Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Discussion Forums

Patricia Hemingway's Forum Activity | 2313 posts in 13 forums


Forum: General Discussion Sun, 11 Apr 2010
Topic: What is Self-Knowledge??

nick carter wrote: don't think for a minute that what takes place in this or any other Krishnamurti discussion forum can do anything but distract you from what K was talking about.

Yet believing all that you remain........

nick carter wrote: Randal, you're back. Why? I thought you were beyond all this nonsense, that you'd moved on, gotten past all this crap. But here you are...and after your dramatic farewell. Jeez, what a disappointment.

And that also. Do you have some hopeful concept of what 'should be'?

Hi Randal - welcome back. To be honest - I didn't believe it would be too long before your return.

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 12 Apr 2010
Topic: What is Self-Knowledge??

Hello Randal - I have not heard from Eve for a long time.

Your input on here is always valued - if not always agreed with. ;)

Randal Shacklett wrote: one can easily come back and forth without addiction issues invloved in the typical pleasure seeking here.

Yes, one just drops in for a friendly and informative chat really! Meet old friends and sparring-partners, and have a cup of tea - lovely. :D

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 12 Apr 2010
Topic: DISCONTENTED

Randal Shacklett wrote: In a Krishnamurti discussion, opposites form when one is not satisfied with what is, so it's nicer alternative (what should be) is psychologically created, out of thin air apparently.

It doesn't just occur in a K discussion.

This forum is simply a microcosm of the real world - with perhaps a little more awareness and questioning going on here. Opposite side of that coin - there can also be more delusion! But one can only observe it as it is - and deal with it - preferably sanely!

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 13 Apr 2010
Topic: DISCONTENTED

Hello David -

In the psychological realm, opposites are invented when one becomes addicted to 'becoming' - for example, seeing that one is violent, one invents its opposite, non-violent, and then strives to become that. (K referred to being in that state as existing in 'the corridor of sorrows').

Seems to me 'the corridor of sorrows' is a cop-out - a way of believing one has 'change' without any actual ending. A bit like changing one's hat and then claiming to be a different person!

Yes - the so-called Law of Opposites is just another human theory - signifying nothing! However it is important to understand the psychological movement of 'becoming' (along with every other human disorder), otherwise it is all to easy to get caught up permanently in the 'corridor of sorrows' - in that state of hopeful 'becoming'.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 13 Apr 2010
Topic: The Last Post

Paul - it is a mistake to confuse physical injury - such as a woman being hit by a car - with a psychological challenge, which quite clearly only injures one's self-image. Surely the difference is obvious!

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 13 Apr 2010
Topic: The Last Post

Katy Pompilis wrote: It is interesting to note that alot of our recent discussion fell under the heading of 'Can We Start a New Psychology' when this forum for some of us can be a psychological nightmare!

There is no 'psychological nightmare' unless one is presenting an image that one then feels obliged to protect against all challenges.

There is no physical harm that can come upon anyone on a discussion forum. We are all quite safe from each other. So what is the fear about? Why make anything personal?

We are here on a K forum, looking at human disorder. That may be confronting, but so what.

Human disorder requires confrontation and understanding - nothing personal in that. Part of our disorder is the fragile ego/image that mankind presents to the world, believing it to be a protection - and impressive! - when in fact it is a total liability.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 13 Apr 2010
Topic: The Last Post

RICK LEIN wrote: Paul is making some one else responsible for his feelings,and his reactions,and that is scapegoating!

Yes Rick - the key to it all is responsibility - for one's own reactions, and inquiry. Only then is one free to share, because then it no longer matters how anyone else reacts to what is said - one is passionate about pursuing one's own inquiry - and that is all.

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 14 Apr 2010
Topic: The Last Post

Katy Pompilis wrote: Do you think that part of that passion also makes a person more susceptible/open to feeling attacked? Or is there a way of being passionate that makes a person impervious?

Hello Katy -

If one is truly passionate, it is only about the inquiry, and the person (or people) are no longer relevant. So there is nothing to be harmed anymore.

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 14 Apr 2010
Topic: The Last Post

Katy Pompilis wrote: Put more simply do you think that fear is all to do with past associations/memories? It is difficult to be absolutist about things like this.

Isn't it a question of 'getting over oneself'?

There are deep human problems, and all one can do when sharing one's concerns is worry about one's own image and if it maybe will be hurt? That doesn't make sense really, does it?

Isn't it more important to 'move beyond the personal and into the general'? (K's words, but used with understanding.) :)

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 14 Apr 2010
Topic: The Last Post

Katy Pompilis wrote: I remember you tearing me off the strip for coming across as too politically correct for that:)

Dear Katy -

Not personally. Surely the response was only to what was said, without any personal attack involved on you. What was being challenged was 'political correctness' - not Katy. Unless Katy chose to take it personally. ;)

Sometimes there are personal attacks on here - people making statements/assertions about others that they cannot possibly know. But it is so important to only address what is said, and to assume NOTHING AT ALL about the person saying it - which is to invent images. Only then can a discussion forum such as this one even begin to go anywhere.

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 14 Apr 2010
Topic: Daily life

dhirendra singh wrote: I wonder how can we kill animals without feeling pain of killing.Even we kills human beings, on the name of religion, on the name of justice, on the name of nationality, we kills human beings.Cruelty and killing of animals or of human being shows our lesser sensitivity.

Good point Dhirendra. Humans have no sensitivity while we continue to kill animals, or condone the killing of animals to fulfill desire for animal flesh. So until that fact is seen - forget human sensitivity. It does not exist, except as an indulgence for the protection of self-image - something else entirely.

Humans would not be destroying the planet, each other, and sentient beings if there was any sensitivity at all operating - simple as that.

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 14 Apr 2010
Topic: Daily life

With one's children - one can only pass on the wisdom that one has (or not) at the time. It is easy to be wise after the event.

But there is no blame. Eventually one's children grow up and take over responsibility for their own lives. And remember that conditioning is everywhere, not just in what the parent inadvertently passes on through ignorance.

The only thing that matters is to allow both them - and oneself - the chance to change/wake up. And never shut the door on them. One cannot change one's children, but one can always be there if needed. And not invent images of them, because to do so may deny any remote possibility there is of change.

This is spoken from the reality of life lived. :)

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 17 Apr 2010
Topic: The Last Post

nick carter wrote: The Shackletts and the Hemingways and the windbags and ignoramuses win. So be it.

A bit of personal bitterness showing here Nick? So be it.

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 17 Apr 2010
Topic: The Last Post

No - you are just a Shacklett!

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 17 Apr 2010
Topic: The Last Post

And it looks like you are winning!

I was not aware it was a race. But - so be it!

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 17 Apr 2010
Topic: The Last Post

ganesan balachandran wrote: How do you see this?

Perhaps it is the Great Enlightenment Race! That's a joke. My partner Michael did a sculpture called "The Great Enlightenment Race" some years ago - very amusing - all these little creatures racing around in a circle getting nowhere. :)

No gb - of course there is no race. The reality is nothing more than conditioned competition - just one of humanity's little disorders!

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 17 Apr 2010
Topic: The Last Post

Oh gb - where did your posting go? Never mind - the answer still stands! :)

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 28 Apr 2010
Topic: Daily life

Why is Chafia's account deleted?

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 28 Apr 2010
Topic: Daily life

Chafia left of her own accord.

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 09 May 2010
Topic: Keeping The Faith

Hermann Janzen wrote: the state of mind of one who is persuaded by the logic of k's teachings but then finds himself in a state of paralysis.

If that is the fact of it - be paralysed. Stay with paralysis.

It is only the self that wishes to be otherwise, and then the self will try to project what that 'otherwise' should be.

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 26 May 2010
Topic: Seeking clarification on today's quote

nick carter wrote: I'm an observer and my observation is that you enjoy making patently false statements.

And the observer IS the observed, after all. :)

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 26 May 2010
Topic: Sorry to say this

Is this an example of 'guru-fodder'?

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 29 May 2010
Topic: Sorry to say this

nick carter wrote: My prayers have been answered.

nick carter wrote: I'm praying that you, too, will find a new religion.

Why does one try to eliminate another from one's life simply because one does not agree with what the other advocates?

Isn't that at the root of all violence?

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 29 May 2010
Topic: My Daily Dialogue With Krishnamurti

nick carter wrote: The subject of love elicits the dumbest comments because no one knows what it is. The only thing K really had to say about it is that it ain't what you think it is.

Yes Nick - It is wisdom to leave the subject of love out of it altogether.

Discussing love always sounds like a massive attack of the 'warm fuzzies'. Humanity has been so conditioned with a 'Hollywood' view of what love is.

K made great sense when he basically said that love is not at all what human thought has interpreted it to be - and that love cannot be owned, any more than death and creation can be owned.

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 29 May 2010
Topic: Sorry to say this

ganesan balachandran wrote: Let every body remain with the understanding of the true and fresh religion on their own . gb

What 'true and fresh religion'? Are we looking to invent a new 'true and fresh religion' now? Sorry gb - but hasn't that all been done before?

How can truth be turned into a 'religion' and remain pure truth? Clearly - it cannot. And isn't that the very reason K refused 'followers'- saying simply - 'find out'? If one fails to do this - then so be it.

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 29 May 2010
Topic: My Daily Dialogue With Krishnamurti

ganesan balachandran wrote: then it is really dangerous. gb

Why judge it (love) to be 'dangerous'? Or anything else for that matter? Can one judge what one does not understand?

What is this constant human propensity for judgment? Can humanity not just accept our limitations and ignorance? Then perhaps the thing itself (love? creation? death?) might be free to act. Then again - it may not! Who knows?

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 30 May 2010
Topic: My Daily Dialogue With Krishnamurti

nick carter wrote: "We are not concerned with individual salvation or individual liberation, or whatever the individual is trying to seek but rather with the whole movement of life, the understanding of the whole current of existence"

nick carter wrote: Who do you mean by "we"? You may be the only human on the planet who feels that way.

And he may NOT be the only person to feel that way. Who knows?

Isn't K in fact stating here that individualism is a road to no change at all? That unless one is passionate about 'understanding the whole current of existence' one can only remain stuck in the same old rut of human conditioned responses? And that there is no 'individual salvation or liberation' - there is only the desire for such?

And isn't that the constant mistake that wallows along in the wake of K's teaching - the desire for personal and individual liberation without the passion to understand 'the whole current of existence'?

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 10 Jun 2010
Topic: My Daily Dialogue With Krishnamurti

nick carter wrote: "Beautiful" my butt. It's just the same old harangue we get from Patricia as she sits astride her high hobby-horse.

The self gets very threatened when the game is spoken of. Observe how it must then attack personally.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 10 Jun 2010
Topic: My Daily Dialogue With Krishnamurti

nick carter wrote: "The game", in this case, being Paricia's need to ride herd on mis-speaking forum participants, and "the self" being Patricia.

What a limited repertoire. Still singing the same song - the song of images of other people (including K) and ignorance of the only 'self' that matters. Same old same old......

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 10 Jun 2010
Topic: My Daily Dialogue With Krishnamurti

nick carter wrote: I just took your advice and tackled myself. Now what do you want me to do?

Wow - that was quick! Are you enlightened now? But if so - why are you asking O.M. what to do next?