Day one!

There is only one condition for participation in this new topic, no personal attacks on anyone .... is it possible?

How long would it take for us to break down into insults? If Lidlo insists on joining, how long would it take till one of us breaks down and responds? Is it possible to ignore lidlo?

Is it possible not to be provoked?

Amber Cinquini wrote:
Is it possible not to be provoked?

possible, Journey as friends to your friends. Shining brightly, inspire thoughts. Be witness to the truths of mine.
gb

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

Possible. 'Just do it sirs' ... !!! :-)))

T

B Teulada wrote:
'Just do it sirs' ... !!! :-)))

lol.

Perhaps it is individual contention that those who quote JK's teachings profusely,are those who really say it out of their memory,and not out of true conviction(just out a blind beleif).

I am that Iam.

Amber Cinquini wrote:
There is only one condition for participation in this new topic, no personal attacks on anyone .... is it possible?

Hi Amber,

I guess this might be worth exploring as question, generally, for the purpose of generating the right atmosphere for dialogue.

What do we mean by dialogue? How does this differ from debate or general discussion? What can we impart/share from our reading of Krishnamurti which doesn't just become reduced by the word or simply 'the stuff of book's'? How can a person defer/refer to Krishnamurti's teachings and simultaneously be 'a light to' oneself?

However, I don't think it would be helpful to focus solely on your reaction/feeling 'provoked' by one forum member here (in this instance lidlo) as a topic in itself.

Is it useful to the writer to point out the nonsensical elements of what the reader can see or do you think it is better to just ignore these?

Regards, Katy

This post was last updated by Katy 9 Tue, 31 Jan 2012.

Katy 9 wrote:
However, I don't think it would be helpful to focus solely on your reaction/feeling 'provoked' by one forum member here (in this instance lidlo) as a topic in itself.

You are wise Katy..thank you for that!:)

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

RICK LEIN wrote:
You are wise Katy..thank you for that!:)

Cheers, Rick:)

Katy 9 wrote:
However, I don't think it would be helpful to focus solely on your reaction/feeling 'provoked' by one forum member here (in this instance lidlo) as a topic in itself.

To me this speaks off exclusion according to like/not like..similar to the catholic churches excommunication. Is it not for the person to see for themselves?

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Amber Cinquini wrote:
There is only one condition for participation in this new topic, no personal attacks on anyone .... is it possible?

oNE CONDITION IS ONE TOO MANY?:)

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

RICK LEIN wrote:
To me this speaks off exclusion according to like/not like..similar to the catholic churches excommunication. Is it not for the person to see for themselves?

Yes, indeed, Rick, I see these points with you.

Amber Cinquini wrote:
Is it possible to ignore lidlo?

Well..if the start of this thread is any indication..not for some:)

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Amber:Is it possible to ignore lidlo?

It's not fact that only lidlo is insulting, most of us are doing so.

I don't know

Amber Cinquini wrote:
Is it possible not to be provoked?

It may be possible, but the reality is that you are provoked, so stay with that.

As I said previously, when you're interested in what-is, you're in a state of inquiry, so when someone is being provocative, baiting you, you're more interested in why than in taking the bait. But as I've demonstrated repeatedly, no one here is inquiring into anything; you just react to provocation.

lidlo lady wrote:
you just react

:)

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Katy 9 wrote:
How can a person defer/refer to Krishnamurti's teachings and simultaneously be 'a light to' oneself?

By observing your reaction to K's words. Take today's quote, for instance. Most people who come here just accept the statement as true without examining it critically, never asking why he would say such a thing when he knows that the one hearing it is confused and conflicted. What's the intention? If I see you're injured and disabled, I wouldn't tell you that "living" is something other than what you're doing unless I knew you could suddenly cease to be injured and disabled.

We like to think that K knew that you could snap out of yourself and cease being confused, conflicted, and relentlessly dualistic, and thus spoke to us from "the other side", his experience having convinced him that anyone could undergo the same thing. But this is just what we like to think, to believe.

Like it or not, this is an illuminated view of K's teaching. You can't be a light to yourself if you're too lit up to be lucid.

This post was last updated by lidlo lady Tue, 31 Jan 2012.

To start a thread with the express purpose of ignoring someone actually focuses attention on that person.

Perhaps a discussion on how to handle provocation would be more useful. I am not knowledgable on the subject, but we could all play a part in addressing the issue honestly.

lidlo lady wrote:
Take today's quote, for instance. Most people who come here just accept the statement as true without examining it critically, never asking why he would say such a thing when he knows that the one hearing it is confused and conflicted. What's the intention?

That may or may not be true. I guess I would have to be inside someone's head to know whether they are critically examining a statement of K or not. I saw the quote today and found it precise and verifiable.

In what way should I be critical? Do you have a suggestion?

Also, did you examine the quote critically? Would you care to move on from your critical examination of Kinfonet members to give us your own reaction to the quote, which was:

"Living is the harmonious action of thought, emotion and work: and when these are in contradiction with each other, then there is suffering, conflict, disharmony."

How did you approach it?

Peng Shu Tse wrote:
why he would say such a thing when he knows that the one hearing it is confused and conflicted

because it was the truth. implying that K could withhold the truth from someone for any reason is an oxymoron.

T

B Teulada wrote:
why he would say such a thing when he knows that the one hearing it is confused and conflicted

A small clarification: I was quoting Nick.

Peng Shu Tse wrote:
"Living is the harmonious action of thought, emotion and work: and when these are in contradiction with each other, then there is suffering, conflict, disharmony."

Ideally, living is "the harmonious action of thought, emotion, and work", but actually it is "suffering, conflict, disharmony". You can testify to the contrary, but testimony is worthless.

B Teulada wrote:
implying that K could withhold the truth from someone for any reason is an oxymoron.

Assuming he spoke the truth is moronic.

lidlo lady wrote:
Ideally, living is "the harmonious action of thought, emotion, and work", but actually it is "suffering, conflict, disharmony". You can testify to the contrary, but testimony is worthless.

Yes, if I made such a statement as K made, it would represent an ideal. I would have made an ideal of 'life.' I would have ruled disharmony out of my ideal.

In the end I do not know if K 'lived' that harmonious existence or if he was faking it. I cannot say if it was his reality or his ideal.

What interests me however is K's psychological observation that when the mind has been segregated and specialised into aspects so that thought, emotion and work (body) are separated, they come into conflict with each other and cause suffering.

K held out that integration and therefore harmony was possible. He said he had found that for himself. For me, I am more interested in examining the disharmony of my mind and trying to make sense of it rather than using my imagination to conjure up ideal states I have no direct knowledge of. I have found K valuable in this endeavour.

Thanks, 'Lidlo', for this (#16)

This post was last updated by Katy 9 Tue, 31 Jan 2012.

lidlo lady wrote:
testimony is worthless

Why?

Everything has its own unique value. The task is to find the value of a thing and to understand it rather than to write it off. Everything functions for something.

What IS worthless, is to value something according to the wrong criteria. It may be said that another person's testimony is worthless as a substitute for the need to find out for oneself. But testimony may be worthwhile in providing directional hints and clues.

K said he could show us the door but we must pass through it. Maybe even that was too much!

Day two

The fact is, it is impossible not to be provoked, my question was a provocation and yet, the only thing that changed was the target and the hypocrisy of the members that responded with indignation.

You just answered the question.....IT IS IMPOSSIBLE HERE IN THIS FORUM.

Lidlo is right we are a bunch of hypocrites who only parrot K and nothing more.

This post was last updated by Amber Cinquini Tue, 31 Jan 2012.

here people, have a cookie, enjoy a musical moment; savour it like you would a ripe, juicy exotic fruit

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wv0xptDCUMQ

T

RICK LEIN wrote:
Well..if the start of this thread is any indication..not for some:)

and what is it that you are doing with that statement if not reacting:)

Amber Cinquini wrote:
the only thing that changed was the target and the hypocrisy of the members that responded with indignation.

I just re-read the responses to your question and did not find any targeting or hypocrisy, Amber. Maybe Rick over-egged the pudding a little talking about the spanish inquisition but can you call it targeted hypocrisy? Indignation, maybe. But it seemed more of a stylistic posture than real indignation to me. If he was targeting anything, it seemed to be the targeting of Nick that he was targeting . . . a sort of anti-targeting targeting . . . if you know what I mean.

Peng Shu Tse wrote:
I saw the quote today and found it precise and verifiable.

If this is true, get up on the platform and take K's place. Quit piddling around like a twit and show us who's boss.