This forum is mainly for those peoples who are interested in K sayings or in enlightenment.Everyone who read K, don't understand his sayings in same manner.And it is quite possible that some person understand teachings better than others.A sincere discussion may help some people to understand better.But I think there are some errors in our attitude which is preventing from fruitful discussions.:

1.First problem I see in the attitude of I know and you don't know.Then all speaks as authority which ruins the soul of discussion.

2.Second thing is, people who think that they understand better, speaks to other in very harasser, insulting and rude manner, this disturbs some posters and then dialog is lost.

3.Next one is, Naturally we have an ego, which feel hurt by insult, but for sincere discussion we must let go this hurt and should continue the discussion with posters who appears sincere.But we reacts to insult in same insulting way, and soon we are in the same boat.

4.Last one is, there is rarely any focussed discussion.If some one read third or fourth page of any topic, he can't guess what the topic was.So it is necessary to strictly discuss on only topic to get any meaning of discussion.

I have expressed my view in this matter, other poster may have some better look on making the discussion meaningful.:)

Don't need K or any, do yourself

This post was last updated by Soham netti (account deleted) Mon, 15 Nov 2010.

Soham - you have made some very important points. Especially the point about 'I know' vs 'you don't know'. I will certainly take this on board.

For me it is about sharing - and to some extent learning from one another - but NOT about asserting our authority. I'm not sure if you were referring to my thread which has become a little bit of a tussle, but sharing our experiences is very important. Only then can we learn from each other.

When you see 'ego' in postings, don't you think this is something to be looked at, honest about and try to come to some sort of resolution? As difficult and boring as this can be, this is the only way humanity is going to heal in my humblest opinion.

You talk about the need to let go of the hurt (hence the ego) for 'sincere discussion' to be. You are right that it is important to get over the hurt to engage in true discussion, but I feel ego is part of that sincerity. To ignore it would be to be insincere. It would indeed ignore the very thing that K talked most about. :)

So my suggestion, seeing as you have asked us to suggest, is to be HONEST about our ego responses BUT then do our upmost to be respectful of one another and create a supportive, learning environment. We are all learning this art of dialogue!

Peace

It seems that we can care for the person who we are speaking with. If we see that they maybe identifying with an image we can ask that person for example: What supports your conclusion as a fact, how has your understanding come about. The person may see something new or maybe we ourselves maybe surprised at what we see about our own conclusions.

It seems though I could be in error but for this kind of dialogue to take place a tremendous affection must be for ones fellow human being. That one must care about that person and their state of mind and ones influence upon that state of mind. Anything less its duality.

There is no other.

Soham netti wrote:
This forum is mainly for those peoples who are interested in K sayings or in enlightenment.

My understanding is different in this regard, Soham. I am here to understand the functioning of my own mind and,if possible, end the conflict that causes suffering, sorrow fear etc. in my life directly and in the lives of my near and dear ones indirectly.

I have not read anyK book in last 2 years. My cantact with K teachings is via kinfonet only. So, participation and interactions with fellow posters in discussions is of tremendous value for me.After reading anything significant here, I start looking at the reactions going on in my mind. I post here when this chain of reactions has subsided. There is no question of becoming an authority but I try my best to make my postings clear and to the point. This is my response to your point no 1 and 2.

I am in total agreement with your point no.3 and 4. I will try my best to ignore the offending comments from the likes of Nick in future.

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
I have not read anyK book in last 2 years. My cantact with K teachings is via kinfonet only. So, participation and interactions with fellow posters in discussions is of tremendous value for me.After reading anything significant here, I start looking at the reactions going on in my mind. I post here when this chain of reactions has subsided.

Just to say that your comment is well-formed, sincere and worthy of appreciation, Sudhir. Thank you. And it seems an intelligent use of the forum. I have now come to the end of my 'game' with Nick, which I feel good about.

I am reading K quite a lot right now. But because the interest arises in me. It does not seem a requirement. But I am seeing new things, which is good, I think. For me, he really is a mirror . . . mostly!

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

This post was last updated by Paul Davidson (account deleted) Mon, 15 Nov 2010.

Soham netti wrote:
I have expressed my view in this matter, other poster may have some better look on making the discussion meaningful.:)

Thankyou, Soham, for the above suggestions.

Katy

I don't know either !

Michael Gorof wrote:
So my suggestion, seeing as you have asked us to suggest, is to be HONEST about our ego responses BUT then do our upmost to be respectful of one another and create a supportive, learning environment. We are all learning this art of dialogue!

Hi M.G.

Thank you for your post.I agree that we should be honest about our ego responses.But it is not necessary that we should put all ego reactions here on forum, I think.:)

Don't need K or any, do yourself

George Lanroh wrote:
It seems that we can care for the person who we are speaking with

Yes George, it w'd be good if we care.Though every one can't respond in same manner, we have to learn to discuss sincerely in actual situation.

Don't need K or any, do yourself

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
I am here to understand the functioning of my own mind and,if possible, end the conflict that causes suffering, sorrow fear etc. in my life directly and in the lives of my near and dear ones indirectly.

Thank you for sharing this, I wish you for success in this matter.:)

Don't need K or any, do yourself

Katy 7 wrote:
Thankyou, Soham, for the above suggestions.

Thank you for giving a look on suggestions, Intelligent K, sorry Intelligent miss K.:)

Don't need K or any, do yourself

Soham netti wrote:
But it is not necessary that we should put all ego reactions here on forum, I think.:)

Yes, I agree with you Soham and, perhaps, it would be helpful to 'post here when this chain of reactions has subsided'; I am referring to Dr. Sudhir's post above (#4)...

Katy

I don't know either !

This post was last updated by Katy 7 (account deleted) Mon, 15 Nov 2010.

Soham netti wrote:
Thank you for giving a look on suggestions, Intelligent K, sorry Intelligent miss K.:)

:)

I don't know either !

Soham netti wrote:
Intelligent K, sorry Intelligent miss K.:)

. . . correct form of address - K7

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

Katy 7 wrote:
when this chain of reactions has subsided'

This link is dissolved. No link, no chain!

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

Soham,

Good points you've brought up for discussion. It's nice to get all of this out in the open air.

In your point #3, you say, "Naturally we have an ego, which feel hurt by insult. . ."

We all take for granted that we have an ego and that there is nothing we can do about it. But is this true? Where did this ego come from?

It seems to me we constructed this ego ourselves. It's a psychological thing. If we constructed it, why can't we de-construct it and so end all of the problems associated with the it (hurt, suffering, competition with other egos, conflict, etc.)? What's so inevitable and permanent about the ego? I would like to hear what purpose it serves. We have brains and intelligence along with our physical organism. What does an ego add to these?

max

Paul Davidson wrote:
This link is dissolved. No link, no chain!

:)

I don't know either !

Paul Davidson wrote:
. . . correct form of address - K7

Yes, Paul, I can't be K2, either, because a mountain has beaten me to it so K7 it is!:)

I don't know either !

This post was last updated by Katy 7 (account deleted) Mon, 15 Nov 2010.

Katy 7 wrote:
Yes, Paul, I can't be K2, either, because a mountain has beaten me to it so K7 it is!:)

Yes Katy . . . oops, K7, and Dr. Who already took K9 for his robotic mutt.

Que sera!

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

This post was last updated by Paul Davidson (account deleted) Mon, 15 Nov 2010.

max greene wrote:
why can't we de-construct it and so end all of the problems

We cannot de-construct it, as such, as it is a process, a flux, rather than a thing, but by fully facing that which underlies it, the process loses its purpose. For me this is a 'work in process', barely stumbling along! K can be a pointer as to what to look for but no amount of reading K can do the work for you.

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

Katy 7 wrote:
Maybe, Paul, I should change it to K9 since robotic mutts (probably) don't have an ego to consider at all !:)

I'm not sure you have the required qualities though

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

Katy 7 wrote:
I had a go at finding a question under 'freedom' heading but I am afraid that I didn't get very far with it.

'together'

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

Paul Davidson wrote:
'together'

Yes, Paul, indeed; I just read your post there. Thanks.

I don't know either !

max greene wrote:
It seems to me we constructed this ego ourselves.

Thank you, Max for your comment.:)

For me this is not clear that who had created the Ego.But in current state I have/am ego.And probably we are here (on kforum) to find out that why ego/ division exist?And how is it possible to live without ego/division?

Don't need K or any, do yourself

Soham,

Thanks for the acknowledgment.

I would say that the Self, or Ego, is nothing but a psychological concept, or thought, or image. I can't see an outside source for it - - the brain created it. The Ego is not alive, since it is only a construction.

How is it possible to live without this Ego, you ask. One can see what our lives are like with these Egos - - constant conflict of one type or another and isolation from each other. We call this living? Living will come about when we recognize that the Ego is an imaginary construction and we ask ourselves, seriously, "What am I (the physical organism with its capacity for intelligence and understanding) doing with this image?"

max

Dear Soham,

I see that you have just deleted your account and I respect your reasons as to why...

This effort on your part towards 'atmospheric change' and including new members is much appreciated as is/was the generosity of most other participants here at Kinfonet.

I am just about to delete my account (again!) to take some proper 'time out'.

Thankyou and best wishes to you all, Katy

I don't know either !

Soham and Katy:
Do any of us properly judge our influence with others? I came into a discussion on freedom and see the two I enjoyed the most delete their accounts. Maybe the K discussion forum is not the right place to find answers. Follow your heart and do not leave your head behind.

Katy 7 wrote:
I am just about to delete my account (again!) to take some proper 'time out'.

What Soham and Katy have done is sad and depressing. I wonder if their action to delete the account is 'intelligence' directed or an 'escape'?

FLOW WITH LIFE!

"I wonder if their action to delete the account is 'intelligence' directed or an 'escape'?"

And I wonder if any of us know our true motive, most of the time.

max

max greene wrote:
And I wonder if any of us know our true motive, most of the time.

By true motive do you mean that deep seated motive of which one is not aware because the superficial activities and interests of the 'self' hide it?

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Dr. Sharma,

"By true motive do you mean that deep seated motive of which one is not aware because the superficial . . . interests of the 'self ' hide it?"

Yes. We may say or do something we believe to be unselfish, but behind our 'unselfish' motive is the Self that we want to enhance in one way or another - - our unknown motive. As an example, "Look, I gave money to the church and the poor." (I want to feel good about myself and I want others to notice my giving.) Of course, there can be real love behind giving, but what I said is an example.

Motive is always in respect to an entity. What would that entity be? It would be either the psychological "I," (Self) or the physical organism.

max