when we die, does our consciousness leave this body?

can our mind go on after death?

if we have a fragmented mind does that go into the whole of human consciousness?

Mathew Broughton wrote:
if we have a fragmented mind does that go into the whole of human consciousness?

When you cook him perfectly, O knower of creatures, then give him over to the fathers. When he goes on the path that that leads away the breath of life, then he will be led by the will of the gods (collective consciousness)

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

I have no idea what that means?

If we have a fragmented mind till it gets perfected it may not go ..
gb

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

Mathew Broughton wrote:
when we die, does our consciousness leave this body?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nfP9opawls

This dialogue on Death (Link above) may give some light to your question.

ganesan balachandran wrote:
If we have a fragmented mind till it gets perfected it may not go .. gb

Not being glib, gb, but a fragmented mind made perfect would be perfectly fragmented. I made a similar point in another post to you but you thought I was merely trying to be clever.

You cannot perfect fragmentation. Even the third law of thermodynamics says it is impossible. If you drop a blass you can never put it back together again, perfectly. Ask Humpty-Dumpty.

And the mind is not just one fallen glass, it is the amalgum of shards and splinters from the many.

Now, we can be a little clearer if we look at what is to be integrated and what can never be so. That is the real question.

What are you waiting for?

Mathew Broughton wrote:
if we have a fragmented mind does that go into the whole of human consciousness?

There is no 'if,' Mathew. The mind IS fragmented. Now, what is its relationship today, not in the future, with the whole of human consciousness?

If we can discern the actual relationship of the individual to the collective as it is in the present, then we may be able to pose the question of death more clearly.

What are you waiting for?

Mathew Broughton wrote:
can our mind go on after death?

Will my mind continue after death of the body? Is this the question? And will it be MY mind? Why do we ask the question? If we understand why we are asking the question we may get closer to the answer, Mathew. Is it curiousity or something deeper?

What are you waiting for?

Mathew Broughton wrote:
when we die, does our consciousness leave this body?

Does the question not imply both independence and continuity of mind? And, is it so?

Is mind continuous or is that an illusion? Let us ask this question, is the mind continuous, not whether or not it is continuous after death, but is it a continuous entity now? And why do we think it so?

What are you waiting for?

Mathew Broughton wrote:
when we die, does our consciousness leave this body?

Consciousness don't leave.Only brain the instrument is off.But this consciousness is not memory.It is deeper part, the me, it is feeling.Recorded memory die with brain.Verbal part die with death of organism.

Consciousness is there as common/universal factor.So the brain leave it.

It is not like this that there are millions separate ego in consciousness.And they individually appear in different brain.It is pollution of whole consciousness.It make effects on all the brains.

I don't know

Thanks I will look into that

Thanks Paul, some really helpful posts to my question.

I think that the mind is not continuous as a fragmented entity. Our mind changes all the time.

But what of consciousness is that continuous, is that our soul, or is that again a creation of thought which is time, so not continuous.

mind is thought, time, memory, conditioning. Is this also our consciousness? The way I understand K is that mind is consciousness, is this correct?

If someone is free of time, memory, thought, projection etc, then is that consciousness continous?

Or are we just the brain, and that's it? so there's nothing beyond the body and mind?

Mathew Broughton wrote:
But what of consciousness is that continuous, is that our soul, or is that again a creation of thought which is time, so not continuous.

K said that which is eternal only comes into being when that which claims continuance ends. In which case, you don't have a soul . . . yet.

And that which is eternal does not seek continuity.

So, we could look into what is continuity. Is it not the past using the present as a mere passage on its way to becoming the future? Which is, what

Yes, consciousness is ever-changing. The only thing that continues is the illusion that consciousness is somehow a fixed, continuous, independent entity. In truth there is no continuity but the belief in it leads us to continually adapt ourselves to the leading deceptions of the time.

When the illusion of continuity ends one is naturally part of the flow, which is eternal. But the illusion of continuity takes one hell of an ending!

What are you waiting for?

Thanks. Paul. To be nothing is not easy when we want to be immortal, with god, saved, seeking permanence etc...

So what of this stream of consciousness that k refers too? Is this the collective well of the combination of all human thoughts, which is perpetuated through time, which could be reincarnation?

Paul Davidson wrote:
K said that which is eternal only comes into being when that which claims continuance ends. In which case, you don't have a soul . . . yet.

Oh - becoming or what! You are re-interpreting Paul.

Paul Davidson wrote:
Yes, consciousness is ever-changing.

Is it? Or is the simply same human consciousness that continues endlessly in all its glorious delusion?

What I mean to say is the genetic conditioning, ancestral memory, from 1000's of years of evolution, survival techniques etc.. Is this what "reincarnates" is passed on through culture, family, fears, cravings etc...

So is our mind, - like as Buddhist say - continues on, is still trapped in delusion, so "consciousness" thoughts, desires, fragmented mind etc, Is what continues, is passed on some how??

look at the world, human consciousness is both genetic, heredity and conditioned by religion, culture and our environment. Is this the stream of consciousness that K refers too? But seeking to be free from it, is still part of thought, time etc.

Observing based on thought is still conditioned, wanting to be free from it is conditioning, wanting to become, be better, improve is all false too. So just do nothing? Because if you look at yourself, and wanting to see something is another trap.

Observation without the "me" thinking is impossible, so we can do nothing, so what is the point, just go along in life and enjoy it, causes there's nothing, right?

No after life, no gods, no mind, no soul, nothing, so what is the point then if there's nothing?

If real happiness is eternal, and free from all conditions and time and someone is free from all conditiong like K and stops creating any images in their mind, then what? Is their consciouness then just obsorbed into nothingness, infinite space?
They are no longer part of the human stream of consciousness?
I know a lot of questions, but it's not that I need an answer, I just think there does no seem to be a point to life if this is all there is. And I also mean there's no point to anything K said either then.

What I mean to say is the genetic conditioning, ancestral memory, from 1000's of years of evolution, survival techniques etc.. Is this what "reincarnates" is passed on through culture, family, fears, cravings etc...

So is our mind, - like as Buddhist say - continues on, is still trapped in delusion, so "consciousness" thoughts, desires, fragmented mind etc, Is what continues, is passed on some how??

look at the world, human consciousness is both genetic, heredity and conditioned by religion, culture and our environment. Is this the stream of consciousness that K refers too? But seeking to be free from it, is still part of thought, time etc.

Observing based on thought is still conditioned, wanting to be free from it is conditioning, wanting to become, be better, improve is all false too. So just do nothing? Because if you look at yourself, and wanting to see something is another trap.

Observation without the "me" thinking is impossible, so we can do nothing, so what is the point, just go along in life and enjoy it, causes there's nothing, right?

No after life, no gods, no mind, no soul, nothing, so what is the point then if there's nothing?

If real happiness is eternal, and free from all conditions and time and someone is free from all conditiong like K and stops creating any images in their mind, then what? Is their consciouness then just obsorbed into nothingness, infinite space?
They are no longer part of the human stream of consciousness?
I know a lot of questions, but it's not that I need an answer, I just think there does no seem to be a point to life if this is all there is. And I also mean there's no point to anything K said either then.

Mathew Broughton wrote:
No after life, no gods, no mind, no soul, nothing, so what is the point then if there's nothing?

Why should there be 'a point'? What but a self desires that there be 'a point'?

Well we might as well stay the way we are. Cruel, tribal, ruthless, greedy. yes the self desires a goal, purpose and this is what religious promises.

So life is pointless? Just an accident, no meaning, nothing sacred, nothing meaningful? Is that it?

Paul Davidson wrote:
but you thought I was merely trying to be clever.

Not at all.

Paul Davidson wrote:
but a fragmented mind made perfect would be perfectly fragmented.

yes. see todays quote and can we say that fragmentation dissolves by itself.
gb

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

Mathew Broughton wrote:
If real happiness is eternal, and free from all conditions and time and someone is free from all conditiong like K and stops creating any images in their mind, then what? Is their consciouness then just obsorbed into nothingness, infinite space? They are no longer part of the human stream of consciousness?

Mathew Broughton wrote:
They are no longer part of the human stream of consciousness?

There is only one consciousness, others are bilge.
gb

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

Mathew Broughton wrote:
Well we might as well stay the way we are.

Why - if we see the disorder? But don't expect a reward for seeing it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9ivwS9ZSYc&feature=related

this is what I've been looking for. Thanks Yvonne Bokobza

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
Oh - becoming or what! You are re-interpreting Paul.

No, I am quoting him, Patricia. And there was no mention of 'becoming.' He says that the eternal comes into being, not that it becomes something. You are welcome to interpret K as you will but he repeated this phrase again and again over the years. It means to me that the eternal is not somehow 'there' and neither do you create it. Another way he put it is: "Where the self is not, the Other is."

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
Is it? Or is the simply same human consciousness that continues endlessly in all its glorious delusion?

I stated that K said consciousness is ever-changing. He said that. But there is much difference between ever-changing and the revolutionary transformation K spoke of. Consciousness is always working to adapt itself to environment, an endless effort of becoming. But it is discontinuous. There is no continuity of consciousness, just the continuity of the belief in a continuity of consciousness. K once quoted the saying: "No man steps into the same river twice." Constant change but no evolution in the revolutionary sense. All a process of the cause-effect chain. What Bohm and K called the endless momentum of inertia.

What are you waiting for?

Thanks Mathew, very interesting postings.

Paul

What are you waiting for?

Mathew Broughton wrote:
Observing based on thought is still conditioned, wanting to be free from it is conditioning, wanting to become, be better, improve is all false too. So just do nothing? Because if you look at yourself, and wanting to see something is another trap. - Observation without the "me" thinking is impossible, so we can do nothing, so what is the point, just go along in life and enjoy it, causes there's nothing, right? - No after life, no gods, no mind, no soul, nothing, so what is the point then if there's nothing?

Observation employs thought, yes. But it also has to bring all aspects of the mind together if it is to do deeper. And that very act of depth-observation has an integrative effect upon mind. If observation is by thought alone then it is intellectual. That is why K implored us to put our whole selves into it, heart, body and mind. Awareness will be integral or it will be nothing. Conditioning holds onto that which is fragmented, it is the practice of divide and rule. Conditioning cannot bear sustained and integral observation. It drops.

The 'I' may begin to look out of its own discomfort. That must be so in all cases. Thought may be trying to solve iys problem. But in the attempt something quite new and unexpected can happen, if enough energy, interest and intention are intelligently present.

Observation may inevitably begin with the 'me' but if the movement of observation continues with enough resources, the 'me' becomes an irrelevence and is lost. This is something tangible. So, do something. Use your thought, your emotion and your body resources to inquire. Inquire into every thought, emotion, sensation and feeling that comes up. K does not rule this out. He implores you to do so.

Then you are out of the morrass of 'do nothing' philosophising which is bringing you down, Mathew.

What are you waiting for?

This post was last updated by Paul Davidson (account deleted) Sat, 26 Mar 2011.

Paul Davidson had written: K said that which is eternal only comes into being when that which claims continuance ends.
Patricia Hemingway wrote:Oh - becoming or what! You are re-interpreting Paul.

Patricia, here is an example from the Sixth Talk In Poona, October 3 1948:

K "On the contrary, a man who is intent upon the discovery of truth must be inwardly a complete revolutionary . . . Truth comes into being only when the things of the mind and of the hand are put aside.

What are you waiting for?

This post was last updated by Paul Davidson (account deleted) Sat, 26 Mar 2011.

Later in the same answer:

"Truth comes into being when the mind is utterly and completely still, and that stillness is not made up, put together; that stillness arises only when there is understanding; and this understanding is not difficult, only it demands your whole attention. Attention is denied when you are merely living in the brain, and not with your whole being."

Here he again emphasises that integration is a pre-condition for the arising of truth. Only when you approach 'what is' with your whole being, does truth reveal itself, and it does so through understanding. It is the state of disintegration which prevents understanding. In the state of ignorance, predicated upon the fractured mind, truth does not arise.

What are you waiting for?