What Happens When You Die?

[godnotgod]

Ok, then I again don't understand what you mean by "spirituality" or the "spiritual" world.
So, it's not supernatural, therefore it is part of the natural world? Right?
Maybe it would help if you defined what you mean by "spiritual".
Because as I've said, we could just drop this word, and we wouldn't lose anything in your argument, since you are simply seem to apply this world to the thing we already agree to be the natural world.

OK, let's drop both concepts of material and spiritual.

Now what is the case?

If your mind is in a conditioned state, and most of our minds are, then you see the world as composed of separate material forms we call objects. We even see ourselves as separate from the universe, in a subject/object relationship. This is a state of altered consciousness. The religious and scientific views are states of altered consciousness. And if consciousness can be recognized as having been altered or conditioned, then there must be a state of unaltered, or original consciousness. This original state of unconditioned awareness does not exist in Time, Space, or Causation. It has no history; no memory. It sees the observer and the observed as one; therefore, it sees the observer and the universe also as one. Seeing oneself as one with the universe means that both observer and observed are conscious. It is this unconditioned original consciousness that is the universe itself. When the mind is transformed from conditioned consciousness to unconditioned consciousness, we call this transformation 'Awakened Consciousness', implying that our ordinary conditioned awareness is a kind of dream-sleep, or hypnosis, in which we think that what our conditioned awareness tells us about Reality is Reality itself, as in the case of QM. It is this Awakened Consciousness that is spirituality, and which sees things as they actually are.

So... "spiritual experience" is "science"?
Because that's what gave us the new understanding of quantum mechanics. Are you using them as synanumous here, or do you mean something else when you say "spiritual experience"? And if yes, then what do you mean, and how can you say that it was this "experience" that revealed that knowledge to us, when it was clearly the scientific process.

It was, but the scientific process is a function of consciousness.

Science is a highly controlled methodology of rational thought; the spiritual experience is beyond Reason, and no, I am not saying by this that it is irrational; only that it is non-rational. Science reveals facts, data and knowledge; the spiritual experience reveals the true nature of Reality. Science cannot do this. Science cannot find the music by dismantling the piano. The only way to find the music is to listen to it. Science cannot understand the nature of Reality via Logic, Reason, or Analysis; the only way to understand it is to experience it directly.

So...
Do you simply mean if I understand quantum mechanics, when you ask me if I have an understanding of the spiritual world?
Because at the moment it seems that this is what you mean, but as I've said, I really can't exactly tell.

QM is the nuts and bolts, but not the essence. My original reason for asking you if you had a spiritual understanding was in reference to knowing which scriptural passages were corrupt and which genuine. IOW, scripture is written about the spiritual experience, so to understand scripture correctly, one must have the experience first. Most people have this backwards, thinking that scripture will lead them to what they seek. And in this sense, science also has it backwards, thinking that the accumulation of factual knowledge will lead to an understanding of the universe. It won't.

If you really understood QM, you would understand the spiritual nature of Reality, but because it is seen only as a scientific view, it is seen only as unconscious phenomena.

 

[Thief]

OK, let's drop both concepts of material and spiritual.

Now what is the case?

As soon as your chemistry drops.....you fail to continue.

 

[idav]

As soon as your chemistry drops.....you fail to continue.

Chemistry doesnt just drop but continues.

 

[Thief]

Chemistry doesnt just drop but continues.

If you put it in a box and then in the ground......

besides......will 'you' still be contained in that parcel of flesh?

 

[godnotgod]

Now, you claim this "world" (and as I said: I assume you don't mean this planet, but rather all of existence, if I'm understanding correctly) is conscious and alive? Why would you think that?
I mean, it CONTAINS things that are alive, and are conscious, sure. But that doesn't make it ALL conscious and/or alive, right?

Let us take a closer look at what you are saying: that 'all of existence', which is the universe, 'CONTAINS things....'

No. the universe is not a vessel which 'contains' things; the universe is comprised of those very same 'things', plus the space within which they exist. Without those very 'things', there is no universe. Therefore, those things are the universe itself. Science tries to tell us that consciousness comes about via brains, but the reality is that brains, and the entire rest of the manifested universe, come about via consciousness.

I am 100% supported by the universe, both inside and out. Why would I claim consciousness and deny it to that which completely supports me?

Also, speaking from the position as a biologist, "life" refers to something with very specific attributes, like having a metabolism, being able to reproduce and so on.
I get the impression that, again, this is not what you mean when you say "life" or "being alive". So again, you seem to use terms in a different way than their general meaning...
Which is fine, but then you will have to define it first, otherwise I don't know what you are talking about.

Having been a marine invertebrate zoology student, I do understand the very specific scientific definition of life. However, as I have pointed out, science is a highly controlled and sculpted view designed for a particular kind of outcome. It originally formulated this definition based on perceptual observation of the phenomenal world and how it manifests itself. It's a working definition and tool that science uses for its particular purposes. But it is not without fuzzy areas, as you well know.

Recently, the physicist Freeman Dyson was quoted as having said:

"The universe shows evidence of the operations of mind on three levels. The first level is elementary physical processes, as we see them when we study atoms in the laboratory. The second level is our direct human experience of our own consciousness. The third level is the universe as a whole. Atoms in the laboratory are weird stuff, behaving like active agents rather than inert substances. They make unpredictable choices between alternative possibilities according to the laws of quantum mechanics. It appears that mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent inherent in every atom. The universe as a whole is also weird, with laws of nature that make it hospitable to the growth of mind. I do not make any clear distinction between mind and God. God is what mind becomes when it has passed beyond the scale of our comprehension."

Freeman Dyson - Wikiquote

 

[godnotgod]

If you put it in a box and then in the ground......

besides......will 'you' still be contained in that parcel of flesh?

Where is the 'you' that is imagined to be contained in that dead body?

 

[methylatedghosts]

Your'e still not understanding what I'm saying.

To arrive in the Present Moment, again, means simply to be here, now, fully present and attentive to what is. It does not mean attaching to a new idea of Reality or particular 'set', as you call it; it is the state of no idea at all. Reality is non-conceptual, and if you are at one with it, you also are in a non-conceptual state.

"Do not seek the Truth;
only cease to cherish opinions"
6th Zen Patriarch

....


An idea I've long since parted with

 

[godnotgod]

....


An idea I've long since parted with

Good night!

 

[RichardParker]

OK, let's drop both concepts of material and spiritual.

Now what is the case?

If your mind is in a conditioned state, and most of our minds are, then you see the world as composed of separate material forms we call objects. We even see ourselves as separate from the universe, in a subject/object relationship.

Maybe some people do...
I don't. That makes no sense. I'm part of this universe. I'm made of things existing in this universe and I live in this universe. I can't be absent from this universe, because there is no place I can go, and this universe, at this point contains me, making it a part of me.
So... given that, you are saying that I don't see myself and the universe in an "object/subject" relationship?
Ok. I can go with that.
I probably consider things IN the universe as "other objects", and relate to them in an "object/subject" relationship, but not the universe as a whole, I guess.

This is a state of altered consciousness. The religious and scientific views are states of altered consciousness.

Well, maybe the relgous one is, because many religous people do think that there is something about themselves (mostly called a "soul"), that transens the universe, and therefore is not part of it.
But scientificly speaking I don't think it's really contested that we are part of the universe, and not seperate from it. So, no, by your definition of this "subject/object"-relationship, the scientific view doesn't seem to apply to that.

And if consciousness can be recognized as having been altered or conditioned, then there must be a state of unaltered, or original consciousness.

So, this "unaltered" view would then include the idea that we are not seperate from the universe, but part of it.
Again, as I've said, this seems to apply to the view most people who accept modern science. I don't know anybody who isn't religous who sees himself as "seperate from the universe", as you've originally said.

This original state of unconditioned awareness does not exist in Time, Space, or Causation.

So, I get the impression that we are not talking about the same thing anymore.
Maybe can you try to explain the first part again?
So, in this "altered state of consciousness", we don't see ourselves as part of the universe, but as seperate from it? I mean, that's the definition for this altered state you have given me, but if this is really all you mean, I don't see how this applies to f.e. myself...
I've read the rest you've writen, but I won't respond yet, since I again already struggle at the first point you are trying to make, so there is not much point to go on, until we have clarified this first premise.

 

[Thief]

Chemistry doesnt just drop but continues.

Your personal reaction time is terminal.
and if you end up in a box.....

 

[Nakosis]

That's right, isn't it. However, the context to this is:

Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in. ... heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”

Matthew 11:28-30

In Taoist thought, we have:

"He who takes upon himself the sins of the world is the King of the World"

The idea here is that, with a now transformed mind, the things that the world considers problematic are now seen in a more light-hearted way, and so, the 'burdens' of the world are easy to bear. The spiritual experience makes them seem even silly or inconsequential; even our personal problems. The sins of the world include our own transgressions, which we must bear responsibility for.

My response is how I understand things.

I do understand a release of the burden of materialism. The Cross to take up, the yoke I can't make the connection to eastern philosophy.

The Son of God, what I was taught. The Son is the Logos. It is the soul that was birthed by Sunyata. The Logos is not the Absolute however it is the Creator. The Logos came forth from the absolute, and from the Logos came creation.

This is the "I" the observer. The Absolute given awareness, consciousness.

"Jesus" sometimes spoke as the Son of Man. A "normal" soul in a pot, like you, me or anyone.

Sometimes Jesus spoke as the Logos. The Son of God.

The burden of the Logos, seems to mean to accept the guidance of the Logos. To surrender the mind and the body. It's a sacrifice of ego. The burden of the ego is heavy.

The mind is a manifestation of the physical. The physical is a manifestation of the Logos and the Logos is a manifestation of the Absolute.

It is an illusion created so we/man can have a relationship with the Logos. Kind of a neat trick since the only "i" is the Logos. However the illusion is the reality of our existence as man.

 

[idav]

Your personal reaction time is terminal.
and if you end up in a box.....

You keep using the word terminal but I dont by it. We are a pregression from our ancestors, having a future species means the past deaths were a progression for diversity of life band therfore nothing has been terminal thus far.

 

[DanielR]

Hello all,

@godnotgod

Having read a lot of Nisargadatta Maharaj (he's one of my favs), I agree with what you say in this thread, but I still don't understand what happens after death, what is it lol?

I know that I am THAT and that I was basically never born and will not die, but what does this mean? Will THAT manifest into a new 'form' after this one, but since I am THAT, does it mean that this process is never ending (manifestation after manifestation)? Or is it that just THAT remains (like Maharaj says, awareness unaware of itself)

Regards

 

[Nakosis]

Hello all,

@godnotgod

Having read a lot of Nisargadatta Maharaj (he's one of my favs), I agree with what you say in this thread, but I still don't understand what happens after death, what is it lol?

I know that I am THAT and that I was basically never born and will not die, but what does this mean? Will THAT manifest into a new 'form' after this one, but since I am THAT, does it mean that this process is never ending (manifestation after manifestation)? Or is it that just THAT remains (like Maharaj says, awareness unaware of itself)

Regards

Mind and body are physical. They both are gone with physical death.

If there is something that continues, it is neither of these.

 

[godnotgod]

Hello all,

@godnotgod

Having read a lot of Nisargadatta Maharaj (he's one of my favs), I agree with what you say in this thread, but I still don't understand what happens after death, what is it lol?

I know that I am THAT and that I was basically never born and will not die, but what does this mean? Will THAT manifest into a new 'form' after this one, but since I am THAT, does it mean that this process is never ending (manifestation after manifestation)? Or is it that just THAT remains (like Maharaj says, awareness unaware of itself)

Regards

Note that the topic's question is not: 'What happens AFTER death?', but 'What happens when you die?'. If you understand that life and death are illusory, and that you are THAT, then you also must realize that the notion of a distinct self called "I" is also an illusion. IOW, there is no such self that lives or dies. As Chopra tells us: 'we return to where we always are', and what is that about? It is the condition that was before 'birth' and is after 'death'. It is not subject to Time, Space, or Causation. It is what has always been, is now, and will be eternally. If you do indeed realize your true nature as THAT, then your view is non-conceptual: no time, space, or causation; only pure Being as THAT: Unborn and Deathless.

Both the temporal, manifested forms of snowflake and ocean wave emerge from the undifferentiated source called 'water', and 'return' to it (though they were never separate to begin with).

 

[godnotgod]

Mind and body are physical. They both are gone with physical death.

If there is something that continues, it is neither of these.

It's not so much that something continues, but more that what is, has always been, and that something is The Absolute. It does not undergo any change, so there is no 'continuation'.

The Human Route

by Zen Master Seung Sahn

Coming empty-handed, going empty-handed — that is human.
When you are born, where do you come from?
When you die, where do you go?
Life is like a floating cloud which appears.
Death is like a floating cloud which disappears.
The floating cloud itself originally does not exist.
Life and death, coming and going, are also like that.
But there is one thing which always remains clear.
It is pure and clear, not depending on life and death.
Then what is the one pure and clear thing?

 

[godnotgod]

Maybe some people do...
I don't. That makes no sense. I'm part of this universe. I'm made of things existing in this universe and I live in this universe. I can't be absent from this universe, because there is no place I can go, and this universe, at this point contains me, making it a part of me.
So... given that, you are saying that I don't see myself and the universe in an "object/subject" relationship?
Ok. I can go with that.
I probably consider things IN the universe as "other objects", and relate to them in an "object/subject" relationship, but not the universe as a whole, I guess.

If you are a 'part' of the universe, then tell me: where do you begin and the universe leaves off? Being a 'part' implies that the universe is comprised of separate 'things', but we know that all such 'things' are completely interconnected with all other such 'things', the notion of 'things' and 'parts' being merely illusions of the mind, and projections from how we see artifacts such as machines, for example. But the universe is not a machine composed of separate 'parts'. It is not an artifact; it is organically grown. It's alive and conscious.

Well, maybe the relgous one is, because many religous people do think that there is something about themselves (mostly called a "soul"), that transens the universe, and therefore is not part of it.
But scientificly speaking I don't think it's really contested that we are part of the universe, and not seperate from it. So, no, by your definition of this "subject/object"-relationship, the scientific view doesn't seem to apply to that.

But all scientific views are of the nature of subject/object, observer/observed. Otherwise, such a view could not be scientific.

So, this "unaltered" view would then include the idea that we are not seperate from the universe, but part of it.
Again, as I've said, this seems to apply to the view most people who accept modern science. I don't know anybody who isn't religous who sees himself as "seperate from the universe", as you've originally said.

Not part of it, but it itself.

You ARE the universe, looking at itself through your eyes.

Religious people usually see the creation as separate from a creator, and themselves as separate from God. Even in heaven, God is unapproachable. Only the mystic sees God as his own inner nature. When we talk about a 'uni-verse', it must include everything, even God. The religious view that God is outside his own creation is not a universal view.

So, I get the impression that we are not talking about the same thing anymore.
Maybe can you try to explain the first part again?
So, in this "altered state of consciousness", we don't see ourselves as part of the universe, but as seperate from it? I mean, that's the definition for this altered state you have given me, but if this is really all you mean, I don't see how this applies to f.e. myself...
I've read the rest you've writen, but I won't respond yet, since I again already struggle at the first point you are trying to make, so there is not much point to go on, until we have clarified this first premise.

Altered consciousness means you see Reality through the conceptual filters of Time, Space, and Causation. That is how science sees it.

To see ourselves as only part of the universe is still a state of altered consciousness. Unaltered consciousness containes no idea or concept about Reality, such as being 'part' of it. The moment the mind thinks: 'part' or 'not-part-, it is in an altered state. Altered consciousness thinks; unaltered consciousness just sees things as they actually are, without thought.

 

[Thief]

Mind and body are physical. They both are gone with physical death.

If there is something that continues, it is neither of these.

This I will never believe. The body forms a linear existence which in turn forms.....you.

There is not much point in generating billions of individuals only to have that quality lost in death.

You will keep yourself.
ALL that you ever thought or felt.

And heaven will deal with it.

 

[godnotgod]

This I will never believe. The body forms a linear existence which in turn forms.....you.

There is not much point in generating billions of individuals only to have that quality lost in death.

You will keep yourself.
ALL that you ever thought or felt.

And heaven will deal with it.

You, who believe in a creator-god, put words in his mouth. The Truth is bent to fit your teeth.

 

[RichardParker]

If you are a 'part' of the universe, then tell me: where do you begin and the universe leaves off? Being a 'part' implies that the universe is comprised of separate 'things', but we know that all such 'things' are completely interconnected with all other such 'things', the notion of 'things' and 'parts' being merely illusions of the mind, and projections from how we see artifacts such as machines, for example. But the universe is not a machine composed of separate 'parts'.

Of course it is made of "parts".
You are sitting in front of a computer now, right?
Are you the computer? Can you not detach yourself from the computer, and leave the house without the computer fallowing you? If the computer drops, while you are away, do you feel, that something of you has just been broken?
So, of course the universe consists of parts. The universe ITSELF is the arrangement of these parts. It's the entirety of these parts.
And that's why I'm part of the universe. But I'm not all of the universe. I might directly and indirectly be connected to all the parts of the universe, but I certainly am seperate from these other parts.
Not seperate from the universe though.

It is not an artifact; it is organically grown. It's alive and conscious.

Being alive implies self-replication and things like metabolism, the input and output of resources.
As far as I know, this does not apply to the universes. So no, the universe is not alive, at least not in any sense that complies with the scientific definition of "life".
The same with consciousness. I don't see how the universe (the ENTIRE thing) can be consciouss. I am. You are. So parts of the universe are. But other parts aren't.
F.e. If somebody on the other side of the planet loses consciousnes, this doesn't mean that I lose consciousnes too. Which shows clearly, that the individual parts that are conscious do not share this consciousnes.

But all scientific views are of the nature of subject/object, observer/observed. Otherwise, such a view could not be scientific.

As I've said, I don't know of any scientist who doesn't see himself as a part of the universe. This makes no sense. Do you know any people who consider themself to be seperate from the universe? I don't even know how this could be possible.

You ARE the universe, looking at itself through your eyes.

What justifies that claim? As I've said, I see very clear evidence for all of our parts being part of the universe, but I don't see any evidence to then say that therefore we ARE the universe.
The universe existed long before we existed, even long before conscious things existed. Therefore, consciousness seems to be an emergent property of things in the universe, not a necessary attribute of the universe itself. ESPECIALLY not of the entire universe!

Altered consciousness means you see Reality through the conceptual filters of Time, Space, and Causation. That is how science sees it.

No, not necessarily. There are scientific models that don't take things like f.e. causality as a given, especially in the realms of quantum mechanics.

To see ourselves as only part of the universe is still a state of altered consciousness. Unaltered consciousness containes no idea or concept about Reality, such as being 'part' of it. The moment the mind thinks: 'part' or 'not-part-, it is in an altered state. Altered consciousness thinks; unaltered consciousness just sees things as they actually are, without thought.

And what's the evidence to support that claim?