just wondering

[number six]

Indeed, I'm thinking that war and peace as it is happening in the world is a reflection of the war and peace going on in many individuals.

Is this pretty much aligned with your understanding as you experience things internally?

War and peace as it is happening in the world is a reflection of the war and peace going on in ALL individuals. Why do you put yourself apart from the whole, there is that which you are aware of but you want to be separate from. You cannot fragment. Responsibility is not a smörgåsbord which one gets to chose wouldn't you agree?. You either take it all or life goes on pretty much the same, with maybe a little change in 'decoration' . It does not mean you have responsibility for an others actions, it means you have responsibility to stop fragmenting.

I see that you commented on a thread about Krishnamurti. I had not been aware of UG and i have looked into his web site a little. The two of them seemed to have been impeccable and relentless speakers of truth. UG apparently broke off with Jiddu at some point and seemed to try to discredit J's teaching in some way. That is too bad because J would have wanted all to reject authority including and especially his own, but the fact UG felt it necessary to try and trivialize J afterward says more about UG then J.

There is a trick the mind likes to play where it thinks by being the opposite of what it desires it is that, sort of like the anti-hero. That is why Jiddu spoke of being aware of desire or achieving in ones self because it blinds one to the truth and the mind is always desiring and wanting to achieve.

Which had the least desire is a matter of degree but without measure anyway so what does it matter. Nobody could be in their heads and all there is left is their words. cu ;)

We were taught as kids that asking the right question was half the answer, and the answer leads to more questions fortunately. That's why the process is fun and alive. Asking the wrong question on the other side may to no answers at all, if not to fantasy. I personally don't like the expression "awakening" in the framework of the Work.

Yes i would agree, awakening and wondering is fun and alive! 3 Cheers for that! :D

 

[Buddy]

Indeed, I'm thinking that war and peace as it is happening in the world is a reflection of the war and peace going on in many individuals.

Is this pretty much aligned with your understanding as you experience things internally?

War and peace as it is happening in the world is a reflection of the war and peace going on in ALL individuals. Why do you put yourself apart from the whole, there is that which you are aware of but you want to be separate from. You cannot fragment.

You seem to think I was leaving myself out, why? If it is the case that psychopaths rule over us, then I doubt there is a war inside themselves at all. Those would be the ones I left out in my statement because I don't know how familiar you are with the material here.

You cannot fragment. Responsibility is not a smörgåsbord which one gets to chose wouldn't you agree?. You either take it all or life goes on pretty much the same, with maybe a little change in 'decoration' . It does not mean you have responsibility for an others actions, it means you have responsibility to stop fragmenting.

Am I fragmenting or did I address that in my comment above?

I see that you commented on a thread about Krishnamurti. I had not been aware of UG and i have looked into his web site a little.

Indeed I did and after those comments, I read some more of his stuff so I could comment more intelligently on what he has said by knowing more of the surrounding context in case it becomes useful to comment once again.

UG apparently broke off with Jiddu at some point...

UG was never attached to Jiddu such that there could be a "break off." He was persuaded several times over the course of his life to attend Jiddu's appearances here and there and tried for a couple of years to find out what was underneath "all his abstractions", but was never satisfied with Jiddu's answers.

...and seemed to try to discredit J's teaching in some way.

I think UG said that he thought Jiddu was the greatest hoaxer he'd ever seen, or something like that.

That is too bad because J would have wanted all to reject authority including and especially his own, but the fact UG felt it necessary to try and trivialize J afterward says more about UG then J.

UG grants what Jiddu said but pointed out what he interpreted as Jiddu's hypocrisy - saying to reject all authority, yet proceeding to build a huge organization with authoritative texts, tapes, etc. By contrast, UG had nothing to sell and told people specifically to stop coming to see him because they wouldn't get anything from him.

There is a trick the mind likes to play where it thinks by being the opposite of what it desires it is that, sort of like the anti-hero. That is why Jiddu spoke of being aware of desire or achieving in ones self because it blinds one to the truth and the mind is always desiring and wanting to achieve.

Which had the least desire is a matter of degree but without measure anyway so what does it matter. Nobody could be in their heads and all there is left is their words. cu ;)

So, what was Jiddu's answer for that? As UG might ask: what is the necessary 'action of doing' to solve this apparent "problem?" That, I think, was UG's primary concern...he couldn't get an intelligible answer by his estimation.

So, what theology or ideological base do you spring from?

 

[number six]

...and seemed to try to discredit J's teaching in some way.

"I think UG said that he thought Jiddu was the greatest hoaxer he'd ever seen, or something like that."



"Greatest Hoaxer" ??? Then he really never understood what Jiddu repeatedly said about measure. ;)

but let us not get distracted with those characters from my original question to begin this post.

 

[number six]

How relevant is it to know the "thought system" from which my question arises? For me a question created by a system is always going to generate an answer also created by a system.

Truth is in the moment, how could it ever be revealed through a system? ;)

Imagine for a moment that we have someone that is learning English. Then, they come to you and ask about a phrase they've overheard in a conversation which is "I must travel soon. Hopefully there are suites/sweets where I am going".

How do you explain the true meaning of that phrase without providing more context? In my opinion more information and context leads to truth not the reverse. I could be wrong here but this is probably the case regardless of whether or not we can identify the truth while being in the moment, in hindsight, or otherwise.

Other than that I really liked obyvatel's response.

In some cases, waking up may mean understanding the situation but not having the power to change it entirely. An example would be someone understanding prevailing social/political/economic forces at a level which is not fixable or controllable by individual action. Then one understands one is a victim at a macro level. Depending on the degree of awakening, he/she may take incremental steps to improve things a little at a time keeping in mind what is in his/her control and what is not.

Why do you have the impression that there is a difference between being a victim on levels. "There is this "smaller" stuff which i have the power to effect or control but then there is the "macro level" which i feel powerless toward." Understanding that 'you' are never a victim must be complete and uncompromisable no matter which "level" you perceive you are at this moment. In other words 'you' have the power it is that 'you' simply do not believe that 'you' do!

The uniqueness of the time we are living from my pov seems to point to a lack of wanting to take responsibility. The human species seems to have a propensity to want to blame some thing or some one or group of some ones for its separation from its source. It has long defined itself with a victim belief and yet never wants to acknowledge that it may be the creator of its own separation in every moment of its existence, and thus creates scenarios that reinforce that belief simply to teach itself that there really is no such thing as a victim!

We do not know the full reason why "bad" things happen to "good" people, from this pov, nor for that matter why things happen to ourselves or people we know which seems to point to being "victims". Yet, on some as yet unrealized "level", there must be no such thing as a true victim.

This victim way of thinking in any of its forms must be why the species allows itself to be influenced by evil. Evil has no claim in reality except where there is a belief in victimization.

Isn't it likely that the "agenda" humanity always seems to be controlled by is because of the individuals giving away their power to an individual belief which has become a collective belief in victimization and consequently a belief in evil, and thus in actuality are the "agenda" every moment that 'they' see 'themselves' as powerless?

There are chem trails overhead and nuclear radiation and criminals running amok in governments and Priests fondling little children and corruption of food supplies and imbalance's of money etc etc etc. This place is a disgrace! But we are all like "what can I do?".

Stop taking things personally, stop comparing 'yourselves' to others, stop blaming, and stop thinking there is nothing 'you' can do, because this very moment 'you' can stop believing 'you' are a victim no matter what "level" 'you' now relate to. That is what 'you' must do before 'you' can 'be'.IMO

The time is always now to step into your power. 'You' are much much more then human! 'You' are a living breathing fractal of all that is was and ever will be! 'You' are, evil is not. Never believe for one instant that when you change your belief and understanding of what a victim is 'you' are not having an effect on the whole!

 

[Buddy]

"Greatest Hoaxer" ??? Then he really never understood what Jiddu repeatedly said about measure. ;)

I can't speak to what UG did or did not understand, but I can clarify any reply I make so as to leave no incorrect impressions. As for your desire to have the last word on UG and Jiddu, that's fine with me, but I'd like to provide a more exact reference first:

From Mind is a Myth:

Q: Tell us, what do you think of `the sage who walks alone', J. Krishnamurti, the man you had the `falling out' with.

U.G.: I think he is a tremendous hoax. That's what I have against J. Krishnamurti. He has never come out clean. If you ask him why not [come out clean], his argument would be that anything he says will become an authority for or against him. But that's a political position he has taken. In fact, he has already become an authority figure for hundreds and thousands of people.

Q: And that's something you don't want to become ...?

U.G.: No. I don't want to be that. Never. To me, the whole thing stinks.

From The Mystique of Enlightenment:

Q: Are your related to Krishnamurti?

UG: 'Krishnamurti' is only a given name, not a family name. His family name is Jiddu -- 'Krishnamurti' is quite a common name -- Jiddu Krishnamurti.

I got involved with him. I listened to him for some seven years, every time he came. I never met him personally, because the whole 'World Teacher' business and all that created some kind of a distance. "How can a World Teacher be created? World Teachers are born, not made" -- that was my kind of make-up. I knew the whole background, the whole business. I was not part of the inner circle; I was always on the periphery, I never wanted to involve myself. There was the same hypocrisy there too, in the sense that there was nothing in their lives; they were shallow -- the scholars, master-minds and remarkable people. "What is this? What is there behind?"

Then Krishnamurti came along and, after seven years, circumstances brought us together. I met him every day -- we discussed the whole thing. I was not interested in his abstractions at all. His teaching did not interest me at all. I told him once "You have picked up the psychological jargon of the day, and you are trying to express something through this jargon. You adopt analysis and arrive at the point that analysis is not it. This kind of analysis is only paralyzing people; it is not helping people. It is paralyzing me." My question was the same question: "

What is it that you have?

The abstractions that you are throwing at me, I am not interested in. Is there anything behind the abstractions? What is that? Somehow I have a feeling -- I can't say why -- that what is behind the abstractions you are throwing out is what I am interested in. For some reason I have a feeling -- it may be my own projection -- you (to give a familiar, traditional simile) may not have tasted the sugar, but at least you seem to have looked at the sugar. The way you are describing things gives me the feeling that you have at least seen the sugar, but I am not certain that you have tasted the sugar."

So, we struggled for years and years. (Laughs) There were some personal differences between us. I wanted some straight, honest answers from him, which he did not give, for his own reasons. He was very defensive -- he was defending something. "What is there for you to defend? Hang your past, the whole thing on a tree and leave it to the people. Why do you want to defend yourself?" I wanted some straight, honest answers about his background, which he didn't give me in a satisfactory way.

And then, towards the end, I insisted, "Come on, is there anything behind the abstractions which you are throwing at me?" And that chappie said "You have no way of knowing it for yourself." Finish -- that was the end of our relationship, you see -- "If I have no way of knowing it, you have no way of communicating it. What the hell are we doing? I've wasted seven years. Goodbye, I don't want to see you again."

Then I walked out.

 

[Joe]

but let us not get distracted with those characters from my original question to begin this post.

Indeed, your posts tend to go off in all directions without apparently having a point. So let's get back to the question in your first post, which appears to be:

"Is there an inverse relationship between "the awakening" and individual responsibility for a continuing perception of being a victim?"

This isn't a clear question, because you are using terms that you have not defined.

What is "the awakening"?

Who perceives themselves as being a victim?

We tend to frown upon subjective meandering here, mainly because it requires others to play 'fill in the blank', which is a recipe for confusion, devolving into nonsense.

Please ask a clear question that is understandable by other forum members.

Oh, and a belated welcome. :D

 

[number six]

Fair enough.

The awakening can be defined as the moment and the individuals relationship to it and with it. It is an ever unfolding process and as it can certainly be argued that all moments have the potential of being an awakening, in human terms let us say the "awakening" is the prescribed period of time talked about from the translation of the Mayan calender, which presumably is the times we are living in now.

The victim pertains to any whom have lost a sense of knowing that they are not separate from the "first cause" (for lack of a better word) for their existence, which presumably is most of humanity because of its consistent validation of what appears separate from it.

Words are a map to the territory but are never ever the territory, and i apologize in advance if this is still not clear enough. :)

 

[Buddy]

The awakening can be defined as the moment and the individuals relationship to it and with it.

Here you have already fragmented everything by distinguishing "the" 'individual' from "the" 'moment' and attempted to put these fragments back together with "relationship"...another separate idea.

It is an ever unfolding process and as it can certainly be argued that all moments have the potential of being an awakening, in human terms let us say the "awakening" is the prescribed period of time talked about from the translation of the Mayan calender, which presumably is the times we are living in now.

"It is" is here followed by one identification after another (fragments) and ending up with "Presumably" plus another identification? Why do you bother? :)

The victim pertains to any whom have lost a sense of knowing that they are not separate from the "first cause" (for lack of a better word) for their existence, which presumably is most of humanity because of its consistent validation of what appears separate from it.

To make this short, why do you assume the member you addressed is one of the "to any whom have lost"? In the comment below, you acknowledge possibility for not being clear enough with your words, yet without asking any member anything to ensure your understanding of what they said is clear enough to you, you respond with certainty of your own understanding of what they said. Why do you do this? I'm just wondering.

Words are a map to the territory but are never ever the territory, and i apologize in advance if this is still not clear enough. :)

To me, it's clear enough. Many of us here have been over this ground over and over. We know the difficulties with words. We know the essence of semantics and general semantics (the theory of evaluation as opposed to some people's idea that it's just about meanings of words) and we know about the map and the territory.

In summary, you're preaching to the choir, so to speak. We all have to use the same language. It was created on a binary system and on the basis of subject-object metaphysics. I can almost guarantee you that no matter what you think you see in others, based solely on their words and usage, you will be perceiving in error...at least in part. And you will have to use these syntactically fragmenting components in order to communicate just like us. It doesn't follow, necessarily, that the person you are addressing is fragmented or is fragmenting. It's in the language. People's spirit and their heart is not limited to their syntactic structure.

That's probably a good reason why so many newbies who know a little something-something (or not) get the wrong impression.

Also, belated welcome to the forum...

 

[number six]

but let us not get distracted with those characters from my original question to begin this post.

We tend to frown upon subjective meandering here, mainly because it requires others to play 'fill in the blank', which is a recipe for confusion, devolving into nonsense.

Please ask a clear question that is understandable by other forum members.

Oh, and a belated welcome. :D

Can you define nonsense? Thanking you in advance. :)

 

[Joe]

Fair enough.

The awakening can be defined as the moment and the individuals relationship to it and with it. It is an ever unfolding process and as it can certainly be argued that all moments have the potential of being an awakening, in human terms let us say the "awakening" is the prescribed period of time talked about from the translation of the Mayan calender, which presumably is the times we are living in now.

The victim pertains to any whom have lost a sense of knowing that they are not separate from the "first cause" (for lack of a better word) for their existence, which presumably is most of humanity because of its consistent validation of what appears separate from it.

Words are a map to the territory but are never ever the territory, and i apologize in advance if this is still not clear enough. :)

Well, I understand, but it could still be asked in a more clear way. For example:

"Do people who most consistently believe themselves to be separate from the world and reality around them have the least chance of awakening? (awakening being the new agey term meant to describe awakening to some more profound spiritual reality).

An analogy could be used to ask the same question: Does the person most soundly asleep have the least chance of awakening?

Anyway, the answer seems almost self-evident. Yes.

 

[Joe]

Can you define nonsense? Thanking you in advance. :)

Nonsense is produced when someone asks an unclear question, using ill-defined words or words that can be interpreted in many ways, and then other people respond, making assumptions about the meaning of the words in the question, effectively answering a question that was not asked, to which the original questioner then responds, misinterpreting that answer and adding in more ill-defined words/phrases in his answer, leading others to further confuse what is being said/asked, leading them to make more assumptions...etc. etc.

Or the short version: new age word salad leads to nonsense.

 

[number six]

Can you define nonsense? Thanking you in advance. :)

Nonsense is produced when someone asks an unclear question, using ill-defined words or words that can be interpreted in many ways, and then other people respond, making assumptions about the meaning of the words in the question, effectively answering a question that was not asked, to which the original questioner then responds, misinterpreting that answer and adding in more ill-defined words/phrases in his answer, leading others to further confuse what is being said/asked, leading them to make more assumptions...etc. etc.

Or the short version: new age word salad leads to nonsense.

Thank you for your replies. Yes the new age thingy has always been and still is an ongoing annoyance of mine!

What you say here is pretty much a definition of language and the use of words generally. This is why i said that the phrase "in the beginning was the word" needs to be understood because it pretty much describes the reality of this world.

With that being said, i need some more clarification from your comment.......

"Do people who most consistently believe themselves to be separate from the world and reality around them have the least chance of awakening? (awakening being the new agey term meant to describe awakening to some more profound spiritual reality).

From your perspective does the agreed upon definition of the "awakening" depend on "chance"? Wouldn't you agree that a more evocative word to describe what your are intending to convey is 'opportunity'? I agree with Einstein, that "God" does not play dice.

Do people who most consistently believe themselves to be separate from the world and reality around them have the least 'opportunity' of awakening? :P bcnu!

 

[Joe]

Do people who most consistently believe themselves to be separate from the world and reality around them have the least 'opportunity' of awakening? :P bcnu!

Yes. :P

 

[number six]

Do people who most consistently believe themselves to be separate from the world and reality around them have the least 'opportunity' of awakening? :P bcnu!

Yes. :P

I was going to say BINGO! But i thought God probably does not play that either so i will simply say "alrightie then"! lol!

 

[number six]

The awakening can be defined as the moment and the individuals relationship to it and with it.

That's probably a good reason why so many newbies who know a little something-something (or not) get the wrong impression.

Also, belated welcome to the forum...

I have not intentionally ignored your comment and appreciate your input. I thought it best to clear up in words that can best be understood my original question to this site:

Do people who most consistently believe themselves to be separate from the world and reality around them have the least 'opportunity' of awakening?

"Yes."

We can boggle ourselves down with meanings and words till we are blue in the face. We can boggle ourselves down with who's way of thinking had more merit, K or K, till the cows come home every morning and therefore never see the very thing 'we' are wanting and 'they' were indicating.

All impression is resigned to being wrong if one still sees that as a judgment. I recognize the integrity and impeccability of all whom have commented here on this thread and thank you for your welcoming! :)