What Happens When You Die?

[atanu]

Yes, of course, but in the end, we must go beyond the teachings, to negate negation.

Again, I will say that that happens. For example, Shri Ramana Maharshi teaches that one can meditate (or whatever) but beyond that is call of the beyond.

 

[godnotgod]

Again, I will say that that happens. For example, Shri Ramana Maharshi teaches that one can meditate (or whatever) but beyond that is call of the beyond.

Heh..heh...what I really meant was that one arrives in the here and now, integrated with reality.

 

[godnotgod]

I keep on living. Always different, never the same.

And yet, to know that you are different, you need what is the same to compare to.

You cannot see change, unless it is seen against the changeless. But since the changeless is passive, you do not notice it, as it is the background to change, which you are focused upon. Were it not for the changeless, you could not claim change.

You began your journey of change from the changeless and are on the way back to it.

When you finally arrive home, what will have changed?

 

[Koldo]

But you had previously stated that:

"In place prior to 'I'? Nothing was in its place."

So the distinction itself had to have come from the non-distinct, from no-thing.

The distinction itself came from the separation between 'you' and 'me'.

Do you mean the natural world, or do you mean the world of social interactions?

The natural world, and shaped by the world of social interactions.

 

[Thief]

Heh..heh...what I really meant was that one arrives in the here and now, integrated with reality.

You sir should lay no claim to 'reality'.

You have already declared all of this is an illusion.

 

[godnotgod]

You sir should lay no claim to 'reality'.

You have already declared all of this is an illusion.

An illusion understood as such can only be known via Reality. Your problem is that you think the illusion is real. It isn't. It's an illusion, but you can't accept that. Too bad. You're missing out on the magic show.

I once asked you what makes you think all of this is real, and you never answered.

I've already explained my position, several times.

 

[godnotgod]

The distinction itself came from the separation between 'you' and 'me'.

Aren't the distinction and the separation one and the same?

The natural world, and shaped by the world of social interactions.

What was the first impression by either world made upon?

 

[Koldo]

Aren't the distinction and the separation one and the same?

No. :no:

What was the first impression by either world made upon?

I don't comprehend your question. Could you rephrase it?

 

[atanu]

You sir should lay no claim to 'reality'.

You have already declared all of this is an illusion.

No. I think, he has already mentioned about an immutable vis-a-vis which the changes are known.

But let GNG confirm.

 

[godnotgod]

No. :no:

I think they are. What's the diff? When the distinction is made, that is when the separation occurs. It is one action.

But what I am saying is that the distinction that is made is only conceptual, not actual. "I" seen as a separate ego acting upon the world is a self-created illusion. There is no such thing as an "I" that acts; there is only the action itself. It is the mind that takes the action and freezes it into a concept it calls "I" or 'self', just as we freeze the action of water into what we think is a real thing called a wave or a river. Neither is a real thing.

I don't comprehend your question. Could you rephrase it?

Did society put its marks on you? Are you ("I") a product of social indoctrination?

 

[Koldo]

I think they are. What's the diff? When the distinction is made, that is when the separation occurs It is one action.

The distinction is only made when a separation is perceived. A separation wouldn't be perceived if it didn't exist.

Did society put its marks on you? Are you ("I") a product of social indoctrination?

Yes to the first. No the second.
I was shaped by social indoctrination. I wasn't created by social indoctrination.

Look at this picture:

Shaped by human hands. Not created by human hands.

 

[godnotgod]

No. I think, he has already mentioned about an immutable vis-a-vis which the changes are known.

But let GNG confirm.

Yes, they cannot be known as such otherwise.

 

[godnotgod]

The distinction is only made when a separation is perceived. A separation wouldn't be perceived if it didn't exist.

But what if the 'separation' is only illusory? Until it is discovered that a mirage does not exist, it is perceived as if it does exist as a pool of real water.
Mere perception cannot be relied upon.

Yes to the first. No the second.
I was shaped by social indoctrination. I wasn't created by social indoctrination.

Look at this picture:

Shaped by human hands. Not created by human hands.

Same thing. But from your point of view, there was something which had to already have been in place that was shaped by social indoctrination, just as the bonsai was already there prior to its having been shaped by human hands. In the case of the bonsai, the form shaped by human hands is not its naturally occurring appearance. It is highly stylized to create a certain aesthetic effect, just as you ("I") is shaped by society to create a certain effect, usually to meet the standards/expectations of others, not yours. The unshaped bonsai is the true bonsai as it naturally occurs, just as who/what you are prior to your social indoctrination is who/what you really are. The "I" you refer to as being 'you' is not who you really are. It is only the result of your having been shaped by your social indoctrination.

Think of an uncarved block of wood. That is its natural and true nature. Once the carver makes the first mark, it superficially becomes something other than itself. It becomes something to please the will of the carver. But its true nature is still there, underneath the markings.

 

[Koldo]

But what if the 'separation' is only illusory? Until it is discovered that a mirage does not exist, it is perceived as if it does exist. Mere perception cannot be relied upon.

'I' can not perceive something ( including an illusion ) if 'I' don't exist.

Same thing. But from your point of view, there was something which had to be already in place that was shaped by social indoctrination, just as the bonsai was already there prior to its having been shaped by human hands. In the case of the bonsai, the human-shaped form is not its naturally occurring appearance. It is highly stylized. The unshaped bonsai is the true bonsai as it naturally occurs.

That's exactly what i am saying. Except that the bonzai would still be shaped by natural forces if not by human hands. The light, the wind, the soil...all of these change the bonzai. It is impossible to live in this world without being shaped by a multitude of things.

 

[atanu]

'I' can not perceive something ( including an illusion ) if 'I' don't exist. ---.

I agree. Thus, it is better to asceratin the true nature of the "I" that perceives rather than to decide apriori the absence of any "I" (person).

The personal and the impersonal are the same. The impersonal appears as personal because of rise of kAma (desire or love).

 

[Koldo]

I agree. Thus, it is better to asceratin the true nature of the "I" that perceives rather than to decide apriori the absence of any "I" (person).

What is the true nature of 'I'?
And what do you mean by 'true'? If there is a 'true nature', there is/are false nature(s). Why are they false?

The personal and the impersonal are the same. The impersonal appears as personal because of rise of kAma (desire or love).

What is the impersonal?

 

[godnotgod]

'I' can not perceive something ( including an illusion ) if 'I' don't exist.

A 'perceiver' of the perceived is not required for perception to occur. This is the point I have been making: that "I" as doer is an illusion and does not actually exist. There is no thinker of thoughts: there is only thinking itself. The mind is a self-created principle in which arises the false concept of self.

Perception occurs spontaneously. It is only immediately afterward that the idea of a perceiver called "I" arises. This process occurs almost imperceptibly, but in meditation, for example, it can be observed.

That's exactly what i am saying. Except that the bonzai would still be shaped by natural forces if not by human hands. The light, the wind, the soil...all of these change the bonzai. It is impossible to live in this world without being shaped by a multitude of things.

And here is where the analogy drops off. The bonsai shaped by natural forces is still natural; the human changed by society and inculcated with morality is no longer acting out of his true nature. He is shaped by the will of others to satisfy their concept of how things should be. You cannot say that about the bonsai as their is no willful action in shaping it by natural forces. The human shaped by his society becomes someone in which his true nature is asleep, and he is living in the state of Identification, the Third Level of Consciousness called Waking Sleep, in which he only thinks himself real as a separate ego acting upon the world. Spiritual awakening begins to dissolve this view.

footnote: the shaping of the bonsai is of its physical characteristics; that of a human is of it's mental perceptions. A bonsai does not think and so cannot form concepts of self as a human does.

 

[Me Myself]

And yet, to know that you are different, you need what is the same to compare to.

You cannot see change, unless it is seen against the changeless. But since the changeless is passive, you do not notice it, as it is the background to change, which you are focused upon. Were it not for the changeless, you could not claim change.

You began your journey of change from the changeless and are on the way back to it.

When you finally arrive home, what will have changed?

Home is everywhere. Change is home, home is change.

 

[godnotgod]

Home is everywhere. Change is home, home is change.

How can you tell there has been change?

 

[Koldo]

A 'perceiver' of the perceived is not required for perception to occur. This is the point I have been making: that "I" as doer is an illusion and does not actually exist. There is no thinker of thoughts: there is only thinking itself. The mind is a self-created principle in which arises the false concept of self.

Perception occurs spontaneously. It is only immediately afterward that the idea of a perceiver called "I" arises. This process occurs almost imperceptibly, but in meditation, for example, it can be observed.

It is a necessity for a perceiver to exist if there is a perception.
Actions don't occur without actors.

And here is where the analogy drops off. The bonsai shaped by natural forces is still natural; the human changed by society and inculcated with morality is no longer acting out of his true nature. He is shaped by the will of others to satisfy their concept of how things should be. You cannot say that about the bonsai as their is no willful action in shaping it by natural forces. The human shaped by his society becomes someone in which his true nature is asleep, and he is living in the state of Identification, the Third Level of Consciousness called Waking Sleep, in which he only thinks himself real as a separate ego acting upon the world. Spiritual awakening begins to dissolve this view.

footnote: the shaping of the bonsai is of its physical characteristics; that of a human is of it's mental perceptions. A bonsai does not think and so cannot form concepts of self as a human does.

Without a society, we would still identify ourselves as a separated ego acting upon the world. This is natural to us. It is part of our process of cognitive development. Otherwise we would be philosophical zombies.