Once you've been Krishnamurtified, there's no going back because to deny the possibility of "The Awakening of Intelligence" and "radical transformation", and egolessness and all the rest of it, is too cynical. If a human being is not entitled to instant redemption, who's to say? If redemption is no more than "the ending of thought", who could possibly have a problem with that? It may well happen, for all the unredeemed can tell, and it's the best religion yet because the double-bind it creates is the whole point. This notion of redemption is too good to dismiss, yet because it can't be grasped, there's nothing a believer can do but recite the catechism and consort with the faithful.

The best way to carry around the weight of K's teaching is to take it lightly, skeptically, because if there's any truth to it, the believer will never know.

This post was last updated by lidlo lady Wed, 25 Jan 2012.

Hello lidlo,

Why do you care about all of this?

Are you wanting to help the people here?

Peter

lidlo lady wrote:
Once you've been Krishnamurtified, there's no going back because to deny the possibility of "The Awakening of Intelligence" and "radical transformation", and egolessness and all the rest of it, is too cynical. If a human being is not entitled to instant redemption, who's to say? If redemption is no more than "the ending of thought", who could possibly have a problem with that? It may well happen, for all the unredeemed can tell, and it's the best religion yet because the double-bind it creates is the whole point. This notion of redemption is too good to dismiss, yet because it can't be grasped, there's nothing a believer can do but recite the catechism and consort with the faithful.

The best way to carry around the weight of K's teaching is to take it lightly, skeptically, because if there's any truth to it, the believer will never know.

That is quite a rut you have invented for yourself to plod around in lidlo. Does it provide much self-satisfaction? One can only wonder.

And is it generosity that drives you to 'share' this? Or is it merely human desperation? Perhaps it is competition? Certainly it is comparison and measurement.

But you are more than welcome to it. :)

The sniping begins.

So end it!

You start the sniping, I acknowledge your sniping, then you tell me to end it. As I said before, you're despicable.

Peter Kesting wrote:
Are you wanting to help the people here?

They can't be helped.

lidlo lady wrote:
then you tell me to end it.

Big lesson - only you can. :)

If it's up to me, it's because you abdicate responsility for your comments and the energy you've invested in being an asshole.

lidlo lady wrote:
Peter Kesting wrote:

Are you wanting to help the people here?
They can't be helped.

Then why?

I take full responsibility for my comments. I challenge what you say on here, as is my right.

And when you quit the endless bully-boy tactics, I will back off. But someone on here has to challenge those tactics. Because they are pathetic.

This post was last updated by Patricia Hemingway Fri, 20 Jan 2012.

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
I take full responsibility for my comments. I challenge what you say one here, as is my right.

And when you quit the endless bully-boy tactics, I will back off. But someone on here has to challenge those tactics. Because they are pathetic.

Have you noticed that the ones who take no responsibility for what they say, do or think are the ones who often accuse others of doing it? If you are what you think and say....it is clear who is responsible who is the 'asshole'. It takes one to be one and say it....

Pathetic, sad, bitter entrenched are all words that come to mind.

Peter Kesting wrote:
Hello lidlo,

Why do you care about all of this?

Are you wanting to help the people here?

Peter

It would be good if one could start by helping themselves....

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
Big lesson - only you can. :)

It is a form of escape from what is....some eat, drink, take drugs sex and others are addicted to conflict, this is what fills their time with telling everyone how wrong they are and how right they are....maybe it would be less destructive if IT would just get laid?

Peter Kesting wrote:
Then why?

Because they're pleased with themselves.

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
I challenge what you say one here, as is my right.

No, you don't challenge what I say. You challenge my right to say what you don't want to hear by sniping. Clearly, you don't like what I say, but what exactly it is you don't like, you haven't articulated.

I think Lidlo is onto something. There is no going back. And yes, the "redemption" of ending of thought may bring some tranquility in daily life. If it works, use it. Lidlo seems angry because no one questions K's teachings and may use them as a basis for truth, reality, a dogma. I think Lidlo enjoys the conflict she stirs up, but may be one of the most avid (closet) K reader.

"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." J. Krishnamurti

lidlo lady wrote:
Peter Kesting wrote:

Then why?
Because they're pleased with themselves.

Why care about that?

Injustice?

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Thu, 19 Jan 2012.

I don't care about them, personally. What I care about is the trivialization of Krishnamurti by K-believers, whoever they may be.

Ruth Bass wrote:
I think Lidlo enjoys the conflict she stirs up

Thanks for sharing your opinion, Ruth, but it only reveals what you don't understand. Is there anything you'd like to go into, or are you quite content with everything you think you know?

lidlo lady wrote:
No, you don't challenge what I say. You challenge my right to say what you don't want to hear by sniping. Clearly, you don't like what I say, but what exactly it is you don't like, you haven't articulated.

This is WHAT YOU DO....you attack you insult and you bully anyone who says any thing YOU don't like, and you are incapable of looking at what you do and say...and at the same time you think of your self as the VICTIM. How pathetic you are...

If I was your shrink I'd advise you to stay away from the internet.

Amber Cinquini wrote:
It is a form of escape from what is....some eat, drink, take drugs sex and others are addicted to conflict, this is what fills their time with telling everyone how wrong they are and how right they are....maybe it would be less destructive if IT would just get laid?

But what you describe above is exactly what you are doing. And then you add a vulgarity at the end of your statement with the mistaken impression you are being witty. The way I read it you and a couple of others on this site are extending the antagonism here.

lidlo lady wrote:
I don't care about them, personally. What I care about is the trivialization of Krishnamurti by K-believers, whoever they may be.

Years before I ever heard of Krishnamurti I would talk to friends about the what is and the what should be.

People will trivialize K and what he said. That is the what is. I don't think anyone can do anything about that. That they don't trivialize it is the what should be. If there is anything that can be done about anything, it will come from seeing clearly and deeply the what is. Being fixated on the what should be clouds the mind.

I must go now for a bit.

Peter

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Fri, 20 Jan 2012.

Granted, but posting in this forum has nothing to do with seeing clearly, so if you see clearly, why waste time in this forum?

There are several questions rised in concection with the undertsanding of the thought, mores so a discussion concerning the "Psychological thought", a thread started by the esteemed starter of this thread,in which there several questions rised by the several posters, they need answers from the starter of the discussion on "thought".

I am that Iam.

lidlo lady wrote:
If I was your shrink I'd advise you to stay away from the internet.

:) what a good idea! Now repeat after me.....

This post was last updated by Amber Cinquini Fri, 20 Jan 2012.

Jack Pine wrote:
But what you describe above is exactly what you are doing. And then you add a vulgarity at the end of your statement with the mistaken impression you are being witty. The way I read it you and a couple of others on this site are extending the antagonism here.

Getting laid is a vulgarity? You must be an American, only in America getting laid or sex is actually vulgar?

The word vulgat means COMMON in Latin, a group of words which are commonly used....which means getting laid is common. You have a problem with that? There are reasons why I am doing this dear sir, none of it which you seem to be aware of...I am deeply sorry for hurting your sensibilities but this needed to be said. Minus the getting laid part which seems to offend your puritanical nature.

This post was last updated by Amber Cinquini Fri, 20 Jan 2012.

Amber Cinquini wrote:
are extending the antagonism here.

against something fundamental.
gb

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

This post was last updated by ganesan balachandran Fri, 20 Jan 2012.

lidlo lady wrote:
Granted, but posting in this forum has nothing to do with seeing clearly, so if you see clearly, why waste time in this forum?

Which means you see clearly? What do you see clearly would you mind sharing?

This post was last updated by Amber Cinquini Fri, 20 Jan 2012.