I'm used to be a solitary person, and i question: "can there be real friendship in a world of conditionings and images ?"

I found that relationships are mostly based on likes and dislikes, and also society is based upon individual interests or groups interests.

I tend to avoid people that i found to be disturbing, according to my own sensitivity, and i don't even look at television which is made of symbolic impositions on the minds.

Now, everything i'm doing and thinking is also subject to the judging not only of myself but also of others. Images are inevitably built and even in the "Krishnamurti world" people seem to be full of images and of things coming from the tradition into relationship the one with the others. There is also the authority of others, and my own inner authority.

If sensitivity tells me that i'm feeling better when i'm alone, instinct also engages me into trying to communicate with others (like this forum), whereas privacy directs me towards the disappearing and wanting to delete my kinfonet site account.

So, why is there such fragmentation into the world ? And is this inevitable ? Is this that the world needs centuries and centuries for becoming a more enjoyable place to live for human beings ?

Or is this that life and its meaning are not to be found in time and through thought and into the life of the society ? Or, is it that there is no balance between all these various elements ?

A post full of "I", anyway, this is not only "my" I, i think.

Much of what you say is what we all struggle with...K once said that the avoidance of relationships is also illusion because the other is simply you. Individuality does not really exists, we are all part of the whole. Often it is fear behind the sensitivity which you describe. Al oneness and being alone are not the same thing, one requires being with out the self and the other maybe avoidance of what is. Life is relationship there is no existence with out relationship, your relate to your own image, and thoughts, nature etc. Yes our relationships are based on image even with nature, but this is the basis of relationship with our selves also.

Often when asked about leaving society and living out in the mountains, K said this leads to isolation and avoidance of what is a form of escape.....

Life is relationship

1. what is 'real friendship'? and why do you need friendship?


2. The fragmention is not in the world. The world is not the problem.
   and if it's not your 'I' than who is it?

the superficiality of existence is thriving

aurelien B wrote:
Or is this that life and its meaning are not to be found in time and through thought and into the life of the society ? Or, is it that there is no balance between all these various elements ?

Life is one single movement if we are alive to it; it's fragmented when we are self-absorbed. Without coming to any conclusion, can we look and listen ceaselessly? There's joy in it.

Freedom from the known is Attention in the Unknown: Krishnamurti J

aurelien B wrote:
"can there be real friendship in a world of conditionings and images ?"

Obviously it's not possible.there cannot be true friendship when there is self interest.Because then your self interest is going to collide with that of another at some point.It's unavoidable.If there is an object it's going to knock against something sooner or later.

But is cutting off relationship the answer? Is it not a defensive action of the self? You want your preferences undisturbed. Which means you are still continuing,nourishing that factor,the self, that made friendship not possible,is it not? So this is an action of the 'self', right?

So can we stay in relationship without the reaction of withdrawal which is an action of the self & look at ourselves?(I am not saying you stay in touch with criminals-there you have to move away). Then we stand a chance of understanding the activity of the self which is the factor of conflict & contradiction that is preventing friendship & perhaps go beyond it.

So please don't delete your account.Change may not be a matter of time. It's a question of understanding which is not a time process.However man had not been capable of understanding himself for some reason & the present impasse has come to pass.Is it that we are really not looking at ourselves? Is it that we want things easy? Not just you but all of us? Stay on with us please.

This post was last updated by Kapila Kulasinghe Mon, 17 Jan 2011.

There is a lot to ponder in all the posts. Many different facets of the question of relationship.

My idea of relationship is rather exclusive and possessive and it's why i'm a solitary person, it may lead to jealousy and also conflict. It is also biased by gender question; i'm more attracted with women then with men, so i like feminine presence, and tend to disregard male confrontations which are generally going on with intellectual discussions. But feminine interaction is also many times kind of depleasant because of ideas or beliefs which may prevent right relationship and thinking.

Regarding to "Krishnamurti world", i think now it may be quite a powerful illusion. At this time, i see rather that there is only the world, and not a Krishnamurti world and a non Krishnamurti world. And it's why one finds also conflict into Krishnamurti groups like KFA network or anywhere else. Also people are attracted with authority. It's why KFA network drains twice more members than kinfonet. There is the illusion of the name and the institution garant of the "author-ity". And when there is authority there is also fear and therefore conflict. So, the idea of a communauty of thinking around K's message may also be an escape from the society.

It is all that comes to my mind at this time. Thanks.

aurelien B wrote:
And when there is authority there is also fear and therefore conflict. So, the idea of a communauty of thinking around K's message may also be an escape from the society.

Yes it can be....that will also be challenged here...

Life is relationship

aurelien B wrote:
I'm used to be a solitary person, and i question: "can there be real friendship in a world of conditionings and images ?"

Real friendship is not possible unless there is relationship at the same intensity (as K pointed out). I know what you are talking about. So, I suppose I can relate with you.

ayar hari wrote:
So, I suppose

The moment one says "I suppose", i think one is related with an image. I'm not even related with the aurelien B who wrote the posts above, so how could I be related with a person related to the image of me with which i'm not related myself ?

aurelien B wrote:
The moment one says "I suppose", i think one is related with an image. I'm not even related with the aurelien B who wrote the posts above, so how could I be related with a person related to the image of me with which i'm not related myself ?

You may have a friendship but not communion of the heart and mind....

Life is relationship

aurelien B wrote:
The moment one says "I suppose", i think one is related with an image.

Ok, so you are pushing me away saying, "You can't be my friend. You are tainted."

Perhaps, I am. Perhaps, not. But you don't want to know. Do you have an image of what works and what doesn't?

Sorry, I knocked on your door. I neither want nor mean to disturb you.

May I point out, sir ? Thought is a factor of desintegration between human beings. Thought has proved to not be able to bring people together, harmoniously, peacefully.
That is a fact, both collective and individual, and this fact is also in operation into social sites like the one we are into. So, to me, to be at the same intensity, is not merely a matter of being agree, or of common wanting to be a friend or not, which may be a mere idea, a very superficial affair, a matter of appearance. People are friends into ideologies, into beliefs and even into wars, economically or any kind of war. Is it that what one calls here real friendship ? Two people identifying themselves to something, can they be friends ? I think that when relationship
has a motive or a root into an identification, there is no real relationship, because it is born from thought, from an idea, which is by nature divisive. It's why to look at facts, for two or more people, is one of the most difficult thing to do
together, because of prejudices, opinions and all the things which are very superficial in thought but omnipresent by conditioning in each one of us individually included the writer. So if one is seeking real "friendship", i think one is not going to find it (if it exists), as long as thought, as ideas, is the only factor of relationships. I think it's why K spoke a lot about the ending of thought as one has described it above, in the field of relationships.

aurelien B wrote:
I think it's why K spoke a lot about the ending of thought as one has described it above, in the field of relationships.

I don't know why K spoke what he spoke, aurelien. You said you wanted a friend. And I said, "ok, I can be your friend". Nothing complicated. Just like two kids in a schoolyard meeting for the first time. It didn't occur to me that I needed to check you out, find out who your folks are, or if you have some debilitating infectious disease eating up your mind or your body. You said you wanted a friend and I told you cool, let's be friends. That was all. Maybe, you are too grown up.

aurelien B wrote:
I'm used to be a solitary person, and i question: "can there be real friendship in a world of conditionings and images ?"

If you're a solitary person, what do you care about friendship?

nick carter wrote:
If you're a solitary person, what do you care about friendship?

Perhaps, being a solitary person is not natural. There is a need for social networking.