Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Discussion Forums

Patricia Hemingway's Forum Activity | 2311 posts in 13 forums


Forum: General Discussion Sun, 28 Feb 2010
Topic: What Hath K Wrought?

Good!

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 28 Feb 2010
Topic: What Hath K Wrought?

nick carter wrote: I wonder if Ms. Hemingway can speak of anything but images. She's obsessed! Say anything and she'll accuse you of imagery!

No - invent an image and I will point it out.

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 28 Feb 2010
Topic: What Hath K Wrought?

Randal Shacklett wrote: She did say very clearly that she was speaking from where she was.

Yes - not fooled by images - having understood the impotence of them - and quite willing to go on challenging them all. :)

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 28 Feb 2010
Topic: The manner of dialogue

nick carter wrote: I just like to expose phonies. Takes no energy, little time.

Great 'self' image Nick - exposer of phonies! A hero for the masses. And doesn't even need energy or time - so proficient is this hero. Is this what the world is waiting for? Humanity does love a hero - conditioned to do so.

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 28 Feb 2010
Topic: What Hath K Wrought?

nick carter wrote: If you understood imagery you'd know how potent they are and you'd deal intelligently with them, not react the way you do. You're afraid of images. Every time someone uses imagery you go into your knee-jerk defensive manuever as if you were repelling them and rendering them useless against your superior power. It would be amusing if it wasn't so predictable and repetitive.

Imagery AND analysis! Is there no end to these very ordinary 'talents' you boast?

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 28 Feb 2010
Topic: What Hath K Wrought?

nick carter wrote: This is what is meant by "self-knowledge", and what all of us fall far short of. K might have known himself in this way, to this extent and depth, and maybe a few others have, but such awareness and understanding is an anomalous condition and not one to be aspired to by identifying with K or anyone thought to be more enlightened.

The judge has spoken! Everyone is guilty! End of inquiry.

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 28 Feb 2010
Topic: What Hath K Wrought?

Randal Shacklett wrote: Knights and Damsels against impotent imagery! I need a new suit, cause if I'm goin to be impotent, I wants to look impotent!

LOL - yes - it really is that ridiculous, isn't it? It seems there can be no serious enquiry, so the only action is to laugh. And that's OK.

Where else but on a K site is there so much frustrated personal attack? Oh K - what have you left behind in your wake? Too many dashed hopes of 'enlightenment' it seems.

Too bad so many only listen to the early talks, before you had wised-up to the cleverness of the monkey, and honed the teaching down to the bare essentials.

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 01 Mar 2010
Topic: What Hath K Wrought?

nick carter wrote: with the exception of Randall, of course, because he's truly enlightened and above it all.

Ah Randy - you have a fan! Perhaps you could cultivate a follower! :D

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 01 Mar 2010
Topic: What Hath K Wrought?

nick carter wrote: Poor Patty. Lacking a sense of humor she can't tell when someone is being facetious.

Oh - neat put-down Nick! Too bad you can't find an image to wound with it!

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 02 Mar 2010
Topic: What Hath K Wrought?

Randal Shacklett wrote: But I am asking if there is another way to comprehend, without knowledge/knowing/information?

Why?

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 03 Mar 2010
Topic: DISCONTENTED

nick carter wrote: K was no ordinary human being. He was selected by Leadbeater and the Theosophists because he was extraordinary, exceptional, a veritable mutant. Just because it was possible for him to observe without culturally conditioned judgement doesn't mean it's possible for you and I...and it's that impossibility that must be seen.

So who is putting K on a pedestal now? AND using it as a convenient excuse no to do the work?

Worshiping the man and ignoring the message. Easier that way perhaps? - and when really frustrated K can be one's punching-bag as well - the fallen idol! Happens all the time on these forums.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 04 Mar 2010
Topic: DISCONTENTED

nick carter wrote: To say that K was a freak is not to put him on a pedestal.

Of course it is! But one that you can kick him off and attack him whenever it suits you. And it is an excuse not to do the work for yourself to call K a freak.

What work? Watching the disorder as it occurs - not in anyone else - in oneself. Then one can speak from there without personal attack on another - or on K.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 04 Mar 2010
Topic: DISCONTENTED

nick carter wrote: Patty, you silly girl. If you were watching your own disorder you wouldn't be such an expert on others'.

Really - if I wanted to play silly games of put-down rather that just watch my own disorder I could - let's see - I could write on here: "Nicky - you silly boy - misunderstanding again!"

But honestly - who would choose to sink to such depths of pettiness? :) Boom-boom!

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 04 Mar 2010
Topic: DISCONTENTED

Randal Shacklett wrote: So why won't we/you do it??!!!???!!????????????!!????????????????????

Why make the presumption that no-one does?

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 04 Mar 2010
Topic: DISCONTENTED

nick carter wrote: you wouldn't be such an expert on others'.

To have an understanding of the movement of thought is not to set oneself up as an 'expert on others' unless one chooses to indulge in personal attacks and image-making.

Apart from a small diversion into exploring the possibility (above #22 - which showed clearly how cheap and easy it is to do) I choose not to indulge in personal attack. Anything I say on here is about the movement of disorder and never personal at all.

Can't you perceive the difference?

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 08 Mar 2010
Topic: What is the "bliss of compassion"?

The teaching doesn't promise anything.

The teaching points to human disorder. One either accepts responsibility for that disorder, or one does not.

Why do humans always look for reward? Part of the disorder/conditioning perhaps?

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 08 Mar 2010
Topic: What Hath K Wrought?

nick carter wrote: As I said, K says the beaten (conditioned) brain can recover from the beating and be restored to sanity, but that there is no way to do it; no method or technique to apply to that end; nothing that you, the condtioned brain, can do about your condition. That's K in a nutshell.

That is your interpretation of "K in a nutshell". Nothing much to do with what he was really on about. The self is always limited by what it wants to see.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 09 Mar 2010
Topic: What is the "bliss of compassion"?

Ruth Marie Bass wrote: The promise is inferred. When carrots are dangled (bliss, energy, intelligence, love and compassion) it seems like a promise that silence of the brain yields those fruits. So when Krishnamurti spoke of the "bliss of compassion", I am interested. I am very interested in bliss and freedom from sorrow. Why? Sentience, as one of our human faculties, attributes our preference for bliss over sorrow. So what is the bliss of compassion, can one live with it daily?

If one wants to see carrots dangled, one will see dangling carrots.

Everyone is interested in attaining 'bliss and freedom from sorrow' - ready-made - on a stick - like a lollypop! Surely projected 'bliss and freedom from sorrow' is at the root of all desire.

But K was constantly questioning such desire - not promising to fulfill it. The teaching is about understanding the disorder of humanity - seeing the fact of thought out of place in the psychological. Where is the promise of bliss in that?

People saw a certain stillness in K and thought - "I want some of that". So it becomes 'the promise'. There is no actuality in such an imagined 'promise'.

The teaching is far more about taking responsibility for the whole of human disorder. But that is not what people desire to hear, so instead, they hear 'promises'.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 09 Mar 2010
Topic: DISCONTENTED

nick carter wrote: why do you come across as someone who's really really full of it?

Come across to whom? The one who invents images? In that case, it wouldn't matter what was said there can be no listening - the only thing that occurs is yet another boring same old same old image is invented. Stuck in a rut - or what?

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 09 Mar 2010
Topic: DISCONTENTED

nick carter wrote: Oh. Patty, have you nothing better to do than point the finger? You're as pathetic as Randal. All the two of you can do is react to what others say.

Can't speak for Randal - but I question what people say if it makes no sense. And will continue to do so. No images - just questioning what is stated.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 11 Mar 2010
Topic: DISCONTENTED

John Anderson wrote: Now with such a powerful investigative tool, thought can quite legitmately turn to the world of inner space. The question essentially being, How does the mind work. Now this guy K, dedicated his life to that. Using thought, very carefully, he asked many questions. He explored those questions with the precision of a scientist. It was part of the groundwork. So quite clearly thought had it's place, but he also saw, that it could only get him to a certain point.**

Hi John. Quite clearly, thought is in its place in the technical.

K did - as you say - use technical, logical thought to examine the disorder of human thought out of place in the psychological. And he did so with the precision of a empirically minded scientist. Thank you for stating it so precisely.

When thought is not driven by the conditioned ego, but allowed to discover freely, whilst all thought can really do is measure, there is much to find out - and to end.

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 12 Mar 2010
Topic: Krishnamurti Foundations Worldwide

The K Foundations are there to protect the teaching, and this they appear to do.

The truth does not need promotion - it will touch where and when it touches.

What K actually said in pointing towards that truth does require protection. His words are open - as all words are - to misinterpretation and misrepresentation. With the K Foundation doing what it does, anyone can always return to the source itself, and not rely on another person to interpret the teaching for them, and thus dilute it.

K said it all over his long life, and while what he said cannot possibly be absorbed by osmosis, it remains to this day a very real (and only) pointer to the discovery of actuality - if one is prepared to go there and find out for oneself.

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 12 Mar 2010
Topic: Krishnamurti Foundations Worldwide

ganesan balachandran wrote: Truth protects itself some how

Truth does not have a 'self'. To try to give it one is to endeavor to inflict the limitations of thought as the self upon truth. Bit of a joke really to even consider doing so, isn't it?

A bit like inventing a god in one's own image and then worshiping it! And asking it to explain the universe. :)

Humanity does not control truth, no matter how much it may desire to believe it does.

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 12 Mar 2010
Topic: Krishnamurti Foundations Worldwide

ganesan balachandran wrote: Truth is self and self is truth, and the only truth. nothing can be an object of its own quality.I dont mean the self which is ones own ego.At the same time i dont mean an higher self. If you dont mistake me this is where i felt generally a women finds difficulty in their perception especially the spinsters and raised it as a topic , which later i withdrew it. gb

I'm still laughing! :D

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 12 Mar 2010
Topic: Krishnamurti Foundations Worldwide

Randal Shacklett wrote: But Patricia, my own mind dilutes it.

Then don't!

Dope dilutes it, feeds the self, and convinces the self that it is really wonderful underneath it all! ;)

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 12 Mar 2010
Topic: Krishnamurti Foundations Worldwide

Randal Shacklett wrote: Publish a few books, etc.. that is protection. all else they are doing, is self promotion.

Never mind - at least they publish the books. Who isn't into self-promotion? Let he who is not cast the first stone.

Mind you - someone who isn't into self-promotion themselves would probably not even bother to make a comment like yours. What is the point?

I don't know anyone from the K Foundations - don't need to. The Foundations are doing basically what K asked - keeping the teaching together as a wholeness, and making it available in its pure form. There is nothing else to be done.

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 12 Mar 2010
Topic: Krishnamurti Foundations Worldwide

Randal Shacklett wrote: Says you. What is actuality? Real to who? Many people would violently disagree. This is madness! I feel like I'm through the looking glass in Krishnamurti-land!

Well Randy - go a little further - but without the fake bolster of mind-altering drugs.

Why should anyone care that 'many people would violently disagree'? Does truth obey popular opinion?

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 12 Mar 2010
Topic: Can you live in society without conditioning?

Randal Shacklett wrote: We are not observing in the fashion Krishnamurti discribed. If it were so, the planet would be swept by a massive psychological tidal wave of understanding freedom and Love.

Is that your opinion Randal? Or is it just another excuse not to act? - "Oh look - it isn't working - give up everyone! That's an ORDER!" LOL.....

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 12 Mar 2010
Topic: WHAT IS TEACHING OF K

averil harrison wrote: Duality is also agreeing or disagreeing, isn't it ?

No - duality is becoming - as in: "I am this - I will be that".

There is nothing 'dual' about disagreement. That's "duel"! :D

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 12 Mar 2010
Topic: DISCONTENTED

dhirendra singh wrote: when there is no conditioned ego, then problem is already solved, then there is not questioning about how thought s'd be technically used, then there is not choice.

How do you know? Did someone tell you that?

dhirendra singh wrote: But all the description by either you or by John is by thought which is driven by conditioned ego, then all description about thought which is not driven by conditioned ego is a hypothesis, a bluff.

Well - thought really does hate to be challenged about its own importance, doesn't it? It will fight and attack tooth and nail - just watch it in oneself. No more be said then. But to see it requires impeccable honesty.