Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Discussion Forums

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


Forum: General Discussion Sat, 13 Mar 2010
Topic: Krishnamurti Foundations Worldwide

Randal Shacklett wrote: I have one word to say about that, "dope".

LOL - That's funny Randal.

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 13 Mar 2010
Topic: Krishnamurti Foundations Worldwide

Ruth Marie Bass wrote: and saw that Randall and Patricia have 17 comments on your topic,

You bothered to count them?

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 13 Mar 2010
Topic: Krishnamurti Foundations Worldwide

dhirendra singh wrote: but only thinking, conditioning,is authority, and a big barrier is they don't want to see this

Hi Dhirendra -

Do you see very clearly that thought - out of place in the psychological - endeavors to take over everything as an authority? But thought is limited - therefore it is completely deluded in this desire to rule.

Nevertheless - thought destroys the human body - the environment - the planet - all in an attempt to maintain what it believes is 'control' over all, rather than admit its own limitations.

Thought assumes this authority only because human beings - ruled by psychological thought and the fulfillment of individual desires - allow this to continue.

Anything to add?

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 13 Mar 2010
Topic: DISCONTENTED

dhirendra singh wrote: You are putting all satatements as they are your own, but is it so?

Speaking only from what I have discovered - yes! K pointed - the only thing to do is go there and find out for oneself. The truth is there for discovery. K did not own it.

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 14 Mar 2010
Topic: DISCONTENTED

John Anderson wrote: you can see him doing this in his talks with Prof David Bohm. They are both using thought very carefully to explore the mind.

Yes - they are using pure logical thought - not driven by a psychological self - to probe deeply into the human condition.

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 14 Mar 2010
Topic: Krishnamurti Foundations Worldwide

dhirendra singh wrote: You are always blaming to thought, and describing it as it is someone else, different from you. But is it true? we are thought, so just say we destroy or construct.

No - it is possible to apprehend the constant movement of thought within oneself. Do that for yourself, and then you will no longer concern yourself at all with what I do, as you will realize clearly that there is only one human brain on the planet, divided up into a lot of self-important petty little individuals striving to be more significant that the next petty little individual - a rather silly game that we are all conditioned to play until we are wise enough to apprehend its movement and see through it.....

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 14 Mar 2010
Topic: Good bye

Oh - Are you leaving Randal? What will the forum do without you? :) Bye bye! 'Til the next time.........

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 14 Mar 2010
Topic: DISCONTENTED

dhirendra singh wrote:

Patricia, seriously I have not a bit intention to insult you, rather I w'd be happiest person If you are speaking from egoless beingness, but I am just trying to indicate if there is illusion of beyond the thought state, then it s'd be realised, so that it can be ended.

Dhirendra - it would be much better for you if you actually found out the truth of human disorder for yourself, and then it would not concern you at all whether or not anyone else speaks from 'egoless beingness' (your phrase) - or better still, you would actually be aware if they do, as you would be speaking from there yourself. That is where the work takes place my friend - not in someone else - even if that someone is K.

In the meantime - thought will be increasingly threatened when anyone at all reveals its patterns. Which is why NO-ONE understood K when he was around. He was not telling them what they wanted to hear.

dhirendra singh wrote: K said that one who says he knows. he don't know, but you are saying it's your own discovery, than either K was liar or you are.

Direct quote form K please - no loose interpretations by Dhirendra.

K quite clearly asked repeatedly that people discover for themselves what he was saying - haven't you got to that bit yet? :)

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 14 Mar 2010
Topic: Krishnamurti Foundations Worldwide

What judgement? Who is judging? Who is being judged?

Society judgement is usually psychologically driven - are you speaking of that?

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 14 Mar 2010
Topic: DISCONTENTED

What paradox are you referring to?

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 14 Mar 2010
Topic: DISCONTENTED

John Anderson wrote: The observer is the observed. or You can't be aware if you try to be aware.

It isn't a paradox - it is just a fact.

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 14 Mar 2010
Topic: DISCONTENTED

dhirendra singh wrote: "can never say I "know" about myself: and any person who says, "I know", obviously does not know."

Because anyone who states "I know" is no longer in a state of mind to find out anything - so there can be no fresh discovery. And anything found out can too easily be turned into an 'experience'. Only the self has 'experienced' something.

But K never said not to find out.

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 14 Mar 2010
Topic: Krishnamurti Foundations Worldwide

John Anderson wrote: Where one has a moral dilemma, what is truth? Only exploring.

Well - firstly - what brings on a moral dilemma? Morals? Conditioning into 'morality'? Is there a moral dilemma if there is no conditioning?

Happy to explore. But how deeply are humans conditioned by a corrupt society? You see, it seems that one has to begin by going very deeply into all this.

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 14 Mar 2010
Topic: Krishnamurti Foundations Worldwide

max greene wrote: Thought is created by the action of the brain/mind that we call "thinking." Thought is an inert, lifeless fabrication that can do nothing on its own except passively influence by its presence.

Well Max - K said that 'Thought is a material thing'. Look around - that is evidenced everywhere on the planet.

max greene wrote: We, as living beings, are responsible for our actions. If we are influenced by our thoughts, we can blame only ourselves for allowing this to happen.

It is very easy to get hung up about 'thought' and allow it to become a replacement for the human conditioned response towards the 'devil' - just deny him and ignore him and if he still influences us it is our fault - sound familiar?

It is far more important to understand completely the movement of thought - the manner in which it is in its place in the technical world, but completely out of place in the psychological realm, where it competes, compares, consumes, becomes, controls, measures psychologically, destroys the planet, its creatures, and fellow human beings through desire - hardly 'inert' Max.

To just dismiss thought as an 'inert, lifeless fabrication' is a gross over-simplification and attempted dogmatization of what K pointed towards - which is the actual truth about thought and human disorder - however unpalatable and challenging that may be.

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 15 Mar 2010
Topic: Krishnamurti Foundations Worldwide

Max - thought is operating in all of us.

It is possible to be very aware of that operation - aware when thought is in place and when it is not. When it is not in place, condemning such thought does nothing, but observing its movement reveals the disorder that has brought it about - it brings deep understanding.

We are not 'the actors on this stage' - it isn't a play or a stage - we are human beings living in disorder and bringing chaos to our planet - that is the observable fact of it. One does not require more analysis of thought on whether or not it is real to see all this. One does not require yet more analysis of the 'right' words to describe what is going on. The word is not the thing.

The very real consequences of human psychological thought activity really cannot be denied - so what else matters? The 'right' words to describe - demonize - or make excuses? What will 'right' words change? Whether to describe thought as 'lifeless' or not? What will that do? Will it alter the disorder of humanity if we can just find the 'right' description?

It is all there - it is happening now. One can skirt around the edges trying to find yet another description(!) - or one can deal with the actuality of the depth of what is going on within humanity right now, and one's very real responsibility for it.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 16 Mar 2010
Topic: Krishnamurti Foundations Worldwide

John - Is it wise to project a make-believe scenario and then try to come up with the correct action for that scenario? I mean, it is not acting in the moment, is it?

In life, human beings have problems thrown at them - and the only moment to deal with such a problem is when it actually occurs, not by pre-supposing in the imagination what to do.

Seems to me that the self uses this method as a defense mechanism to protect itself from being caught unawares. I say this because it is a trap I fall into also, and am therefore very mindful of. Projection/imagination is the enemy of attention.

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 21 Mar 2010
Topic: DISCONTENTED

dhirendra singh wrote: A person who have so deeply read K, for 25 year, is far from K pointer, then what is hope for us.

You want hope? Forget hope! It is the enemy to attention. It is imagination. There is no hope - there is only what is.

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 22 Mar 2010
Topic: DISCONTENTED

RICK LEIN wrote: what is implied in the word hope?The very word implies escape from now,from what is!Here is an example= One hopes today,is better than yesterday,one hopes for tomorrow to be better,or different than today.

Exactly. Becoming. Imagination of being better. The corridor of sorrows - I am this, I will be that.

One can rattle around in that corridor of sorrows - in time - forever, believing that it is really changing something.

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 22 Mar 2010
Topic: WHAT IS TEACHING OF K

Chafia Abdi wrote: Why are you so eager to know? Why are you curious ? Question this also? Question yourself dhirendra???

Chafia - your passion is impressive.

I watched the video - I had seen those talks with Anderson years ago, but never connected the 'guru' K spoke of as Osho - interesting! Friends who followed Osho at the time would tell me how much he 'loved' K.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 23 Mar 2010
Topic: WHAT IS TEACHING OF K

Chafia Abdi wrote: The most strange in this, is that this suffering of "me" do not want to end so I am remaining with it.

Does one 'own' suffering, or is it common to humanity?

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 25 Mar 2010
Topic: WHAT IS TEACHING OF K

nick carter wrote: As I said back in #111, "...we're all full of crap..."

And the observer is the observed. :)

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.) :)