What Happens When You Die?

[ThePainefulTruth]

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

Or we could start there.

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

There is no such implication. Or put another way, you can imply anything you want from it, but not using reason. Stephen Hawking tried to infer some knowledge about what prededed the Big Bang and concluded that it indicated there was no God. But he had to back down from it. Far to many atheists think the only obstacle to their atheism are the easy targets, revealed gods, but are yet unable to reasonably dismiss deism. The 50-50 odds for God/no(t) god, are made only for a deist God.

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

Vedanta is nothing more than the supposed absorption of "knowledge" via spiritual osmosis. And he relies far too much on the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle while we still have a dozen or two interpretations of quantum mechanics running around--including one (TI) which would dismiss it. There is no science that goes beyond the Big Bang, at least not yet, and I suspect there never will be if there is a God.

If God exists, the natural universe was extruded from the supernatural (?Ether?) which would be immune to science by definition.

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

Yes, "our" time anyway. We don't know whether it existed "before" or not. The universe could still be cyclical whether by God's design, or random spontaneity. Our drive to know the answer to the ultimate question, (God?), will never be answered, in this life/universe, if God exists and is maintaining our free will--no matter how hard some try to fit that round peg into the square hole.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

see here:

The Equations of Maya

"WHAT IS MAYA?

"What do the Vedantins mean by maya? First, we know from the Upanishads[SIZE=-2] (4) [/SIZE] that it is made of three gunas: tamas, rajas, and sattva. Tamas has its veiling power, avarana shakti in Sanskrit. Rajas has its projecting power, vikshepa shakti in Sanskrit, and sattva has its revealing power, prakasha shakti in Sanskrit. Now this language, "veiling" and "revealing," is the language of perception, not the language of manufacture. You can't make anything out of a guna as the Sankhyans[SIZE=-2] (5) [/SIZE] wanted to do. These three gunas, of which maya is said to be made, are just three aspects of a misperception. They are not substances, like wood, stone, or gold, out of which objects could be made. They are simply three aspects of an apparition. In order to mistake a rope for a snake, you must fail to see the rope rightly; that's the veiling power of tamas. Then you must jump to the wrong conclusion; that's the projecting power of rajas. You yourself project the snake. But the length and diameter of the rope are seen as the length and diameter of the snake; that's the revealing power of sattva. If you hadn't seen the rope, you might have jumped to some other wrong conclusion."

Misconception. Exactly.

 

[godnotgod]

"WHAT IS MAYA?

"What do the Vedantins mean by maya? First, we know from the Upanishads[SIZE=-2] (4) [/SIZE] that it is made of three gunas: tamas, rajas, and sattva. Tamas has its veiling power, avarana shakti in Sanskrit. Rajas has its projecting power, vikshepa shakti in Sanskrit, and sattva has its revealing power, prakasha shakti in Sanskrit. Now this language, "veiling" and "revealing," is the language of perception, not the language of manufacture. You can't make anything out of a guna as the Sankhyans[SIZE=-2] (5) [/SIZE] wanted to do. These three gunas, of which maya is said to be made, are just three aspects of a misperception. They are not substances, like wood, stone, or gold, out of which objects could be made. They are simply three aspects of an apparition. In order to mistake a rope for a snake, you must fail to see the rope rightly; that's the veiling power of tamas. Then you must jump to the wrong conclusion; that's the projecting power of rajas. You yourself project the snake. But the length and diameter of the rope are seen as the length and diameter of the snake; that's the revealing power of sattva. If you hadn't seen the rope, you might have jumped to some other wrong conclusion."

Misconception. Exactly.

Yes, that's what he said, but I'm not sure what your point is.

 

[godnotgod]

Or we could start there.

Why? We would then be nothing more than a bug traveling 'round and 'round on the equator of a billiard ball. We need to get off the illusory path of linear time.

There is no such implication. Or put another way, you can imply anything you want from it, but not using reason. Stephen Hawking tried to infer some knowledge about what prededed the Big Bang and concluded that it indicated there was no God. But he had to back down from it. Far to many atheists think the only obstacle to their atheism are the easy targets, revealed gods, but are yet unable to reasonably dismiss deism. The 50-50 odds for God/no(t) god, are made only for a deist God.

I am not referring to Hawking or God. Penrose is simply saying that the discovery of background micro rad points to a pre-Big Bang universe.

Yes, "our" time anyway. We don't know whether it existed "before" or not. The universe could still be cyclical whether by God's design, or random spontaneity.

But if cyclical, there need be no such thing as time. Cyclical implies eternal.

Our drive to know the answer to the ultimate question, (God?), will never be answered, in this life/universe, if God exists and is maintaining our free will--no matter how hard some try to fit that round peg into the square hole.

At least not via the rational mind, and not via the concept of a creator-God that exists outside the universe. Instead, the universe itself may be intelligent and absolute just as it is.

 

[godnotgod]

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

Apparently you are lacking some skills in the comprehension of what "I" wrote earlier, choosing to condescend instead of dealing with the content of the information. You interpret Watts video about "I" as his being hung up on it, when what he is doing is to try to illuminate the fact that we accept it as a reality without further investigation.

 

[Warren Clark]

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.

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

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

This seemed to have gotten out of hand when my original response was possibly ignored...
Scientists have no clue what there was or wasn't before the big bang. All they "know" and can theorize is that the radiation and expansion of the universe originated from a single point...
How it happened and where it came from is still a mystery we are eager to solve.

 

[atanu]

Are you speaking of the concept of the atman?

What remains after discarding the non-self.

 

[godnotgod]

What remains after discarding the non-self.

Not what remains, but what has always been.

Then you are speaking of the authentic Self, yes?

 

[godnotgod]

This seemed to have gotten out of hand when my original response was possibly ignored...
Scientists have no clue what there was or wasn't before the big bang. All they "know" and can theorize is that the radiation and expansion of the universe originated from a single point...

But it wasn't ignored: Penrose claims to have discovered evidence of microwave background radiation left over from before the Big Bang, suggesting the presence of a prior universe.

How it happened and where it came from is still a mystery we are eager to solve.

Perhaps 'our eagerness to solve' is creating an obstacle. In our eagerness, we may be overlooking something right under our noses; and the approach to 'figure it out' via of the rational mind leads nowhere, as modern physics is now finding out.

[youtube]wHHz4mB9GKY[/youtube]
Science v's God : Its The Collapse Of Physics As We Know it - YouTube

 

[horizon_mj1]

Apparently you are lacking some skills in the comprehension of what "I" wrote earlier, choosing to condescend instead of dealing with the content of the information. You interpret Watts video about "I" as his being hung up on it, when what he is doing is to try to illuminate the fact that we accept it as a reality without further investigation.

No it just seem to me that Watts is just another person with another theory (and most in which come up with theorems have to have some sort of hang-up or the theory would not be of interest). There has been further investigations done concerning Singularity and the most impressive (IMO) is the recent discovery that the Higgs Boson particle does in fact exist, which may lend some credence to the Singularity theory. (just thought I would let you know also that without substantial evidence to me either theorems could be right, it is kind of interesting seeing what science comes up with)

 

[Warren Clark]

But it wasn't ignored: Penrose claims to have discovered evidence of microwave background radiation left over from before the Big Bang, suggesting the presence of a prior universe.



Perhaps 'our eagerness to solve' is creating an obstacle. In our eagerness, we may be overlooking something right under our noses; and the approach to 'figure it out' via of the rational mind leads nowhere, as modern physics is now finding out.

[youtube]wHHz4mB9GKY[/youtube]
Science v's God : Its The Collapse Of Physics As We Know it - YouTube

OMLordddd. That music is going to give me a headache.
Anyway... I am loving this video... into my archive it goes...
I still don't see where God comes in.

 

[godnotgod]

OMLordddd. That music is going to give me a headache.
Anyway... I am loving this video... into my archive it goes...
I still don't see where God comes in.

Glad you appreciated its point. The bit about 'God' must have been fudged by some fundie, so if you can ignore that, the vid is otherwise excellent, the main point being that Reason and Logic are reaching their limits in terms of 'understanding' the universe. We need another kind of knowledge, and that knowledge is mystical.

Kaku is the originator of String Theory.

 

[Warren Clark]

Glad you appreciated its point. The bit about 'God' must have been fudged by some fundie, so if you can ignore that, the vid is otherwise excellent, the main point being that Reason and Logic are reaching their limits in terms of 'understanding' the universe. We need another kind of knowledge, and that knowledge is mystical.

Kaku is the originator of String Theory.

I agree that our knowledge and understanding as human beings has its limits... I am not so sure we would go as far as mysticism...
Our brains are only apt to deal with so much. I can see why people would turn to mysticism... but I personally wouldn't dive off the cliff just yet. Maybe we can evolve yet so our brains can handle more critical cognitive thinking. Then maybe we can complete these quizzical anomalies.

 

[godnotgod]

I agree that our knowledge and understanding as human beings has its limits... I am not so sure we would go as far as mysticism...
Our brains are only apt to deal with so much. I can see why people would turn to mysticism... but I personally wouldn't dive off the cliff just yet. Maybe we can evolve yet so our brains can handle more critical cognitive thinking. Then maybe we can complete these quizzical anomalies.

But don't you see? The answers to the questions we seek do not lie in the realm of the rational mind; of the brain. Did you recall Kaku's comment toward the end of the video?:


"Nature is smarter than we are"

...implying a pathway of knowledge different than that of the rational/logical/analytical mind. Mathematics and physics are the tools of the rational mind, but, as you can see from this video, seem to have reached their limits in trying to provide the explanations we seek.

 

[Kemble]

...implying a pathway of knowledge different than that of the rational/logical/analytical mind.

First I'm interested in whether or not your belief system takes into account the differences between pre-rational and post-rational states. Second, typically mystical impressions have no way of invalidating themselves so the lack of falsifiability is one issue I'm wondering if you've gotten around to addressing.

 

[Warren Clark]

But don't you see? The answers to the questions we seek do not lie in the realm of the rational mind; of the brain. Did you recall Kaku's comment toward the end of the video?:


"Nature is smarter than we are"

...implying a pathway of knowledge different than that of the rational/logical/analytical mind. Mathematics and physics are the tools of the rational mind, but, as you can see from this video, seem to have reached their limits in trying to provide the explanations we seek.

A huge part of logic, reason, and rationale is falsifiable evidence. That is how we understand and get what is true. We can say that fire is hot be cause we can touch it and feel the heat. It doesn't matter how many times you go to touch it, you will always feel the heat.
Mysticism teaches us that we can make that heat feel cold.
Mind over matter, etc.

I am sorry, you can step into the fire all you want, but I am most happy not being burnt to a crisp.

 

[godnotgod]

A huge part of logic, reason, and rationale is falsifiable evidence. That is how we understand and get what is true. We can say that fire is hot be cause we can touch it and feel the heat. It doesn't matter how many times you go to touch it, you will always feel the heat.
Mysticism teaches us that we can make that heat feel cold.
Mind over matter, etc.

I am sorry, you can step into the fire all you want, but I am most happy not being burnt to a crisp.

I am afraid you are equating the mystical experience with superstition and quackery via the stereotypes you have been taught by the mainstream society. In short, mysticism is not 'mind over matter'. It is spiritual union with the divine source found within oneself. It is via this spiritual union that one's ordinary view of life becomes completely transformed, allowing one to see into the true nature of reality directly. In short, it is to see things as they actually are, rather than to see them as our conditioned (ie; 'rational/conceptual') mind tells us they are, summed up in the following observation:

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

You see. That is the problem with modern science. It is out of balance with the view afforded by nature. It attempts to make nature an object of clinical analysis via logic and reason. It has failed, and that is why Kaku said what he did, that 'nature is smarter than we are'. Science fails to understand the intelligent nature of the universe. When the conceptual filters of Time, Space, and Causation are removed from the mind, we can then see things as they are, and when we can see things as they are, we will have the right view. Until that occurs, we are only nibbling around the edges with our probes and instruments, gathering data and knowledge, but failing to attain any understanding at all.

 

[Warren Clark]

I am afraid you are equating the mystical experience with superstition and quackery via the stereotypes you have been taught by the mainstream society. In short, mysticism is not 'mind over matter'. It is spiritual union with the divine source found within oneself. It is via this spiritual union that one's ordinary view of life becomes completely transformed, allowing one to see into the true nature of reality directly. In short, it is to see things as they actually are, rather than to see them as our conditioned (ie; 'rational/conceptual') mind tells us they are, summed up in the following observation:

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

You see. That is the problem with modern science. It is out of balance with the view afforded by nature. It attempts to make nature an object of clinical analysis via logic and reason. It has failed, and that is why Kaku said what he did, that 'nature is smarter than we are'. Science fails to understand the intelligent nature of the universe. When the conceptual filters of Time, Space, and Causation are removed from the mind, we can then see things as they are, and when we can see things as they are, we will have the right view. Until that occurs, we are only nibbling around the edges with our probes and instruments, gathering data and knowledge, but failing to attain any understanding at all.

When dealing with mysticism though... how do you know when you are wrong?
Nature is smarter than we are. We know what we know from nature.
Computer graphics are made from fractals. We learned of fractals from nature. Nature is more advanced than we can comprehend.
But how do remove cognitive thinking without creating errors in the end?
If we don't think rationally, we will get burned.

 

[godnotgod]

First I'm interested in whether or not your belief system takes into account the differences between pre-rational and post-rational states.

The intuitive view is transcendent of the duality of rational/irrational states. It is not a belief system, in that it does not come about via rational thought, which is the premise of any belief. It is about seeing, not thinking. It is non-rational, although what is termed as 'right thinking is employed in arriving at its threshold.

Second, typically mystical impressions have no way of invalidating themselves so the lack of falsifiability is one issue I'm wondering if you've gotten around to addressing.

I think what you are asking is: how does one know if what one is experiencing is real or illusory within the mystic's view. The prisoners in Plato's Cave Allegory were convinced the shadows cast upon the cave walls represented reality. The prisoner who escaped into the upper world of the Sun SAW that it was not so. What we call 'false' and 'true' within the confines of our ordinary rational consciousness looks very different when seen in a different light. Quantum Mechanics comes to mind within the context of scientific thought that has overturned classical logic. So it is with the mystical view: it completely transforms one's ordinary view. Reality is still as it was, but we now see it differently, rather than via conceptual thought.

At least in the Zen world, there is a self-correcting method, but many times a teacher is needed to guide the practitioner through delusional images well-known as makyo, which can be churned up from the subconscious during intensive meditation sessions. The teacher recognizes these as delusions, but the student firmly believes them to be real. Only after further practice and progress, does the student establish a corrected view in which he now knows the true nature of makyo. If you have traveled into the upper world of the Sun, there is now no doubt about the true nature of the shadows you once thought to be real.

 

[godnotgod]

When dealing with mysticism though... how do you know when you are wrong?
Nature is smarter than we are. We know what we know from nature.
Computer graphics are made from fractals. We learned of fractals from nature. Nature is more advanced than we can comprehend.
But how do remove cognitive thinking without creating errors in the end?
If we don't think rationally, we will get burned.

You are not incorrect, but the problem is that the cart has been placed ahead of the horse. There is something deeper in nature than what the rational mind can know. It is that essence which we need to get in touch with first, and THEN the facts and knowledge gathered by cognitive thought can be understood correctly. Until we do that, we will simply be led on by the thinking mind, with more facts and knowledge, but no real understanding about who we are and the world we live in.

As Alan Watts put it:

"Thus when the dead man talks, he gives us the facts; he tells
all and says nothing. But when the living man talks, he gives
us poetry and myth. That is to say, he gives us a word from the
unconscious not from the psychoanalytical garbage^can, but
from the living world which is not to be remembered, of which
no trace can be found in history, in the record of facts, because
it is not yet dead. The world of myth is past, is "once upon a
time*', in a symbolic sense only in the sense that it is behind us,
not as time past is behind us, but as the brain which cannot
be seen is behind the eyes which see, as behind memory is that
which remembers and cannot be remembered. Thus poetry
and myth are accounts of the real world which is, as distinct
from the dead world which was, and therefore will be. The
form of myth is magical and wonderful because the real world
is magical and wonderful in the sense that we cannot pin it
down, that we do not understand it because it under/stands us."

If nature is 'smarter than we are', it would seem prudent that we had best learn how to listen, by quieting the constantly chattering 'cognitive, thinking mind'. When the mind's preconceptions about what reality actually is fall away, things will become real quiet, allowing nature to transmit some of it's 'smarts' to us, if we are attentive, that is.