Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
General Discussion | moderated by Dev Singh

Embracing our feelings without judgement ...


Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 151 in total
Tue, 21 Oct 2014 #31
Thumb_stringio Chris Dent Australia 187 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Reply to John #29....

I'm not sure John, I just highlighted all the text in your post #29 from 'Chris Dent wrote' through to '.....like that for me' and then clicked 'Quote' (at the bottom of panel #29) and this here is how it looks. The forum software added 'John Perkins wrote:' at the top of the box. My knowledge of code is pretty basic so if this doesn't work for you I don't really know what to suggest......

John Perkins wrote:

Chris Dent wrote:
John Perkins wrote:

Jean, a technical question if you'd be so good... How does one go about separating two or more previous quotes, eg. like you did at #14? Thanks... If, when you highlight/select the text, you include an existing quote panel, this will be placed inside a box inside the other box automatically.

Yeah, that's what I would have expected, Chris, but it don't seem to work out like that for me.

I hope you can get this working - it's a real time-saver. (Not that there is any such thing as time of course, ha ha.)

Nothing but awareness......

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Oct 2014 #32
Thumb_stringio John Perkins United Kingdom 1094 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Thanks for your trouble Chris. I'll just keep trying stuff. At least I know now (I think) I wasn't doing anything wrong, it just for some reason doesn't work.

Dialogue mirrors relationship; who can't, has none.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Oct 2014 #33
Thumb_stringio Chris Dent Australia 187 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Jack Pine wrote:
I'm so glad you didn't say "boots on the ground". An euphemism the US government uses to distract our attention away from the fact that young men and women are being sent to kill and be killed for absolutely nothing beyond increasing the profits of war profiteers and to satisfy the selfish ends of psychopathic politicians.

Hmmm..... do you think there is any element of maybe not being able to stand by and watch while mad zealots rape and murder women and children, and torture and behead innocent civilians, over who believes what? Are our governments entirely cynical do you think? I mean, I wouldn't be surprised if they were. They could just be acting 'righteously' in order to gain votes. They certainly pick and choose who to 'help', often it seems on the basis of 'will this make us popular? But, when lunatics go on the rampage, is doing nothing an option?

Nothing but awareness......

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Oct 2014 #34
Thumb_stringio Chris Dent Australia 187 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

John Perkins wrote:
I wasn't doing anything wrong, it just for some reason doesn't work.

Sounds like my life..... ha ha......

Nothing but awareness......

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Oct 2014 #35
Thumb_stringio John Perkins United Kingdom 1094 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Chris Dent wrote:
Sounds like my life..... ha ha......

Ha ha! Yeah, know where you're coming from on that one...

Dialogue mirrors relationship; who can't, has none.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Oct 2014 #36
Thumb_stringio John Perkins United Kingdom 1094 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Jean Gatti wrote:
Right Tom, so before 'doing' anything we must first understand how it works, how an emotional reaction arises.

Let us see what happens in an example: I am walking in the street and for some reasons, a man starts to shout at me and insult me.

What happens ?

Immediately there arises in me an emotional reaction, right ? I feel hurt and maybe I will react emotionally to this 'challenge' or threat perception by shouting and insulting back.

But why ?

After all, why would I care about this unknown man shouting at me and insulting me ? Does the opinion of this man have any importance to me, why let him 'trigger' my emotional reaction, upsetting me, 'pushing my buttons' ?

So what happened exactly ?

What happened is this: I meet a situation where my self image is challenged and my memory immediately goes back to the past and superimposes a situation from my childhood when my parents disapproved me ... and of course, being a child it is of the utmost importance not to be rejected by my parents, because for a child, being rejected would mean abandonment and probably death ... so this memory from the past, which has not been fully resolved in my adult life, is still operating, still alive ... and when I meet a conflictual situation, I immediately superimpose the emotional situation of the past unto the present situation ...

Is it reasonable to do so ?

Of course not, because the opinion of this man insulting me has no importance for me as an adult ... so there is no need to react to it. I can perfectly stay with the challenge, and instead of reacting out of an emotional defense, bring an adequate response like : why do you feel the need to insult me ?

So we see that we are in fact totally responsible of our own quality of experience, we are deciding (mainly unconsciously) of our own emotions.

So why let others 'push our buttons' ?

I'm so sorry Jean but I have to say this reads to me more like 1st year Freud than Krishnamurti.

Dialogue mirrors relationship; who can't, has none.

This post was last updated by John Perkins (account deleted) Tue, 21 Oct 2014.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Oct 2014 #37
Thumb_stringio John Perkins United Kingdom 1094 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Jean Gatti wrote:
Forget about the messenger John ...

I did. The messenger wasn't a factor in my statement. Why do you bring him in?

do you see the truth of the message or not ?

I saw many years ago that Freud had some valid points for the academic study of psychology. They aren't and never could be comparable to K and his teachings.

So by example, why did you let Joe Neyer 'push your buttons' John ? and trigger your emotional reactions again and again and again ?

That is just your imagery, Jean. What actually happened (repeatedly as you suggest) is that the K-blind administrator Eric Hassett allowed Joe Neyer, in concert with Willy Brown and in chorus with a garnered laity (consisting of numerous including yourself), to speciously promote and dominate the site with what was contrary to K and his teachings. I simply stood up to it. For somebody who can see the potency of the true teachings - their advocacy and uniqueness - it was impossible not to stand up to such promoted comparative drivel on a K site. The real reason that forum (the KFA) collapsed was because its dominant content had become vacuous. Sure it was frustrating to me to observe such vacuity actively supported by a K-site administrator and numerous times my frustration became evident and numerous times I was suspended and banned on that account. Happily I was not alone and others paid a similar price for the same frustrations. Hassett could never see that Neyer was, without exception, the common denominator of all troubles. Happily (in an albeit sad sense) I have since come to discover why and how Hassett got placed in the first instance: it's because the same rot lies at the top of the tree in the form of Jaap Sluiter. I would not expect you to see the truth of this any more now than you could then, Jean. Or indeed that you should see here that your own level of K comprehension remains around that of a 1st year student of Freud.

Dialogue mirrors relationship; who can't, has none.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Oct 2014 #38
Thumb_stringio Katy Alias United Kingdom 378 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Jean Gatti wrote:
We are 100% responsible for our own experiences John ... why blame others ?

This is a particularly contentious/naive view of life really, Jean...
since this is really not a world of equal shares, is it ?

Is a child 100% responsible, for example, for not having enough food to eat or for the bombs dropping on him/her ? Of course not !

This post was last updated by Katy Alias (account deleted) Tue, 21 Oct 2014.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Oct 2014 #39
Thumb_stringio John Perkins United Kingdom 1094 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

In my view, as I've tried to express to you, Jean, on specifically K sites the reduction or slighting of K and/or the teachings should not be allowed. They can do it elsewhere in the world to their heart's content. The rules on this site thankfully disallow it but at the KFA they don't. It would represent conspiracy-theory of course but given what I've personally witnessed it seems possible to me that it's deliberately excluded there in order to maintain in legitimacy what is perpetrated. Given the leadership now in place at the KFA anything could happen. For the record, as I see it, frustration at circumstances in which genuine K inquirers are consistently abused on a K site by considerable numbers which include the moderator, might, with some justification warrant stronger nomenclature than simple 'irritation'!

I know it won't get through to you.

Dialogue mirrors relationship; who can't, has none.

This post was last updated by John Perkins (account deleted) Tue, 21 Oct 2014.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Oct 2014 #40
Thumb_stringio Katy Alias United Kingdom 378 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

(The same was true for a while here too, John, but it caused a virtual 'riot'...)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Oct 2014 #41
Thumb_stringio John Perkins United Kingdom 1094 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Katy Alias wrote:
(The same was true for a while here too, John, but it caused a virtual 'riot'...)

Yeah, I'd heard there'd been troubles Katy, but I bet the admin didn't perpetually come down on the side of blatant and even overt anti-K's; suspending and banning any who got in their way!

(As you can no-doubt collect, I'm still a little fired-up about it, ha ha! Not least because (i) I've since discovered the nature of the chief executive, and (ii) as a consequence of that nature, Hassett remains in place at K Ning and still running other stuff. It really is an abomination. All of K's safe-guards have been undone there. The ego's capacity for cunning is endless).

Dialogue mirrors relationship; who can't, has none.

This post was last updated by John Perkins (account deleted) Tue, 21 Oct 2014.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Oct 2014 #42
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5764 posts in this forum Offline

Chris Dent wrote:
Hmmm..... do you think there is any element of maybe not being able to stand by and watch while mad zealots rape and murder women and children, and torture and behead innocent civilians, over who believes what?

ISIS is indeed a bunch of zealots of the worse sort. But who made them? The US and the UK. These two countries created ISIS and an environment in which they can flourish. Also, don't believe everything you read or hear in the news. In this country most of it is rank corporate propaganda.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Oct 2014 #43
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5764 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins wrote:
In my view, as I've tried to express to you, Jean, on specifically K sites the reduction or slighting of K and/or the teachings should not be allowed.

You know John I used to visit the KFA site briefly from time to time just to see what was up with it. It was such a gaggle of stupidity that I never even bothered to sign up. I don't know when the forum started. But Troy Sumrall was one of the first moderators. I remember reading him saying that "Yes, he understood what K was pointing out" Like hell he did. He was never anything but a businessman whose main achievement was to cut down all the orange and avocado trees back of Pine Cottage and around the archives building south of Arya Vihara.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Oct 2014 #44
Thumb_stringio John Perkins United Kingdom 1094 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Chris Dent wrote:

Hmmm..... do you think there is any element of maybe not being able to stand by and watch while mad zealots rape and murder women and children, and torture and behead innocent civilians, over who believes what?

Jack Pine wrote:ISIS is indeed a bunch of zealots of the worse sort. But who made them? The US and the UK. These two countries created ISIS and an environment in which they can flourish. Also, don't believe everything you read or hear in the news. In this country most of it is rank corporate propaganda.

I'd say both these angles carry weight but that all of it only keeps us where we are, stuck in time (Tom and Jean excepted, naturally). If the politicians, ayatollahs, etc were in the front line we can be pretty sure none of it would occur. Even the nuclear deterrent only works (to the extent it has) because it effectively puts them in the front line with the rest of us.

None of us can do anything about all of this anywhere but at home, in ourselves. There lies the core of the problem and there is the only place it can be addressed. As to how, well, for that we'll need to consult the above mentioned.

Dialogue mirrors relationship; who can't, has none.

This post was last updated by John Perkins (account deleted) Tue, 21 Oct 2014.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Oct 2014 #45
Thumb_stringio John Perkins United Kingdom 1094 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Jack Pine wrote:
You know John I used to visit the KFA site briefly from time to time just to see what was up with it. It was such a gaggle of stupidity that I never even bothered to sign up. I don't know when the forum started. But Troy Sumrall was one of the first moderators. I remember reading him saying that "Yes, he understood what K was pointing out" Like hell he did. He was never anything but a businessman whose main achievement was to cut down all the orange and avocado trees back of Pine Cottage and around the archives building south of Arya Vihara.

I only caught the very briefest smattering of Troy before he departed about 3 years ago and what I saw was, I have to say, seriously unimpressive. Maybe the rot has been in there longer than I suspected. All I know for sure is that it's in there big time now, never to be got out. The head honcho is a twat of the first order and has put in place supportive henchmen. It can't be ousted. Hassett is barely out of diapers and is a 'yes-man' but it suits Sluiter to give him a 'gun' for the protection of the K-alternative (effectively anti-K) league. For a long time latterly on there I termed it the priesthood and its laity, which is what it is. (I say is because it's still operative under Hassett at K Ning.)

Dialogue mirrors relationship; who can't, has none.

This post was last updated by John Perkins (account deleted) Tue, 21 Oct 2014.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Oct 2014 #46
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3169 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
when I meet a conflictual situation, I immediately superimpose the emotional situation of the past unto the present situation ...

Is it reasonable to do so ?

So why let others 'push our buttons' ?

The intellect can easily understand what you said Jean (post 33) yet we are continually 'pushing our own buttons' too. The subconscious ideals, beliefs, 'should's' and 'should not's', are not going to go away simply because I see that they are 'unreasonable', or because I make an effort to observe my reactions without naming them. That effort may be just another 'should' I impose upon myself. When I can't do that, then I beat myself up further. There is still the frightened little child in us that is afraid he will be destroyed/abandoned/punished if he doesn't conform. Now I add another 'should' that I got from reading something K. said, on top of all the other 'shoulds'. Any movement/reaction that thought makes is more of the same. As you yourself wrote: "When we see that anything we 'do' comes from the same 'root' and therefore only perpetuates the disorder ?" Do we continue to do something? That is the question you ask, and it's a crucial one, imo, as I wrote. Can we understand this 'doer'/thinker/reactor who is created by the conditioning of the parents, society, peers, church, gurus, army, etc.?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Oct 2014 #47
Thumb_stringio Katy Alias United Kingdom 378 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

John Perkins wrote:
Yeah, I'd heard there'd been troubles Katy, but I bet the admin didn't perpetually come down on the side of blatant and even overt anti-K's; suspending and banning any who got in their way!

True enough, John, Dev tried to please everyone. However, the most vocal/dominant writers became the K-bashers and 'disillusioned', perhaps, for a while.

I, too, tried to be receptive to both 'sides' and the the people who were 'pro-K' - if I can put it this way - became increasingly angered and seemed to swear a lot.

Anyway, rightly or wrongly, I felt like I was entangled in an on-line quasi-cult...but the plot thickened and I found out later that one writer was determined to sabotage K- dialogue/discussions here and in so doing invented several false identities and wrote odious 'analyses' of people he doesn't even know - nothing short of 'cyber-bullying', really.

From reading here, in recent months, things have appeared to be not so 'hostile' atmospherically...Thank goodness:)

This post was last updated by Katy Alias (account deleted) Tue, 21 Oct 2014.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Oct 2014 #48
Thumb_stringio Katy Alias United Kingdom 378 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Jean Gatti wrote:
say we are 100 % responsible for our inner experiences (ie. emotional state), not for the 'outer' circumstances or conditions ...

Right, Jean...I see that whatever a person's 'emotional state', as you put it, might be it is contingent on 'outer' circumstances and conditions.

Frankly, a child who is too hungry - needing food - is not 'free' to play.

Experience 'informs' a person's 'emotional memory', doesn't it ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Oct 2014 #49
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
There is still the frightened little child in us that is afraid he will be destroyed/abandoned/punished if he doesn't conform.

Right Tom, this is why we need some kind of 'emotional cleansing', this child within us needs to be reassured ...

How does this happen ? What is it which reassures a child ?

Surely he must know that someone is caring for him, right ? That someone pays attention ...

WHO is this someone ?

Now I add another 'should' that I got from reading something K. said, on top of all the other 'shoulds'. Any movement/reaction that thought makes is more of the same. As you yourself wrote: "When we see that anything we 'do' comes from the same 'root' and therefore only perpetuates the disorder ?" Do we continue to do something? That is the question you ask, and it's a crucial one, imo, as I wrote. Can we understand this 'doer'/thinker/reactor who is created by the conditioning of the parents, society, peers, church, gurus, army, etc.?

Correct Tom, so what can we do ?

Is there anything to 'do' really ?

Now comes another question: is SEEING what happens a 'doing' ?

Does observation come from thought ? Or is observation/attention a totally different dimension, independant of thought ?

??

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Oct 2014 #50
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Katy Alias wrote:
Frankly, a child who is too hungry - needing food - is not 'free' to play.

Right Katy, but a child will not make a psychological problem of that ... he will be hungry, fully experiencing hunger ... while an adult might add to this experience: "How worthless I am, I can't even find food for my children, how could anyone love me, I am a failure, why is life so unkind, so cruel with me etc."

Do you see how thought adds psychological drama over conditions of life and circumstances ?

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Oct 2014 #51
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3169 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
What is it which reassures a child ?

Surely he must know that someone is caring for him, right ? That someone pays attention ...

WHO is this someone ?

That someone is surely not the child... nor the parent who has created the emotional disturbances! Now do we have two people inside us....the emotional child and the 'ideal' someone who will pay attention? Or is there only one? There is just the frightened, emotional, child, right? And any movement he makes comes from that same conditioned, emotional, background....the 'should's' and 'should nots' which he inherited from the parents, society, church, etc. I wonder if we can understand all this without trying to 'do something' about the plight of the emotional 'child' in 'me'/us.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Tue, 21 Oct 2014.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Oct 2014 #52
Thumb_stringio Katy Alias United Kingdom 378 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Jean Gatti wrote:
Do you see how thought adds psychological drama over conditions of life and circumstances ?

Food is a basic need, not a symptom of 'drama' produced by thought, Jean, isn't it?

There are loads of other illustrations of this point but I won't waffle on!

Sometimes, people take up K's insights and universalise them to the point of absurdity, really...and/or don't realise/see the context.

'bye for now, Katy

This post was last updated by Katy Alias (account deleted) Tue, 21 Oct 2014.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Oct 2014 #53
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5764 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
Right Katy, but a child will not make a psychological problem of that ... he will be hungry, fully experiencing hunger ... while an adult might add to this experience: "How worthless I am, I can't even find food for my children, how could anyone love me, I am a failure, why is life so unkind, so cruel with me etc."

Can anyone provide any evidence to support the above idealistic and wildly speculative statement? I doubt it and I strongly disagree with this statement. Here's why: First we have to assume that the poster actually knows what a starving child thinks and feels. There is absolutely no evidence to support this. Then we have to overlook the fact that most of the impressions of ourselves, suppressed injuries and other psychological damage becomes rooted in our consciousness when we are very young.

There is simply no evidence for the above quoted statement and reams of evidence to the contrary. I think it is accurate to say that psychology is built on the premise that the deepest rooted psychological damage occurs when we are children as the direct result of experienced psychological trauma.

Does anyone seriously believe that a child who experiences starvation, assuming he survives, will not undergo significant psychological damage?

It seems to me that if we are going to have a meaningful dialogue with each other on this forum we need to stick with facts and not mistake our imaginations for understanding based on facts and reason. Certainly in this particular example there is no relationship between the two.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Tue, 21 Oct 2014.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Oct 2014 #54
Thumb_stringio Katy Alias United Kingdom 378 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Jack Pine wrote:
Does anyone seriously believe that a child who experiences starvation, assuming he survives, will not undergo significant psychological damage?

Absolutely not, Jack. You put this more succinctly, perhaps, than my 'effort'.

Cheers, Katy

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Oct 2014 #55
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5764 posts in this forum Offline

Katy Alias wrote:
Absolutely not, Jack. You put this more succinctly, perhaps, than my 'effort'.

Cheers, Katy

No Katy you're just more subtle and gentle than I am. Don't change. Cheers right back at you. Jack

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Tue, 21 Oct 2014.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Oct 2014 #56
Thumb_stringio John Perkins United Kingdom 1094 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Isn't it sufficiently evidenced that the Gatti's of these sites hinder and block any real K inquiry? Talk is invariably reduced to their level of understanding which they equally invariably present and insist is THE level of understanding.

Shouldn't any worthy admin step in here or at least comment? The conversation has been reduced to at best low level Freud hasn't it?

Dialogue mirrors relationship; who can't, has none.

This post was last updated by John Perkins (account deleted) Tue, 21 Oct 2014.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Oct 2014 #57
Thumb_stringio randall merryman United States 3832 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Jean Gatti wrote:
there are three people within each of us: A Parent, a Child and an Adult ...

There is one person (child) the rest is fictional public relations.

Stuff happens

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Oct 2014 #58
Thumb_stringio John Perkins United Kingdom 1094 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

This is not a first grade in amateur psychology site, Jean. For god's sake!

Dialogue mirrors relationship; who can't, has none.

This post was last updated by John Perkins (account deleted) Tue, 21 Oct 2014.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Oct 2014 #59
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5764 posts in this forum Offline

You know when you read too many (psychology) books with too little comprehension and you substitute memorization of textbook statements for understanding of those statements you get what we see above. An armchair, amateur, psychologist trying to apply what has been memorized to real life without the benefit of having personally confirmed the validity of those statements.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Oct 2014 #60
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5764 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins wrote:
This is not a first grade in amateur psychology site, Jean. For god's sake!

You're right. This is a site where things relating to Krishnamurti are suppose to be discussed. But when you don't understand K and feel more familiar with something you have memorized guess what you're going to talk about instead of K most of the time?

Every time I've read or heard K speak of psychology is was not in support of it. So why do we have it constantly shoved down our throats here? Surely there must be a site for those interested in psychology.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 151 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.)