Direct answer Sree: No I do not.
Isn’t that a judgement of an image that you have invented of your fellow posters on this forum. Why?
One is only responsible for one’s own action surely?
3 Likes
Judgment is a loaded word with a negative connotation. As Krishnamurti said, one is like everybody else. Is that a judgment or a statement of truth? I come to this forum to explore what Krishnamurti was talking about and he was not talking about golf.
One is only responsible for one’s own action as an individual in society. Is this forum a venue for individuals discussing specific personal issues? Or are we confounded by the meaningless life as an unique individual different form everyone else and are here to inquire into what the hell did Krishnamurti mean by “I am the world and the world is me?”
Yes…and his “you are nothing (not-a-thing)” as well!
Everything and nothing…no ‘individuality’ (or division) to be found?
Whoa, Dan. I know what you are getting at but it is not an easy step to take from here to eternity.
Well…now or never.
1 Like
Pauldavidson,
" life without awarness has no meaning"
What was meant is that in an awarness in which all senses are fully active and there is no centre, it has a beauty/perfume of it’s own rather than in a partiall awarness where I remain most of the time.
Regarding dividing life between that which is aware and that which is not, it seems everything has life /consciousness, even a stone, only degree may vary.
“K totally rejected the idea of soul.”
True fully agree. But I do not remember reading that he fully rejected idea of reincarnation . He said people in the east believe in idea of reincarnation. Knowledge/experience of yesterday or 1000 years back, both are continuation of time, so what way reincarnation is different.
.From his discussion with Budhist. it seems he agreed with non existence of individual soul but what may be reborn is total personality of the person. What I understand is it is like seed of a plant growing again as plant with same characteristics but mother plant is not reborn.
Regarding nothingness after death:
Pupul Jayaker in biography of K, mentions K telling her he saw his mother conversing to his dead sister in the garden. He also saw his dead mother visiting the house after she passed away, all this as a young boy. But Pupul also mentions that he conversed with ex prime minister of India Mrs. Indira Gandhi in evening, after she was assisinated in the morning. I do not find any reason to doubt Pupul or say K was hallucinating. So something does survive after death, but what it is may be debatable.
Also remember reading K, saying “nothing” means not a thing created by human mind, but there is a movement that is entirely different.
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.
1 Like
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.
1 Like
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 ?
1 Like