What Happens When You Die?

[Thief]

The Noble Eightfold Path could prove the saving grace.

If a code of behavior is required I would profess one item....
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

It is both a line drawn and fair warning.

 

[Penumbra]

If a code of behavior is required I would profess one item....
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

It is both a line drawn and fair warning.

Then would you say that if more is required than that, that you'd be out of luck?

 

[godnotgod]

Where is the dream occurring?

What is your definition of a dream?

Or you're just "seeing" a dream.

The acknowledgement that dreaming takes place points to wakefulness. Therefore, wakefulness is a possible state of consciousness, in which one knows one is awake, and not dreaming.

The prisoners in Plato's Cave thought the shadows on the cave walls represented reality, but upon seeing the outside world of the Sun, it was realized that the cave wall shadows were illusions.

However, in the dream-state, one does not know one is dreaming. Only awakening reveals that fact.

 

[Penumbra]

The acknowledgement that dreaming takes place points to wakefulness. Therefore, wakefulness is a possible state of consciousness, in which one knows one is awake, and not dreaming.

The prisoners in Plato's Cave thought the shadows on the cave walls represented reality, but upon seeing the outside world of the Sun, it was realized that the cave wall shadows were illusions.

However, in the dream-state, one does not know one is dreaming. Only awakening reveals that fact.

Those weren't responses to the questions.

 

[atanu]

Wah. So does real awareness show us the difference between illusion and reality?

For us, scripture points to that and also lays out various methods.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Let's get back on track: can you see how the scapegoat is essential to the image the Nazi has of himself?

Yes, but only as a tool to whip up power using hate, not because of their superiority. Did slave owners and racists in America believe that blacks were superior??? Just the opposite, even Jefferson.

"I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it." - Mark Twain

I knew before I even looked that this must be a phoney quote, invented apparently by Richard Dawkins. There is no source for it, the supposed age of the cosmos during Twain's life was in the millions of years, and it goes against other quotes of his. I've quoted him more than any other source. He was anti-organized religion, and his views were deistic and agnostic, not atheistic.

 

[godnotgod]

Yes, but only as a tool to whip up power using hate, not because of their superiority.

Yes, of course; that is what I am saying; the 'superiority' is imagined, not actual.

 

[godnotgod]

Those weren't responses to the questions.

The question here is whether we know we are dreaming or awake.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Yes, of course; that is what I am saying; the 'superiority' is imagined, not actual.

Are you saying that slave owners and bigots/racists after the Civil War thought the black race was superior?

 

[Thief]

Then would you say that if more is required than that, that you'd be out of luck?

Actually....the 'golden rule' is all anyone ever needed.

What happens to you when you die?
Everything that you did unto others.

 

[godnotgod]

Are you saying that slave owners and bigots/racists after the Civil War thought the black race was superior?

Man! Are you not getting it, or what!?

No! The scapegoat is necessary to the sense of superiority that the racist/Nazi feels. That is the value of the scapegoat to the perpetrator. The perpetrator is projecting the idea of inferiority onto the scapegoat (ie; shadow) in order to enhance the false sense of superiority (ie; persona) of the Nazi/racist/etc.

Get it?

 

[Warren Clark]

Faith requires no proving.

True, but when faith alone is applied it is also safe to assume that it is rubbish.
Just because I have faith that my invisible pet unicorn will protect me at night does not necessarily mean it is true.

Faith is rubbish when it comes to proving anything...
But if it makes you feel good and you don't impede on reason and knowledge, by all means, have faith.

 

[Penumbra]

The question here is whether we know we are dreaming or awake.

No, this particular line of posts between you and I started when you replied to my post about cogito ergo sum.

All those posts to you from me were about the fact that a dream requires an existent being, not about whether we can know we are dreaming or awake.

Actually....the 'golden rule' is all anyone ever needed.

What happens to you when you die?
Everything that you did unto others.

A hypothesis. Not a fact.

In Buddhism, that doesn't get you very far. "Faith" therefore is not enough, because if there are multiple things to select, there needs to be a useful method for selecting.

 

[Thief]

True, but when faith alone is applied it is also safe to assume that it is rubbish.
Just because I have faith that my invisible pet unicorn will protect me at night does not necessarily mean it is true.

Faith is rubbish when it comes to proving anything...
But if it makes you feel good and you don't impede on reason and knowledge, by all means, have faith.

That pink unicorn discussion should have died a long time ago.

You don't use faith to prove God...or anything.
The rational you use to believe is what matters.

I decided on faith in answering the question...
Which came first?.... Spirit or substance.

From that decision came all else.

Deciding upon a Creator wasn't hard to do.
Creation without it's Creator is an incomplete 'photo'

Oh!...that's right....no photos!
hehehehe.

 

[Thief]

About that 'golden rule'....faith....judgment...etc...

A hypothesis. Not a fact.

In Buddhism, that doesn't get you very far. "Faith" therefore is not enough, because if there are multiple things to select, there needs to be a useful method for selecting.

I believe the following...(hi there!)

The 'golden rule' is indeed, all you need as heaven approaches.
It is a line drawn.
It will be done unto you, as you did unto others.

Generosity for all the good things you did.
Apathy in return for your negligence.
That's fair...is it not?

Selection?...of course.
Not everyone will be allowed to follow.

And why choose of mediocrity when the very best is at hand to choose from?

 

[Penumbra]

About that 'golden rule'....faith....judgment...etc...

I believe the following...(hi there!)

The 'golden rule' is indeed, all you need as heaven approaches.
It is a line drawn.
It will be done unto you, as you did unto others.

Generosity for all the good things you did.
Apathy in return for your negligence.
That's fair...is it not?

Selection?...of course.
Not everyone will be allowed to follow.

And why choose of mediocrity when the very best is at hand to choose from?

This didn't respond to the points that were described.

In some religions, the golden rule is not sufficient for the ultimate end. In other words, simply following the golden rule would lead to mediocrity, maybe at best a high point within Samsara but still bound to illusion. Further work would be required.

So simply holding faith that one way is the best way just doesn't cut it if other religions end up being more accurate than yours. You'd have to be accurate or at least equally accurate for your method to be optimal.

 

[godnotgod]

No, this particular line of posts between you and I started when you replied to my post about cogito ergo sum.

All those posts to you from me were about the fact that a dream requires an existent being, not about whether we can know we are dreaming or awake.

OK, have it your way. Ultimately, the sub-discussions refer back to whether one knows what happens when you die.

You seem to think there is a dreamer of the dream.

I am asking:

Who is it that dreams?

Who is it that lives?

Who is it that dies?

You seem to espouse Buddhistic thought, which, as I understand it, does not propose a self.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

True, but when faith alone is applied it is also safe to assume that it is rubbish.

Faith alone meaning blind faith or faith with no foundation in reason, yes. Most faith is founded on 2000 year old redacted hearsay; IOW, blind faith.

Faith is rubbish when it comes to proving anything...
But if it makes you feel good and you don't impede on reason and knowledge, by all means, have faith.

If it is blind faith (i.e. without reason, based on emotion alone), it impedes on reason and knowledge by definition. In fact, faith as the word is used by religions (blind faith) is just another word for emotion. Our emotions must be guided by reason. When they aren't, we see the results in our divorce courts.

Man! Are you not getting it, or what!?

No! The scapegoat is necessary to the sense of superiority that the racist/Nazi feels. That is the value of the scapegoat to the perpetrator. The perpetrator is projecting the idea of inferiority onto the scapegoat (ie; shadow) in order to enhance the false sense of superiority (ie; persona) of the Nazi/racist/etc.

Get it?

Yeah, now, but that wasn't what you said.

That pink unicorn discussion should have died a long time ago.

You don't use faith to prove God...or anything.
The rational you use to believe is what matters.

I decided on faith in answering the question...
Which came first?.... Spirit or substance.

What does that matter? But really the question is, did spirit create substance in The Beginning?

From that decision came all else.

If there was a decision, yeah.

Deciding upon a Creator wasn't hard to do.
Creation without it's Creator is an incomplete 'photo'

There are no facts or evidence favoring a God created universe, or a spontaneous one. Therefore it's a 50-50 proposition. I believe in God because that's the only option that offers hope. So, really, I don't believe, I only hope but call it "belief" for convenience. Hmmmm, maybe I shouldn't. "I hope in God"--doesn't flow. "I hope there is a God"--clumsy. Meh.....

 

[Kemble]

There are no facts or evidence favoring a God created universe, or a spontaneous one. Therefore it's a 50-50 proposition.

I think you're over estimating that.

 

[Penumbra]

OK, have it your way. Ultimately, the sub-discussions refer back to whether one knows what happens when you die.

You seem to think there is a dreamer of the dream.

I am asking:

Who is it that dreams?

Who is it that lives?

Who is it that dies?

At no point did I say I have those answers. Cogito ergo sum isn't about those.

You seem to espouse Buddhistic thought, which, as I understand it, does not propose a self.[/quote]
Buddhism does propose consciousness, though. It does not propose an unchanging, permanent self. It doesn't assert pure nothingness, in other words.