You are on, my friend.
In his final days, you could detect an air of despair in his talks when he appealed to his audience: “… will you do it? Please…try and find out.” It was painful to watch him imploring; especially, when I felt - in myself - that state of helplessness, an inability to take effective action.
What about you? Are you there yet?
Really? How would you test that hypothesis?
Your center may have come up with this idea.
K never said any such thing. ‘Total personality?’ Please tell me in your own words what a ‘total personality’ is.
I would suggest it very reasonable to doubt such a thing. I would think it unreasonable not to doubt it.
You draw that conclusion from nowhere. Your ability to discard doubt does not constitute proof for your belief.
Correct. Why does the self demand a meaning for life? Maybe because if life is assigned a meaning then the self can assure itself a role within that meaning. In that way it may feel healthy. What a merry little circus!
And then we look for a meaning for the universe itself and invent the inventor, God. Then we invent God’s instruction manual.
The human being plans, and because he plans he finds comfort in the view that his universe has also been planned. A planned universe is a safe place to be.
There was an insight this very morning that cut through a lot of this. Basicly, that there’s no “there” there. That’s another construct of thought: the goal (I’m speaking psychologically), The whole idea of ‘freedom’ as a ‘place’ , that is so ingrained in us is in question i.e., freedom as the other side of bondage. We seek what thought imagines is the state of freedom and the ensuing conflict is the result of thought’s setup of the opposites. And thought as time enters the fray. Sorry if that is sketchy, but it is, as I said, an insight and probably best to leave it there and see what comes of it…if it blossoms.
No, it’s not sketchy at all. Very deep, and I caught it…"there is no “there” there.
Yes, no other shore. Very good, my friend.
Certainly is Paul. What occurs when assumption is built upon assumption over centuries of human endeavour. It is quite a tangle to unravel.
PaulDavidson
" Your centre may have come up with this idea"
A state of awarness in which there no thoughts/I/me/centre active, just senses are awake, a sense of living/being , what you call it sir. A organism just awake/alive. It is a fact not an idea, even though it may not last long with thought/centre taking over.
PaulDavidson
“Your ability to discard doubt does not constitute proof of your belief”
Thanks for this statement. It was an eye opener.
If I understand you correctly, you seem to say : whether it is K or PaulDavidson or X or Y say that there is nothingness after death or life after death- neither accept or nor reject it, find it out yourself !
PaulDavidson
" Why does the self demand a meaning for life? Maybe because if life is assigned a meaning then the self can assure itself a role within that meaning. In that way it may feel healthy. What a merry little circus!
And then we look for a meaning for the universe itself and invent the inventor, God. Then we invent God’s instruction manual."
Great insight! This question often used to bother me. Thanks for reaviling the activity of the me/ego. But yet to see it actually!
Well, I would say one doesn’t know if there is life after death or nothingness. Probably one cannot find out either. Certainly the world carries on, so there is not ‘nothingness’ for the world. But I have to laugh because we have invented a word called ‘nothingness’ and therefore made a thing of it. We imagine it as some sort of ‘state’ of being.
It may be sufficient to say, “life ends” and not add something called ‘nothingness’ to it. And if it is so that ‘life ends’ then one cannot speak of a subject after that in any way, shape or form.
But if it is conjectured that life continues after death one would surely not want to leave such an important conjecture in the air. One would want to look for evidence. In order to look for evidence however, the conjecture would have to be made more precise. After all, if one is talking of reincarnation, would that be with memory intact or not? Quite different categories of evidence would be needed depending on the answer to that. And if reincarnation is without memory, what possible evidence could one show for it?
Leadbetter persuaded the poor young K that he had been reincarnated dozens of times and he drove the impressionable and vacant youth to write a book about it (though it’s not clear who did the actual writing). Is that the kind of evidence we would like? Isn’t it all rather silly? Is hypnosis or mediumship the way?
My own sister has trained as a medium. In February she brought back a ‘message’ from an ex-neighbor called Rose who had died. She asked this ‘Rose’ for a sign and lo and behold, the following week she found a red rose on the communal drive. She told me about this and I said, "Hang on, February 14 is Valantines Day, is it not?’ What better time to find a red rose in the street!! But such a co-incidence is fodder for the mind that wants to be convinced.
“Life ends”?
We may have no examples of Nothingness. Do we have any examples of life ending?
Maybe the correct term should be “self ends” (and even here we are not completely certain) And maybe what we should say is the “sense of self” ends or “the flux of feelings” changes?
I like to think that self continues after death because it’s a mistaken identity, and you can’t properly die until you realize it.
If there’s any reason for that content (me) to continue after death, it’s for that content to resolve its conflict by realizing its mistake.
That’s interesting. But I would rather say that consicousness which is his own content continu. Consciousness is not yours or mine. Is it the mistaken identity you mention? The body die but human consiousness continu. K. said we all share the same consiousness. Is it so? We all have particular memories, but we all have memories which the self is based on. And apart some particular bias aren’t we all alike psychologicaly? Isn’t the psyche of mankind is where the revolution have to happen. Aren’t we all concerned about that? Dead or alive? Well… 
Sorry I have double my post.
I think that this death must happen while one is alive. But can the content resolve its conflict ? Or is it something else that can resolve the conflicts and the illusions that we are in ?
Ideally, the conflict is resolved while alive, but from what I’ve seen, most folks die conflicted.
The resolution is seeing the conflict for the misunderstanding that it is. What brings this about, I don’t know.
So, you are convinced that Krishnamurti’s nothingness is laughable nonsense then? I don’t know what your level of education is. I would like to engage you in a discussion on the nature of objective reality in terms of physical science to prove that Krishnamurti’s nothingness is authentic. Will you accept? Let forum participants be the jurors on who is the resident fool.
You are putting words in my mouth that I do not agree with.
Personal remarks such as that have no place here. In fact, your not knowing anything about me has not prevented you from making various assumptions, all of which I reject. You are toying with images.
No, I will not. The idea that science can prove ‘nothingness’ and that I must debate that with you is clearly ridiculous.
Again, this shows your reactivity to having your statements questioned. There is no judge and jury here and no one (bar yourself) has called anyone a resident fool. When you set out to judge resident fools you embark on a foolish enterprise.
Paul Davidson
" Certainly the world Carrie’s on, so there is not nothingness for the world"
Other than believing or basing on a logical conclusion ( Inquiry statement " I like to think that self continues after death because it is a mistaken identity, and you can not properly die until you realize it" ) I have not seen any proof of continuation of life after death, whatever form it may be.
This world exists as long as I am aware. In deep sleep this world along with me ceases to exist. When I wake up. If memory is intact, it is a continuation of old world that existed before sleep. But if there is no memory when I wake up, the world will be completely new for me.
But in case of death after death when there is no ’ waking up’ the ‘I’ ceases to exist along with its associated world. So your statement " world carries on " has no meaning.
When K said ’ you are the word ’ , he meant that psychologically we are all same, suffering from same hatred/ambitions/jealousy etc. etc.
But he could have also meant that when we die you are gone, and your associated whole world also gone, so you are the world.
You are not paying attention. I proposed a discussion on the nature of objective reality. Just because you cannot find out “if there is life after death or nothingness”, doesn’t mean that we are being silly in our inquiry into “nothingness” that Krishnamurti talked about.
I want to find out how grounded you are in the things you would consider not silly. For example, your existence as a human being on Planet Earth as affirmed by science; and how that existence is related to the life and death of the human body. Is this a fair request?
When the body die, its finish for it. Then what is it that continu? What I thought was my consciousness is not mine. You said Its a mistaken identity. Human consciousness is the content. The content is our envy, our beleives. Our hope and despair. This is what continu , but not for that particular body I am identify with.