Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
General Discussion | moderated by Dev Singh

Is there any survival after death?


Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 62 in total
Mon, 10 Sep 2018 #31
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 678 posts in this forum Offline

Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe wrote:
In 'Questioning K'(if I recollect correctly, in the book)) K says consciousness is one. Then goes on & says that does not mean we are some amorphous beings.

So what does that mean? Are we one like one apple or like a tree full of hundreds of apples with each apple representing a human being but connected by branches?

Personally I think it may be the latter. Each person has some energy caught in a pattern & it may be in a common river. Point is there is no 'me' in that.The 'me is when we say we are unique from other patterned energy clusters.

Hello Jayaraj. What you say above seems to make a lot of sense. Do all of us experience the absence of the "me" from time to time?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Sep 2018 #32
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 1159 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
Hi Wim. I don't really understand what you mean here.
You'd also need to indicate where on the video (the minute) where he made the mark you referred to. Thanks.

That's understandable because I didn't made clear that was coming in my mind after 'what's coming after' in the video and may be some residue of reading #26, who knows ?

Truth will unfold itself for those who enquire their own actions and only to them and for them and to or for no one else.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Sep 2018 #33
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 678 posts in this forum Offline

Goodman B wrote:
The material in the video is too deep for us because we don't love. We are reactionaries who don't feel responsible for the whole of mankind. That is why we argue endlessly.

Do we never love? Surely we love our children?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Sep 2018 #34
Thumb_1507053_1_ Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Sri Lanka 1191 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
Do all of us experience the absence of the "me" from time to time?

Oh yes Sean. I think all of us experience moments when the self is absent. When we are quietly walking somewhere or leisurely doing something etc.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Sep 2018 #35
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 678 posts in this forum Offline

Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe wrote:
Oh yes Sean. I think all of us experience moments when the self is absent. When we are quietly walking somewhere or leisurely doing something etc.

Hello again Jayaraj. Yes, I think you're right. What about when we help somebody with no thought of personal gain? What if I see a man whose car has broken down and I help him push it? Surely that is an action which isn't selfish and ego based.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Sep 2018 #36
Thumb_1507053_1_ Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Sri Lanka 1191 posts in this forum Offline

Hello Sean, yes some actions like that.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 11 Sep 2018 #37
Thumb_screenshot_2014-08-09-12-40-46 Goodman B United States 419 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
Goodman B wrote:

The material in the video is too deep for us because we don't love. We are reactionaries who don't feel responsible for the whole of mankind. That is why we argue endlessly.

Do we never love? Surely we love our children?

Do we actually love children or do we only love our own children which means that we don't love?
Love is universal , not exclusive.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 11 Sep 2018 #38
Thumb_screenshot_2014-08-09-12-40-46 Goodman B United States 419 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
Goodman B wrote:

The material in the video is too deep for us because we don't love. We are reactionaries who don't feel responsible for the whole of mankind. That is why we argue endlessly.

Do we never love? Surely we love our children?

Do we actually love children or do we only love our own children which means that we don't love?
Love is universal , not exclusive.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 11 Sep 2018 #39
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 678 posts in this forum Offline

Goodman B wrote:
Do we actually love children or do we only love our own children which means that we don't love?
Love is universal , not exclusive.

Hello Goodman. I think it's a bit more complicated than this. If we love our own children then we put them first amd don't think of ourselves. We don't act selfishly and we do not do what is best for us but what is best for them. I would say that there is an absence of the "me" here which means that love exists.

Can we act with the absence of the "me" on a universal scale? Perhaps it is important to discover love in what you called an "exclusive" context before it can exist on a broader scale. What I mean is, if we love our own children then perhaps there is more chance of loving other people such as our neighbours, friends, workmates etc. What do you think?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 11 Sep 2018 #40
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 350 posts in this forum Offline

K in the video that begins this thread:
“You see sirs, there’s one factor that you miss in all this – love knows no death. Compassion knows no death. It’s only a person that doesn’t love or has no compassion ... is afraid of death.”

In this video, K sets up a contrast between almost all of us versus the very rare individual who is not divided into fragments, who is free of fear, who is in fact love, compassion.

Most of us feel that we are a separate self: I feel like I am a unique brain inside a unique body. I have a certain belief in God that differs from others, with a certain political affiliation, with certain ideas that are mine and not those of others.

Although in this video K does not explicitly say, "You are the world," he conveys the same idea that all of us think, feel greed, pleasure, pain, envy, etc., etc. We all think with the same brain that has evolved over billions of years. And that thinking divides. Therefore we take some fragment, some part of the all, and designate the fragment as our self, and we reject some other fragments as "not me."

The separative self dies. The body, the thoughts, the characteristics, the beliefs, the states, the philosophical ideas, all this dies. But none of it dies because the same fragments continue in other people who latch onto them, perhaps in somewhat different combinations, but basically the fear, the greed, the seeking of pleasure, and so on live on in others.

The individual who is free of fear does not fear death. There is no longer fragmentation, division: there is the whole. Totality. The integrated individual in fact constantly dies, in every moment. The separative thought ends in each split second and something else begins in perpetual renewal. The brain cannot touch this. It is, only when there is total silence of the mind and acute awareness. It is love. And its action is love. This is complete death into the now. This is the deathless.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Tue, 11 Sep 2018.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Tue, 11 Sep 2018 #41
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1270 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
We all think with the same brain that has evolved over billions of years. And that thinking divides. Therefore we take some fragment, some part of the all, and designate the fragment as our self, and we reject some other fragments as "not me."

So this is a sort of 'evolution' of the human brain, as I see it...the brain sees that it has ensnared itself in a 'web', an unseen web, made from the past. K. has used the analogy of a 'stream'. The 'stepping out' of the stream is finally recognizing it for what it is, the past. With that seeing or realization, thought can be finally still and stop spinning its dream of 'individuality'. And thought also realizes totally that it cannot help in the dissolution or the 'escape' from the 'web' because like in a real spider's web, the hapless fly's struggles only ensnares it more. 'Thinking' can't bring about freedom from the known because thought is the known that it is struggling to be free of. But there is the danger in viewing the 'one who steps out' as a kind of 'higher self' what K. I believe, calls the "Atman".This is thought's old trick of creating a thinker apart from itself, in this case a 'higher', 'evolved' thinker...so the question; "who steps out of the stream?", "who escapes from the web?" are wrong questions, aren't they?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 11 Sep 2018 #42
Thumb_screenshot_2014-08-09-12-40-46 Goodman B United States 419 posts in this forum Offline

The fact that we have the same consciousness is very important to realize. Consciousness is it's content which is greed, envy, fear and attachment and so on . Understanding one's consciousness is understanding the whole consciousness of man. If one understands greed or envy then one effects the whole consciousness of mankind . This is a very important fact to realize.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Wed, 12 Sep 2018 #43
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 678 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
The individual who is free of fear does not fear death. There is no longer fragmentation, division: there is the whole. Totality. The integrated individual in fact constantly dies, in every moment. The separative thought ends in each split second and something else begins in perpetual renewal. The brain cannot touch this. It is, only when there is total silence of the mind and acute awareness. It is love. And its action is love. This is complete death into the now. This is the deathless.

What you say seems to be a very accurate summary of Krishnamurti's message. Can we, or do we, actually live like this? Some kind of radical change or transformation is necessary, isn't it? Transformations of different types often seem to come out of an acute crisis.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 12 Sep 2018 #44
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 350 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
Can we, or do we, actually live like this?

A very important question. Almost all of us, if we are honest, will have to say, "We don't, not really." Maybe in rare moments? Then the question is why? If we have really heard and understood what K is saying, why isn't there fundamental change?

Of course, the practical thinking mind must return to take care of getting you to work and home and so on. Even then, underneath, the ground is, if we are attentive. But are we really? Why not?

Therefore, on some level, we continue to spread violence and animosity.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Wed, 12 Sep 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Sep 2018 #45
Thumb_1507053_1_ Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Sri Lanka 1191 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
The separative self dies. The body, the thoughts, the characteristics, the beliefs, the states, the philosophical ideas, all this dies. But none of it dies because the same fragments continue in other people who latch onto them, perhaps in somewhat different combinations, but basically the fear, the greed, the seeking of pleasure, and so on live on in others.

Sir, because the thread started with what happens after death I am putting the following for you to read-

Page 122, dialogue Vll in Wholeness of Life.(Indian edition).

Bohm: And when your organism dies then everything ends for that organism?

K: Of course. When the organism dies it is finished.But wait a minute.If I don't end the image, the stream of image making goes on.

Bohm: It is not too clear where it goes on. In other people?

K: It manifests itself in other people.......

This is identical to what is stated in Buddhist scriptures. Some places it says 'chuthi sitha' (the mind at the moment of death) goes on. Or rather decides on the place it goes to.

Please continue your good discussion.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Sep 2018 #46
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 678 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
If we have really heard and understood what K is saying, why isn't there fundamental change?

I think you have asked another very important question. Krishnamurti dedicated most of his life to pointing out the absolute necessity for a fundemental change to take place in each of us but is it really possible to change in the way K talked about just by engaging with the teachings? Are we not listening attentively enough?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Sep 2018 #47
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1270 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
Then the question is why? If we have really heard and understood what K is saying, why isn't there fundamental change?

Perhaps because the "fundamental change" envisioned by thought, is just 'more of the same'? But in this case ,thought has heard K. use the word "ecstasy" and said to itself:"that's what we're looking for, 'ecstasy', 'happiness' without the 'sorrow' etc. If that is the case, thought is once again fooling itself. The 'fundamental change' would be for thought to see itself in a totally different way, wouldn't it?. To see that this 'desire' for change, improvement, betterment, etc is just 'more of the same'. 'Thought' tries to form an image of what this 'fundamental change' might be, but it is always in the 'future'. A 'future' that keeps 'receding'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Sep 2018 #48
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 678 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Perhaps because the "fundamental change" envisioned by thought, is just 'more of the same'? But in this case ,thought has heard K. use the word "ecstasy" and said to itself:"that's what we're looking for, 'ecstasy', 'happiness' without the 'sorrow' etc. If that is the case, thought is once again fooling itself

Hi Dan. This suggests that we are still very much anchored in thought, even after many of us have spent years listening to Krishnamurti. If what you say is true it really doesn't seem as if we've understood much at all. We are still largely unaware of how thought works. Of course this may be the case.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Sep 2018 #49
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1270 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
This suggests that we are still very much anchored in thought, even after many of us have spent years listening to Krishnamurti. If what you say is true it really doesn't seem as if we've understood much at all. We are still largely unaware of how thought works.

It seems to me that there has been a great underestimation of our true situation: that of being totally conditioned. When you say "we are still largely unaware of how thought works", I translate that slightly to read: "thought is still largely unaware of how thought works". Or, the brain is unaware of thought's divisiveness when it operates in the psychological realm. For me it changes the scene from a 'me' being unaware...to only "thought/brain being unaware"....it may seem trivial but it removes any entity that is going to act upon thought. The 'thinker' (me) is removed. There is only thought. The 'thinker' as 'me' is an illusion. So is it the 'thinker' that has listened to and read K. all these years and then in various ways tried to make that K. 'teaching' a reality for himself? But, could the illusory 'thinker' ever understand what has been said or written or is this 'thinker', made up of the past, helpless to do anything other than desire to 'get it' for his own aggrandizement (no matter how subtle). For his own security? (where there is no security). For his own enlightenment? So I think that we agree, psychological 'thought 'must' end, but on its own terms, in its own way and it seems after all these years, in its own 'time'? As I see it, there is no other entity than thought itself that can bring about its own necessary silence.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Sep 2018 #50
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 350 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
there is no other entity than thought itself that can bring about its own necessary silence.

Respectfully, I strongly disagree. What if a smoker said, "Only by smoking will I be able to quit smoking?"

No, awareness is the first step and the last step.

To sit in quietness, in stillness, if thinking happens, one can follow it and understand its significance. Then in motion, in relationship...

K discussed following every thought in self knowledge. But how many, trying to avoid any hint of a method, quickly dismiss sitting quietly as K suggests in Think On These Things or following every thought in self knowledge and in relationship?

Oh no! Method! Method! Therefore K is intellectualized. Therefore there is no real change.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Sep 2018 #51
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 350 posts in this forum Offline

We have to be clear that the main problem with a method is motivation. If I sit quietly in order to get something, some state, or some liberation, some insight, or ANYTHING, then I'm just yielding to the thinking mind's spiritual greed.

But if I play with sitting quietly, if it is explored with curiosity, innocence, and a little fun, then it is not seeking anything. It is the opposite of doing something for a reason, which means the desire to change what is into something else. Sitting without intention, just discovering, is openness to what is.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Sep 2018 #52
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1270 posts in this forum Offline

I see no problem at all with sitting quietly everyday, "meditation without the meditator" as John R. has called it. Trying to 'achieve' some heightened state seems to me at this point childish, No? Similar to taking a drug. Yes motivation is what needs to be seen and then gone beyond.

idiot ? wrote:
Respectfully, I strongly disagree. What if a smoker said, "Only by smoking will I be able to quit smoking?"
No, awareness is the first step and the last step.

Completely agree with this also so not sure what in my remarks you are addressing. Is it that you believe that there is an 'entity' separate from thought that can act in some way upon it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Sep 2018 #53
Thumb_1507053_1_ Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Sri Lanka 1191 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
As I see it, there is no other entity than thought itself that can bring about its own necessary silence.

I think thought can see it's actions to end suffering is futile. That is ,all its pursuits to find peace are futile.

I think this is needed. Otherwise thought will be everlastingly acting upon itself. The cat chasing its own tail.

However this seeing only ends thought's many persuits to find happiness. So then thought is silent in that context. Only in that context.Thought itself has not ended.

This is like taking the foot off the accelerator of a car. Engine is still running but you are not fuelling it anymore.

That would be choiceless awareness where the will-thought's attempts-is absent. In that which is observation, insight to end thought may be possible.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Sep 2018 #54
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1270 posts in this forum Offline

Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe wrote:
In that which is observation, insight to end thought may be possible.

To me and it may be wrong but whether thought will end or not is not known. Intellectually the situation may have been 'grasped' and the effort to 'do' anything about it may have been realized as futile. So it will be moment to moment as it must be because there is only this moment. So as they say, "we shall see."

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Sep 2018 #55
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 678 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
But if I play with sitting quietly, if it is explored with curiosity, innocence, and a little fun, then it is not seeking anything. It is the opposite of doing something for a reason, which means the desire to change what is into something else. Sitting without intention, just discovering, is openness to what is.

This seems to be a very sensible approach. It is surprising how difficult it is to get round to doing this though.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Sep 2018 #56
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 465 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
Minute 10:41 of the video:

“You see sirs, there’s one factor that you miss in all this – love knows no death. Compassion knows no death. It’s only a person that doesn’t love or has no compassion ... is afraid of death.”

That is really an extraordinary statement. Instinctively, it seems to be true but how can Krishnamurti or anyone else actually know this?

Hello Sean,

What does “to know death” mean? Doesn’t “knowing death” involve psychological time? The psyche is imagining death, which is the future, and this knowledge of death is the source of fear, isn’t it? Isn’t love free of knowledge? That is, love is not the wishy-washy, sentimental, image-laden, idealized thing man has traditionally called love. Where love does not involve knowledge, where knowledge is not part of love - knowledge being the building block of psychological time and fear, of “me” - then love has no knowledge of death. Man’s ideas or ideals of love predispose or drive him to desire it, seek it and hold onto it. The “love” that is desired, sought and held onto is based on thought. It is not love, as I see it.

Love is not knowledge, therefore love does not KNOW death or fear, as I understand it. Which doesn’t mean that there is no death. Of course, the human being is born and the human being dies.

At 11:45, K says, “love alone has no death”. To me that means that love does not accumulate, it has no psychological time, it is not on a continuum. Accumulation has time. Time has a passage. Psychological time and knowledge are accumulated. But love does not accumulate knowledge or time. It holds onto nothing, so it has no death. What man fears in death is the ending of the known, isn’t it? That is, if I know that I can pack up all my belongings, achievements, past, relationships, knowledge, etc., carry all that with me to heaven and leave my fears and sorrows behind, then death is not to be feared, is it?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Sat, 15 Sep 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Sep 2018 #57
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 1195 posts in this forum Offline

What if tomorrow I simply didn't wake up? What would it matter to "me"? It would have no significance.

It makes one wonder at there being this beingness in a deeper way. What is it, that this beingness, this "I", is actually here, now.

What an immense wonder.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Sat, 15 Sep 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Sep 2018 #58
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 1195 posts in this forum Offline

Words mean nothing.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 16 Sep 2018 #59
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 678 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
What does “to know death” mean? Doesn’t “knowing death” involve psychological time?

Hello Huguette. I don't know what "to know death" means in the context Krishnamurti was talking about. I don't know if it involves psychological time. The exact quote was this:

Krishnamurti - Minute 10:41 of the video:

“You see sirs, there’s one factor that you miss in all this – love knows no death. Compassion knows no death. It’s only a person that doesn’t love or has no compassion ... is afraid of death.”

You talk about love being free of knowledge in your post. That could well be an important point here. Is that also true of compassion? Could it be that he means that love and compassion do not come to an end?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 16 Sep 2018 #60
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 465 posts in this forum Offline

Sean,

Death lies in the future, or in memories of a “death” I might have experienced in the past, or in an abstraction. That is, in thinking of death, I am thinking of the future or remembering the past ..... and am inattentive to the living moment. Past and future are not actual life. Actual life is only the living moment. So my thinking about death is what produces psychological time.

Knowledge - what I know - is generally thought of as a certainty, isn’t it? What “I know” is what I believe to be the truth. Knowledge is held in high esteem although, as we have often acknowledged, knowledge in certain fields is essential. But knowledge regarding life, happiness, sorrow and relationship, is merely thought and thought is not truth. There are no experts in this field. Whatever anyone “knows” about death (except perhaps medically) consists of thought, suppositions, conclusions, images, ideas, beliefs, fear, sentimentality, etc. - which is not truth. Seen in this light, doesn’t “love alone knows no death” mean that love is beyond thought and time, and that it is only thought which has knowledge of death and which concerns itself with time?

Another meaning that I see is that love never dies or, as you suggest, never ends. The “love” which thought contrives and desires does end, or turns into hate, contempt or cruelty. Can actual love become hate? Is there a continuum on one end of which is love and on the other end is hate? Which would mean, as K has said somewhere, that love and hate are part of the same thing. And they're not, are they?

In my understanding, love, compassion and intelligence are related. They are beyond thought and what is beyond thought is whole, undivided. One cannot say where one begins and the other ends. Love, compassion and intelligence refer to different aspects of one whole, unbroken movement, action or energy, perhaps?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 62 in total
To quote a portion of this post in your reply, first select the text and then click this "Quote" link.

(N.B. Be sure to insert an empty line between the quoted text and your reply.)