Online References:
1): The infamous Double-slit experiment: Dr Quantum ; highly recommended YouTube video, setting it out clearly, for the layman (see below);
2): What is quantum mechanics? - From the Theories With Problems website by Keith Mayes: A plain outline of the problem, for the layman;
3): Wikipedia Article: The Double-slit Experiment - A more mathematical approach, for the scientific-minded.
"Feynman was fond of saying that all of quantum mechanics can be gleaned from carefully thinking through
the implications of this single experiment."
{Brian Greene, The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory, 1999, page 97f}
There is no question that the double-slit experiment, first performed in 1800 but only definitively confirmed in 1989, is an outstanding unresolved conundrum in quantum physics, which is essentially the behavior of particles that comprise all matter - including, obviously, all of us. As such it is a vital factor in the understanding of all life and all matter and the behavior of that life and matter in the universe. This view of physical reality at its most basic level reveals another aspect to the universe that must be taken into account. There is more to the universe than meets the eye.
To this day, the results and the implications of this experiment have not been understood by scientists and so it remains one of the great unknowns. In this it is not alone: there are an astonishing number of significant unknowns in science (see below), proving yet again (if more proof were needed) that all knowledge in the end is limited, no matter how exacting the science, or how accurate the measuring apparatus.
It should be pointed out that both the experiment and its results are not theory - this experiment has been conducted many times and the results are not in dispute.
It is not the intention of this page to spell out the detailed mechanics of the problem, it is amply covered in the three references above. What is explored here are the essential implications of it. That is, of the startling behavior of the most fundamental particle in the universe, the electron (note that the results also hold good for all the other subatomic particles, such as protons). It is the electron, of course, that is fundamental to all electricity and chemical reactions in life, including photosynthesis (thus life itself), as well as to the operation of the entire human nervous system and all its neuro-chemical processes - that is, to the entire functioning of the brain, and hence thought.
Essentially, two startling implications can be drawn from the results (note that there are various interpretations to explain the phenomenon, the main one of which is outlined in the references above). The first, at its most basic level, is that the very observation (totally impartial, objective, impersonal) of the basic structure of matter and its behavior changes that which is observed. Before the observation takes place, the sub-particle behaves in a certain way; after the physical observer has been put in place, the sub-particle changes its behavior (this does not imply that an observer is required for sub-particles to exist in the first place, which is patent nonsense). That is, the observation alone changes the very quantum behaviour of matter. This is a striking validation of the talks: where observing the fact changes that fact.
The second central implication of this experiment shows that, beyond doubt, at a very basic level of reality, there is not, and cannot be, any independent observer in the universe (that is, no independent self; science generally has never found any physical evidence of the existence of the self, and never will). In this instance, the non-human observing apparatus placed in the experiment also contains electrons; in a very real sense, the observing apparatus is of the same nature, the same constituent physical reality, as that which it is observing. Indeed, that very fact may prove to be an explanation for the sub-particle's changed behavior.
One does not need to have a full grasp of the talks to see where this point is leading.
The observer in this case, even in an ultimate physical sense, is the observed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The inability of science to answer or explain the most basic questions is poorly understood by the general public. For instance, take the most basic question of all - the nature of the universe we live in. Here is the latest scientifically accepted composition:
1: Visible universe - 4% (3.6% of which is 'nearly invisible' interstellar gas)
2: Dark Matter - 22% (or 23%, or 26%) (Invisible matter)
3: Dark Energy - 74% (or 73%, or 70%) (Invisible energy; possibly vacuum energy)
Both the existence of dark matter and dark energy have only been inferred, though the observational evidence for their existence remains strong (they arose initially from problems that exist with the Standard Model of physics taught to all physicists). In both cases, science is ignorant as to their exact nature. Scientists don't know what dark energy is at all (it is known as "the most profound mystery in science"). They have invented it (mathematically) in order to get their current cosmological models to work. In short, they can only theorize, or hypothesize, what makes both of them up and how they behave and interact with the other 4%, visible matter, which is the galaxies, the stars, the planets, life - and all of us. (Note: the latest development is that the Standard Model of physics may in fact be fatally flawed and that both dark matter and energy may not in exist at all.) So their most cherished theory, the Standard Model, may have been wrong all along.
What does all this imply at the moment, in a nutshell? - 96% of the universe is missing!
Dark energy is, in fact, arguably the greatest challenge to science in its history. It is fundamental to the structure and composition of the universe; as it is invisible it cannot be measured directly; it occupies the "empty' space between clusters of galaxies, which is why it is associated with the "quantum vacuum," that exists within the atom. It is emptiness itself, something which is mentioned throughout the talks.
This failure of science to understand 96% of the universe in which we live is a grand failure of the intellect. And nor does it end there. Here are some other basic unexplained questions still hanging around in the 21st century, 460 years after the beginning of the scientific revolution:
What gives matter its mass? [Suspected to be the Higgs boson, the "God particle," which the CERN Large Hadron Collider will be searching for]
What is actual matter - particles or waves, or both (wave-particle duality)? [See the double-slit conundrum, ie, quantum mechanics, above]
How does gravity actually exert its force, and why is its force so weak?
Why does a fridge magnet stay permanently attached to a fridge?
What is the actual complete physical structure of water?
What is the origin of life on Earth?
How does life evolve?
What determines species diversity?
Why do we sleep?
How is memory stored and retrieved in the brain?
What is the nature of the mind and human consciousness?
Why is it that the placebo effect can in some cases have such an extraordinary power of healing?
In so many disciplines these days the end of knowledge appears to have been reached - advances are achieved at the margins, in specialized areas. What is being highlighted is that systems are so intricately complex - the human genome, cell biology, quantum mechanics, weather systems, etc - and so interrelated and interdependent on their local and wider environment that the reductionist or specialized approach no longer reveals major advances in understanding. This is despite supercomputers and sophisticated computer 'modelling,' which is becoming more prevalent in so many fields. Like philosophy, science as a whole appears to have ended up in a knowledge cul-de-sac.
Or, does all this abysmal ignorance of basics in nature simply show that most of life and the universe is beyond an explanation by the intellect? This correlates uncannily with innumerable statements in the talks about the limitation of thought and the brain, of how there can never be complete knowledge of anything, as well as the complete inability of the intellect to describe the nature of the otherness, or Truth.
References: 125 Questions: What Don't We Know, Sciencemag, 2005; 13 things that do not make sense, NewScientist.com, April 14, 2009; Physicists' Dreams & Worries in Era of the Big Collider, Dennis Overbye, The New York Times, January 25, 2010.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Interestingly, there is nothing in the laws of physics to suggest that time actually flows from the past through the present and into the future.
… At a subatomic level there is no distinction between the past and the future.”
Keith Mayes: What is Time? - Does time flow in only one direction?
Let us consider for the moment the game of two-up. A simple game, men stand idly around in a group and bet on the outcome of a spinning coin. No Einsteins lurking here, just the two options, heads or tails. A 50-50 chance to make easy money, no other possible outcome. What could be simpler? Of course, looming behind the game is the elephant in the room, an unspoken given, an overarching assumption in the minds of all the gamblers and all observers that may be watching. Over time, the probability of the results coming out even are assured.
Let us say that in this particular game it comes down heads six times in a row. The gamblers interest level rises and they start to rouse from their usual mental lethargy. At twelve times heads in a row their pulses quicken and they start to perspire. At twenty times in a row (this can happen, it is not impossible) they are absolutely electrified, transfixed to the spot by the event unfolding in front of their eyes. The stakes in the pot skyrocket and they gleefully anticipate their certain massive winnings on the next spin of the coin.
There is only one problem. All the gamblers are completely oblivious to the fact that, as it spins in the air on the twenty-first throw, the coin has no memory. For the coin this is an entirely new spin, a one-off, a singular event in physical reality (no two spins are ever physically the same, given all the myriad forces and movements at work in nature which are involved in each spin).
Because it is a completely new event, the probability factor involved is exactly the same as it was on the first spin - 50-50.
It has not increased one iota because of the preceding spins, as the past has no meaning to it. A spinning coin has no past (and no future for that matter). It exists only in the now. Like everything else in nature, it knows nothing of chronological time, which implies that all physical events in the present are not of time. It doesn’t ‘know’ that under the so-called laws of probability (or law of averages) it is supposed to come down tails on this spin, simply because of the happenstance of all the heads it has previously come down on.
It is only in the minds of the gamblers that the probability has increased. They have arbitrarily introduced time into the equation, when physical systems operate without it. They are wrong in their reasoning and could lose all their money if the coin again comes down heads.
The unknown factor in the game is the time it will take for the spins to even out. This period of time could be a minute, an hour, a day, a week, a millennium - it cannot be known for certain. Therefore there is nothing in nature that says the coin has to start evening up the balance on any particular spin. It is completely random. In theory, it could spin for a million times and come down heads every time. Highly improbable, it is true, but in the nature of reality it simply cannot be ruled out.
The gamblers’ fallacy of increasing probability based on the past is common to all the gamblers in the world, not just our little group (to everyone who is reading this, in fact). Even when the fallacy has been pointed out to them, they often flatly refuse to accept it. They ‘know’ that the probabilities have increased, they have ‘seen’ the pattern that has developed in the previous spins - more importantly, they have given a precise meaning to these past events. There is also a certain arrogance involved in this: ‘I know what’s going to happen, based on past events; it is predictable.’ This is the crux of it: the relentless drive for the brain to see patterns in physical events. Patterns indicate predictability, which gives a comforting sense of certainty, a sense of knowing, which is what the minds of the gamblers really desire, a certainty in this case of winning money, of being rewarded (many would call it greed). (See the Wikipedia article on this fallacy, for the complex-minded.)
Ultimately, when one considers the implications of all this, it means that the future can never be predicted with precision or with certainty, which is exactly what is shown in all the experiments conducted in quantum physics (the uncertainty principle). Only the present is real; only the present can be known, only the present has significance in life. In the future, there is always an unknown factor, despite all of science, hence there can be no pattern to life itself. (This, of course, excludes those physical patterns based on past knowledge that are required for everyday practical living, such as driving a car - this is referring only to psychological patterns.)
This persistent urge to see mental patterns (or correlations) where they don't exist, it has been observed, is also daily reflected in the stock market, along with the inevitable pattern of the slavish herd instinct. Indeed everywhere one looks, patterning is there; the very ways of our thinking are in consistent patterns, it is the way we look at life itself:
"Humans… have a phenomenal ability to detect and interpret simple patterns. That’s what helped our ancestors survive the hazardous primeval world, enabling them to evade predators, find food and shelter and eventually to plant crops in the right place at the right time of year.” But, he adds, “when it comes to investing, our incorrigible search for patterns leads us to assume that order exists where it often doesn’t.”
The bogus science of technical analysis comes out of this deep human trait - investors search for trends that are consistent and repeatable (even though they’re not). So does our need to try to predict where the market is going - something no one can possibly know. “As soon as a stock seems to conform to a pattern that has made money before, an ‘I got it’ effect kicks in, making investors feel sure they know what’s coming next,” Mr. Zweig writes. But of course they don’t.
Virtually every mistake investors make has to do, in one way or another, with the way our brain has evolved. …
(The New York Times, Talking Business: Can We Turn Off Our Emotions When Investing?, by Joe Nocera, September 29, 2007; Poking Holes in a Theory on Markets, by Joe Nocera, June 5, 2009 - about how prevailing theories of rational/efficient markets have not taken into account basic psychology, such as bouts of irrationality.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“The present is not of time.”
(The Impossible Question: Chapter 4, 'Fragmentation' - July 23, 1970, page 46)
~~~~~~~~
“… Is it possible for the mind to be without a pattern, to be free of this backward and forward swing of desire? It is definitely possible. Such action is living in the now. To live is to be without hope, without the care of tomorrow; it is not hopelessness or indifference. But we are not living, we are always pursuing death, the past or the future. Living is the greatest revolution. Living has no pattern, but death has: the past or the future, the what has been or the Utopia. You are living for the Utopia, and so you are inviting death and not life.” (Book of Life: 'Living is the greatest revolution' - September 25, 2007)
The self conforms to a pattern and is made up of varying desires, which are the future. Living only with the facts in the present is true living.
Site best viewed through Internet Explorer;
there are some page display issues with Chrome & Firefox
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Copyright © 2007-2010 Daniel Marks | beyondthemind.net. All Rights Reserved.
This website went online on November 22, 2007 and is being continually developed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Transformation of Human Energy
Plus: Mutations in the Brain
The Famous Double-slit Conundrum
The Limits of Scientific Knowledge
The Gambler's Fallacy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Plus: Mutations in the Brain
The Famous Double-slit Conundrum
The Limits of Scientific Knowledge
The Gambler's Fallacy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"... sorrow is the result of fulfillment."
(Book of Life, Daily Meditations, 'The Center of Suffering' - July 28, 2009; ellipsis added)
(Lutyens, Volume 2: Krishnamurti: The Years of Fulfilment, page 223; Exploration into Insight, 1979; ellipsis added)
“We are seeing the fact, the ‘what is,’ which is suffering [sorrow, psychic pain]. That is an absolute fact.
I suffer and the mind is doing everything it can to run away from it. When it does not run away then it observes.
Then the observer, if it observes very very closely, is the observed, and that very pain is transformed into passion,
which is compassion. …
Why don’t you live with suffering completely? Can you live with it in the sense of not escaping from it?
What takes place? Watch. The mind is very clear, sharp. It is faced with the fact.
The very suffering transformed into passion [love, compassion] is enormous.
From that arises a mind that can never be hurt. Full stop.
That is the secret.”
~~~~~~~~~
In 1905, Albert Einstein became the first person to propose the general principle of the equivalence of mass and energy, the famous E=MC2. Mass is energy and energy is mass. Minute amounts of mass can be converted into enormous energy, which is what occurs inside a nuclear bomb. Mass is, in a very real sense, simply a manifestation in form of underlying energy. In theory, any form of mass can be transformed into energy, including the human body and everything in it.
"... matter is merely the wheel of energy."
(Jayakar Biography: Chapter 35, 'One Touched the Source' - page 395)
So, a human being is really underlying energy, mind is energy, brain is energy. At present, the full potential energy of the brain mass is being sapped through the constant movement of thought/feeling within the brain's circuitry. It is being fragmented, being hindered, through the operation of the illusory self, which is essentially a contradiction to the natural order. This self, this separate observer, in effect becomes a form of friction in the brain, reducing, and distorting, the force of energy within it.
It is a well known principle in science that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only be transformed. It can, however, be reduced in intensity through friction, which is what occurs mechanically. As the self is essentially resistance (resisting the fact of its illusory nature), through this friction it reduces the full potential of this human energy.
End the self, however, (which in essence is the ending of all thought, so that thought will only arise when physically necessary) and the brain falls silent. The circuitry of the brain, freed from friction, releases energy on a scale far greater than that which we know at present.
So, thought is matter. Thought is the expression of (corrupted) energy in the brain. The ending of thought as matter within the brain is its transformation into energy itself, without restriction or boundary - intelligence. It all makes perfect sense, even on a scientific basis.
What the above passage from the talks is implying, then, is that the ending of suffering (which is not merely the ending of personal suffering, or self-pity, but ending of the deep universal suffering of mankind, which derives from the prison of ignorance in which we all live) transforms (or mutates) the potential of the neuro-chemical connections in the brain into greatly expanded energy, which is passion, compassion, or love. This is the energy of, and behind, the entire universe. This energy is emptiness, that lies at the heart of all things.
There is a catch, of course - after all, there's always a catch to everything.
We have to stop running away from suffering, to unleash this energy.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Knowledge is always limited. So the brain, having found security in the movement of knowledge,
clings to it and translates every incident, according to the past. In the movement of ending of continuity
[knowledge] is complete order. This insight is the revolution in the structure of the brain."
(Pupul Jayakar Biography: Chapter 38, page 413)
Neuroplasticity (and neurogenesis) are the new branches of neurology showing that thinking, learning and acting (ie, the overall environment) can physically change the brain's anatomy. Essentially, they are the study of the brain's capacity to change itself, to generate new neurons. That is, mutation. Based on extensive and unequivocal animal studies and limited studies on humans, it has toppled the decades old scientific idea of genetic determinism. It has shown neuroscientists a glimpse of the power of the mind to actually change the structure of the brain, the power of self-transformation, which is not restricted by the ageing process of the brain. We can change the structure of the brain at any age:
"... although we have deeply ingrained ways of thinking and although the brain comes with some hardwiring, we also have the possibility of changing. The idea that we are constantly changing means there is no intrinsic nature to the self or the mind, which is what Buddhism teaches. Instead, both self and mind are extremely plastic. Our activities inform who we are; as we act, so shall we become. We are products of the past, but because of our inherently empty nature, we always have the opportunity to reshape ourselves."
(Francisca Cho, Buddhist scholar at George Washington University - Begley: Train Your Mind, page 13)
"It is the brain that puts everything in its right place. Then, in total [mind] insight into the whole movement
of consciousness, the activity and structures of the brain undergo a change."
(Pupul Jayakar Biography: Chapter 38, page 393)
The emerging potential of this new science, still in its nascent stages, is, in the end, a remarkable external validation of the essential theme running through the entire talks since 1948. And yet... there is not a single reference to the man or the talks in all the books and references on neuroplasticity. This is because he is not regarded as an 'authority' in the field, which is the only factor that counts with scientists.
~~~~~~~~
Neuroplasticity: MedicineNet.com ; Wikipedia Article ; Mind and Life Institute
Train Your Mind, Change Your Brain: How a New Science Reveals Our Extraordinary Potential to Transform Ourselves,
by Sharon Begley, New York: Ballantine Books (The Mind and Life Institute), 2008.
The Brain: Malleable, Capable, Vulnerable, by Abigail Zuger, M.D., The New York Times, May 29, 2007.
Expressing Our Individuality, The Way E. Coli Do, by Carl Zimmer, The New York Times, April 22, 2008.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(Book of Life, Daily Meditations, 'The Center of Suffering' - July 28, 2009; ellipsis added)
(Lutyens, Volume 2: Krishnamurti: The Years of Fulfilment, page 223; Exploration into Insight, 1979; ellipsis added)
“We are seeing the fact, the ‘what is,’ which is suffering [sorrow, psychic pain]. That is an absolute fact.
I suffer and the mind is doing everything it can to run away from it. When it does not run away then it observes.
Then the observer, if it observes very very closely, is the observed, and that very pain is transformed into passion,
which is compassion. …
Why don’t you live with suffering completely? Can you live with it in the sense of not escaping from it?
What takes place? Watch. The mind is very clear, sharp. It is faced with the fact.
The very suffering transformed into passion [love, compassion] is enormous.
From that arises a mind that can never be hurt. Full stop.
That is the secret.”
~~~~~~~~~
In 1905, Albert Einstein became the first person to propose the general principle of the equivalence of mass and energy, the famous E=MC2. Mass is energy and energy is mass. Minute amounts of mass can be converted into enormous energy, which is what occurs inside a nuclear bomb. Mass is, in a very real sense, simply a manifestation in form of underlying energy. In theory, any form of mass can be transformed into energy, including the human body and everything in it.
"... matter is merely the wheel of energy."
(Jayakar Biography: Chapter 35, 'One Touched the Source' - page 395)
So, a human being is really underlying energy, mind is energy, brain is energy. At present, the full potential energy of the brain mass is being sapped through the constant movement of thought/feeling within the brain's circuitry. It is being fragmented, being hindered, through the operation of the illusory self, which is essentially a contradiction to the natural order. This self, this separate observer, in effect becomes a form of friction in the brain, reducing, and distorting, the force of energy within it.
It is a well known principle in science that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only be transformed. It can, however, be reduced in intensity through friction, which is what occurs mechanically. As the self is essentially resistance (resisting the fact of its illusory nature), through this friction it reduces the full potential of this human energy.
End the self, however, (which in essence is the ending of all thought, so that thought will only arise when physically necessary) and the brain falls silent. The circuitry of the brain, freed from friction, releases energy on a scale far greater than that which we know at present.
So, thought is matter. Thought is the expression of (corrupted) energy in the brain. The ending of thought as matter within the brain is its transformation into energy itself, without restriction or boundary - intelligence. It all makes perfect sense, even on a scientific basis.
What the above passage from the talks is implying, then, is that the ending of suffering (which is not merely the ending of personal suffering, or self-pity, but ending of the deep universal suffering of mankind, which derives from the prison of ignorance in which we all live) transforms (or mutates) the potential of the neuro-chemical connections in the brain into greatly expanded energy, which is passion, compassion, or love. This is the energy of, and behind, the entire universe. This energy is emptiness, that lies at the heart of all things.
There is a catch, of course - after all, there's always a catch to everything.
We have to stop running away from suffering, to unleash this energy.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Knowledge is always limited. So the brain, having found security in the movement of knowledge,
clings to it and translates every incident, according to the past. In the movement of ending of continuity
[knowledge] is complete order. This insight is the revolution in the structure of the brain."
(Pupul Jayakar Biography: Chapter 38, page 413)
Neuroplasticity (and neurogenesis) are the new branches of neurology showing that thinking, learning and acting (ie, the overall environment) can physically change the brain's anatomy. Essentially, they are the study of the brain's capacity to change itself, to generate new neurons. That is, mutation. Based on extensive and unequivocal animal studies and limited studies on humans, it has toppled the decades old scientific idea of genetic determinism. It has shown neuroscientists a glimpse of the power of the mind to actually change the structure of the brain, the power of self-transformation, which is not restricted by the ageing process of the brain. We can change the structure of the brain at any age:
"... although we have deeply ingrained ways of thinking and although the brain comes with some hardwiring, we also have the possibility of changing. The idea that we are constantly changing means there is no intrinsic nature to the self or the mind, which is what Buddhism teaches. Instead, both self and mind are extremely plastic. Our activities inform who we are; as we act, so shall we become. We are products of the past, but because of our inherently empty nature, we always have the opportunity to reshape ourselves."
(Francisca Cho, Buddhist scholar at George Washington University - Begley: Train Your Mind, page 13)
"It is the brain that puts everything in its right place. Then, in total [mind] insight into the whole movement
of consciousness, the activity and structures of the brain undergo a change."
(Pupul Jayakar Biography: Chapter 38, page 393)
The emerging potential of this new science, still in its nascent stages, is, in the end, a remarkable external validation of the essential theme running through the entire talks since 1948. And yet... there is not a single reference to the man or the talks in all the books and references on neuroplasticity. This is because he is not regarded as an 'authority' in the field, which is the only factor that counts with scientists.
~~~~~~~~
Neuroplasticity: MedicineNet.com ; Wikipedia Article ; Mind and Life Institute
Train Your Mind, Change Your Brain: How a New Science Reveals Our Extraordinary Potential to Transform Ourselves,
by Sharon Begley, New York: Ballantine Books (The Mind and Life Institute), 2008.
The Brain: Malleable, Capable, Vulnerable, by Abigail Zuger, M.D., The New York Times, May 29, 2007.
Expressing Our Individuality, The Way E. Coli Do, by Carl Zimmer, The New York Times, April 22, 2008.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 |
 |
 |
“You must set out on the uncharted sea, and the uncharted sea is yourself.”
(Commentaries on Living: First Series, 'My Path and Your Path' - page 97)
(Commentaries on Living: First Series, 'My Path and Your Path' - page 97)
Does modern scientific understanding validate the many underlying statements contained in the talks?
Statements on the brain, the mind, and consciousness, amongst others. [Especially, the significance of emptiness (mentioned throughout the Notebook), which exists at the heart of all matter and in vast intergalactic space.]
This whole subject of the convergence of science and the substance of the talks remains entirely unexplored.
Statements on the brain, the mind, and consciousness, amongst others. [Especially, the significance of emptiness (mentioned throughout the Notebook), which exists at the heart of all matter and in vast intergalactic space.]
This whole subject of the convergence of science and the substance of the talks remains entirely unexplored.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
(Page exploring the failure of all scientific knowledge to explain Nature;
Page last updated July 31, 2010)
Page last updated July 31, 2010)
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
"The subtle inter-relationship of the mind, the brain and the body is the complicated play of life. There is misery when one predominates over the other, and the mind cannot dominate the brain or the physical organism; when there is harmony between the two, then the mind can consent to abide with them; it is not a plaything of either. The whole can contain the particular but the little, the part, can never formulate the whole."
(Krishnamurti's Notebook, pp. 129/30)
(Krishnamurti's Notebook, pp. 129/30)
The unexplained behavior of matter:
Why does just a mere scientific, objective observation change the behaviour of sub-atomic matter, like electrons and other sub-particles? Is this related to the statement that when you closely observe and fully face a fact about yourself, that fact then undergoes a radical change?
Why does just a mere scientific, objective observation change the behaviour of sub-atomic matter, like electrons and other sub-particles? Is this related to the statement that when you closely observe and fully face a fact about yourself, that fact then undergoes a radical change?
The Foster Tape: Suffering, nonduality, the oneness of everything, the end of separation, the living of what is ...
"the parallels with the core of the Krishnamurti talks delivered over 60 years ... are quite extraordinary."
The spiritual teacher: Jeff Foster - Is There a Critical Precondition to all Cases of Enlightenment?
"the parallels with the core of the Krishnamurti talks delivered over 60 years ... are quite extraordinary."
The spiritual teacher: Jeff Foster - Is There a Critical Precondition to all Cases of Enlightenment?
