按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
g so the delusion of death disappears。
now the question is； who is deluded？ is it the body or is it the consciousness？ since the body is merely a mechanical device； it cannot experience such delusion。
and there is no question of consciousness being deluded。
then what is the cause； the basis of this delusion？
the awareness of death
if a man can die in the state of consciousness； for him death exists no more。
in other words； if a man can manage to remain conscious at the time of death； he finds he never died at all： death appears just a delusion to him。
death proving to be a delusion does not mean； however； that death remains in some form as a delusion。
rather； when a person dies fully conscious； he finds there is no death at all。
then death bees a falsehood。
but it is natural for you to ask； 〃who is deluded？〃 you are right in saying it cannot be the body； because how can the body feel delusion？ it cannot be the soul either； because the soul never dies。
then who goes through the delusion？ it is of course； neither the soul nor the body。
as a matter of fact； the individual never feels the delusion of death； the illusion of death is a social phenomenon。
this needs to be understood in a little detail。
you see a man dying； and then you think he is dead。
since you are not dead you have no right to think this way。
it is very foolish on your part to conclude that the man is dead。
all you ought to say is； 〃i am not able to determine whether he is the same person in the way i knew him before。
〃 to say anything more than this is dangerous； is crossing the limits of propriety。
all one ought to say is； 〃up to yesterday the man was talking； now he no longer talks。
before he used to walk； now he walks no more。
up to yesterday； what i had understood as his life exists no more。
the life he lived up to yesterday is no more。
if there is any life beyond that； then so be it； if there isnt； then be that as it may。
〃 but to say 〃the man is dead〃 is going a little too far； it is going beyond limits。
one ought to simply say； 〃the man is no longer alive。
〃 as one knew someone to have life； he no longer has it。
this much of a negative statement is fine； that what we knew as his life …… his fighting； his loving； his eating； his drinking …… is no more； but to say the man is dead is making a very positive assertion。
we are not just saying whatsoever was present in the man exists no more； we are saying something has happened over and above this …… the man is dead。
we are saying the phenomenon of death has also occurred。
it might be fine if we said that the things that were happening around this man before are no longer happening。
we are not only saying that； but also that a new phenomenon has been added： the man is dead too。
we who are not dead； we who have no knowledge of death； crowd around the person and pronounce him dead。
the crowd determines the mans death without even asking him； without even letting him vouch for it！ it is like a one…party decision in court； the other side is absent。
the poor fellow has not even had a chance to say whether he is indeed dead or not。
do you follow what i mean？ death is a social illusion。
it is not that mans illusion； his illusion is altogether different。
his illusion is not of dying。
his illusion is how he can expect to remain awake at the moment of death when he has lived all his life in the state of sleep？ it is obvious。
how can one who is used to spending his whole day in a state of sleep； stay awake when he is actually asleep？ this means that one who is already asleep even when he is awake； will most certainly be fast asleep in his sleep。
how can one who cannot see in the bright daylight see in the darkness of night？
do you suppose one who failed to see what life is like even in his wakeful state； will be able to see what death is？ in fact； as soon as life slips through his hands； at that moment he will be lost in deep sleep。
the fact of the matter is that； outwardly； we feel he is dead； but this is a social determination； which is wrong。
here the phenomenon of death is being determined by those who are not qualified。
no one in the crowd is a right witness because no one really saw the person dying。
no one has ever seen a person dying！ never has an act of dying been witnessed by anyone。
all we have known is that until a given moment a person was alive； and then he was no longer alive。
thats it； beyond this there is a wall。
so far； no one has ever seen the phenomenon of death。
actually； the problem is that once things are accepted for a long time； we stop thinking them over。
for example； you will immediately take exception if i say that no man has ever seen light。
but i maintain that no one has ever seen light。
we have； of course； seen lighted objects； but never light itself。
we say there is light in this room because the wall is visible； because you are visible。
an object shines in the light； but light itself is never seen。
light is always an unknown source。
certain things shine in it； and because of that we say there is light。
when objects do not shine we say there is darkness。
we have never seen darkness either。
obviously； how could one who has never seen light have ever seen darkness？ if light were visible one could understand； but how can darkness be seen？
darkness simply means； now nothing is visible。
the deeper meaning of darkness is； now nothing is visible to us。
it would be better to say。
〃we cannot see anything。
〃 this would be a statement of fact。
but to say 〃there is darkness〃 is absolutely wrong。
this way； we are turning darkness into an object。
so the right thing to say about darkness is； 〃i cannot see anything。
〃 however； just because i am unable to see anything does not mean there is darkness。
saying 〃i cant see anything〃 means the source that made everything shine has bee dull。
now； since things are not visible； it is therefore dark。
a person who has； all along； taken his life to be nothing but eating； drinking； sleeping； moving about； quarreling； loving； making friends； creating enmity；