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

Tiger killing a deer is manifestation of "order" of the universe?


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 138 in total
Wed, 12 Aug 2015 #1
Thumb_80010981_01_l Praveen Boyeneni United States 18 posts in this forum Offline

I am trying to make sense of below JK quote where he said tiger killing a deer is part of "order" of Universe. Appreciate if anyone clarifies

DB: Yes. We have said, for example, the volcano is a manifestation of the whole order of the universe.

JK: Absolutely. A tiger killing a deer.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Aug 2015 #2
Thumb_stringio Frank Smith United States 32 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Praveen Boyeneni wrote:
I am trying to make sense of below JK quote where he said tiger killing a deer is part of "order" of Universe. Appreciate if anyone clarifies

DB: Yes. We have said, for example, the volcano is a manifestation of the whole order of the universe.

JK: Absolutely. A tiger killing a deer.

Yes, Krishnamurti is saying a tiger killing a deer is part of the order of the universe, of life. This is how it works, and is natural. Tigers kill deers and other animals to eat and survive. If they did not kill the deer, they would starve and die. The deer eats other things, to survive. It is all part of the natural order. Nature does contain killing and what we would see as conflict, but it is part of how it works, sustains itself. It is only in mans view, is this wrong or disorderly but it is perfectly natural and orderly.

Krishnamurti saw and acknowledged this natural order in the world. However, man creating atomic bombs and dropping them and killing millions, is part of disorder, and not natural order, for instance. Nature is order, and man is part of disorder Krishnamurti is saying, I think. Hope this helps, and hope others join in too and share their take on this.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Aug 2015 #3
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Probably most of us have thought about this apparent paradox, an orderly, harmonious nature "red in tooth and claw."

But in the present moment, which is the moment of life and awareness, there is no death. Speculation, but it may be that animals do not carry a past, and are fully aware and conscious only in the present moment.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Aug 2015 #4
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

I always felt it a confusing and useless idea to say that the universe is order. In discussions between K and Bohm they came up with the idea that because the word 'cosmos' means 'order' then nature is order. That is and was a crock of sh**. You can't define the thing from the word.

Is nature the same as order? We have to start from the fact that 'order' is a word and ask what we mean by it. Unless one starts from there every sort of prejudice is introduced.

'Order,' to me, seems to imply an uninterrupted flow, a logical sequence. 'Order' is a concept, a human creation, which humans use to discern between that which has, in itself, a logical flow, and that which has not, or has a flow which has been disrupted. So really we are dealing with the issue of flow and its disruption.

We can be unequivocally sure that in this universe there exists, side by side, various flows AND their disruptions. Nothing continues forever and everything is subject to the laws of accident and resistance.

To give an example: The meteorite that hit planet Earth 100 million years ago (or whenever) and wiped out the dinosaurs was obviously a highly disruptive event. While, at the level of planetary evolution it was an orderly (lawful) act it created havoc for life on Earth. Maybe we can say, it is a matter of levels. At the universal level, everything is lawful, while at a local level, quite a lot of chaos is inevitable, from time to time.

What we have to reckon with is that what is lawful or orderly at one level is unlawful and chaotic at a lower level. In other words, in this universe, order and disorder exist side by side.

If you see a poisonous snake you do not say, "this is the order of things." you move away from it, thus denying the snake its meal. Same goes for the lion and the deer.

So, how about thought? Are we so naive, so intellectually arrogant, to deny that it is also part of the universal order, at one level? One cannot deny tat thought has led to much disorder, but it is human indifference to that disorder that we should focus on, without blaming thought itself, which is a natural consequence of evolution and therefore of nature.

Thank you Praveen, for an interesting and provocative thread.

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

This post was last updated by Pavil Davidov (account deleted) Thu, 13 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Aug 2015 #5
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Pavil Davidov wrote:
. . . how about thought? Are we so naive, so intellectually arrogant, to deny that it is also part of the universal order, at one level? One cannot deny that thought has led to much disorder, but it is human indifference to that disorder that we should focus on . . .

Perhaps it was inevitable that in the unfolding of evolution the ability to think should eventually appear. Yes, and it is reasonable to assume that eventually the understanding of that thinking and thought should appear.

The understanding of thinking and thought is awareness, and awareness is not of the physical, i.e., awareness is not accumulated over time, awareness is not subject to deterioration and therefore subject to death. As Krishnamurti pointed out, it is not "my" awareness, or "your" awareness. Likewise it would not be the tiger's awareness, or the deer's awareness.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Aug 2015 #6
Thumb_3203 Anonymous . Reunion 71 posts in this forum Offline

In order to see what is order, one has to see conditionality. The order is created by conditions, so the order is a movement among those conditionings, and conditions are not static, they are dynamic, also they do not last forever, they have an end. There is no fixed order.

Frank Smith wrote:
Krishnamurti saw and acknowledged this natural order in the world. However, man creating atomic bombs and dropping them and killing millions, is part of disorder, and not natural order, for instance.

Yes, man is responsible for that, but you see, a natural disaster can kill millions too, of course, that is part of a natural order, but that means that order is not only a harmony, it can be destructive too, depending on the conditions.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Aug 2015 #7
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1465 posts in this forum Offline

Anonymous . wrote:
Yes, man is responsible for that, but you see, a natural disaster can kill millions too, of course, that is part of a natural order, but that means that order is not only a harmony, it can be destructive too, depending on the conditions.

I think regarding 'order' on the human level, K. was pointing out that it was possible for us to go 'beyond' the animal. The territoriality inherited from our ancestors, kept them relatively safe in their small packs and tribes. But for us now at the level of nationalism, this 'tendency' is 'disorderly' and destructive. And it is 'psychological'(desire for 'security') and in his mind, future evolution of our species would not dispell it; that something else was necessary. To understand totally that the inner 'periphery' formed around my 'self' was 'disorder' and was responsible for the outer divisions of our societies?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Thu, 13 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Aug 2015 #8
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Anonymous . wrote:
In order to see what is order, one has to see conditionality. The order is created by conditions, so the order is a movement among those conditionings, and conditions are not static, they are dynamic, also they do not last forever, they have an end. There is no fixed order.

That is correct. And it can be looked at conditionally in another way, that of the flux between two relative conditions, stability and volatility. The evolution of self-reflective consciousness in the human gave a new 'twist' to what is, as it existed before that development.

The ability to work with memory and built upon it allowed man to make plans. But the positive motion, to plan for the future, increasingly ran ahead of the development of self-reflection itself. With the advent of 'civilization' the development of human consciousness, and with it the sphere of culture, picked up speed. Man became less self-reflective and more goal oriented.

Taking a wider view, it can be seen that the development of human consciousness introduced a new level of volatility into the 'natural order.' The growing hiatus between man's efforts and how he understands them demarks the sphere of chaos he is creating for himself. One way of understanding all this (which may or may not be valid - we cannot yet say) is that every stage of evolution is also a transition from one phase to another. During the period of transition there is a great deal of turbulence until a new stasis is established, if it can be.

The stage of social and psychological chaos we have been in for thousands of years may seem a little long to be a phase transition. And it may be that nature drops back to the previous stage and mankind is ditched as an experiment that just did not have a basis for prolongation. But it may also be that the transition is breached by a startling new development such as K pointed to. Many sages have thought so. If it did happen, a new and stable phase of natural history would begin.

Man is in a state of constant disintegration. He cannot integrate the parts of himself just as a mirror, once broken, can never be put back as it was. An integrated human being would have therefore to be a new human being. I think that's what K pointed to.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Aug 2015 #9
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3170 posts in this forum Online

Dan McDermott wrote:
To understand totally that the inner 'periphery' formed around my 'self' was 'disorder' and was responsible for the outer divisions of our societies?

Yes, that was a central point of K's....and that thought is responsible for all the divisions...ALL psychological division and disturbances ..in me...and all divisions/disturbances in society/world...inner/outer, me/you, us/them, right/wrong, etc.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Thu, 13 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Aug 2015 #10
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Anonymous . wrote:
In order to see what is order, one has to see conditionality. The order is created by conditions, so the order is a movement among those conditionings, and conditions are not static, they are dynamic, also they do not last forever, they have an end. There is no fixed order.

There is the present condition, what is, and evolution unfolds from this present condition. This unfolding proceeds from the present and reflects the present. I would say this procession is harmony and order. Disorder occurs when the past is brought into the present, as this is contrary to the natural unfolding.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Aug 2015 #11
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1465 posts in this forum Offline

Pavil Davidov wrote:
An integrated human being would have therefore to be a new human being. I think that's what K pointed to.

Yes a "new" human being, and he injected a sense of urgency for this transition from self-centeredness to take place: the "house is burning" etc. It is as if there has to be a clear and a total awareness of what we are, of our situation...but that has proved to be more difficult than one would suppose after having heard, and read him and thought, 'understood' what he was pointing out. Arduous?, no 'reward'?, laziness?, comfort?, 'get what you can'?...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Aug 2015 #12
Thumb_80010981_01_l Praveen Boyeneni United States 18 posts in this forum Offline

Thank you all for sharing your thoughts.

Frank, I understand JK describing “nature is order”. Nature is beautiful but also very cruel and destructive(if you look from Deer’s perspective). Once talking about “truth or timeless or immeasurable”, JK said all that is man-made or product of human thought is “reality” and everything else in cosmos is “truth” and to perceive that “scared” truth, thought must cease to exist. “Truth” cannot be scared and also cruel at same time. It just doesn’t seem rational.

Regarding Yellowstone National Park event, the way I look at incident is….bear is wild animal that has no sense of right/wrong and acts pure animal instincts that includes even killing human. Whereas man is evolved to have much more sophisticated brain that has capacity to reason and has moral sense to distinguish right from wrong. So a bear killing human is certainly a tragedy but understandable however man should learn the lesson from tragedy and use his intelligence to avoid such tragedy instead of reacting with animal instinct to kill the bear in return.

Pavil, dictionary definition of order is “put the things in relation to each other” and since JK calls Tiger killing a deer is perfect order, I am questioning the nature of “nature” which is often described as manifestation of Truth/timeless/immeasurable. Hope I am not talking non-sense.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Aug 2015 #13
Thumb_man_question_mark dhirendra singh India 2984 posts in this forum Offline

By logic one can prove that x or y is order or disorder, but it's a conclusion not a fact.

And what K had stated is need not to accept, it make him religion.

K is Q, i.e. questioning, and fundamental question is, can thought ever see what is order?

Not to look at K's answers, because it makes K as crap as other religions

I don't know

This post was last updated by dhirendra singh Thu, 13 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Aug 2015 #14
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

dhirendra singh wrote:
. . . can thought ever see what is order?

No, because thought itself is disorder.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Aug 2015 #15
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Praveen Boyeneni wrote:
Pavil, dictionary definition of order is “put the things in relation to each other” and since JK calls Tiger killing a deer is perfect order, I am questioning the nature of “nature” which is often described as manifestation of Truth/timeless/immeasurable. Hope I am not talking non-sense.

You are not talking nonsense.

There are two types of order in the dictionary sense you speak of. They both imply relationship, of a sort. One is to do with when two things in their relation set up a pattern which repeats. The other is when things relate chaotically and no repeating pattern is established. In the latter case one rightly questions whether it is 'relationship' at all. And in that latter case, the two things that meet may be obeying the same laws but from different and incompatible trajectories. So it was with the meteorite that struck Earth and wiped out the dinosaurs and with them, the ecological pattern of which the dinosaur was party.

Orders also relate to levels. Everything is related, but at some higher order level, not necessarily at the same level. David Bohm discerned two distinct levels, the implicate and the explicate. At the gross or explicate level, things appear as separate and the results of many interactions between them appear to the human eye to be chaotic, accidental or random. Humans appear at this, explicate level, though Bohm promoted the idea that maybe consciousness could transcend levels, affect the implicate in some reciprocal fashion. But within the explicate level (manifestation) there are also many levels. And in each of these many levels there are also many levels, ad infinitum, down to the sub-atomic level where, it is thought, it may all break down and become 'implicate' again.

And this is all "nature."

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Aug 2015 #16
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1465 posts in this forum Offline

dhirendra singh wrote:
Not to look at K's answers, because it makes K as crap as other religions

This doesn't seem to make sense. Listening to K. doesn't make him into a 'religion' anymore than listening to you makes you into a 'religion'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Aug 2015 #17
Thumb_2820 Aseem Kumar India 2033 posts in this forum Offline

dhirendra singh wrote:
can thought ever see what is order?

max greene wrote:
No, because thought itself is disorder.

K has said (not exact words) somewhere, "It is the thought that itself realizes what it is doing (it is creating disorder) and becomes quiet".

The mind can deceive itself and fabricate anything it wishes

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Aug 2015 #18
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1465 posts in this forum Offline

Aseem Kumar wrote:
K has said (not exact words) somewhere, "It is the thought that itself realizes what it is doing (it is creating disorder) and becomes quiet".

And it would seem that there would have to be an 'illumination' for 'thought' to see itself so clearly, so totally in the moment, that its energy would cease where it saw that it actions in this realn, were no longer appropriate but destructive.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Aug 2015 #19
Thumb_2820 Aseem Kumar India 2033 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
And it would seem that there would have to be an 'illumination' for 'thought' to see itself so clearly, so totally in the moment, that its energy would cease where it saw that it actions in this realn, were no longer appropriate but destructive.

Yes, the "illumination" of the total field of activity of thought/self would be mandatory...And to give attention to or see something in its totality, the mind has to be completely silent and empty...Such a total action is not possible under any different conditions.

The mind can deceive itself and fabricate anything it wishes

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Aug 2015 #20
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Aseem Kumar wrote:
K has said (not exact words) somewhere, "It is the thought that itself realizes what it is doing (it is creating disorder) and becomes quiet."

Can thought "realize"? Is thought capable of realizing anything? Thought is the self, and does the self realize? I don't see it as possible.

Realization is understanding. Is it something more?

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Aug 2015 #21
Thumb_2820 Aseem Kumar India 2033 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
Can thought "realize"?

We live a self centered life which means thought is in charge. Any transformation must start from this state which is a given. One may jump to awareness/understanding, but this wouldn't be actual state and make an iota of difference in psychological matters.

The mind can deceive itself and fabricate anything it wishes

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Aug 2015 #22
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Aseem Kumar wrote:
We live a self centered life which means thought is in charge. Any transformation must start from this state which is a given.

True. It is also true that effort of any kind or intensity is useless in getting us out of this state. In fact, effort prevents understanding because effort is thought and motivation -- the noise in the mind.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Aug 2015 #23
Thumb_2820 Aseem Kumar India 2033 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
It is also true that effort of any kind or intensity is useless in getting us out of this state. In fact, effort prevents understanding because effort is thought and motivation -- the noise in the mind.

Max, effort is (integral part of) this state!

So, where are we with this understanding?

The mind can deceive itself and fabricate anything it wishes

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Aug 2015 #24
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

It may be an integral part, but effort is becoming, noise, motivation, self, and all of that sort of thing. The effort to be silent is not silence.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Aug 2015 #25
Thumb_man_question_mark dhirendra singh India 2984 posts in this forum Offline

Aseem Kumar wrote:
K has said (not exact words) somewhere, "It is the thought that itself realizes what it is doing (it is creating disorder) and becomes quiet".

Right, Sudhir, K had said, thought itself must deny itself. Thought itself sees what it is doing and therefore thought itself realizes that it has to come of itself to an end. There is no other factor than itself. Therefore when thought realizes that whatever it does, any movement it makes is disorder (we are taking that as an example) then there is silence.
So this means what?, it can't decide that killing or whatever is order or disorder, because whatever 'thought does' itself is disorder, but again these are K's words, far from reality for us, not a first hand thing for us/me.

I don't know

This post was last updated by dhirendra singh Thu, 13 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Aug 2015 #26
Thumb_80010981_01_l Praveen Boyeneni United States 18 posts in this forum Offline

Pavil, I couldn’t follow your answer. It sounds too professorial. Consider me like a layman who only understands a simple language

Going back to the subject of this thread…

Tiger killing a deer is order

But man killing a tiger is disorder

Nature killing a man is order

But man killing man is disorder

Whatever nature does is order

But if man follows nature then its disorder!!

Man is product of nature just like a tiger

So the very existence of man in the universe is part of order but the product of man(thought) is disorder!

Which means disorder is product of order!

If disorder can arise from order, then what is order and what is disorder?

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Aug 2015 #27
Thumb_man_question_mark dhirendra singh India 2984 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
This doesn't seem to make sense. Listening to K. doesn't make him into a 'religion' anymore than listening to you makes you into a 'religion'.

Well sir, I only meant that if you accept them as final words, as proof, as authority.

I don't know

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Aug 2015 #28
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

dhirendra singh wrote (post 26):
. . . whatever 'thought does' itself is disorder . . .

Yes, this is absolutely true. We all know this, but we continue to think, and we continue to believe that all that it takes for an improved life is more and better thinking.

"Whatever thought does." Yes, and this includes thought's own supposed realization of the uselessness of whatever thought does. In other words, there is nothing at all that can be done.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Thu, 13 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Aug 2015 #29
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Praveen Boyeneni wrote:
If disorder can arise from order, then what is order and what is disorder?

Evolution is an unfolding from the present, not a build-up or a progression from the past. This unfolding flowers from the present moment, what is, and it is order and harmony.

Disorder, distortion, occurs when the past is once more dragged into the present. This is done through thinking and thought.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Aug 2015 #30
Thumb_baboon-9186 dave h United Kingdom 1165 posts in this forum Offline

dhirendra singh wrote:
So this means what?, it can't decide that killing or whatever is order or disorder, because whatever 'thought does' itself is disorder, but again these are K's words, far from reality for us, not a first hand thing for us/me.

I think, Dhi, that it's the distinction between technical and psychological thought again. Psychological thought being disorderly as it based on an illusory separation between the observer and thought. It's an interesting question whether animals engage in psychological thought to any degree.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 138 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.)