Archive for March, 2009

Universal Mind 1.0

Posted in Bohm & Krishnamurti Collective Works with tags , , , on March 30, 2009 by dejavouz



KRISHNAMURTI: We talked the other day about a mind that is entirely free from all movement, from all the things that thought has put there, the past, and the future, and so on. But before we go into that I would like to discuss man’s being caught in materialistic attitudes and values, and to ask, what is the nature of materialism?

DAVID BOHM: Well, first of all materialism is the name of a certain philosophical…

K: I don’t mean that. I want to explore this.

DB: Matter is all there is, you see.

K: That is, nature and all human beings, react physically. This reaction is sustained by thought. And thought is a material process. So reaction in nature is a materialistic response.

DB: I think the word ‘materialistic’ is not quite right. It is the response of matter.

K: The response of matter; let’s put it that way. That is better. We are talking about having an empty mind, and we have come to that point when the wall has been broken down. This emptiness and what lies beyond it, or through it – we will come to that, but before doing so, I am asking, is all reaction matter?

DB: Matter in movement. You could say that there is evidence in favour of that, that science has found a tremendous number of reactions which are due to the nerves.

K: So would you say that matter and movement are the reactions which exist in all organic matter?

DB: Yes, all matter as we know it goes by the law of action and reaction, you see. Every action has a corresponding reaction.

K: So action and reaction are a material process, as is thought. Now, to go beyond it is the issue.

DB: But before we say that, some people might feel that there is no meaning in going beyond it. That would be the philosophy of materialism.

K: But if one is merely living in that area it is very, very shallow. Right? It has really no meaning at all.

DB: perhaps one should refer to one thing that people have said – that matter is not merely action and reaction, but may have a creative movement. You see, matter may create new forms.

K: But it is still in that area.

DB: Yes. Let’s try to make it clear. We have to see that there are very subtle forms of materialism which might be difficult to pin down.

K: Let’s begin. Would you consider that thought is a material process?

DB: Yes. Well, some people might argue that it is both material, and something beyond material.

K: I know. I have discussed this. But it is not.

DB: How can we say that simply, to make it clear?

K: Because any movement of thought is a material process.

DB: Well, we have to amplify this so that it is not a matter of authority. As an observation, one sees that thought is a material process. Now how are you going to see that?

K: How could one be aware that thought is a material process? I think that is fairly clear. There is an experience, an incident which is recorded, which becomes knowledge. And from that knowledge, thought arises and action takes place.

DB: Yes. So we say that thought is that. It is still coming from the background. So are you saying that something new coming into being is not part of this process?

K: Yes, if there is to be something new, thought, as a material process, must end. Obviously.

DB: And then it may take it up later.

K: Later, yes. Wait, see what happens later. So we say all action, reaction and action from that reaction is movement of matter.

DB: Yes, very subtle movement of matter.

K: So as long as one’s mind is within that area, it must be a movement of matter. So is it possible for the mind to go beyond reaction? That is the next step. As we said earlier one gets irritated, and that is the first reaction. Then the reaction to that, the second reaction, is ‘I must not be’. Then the third reaction is,’I must control or justify’. So it is constantly action and reaction. Can one see that this is a continuous movement without an ending?

DB: Yes. The reaction is continuous, but it seems at a certain moment to have ended, and the next moment appears to be a new movement.

K: But it is still reaction.

DB: It is still the same but it presents itself differently.

K: It is exactly the same always…

DB: But it presents itself as always different, always new.

K: Of course. That’s just it. You say something, I get irritated, but that irritation is a reaction.

DB: Yes, it seems to be something suddenly new.

K: But it is not.

DB: But one has to be aware of that, you see. Generally the mind tends not to be aware of it.

K: We are sensitive to it, alert to the question. So there is an ending to reaction if one is watchful, attentive; if one understands not only logically, but having an insight into this reacting process, it can of course come to an end. That is why it is very important to understand this, before we discuss what is an empty mind, and if there is something beyond this, or whether in that very emptying of the mind there is some other quality. So is that empty mind a reaction? A reaction to the problems of pain and pleasure and suffering? An attempt to escape from all this into some state of nothingness?

DB: Yes, the mind can always do that.

K: It can invent. Now we have come to the point of asking whether this quality of emptiness is not a reaction. Right, Sir? Before we go further, is it possible to have a mind that is really completely empty of all the things that thought has put together?

DB: So that thought ceases to act.

K: That’s it.

DB: On the one hand, perhaps you could say that reaction is due to the nature of matter, which is continually reacting and moving. But then is matter affected by this insight?

K: I don’t quite follow. Ah, I understand! Does insight affect the cells of the brain which contain the memory?

DB: Yes. The memory is continually reacting, moving, as does the air and the water, and everything around us.

K: After all, if I don’t react physically I am paralysed. But to be reacting continuously is also a form of paralysis.

DB: Well, the wrong kind of reaction! Reaction around the psychological structure. But assuming that the reaction around the psychological structure has begun in mankind, why should it ever stop? Because reaction makes another and another, and one would expect it to go on for ever, and that nothing would stop it.

K: Only insight into the nature of reaction ends psychological reaction.

DB: Then you are saying that matter is affected by insight which is beyond matter.

K: Yes, beyond matter. So is this emptiness within the brain itself? Or is it something that thought has conceived as being empty? One must be very clear.

DB: Yes. But whatever we discuss, no matter what the question is, thought begins to want to do something about it, because thought feels it can always make a contribution.

K: Quite.

DB: Thought in the past did not understand that it has no useful contribution to make, but it has kept on in the habit of trying to say that emptiness is very good.

Therefore thought says, I will try to bring about the emptiness.

K: Of course.

DB: Thought is trying to be helpful!

K: We have been through all that. We have seen the nature of thought, and its movement, time, and all that. But I want to find out whether this emptiness is within the mind itself, or beyond it.

DB: What do you mean by the mind?


Cosmic Order 1.3

Posted in Bohm & Krishnamurti Collective Works with tags , , , , , on March 27, 2009 by dejavouz



Final part

DB: It may be a non-verbal state… something analogous to a feeling which isn’t fixed, that can’t be named.

N: You are saying it is not feeling, it is similar to feeling, but it is not fixed?

DB: Yes. I am just considering that that could exist if we say that there is no thought. I am trying to clarify this.

K: Yes, there is no thought.

DB: What does that really mean?

K: What it really means is, thought is movement, thought is time. Right? In that emptiness there is not time or thought.

DB: Yes, and perhaps no sense of the existence of an entity inside.

K: Absolutely, of course. The existence of the entity is the bundle of memories, the past.

DB: But that existence is not only thought thinking about it, but also the feeling that it is there; you get a sort of feeling inside.

K: A feeling, yes. There is no being. There is nothing. If there is a feeling of the being continuing…

DB: Yes, even though it doesn’t seem possible to verbalize this… It would be a state without desire. How can we know if this state is real, is genuine?

K: That is what I am asking. How do we know, or realize that this is so? In other words, do you want proof of it?

N: Not proof, but communication of that state.

K: Now wait a minute. Suppose someone has this peculiar compassion, how can he communicate it Lo me, if I am living in pleasure and all that? He can’t!

N: No, but I am prepared to listen to him.

K: Prepared to listen, but how deeply? The man says there is no being. And one’s whole life has been this becoming. And, in that state, he says there is no being at all. In other words, there is no ‘me’. Right? Now you say, ‘Show it to me’. It can be shown only through certain qualities that it has, certain actions. What are the actions of a mind that is totally empty of being? Actions at what level? Actions in the physical world?

N: Partly.

K: Mostly that. All right, this man has got this sense of emptiness, and there is no being. He is not acting from self-centred interests. His actions are in the world of daily living, and you can judge whether he is a hypocrite, whether he says something and contradicts it the next moment, or whether he is actually living this compassion and not just saying, ‘I feel compassionate’.

DB: But if one is not doing the same, one can’t tell.

K: That’s right. That is what I am saying.

N: We can’t judge him.

K: You can’t. So how can he convey to us in words that peculiar quality of mind? He can describe, go round it, but he can’t give the essence of it. Dr. Bohm, for example, could discuss with Einstein; they were on the same level. And he and I can discuss. If one has this sense of not being, of emptiness, the other can go very close, but can never enter that mind unless he has it!

N: Is there any way of communicating, for one who is open, but not through words?

K: We are talking of compassion. It is not, ‘I feel compassionate’. That is altogether wrong. You see, in daily life such a mind acts without the ‘me’, without the ‘ego’. Therefore it might make a mistake, but it corrects immediately; it is not carrying that mistake.

N: It is not stuck.

K: Not stuck. But we must be very careful here not to find an excuse for wrong! So we come to that point that we discussed earlier; what then is meditation? Right? For the man who is becoming, meditation has no meaning whatsoever. That is a tremendous statement. When there is not this being or becoming, what is meditation? It must be totally unconscious, totally uninvited.

DB: Do you mean, without conscious intention?

K: Yes, I think that is right. Would you say – I hope this doesn’t sound silly – that the universe, the cosmic order, is in meditation?

DB: Well, if it is alive, then we would have to look at it that way.

K: No, no. It is in a state of meditation.

DB: Yes.

K: I think that is right. I stick to that.

DB: We should try to go further into what is meditation. What is it doing?

N: If you say that the universe is in meditation, is the expression of it order? What order can we discern which would indicate cosmic or universal meditation?

K: The sunrise and sunset; all the stars, the planets are order. The whole thing is in perfect order.

DB: We have to connect this with meditation. According to the dictionary, the meaning of meditation is to reflect, to turn something over in the mind, and to pay close attention.

K: And also to measure.

DB: That is a further meaning, but it is to weigh, to ponder, it means, measure, in the sense of weighing.

K: Weighing, that’s it. Ponder, think over, and so on.

DB: To weigh the significance of something. Now is that what you mean?

K: No.

DB: Then why do you use the word?

N: I am told that, in English, contemplation has a different connotation from meditation. Contemplation implies a deeper state of mind.

DB: It is hard to know. The word ‘contemplate’ comes from the word temple, really.

K: Yes, that’s right.

DB: Its basic meaning is, to create an open space.

K: Is that an open space between God and me?

DB: That is the way the word arose.

K: Quite.

N: The Sanskrit word Dhyans doesn’t have the same connotation as meditation.

K: No.

N: Because meditation has the overtones of measurement, and probably, in an oblique way, that measurement is order.

K: No, I don’t want to bring in order – let’s leave the word order out. We have been through that, and beaten it to death!

DB: Why do you use the word meditation?

K: Don’t let’s use it.

DB: Let’s find out what you really mean here.

K: Would you say, a state of infinity? A measureless state?

DB: Yes.

K: There is no division of any kind. You see we are giving lots of descriptions, but it is not that.

DB: Yes, but is there any sense of the mind being in some way aware of itself? Is that what you are trying to say? At other times you have said that the mind is emptying itself of content.

K: What are you trying to get at?

DB: I am asking whether it is not only infinite, but if something more is involved?

K: Oh, much more.

DB: We said that content is the past which is making disorder. Then you could say that this emptying of content in some sense is constantly cleaning up the past. Would you agree to that?

K: No, no.

DB: When you say the mind is emptying itself of content…

K: Has emptied itself.

DB: All right, then. When the past is cleaned up, then you say that is meditation.

K: That is meditation; no, contemplation…

N: Just a beginning.

K: Beginning?

N: The emptying of the past.

K: That emptying of the past, which is anger, jealousy, beliefs, dogmas, attachments, etc., must be done. If that is not emptied, if any part of that exists, it will inevitably lead to illusion. The brain or the mind must be totally free of all illusion, illusion brought by desire, by hope, by wanting security, and all that.

DB: Are you saying that when this is done, it opens the door to something broader, deeper?

K: Yes. Otherwise life has no meaning; it is just repeating this pattern.

N: What exactly did you mean when you said that the universe is meditation?

K: I feel that way, yes.

DB: Could we say first of all that the universe is not actually governed by its past? You see, the universe creates certain forms which are relatively constant, so that people who look at it superficially only see that, and it seems then to be determined from the past.

K: Yes, it is not governed by the past. It is creative, moving.

DB: And then this movement is order.

K: Would you, as a scientist, accept such a thing?

DB: Well as a matter of fact I would!

K: Are we both crazy? Let’s put the question another way: is it really possible for time to end – the whole idea of time as the past – chronologically, so that there is no tomorrow at all? There is the feeling, the actual reality, psychologically, of having no tomorrow. I think that is the healthiest way of living – which doesn’t mean that I become irresponsible! That would be too childish.

DB: It is merely a question of physical time, which is a certain part of natural order.

K: Of course; that is understood.

DB: The question is whether we have a sense of experiencing past and future or whether we are free of that sense.

K: I am asking you, as a scientist, is the universe based on time?

DB: I would say no, but you see the general way…

K: That is all I want. You say no! And can the brain, which has evolved in time.?

DB: Well, has it evolved in time? Rather it has become entangled in time. Because the brain is part of the universe, which we say is not based on time.

K: I agree.

DB: thought has entangled the brain in time.

K: All right. Can that entanglement be unravelled, freed, so that the universe is the mind? You follow? If the universe is not of time, can the mind, which has been entangled in time, unravel itself and so be the universe? You follow what I am trying to say?

DB: Yes.

K: That is order.

DB: That is order. And would you say that it is meditation?

K: That is it. I would call that meditation, not in the ordinary, dictionary sense of pondering, and all that, but a state of meditation in which there is no element of the past.

DB: You say the mind is disentangling itself from time, and also really disentangling the brain from time?

K: Yes, would you accept that?

DB: Yes.

K: As a theory?

DB: Yes, as a proposal.

K: No, I don’t want it as a proposal.

DB: What do you mean by theory?

K: Theory – when somebody comes along and says, this is real meditation.

DB: All right.

K: Wait. Somebody says, one can live this way; life has an extraordinary meaning in it, full of compassion, etc., and every act in the physical world can be corrected immediately, and so on. Would you, as a scientist, accept such a state, or say that the man who talks of it is cuckoo?

DB: No, I wouldn’t say that. I feel it is perfectly possible; it is quite compatible with anything that I know about nature.

K: Oh, then that’s all right. So one is not an unbalanced cuckoo! Of course putting all this into words is not the thing. Right? That is understood. But can it be communicated to another? Now can some of us get to this, so that we can communicate it, actually?

Cosmology Part 2

Posted in Scientific with tags , , , , on March 26, 2009 by dejavouz

Cosmology Part 1

Posted in Scientific with tags , , , on March 26, 2009 by dejavouz

I’m not sure modern supporters of the BBM (big bang model) would go so far as to admit that cosmology is in crisis, but there are a number of arguments against the ‘standard’ interpretation.

However, the arguments ‘for’ do appear to be based upon a number of sweeping assumptions that are available to scrutiny – particularly if you base you’re research around Halton Arp’s redshift anomaly and the predictions and observations that continue to be made by plasma cosmologists. Who, unlike many cosmologists recognise that abstract mathematics is not a substitute for actual reality.

I first picked up on Plasma cosmology about 6 years ago and have been following it’s progress, and whilst most people might think of plasma as something out of the film ‘ghostbusters’ it is actually nothing of the sort.

The following two-part video is an informative journey through a fascinating area of astrophysics that is emerging as a very serious alternative (that has been down trodden for years) and that can no longer be debunked or written off as pseudo-science by the mainstream dreamers.

As ever, I leave you the reader to come to you’re own conclusions.

Cosmic Order 1.2

Posted in Bohm & Krishnamurti Collective Works with tags , , , , on March 25, 2009 by dejavouz




K: Look, can I discover what has caused damage to the brain? Surely one of the factors is strong, sustained emotions, like hatred.

DB: probably a flash of emotion doesn’t do so much damage, but people sustain it.

K: Of course. Hatred, anger and violence not only shock but wound the brain. Right?

DB: And getting excessively excited.

K: Of course; and drugs, etc. The natural response doesn’t damage the brain. Now the brain is damaged; suppose it has been damaged through anger?

DB: You could even say that nerves probably get connected up in the wrong way, and that the connections are too fixed. I think there is evidence that these things will actually change the structure.

K: Yes, and can we have an insight into the whole nature of disturbance, so that the insight changes the cells of the brain which have been wounded?

DB: Well, possibly it would start them healing.

K: All right. That healing must be immediate.

DB: It may take time in the sense that, if wrong connections had been made, it is going to take time to redistribute the material. The beginning of it, it seems to me, is immediate.

K: All right. Can I do that? I have listened to ‘X’, I have carefully read, I have thought about all this, and I see that anger, violence, hatred – any excessive emotion – bruises the brain. And insight into this whole business brings about a mutation in the cells. It is so. Also the nerves – the adjustments, will be as rapid as possible.

DB: Something happens with cancer cells. Sometimes the cancer suddenly stops growing, and it goes the other way, for some reason that is unknown. But a change must have taken place in those cells.

K: Could it be that the brain cells change fundamentally, and the cancer process stops?

DB: Yes. Fundamentally it stops, and begins to dismantle.

K: Dismantle, yes that is it.

N: You are saying that insight sets into motion the right kind of connections, and stops the wrong connections?

DB: And it even dismantles the wrong connections.

N: So a beginning is made, and it is made now.

DB: At one moment.

K: That is the insight.

N: But there is no time involved, because the right movement has started now. There is another thing which I want to ask about the past: for most people, the past means pleasure.

K: Not only pleasure but the remembrance of everything.

N: One starts disliking pleasure only when it becomes stale, or leads to difficulties. One wants pleasure all the time.

K: Of course.

N: It is sometimes difficult to distinguish between pleasure and the staleness or the difficulties that it brings.

K: Pleasure is always the past; there is no pleasure at the moment it is happening. That comes in later, when it is remembered. So the remembrance is the past. But I am willing to face nothingness which means to wipe out all that!

N: But I am saying that the human being, even though he understands what you are saying, is held back in this field.

K: Because he is not willing to face this emptiness. Pleasure is not compassion, pleasure is not love, pleasure has no place in compassion. But perhaps if there is this mutation, compassion is stronger than pleasure.

DB: Even the perception of order may be stronger than pleasure. If people are really concerned with something, the pleasure plays no role at that moment.

N: But what happens to a man in whom pleasure is dominant?

K: We have already discussed this. As long as he is unwilling to face this extraordinary emptiness, he will keep on with the old pattern.

DB: You see, we have to say that this man had a damaged brain too. It is brain damage which causes this emphasis on pleasure, as well as the fear and the anger.

K: But the damaged brain is healed when there is insight.

DB: Yes. But I think many people who would understand that hate and anger are products of the damaged brain would find it hard to see that pleasure also is the product of the damaged brain.

K: Oh, yes, but of course it is.

DB: Can we say there is a true enjoyment, which is not the product of the damaged brain, which is confused with pleasure.?

N: If pleasure gives rise to anger, anger is part of the damaged brain.

K: And also the demand for pleasure. So do you have an insight into how very destructive the past is to the brain? Can the brain itself see, have an insight into this, and move out of it?

N: You are saying that the beginning of order comes from insight?

K: Obviously. Let’s work from there.

N: May I put it in a different way? Is it possible to gather a certain amount of order in a pattern sense, artificially, so that it gives rise to a certain amount of insight?

K: Ah! You cannot find truth through the false.

N: I am asking it purposefully because many people seem to lack the energy that is required for insight.

K: You are tremendously keen to earn a livelihood, to earn money, to do anything in which you are really interested. If you are interested vitally in this transformation, etc., you have the energy. May we go on? I, as a human being, have seen that this insight has wiped away the past, and the brain is willing to live in nothingness. Right? We have come to this point several times from different directions. Now let’s go on. Now there isn’t a thing put there by thought. There is no movement of thought, except factual knowledge which has its own place. But talking psychologically, there is no movement in the mind or of thought. There is absolutely nothing.

DB: You mean no feeling either? You see, the movement of thought and feeling is together.

K: Wait a minute. What do you mean here by feeling?

DB: Well, usually people might say, all right, there is no thought, but they have various feelings.

K: Of course we have feelings.

DB: These are sensations. And also there are the inner feelings.

K: Inner feelings of what?

DB: It is hard to describe them. Those that can easily be described are obviously the wrong kind, such as anger and fear.

K: Is compassion a feeling?

DB: probably not.

K: No, it is not a feeling.

DB: Though people may say they feel compassionate! Even the very word suggests it is a form of feeling. Compassion has in it the word ‘passion’, which is feeling. This is a difficult question. We could perhaps question what we usually recognize as feelings?

K: Let’s go into that a little bit. What do we mean by feelings? Sensations?

DB: Well, people don’t usually mean that. You see, sensations are connected with the body.

K: So you are talking of feelings which are not of the body?

DB: Yes, or which – in the old days – would have been described as of the soul.

K: The soul, of course. That is an easy escape but it means nothing.

DB: No.

K: What are the inner feelings? pleasure?

DB: Well, in so far as you could label it, that description would not be valid.

K: So what is valid? The non-verbal state?

DB: It may be a non-verbal state… something analogous to a feeling which isn’t fixed, something that can’t be named.

Nikola Tesla

Posted in Alternative Thinking with tags , , , on March 23, 2009 by dejavouz

“I am not an inventor. I am a discoverer of new scientific principles.”

Nikola Tesla

Creative & Psychic Powers of Animals

Posted in Random Thoughts with tags , on March 23, 2009 by dejavouz