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.
2 Likes
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.
I said that your image/idea of who you are is mistaken identity.
What is the question?
That is a naive impression perhaps. How would you test it?
He could have meant that but having read very much of the printed works I very much doubt it. You are engaged in interpretation. You have every right to do so. The fact however is that in 60 years of speaking he never said or insinuated that when you die the world also dies. In fact, various times he said the opposite. I take him at his word.
The image/idea of who one is also is part of consciousness . And the image/idea of what I am is an illusion, an image /idea of what I am, not what I am. But I don’t want to push for it. We can leave it at that for now.
You said “one doesn’t know if there is life after death or nothingness” and that you find it laughable because we have invented a word called ‘nothingness’ and made something out of it. It was Krishnamurti who used the word “nothingness”. He talked about life after death BEFORE the body dies. Therefore, living is dying, he said. Can you grasp that? Please show me some sign that you understand this or reject this as untenable. Give your reason for rejecting it.
I said I have to laugh. Yes. I went on to say that we “imagine it as some sort of ‘state’ of being.” That is the context of my having to laugh. And I am pretty sure K would also have laughed.
Did he invent the term? In any case I am not disputing K’s use of the term. I am saying that those for whom this ‘nothingness’ is not actual imagine it as a thing or as a state of being to be attained or else they imagine they can talk about it knowledgeably. I simply said I do not know if there is such a state. I do acknowledge that there are flashes of absence of ego. That is all I know. The rest, for me, is hearsay and conjecture.
Yes, but this thread is about “God, soul or what happens after death.”
My understanding of what K refers to as “dying to the moment” is the negation of the ego or the death of the ego. As far as I am concerned, it is not a question of either understanding, accepting or rejecting the tenability of ego-death. It is not a state one can achieve. It is not something one can do. It is not somewhere one can go. There is no test and no evidence for it. That is just how it is.
You ask about tenability. Here is the definition of the word. See if you can apply it to “nothingness.”
“TENABILITY: capable of being held, maintained, or defended, as against attack or dispute: a tenable theory. capable of being occupied, possessed, held, or enjoyed, as under certain conditions: a research grant tenable for two years.”
2 Likes
PaulDavidson: What is the question?
[/quote]
My question is prompted by your contention that “nothingness” is not for the world of the living and that it is an imagined ‘state’ of being that we have invented. And this question, for you to answer, is, what then is the unimagined real state of being in this world of the living? Take you for instance. Is Paul Davidson a real state of being or an imaginary one?
Again, I challenge you to find where I have said either thing. I reject the words you try to put in my mouth Sree.
I did not say ‘nothingness’ is an imagined state. I said clearly that I do not know if there is such a state. My point is that this state is talked and written about quite freely by those who are not party to that state and are simply extending their imaginations. I wrote of the invention of the word ‘nothingness.’ Recall that K said "the word is not the thing.’ Anyone who imagines they can write of such a state either is there or they are just playing with words. As K said, “words chasing words.” More prosaically, in the east it is sometimes called “pouring emptiness into the void.”
There is a human being here who has been named Paul Davidson. That is not imaginary. What he thinks of himself and what other people think of him contains a whole lot of imagination.
Now you answer your question please?
It is what it says on the label Sree. You have called it a real state of being and so it is. As to what you mean by “this world of the living” I have no idea. What other worlds are there?
I am certain there are no other worlds. This is it. And that is why that “nothingness” is crucial in our inquiry into the truth about what we are before our bodies kick their buckets.
You are speaking out from both sides of your mouth here. First, you said that Paul Davidson is not imaginary. Then, you say that Paul Davidson is the sum of all imaginations (about Paul Davidson).
Not at all. But leaving that aside, why are you being so aggressive? What emotions arise in you to take such a stance? My position was stated clearly. The human being is real but his opinions about himself contain imagination.
1 Like
I am not being aggressive. It’s passion. You see it in Krishnamurti too when he was besides himself trying to get to through to his audience.
Ah, that may be the problem. You may imagine yourself being besides yourself trying to get through to an audience.
1 Like