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

The Love Train


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 61 in total
Fri, 20 Jan 2012 #1
Thumb_stringio lidlo lady United States 4003 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

We are violent because we're animals. But because we're thought-driven animals, we're ambivalent about our violence, justifying and condemning it, fashioning ever more subtle and covert forms of violence to rail against and perpetrate. It's our animal nature.

Then the holy man comes along and tells us our animal nature can mutate into human nature, i.e., the negation of violence, the way of love. This arouses our animal curiosity in the unknown and the anomalous, and inititates a train of thought circling the idea of love. This circling, called "belief" when it's a solitary exercise, and "religion" when carried on with others, is driven by the constant repetition of the holy man's words.

All of this circling and chanting and identifying with an idea is presumptuously called "The Human Condition" by the thought-driven animal that wants to be human badly enough to hobble itself, but not deeply enough to transform.

This post was last updated by lidlo lady (account deleted) Sat, 21 Jan 2012.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sat, 21 Jan 2012 #2
Thumb_rao kamarajugadda Mallik ArjunaRao India 903 posts in this forum Offline

lidlo lady wrote:
This circling, called "belief" when it's a solitary exercise, and "religion" when carried on with others, is driven by the constant repetition of the holy man's words.

One clearly understands your stand on the notion of "beleif", and its source(JK's statements about the facts).But out right condemmation of individual on the basis of his beleif is not reasonable,unless you show them logically that there would a contridiction in their dispensation/relationships with others because of their belief.

nothing

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 3 readers
Back to Top
Sat, 21 Jan 2012 #3
Thumb_tampura ganesan balachandran India 2204 posts in this forum Offline

lidlo lady wrote:
that wants to be human badly enough to hobble itself, but not deeply enough to transform.

It appears so. including yourself sofar nobody has answered or attempted to answer those two questions he asked in those 'last talks'.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 21 Jan 2012 #4
Thumb_michael_ Michael Berry Australia 24 posts in this forum Offline

lidlo lady wrote:
We are violent because we're animals. But because we're thought-driven animals, we're ambivalent about our violence, justifying and condemning it, fashioning ever more subtle and covert forms of violence to rail against and perpetrate. It's our animal nature.

The assumption you are making here, and the same assumption others make, is that animals are violent - evidently by pure observation they are not violent as their instinctive nature is not conflicted as it is not thought-bound.

Even Darwin was unable to evolutionarily bridge the gap between animal nature and human (so-called) higher functioning - only a couple of men have been able to logically do so and they were not holy men.

Clearly humans have stepped out of evolution and pure animal nature by simple and then complex patterns of thought as ritual, repetitive behavior and conditioned responses as psychological time, self-centered behavior.

Human beings are the ONLY animal which lies to itself.

Violence is psychological time...and as animals in the wild do not exist in psychological time their animal nature is not conflicted and therefore no violence.

Animals lie to each other via camouflage, which is survival - humans lie to themselves which is violence.

Violence arises out of thought as measurement, as time which is limited.

The circle of human violence, its psychological patterning, can only end when the whole argument of animal nature as violence ends and the brain gains an insight into technical thought and its limitations.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 4 readers
Back to Top
Sat, 21 Jan 2012 #5
Thumb_deleted_user_med Daniel Dan France 251 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

quite interesting Michael! thanks !

Dan.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Sat, 21 Jan 2012 #6
Thumb_deleted_user_med Daniel Dan France 251 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Michael Berry wrote:
The assumption you are making here, and the same assumption others make, is that animals are violent

this is the last theory left to justify the mass killing all over the world....in my views...

Dan.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Sat, 21 Jan 2012 #7
Thumb_tampura ganesan balachandran India 2204 posts in this forum Offline

with reference to your interview-(Clearly K's brain had insights regarding the whole nature of the human brain psychologically...that there is only one brain.)Does it include the brain or consciousness of all the living beings.( or animals get conditioned by human behaviour and thoughts.)
gb

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

This post was last updated by ganesan balachandran Sat, 21 Jan 2012.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sat, 21 Jan 2012 #8
Thumb_deleted_user_med Peng Shu Tse United Kingdom 1205 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dear Michael, Greetings.

Thank you for an interesting post. I agree completely with the thrust, that man's violence is a violation of natural order whereas the animal uses violence only in a nature-ordered way, even if some appears unpurposeful to us.

Our violence may 'stem' from our animal nature, our instincts, but what does this mean, exactly? A cancer cell 'stems' from a plain cell. Does this mean that all cells must inevitably degenerate into tumors?

Thought has mutated a natural instinct in to something else.

Violence in Man is a degeneration, not a natural feature. The fact that it has become endemic does not alter that fact. Violence is a cancer.

With regard to evolution, you state that man has 'stepped out' of evolution. I think that cannot be right. The human species is evolving faster than average, according to genetic specialists. Evolution happens in waves. I am talking of physical mutation, not psychological. The rate has speeded up since the last ice-age. I do not speculate what this may lead to.

Why do you say we have 'stepped out?'

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 21 Jan 2012 #9
Thumb_tampura ganesan balachandran India 2204 posts in this forum Offline

Peng Shu Tse wrote:
Why do you say we have 'stepped out?'

vedas say animals came latter or simultaneously, just have to see it once again or that an allusion.
gb

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

This post was last updated by ganesan balachandran Sat, 21 Jan 2012.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 21 Jan 2012 #10
Thumb_stringio B Teulada Portugal 700 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

GB,

I left a message for you

take care, hope you have a wonderful rest of the day

T

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 21 Jan 2012 #11
Thumb_img001 Sudhir Sharma India 1989 posts in this forum Offline

lidlo lady wrote:
Then the holy man comes along and tells us our animal nature can mutate into human nature, i.e., the negation of violence, the way of love.

Was it a mistake on the part of the holy man to talk about love along with the negation of violence? Would anyone have come to listen if he were to talk about negation of violnce only?

Those who criticised the holy man or his followers, did they do any better?

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 21 Jan 2012 #12
Thumb_stringio lidlo lady United States 4003 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Michael Berry wrote:
The assumption you are making here, and the same assumption others make, is that animals are violent - evidently by pure observation they are not violent as their instinctive nature is not conflicted as it is not thought-bound.

Define violence in whatever way pleases you but animals are territorial, hierarchical, they kill for food, and humans are animals by this definition.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 22 Jan 2012 #13
Thumb_michael_ Michael Berry Australia 24 posts in this forum Offline

Humans stopped evolving a longtime ago by not allowing people to die without intervention. By this action and others humans interfered with the variation and diversity required for natural selection as genetic mutation to occur. Evolution of species is now derailed by all the "toxic" chemicals now released into the natural environment from the billion year incorporation. And the killing of other species incorrectly for food and enhancing human so-called well-being...a wrong step.

"Stepped out" of evolution means specifically that humans found ways to manipulate the human brain and its development over approx 3.5 millions years - it is there if you look for it but it will take concerted uncovering and objectivity to find the facts.

This post was last updated by Michael Berry Mon, 23 Jan 2012.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Sun, 22 Jan 2012 #14
Thumb_michael_ Michael Berry Australia 24 posts in this forum Offline

lidlo lady wrote:
Define violence in whatever way pleases you but animals are territorial, hierarchical, they kill for food, and humans are animals by this definition.

Sorry but such tactics don't work with this observer.

It is not a matter of defining violence, it is a matter of what is psychological conflicted and that which is not.

Argue you all like, but animals in the wild are not psychologically conflicted as observed, but humans clearly are the sole species which lives in an inner and outer spatial division - simply animals do not. Violence arises as this division.

There is no conflict within an animal in its instinctive territorial imperative, nor in its social structure which arises as a dynamic group relationship, nor in the food drive as some animals are carnivorous, some, vegetarian and a few omnivorous.

Humans are vegetarian by intestinal tract length, a fact by the way...argue against it all you like as that will not change the actuality of the physiological and anatomical base.

Humans have become carnivorous and omnivorous by habit and not by biological type. Herein lies the root of violence in humans.

So if humans have inherited violence from animals then violence is in its place, and all is as nature intended it, so why wish for it to be any other way or discuss it at all - as nothing will change such predetermination genetically. So if we are deemed violent by our animal nature then we are what we are supposed to be - surely?

You can't have it both ways! If violence is inherited then accept it and end the futile battle against it, or violence has arisen in humans psychologically through some actions which are not genetically (naturally) linked! So which is it...it CANNOT be both - can it?

Etymologically the root meaning of the word "violence" means vehement, outrageous, very forcible - "due to strength". Please feel free to look them up in an etymological dictionary and just perhaps some insight might click...then again it may not!

The issue is very simple isn't it at the root: either humans killing, controlling and destroying humans (and themselves) and every other aspect of the universe, is in order evolutionarily or it is not. So which is it? One way humans can take an action through insight and the other they cannot! Beautiful isn't it!

There is NO psychological evolution!

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 3 readers
Back to Top
Sun, 22 Jan 2012 #15
Thumb_stringio RICK LEIN United States 4436 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Michael Berry wrote:
Human beings are the ONLY animal which lies to itself.

Most excellent and thank you Michael..I would only add "and believes the lie":)

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Sun, 22 Jan 2012 #16
Thumb_stringio RICK LEIN United States 4436 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Michael Berry wrote:
evidently by pure observation they are not violent as their instinctive nature is not conflicted as it is not thought-bound.

Bingo!:)

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sun, 22 Jan 2012 #17
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 1228 posts in this forum Offline

Michael Berry wrote:
Even Darwin was unable to evolutionarily bridge the gap between animal nature and human (so-called) higher functioning - only a couple of men have been able to logically do so and they were not holy men.

I wonder what you mean here. Can you tell me who these men are/ were?

I am not challenging what you are saying, just interested.

Peter

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Sun, 22 Jan 2012.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 22 Jan 2012 #18
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 1228 posts in this forum Offline

Michael Berry wrote:
There is no conflict within an animal in its instinctive territorial imperative, nor in its social structure which arises as a dynamic group relationship, nor in the food drive as some animals are carnivorous, some, vegetarian and a few omnivorous.

Humans are vegetarian by intestinal tract length, a fact by the way...argue against it all you like as that will not change the actuality of the physiological and anatomical base.

Humans have become carnivorous and omnivorous by habit and not by biological type. Herein lies the root of violence in humans.

Are you aware of Jane Goodall's studies of chimpanzees in the wild. She was quite surprised to find that they would kill other animals when they could, even immature chimps from another group in an adjacent territory and the meat was wanted and only reluctantly shared as food. I may be remembering this imperfectly.

About the types: vegetarian, carnivorous, and omnivorous, when I look at everything that is named I see that there really are not absolute divisions anywhere. Everything actually grades into everything else. Even though it might be necessary to look at the evolutionary history here, there is not a distinguishable boundary here, or actually anywhere, only gradations.

Also no intent to be contentious.

Peter

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Sun, 22 Jan 2012.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 22 Jan 2012 #19
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 1228 posts in this forum Offline

Michael,

Let me add, thank you for raising some good questions,

Peter

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Sun, 22 Jan 2012.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sun, 22 Jan 2012 #20
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 1228 posts in this forum Offline

One other thing, that there is such a taste for meat in humans seem to imply the evolution of that taste. The attractiveness of things, the form of the opposite sex, sweetness of sugar, and so on have an evolutionary history.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Sun, 22 Jan 2012.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sun, 22 Jan 2012 #21
Thumb_avatar Amber Cinquini United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

Michael Berry wrote:
The assumption you are making here, and the same assumption others make, is that animals are violent - evidently by pure observation they are not violent as their instinctive nature is not conflicted as it is not thought-bound.

I remember K asking question once about a chetah chasing a deer and killing it, he asked if this constitute 'disorder', this conversation took place with David and Sheldrick the biologist,he agreed pain was involved and that violence was part of this process but the question was, 'Is it disorder'?

Lidlo please don't freak out because I have quoted K, I thought this was the best way to present this topic

Is it disorder for an animal to kill for food?

Is it or was it disorder for the native Americans to eat the Buffalo or for the Eskimo to eat seals?

This post was last updated by Amber Cinquini Sun, 22 Jan 2012.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 22 Jan 2012 #22
Thumb_stringio lidlo lady United States 4003 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Amber Cinquini wrote:
Is it disorder for an animal to kill for food?

No, and it isn't disorder for them to be territorial and hierarchical; it's animal.

The holy man says man is an animal that can transform into a human, a being that isn't territorial, heirarchical, and abhors killing. This transformation (the teaching goes) is an awakening to a deeper, more comprehensive understanding of the animal's own nature that amounts to an enlightened state called "love". This is the myth, the belief, the faith, the religion of the holy man practiced by those who would sooner believe than question, and scoffed at by those who would sooner be a light to themselves than bask in the luminous glow of wishful thinking.

If we're intelligent enough to imagine what we should be yet unable to transform accordingly, we're not as intelligent as we are imaginative. We can imagine ourselves transforming into K's notion of a human enlightened by love and understanding, but this a far cry from any such reality. Has anyone ever been so enlightened? Was K? We have no way of knowing. We can only believe or not. Those who believe carry on as animals entranced by and identified with the sacred image of what-should-be, yet no less territorial, heirarchical, or aggressive than ever. Those who don't believe either dismiss the holy man and holiness altogether, or wonder if he wasn't a genetic mutation who believed anyone could mutate and, after a lifelong career of urging people to mutate, realized they couldn't.

This post was last updated by lidlo lady (account deleted) Sun, 22 Jan 2012.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sun, 22 Jan 2012 #23
Thumb_stringio lidlo lady United States 4003 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Take your experience and flush it. Your master said you have to be empty, so quit clinging to what you think you know and attend to what you are.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sun, 22 Jan 2012 #24
Thumb_avatar Amber Cinquini United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

lidlo lady wrote:
Take your experience and flush it. Your master said you have to be empty, so quit clinging to what you think you know and attend to what you are.

Yes you are absolutely right and...

Thank you I am well aware of it, this is also what K says, so you are quoting K? My master is your master or you would not be here :) The difference is I am aware of it and therefore free of the master and you pretend to be free and therefore a slave to him, while bashing us all on the head about quoting the master.

Is there a difference between a teacher and a master or they are both the same?

There is nothing wrong with learning from the teacher, questioning the master and engaging the master, this does not constitute enslavement and belief. One can be aware of both, action that is born of belief and action that is free of it.

If you did not engage with the master you would not be here, my friend, denying the fact, is not freedom from illusion.

This post was last updated by Amber Cinquini Sun, 22 Jan 2012.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sun, 22 Jan 2012 #25
Thumb_stringio lidlo lady United States 4003 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Learning has nothing to do with teachers. If you want to credit somebody else for what you realize for yourself or for what you haven't realized but pretend you have, suit yourself.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 23 Jan 2012 #26
Thumb_avatar Amber Cinquini United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

lidlo lady wrote:
Learning has nothing to do with teachers. If you want to credit somebody else for what you realize for yourself or for what you haven't realized but pretend you have, suit yourself.

I dont agree, learning can and often is related to the one who points, if one chooses to look in the direction pointed one learns and realizes, that is true.

One does realizes for one self and what is not realized is looked at at the direction the sage points....there is no final destination, enlightenment as a final destination or an end insight, one learns out of time. :) but I do get what you are trying to say....Have a good one :) our work here is done.

This post was last updated by Amber Cinquini Mon, 23 Jan 2012.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 23 Jan 2012 #27
Thumb_stringio lidlo lady United States 4003 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Amber Cinquini wrote:
our work here is done.

Speak for yourself. As long as K-patty, Dogmatic Doc, and PengPaul keep doin' thar thang, I be nippin' at their heels.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 23 Jan 2012 #28
Thumb_avatar Amber Cinquini United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

lidlo lady wrote:
Speak for yourself. As long as K-patty, Dogmatic Doc, and PengPaul keep doin' thar thang, I be nippin' at their heels.

Are you a self appointed dog of the universe? What is that all about?

You are selling these people short, and that is your shortcoming and lack of self reflective vision, I know some of them and they are much more serious than you think, try to look at them with one eye looking at yourself, you will have better success at having people look at what they say.....you still have lots to learn, you are not as realized as you think he he he. But your point is well taken, don't eat me alive mr. Dog:) Did you every consider the Santiago trail? go for a long walk?

This post was last updated by Amber Cinquini Mon, 23 Jan 2012.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 23 Jan 2012 #29
Thumb_tampura ganesan balachandran India 2204 posts in this forum Offline

B Teulada wrote:
I left a message for you

got it.thank you.
gb

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 23 Jan 2012 #30
Thumb_michael_ Michael Berry Australia 24 posts in this forum Offline

Peter, Without being tricky - if you look you will find out yourself. I had to - even K said humans had taken a "wrong turn". The question is - What was it?

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 61 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.)