Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
A Quiet Space | moderated by Clive Elwell

Conflict in Relationship


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 89 in total
Tue, 20 Sep 2016 #1
Thumb_open-uri20160915-28720-dqd7er-0 hans heiler New Zealand 12 posts in this forum Offline

I have been watching the Forum for a while and seen the time and devotion that people put into the inquiry on this forum . I wasnt sure if I can offer the same kind of devotion to an online forum and it didnt seem fair to participate only half heartedly. Its Time to try something new. Watching the forums one cant help but notice that there is a fundamental conflict that underlines our Relationships.

Conflict seems to sneak into everything that we do it seems right down at the heart of our being. Wherever one looks there is conflict .

Personally I observed this recently and I found that I dont even know what relationship really is. There is only what I have been told what it is. It seems important to find out what it means in order to understand the constant conflict within ourselves and with other people.
Sure there is all sorts of explanations that are circling around but what does it really mean to be related?

And what does it mean to be in conflict?

What are the requirements for conflict and relationship?

Is relationship something very fundamental that is always there or something that can be brought about?

All that i have got is Theories.

I apologise if this has been already covered in other topics or if the questions seem rather trivial.
Maybe these questions are of not much importance, I am not sure.
Maybe we could talk about this a little.

What is the cause of this?
Or is it not very fruitfull to talk about causes?
Sometimes I feel that explaining something through its cause is really a way of escaping from what is actually happening but I might be wrong there.

This turned out to be rather long .

I am curious about where this will lead us.

Regards

Hans

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 20 Sep 2016 #2
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1386 posts in this forum Offline

hans heiler wrote:
And what does it mean to be in conflict?

Hi Hans,

In myself, to me. it indicates some sort of 'friction' is taking place. Some 'part' is resisting another part etc...I'm sure others will address your important questions. But what your post brought up for me was the 'hesitancy' to 'speak up'. I find that these 'anonymous' forums are a help to get ones thoughts, experiences, insights out without worrying too much about how one 'comes across'. If you've been in 'organized' groups , usually a 'hierarchy' forms with those with the sharpest intellects, charisma, (looks?) rising to the 'top'. The 'A' group etc. I say bring what you got here (and don't hang on to it too tightly.:) One thing seems to lead to another.

Regarding 'relationship', I don't know what it is either. But pondering. 'meditating' while looking at that 'tree' without naming it, without the 'image' of the tree between you and it (psychologically) seems to bear out K.'s statements that our 'relationships' are not 'real' but rather a relationship between our images.

This may be all wrong of course

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Tue, 20 Sep 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 20 Sep 2016 #3
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2712 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
hans heiler wrote:

And what does it mean to be in conflict?
Hi Hans,

In myself, to me. it indicates some sort of 'friction' is taking place. Some 'part' is resisting another part etc

Isn't conflict always related to conformity? Most of us knew great conflict as children....in school...in church. We wanted to run and play....or to talk with our friends, but we were forced to sit quietly and listen....forced with the threat of punishment. So there was a feeling of great friction, yes. I'm wondering if conflict in adults is similar. One fragment wants to quit his job...another feels he must conform to the demands of the office or factory. This is one very common form of conflict. There's conflict in relationship too. Between man and wife...between parent and child..between friends and neighbors. Is that also related to conformity...or to a desire for security....a desire for fulfillment?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Tue, 20 Sep 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 20 Sep 2016 #4
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 733 posts in this forum Offline

Isn't the actual inner state - "what I am" - naturally, effortlessly reflected in relationship? Doesn't the inner fact determine the quality or nature of relationship? If I'm angry or afraid, for example, I can claim or pretend to be calm but anger or fear necessarilly infiltrates relationship.

Why DOES “what I am” cause me pain? Why not just BE - angry, afraid, weak, foolish?

Doesn’t the very source of the pain lie IN the ideal which has been inculcated in me/you/us by our education - through comparison, judgment, punishment, teasing, ridiculing, discipline, control, etc.? Haven’t I (i.e. all of us) been taught that I must make an effort to overcome whatever “I am” - whatever is “in me” - which does not conform to the ideal of what “I should be”?

Then from the outset isn’t becoming rooted in the desire to be other than what I am - i.e. a fight between “what I am” and the ideal? Does the ideal help me to get rid of the pain? What is the result of this effort? I either “succeed or fail”. “Success” can only be superficial. “Failure” results in more effort, in depression, etc. Fear, anger, foolishness, weakness, etc., cannot be overcome by effort, can they?, only repressed.

If I see the fact of what I am and I judge, evaluate, measure “what I am” to be “wrong”, the comparison with the ideal causes me pain. Out of that comparison, I desire to change. Conflict is set in motion by the mere separation of “what is” from “what should be”. No?

If I’m angry, afraid, weak or foolish and I see the fact of it, in the actual perception of it there is no escape. To SEE the fact does not mean a superficial, careless glance. There is care, intelligence and learning in attention, isn’t there?

So if I'm angry or afraid and simply observe that inner state carefully, attentively, without trying to act on it, shape it, change it, etc., that wordless observation must also shape the quality or nature of relationship, no?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 20 Sep 2016 #5
Thumb_open-uri20160915-28720-dqd7er-0 hans heiler New Zealand 12 posts in this forum Offline

Just discovering the features of this forum.
Allready there is so much that i would like to go into more deeply.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 20 Sep 2016 #6
Thumb_open-uri20160915-28720-dqd7er-0 hans heiler New Zealand 12 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
One fragment wants to quit his job...another feels he must conform to the demands of the office or factory. This is one very common form of conflict. There's conflict in relationship to

It seems whenever we talk about conflict we talk about conflict between a and b.
The focus is on between here. So there have to be at least 2 movements involved right?
And does movements are not going in the same direction .

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 20 Sep 2016 #7
Thumb_open-uri20160915-28720-dqd7er-0 hans heiler New Zealand 12 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Isn't conflict always related to conformity?

i have never looked at it this way .
Yes that makes sense. conformity to a certain pattern.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 21 Sep 2016 #8
Thumb_stringio Juan E. Spain 391 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

hans heiler wrote:
It seems whenever we talk about conflict we talk about conflict between a and b.

I'm a postman ... So, i go out the office to deliver letters and because i'm thinking in something else i leave some letters for the next building inadvertently in the building i am now (this happens to me some times ;-) ... I become aware of that but i can't do nothing because i can not recover those letters, so i continue with my work ... After a while someone comes to me and tells me 'Mr Postman! You are doing your work very bad, this letters are not mine but for my neighbor who lives in the next building', in bad manners ... So, i react (i don't react in the real life, i just laugh at myself making the other person smile and conflict not to arise) ... So, conflict arises apparently between me and that person (a and b) ... 'How he dares to question my 'good' work', and so on ...

Now, i have a question ... Is it really a conflict between 'a' (me as a postman) and 'b' (the person that talks about me doing things wrongly), or in fact it is a conflict between 'a' and 'a'? ... I mean, 'a' knows that he has made something wrong, so 'b' is simply talking about something 'a' already knows ... Does 'a' have the conflict with 'b', or 'a' has the conflict with himself trying to negate something he already knows it is true?

Is it not the same between husband/wife, girl-friend/boy-friend, sons/parents, and so on (perhaps not all the time but most of the times)?

hans heiler wrote:
So there have to be at least 2 movements involved right?

Yes, a movement between what i already know about me (that i'm envious, jealous, violent, etc.) and my negation about it before someone pointing at me something i already know about me ...

Myself negating myself, is that the root of most of our conflicts with the rest of the world?

Let's see ...

This post was last updated by Juan E. (account deleted) Wed, 21 Sep 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 21 Sep 2016 #9
Thumb_avatar david sharma Ireland 740 posts in this forum Offline

man being a fragment is always in conflict,with him self and others in relationship,what he calls a relationship,is not a direct relationship,of love and affection ,but of images which is past a dead thing ,

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 21 Sep 2016 #10
Thumb_stringio Juan E. Spain 391 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

hans heiler wrote:
It seems important to find out what it (relationship) means in order to understand the constant conflict within ourselves and with other people.

Before going into that, i would ask myself 'Am i related to myself?'

Let's see ...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 21 Sep 2016 #11
Thumb_avatar david sharma Ireland 740 posts in this forum Offline

when two people are in relationship ,there are six other entities present too in that relationship call them A,and B ,now A has an image of himself we call it A1,he has an image B we call it A2,he has an image of his relationship with B we call it A3 bow B too has these images B1 B2and B3 now there six different,images tries to form a relationship,and they are interacting many different ways ,where as only love is needed,,and man does not love ,self can not love ,

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 21 Sep 2016 #12
Thumb_stringio Juan E. Spain 391 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

david sharma wrote:
man being a fragment is always in conflict,with him self and others in relationship


only love is needed,,and man does not love ,self can not love ,


love can not have an image ,it is never of past,or future ,an image can not love or have a relationship


self as man as time never relates with anything new ,love is never old ,with love do what you will ,


any action from self is self centered,selfish,fragmented so conflict is result


self can pretends it loves ,its love is selfish ,of no value at all ,

We're trying to go into it, not through what others have said about it, but by ourselves through our own observation of conflict in ourselves ... If we start our investigation with axioms (no matter if they are facts or not), investigation is ended, turning ourselves lazy.

Let's try to find out by ourselves leaving aside what others have said about it.

hans heiler wrote:
Personally I observed this recently and I found that I dont even know what relationship really is. There is only what I have been told what it is. It seems important to find out what it means in order to understand the constant conflict within ourselves and with other people.

Let's see ...

This post was last updated by Juan E. (account deleted) Wed, 21 Sep 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 21 Sep 2016 #13
Thumb_avatar david sharma Ireland 740 posts in this forum Offline

love can not have an image ,it is never of past,or future ,an image can not love or have a relationship so conflict is the there

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 21 Sep 2016 #14
Thumb_avatar david sharma Ireland 740 posts in this forum Offline

self as man as time never relates with anything new ,love is never old ,with love do what you will ,

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 21 Sep 2016 #15
Thumb_avatar david sharma Ireland 740 posts in this forum Offline

any action from self is self centered,selfish,fragmented so conflict is result

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 21 Sep 2016 #16
Thumb_avatar david sharma Ireland 740 posts in this forum Offline

self can pretends it loves ,its love is selfish ,of no value at all ,

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 21 Sep 2016 #17
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5194 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E. wrote:
i would ask myself 'Am i related to myself?'

What does this question mean, Juan? I cannot really get the sense of it.

And does relationship always imply TWO entities - an A who is related to B ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 21 Sep 2016 #18
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5194 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
If I’m angry, afraid, weak or foolish and I see the fact of it, in the actual perception of it there is no escape.

It is difficult to imagine these qualities, or any of the qualities that have been generally classified as being “negative”, as not being condemned, criticised. It is as you say, Huguette:

Doesn’t the very source of the pain
lie IN the ideal which has been
inculcated in me/you/us by our
education - through comparison,
judgment, punishment, teasing,
ridiculing, discipline, control, etc.?
Haven’t I (i.e. all of us) been taught
that I must make an effort to overcome
whatever “I am” - whatever is “in me”
- which does not conform to the ideal of what “I should be”?

This reacting to what is, this mental creation of the ideal as the opposite of what is, seems intrinsic to the mind, the conditioning is so strong. Condemnation of many of the states common to human beings seems contained in the very word describing the state – like jealousy.

Is it possible to separate the condemnation from the thing being condemned? Is it possible to look at hate, for example, without a reaction to it? I can see the necessity for such looking – one cannot understand hate unless one looks at it, and one cannot look at it if one always turns away from it. And yet this is what happens, we DO condemn. Well, some minds may rationalise hate, justify it, but this is still a reaction.

This is reminiscent of the Rumi poem recently discussed:

The dark thought, the shame, the
malice, meet them at the door
laughing, and invite them in.

I am not saying that it is possible or not possible, but it is obviously a very real challenge. And until the challenge is met, conflict must continue in the mind, and from that show up in our relationships.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 21 Sep 2016 #19
Thumb_stringio Juan E. Spain 391 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Clive Elwell wrote:

Juan E. wrote:

i would ask myself 'Am i related to myself?'

What does this question mean, Juan? I cannot really get the sense of it.

I mean, do i know/see fully myself in that relation? ... And if it is so, in which way do i relate with what i see about myself? ... If i negate myself because i don't like what i see about me -- which means i'm not related to myself at all -- how can i possibly try to understand my relation to another? ...

Should not i first try to understand my relation to what i see about myself (something i don't like at all most of the times), before trying to understand my relation to another (and therefore to any conflict that may arise in my relation to him/her)? ... And if i actually see that lack of relation to myself, does not that seeing will end any conflict in my relation to another (no longer being myself divided from myself)?

Clive Elwell wrote:
And does relationship always imply TWO entities - an A who is related to B ?

The very meaning of that word implies two entities or things ... Now, the question that Hans has raised by starting this thread (thanks Hans) is: is that relationship/conflict actually between A and B, or it is simply between A and A (A meaning myself)?

That's what we're trying to find out (i think) by ourselves inquiring deeply into ourselves ... while leaving aside any axiom/fact anyone could have pointed out about it.

Let's see ...

This post was last updated by Juan E. (account deleted) Wed, 21 Sep 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 21 Sep 2016 #20
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 86 posts in this forum Offline

hans heiler wrote:
Is relationship something very fundamental that is always there or something that can be brought about?

As I see, relationship could be considered as constancy in contact which forms the basis for self knowing. To the question of whether it is something that can be brought about, the answer lies in the question of whether there needs be any effort in self knowing, in bringing about a silence which transcends and forms the background of all thought.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 21 Sep 2016 #21
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 733 posts in this forum Offline

re: #18

Clive Elwell wrote:
Is it possible to separate the condemnation from the thing being condemned? Is it possible to look at hate, for example, without a reaction to it? I can see the necessity for such looking – one cannot understand hate unless one looks at it, and one cannot look at it if one always turns away from it. And yet this is what happens, we DO condemn. Well, some minds may rationalise hate, justify it, but this is still a reaction.

Isn’t the very condemnation separating itself from the thing being condemned (let’s say “hate”), and IS it separate from hate? Isn’t the condemnation itself part of the process which puts the “me” together? Condemnation is separating itself from hate but it is PART OF hate.

And hate too has “separated itself” from the person being hated as well as from the hater (me). I AM the hate, I AM the condemnation, I AM the reactive process. Without that chain reaction, there is no me, is there?

That divisive process, that turmoil, is what enters into relationship and determines the quality of relationship. Can that whole process be observed?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Wed, 21 Sep 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 21 Sep 2016 #22
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5194 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Isn’t the very condemnation separating itself from the thing being condemned (let’s say “hate”), and IS it separate from hate? ..... (cut).... Condemnation is separating itself from hate but it is PART OF hate.

This is exactly what I was approaching in my mail, Huguette. It seems to be true.

Now is this 'unity' of hate (we will continue to use that example, and maybe expand later) simply the result of thousands of years of conditioning that has linked the two together, or does the connection go deeper than that? Condemnation is part of hate, you suggest. Do you mean it is an extension of hate? Is it the continuation of hate in a different guise?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 21 Sep 2016 #23
Thumb_stringio Juan E. Spain 391 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Hi Huguette, Clive ...

If we actually see what K said as a fact/truth -- that 'I' am hate, and hate is me -- it follows that whatever action this 'I' performs with regard to hate (condemnation in our example) IS hate itself not a PART OF hate ... If condemnation were really a PART OF hate, it would be already divided from hate, why should it have the need then to separate itself from hate or to become an extension or a continuation of hate in a different guise?

I think it is important to fully see the implications of the language we use.

Let's see ...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 22 Sep 2016 #24
Thumb_open-uri20160915-28720-dqd7er-0 hans heiler New Zealand 12 posts in this forum Offline

natarajan shivan wrote:
As I see, relationship could be considered as constancy in contact which forms the basis for self knowing.

So there has to be some sort of contact in order to be related.
This might not be physical right?
I cant find an example of something that does exist in isolation but i dont think there is such thing.

Also for conflict there has to be some sort of contact .
A contact where there is friction of some kind.

I begin to see how the idea of being a sepperate entity must create conflict.
But maybe not.
Is it possible to be sepperate without creating friction?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 22 Sep 2016 #25
Thumb_open-uri20160915-28720-dqd7er-0 hans heiler New Zealand 12 posts in this forum Offline

How would you describe what an image is?
And how does it affect relationship?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 22 Sep 2016 #26
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5194 posts in this forum Offline

hans heiler wrote:
Is it possible to be sepperate without creating friction?

Nice question

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 22 Sep 2016 #27
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5194 posts in this forum Offline

natarajan shivan wrote:
As I see, relationship could be considered as constancy in contact which forms the basis for self knowing.

It seems to me the word relationship can be used in two ways.

The first way is in time, and that is what you seem to be referring to in your post, Natarajan. Such relationship may be a result of a decision of thought. Or a social convention, like marriage.

Then there may be relationship out of time - just existing in the moment, without continuity or constancy. Just a one-time, unique happening. A momentary coming together.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 22 Sep 2016 #28
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 86 posts in this forum Offline

hans heiler wrote:
Is it possible to be sepperate without creating friction?

No, separation implies friction, but what is implied in perception/contact is not separation but difference (the creation of fact/reality) and along with it, the potential for action.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 22 Sep 2016 #29
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 86 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Then there may be relationship out of time - just existing in the moment, without continuity or constancy. Just a one-time, unique happening. A momentary coming together.

This is same as the first one you mentioned, Just a one-time happening is still in time as I see.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 22 Sep 2016 #30
Thumb_open-uri20160915-28720-dqd7er-0 hans heiler New Zealand 12 posts in this forum Offline

natarajan shivan wrote:
No, separation implies friction, but what is implied in perception/contact is not separation but difference (the creation of fact/reality) and along with it, the potential for action.

Why does separation imply friction?
Im not saying it its wrong but why is this so?

Is it maybe because this separation is based on ideas and is not an actual fact? This separation then would be the denial of a fact and one can see how that causes friction.

Do you equate perception and contact?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 89 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.)