Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Experimenter's Corner | moderated by John Raica

Are we actually machines?


Displaying posts 781 - 790 of 790 in total
Fri, 19 May 2017 #781
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
How else might there come to be anything 'true'?

'Everything is true, including its opposite.' Old Serbian proverb

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 19 May 2017 #782
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

Funny thing on the Krishnamurti Reviews Krishnamurti Notebooks thread on the general discussion forum . . .people mechanically repeat that K never read any spiritual books, yet he said at the Ommen Campfire talk 1 as follows:

"For many years I have searched for that Happiness, I have wandered through many climes, I have read many books, I have perhaps suffered a little; but I have always desired that Vision, that Happiness, which no pleasures of this earth can give. And for some months past I have found it; for some months past I have lived in that Kingdom and that Kingdom has become real."

And why should he not have read spiritual books?

To repeat a thing where there is no foundation for it, without thought and in the face of its negation, is the nearest damned thing I know to mechanical action.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 19 May 2017 #783
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
"For many years I have searched for that Happiness, I have wandered through many climes, I have read many books, I have perhaps suffered a little; but I have always desired that Vision, that Happiness, which no pleasures of this earth can give. And for some months past I have found it; for some months past I have lived in that Kingdom and that Kingdom has become real."

And why should he not have read spiritual books?

It's a very valid question. It certainly does appear that he wasn't without knowledge, at least as time went on, of the content of various scriptural texts. But when the theosophists collected him he was a young boy in an Indian village. He will have had no academic depth then. So what did they see in him? Or, perhaps better phrased, what was it in him that they saw? Because certainly what they saw eventually came to fruition. Nobody could lead people of the calibre of Bohm etc., in open discussion, numbers of them at a time, up the garden path.

What I'm saying is that the theosophists didn't choose a dud. So whether or when K came to know something of spiritual texts is perhaps irrelevant.

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Sat, 20 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 20 May 2017 #784
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 174 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
For many years I have searched for that Happiness, I have wandered through many climes, I have read many books....

Ah, Krishnamurti finally caught lying. That slippery snake :-)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 21 May 2017 #785
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

The thread question asks, 'Are we actually machines?'. I assume it to mean, 'Are we actually ultimately machines?', because if it means anything less than 'ultimately' then really it's hardly a question.

John Perkins. wrote:
K called himself, with perfect justification, a truly religious man. Not religious in accord with any organised religion of course but 'religious' none the less. This means that what the teachings point to is that by way of something other than science it is possible for an individual to 'see'.

Given that 'other than science' must strictly mean 'none material', is the thread question answered by the above excerpt from #778?

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Sun, 21 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 21 May 2017 #786
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
Not quite so, as with squirrels, for example.

As you say, you don't see billionaire squirrels. Perhaps their primary purpose is to sow oak trees. Many creatures do things that assist other life. You could almost say - surprise, surprise - that the world works in a unitary way.

...when a cat secures its territory it is precisely doing what you say animals don't do, amassing,...

They mark it is all.

...but in this case it is land which holds its bounty, not the bounty itself.

Hmmm... looks like a bit of a struggle to support any counter argument.

These tendencies exist strongly in many animals...

Then surely better evidence can be found to support it. I'd say the modus op is very, if not completely different.

...man's physical capacity to harness nature...

I'd say, rather, that he singularly fails to connect or align with it; which may perhaps be the root of his troubles.

...and his mental capacity to do so.

Well, at risk of repeating myself, I'd say that what he likes to call his 'mental capacity' might perhaps be the root of his troubles. It seems highly likely.

It's funny how you and I seem to view so much stuff from opposite directions.

Put simply, nature never evolved the stop button to its processes.

What would you say K and the Buddha (to name but two) represent?

Que Sera, Sera.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 22 May 2017 #787
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
It's funny how you and I seem to view so much stuff from opposite directions.

Maybe you just see things as opposites?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 22 May 2017 #788
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 17 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
What would you say K and the Buddha (to name but two) represent?

John, I trust we should put all kinds of religious myths aside including the 'one' expressing as 'many' or the glorification of ending of self and a coming back or maintaining a Buddha like perfection or considering K as an instrument for the intelligence to operate etc. The strength and power in myths has to suffuse into the reality indistinguishably, and not subjugate it; by over-emphasizing certain myths we might not know when we fall back again to theology. K, as far as I see was supremely careful about it. K and Buddha represents Teachings and that's it.

contraria sunt complementa

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 22 May 2017 #789
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

natarajan shivan wrote:
John, I trust we should put all kinds of religious myths aside including the 'one' expressing as 'many' or the glorification of ending of self and a coming back or maintaining a Buddha like perfection or considering K as an instrument for the intelligence to operate etc. The strength and power in myths has to suffuse into the reality indistinguishably, and not subjugate it; by over-emphasizing certain myths we might not know when we fall back again to theology. K, as far as I see was supremely careful about it. K and Buddha represents Teachings and that's it.

Hi Natarajan

Yes I agree with your above keen and succinctly put observation. But I would just point out that my question related to Paul's statement, viz.:

Paul wrote: "Put simply, nature never evolved the stop button to its processes."

What I intended to suggest by my response: "What would you say K and the Buddha (to name but two) represent?" was simply that in fact there appears to be a built-in 'stop button'.

Que Sera, Sera.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 22 May 2017 #790
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
in fact there appears to be a built-in 'stop button'.

?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 781 - 790 of 790 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.)