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

What does it mean...to be resonable?


Displaying posts 91 - 120 of 330 in total
Tue, 13 Sep 2011 #91
Thumb_man_question_mark dhirendra singh India 2984 posts in this forum Offline

ganesan balachandran wrote:
for that matter anything insightful are veda vaakyas only.

Or you can say, anything which is insightful is Madhuri Dixit.

I don't know

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Sep 2011 #92
Thumb_tampura ganesan balachandran India 2204 posts in this forum Offline

dhirendra singh wrote:
Story of Sherlock Homes

I heard Jk liked such stories.one can imagine a complex imagination with clear mind.
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 #93
Thumb_tampura ganesan balachandran India 2204 posts in this forum Offline

dhirendra singh wrote:
Madhuri Dixit.

you mean that painter who saw saraswati in her

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 #94
Thumb_tampura ganesan balachandran India 2204 posts in this forum Offline

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

Paul, i too feel dead with this understanding, but want to be alive just for that. .

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 #95
Thumb_1507053_1_ Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Sri Lanka 1208 posts in this forum Offline

Julia Rojas wrote:
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.

I don't think he meant here wiping out knowledge & looking at technical issues.I think he meant looking at it afresh without being occupied in the same direction you discover something new.

K knew for sure you cannot make scientific discoveries by wiping out knowledge!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Sep 2011 #96
Thumb_man_question_mark dhirendra singh India 2984 posts in this forum Offline

ganesan balachandran wrote:
you mean that painter who saw saraswati in he

Madhuri dixit is name of insight, every insight is she, K was talking about it in his last talks, What is sacred in India.

I don't know

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Sep 2011 #97
Thumb_tampura ganesan balachandran India 2204 posts in this forum Offline

dhirendra singh wrote:
Madhuri dixit is name of insight

you saw that painting.
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 #98
Thumb_tampura ganesan balachandran India 2204 posts in this forum Offline

dhirendra singh wrote:
K was talking about it in his last talks, What is sacred in India.

you mean the sacred he mentioned in his last talk is his imagination.
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 #99
Thumb_tampura ganesan balachandran India 2204 posts in this forum Offline

bye.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 #100
Thumb_man_question_mark dhirendra singh India 2984 posts in this forum Offline

ganesan balachandran wrote:
you mean the sared he mentioned in his last talk is his imagination.

No, I don't know, and I don't believe in lovely guesses, and don't like to state them as fact, K never said that it was veda, but you believe that he was talking about veda.

I don't know

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Sep 2011 #101
Thumb_man_question_mark dhirendra singh India 2984 posts in this forum Offline

ganesan balachandran wrote:
bye.gb

bye, take care, be well, with all love, yours D:)

I don't know

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Sep 2011 #102
Thumb_man_question_mark dhirendra singh India 2984 posts in this forum Offline

ganesan balachandran wrote:
you saw that painting.

Yes, but it is an insight when seen without imagination.

I don't know

This post was last updated by dhirendra singh Tue, 13 Sep 2011.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Sep 2011 #103
Thumb_1507053_1_ Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Sri Lanka 1208 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Davidson wrote:
Thought creates knowledge. Passion brings meaning. Only knowledge and meaning combined bring what we call understanding. And only understanding raises us up.

This is understanding by thought, isn't it? That always goes with ignorance.Thought cannot give self knowledge.It is intelligence itself that gives meaning to what is understood I think.It is intelligence that awakens passion not the other way round.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Sep 2011 #104
Thumb_avatar Ravi Seth India 1573 posts in this forum Offline

Kapila Kulasinghe wrote:
This is understanding by thought, isn't it? That always goes with ignorance.

Yes, understanding is 'self'.

This post was last updated by Ravi Seth Tue, 13 Sep 2011.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Sep 2011 #105
Thumb_stringio RICK LEIN United States 4436 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Paul Davidson wrote:
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.
......... Paul maybe it is not so complicated? You point to fire you say..It is hot..it will burn[this is a fact..not a point of view] the other does not listen,and insist in putting tyheir hand in the flame..you have tried to reason with them..to be reasonable..they want no part of it..being unreasoable! Does it really matter why..they still believe fire will not burn?:)

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Sep 2011 #106
Thumb_stringio RICK LEIN United States 4436 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Paul Davidson wrote:
The intention may itself be irrational, from a higher perspective of truth.

What is that supposed to mean?:)

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Sep 2011 #107
Thumb_deleted_user_med Muad dhib Ireland 175 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

RICK LEIN wrote:
Well..D..thank you. This may be the shortest thread ever...cause I think you nailed it right out of the gate!

rick I got you on that one....it is not the shortest thread ever.....:)I must say I did agreed with you..

Dan.....

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Sep 2011 #108
Thumb_stringio RICK LEIN United States 4436 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Muad dheeb wrote:
rick I got you on that one....it is not the shortest thread ever.....:)I must say I did agreed with you..

Well Dan....lOL... tangents do take on a life of their own,so to speak! It goes back to an ealier posting by you about feeling and seeing..in the virtual world/real world...and how communication breaks down! Someone said a long time ago..perhaps we need a Krishnamurti dictionary to help alleviate this tendency to get caught up in definition..LOL:)

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 3 readers
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Sep 2011 #109
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

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

We are discussing how to know if someone wants to waste your time, no?

Well, one way is by experience. It is possible to observe someone's intentions if they are paraded clearly enough in their actions. What Ravi does repeatedly is to ask open-ended questions such as, "Can you elaborate?" and then, when answered, he either ignores the answer, dismisses it out of hand. or simply moves to personalizations. One is fooled a couple of times but then one gets a handle on it.

I know what he does but I do not really know why he does it, except that it appears intentional, calculated and time-wasting. I see what he intends. That is the obvious part. I do not know why he so intends. That is a different matter.

If I get drawn into it, this does waste my time as it runs counter to my intentions.

I will answer genuine questions, where I can, and where I consider beneficial, either to my own understanding of the issues, or to that of others. And I give the benefit of the doubt, where intelligent to do so. I am generous with my time but I will not squander it. The phrase, "pearls before swine" comes to mind.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Sep 2011 #110
Thumb_stringio RICK LEIN United States 4436 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Paul Davidson wrote:
If I get drawn into it, this does waste my time as it runs counter to my intentions.

Can we say that intentions as it is used here..can also mean..what I want..and if we close ourselves off from things we do not want..but instead use our desire of the ideal discussion according to our predetermined point of view...have we not engaged in self justification for close mindedness?:)

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 #111
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Kapila Kulasinghe wrote:
'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.

It sounds like science-fiction tome, Kapila. Did you see the film "I Robot" or "Terminator"?

At the time K was writing such stuff he was influenced by a small group of scientists and naively sociologistic thinkers who put before him the contemporary wisdom in liberal academic circles that with the new age we were moving into a period of increased leisure where entertainment would replace work as the main preoccupation for filling one's time. I was at university during that time and remember the ideological perspective well. The imminent new age of leisure did not materialise. Instead we got Regan and Thatcher!

But no sensible and informed scientist today predicts such 'Brave New World' stuff. Incidentally, it is possible K was also drawn to the prognostications of Aldous Huxley,with whom he also spent considerable time. Huxley's dystopias had quite an appeal back then.

My son has just started a course of painting and decorating. Can't recall any robots trained in that as yet! My feeling is that all the utopic and dystopic projections have come to nothing.

If the computer scientists want to invent the machine to replace humans they are on the wrong track. Instead of starting with artificial intelligence they should try starting with artificial stupidity - and maybe model it on themselves.

Computers have not replaced the human brain, they have become the vehicles and the tools for new human work patterns. They are at the forefront of new educational approaches,internationally, that aid learning. They have increased employment, not reduced it. This has always been the controversy with regard to new technology replacing the human element, ever since the Luddite movement who smashed the machines. It simply does not work like that.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Sep 2011 #112
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

ganesan balachandran wrote:
I heard Jk liked such stories.one can imagine a complex imagination with clear mind.

Yes, K did not shirk pleasure or entertainment. Does Dhirendra think he spent all his leisure time standing upon his head? He was the archetypal yogi-bhogi.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Sep 2011 #113
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Kapila Kulasinghe wrote:
I don't think he meant here wiping out knowledge & looking at technical issues.I think he meant looking at it afresh without being occupied in the same direction you discover something new.

No, but I think Julia is basically right. It is wrong to parallel scientific and psychological insight. Scientific knowledge really is accumulated and this is fine. But accumulated psychological knowledge is a poison.

Often K pointed out that the human mind is a living and moving thing, infinitely subtle. It has to be observed from moment to moment. And I think that is the difference.

If a scientist spent a life-time repeatedly pouring water into water to find out what will happen, he will have missed not only the point, but also a good pension.

Scientific result can be accumulated and built upon. Psychological observation is quite different. It is the power and clarity of observation itself that gain in quality, not the conclusions and results of observations that accumulate in quantity.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Sep 2011 #114
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Kapila Kulasinghe wrote:
This is understanding by thought, isn't it?

No, I have seen it so. It is fact.

Kapila Kulasinghe wrote:
Thought cannot give self knowledge

Correct.

Kapila Kulasinghe wrote:
It is intelligence itself that gives meaning to what is understood I think.It is intelligence that awakens passion not the other way round.

I did not refer to intelligence. But it is fair to do so. I would not have put it like that, however. I do not think you can have intelligence or passion separatively. They go together as one movement. They awaken each other. It works which ever way round you put the sentence. Try.

But I did not say that passion gives meaning. I said passion brings meaning. There is a subtle difference in implication.

Passion brings one to a state of meaning, or a state where meaning can be divined intelligently, holistically. I was not counterposing passion to intelligence. No way! I was counterposing passion to logic, with reference to meaning. Maybe you are misunderstanding logic as intelligence, which is a common mistake, for example as evidenced in IQ testing. Intelligence is not intellect.

Intelligence lies in the holistic operation of an integral mind. And only an integrated mind can be a conduit for the Great Intelligence. Fragmentation is the ground of all stupidity and the prison-house of ignorance.

But passion is the life-force itself. In an integral mind the passion can operate logic directly. In the fragmented mind passion isdiverted and diffused through thought/emotion and operates logic indirectly, from the wrong basis, the font called accumulation. It is still the same life-force, but it is operating a soiled thing.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Sep 2011 #115
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

RICK LEIN wrote:
......... Paul maybe it is not so complicated? You point to fire you say..It is hot..it will burn[this is a fact..not a point of view] the other does not listen,and insist in putting tyheir hand in the flame..you have tried to reason with them..to be reasonable..they want no part of it..being unreasoable! Does it really matter why..they still believe fire will not burn?:)

Oh sure,in that example your reasoning is fine. But it is a limited case. I am aiming at a wider appraisal, that's all.

In your example there is a commonly held intention, the avoidance of pain. That is also sane and rational from the point of view of normal functioning of the human metabolism.

But if the other guy intends to self-harm, you then have to ask why? Obviously there is now no shared intention. Maybe you are both prisoners and he wants to get to the hospital ward in order to make an escape. His intention may indeed be rational. You have to observe him with regard to his intention in order to see what master his logic may be serving. He may be irrational. He may not be. Actuality is always concrete.

All I have been saying is that rationality is the servant of intention, always. It has not its own motive force.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Sep 2011 #116
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

RICK LEIN wrote:
Paul Davidson wrote:

The intention may itself be irrational, from a higher perspective of truth.
What is that supposed to mean?:)

A fair question would be, "What do you mean by that?" I will answer fair questions.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Sep 2011 #117
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

RICK LEIN wrote:
Paul Davidson wrote:

The intention may itself be irrational, from a higher perspective of truth.
What is that supposed to mean?:)

A fair question would be, "What do you mean by that?" I will answer fair questions.

"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 #118
Thumb_stringio RICK LEIN United States 4436 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Paul Davidson wrote:
A fair question would be, "What do you mean by that?" I will answer fair questions.

LOL!

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Sep 2011 #119
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

RICK LEIN wrote:
Can we say that intentions as it is used here..can also mean..what I want..and if we close ourselves off from things we do not want..but instead use our desire of the ideal discussion according to our predetermined point of view...have we not engaged in self justification for close mindedness?:)

Am I closed-minded because I do not choose to answer a closed-minded question Rick? Maybe I am, to that extent. But I feel it is intelligent to know when to co-operate and when to refrain. K often said the same. You have to know when to shut off from the foolishness of others. I make my own decisions, maybe right or wrong. But who else is going to do it for me?

I felt the rest of what you said to be verbiage because it based upon a wrong presumption - that I have in mind an 'ideal discussion' which I do not. This is yet another example of setting a false question, one where the conclusion already shapes and determines the question.

Rick, K spoke against 'choice' where that choice was between two opposite pulls, two contending desires. He said you cannot choose between two confusions because your choice will also be confusion. I agree with him in that. ButI was crystalclear why I did not pander to Ravi's desire for 'elaboration.' And I told him so.

I quoted K instead because I thought it might throw some additional light on things for other people who were not so closed-minded on the issue. I pursued the issue but I did not pander to Ravi.

I pusued the issue non-stop while Ravi ignored the issue (the very one he had asked me to elaborate on) and pursued me instead, which just showed the false nature of his stated motivations. He said one thing and did the opposite.

Ravi came back and demanded I should not quote K but put things in my own words. I did so. He did not comment on the issue but again attacked me. I came to the conclusion that it was a waste of my time to answer his personal points. If Ravi actually wants to discuss the issues then the stage is still open to him but it seems it is HE who has nothing to say on the issue, not me. It is Ravi who has recused himself on the issue. I have merely recused myself of the personal invective.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Sep 2011 #120
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

RICK LEIN wrote:
LOL!

LIS!

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 91 - 120 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.)