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

The Impossibility of Death


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 112 in total
Sat, 15 Aug 2015 #1
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

For death to take place, there must be that which dies. There must be an accumulation, put together over sequence and time. If there is not something to die, obviously there can be no death.

There is no accumulation in the present moment. There is no sequence in the present moment. The present moment unfolds, flowers, and there is no past or future in the moment of unfolding. The present moment is simply what is, the truth -- no "ifs," no "ands,* no caveats.

There is nothing other than the present moment. Time and "existence" are in the comparison of the present moment to a former present moment. Accumulation and sequence are human concepts generated by a comparison of the present to a non-existent former condition.

In actuality, there is no accumulation, there is no sequence. And so, there is no death -- except as thought.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Aug 2015 #2
Thumb_stringio Bobby D United States 589 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Sorry max but that "unfolding" is still a process that is time bound. There is a "before", "during", and "after" in every unfolding. Like a theoretical physicist attempting to prove a theory of everything, yours remains a theory due to the loose ends you can't tie up and account for. It's ok though...keep pluggin' away

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Aug 2015 #3
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Bobby,

What is before the present moment? The present moment. What is after the present moment? The present moment.

The present is all that there is, and it is this timeless condition that is eternal. We, with our thinking, split up the present with concepts of sequence and time. We divide the present into "moments," "the past," "the future," "prior," "after." In doing this, we create the further concepts of growth, maturity, deterioration and death.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Sat, 15 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Aug 2015 #4
Thumb_3203 Anonymous . Reunion 71 posts in this forum Offline

I think that it is important not to confuse psychological with physical, when you talk of the mind, don't use the same words to talk of the physical, because it creates confusion. I agree, that there is no death for the mind which does not lives in psychological time, because such mind is not living in the realm of time, however the brain is aging and it dies, it's not immortal, it's impermanent.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Aug 2015 #5
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Anonymous,

I see no difference between the physical and the psychological in that both are of the present moment or they are not at all. The physical imagines the psychological, and this imagination must take place in the present -- no alternative.

As I see it, the brain does not age, just as all of existence, all of the universe, does not age. "Aging" is a concept in which the present condition is compared to a prior, no longer existing condition. Only the present condition is reality, and in the present moment -- the present condition -- there is nothing with which to compare.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Aug 2015 #6
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
What is before the present moment? The present moment.

Well no, actually, in so far as there are "moments," which I doubt, the moment before the present moment would be the previous moment. The one after would be the next moment.

But why break the flow of time up into "moments?" A moment is a mental abstraction from the flow. It only serves the purpose of naming and recalling "events," which are also abstractions from the flow. It's perfectly ;legitimate to do so, of course, but it must be born in mind that moments do not exist, except as interpretations. Fine to interpret, so long as one knows one is doing it. Time itself is ceaseless and continuous. It's just our opinions about it which introduce discontinuity, according to the importance we give to "events."

At the "moment" of your death, you will know if your theory is correct or not. Facts are stubborn things, more stubborn than logic.

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

This post was last updated by Pavil Davidov (account deleted) Sat, 15 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Aug 2015 #7
Thumb_3203 Anonymous . Reunion 71 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
The present moment unfolds, flowers, and there is no past or future in the moment of unfolding.

Then how does you are reading now a message written by me in the past? If there were nothing before present and nothing after, then how can anything be in the present? If somebody hits you, you feel pain, but without this hit few seconds ago, there would be no pain few seconds after it. Are you also denying all this?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Aug 2015 #8
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Anonymous,

As I see it, when you write your message, your message is written in the present, and this present is not erased. The present builds on this. It can be said that the present creates a new present starting with the old present. Very awkward wording! But I hope you see what I am saying.

This is also the way of the flower. The flower does not carry over a "past" -- that is impossible. It carries over the present as the present unfolds.

This is difficult to express and get across. Sorry.

Yes, I would deny the reality of pain, just as it seems to me that there is no death, because there is nothing in the present moment, the moment of life and awareness, that has accumulated that can hurt. It takes something to hurt before there can be pain. Pain exists because there is the thought that something exists that can hurt. Awareness is always a step ahead of memory and thought.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Sat, 15 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 16 Aug 2015 #9
Thumb_3203 Anonymous . Reunion 71 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
Yes, I would deny the reality of pain

Then you are denying the reality of everything, which is solipsism. If you have a headache or toothache, the pain is there despite your denial of it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 16 Aug 2015 #10
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
For death to take place, there must be that which dies. There must be an accumulation, put together over sequence and time. If there is not something to die, obviously there can be no death.

Where is K?

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 16 Aug 2015 #11
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Anonymous . wrote:
. . . you are denying the reality of everything . . .

Krishnamurti and Bohm discussed reality and the real. Existence they called reality, and then there was the real. The real is the timeless present, as I see it. All I'm saying is that life, obviously only in the present, is before any existence, any form, and therefore is not subject to hurt and death.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Sun, 16 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 16 Aug 2015 #12
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3181 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
All I'm saying is that life, obviously only in the present, is before any existence, any form, and therefore is not subject to hurt and death.

I'm new to this topic, max, so forgive me if I ask a question that you already answered. Why do you say that life is before any form? I observe the form of my wife or child...a flower... in the present,no? If no form, how would I know a banana from an elephant?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 16 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 16 Aug 2015 #13
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Pavil Davidov wrote:
Where is K?

Did Krishnamurti exist?

First off, what is meant by "existence"? Existence implies accumulation through sequence and time. But since only the present is reality, the implication must be in error. The alternative is that existence can only mean the present moment.

Certainly Krishnamurti existed, but the present moves on. Did Krishnamurti die? Only in comparison of one "present moment" to another "present moment," and it is only with thinking that the present is divided into time and moments, past, present and future, and that a comparison is made.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Sun, 16 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 16 Aug 2015 #14
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Why do you say that life is before any form?

Form is already old; it exists. But life and awareness, though formless, nevertheless obviously are. They "are," but they do not exist.

Can form create the formless? Can that which is old create the newness of life? I don't see that it can.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Sun, 16 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 16 Aug 2015 #15
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3181 posts in this forum Offline

Is the beauty of the flower part of life...the present? If the flower was formless I couldn't see it. Sorry, I'm still missing your point.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 16 Aug 2015 #16
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

There is the awareness of existence, and existence is harmonious and orderly when it unfolds and flowers. There is beauty in this. It is the past, brought into the present through thinking and thought, that brings disorder and violence into the present. Why? Because it is a reversal of the evolutionary way.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Sun, 16 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 16 Aug 2015 #17
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Pavil, Tom, Anonymous,

An interesting observation by Krishnamurti, quoted by John Riaca in post 260 of the topic, "Pages from the Book of Life": "When time is not, then death is not."

And there is no time, except as measurement. There is only the present.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Sun, 16 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 16 Aug 2015 #18
Thumb_3203 Anonymous . Reunion 71 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
An interesting observation by Krishnamurti, quoted by John Riaca in post 260 of the topic, "Pages from the Book of Life": "When time is not, then death is not."

And there is no time, except as measurement. There is only the present.

Time can have different meanings. There is time as a measurement system, then there is a psychological time, a feeling of the past, present and future, and there is time as movement, if you place something in your room at a certain place today, it will stay at the same place tomorrow.

Time and death are always relative to something, but that doesn't means that it does not exists at all, we can talk about death only when we see that this life is ever changing movement, when we see that people are aging and dying, when we see that nothing is permanent, but in an absolute sense there is no death and no time, because bigger absorbs smaller.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 16 Aug 2015 #19
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

You are saying that there are qualifiers to Krishnamurti's statement. As I see it, there is no such thing as psychological time, or time as movement. The psychological is imaginary and the present is just the present. With life in the present, there is no comparison to a past moment, and it is only in comparison that "movement" is identified.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Sun, 16 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 16 Aug 2015 #20
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
Krishnamurti and Bohm discussed reality and the real. Existence they called reality, and then there was the real.

You may be correct that Bohm and K in their discussions once made a difference between reality and the real - but I doubt it because the words mean the exact same. What I recall is the distinction K made between reality and actuality. So please provide a quote and a citation.

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 16 Aug 2015 #21
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
An interesting observation by Krishnamurti, quoted by John Riaca in post 260 of the topic, "Pages from the Book of Life": "When time is not, then death is not."

K referred to 'psychological time' rather than chronological time, just as he referred to 'psychological death' rather than physical death.

What size butterfly net do you use to catch red herrings, Max?

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 16 Aug 2015 #22
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
You are saying that there are qualifiers to Krishnamurti's statement.

No, K said, time and again, that there is chronological time but that psychological time is a creation of mind. That is not a "qualifier" but a clear, unambiguous statement.

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 16 Aug 2015 #23
Thumb_3203 Anonymous . Reunion 71 posts in this forum Offline

Max, I'm not intending to insult you, but your approach is purely logical and one sided. First you are saying that there is past, present and future, and then you are denying that there is past and future, because you see them as 3 separate logical units, by excluding 2 (past and future), you get 1 (present). But, in fact, there is no such fragmentation. Yes, there is no continuity of the present, because life is not static, it is always in the movement.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 16 Aug 2015 #24
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
There IS only the present. [my emphasis - pd]

. . . but there was the past and there will be the future.

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 16 Aug 2015 #25
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Anonymous . wrote:
Max, I'm not intending to insult you, but your approach is purely logical and one sided.

That's correct Anon, but it's a particular sort of one-sidedness called 'formal logic,' being a progression from A (precept) to B (conclusion) along a singular line. To begin to approach the matters Max deals with one at least need a dialectical approach, a dynamic language that can deal with the inner contradictions of each thing. Max seems to want to simplify things right down to single words so that "time" is "time" (and we're against it) as "death" is "death" . . . with no "qualifications" that might suggest one has only thrown tar in with the licorice on account they both accord with the word 'black.'

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

This post was last updated by Pavil Davidov (account deleted) Sun, 16 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 16 Aug 2015 #26
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
There is the awareness of existence

How are you conscious of such an awareness when you say one cannot be conscious of awareness?

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 16 Aug 2015 #27
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
Did Krishnamurti die? Only in comparison of one "present moment" to another "present moment,"

Here it is Max introducing a "qualifier."

No Max, K died, with no qualifier. And he said so.

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 16 Aug 2015 #28
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Pavil Davidov wrote:
So please provide a quote and a citation.

I looked for it at the time I posted, but couldn't find it. I believe it is somewhere in The Ending of Time.

Can't find it, Pav, so if it is of critical importance to you, either find it yourself or call me a liar.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Sun, 16 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 16 Aug 2015 #29
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Pavil Davidov wrote:
No, K said, time and again, that there is chronological time . . .

He may have said this, but where is this "chronological time"? All I see around me is the present. That's all I have ever seen around me.

All time, as I see it, is psychological. We think about yesterday and we think about tomorrow -- but today is the truth.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 16 Aug 2015 #30
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Pavil Davidov wrote:
How are you conscious of such an awareness when you say one cannot be conscious of awareness?

You can't be conscious of awareness, because consciousness is thinking and thought. You can see that there is awareness, because we are aware, otherwise we could never learn anything. We sense with the five senses -- that is being aware.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 112 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.)