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 hereās an answer anyway : human youās will continue to manifest as long as there are humans.
Iām sharing what seem to be obvious demonstrable facts - and Iām 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 Iām 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 hereās 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 lifeādespite 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 āknownā 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 thatās 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?
I think it was rickScott and DanMcD who said that we can only āaccept deathā (āsee that freedom is essentialā was the term they used) when we realise there is no alternative, when we see the implications of self-centeredness.
You use the word despair, and maybe there can be a lot of energy in despair - for we also said that being able to see that there is no alternative needs a lot of energy, us being so used to looking away.
The brain that has never been silent, still, and empty, never without the streaming content that creates its false sense of self, does not know what death is because its perpetual stream of consciousness is its denial of death.
Should the brain stop streaming its psychological content it would realize that death and life are inseparable, that there is only now, nothing but the unfolding of actuality.
1 Like
We need lenses to see small things enlarged and large things reduced, but do we need a lens to see what we need to see?
Need for what: awakening, freedom, transformation?
We need (literal) sight to survive. If weāre not denying death by constantly streaming our contents, weāre seeing what actually is - not what we think is actual.
I have had this insight and this describes it well! āPastā and āfutureā concepts create a completely different picture.
A caterpillar ādiesā when it metamorphoses into a butterfly, but a butterfly literally dies. Some things end, some things metamorphize.
Do you know this for a fact or just regurgitating Krishnamurti?
I get your distinction between metamorphosis death (caterpillar) and literal death (butterfly). But I see both as transformation, the former obvious and latter subtler. Shall we agree to disagree?
Self-analyzing, my dislike for the notion of a hard beginning or ending is partly philosophical, partly intuitive, and partly because Iām not fond of (or good at) letting completely go of my personal past.
Youāre saying that a rotting corpse is undergoing transformation. Technically, itās true, I guess, so no disagreement.
1 Like