What Happens When You Die?

[stillsong]

Scientists say that the universe is 4% visible and 96% invisible. The 4% is visible matter and energy, the 96% is broken down into dark matter and dark energy.
We can often agree on the 4% - but sometimes disagree.
Most people would say the human body is in the 4%. The brain is in the 4%.
What we called mind or consciousness is not visible. So it is in the 96% that we know nothing about except the scientists basically agree it exists.
So we are uncertain about what consciousness is, yet I would say most people would admit they are aware or conscious.
So we are in the universe in 2 ways as body (or an expression of consciousness) and as consciousness itself.
Does this begin to show the dilemma we are in. We spend most of our waking hours in the 4% visible universe and the rest of our time in the 96% unknown part of the universe.
But we are really in both parts all the time and just don't know it or will not face it.
If we can agree on this much, we can begin to live in both worlds that are really one world.
What I am is uncertain. I am not the universe, but I am the universe, but I neither am or am not the universe.
This is the dilemna we face. Yet it is closer to just perceiving what is. And that is our great hope and salvation from suffering.

 

[godnotgod]

I reject your assertion that the universe is an "entity", at least in the way that I understand the word "entity", which implies a mind or consciousness.
I also reject the assertion that the universe has a "point of view".
But even if it did, this wouldn't change the fact that I was a part of that.
My cells are parts of me, even though I'm made out of cells. To say that I'm not a part of the universe either implies that I'm the entire universe (which is rediculous), or that I'm not part of the universe (which make equally little sense).

Ordinarily, when we think of parts, we think of them as removable and replaceable from the primary object of which they are a part. But when we are talking about 'parts' of the universe, this is not possible, simply because no such 'part' is removable, since it is at all times totally integrated with the universe. Nothing can be separated from the universe due to the very nature of the universe itself. 'Parts' is only your mental concept and nothing more.

We can talk about your personal point of view, or a universal point of view. From a universal point of view, consciousness, and how the world is seen, is the same everywhere, until it becomes sculpted into a personal, or condtioned view. But, you see, the universal point of view is no particular point of view at all. It sees without discrimination.

Indirectly, sure.
Over many, many, many stages I'm connected to f.e. you. But this doesn't make me you, and it doesn't make me everything I'm connected to.
The cells in my hand are connected to the rest of the body and yet they are not the rest of my body. They are part of my body, but that's all they are. A part.
And in the same way I am part of the universe. But to say that I am the universe... sorry, I have no idea how that statement makes even sense! Do you believe that YOU are the universe?

Where do you leave off and the universe begins?

I never said that we were not connected to everything in the universe, I say that there is a difference between being interconnected with everything and being everything. And if you are not saying that we are everything, then we are PART of the universe, and not the universe itself. By definition, actually.

One form is not the same as another form, or of all forms, but that from which all forms emerge is the singular. The consciousness that is behind your personal identity is the same consciousness as that of the universe. Once it is seen that such Identification is an illusion, there remains only pure consciousness, and no distinction between this and that; between your consciousness and that of the universe, because there is nothing there to create the distinction, that distinction being only a mental concoction.

It's not apparent to me, because I don't see any evidence for it.
And this is, what I've been asking for since the beginning of this convesation: Please provide evidence that there is an underlying consciousness to the universe.

You don't see any evidence for it because you are looking at it via conditioned awareness. That kind of awareness already determines the kind of result, in this case, none. The intellectual approach cannot tell you what the nature of things are; it can only tell you about how it behaves and how you can predict its behavior. But any intellectual approach is made via consciousness, so consciousness is at the base of all knowledge.

I am not saying that I am seperate from those parts in the sense that I'm not connected to those parts, I'm saying I'm seperate to those parts, because I am NOT those parts.

You are not those particular forms. But once again, where do you leave off and the universe begin that you can distinguish yourself as a 'part'?

No, I'm not. Never have.
I say the universe is the ENTIRETY of everything. But the things IN the universe are the parts that make up the universe.

That's not logical. If all things are what the universe is, then they cannot also be the vessel that contains them, because without them, there would be no universe.

And so far, you seem to agree, because you do acknowledge that I am connected to everything in the universe... and where there are connections, there are different parts, because if there weren't different parts, you wouldn't need any connections. Connections CONNECT things.
YOU said:
"Everything is interconnected", which IS an acknowledgement, that there are different parts that need connecting.

If we are talking about a piano and its component parts, yes, but the notion of parts cannot be applied to the universe, since the universe always retains its integrity as the universe. What you think are parts are inseparable from the universe. But these parts are just temporal manifestations that only appear to us as parts. Like a cloud that comes and goes, they do not originally exist. Only that which brings them into existence is real. The idea of interconnectedness must be used as it is the conditioned mind that is being addressed, and which is seeing 'parts', when in reality, no such parts actually exist. When I say that you are the universe, I am referring to consciousness. Consciousness is immeasurable and cannot be encapsulated by form. It is without Time, Space or Causation, just as the universe is. Only the illusory mind creates personal identities and parts.

 

[stillsong]

God not God
You say

If we are talking about a piano and its component parts, yes, but the notion of parts cannot be applied to the universe, since the universe always retains its integrity as the universe. What you think are parts are inseparable from the universe. But these parts are just temporal manifestations that only appear to us as parts. Like a cloud that comes and goes, they do not originally exist. Only that which brings them into existence is real. The idea of interconnectedness must be used as it is the conditioned mind that is being addressed, and which is seeing 'parts', when in reality, no such parts actually exist. When I say that you are the universe, I am referring to consciousness. Consciousness is immeasurable and cannot be encapsulated by form. It is without Time, Space or Causation, just as the universe is. Only the illusory mind creates personal identities and parts.

I agree with some of your ideas.
What I can't understand is why you are trying to convince someone with words. Words are also a construct of the illusory mind, a necessary path to get through the forest or a raft across the river.
You also say
"Poverty is your GREATEST treasure; never exchange it for a rich and easy life"
The Buddha
I see a poverty in words being a greater treasure than an over abundance of words which tend to lead to argument and other results. I wonder if Buddha would agree with this?
Could you and Richard Parker find things you agree on? At least then communication is possible.
If it is not one of your concerns then I respect your right to argue even though I can't see a resolution.

 

[Thief]

God not God
You say

I agree with some of your ideas.
What I can't understand is why you are trying to convince someone with words. Words are also a construct of the illusory mind, a necessary path to get through the forest or a raft across the river.
You also say
"Poverty is your GREATEST treasure; never exchange it for a rich and easy life"
The Buddha
I see a poverty in words being a greater treasure than an over abundance of words which tend to lead to argument and other results. I wonder if Buddha would agree with this?
Could you and Richard Parker find things you agree on? At least then communication is possible.
If it is not one of your concerns then I respect your right to argue even though I can't see a resolution.

There will be no resolve with GnG.
He is on an ego trip and is determined to have the last word of this thread.

And nonbelievers can't let go of disbelief.
Consequence of dealing with a Higher Power follows believing.

 

[Sapiens]

Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy! Please ... can we play "Last Post?"

 

[godnotgod]

God not God
You say

I agree with some of your ideas.
What I can't understand is why you are trying to convince someone with words. Words are also a construct of the illusory mind, a necessary path to get through the forest or a raft across the river.
You also say
"Poverty is your GREATEST treasure; never exchange it for a rich and easy life"
The Buddha
I see a poverty in words being a greater treasure than an over abundance of words which tend to lead to argument and other results. I wonder if Buddha would agree with this?
Could you and Richard Parker find things you agree on? At least then communication is possible.
If it is not one of your concerns then I respect your right to argue even though I can't see a resolution.

Your points are well taken, however:

I agree with Richard Parker from his perspective, which is conditioned consciousness, but he cannot see my perspective because his conditioning negates it. Therefore, when having a conversation with someone who sees things only via conditioned mind, one must try to speak to them in their language. I can only use words to point to a view beyond his, but because of the nature of Reality, it cannot be explained in words which employ Reason, Analysis, and Logic. A sudden flash of insight, however, may occur to Mr. Parker when he is able to cut through all of the descriptions, concepts, and words to actually see things as they are. All I can do is to continue to point.

 

[godnotgod]

There will be no resolve with GnG.
He is on an ego trip and is determined to have the last word of this thread.
.

That false assumption on your part has already proved fatal, as you are now both under house arrest, and in......ta da.....

CHECKMATE!

Next are the cyber-stockades, 'for unlawful carnal knowledge'. Actually, for spouting half-truths, and clubbing people over the head with them. :slap:

 

[godnotgod]

Scientists say that the universe is 4% visible and 96% invisible. The 4% is visible matter and energy, the 96% is broken down into dark matter and dark energy.
We can often agree on the 4% - but sometimes disagree.
Most people would say the human body is in the 4%. The brain is in the 4%.
What we called mind or consciousness is not visible. So it is in the 96% that we know nothing about except the scientists basically agree it exists.
So we are uncertain about what consciousness is, yet I would say most people would admit they are aware or conscious.
So we are in the universe in 2 ways as body (or an expression of consciousness) and as consciousness itself.
Does this begin to show the dilemma we are in. We spend most of our waking hours in the 4% visible universe and the rest of our time in the 96% unknown part of the universe.
But we are really in both parts all the time and just don't know it or will not face it.
If we can agree on this much, we can begin to live in both worlds that are really one world.
What I am is uncertain. I am not the universe, but I am the universe, but I neither am or am not the universe.
This is the dilemna we face. Yet it is closer to just perceiving what is. And that is our great hope and salvation from suffering.

Excellent post!

"The snake appears on the rope, the rope does not undergo any change, but the snake is supported by the rope, (meaning, without the rope there is no snake). But in reality the snake was never there and so it is also true to say that the snake is not in the rope. To the question: Where is the snake?, the answer is: it is in the rope. To the question, Is the snake there?, the answer is, there is no snake, the snake was never in the rope. It is in this strain that the Lord gives out, almost in the same breath, what appears to be two contradictory statements. Everything is in Me; and nothing is in Me. This is the cosmic mystery of the existence of the Universe. It is and is not - sad-asad-vilakshaNa, mAyA! "

What is the nature of maya? Professor V. Krishnamurthy.

 

[ZooGirl02]

I believe that when we die, we immediately go before God's throne to be judged. If we have died in a state of mortal sin then we will go to Hell for all eternity and our punishment will be directly proportionate to the gravity and number of sins we committed while on earth so that the punishment in Hell is not unjust.

If we die in a state of grace and with no temporal consequences on our soul then we will go to Heaven. This, in my opinion, is rare because most people are not completely purged of the temporal consequences of their sins when they die. However, if one gains a plenary indulgence just before dying then they will go straight to Heaven provided that they have no other temporal consequences of sin on their soul which occurred after gaining the plenary indulgence. Also, one must not have any venial sins on their soul in order to go straight to Heaven.

If a person dies in a state of grace with temporal consequences of sin on their soul then I believe that person will be judged by Christ, spend time in Purgatory to have the temporal consequences of their sin purged (and any venial sins) and then they go to Heaven once their purification is complete.

 

[godnotgod]

...
[FONT=&quot]
And again, that's the assertion I want you to demonstrate evidence for.
Please stop just claiming that, and make an actual point that demonstrates the truth of that claim.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

Where do you, as a distinctly conscious being, leave off and the unconscious universe begin?

[/FONT]

I don't see your computer at the moment. You do.
So yes. There is an I. And there is a you. If there was no "I", and everything was just one consciousness, I would be able to see, hear and feel everything, every other entity on this planet can see, hear or feel.
But this is obviously not the case, therefore there is an I.
There has to be.
"I think therefore I am."
One of the most basic rules, which I really don't consider disputable.
This, btw, wouldn't even change if there was an underlying consciousness to the universe (for which I don't see any evidence). "I" would still be "I", because "I" have my own experience which is seperate to everybody elses.

[FONT=&quot]

Your example in no way proves the existence of "I". There is only non-local consciousness seeing locally, without an "I" that sees.

I am afraid poor old Descartes was delusional. So when you are not thinking, you don't exist, right? Descartes makes the fatal error of just assuming the "I" exists to begin with. A critique of this assumption is in order:

[/FONT]Søren Kierkegaard's critique

The Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard provided a critical response to the cogito.Kierkegaard argues that the cogito already presupposes the existence of "I", and therefore concluding with existence is logically trivial. Kierkegaard's argument can be made clearer if one extracts the premise "I think" into two further premises:

"x" thinks
I am that "x"
Therefore I think
Therefore I am
​

Where "x" is used as a placeholder in order to disambiguate the "I" from the thinking thing.
Here, the cogito has already assumed the "I"'s existence as that which thinks. For Kierkegaard, Descartes is merely "developing the content of a concept", namely that the "I", which already exists, thinks.
Kierkegaard argues that the value of the cogito is not its logical argument, but its psychological appeal: a thought must have something that exists to think the thought. It is psychologically difficult to think "I do not exist". But as Kierkegaard argues, the proper logical flow of argument is that existence is already assumed or presupposed in order for thinking to occur, not that existence is concluded from that thinking.


[FONT=&quot]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum


[/FONT]

[FONT="]Consciousness, as far as we can tell so far, is the product of a brain. Brains are local.
Please present evidence that consciousness can be none-local, and therefore independant of brains.

Please present the paper or any source for this.
Because I can't find any.
All I can find are studies that demonstrate that things created by the brain (f.e. waves) don't need to be directly located to the brain. But that the brain doesn't need to be local seems a very extrem claim.
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

Here is a preliminary summary of the experiment:

Prof. J. Grinberg-Zylberbaum (1994) : The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox in the Brain

...and a .pdf of the original paper you can download:
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/Grinberg1994.pdf
(not hyperlinked; just copy and paste. tested; works OK)

[/FONT]

This has nothing to do with me liking or not liking it. I'm not even contesting that, I never have.
I contest your assertion, that I therefore AM the universe, and not just part of it.

[FONT=&quot]

Where does the part begin and the whole leave off?
[/FONT]

Yes, and this is an objective reality. I can observe things in the universe, and there is an object/subject situation, because I am not all these other things in the universe, I'm just one thing among many others inside the universe.

[FONT=&quot]

No such 'objective reality' exists to begin with. You manufacture it, unwittingly, of course, when you create the observer and the observed. You only think these to be real. Observer and observed are merely mental constructs, just as "I" is a self created principle.
[/FONT]

Yes, but not each wave is the entire ocean. Each wave is a part of the ocean.

[FONT=&quot]

Where does the part begin and the ocean leave off? All I see is a continuous flow of water.
[/FONT]

Yep. Strongly disagree with that. There is no evidence that this is true. I'm not the universe. I live inside the universe and am made up of stuff in the universe, but there is more to the universe than just me.

[FONT=&quot]

There are more forms, but all forms are of the same origin. You and the origin of all forms are exactly the same thing.

[/FONT]

I don't think so. Was it in a comment you've responded to me? Because I've read all of those, but I don't think I came across any quote from him.
Also: Fine, if you use a different defintion for "life", then feel free to do so.
But you need to define it first, otherwise I have no idea what you're talking about.

[FONT=&quot]

See post #2825. I repost here for your convenience:
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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
[/FONT]

This is a non-sequitor.
"The house is made up of all rooms, including the basement. The basement is cold. Therefore, the house must be cold as well."
No. Just because on thing of an entirety of things has an attribute doesn't mean that the entirety also shares this attribute.
I agree that the universe contains things that are conscious, but the universe as an entirety doesn't seem to be conscious. If you claim it is, please provide evidence for that.

[FONT=&quot]

Are you conscious?

[/FONT]

 

[godnotgod]

I believe that when we die, we immediately go before God's throne to be judged. If we have died in a state of mortal sin then we will go to Hell for all eternity and our punishment will be directly proportionate to the gravity and number of sins we committed while on earth so that the punishment in Hell is not unjust.

If we die in a state of grace and with no temporal consequences on our soul then we will go to Heaven. This, in my opinion, is rare because most people are not completely purged of the temporal consequences of their sins when they die. However, if one gains a plenary indulgence just before dying then they will go straight to Heaven provided that they have no other temporal consequences of sin on their soul which occurred after gaining the plenary indulgence. Also, one must not have any venial sins on their soul in order to go straight to Heaven.

If a person dies in a state of grace with temporal consequences of sin on their soul then I believe that person will be judged by Christ, spend time in Purgatory to have the temporal consequences of their sin purged (and any venial sins) and then they go to Heaven once their purification is complete.

So after an eternity of agony in hell, having paid for all my sins, do I dare ask the question:

"NOW I can haz cheezeburger?"

or better yet:

"Shall I, a mere gnat, dancing in Thy Ray, DARE to be reverent?"

I still remember when I was in Catholic school, in about the 5th grade, the page in our Catechism which showed three milk bottles: one white as snow, representing the state of grace; the second with a few black spots in the milk, representing the state of venial sin, and the third, a completely black bottle of milk, representing deadly mortal sin..Uggghhh! How I suffered in those days for sins that were never mine to begin with, and how I was finally set free.

"Farewell sorrow, praise God the open door
I ain't got no home in this world any more"

So by what you are saying, only a few will get to heaven, with the Devil getting the Lion's share of souls. Therefore, Evil triumphs over Good.

 

[godnotgod]

Knowing everything could get a bit predictable. A being like that would probably want some spontaneity.

LIke a Big Red SURPRISE! button he could press at any time, for example?

 

[DanielR]

Do you subscribe in any way to the idea that THAT may be playing a cosmic game of Hide and Seek with itself?

yes, maybe lol, I find the idea that Brahman/Isvara plays a game for its 'enjoyment' which contains so much suffering in this world a bit unjust and unfair .

What about you? I'm in no way an expert in Advaita but I come to the personal conclusion that it's most probably right. I do trust that I am that but I don't 'see' it yet. But I like what you have to say and I agree with alot (basically everything you posted in this thread). I just want to learn!

 

[godnotgod]

I say the universe is the ENTIRETY of everything. But the things IN the universe are the parts that make up the universe.

Do we say that a tree is made of wood? Of course not. The tree IS wood. And in the same way, we are not parts of the universe; we ARE the universe.

We did not come into the world; we came out of it. That is just another way of saying that the universe is manifesting you and I. And if the universe is manifesting you and I, then the you and I are none other than the universe itself.

When we say, for example, that the lightning flashes, the flash and the lightning are one and the same.

Because of the way our language is constructed, we create a ghost when we say something like: 'It is raining', when there is no such "IT" that rains; there is only raining itself. In the same way, there is no universe composed of parts; there is only the universe itself, and there is no diference between you and the universe. The universe is exactly what it is made up of; it does not contain 'things' called 'parts'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZPaMc5HkHU

 

[godnotgod]

yes, maybe lol, I find the idea that Brahman/Isvara plays a game for its 'enjoyment' which contains so much suffering in this world a bit unjust and unfair .

What about you? I'm in no way an expert in Advaita but I come to the personal conclusion that it's most probably right. I do trust that I am that but I don't 'see' it yet. But I like what you have to say and I agree with alot (basically everything you posted in this thread). I just want to learn!

I, too, am no expert, but I think the key to what you need to know is in simply paying attention to the present moment. Each time the mind wanders, shift your attention always back to now. Eventually, it begins to stay put more and more. The goal is to awaken from the sleep that fictional identity and our DNA impose upon our true nature.

As for the game of Brahman, the intent is not to create suffering. We suffer because we have lost touch with the fact that life IS a game and we have taken it much too seriously. WE are THAT playing the game so intently to the extent that we even pretend NOT to be THAT.

Please enjoy the following videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paoSkyB6fnE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlfVjKzyN5Y

 

[DanielR]

I, too, am no expert, but I think the key to what you need to know is in simply paying attention to the present moment. Each time the mind wanders, shift your attention always back to now. Eventually, it begins to stay put more and more. The goal is to awaken from the sleep that fictional identity and our DNA impose upon our true nature.

As for the game of Brahman, the intent is not to create suffering. We suffer because we have lost touch with the fact that life IS a game and we have taken it much too seriously. WE are THAT playing the game so intently to the extent that we even pretend NOT to be THAT.

Please enjoy the following video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlfVjKzyN5Y

Thanks again godnotgod !

I will watch the video when I get home from work, I promise!

Regards

 

[godnotgod]

Thanks again godnotgod !

I will watch the video when I get home from work, I promise!

Regards

I also added a second one in the previous post. Hope you don't mind.

 

[Thief]

Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy! Please ... can we play "Last Post?"

Wait for it......wait for it......GnG thinks he's playing chess!

 

[Nakosis]

...


All my understanding is intellectual. I don't think any other way of understanding is even possible.

I don't think that it makes sense, and I don't see any evidence for it.

Perceiving I think would be a better term than understanding.

My experiences include perceptions which occur during meditation. They include other perceptions as well. However meditation is something I can practice.

Mostly the evidence is testimony. There are some claims of scientific evidence but the conclusion drawn from that evidence is still a matter of interpretation.

The point here is not to convince you of the truth of something. The point is to convince to test these things for yourself. Some people are very stubborn about the "objective reality" of their own perception and cannot be convince to question it.

I have a fair degree of certainty in my perception. However it did take a number of years to develop that certainty. No one is going to provide any certainty for something you are not already open to. The evidence you are asking for you are going to have to work for. However if you are already confident in your perception of reality why would you have any willingness to do so?

When I was 19, I had the willingness to become a disciple of a Guru from India. Buddhism seems another path I think is viable if you are willing.

If I never had the willingness then I would probably in your shoes right now asking for evidence to convince me I was wrong about a non-existent spiritual experience.

My "spiritual" experiences are part of my reality. They make me more open to what GnG is talking about. Without them, I suspect it'd be rather obvious that I'd be unconvinced.

 

[Nada]

When you die you are asleep.You cease to exist and you are no more.You cannot love or hate.You cannot think or feel.All these functions start with the brain.when you die,your brain dies.You cannot function without the brain.