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
I may be missing something here but I can't see any criticism in Jack's message.

-

Jack Pine wrote:
It's your [idiot's] judgement that I'm criticizing.

-

Jack Pine wrote:
It is individuals lecturing the rest of us on things such as love, conflict and much more. They seem to be trying to project the image that they have transformed and see things like K saw them. They are trying to help us become as "enlightened" as they believe they are.

-

Krishnamurti, The First and Last Freedom, On Transformation:
Seeing the false as the false and the true as the true is transformation, because when you see something very clearly as the truth, that truth liberates.
...
Truth is not cumulative. It is from moment to moment.
...
Transformation is not an end, a result.

-

idiot ? wrote:
When the truth is clearly seen there is transformation.

Which is very close to the first statement K makes above about what transformation is. It's not a personal claim or a boast or lecture. It doesn't matter who says it. Really seeing what is true in the moment is transformative. Isn't that so?

K says that transformation is not an ultimate thing, not an end or result. It's moment to moment. So, of course, a human is not transformed, which implies an ultimate change.

Jack Pine is criticizing. He knows it and feels it is justified. He believes that I think I am enlightened, even though I have stated that I am not. We both agreed that there's no such thing as an enlightened person. But he holds on.

So did clarifying this help? Not really. The point of being here is to discover together, yes? Are we discovering together? No. Attack and defend. Which is pointless.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Tue, 15 Oct 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 15 Oct 2019 #23
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1417 posts in this forum Offline

When false is seen as false it is the highest intelligence. When thought or the ego is seen as false then intelligence is. But we are half blind ,we can't see well.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 15 Oct 2019 #24
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1417 posts in this forum Offline

Let's look at jack's question. "Are you transformed?".

The very word " transformed" means something that happened in the past and no longer is.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 15 Oct 2019 #25
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5742 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
Jack's post above was followed by some posts talking about criticism.

Hi Sean. Thanks for stepping in here and trying to mitigate a situation where things were starting to get confused. And no I was not criticizing. You were correct. I see that in idiot's response he quoted something from me from an entirely different post trying to prove his point that I was being critical. This quote was not part of the one where I asked the simple question; Are you transformed?

Sean, you're a nice person, obviously and were doing something to disarm a situation. I appreciate that. But Sean I'm not sure I agree with your definition applies to why I was asking idiot is he/she transformed. A statement was made, without clarification, stating that if you do this, whatever it may be, then that is transformation. What I question is how does one know something leads to transformation unless one has seen for him/herself what transformation is. That is why I asked a simple question. There was no criticism. It was a question.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 15 Oct 2019 #26
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5742 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
Krishnamurti, The First and Last Freedom, On Transformation:
Seeing the false as the false and the true as the true is transformation, because when you see something very clearly as the truth, that truth liberates.

Idiot I'm asking for your response not a quote from K. Just because K said it doesn't mean you understand it or are that yourself. I suggest you quit running to K as your authority and answer questions from your own understanding. Anyone can quote somebody. Sometimes a quote is relative or pertinent. But the way you frequently use these quotes from K they are more like a club.

And yes I stand by what I said about enlightenment. You were the one who introduced the word transformed. Not me. I was just asking if you were. All you had to do was say yes or no. Why make a big deal out of it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 15 Oct 2019 #27
Thumb_fuzzy6 Ken D United States 46 posts in this forum Offline

"Sow the seed of freedom, which is to awaken intelligence; for with that intelligence you can tackle all the problems of life." Krishnamurti

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 15 Oct 2019 #28
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 677 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
That is why I asked a simple question. There was no criticism. It was a question.

I see. That is why you immediately started a new thread criticizing John Raica. And included a post in it about me. You're not criticizing anyone. You're not trying to mold people in any way. You're just asking questions. There's nothing accusatory or critical in those questions. They are completely innocent questions.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 15 Oct 2019 #29
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5742 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
I see. That is why you immediately started a new thread criticizing John Raica.

Is it criticizing to question whether or not someone is qualified to edit, interpret or explain what Krishnamurti pointed out? That is what I'm asking John Raica. Is he qualified to "edit" K's words? You can spin it any way you want.

The fact remains that there are people on this site and else where who appear to be setting themselves up as experts on K. I question that. K predicted that there would be interpreters, self appointed experts on what he pointed out. It even happened a couple of times before he died. He approached one guy directly about his attempt to interpret K. It didn't go well for the guy.

We all should be aware of people trying to interpret K. This is how religions begin. Self anointed high priests as K once called them. See Chapters covering 1976 in Mary Zimbalist's Memoires of K.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 15 Oct 2019 #30
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5742 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
You're not trying to mold people in any way.

If anyone is trying to mold someone it's people who are claiming to know more about K than others or know what leads to transformation.

All you are doing is swinging your arms about crazily (figuratively speaking) making unfounded accusations. May I suggest that you stick to what I'm actually saying instead of trying to interpret what you think I'm trying to say. That seems to be a habit with you on this forum and not with just me.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 136 in total
To quote a portion of this post in your reply, first select the text and then click this "Quote" link.

(N.B. Be sure to insert an empty line between the quoted text and your reply.)