<\/p>\n|
<\/p>\n
\n K <\/font><\/b>
\n in <\/span>Media<\/span><\/b><\/font><\/p>\n<\/td>\n
\n <\/tr>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n|
<\/p>\n
\nHere we present pieces
\non Krishnamurti appearing in different publications and magazines.<\/font><\/i><\/strong><\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\nSeeds of Dialogue
\n<\/font><\/b>\u00a0
\n<\/font>by F. David Peat in Life
\nPositive Jan. 2006<\/i><\/font><\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\nThe physicist David Bohm saw in modern physics an expression of the essential
\nwholeness of nature. In particular, that wholeness was present in the act of
\nquantum observation when observer and observed are united into an unanalysable
\nwhole. Bohm felt that a similar wholeness must be present both in the life the
\nindividual and in society in general. Indeed he saw this wholeness as an
\nintegration of the Cosmic (or religious), Social and Individual dimensions of
\neach human being. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\nInevitably Bohm was drawn to the Indian teacher, Jiddu Krishnamurti. It is said that at the time of their first meeting, Bohm
\nexplained that in quantum theory “the observer is the observed” which echoed Krishnamurti’s “the thinker is the thought.” and so the teacher enthusiastically
\nembraced the physicist. Over many years, Bohm and Krishnamurti continued their
\ndialogue together. For Krishnamurti something else operated when thought was
\nsilent, something that could transform the physical brain. Bohm himself
\ndeveloped a theory of active information, an activity that could transform both
\nraw\u00a0 energy and matter itself. Indeed for Bohm, there was no division between
\nmatter and mind, since ‘proto-mind’ had been present from the very beginning of
\nthe cosmos. (See D. Bohm – Wholeness and the Implicate Order, Ark, Routledge,
\nLondon, 1983, and D. Bohm and F.D.Peat Science, Order and Creativity, Routledge,
\nLondon and New York, 2000) For a time, as is shown in the video tapes and the
\ntranscriptions of their discussions, both men explored together with great
\nhonesty. Tragically, however, a break occurred between them that was never
\nreconciled. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\nThere is a certain irony in this fracture
\nbetween Krishnamurti and Bohm, for the latter often pointed to what he termed
\n“the breakdown in communication between Bohr and Einstein”. As younger men.
\nwhile taking opposing positions on the interpretation of quantum theory, the two
\nmen felt deep affection, even love for each other, and engaged in a very active
\ndebate about their differences. Yet Bohm remembered a reception given for the
\nageing Bohr at the Princeton Institute of Advanced Studies at which Bohr and his
\nstudents stood at one end of the room and Einstein and his students at the
\nother. The two men had nothing to say to each other. Bohm believed that the
\nfailure to communicate lay deep within the way each man used language \u0096 and that
\nenfolded within language lay our worldview and even our fixed non-negotiable
\npositions. Was something similar at work, some profound and hitherto hidden
\ndivision, between Bohm and Krishnamurti or even at the heart of the dialogue
\nbetween science and religion?<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\n\u00a0<\/p>\n
\n
\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n
<\/p>\n\n
<\/p>\n
\n | |