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

cuckoo in other bird's nest...


Displaying posts 61 - 90 of 96 in total
Sun, 09 Aug 2015 #61
Thumb_stringio Joan Galbraith France 713 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Pavil Davidov wrote:
Of course it is. There is nothing in the present that wasn't there in some form in the past.

Lol... You've just made actual the 'I'.

Storage, even in the brain, is a process of change. There is not one static point in this whole universe.

Nor is there a past reality.

But your concept of "storage" is based on stasis. You've said in the past that memory is static. It's not. Memory is dynamic as is every mental process.

That, in my opinion, is empty rhetoric. Memory consists in 'stills'. that's its whole problem; life isn't 'still'.

Your whole thesis about life, awareness, existence and everything else that goes around in that head of yours is built on the premise that there is an innate dualism of stasis and dynamics. Your whole business is to put some things on one side and others on the other side. That's the central pivot of your thought, of your thinking, Max. But you even deny it is thought and thinking. You think you do it all from insight.

Pavil ranting. Off the rails.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Aug 2015 #62
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Joan Galbraith wrote:
Memory consists in 'stills'. that's its whole problem; life isn't 'still'.

No, that is empty rhetoric. I have no idea about your memory, John, but mine is dynamic. Not only can I "run" a memory as well as have "stills" but also, I am aware that each time a memory is run, the very running of it changes it. And thirdly, I have the impression ( and I may be wrong about this) that memory is active below the unconscious level so that the events of today change the memories of yesterday. I surmise that from evidence of my own experience with my own memory and the changing recollections of others.

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Aug 2015 #63
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Pavil Davidov wrote:
There is nothing in the present that wasn't there in some form in the past.

The present is ever new, always new. Evolution is an unfolding of the present, a flowering of the new. Of course there is that which is built upon, but the past is not brought forward except through thinking and thought. Growth -- growth of any type -- is addition of the new, not a carryover of the old.

If the present is totally a carryover, as you say, then what we have is not the present; we have the old.

max

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Aug 2015 #64
Thumb_stringio Joan Galbraith France 713 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Pavil Davidov wrote:
I surmise that from evidence of my own experience with my own memory and the changing recollections of others.

Who or what is doing the looking?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Aug 2015 #65
Thumb_stringio Frank Smith United States 32 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Eve G. wrote:
I see all the old friends are still here talking about K's love affairs. All these people are dead and we are still alive, why not talk about our love affairs and let the dead rest?

Haha, some never get tired of talking about K's love affairs, for them it never gets old or tiresome. But in all fairness, from what I can tell, it really does not pop up on here that much, just good timing on your part to arrive now :-)

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Aug 2015 #66
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

You're a slippery one, Paul. You have no substantial reply, then, to post 48?

max

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Aug 2015 #67
Thumb_img_7089_copy Eve G. Indonesia 1570 posts in this forum Offline

The dead are living and the living are dead. A famous poet said this but I forgot his name. Seems applicable here. Does this mean none of us are having any 'love affairs' to discuss?

Would be an interesting shift of topic, don't you think?

The nature of the change from disorder is silence.

This post was last updated by Eve G. Sun, 09 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Aug 2015 #68
Thumb_stringio Joan Galbraith France 713 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
You're a slippery one, Paul. You have no substantial reply, then, to post 48?

I've told you, his agenda is different. He has no interest in finding out. Ask yourself what aspect of everyday humanity demonstrates such characteristics. Couple it with the fact that he keeps trying to reduce the teachings and even truth to the level of travesty and what have you got? Somebody who wants to climb above them might you think?

This post was last updated by Joan Galbraith (account deleted) Sun, 09 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Aug 2015 #69
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Eve,

So. Pornography is an upgrade from our discussion here? Yes, it just might be.

max

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Aug 2015 #70
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3170 posts in this forum Offline

Joan Galbraith wrote:
Pavil: But your concept of "storage" is based on stasis. You've said in the past that memory is static. It's not. Memory is dynamic as is every mental process.

John: That, in my opinion, is empty rhetoric. Memory consists in 'stills'. that's its whole problem; life isn't 'still'.

Good point. Memory is limited also by our experiences, so it's bound to the past, obviously, but life is not bound in the least by those limitations. That becomes a problem when we expect life to conform to our desires, will, expectations, goals, etc. which are based upon memory.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Aug 2015 #71
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Tom,

True what you are saying.

"Life isn't 'still,'" as Paul says, but it becomes worse than still, it becomes retrograded, when the past is brought forward into the present. It is thinking and thought that imposes the will of memory on the present.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Aug 2015 #72
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3170 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
it becomes worse than still, it becomes retrograded, when the past is brought forward into the present.

Yes, 'retrograded' is a good word! It goes backwards. Or attempts to do so. Making dinner...will look further into your point later.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Aug 2015 #73
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
If the present is totally a carryover, as you say, then what we have is not the present; we have the old.

You have proved it, by words!

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Aug 2015 #74
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
You're a slippery one, Paul. You have no substantial reply, then, to post 48?

You make a vague allegation, that I disrupt every discussion I enter, and then expect a substantial reply.

Max, you have gone totally off-topic here. Do you even know what this thread is about? It's bad enough you bring every thread back to the same question, the non-necessity of thought, but when you expect me to answer a question on this thread that you asked me on another, which has nothing at all to do with either . . . boy, you are dumber than dumb.

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Aug 2015 #75
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Joan Galbraith wrote:
Couple it with the fact that he keeps trying to reduce the teachings and even truth to the level of travesty

Here's a biblical quotation you'll like, John, "Go forth and multiply."

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Aug 2015 #76
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Tom Paine wrote:

max greene wrote:

it becomes worse than still, it becomes retrograded, when the past is brought forward into the present.

Yes, 'retrograded' is a good word! It goes backwards. Or attempts to do so. Making dinner...will look further into your point later.

"Later?" You're introducing time, which does not exist, you'll recall. And, when you look into it "later" you will be looking into the past, which is "retrograding" Max's point. That would be retrograde.

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Aug 2015 #77
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3170 posts in this forum Offline

Pavil Davidov wrote:
when you look into it "later" you will be looking into the past, which is "retrograding" Max's point. That would be retrograde.

It depends upon how one is looking. Is one looking now through the eyes of the past at a point max makes...or at a point K. made...or anyone, then that's retrograde...conditioned looking...just reacting. But I think 'retrograde' often becomes a cause for conflict in a relationship. If I'm always relating to you and you to me in retrograde then relationship is based upon the past...upon pleasure and fulfillment and the search for 'psychological security'.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 10 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Aug 2015 #78
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Pavil Davidov wrote:
You make a vague allegation, that I disrupt every discussion I enter, and then expect a substantial reply.

You know very well that this is not what is at issue here. The subject of topic disruption does not even appear in my post 46, or as quoted in your post 48.

My post 55 is what you are not answering. In it I asked if you had anything to say more significant than your little witticism (post 48). Apparently the little witticism is all you have.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Mon, 10 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Aug 2015 #79
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
You know very well that this is not what is at issue here. The subject of topic disruption does not even appear in my post 46, or as quoted in your post 48.

On this thread you have asked me twice to comment on a "post 48." In the last case you did not specify the thread while in the first case you said it was post 48 on a different thread. HTF am I supposed to know what you're referring to unless you specify? But here's my answer, now you've at last made it clear, to your question as to whether I have anything to add to MY post 48 on THIS thread.

No.

Maybe now that's clear you can answer my previous question, which all this is a diversion from:

You had said that one cannot be conscious of awareness. I asked how it was that you can write endlessly of awareness when you have no consciousness, even of its existence?

You'll probably give some bs answer such as "Awareness is not part of existence." But YOU WRITE ABOUT IT.

AND you still evade my other point that this thread was started on Radha's book and was not set up to paw over your theory about thinking, yet again.

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

This post was last updated by Pavil Davidov (account deleted) Mon, 10 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Aug 2015 #80
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3170 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
Pavil Davidov wrote:

. . . the mind, even at its unconscious level, is working on stored material.
Yes, that is all that the brain has, is stored material. But awareness is not stored material. The present is not stored material.

The brain stores images as memory, and the brain, unfortunately, can think. But awareness is something other than thinking. Awareness is sensing, and sensing at the moment of sensing is only itself.

This is an important point, max, and perhaps it deserves it's own thread, as this one started out about K's love affair. K. often talked about what it means to be aware, and how our beliefs, opinions, conclusions...thinking...distort awareness. To quote K, "thought is conflict"....conflict in relationship, which is the way of the world...the way of suffering. So why are all of our relationships distorted by thought with its divisions and endless conflict between what is and the ideal or belief or ambition?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Aug 2015 #81
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Paul, re your above post 79:

Enough of this. We can carry on in private, if you wish.

max

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Aug 2015 #82
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
Enough of this. We can carry on in private, if you wish.

No Max. You made a public statement that one cannot be conscious of awareness and I have asked a pertinent question which you have evaded by personalizing the whole thing. I asked, if one cannot be conscious of something, how come one talks endlessly about that same thing one is not conscious of?

Answer it or not, Max, I don't care, but the question is out there and still stands. I'm not interested in private answers and personal jibe from you or anyone else. This is a public forum and I asked you a pertinent question. It's up to you how you deal with it, either evade or deal with it.

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

This post was last updated by Pavil Davidov (account deleted) Mon, 10 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Aug 2015 #83
Thumb_man_question_mark dhirendra singh India 2984 posts in this forum Offline

About some points raised here...
1. Why to discuss K's private life?
Well, then what is K's biographies which K himself not only approved but also motivated to writers of these biographies to write them...where we can read most crap things about K, so are we allowed to read K's private life which suits to his good image?
This site is about K and if one doesn't examine teacher and teaching both, most possibly he is going to believe every tom dick and herry...because every one can repeat second hand things, thousands are doing this but living totally opposite the teaching, K himself had answered about diagnosing fake Gurus by their fake conduct.

2.Why to try to fit K in a traditional image of saint or non-saint?

Again, I never think K as black or white, but as real not as fake, because how a fake can speak about finding out the truth, about seeing the facts...so there is nothing wrong in finding facts about K's life, they don't make him less saint or anything...
3. We should discuss our life, our affairs, in spite of discussing K's life....
At Kinfo, K is center topic of discussion which includes his teaching, and his life, where there are always need of doubting, questioning, both his life and his teaching, otherwise we deny his teaching which is about questioning, inquiring and finding reality of what is. Though no problem if anyone want to discuss his own life and affairs, I have already discussed my share here ;).

Lastly, I feel human race had been trapped in fake Gurus mainly because their private life was not allowed to questioned and discussed, so they preached the things which they never lived. I don't think K was in favor to hide anything about his life, otherwise why he would have dared to file lawsuit against Raja, who was able to expose his affairs.

I don't know

This post was last updated by dhirendra singh Mon, 10 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Aug 2015 #84
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Paul, re post 82:

If you have an interest in inquiry, then you don't need an audience. I will answer whatever you wish in private. You can post whatever I say in private.

But I feel you are grandstanding. You need an audience. You may even be deliberately trying to undermine the forums. I don't know. But either we carry on in private or we don't carry on at all.

max

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Aug 2015 #85
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
I feel you are grandstanding. You need an audience. You may even be deliberately trying to undermine the forums.

Not at all. You made a statement that awareness cannot be conscious and so I asked you how you can write about something you have no consciousness of. How is that "undermining the forum?"

In any case, I have no wish to force an answer from you, even were it possible. I just note you are not willing to give a public answer to your very public statement. Fine by me. Let's drop it.

And I have no desire for private conversation on a public forum. It defeats the purpose of the forum, which is open dialogue.

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Aug 2015 #86
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

dhirendra singh wrote:
About some points raised here...

Dear Dhi, just to say I agreed with every point there . . . and thanks for making them. The only thing that goes wrong is when people become obsessed with the private lives and spend a great deal of energy making gossip, either publicly or in their own brains. A gossipy brain is a poor creature. And we have to use intelligence to read a biography or an autobiography, not take everything as truth, as we also have to watch our own minds, our own prejudices being exposed as they do their work, as we read.

Having said that, I liked Radha's book, despite the notable shortcomings. Obviously she was still in pain and it's difficult to extricate the truth from the emotion, so it's a contemplative read. Yet we see here how people have reacted so strongly to her personal account, which is an intimate account of her early life as well as stuff about K. "Living in the Shadow" is about her experience of living. I felt it to be of great value. Perhaps I should read it again and get new impressions, if I ever have time.

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Aug 2015 #87
Thumb_2820 Aseem Kumar India 2033 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
But either we carry on in private or we don't carry on at all.

Don't believe this, folks...you too, Max :)

The mind can deceive itself and fabricate anything it wishes

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Aug 2015 #88
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Aseem Kumar wrote:
Don't believe this, folks...you too, Max :)

Oh, Max did send me a PM with this special offer, but I declined. There's something interesting here: Max was stating that I am "grandstanding" which means I depend on an audience. That could be taken as rather offensive, but I didn't. What I saw was the true meaning. Max doesn't like it when one asks a straightforward question, publicly, concerning his dogma and demands to go private. He plays the "grandstanding" card in an effort to induce a guilt-response. The twisted logic being - if you don't want to discuss it in private you must be looking for an audience.

I don't fall for that because it is arbitrary. There's no rational justification for arbitrarily applying the "grandstanding" claim solely to uncomfortable interactions and not to all posts. And if it's not applied arbitrarily then anyone who posts publicly becomes guilty of "grandstanding" and henceforth, to avoid such "grandstanding" claims, all should refrain from public comment and only post privately. Max's request was just not honest.

Anyhow, I must go work now, I have an atrium to make (I think it's called a "claraboia" here). I'll leave you all at it.
alt text

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

This post was last updated by Pavil Davidov (account deleted) Mon, 10 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Aug 2015 #89
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

BTW, here's the pm exchange for those who are interested"

Max: We have defaced the forum long enough with this useless bickering. I will continue with it only in private. Do you want to continue to argue?

Pavil: I have no argument with you, Max. But when you post nonsense I'll point it out, when I see fit. I don't do 'private.'

Max: Thought so. You need an audience.

Pavil: You are trying to induce a guilt response, Max, and I'm not falling for it. It's not that I need an audience, it's that you don;t want your contradictions questioned in public. The reason for posting publicly is that this is a public site and not a private messaging service. Get some honesty mate.

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 11 Aug 2015 #90
Thumb_stringio Joan Galbraith France 713 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

The reason that scions of the tyrant breed have always majorly controlled the world is because the sharpness of their intellect allows them to distort everything to their ends.

Most of us could name, probably off the top of our heads, at least a dozen absolute monsters who have managed to work themselves into a position of supreme power within nations, and this would be the tip of the iceberg. That the 'breed' exists (let alone has huge prominence in human society) would only be contested by the breed itself. It's 'success' is due to a particular kind of intellectual sharpness that yet lacks any moral compass.

K sites attract them like a magnet because the breed sense a source of real power which they feel themselves able to tap into and manipulate, again, 'to their ends'. This site currently has a very active one in the name of Pavil and what he has perpetrated against Max here represents a perfect example of their type of activity. Max had the audacity to challenge his ideas, that's all. They don't like that.

The following, for whoever might be interested, is from #16 'Sensitivity':

Pavil Davidov wrote:
...this had been a major activity in my life, fighting to make a revolution. ... However legitimate Marx and Engels' ideas may have been, and they are well worth serious study, they underestimated the psychological factor. ... It's what attracted me to K. He said the political/economic revolution was too shallow and could only result in the same or similar mess. The human being has to change, not merely the system. That does not seem to have been the case however, ... Top down control does not seem to work.

Joan Braithwait wrote:

So tell us then, pray, what the better political idea you obviously hold might be, quite? Scions always have one and you evidence yourself no exception.

That #16 was met with abuse.

This post is objective. I am simply stating facts here. If anybody would like to discuss them further and in detail in order to determine their veracity I will be happy to do so.

This post was last updated by Joan Galbraith (account deleted) Tue, 11 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Displaying posts 61 - 90 of 96 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.)