What Happens When You Die?

[bishblaize]

There is no such "I" that fades nor continues;
there is only fading and continuing, without a fader or continuer.

There is no thinker of thoughts called "I".

"You' and "I" are nothing more than ideas which consciousness has attached to and deluded itself into thinking them real.

Yes, there is real consciousness at the other end of your screen, but no "I".

There is thinking and composing and typing, but no thinker, composer, or typer.

Anything other than thinking, composing, or typing is excess baggage, baggage that fancies itself continuing on in a cotton candy afterlife in which it will continue to receive slurpy ego gratification from the Big Ego in the Sky.

Throughout the history of man, no one has ever found this impostor called "I", though they refer to him daily. "I" this, and "I" that, and so on ad nauseum, but still no "I".

The defenders of "I" even claim it was born and dies and goes to its Reward or Punishment, the Reward just another means of ego gratification that says: "MY 'I' is better than YOUR 'I'...ha ha ha!

Still others are terrified their "I" might get caught in some cold, forgotten grave, screaming its bloody head off for all eternity, with no one there to hear.

And yes, some even say their "I" simply comes to an abrupt halt when "I"s form ceases to function.

IAy yai yai!

Once and for all, let us put this question to rest:

Show us all, o sage of sages:

Where is "I"?

Good post there.

When this body stops working, the 'I' goes to the same place that my fist goes when I open my hand.

 

[godnotgod]

You don't believe in an after life then?!? I,I,I, I don't know what to say.

Belief in an afterlife does nothing for our immediate human condition. But we do know for certain that we are here, now, in this world. If we only realized that we already have it all. Instead, we are on a 'troubled voyage in perfectly calm weather'. Buddhists call this voyage 'the long way home'.

 

[godnotgod]

so if you are saying that there is the egotistical I and then there is the higher I, then 'I' have no problem with that.
But all thing are about the higher 'I', and that is the capital 'S' of Self. It is that which is the All and is within us. that is the lord.

I won't go so far as to be anthropomorphic about it, but the thing is, the "I" is what is being manifested by the Self. IOW, the Self is playing Hide and Seek within the fictional "I", but has deliberately forgotten that it is doing so; that It itself is the Supreme Identity. That is why Awakening is necessary. So even though the "I" is a fictional character, it is also the Supreme Identity. In fact, the Supreme Identity is simultaneously playing all the parts of the universe, pretending to be those various things. So I don't distinguish between a 'lower' and a 'higher' S/s/elf. While the gold has been fashioned into a chain, the chain is still gold.

 

[godnotgod]

Good post there.

When this body stops working, the 'I' goes to the same place that my fist goes when I open my hand.

Good post there.

What about consciousness, that is the source of "I"?

Does the ocean vanish when the wave ceases to be?

 

[Robert.Evans]

Belief in an afterlife does nothing for our immediate human condition.

Ok

But we do know for certain that we are here, now, in this world.

yes

If we only realized that we already have it all. Instead, we are on a 'troubled voyage in perfectly calm weather'. Buddhists call this voyage 'the long way home'.

I don't have much problem with that. But the Mashiyach (Christ) is still the saviour... just to make the point. Without him, there is nothing.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I won't go so far as to be anthropomorphic about it, but the thing is, the "I" is what is being manifested by the Self. IOW, the Self is playing Hide and Seek within the fictional "I", but has deliberately forgotten that it is doing so; that It itself is the Supreme Identity. That is why Awakening is necessary. So even though the "I" is a fictional character, it is also the Supreme Identity. In fact, the Supreme Identity is simultaneously playing all the parts of the universe, pretending to be those various things. So I don't distinguish between a 'lower' and a 'higher' S/s/elf. While the gold has been fashioned into a chain, the chain is still gold.

Ok, I like it. But I still say that the Self then is the divine and the lower self, if you like, is us. We in that are allusions, as we represent something else. if that is what your saying, no problem. Though I bet if we go deeper into it, we shall part company... haha

 

[godnotgod]

Ok

yes

I don't have much problem with that. But the Mashiyach (Christ) is still the saviour... just to make the point. Without him, there is nothing.

That is a completely different story, but your statement jumps the gun, and is quite arbitrary and even dogmatic. Anyway, it is still in the realm of belief, so for me, your 'point' is not well taken. There are many problems with that belief that are beyond the scope of the topic here, but the crux of the matter is the doctrine of blood sacrifice as a means of salvation, which is and will always remain, a pagan idea and practice overwritten onto the genuine, non-blood sacrificial teachings of Yeshua.

 

[godnotgod]

Ok, I like it. But I still say that the Self then is the divine and the lower self, if you like, is us. We in that are allusions, as we represent something else. if that is what your saying, no problem. Though I bet if we go deeper into it, we shall part company... haha

Your view, then, is dualistic. What I am saying is that what you call the lower self is none other than the divine nature itself, pretending not to be the divine nature; pretending that the divine nature is an 'other', when, in fact, there is no 'other'. That is the true miracle and paradox of life.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Your view, then, is dualistic. What I am saying is that what you call the lower self is none other than the divine nature itself, pretending not to be the divine nature; pretending that the divine nature is an 'other', when, in fact, there is no 'other'. That is the true miracle and paradox of life.

Ok. I agree. It must sound as though I don't.

 

[Robert.Evans]

That is a completely different story, but your statement jumps the gun, and is quite arbitrary and even dogmatic. Anyway, it is still in the realm of belief, so for me, your 'point' is not well taken. There are many problems with that belief that are beyond the scope of the topic here, but the crux of the matter is the doctrine of blood sacrifice as a means of salvation, which is and will always remain, a pagan idea and practice overwritten onto the genuine, non-blood sacrificial teachings of Yeshua.

When you get to this level of debate, it is an interesting question: why blood? I shall ponder that.

 

[godnotgod]

When you get to this level of debate, it is an interesting question: why blood? I shall ponder that.

I must have misconstrued your meaning about 'the Christ' vis a vis 'Jesus Christ', the latter allegedly having shed his blood for the redemption of sin, ie; 'salvation'.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I must have misconstrued your meaning about 'the Christ' vis a vis 'Jesus Christ', the latter allegedly having shed his blood for the redemption of sin, ie; 'salvation'.

I am not sure.
NT tells us that flesh and blood cannot enter the kingdom.
Everything works fractiacally.... so the sky is a reflection of space, which is a reflection of heaven, which is reflection of the higher heavens etc. to the highest.

Flesh and blood cannot enter space (unaided). Flesh and blood, cannot enter the kingdom. There is a spiritual flesh and blood also which cannot enter, even though we are said to have a spiritual body (which is kinda interesting)

 

[`mud]

Did Jesus wear His robe and sandals into heaven, how about His flesh and blood.
I find this to more interesting, than the other stuff.
~
'mud

 

[godnotgod]

I am not sure.
NT tells us that flesh and blood cannot enter the kingdom.
Everything works fractiacally.... so the sky is a reflection of space, which is a reflection of heaven, which is reflection of the higher heavens etc. to the highest.

Flesh and blood cannot enter space (unaided). Flesh and blood, cannot enter the kingdom. There is a spiritual flesh and blood also which cannot enter, even though we are said to have a spiritual body (which is kinda interesting)

The Ascension is not the issue here, at least not as far as I am concerned. It is the Crucifixion and the doctrine of sin redemption and salvation via the shedding of divine blood that I give no credence to. You had made the statement that:

...the Mashiyach (Christ) is still the saviour...

....and I only assumed you meant that he is the savior via blood sacrifice, which I see as having been acquired from the pagan doctrines, specifically those of Mithra, from the doctrine of the Passover Lamb, and from the earlier Jewish doctrine of the scapegoat.

As a footnote, the Essene community believed Yeshua to be an Essene Nazarene, whose mystical sect did not believe in blood sacrifice, nor in bodily resurrection. They believed only in a spiritual resurrection. It was Rome and St. Paul who hunted down Yeshua and the Nazarenes, destroying their teachings and overwriting them with the pagan doctrine of blood sacrifice as a means of converting tens of thousands of pagans into Christianity.

 

[Robert.Evans]

The Ascension is not the issue here, at least not as far as I am concerned. It is the Crucifixion and the doctrine of sin redemption and salvation via the shedding of divine blood that I give no credence to. You had made the statement that:

But it is that which has brought about all things

....and I only assumed you meant that he is the savior via blood sacrifice, which I see as having been acquired from the pagan doctrines, specifically those of Mithra, from the doctrine of the Passover Lamb, and from the earlier Jewish doctrine of the scapegoat.

are thoughts are based on higher thoughts, they are fractal. It is no surprise that each one would be looking for the same thing, even if slightly different. There is fractal consciousness, there is error.

As a footnote, the Essene community believed Yeshua to be an Essene Nazarene, whose mystical sect did not believe in blood sacrifice, nor in bodily resurrection.

Only the Sadduccees. They could not do blood sacrifice as they were not in the Temple proper

They believed only in a spiritual resurrection.

1 cor 15

It was Rome and St. Paul who hunted down Yeshua and the Nazarenes, destroying their teachings and overwriting them with the pagan doctrine of blood sacrifice as a means of converting tens of thousands of pagans into Christianity.

There were two Messiahs. One lay one priestly. One did not die, one did. That is the scapegoat. That is the blood sacrifice and that is the sacrifice without blood. Thta is the law fulfilled.

 

[godnotgod]

But it is that which has brought about all things

Uh...you just got through saying that flesh and blood cannot enter into Heaven. Besides that, your claim here makes zero sense. How did the so called Ascension 'bring about all things'?

The Resurrection and Ascension are nothing more than added fluff to the Christian myth. It is the mantle piece the Christian needs that is supposed to prove that Jesus was who he said he was. The Crucifixion alone was not enough. Something spectacular was needed that was heads and heels (literally, LOL) over all the other god men who went before. As Paul says,

"And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty."

However, upon closer examination of Paul's testimony about the Resurrection, it becomes obvious that it is nothing more than a superficially created concoction.

are thoughts are based on higher thoughts, they are fractal. It is no surprise that each one would be looking for the same thing, even if slightly different. There is fractal consciousness, there is error.

???????

Only the Sadduccees. They could not do blood sacrifice as they were not in the Temple proper

1 cor 15

There were two Messiahs. One lay one priestly. One did not die, one did. That is the scapegoat. That is the blood sacrifice and that is the sacrifice without blood. Thta is the law fulfilled.

Put the scapegoat together with pagan blood sacrifice and you've got: ta da:

Jesus!

Still, I want to know exactly how blood sacrifice saves man from sin, assuming that is what you meant by your first post about the Christ and salvation.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Uh...you just got through saying that flesh and blood cannot enter into Heaven. Besides that, your claim here makes zero sense. How did the so called Ascension 'bring about all things'?

The Resurrection and Ascension are nothing more than added fluff to the Christian myth. It is the mantle piece the Christian needs that is supposed to prove that Jesus was who he said he was. The Crucifixion alone was not enough. Something spectacular was needed that was heads and heels (literally, LOL) over all the other god men who went before. As Paul says,

"And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty."

However, upon closer examination of Paul's testimony about the Resurrection, it becomes obvious that it is nothing more than a superficially created concoction.



???????



Put the scapegoat together with pagan blood sacrifice and you've got: ta da:

Jesus!

Still, I want to know exactly how blood sacrifice saves man from sin, assuming that is what you meant by your first post about the Christ and salvation.

The first crucifixion was ever before the world began. The process then is fractal. That is the logos.

What has form cannot enter that which has no form.
Thus flesh and blood cannot enter.

What has to be cast off, is the physical body.

The first blood and body created everything that we see and are

 

[godnotgod]

The first crucifixion was ever before the world began. The process then is fractal. That is the logos.

What are you talking about? What 'first crucifixion'? And how is fractal the logos?

What has form cannot enter that which has no form.
Thus flesh and blood cannot enter.

So then how was the Ascension, which you claim 'brought about all things', possible?

The first blood and body created everything that we see and are

How can that be? Blood and body emerged from the universe, not the other way around.

So. Can you answer the question: how does the blood sacrifice of Jesus save man?

 

[godnotgod]

Put the scapegoat together with pagan blood sacrifice and you've got: ta da:

Jesus!

In fact, the myth of Jesus was synthesized from 3 key elements: Jewish history as backdrop to lend credibility to the myth; the idea of the descending Logos, come to teach man, derived from Gnostic teachings; and the idea of the dying and resurrected god man, derived from the mystery religions, such a Mithraism.

 

[Thief]

Did Jesus wear His robe and sandals into heaven, how about His flesh and blood.
I find this to more interesting, than the other stuff.
~
'mud

He can be quoted...the kingdom is not of this world.
He is then reported in gospel to have left this world in ascending manner.

I see it as report needed to keep His body from defilement.
I see it as dogma to support the belief that heaven is tangible.

We now know heaven is not in the clouds.
And this world of Man is not heaven.

Heaven is indeed....with in you.

Peace first.