Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Discussion Forums

Patricia Hemingway's Forum Activity | 2295 posts in 13 forums


Forum: Serious Debate Fri, 19 Jun 2009
Topic: You are the World

To be helped psychologically, or to help psychologically - either way it is only feeding the ego/self.

To help or be helped technically is another matter altogether. Help build a house, understand a language, music, how to cook, anything - that is loving. 'Helping' another psychologically is not loving - it is indulgence - for both the parties involved.

K was very clear on this point - and so am I! But to understand it one must first have an insight into where the technical ends and the psychological begins. And into what bred and what feeds the psychological self.

Forum: Serious Debate Fri, 19 Jun 2009
Topic: You are the World

And Mike - If I see 'I am humanity' - am I going to provide nourishment for another struggling 'self' to perpetuate further? Or is it wisdom to say 'See the movement, understand the movement, but don't add to its energy'?

K never provided nourishment for the 'self', did he? He asked people stand alone and find out. He never said - 'go out and help each other psychologically'. Have you seen the talks with Shainberg? K debunks all that.

Forum: Serious Debate Fri, 19 Jun 2009
Topic: You are the World

Mike - I was not arguing with you - I just used your posting to continue the point I was making to Ramesh.

I know my postings can be a bit full-on sometimes, but I am passionate about the teaching - as it seems you are.

Forum: Serious Debate Fri, 19 Jun 2009
Topic: You are the World

What path Ramesh?

Is K's teaching just too much of a challenge?

It is not a matter of getting "stuck with K" - truth is truth regardless of who pointed to it.

But no-one else laid it all down so clearly and austerely as did K.

So what does one do - pick the sections that appeal and disregard the rest? Is THAT a path?

Forum: Serious Debate Fri, 19 Jun 2009
Topic: You are the World

mike christani wrote: I feel the statement 'I am humanity', far from feeding the separate self, takes away the separate feeling from the small, self-interested entity, separate in its little fears and pleasures and so on

Yes - that is the truth of K's statement. It points to indivisibility rather than individuality.

Forum: Serious Debate Fri, 19 Jun 2009
Topic: The Oak Grove School: Is it teaching its students about conditioning or is it mearly just another prep school?

Well stated Mike.

Forum: Serious Debate Sat, 20 Jun 2009
Topic: The Oak Grove School: Is it teaching its students about conditioning or is it mearly just another prep school?

Robert Michael wrote: Krishnamurti was also blessed with having been discovered and supported by the Theosophists.

Also indoctrinated and conditioned by the Theosophists. How else to have such insight into indoctrination and conditioning as K had?

And K denounced all that indoctrination, and distanced himself completely from it, but only through understanding the depth of it.

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Sat, 20 Jun 2009
Topic: Krishnamurti and Bohm on the Physical Brain.....

Robert Michael wrote: A few months ago while I was participating in the KFA online discussion forum, a man from Germany named Klaus told me that in a secret interlocution between K, Dr. Bohm, and himself (one day before Bohm departed from K), Krishnamurti told them, "Very, very soon someone is coming who is much greater than I am and he will lead you to love and understanding."

Why would K, who saw clearly the futility of desiring to follow another to 'love and understanding', and who avoided at all costs the clamourings of others who endeavoured to follow him, make such a stupid statement?

We have an expression where I live, in reply to someone who speaks complete nonsense: "You're pulling my leg". Go on Robert Michael - pull the other leg!

Moreover - what is the agenda of such persons who would promote this ridiculous idea - and in K's name what's more?

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Sun, 21 Jun 2009
Topic: Krishnamurti and Bohm on the Physical Brain.....

Robert Michael wrote: Though I tend to believe Klaus in that K did make the statement.

Why? Why believe anyone? Only because it suits your own agenda perhaps? Do you also believe that Klaus thinks you are 'the one'?

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Sun, 21 Jun 2009
Topic: Krishnamurti and Bohm on the Physical Brain.....

mike christani wrote: Isn't the proof in the pudding- when you read his works from when that was said, mid 70's, to his works at the end, like The Future is Now, or The Ending of Time?

Absolutely - but you know Mike - those later talks and discussions of K's are not for the faint-hearted, or for those searching for hope and someone to do the work for them and lead the way.

K was clear and austere in those last years, and there is no safe little nook for the self to hide-away and find security in anything he said at the end of his life.

Forum: Insights Sun, 21 Jun 2009
Topic: Painful Relationships

What is it that is 'hurt and betrayed'? It can only be one's image of oneself that is hurt by the expectation one had of an image of another person.

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Mon, 22 Jun 2009
Topic: Krishnamurti and Bohm on the Physical Brain.....

Robert Michael wrote: Actually I feel that I am the one. And I've felt this for quite some time now. Though Klaus' comment was nice to hear. Encouraging, if you will. Seems somehow life always gives a fellow what he needs.

Claiming to be 'the one' - which K never did - can only be a statement of ego. It necessarily excludes all others, unless they follow 'the one', and it sets 'the one' up as judge and jury as to who has changed and who has not - who has worth and who has not. It is nothing more than dangerous delusion.

The change K spoke of is not about glory for an individual ego. As K said - "Where you are, the other is not". Anyone can indulge in such fantasies Bob M, should they be so 'self/ego'-deluded.

Klaus is busy pushing someone else as 'the one'. How many 'the ones' can there be I wonder? :)

And what makes 'the one' believe that what K put on record over all those years is not everything required to stand alone and need NO-ONE.

Never mind Bob M - it is just your conditioning to believe that the world needs another messiah - same old, same old conditioning. Perhaps you should look at that.

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Mon, 22 Jun 2009
Topic: Krishnamurti and Bohm on the Physical Brain.....

Robert Michael wrote: P. S. (edit) It has crossed my mind at times as to whether science could possibly come up with a test which could determine whether a brain is finely-formed and thereby capable of transcending its conditioning and becoming whole and sound or whether it's irreparably damaged and its beholder is destined to live out a life of self-centeredness.

So a would-be 'the one' now desires science to become the 'authority' to determine whether or not one is 'capable' of 'becoming whole and sound'?

The questionable would-be 'authority' of 'enlightenment' (masquerading as 'the one') wants the very questionable authority of science to back-up his very questionable assertions about his fellow human beings? How ridiculous is that?

Forum: Insights Tue, 23 Jun 2009
Topic: Painful Relationships

Ron Ziv wrote: Dear Patricia, Does the knowlage of this eradicate the feeling of 'hurt and betrayed'?

It does indeed.

Forum: My Favorite Krishnamurti One-Liners Sun, 28 Jun 2009
Topic: Transformation

And words are easy, which is why I question the wisdom of taking a sentence K said and worshiping it as "Favorite Krishnamurti One-Liners". It really reduces what K said to a series of platitudes, and basically attempts to bypass the profundity of the wholeness of the teaching by attempting short-cuts, of which in fact there are none.

Sorry Farha, this is not directed at you personally, but questions this whole thread/forum. (Which admittedly I did not have to join, but I looked for you and found you here after you contacted me privately.) :)

Perhaps it is a starting point for some. But to me it reeks of picking and choosing the bits one likes and ignoring the rest, which let's face it, is what happened all through K's life - and beyond.

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 29 Jun 2009
Topic: meditation and transformation

farha naaz wrote: I do meditation because I want to discover a new 'me', want to transform myself,

Discovering a new 'me' - 'transform(ing) myself' - is nothing more that exchanging one disorder for another, and this is not what K's teaching is about at all.

Randal is correct - "What is the problem with the old "me"? Meditate on that! ;o)"

Start there, and perhaps it will be clear.

Forum: Insights Wed, 01 Jul 2009
Topic: Painful Relationships

Hi Eve. :)

Forum: Question authority Fri, 03 Jul 2009
Topic: reaction
Randal Shacklett wrote:

Competition and comparison, are the same phenomenon.

Well, they are both measurement. But then - all thought can do is measure.

Which is why thought is in place only in the technical, and a disaster in the psychological.

Forum: Question authority Sat, 04 Jul 2009
Topic: reaction

That is what is happening.

But it appears that nothing will change unless there is understanding of exactly where thought is in place - (ie: in building a house where measurement is essential otherwise the walls will not meet) - and where thought feeds and perpetuates disaster, as in one 'self' measuring its 'self' against another 'self' to feel good about, and to feed its 'self'. The 'self' really just desires to put on a new coat and call that 'change'.

I do not find much of a glimmering of understanding the movement of thought in these forums. Rather, there seems to be a hopeful preference for some kind of cosmic/magical transformation, which requires no understanding of thought's movement at all. Wishful thinking.

Forum: Insights Sat, 04 Jul 2009
Topic: Is insight only for selected few?

Isn't it interesting? - wanting to describe and have opinions about the unknown - insight - that which cannot be owned or described, because to do so brings it into the known - the limited.

Pity all that energy is not utilized to understand what IS human responsibility - the movement of thought and the havoc it creates when out of place in the psychological.

Seems to be that thought really believes that if only it can describe 'insight' it can control it, fake it and own it.

Whereas in fact - insight cannot even be invited.

Forum: Insights Sat, 04 Jul 2009
Topic: Dreams

farha naaz wrote: K says that searching for meaning in a dream is an action of conflict. Is it really so?

Why look to dreams to 'unfold the hidden layers of our psyche'? Isn't every day behavior enough? Why complicate it with dreams and 'hidden layers'? Just deal with what is.

Forum: Question authority Sat, 04 Jul 2009
Topic: reaction

Randal Shacklett wrote: So, if there is nothing but hope/opinion/knowledge with which to engage our environment/each other, and we see clearly, as you stated clearly, that this is insufficient to the task, what will we do? Don't anyone run away from this question by thinking about it!

Why do we believe we have to 'engage our environment/each other' at all? Isn't that just a movement away from addressing the very real issues that confront us?

In fact isn't that what the self is constantly doing? Finding something - anything! that will move it away from the true issues that demand facing, but that the self prefers to avoid?

All part of the movement of the self I would suggest. But that is seldom discussed on here as it is far more cozy to speculate what 'insight' is, or try to find (together! because that gives it credence perhaps?) a quick and cheap ticket to 'enlightenment'.

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Sat, 04 Jul 2009
Topic: Time

When K spoke of psychological time, he made it quite clear that he was referring to 'becoming' - "I am this - I will be that". He also called that state being trapped in the corridor of sorrows.

It makes perfect logical sense.

Forum: Question authority Sun, 05 Jul 2009
Topic: reaction

Randal Shacklett wrote: We must eat, find shelter, relate to others, this is life. Why do you say we needn't engage our environment/living?

Eating, finding shelter, relating to others - this is all technical - physical, although it becomes part of the psychological when one believes one has MORE RIGHT to food and shelter than another person because one is a 'more important individual'.

One IS in relationship physically with environment/living - like it or not.

You are saying that the 'self' has to 'engage' - whereas the 'self', and the life it invents, is the very factor that interferes with all relationship. So where is the sense in demanding the blockage it'self' to 'engage' with the very thing that its invented 'being' blocks out? The only possible action is to end the blockage, which may well allow the fact (the physical/environment) to act.

To speak of 'engaging' and 'how to do it' is just the self setting up yet another dogma/authority of engagement.

The 'self' cannot right it's 'self' in that manner, as has been clearly demonstrated over eons. So why continue this useless, endless circus? Why not just see the physical fact of relationship, and understand that clinging to one's invented individuality is a myth, and the very blockage desired to go away?

How dumb is it to be isolated by psychological individuality, and then beg, desire, yearn for oneness?

No - physically we don't live in a bubble. And everything else is delusion - invented.

But the fact is one cannot go on promoting the concept of 'individuality', and at the same time desire 'oneness' from that state. Get it? :)

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Sun, 05 Jul 2009
Topic: Time

Yiming Zhang wrote: Instead of using the term "psycological time", K should have said: becoming is an imaginary movement of the self from "being this" to "being that" and that movement will take forever unless you put a deadline to it, take no time, and do it instantly!

I have no problem with 'logical sense'.

But do you really think K needed you as his script-writer? What he said makes more logical sense that anyone else can even dream of. Your 'K-in-a-nutshell' explanation demonstrates how important it is to speak from the wholeness of understanding.

K did not make it easy because it is not easy.

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Sun, 05 Jul 2009
Topic: Time

phil K wrote: Be careful, Patricia, you should not consider K as knowing anything. He is to be quoted and considered and studied for understanding, but he may be very outdated.

Dear Phil -

You may have all the opinions you like about K and his teaching and whether or not he is 'very outdated', but not one of those opinions changes truth, now does it? So why bother? Either see it or not - what is the point of speculation and judgment?

And what's with the warnings?

Forum: Question authority Sun, 05 Jul 2009
Topic: reaction

Randal Shacklett wrote: None of that has anything to do with anything I have said, that's for sure.

So you close your mind to it? Have to keep the discussion on the straight and narrow? Don't wish to undermine the security of the 'self' now, do we? :)

Forum: Question authority Sun, 05 Jul 2009
Topic: reaction

This forum is called "Questioning Authority" - a very grand title!

Seems it is questioning all authority but the self itself - the greatest authority of all!

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Mon, 06 Jul 2009
Topic: Time

So as a response to this posting of mine, Phil has privately requested that I leave this forum.

I have no intention of doing so - sorry Phil.

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Mon, 06 Jul 2009
Topic: Time

Yiming - You also may have all the opinions about K and what education standard he should have achieved to be effective, but opinions do not change the fact of the wholeness of understanding from whence he spoke.

While K was alive there were those who would have wished the teaching to be other than it is, and there are still, twenty-five years later, those who would - even more so perhaps - wish the teaching to be other than it is.

But it stands - clear and unadulterated - for anyone with the passion and strength to go into it and find the truth of it.

And I make no apology for seeing the purity of the teaching.