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

What is immortality ?


Displaying posts 31 - 57 of 57 in total
Sun, 19 Feb 2017 #31
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5121 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but this is how I see it.

I think you see it very well.

Tom Paine wrote:
Much of what we do 'without thinking' is a conditioned re-action. Conditioned thought is hidden underneath(in the unconscious) the action. What seems like a spontaneous action to 'do good' or to do something about the 'world disorder' is often motivated by subconscious thought...it's an action of the self....there's something in it for 'm

Very interesting. If you "do" something in reaction that "doing" has to be based on something. We do what we have to do in the physical world to survive to live. But why "do" anything beyond that? Isn't "doing" something, reacting psychologically, necessarily a response of conditioning as you have pointed out?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 19 Feb 2017 #32
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5121 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
Wu wei (English, lit. non-doing) is an important concept in Taoism that literally means non-action or non-doing. In the Tao Te Ching, Lao Tzu explains that beings (or phenomena) that are wholly in harmony with the Tao behave in a completely

noun Concept:



a general notion or idea; conception.



an idea of something formed by mentally combining all its characteristics or particulars; a construct.



a directly conceived or intuited object of thought.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 19 Feb 2017 #33
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Much of what we do 'without thinking' is a conditioned re-action.

Of course Tom, however this "conditioned reaction" is not at all what is meant by 'non-action' ... a reaction is a resistance to 'what is' and therefore implies effort and inner stress ... and conflict too ...

We are speaking here of 'effortless' action, which is not at all founded on the past (ie conditioning, memory) ... this effortless action depends only on present situation here and now ... and it cannot be an action programmed or projected by thought (therefore no intention, no goal etc) ...

So there is no 'me' implied in this effortless action ... therefore it is not a 'doing' (this is why it is called a 'non-action')

Why resist 'what is' ?

This post was last updated by Jean Gatti Sun, 19 Feb 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 19 Feb 2017 #34
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

I think the quote of the day is also related to this topic of 'non-action' ... when there is no thought there is no 'choice' either ... a 'non-action' cannot be founded on a choice or a desire or 'wanting' (so no intention, goal etc) ...

Krishnamurti Quote of the Day

Alpino, Italy | 3rd Public Talk, 6th July, 1933

"As long as mind and heart are caught up in want, in desire, there must be emptiness. You want things, ideas, persons, only when you are conscious of your own emptiness, and that wanting creates a choice. When there is craving there must be choice, and choice precipitates you into the conflict of experiences. You have the capacity to choose, and thereby you limit yourself by your choice. Only when mind is free from choice is there liberation."

Why resist 'what is' ?

This post was last updated by Jean Gatti Sun, 19 Feb 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 19 Feb 2017 #35
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

jamie f wrote:
I have my own assessment of the highest of human endeavour which I have no intention of seeing rubbished on this message board.

Do you mean you have an 'ideal' about how things should be ? and don't want to discuss it ?

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 19 Feb 2017 #36
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

jamie f wrote:
In fact, I feel that Jean and I are pretty much talking about the same thing except for his insistence that there is a gulf of difference between the words 'do' and 'act'.

Well very simple, walking in the woods is a movement, an action ... however not a 'doing' ... because there is no thought involved in this 'action' ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 19 Feb 2017 #37
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

jamie f wrote:
I, however, like to see the best in people. ;-)

So you don't really see people as they are ... you 'idealize' people ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

This post was last updated by Jean Gatti Sun, 19 Feb 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 19 Feb 2017 #38
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3122 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
If you "do" something in reaction that "doing" has to be based on something.

Right....that something is the 'me'/self as far as I can see. Basically, I do what's good for 'me', even when I pretend to do for another. there's a motive there...often subconscious....based upon my past experience...like, dislike, should, should not, etc....based upon self protection or fulfillment. K said that there's another kind of action which is not a reaction....not based upon what's in it for me...it's based upon a seeing which is one with the doing. That acting is effortless....like seeing a man is hungry and offering food....not because I identify with doing good works....charity...but just the seeing of the suffering that he is feeling.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 19 Feb 2017 #39
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3122 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
We are speaking here of 'effortless' action, which is not at all founded on the past (ie conditioning, memory) ... this effortless action depends only on present situation here and now ...

Yes. K went into this subject a lot in some of the talks. It's a difficult subject for most of us to get a handle on since we're brought up to conform our actions to some idea or ideal.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 19 Feb 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 19 Feb 2017 #40
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
K went into this subject a lot in some of the talks. It's a difficult subject for most of us to get a handle on since we're brought up to conform our actions to some idea or ideal.

Maybe it's a "difficult subject" Tom, however it could be one of the keys to understanding what freedom is, so could we investigate this subject deeper ?

What could be the kinds of actions which would not be corrupted by some intention or goal or effort or expectation or fear ? actions that would not originate from thought, and that would not be a 'reaction', a resistance ?

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 19 Feb 2017 #41
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
K said that there's another kind of action which is not a reaction....not based upon what's in it for me...it's based upon a seeing which is one with the doing. That acting is effortless....like seeing a man is hungry and offering food....not because I identify with doing good works....charity...but just the seeing of the suffering that he is feeling.

Yes, I think it is a good example ... so "seeing the suffering" which also means an action out of compassion, right ? (the real sense of compassion meaning 'to suffer with' and for Buddhists 'compassion' is synonimous with 'love' ... and btw Buddhists seldom use the word 'love', but rather the word 'compassion')

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 19 Feb 2017 #42
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5121 posts in this forum Offline

Recently I bought a book entitled "Mathematics and the Physical World" by Morris Kline just because I like math and thought it would be an interesting review. It is and fascinating in it's explanation of the evolution of mathematics.

Mathematicians, according to Kline, only accept that which can be proved by deductive reasoning. He briefly explains proving the validity of something using analogous examples, inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning. It seems that "deductive reasoning" (something rarely seen in public or used by the public) is a form of reaction based on observable and provable data or phenomena. Information gathered through close and accurate observation and not necessarily based on prior knowledge or experience.

Analogous reasoning: Comparable in certain respects, typically in a way that makes clearer the nature of the things compared.
"they saw the relationship between a ruler and his subjects as analogous to that of father and children"

synonyms: comparable, parallel, similar, like, akin, corresponding, related, kindred, equivalent
"their lab results were analogous"

Inductive reasoning: Is a logical process in which multiple premises, all believed true or found true most of the time, are combined to obtain a specific conclusion. Inductive reasoning is often used in applications that involve prediction, forecasting, or behavior.

Deductive Reasoning: is a logical process in which a conclusion is based on the concordance of multiple premises that are generally assumed to be true. Deductive reasoning is sometimes referred to as top-down logic. Its counterpart, inductive reasoning, is sometimes referred to as bottom-up logic.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Sun, 19 Feb 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 19 Feb 2017 #43
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5121 posts in this forum Offline

I'm not absolutely sure of the relevancy of the above post I will leave that up to whoever reads the post and finds any relevancy in it.

What I'm trying to point out is that often in life, including this forum, there are frequently conclusions arrived at based on faulty or demonstrably false premises. If a conclusion is false then the following debate is pretty much pointless unless it can be reasonably pointed out that the conclusion has no validity.

So why am I putting all of this here, now? To ask this question: Is deductive reasoning a reaction to something without being based in past knowledge but rather based on present observation? A reaction where there are facts or insight which are not part of the experiences and knowledge of the reactor?

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Sun, 19 Feb 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 20 Feb 2017 #44
Thumb_beautiful-nature-wallpaper pavani rao India 533 posts in this forum Offline

Hi Jack

The above two posts are very interesting to read and and I feel your observations are quite valid and sound . Well I think the 'content' plays an important role. Arriving at understanding taking cognisance of the totality and wholeness leads to 'holistic understanding '

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 20 Feb 2017 #45
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
Recently I bought a book entitled "Mathematics and the Physical World" by Morris Kline just because I like math and thought it would be an interesting review. It is and fascinating in it's explanation of the evolution of mathematics.

So Jack, you just read a book on mathematics and you wanted to share what you have learned here ?

That's fine but I wonder why you did not start a new discussion on this topic about mathematics and logic ... this would have been 'logical'

??

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 20 Feb 2017 #46
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3122 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
Maybe it's a "difficult subject" Tom, however it could be one of the keys to understanding what freedom is, so could we investigate this subject deeper ?

What is the relationship between this 'effortless action' and freedom, Jean? And why are our normal actons NOT effortless? We are taught since childhood that it's important to make an effort....usually to conform to some ideal of behavior.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 20 Feb 2017 #47
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5121 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
That's fine but I wonder why you did not start a new discussion on this topic about mathematics and logic

Well Jean Tom and I exchanged posts on this thread about reactions and what reactions are based on. Or may be based on. I was suggesting that it may be the case that when using a certain reasoning, deductive, based on observation in the present that this may be reacting without drawing on our vast repository of stored knowledge and experience. That there may be some understanding that is based not on memory, knowledge and experience, but observation and insight.

What my post was doing, or maybe doing, was exploring reasoning and understanding in the present free of one's psychological conditioning. Exploring something that was new to me that had some connection to what was being discussed on this thread.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 20 Feb 2017 #48
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5121 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
What could be the kinds of actions which would not be corrupted by some intention or goal or effort or expectation or fear ? actions that would not originate from thought, and that would not be a 'reaction', a resistance ?

Specifically Jean what I wrote and you questioned could very well be a response to your above question. If you are really exploring this question to find out you may have seen that. But if your question is one where you already think you know the answer and you are leading others to your established view point then I guess you wouldn't be interested in exploring new possibilities.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 20 Feb 2017 #49
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3122 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
I was suggesting that it may be the case that when using a certain reasoning, deductive, based on observation in the present that this may be reacting without drawing on our vast repository of stored knowledge and experience. T

I think that what K was saying is that if there's true observation without the (conditioned)observer, then there's an action which is very different than reacting. When one is observing there can't be simultaneously, reasoning going on. It's only when one stops observing and begins thinking that reasoning takes place....as I understand it. But reasoning is thinking, which is always conditioned, isn't it? Not that one should not use reason....but it has its limitations, obviously.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 20 Feb 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 20 Feb 2017 #50
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5121 posts in this forum Offline

Ken B wrote:
This is why mathematics is not considered to be a science.

And some may point out that mathematics is the language of science. Some science can only really be explained through equations and other mathematical relationships. Quantum mechanics for example according to a couple of math professors I had in college.

Ken B wrote:
One doesn't have to go out and verify the claim empirically. 300 plus 200 = 500. You don't have to go out and buy 300 apples and 200 bananas to verify the claim.

Well that's probably true that you don't have to verify certain basic mathematical processes. Two plus two is four. Yes it doesn't take a lot of reasoning to see this.

But what about verifying Pythagoras's theorem? See below.
Pythagoras's theorem, is a fundamental relation in Euclidean geometry among the three sides of a right triangle. It states that the square of the hypotenuse (the side opposite the right angle) is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides.

This theorem had to be true in every case to be a theorem. And the reasoning this theorem is based on had to be verified Everything was working out nicely, it all seemed to work, when one of Pythagoras's followers tried to make it work with a right triangle with arms of 1 each. That means that the hypotenuse had to be the square root of 2 which is an irrational number which caused great consternation among the Pythagorians. In fact the story goes that this discovery happened on a ship carrying a group of Pythagoras's followers. They were so outraged when they couldn't easily discover what number times itself equals 2 that they threw the poor guy who first came up with this problem overboard. People are still having problems with irrational numbers. The point is that reasoning is still required for more advanced math problems.

In another example Pythagorians discovered a pattern in math which correctly predicted the location of certain planets in our solar system before they were actually discovered. To say that math is not a science seems ludicrous. What is science?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 20 Feb 2017 #51
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5121 posts in this forum Offline

What is Science?

a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

Is math not used in this process? Mathematics is used extensively to discover and understand how Nature works. What is physics but the discovery of the laws of natural phenomena such as gravity and expressed in mathematical terms. Newton's take on gravity stated that G= g (m x m)/d squared. That is that gravity (force) is the gravitational constant, g, times the quantity first mass times the second mass divided by the square of the distance between them. Einstein had another view of gravity that involved the warping of space, the Special Theory of Relativity, that we need not go into here. Newton's law still works on a smaller scale.

It seems to me that one cannot separate math and science. No more than we can separate language and thought.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Mon, 20 Feb 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 20 Feb 2017 #52
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5121 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
When one is observing there can't be simultaneously, reasoning going on. It's only when one stops observing and begins thinking that reasoning takes place....

This appears to be true at first reading but can we say that observation may lead to insight? And is insight not related to reasoning?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 20 Feb 2017 #53
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3122 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
This appears to be true at first reading but can we say that observation may lead to insight? And is insight not related to reasoning?

Yes to the first point. How are you relating insight to reasoning, Jack? Reasoning may lead to insight? Is that what you're pointing to?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 20 Feb 2017 #54
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5121 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Yes to the first point. How are you relating insight to reasoning, Jack? Reasoning may lead to insight? Is that what you're pointing to?

First of all I'm just sort of brainstorming on this. I don't know what is true or a fact with regard to all of these things we have been discussing. I'm just trying various things to see how they work.

I would say that instead of reasoning leading to insight I was asking if observation leads to insight? And then does insight play a part in reasoning? The only example that comes to mind right now is from my days in school. I had difficulty in math until I had a woman professor who said or did something that I think lead me to having a huge insight into a particular understanding of a math problem. This incident opened the door to my understanding of math in general which has stayed with me ever since.

This insight into math seemed to open the door to understanding math which, is founded on reasoning. I know this may be a stretch but it may be related too.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 20 Feb 2017 #55
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
What is the relationship between this 'effortless action' and freedom, Jean? And why are our normal actons NOT effortless? We are taught since childhood that it's important to make an effort....usually to conform to some ideal of behavior.

You raise here very important questions Tom, let us investigate this.

What is the relationship between effortless action and freedom ?

Well, is there any freedom in conditioned reaction ? Of course not, we react mechanically to situations, is there freedom in those automatisms ? Is a machine free ? Conditioning is like 'programming' a computer, isn't it ?

When we make 'efforts' to 'do' something, it means that we have to use some 'force' to 'force' ourselves ... is there any freedom when force is used to make us do what we don't like ? By definition this is NOT freedom.

Now "why are our normal actions NOT effortless" ? Well, simply because we have been educated to stereotypes that we call culture, traditions, education, beliefs etc ... and we imitate those who 'educated' us ... that's what 'conditioning' is about. We conform to what others taught us. Also we need the sense of 'control' (mainly an illusion) given by the use of thought and knowledge, and we fear to lose control too. Also we fear to lose the support of our 'communities' when we do not conform ourselves to their rules (in some cases we can be excommunicated or even sentenced to death as apostates)

Why resist 'what is' ?

This post was last updated by Jean Gatti Mon, 20 Feb 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 20 Feb 2017 #56
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3122 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
When we make 'efforts' to 'do' something, it means that we have to use some 'force' to 'force' ourselves ... is there any freedom when force is used to make us do what we don't like ? By definition this is NOT freedom.

Good point! Never looked at it this way, but you're correct....it's a form of slavery. I see now that our normal way of functioning is indeed bondage. Good post, Jean. Will look into the rest of it later. Just wanted to add that we can see clearly that this form of bondage is a result of thought....or, at least, thought used in the 'psychological' and interpersonal realms.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 20 Feb 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Apr 2017 #57
Thumb_photo saurab marjara India 61 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
In other words you are immortal when you don't think

you are immortal anyway, regardless of whether you think or not. The spirit or divine spark in man never dies.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 57 of 57 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.)