Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
General Discussion | moderated by Dev Singh

What does it mean...to be resonable?


Displaying posts 61 - 90 of 330 in total
Mon, 12 Sep 2011 #61
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
It doesn't appear to me that understanding is synonymous with intelligence/love/action, which are of the timeless present.

Max, I think you may be confusing what K called understanding with what he called the ability to reason logically.

Understanding is not the ability to reason. It is the natural state of being in the absence of confusion. Your understanding IS your state of being. You are that. You act from that.

It is your understanding that must undergo transformation, which is metanoia.

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Sep 2011 #62
Thumb_deleted_user_med Julia Rojas United Kingdom 33 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Paul, what happens to your face. Looks like you have adopted the burkha.

I am agreeing with what you say about reasonable or rational. Everyone is logical from their own point of view but the point of view is the bias. All the politician and economist is rational from their own basis and they make such a mess.

I do not think there is any thought without emotion. Logic has to have some previous knowledge or it has nothing to work on. And there must be force to drive it. In my country we had dictatorship which were much more logical than the democracy which followed it. And it did not make it right.

Please carry on with the discussion. It is very interesting for me. I studied science and was very disillusioned, especially of the aura that surrounds it. They try to banish emotion but are driven by it.

Darkness is your candle: Your boundaries are your quest

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Sep 2011 #63
Thumb_deleted_user_med Julia Rojas United Kingdom 33 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Julia Rojas wrote:
They try to banish emotion but are driven by it.

And they are blind by ambition.

I read Krishnamurti once say that the scientist has to drop all he knows to discover something new but in reality this is not what happen. The scientist base their experiment on what is knowm before. It is all extension of past knowledge. I think he, Krishnamurti had some strange idea about science.

Darkness is your candle: Your boundaries are your quest

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Sep 2011 #64
Thumb_tampura ganesan balachandran India 2204 posts in this forum Offline

Julia Rojas wrote:
I think he, Krishnamurti had some strange idea about science.

No.Scientist abandon the old.K knows scientific mind as much he knows the religious mind.
gb

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

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Sep 2011 #65
Thumb_stringio RICK LEIN United States 4436 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Perhaps dear friend we may approach what reasonable is,,but looking at what it is not...through negation? As an example..Someone is shown the facts of the matter.the truth of the matter..quite independent of bias..yet the person being shown the facts refuses to even look..and this would be unreasonable...not open to anything different than a belief they may have in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary?:)

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Sep 2011 #66
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

RICK LEIN wrote:
As an example..Someone is shown the facts of the matter.the truth of the matter..quite independent of bias..yet the person being shown the facts refuses to even look..and this would be unreasonable...not open to anything different than a belief they may have in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary

Yes Rick. From one person's point of view this would be unreasonable. But then that person would have to apply reason and ask, "What is the reason behind this person's non-interest in the truth?"

And perhaps it would be that the other person does not believe that there is unbiased truth. S/he may believe all, truth is relative. Or they may be more interested in pleasure than in truth. There could be many reasons. Just to say that their behavior is unreasonable is to introduce a prejudice of one's own. There is always reason working in every behavior.

I think that your 'someone' has turned away from the fact, not from reason. And from their point of view it may be reasonable to do so. The truth may not serve their partiality. They may not be partial to it, with good reason!

But, if the COMMON INTENTION is unbiased enquiry,then it would be unreasonable for either party to turn away from unpalatable facts.

You see how dependent reason is on intention? One always reasons from one's intention. What is rational is rational in relation to one's intention. The intention may itself be irrational, from a higher perspective of truth.

One major problem we have with regards to our capacity to reason is that we do not have the capacity to intend. We do not understand our intentions. We hold many contradictory intentions, often, with regards to the same unitary action. That's why we continually go off-beam. Do you know what I mean?

Then all the spurious intellectual justifications come in, many times involving postponement of the so-called intended action. For instance, one may have the intention of giving up smoking - next week. What you have there is two contradictory intentions working and the result of two contradictory reasonings is . . . confused action, which is no action. And that is how we seem to pass our days.

But I think we would probably agree that humanity is overall irrational. His overall action is leading to decay and disaster and he hardly wants to see it or to recognise that he himself is the cause of it. He prefers to blame han to enquire.

But I think this level of overall human irrationality is due to the ignorance of the individual human of his own workings, not to a essentual default in his reasoning. That and the fact that he has been taught what to think but never how to think.

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Sep 2011 #67
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Julia Rojas wrote:
Paul, what happens to your face. Looks like you have adopted the burkha.
I am agreeing with what you say about reasonable or rational.

Yes, Julia, I am now a number one K-jihaddhi of the K-interfada. It seemed the only reasonable thing to do . . . under the circumstances.

Thank you for agreeing with me. It emboldens the heart of the warrior in me. Libertad es muerte! Death is the final frontier - I think Dan said that . . . or was it Sudhir?

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Sep 2011 #68
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

$500 for the one who works out the riddle of my face.

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Sep 2011 #69
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Julia Rojas wrote:
The scientist base their experiment on what is knowm before.

Yes, even Einstein's calculations were based on the known. He had an insight that took the known one step further. It seems to me that scientific insight is also quite mechanical. K called it 'partial,' but that does not quite make the correct point. It is mechanical.

Bohm tended to 'direct' K too much in such matters. Such mistakes did notimpact on the essense of the teaching but it made some examples he gave rather odd-sounding, especially to us now in the light of further history. For example, based on some rather over-enthusiastic prognostications by scientists he met K expected that the artificial intelligence of computers would replace the human brain. This proved to be rather an irrational vault into an area he had no particular expertise in. It makes him appear rather ga-ga, which he was definitely not. I do not know why he was so impressionable by science. Maybe it was 'of the time.'

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Sep 2011 #70
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Maybe this is why K broke from Bohm. He was always alert to the dangers of influence. And, despite his quiet demeanor,Bohm wasa powerful advocate of his own frame of reference. You see this more openly in their first public dialogues. Bohm was privately admonished for'leading' too much and later tempered his approach. But if the dialogues are read carefully,with attention, you will see Bohm pulling things this way and that, when he can. I felt that the idea of 'the wrong turn' was Bohm's. K goes along with it, but only so far. I do not know if K took it up independently in any of his talks, but Bohm did, in at least two books.

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Sep 2011 #71
Thumb_man_question_mark dhirendra singh India 2984 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Davidson wrote:
Ravi wants to waste my time and he will not do so.

Desire of self expression, with overflowing knowledge, may be reason of wasting of time.How can Ravi waste your time, he has no control on you.

I don't know

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Sep 2011 #72
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

dhirendra singh wrote:
How can Ravi waste your time, he has no control on you.

No, the 'logical' question would be, "How can Ravi waste your time IF he has no control over you?"

What you have done is asked a rhetorical question and then added your rhetoric answer as a sub-clause. This is grammatically inexcusable!

So, the question becomes, in the new version, "If someone controls my time, do they control me?

And new questions logically arise from that, such as:

"Am I different from my time?"

"What does control imply?"

and . . .

. . . but actually I said he cannot waste my time

dhirendra singh wrote:
Desire of self expression, with overflowing knowledge, may be reason of wasting of time

Ho ho ho!! Or desire of self-pity with overflowing ignorance!

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Sep 2011 #73
Thumb_man_question_mark dhirendra singh India 2984 posts in this forum Offline

And Paul, this is how you waste your time.:)My dear friend!

I don't know

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Sep 2011 #74
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Paul Davidson wrote:
Ho ho ho!! Or desire of self-pity with overflowing ignorance!

And Dhirendra, you cannot know if I am wasting my time or not because you cannot know my intention for that time and if it is being utilised rationally with regard to that intention. This is something you can know about yourself only.

But please look at this video as an excellent example of non-intentionality, which is otherwise called, "The law of unintended results."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYLpAH2r138

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Sep 2011 #75
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

dhirendra singh wrote:
And Paul, this is how you waste your time.:)My dear friend!

Oh thank you!

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Sep 2011 #76
Thumb_man_question_mark dhirendra singh India 2984 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Davidson wrote:
This is something you can know about yourself only.

Yes Paul, but then how do you know that Ravi want to waste your time?

I don't know

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Sep 2011 #77
Thumb_tampura ganesan balachandran India 2204 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Davidson wrote:
because you cannot know my intention for that time and if it is being utilised rationally with regard to that intention.

Yes , i do have an intention while quoting vedas. Paul i don't feel you are wasting time, at least for me.
gb

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Sep 2011 #78
Thumb_man_question_mark dhirendra singh India 2984 posts in this forum Offline

Well, entertaining video, I liked it, Paul.

I don't know

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Sep 2011 #79
Thumb_man_question_mark dhirendra singh India 2984 posts in this forum Offline

ganesan balachandran wrote:
Paul i don't feel you are wasting time, at least for me.

You are talking about yourself, what is happening to Paul, only Paul knows, or do he too not know?But how can you or me know about what he know or not know?

I don't know

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Sep 2011 #80
Thumb_tampura ganesan balachandran India 2204 posts in this forum Offline

every body has got a genuine intention of their own which may be deep.
gb

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Sep 2011 #81
Thumb_man_question_mark dhirendra singh India 2984 posts in this forum Offline

ganesan balachandran wrote:
every body has got a genuine intention of their own which may be deep.

Veda Vaakya!

I don't know

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Sep 2011 #82
Thumb_tampura ganesan balachandran India 2204 posts in this forum Offline

dhirendra singh wrote:
Veda Vaakya!

They are universal.
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 Sep 2011.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Sep 2011 #83
Thumb_man_question_mark dhirendra singh India 2984 posts in this forum Offline

ganesan balachandran wrote:
They are univresal.

In imagination!

I don't know

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Sep 2011 #84
Thumb_tampura ganesan balachandran India 2204 posts in this forum Offline

dhirendra singh wrote:
imagination

JK stopped it.( and that is his only intention)
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 Sep 2011.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Sep 2011 #85
Thumb_man_question_mark dhirendra singh India 2984 posts in this forum Offline

ganesan balachandran wrote:
JK stopped it.

In himself, not in others.

I don't know

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Sep 2011 #86
Thumb_tampura ganesan balachandran India 2204 posts in this forum Offline

dhirendra singh wrote:
In himself

how do you know, imagination:)
gb

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Sep 2011 #87
Thumb_man_question_mark dhirendra singh India 2984 posts in this forum Offline

ganesan balachandran wrote:
how do you know, imagination:)

yes, so it is not stopped.

I don't know

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Sep 2011 #88
Thumb_tampura ganesan balachandran India 2204 posts in this forum Offline

veda vakkyaas are beyond imagination and you can see once you don't have any imagination. for that matter anything insightful are veda vaakyas only.
gb
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 Sep 2011.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Sep 2011 #89
Thumb_man_question_mark dhirendra singh India 2984 posts in this forum Offline

ganesan balachandran wrote:
veda vakkyaas are beyond imagination and you can see once you don't have any imagination.

Story of Sherlock Homes is also beyond the imagination, but you can see this when you are free from imagination.

I don't know

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Sep 2011 #90
Thumb_1507053_1_ Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Sri Lanka 1208 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Davidson wrote:
For example, based on some rather over-enthusiastic prognostications by scientists he met K expected that the artificial intelligence of computers would replace the human brain.

This can still happen Paul.May be he was ahead of our time.Personally I think this is quite likely to happen.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 61 - 90 of 330 in total
To quote a portion of this post in your reply, first select the text and then click this "Quote" link.

(N.B. Be sure to insert an empty line between the quoted text and your reply.)