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

self-created universe


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 39 in total
Tue, 02 May 2017 #1
Thumb_photo saurab marjara India 58 posts in this forum Offline

something a little off-topic here....

was the universe self-created or was it created by a higher power ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 02 May 2017 #2
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 37 posts in this forum Offline

hello saurab,

saurab marjara wrote:
something a little off-topic here....

i don't think so...

saurab marjara wrote:
was the universe self-created or was it created by a higher power ?

why do you ask this question saurab..?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 02 May 2017 #3
Thumb_photo saurab marjara India 58 posts in this forum Offline

why do I ask this question ? Because it is natural for me to know my own origin ....

i think this is one of those fundamental questions that occur to almost every human being.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 02 May 2017 #4
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 37 posts in this forum Offline

saurab marjara wrote:
why do I ask this question ? Because it is natural for me to know MY own origin

the origin of who?

saurab marjara wrote:
i think this is one of those fundamental questions that occur to almost every human being

yes a lot of human being... ;-)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 02 May 2017 #5
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 4898 posts in this forum Offline

saurab marjara wrote:
was the universe self-created or was it created by a higher power ?

Only a person steeped in religious conditioning would ask such a question. What higher power? I realize that India is probably the most religiously conditioned country in the world and it must be very difficult to break out of that conditioning.

Scientists, specifically theoretical physicists and astrophysicists, have done quite a lot of research on this question. You might do well to drop your assumption that there is some kind of omnipotent deity, a Big Daddy in the sky, and look to science which is based on fact instead of belief.

That said, chances are that we will never know what created the Universe. It is not clear that the human brain has the capacity to understand how the universe was created, if it was "created". And if it was once not there, or here, then what was "here"? What is "nothingness"? What is eternity? Can we even conceive of such states?

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 02 May 2017 #6
Thumb_stringio Ken B United States 15 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Jack Pine wrote:
That said, chances are that we will never know what created the Universe. It is not clear that the human brain has the capacity to understand how the universe was created, if it was "created". And if it was once not there, or here, then what was "here"? What is "nothingness"? What is eternity? Can we even conceive of such states?

Well, I find it inconceivable that the universe and the laws supporting it just popped existence by accident. Scientists seek explanations based on causation, but what caused the universe to appear remains a mystery.

"You will never find God at sixty, for at that age most people are worn out, finished." Krishnamurti

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 02 May 2017 #7
Thumb_stringio randall merryman United States 3832 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

saurab marjara wrote:
Because it is natural for me to know my own origin ....

The idea of creation and a desire to know, are not serious pursuits.

Stuff happens

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 02 May 2017 #8
Thumb_stringio randall merryman United States 3832 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Jack Pine wrote:
a Big Daddy in the sky,

Well, what about a big mamma in the sky? If it's a projected creation of my imagination, I at least should get everything I want, no?

Stuff happens

This post was last updated by randall merryman (account deleted) Tue, 02 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 03 May 2017 #9
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 4898 posts in this forum Offline

randall merryman wrote:
I at least should get everything I want, no?

Maybe only when you stop wanting anything. You need clothes, food and shelter.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 03 May 2017 #10
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 4898 posts in this forum Offline

Ken B wrote:
Well, I find it inconceivable that the universe and the laws supporting it just popped existence by accident.

That is not what I said.

Ken B wrote:
Scientists seek explanations based on causation,

Not necessarily. Why did Max Born and others develop the quantum theory? Or Einstein with the relativity theories. Can we just write all that off to causation? Or did they see something, have some insight into a completely different way of seeing reality not as a reaction but as a sudden understanding. Were K's discoveries all just the result of causation or were they something else entirely?

Maybe sometimes it is just the seeing of what is reality in a flash of understanding.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 04 May 2017 #11
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 209 posts in this forum Offline

If the universe was created by a higher power, then who created the higher power? Some say the higher power is uncreated. But then how did He/She/It come to be?

Lately, physicists suggest that empty space naturally gives rise to something. In other words, nothingness is not nothingness at all but energy that will spontaneously manifest, perhaps as virtual particles - a particle and its anti-particle - that soon annihilate. Or perhaps as dark energy.

Of course, these are new theories and they will develop over time. But it may turn out that the mystery is not how there is something from nothing. It may turn out the mystery is how nothing ALWAYS gives rise to something.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Fri, 05 May 2017 #12
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 4898 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
Lately, physicists suggest that empty space naturally gives rise to something. In other words, nothingness is not nothingness at all but energy that will spontaneously manifest, perhaps as virtual particles - a particle and its anti-particle - that soon annihilate. Or perhaps as dark energy.

This is a very interesting theory that you have posted above. Thanks

Probably like most everyone I remember when I was a kid thinking about how far space went and if it had a border what was beyond? What was "non space"? One of the things which boggles my mind now is that we are just a speck of dust circling a medium size star in a galaxy which is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 km (about 100,000 light years) across. Our sun does not lie near the center of our Galaxy. It lies about 8 kpc (1000 parsecs and a parsec I think is 3.8 light years) from the center on what is known as the Sagittarius arm of the Milky Way. And we have a complete meathead running the most powerful country on this little planet. And a world renown physicist has predicted that we have about 100 years to find another planet to move to or we are toast as a species because we have destroyed our planet.

My personal opinion is that humanity, homo sapien sapien, is a planet destroying virus that if moved to another planet would just destroy that one too in time. K and perhaps others offered the antidote, the antiviral medicine, but it may have been too little too late.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Fri, 05 May 2017 #13
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 400 posts in this forum Offline

#1:

saurab marjara wrote:
something a little off-topic here....

was the universe self-created or was it created by a higher power ?

#11:

idiot ? wrote:
If the universe was created by a higher power, then who created the higher power? Some say the higher power is uncreated. But then how did He/She/It come to be?

Lately, physicists suggest ........

Fifth Talk in The Oak Grove, May 5, 1946:

The created cannot think about the
uncreated. It can think only about its
own projection which is not the real.
Can thought which is the result of
time, of influence, of imitation,
think about that which is not
measurable? It can only think about
that which is known. What is knowable
is not the real, what is known is ever
receding into the past, and what is
past is not the eternal. You may
speculate upon the unknown but you
cannot think about it. When you think
about something you are probing into
it, subjecting it to different moods
and influences. But such thinking is
not meditation. Creativeness is a
state of being which is not the
outcome of thinking. Right meditation
opens the door to the real.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 05 May 2017 #14
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 209 posts in this forum Offline

When K referred to "God," "the unknown," "the immeasurable," "the benediction," was this an actual entity which created the universe at the big bang? I don't think you will find any reference by K to a creator God. K was most concerned with this unsayable that the brain cannot touch. But in the present. Not in some distant past point of creation of the universe. K is discussing creativity now. The unknown now.

When it comes to quieting the mind and opening up to the energy, to reality, K is one to pay attention to. When it comes to understanding how the universe came into being, the physicists working on cosmology have the most salient things to say.

But, of course, don't take this idiot's word for it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 05 May 2017 #15
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 1213 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
When it comes to quieting the mind and opening up to the energy, to reality, K is one to pay attention to.

Agreed Idiot ?. K's writings and talks etc. are also very helpful in pointing toward the pitfalls that we have fallen into for centuries, the cunning, subtle, search for 'reward' and the attempted 'holding on to' that which has been seen.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 05 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 05 May 2017 #16
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 400 posts in this forum Offline

#14:

idiot ? wrote:
When it comes to understanding how the universe came into being, the physicists working on cosmology have the most salient things to say.

“Salient” in what way? Doesn’t “salient” depend on one’s perspective, desire, interest or opinion? Your response to Maurab’s question about the origin of the universe was that physicists are investigating the source of creation. Even if this question could be resolved scientifically, would it not inevitably have a profound effect on humanity? It's not an insignificant thing. So isn't it false to say that it is good to listen to K for purposes of opening the mind up to reality, "God", the "unknown", the "timeless", but in order to learn about how the universe came into being, listen to the physicists --- as though the two were mutually exclusive? Personally, I think both approaches are false because they are mutually exclusive. Both are driven by ulterior self-centred motives, by the desire for predetermined outcomes. How can one come upon ultimate or absolute truth through partial, exclusionary observation, with a pre-existing conclusion, desire or hope?

From my perspective, the source cannot be investigated, either scientifically or psychologically. Scientific observation can uncover some of processes at work in matter, energy, space. It can discover these by observing the movement and behaviour of planets, galaxies, atoms, cells, seeds, weather, animals, the content of space, because there is a naturally-existing order in the universe. Without order in the universe, nothing could be observed.

This is more or less what scientific discovery is, isn’t it? ... observing "what is" on all its levels - macro, micro, nano, galactic, etc., and then postulating, testing and observing how one's postulations stand up under testing.

But the source of creation cannot observed directly, only postulated or speculated, as K says. To discover the "how" of the processes involved in matter, space and energy is a far cry from discovering the source, isn't it? Perhaps the source can be come upon without seeking - I don't know anything about that. But it seems clear to me that the mind cannot come upon it through effort, desire, will, investigation; and that the mind cannot come upon it if it has a motive, if it wants to exploit it. Motive is bias. It seems to me that only an innocent mind can come upon it, if at all. I don't know anything about it.

As it is, the very mind which observes the universe - whether the scientific or the personal mind - is in disorder, and the disorder - greed, fear, desire and ambition, and so on - exploits scientific discoveries for ulterior motives, for personal, economic, religious, political and social interests.

Who knows what might happen if the disordered intellect did not rule supreme? Scientific discoveries might then be used to relieve suffering, not increase it. Who knows? But, as things stand … the intellect does rule supreme. So it goes.

To my mind, the human mind is absolutely, fundamentally incapable of discovering the source of creation, either through scientific or personal investigation. As I see it, the source of creation is not amenable to measurement, explanation, comparison or quantification. Different brains have different abilities, skills and aptitudes … but the human mind cannot go beyond the bounds of its fundamentally limited abilities to solve existential problems OR to “explain” the source of creation, any more than a goldfish can discover the source of his food and the truth about his “universe”.

But of course, don’t take MY word for anything either.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 06 May 2017 #17
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 209 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette, you are saying that there is a source but it cannot be observed directly nor investigated, either scientifically or psychologically, yes? Then why do you say there is a source at all? If it cannot be known in any way, then how can it exist? And why would you say it exists? And what do you mean by the source? How can it mean anything if it cannot be known?

This post was last updated by idiot ? Sat, 06 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 06 May 2017 #18
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 400 posts in this forum Offline

We can observe not only the universe around and within us, we can also observe that there is order in the universe, universal order, mathematical order, order in the behaviour or movement of matter, planets, atoms, stars, galaxies, living cells and species, and so on. If the universe were chaotic, there could be no life at all, could there?

If universal order became chaos, that would instantly be the end of everything, wouldn’t it? Planets and galaxies would collide or move erratically. There would be no law of gravity or other natural laws. Life forms and atmospheres could not sustain themselves, animals could not mate. The ratio of diameter to circumference would no longer be pi. And so on. Universal order is a necessity not only for human life but for the existence of everything that is. We would no longer have to be concerned with war, starvation, drought, pollution, climate change or anything else.

Can universal order come about chance, randomly? Can a monkey randomly write a work like Shakespeare’s?

“The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type a given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare. In fact the monkey would almost surely type every possible finite text an infinite number of times. However, the probability that monkeys filling the observable universe would type a complete work such as Shakespeare's Hamlet is so tiny that the chance of it occurring during a period of time hundreds of thousands of orders of magnitude longer than the age of the universe is extremely low (but technically not zero).

In this context, "almost surely" is a mathematical term with a precise meaning, and the "monkey" is not an actual monkey, but a metaphor for an abstract device that produces an endless random sequence of letters and symbols. One of the earliest instances of the use of the "monkey metaphor" is that of French mathematician Émile Borel in 1913, but the first instance may be even earlier.” [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_t...]

Personally, I say that a monkey could never in eternity produce a single meaningful sentence, let alone an entire meaningful text, existing or original. And a mathematician like Émile Borel says that the chance of a monkey writing a complete work over eons is “extremely low”. What do other mathematicians say about the chances of an orderly universe coming about randomly?

Of course, I’m not a mathematician or a scientist. Do scientists say there is a universe? Do they say there is order in the universe? And do they say that universe and order are random?

As I see it, every effect has a cause and every cause has an effect.

In the same way, dog poo on the sidewalk indicates to me that a dog passed by there; food disappearing from the fridge indicates that my son came through; the ground and trees being wet indicates that it rained. It may be that order proves nothing about there being a source, that order and everything else is just meaningless and random.

If you walk into a room or step outside and see a spaceship there or some other machine unknown to you, would it make sense to you that it appeared randomly, that it was put together by chance? And if it disappears the next day, would it make sense for that to be a random event that has no cause?

For me, the very fact that there is order in the universe indicates that there is a source of both the universe and the order. I have no proof and I don’t want to convince you.

Idiot, I think your question is very relevant. To me, we could not even have a conversation if there was universal chaos instead of universal order. But of course, I don’t know that. I don't know that there is a source and I don't believe it either.

There is also the question of intelligence which is not personal, not mine or yours. What do you make of intelligence? Can there be intelligence without a source?

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sat, 06 May 2017 #19
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3060 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette and all,

I once heard the famous author I.B. Singer tell the story about a man shipwrecked on a deserted, uninhabited island somewhere far out in the vast Pacific ocean. He's walking along the sand and he sees a gold wristwatch lying there. He picks it up and thinks, "Another man has obviously been here before." Because surely the wristwatch didn't spontaneously create itself from the rocks and minerals on the island. If the presence of a little wristwatch points to the fact that a man must have been at one time present, what does the presence of the infinitely more complex man indicate?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sat, 06 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 06 May 2017 #20
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 400 posts in this forum Offline

Tom,

Thanks for that story! I can't think of good examples.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 06 May 2017 #21
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 400 posts in this forum Offline

Idiot (sorry to call you that but what can I do),

This also comes to mind.

idiot ? wrote:
If the universe was created by a higher power, then who created the higher power? Some say the higher power is uncreated. But then how did He/She/It come to be?

Doesn't the same question remain when science has gone as far as it can in discovering and explaining? If "empty space naturally gives rise to something", then what gave rise to that capacity?

To the religious mind, everything points to an uncreated source, and isn’t science seeking that uncreated source when physicists suggest that empty space naturally gives rise to something? We know that if scientists suggest that nothing gives rise to something, they are not going to leave it at that, are they? They WILL uncover something in nothing, as matter, as energy, as a process, something. New theories give rise to research, discovery and explanation. Will science “eventually” solve ALL mysteries so that no question of any sort remains unanswered?

The brain which is endowed with capacities of observation, reasoning, memory, comparison, and so on, has uncovered many mysteries. We know that disease does not come from “nothing” as was once believed. We know that matter is neither created nor destroyed. Tomorrow, we might know something else. But won’t there still always be the unknown and unknowable?

idiot ? wrote:
And what do you mean by the source? How can it mean anything if it cannot be known?

We can say there IS love or there isn't, but would you say that the source of love is knowable, explainable? I know that attempts have been made to explain love but I see these explanations as merely descriptive of love's effects, not of the cause. Without love, does life have meaning, a deeply felt or sensed meaning?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Sat, 06 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sat, 06 May 2017 #22
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3060 posts in this forum Offline

Idiot, Huguette, all,

What about awareness? Did that arise from total blackness, emptiness? Did it arise from the blackness of matter...the elements in the periodic table...the atom...protons, electrons, from some unknown particle that was empty of awareness? Or was there life first and then awareness? Life arose from a dead rock...a mineral...the atom....Higgs Boson particle? Where did the particles come from? From total nothingness?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sat, 06 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 06 May 2017 #23
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 400 posts in this forum Offline

Yes, awareness too. Intelligence, order, awareness, love are beyond the confines or field of time, memory, knowledge. They are not created by the created.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 07 May 2017 #24
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 37 posts in this forum Offline

Hello all,

As i see it, it seems that the need (inquiry) to know if there is a source is very linked to the self security... it seems

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 07 May 2017 #25
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3060 posts in this forum Offline

Could be so, richard....but it's also a characteristic of thought to think in terms of time and cause and effect...to create time, perhaps. To say that life just IS...timelessly...or the universe is one... is probably impossible for thought to grasp fully.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 09 May 2017 #26
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 209 posts in this forum Offline

As you perhaps know, Occam's razor is the scientific principle that the simplest explanation is preferable. Take, for example, a watch. How does it work? Well, inside there is a battery, a quartz crystal, gears connected to the hands, and this all is cleverly designed so that it keeps and shows the proper time on its face.

Someone else says, yes, that is all true, but there is also a little man in the watch turning the gears. When you open the watch, he disappears. But as soon as you close it, he's back in there doing his work. Now it would be difficult to prove the man doesn't exist. You could put a tiny camera in the watch but then the advocate would say, he becomes invisible as long as there is a camera on in there. And so on.

Obviously the idea that there is a little man in the watch is superfluous. It is unnecessary and doesn't contribute any additional explanation as to how things actually work.

The same is true, much to the chagrin of believers, about the idea of a creator God. What is understood about order in the universe and the natural tendency toward disorder, known as the second law of thermodynamics, can be explained without a creator God.

Some of how amino acids can form from simpler chemical substances has already been figured out by chemists. They still don't have all the details for how RNA or DNA could spontaneously come about, but more is being discovered, including clues of important chemical structures that could have formed near thermal vents deep in the ocean floor.

Once bacterial life exists, evolution explains how gradually, over massive spans of time, complicated life structures like the human eye can arise.

While how consciousness works remains elusive to scientists, they are learning more and more. And clearly when a microscopic, single cell creature reacts and responds to another, that very reactivity is the tiniest beginning of consciousness, which then is reinforced and amplified due to its advantages in survival, and over billions of years, the complex consciousness that we humans have evolves.

The "God of the gaps" is the idea that God must explain those areas where science has not fully discovered mechanisms. As science advances, the God of the gaps shrinks and shrinks and can be seen to be none other than the little man inside the watch, an extraneous, imagined explanation.

So while some scientists believe in God and others do not, scientific discovery proceeds without the need for a creator God in any of the equations and theories.

And this also applies to the creation of the universe at the big bang.

Coming soon: an idiot? post on how God figures in K teaching.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Tue, 09 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 09 May 2017 #27
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 400 posts in this forum Offline

Some believe in God as the ultimate “explainer” of everything. Others believe in science or knowledge as the ultimate explainer. One has faith in God, the other has faith in science. For the man who believes in God, God is the ultimate answer to all his questions. The man who believes in science says that all questions can eventually be answered by science, including (if man survives) eventually solving the enigma of creation.

In terms of man’s eternal burning existential questions - which I know it is not the topic of this thread - does either belief truly answer them?

As I see it, all belief is an invention of the limited mind and its abilities are therefore necessarily limited. There will always be the unexplained as well as the unexplainable. Whether I believe in God, in chaos or in science, the fact - whatever it IS - remains. Whatever I believe, the fact is unchanged and unchangeable.

To me, the question of the origin of the universe is not answerable, neither by religion nor science. But there's no arguing against belief.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 09 May 2017 #28
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 1151 posts in this forum Offline

idiot wrote:

"And clearly when a microscopic, single cell creature reacts and responds to another, that very reactivity is the tiniest beginning of consciousness,"

There's that little man again.

(: 

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 09 May 2017 #29
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 1151 posts in this forum Offline

idiot wrote: "consciousness, which then is reinforced and amplified due to its advantages in survival, and over billions of years, the complex consciousness that we humans have evolves."

But exactly what is it that a brain can do that a computer with no consciousness at all can't?

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Tue, 09 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 10 May 2017 #30
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 4898 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Some believe in God as the ultimate “explainer” of everything. Others believe in science or knowledge as the ultimate explainer. One has faith in God, the other has faith in science. For the man who believes in God, God is the ultimate answer to all his questions. The man who believes in science says that all questions can eventually be answered by science, including (if man survives) eventually solving the enigma of creation.

In terms of man’s eternal burning existential questions - which I know it is not the topic of this thread - does either belief truly answer them?

Do you just have faith that you use one electronic instrument to send your thoughts in the form of words to another electronic device or is that a fact?

When one prays to "god" is it faith or is it a fact that one's words are received by "god"?

This is the difference between faith, religion and science. Please don't confuse the two

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 39 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.)