Faith in permanent death

[Copernicus]

I can, but only through the medium of analogy and that will likely not suit you. Alternately, you may wish to read the following post to get an idea of what we mean by juxtaposition of thoughts on pure source of awareness.

You are correct that the analogies do not help to clarify what you mean by "know" in that context. I can imagine a "smart building" that comes to realize that the earth supports it without actually going into a meditative state, so that analogy fails to clarify.

 

[atanu]

You are correct that the analogies do not help to clarify what you mean by "know" in that context. I can imagine a "smart building" that comes to realize that the earth supports it without actually going into a meditative state, so that analogy fails to clarify.

No. Going inside is successful meditation -- when not a tinge of external sense view-thoughts will superimpose on crystal clear water like consciousness.

But I agree that it is difficult to convey through analogy the full meaning like it is difficult to describe taste of mango to another.

You may wish to read the link.

 

[Copernicus]

But I agree that it is difficult to convey through analogy the full meaning like it is difficult to describe taste of mango to another.

You may wish to read the link.

I did read the link. It did not help.

 

[atanu]

I did read the link. It did not help.

Can you summarise the points from the piece that you disagree with and why?

 

[Copernicus]

Can you summarise the points from the piece that you disagree with and why?

I could not, for the life of me, connect that post with the original question of what you meant by the rhetorical question "In other words, how can that consciousness which has arisen in contact with the body know the origin of the body?" I don't know what your verb "know" means in that statement, and I do not know what the expression "origin of the body" means. Clearly, the body originated--grew from--a cell in the mother's womb. But I suspect that that is not what you meant by "origin of the body".

 

[atanu]

I could not, for the life of me, connect that post with the original question of what you meant by the rhetorical question "In other words, how can that consciousness which has arisen in contact with the body know the origin of the body?" I don't know what your verb "know" means in that statement, and I do not know what the expression "origin of the body" means. Clearly, the body originated--grew from--a cell in the mother's womb. But I suspect that that is not what you meant by "origin of the body".

Just as we have water cycle or Carbon cycle in science, in Brahma Sutras -- a crisp summary of Vedantic knowledge, a jiva (living soul) cycle is taught. Someday you may come across that.

For now I am burying it in this thread, since the question has been raised by PolyHedral in a rephrased manner in another thread.

I have enjoyed discussions with you.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

Consciousness had arisen from a critical phase in the evolution of the universe after it established its 92 natural elements. If earth had never existed then since your existence would still be inevitable as you would just exist on some other planet with suitable conditions for your existence around another star such as a class G main sequence stare elsewhere in the universe. There are trillions of times more ways of not existing than existing but it is only through periods of existence we are aware of our condition.

 

[atanu]

Consciousness had arisen from a critical phase in the evolution of the universe after it established its 92 natural elements. If earth had never existed then since your existence would still be inevitable as you would just exist on some other planet with suitable conditions for your existence around another star such as a class G main sequence stare elsewhere in the universe. There are trillions of times more ways of not existing than existing but it is only through periods of existence we are aware of our condition.

Bruno

Your view is appreciated. But, this is a classic case of superposition. You have a consciousness and using that you are creating a concept and covering up the consciousness.

At the present moment, the consciousness is the fact. Knowledge of Future and Past, howsoever scientific, are still in the realm of concepts and thoughts that exist due to the Consciousness itself.

 

[atanu]

Whatever name one gives to reality or truth, it has no non-being. And the untrue or ephemeral has no being. That which comes up will go down. But the true has no birth and no death.

 

[Copernicus]

Just as we have water cycle or Carbon cycle in science, in Brahma Sutras -- a crisp summary of Vedantic knowledge, a jiva (living soul) cycle is taught. Someday you may come across that.

But I have come across it. The "carbon cycle" has a basis in evidence. The "living soul" cycle has not a shred of evidence to support it.

 

[atanu]

But I have come across it. The "carbon cycle" has a basis in evidence. The "living soul" cycle has not a shred of evidence to support it.

That may be your bias in your belief as to what consitutes evidence. Evidently, you only value the sense reports. To some of us that is only one aspect. With sense functions not being there in a sperm, sense reports may be inadquate for explaining the appearance of a sperm in a man's body. Do you have a proven theory of arrival of sperms in a body?

But I prefer not to further talk to you on this. It was again my foolishness to even have hinted about it.

 

[atanu]

But I have come across it.

And I doubt that you have come across it, except probably in some indirect writing. If you have come across it, then can you kindly summarise it and your reasons for rejecting it?
.............

Of course to me any mental account is in the scope of mind alone. And it applies to all cycle theories.

 

[Copernicus]

That may be your bias in your belief as to what consitutes evidence. Evidently, you only value the sense reports. To some of us that is only one aspect. With sense functions not being there in a sperm, sense reports may be inadquate for explaining the appearance of a sperm in a man's body. Do you have a proven theory of arrival of sperms in a body?

Yes. The delivery vehicle is rather well-known even to non-scientists.

I agree with you that this conversation doesn't seem to be going anywhere productive.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

Bruno

Your view is appreciated. But, this is a classic case of superposition. You have a consciousness and using that you are creating a concept and covering up the consciousness.

At the present moment, the consciousness is the fact. Knowledge of Future and Past, howsoever scientific, are still in the realm of concepts and thoughts that exist due to the Consciousness itself.

I am more of the view and have been for many years that the "Present" in the context of the Past the Future has no objective existence; it is no more than a space-time frame of reference that comes to your conscious attention. What you die you lose this frame of reference and are reabsorbed into a block time universe. The block universe is a universe with no "now" but its direction in time is governed by entropy. You happen to exist in a space-time frame of reference of emergent complexity where there is an abundance of rocky planets where life has evolved to produce life. 13.7 billion years post big bang happen to be within the Goldilocks limits of the cosmos, but a few billion years either way negates any existence of consciousness for whatever reasons smaller less massive stars are unsuitable for the evolution of intelligent life for the tendency to flair and brighter more massive stars do not spend enough time in their main sequence to allow life as we know it to evolve.

 

[atanu]

I am more of the view and have been for many years that the "Present" in the context of the Past the Future has no objective existence; .

Then, I can understand that whatever you are inferring is from a non-existent present.

 

[atanu]

Yes. The delivery vehicle is rather well-known even to non-scientists.

Ya. That is the greatest sensual manifestation but not any evidence.

I agree with you that this conversation doesn't seem to be going anywhere productive.

Thank goodness. We agree.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

Few can hardly take a darker belief on the subject of death than Christianity. First many of them believe death is "punishment" an is a consequence or humanity's disobedience by what many of them believe is humanity's first ancestors in the Garden of Eden by Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit. With this they were punished by making them mortal. All rational Darwinians know this is complete nonsense, we descended from apes of course, any intelligent person knows that. We are still just as much a part of the animal kingdom as fish except we are much cleverer and they are far better swimmers. Death is not a punishment, it is a necessary function of the evolution or our species as death automatically sorts out the best adapted individuals to pass on our genes. If prehistoric trilobites for instance ever achieved immortality the world still be populated by them and there would be no room for any of us.

 

[Benhamine]

Ok well I started reading all the previous posts and got to about page 10 before my curiosity kicked in to see how many pages there have been of posts...and I don't think I can wait 50 pages to post this haha. So please excuse me if this has already been stated, but at least in the first 10 pages it didn't seem that the conversation was veering this way.

I'm not as upset by the statement that the OP clearly has a belief in an afterlife, as anyone and everyone is entitled to their beliefs of the unknown (I tend to go for the less wimsical). I am more upset by the assumption that the idea of no afterlife is "pitiful" and "a defeatist, hopeless belief." I don't believe this at all. I find great beauty in my view of life and the world. Think of it this way. If there's no afterlife, no previous life, and no God, then the way we are is just emergence of reality. Our existence is merely the rearangement of current matter, atoms, etc. (however you want to go about it) forming a being that is able to be aware of the beauty around it for a moment, a glimpse at the world, only to then demerge back into the very vat of stuff that is this universe. It's like a wave forming in the ocean with enough force to rub against the side of a whale and then disolve back into the depths. Or a flower blooming to interact with a bee only to shrivel and go back to the earth that it came from. There's something incredibly beautiful and poetic about that. I don't find it hopeless or pitiful. It gives us more reason to focus on NOW, and I don't mean now as in, "Right now I'm at work and this blows." I mean right NOW as in this very instant. Not the instant before nor the next instant. Your mind is focused on the beauty of right now and the feelings your body is experiencing.

An afterlife in my mind is more defeatist. It means you're giving up on now. "This life, this moment isn't good enough. There HAS to be something next."

-Benhamine

 

[839311]

I'm not as upset by the statement that the OP clearly has a belief in an afterlife, as anyone and everyone is entitled to their beliefs of the unknown (I tend to go for the less wimsical).

I actually don't believe in an afterlife, I just think its likely.

I am more upset by the assumption that the idea of no afterlife is "pitiful" and "a defeatist, hopeless belief." I don't believe this at all. I find great beauty in my view of life and the world. Think of it this way. If there's no afterlife, no previous life, and no God, then the way we are is just emergence of reality. Our existence is merely the rearangement of current matter, atoms, etc. (however you want to go about it) forming a being that is able to be aware of the beauty around it for a moment, a glimpse at the world, only to then demerge back into the very vat of stuff that is this universe. It's like a wave forming in the ocean with enough force to rub against the side of a whale and then disolve back into the depths. Or a flower blooming to interact with a bee only to shrivel and go back to the earth that it came from. There's something incredibly beautiful and poetic about that. I don't find it hopeless or pitiful. It gives us more reason to focus on NOW, and I don't mean now as in, "Right now I'm at work and this blows." I mean right NOW as in this very instant. Not the instant before nor the next instant. Your mind is focused on the beauty of right now and the feelings your body is experiencing.

I give you credit for reading 10 pages, thats a lot of reading. If you had read all the posts you would have seen that I agree with you that the perspective you mention is a good one. I didn't include it in the OP because I wanted to stir the pot a bit

But Im not sure that anyone actually embraces this perspective fully. I think for some (most? maybe all?) of these people the weight of impending and permanent doom can and does cause some degree of stress, at one time or another, or quite frequently. I do pity these people, because I think their faith in permanent death makes their life bleak in a way, even if they do try to look at it from the perspective you mentioned.

The idea of permanent death certainly is hopeless. Theres no question about that. To conclude that this life is all we have leaves no room for hope.

An afterlife in my mind is more defeatist. It means you're giving up on now. "This life, this moment isn't good enough. There HAS to be something next."

I disagree with this. If it does turn out the there is an afterlife - lets say an infinite number of them - then that would simply be a fact of reality. The context of life would be changed. There would be nothing defeatist about it, because you would know that there is more life to come even after death. I don't see how this would cause a person to be giving up on the now. I don't see how it would make someone think this moment isn't good enough. Good enough for what? You would simply go on living, doing whatever it is you decide to do, and being comforted by the fact that the moment you are living in is but one step in an infinite journey.

Depending on who you are, this knowledge may very well compel you to improve yourself. On the other hand, some people who think that this life is all we have may live a selfish life because they want to spend every dollar on themselves. In both cases, I think it depends on who we are and how we decide to live our lives. Someone who knows that there will be an afterlife may live a selfish life too, because they may look at life from the perspective of eternal life and say that it doesn't really matter what happens in a brief 80 years on earth. In any case, it comes down to the individual and who they are, how they think, what they want, regardless of whether or not they are living in the context of eternal life or just one life.

 

[otokage007]

Once you understand that conciousness is just a neuronal process and not related to supernatural things like the soul, you can finally understand that death means you cease to exist.