Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Discussion Forums

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


Forum: General Discussion Sat, 31 Jul 2010
Topic: Daily Life

Timothy Orr wrote: "Sensitivity" is simply an acute awareness of "what-is". Some people seem more endowed with the capability than others. It cannot be cultivated. It simply is there, or is not. WHY is it not there for some?

Sounds like 'them' and 'us' going on here.

One may feel one'self' to be terribly sensitive - but then - one may simply be fooling one'self'.

Would a truly sensitive (in the K sense) person even be comparing him/herself to others at all, and judging them insensitive, or less sensitive? That is just thought (self, ego) 'having a lend of itself' is it not? Thought out of control in the psychological - measuring? comparing? competing?

And the claim that "It cannot be cultivated"? A meat-eater - a consumer of animal flesh and products - who sees the horror of the suffering that these desires contribute toward, who changes completely and forever from that conditioned habit, has surely taken a step towards increased sensitivity of both mind and body simply by seeing what he/she was doing and taking the action.

I wonder how many who claim to be the 'us'-s (as against the 'them'-s) in the sensitivity debate still consume animal flesh?

After all, if one is convinced that one is just 'born sensitive' there would surely be a great feeling of 'self'-satisfaction that may prevent deep investigation of many such matters of importance.

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 31 Jul 2010
Topic: hating Religion

Randal Shacklett wrote: How ignorant, do you imagine me to be? I'll try to conform to your expectation.

You jumped right in front of that question Randal. The question was general, not personal to you.

Emotional personal reaction to religion - or anything else - has absolutely nothing to do with logic. That needed to be pointed out, whether you were joking of not.

Logic is not linked to emotional reaction in any way - simply because logic cannot be owned, and emotion must be owned to even exist at all.

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 31 Jul 2010
Topic: hating Religion

O. M. wrote: Heal yourself first Madhu. You're not credible, not earnest, not serious at all. Sorry, nothing personal.

"Sorry, nothing personal"? Pardon?

That statement to Madhu is ONLY personal. It is a judgement - an opinion about her personally.

Come on! Stay with the fact of what you say.

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 31 Jul 2010
Topic: hating Religion

Randal Shacklett wrote: Um, let's see, you are responding to my post, you use my name AND the word you! Yes, how in the world did I ever get the idea it was personal, to me?

Granted. Even so - it is your choice to take it personally. :)

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 31 Jul 2010
Topic: hating Religion

O. M. wrote: The fact IS, I do not know Madhu on a personal level at all.

Exactly - neither do I.

Therefore neither of us is in a position to make personal statements about her, or to attack her for where we 'imagine' she is at.

Challenge what she says by all means, but there is a difference between doing that, and making categorical judgements and personal attacks.

In other words: Challenge only what is said - Don't attack the person saying it. The only human being one can ever know is oneself.

I personally (and that I can speak of!) am not at all interested in the theories Madhu presents on here. But it is easy enough to ignore, or one can challenge what is SAID directly.

But there is no need to ban anyone - or to personally insult them - just because one DISAGREES with them. Question what is said by all means - leave the person saying it alone.

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 31 Jul 2010
Topic: hating Religion

O. M. wrote: What is she doing On a K Forum? Can you tell me Patricia?

The fact is - Madhu is here. Deal with that. She is free to be here.

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 31 Jul 2010
Topic: Daily Life

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote: Is one being sensitive in K sense when a change comes as a reaction to horror and suffering ?

Is there a rule? A K dogma perhaps?

One sees suffering. One takes an action. Who is to judge whether or not that means something? Only the one who took that action surely - who found out first-hand.

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 31 Jul 2010
Topic: Daily Life

Patricia Hemingway wrote: Would a truly sensitive (in the K sense) person even be comparing him/herself to others at all, and judging them insensitive, or less sensitive? That is just thought (self, ego) 'having a lend of itself' is it not? Thought out of control in the psychological - measuring? comparing? competing?

Perhaps in view of the above post I need to clarify what I mean by that statement.

There are people who regard themselves as 'sensitive' simply because they are wounded psychologically by what others say or think about them - people stuck in the corridor of sorrows - of becoming, who only see themselves in comparison to another, in competition with another.

That is why I used the words 'in a K sense' - to distinguish it from that indulgent so-called 'sensitivity'.

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 31 Jul 2010
Topic: hating Religion

O. M. wrote: About her seriousness and lack of earnestness, it was reffered always to what she says about K and her judgement of what she calls "K's disciples"

Then question the words she said. Don't assume to tell her what she is and isn't.

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 01 Aug 2010
Topic: hating Religion

Randal Shacklett wrote: Is it really my choice?

Yes it is.

A big boy can stand alone and decide whether or not to take things personally, can't he? :D

Randal Shacklett wrote: but what is the phenomenon involved when the logic (words) of a conversation diverges from the level of understanding, between to participants? And when one of them, later uses a literal translation of the logic, isolated/seperated from the living conversation, to make the other participant, look silly?

Pardon???

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 01 Aug 2010
Topic: hating Religion

Randal Shacklett wrote: Is "taking something personally", implication being, insulted/offended, the same phenomenon as simply seeing the motive of the information sender and NOT being offended/insulted?

Well - as the fact is that one can only ever speak for oneself, I would say probably not the same, as the latter ("seeing the motive of the information sender") would be to make assumptive judgement about someone else's motive.

And we wouldn't do that on a K forum now would we? :D

One could always ask the question about motive though - you might even find out.

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 01 Aug 2010
Topic: hating Religion

Randal Shacklett wrote: No, taking it personally is assumptive judgement, seeing the motive/movement of an/the individual psyche, is very easy and obvious.

Try a little logic.

It is altogether non-personal - does not involve emotions or opinions, cannot be owned.

Nevertheless - it comes highly recommended! :D

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 01 Aug 2010
Topic: hating Religion

Randal Shacklett wrote: Sounds like a computer program. It uses logic, the way you suggest.

Sure beats emotion though. Computers don't kill each other.

In fits and starts, here and there, for personal gain usually, people seem to be able to harness this "logic" in the way it is helpful and beneficial.

Ah - but you have brought in 'people' to 'own' logic - and for gain yet! No longer pure logic acting.

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 08 Aug 2010
Topic: Daily life

Madhu Sameer wrote: But I will not allow anyone to dictate how I should interpret them.

Do yourself, the teaching of K, and everyone else a favour and DON'T interpret the teaching. Is that possible?

And I will not allow anyone to tell me WHO should teach me about Krishnamurti.

Use some intelligence - go to the source.

It is my choice who I listen to.

The teaching isn't about choice. Choice is not freedom, in spite of popular belief.

There is no choice in true listening, is there?

The only manner in which to approach the teaching of K is without choice, without the self's desire to 'interpret' it, and without a head full of psychological theories. Otherwise forget it.

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 08 Aug 2010
Topic: Dissolution Of The Order Of The Star

Paul Davidson wrote: I will start with the first quote that attracted my attention. What are we to make of this 81 years on?

It is important to see this speech of K's in the context of his life.

At the time he was heavily conditioned by the Theosophists, and this was the beginning of his breaking away from, and understanding of, his own conditioning.

K did not arrive at his understanding of humanity, with all the conditioning and disorder, by some kind of magical osmosis. The teaching evolved as this understanding manifested.

K would NEVER have made that statement - or anything like it - at the end of his life.

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 08 Aug 2010
Topic: Dissolution Of The Order Of The Star

But the self is always looking for its own excuses to remain in control and unconditionally realize itself, isn't it? :D

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 08 Aug 2010
Topic: Daily life

Randal Shacklett wrote: He means to not be an "agree-disagree" type person, because that is being something. he means don't repeat slogans and personal conjecture, as a form of authority, because that means being something. he means no ideals or mis application of the thinking mechanism, as a means to an end. That is being something, too.

That is all interpretation Randal. K said simply 'to be nothing'. Stay with the fact of what he said - without all the meanderings, which are just thought trying to stay in control.

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 09 Aug 2010
Topic: Dissolution Of The Order Of The Star

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote: Also when self looks for the ways to surrender its control, then also it is becoming stronger,isn't it ?

Yes. Looking for ways to surrender control is not negation.

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 09 Aug 2010
Topic: Dissolution Of The Order Of The Star

Paul Davidson wrote: K lived and taught for another 55 years which is plenty of time to have revisited that crucial and renowned declaration of independence, had he wished to correct himself, which he apparently did not.

There was no need to - the teaching evolved naturally.

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 09 Aug 2010
Topic: Dissolution Of The Order Of The Star

Randal Shacklett wrote: it is these authoritative proclamations of yours, that endanger K's life work, please stop.

Rubbish Randal. What you say is just the self reacting to being nailed.

You might do better to watch your own reactions rather than constantly correcting everyone else. :D

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 09 Aug 2010
Topic: Dissolution Of The Order Of The Star

Randal - dope-smoking feeds the self, and reinforces all the self's petty little delusions - especially the delusion of fooling oneself that one has changed. K even said as much.

So such a self is going to react to anything that will undermine its precious control - no matter who points it out. Logical enough for you? :)

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 09 Aug 2010
Topic: Daily life

Randal Shacklett wrote: Can't argue with logic like that.

Indeed you cannot!

Randal Shacklett wrote: K said it, I believe it, that's it! I've heard that somewhere before though.....

OH! Is that your argument? :) Have another go. Try a little logic this time.

Or even better - try finding out for yourself. Without the dope.

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 09 Aug 2010
Topic: Dissolution Of The Order Of The Star

Randal Shacklett wrote: So I can't address it further.

Good move! ;)

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 09 Aug 2010
Topic: Dissolution Of The Order Of The Star

Randal Shacklett wrote: Are you equating Krishnamurti, with dope?

Pardon??? How logical is that reply!

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 09 Aug 2010
Topic: Dissolution Of The Order Of The Star

Oh please Randal - do yourself a favour and don't try to justify illogic with yet more illogic. ;)

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 09 Aug 2010
Topic: dictionary/languages,/words

dhirendra singh wrote: Patricia: Try hard to be with what is

Please do not misquote what is said Dhirendra. "Try hard" is not in my repertoire.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 10 Aug 2010
Topic: Dissolution Of The Order Of The Star

Randal Shacklett wrote: But I won't offer a comfort. That is what irritates people the most.

Hey Randal - what do you think dope is?

So the only one you offer 'comfort' to is you? :D Way to go Randy!

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 10 Aug 2010
Topic: Dissolution Of The Order Of The Star

Randal Shacklett wrote: So is posting at Kinfonet. So is getting married. So is eating chocolate. So is watching tele. So is.......Yet you consider your escape sacred and someone elses, profane.

Randal - you are talking through your hat!

Marijuana is a 'mind-altering' substance - one which reinforces the self and its delusions. One which convinces the indulger in it that he/she has 'changed' - that he/she is 'different' - and that everyone else has got it wrong.

Come on - you are a living example of all that! :D

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 10 Aug 2010
Topic: Dissolution Of The Order Of The Star

Randal Shacklett wrote: And so, I will use that same phenomenon, to say that, you and a lot of people, better start smoking more dope.

And you won't be the first dope-smoker to use that old chestnut, as you remain self-satisfactedly stuck in the 'dope-rut', will you!

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 10 Aug 2010
Topic: 'DISSOLUTION' 2

Paul Davidson wrote: Or, if one insists he was in error, where does it lie?

He was not 'in error'. He spoke honestly from where he was at the time. And at that time he was breaking away from his theosophical conditioning and control.

(Why have you quoted 1962 as the year? That isn't the year of the dissolution of the order of the star.)

Also - K never went back over old territory to explain his actions in retrospect. Why would he? He always spoke from the moment he was in.

Which is why context IS important in the teaching of K. And probably why he allowed and approved the biographies, although never showing any interest in what they said. And again - why would he be interested? It wasn't happening now.