Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
A Quiet Space | moderated by Clive Elwell

Theory of Life (2014)


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 90 in total
Tue, 25 Jun 2019 #1
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1311 posts in this forum Offline

Hi Wim and all:

Are you familiar with this new theory:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/first-support-fo...

It is for me a very interesting answer for the 'How' of organic life here.

(The only really interesting 'Why' I have ever come across is Gurdjieff's 'Ray of Creation')

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Jun 2019 #2
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 704 posts in this forum Offline

Dan,

The observations of physics are fascinating and awe-inspiring. To me, they point to the mystery at the source of all order and matter which is observed, and at the source of the observing brain itself. Unfortunately, my particular brain is quite limited in understanding the science of it.

From the linked article’s first paragraph: “The existence of life is no mystery or lucky break, he [Jeremy England] told Quanta in 2014, but rather follows from general physical principles and 'should be as unsurprising as rocks rolling downhill.'”

And from the last paragraph: “But this is about how did life first arise, perhaps — how do you get order from nothing.”

As I see it, there’s a non-sequential unjustifiable leap from (maybe) observing/understanding “how did life first arise” to “how you get order from nothing”. Understanding (maybe) how life arises does not explain the order. No matter how life first arises, it is not from “nothing” that it arises. Even the teeniest tiniest something or an unmeasurable something is not nothing, and order itself - while non-material - is not nothing.

A theory on the origin of organic life out of “nothing” (out of inorganic matter) does not account for the existence of organic matter and it does not account for the ORDER in the universe.

“Rocks rolling downhill” is part of the general ORDER of the universe. Through patient and passionate observation of this order, Newton explained gravity but not the order in the universe itself.

In my limited understanding, the “general physical principles” or “laws” of physics or "nature) are an expression of the order in matter that is observed; they do not and cannot explain the source of the order nor the source of the inorganic (and then organic) matter which is subject to that order. To my mind, to Gurdjieff’s it seems to me from the little I've read, and to many others, the fundamental or ultimate mystery remains, and can only remain by virtue of the brain's - the created's - limitations. “The created cannot think about the uncreated” (Ojai, California | Fifth Talk in The Oak Grove, 1946).

Here's a link to a video on “A universe from nothing”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9urEFoaI1iY

Another one follows (which I didn’t listen to completely) on “The key to the creation of the universe from nothing”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4LkaxB1mOk

On the second video, the first “comment” posted is this: “You might want to consult my first wife on all this, she could always make something out of nothing.”

This post was last updated by Huguette . Tue, 25 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Jun 2019 #3
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1311 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
“You might want to consult my first wife on all this, she could always make something out of nothing.”

:) After watching those videos, I may never express my simple-minded understanding of the words 'energy' or 'nothing' again!... (but, then again,I probably will.)

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Tue, 25 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Jun 2019 #4
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5099 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
“The existence of life is no mystery or lucky break, he [Jeremy England] told Quanta in 2014, but rather follows from general physical principles and 'should be as unsurprising as rocks rolling downhill.'”

Unsurprising or not, Quantum theory predicts that there is a finite chance (although very small) that those same rocks could start to roll UPHILL. In fact, as I understand it (and I freely admit my understanding is limited) all the classically accepted theories/ideas in physics could be spontaneously broken by the quantum effect. This includes the principle of conservation of energy - energy can spontaneously come into being 'from nothing', limited only by the 'uncertainty principle' of Quantum Theory.

Nowadays "empty space" is seen as anything but - it is a seething dynamic "soup" of energy and particles winking in and out of existence.

In a different vein, I can remember (just) as a young child, lying in bed, "exploring nothingness" This did not seem a matter of thinking, of imagining. I was asking "what is nothingness?", and sort of removing (K's negative thinking?) all the things that were not nothing. As I say, it felt like an ACTUAL removing - all matter, all thought, all idea of nothingness, and finally removing myself, as being conscious of nothingness - which consciousness being the denial of nothingness.

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Tue, 25 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Jun 2019 #5
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5099 posts in this forum Offline

Is there such a thing as "the life force"? Or is there only the laws of physics/chemistry/biology being played out, for some inexplicable reason? And if there is a life force, a life essence, is it the same life everywhere? Is it the same life force in the bacterium, the virus, the snake, the butterfly, as in me, this body? And if so, what does it mean when a cancer, infused with this life force, grows in this body? What does it mean when a virus invades this body, grows, replicated itself using 'my cells'? Where does my body end, and the virus begin?

If there is only one life force, this seems to imply the necessity for an enormous change in our perception.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Jun 2019 #6
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 704 posts in this forum Offline

Clive,

Do you mean by “life force” something that is distinct and separate from the creative intelligence that is the ground of everything? Can "life force" and "ground" - or whatever names are used - be distinct and separate from each other? Can the life force of one life form be separate and distinct from the life force of the other if everything necessarily (as I see it) springs from one source (which is unknowable)?

After all, the “laws of physics/chemistry/biology” are the laws of “nature”, of the "ground" or of “God”, aren’t they? The laws of nature don’t conform to the laws of physics/chemistry/biology. They are observed and discovered by the physicists, chemists and biologists, not invented by them. The divisions of physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, and so on, are aspects of the whole. They don’t reflect actual divisions within the whole.

Is it perhaps the human “life force” itself that drives man to question everything, just as it is the life force of the blade of grass that pushes through the concrete, the life force of the newborn that cries for food and comfort, the life force of the lion that kills the gazelle - and so on? Still, isn’t it seen that the innate human drive to question (if there is such a thing) also demands fertile silence? Isn’t it seen that silence is essential for understanding and that, without silence, there is ultimately chaos? And that, no matter how our questions are approached - through religion, philosophy, science - there is a fundamental unpierceable mystery for the human brain, as I see it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Jun 2019 #7
Thumb_avatar Manfred Kritzler Germany 25 posts in this forum Offline

Clive: Is there such a thing as "the life force"? Or is there only the laws of physics/chemistry/biology being played out, for some inexplicable reason?

Manfred:What you are asking here is the question I asked myself for many years. My preliminary result at the moment is that there is only one life force or as I would call it one life source. This view as uncommon it might be can to my understanding be reached by pure logic.

The reason we usually do not see it this way is that science does not start at the base of life which is oneness (or unity, implicate order etc), but on a secondary level wich is separation. This is not because science is wrong. It is because there is no other way using causal logic. For causal logic we need separation, for instance cause and effect. But oneness has no separation. If this is correct it
means whatever statement we make it could never be life itself. Life itself must necessarily be always bigger.

The paradox is that any view we have and any statement we make is included in life itself.

The key point is to be aware of the limitation of thinking, feeling and of our senses.

This is theoretically very easy explained, when we start with unity. There is unity and we as human beings make differentiations, being aware that whatever we see as different is part of something bigger we have no access to. So also our view is included in unity. But it is not the truth. The truth is by definition unknown or in Krishnamurti term a pathless land.

Its very difficult to express what I really mean and its completely open to questioning.

This post was last updated by Manfred Kritzler Wed, 26 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Jun 2019 #8
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1311 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
The key point is to be aware of the limitation of thinking, feeling and of our senses.

Isn't it that our main 'limitation' is this psychological phenomena of a 'center'? That as long as the brain maintains and perpetuates this 'arrangement' around a 'self-image' for the sense of familiarity and false security that it affords, it denies itself the 'finer' vibrations of universal Compassion, Love and Truth that K. so often mentions?...I guess that I'm looking at our brain (or brains?) as a sort of 'receiver'; that has an immense capability to receive not only the coarse vibrations around it, but also the much finer. It has the ability to 'resonate' to the 'higher' but has become entrapped almost exclusively in the 'lower'. ( the limited thought, feeling as you put it?)

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 26 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Jun 2019 #9
Thumb_avatar Manfred Kritzler Germany 25 posts in this forum Offline

Dan:It has the ability to 'resonate' to the 'higher' but has become entrapped almost exclusively in the 'lower'

Manfred: Yes. Expressed from the view of separation as base of our life we block the “higher” by using only thought as the “lower”. We think the „higher“ is pure speculation.

Expressed from the assumption of unity as base of our life there remains only the question if we are aware of something or not. To be aware of our thoughts as a limited “lower” means being opened to the “higher” as far as this awareness is thoughtless or choiceless. There is no way to the „higher“. There is only that what is, and that is recognized as a limited lower; even when we are not aware of it.

In short form: To be aware of the lower is living the higher. Correct?

My question is: Why is it so difficult to live a life in the “higher“? Out of my own experience I suppose that as more as I live the higher as more my ego is threatened.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Jun 2019 #10
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1311 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
Expressed from the view of separation as base of our life we block the “higher” by using only thought as the “lower”. We think the „higher“ is pure speculation.

The 'higher' here being these unknown possibilities thought has named: 'Compassion', 'Love', 'Wisdom', 'Truth', 'Choiceness Awareness', 'Attention', etc. Can you say, they have a finer materiality, a faster vibration, a higher frequency?...Thought cannot 'grasp' them. Thought cannot 'know' them so it projects an image of what it imagines them to be based on the limited experiences of them that it has had. But the image projected is not the thing. It is partial. It has projected them in its own image, its own materiality, and craves them not realizing that it is craving a projection of itself. And through this 'craving' it sustains itself, sustains its 'search'. (As well as its conflict and suffering?)

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
My question is: Why is it so difficult to live a life in the “higher“? Out of my own experience I suppose that as more as I live the higher as more my ego is threatened.

I think I see why K. often objected to this word "difficult" when describing all this. I think it is, myself. But 'difficult' implies, doesn't it, some task to be done, some effort to be made, something to be overcome, etc...and from the way we're looking at this in terms of higher /lower, finer/coarser...any 'difficulty' felt at all means the 'lower' is attempting (making an effort) to change 'what is' in order to get to the 'higher' and not seeing the futility in that reaction.

He seemed to always prefer the word "arduous".

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Jun 2019 #11
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5099 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . #6 wrote:
Do you mean by “life force” something that is distinct and separate from the creative intelligence that is the ground of everything?

Well I don't know. I don't start by assuming that I know. I used the phrase "life force" to indicate the animate as distinguished from the inanimate. Yet looking at that now, it seems artificial, contradictory somehow.

I have heard it claimed that rocks, crystals, many things not generally considered living actually are, in an elemental sort of way. That life will inhabit any structure that has some sort of regular, fairly complex, structure or order. But this idea still implies that there is matter that is not "alive". I don't know.

If there is a creative intelligence that is the ground of everything, obviously nothing can be outside of it, separate from it. But thought certainly appears to be so.

I think it was David Bohm who said nothing can be apart from the infinite, it must include everything. And so it includes the finite. And also the finite must be part of the infinite. That is intriguing, to say the least.

Huguette . wrote:
Can the life force of one life form be separate and distinct from the life force of the other if everything necessarily (as I see it) springs from one source (which is unknowable)?

Again, from David Bohm, although the words are mine, if we are derived from something, from some source, then in essence we must be part of that source. OF that source. Which in implies one basic life source. However it is clear when we look at nature, species (using that word loosely) form some sort of unit opposed to other units. This is independent of the thought process, it came before that. And even within a species there is some sort of separation, one ant colony against another, one hive attacking another, What would you say is the nature of such separation, Huguette, anyone? It does seem that "life is attacking life", one life force overcoming another life force. But this appearance may be the result of limited perception.

Huguette . wrote:
The divisions of physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, and so on, are aspects of the whole. They don’t reflect actual divisions within the whole.

Yes. But thought can only approach things by dividing them up, it seems. It tires to uncover a whole, both scientifically and religiously, but it cannot, it is not possible.

Huguette . wrote:
there is a fundamental unpierceable mystery for the human brain, as I see it.

Is the implication that the mystery can only be revealed (if that is not a contradiction in terms) in silence?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Jun 2019 #12
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5099 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
Its very difficult to express what I really mean and its completely open to questioning.

Yes. But as K said, it must be attempted.

I think my response to Huguette above mirrors your points also, Manfred.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Jun 2019 #13
Thumb_avatar Manfred Kritzler Germany 25 posts in this forum Offline

Dan:
I think I see why K. often objected to this word "difficult" when describing all this. I think it is, myself. But 'difficult' implies, doesn't it, some task to be done, some effort to be made, something to be overcome, etc...and from the way we're looking at this in terms of higher /lower, finer/coarser...any 'difficulty' felt at all means the 'lower' is attempting (making an effort) to change 'what is' in order to get to the 'higher' and not seeing the futility in that reaction.

—————
Manfred: The reason that we think an effort is necessary to get to the “higher” is rooted deeply in our way of thinking. This thinking in the Western world is based on “either/or”. It is either this or that but never this and that. But life as a whole is this and that at the same moment and therefore unknown.

Whenwe start our journey to understand life we could ask what belongs together as a unity? Let’s assume everything belongs to a unity what is necessary for its surviving. For my finger it could be the following: Finger, hand, arm, body,earth,gravity, universe. If you take one part out my finger will not be able to live anymore. It doesn’t matter if you take out the finger, the earth or the whole universe. So the universe is necessary for the surviving of my finger. My finger and the universe is one unity which means living in inseparable wholeness.

So we see that on the base of our life is inseparable wholeness, which we have no possibility to understand. Therefore it should be clear that the real ground of life is unknown.

That means everything known is limited. Staying in our thought-system we can only jump from one limitation to another one. Observing our thoughts without intention to change is different. It is an inclusion of thought in the whole. The “lower” is integrated in the “higher”. Change is happening without creating a new opposite. The psychological thought will diminish, because it has no reference outside of us. The material thought, which is necessary for our survival, will stay whenever we are in contact with matter in our daily life.

Accepting the unknown “higher” as life source including the knowable “lower”, will change our behavior. We look at the knowable, but see it as something which has to be questioned any time.

I am aware that these statements are a try to explain, that there is an unknowable “higher” with the instrument of the knowable “lower”. But I see no other way to do it here in the internet.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Jun 2019 #14
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1311 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
That means everything known is limited. Staying in our thought-system we can only jump from one limitation to another one. Observing our thoughts without intention to change is different. It is an inclusion of thought in the whole. The “lower” is integrated in the “higher”. Change is happening without creating a new opposite. The psychological thought will diminish, because it has no reference outside of us. The material thought, which is necessary for our survival, will stay whenever we are in contact with matter in our daily life.

I think this is well put. I relate a personal incident that occurred yesterday only because I think it has relevance. I had an encounter with a person, there was a misunderstanding and something of a confrontation. There was a 'welling up of emotion' in me that was extremely uncomfortable and shocking also since it 'came out of the blue' having happened so quickly. After the incident there arose questions, there was a feeling of sadness, nausea almost, and confusion as to how something so outwardly trifling could create such 'disturbance', such an explosive energy that could easily have been ignited...and a desire to 'stay with it'.

Now in considering it as 'energy', was this an explosion from the 'animal' brain'? If so how could there be any control (or ending) over any fierce reaction coming from there? Does the answer to that lie not in the animal brain but in the 'new' one? If the new brain is 'infected' with a self-image, (any shred of a self-image) that image is always in danger of being threatened, no matter how 'peace-loving' it imagines itself to be? And when the right threat is felt, all hell can break loose. (as it often does!)

For the 'new' brain to be 'as nothing' seems the only way to end man's violence? That means to be totally vulnerable, totally innocent.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Thu, 27 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Jun 2019 #15
Thumb_avatar Manfred Kritzler Germany 25 posts in this forum Offline

Maybe this video featuring Augusto Shantena Sabbadini could be helpful for understanding. For me he explains in a very understandable way that the named and the unnamed which is for me the same as the lower and the higher or the known and the unknown arise together:

https://images.app.goo.gl/HYPMhh2wJTAKSKLx6

The last two minutes of the video are for me in this connection the most interesting one.

This post was last updated by Manfred Kritzler Thu, 27 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Jun 2019 #16
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1311 posts in this forum Offline

Thanks, he speaks very clearly. "Desire is the movement of the self".

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Jun 2019 #17
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5099 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
For my finger it could be the following: Finger, hand, arm, body,earth,gravity, universe. If you take one part out my finger will not be able to live anymore. It doesn’t matter if you take out the finger, the earth or the whole universe. So the universe is necessary for the surviving of my finger. My finger and the universe is one unity which means living ininseparable wholeness.

Manfred, I am aware that I am picking up on just one, perhaps small, point in your post, but out of scientific interest, can you explain the step from "Earth" to Universe. If everything in the Universe outside of our solar system suddenly disappeared, in what way would that effect your finger? Speaking scientifically I think the gravitational perturbation would be quite small. I am not aware that starlight plays a great part in life on Earth - I could be wrong.

In asking this, I am not questioning the fundamental truth of your statement "My finger and the universe is one unity which means living in inseparable wholeness."

When you say that we have no possibility to understand that the base of our life is inseparable wholeness, I presume you mean thought cannot understand? What meaning are you putting on the word "understand", in fact? In a way your post represents a sort of understanding, does it not?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Jun 2019 #18
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5099 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
For the 'new' brain to be 'as nothing' seems the only way to end man's violence?

What you describe is probably recognisable to everyone here, Dan. Although one could rightly say the self is extraordinarily insensitive to its environment, it is incredibly "sensitive" to any suggestion of being attacked, or emotionally hurt, diminished, itself, in any way. And this is what our society, our civilisation is based on. And yet, overwhelmingly, it is not seen that the self is the problem, instead the self is the basis of the so-called solutions, both globally and personally.

I cannot see any other "way" except choiceless awareness of the movement of the self. Yet I - the self - cannot bring that choiceless awareness about. What is seen is choice-full awareness, if I can use that term. And I ask myself if that choice can be seen choicelessly - without turning choiceless awareness into an ideal to be pursued.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 29 Jun 2019 #19
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5099 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote #2 :
“The created cannot think about the uncreated” (Ojai, California | Fifth Talk in The Oak Grove, 1946).

Huguette,
I read the talk that you mentioned, Ojai 46.

In the talk, I was taken with K’s words:

“Krishnamurti: Without probing deeply into oneself self-knowledge is not possible. What do we mean by self-criticism? The function of the mind is to probe and to comprehend. Without this probing into ourselves, without this deep awareness, there can be no understanding. We often indulge in the stupidity of criticizing others but few are capable of probing deeply into themselves. The function of the mind is not only to probe, to delve, but also to be silent. In silence there is comprehension. We are ever probing but we are rarely silent; in us rarely are there alert, passive intervals of tranquillity; we probe and are soon weary of it without the creative silence. But self-probing is as essential for the clarity of understanding as is stillness. As the earth is allowed to lie fallow during the winter so must thought be still after deep searching. This very fallowness is its renewal. If we delve deeply into ourselves and are still then in this stillness, in this openness, there is understanding.”

What do you understand by this, Huguette, or anyone? Is he saying that it is “not enough” to be passively aware of one’s mind, of oneself, and one must also “probe” into thought/oneself? Is this probing a different process? What does it mean, “to probe”? Is it an active process? Is it to use the capacity of thought to reason? If so, where can thought arrive through this process of probing? Will it not always eventually arrive at a blank wall?

Is the point of probing with thought precisely that, that facing of the blank wall?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 29 Jun 2019 #20
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1311 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I cannot see any other "way" except choiceless awareness of the movement of the self. Yet I - the self - cannot bring that choiceless awareness about. What is seen is choice-full awareness, if I can use that term. And I ask myself if that choice can be seen choicelessly - without turning choiceless awareness into an ideal to be pursued.

I'd say Clive that we have to give 'permission' to be seen. 'Allow' awareness into the room...then it's finished...there's nothing that has to be done, just 'allow' every part of ourself to be seen.

Or discover and negate that which keeps the 'door' closed?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 29 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 29 Jun 2019 #21
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2640 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
I'd say Clive that we have to give 'permission' to be seen. 'Allow' awareness into the room..

Can thought do this? Can the self....the self who’s very nature runs contrary to allowing...who wants to control? How do you see that this comes about, Dan?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sat, 29 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 29 Jun 2019 #22
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2640 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
What does it mean, “to probe”? Is it an active process? Is it to use the capacity of thought to reason?

This isn’t clear to me either. Can thought, through ‘probing’, become aware of itself...of its actions...of its nature?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 30 Jun 2019 #23
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1311 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Can thought do this? Can the self....the self who’s very nature runs contrary to allowing...who wants to control? How do you see that this comes about, Dan?

It's not a 'doing' but a 'not doing'. I don't know if that's right but it seems to me that the 'self' has its reasons for not 'allowing' intelligence i.e., to 'enter' but as the 'reasons' for keeping the 'door' shut are seen through for what they are: fear.. then there is this opening rather than the continuous 'shutting out'. (?)

This theory of life says that the constant bombardment of solar energy on matter over time, causes the matter to react to this energy by 'forming' and dissipating it in the most efficient way possible creating what we call 'life-forms' (or something like that :)) but it stands to reason that solar energy is not the only energy that is streaming to the planet...What are we describing with words like : awareness, compassion, intelligence, love, wisdom, etc if not energy or vibrations or whatever you want to call them, of a 'higher' or different 'frequency' say? ('Mind'?) This 'frequency' is available and can be 'received', by a properly functioning, sane, human (and perhaps some other mammal's) brain.
But it's not received (except perhaps partially as 'insights') because of all the things we are talking about here : the self-image, the 'continuous 'noise' of thought: beliefs, ideals, fear, psychological suffering and conflict ,anxiety , becoming, greed,... In other words, the 'contents of consciousness' 'block out' the 'transmission' of 'Love'.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 30 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 30 Jun 2019 #24
Thumb_avatar Manfred Kritzler Germany 25 posts in this forum Offline

Clive:....but out of scientific interest, can you explain the step from "Earth" to Universe. If everything in the Universe outside of our solar system suddenly disappeared, in what way would that effect your finger? Speaking scientifically I think the gravitational perturbation would be quite small. I am not aware that starlight plays a great part in life on Earth - I could be wrong.
———
Manfred: No I have no idea. I used the word universe instead of all, everything, implicate order, unity, the whole, not knowing or God. All words for something we cannot really express in words. Maybe it was not the best idea. What I wanted to convey is that we don’t know and there is a big chance we never will in a causal logical way anything about our existence.

There is an interesting development in autonomous car driving. If I understood it correctly the computer installed next to the driver is not programmed any more in a logarithmic way. What he is doing is to make a decision how to act or react in certain situations. If the driver does not make the same decision he corrects his program. When he does it a million times or more it seems to me that this is a copying of human behavior. Maybe that means there is a new approach to understand life, even when I see it as a dangerous one. The computer learns without our knowledge, so we probably cannot find out how, to imitate the behavior of human beings. Maybe he is better than any single human being existing and not controllable anymore.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 30 Jun 2019 #25
Thumb_avatar Manfred Kritzler Germany 25 posts in this forum Offline

Clive:
When you say that we have no possibility to understand that the base of our life is inseparable wholeness, I presume you mean thought cannot understand? What meaning are you putting on the word "understand", in fact? In a way your post represents a sort of understanding, does it not?

————
Manfred: Yes it does. I have fallen again in the “understand-trap“. In German „verstehen“ (understand) means something which we have understood could be explained to others. In English it seems to me that the word “understand” is much more open. Is it correct that „understand“ could be something which is subjectively received and understood but could not explained in a causal logical way?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 30 Jun 2019 #26
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5099 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
But it's not received (except perhaps partially as 'insights') because of all the things we are talking about here : the self-image, the 'continuous 'noise' of thought: beliefs, ideals, fear, psychological suffering and conflict ,anxiety , becoming, greed,... In other words, the 'contents of consciousness' 'block out' the 'transmission' of 'Love'.

This presumably implies that when, if, the brain/mind is silent, the silence so often referred to by K, then it is capable of receiving these higher vibrations, would you say? And then, presumably, it is a whole new ball game?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 30 Jun 2019 #27
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2640 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
This presumably implies that when, if, the brain/mind is silent, the silence so often referred to by K, then it is capable of receiving these higher vibrations,

That’s a big ‘if’. In the meantime we have only the noise...what is. And no one separate from it to act upon it, as I think many of us have realized. When it’s realized that there is only the noise, then ‘I’ don’t act on ‘it’/myself, right?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 30 Jun 2019 #28
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1311 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
This presumably implies that when, if, the brain/mind is silent, the silence so often referred to by K, then it is capable of receiving these higher vibrations, would you say? And then, presumably, it is a whole new ball game?

I would say yes, that is what this is all about.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 01 Jul 2019 #29
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1311 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
When it’s realized that there is only the noise, then ‘I’ don’t act on ‘it’/myself, right?

Yes that would be just a continuation of the 'noise', wouldn't it?... The 'action' of 'allowing' oneself to be seen is a 'non-action'. Arising from the understanding that absolutely nothing can be 'done' except the 'choiceless awareness' of the 'totality' of oneself.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Mon, 01 Jul 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 01 Jul 2019 #30
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5099 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:

Clive Elwell wrote:

What does it mean, “to probe”? Is it an active process? Is it to use the capacity of thought to reason?

This isn’t clear to me either. Can thought, through ‘probing’, become aware of itself...of its actions...of its nature?

Does the following extract convey what K meant by 'probing'?

Self-knowledge is the beginning of right thinking and in the process of self-knowledge the Infinite is discovered. The book of self-knowledge has no beginning and no end. It is a constant process of discovery and what is discovered is true and truth is liberating, creative. If in that process of self-understanding we seek a result, such a result is binding, enclosing and hindering and so the Immeasurable, the Timeless is not discovered. To seek a result is to search out value which is to cultivate craving and so to engender ignorance, conflict and sorrow. If we are seeking to understand, to read this complex rich book, then we will discover its infinite riches. To read this book of self-knowledge is to become aware. Through self-awareness each thought-feeling is examined with out judgment and thus allowed to flower which brings understanding; for in following each thought-feeling fully we will find that in it all thinking is contained. We can think - feel completely only when we are not seeking a result, an end.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 90 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.)