What Happens When You Die?

[Koldo]

"I" exists by virtue of thought. It does not exist when not thinking about it. Someday you will learn to sneak up on it and actually see it creating itself. Be alert.

As i said in the last post, you are still confusing form with content.

Integration and cooperation do not require an agent of integration or cooperation. There is just the act of integration and cooperation. That is all. When integration and cooperation occur, people just work together. Human tendency is toward social behavior, and if that is to work, there must be integration/cooperation. But it is necessary to SEE that this is desirable, and to see this, one is in the right frame of mind. Those ruled by greed and selfishness do not see cooperation as desirable; they see separation, competition and rugged individualism as a goal a la Ayn Rand.

What are people? Individuals.

I am using the word 'natural' to reflect a state of mind that is our originally-occurring state, and not that of social indoctrination and a superimposed morality that includes a system of Reward and Punishment.

Do you really believe that everyone is originally ( as in without any social indoctrination whatsoever ) able to live in an exclusively co-operative society?

 

[atanu]

Are you referring to Authentic Self, or egoic self?

The authentic of course. See, if the Seer that sees "I exist" is abolute bunkum then your seeing of this knowledge and transmittal of the same to us is altogether useless. Similarly, return of Buddha to teach of his experience with liberation would not be possibor the teaching itself would be a lie.

 

[godnotgod]

Ocean waves are built upon the ocean that has the "I am" awareness. Not the ego. In Hinduism, the ego "i" is called chidAbhAsha (reflected consciousness). If there was no single unborn prakriti and the manifest Brahman asserting "I Am", there would be no reflected "i"-s.

If there is no moon then there will not be many images on many poodles of water.



It is through the consciousness that is real that one crosses over.

Yes, but what is the way in which the egoic "I" loses sight of "I am"?

 

[godnotgod]

In my dream state, I am still an individual.

Whether in dream state or awakened state, it is the mental formation of being an individual that tells you so. How convenient is that? In reality, you are as interdependent with the universe and your immediate environment as an unborn infant is with his mother.

Can you tell me what an 'individual', as in 'separate' and 'independent' is comprised of?

The 'individual' in the dream state is obviously not real. From the perspective of higher consciousness, the 'individual' in the waking state is also not real. From the perspective of this world, he is.

 

[Desert Snake]

I should revise my previous answer, it is hell, heaven, or purgatory.

 

[Koldo]

Whether in dream state or awakened state, it is the mental formation of being an individual that tells you so. How convenient is that? In reality, you are as interdependent with the universe and your
immediate environment as an unborn infant is with his mother.

We are indeed interdependent with the universe. So?

Can you tell me what an 'individual', as in 'separate' and 'independent' is comprised of?

Independent? Why independent?

The 'individual' in the dream state is obviously not real. From the perspective of higher consciousness, the 'individual' in the waking state is also not real. From the perspective of this world, he is.

Obviously not real? The 'individual' in the dream state is obviously real.

 

[godnotgod]

As i said in the last post, you are still confusing form with content.

You had originally posted this:

Originally Posted by Koldo
You are confusing form with content. Words are used to represent meaning.
The letter 'I' represents the 'I'. Language needs not be present for 'I' to exist.

...which says nothing about form and content. All you are saying is that "I" is "I", which is meaningless. Form refers to the body. Content to the mind. I fail to understand your meaning. Can you elaborate?

What are people? Individuals.

We are like coral colonies. Integrated and interdependent. Are there individuals there?

Do you really believe that everyone is originally ( as in without any social indoctrination whatsoever ) able to live in an exclusively co-operative society?

I recall a people living in some forest discovered in recent history who lived in total harmony with their environment and each other. The Essenes and other similar sects have also been found to live in peace with one another.

 

[Koldo]

We are like coral colonies. Integrated and interdependent. Are there individuals there?

If each coral had a personality of its own, i would say so.

I recall a people living in some forest discovered in recent history who lived in total harmony with their environment and each other. The Essenes and other similar sects have also been found to live in peace with one another.

1) Why do you think there was no social indoctrination in these groups?

2) What's ( or was ) the size of these groups?

 

[godnotgod]

We are indeed interdependent with the universe. So?

So where is the 'individual'?

Independent? Why independent?

Where do you leave off and the universe begins?

Obviously not real? The 'individual' in the dream state is obviously real.

You are dreaming you are some character. When you awaken, where is the character? He is purely a mental concoction and does not actually exist, just as the 'snake' that is actually a rope does not actually exist.

 

[Koldo]

You had originally posted this:

...which says nothing about form and content. All you are saying is that "I" is "I", which is meaningless. Form refers to the body. Content to the mind. I fail to understand your meaning. Can you elaborate?

Sure. Form refers to language in this case. That which is used to represent meaning. Take for example these letters you are reading at this moment. They are the form of a message. But they are not the message. 'I' is a letter that represents a thing. Regardless of whether i think in 'I' ( the letter ), 'I' ( the individual ) exist.

The meaning gives rise to the form. Not the other way around. That's why i am saying you are mistaking the form for the content. What doesn't exist when not thinking about it is the 'I' ( form ) and not the 'I' ( individual ).

 

[Koldo]

So where is the 'individual'?

There can not be interdependence without individuals in the first place.

Where do you leave off and the universe begins?

'I' am a part of the universe.

You are dreaming you are some character. When you awaken, where is the character? He is purely a mental concoction and does not actually exist, just as the 'snake' that is actually a rope does not actually exist.

The character is gone, but 'I' am still 'I' in all occasions.
The same inner person remains. My appearance and history may change but i am still me.

 

[godnotgod]

Sure. Form refers to language in this case. That which is used to represent meaning. Take for example these letters you are reading at this moment. They are the form of a message. But they are not the message. 'I' is a letter that represents a thing. Regardless of whether i think in 'I' ( the letter ), 'I' ( the individual ) exist.

The meaning gives rise to the form. Not the other way around. That's why i am saying you are mistaking the form for the content. What doesn't exist when not thinking about it is the 'I' ( form ) and not the 'I' ( individual ).

So where is "I" when not thinking about it?

And when thinking about "I", who is it that is doing the thinking? Another "I"?

It is impossible to refer to "I" without thought. So what does logic tell you? You say it is there regardless of thought, and yet, every time you need to refer to it, you need to use thought. What happens to "I" when there is only seeing, without thought? It is not there!

 

[godnotgod]

There can not be interdependence without individuals in the first place.

That is not so. The universe is singular and seamless. It is One, and all interchange is within itself. You are creating the idea of separate individuals in your mind. There are no such individuals.

The nature of what 'uni-verse' is, is that it is everything. Being everything, there is no 'other' (ie; 'individual') outside it that it can be compared to. In that respect, it is Absolute. In your view, the universe would be relative, in which it would no longer be a universe.

'I' am a part of the universe.

There is no individual "I" that is a 'part' of anything. You ARE the universe, just as each dewdrop reflects an entire moon. A part can be separated from the whole. You cannot be separated from the universe and still exist. That which you think can be separated is an illusion. Only consciousness is real.

The character is gone, but 'I' am still 'I' in all occasions.
The same inner person remains. My appearance and history may change but i am still me.

Ah, now you are referring to the authentic Self, which is not an individual "I", but universal consciousness, eg; "I am", which does not change, which is eternal. You can add birth and death to your list of appearances and history.

Just as your consciousness remains after the dream character vanishes, so too does a higher consciousness remain after the illusory self you refer to as the 'individual' character being played in THIS life vanishes upon awakening to your true nature.

Each ocean wave, though unique from all other waves in shape and details, is still water, just as the ocean is water. The form that we call 'wave' is temporal, but the formless water is there prior to and after the waveform manifests. "I", like the wave, does not actually exist, both being an action, rather than an entity. You are an activity of the entire universe just as the wave is an activity of the ocean.

 

[Koldo]

So where is "I" when not thinking about it?

Where is the tree when you don't think about the tree?

And when thinking about "I", who is it that is doing the thinking? Another "I"?

The 'I' is thinking about himself.

It is impossible to refer to "I" without thought. So what does logic tell you? You say it is there regardless of thought, and yet, every time you need to refer to it, you need to use thought.

Indeed it is impossible to refer to 'I' without thought. It is impossible to use english without thought in the first place...But so what?

What happens to "I" when there is only seeing, without thought? It is not there!

There is only seeing, if 'I' see...

 

[Koldo]

That is not so. The universe is singular and seamless. It is One, and all interchange is within itself. You are creating the idea of separate individuals in your mind. There are no such individuals.

What does 'interdependence' mean?
Dependence among two or more things...

There is no individual "I" that is a 'part' of anything. You ARE the universe, just as each dewdrop reflects an entire moon. A part can be separated from the whole. You cannot be separated from the universe and still exist. That which you think can be separated is an illusion. Only consciousness is real.

I am separated WITHIN the universe.
I am an individual part of the universe.

Ah, now you are referring to the authentic Self, which is not an individual "I", but universal consciousness, eg; "I am", which does not change, which is eternal. You can add birth and death to your list of appearances and history.

Not so fast.
By inner self, i include my personality.

 

[godnotgod]

There can not be interdependence without individuals in the first place.

'I' am a part of the universe.

The character is gone, but 'I' am still 'I' in all occasions.
The same inner person remains. My appearance and history may change but i am still me.

No Water, No Moon

When the nun Chiyono studied Zen under Bukko of Engaku she was unable to attain the fruits of meditation for a long time.

At last one moonlit night she was carrying water in an old pail bound with bamboo. The bamboo broke and the bottom fell out of the pail, and at that moment Chiyono was set free!

In commemoration, she wrote a poem:

In this way and that I tried to save the old pail
Since the bamboo strip was weakening and about
to break
Until at last the bottom fell out.
No more water in the pail!
No more moon in the water!
​

 

[godnotgod]

What does 'interdependence' mean?
Dependence among two or more things...

'Things' being concepts only.

I am separated WITHIN the universe.
I am an individual part of the universe.

You are contradicting what the universe IS. There are no such separations other than the illusion of separation.

Not so fast.
By inner self, i include my personality.

Which is an aspect of the temporal self.

Think about a single light source that is focused on one of those disco mirror balls, in which each mirrored facet reflects a 'separate' ray of light. There is still only one light, though the facets are many.

One light, though the lamps be many. The light from one lamp or mirrored facet is the same light as from all other lamps or mirrored facets. There is no 'individual' light without the One Light, 'individual light', being illusory.

 

[godnotgod]

Where is the tree when you don't think about the tree?

As a separate thing, only in your mind. However, there is still something that grows out of the ground, but it is not a separate thing called 'tree'. 'Tree' is only the name we give it and then interpret it falsely as a separate thing. The tree itself does not think itself a separate entity.

The 'I' is thinking about himself.

So there are two "I"'s: The "I" that is the subject of thought, and the "I" that is the agent of thought. Then there must necessarily be a third "I", who is conscious of the first two.

Indeed it is impossible to refer to 'I' without thought. It is impossible to use english without thought in the first place...But so what?

As per your own discussion, English is but the symbol of the actual thing, whereas "I" is the actual thing. The symbolic requires thought, but as we are seeing, so does "I". If "I" cannot exist independent of thought, then thought is required to bring it forth. Therefore, "I" is merely a concoction of the mind, which itself is a self-created principle.

As Descartes said: "I think, therefore I exist". But if that is so, then when not thinking, "I" does not exist, the existence of "I" being dependent upon thought.

There is only seeing, if 'I' see...

A laser-eye in a cd player 'sees' without the necessity of an agent of seeing called "I". A tv antenna 'sees' the tv signal without an "I". You cannot control what you spontaneously see or hear, so where is this "I" that you claim does so? "I" only comes into play when there is thought about what is being seen. Without thought, there is still seeing, but no agent of seeing.

 

[godnotgod]

By inner self, i include my personality.

That would be your 'outer' self, otherwise known as 'Persona', added decorations. Inner self is universal consciousnes, what everyone is made of, without frills such as "I".

 

[atanu]

Yes, but what is the way in which the egoic "I" loses sight of "I am"?

Just as presence of light ensures that there will be darkness, the feeling of existence has the inbuilt tendency to divide the whole into a subject and an object.

This is beautifully described in Veda, Satapatha Brahmana, and in Brihadaraynaka Upanishad. The story is of brahmA, the creator -- not Brahman the absolute but an aspect of it -- who pursues his own light (his own daughter as per scripture) forgetting that the light is of the Self. Manifold shadows are created thus.
-------------

My point is. The Word is "I Am", which is one yet is many. Successful meditation means merging the ego self in this universal "I AM". Ego cannot have any role more than this. Some Buddhists deride this, forgetting that Buddha for them is the "I Am". Just as Krishna is for many Hindus. Reaching the absolute, param shiva for me, is through the the Word.

I hope that I am clear.