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

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


Displaying posts 91 - 120 of 138 in total
Wed, 26 Aug 2015 #91
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 1403 posts in this forum Offline

aub b wrote:
which lies into thought itself.

"Thought" is such a word frequently used within the Krishnamurti community but what do we mean exactly by that?

Truth will unfold itself to those who enquire their own actions.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Aug 2015 #92
Thumb_stringio mike c United States 941 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Pavil Davidov wrote:
Can it ever be known if there is incarnation or not?

I believe, in Sidney Field's bio 'The Reluctant Messiah', K said to him, "Reincarnation is a fact, but it's not Truth." I will check this out in a couple hours when my library opens. Also, he mentions reincarnation in 'The Path' and other pieces from the early collection 'From Darkness to Light'. Surely someone who's gone beyond the ordinary death, the personal death, could know? I don't see why this is not possible. It requires going beyond a narrow view of what life is.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Aug 2015 #93
Thumb_stringio mike c United States 941 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Wim Opdam wrote:
"Thought" is such a word frequently used within the Krishnamurti community but what do we mean exactly by that?

That's a good question for a dialogue. To give thought is to think, and I believe this is meant searching the process of knowledge and memory? Is there a deeper meaning?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Aug 2015 #94
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

aub b wrote:
One is saying that human beings are not mere animals, they have evolved from animals

Is that so? The human is still an animal, Aub. He has not evolved FROM the animal world but within the animal world. We have, as is commonly referred to, animal, vegetable and mineral. You say the human has evolved from inside those categories to something that is outside them. On what basis do you separate man so?

aub b wrote:
but consciousness has made them highly superior animals into their way of mastering their environment

Here you seem to be saying that the difference is 'consciousness,' by which you mean what? The ability to master the environment? I have to know what you mean by 'consciousness' in order to grasp your overall meaning, Aub. Otherwise I am only guessing at words, which are rather slippery things, especially psychological words.

aub b wrote:
But as highly superior as they are . . .

. . . on the basis of having 'consciousness' . . .

aub b wrote:
they are not intelligent, because they are both destroying themselves and their environment

OK, one can question whether or not humans are destroying themselves (which I have doubts about) and also whether they are "destroying" their environment (which I also have doubts about) but your main contention is that this proves their lack of 'intelligence,' a factor you counter to 'consciousness.' What I do not yet see is why and how you counterpose consciousness to intelligence. The fact that you do so is clear, but why and on what basis is not.

aub b wrote:
They have much power into the art of mastering their environment compared to other animals, but they are not wise in their use of this power.

So, intelligence is to do with wisdom and consciousness is to do with art. OK. But is this a fair division? On what basis is it being made? This is not yet clear, and it should be if one is to understand your point.

aub b wrote:
Mankind is really unbalanced. It has evolved considerably technologically, but inwardly, psychologically, human beings are not as different as other animals, and even are the most dangerous amongst the animals because of their technical power. They are fighting for territories, they are killing each other, they are destroying the environment, they are at war with each other, and so on and so on.

The meaning of this paragraph escapes me entirely. "Human beings are not as different as other animals" makes no sense. They are not as different 'among themselves' as other animals are 'among themselves?' Is that it? I fail to see the point. Perhaps you failed to make it.

But do not other animals fight for territory and kill each other to defend it?

In any case, "mankind is really unbalanced." Where? Why? I may agree with the statement, in general, but I inevitably give it my own meaning which may be entirely different from yours, and it seems so. For me, the unbalanced nature of man does not lie in his acts. The acts are only an expression of his unbalanced nature, a show of it. Neither does this imbalance lie in the hiatus between consciousness and intelligence or between art and wisdom, all of which are products of the imbalance, not the causes. But you have not given your view of the cause, so I'm again stumped in trying to understand you.

aub b wrote:
All this indicates that mankind has no intelligence in the sense of order. There may be partial expression of order, in science, in art, in expression, but in its way of living, mankind is highly disordered.

I now see that you've been working your way towards this. You started with this conclusion, it seems, and created a preamble to it as form of logical justification leading to the the conclusion. This is a wrong method, Aub. This perhaps is why your preamble reads so confusing.

Man's "living" is the spreading outwards of what man is. If man is disordered, so will his "living" be. One doesn't need all these 'proofs' to tell one that one is in disorder. It is a fact, however it is expressed. The daily misery of internal conflict tells one it is so - if one looks and if one has the sensitivity not to overlook. I'm sure we can agree on the fact of it: You and I are in disorder, along with the rest of humanity.

But Aub, you are responding not to someone who needs to be explained that man is in disorder but to someone who is questioning your zeal in saying that for man to eat flesh is against the natural order. Where is the evidence that eating flesh is a form of disorder in man? On what basis is such a proclamation made? It's almost as if your are trying to prove that meat-eating is disorder BECAUSE man is disordered and therefore everything he does must also be so. And if that's the case then vegetarianism is another evidence of disorder - as would be any form of eating.

Please understand, I am not arguing against any particular diet, I am inquiring into the basis upon which other people are adamant about such things.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Aug 2015 #95
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

aub b wrote:
One exploits animals, killing them industrially for one's pleasure of eating meat, one exploits human beings for producing a lot of unneccessary and polluting goods, all that in the name of some economical system within a society which is highly divided and disordered.

Yes, all very true . . . but man also produces vegetables and fruit industrially and then kills them for his pleasure in eating them.

K was asked about his vegetarianism. He said it was his habit, his tradition. He had been brought up a Brahman. He also said he had never ever tasted meat and could not understand how anyone could kill an animal to eat its flesh. Obviously there was an emotional complex operating in him about this. But my own son finds fruit unbearable and even used to leave the room if I unpeeled a banana. The feeling of upset needs to be looked into and not taken for granted.

K also gave another explanation, an intellectual one. He said that though the vegetable is also life, the human organism needs to devour other life forms, as do all other species, in order to survive. It is a biological law. And, he suggested, it is better to eat the lower level of life than the higher. Nevertheless he wore some fine leather shoes most of his life and held hos trousers up with a leather belt.

Once in India K had been talking about war and destruction when a questioner asked, "Sir, is it alright to eat an egg." K's response was legendary. "Sir, we are talking about the misery of society and the destruction of mankind, people killing each other. And you ask if it is alright to eat an egg. Only in India could this happen! For God's sake, of course. And you can easily get an unfertilized one, if that is your concern."

(The above is not a direct quote . . . even with the quotation marks . . . but a recollection of his response.)

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Aug 2015 #96
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

mike c wrote:
Surely someone who's gone beyond the ordinary death, the personal death, could know? I don't see why this is not possible.

Why do you say that K had "gone beyond ordinary death?" Certainly he had gone beyond the fear of death, the problem of death, which is all to do with the ego. There is no evidence that he made death a problem. Same with sex, but what would it mean to write, "K had gone beyond ordinary sex?" :-) :-)

(Not inviting speculation there)

K had, he said, 'died to the self' which he also said was a continual process, not a once and for all thing. One has to continually die in order to finally live, he said, and in that continual dying there is no time, and he called that state "eternity."

But he did not go "beyond ordinary death." Eventually, ordinary death caught him.

But suppose you are right and that this "personal death" of K, the death of the self, of the 'personal,' allowed him to see. How? Would he have reincarnated in his own lifetime? I don't see why this IS possible. I do think you have to look more carefully at the unarticulated hypotheses you are unconsciously working from.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Aug 2015 #97
Thumb_stringio mike c United States 941 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Pavil Davidov wrote:
K had, he said, 'died to the self' which he also said was a continual process, not a once and for all thing. One has to continually die in order to finally live, he said, and in that continual dying there is no time, and he called that state "eternity."

He talked about this so much. "But death is always there watching, waiting. But the one who dies each day is beyond death." (Meeting Life).

You're paraphrasing a lot but I think it's the same thing. I suppose it doesn't matter. Maybe there is no reincarnation. Ashes to ashes.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Aug 2015 #98
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

mike c wrote:
He talked about this so much. "But death is always there watching, waiting. But the one who dies each day is beyond death." (Meeting Life).

Right, but not beyond ordinary death, physical death, carnate death. And it is the death of the carne (flesh) that the psyche turns into a problem and then creates the solution for . . . 'reincarnation.' Personally I don't like carnations - the funereal flower - and have no time for reincarnations . . . neither! :-)

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Aug 2015 #99
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

mike c wrote:
You're paraphrasing a lot

That's cool. I paraphrase first and reincarnate later :-)

Actually, perhaps there's a case for using the word in the sense of being 'reborn' or 'recarnated' into the same body, a transformed mind . . if that's possible. Maybe that was even the origin of the idea, later corrupted to mean reincarnation into a different body after the physical death, which is what it's become to mean.

Anyhow, apols for writing long posts, posing awkward questions and dominating. I'll step back now.

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

This post was last updated by Pavil Davidov (account deleted) Wed, 26 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Aug 2015 #100
Thumb_stringio mike c United States 941 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Pavil Davidov wrote:
Maybe that was even the origin of the idea, later corrupted to mean reincarnation into a different body after the physical death, which is what it's become to mean.

The thing is, Life does not die. That's what gets me. I'll die, you'll die, perhaps the human race will die, but Life will not die. And if there's a unity...not saying I'll come back as plankton, I hope, but there's this Ground which does not die- you must've read The Ending of Time- and, as K said in that book, "Which means God is in you?", the whole thing seems to have a greater significance than what you're saying, to me anyway. I'm not expressing this well but do you see my point?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Aug 2015 #101
Thumb_stringio aub b France 112 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Wim (#91), thought is the mental activity, isn't it?


Max (#90), is not exploitation the result of a lack of sensitivity, or a lack of empathy for another? Which means, yes, self-centeredness, and to consider the other as a means or a tool for one's own fulfillment. There is some brutality and roughness in exploitation. It is the denying of freedom for another, it is to impose one's own limitations on another in order to attain or to achieve something for oneself. To me, exploitation is the denying of compassion, of freedom, of love.


Paul (#94, #95), let me answer to your objections in an integrated way, and not point by point, or sentence by sentence.

We share consciousness with animals. Human beings are not the only ones to have consciousness. And animals, most of them, have a brain, the same way we have a brain. Brain and consciousness are related, right ?

So the deer has a brain, and the broccoli does not have a brain. It seems obvious to say that the deer has more consciousness to share with us than a broccoli. One can share a moment with a deer, one can feel with a deer, of course if one is sensitive to nature, but I do not think that one can really feel with a broccoli. Unless to be a bit disturbed, ah ah.

So killing a broccoli and killing a deer is quite different, right? I do not mean to buy a peace of meat and a piece of broccoli at the supermarket. I mean the act of killing. To me, killing that which has/is consciousness is quite wrong. Because consciousness is neither mine nor yours, nor the deer's one. It is consciousness, it is something we have in common, the human beings and the animals.

So by destroying the deer, or by destroying another human being, one is destroying oneself, in this sense, that one is destroying consciousness. Isn't consciousness the highest level of life ? So destroying it, killing it, is quite an irreligious action. Again, irreligious, in the sense of disorder. If consciousness and its apparition is the order of universe which creates life, then destroying it goes in the wrong direction, it is not in phase with the order of universe which has created life.

Of course it is a matter of conditioning. Most human beings are conditioned to eat meat by tradition. They do not kill the animals directly. But they eat the meat, and find pleasure into it. But you see, eating the meat and killing the animal is quite different. The meat is already a dead piece of flesh. The animal is consciousness, it is sharing consciousness with you, even if human consciousness is more developped and the animal does not have thought or language, it feels, it has emotions, and it suffers, like a human being can feel and suffer.

The broccoli does not suffer as it does not have a very developed consciousness, if there is one. Therefore to eat the broccoli is not wrong. As to eat an egg, well, it is not inherently wrong. In some regions, where growing plants is difficult, there may be no other choice than to eat animals, though it is less and less necessary with technique and modern tools. Once again, distribution of food is another question, and man is surely not doing it right.

It is funny how people can make complexs for eating an egg or killing a mosquito, but in their daily life do not question themselves about how do they treat other human beings, or what values do they support in society, like nationalism, competition, war, etc.

It seems that wrongness is first to be looked into consciousness and thought, and not in eating such or such aliments. To not eat meat can make oneself more sensitive perhaps, and therefore more able to look and understand about those matters of life and living and consciousness that is common to human and animals and at a lesser extent to plants equally.

This post was last updated by aub b (account deleted) Wed, 26 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Aug 2015 #102
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 1403 posts in this forum Offline

aub b wrote:
Wim (#91), thought is the mental activity, isn't it?

What do you mean by:
”mental activity” the response of memory, neurological as well as psychological?

We need memory to do our normal daily activities, to learn any skill it’s all based on memory, is it not?
The way it’s handled on the forum seems as if it’s all wrong if you have to do with “thought” but that can’t be the case, is it not?

So one have to see/ to discern when it is good to work with and when not?

Truth will unfold itself to those who enquire their own actions.

This post was last updated by Wim Opdam Wed, 26 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Aug 2015 #103
Thumb_stringio aub b France 112 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Wim Opdam wrote:
What do you mean by:
”mental activity” the response of memory, neurological as well as psychological?

We need memory to do our normal daily activities, to learn any skill it’s all based on memory, is it not?
The way it’s handled on the forum seems as if it’s all wrong if you have to do with “thought” but that can’t be the case, is it not?

So one have to see/ to discern when it is good to work with and when not?

By mental activity, I mean all that happens, or appears, inwardly. Or the "inner world", in taking Praveen's expression in this thread.

All the brain activity, the remembrances, the images, the words, the feelings, the emotions, and one could extend it to all the nervous reactions of the organism. All that is included into the brain, body. All that is consciousness in fact, inwardly.

It seems to me that all of this does not need an entity, a center, a self, or a controller to function. And there is nothing wrong with it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Aug 2015 #104
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 1403 posts in this forum Offline

aub b wrote:
It seems to me that all of this does not need an entity, a center, a self, or a controller to function.

So, when, where, how does this center/this self/this controler come into the thought proces?

this seems to me the essential points to see, isn't it?

Why introduce this new word 'consciousness'?
This is complicating this search for the meaning of the word "thought"

Truth will unfold itself to those who enquire their own actions.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Aug 2015 #105
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

mike c wrote:
The thing is, Life does not die. That's what gets me. I'll die, you'll die, perhaps the human race will die, but Life will not die.

Well, that's the nature of life, a self continuing pattern that replicates itself with constant adaptions to an ever-changing environment, through cycles of life and death. But life continues. You go too far in saying life doesn't die, however. Who is to say that this ever-changing cycle will not someday end? They say the universe will end and I guess life is included in that.

Well, I don;t know but I wouldn't make an adamant statement based on a speculation, Mike, if you don't mind me saying.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Aug 2015 #106
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

mike c wrote:
there's this Ground which does not die- you must've read The Ending of Time

Yes, I read it many times and considered it over a long period. The fact is, Mike, I know nothing of any 'Ground' and though it's an interesting proposition I will take K's own advice and not generate a belief in it or spend more time in speculation around it.

I think we like to read such things in the same way we like to tie a loop in our shoelaces - it rounds things off neatly.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Aug 2015 #107
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

mike c wrote:
as K said in that book, "Which means God is in you?", the whole thing seems to have a greater significance than what you're saying, to me anyway. I'm not expressing this well but do you see my point?

I see your point, Mike. How well do you see it?

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Aug 2015 #108
Thumb_stringio aub b France 112 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Wim Opdam wrote:
So, when, where, how does this center/this self/this controler come into the thought proces?

The center comes into existence when the mind creates a separation between the "me" and the "non me", that is, when the mind identifies itself with images, psychologically. Identification with images creates division, separation, conflict.

This is the mind persuading itself of a permanence within thought, whereas thought is intrinsically transient, ephemeral, relative to context, circumstances, stimuli, etc.

From this sense of permanency, which is the self, the center, the mind starts to decide about and control its thoughts according to its conditioning. It creates a censor. And it begins to see itself different from thought. Thinking to be separate, it enters in conflict with some thoughts that it rejects, and pursues some other thoughts that give him psychological security or pleasure.

Then, the mind projects this inward state of division, relationally, outwardly. This creates havoc in the world.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Aug 2015 #109
Thumb_stringio Julian S United Kingdom 194 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

mike c wrote:
I do question this understanding. The consciousness of the ordinary man may return to the stream of consciousness, but the one who steps out is no longer a part of it, I think. He is completely out of the stream of suffering, greed, envy and so on. Of "being", you could say. What do you think?

Is he completely out of the stream after his brain has died? Unless there is some kind of deeper self, won't we all be out of the stream when our brains have died?

As far as I can see, if the self (of any kind) is nothing but the creation of a conditioned brain then either consciousness disintegrates when the brain dies, or, supposing there is a ground, then consciousness is completely and utterly dispersed into it when the brain dies. Either way I can't see any real significance or meaning in 'enlightement', virtue, the teachings of K, The Buddha, or whoever. I can only see meaning in those things if there is some kind of deeper self or 'individuality'.

Is there any point in any of this if we all simply disappear back into the infinite ground from whence we came?

Here's the Sidney Field passage you alluded to:

At one of them Rajagopal asked Krishnaji point-blank, “Is there, or is there not, reincarnation? Yes or no?”
Krishnaji thought for a moment and then said, “Reincarnation is a fact, but it’s not true.”
Seeing our startled reaction, he explained the apparent contradiction in this way: “That which reincarnates is impermanent, and therefore not Truth, which is permanent and everlasting.”

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Aug 2015 #110
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 1403 posts in this forum Offline

aub b wrote:
The center comes into existence when the mind creates a separation between the "me" and the "non me", that is, when the mind identifies itself with images, psychologically. Identification with images creates division, separation, conflict.

suggest someone is a man who says, 'I'm a man, "or says, I'm a carpenter or .... what's wrong with that.?

in your view would be even creating "I" already wrong, is it not?

Truth will unfold itself to those who enquire their own actions.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Aug 2015 #111
Thumb_stringio Julian S United Kingdom 194 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

As a supplement to what I said above, I should think there are infinite gradations between matter and consciousness and also infinite gradations between selfhood and non-selfhood. K did not "do" gradations.

But (1) these things are very difficult to understand without more scientific or (perhaps) occult knowledge, and (2) they are perhaps irrelevant to the essential K-stuff of "setting man free".

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Aug 2015 #112
Thumb_stringio aub b France 112 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Wim Opdam wrote:
suggest someone is a man who says, 'I'm a man, "or says, I'm a carpenter or .... what's wrong with that.?

Someone thinking, inwardly, "I'm this" or "I'm that", what's wrong with that ?

When the mind starts to think, inwardly, "I'm this" or "I'm that", it creates an image, psychologically, and identifies to that image. Thus, it creates an inner center, with the qualities or properties of that image. If the image is satisfying it keeps it, creating pleasure, and if the image is not satisfying, it rejects it, creating pain.

The result of it is an attachment to some images which fill its inner void, its inner emptiness. It is an escape from emptiness.

The mind creates or sustains an entity associated with the content of those images. But that entity itself is not real, as images are not real. Identification with a fact is not the fact. Images of a fact are not the fact. The word, the image, is not the thing.

So the moment the mind identifies itself with an image, inwardly, whether the image is a fact or an illusion, it sustains and creates a center, which is the self. The center is knowledge, is memory.

Now, relationally, outwardly, when one says "I'm this" or "I'm that", the meaning may be purely informational, contextual, practical, in the context of communication, supposing that the thought is effectively a fact. But the moment thought creates an image, inwardly, associating an entity with the image, then attachment and division begins, based on knowledge, memory, which is the self.

Psychological images extend the mechanism of visual memory by surimposing self-centered emotions, tendencies and associations on top of those images, which not only distort the images, but creates disorder, trouble or conflict in relationship.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Aug 2015 #113
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Julian S wrote:
I should think there are infinite gradations between matter and consciousness

Why should you think that? What would it mean? Can you offer one example, perhaps?

Some things either 'are' or they 'aren't'

But bring it down to Earth and consider an everyday event such as eating. The food releases energy and is transformed into consciousness, right?

Changes in the quantity of the thing are gradual, graduated. Quantitative change is accumulation and its reverse. Mathematics can cope with that.

Changes in qualities are different. They are sudden. There is a point at which a small quantitative difference leads to an instant change in quality, a qualitative change, a transformation. Take water reaching a boiling point and turning to steam (gas) as an example or reaching its freezing point and turning to ice (solid). Such changes in state are qualitative. The temperature may be built up by degrees but the nodal point of change is sudden, not graduated. At least, it was so thought.

Chaos theory suggests that at such points change may be sudden but is never instant, which is true. There, in the moment of transformation, as one order breaks down for another to arise, there exists a temporary state called "phase transition." In this state there is an oscillation, a to-and-fro between states. Nothing is certain. 'Chaos' as it is called, cannot be sustained. It is temporary. But, though temporary, it may be prolonged so long as conditions arise that allow this. There may be a prolonged but temporary state of chronic imbalance. Even so, this has nothing to do with an 'infinity of gradations.'

Sorry if this sounds like a lecture. Not meant to. Just questioning, as I go along. Didn't know where it would lead.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Aug 2015 #114
Thumb_stringio aub b France 112 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Wim Opdam wrote:
in your view would be even creating "I" already wrong, is it not?

The inquiring mind who has gone through the understanding of psychological images and who has discarded all psychological images like "I am this" or "I am that", will then be faced to the ultimate last psychological image: the "I".

The "I" is the last image that is left after discarding all the other images. The "I" is the sum of all experiences, and in the now, the center of all experiences.

Can the mind who has ended the psychological images, psychological attributes of itself, also end the last image ?

I say it is possible, and it is "psychological death".

The end of the "I", inwardly, is psychological death.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Aug 2015 #115
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Pavil Davidov wrote (post 105):
Who is to say that this ever-changing cycle will not someday end?

How do you know it is a cycle?

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Aug 2015 #116
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
How do you know it is a cycle?

I was using the word in the broad sense, Max. Nothing to get hung about :-)

The lettuce in the garden died at the end of the summer. Now seeds are sprouting everywhere with spring on the way. That's a lettuce cycle.

You are born, you grow, mature, have sex, reproduce, die, but your progeny lives on. That's a human cycle.

I have a two-wheel silver machine which moves along when I turn the peddles. That's a bi-cycle.

The Soviet Union flag used to show a farm implement and an industrial implement. That was a hammer and cycle.

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

This post was last updated by Pavil Davidov (account deleted) Thu, 27 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Aug 2015 #117
Thumb_2820 Aseem Kumar India 2033 posts in this forum Offline

aub b wrote:
Can the mind who has ended the psychological images, psychological attributes of itself, also end the last image ?

This question is put by the "I" simply to give continuity to itself. One naturally knows, seeks or finds an answer and sincerely act on that answer, but The "death" of "I" is not going to take place.

The reason for this repeated failure is not difficult to understand...The questioner is "I", the knowledge gained as solution is "I" and the actor making effort to achieve the goal of ending "I" is "I".

The mind can deceive itself and fabricate anything it wishes

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Aug 2015 #118
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Paul,

You're right. No need to get hung up. But there is the (speculation) as to whether there is THAT which is beyond cycles. Cycles would seem to infer duality.

I was referring to this.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Thu, 27 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Aug 2015 #119
Thumb_stringio aub b France 112 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Aseem Kumar wrote:
This question is put by the "I" simply to give continuity to itself. One naturally knows, seeks or finds an answer and sincerely act on that answer, but The "death" of "I" is not going to take place.

The reason for this repeated failure is not difficult to understand...The questioner is "I", the knowledge gained as solution is "I" and the actor making effort to achieve the goal of ending "I" is "I".

Of course, Aseem, if the inquiry is only intellectual, verbal, and if the mind did not go through understanding, in itself, inwardly, step by step, through careful and choiceless observation, attention, then it is never going to happen. And the mind will continue as it has always been.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Aug 2015 #120
Thumb_stringio Richard Nolet Canada 325 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Aseem Kumar wrote:
aub b wrote:

Can the mind who has ended the psychological images, psychological attributes of itself, also end the last image ?

Aseem Kumar wrote:
This question is put by the "I" simply to give continuity to itself. One naturally knows, seeks or finds an answer and sincerely act on that answer, but The "death" of "I" is not going to take place.

The reason for this repeated failure is not difficult to understand...The questioner is "I", the knowledge gained as solution is "I" and the actor making effort to achieve the goal of ending "I" is "I".

Cannot any question just arise out of an inquiry ? Without giving any affirmation, conclusion ? You doesn't seems to look or address the question, but rather are you concluding that it comes from the I. In fact, the question is: who ask the question ? Is it the self, the I, who want to get rid of the center image, or is it out of the inquiry ? Which is maybe what you meant. Otherwise, it seems simply the end of the question. The way you say it, it looks like, the question is wrong since it comes with a self-centered motive.

This post was last updated by Richard Nolet (account deleted) Thu, 27 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 91 - 120 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.)