A Dialogue on Sincerity | Meditative Diaries



A Dialogue on Sincerity

Share on Facebook0Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+0

After discussions with two friends i found something that is immensily beautiful: Once there is love there is effortless sincerity. But if you try to be sincere then you definitely don’t love.. and if love is absent then out of such loveless sincerity more conflict, disorder, sorrow, pain will inevitably come. The first discussion switched on a light while the second made this light much stronger:

  • Jorge: I found something really interesting!
  • Stavroula: What??
  • Jorge: I found that once you love there is necessarily sincerity, but when you are sincere its not necessary that you love.. probably sincerity is born of selfish motives!
  • Stavroula: Say more please
  • Jorge: Once you love you are present, you are out of time like past and future, so no expectations,  you are not afraid of anything, you hope nothing, so why would you lie?
  • Stavroula: What do you mean with the word “lie”?Jorge: For example to say “i wasn’t in the office, i had so much work” while you were on a bar and you were drinking, because you are afraid of criticism or consequences
  • Stavroula: Why would we choose to say truth or lies?
  • Jorge: We don’t need to choose.. if i love, i don’t choose, i just don’t say lies, i am effortlessly sincere
  • Stavroula: My mom asks me “where are you going” – i will meet my girlfriend but the fact that i am homosexual will hurt mom, which in turn hurts me.. so do i say the truth?
  • Jorge: Tough question, but i think yes, or else its self pity (you actually try to escape from your hurt).. i think..
  • Stavroula: I say the truth but this hurts her and she can’t stand this truth
  • Jorge: Yes because she carries images like “its inappropriate, its immoral that my daughter relates erotically with another girl
  • Stavroula: But she can’t change these images because of age and education.. so she sets limits, she says “i don’t want to know anything about that”
  • Jorge: Its not a problem that you said the truth, the problem is that she carries images.
  • Stavroula: So what do i do? Do i insist on hurting her
  • Jorge: You don’t hurt her, she is responsible for the hurt
  • Stavroula: Right, i just keep bringing in surface what hurts her.. but she said “i don’t want to know details about that, i can’t stand them”.. so do i keep saying the truth?
  • Jorge: Once you care, you love, you don’t lie, you just don’t say details, while she doesn’t want to know, she is resisting. You don’t need to tell anything if she wants to avoid that. It’s not a matter of insincerity, its just that you are sensitive enough to see things as they are. In a state of love insincerity (in the sense that you lie because you are afraid or hope) is not an option. If you struggle to tell the truth, no matter what the facts are, you don’t love anymore, you are just caught in the vicious game of Time, in the idea that “we need to always say truth” which will necessarily lead to greater disorder, conflict, confusion and misery.
  • Stavroula: If i am trapped in time it is not possible to love?
  • Jorge: Inevitably..
  • Stavroula: If i am trapped in time i feel pain?
  • Jorge: Inevitably.. Its so beautiful
  • Stavroula: What is beautiful?
  • Jorge: That once i love i am necessarily sincere, though i may be sincere because of selfish motives (no love at all). What you described in the second part of your example is exactly that: i may be sincere while there is not the slightest quality of love.
  • Stavroula: Exactly
  • Jorge: We use to fall in such traps.. once something as “beautiful” as “sincerity” becomes an idea then there is a trap. Idea is time.
  • Stavroula: We don’t need to to always say the truth, we may say nothing.



Jorge Kapa

The speaker is never important but you may examine the message, if you wish


  1. Jorge, your discussion with your friend brings up an important fact of conditioning that prevents true relationship.

    One of my favorite quotes is “Hell is other people” which is often attributed to Sartre, but I prefer for some vague reason to attribute it to Voltaire. In either event, the essential point is that hell is not for sinners who have, in advance of their deaths, the hottest places in hell reserved for them.
    Rather, as the quote puts it, hell is created by other people while one is living, thus making of life, a veritable hell out of what was, according to one popular story, a garden of eden, which for Adam and Eve was idyllic and without a problem until they ate of the tree of knowledge. Of course there were other characters, a snake, an apple, but the major offense against paradise on earth was to know a thing or two. And so life became a world of problems and fast forward to the present day and a world of wars and social strife and personal sorrow, disease, pestilence and lawyers everywhere you turn. How did things get so bad.
    The answer to the state of the conditioned world and the problem as developed in your discussion with your friend is, not other people as the philosopher(s) would have us believe, but our “knowledge” of other people. That “knowledge” is, as pointed out in your discussion, not of actual people, but knowledge that is made up of images of other people.
    So, upon closer review, one can amend the statement
    “hell is other people” to
    “hell is the images we hold of other people”
    (note to Eva :) I looked up “intellectual prowess” at answers.com and there is this :What does intellectual prowess mean? An intellectual prowess is a display of exceptionally high intelligence and knowledge. 7 people found this useful. :) So, there is really no such thing as intellectual prowess, as we all understand that there is only intelligence, not exceptionally high intelligence, and also there is the understanding that intelligence is not personal, and is not of time, so that there is only intelligence. Knowledge is a little different, it is of time, and personal (altho it can be collective)
    Any facebook page or any members of facebook pages can be hell when there are images at work, shaping perception:

  2. I want to share something that happened in about the 1986, as it was an extraordinary and singular experience and I am sharing it only to add to the discussion of images. It was written a few weeks ago in a facebook message to a friend – it might be an instance of an image meeting no image: We can call it “My Life as a Doorman”

    hi _____, I’ve been considering asking you to give your attention, if you would be so kind, to an occurrence of extraordinary wonder for me, and for another, but there is a mystery at the end of the telling, and I’ve not shared the event with anyone, and respond or not, however you feel, and as always, no pressure either, as always, with whether or when, so, here it is.
    I was living with a woman in her apartment, probably 33 at the time, (which I mention so that you know it is between the years 27 and 41) and in her apartment building on the first floor is the laundry room ith several washers and dryers, and also on the first floor, just outside the front entrance, built into the wall are mail boxes, perhaps you have them in ______ just so. Anyway, while living there I would do laundry perhaps twice a week and check mail daily.
    During a period of about 2 weeks, as I was going to or returning from the laundry room or the mailbox, I would encounter, very frequently, this particular woman who also lived in the apartment, as I assume,in that she was checking a mailbox with the same frequency as myself.
    Each time we meet, it is in such a timely manner that I am leaving as she is arriving, or vice versa, and being the gentleman that I was, and being taught as I was, when a boy, to open the door for others, or to allow them to go before me, and so I was frequently encountering this woman and opening the door for her to enter or exit before me.
    Each time I opened the door, she gave me a look of disdain, like she resented my opening the door for her. But I could not NOT open the door for her, as the tradition or the courtesy is practically instinctual, and so, I was met by this woman who despised me with her eyes, no words, just the look, each time..
    So, after about 2 weeks of these unfortunate encounters, it is a fine summer afternoon, I am coming in from work, I park the car at the curb, and I am a bit tired, a long day. And I see, on the lawn between me and the entrance to the apartment building this woman, sitting on the lawn with another woman, getting some sun. And I sighed deeply and thought “oh, no, not today”.
    As I approached our eyes met and she instantly transformed into a kaleidoscope of shimmering color, primarily green, but every color, brilliant, dazzling. And just for a second or two, then she’s back to her womanly form and she has the friendliest smile and her eyes are innocent with love, and she stands and reaches a hand out to me, and we both start laughing and holding hands we continue to the entrance, and she opens the door for me, and returns to the grass with her friend.
    The wonder and the bliss and the energy stay with me all evening. I do not tell the woman I am living with, as I felt just instinctively that it was not a smart thing to do.
    The next morning, I go to check the mailbox and there she is, checking hers, she lingers, watching my arrival and I am so intent on wanting to know of her experience of our yesterday together. Did she also see me break into a kaleidoscope of shimmering color? That was the question I wanted the answer to. She kissed me, quickly, on the lips, I didn’t see that coming, and then she said “I love you, but I am so sorry. I am engaged to be married”
    I replied probably stupidly that I was living with a woman, and really at a loss of anything else to say. I could not bring myself to ask her the question I had wanted to ask her, to ask her to describe her experience and I would share mine, that sort of thing, but I couldn’t. Not now, and she gave me another sweet smile, a kiss on the cheek and went inside.
    I stood at my mailbox, stunned at the mystery of it all. And it is still a mystery. And it was the last I saw of the woman. After about two weeks of not seeing her, I visited the manager’s apartment and asked him. He told me she had moved out, without notice, as it turned out, the day after we met for the last time.
    So, that’s it, my life as a doorman.

  3. i shared this dialogue because during this discussion it was revealed an eternal fight with myself to say the truth no matter what. This is another image, another idea and i was suffering from that, not seeing that any conscious struggle to be honest is in vain, is an absolutely futile movement that brings further chaos.. this wasn’t an intellectual affair.. don’t know if it communicates anything.. just felt deeply the futility of all this movement..

    Michael thank you so much for what you shared above.

  4. Jorge, I realize my response was more to what your friend brought in, that of her mother having images, and therefore not being sincere, by avoiding discussion, in order not to offend her mother’s images of her. Your point is well taken – if one takes the word sincerity to mean the same as being honest, and it does seem to share that meaning. In love, which as you pointed out, there is no time, there is no effort, no choice involved in being truthful, as there is no weighing of pro’s and con’s, no ego to consider, nothing to defend. And if there is pain from one speaking honestly, if there is an injury, what is injured is an image or images. To live beyond time is to love, as you say, and in that there is no effort of thinking that is necessary, one loves and that is action, there is no division, as there is when there is thought (and time, in which there is hell to pay :) )

    I was always puzzled with Krishnamurti’s view of the word “sincerity” as he gave the word a meaning that isnt to be found in any dictionary, he gave to the word sincere, the meaning of the word insincere, such as this quote: (27-Aug-1949) K:

    “Now, to understand that, we have to go into the problem of sincerity. Simplicity is not sincerity. One who is sincere can never be simple; because the one who is trying to be sincere, has always the desire to fashion or to approximate himself to an idea”

    Today, because of your use of the word and awareness of K’s attitude toward “sincerity”, I looked up the word etymologically and the root of the word, sincere, means:

    “pure, unmixed,” from Middle French sincere (16c.), from Latin sincerus, of things, “whole, clean, pure, uninjured, unmixed,” figuratively “sound, genuine, pure, true, candid, truthful,” of uncertain origin. The ground sense seems to be “that which is not falsified.” Meaning “free from pretense or falsehood” in English is from 1530s.

    It is strange, in light of this origin to the word sincerity, that K gave it the meaning as he did in the above quote.

    But the fact is that the actual meaning is the one you’ve given it, and K, I don’t know, maybe he was overly influenced by that sugary song “Sincerely” by the Andrews Sisters? :) I think it was them, I’ll check with youtube on that, because I am NOT old enough to remember that one from direct experience :) McGuire Sisters, youtube is our friend :) surely, this tune influenced K, “of all people” toward that excellent word “sincerely” , the song can give a yucky feeling to the word, :)

  5. in this quote, i guess that K refers to the idea of sincerity, to the ideal, that “i have to be sincere”.. yes.. he says exactly that .. “when you ‘re TRYING to be sincere” then this “sincerity” comes from selfish motives and it necessarily leads to greater havoc.. do you also see that?

  6. he’s stated elsewhere that he does not like to use the word at all :) anyway, thanks, after all these years feeling there must be something awry with the word (I never use it except to close an occasional letter)

  7. I will say this, which is purely speculation, but obviously, all those years, K had given meaning to the word which no one else in the world does:

    I have leisure time, so I looked up more of his objections to the word: and this is my view :K may very well have been told by another, perhaps the school master that whipped him, that he sincerely had the boy K’s best interest at heart, then K would give the meaning to the word in that instance to be of a self-deceptive, striving for ideal, nature. With that association, that experience, he could have come to associate the word with well meaning, but not actual state. here are some of his objections/understandings:

    DATE: 03-Jan-1934
    You must really think about this, you must be really honest, frank. When I say “honest”, “frank”, I do not mean sincere, for a fool can be sincere. (Replying to an interruption) Please just follow this. A lunatic who holds steadfastly to one idea, one belief, is sincere. Most people are sincere, only they have innumerable beliefs. Instead of one, they have many, and they are trying to be sincere in holding to them.

    DATE: 26-Apr-1936
    A person who can completely shape his actions to a principle, to an ideal, is considered sincere, wise and noble. It is but a form of rigidity, a lack of deep pliability, and hence a decay.

    DATE: 07-May-1950
    One can be faithful to an idea; to a hope, to a doctrine, to a particular system; but merely copying, pursuing an idea, or conforming oneself to a particular doctrine – all of which may be called sincerity – , will surely not help us to clear up the confusion in ourselves, and so the confusion about us.

    • so K uses the words honesty and sincerity as like they are not connected, they are not identical.. it seems to me he is doing it all the time.. like with the words joy and pleasure.. in greek the words joy and pleasure have the same root – χαρα- but K was using them so differently. And also K was using the words safety, religion etc somehow similarly.. he is showing that while you seek safety you will never feel absolutely safe while if there is this quality of love there is absolutely safety. he keeps saying that trying to be religious by following an idea, a religion has nothing to do with the actual religious feeling..

      don’t know if you see the similar approach in all these.. in each case conscious effort seems to lead in further division and conflict..

  8. The root of Russian word sincerity means: “inside” “close” “from the heart” “without pretense” and there were some explanation, why sincerity only possible if the person is ‘religious’ in the good meaning of that word… but it is too long, have no time to translate…

  9. So agree, at times we need to get away from the everyday life and at THAT point we always find ourself else because we accept the conflict, disorder, sorrow, pain that will inevitably come to us and yes it will come. :(. at times one does not know but IT happens.

    • Eva love does produce its own action, right? Gentle, affectionate understanding heart acts..
      At 50 and married one sees A beautiful lady , you enjoy her beauty, her presence, the end. The motive to find a mate is absent.
      Love brings me freedom to be me.

  10. One must be sincere to oneself. See the fact , what is really happening without comparing it to an ideal. This should happen and that should not happen. Not trying to distinguish if there is false or wrong to the happenings one has gone beyond the happenings , mainly internal chattering. Every series of thought that is evolving is a chattering , not be involved in it one is ending contradiction. There are only thoughts .One is psychologically out of thinking if one is not altered emotionally by the content of thought or by thought itsself. So , there is no depth if one is caught in various meanings. The depth is the not distracted energy of attention and then one is sincere as there is no contradiction .The expression of the being no matters at all. One that is attached on the expression , on the description as an escaping from being aware , preferring changes , is only interested on relationship out of chattering so that one is forgetting oneself. Knowing this one is pushing oneself to give the other food that is used to, keep each other company.

Leave a Reply