Hope is a terrible thing, isn’t it? It won’t do either of us any good.
Hope is terrible only when you believe you can’t live without it.
Hope is medicine when you need it, and poison when you don’t
Hope is time. Right? ‘I am hopeful that I shall see you again’; or, ‘I am hopeful that I shall never see you again’ - that’s at the superficial level of daily life. There is still some poison in it, even at the superficial level, just like any medicine.
Who are you, really? Why don’t you come out of the shadows and reveal yourself, your actual name? Or is hope involved?
If you must reduce it to that.;;
There is still some poison in it, even at the superficial level, just like any medicine.
It’s medicinal when it’s needed, and it’s poison when it is not needed, so hope is not to blame when it’s abused. The same goes for thought.
I know who you are, no matter what name you use, so what do you care what someone’s name is?
1 Like
I don’t know who I am. How can you? I want to know your name, that’s all. It has been time enough in anonymity.
You aren’t aware of your shtick?
I am aware of your resistance to something. But each time we try to explore it, we stall. So what is your resistance to revealing your real name? Let’s explore this.
It’s none of your damn business. Why harp on it? You’re prying, and not because you need to know my name but because you don’t want me to describe your shtick.
Please describe it; I am happy to go into it. There are not two different issues here. Describe away.
For the last twenty years or so, you’ve been aping Krishnamurti’s way of conversing in his dialogues. When you began your mimicry of the man, you would address another as “Sir” as K did. And though you’ve dropped that tactic, you continue to shamelessly impersonate the man, his tendency to speak peremptorily, emphatically, and in absolutes.
I don’t know how many people were impressed by this shtick, but I know that most found what you were doing to be offensive and self-aggrandizing, though none dared express it since getting personal is not allowed.
You could argue that you are emulating K, but what you’re doing isn’t innocent. You are using K’s authoritative voice to say things that are neither true nor self-evident, and which K-conditioned minds are less likely to question or challenge.
1 Like
So why don’t you come into our dialogue group and have it out in person? Or meet me at Brockwood and have it out in person. If this matters so much to you, that’s exactly what I would do.
I know we have tried to sort it out here, but in person we have a different type of challenge, much more like the challenge we face in daily life where our answers and responses cannot be so carefully rehearsed.
Do they still have duels there at sunrise?
2 Likes
Yes, but no weapons, because they are of the past.
2 Likes
Ten paces, turn and the one who is more in the moment wins?
Or has that changed to only five paces, turn, and whoever bears the unpleasant manifestations of the other first, wins?
1 Like
There is no other. S/he who sees this more deeply wins.
No, because when we get together in person, all these words become rather pointless. And that’s what we are doing here: fighting with words, fighting over words and fighting for words. It’s a stupid way to live.
I don’t know how much it matters. I just know it had to be said, and you can do with it what you want.
I agree, but images on a screen are no substitute for actual humans, so it wouldn’t be much different from what we’re already doing. It would, however, reveal superficial things that may matter a lot to you, but which, when images on a screen, mean very little to me. Yes, body-language speaks louder than words, and reactions can’t be hidden, and that makes better theater than what goes on here. You want theatrics. I’d settle for a response from you that doesn’t deviate from the matter at hand, which is: What are you playing at? What do you get from it?
Brockwood. High Noon. Be there.