What Happens When You Die?

[godnotgod]

My friend, consciousness is also local. When you pinch yourself, does your brother feel it?

Non-local consciousness has all the power, IMO, to create local pods. Destroying those local pods or denying them cannot be in the power of ego-self since it is an illusion, as you say.

Can it be said that consciousness is non-local, but sensation has been 'localized' by it, that 'localization' being an aspect of non-local consciousness that we call maya?

'Localization' dovetails nicely with the idea that the Absolute is playing all the parts of 'creation' in a cosmic game of Hide and Seek with itself.

Yet, there is still no "I" that exists.

 

[Thief]

But the point is, simply having faith in a religion doesn't make that particular religion accurate.

If you meet religion X's requirements but not religion Y's requirements and assert that you're totally covered because you have faith in X, it's not a robust argument.

I think you hold the wrong end of the stick....

The one belief I hold to....life after death....with hierarchy.
The one requirement....do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

No religion circumvents.

 

[Runewolf1973]

I don't see much difference between consciousness and energy really. To me both are the same... "the ability to do work". As energy changes form and matter acts and reacts with other matter, it is displaying it's consciousness. I believe all energy/matter is animate and conscious because of this ability to act and react and change form. Scientists put to question how animate (living) creatures arose out of inanimate (non-living) matter. I say all matter IS animate, even the ground on which we walk. Even a rock has the simple conscious ability to act and react to its environment. When you kick a rock, it won't speak out and tell you "Ouch that hurt!". It won't even feel that you kicked it because it has not developed the ability to feel pain, but as you kicked it there was an action and a reaction that took place...a conscious action and a conscious reaction. Even our most primitive ancestors who were animists, understood that all things, even rocks and trees had some sort of animating force or "spirit" behind it, or what we know now as simply energy. A conscious, active, ever changing force within all things that existed. The consciousness within our brains has simply evolved/changed into a much higher level. That which we consider "awareness" is simply an advanced and more evolved state or level of consciousness. We experience these different levels of consciousness and awareness as we sleep. When we "die", our awareness simply changes, that is all . Consciousness is all around us on many different levels from rocks to trees to human beings...as the animating factor which makes energy what it is and do what it does. I guess in a way humans are "enlightened" so to speak. We are enlightened because we possess that high level of consciousness...the ability to be aware of ourselves. I believe our primitive ancestors understood much more of how the universe works than we give them credit.

 

[Penumbra]

For this part:

"So, when you are NOT thinking, then you, of course, do NOT exist, correct?"

However, the premise that Descartes is attempting to establish is dependent on thinking, the evidence of which points to existence. Therefore, where there is no thinking, in keeping with the logic behind the premise, there can be no existence. In short thinking = existence, therefore, not-thinking = non-existence; that is to say: without thought, there is no existence. Thought is the condition for existence, as put forth by Descartes.

But, as I said, Descartes failed to understand the illusory nature of the self, which you, yourself, seem to agree with. Descartes was in error from the get-go.



I assume nothing. If cognito ergo sum is true, then the rest logically follows, "I" being the active agent in all actions. If thinking is evidence of the existence of "I", then where there is dreaming, there is the "I" that is the dreamer, and so on.

Again, Descartes is guilty of seeing things where none exist. This can be summed up in the Zen aphorism:

"Just because the water in a teapot boils when placed over a fire does not mean there is a fire-god within the fire."

All of this is just a re-stating of the logical error that if B is dependent on A, then A must be dependent on B, which is simply not present in the statement and does not logically follow.

 

[ArtieE]

All of this is just a re-stating of the logical error that if B is dependent on A, then A must be dependent on B, which is simply not present in the statement and does not logically follow.

A stone doesn't think therefore it doesn't exist? A stone doesn't exist because it doesn't think?

 

[godnotgod]

All of this is just a re-stating of the logical error that if B is dependent on A, then A must be dependent on B, which is simply not present in the statement and does not logically follow.

Let's see:

Descartes is saying that his thinking is not just proof of his existence; it is essential to his existence. Were it not for his thinking, he would not exist. But he would not be able to think unless he exists. Therefore, what is more accurate, within the context of the premise, is that there is "existingthinking", in which the two are interdependent.

But that is not what I have been claiming. I am taking issue with his assumption that there exists an agent of thought to begin with. There is no such existing "I" that thinks...or dreams....or lives...or dies. There is only thinking, dreaming, living, and dying, in the same manner as there is no 'river' that flows, or 'wave' that breaks. So thinking is not evidence of his existence; it is evidence that he has deluded himself into thinking it means he, as "I", is the agent of such thinking.

 

[atanu]

Can it be said that consciousness is non-local, but sensation has been 'localized' by it, that 'localization' being an aspect of non-local consciousness that we call maya?

'Localization' dovetails nicely with the idea that the Absolute is playing all the parts of 'creation' in a cosmic game of Hide and Seek with itself.

Yet, there is still no "I" that exists.

Yes. Only that I prefer, as per my school, that "I" is not unreal but that it is of universal consciousness. In Hinduism, we do not deny the experience of the now. Only, the generality from the many particulars is held as true. Ultimaely, of course, it is said that there is no separate seer, seen, and seeing -- and thus no "I".

In short, the "I", though not the ultimate truth, is not of ego but is rooted in the universal.

 

[Thief]

Let's see:

Descartes is saying that his thinking is not just proof of his existence; it is essential to his existence. Were it not for his thinking, he would not exist. But he would not be able to think unless he exists. Therefore, what is more accurate, within the context of the premise, is that there is "existingthinking", in which the two are interdependent.

But that is not what I have been claiming. I am taking issue with his assumption that there exists an agent of thought to begin with. There is no such existing "I" that thinks...or dreams....or lives...or dies. There is only thinking, dreaming, living, and dying, in the same manner as there is no 'river' that flows, or 'wave' that breaks. So thinking is not evidence of his existence; it is evidence that he has deluded himself into thinking it means he, as "I", is the agent of such thinking.

Moving to the notion that your spirit can perish as if never born?
I do believe that can happen.

 

[horizon_mj1]

Please tell me godnotgod are you a fan of the Penrose and Hawking theorems? Even if that is the case, I exists beyond the English alphabet and society has a way of reminding us of this

I would like to add as well that the recent discovery of the Higgs Boson particle (also know as the God Particle) pretty much can put an end to the Penrose and Hawking theorems.

 

[Warren Clark]

Science is now saying that the universe came out of nothing, which is what the mystics have stated for centuries. But what you see as 'creation' may only be manifestation. The assumption is that the universe is real, rather than illusory. Quantum Mechanics is showing us the illusory side to 'reality'.

science never said that the universe came from nothing. you are only proving your lack of knowledge of science. its okay, there is still time to learn.

The universe cam from something, from what though?
This is what scientists are currently trying to discover.
They have theories but nothing solid yet.
Once they have it, it will make just as much of a controversy as evolution.
So it wouldn't even matter to Christians I suppose.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Science is now saying that the universe came out of nothing, which is what the mystics have stated for centuries.

More accurately, it started at the singularity with time zero. We don't know what preceded it, or what if anything, it "came out" of. All we know about the cause or what preceded it is nothing.

But what you see as 'creation' may only be manifestation. The assumption is that the universe is real, rather than illusory. Quantum Mechanics is showing us the illusory side to 'reality'.

We don't really know what quantum mechanics is saying except there is quantum weirdness. There is one (of the many) quantum interpretation that does explain all of quantum weirdness--the Transactional Interpretation. But it does so at a price. Quantum transactions would be made both forward and backward in time.

Also, there is such a thing as quantum computers. Primitive ones have actually been made. Their capabilities are a quantum leap ( :sorry1 ahead of digital computers. But, wait for it, the universe is indistinguishable from a giant quantum computer. The implications are enormous. Not only would it have quantum computational abilities light years ahead of digital, theoretically, it would be committing all quantum transactions to its memory since time zero............which would include all of those that went into creating your thought processes......which could be replayed or made into a program which could run independently of our physical brain .......theoretically.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Moving to the notion that your spirit can perish as if never born?
I do believe that can happen.

See above.

 

[godnotgod]

I exists beyond the English alphabet and society has a way of reminding us of this

Really! So where is this character you call "I"?

[youtube]OAVM_Xk_o9E[/youtube]
Alan Watts - "I" - YouTube

 

[godnotgod]

More accurately, it started at the singularity with time zero. We don't know what preceded it, or what if anything, it "came out" of. All we know about the cause or what preceded it is nothing.

We don't really know what quantum mechanics is saying except there is quantum weirdness. There is one (of the many) quantum interpretation that does explain all of quantum weirdness--the Transactional Interpretation. But it does so at a price. Quantum transactions would be made both forward and backward in time.

Also, there is such a thing as quantum computers. Primitive ones have actually been made. Their capabilities are a quantum leap ( :sorry1 ahead of digital computers. But, wait for it, the universe is indistinguishable from a giant quantum computer. The implications are enormous. Not only would it have quantum computational abilities light years ahead of digital, theoretically, it would be committing all quantum transactions to its memory since time zero............which would include all of those that went into creating your thought processes......which could be replayed or made into a program which could run independently of our physical brain .......theoretically.

Ah, and we will end up precisely where we are at this very moment!

 

[godnotgod]

Yes. Only that I prefer, as per my school, that "I" is not unreal but that it is of universal consciousness. In Hinduism, we do not deny the experience of the now. Only, the generality from the many particulars is held as true. Ultimaely, of course, it is said that there is no separate seer, seen, and seeing -- and thus no "I".

In short, the "I", though not the ultimate truth, is not of ego but is rooted in the universal.

Are you speaking of the concept of the atman?

 

[godnotgod]

More accurately, it started at the singularity with time zero. We don't know what preceded it, or what if anything, it "came out" of. All we know about the cause or what preceded it is nothing.

You dismiss Penrose's discovery of cosmic background radiation with it's implication of a universe existing prior to the Big Bang?

I subscribe to astronomer John Dobson's view, coupled with Vedanta and Buddhistic thought, that the universe is cyclical, eternal, and illusory ('maya').

In short:

"The universe is the Absolute as seen through the screen of Time, Space, and Causation"
Vivikenanda

see here:

The Equations of Maya

 

[horizon_mj1]

Really! So where is this character you call "I"?

[youtube]OAVM_Xk_o9E[/youtube]
Alan Watts - "I" - YouTube

Wow what a limited mind It sounds to me that the one who made this video is the one with the ego hangup:yes: and the character I call I is located directly after H and directly before J in the English Alphabet

 

[godnotgod]

Wow what a limited mind It sounds to me that the one who made this video is the one with the ego hangup:yes:

If he is saying there is no "I", that sounds like a mind of unlimited possibilities; it is "I" which reflects limited mind.

So where do you see that he is hung up? If anything, he is un-hung up on "I".

So have you located "I" yet? When you find him, let me know. I'd like to have a word with him.:beach:

 

[godnotgod]

More accurately, it started at the singularity with time zero.

So what you call 'Time' came into being via the event we call the Big Bang?

 

[horizon_mj1]

If he is saying there is no "I", that sounds like a mind of unlimited possibilities; it is "I" which reflects limited mind.

So where do you see that he is hung up? If anything, he is un-hung up on "I".

So have you located "I" yet? When you find him, let me know. I'd like to have a word with him.:beach:

Apparently you are lacking some skills in the comprehension of what "I" wrote earlier; "I" is located directly after "H" and directly before "J" in the English Alphabet; and :yes: it is "I" that was stated the man who made the video is hung-up on