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

Observations


Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 158 in total
Tue, 06 Sep 2011 #31
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

This is the core of my philosophy of life. It says it all!

The Courtship of the Yonghy-Bonghy-Bo

Edward Lear 1812-1888

On the Coast of Coromandel,
Where the early pumpkins grow,
In the middle of the woods
Lived the Yonghy-Bonghy-Bo.
Two old chairs, and half a candle,
One old jug without a handle,
These were all his worldly goods:
In the middle of the woods,
These were all the worldly goods
Of the Yonghy-Bonghy-Bo.
Of the Yonghy-Bonghy-Bo.

Once, among the Bong-trees walking
Where the early pumpkins grow,
To a little heap of stones
Came the Yonghy-Bonghy-Bo.
There he heard a Lady talking,
To some milk-white Hens of Dorking,
"'Tis the Lady Jingly Jones!
On that little heap of stones
Sits the Lady Jingly Jones!"
Said the Yonghy-Bonghy-Bo.
Said the Yonghy-Bonghy-Bo.

"Lady Jingly! Lady Jingly!
Sitting where the pumpkins grow,
Will you come and be my wife?"
Said the Yonghy-Bonghy-Bo.
"I am tired of living singly,
On this coast so wild and shingly,
I'm a-weary of my life;
If you'll come and be my wife,
Quite serene would be my life!"
Said the Yonghy-Bonghy-Bo.
Said the Yonghy-Bonghy-Bo.

"On this Coast of Coromandel,
Shrimps and watercresses grow,
Prawns are plentiful and cheap,"
Said the Yonghy-Bonghy-Bo.
"You shall have my chairs and candle,
And my jug without a handle! -
Gaze upon the rolling deep
(Fish is plentiful and cheap) -
As the sea, my love is deep!"
Said the Yonghy-Bonghy-Bo.
Said the Yonghy-Bonghy-Bo.

Lady Jingly answered sadly,
And her tears began to flow,
"Your proposal comes too late,
Mr. Yonghy-Bonghy-Bo!
I would be your wife most gladly!"
(Here she twirled her fingers madly)
"But in England I've a mate!
Yes! you've asked me far too late,
For in England I've a mate,
Mr. Yonghy-Bonghy-Bo!
Mr. Yonghy-Bonghy-Bo! "Mr Jones - (his name is Handel -
Handel Jones, Esquire, & Co.)
Dorking fowls delights to send,
Mr Yonghy-Bonghy-Bo!
Keep, oh! keep your chairs and candle,
And your jug without a handle,
I can merely be your friend!
- Should my Jones more Dorking send,
I will give you three, my friend!
Mr. Yonghy-Bonghy-Bo!
Mr. Yonghy-Bonghy-Bo!

"Though you've such a tiny body,
And your head so large doth grow,
Though your hat may blow away,
Mr. Yonghy-Bonghy-Bo!
Though you're such a Boddy Doddy -
Yet I wish that I could modi-
fy the words I needs must say!
Will you please to go away?
That is all I have to say -
Mr. Yonghy-Bonghy-Bo,
Mr. Yonghy-Bonghy-Bo!"

Down the slippery slopes of Myrtle,
Where the early pumpkins grow,
To the calm and silent sea
Fled the Yonghy-Bonghy-Bo.
There beyond the Bay of Gurtle,
Lay a large and lively Turtle;
"You're the Cove," he said, "for me;
On your back beyond the sea,
Turtle, you shall carry me!"
Said the Yonghy-Bonghy-Bo.
Said the Yonghy-Bonghy-Bo.

Through the silent-roaring ocean
Did the Turtle swiftly go;
Holding fast upon his shell
Rode the Yonghy-Bonghy-Bo,
With a sad primaeval motion
Towards the sunset isles of Boshen
Still the Turtle bore him well,
Holding fast upon his shell.
"Lady Jingly Jones, farewell!"
Sang the Yonghy-Bonghy-Bo,
Sang the Yonghy-Bonghy-Bo.

From the Coast of Coromandel
Did that Lady never go;
On that heap of stones she mourns
For the Yonghy-Bonghy-Bo.
On that Coast of Coromandel,
In his jug without a handle,
Still she weeps, and daily moans;
On that little heap of stones
To her Dorking Hens she moans
For the Yonghy-Bonghy-Bo.
For the Yonghy-Bonghy-Bo.

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 06 Sep 2011 #32
Thumb_tampura ganesan balachandran India 2204 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Davidson wrote:
core of my philosophy of life.

You are revealing the great secret, i will some how get the ghee out of it.
gb

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 06 Sep 2011 #33
Thumb_tampura ganesan balachandran India 2204 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Davidson wrote:
It says it all!

But Ramayana says it better.
gb
However yours has got a significance in my life.It is an electric dream.

Paul Davidson wrote:
"Lady Jingly Jones

Is she snobbish.
gb

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Sep 2011 #34
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Last night the remnants of Hurricane Katya passed over.

This morning there is still some wind and the Autumn sun is very bright. Two wood-pidgeons are sitting on the fence in amongst the ivy outside my window. They are close to one another, side by side. They are both very still. The female is crouched down while the male, alert and erect, has his wing spread out over her back.

What is he saying by this sweet gesture? "I want to keep warm with you." "I will protect you." "I love you." or "This one is mine."

It is easy to impute human motivations onto animals, especially when they show emotive actions. But I think, for these pidgeons, whatever the instinctive values or evolutionary benefits of their behavior, for them, it just amounts to one thing, pleasure. Beautiful pleasure.

If there were no pleasure in the universe, would there be life?

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

This post was last updated by Paul Davidson (account deleted) Tue, 13 Sep 2011.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Sep 2011 #35
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

I loved the opening words of today's quote, which was from 1934:

"We have glorified our needs so fearfully"

So few words say so much.

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Sep 2011 #36
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Just as stunning, the quote ended . . .

" . . . this colossal and ever-crumbling structure which we call society."

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Sep 2011 #37
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Paul,

You wrote, "If there were no pleasure in the universe, would there be life?"

When the individual for the first time senses or experiences something, he has no frame of reference for the experience. He places the experience in memory and judges the experience as "good" or "bad." This judgment is influenced by his psychological background. Subsequently, the feeling he has that results from the remembrance and repetition of a "good" experience is what he calls pleasure.

Can pleasure, which is remembrance, repetition, time and existence precede that which is always new and timeless -- life? I would say that it cannot. The feeling of pleasure is psychological. It seems to me that a sensation can be good, can be pleasant, without the psychological overhang of pleasure.

max

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Sep 2011 #38
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
Can pleasure, which is remembrance, repetition, time and existence precede that which is always new and timeless -- life?

Your question contains its own answer Max. As long as you start with the presumtion that pleasure is time then you will answer accordingly. Cut it down and your question is: Can time preceed the timeless, which makes the question a nonsense.

But why define pleasure in that way? Why?

The pigeons outside my window seem to be very happy with their pleasures and they are not worried by time.

Pleasure, the word 'pleasure' is used in two ways, Max. One problem is that we confuse the two uses. There is direct sensory pleasure such as drinking a glass of water when you are thirsty, and then there is the occupation called pleasure (or the occupation with pleasure). I prefer to call the later 'desire' but K used the word pleasure and desire interchangeably, usually. Sometimes he was more specific and defended pleasure as right and natural whereas desire was of thought.

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Thu, 15 Sep 2011 #39
Thumb_img001 Sudhir Sharma India 1989 posts in this forum Offline

Fulfilment of desire is related to motor system and that of pleasure to sensory system.

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 15 Sep 2011 #40
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
Fulfilment of desire is related to motor system and that of pleasure to sensory system.

Doctor, please go back to you rmedical books and tell me what 'motor system' you are talking about.

Sensory, which is movement, is also motor! Desire is thought. But you are right in so far as thought is also a motor reaction centred in the basal ganglia.

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 15 Sep 2011 #41
Thumb_img001 Sudhir Sharma India 1989 posts in this forum Offline

"I want to become rich." is a desire the fulfilment of which will involve some action, Paul. (Motor system)

"How beautiful those flowers were!" is pleasure of remembrance and is a sensation. (sensory system)

The former is not 'pleasure" and later is not 'desire'.

FLOW WITH LIFE!

This post was last updated by Sudhir Sharma Thu, 15 Sep 2011.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 15 Sep 2011 #42
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
"I want to become rich." is a desire the fulfilment of which will involve some action, Paul. (Motor system)

Yes,I wouldgoalongwith that, Sudhir,but I question what relevence you are givingto this 'involvement.' I wonder what you are trying tosay,in the deepersense.

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 15 Sep 2011 #43
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
"How beautiful those flowers were!" is pleasure of remembrance and is a sensation. (sensory system)

Yes,but your verbalresponsetothe flowersis notsensation,it is thought coming in. Sensation aloneisnon-verbal.It givesrisaeto verbosityifweallowit.

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 15 Sep 2011 #44
Thumb_img001 Sudhir Sharma India 1989 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Davidson wrote:
Yes,I wouldgoalongwith that, Sudhir,but I question what relevence you are givingto this 'involvement.' I wonder what you are trying tosay,in the deepersense.

Just trying to share that desire and pleasure (one that originates with thought) are somewhat different.

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 15 Sep 2011 #45
Thumb_img001 Sudhir Sharma India 1989 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Davidson wrote:
Yes,but your verbalresponsetothe flowersis notsensation,

Did you notice word 'were' in the sentence? It was a remembrance of flowers seen in the past. The pleasure experienced is thought generated. Sensation, as the name suggests, can only be non-verbal.

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 15 Sep 2011 #46
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Davidson wrote:
Your question contains its own answer Max. . . Cut it down and your question is: Can time preceed the timeless, which makes the question a nonsense.

No, that was your question, Paul. You asked the question, I only paraphrased the question. Read what you asked and what I wrote, side- by-side, and you'll see this for yourself.

But that brings up something else to consider regarding pleasure. I'll ask the question this time: Is pleasure actually a hindrance to enjoyment?

I would say that it is. There is always disappointment hidden in pleasure, but the objection to pleasure goes deeper than that. Pleasure is psychological and springs from remembrance and repetition -- that is, the image of the old brought into the present. When one does this, he actually denies the present. He is actually trying to mold the present to fit the past, which is his image of something previously experienced. The delight and joy of the new in the present moment, if there is such, is buried under memory and the attempt at psychological pleasure.

max

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Thu, 15 Sep 2011 #47
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
No, that was your question, Paul. You asked the question, I only paraphrased the question. Read what you asked and what I wrote, side- by-side, and you'll see this for yourself.

Yes, I have done so, Max. I do not feel you paraphrased my question.

I asked whether there can be life without pleasure. I did not introduce the time element.

You defined pleasure as time (memory and repetition) and you defined life as timeless (always new). And you asked whether pleasure, as time, can precede life, as the timeless.

Now,if you reduce that question, you are asking if time can precede the timeless.

Your question is primarily about time relationships, it seems to me. And it seems to answer itself in the negative. To me,such questions, which contain their own answer, can be useful as rhetorical devices, if posed well.

But I do not accept the assumptions sewn into the cloth, that pleasure is time and that life is timeless. And if I put your question, with its assumptions, side by side with my own, I see little similarity.

My ability to address your question would seem to depend on my acceptance of the assumptions it contained. It is a circle I am not inside of.

But thank you for taking the time and interest to write. Dialogue is engaging, even if sometimes it may not get too far.

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

This post was last updated by Paul Davidson (account deleted) Thu, 15 Sep 2011.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 15 Sep 2011 #48
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
Did you notice word 'were' in the sentence? It was a remembrance of flowers seen in the past. The pleasure experienced is thought generated. Sensation, as the name suggests, can only be non-verbal.

Yes, I did notice, Sudhir. As you say, the pleasure is generated indirectly, by thought. Is it not that wedesire to repeat the pleasure and this leads us to go over it in thought?

I think the question involves the following:

Is the pleasure uninvited, direct, sensory and immediate, or is it brought into being, invited by thought/memory, which then acts on the senses to produce pleasure?

It seems to me that the latter is a secondary mechanism that is based upon time and desire while the former is a primary mechanism brought about by direct sensory contact, involuntarily, from moment to moment.

I think this also begins to answer Max's point.Thank you Sudhir, and Max. It is clearer to me now - and verbally more precise.

It seems to me that both life and direct pleasure are in the flow, whereas desire introduces its own time and thus resists the flow.

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Thu, 15 Sep 2011 #49
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Paul,

Just one moment. Here are the two questions, verbatim.

Your question, "If there were no pleasure in the universe, would there be life?"

My paraphrase: "Can pleasure, which is remembrance, repetition, time and existence precede that which is always new and timeless -- life?"

You are saying that if there were no pleasure (very clearly, if pleasure did not already exist -- note the inescapable element of time) if pleasure did not already exist, would life be possible?

I am saying, can pleasure, which is of time and already exists, precede life, which is of the present and is timeless ( i.e., make life possible)?

There are no assumptions necessary. If you wish, take out the references to "time," in what I wrote, as they act only as modifiers of "pleasure" and "life." Either you asked the question and I paraphrased the question, or I am sadly mistaken.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Thu, 15 Sep 2011.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Sep 2011 #50
Thumb_tampura ganesan balachandran India 2204 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
"If there were no pleasure in the universe, would there be life?"

It is to realize the pleasure in timeless.
gb

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

This post was last updated by ganesan balachandran Fri, 16 Sep 2011.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Sep 2011 #51
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
Either you asked the question and I paraphrased the question, or I am sadly mistaken

Both life and pleasure are of time. Therefore they run together. Let us not be abstract about it.Let us observe life as it exists around us and see whether or not pleasure is an essential part of it, as it is for the pigeons outside my window.

The basil plant in my kitchen was withering yesterday and a friend pointed it out to me. I gave it water and withing 30 minutes it had recovered. It smiled and bowed gracefully and let me pluck one or two leaves.The plant was pleased by the water. It was made happy. The other day I was watching the dogs playing in the park, rolling and tumbling with each other. They too were happy. They know pleasure but not time. It is sunny this morning and the roses are blooming. Everywhere in the world there is pleasure. Only in the human breast is there desire and its outcome, sorrow.

It is only the human intellect which beats its sorrowful brow and tries to deny pain by denying pleasure.

K pointed out two common strategies with regard to pleasure and pain. The hedonist tries to feed pleasure in order to deny pain. The ascetic tries to starve pleasure in order to deny pain.

Both pleasure and pain are essential parts of life and cannot be denied, either way. They are confluent with life. I never said pleasure precedes life. It is confluent with it, it flows with it in the same current, as does pain. Pleasure and pain are the basis of sentience.

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Sep 2011 #52
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Ganesan,

You wrote, "It is to realize the pleasure in timeless."

I see pleasure as the remembrance of, and the repetition of, something sensed as pleasant, or judged as "good." I would say there is no remembrance involved with the timeless -- the present -- because there has been nothing accumulated or stored to be remembered.

It seems there would be joy, possibly what we might call delight, in the present moment. The senses, sensing for the first time, might register a sensation as pleasant. Pleasure is the recall of all of this, and the attempt to repeat it. Pleasure is an interference with the present truth of the moment.

max

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Sep 2011 #53
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Paul,

You wrote, "Both life and pleasure are of time. Therefore they run together. Let us not be abstract about it.Let us observe life as it exists around us and see whether or not pleasure is an essential part of it, as it is for the pigeons outside my window."

This is much better, discussing things rather than quibbling over who said what first.

The way I see it, pleasure is of time, as you say. Pleasure is remembrance and repetition, which involve time. Life, however, is only in the present moment and is not spread out over time. I would call this condition "timeless."

For me, Life does not "exist." A stone exists, or a dead body exists. Life is of the timeless present moment and so it is not caught in the sequence and time of existence. The timeless present moment is, for me, love/intelligence/action. I see no continuing form or entity in these. They just are, from moment to moment, or else they aren't at all. "Existence," on the other hand, for me implies a continuation over time.

Pleasure we have already discussed, but I did have a few more words and I wrote them in the above post.

I've never run across a person with so much knowledge on so many different subjects. How do you do this? Got a staff of researchers?

max

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Sat, 17 Sep 2011 #54
Thumb_tampura ganesan balachandran India 2204 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
we might call delight,

Thank you.
gb

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 17 Sep 2011 #55
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

I add my own 'thank you' to Ganesan's, Max, not for the complement, which is accepted, but for the good will behind it.

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

This post was last updated by Paul Davidson (account deleted) Sat, 17 Sep 2011.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 17 Sep 2011 #56
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5770 posts in this forum Offline

Knowledge Is Not Wisdom

In our search for knowledge, in our acquisitive desires, we are losing love, we are blunting the feeling for beauty, the sensitivity to cruelty; we are becoming more and more specialized and less and less integrated. Wisdom cannot be replaced by knowledge, and no amount of explanation, no accumulation of facts, will free man from suffering. Knowledge is necessary, science has its place; but if the mind and heart are suffocated by knowledge, and if the cause of suffering is explained away, life becomes vain and meaningless.
Information, the knowledge of facts, though ever increasing, is by its very nature limited. Wisdom is infinite, it includes knowledge and the way of action; but we take hold of a branch and think it is the whole tree. Through the knowledge of the part, we can never realize the joy of the whole. Intellect can never lead to the whole, for it is only a segment, a part.
We have separated intellect from feeling, and have developed intellect at the expense of feeling. We are like a three-legged object with one leg much longer than the others, and we have no balance. We are trained to be intellectual; our education cultivates the intellect to be sharp, cunning, acquisitive, and so it plays the most important role in our life. Intelligence is much greater than intellect, for it is the integration of reason and love; but there can be intelligence only when there is self-knowledge, the deep understanding of the total process of oneself.

J. Krishnamurti, The Book of Life

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Sat, 17 Sep 2011 #57
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5770 posts in this forum Offline

So fear is the product of thought. Right? Otherwise there is no fear. Fear is related to pleasure and pleasure is the product of thought as fear. I wonder if you are following this? You know, this is not an analytical talk. Analysis, however deep or clever, however true does not solve any problems. Analysis is merely a description of what is, and we are not analysing but just observing. It is very important to understand this, the art of looking, the art of seeing. We are seeing fear, listening to fear, to all its murmurs, not theoretically but actually. If we could see fear with eyes that are very clear then fear would completely come to an end. And that's what we are doing. Fear, as we said, is the result of thought. Yesterday I was healthy and enjoyed walking through the woods, but today or tomorrow I am afraid that I may fall ill. Do go into this with me! Please, if I may suggest, don't just listen but observe this thing operating in yourself. Yesterday there was a beautiful sunset and I enjoyed it tremendously. There is the memory of it and I want that pleasure repeated and when it is not repeated then I am afraid, which is all part of thinking. I am afraid of death, the tomorrow and the many tomorrows; thought is observing the fact of living - what it calls living - and also the fact that it is going to end, so thought is afraid of the thing it calls death. Therefore it puts death far away in the distance. This is very clear isn't it? Thought creates distance as well as time, so thought breeds fear. 1968 Rome Public Talk 10th March 1968

No one with even a smattering of understanding of what K pointed out would ask is life dependent on pleasure. It's ludicrous. Pleasure is the product of thought which is based on memory which is the past which is limited. How can that which has no limit be dependent on the limited?

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Sat, 17 Sep 2011.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 3 readers
Back to Top
Sat, 17 Sep 2011 #58
Thumb_stringio RICK LEIN United States 4436 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Jack Pine wrote:
No one with even a smattering of understanding of what K pointed out would ask is life dependent on pleasure. It's ludicrous. Pleasure is the product of thought which is based on memory which is the past which is limited. How can that which has no limit be dependent on the limited?

Bingo! Thank you Jack.:)

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 17 Sep 2011 #59
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine,

You quoted Krishnamurti, "Knowledge Is Not Wisdom"

If wisdom is synonymous with intelligence, then it is easily seen that knowledge is not intelligence. But what is wisdom, otherwise? If wisdom involves an accumulation of any type, if there is a referral to the past in any manner, then I would say that knowledge is necessary for wisdom.

It seems to me that it is to our advantage, as existing creatures, to remember as much of our experience as we can. This is our knowledge, and there would seem to be nothing wrong with accumulating knowledge, in any amount. It's how we use knowledge that matters. It would seem that "wisdom" is intelligence acting on knowledge.

max

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sat, 17 Sep 2011 #60
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine,

Another quote from Krishnamurti, "Thought creates distance as well as time . . ."

Nice to see this precise wording. We are used to seeing space and time put together. Physicists speak only of "space/time." They never say, "distance/time." But Krishnamurti has said it.

Distance is a gap, an interval, and time is a measure of intervals. Space is an entirely different matter. Space has no boundaries or gaps. Something may fill or occupy space, but the space is still there and extends beyond, unchanged. That which has no boundary goes with that which is timeless -- space and the timeless. That which is limited goes with time - - Distance and time.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 158 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.)