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

Why are we so afraid of conflict


Displaying posts 61 - 90 of 128 in total
Mon, 23 Nov 2015 #61
Thumb_stringio natarajan s India 315 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
The human being is both form (the physical body) and life (awareness) in the present moment. The one is form, the other is timelessness and truth. Form, the created, can never be nor can it ever understand (observe; be aware of) that which is timeless.

Max, it is the approach of traditional oriental religion to divide man as such, matter and spirit. As I see, human being is a harmonious whole, can he ever know which part of him is timeless and which is form except by intellectualizing?

contraria sunt complementa

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 23 Nov 2015 #62
Thumb_stringio Kolya Harari Israel 117 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Max wrote:

The human being is both form (the physical body) and life (awareness) in the present moment. The one is form, the other is timelessness and truth. Form, the created, can never be nor can it ever understand (observe; be aware of) that which is timeless.

.

natarajan s wrote:

Max, it is the approach of traditional oriental religion to divide man as such, matter and spirit. As I see, human being is a harmonious whole, can he ever know which part of him is timeless and which is form except by intellectualizing?

Yes Nat, this is exactly my view too. If we begin with duality we are bound to be stuck with it throughout. It builds-in error from the outset. If we maintain sufficient rationality in our inquiry it shouldn't be to difficult to work from singularity, but it does require us to reject authority and think for ourselves. It is a very simple fact, though science itself doesn't like the idea, that the physicists haven't found any matter yet. All they ever find is smaller and ever smaller centres of energy. Energy, they tell us, consists in indivisible heat/movement ('indivisible' in as much as that if you remove either one the other is gone too). But they have no more idea what it is that moves or gets warm than did Aristotle.

The significance of this is that, despite appearances, there is no 'created' thing. You may choose to call - for the sake of convenience - everything 'matter' or you may choose to call everything 'spirit', either way it's the same. What's in a name? But the point is that there are not two things but one, viz. we might say, an eternal potential (another 'name').

We have to step away from the known to grasp and work with this but anything less maintains us in the same old error of pairs of opposites.

This post was last updated by Kolya Harari (account deleted) Mon, 23 Nov 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 23 Nov 2015 #63
Thumb_stringio Mina Martini Finland 614 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dear Max and Natarajan,

Max:The human being is both form (the physical body) and life (awareness) in the present moment. The one is form, the other is timelessness and truth. Form, the created, can never be nor can it ever understand (observe; be aware of) that which is timeless.

Natarajan:Max, it is the approach of traditional oriental religion to divide man as such, matter and spirit. As I see, human being is a harmonious whole, can he ever know which part of him is timeless and which is form except by intellectualizing?

Mina: The truth of what Max is describing, can only be observed or perceived, but never known.

We could say that when there is no knowledge of either the form or the formless, then there is an ability to discern between the two and yet not be conscious of any division between them. (to be conscious of=to know of division)

The intellect, or thought, has created images of 'matter and spirit' or 'form and formless', which of course is still all matter/thought/form.

So for me there is no contradiction between what each of you is saying here.

Mina

This post was last updated by Mina Martini (account deleted) Mon, 23 Nov 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 23 Nov 2015 #64
Thumb_stringio natarajan s India 315 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Mina Martini wrote:
then there is an ability to discern between the two and yet not be conscious of any division between them. (to be conscious of=to know of division)

Max, says the ability to discern is the 'formless', doesn't he?

Mina Martini wrote:
The truth of what Max is describing, can only be observed or perceived, but never known.

The culmination of understanding is with action, which is responsibility as behaviour, and not only with 'observation' or 'perception'. 'Seeing is the Doing', did K emphasize on 'seeing' more than the 'doing'? Are they not the same movement?

contraria sunt complementa

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 23 Nov 2015 #65
Thumb_stringio Mina Martini Finland 614 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dear Natarajan,

Mina Martini wrote:

....then there is an ability to discern between the two and yet not be conscious of any division between them. (to be conscious of=to know of division)

Natarajan:Max, says the ability to discern is the 'formless', doesn't he?

Mina: I'd better speak for myself...yes, it is the formless or the unknown only that can discern and yet not divide. It discerns between form and formless. The form/thought/matter has of course no such ability because it cannot understand the formless, the formless does not exist for it at all (but only as some abstract idea).

Mina Martini wrote:

The truth of what Max is describing, can only be observed or perceived, but never known.

Natarajan:The culmination of understanding is with action, which is responsibility as behaviour, and not only with 'observation' or 'perception'. 'Seeing is the Doing', did K emphasize on 'seeing' more than the 'doing'? Are they not the same movement?

Mina: Yes they are. The observation or percpetion is action. Seeing is the doing. Percpetion sees and does as one, it is Alive, and not some static thing.

This post was last updated by Mina Martini (account deleted) Mon, 23 Nov 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 23 Nov 2015 #66
Thumb_stringio natarajan s India 315 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Mina Martini wrote:
Percpetion sees and does as one, it is Alive, and not some static thing.

And as I see, physical is integral with perception and not something outside.

contraria sunt complementa

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 23 Nov 2015 #67
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 1324 posts in this forum Offline

Natarajan,

The sun is matter and energy. All suns are matter and energy, and we -- physical bodies -- are accumulations of matter and energy from exploded and disintegrated stars.

I can't see much "perception" in matter and energy per se, matter and energy in and of themselves.

Can it be said that the actual explosion of a star takes place in that timeless moment before matter and energy are created? That timeless moment is the moment of action, not reaction. What more might there be to that timeless moment, to any timeless moment?

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 23 Nov 2015 #68
Thumb_stringio natarajan s India 315 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
I can't see much "perception" in matter and energy per se, matter and energy in and of themselves.

Can it be said that the actual explosion of a star takes place in that timeless moment before matter and energy are created?

But what we are doing here is transposing a human situation, of that of perception, to stars and galaxies, how do we know for sure what constituted the actual explosion? Can't we honestly admit our ignorance on the matter?

contraria sunt complementa

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 23 Nov 2015 #69
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 1324 posts in this forum Offline

Natarajan,

We have to admit our ignorance of the timeless present, whether with stars or with ourselves.

And this is the point. The timeless present is lived with awareness, but it can never be known by the physical brain because the physical body is simply chemicals and minerals.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Mon, 23 Nov 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 23 Nov 2015 #70
Thumb_stringio Kolya Harari Israel 117 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

The question has to be faced regarding whether the universe consists essentially in two things or in one. Is there a spirit/matter, form/formless (etc.) divide or is there not? If there is then the likelihood is also that the observer and the observed are divers. K of course says they are not. I also say, on the basis of what I sketched-out at #62 here, that they are not.

This post was last updated by Kolya Harari (account deleted) Mon, 23 Nov 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 23 Nov 2015 #71
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 1324 posts in this forum Offline

Kolya,

Yes, it appears to me that there is a divide -- the created, which is all of existence, caught in sequence (time) and the creation, which is understanding and action in the timeless present.

As I see it, the observer is the self. The observer sees only memory as image. We can say that the observer is the observed because the self is thought, and the thinker (self) is the thought.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Mon, 23 Nov 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 23 Nov 2015 #72
Thumb_stringio natarajan s India 315 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
The timeless present is lived with awareness, but it can never be known by the physical brain because the physical body is simply chemicals and minerals.

And this is a movement contrary to the admission of ignorance, as I see.

contraria sunt complementa

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 23 Nov 2015 #73
Thumb_stringio Kolya Harari Israel 117 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
Yes, it appears to me that there is a divide -- the created, which is all of existence, caught in sequence (time) and the creation, which is understanding and action in the timeless present.

Yes max, I'm aware of what you see, but in the light of eg. my #62 here, is it reasonable to hold with it?

Doesn't there seem to be a tension here between the known and self evident fact?

This post was last updated by Kolya Harari (account deleted) Mon, 23 Nov 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 23 Nov 2015 #74
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 1324 posts in this forum Offline

Not contrary, Natarajan, because there is no entity who is aware. At the moment of awareness, there is just the awareness itself.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 23 Nov 2015 #75
Thumb_stringio natarajan s India 315 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Kolya Harari wrote:
K of course says they are not.

So long as a confusion exist at the level of perception/action, it might be said that a division exist, the ending of that confusion through action is the ending of 'division' along with the notion of separation.

contraria sunt complementa

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 23 Nov 2015 #76
Thumb_stringio Kolya Harari Israel 117 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

natarajan s wrote:
So long as a confusion exist at the level of perception/action, it might be said that a division exist, the ending of that confusion through action is the ending of 'division' along with the notion of separation.

Indeed, but the underlying facts are not 'pie in the sky'; they possess a 'technical/mechanical' construct. Albeit of course metaphysical in our terms.

It is no use starting out with quintessential division and hoping that you can resolve it later in the inquiry. You've already built it into your inquiry. It must be seen for the fallacy it is from the outset or it won't be seen at all.

This post was last updated by Kolya Harari (account deleted) Mon, 23 Nov 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 23 Nov 2015 #77
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 1324 posts in this forum Offline

Kolya Harari wrote (post 62):
But the point is that there are not two things but one, viz. we might say, an eternal potential . . .

Yes, there is unity in the timeless. There is no sense of separation. Nevertheless, I can't conceive of an exploded star (i.e., a physical body) "perceiving" anything, and if it can't, then there is certainly a difference between the exploded star and perception.

Is difference possible without the sense of separation? Separation is in the identification of separation, and this leads on to conflict. Difference is simply a perception without identification as separation.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Mon, 23 Nov 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 23 Nov 2015 #78
Thumb_stringio Kolya Harari Israel 117 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
Yes, there is unity in the timeless. There is no sense of separation.

But isn't this purely speculation and premature supposition, Max? Do you really feel no sense of separation? We didn't do the inquiry yet to see if in fact there is no separation/division. We walked right past it armed, as usual, with our knowing.

(That last, incidentally, is not in the least aimed at you or even barbed at all. I'm just pointing to what happens. What we do by habit without, instead, properly looking).

This post was last updated by Kolya Harari (account deleted) Mon, 23 Nov 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 23 Nov 2015 #79
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 1324 posts in this forum Offline

How can it be speculation to say that there is unity in the timeless? There is no time in the timeless, no nano-second of any kind. It is time that measures separation (distance). There cannot be two timelessnesses, for then there would be a gap measurable by time.

How do you see it as speculation to say that there is unity in timelessness?

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 23 Nov 2015 #80
Thumb_stringio Kolya Harari Israel 117 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
How can it be speculation to say that there is unity in the timeless? There is no time in the timeless, no nano-second of any kind. It is time that measures separation (distance). There cannot be two timelessnesses, for then there would be a gap measurable by time.

How do you see it as speculation to say that there is unity in timelessness?

Because, and please trust me this is not an accusation, we reduce ourselves to employing words to justify other words instead of actually looking at what's happening. Here you arbitrarily (we may as well say) use the term 'timeless', you haven't grounded for yourself the fact of it by looking at the mechanics, you could equally have selected the word 'lollipop'; and then you say 'Well if it's timeless how can it possibly be caught in time?' You made the question to fit your answer without ever really looking at any of the problem.

This post was last updated by Kolya Harari (account deleted) Mon, 23 Nov 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 23 Nov 2015 #81
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 1324 posts in this forum Offline

Kolya Harari wrote:
Here you arbitrarily . . . use the term 'timeless', you haven't grounded for yourself the fact of it by looking at the mechanics . . .

What are the mechanics of timelessness? Doesn't "timelessness" mean "without time"? What else?

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 23 Nov 2015 #82
Thumb_stringio Kolya Harari Israel 117 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
What are the mechanics of timelessness? Doesn't "timelessness" mean "without time"? What else?

I outlined it at #62. 'Without time' implies time, you see, Max. You can't mention something, even purportedly to negate it, without inherently allowing it. The allowance of it as it were 'sneaks in' before. We have so little awareness of what is actually going on with ourselves but yet fool ourselves (constantly!) that we do.

All of that lies at the heart and is the crux and essence of the teachings. We fool ourselves before we set out to fool the world. It's what makes the likes of P***l so downright absurd even as he is lent the forum for a platform for his separative creed.

This post was last updated by Kolya Harari (account deleted) Mon, 23 Nov 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 23 Nov 2015 #83
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 1324 posts in this forum Offline

Are you sure that time is the opposite of timelessness? For example, Krishnamurti pointed out that hate is not the opposite of love.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 23 Nov 2015 #84
Thumb_stringio Kolya Harari Israel 117 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
Are you sure that time is the opposite of timelessness?

No, not at all. That's the whole point I'm trying to get across. The pairs of opposites are our illusion. You can't have 'pairs of opposites' in perfect singularity.

For example, Krishnamurti pointed out that hate is not the opposite of love.

Of course. How could it be, seen aright? Where, for example, might be located the precise point of their separation, their disjunct as it were?

This post was last updated by Kolya Harari (account deleted) Mon, 23 Nov 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 24 Nov 2015 #85
Thumb_dev Dev Singh United States 1 post in this forum Offline

testing email subscription notification

Kinfonet Admin

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 24 Nov 2015 #86
Thumb_3252 Voco . Luxembourg 426 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
Are you sure that time is the opposite of timelessness? For example, Krishnamurti pointed out that hate is not the opposite of love.

It is important to understand and to say what do we mean by time and timelessness? Does time exists on it's own, or time is there when when there is only movement?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 24 Nov 2015 #87
Thumb_stringio Mina Martini Finland 614 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

'And as I see, physical is integral with perception and not something outside.'

m: sure..how could anything be 'outside' when no separation between inner and outer exists?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 24 Nov 2015 #88
Thumb_stringio Kolya Harari Israel 117 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Mina Martini wrote:
how could anything be 'outside' when no separation between inner and outer exists?

Quite...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 24 Nov 2015 #89
Thumb_stringio Kolya Harari Israel 117 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Voco . wrote:
It is important to understand and to say what do we mean by time and timelessness? Does time exists on it's own, or time is there when when there is only movement?

For billions of years up to the advent of Homo sap time could have no meaning. Time (as we tend to mean it here) equates to 'self' and 'thought' and 'identity', but all four have both a practical and a psychological dimension. The former in each case is harmless but the latter is a scourge on the Earth. The former 'time' carries its story in the rocks and bones of geological history, the latter 'time' is a Will-o'-the-wisp.

This post was last updated by Kolya Harari (account deleted) Tue, 24 Nov 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 24 Nov 2015 #90
Thumb_3252 Voco . Luxembourg 426 posts in this forum Offline

Kolya Harari wrote:
I outlined it at #62. 'Without time' implies time, you see, Max. You can't mention something, even purportedly to negate it, without inherently allowing it. The allowance of it as it were 'sneaks in' before. We have so little awareness of what is actually going on with ourselves but yet fool ourselves (constantly!) that we do.

Why to play this negation-allowance game? Why can't we see without negation or allowance?

The reality is that there is timelessness in which time takes place as a movement. The time appears out of timelessness. It is the same as sound occurs out of silence, the silence is timeless, but the sound itself has a beginning and an end and yet that sound came from silence.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 61 - 90 of 128 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.)