Sean Hen wrote:
My question was (to Jean) "do you think it is important to show a sense of compassion and consideration for others when we post on this forum?" I do think it's a reasonable question. I'm not sure what you think about this Patricia. From your earlier reply, it seems tha you wouldn't really consider this so important. Is that right?

It depends upon what you see 'compassion and consideration of others' to mean Sean.

Does it mean that you cannot speak of human disorder because someone who does not believe that exists might be unsettled by the very idea of it? (Sorry Sean - that was a private joke, and I really am smiling).

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
Is it not a matter of FINDING OUT through the action of negation?

Personally I've never tried negation. Insight, seeing, yes. What does it mean to negate?

mike c wrote:
Personally I've never tried negation. Insight, seeing, yes. What does it mean to negate?

I am so happy you asked Mike, and you are going to hate me.

You want to start with the personal?

Negate every self-important reactionary thought one has - see it for what it is.

Observe opinions of others for what they are - a reflection of oneself.

Negate every habit one indulges in - smoking perhaps? consuming animal flesh? alcohol? drugs? - understanding once and for all the damage this does to the body - which is to nature itself.

Apprehend every comforting 'feel-good' thought one has about how 'special' one is - and see that for the delusion it is.

Good place to start Mike? :)

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
It depends upon what you see 'compassion and consideration of others' to mean Sean.

Does it mean that you cannot speak of human disorder because someone who does not believe that exists might be unsettled by the very idea of it? (Sorry Sean - that was a private joke, and I really am smiling).

Hi Paticia,

Thanks for the reply and good to see you smiling there!

I think it's quite valid to talk about human disorder or almost anything on a Krishnamurti forum. We might all unsettle each other from time to time but if we're learning together we'll probably come back for more!

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
Good place to start Mike?

If before starting Mike has to loose everything, where is Mike then? :-)

This post was last updated by Ravi Seth Wed, 25 Feb 2015.

The first step is the last step.

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
Negate every habit one indulges in - smoking perhaps? consuming animal flesh? alcohol? drugs? - understanding once and for all the damage this does to the body - which is to nature itself.

Becoming.

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
Better to encapsulate than to dismiss altogether surely.

Where does K discuss having something called a 'teaching"?

Where does he discuss encapsulating? Or this, being "better", than that?

Stuff happens

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
Negate every self-important reactionary thought one has - see it for what it is.

Yes, but none of this defines the term "negation". It simply gives examples of the objects to be negated. The questioner asked about the actual nuts and bolts activity/act, that is
'negation". What is it? What does it mean to "negate" something?

Stuff happens

This post was last updated by randall merryman (account deleted) Wed, 25 Feb 2015.

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
It is very noble of you Randall to leap heroically to the defense of K's teaching after just claiming above:

Neither attacking nor defending. Simply pointing out the obvious.

Stuff happens

randall merryman wrote:
Where does K discuss having something called a 'teaching"?

Oh Randall - are you serious?

K asked many times the the teaching be protected. He did not refer to it has 'his', but that is simply an identification - it certainly did not come from anyone else.

Where does he discuss encapsulating? Or this, being "better", than that?

You said 'encapsulate' - so that one came from you Randall. And no-one mentioned 'better' except you.

Pavil Davidov wrote:
Becoming.

Hit a nerve did it? :)

Ending - not becoming. There is a difference, but the difference is in the action - not the words.

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
And no-one mentioned 'better' except you.

Please re-read your post #32

Stuff happens

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
You said 'encapsulate' - so that one came from you Randall.

But you said it was "better" to encapsulate. I was describing your activity and you, by inference, agreed (that you were encapsulating).

Stuff happens

randall merryman wrote:
Please re-read your post #32

I have Randall - and you are correct - I said 'better'. And I stand by what I said in #32.

randall merryman wrote:
But you said it was "better" to encapsulate. I was describing your activity and you, by inference, agreed (that you were encapsulating).

I stand by that also. Do with it what you will! :)

Just would like to expand on something here.

We hear a lot about the 'ending of the self' on these forums.
So what do you think that actually means?

Imagining the self away? Wishing it away? Having an 'insight' so that the 'old' self ends, and a 'new' self emerges in its place?

Does the 'new' self continue with the habits of the 'old' self: smoking - drinking - eating meat - taking drugs - comparing - competing - defending - reacting - inventing images - attacking - identifying with 'authorities' - feeling good about itself?

What is it that ends?

Please discuss. And what did K mean when he said that the 'the ground must be prepared'?

Ha...I don't know Patricia..it sounds like a selective frontal assault on a self that's not going to go away that easily..I don't hate you...just don't take away my drugs..;)

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
What is it that ends?

This is a very good question.

The need to ask questions of a superficial variety. The need to find psychological fulfilment, in another becoming psyche. Emptiness/loneliness. Speculative/imaginative ideas about what K meant when he said this or that. And also, the compulsive action of looking at things as either black or white. In other words, seeking a total ending of this or that.

Stuff happens

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
And what did K mean when he said that the 'the ground must be prepared'?

He also refered to it as "clearing the decks". Yes, what did he mean?

Stuff happens

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
Do with it what you will! :)

With what? ;)

Stuff happens

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
Imagining the self away? Wishing it away? Having an 'insight' so that the 'old' self ends, and a 'new' self emerges in its place?

Does the 'new' self continue with the habits of the 'old' self: smoking - drinking - eating meat - taking drugs - comparing - competing - defending - reacting - inventing images - attacking - identifying with 'authorities' - feeling good about itself?

What is it that ends?

It is a tricky question...I thinkk it is a process of learning. Not to "end" one self for another, but simply to learn about thte self and its ways. Envy, hurt, self-image, psychological damage, desire, becoming, 'the perceiver being the perceived'...there are a lot of facets to the 'self'. You may say I'm taking the long route, but has any transformation occured with any well-meaning people here? For my part I start simply, with learning. And it does effect one, in terms of clarity, meditationand so on.

Laying the ground is necessary, but haven't we all got our habits, pleasures? If one is squashed, will not another arise? For now, yes, I smoke. It doesn't make me 'bad', it's just a bad habit. It doesn't preclude me from learning, and I'm not expecting transformation any time soon, so...I'll have a cup of coffee and a cigarette. At some point I'll stop. But there's no urgency or necessity in me immediately.

Meantime, tolearn... and it's so fascinating!

This post was last updated by mike c (account deleted) Wed, 25 Feb 2015.

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
What is it that ends?

Illusion ends ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Patricia, i have to quote something: From The Future is Now-

"K: Are you saying the self is the problem? Why do we make it a problem? Why do you say the self is the problem? Perhaps we make it into a problem and then say, how am I to get out of it? We don't look at the problem. We don't say, the self is the problem, let me understand it, let me look at this jewel without condemning it. The very condemnation is the problem. Do you follow what I mean? Therefore, I won't condemn it, I won't suppress it, I won't deny it, I won't transcend it; but let me first look at it."

This post was last updated by mike c (account deleted) Wed, 25 Feb 2015.

Pavil Davidov wrote:
Becoming.

not really. house in order

randall merryman wrote:
But you said it was "better" to encapsulate. I was describing your activity and you, by inference, agreed (that you were encapsulating).

gosh...

surgeons belong in the operating room.
cutting up and dissecting words often leaves one with nothing but a corpse on the operating table.

This post was last updated by b. teulada (account deleted) Wed, 25 Feb 2015.

'Hi Mina. Life is strange. The last time I've talk with you, I had asked you: can I ask you Mina what do you mean by these words : the whole ? Maybe you didn't see it, because you had not answer. Seems appropriate here again .'

Mina: Sorry Richard, I must have missed your reply to me. Not intentional.

Yes, will put it as follows, saying what the whole is NOT: the WHOLE is NOT the human cosnciousnmess that is EXCLUSIVELY MADE UP OF FRAGMENTS.

Jean Gatti wrote:
Illusion ends ...

Are you sure about that?

Patricia Hemingway wrote:

Jean Gatti wrote:
Illusion ends ...

Are you sure about that?

How can you know that the mirage of an oasis you see in the desert is an illusion ?

Why resist 'what is' ?

Jean Gatti wrote:
How can you know that the mirage of an oasis you see in the desert is an illusion?

But we are not talking about mirages in the desert here Jean.

The ability of the self to fool itself is immense. K spoke of it as 'tricks of the monkey'. The monkey really DESIRES to trick himself - an any manner possible. Do you see this?

Because to believe that illusion has ended while the monkey is still being tricky is somewhat of a disaster - that's all.

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
The ability of the self to fool itself is immense.

The psychological, imaginary self never did anything and never will do anything. The "self" is a mental fabrication. The physical man is destroying himself with his belief in the reality of this phantasmagorical "monkey." He kills his neighbor in his belief. He destroys nations in his belief.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Thu, 26 Feb 2015.