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

Dvaita (Duality) is not wrong


Displaying posts 61 - 90 of 185 in total
Wed, 07 Sep 2011 #61
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

ganesan balachandran wrote:
The i mentioned by me includes you, Ravi and me without separation

Oh Ganesan, please allow us a little separation! I could not stand it! Not you, of course, but Ravi is becoming such a bore!

And I must break out of this closet!!!

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 07 Sep 2011 #62
Thumb_avatar Ravi Seth India 1573 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Davidson wrote:
And you are the one who started the thread

Individual mind must die to give way to the universal mind.

&

Universal mind has to die for the Absolute to manifest.

All things arise and die into 'it'--- the unmoved mover.

Individual mind is itself the bead of this chain & therefore 'Duality'------- which could not be otherwise.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Wed, 07 Sep 2011 #63
Thumb_tampura ganesan balachandran India 2204 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Davidson wrote:
"Duality, is it real or illusion?" is itself duality.

Duality is dependent reality and nonduality is independent reality.
gb

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

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Wed, 07 Sep 2011 #64
Thumb_avatar Ravi Seth India 1573 posts in this forum Offline

ganesan balachandran wrote:
Duality is dependent reality and nonduality is independent reality

wah!

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Wed, 07 Sep 2011 #65
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Ravi Seth wrote:
Individual mind is itself the bead of this chain & therefore 'Duality'------- which could not be otherwise.

And this is what happens when you start from conclusions you have read and then work backwards, making courageous effort to explain that which you have not seen with your own eyes. You and Dhi are quite a pair, Ravi!

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 07 Sep 2011 #66
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

ganesan balachandran wrote:
Duality is dependent reality and nonduality is independent reality.

Yes, dependent on the act of mental creation.

But I do question the phrase 'nonduality,' Ganesan. Surely you mean the absense of duality. When the term nonduality is used it makes it into the opposite of duality, therefore it is again part of a duality.

It is like, how to deal with gravity. Once one realises thjere is no up and down in the universe but just the force of attraction, then the up/down falls (does it fall up or down?) Now we have a new duality called attraction/repulsion. We then go into it and realise it is just a movement in time/distance, which is not itself a duality but a mutual function of manifestation, part and parcel of the flux.

And this is the spirit of negation, or as K said, negative thinking, the highest form of thinking. When understood rightly, the apparent opposites merge back into one another.

But we are interested more in the psychological dimension of created dualities, are we not? We want to understand the inner conflict, the emotional turmoil. So that when we see that what we call love and hate are actually one movement, love/hate we see the emotional complex which gives rise to this reactive pendulum and are no longer caught in its swing. In that case there is a chance for real Love to come, which has no opposite.

When it is said that dualities exist, therefore they are right and just, this skips two important points. Firstly duality exists relative to understanding and secondly, duality, in the physical sense of up/down, hot/cold, although perceptual, are functional for our actions in the world, as long as we do not imagine them to be actual apart from mind, whereas, psychological duality as in love/hate, desire/disappointment are much more problematic as they lead to psychological accumulation and the crystallisation of self.

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

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Wed, 07 Sep 2011 #67
Thumb_tampura ganesan balachandran India 2204 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Davidson wrote:
But I do question the phrase 'nonduality,' Ganesan.

yes, JK also used to say oneness implies multiplicity.Non duality is not implied here for introspection with intellect.
we will call with the name from one of us who tells a name fit for it.why dont you suggest something.
gb

I too felt the same on There is no other.

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

This post was last updated by ganesan balachandran Wed, 07 Sep 2011.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 07 Sep 2011 #68
Thumb_avatar Ravi Seth India 1573 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Davidson wrote:
And this is what happens when you start from conclusions you have read and then work backwards, making courageous effort to explain that which you have not seen with your own eyes. You and Dhi are quite a pair, Ravi!

When you are challenged, ravi seth becomes a bore and is charged with doing the reverse engineering!Let ravi seth or for that matter dhi be what they are.How could it be your interest what one is doing behind the veil of this internet? You might be a robot for that matter who picks up nuances from everybody's replies and obliquely announce the same as your own. refer:

Ravi Seth wrote::

don't know....yesterday it simply appeared on the mind's horizon, looked too strong and couldn't resist sharing.

Paul Davidson wrote:
Yes, it was arising here too, yesterday, Ravi. What I have written above was already 'in production.

How about the above my dear paul?... and you thought you have won the mad race.

Ravi Seth wrote:
Individual mind is itself the bead of this chain & therefore 'Duality'------- which could not be otherwise.

Challenge the statement.Prove it has all ready been said or published.Give reference & blast.

But for Christ's sake , please do not fart.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Wed, 07 Sep 2011 #69
Thumb_deleted_user_med Muad dhib Ireland 175 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

India and the British empire have started a new war.....well not a conventional one....<:@)

Ravi Seth wrote:
When you are challenged, ravi seth becomes a bore and is charged with doing the reverse engineering

I understand this doing perfectly as I am used to that but more in reality than on the net so far....:)

Dan.....

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Wed, 07 Sep 2011 #70
Thumb_stringio RICK LEIN United States 4436 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Ravi Seth wrote:
Negation means - 'having no knowledge of it'.

Negate the 'Negator' .

:)..Thank you!

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Wed, 07 Sep 2011 #71
Thumb_stringio RICK LEIN United States 4436 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Paul Davidson wrote:
In short, you understand neither, but you are good at labelling.

Huuuuum..but you are good at labeling..LOL:)

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Wed, 07 Sep 2011 #72
Thumb_stringio RICK LEIN United States 4436 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

ganesan balachandran wrote:
Duality is dependent reality and nonduality is independent reality.

Bingo!:)

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 07 Sep 2011 #73
Thumb_stringio RICK LEIN United States 4436 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

ganesan balachandran wrote:
Non duality is not implied here for introspection with intellect.

:)

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 07 Sep 2011 #74
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5742 posts in this forum Offline

Ravi Seth wrote:
All types of pain( dukhas) are due to Dvaita roughly translated as Duality.
But Dvaita is not wrong.Simply it It could not be otherwsie.

Would you mind explaining what this above quote means? Duality, as is usually referred to relative to what K talked about, seems to be something quite different. There is duality on the physical plane such as light and darkness, hot and cold and so on. But psychological duality, as K often pointed out, does not exist. Psychological duality as an illusion is the duality of the thinker and the thought, the observer and the observed, the analyzer and the analyzed and so on. We could go on to say that psychological dualities are what brings about psychological time which also does not exist.

So I am asking, Sir, how does your statement relate to what K has pointed out?

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Wed, 07 Sep 2011.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 07 Sep 2011 #75
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Ravi Seth wrote: Individual mind is itself the bead of this chain & therefore 'Duality'------- which could not be otherwise.
Challenge the statement.Prove it has all ready been said or published.Give reference & blast.

Well, if I could unravel it I might challenge it. If this mind you mention is 'individual,' how is it then a bead in a chain? How is it chained? It sounds like your 'individual mind' is anything but individual. Sounds like it is part of the cause/effect chain.

The problem Ravi, is that the conditioned mind THINKS itself to be the author of its own being. That is its illusion.

But why should I prove it has been said before. It may be your own nonsense, for all I know. I never accused you of plagiarism with regard to the above quote. But you suuested that I plagiared when you said my 'continuum' was Marxian/Hegelian/advaita.

Hegel preached inexorable evolutionary process of dialectical development through conflict of opposites as the motor force of history - thesis - anti-thesis - struggle - synthesis - new thesis.

I said the conflict of opposites is created by imagination, through the misunderstanding of experience.

Hegel said the outcome was synthesis.

I said the outcome depended upon understanding. You cannot reconcile two confusions but you can reconcile your mind with the facts. How can two confusions be synthesised to create clarity?

And I am questioning the existance of duality, outside of its being created by the human mind.

I am not questioning 'multiplicity,' which merely indicates diversity, I question the idea that the universe is driven by the struggle between opposites, which is precisely the Hegelian model which you seem to be drawn to. "Negate the negator" is Hegel, pure and simple.

David Bohm explained it very well in Wholeness and the Implicate Order. Bohm had also studied Marx and Hegel as well as the Greek philosophy, and he had seen through it.

Bohm said that it only appears that the world is driven by contradiction. It is only conflictive 'in appearance.' The proper word for 'apparent contradiction' is PARADOX. And that is what the limited mind, operating at a low level of order, perceives, paradox.

But it mistakes paradox for contradiction. The mind thinks the conflict is real because it does not understand its own workings and limitations.

For example, as applied to quantum study, there is the apparent contradiction that a sub-atomic particle may be either a wave or a particle. (Wave-particle paradox).

Bohm set up a theoretical explanation which showed that at a higher level of order the wave and the particle were just two aspects of one movement =- the same movement seen through different sections. They appeared either as a wave or a particle according to the position (and disposition) of the observer.

And this understanding of the inextricable link between the observer and the observed is what drew him to K.

Similarly, all that we regard as duality, each so-called duality, is resolvable (perceptually) at a higher level of order. But the human mind has to make that journey to see the fact of it. The human mind has to rise to the truer understanding, the higher level of things. Our major problem is that we operate this mind, this super-brain, like an organ grinder instructs his monkey.

It is quite permissable that the child says, "This is hot," and "This is cold." That is a functional reality the child deals with in directing his/her action intelligently. But it is a limited view of something called 'temperature' which is not a dual process but simply describes the energetic motion of particles. So, why do we not mature from this formatory understanding of things as endlessly dual?

The mind compares, relates and judges, and does so from a centre, that of its accumulated sensory experiences. But if it can see its own action in this it can move outside the limitations of dualistic thinking, which is, after all, the point of enquiry, to understand the nature of appearances in which conflict seems unavoidable, essential and unquestionable. That is maturation! It is at the core of the teaching.

The unravelling of duality is what K called negative thinking. The mind undoes itself. Positive thinking is the mind trying to outdo itself. Negative thinking is the mind actually undoing itself, the negation of all its negations,. only through understanding itself, not through opposing itself.

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

This post was last updated by Paul Davidson (account deleted) Wed, 07 Sep 2011.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Wed, 07 Sep 2011 #76
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Ravi,

Your post #56: "In short, I see that his present is your continuum."

No, Ravi. They are not at all the same. The "present" is measureless and timeless. On the other hand, a "continuum" involves time and measurement.

A continuum is the past as it influences the present and as this influence is carried forward into a future. (Of course, the past itself cannot be brought into the present; only the influence of the past can affect the present and subsequently the future.) I can conceive of no other definition for a "continuum."

max

This post was last updated by max greene Wed, 07 Sep 2011.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Wed, 07 Sep 2011 #77
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
A continuum is the past as it influences the present and as this influence is carried forward into a future.

Max, you are adding confusion to misunderstanding here. Best find out what a continuum means first. You are confusing it with the word 'continuous' and applying the same in a strictly temporal fashion, which is a very limited case.

If you really think about what you are trying to describe and give a concrete example of it I am sure you will see it is a time-related line of progression, which is not how I am using the concept at all.

Literally, a continuum is anything that goes through a gradual transition from one condition, to a different condition, without any abrupt changes. Essentially this implies that quantitative and qualitative progression go hand in glove. This is one reason why Ravi is incorrect in saying it is dialectical change, which is violent, stagist and irregular, depending on sudden changes of state, 'revolutions,' wherein a long build up of quantit\ative change leads to an eventual abrupt change of quality.

But I have been clearly describing circular continuums, such as the equator, which eat their own tails, as I put it. Such continuums have neither beginning nor end. Yet the essential thing remains true, that quality and quantity travel together, they do not leapfrog.

If you consider the equator you will see that it is a circular continuum. You can go around for ever and ever in either direction and always remain in the centre. There is actually no East of West, apart from 1) directionality (which implies an entity travelling along it) and 2) the traditionally accepted Euro-centric convention, which has it that Europe is central, America is the west and India the east.

That is the model I am working with so please try to consider it in order to get my meaning. The equator is not any sort of process of time, is it? It does not start in the past and carry on into the future, does it?

So, when you bring in time you bring in a completely different model and this confuses things.

What I have been trying to show is that duality (East/West) depends upon the experience of the traveller and depends upon his/her direction of travel and the subjective feelings engendered. I am taking the equator as a visual example but my intent is to understand emotional swings in the same way.

For example, possessive pleasure and painful jealosy. You cannot move into possessive pleasure without painful jealosy following on the heals. The more pleasure, the more pain. As K said, the opposite os in the opposite.

The model of a circular continuum helps me to visualise it and I was sharing this.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 07 Sep 2011 #78
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
They are not at all the same.

But you are correct. They are not the same. Neither are they opposite. They deal with different matters. Chalk and cheese. Ravi confused thing by placing them together. Probably he was trying to be clever.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 08 Sep 2011 #79
Thumb_avatar Ravi Seth India 1573 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Davidson wrote:
Well, if I could unravel it I might challenge it...........................................


................... only through understanding itself, not through opposing itself.

Could you kindly shorten the above like your otherwise likable intelligent & witty wise cracks?

The way you are going it appears you shall reach the maximum limits of your entropy pretty fast.You are jumping all over the place with your long winded stream of thought style and it is pretty laborious to keep pace with your racing thoughts.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 4 readers
Back to Top
Thu, 08 Sep 2011 #80
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Ravi Seth wrote:
Could you kindly shorten the above like your otherwise likable intelligent & witty wise cracks?

You've come up with a new duality, Ravi: Stand-up one-line comedy Vs Long-winded stream of thought. Duality is quite natural for you.

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

This post was last updated by Paul Davidson (account deleted) Thu, 08 Sep 2011.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 08 Sep 2011 #81
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Paul,

You wrote, "You are confusing it [continuum] with the word 'continuous' and applying the same in a strictly temporal fashion, which is a very limited case."

Everything that exists -- all of existence both physically and psychologically -- is the past (more precisely, the influence or the effect of the past) carried into the present. All that exists is caught in this continuum of existence -- and the individual's existence is measured by time. Existence, the universal, over-arching continuum, is the only real continuum there is.

You wrote, "Literally, a continuum is anything that goes through a gradual transition from one condition, to a different condition, without any abrupt changes."

If there is any change in the course of what might be defined as a continuum, that change implies a difference. Difference is separation -- and with difference/separation the element of time appears in the continuum.

You wrote, "If you consider the equator you will see that it is a circular continuum. You can go around for ever and ever in either direction and always remain in the centre."

The equator is an imaginary circle around the earth. But assuming it has reality as a continuum, it is a continuum within the continuum of existence. Obviously the equator must come to an end, as all that exists must end. As the equator has an ending, is the equator, itself, really a "continuum"?

It does appear that time and measurement apply to all the "continuums" within the over-arching continuum of existence. Whether time and measurement apply to existence itself, who can say?

max

This post was last updated by max greene Thu, 08 Sep 2011.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Thu, 08 Sep 2011 #82
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dear Max, Thank you for answering my points with a considered reply. I will try to respond adequately in a spirit of joint enquiry and hopefully some clarity will be added.

max greene wrote:
Everything that exists -- all of existence both physically and psychologically -- is the past (more precisely, the influence or the effect of the past) carried into the present. All that exists is caught in this continuum of existence -- and the individual's existence is measured by time. Existence, the universal, over-arching continuum, is the only real continuum there is.

Effectively you are saying that nothing new can come into existance. It is all old and there is no new creation. I do not know if that is correct, Max. I would not say such a thing. I would allow for the possibility of newness, that something utterly new may be created that has no past. I do not hold an opinion about it. It is open.

But yes, existence is a continuum. Manifestation, as a whole, is a continuum. It ends where it begins. It starts from emtiness and ends in void. But thus we also enter into the framework of ideas of eternity and/or eternal recurrance (Nietzche).

That being said, it does not mean that continuums do not exist that are less than the 'over-arching whole' of existance. And I think that for you to have said such a thing must mean you have brought time in again. I take it you are saying that because something which I call a continuum, will someday end, therefore it is not a continuum. This is not quite logical, Max. It is like saying that anything that exists does not exist because one day it will not exist.

This is why I suggested previously that you are mixing the words, 'continuum' and 'continual,' and here in addition, your use of the word 'continuum' now carries the additional connotation of 'eternal,' which is not my usage at all. Even existence/manifestation is not eternal. Only the ground of existence may be considered eternal, in so far as we take it to be outside of time. Can you see the error?

max greene wrote:
If there is any change in the course of what might be defined as a continuum, that change implies a difference. Difference is separation -- and with difference/separation the element of time appears in the continuum.

That may be true, Max, but I have not referred to any changes in the course of a continuum. The continuum itself may change over time, but it is not something I have referred to - and it is a different matter. Again you bring in time. And on every occasion, it seems you bring in time in order to negate time and that you think by so doing you negate the continuum, but you do not. You have only negated an extraneous element you yourself have introduced.

If we were to go back to the equator, seen as a continuum, I am nowhere talking of the equator changing. I am referring always to the subjective experience of a human being travelling in one direction or another along the equator. It is the travelling that is the temporal movement, not the continuum itself.

Same goes for emotional continuums. Pleasure/pain remain so over time (albeit, as long as there is sentient life to unfold the principle). But the pleasure and/or pain of the subject will change according to the willful movement of that subject, either into pleasure or into pain. And in either direction, the human being also carries the opposite direction with him/her.

There was an interesting experiment Ana Flavia was telling me. Some scientists using neurological indicators to measure pleasure and pain took various longditudinal readings among a population who had either won the lottery or else suffered an incredible mishap, such as an amputation. It seems that after some while the indicators showed that the respective levels of pleasure and pain fell back to a average, irrespective of the fortunes of the subjects studied. It did not matter whether one had won the lottery of lost a limb. One's contentment index resumed to a norm. It is because pleasure/pain adjust, over time. Quality and quantity move together. It is in this sense I call pleasure/pain a continuum.

max greene wrote:
The equator is an imaginary circle around the earth

Then the poles, the rotational axis and the spin must also be imaginary! And there is no day or night.

One may imagine there to be a pencil line around the Earth. That is possible! But the circle, as the equator, is actual, even though there is no actual line. The equator, as understood correctly is merely the furthest point in any direction from the two poles, the furthest pint from the rotational axis. It is the point of maximum rotation and maximum speed along the surface of the planetary globe.

We may imagine it as a drawn line, in which case it would have a certain thickness. The line does not exist, but it would be ill-considered to say the mathematics and physics are imagined. They are true (enough) to the actuality. And I have been talking about the actuality, the actual equator, not the line with all its latidudinal and longditudinal markings, which I have already stressed is only a convention.

max greene wrote:
Obviously the equator must come to an end, as all that exists must end. As the equator has an ending, is the equator, itself, really a "continuum"?

But please take a walk around that equator and tell me where the end is. Is it in Greenwich?

The point has already been covered, Max. While things exist, they do exist. The equator will come to end with the Earth, therefore, you say, it cannot be a continuum. But see here, Max, over-arching manifestation will also come to an end, does this cancel out your previous assertion that existence is the only true continuum?

You make the mistake of asserting that for a continuum to be a continuum it must be continual (read as 'eternal') but then negate your own assertion by stating that temporal existence is also a continuum, the only true one.

max greene wrote:
It does appear that time and measurement apply to all the "continuums" within the over-arching continuum of existence. Whether time and measurement apply to existence itself, who can say?

It appears that way because you have loaded the appearance with your own wrong assertions. You bring in time and then say, "Look, there is time."

But that last sentence of yours now puzzles me. Are you doubting that existence implies time? I though your whole point is that 'existence' is time while 'being' is beyond time. You have been saying that for so long that I thought it was gospel!

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

This post was last updated by Paul Davidson (account deleted) Thu, 08 Sep 2011.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Thu, 08 Sep 2011 #83
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

I have said enough on the subject. I retire.

It seems we are not talking about the same things at all.

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

This post was last updated by Paul Davidson (account deleted) Thu, 08 Sep 2011.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 3 readers
Back to Top
Fri, 09 Sep 2011 #84
Thumb_tampura ganesan balachandran India 2204 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Davidson wrote:
The equator will come to end with the Earth, therefore, you say, it cannot be a continuum.

I ask you about the farthest end of earth;

Paul Davidson wrote:
I retire.

This altar is the farthest end of earth;

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

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Fri, 09 Sep 2011 #85
Thumb_stringio RICK LEIN United States 4436 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Paul Davidson wrote:
It seems we are not talking about the same things at all.

Communication break down is quite common it seems everywhere one looks...why is that do we suppose?:)

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Fri, 09 Sep 2011 #86
Thumb_stringio RICK LEIN United States 4436 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Perhaps a part of it...is..the expectation we have of being understood on our own preconceived notions of what constitutes understanding...and our attachment to our own understanding limits us from really hearing anything else?:)

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Fri, 09 Sep 2011 #87
Thumb_stringio RICK LEIN United States 4436 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Ravi Seth wrote:
The way you are going it appears you shall reach the maximum limits of your entropy pretty fast.Y

I'll take that bet..and raise you 100 infinity's and beyond! LOL:)

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Fri, 09 Sep 2011 #88
Thumb_avatar Ravi Seth India 1573 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Davidson wrote:
Duality is quite natural for you

Thank you for recognizing the duality otherwise it was continuum all the way down.

Paul Davidson wrote:
"Negate the negator" is Hegel, pure and simple.

Hegel's is "Negation of the Negation" & not "Negate the Negator".

"Negate the Negator" is the gist on which jiddu krishnamurti, spoke throughout his life.

Both are poles apart including the subject on which they spoke.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Fri, 09 Sep 2011 #89
Thumb_tampura ganesan balachandran India 2204 posts in this forum Offline

Ravi Seth wrote:
Both are poles apart

It carries the tone , that JK is opposite, but he is not.No.
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, 09 Sep 2011.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 09 Sep 2011 #90
Thumb_deleted_user_med Muad dhib Ireland 175 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

RICK LEIN wrote:
Communication break down is quite common it seems everywhere one looks...why is that do we suppose?:)

Rick, maybe one out of many aspect of it when we mention internet communication, is that we don't meet in flesh , we don't see and feel the other , it is too virtual and this is one limit brought by writing communication through the key board of distant computers , as any dialogue is more than slow as well..

of course the fight between personal views is a fact , but in reality this could be eventually discard I think in direct contacts..::))
well I feel optimistic this morning...::))

Dan.....

This post was last updated by Muad dhib (account deleted) Fri, 09 Sep 2011.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Displaying posts 61 - 90 of 185 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.)