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

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


Displaying posts 121 - 138 of 138 in total
Thu, 27 Aug 2015 #121
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
But there is the (speculation) as to whether there is THAT which is beyond cycles.

Yes, there is such "speculation." What is it worth?

max greene wrote:
Cycles would seem to infer duality.

I don't see why. Of course, if I say "cycles" and you go on to propose speculating about "non-cycles" that would be duality.

A cycle implies cause and effect. It also implies death and renewal. It also implies continuity and discontinuity.

These pairs can be taken as opposites (duality) or as aspects of the same movement. For example, cause versus effect OR cause through effect and effect through cause; death versus renewal OR renewal through death and death through renewal; continuity versus discontinuity OR continuity through discontinuity and discontinuity through continuity.

Formal logic pits one thing against another whereas dialectical logic attends to the dynamic relationships within apparent contradictions. Duality is ever-present in formal thinking. Dynamic thinking is not duality-dependent.

Your abstract presentations, Max, are highly dependent on formal thinking and formal logic. That is why you cry "duality" at every turn. It's all in your head.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Aug 2015 #122
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Pavil Davidov wrote:
Your abstract presentations, Max, are highly dependent on formal thinking and formal logic. That is why you cry "duality" at every turn. It's all in your head.

Personal comment again, and a specious allegation having nothing to do with the topic.

Go through my posts and count how many times I have used the word, "duality." You might want to do the same with your posts, just for comparison.

max

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Aug 2015 #123
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
Personal comment again, and a specious allegation having nothing to do with the topic.

Actually there is just cause to mention to you that you are being too abstract and too formal in your logic. The cause is that in every discussion your abstraction leads you off on a tangent. In each case the thread deteriorates into a debate about your pet theories. For example, you posted on this same thread earlier as follows:

Max wrote: "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.)"

This and your idea that evolution runs backwards from the present to the past, is abstract nonsense, totally off-topic and, if you take my saying so to be "personal" and "off-topic," so be it.

If you demand "on-topic" comments from others, restrict yourself to them also. How about getting back to the tiger and the deer rather than wandering off into the abstract present, backwards evolution, THAT which may be beyond cycles and the awareness of awareness? Don;t set rules you do not follow yourself, Max.

"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 #124
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.

"the mind creates" is this another name for the brain activity or consciousness??

Nothing is done yet, only give description of an observed fact and it is clear to me that this description is neither the fact as a whole or me as a whole. (in the case of I am a carpenter or human being).
This realy doesn't need a center or an identification.

Why should the mind identifies itself with images, psychologically?

aub b wrote:
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".

This still doesn't explain "Thought" and/or the need of the birth of the "I".

For me it seems that all man made things are based on idea's someone once had.
For example a "word" explaining a reality is never the same and/or complete, often even completly wrong.
for instance:
'Brain washing' if one look into the meaning/explanation it's more like a 'Brain programming'.
'Answer machine' the same it doesn't give answers it's "receiving messages".

As long that's understood there's no problem, the birth of the problem occurs when there isn't clear observation of the difference of the word and the reality and we mix up the word for the reality.

Is this what you call psychologically identification?

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

This post was last updated by Wim Opdam Thu, 27 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Aug 2015 #125
Thumb_stringio aub b France 112 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Wim (#124), by identification, I mean, the sense of possessing a property or something.

For example: "my" capacity, "my" body, "my" mind, "my" thought, "my" knowledge, "my" home, "my" car, "my" money, etc.

Identification implies separation, division between a possessor of the quality or thing, and the thing that is possessed. It implies a center and a distance. Where there is distance, there is conflict, there is fear. For example, the fear of losing one of the things that I enumerated. Distance implies time, space, fragmentation.

Without a center, the capacity, the body, the mind, the thought, the knowledge, the home, the car, the money, etc, is me, not 'mine', but 'me'. Then, there is no division between me and all those things or qualities. Without division, there is no distance, no time, no space involved. Therefore correct action, correct relationship, in the sense of an action that is whole, not fragmented.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Aug 2015 #126
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

I have lodged a complaint with Dev. About ten minutes ago.

Criticizing my "style of writing"and my "intellectualizing" as woo woo, nonsense and other such epithets, in addition to the personal insults, is both insulting and a useless wandering from any topic under discussion.

max

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Aug 2015 #127
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
I have lodged a complaint with Dev. About ten minutes ago.

Max, I have opened a new thread about this as this thread has it's own subject matter and shouldn't be derailed by personal stuff. But yes, I do think you intellectualize too much and others have said the same. I have not called your writing "woo woo" as you claim. And I have not offered personal insults. We have exchanged some barbed comments which you actually began. As I say, this should not block the thread so I'm not responding further here. I hope that's OK . . . and apols to other posters.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Aug 2015 #128
Thumb_stringio Julian S United Kingdom 194 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Pavil Davidov wrote:
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?

I'm sure you'll think I'm a crazy fule, but I was thinking more of these things, rather than the assimilation of foodstuffs. Of course it's metaphysical speculation, but when physics discovers that 96% of the universe is a completely unknown substance described as dark matter, and when quantum parallel universes, hidden dimensions and the multiverse are all taken seriously, I don't see why those traditions from esoteric thought shouldn't also. Our understanding of reality, I have little doubt, is very, very limited. And consciousness, I'll be fool enough to speculate, will turn out to be a fundamental part of how things work.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Aug 2015 #129
Thumb_avatar david sharma Ireland 274 posts in this forum Offline

Man is an insane species that kill for pleasure ,with wapons ,with words ,with gesture, with greed ,wth compaision ,

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Aug 2015 #130
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Julian S wrote:

Pavil Davidov wrote:

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?

I'm sure you'll think I'm a crazy fule, but I was thinking more of these things, rather than the assimilation of foodstuffs. Of course it's metaphysical speculation

I went to the link and saw you were referring to esoteric 'planes.' Here is from the link: "Most occult and esoteric teachings are in agreement that seven planes of existence exist; however, many different occult and metaphysical schools label the planes of existence with different terminology."

You had said that you thought there may be infinite gradations between consciousness and matter and you were referring to the mystic planes, right? OK, but you are also right to say it's metaphysical speculation. Have you read any Rudolf Steiner? He broke with Theosophy over the issue of K and started a more Christian based esoteric movement called Anthroposophy, from which the Waldorf Schools arose.

Steiner used to "go off" into other realms and bring back all sorts of detailed information about the cosmos. A certain sort of mind is easily impressed by this sort of stuff. But when you've dipped into a number of such cosmologies - Gurdgieff, Blavatsky, Rosicrucian etc, you see that they all differ on basic information such that one is able to see that outside of the common skeletal frame of occult thinking, the individual imagination has invented all sorts of idiosyncratic structures and details from the discrete levels of unconscious confusion in each particular brain.

The fact that there is agreement on some such absurdity as that there are "but seven realms" is only a common point for authoritative derangement. In other words it only proves they have all gone off the rails at the same exit, each following the other. The ones who chose another route are long forgotten.

Occult authority proves nothing beyond a common following. And I see no good reason to speculate either on numbered realms or on endless gradations. The fact that we don't know gives me no hope that by building a woo-bridge across the chasm, we can reach the 'other side.'

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Aug 2015 #131
Thumb_2820 Aseem Kumar India 2033 posts in this forum Offline

Richard Nolet wrote:
Cannot any question just arise out of an inquiry ?

The question is asked by one from, and on the basis of, the background of stored knowledge/experiences in memory. They are asked in order to add more to the existing knowledge/experiences. In the religious/spiritual matters one's all knowledge/experiences and questions related to them originate from the authority of already existing cultural/religious background.

Can one call this inquiring?

The mind can deceive itself and fabricate anything it wishes

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Aug 2015 #132
Thumb_stringio Julian S United Kingdom 194 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Pavil Davidov wrote:
Occult authority proves nothing beyond a common following. And I see no good reason to speculate either on numbered realms or on endless gradations. The fact that we don't know gives me no hope that by building a woo-bridge across the chasm, we can reach the 'other side.'

I agree with much of what you say Paul - I'm sure much of it is guff, distorted by individual idiosyncrasies, delusions, etc. But I wouldn't accept the strangest, most out there stuff because it's supported by a certain amount of science and completely reject all esoteric traditions as garbage or "woo". Rationality often seems to mean accepting the mainstream scientific position and rejecting everything else. But science clearly undergoes huge changes in relatively short spaces of time. Does rationality only lie in accepting the current position of mainstream science? Is any other view of reality garbage?

I did read one of Steiner's books but it didn't make much of an impression. Also a bit of Blavatsky, an Alice Bailey, a CWL - none of it comes anywhere near Krishnamurti in importance or beauty for me. And none of it would I follow, even if I could. But I still think we have a very limited understanding of reality and that some of these esotericists have probably discovered some things that were true. K himself said that the Theosophists had something in the beginning which got lost in rituals, hierarchies, etc. He never simply dismissed them as a bunch of crackpots.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Aug 2015 #133
Thumb_stringio Richard Nolet Canada 325 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Aseem Kumar wrote:
The question is asked by one from, and on the basis of, the background of stored knowledge/experiences in memory. They are asked in order to add more to the existing knowledge/experiences. In the religious/spiritual matters one's all knowledge/experiences and questions related to them originate from the authority of already existing cultural/religious background.

Can one call this inquiring?

It is not necessarly so, to my point of view. Though the question have to be ask: whether the question come from all what you say or from the inquiry itself. So that one is aware that if there is a motive, it will be as you said. And then, with this awareness, this understanding in mind, one can go further in the inquiry. Otherwise, there is no more questions, the inquiry end there. You conclude, and the inquiry is finish.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Aug 2015 #134
Thumb_stringio Richard Nolet Canada 325 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Richard Nolet wrote:
Aesem wrote:

In the religious/spiritual matters one's all knowledge/experiences and questions related to them originate from the authority of already existing cultural/religious background.
Can one call this inquiring?

If one see by ourself that his own mind is fill of all kind of images, then it is not second hand from autorithy to inquiring into their meanings. And then, seeing all that it involved, one can ask : where do they come from ? How have they been create ? Etc. This is inquiring into our own's observations, not according to what you say up there, which is then false. But to conclude, as you seems to be doing, is the ending of the inquiry, whether in or for oneself, or in a discussion with another. But I'm affraid we are off topic Aseem so better stop this I guess :)

This post was last updated by Richard Nolet (account deleted) Fri, 28 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Aug 2015 #135
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Julian S wrote:
but when physics discovers that 96% of the universe is a completely unknown substance described as dark matter

It has not "discovered" it, Julian. Forgive me for pointing out but much of theoretical physics is, as it says on the label, "theoretical." What happened is that something could not be explained by mathematics so they calculated the size of the gap between what is presently explained and what (they calculate) has not and they put a figure on it and call it "dark matter." I don't think that's woo. Its simply projection from the known to the unknown, measuring and then naming what is not known. But I don't call it "discovery" either. They then found that dark matter fell short of explaining 'everything' so they put another carriage on the train and called it . . . yes, you've guessed correct, "dark energy."

Where it would become "woo" is when Deepack Chopra gets hold of it and offers a course of treatment based upon it. That won't take long, will it!

"Quantum Healing with Dark Energy" Only $19.95 a jar.

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

This post was last updated by Pavil Davidov (account deleted) Fri, 28 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Aug 2015 #136
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Julian S wrote:
But I wouldn't accept the strangest, most out there stuff because it's supported by a certain amount of science and completely reject all esoteric traditions as garbage or "woo".

I agree. Many teachings have something to offer. It has helped me a lot to read some absolutely crass stuff (not referring to anyone here, I should add). I'd never questioned evolution theory until I read Gurdgieff. I ended up seeing that evolution is more than a theory but on the journey I realized I'd taken it to be truth without examining it closely. The fact that it proved to be true is secondary. What was important was to notice some major shortcomings in the way I perceived things to be true. Now I'm more wary. Also, I've learned a lot in many directions. Everyone has something true to say . . . with the exception of Tuesday Lobsang Rampa. Even, dare I say . . . Donald Trump!

But I do reject the traditions, Julian. I do not reject the whole body of thought/knowledge, out of hand because it is esoteric, but I do reject it as a tradition. Traditions blind us, make our sensibilities inoperable, dull our inquiry, lead us into exploitation, though we fear no evil because tradition has told us that God is beside us etc. The psalms are beautiful but . . .

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

This post was last updated by Pavil Davidov (account deleted) Fri, 28 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Aug 2015 #137
Thumb_stringio Julian S United Kingdom 194 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Pavil Davidov wrote:
Forgive me for pointing out but much of theoretical physics is, as it says on the label, "theoretical." What happened is that something could not be explained by mathematics so they calculated the size of the gap between what is presently explained and what (they calculate) has not and they put a figure on it and call it "dark matter."

I think things are a little further down the line than that. Dark matter / energy is currently hypothetical - as you say, a very large gap in the equations - but there seems to be expectations that it will be detected and some suggestions that it may have evolved into complex forms. But I certainly don't pretend to be an astrophysicist.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 29 Aug 2015 #138
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Julian S wrote:
But I certainly don't pretend to be an astrophysicist.

There are two forces that physicists have not yet been able to unify, Julian, the law of gravity and the law of digestion. The law of gravity says that everything, no matter how grand, eventually falls, while the law of digestion says that everything, no matter how fine, eventually turns to shit :-)

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 121 - 138 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.)