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

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


Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 138 in total
Thu, 13 Aug 2015 #31
Thumb_80010981_01_l Praveen Boyeneni United States 18 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
Disorder, distortion, occurs when the past is once more dragged into the present

Max...Are you saying what is order today can become disorder tomorrow as evaluation continues? If so, order is relative and relevant only in present moment. I don’t know if this sounds rational because this is like saying JK’s life was order and Hitler’s life was disorder in present condition however same may not be true tomorrow. Don’t you see fallacy in this?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Aug 2015 #32
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Praveen,

Order is not relative, as I see it. It is an absolute. "Order" is the flowering of the ever-changing and new present. This flowering, unfolding, is never disorder. A stream follows the line of least resistance -- that is the stream's order.
There is order in the unfolding of a flower, the leafing out of a tree. Same thing.

Evolution is usually thought of as a progression from the past. I see this as a huge misconception. Evolution is this flowering, unfolding, of the present. There is perfect order in this. It is thinking and thought that bring distortion, since they bring the past forward into the present.

max

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Aug 2015 #33
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

dave h wrote:
It's an interesting question whether animals engage in psychological thought to any degree.

Yes, and do they have their own version of Kinfonet, to any degree? :-)

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Aug 2015 #34
Thumb_80010981_01_l Praveen Boyeneni United States 18 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
It is thinking and thought that bring distortion

So we are saying the Nature that allows one being(Lion) killing another(deer) is in perfect order because ‘thought’ is not involved in killing? I still didn’t get it(at least intellectually) why JK calls such cruel act as perfect order!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Aug 2015 #35
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Praveen Boyeneni wrote:
So we are saying the Nature that allows one being(Lion) killing another(deer) is in perfect order because ‘thought’ is not involved in killing? I still didn’t get it(at least intellectually) why JK calls such cruel act as perfect order!

Cruelty means to inflict pain in order to gain pleasure. The lion does not get pleasure from the deer's pain but from eating its flesh. In fact I don't know of any other animal besides man which gains pleasure from inflicting pain. The lion does not kill because it is cruel: It kills because it is hungry.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Aug 2015 #36
Thumb_baboon-9186 dave h United Kingdom 1165 posts in this forum Offline

Pavil Davidov wrote:
Yes, and do they have their own version of Kinfonet, to any degree? :-)

alt text

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Aug 2015 #37
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Praveen Boyeneni wrote:
So we are saying the Nature that allows one being(Lion) killing another(deer) is in perfect order because ‘thought’ is not involved in killing?

As Pavil points out, the lion kills because it is hungry, not because it is cruel and seeks pleasure. It is pleasant to eat, but "pleasant" is a sensation. Pleasure is the result of thinking about the pleasant.

But this question of an harmonious, absolute order and the paradox of killing is important. As I see it, it depends on what we mean by death. If it is true that evolution unfolds from the present, then there is no death, as there is nothing to compare to the present. It is thinking and thought that compares the present to a past condition and says, "Oh! That condition is no more!" and encapsulates this thought into the word "death." When there is no thinking but only awareness, the present is all that there is. With awareness, there never was and never will be anything else but the unfolding present. But thinking always leaps in, almost instantaneously!

So, do the lion and the deer think? To that extent the lion will kill and the deer will die. The accumulated physical bodies of each, as with all of the physical universe, are inert and mechanical in nature, obeying the laws of physics and with no conceptions, such as death, at all.

max

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Aug 2015 #38
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3176 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
Praveen Boyeneni wrote:

So we are saying the Nature that allows one being(Lion) killing another(deer) is in perfect order because ‘thought’ is not involved in killing?

max: As Pavil points out, the lion kills because it is hungry, not because it is cruel and seeks pleasure. It is pleasant to eat, but "pleasant" is a sensation. Pleasure is the result of thinking about the pleasant.

Man is the only creature who kills for an idea/ideal....like the Christians in the crusades...or Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, etc. The lion kills out of instinct...it's programmed into the body/brain to kill to eat and survive. Man doesn't kill his fellow man for food....but to protect an idea or concept...his country, religion, or his self image. Someone insults my religion, my nation, or my wife, and bam! a punch in the face or worse...war. The lower animals don't kill for any 'psychological' reason but only to survive physically.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Aug 2015 #39
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
The accumulated physical bodies of each, as with all of the physical universe, are inert and mechanical in nature, obeying the laws of physics

Max, bodies obey the laws of biology. That is what makes them different. Of course they also obey the laws of chemistry and physics but the demarcation as far as science goes, is biology. The physical body is inert only when it is dead. Only then is its dynamic reduced to physics and chemistry.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Aug 2015 #40
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 539 posts in this forum Offline

re: #1

Praveen,

As I see it, the order of the universe manifests itself in countless ways. If chaos “governed” the universe, science could not have evolved (which is not an endorsement of science); there would be no basis for scientific observation. From particles to planets, matter behaves predictably enough to make observations and compile texts in medicine, astronomy, physics, chemistry, and so on. The structure, intricacies and behaviour of the atom, brains, intestines, all forms of life, galaxies, and so on, are, to me, indications of universal order and a creative intelligence underlying it.

The same natural order regulates the atom, digestion, the movement of heavenly bodies, and so on. The atom, within the molecule, within the organism, within the planet, within the solar system, within the galaxy, and so on (omitting many elements of course) - all function harmoniously. The totality is a network of interconnectedness or relationship. Our limited human “intelligence” can comprehend neither the whole, nor the source. But within its limitation, the thinking mind realizes that limited chaos within total order is not contradictory, but that limited order within total chaos is a contradiction. Total chaos precludes and excludes intelligence.

It hurts to see the suffering of the deer that is hunted by the tiger, just as it hurts to see the suffering of the starving tiger, ALL suffering for that matter - suffering caused by the volcano, the earthquake, war, disease, and so on - and the heart rebels against it. Yet, as Pavil says, the suffering of the starving tiger and the hunted deer is also part of the natural order. Having a limited mind, we just don't understand it. In the case of human suffering, it seems clear that it is mostly the consequence of disordered thought.

I - one, the thinking mind - cannot understand the why of suffering or do anything about it. The limited intelligence of the thinking mind realizes that the very sensitivity to suffering is also an inescapable fact, also part of the natural order. The thinking mind cannot alter it. It is so.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Aug 2015 #41
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Pavil,

Inert in the sense of passive. As we are when we are asleep -- unfeeling, unthinking. The body is mechanical in all of its operations.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Aug 2015 #42
Thumb_stringio Joan Galbraith France 713 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Regarding the thread lead:

Yesterday I caught part of a program on the radio talking about how there has been, apparently for the first time, some observation of the 'birth' of a new galaxy (presumably its earliest stages). The program went on to discuss what is understood of this process and how it might come about and there was talk of some sort of connective flows of energy or matter (or anti matter for all I know) which apparently can extend for hundreds of thousands of millions of light years.

Bertrand Russel, even in the early 1950's, said:

"The earth is a minor planet of a minor star, which is one of many millions of stars in a galaxy which is one of many millions of galaxies. Even within the life of our own planet, man is only a brief interlude. Non-human life existed for countless ages before man was evolved. Man, even if he does not commit scientific suicide, will perish ultimately through failure of water or air or warmth. It is difficult to believe that Omnipotence needed so vast a setting for so small and transitory a result."

We're told, in addition, that the whole has endured for circa 14 billion years. And yet the fleeting spec which is the collective us, effectively its very own impersonation of a higgs boson, looks out and declares to itself, "There's something wrong out there." ... and yet still considers its own everyday perspectives essentially rational.

Rationality is the name of the K game. The seemingly innate separation in his head - ie according with his own particular brand of brain activity - of man from the rest of the universe is the basis of his inherent problem. Thought must begin and end in singularity. Currently for the vast majority it begins and ends in duality.

This post was last updated by Joan Galbraith (account deleted) Fri, 14 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Aug 2015 #43
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Joan Galbraith wrote:
"The earth is a minor planet of a minor star, which is one of many millions of stars in a galaxy which is one of many millions of galaxies. . . . Non-human life existed for countless ages before man . . . It is difficult to believe that Omnipotence needed so vast a setting for so small and transitory a result."

Krishnamurti said it. It is not 'my' awareness, or 'your' awareness.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Fri, 14 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Aug 2015 #44
Thumb_80010981_01_l Praveen Boyeneni United States 18 posts in this forum Offline

Pavil, agreed with your definition of cruelty but the point here is how can a killing be justified in the name of solving hungry problem? What about the pain caused to deer? Is JK not biased when he called killing is part of ‘order’?

Max, are you implying that killing is acceptable as long as hunter and hunted has no capacity to think?

Tom, just like a religion fanatic brain is programmed to kill his fellow innocent humans, animals are also genetically programmed to kill to solve their hunger problem. Only difference is JK calls animal program as ‘perfect order’ and fanatic program as ‘disorder’. There is a kind of plant that eats organic food with its flowers: when a fly settles upon the blossom, the petals close upon it and hold it fast till the plant has absorbed the insect into its system; but they will close on nothing but what is good to eat; of a drop of rain or a piece of stick they will take no notice. Now JK might call such unconscious thing having such a keen eye to its own interest is part of "perfect order" but "disorder" if same keen interest is shown by a conscious human being! isn’t JK biased?

Pavil, you raised interesting point. Normally when we talk of Order in the universe, we meant to say universe is consistently following laws of physics and hence it’s in perfect order but when we talk of Order in the context of life/living beings, I don’t think we mean to say living beings are in perfect order because their behavior comply to laws of physics. So in the context of life, what is the order? The only consistency observed in living beings(whether a single cell or plant or complex human brain) is ‘survive at any cost’ and this survival instinct doesn’t seem to follow any order. So the question is why call Lion killing a deer is perfect order and man killing a deer disorder?

Huguette, your explanation makes sense but also kind of depressing. Basically you are saying human mind is limited and don’t have capacity to comprehend order of universe. Agreed but if a human mind cannot understand the rationality in Lion killing a deer, there is no point in pursuing religious life. Isn't it?

Joan Galbraith wrote:
Rationality is the name of the K game

Joan – what is wrong with being rational?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Aug 2015 #45
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Praveen Boyeneni wrote:
. . . are you implying that killing is acceptable as long as hunter and hunted has no capacity to think?

"Acceptable" is a judgment call. "Order" is beyond the acceptability of hunting and hunted.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Fri, 14 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Aug 2015 #46
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Praveen Boyeneni wrote:
. . . if a human mind cannot understand the rationality in Lion killing a deer, there is no point in pursuing religious life . . .

We can reword this to " if a mind cannot understand the rationality of a Hitler responsible for the killing and torture of millions of people, there is no point in pursuing a religious life."

max

This post was last updated by max greene Fri, 14 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Aug 2015 #47
Thumb_80010981_01_l Praveen Boyeneni United States 18 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
"Acceptable" is a judgment call. "Order" is beyond the acceptability of hunting and hunted

Max, your response is very interesting!

There is a Lion "killing" a Deer

JK calls killing as a perfect order of universe

Person X says JK’s statement doesn’t make sense and unacceptable

Person Y says order is beyond acceptability of hunter and hunted,JK,person X or Y

Now if there is no JK, person X, Y but only Lion hunting Deer, what meaning does order and disorder have?
If there is no life on earth and elsewhere in the universe, how does it matter if Universe is in order or disorder?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Aug 2015 #48
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3176 posts in this forum Offline

Praveen Boyeneni wrote:
Tom, just like a religion fanatic brain is programmed to kill his fellow innocent humans, animals are also genetically programmed to kill to solve their hunger problem. Only difference is JK calls animal program as ‘perfect order’ and fanatic program as ‘disorder’.

There's a fundamental difference between the human and the 'lower' animals. The human brain can create illusion....illusion which is somehow outside of the 'order' that K. spoke of. A human being can create the illusion of good vs. bad, right vs. wrong....believing that White people are 'better' than Blacks or Christians are better than Jews....and he can kill based upon such illusion...such illusory division. K. says this is disorder. The animal doesn't create such illusions...has no greed or pride or self image to protect and kill for. The animal kills to eat or perhaps to protect his territory. K. claims this is part of the 'perfect order' of the universe, while the 'artificial' divisions created by thought are illusory and produce total disorder as with a Hitler or religious fanatic...a suicide bomber for instance. Interesting topic Praveen....thanks for starting it.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Aug 2015 #49
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 539 posts in this forum Offline

Praveen Boyeneni wrote:
Huguette, your explanation makes sense but also kind of depressing. Basically you are saying human mind is limited and don’t have capacity to comprehend order of universe. Agreed but if a human mind cannot understand the rationality in Lion killing a deer, there is no point in pursuing religious life. Isn't it?

re: #45

Parveen, What is depressing about it? Does depression arise because of my explanation?

This life is the only life that we have in the moment. What is wrong with the religious life? Is it only to be “pursued” if there is a guaranteed reward at the end? K said, “If I love you because you love me, that is mere trade, a thing to be bought in the market; it is not love.” Isn’t it the same for the religious life? The flame of discontent - which to me gives rise to living a religious life - cannot be extinguished by bargaining, trading, exchanging, pretending, desire, will or effort. No one is obligated to care about living a religious life. There is no "point", a point being a sort of selling promotion on the "marketplace", as I see it.

The religious life, to me, is the mind living without a sense of entitlement, without carrying grudges, without comparison, without greed, fear, self-aggrandizement, dishonesty, self, in short, without dragging time into all relationship. To live this way - without all these factors governing relationship - entitlement, desire, grudges, comparison, greed, time, fear, dishonesty, and so on, must be observed and understood. This observation, to me, starts with discontent. The thinking mind abandons all efforts to solve its suffering in relationship when it understands its limitations and the nature of time and self. That’s all. No matter how life is lived by humans, the tiger must still kill the deer or starve.

The human mind is limited not because I say so. The human being did not create the universe and its contents, did not create love, life, death or beauty, and so on. The human mind is not the source of creation. The conditioned mind is unable to live a life without conflict and suffering. It is limited. Isn't it so? This doesn’t mean that it is limited to living the old way, a slave to fear, desire, compulsion, and so on.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Aug 2015 #50
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Praveen Boyeneni wrote:
. . .if there is no JK, person X, Y but only Lion hunting Deer, what meaning does order and disorder have?
If there is no life on earth and elsewhere in the universe, how does it matter if Universe is in order or disorder?

This is just about what I am getting at. A few more words, perhaps.

What is "life"? As I see it, life is awareness, as awareness is possible only in the present moment, the moment of life and living. So awareness and life are one, a unity, in the present moment.

Life unfolds in the present moment, and this unfolding is what we call "evolution." The unfolding of a flower, its flowering, is the flower's evolution.

So we have the flower, surely, but the life of the flower is in its unfolding. The flower itself exists, but "existence" is not the unfolding present moment. Awareness (life) in this universe is in the unfolding present. "Existence" is the memory of the present.

So there is life, there is awareness, only in the present moment, and obviously, there is no death in the present moment. "Death" is in the comparison (thinking about) of one moment of life to another moment of life.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Fri, 14 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Aug 2015 #51
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1470 posts in this forum Offline

Good luck with all this Max and I hope that I'm wrong, but all this seems to me like an 'escape' from our (your) actual situation here.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Aug 2015 #52
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Dan,

There is no attempt to convince in the above post, Dan. In fact, I hope no one is convinced. But if someone is interested in the subject, that's how it looks to me.

Where is the error in what has been said? That is what is important.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Aug 2015 #53
Thumb_3203 Anonymous . Reunion 71 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
and obviously, there is no death in the present moment. "Death" is in the comparison (thinking about) of one moment of life to another moment of life.

I would say there is both death and life in the same moment, it is not that in one moment there is only life and in another moment there is death, in fact there is no difference between life and death at all, because death is part of life.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Aug 2015 #54
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Anonymous . wrote:
I would say there is both death and life in the same moment . . .

This doesn't seem reasonable, as how can dissolution and life, the two, be a unity in the present moment? Would we say that the unfolding of a flower is also its death?

I see death as a concept of thinking. "Death" is the comparison of the present moment to a previous present moment, and we call the result of this comparison "death."

max

This post was last updated by max greene Sat, 15 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Aug 2015 #55
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 539 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
...how can dissolution and life, the two, be a unity in the present moment? Would we say that the unfolding of a flower is also its death?

I see death as a concept of thinking. "Death" is the comparison of the present moment to a previous present moment, and we call the result of this comparison "death."

Dear Max,

In my view, there IS death, not only the physical dying-death of the organism but also death of the self, and self fears death, either covertly or overtly, either consciously or unconsciously… And isn't fear one of the major factors of conflict and disorder? So it seems to me that death must be fully faced so fear can be understood. Facing death fully means dying (psychologically) in each moment, dying to the intellect-self-time, so that facing death fully IS living fully. In this sense, each moment "contains" life and death.

Death cannot be explained away in such a way as to end the fear of it. No analysis of death put together by the intellect (the known, time) can allay that fear. As I see it, explanation - necessary in certain contexts - provides only the illusion of understanding in the context of life and death. But the illusion only pushes fear deeper into the unconscious where it continues to engender conflict. Awareness of fear is the action of “facing fear”, the only action that is needed in order to understand and end fear-time-self, it seems to me.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Aug 2015 #56
Thumb_3203 Anonymous . Reunion 71 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
This doesn't seem reasonable, as how can dissolution and life, the two, be a unity in the present moment? Would we say that the unfolding of a flower is also its death?

It's not the two, it's one. Why do you first divide something and then try to put it together? The desolation is part of life, and at the moment of unfolding flower it also dies, if it wouldn't, then there would be no life.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Aug 2015 #57
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Anonymous . wrote:
It's not the two, it's one.

Look at it this way. Deterioration and death are recognized by us as accumulation through sequence and time coming to an end.

But the present moment is timeless. The present moment is not caught in sequence and accumulation. In the present moment there is nothing that can die.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Aug 2015 #58
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
. . . there IS death, not only the physical dying - death of the organism - but also death of the self . . .

To be able to die, there must be accumulation, which infers sequence and time. But the present moment -- the only possible moment of life and awareness -- is timeless and prior to sequence and accumulation. In the present moment there is nothing to die, neither physical nor psychological.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Aug 2015 #59
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 539 posts in this forum Offline

So you say, Max. As I see it, "to be able to die", there must be nothing and there is no inference. The present moment cannot both be timeless and "prior" to anything.

There is no "able" to die, there is only death.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Aug 2015 #60
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

The present moment is prior to the past, is it not? There must be a present before there can be a past.

By "able" is meant the appropriate conditions. In the case of death, there must be the conditions of sequence and accumulation. (Neither of these are conditions of the present moment.)

max

This post was last updated by max greene Sat, 15 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 60 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.)