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

What does it mean...to be resonable?


Displaying posts 121 - 150 of 330 in total
Tue, 13 Sep 2011 #121
Thumb_stringio RICK LEIN United States 4436 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Paul Davidson wrote:
Am I closed-minded because I do not choose to answer a closed-minded question Rick? Maybe I am,

Is an open ended question... a closed minded question Paul?:)

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Sep 2011 #122
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5770 posts in this forum Offline

Mr Davidson:

I am an occassional reader of this site and less frequently a contributer. Do you realize that you have made ten posts on this one thread alone in the past two hours? How do you find the time? Are you addicted to this site? Do you have some sort of compulsive need to post here? I am beginning to find your pseudo authoritative and somewhat boorish postings to be quite tedious. For example, you are completely off base in your view of what K said about computers. I have often heard K speak of computers and of how they are changing how we live in both public and private group discussions and I disagree with what you think K was saying about this subject.

I have noticed that if someone disagress with you they are, in your opinion, "confused" or mis-reading something you have written. But it is never you who are wrong. Ultimately, if someone makes a concise and well thoughtout rebuttal to one of your posts, as Mr. Greene and others have on several occassions, you "retire" from the thread because it is just too "boring" to continue.

Are you missing a great opportunity to "see yourself" in relationship to others on this site? Life, as K often pointed out, is relationship to something. Whether that something is another person or a tree or an idea or a belief one can only see who one actually is in relationship to something. Do you have time to do that between issuing or defending your proclamations?

Whether you respond to this post or not is completely immaterial because any response will be a reaction. What is important is watching what you feel when you read this. What can you see, understand, about yourself, your feelings and thoughts? Are you offended, angry, conciliatory? What are you feeling? What is your image of yourself?

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Tue, 13 Sep 2011.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 5 readers
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Sep 2011 #123
Thumb_stringio RICK LEIN United States 4436 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Jack Pine wrote:
I have also noted that if someone disagress with you they are, in your opinion, "confused" or mis-reading something you have written. But it is never you who are wrong. Ultimately, if someone makes a concise and well thoughtout rebuttal to one of your posts, as Mr. Greene and others have on several occassions, you "retire" from the thread because it is just too "boring" to continue.
Bingo!:)

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 #124
Thumb_stringio RICK LEIN United States 4436 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Jack Pine wrote:
Do you realize that you have made ten posts on this one thread alone in the past two hours? How do you find the time? Are you addicted to this site? Do you have some sort of compulsive need to post here? I am beginning to find your pseudo authoritative and somewhat boorish postings to be quite tedious.

:)

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Sep 2011 #125
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Paul,

In your post #61 you wrote, "Your understanding IS your state of being. You are that. You act from that."

This supports what I said. Understanding is of the transient and the existent and is not of the timeless. So long as there is a separate "you" who understands, the division between the "you" and what is understood is time, distance and conflict. Welcome to our world.

Is there a perfect understanding in which there is no separate "you" and no separate object to be understood? Probably this is for us to find out, but if such there be, what we find may no longer be "understanding." It may instead be that which "passeth understanding."

max

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 4 readers
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Sep 2011 #126
Thumb_stringio RICK LEIN United States 4436 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
Is there a perfect understanding in which there is no separate "you" and no separate object to be understood? Probably this is for us to find out, but if such there be, what we find may no longer be "understanding." It may instead be that which "passeth understanding."

Thank you Max!:)

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Sep 2011 #127
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

RICK LEIN wrote:
Is an open ended question... a closed minded question Paul

often

"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 #128
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Jack Pine wrote:
I am beginning to find your pseudo authoritative and somewhat boorish postings to be quite tedious.

Well, that's easy to remedy, Jack. Stop reading me. Do you know how to do that?

Jack Pine wrote:
I disagree with what you think K was saying about this subject.

Well, hey, disagree! It's a free country! Can you find a quote or a reference where he says different?I say that K often said that the experts have told him that computers will soon take over from the human brain, and what will the brain do then?

If you dispute he said that then show us. Otherwise, what does your 'disagreement' count for?

Take, for instance, this discussion (ref. below) on computers, from 1982, which K was part of. Here you see where he got some spurious ideas he later referred to as if more valid than they actually were. Even in this discussion the idea that computers will kill off the human brain was treated by some participants as sheer fantasy, yet K repeated the argument as an opinion of 'the experts.' I am saying he was wrong to do that.

http://www.jkrishnamurti.org/krishnamurti-teach...

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

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Sep 2011 #129
Thumb_au_b Alberto Brandeis United States 59 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
I am an occassional reader of this site and less frequently a contributer.

Mr Pine: Like you I am an occasional reader of the site. Your post has prompted me to make my first contribution to this forum. For unlike you I thoroughly enjoy and benefit from Paul's posts. He obviously takes Krishnamurti very seriously. In contrast to your view, I find him one of the least likely here to jump precipitously to conclusion.

And for nitpicking on something he said about K and computers... you ca't seriously think that important surely? For example, I remember once K making some casual remark about computers taking over the world once --- which they haven't ... but who cares - surely the central idea behind his message is what we should concern ourselves with.

Just wanted Paul to know that not everyone shares your view as at the moment he seems to be hounded by attack dogs with rather fixed programming.

Sylvia

Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

This post was last updated by Alberto Brandeis Tue, 13 Sep 2011.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 4 readers
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Sep 2011 #130
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Various quotes of K on computers: For those who seriously want to know exactly what he did say:

"Don't you often wonder why politicians exist at all? A government can be run by computers . . . "

"I do not know if you have ever talked to the specialists who are concerned with the electronic brain, with the computers - what they are doing. The computers are taking over all the activities of man, almost all the activities. They are building a society where the machine is going to rule. This obviously is coming. Man is going to have a great deal of leisure and perhaps only the specialists will be the masters and the rest like you and I will be slaves. Probably a new culture is being built, of which we are not at all aware. Those who are concerned with it, involved in it, are greatly, perturbed."

"You know what is going to happen: the computers are going to take over, not the philosophers, not the politicians. Their day will soon be over, I hope. The computers, which are completely impersonal, will tell you what to do. You know, I was told that during the Korean war, the computers decided whether to attack China or not, not the generals, but the computers decided. They knew the strength of both and said, ''Don't do it.'' The computers cannot be made corrupt, but the politician and philosopher can be, and are."

"And the computers are taking the place of teachers. A computer can teach far better than an ordinary local teacher. On the computer you can have the top teachers in their special subject. So they can learn from the computers. And the computer is becoming more and more superior to the human brain. Perhaps you know something of it. I have already talked about it so we won't go into that."

" It is rather interesting to talk about the computers. You don't mind? They are doing the most extraordinary things in the world of computers. The speaker has discussed with many of them, so called top ones. And those computers can almost do anything that the human thought has done."

"I am not, the speaker has never been pessimistic or optimistic, he is just showing something to you: that the computers can take over all that man has done - almost, except the computers can't look at the beautiful tree, or the evening star, single, alone in the sky, or the morning light on the waters. When a machine can take over all that you are doing, thinking, learning much quicker than you, what's going to happen to you, as a human being? Sir, some of the people who are concerned with computers, really serious people, are really concerned with this: what is man, what is going to happen to him - while you sit here and meditate and (laughs) - you follow? So either man commits himself to entertainment, which you are doing now - religious entertainment, or football entertainment, or different forms of entertainment."

"There is another question arises from this, which is: the computers are taking over all our thinking. They outstrip man, they are going to, or already have done. They think much faster, they can learn and unlearn, and so keep on learning and discover that their learning is not complete and learn further. Which means they are being programmed by experts, and the machines, these computers, can learn not only from the professors, from the programmers, but from themselves. Probably some of you know about this, you have read about it. We have talked to some experts on computers, and within ten years they say they will outstrip completely man. They'll think faster, learn faster, correct themselves, perhaps invent something new, new theories which man has not thought of. So there is this question. This is a very important problem for man. Of course the computers cannot look at the stars and enjoy the stars; they can compose, perhaps not like Beethoven. Perhaps they do not know what love is - but neither do we. So there is this machine which is ultra intellectual machine - ultra intellectual machine, it is called. They are inventing this; it is so rapid. So what becomes of man? Do you understand? Look at the problem, please face the problems! What happens to us who have lived by exercising our brain, whatever little part of that brain is, and that little part is being taken over by a machine which is super brain, then what happens to each one of us? What happens to our brain which is no longer being employed as a thinking machine? I wonder if you follow all this! I am afraid you don't."

"The speaker has talked a great deal with the professionals, the computer builders, and they are advancing so rapidly that these computers which are being programmed will outstrip man in thought. These computers learn - please follow all this. If you want to find out more about it you can discuss, read about them. These computers can learn, gather experience, and from that experience learn, accumulate knowledge according to being programmed. So gradually they are going to outstrip all our thinking, more accurately, with greater speed and so then what is man? I hope you are understanding all this. The computer experts, and some of them are so frightened when the computer can do almost anything that human being can do."

"
This leads to a very important question, which is - you know something about computers, you have heard about them? The computers can be programmed as we human beings are programmed, the computers can be programmed. Take for instance, it can learn, think faster, more accurately than man. It can play with a grand chess master. After being defeated four times - the master beats the computer four times - on the fifth time or sixth time the computer beats the master. The computer can do extraordinary things. I won't go into all that. It has been programmed. You understand? It can invent, create new machines which will be better programmed than the first programme. A machine that will be ultimately intelligent, not created by man. The machine will itself create the ultimate intelligent machine. You don't know anything. You are all so... Please, the speaker has been talking, discussing with a great many computer experts in California and other places, and what is going to happen to man? You understand? What is going to happen to man, or to woman, when the computer takes the whole thing over?"

And this marvellous piece from 'The Future Is Now.' Make head or tail of it if you can.

"There are computers that can think backwards and forwards. You understand what that means? They can think what I have... one has to get up at six therefore it has to plan to get up at six. Right? And after six what it has to do. And I believe that is called - forgotten, it will come back. So the machines - please understand this for god's... - the machines, which is the computer - you know that joke? One is praying for god, and there is a computer next door, at his knees, and the computer says, 'Whom are you praying to? God is here.' No sir, you don't know how serious it is. So - architecture, that's the word. When - I only learnt this recently and it may be wrong, it may be right - a computer can think what has happened and plan what will happen and for the future. Which the brain is doing. You understand? You plan to come here, you spend so much money, so much time and then go back, go forward. So the computers can think forward and backwards, which is called architecture I believe - they may have changed the name by now. I am going to ask one of the specialists here."

"They are producing machines which will control us, human beings - which is actually going on now. Machines, computers and other mechanical devices that will control our human activity. We will be shaped by the machines. You understand? We are being shaped now but that is very slow, casual. But the big industries are producing machines that will control us. In the factories the robot and the computer will build the car and so on and so on and so on. They do operations. That is one side of it. The other side is also, they are trying to - genetic engineering - to change the genes of the human beings."

"So, what is going to happen to your brain? Either it is going to pursue entertainment - right? - religious entertainment, football, cinema, the puja, it is all entertainment - aren't they - to pass the time, in the name of god, in the name of some kind of silly affair, because we all want to be entertained. You are following all this, sirs? See the seriousness of all this, sir, for god's sake. And the industry, the entertainment industry is already so active: television, football, cricket"

"Thought has created the social world and the psychological world. And the computers - perhaps you have heard about it, some of you - can do exactly everything that thought can do. Do you realise the sequence of that? The computer can learn, can correct itself, and from that correction learn further. So the computer can do what thought can do. The computer will say, I believe in god, because it has been programmed that way; the expert can tell the computer what to say, as we human beings have been programmed, as we human beings have been wired, which is to say I am a Hindu, I am a Buddhist, I believe in god. And the computer being programmed like us can say exactly what you are saying. I wonder if you realise the consequences of this. You understand, sirs? Modern technology has taken over your brain. Right? It is happening sir, it is not the invention of the speaker. We have talked to several computer experts and they are very clear that all that thought can do the computer can do. And with the computer, the robot, which is computer plus the robot can do the mechanical work in a factory. It can produce cars without the help of man. So what becomes of man? You understand my question?"

"Are you acquainted with computers, some of you? The modern computer does almost everything that the human brain can do. It's a machine put together by thought. And that machine, mechanical intelligence, in certain ways is far superior to the human intelligence. It can calculate, remember on a little chip million memories. You people don't know. And the computers with robots are building cars. They can write poems, paint, do extraordinary things."

"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 #131
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Sylvia Brandeis wrote:
Just wanted Paul to know that not everyone shares your view as at the moment he seems to be hounded by attack dogs with rather fixed programming.

Thank you Sylvia. I hear you. And I do hope that you consider making further contributions. This personalization of things has to be gone through. If one sticks one's head out it is unavoidable. I see it as the ego's knee-jerk reaction to blunt speaking. My intention is to stir things up. I do not wish the teaching to become a sterile bog. I understand the reaction.

"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 #132
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Sylvia Brandeis wrote:
For example, I remember once K making some casual remark about computers taking over the world once --- which they haven't

Not to labor the point, Sylvia, but when you look at the above quotes, a small sample, you begin to see that it was notone ortwo remarks made casually, but an important theme in the early eighties.

And you are correct, it seems to me, when you say what is important is the fundamental message he was trying to get through with this. I just think he chose an incorrect example upon which to emphasise the message that human society and the human brain are both becoming increasingly and dangerously mechanical. We certainly should be concerned with that.

He hitched that wagon to the wrong mule. That's all.

"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 #133
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
This supports what I said. Understanding is of the transient and the existent and is not of the timeless. So long as there is a separate "you" who understands, the division between the "you" and what is understood is time, distance and conflict.

Yes Max. Understanding is of the manifest and the manifest is in a state of continual change,flux. So understanding has to be from moment to moment. For that reason the state of mind is the important factor, not any accumulation of knowledge. The mind must also be in flux, not static.

But one cannot 'understand' that which is beyond time. Time is problematic enough!! That which is beyond time has no cause, nothing stands under it.

And you are right that where there is a separate 'I' understanding is intrinsically flawed. From a fragmented mind arises fragmented understanding, which is essentially, misunderstanding.

It has been seen together.

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

This post was last updated by Paul Davidson (account deleted) Tue, 13 Sep 2011.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Sep 2011 #134
Thumb_deleted_user_med Julia Rojas United Kingdom 33 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Jack Pine wrote:
Mr Davidson:

Dear Jack,

You open your comment with a title of Mr. And it is an artificial note of stiff-collared sobriety you strike. All this Mr Davidson and Mr. Greene. Good lord, I wonder that you do not refer to Krishnamurti as Mr. Jiddu!

Under this subterfuge of formality what I hear is fear, pain and anger. I am acquainted with many forms of hypocracy, Jack. Yours is rather cute, but stupid.

You enter the thing like an attack dog, as Sylvia has said. Why? Because you disapprove? Because you are encouraged by others to think you are in some kind of a majority? Because you think no-one is enough couraged to say something against?

You give something little value and so you think it has no value. You do not even consider that it may have value for others. Arrogance and ignorance are an unhappy pair Jack. Let me tell you that Paul is more far-sighted than many on this site and he gives very much to others. I value his comments and his passion and his questioning mind. What do you give Jack? Jack from Ojai? Jack whose advice to look in the mirror of oneself is so patronising to be unbelievable.

Darkness is your candle: Your boundaries are your quest

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 3 readers
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Sep 2011 #135
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Julia Rojas wrote:
Jack from Ojai?

Oh, I missed that, Julia. God, K is a life-dependency for some people. They even call it their 'K World.' Soon they will start a church and become priests, given half a chance. Change the name of Ojai to 'On High.' No wonder I touched a raw nerve with Jack. It's all politics on the hill.

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

This post was last updated by Paul Davidson (account deleted) Tue, 13 Sep 2011.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Sep 2011 #136
Thumb_tampura ganesan balachandran India 2204 posts in this forum Offline

Julia Rojas wrote:
Let me tell you that Paul is more far-sighted than many on this site and he gives very much to others. I value his comments and his passion and his questioning mind.

Me too.Congratulations Mr.Paul Davidson.
gb

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

This post was last updated by ganesan balachandran Wed, 14 Sep 2011.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Sep 2011 #137
Thumb_tampura ganesan balachandran India 2204 posts in this forum Offline

RICK LEIN wrote:
But it is never you who are wrong.

See the truth in the false, enough.
gb

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Sep 2011 #138
Thumb_tampura ganesan balachandran India 2204 posts in this forum Offline

dhirendra singh wrote:
K never said that it was veda

well! what is that, which is in india only. is he irrelevant?
gb

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Sep 2011 #139
Thumb_tampura ganesan balachandran India 2204 posts in this forum Offline

dhirendra singh wrote:
Did they have not read K:)?

Mina, the sacred is there. and that is why Finland is happy like her.
gb

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Sep 2011 #140
Thumb_tampura ganesan balachandran India 2204 posts in this forum Offline

dhirendra singh wrote:
it is an insight when seen without imagination.

vedas too are full of insights if seen without imagination,guesses, and above all without any conditioning.
gb

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Sep 2011 #141
Thumb_tampura ganesan balachandran India 2204 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Davidson wrote:
$500 for the one who works out the riddle of my face.

Dried log of wood resembling a dead man.
gb

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

This post was last updated by ganesan balachandran Wed, 14 Sep 2011.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Sep 2011 #142
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5770 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Davidson wrote:
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.

Paul Davidson's reply: 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.

Mr Davidson:

Your quote above is what you actually wrote about K and computers and what I disagree with. Yet in a subsequent post you tried to make it seem like you were supporting what K had to say about computers with a long list of quotes supplied by you. Are you really that blatantly dishonest?

What I object to has nothing to do with statements made by K about computers. What I object to is you blithly rejecting what K said about the effect of computers on humanity. Read your own quote. Would you like to back your opinion up with some facts? Who made you head Priest and interpreter of what K pointed out? This is how religions start. Somebody figures out a way to exploit people by becoming the intermediary.

For years, especially the last two or three of his life, K was adamant that no one is empowered to take over for him or to interpret his work. Is that who you are trying to become? It seems like it from many of your posts. You browbeat and bully anyone who posts something you disagree with. You saturate the site with your posts which are mostly composed of your unsubstantiated opinions, ideas and beliefs. This site belongs to all of us who would post here and it is about what K pointed out not about anyone's random opinions and beliefs.

In closing I think it is the responsibility of everyone who is interested in what K had to say to point out those people who would become self-styled "experts on and "interpreters" of K's discoveries. To all of you I suggest that if you are interested in what K had to say then go straight to the source and don't waste your time with an "interpreter" or middle man. This is all I have to say about this matter.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Wed, 14 Sep 2011.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 6 readers
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Sep 2011 #143
Thumb_tampura ganesan balachandran India 2204 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
You have, apparently, gulled a couple of women and maybe some others into believing you actually know something worthwhile about what K pointed out. That's not too hard to do.

'Not in vain is all this toil, which the gods encourage. We two must always strive against each other, and we will win the race that is won by hundred means, when we merge together as couple.
gb

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Sep 2011 #144
Thumb_stringio RICK LEIN United States 4436 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

The central point perhaps being overlooked here in the finger pointing..the bickering...the labeling..and characterizations would seem to be...while we are busy finding faults and flaws in others we are not looking at our own part it in. It is interesting to observe that many of us come here presumably to discuss the what we see "IN ourselves" because that seems to me to be where the problem lies..so it is rather funny how thin skinned and easily offended we can be in light of that fact? In any case if we are in fact interested in the truth..which no one owns..and which needs not be defended..we might possiblylearn something new about ourselves..after all attack and defense are two sides of the same coin..are they not? There is nothing new in this...it is everywhere...Sometimes some of the behavior here is laughable,for gods sake it gets to be a joke in light of what the teachings point to..people who have never heard of Krishnamurti at times seem to have a more direct perception of the absurdity of their own self image than those who profess such seriousness of intent to understand themselves? So maybe we can let it go now? Maybe we can get back the the serious business of looking in our own back yard..seing our own conditioned mechanical way of thought?Just a thought..that's all!:)

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 4 readers
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Sep 2011 #145
Thumb_stringio RICK LEIN United States 4436 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Paul Davidson wrote:

Is an open ended question... a closed minded question Paul

often

What is a fundamental question Paul?

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Sep 2011 #146
Thumb_tampura ganesan balachandran India 2204 posts in this forum Offline

Ravi Seth wrote:
but without a holistic passion to directly perceive 'what is' logic
kindly elaborate the above.

without that we use logic as logic.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Sep 2011 #147
Thumb_stringio RICK LEIN United States 4436 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Sylvia Brandeis wrote:
seems to be hounded by attack dogs with rather fixed programming.

Dear Sylvia..your compassion is underwhelming :0 Bark bark..Woof Woof:)

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

This post was last updated by RICK LEIN (account deleted) Wed, 14 Sep 2011.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Sep 2011 #148
Thumb_stringio RICK LEIN United States 4436 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Julia Rojas wrote:
Dear Jack,

You open your comment with a title of Mr. And it is an artificial note of stiff-collared sobriety you strike. All this Mr Davidson and Mr. Greene. Good lord, I wonder that you do not refer to Krishnamurti as Mr. Jiddu!

Under this subterfuge of formality what I hear is fear, pain and anger. I am acquainted with many forms of hypocracy, Jack. Yours is rather cute, but stupid.

Dear Jack..and then the rest of it..LOL..I hope you were looking in the mirror when you wrote that. In your efforts to repudiate you emulate?:)

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Sep 2011 #149
Thumb_1507053_1_ Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Sri Lanka 1208 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Davidson wrote:
I felt that the idea of 'the wrong turn' was Bohm's.

Paul Davidson wrote:
I felt that the idea of 'the wrong turn' was Bohm's.

An idea? It is a fact if you look at it carefully.

What comes first? Memory or thought? Memory OK? There is sensory perception then the imprint of it & that becomes memory.Then the same imprint again & recognition of it is beginning of thought.Now this is the natural function of the organism.So thought comes second.

Then there is psychological time.Thought created that.We struggle so much to make life, future secure.So now this time which thought created,is it a fact.It's not, right?-it's an illusion.And this striving in time is causing enormous suffering.So thought created that after it originated first for physical survival.

Now this psychological time thought created how is it part of the natural evolutionary process because time is non fact psychologically.So thought which first acted to ensure physical security which is necessary took off in a different direction at a later point. So there was a wrong turn & this has become a trap now with adults teaching kids to seek a secure future psychologically.

So look at it Paul carefully.It is an irrefutable truth that a wrong turn took place,not an idea, not some imaginary concoction by K & Dr.David Bohm.

In your reply, if you do, please try to be honest,simple & sincere. Not driven by ambition to be one notch higher than the other.We are not in a competition here,we are discussing to investigate together,to discover,to deepen our understanding, not to beat the other with clever intellectual argumentations.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 4 readers
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Sep 2011 #150
Thumb_1507053_1_ Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Sri Lanka 1208 posts in this forum Offline

Paul,

Reference your post #113.

Julia made a simple error reading K.I pointed that out.By this I am not questioning her intelligence or anything at all.When I was in my 20s I told someone K was saying nothing is possible about suffering! I have made such errors reading K.So it can happen.Then we have to discuss & sort it out.

K was well aware of the scientific process.Observation, collection of data,conclude, then test it out, make fresh observation ,conclude again & so on & so on the whole procedure he mentioned as I put it here.He was well aware of that.So he wouldn't mean wipe out knowledge to make fresh scientific discoveries.That would be ridiculous.Julia has started reading K recently if my recollection is correct.So she will come across all what K said about all that as we did.

However you post doesn't address the comments I made in my post #95 at all as far as I can understand.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 3 readers
Back to Top
Displaying posts 121 - 150 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.)