Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Discussion Forums

Jack Pine's Forum Activity | 4938 posts in 2 forums


Forum: General Discussion Wed, 24 Aug 2011
Topic: Was K Depressed?

Angela, what is depression? Who is depressed? If there is no center, no "I", no "ego" can there be depression? Did K have a center, a psychological center that could be hurt, depressed, angry, sad etc? Is it possible not to have a psychological center?

And does love have an opposite? Is love the opposite of hate or anger or is it what is left when we stop escaping from what is and see what is without conclusion or reaction?

To get the right answers you need to ask the right questions.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 25 Aug 2011
Topic: Was K Depressed?

Angela Moody wrote: Jack, you asked what I meant by depression. I was referring to a mental state characterized by a deficiency of serotonin in the brain. Though daily asanas and long walks, as practiced by K, can increase dopamine and endorphins to alleviate depression, it really does not increase serotonin.

No, I wasn't asking your personal opinion of what depression is. I was asking what is depression. Also, I was trying to point out to you that you weren't really asking any real questions. You were expressing your opinions, pre-conceived notions and conclusions, with question marks after them. You weren't really trying to question anything or find out anything new for yourself.

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 26 Aug 2011
Topic: Was K Depressed?

Ana Flavia Lucus,

You make some pertinent points about depression. Certainly the clinical definition is not adequate for one to understand his own depression. Whatever feelings we have must necessarily be understood while they are happening and not theorized about and examined after the fact.

I also agree with you that labeling emotions is not helpful. Words are invariably loaded with conditioning.

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 27 Aug 2011
Topic: Sat. Aug. 27 K Quote

I direct your attention to today's quote. I think it is an excellent view of what K was pointing out all of his life.

As you can see it was spoken in 1934 and what he said then remained consistant with what he said throughout his life. K really didn't change that much from beginning to end. He did, constantly, search for new and clearer ways of expressing what he had to point out.

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 28 Aug 2011
Topic: Sat. Aug. 27 K Quote

Patricia

I think if you re-read Mary Lutyens' biographies of K, especially the first one, you will see that K was not only not conditioned by the Theosophists but was not conditioned by anyone or any thing. His trouble in school in India was that the lessons simply wouldn't stick to him. For which he was caned unmercifially. He was blank. As for the Theosophists he felt that he owed his life and that of his brother to Mrs. Besant and to the Theosophists. He hung on longer with that group than he would have because of his loyality to Mrs Besant. My impression is that he never bought into what the Theosophists were selling rather he simply went along with the program out of respect for Mrs. Besant and maybe Lady Emily and a few others.

Another point that I think is cogent is that K consistantly and frequently pointed out that there is "no becoming", "no psychological time" in which one sees what is, sees truth or whatever you want to call it. If that condition is true for us then it must necessarily be true for K. There is no evolution of the center to become whatever the center thinks it must become to BE. Indeed, K often pointed out that the center, the I or ego, cannot co-exist with truth. That there is time involved in seeing is the great illusion that most of us are caught up in and that blocks our seeing the basic fact that there is absolutely nothing to do or be or become. Psychologically, I, me, the center is an illusion which is a product of thought which is the past. Truth is the present. I know this, myself, logically but not as a fact. And no amount of reasoning and logic is going to bring anyone to the truth. Damn, stuck again.

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 28 Aug 2011
Topic: Sat. Aug. 27 K Quote

I want to add that K did, apparently, go through some physical changes a.k.a "the process" to, according to what I have read, prepare the body for the great amount of energy that past through it that was perhaps necessary for the speaker to do what he did. But, personally, I don't know why it happened or why I should even be concerned about K personally as Rick has already pointed out. A point I agree with.

All of your responses are interesting and to the point. Thanks. I think I have made all the points on this matter I intent to make. I hope all of you have a very pleasant day.

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 07 Sep 2011
Topic: Dvaita (Duality) is not wrong

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?

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 13 Sep 2011
Topic: What does it mean...to be resonable?

Mr Davidson:

I am an occassional reader of this site and less frequently a contributer. Do you realize that you have made ten posts on this one thread alone in the past two hours? How do you find the time? Are you addicted to this site? Do you have some sort of compulsive need to post here? I am beginning to find your pseudo authoritative and somewhat boorish postings to be quite tedious. For example, you are completely off base in your view of what K said about computers. I have often heard K speak of computers and of how they are changing how we live in both public and private group discussions and I disagree with what you think K was saying about this subject.

I have noticed that if someone disagress with you they are, in your opinion, "confused" or mis-reading something you have written. But it is never you who are wrong. Ultimately, if someone makes a concise and well thoughtout rebuttal to one of your posts, as Mr. Greene and others have on several occassions, you "retire" from the thread because it is just too "boring" to continue.

Are you missing a great opportunity to "see yourself" in relationship to others on this site? Life, as K often pointed out, is relationship to something. Whether that something is another person or a tree or an idea or a belief one can only see who one actually is in relationship to something. Do you have time to do that between issuing or defending your proclamations?

Whether you respond to this post or not is completely immaterial because any response will be a reaction. What is important is watching what you feel when you read this. What can you see, understand, about yourself, your feelings and thoughts? Are you offended, angry, conciliatory? What are you feeling? What is your image of yourself?

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 14 Sep 2011
Topic: What does it mean...to be resonable?

Paul Davidson wrote: Kapila Kulasinghe wrote:

'K expected that the artificial intelligence of computers would replace the human brain.' This can still happen Paul.May be he was ahead of our time.Personally I think this is quite likely to happen.

Paul Davidson's reply: It sounds like science-fiction tome, Kapila. Did you see the film "I Robot" or "Terminator"? At the time K was writing such stuff he was influenced by a small group of scientists and naively sociologistic thinkers who put before him the contemporary wisdom in liberal academic circles that with the new age we were moving into a period of increased leisure where entertainment would replace work as the main preoccupation for filling one's time. I was at university during that time and remember the ideological perspective well. The imminent new age of leisure did not materialise. Instead we got Regan and Thatcher! But no sensible and informed scientist today predicts such 'Brave New World' stuff. Incidentally, it is possible K was also drawn to the prognostications of Aldous Huxley,with whom he also spent considerable time. Huxley's dystopias had quite an appeal back then.

Mr Davidson:

Your quote above is what you actually wrote about K and computers and what I disagree with. Yet in a subsequent post you tried to make it seem like you were supporting what K had to say about computers with a long list of quotes supplied by you. Are you really that blatantly dishonest?

What I object to has nothing to do with statements made by K about computers. What I object to is you blithly rejecting what K said about the effect of computers on humanity. Read your own quote. Would you like to back your opinion up with some facts? Who made you head Priest and interpreter of what K pointed out? This is how religions start. Somebody figures out a way to exploit people by becoming the intermediary.

For years, especially the last two or three of his life, K was adamant that no one is empowered to take over for him or to interpret his work. Is that who you are trying to become? It seems like it from many of your posts. You browbeat and bully anyone who posts something you disagree with. You saturate the site with your posts which are mostly composed of your unsubstantiated opinions, ideas and beliefs. This site belongs to all of us who would post here and it is about what K pointed out not about anyone's random opinions and beliefs.

In closing I think it is the responsibility of everyone who is interested in what K had to say to point out those people who would become self-styled "experts on and "interpreters" of K's discoveries. To all of you I suggest that if you are interested in what K had to say then go straight to the source and don't waste your time with an "interpreter" or middle man. This is all I have to say about this matter.

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 14 Sep 2011
Topic: What does it mean...to be resonable?

Sylvia Brandeis wrote: He obviously takes Krishnamurti very seriously. In contrast to your view, I find him one of the least likely here to jump precipitously to conclusion.

No Ms. Brandeis, as others have already pointed by their rejection of his views and by his own statements, Mr Davidson doesn't take K seriously Read the posts of the past 24 hours on this thread. He takes himself seriously which is unfortuneate. Look at all of the precipitous conclusions he has jumped to and been corrected on by several posters on this thread. And wouldn't you call Mr. Davidson's remark that Aldous Huxley probably influenced K on computers a bit precipitous since he has absolutely no evidence to back that up? Opinion isn't evidence. Hell, Huxley died in 1963 and computers were certainly around then but they were not such a big deal for most of us.

Mr Davidson is an egotist who distains any critizism of his proclamations. He is trying to dominate this site which I, and apparently some others, take great exception to.

I came here to discuss K's views and discoveries not Paul Davidson's opinions of what K really thought or what K really meant.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 15 Sep 2011
Topic: What does it mean...to be resonable?

Ana Flavia Lucus:

I edited out the comment about two women being gulled sited by Mr Davidson almost immediately because I realized it was saying something I didn't intend to say. He even edited the original quote by removing "and maybe some others". I referenced two women in the original post because two women did support him. They were the only ones supporting him when I wrote the post. That's all. But by changing my original quote he made it seem like I was saying something else. Paul Daividson is basically dishonest.

If you go to the post you will see that the edit was done long before Mr. Davidson posted his comment about it. Obviously, he copied and saved and edited it for later use. He knows that but he is the kind of person that will use any weapon he can to strike out at someone who disagrees with him.

Ms. Lucus, let's say for the sake of discussion that Mr. Davidson is free, passionate, creative and sincere. Non of that makes him correct. You could have said the same about Saddam Hussein. My objection to Mr. Davidson is that he casually refutes and minimizes K without a speck of evidence. Also Mr. Davidson seems to post whatever he is thinking whether it has anything to do with K or not. How can you learn about K from a man who, himself, doesn't seem to be particularly interested in what K said? Read his posts with an open mind and see what you see.

And, of course, he isn't at all free. He is completely imprisoned by his endless ideas, beliefs and philosophies. He flits from subject to subject like a hummingbird gone nuts in a garden. It seems he never let's up long enough to "quiet his mind and to observe," to quote K.

If Mr Davidson has gulled you with his tendency to post nearly every thought that passes through his mind then it is not because you are a woman but because you are gullible.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 15 Sep 2011
Topic: What does it mean...to be resonable?

Paul Davidson wrote: Kapila Kulasinghe wrote:

'K expected that the artificial intelligence of computers would replace the human brain.' This can still happen Paul.May be he was ahead of our time.Personally I think this is quite likely to happen.

Mr Davidson wrote in response to Mr Kapila: It sounds like science-fiction tome, Kapila. Did you see the film "I Robot" or "Terminator"? At the time K was writing such stuff he was influenced by a small group of scientists and naively sociologistic thinkers who put before him the contemporary wisdom in liberal academic circles that with the new age we were moving into a period of increased leisure where entertainment would replace work as the main preoccupation for filling one's time. I was at university during that time and remember the ideological perspective well. The imminent new age of leisure did not materialise. Instead we got Regan and Thatcher! But no sensible and informed scientist today predicts such 'Brave New World' stuff. Incidentally, it is possible K was also drawn to the prognostications of Aldous Huxley,with whom he also spent considerable time. Huxley's dystopias had quite an appeal back then.

My response to Mr Davidson: Mr Davidson, you wanted proof that you said Huxley may have influenced K about K's remarks concerning computers replacing the human brain. I am completely satisfied that your above statement supports my statement. I am referring to your post 185 on this thread. Please send your $1000 to the following:

Krishnamurti Foundation of America PO Box 1560 Ojai, CA 93024-0763

On behalf of the KFA I thank you.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 15 Sep 2011
Topic: What does it mean...to be resonable?

Mr Lein: I apologize for my part in temporarily hijacking (no pun intended) your thread. I think there is a better purpose for this site than to rail at each other. If we see who we really are through our relationship with others, even if that relationship is acrimonious, then maybe it was worth the time out of our lives. It has been fun. Now I hope we can move on to more serious discussions which are not ego based and personal. Peace

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 17 Sep 2011
Topic: Observations

Knowledge Is Not Wisdom

In our search for knowledge, in our acquisitive desires, we are losing love, we are blunting the feeling for beauty, the sensitivity to cruelty; we are becoming more and more specialized and less and less integrated. Wisdom cannot be replaced by knowledge, and no amount of explanation, no accumulation of facts, will free man from suffering. Knowledge is necessary, science has its place; but if the mind and heart are suffocated by knowledge, and if the cause of suffering is explained away, life becomes vain and meaningless. Information, the knowledge of facts, though ever increasing, is by its very nature limited. Wisdom is infinite, it includes knowledge and the way of action; but we take hold of a branch and think it is the whole tree. Through the knowledge of the part, we can never realize the joy of the whole. Intellect can never lead to the whole, for it is only a segment, a part. We have separated intellect from feeling, and have developed intellect at the expense of feeling. We are like a three-legged object with one leg much longer than the others, and we have no balance. We are trained to be intellectual; our education cultivates the intellect to be sharp, cunning, acquisitive, and so it plays the most important role in our life. Intelligence is much greater than intellect, for it is the integration of reason and love; but there can be intelligence only when there is self-knowledge, the deep understanding of the total process of oneself.

J. Krishnamurti, The Book of Life

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 17 Sep 2011
Topic: Observations

So fear is the product of thought. Right? Otherwise there is no fear. Fear is related to pleasure and pleasure is the product of thought as fear. I wonder if you are following this? You know, this is not an analytical talk. Analysis, however deep or clever, however true does not solve any problems. Analysis is merely a description of what is, and we are not analysing but just observing. It is very important to understand this, the art of looking, the art of seeing. We are seeing fear, listening to fear, to all its murmurs, not theoretically but actually. If we could see fear with eyes that are very clear then fear would completely come to an end. And that's what we are doing. Fear, as we said, is the result of thought. Yesterday I was healthy and enjoyed walking through the woods, but today or tomorrow I am afraid that I may fall ill. Do go into this with me! Please, if I may suggest, don't just listen but observe this thing operating in yourself. Yesterday there was a beautiful sunset and I enjoyed it tremendously. There is the memory of it and I want that pleasure repeated and when it is not repeated then I am afraid, which is all part of thinking. I am afraid of death, the tomorrow and the many tomorrows; thought is observing the fact of living - what it calls living - and also the fact that it is going to end, so thought is afraid of the thing it calls death. Therefore it puts death far away in the distance. This is very clear isn't it? Thought creates distance as well as time, so thought breeds fear. 1968 Rome Public Talk 10th March 1968

No one with even a smattering of understanding of what K pointed out would ask is life dependent on pleasure. It's ludicrous. Pleasure is the product of thought which is based on memory which is the past which is limited. How can that which has no limit be dependent on the limited?

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 18 Sep 2011
Topic: Observations

max greene wrote: It's how we use knowledge that matters. It would seem that "wisdom" is intelligence acting on knowledge

First I want to say that I am not interested in analizing anything. That becomes a word game and reasoning and reasoning alone is not seeing. And not everyone agrees on the definition of any given word which brings disorder to any discussion. I will ask you this: Intelligence acts on knowledge but does knowledge act on intelligence? To me it seems clear that knowledge is limited because it is dependent on thought and does not act on intelligence which is not dependent on thought. If so then wisdom, which is intelligence, is not acted on by knowledge. So knowledge is not wisdom. Knowledge distorts reality. Reality is defined as everthing that is thought. This definition of reality is from LIMITS OF THOUGHT which is a record of dialogues between Dr. Bohm and K. Is wisdom a distortion of reality, which is thought, or does wisdom bring order to reality? It seems apparent that wisdom brings order.

Sir, I would also refer you to Mr Dhanan Rao's excellent post 161 which is concise and maybe clearer than my post. Thanks for your question.

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 18 Sep 2011
Topic: Observations

Paul Davidson wrote: Would there be space at all, if there were nothing in it?

But this is what space is; nothing, as in space between two thoughts and other examples I will leave to the reader.

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 19 Sep 2011
Topic: Observations

Mr Greene

max greene wrote: I see thought as the "I" entangled with remembered fact. We place into memory a bare, unvarnished fact and when we recall the fact we put our "spin" on it. For me, that is thought. It would seem that simply seeing facts and recording them in memory is not an action tainted with the "I." The seeing and recording of fact is accumulated as knowledge. I don't see this accumulation of fact (our store of knowledge) as dependent on thought. It's what we do with knowledge that becomes thought.

Mr Greene, my mistake I am sorry I disturbed you. I thought you were serious about what K had to point out. You certainly put your own spin on what K pointed out and what most anyone who tries can see for himself about thought, knowledge and memory. Are you really serious?

I know a lot of people, there are some serious people here, come to this site for the entertainment value where they can prance about with their never ending theories and pseudo intellectual pursuits. Dwelling only on the particular instead of seeing everything as part of the whole.

Ok fine. Take over the site, inflate your egos and talk your never ending bullshit. I use to wonder why not a single person I know who use to attend K's talks in Ojai, and are really serious about what K had to say, ever comes to these "forums". Because it's just bullshit, that's why. Egotistical bullshit.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 20 Sep 2011
Topic: Observations

Mr Davidson, not only are your comments above wrong but you seem to be pulling stuff up that you were unable to settle at the time. Do you always carry so much of the past around with you? Must be a real burden for you. And anger. You seem to be carrying so much anger with you. You really have a hard time when someone pushes you out of your comfort zone don't you. Maybe you should work on that.

And please, don't blame me if most of what you say is bullshit. Not my fault.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 22 Sep 2011
Topic: Knowledge?

Paul Davidson wrote: What is knowledge?

That's easy Mr. Davidson. Knowledge is what is keeping you from understanding who you are. And your question is yet another attempt to escape from the thing you really need to understand. Don't all of us need to understand who we are? Why are we constantly escaping from what is into countless entertainments and meaningless diversions? The world is crumbling around us. If we don't change we're through as a species. When do plan to quit escaping into these seemingly endless shams of seeking yet more knowledge and see what it is that compells you to seek these escapes? It's a question for all of us to ask ourselves about ourselves.

Take a gander at the following quote by K. Got it off the JKrisnamurti.org site. Just type in "What is knowledge" Actually, leave out the "is" because if you don't every "is" in the text will be highlighted.

Knowledge apart from technology of what value is it? There must be technological, scientific knowledge, you cannot wipe away all that man has accumulated through the centuries. That knowledge must exist, you and I cannot possibly destroy it; the saints and all those who have said mechanical knowledge is useless, they have their own particular prejudice. I can know about myself, most profoundly; yet when there is an accumulation of knowledge, it begins to interpret, to translate what is seen in terms of its own past. As long as there is this burden of knowledge, psychological, inward knowledge, there is no free movement. And there is the difference between the man who is free of that burden and he who says he knows and will lead another to that knowledge, to that supreme thing and if he says he has realized, then you distrust him completely, for a man who says he knows, he does not know. And that is the beauty of truth. K 1968

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 22 Sep 2011
Topic: Knowledge?

Muad dhib wrote: can we consider Hiroshima as a knowledge which must exist?

I'm afraid you've missed the point. But then you're not alone. Do you understand that the last paragraph was a quote from Krishnamurti explaining the difference between psychological and physical, technological knowledge? Your comment indicates otherwise. The question is not whether the knowledge exists to make an atomic bomb. The point is technical knowledge has to exist for us to be able to function. Few would deny that there is knowledge that exists that is wholly destructive and we would be better off without it.

The point is that psychological knowledge is the result of the seperation of observation into the observer and the observed. If we observe, see, without recording, or comparing or coming to conclusions about what we are observing then there is no duality of the observer and the observed.

It is the duality of the observer and observed, the thinker and the thought and so on that is the center, the I, the ego which has become our prison. And unless one understands how psychological knowledge accumulates and is the center there is no possibility of breaking through the walls of the prison which is our psychological centers which, in fact, is an illusion.

Technical knowledge, on the other hand, neccessarily has to be recorded. Otherwise we would have to relearn how to drive a car everytime we wanted to get in it and go somewhere.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 22 Sep 2011
Topic: Knowledge?

Paul Davidson wrote: Jack Pine wrote:

Knowledge is what is keeping you from understanding who you are. Please Jack, could you explain these words as I think for many they may appear unclear.

Read the quote I provided by K that should be clear enough on it's own. Why is this so hard to understand? Maybe if all of us would give up, or at least suspend, our own ideas long enough we would see the simple directness, and clarity of this quote.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 22 Sep 2011
Topic: Knowledge?

Jack Pine wrote: I can know about myself, most profoundly; yet when there is an accumulation of knowledge, it begins to interpret, to translate what is seen in terms of its own past. As long as there is this burden of knowledge, psychological, inward knowledge, there is no free movement. And there is the difference between the man who is free of that burden and he who says he knows and will lead another to that knowledge, to that supreme thing and if he says he has realized, then you distrust him completely, for a man who says he knows, he does not know. And that is the beauty of truth. Krishnamurti 1968

Here's the quote, in part, again Mr. Davidson. Can you understand this and see that psychological knowledge is what is keeping all of us from seeing what is? And if we don't see what is how can we change our destructive patterns of existence that are, clearly, destroying the earth?

All you are doing is taking a fragment like "space" or "knowledge" and intellectualizing about it without seeing it's significance as part of a whole. It's like looking at a gear wheel from an old fashion watch and thinking you are seeing to whole watch.

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 25 Sep 2011
Topic: Is the world crumbling?

It does not need specialists to tell us an obvious fact: that society is disintegrating, crumbling. So there must be new builders to create a new social order; the new structure must be built on a new foundation. The new architects are not the politicians of the left or of the right, nor are they any party specialists. The new architects must be you and me, the individual. To look to authority, to leaders, is to sustain disintegration. Through self-knowledge, you and I must rediscover lasting values; they must be newly discovered by each one.

So, you and I must become creative because the problem is urgent. You and I must be aware of the causes of the collapse of society, and build a new structure whose foundation is based on our creative understanding. This creative understanding is negative thinking, and negative thinking is the highest form of meditation. To understand what is creative thinking, we must approach the problem negatively. A positive approach to a problem is imitative and therefore disintegrating. For understanding comes not through any positive system or positive formula or conclusion, but through negative understanding.

One of the fundamental reasons for the disintegration of society is that you, as an individual, have been imitative outwardly and inwardly - outwardly the mere cultivation of technique, and inwardly copying, which comes from fear and the desire to be secure. Krishnamurti, 2nd Talk in Bombay, Jan 25, 1948

The above is exactly what I was pointing out in an earlier post on a different thread. It is obvious. And, of course, things have got considerably worse since 1948. Now, can we let this absurd question that started this thread die a natural death and move on to something serious?

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 25 Sep 2011
Topic: Knowledge?

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote: Are you saying that psychological knowledge is not included in 'what is'?

Of course that's what I'm saying. Psychological knowledge is the past and "what is" or the "now" is the eternal present, is life. This is not my discovery but what K was pointing out for over sixty years. Here's a quote that appeared on JKrishnamurti.org a few months ago which I personally find fascinating in it's simplicity and clearsness and in the challenge it presents to the reader.

ONLY EXERCISE THOUGHT WHEN IT IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY

Thought must exist, for our lives to function. But inwardly, psychologically as thought breeds pain, sorrow and this constant drive for pleasure - bringing its own frustrations, disappointments, anger, jealousy and envy - thought has no place at all in that dimension, at that level. If one could actually do this: only exercise thought when it is absolutely necessary, and the rest of the time, abserve, look. So that thought which is always old, which now prevents the actual experience of looking, could drop away and it would be possible to live totally in that moment, which is always the 'now'.

Talks with American Students (This is the name of a Book, 1970)

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 26 Sep 2011
Topic: Is the world crumbling?

Muad dhib wrote: the question of the how, in my view ,need to be asked . If there is no how ,then we shall stop doing what we do here and elsewhere , and wait for the miracle to come.. Now beyond wishes ,there is a doing , some acting , from what background are we going to do that..? Working for a solution

Mr. Muad, is there anything to be done? Who is it that works for a solution? Is the wanting a solution the result of desire? Can the center invented by thought, which is experience and knowledge as memory and which is the past, see the present? Can we give up all of our ideas, our dreams and hopes without any expectation of a result, of a reward and just live? That's the challenge I was referring to in another post. If you are not comfortable with the word challenge then pick your own word, or pick nothing at all.

Mr Muad wrote:

"...or drowning into the problem without seeking for a solution but just knowing that the problem must be entirely known?"

Jack Pine wrote: I think you have asked a very good question but I would leave out the "must be". Can we just watch without the center, which is the past, interfering and without wanting or expecting any result?

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 26 Sep 2011
Topic: Knowledge?

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote: If this is right statement for you, then it becomes part of 'what is' as eternal present is all inclusive, isn't it?

Is it? I could give you my opinion but how will that help you? I may be right or wrong. To answer the question go into it, Dr Sudhir, deeply and seriously and find out if it's true or not.

I am not your Mentor when it comes to understanding what K pointed out and you are not mine. We all must find out on our own. That's the hell of it. (The last sentence is an American figure of speech. Don't take it literally.)

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 30 Sep 2011
Topic: Is the world crumbling?

The astrophysicist, Stephen Hawking, says that our only chance for long-term survival is to move away from Earth and begin to inhabit far-flung planets.

Stephen Hawking has warned that humans will only survive if we leave Earth and venture into space

‘I see great danger for the human race,’ he said. ‘There have been a number of times in the past when survival has been a question of touch and go.

‘The Cuban missile crisis in 1963 is one of these. The frequency of such occasions is likely to increase in the future. We shall need great care and judgment to negotiate them all successfully.

In addition, for anyone who is interested in Global Climate Change I refer you to James Hansen, head of the Goddard Space Institute which is connected to the American Space exploration organization know as NASA. Mr. Hansen is a scientist and professor and is one of the world's leading climatologists. He pioneered the studies that lead to the realization of Global Climate Change.

Obvious anyone who doubts that the earth is being over taxed by human society is either in denial or fairly obtuse. We, the people of the earth, have an ever growing population that we can't feed, the availability of potable, clean water is disappearing at an alarming rate. The oceans are becoming toxic and we are also over-fishing it. I could go on and on. The examples are endless. Politicians in every government are corrupt and fairly stupid. Which is adding tremendously to finding a solution to the problems facing the earth. Corrupt politicians aren't a any thing new but the impact is much more far-reaching in this modern world.

I am not a librarian so I am not going to provide you with reference material other than the Hawking piece. Look it up yourselves. It will mean more if you find out for yourselves.

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 30 Sep 2011
Topic: Is the world crumbling?

Paul Davidson wrote: My own finding is that the world is not crumbling and humanity is not faced with extinction. Please someone explain to me why I am wrong in this. What am I missing?

May I suggest that what you are missing is an almost complete inability to view objectively anything you disagree with. Your own findings my ass.

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 30 Sep 2011
Topic: Is the world crumbling?

Canadian Arctic Loses Nearly Entire Ice Shelf Two ice shelves that existed before Canada was settled by Europeans diminished significantly this northern summer, one nearly disappearing altogether, Canadian scientists say in newly published research.

In this July 10, 2008 photo, ice floes float in Baffin Bay above the arctic circle seen from the Canadian Coast Guard icebreaker Louis S. St-Laurent. Two ice shelves that existed before Canada was settled by Europeans diminished significantly this northern summer, one nearly disappearing altogether, Canadian scientists say in newly published research. (AP Photo/The Canadian Press, Jonathan Hayward) The loss is important as a marker of global warming, returning the Canadian Arctic to conditions that date back thousands of years, scientists say.

Floating icebergs that have broken free as a result pose a risk to offshore oil facilities and potentially to shipping lanes.

The breaking apart of the ice shelves also reduces the environment that supports microbial life, and changes the look of Canada's coastline.

Luke Copland, an associate professor in the geography department at the University of Ottawa co-authored the research published on Carleton University's website.

He said the Serson Ice Shelf shrank from 205 square kilometers to two remnant sections five years ago, and was further diminished this past summer