There is a beautiful world out there to share.

Love and best wishes

Paul D

What are you waiting for?

This post was last updated by Paul Davidson (account deleted) Sun, 25 Apr 2010.

Hi Paul,

You are a good writer, seriosly you may write good books, You have quality of expressions, you may apply it. And probably you are a good teacher, because you feel good to explain subject, so one should do the things, which are natural for him.

This forum is not suitable for writers, because generally the persons who are interested in K are intellectual, understanding of K's teaching generally starts from logical minds, so therte are less possibility of acceptance of theories, sharp critisism can not be avoided here. So may be your decision a good decision, though we will miss a participant.

Best of luck

D

I don't know

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!

Paul Davidson wrote:
When you are violent towards someone, even silently in your thoughts, you kill that person.

yes, but they dont know that they are killing themselves.i will be missing you, my dear Paul davidson. You should have realised that intelligent anger:). Please! Paul Iam not pouring hot oil over your wound.
gb

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

This post was last updated by ganesan balachandran Tue, 13 Apr 2010.

Paul Davidson wrote:
When you are violent towards someone, even silently in your thoughts, you kill that person.

Hello Paul,

The only violence I can see here is the one towards yourself.
You came up to this decision/conclusion (leaving the forum) after planning, after probing into the question and then you have come to this attitude. which is resistence, therefore that in itself is violence.

Please let me quote something so meanningful in this human case ; yours.

""We cannot have an attitude towards violence or hostility. That means you are interpreting it according to your particular conclusion, fancy, imagination, understanding. What we are saying is: is it possible to look at this hostility in oneself, this creating enmity in oneself, this violence, this brutality in oneself without any attitude, to see the fact as it is? The moment you have an attitude you are already prejudiced, you have taken a side and therefore you are not looking, you are not understanding that fact within yourself. So, Sir, to look at oneself without an attitude, without any opinion, judgment, evaluation, is one of the most arduous tasks. In this looking there is clarity and it is that clarity which is not a conclusion, not an attitude, that dispels this total structure of brutality and hostility. - Talks in Europe 1968 Amsterdam 5th Public Talk 22nd May 1968""

Paul Davidson wrote:
To be open is to be vulnerable.

Hi Paul: I think you are a serious person about self knowledge in life. When you enter Kinfonet you said this words to every member: "This is a dialog I am having, with life, through the teachings of K, and others. If life is approached like that, as a teaching, things fit into place for me. Then, life is there for me, I am not simply there, for life." I just want to tell you something you know: The "I", the Ego, always wants to run away of his own confrontation and you want to stay to do the "job".Regards,Angel.

Paul Davidson wrote:
It is a good decision. To stay on would clearly be a case of unnecessary suffering.

If some one know the antecedents they will agree.If someone has got reverence to JK, they will see that it dont happen to anyone.
gb

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

there is a joke

Budha is dead, Christ has gone and even K has left us, nowadays my health is not good, so I am in tension who will take care of the whole world,:) and K forum (it is not situational, but I should write something so I written this)

I don't know

Hello Dhirendra,

Excellent your joke, thanks for the laughter. :D

Here is another similar :

GOD IS DEAD, MARX IS DEAD AND I AM NOT FEELING THAT GOOD MYSELF. Woody Allen

HA! HAA!! HAAA!!! ( because fool laughs three time)

I don't know

I forgot to say you thank you for joke, Thank you Chafiaji.

I don't know

Oh that sweet dhirendraji. I love the way you put nicknames.

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!

Is this a school of hard knocks?

Katy

This post was last updated by Katy Pompilis (account deleted) Tue, 13 Apr 2010.

Goodbye Paul and good luck with everything...

Regards,

Katy

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
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!

Yes Patricia,it is obvious,thank you!

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Chafia Abdi wrote:
We cannot have an attitude towards violence or hostility. That means you are interpreting it according to your particular conclusion, fancy, imagination, understanding.

Hi Chafia,thanks so much for that,right from the source of the teachings,and really at the heart of human disorder.

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Angel Miolan wrote:
the Ego, always wants to run away of his own confrontation and you want to stay to do the "job".Regards,Angel.

Angel,thanks an excellent point as well!

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Katy Pompilis wrote:
when this forum for some of us can be a psychological nightmare!

Hi Katy,the nightmare is us,we can run,we can hide,we can complain,defend,justify,but until we look at it a face it,it remains.I am truly sorry that you feel that way,however in a previous post"possibly the one you deleted",you mentioned scapegoating,it seems that blaming other people places and things for our personal reactions,is not taking responsibility for the processes of our own perceptions,which is scapegoating,is it not?

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Paul Davidson wrote:
David L has written that to post on this forum it is necessary to have a thick skin because 'you are going to get your arse kicked.'

Whoa Paul. Personally, I really don't care too much who stays and who goes on this forum including myself. All I was trying to tell you was that you can expect critizism when you post here and you need to be prepared for that. If you take too seriously what total strangers write about your posts you will suffer. You critizised something I wrote and that's OK. But when you do that to what someone has written you need to be ready for a strong reaction or a disagreeable reaction. That's all I was saying.

Another thing I have noticed about this forum is that long, theoretical posts draw critizism like ants to honey. I tend to accept that most people who are interested in K have less interest in ideas, theories and philosophies and would rather cut the fat out and deal with what is. Whether we know what "what is" is or not.

There was nothing loathsome about what I wrote. That is a judgement that rests in you. Anyway, for what ever you decide to do, I wish you well.

Re post #18...

Yes, Rick, scapegoating is also about 'gang mentality' which is indicative of conditioning just as much as a person's individual response(s) in my own humble view.

Katy

This post was last updated by Katy Pompilis (account deleted) Tue, 13 Apr 2010.

Katy Pompilis wrote:
Is this a school of hard knocks?

Did Krishnamurti offer a security blanket?this personalization is at the very heart of human disorder,it separates us from our fellows,and creates a prison of our own making.

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Katy Pompilis wrote:
Yes, Rick, scapegoating is also about 'gang mentality' which is indicative of conditioning just as much as a person's individual response(s) in my own insignificant view.

Katy

Well that's great,but know one is accusing Paul,or yourself,for the feelings generated by challenges to a belief system,so it's not quite the same thing,Paul is making some one else responsible for his feelings,and his reactions,and that is scapegoating!Now,seeing as Paul has chosen to go his own way there seems to be little else to discuss,but the past,it is over,shall we move on?

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

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.

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.

Rick,

Maybe a musical interlude from Peter Tosh? The lyrics seem relevant:

"I'm not in this world to live up to your expectations. Neither are you here to live up to mine. I don't owe noone no obligations. Noone owes me none so everything is fine. I said I am that I am I am"

Katy

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
one is passionate about pursuing one's own inquiry - and that is all.

Patricia,

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?

Katy

Katy Pompilis wrote:
I am that I am I am"

Hi Katy,and I,Rick,love you just like you are!

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
There is no 'psychological nightmare' unless one is presenting an image that one then feels obliged to protect against all challenges.

Thanks, but I am not totally convinced- I'll spare you a long-winded explanation as to why :)

I think there is a beef about 'freedom of speech'. As David said long posts open a person up to criticism like honey to ants. I can see how things then polarise between 'us'.

Katy

Katy Pompilis wrote:
Or is there a way of being passionate that makes a person impervious

Total abandonment of self interest possibly?

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
So what is the fear about?

Patricia,

I guess what you might be hinting at is the conditioned part(s) of a person based on history/memories of the past (located in thought) which then sensitize a person or causes him/her to anticipate things in a distorted way - a self-fulfilling prophecy maybe?

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.

Katy

This post was last updated by Katy Pompilis (account deleted) Tue, 13 Apr 2010.