Who/what I agree to be or who/what I (really) am?
Sounds like you are saying that to awaken you need to die. ? This would certainly explain why few people awaken.
1 Like
He’s contemplating suicide…having a Hamlet moment…then…
he realizes that his own life is what has brought him here, that it is here where it becomes evident to him that his life is no longer worth living, that indeed he is better off dead…
That’s quite a conclusion to jump to…
So, moved by this thought, he throws himself of the cliff, but only to be stunned by the view of a totally new world, by the opportunity of a completely new life, and as he sees this, tears of joy come out of his eyes.
A happy ending for our hero. But what does this story actually tell us?
Our hero chose to jump to his death because when he “realizes that his own life is what brought him to here, that it is here where it becomes evident to him that his life is no loner worth living, that indeed he is better off dead”. In other words, after jumping to the conclusion that he was “better off dead”, he literally jumped off a cliff to what he assumed would be his death, but turned out to be his reward for being so jumpy.
Every ending brings with itself a new beginning; and so, if there is no ending then there is no new beginning. Is this not so? Here, the ending is the “dying to”, there is no hero and no suicide. This is clear.
1 Like
If there were any truth in what I have posted above, for sure you would have to discover it for yourself; but what you get by translating what you read into your own way of thinking is a totally different story, perhaps a confused story that doesn’t make any sense, or has no truth in it, a story made up by someone else.
Intuition tells me this: Death is transformation, not ending.
A corpse is a transformed organism?
1 Like
Can I be anything more or less than an aware organism, confused and conflicted or not?
As I see it, @Manuel 's post is a continuation of where @rickScott left off in this post, and he neither speaks of suicide, as @Inquiry seems to say, nor that the mention of death and dying in his post means an end in itself from which nothing else would exist after that, as @rickScott himself seems to say in this other post.
So forgive me, but perhaps we could look at these two examples – without disrespecting anyone, or anyone feeling attacked by it – to see if we are really thinking together, if we are moving together, or is it just the individual thought of the commenter who merely shares its thinking apart from the natural flow of the conversation?
p.s.: it’s just a proposal, so don’t hit me too hard for daring to propose it 
Nearly correct - acceptance of death is all that is required. Those that commit suicide have accepted nothing at all.
@Manuel’s story about how the man is moved by his thought (of death) is not quite right - in an honest and sincere acceptance of death a door opens of itself. Unfortunately this does not mean we can earn any points by pretending to accept death on the merits of some story.
Psychological death is the ending of time, the dying to the world, which brings about a new beginning. The transformation occurs at the border line between the ending of time and the beginning, i.e., at that instant.
1 Like
Looking from the physical pov, for sure. The particles present in the living person are also present in the corpse. They are not destroyed, rather change form.
Looking from the mental pov is trickier, does mental energy persist after death?
Aware organism is what we see-experience through a conventional materialist lens. There are other lenses.
Are you sharing speculations or stating facts? In other words: How you know? 
The you who lived in time/world, does it end or transform?
I wonder whether anything truly ends or whether it metamorphoses to the next thing.
If you can define what the you is - .you will probably be close to your answer
But here’s an answer anyway : human you’s will continue to manifest as long as there are humans.
I’m sharing what seem to be obvious demonstrable facts - and I’m sure its possible for anyone who is interested in the human experience to see them too.
But I may be wrong - and would like to know if I’m missing some glaring error.
Why do yo ask? Have I said something strange above? Which bit?
I am speaking of the human experience and the fear and confusion that comes with that experience. Are we inquiring into the same subject?
For example : acceptance of death instantly eliminates any self-centered bias based on fear/desire - which is in itself a movement from pain based bias to an absence of pain based bias (aka non-pain clarity)
nb. pain based bias and non-pain clarity are polar opposites - thus a huge difference
This is perhaps the crucial question: does anyone even want to do that?
Who or what are we without inner or outer authority, i.e. without our knowledge, our judgment, our resistance, without our sense of identification or rejection?
What basis do we have for our actions or reactions?
Without authority - do we exist at all then?
Maybe not, but here’s the thing: the man is not moved by his thought of death, because he does not know what death is, he is moved rather by a profound sense of despair, by the conflict he has been living in throughout his entire life—despite the good times; and it is this living in despair that brings him to the edge of the cliff. Only when despair has reached its maximum height does he let himself (i.e., his self) go.
Ute, hi.
Is what we know, our ‘known’ our inner authority? The question would then become: What are we, do we even exist without our known?
Not obvious here in my noggin! 
I have no answers for the questions: Is all that’s required for awakening acceptance of death or does some kind of death need to happen? Have people who committed suicide not accepted death? Does a door open on its own when you accept death?