Thief
Rogue Theologian
Who is it that lives?
Who is it that dies?
We live....we die.
Are you reading what you post?
The Hindenburgh was an illusion?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What Happens When You Die?
- Thread starter godnotgod
- Start date
We live....we die.
Are you reading what you post?
The Hindenburgh was an illusion?
godnotgod
Thou art That
So who, exactly, is this 'we' that lives and dies?
Yes. What makes you think it was real?
We turn turn into amoebas and live happily ever after.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
You do realize this perspective you use is like unto talking to a bowl of jello?
I anticipate your gratitude for the compliment.
Someone really should move this topic thread to the debate section.
godnotgod
Thou art That
*** Edited out ***
If you are the latter, you should have no difficulty answering the questions:
Q: What makes you think the Hindenburgh incident was real?
Q: Who is this 'we' that lives and dies?
After all, YOU are the one assserting the Hindenburgh incident as real, and that 'we live and die'.
On that fateful day when you 'stand up from the dust', as you claim, and are asked these same questions, what will you say? Too late to beat around the bush.
*****
*** Edited out ***
Last edited by a moderator:
Right, and this One was around before you were born so it doesn't need you. If we get into this metaphor, there is a distinction between the witness Self and the mental processes (ordinary self-complex) that allow for the realization of this witness Self. The proper functioning of experience requires both components interacting; think of the need for a focusing lens (mind) to focus a beam of light (witness Self) and we get a rough idea of how conscious experience may work. The "you" seems to be a short-hand for the linguistic-mental processes that define and categorize the universe, that has memory capacity, and that work to create a coherent sense of unity among "your" differentiated experiences. Sure, let's say that's all an illusion because this "you" may really be just a reified recursive memory loop, but it seems to have an important function in not only individualizing "you" but allowing for the linguistic capacity to realize the possible existence of the ultimate witness Self. As an important note if your essential identity really is this witness Self it doesn't seem possible to experience this Self since if you think you are experiencing it, ask yourself "who" exactly is experiencing it. The same notion that an eye can never see itself.
Secondly, kill the aspects of the brain that create foreground and background and you get this "Oneness" experience. The easiest and most effective way to return back to this One is a Glock to the temple, and I wouldn't recommend it. Mystics really bug me when they get into silly arguments about their non-existence when, pretty clearly, they are enjoying not only a sane, cohesive experience but also the capacity to communicate all this thanks to the self-complex they are denying exists.
Last edited:
godnotgod
Thou art That
What they deny is the "I" of the state of Identification, that is illusory. But the moment you insist on admitting 'existence', as it is a product of the mind, which itself is a self-created principle, you have entered into the dual mind, and away from the reality of the One. The truth of the matter is that we neither exist, nor not-exist. We simply are, and this 'we' is the universe itself. Herein lies the difference between an imaginary entity that exists/not-exists, and pure being and consciousness itself:
'The universe is the Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation'
You talk about the 'return back to the One', but that makes no sense. Any such 'return' is an illlusion, since it is the One you are already in union with; otherwise it would not be the One. Besides, using your argument, 'who is it that returns?'.
What must occur is not 'return', but awakening from the dream-state of Identification with the illusory "I" (Third Level of Consciousness: Waking Sleep) and into the Fourth Level of Consciousness: Self-Transcendence, (and beyond), in which the realization occurs that no separation from the One was ever the case to begin with.
re: mystic: there is no agent of communication; there is only communication itself.
Last edited:
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Really?
Last edited by a moderator:
Hah, you can realize your true non-separation by a shotgun to the head much faster.
Bottom line: great that we already are this Self to begin with yet kill the mind or small "s" self and you will not be aware of any of that. You need language to indirectly realize your ultimate identity as the Self because language is the only tool that develops reflexivity. Like the analogy, the eye can never see itself and the Self can never experience itself. Frankly ditching the ego is suicide and you are more than welcome to do it. You are also more than welcome to deny your individual existence, break down your brain's boundary mechanisms, lose your sanity, and I am just as free to choose to break my communication with you and label you a nut.
About returning back to the One, you must be mistaking someone else's post for mine.
Bottom line: great that we already are this Self to begin with yet kill the mind or small "s" self and you will not be aware of any of that. You need language to indirectly realize your ultimate identity as the Self because language is the only tool that develops reflexivity. Like the analogy, the eye can never see itself and the Self can never experience itself. Frankly ditching the ego is suicide and you are more than welcome to do it. You are also more than welcome to deny your individual existence, break down your brain's boundary mechanisms, lose your sanity, and I am just as free to choose to break my communication with you and label you a nut.
About returning back to the One, you must be mistaking someone else's post for mine.
Last edited:
*** Mod Post: Thread moved to General Religious Debates due to the turn its contents took ***
godnotgod
Thou art That
I am not talking about pretension. I am saying that to be caught in the grips of fear is one thing, but to see into the nature of fear is quite another. It's not that you can control fear, it's how you respond to it, and if you have knowledge of its true nature, then you have a choice as to how you respond to handle the impending situation.
godnotgod
Thou art That
Perhaps, but are such extremes necessary in order to do so? Must one partake of excrement to know that it is, indeed, excrement?
Directly SEEING that you are not separated is much, much easier than the shotgun method, AND far less messy.
An appropriate reply, IMO.
Yep. The "seeing" needs a mind to indirectly do the seeing so it sounds like you aren't exactly entranced by the individuality as an undesirable illusion argument after all, or at least getting that duality is necessary. But if you're still running with the "ditching the ego because it's not real" idea a gunshot to the head is way better; guaranteed to eliminate the ego immediately.*
*I highly don't recommend it.
Last edited:
godnotgod
Thou art That
My goodness, you make it far too complicated!
"Seeing" requires no agent of seeing, such as mind. There is no 'see-er' of the seen who is doing it with mind. There is only seeing itself.
The problem we have with ego arises because we think it must be gotten rid of. All efforts to do so only end up reinforcing its activity because it is the ego attempting to do so. The idea is to allow the ego and all its machinations to settle down of its own accord. It is by this method that the authentic Self naturally comes into play.
godnotgod
Thou art That
Except for the fact that you are the One, but you don't see it, due to the One playing a very sophisticated cosmic game of Hide and Seek, in which it is pretending to be you and everything else, playing all the parts simultaneously.
godnotgod, let me know how your eyes look without using any other senses as a reference point. Actually let me know with the absence of any senses including sight of the outside world if you are still convinced your eyes exist. Be specific on how important it is that your eyes exist and that they are your true core identity in such a condition. If you can approach this somewhat coherently then we can continue our discussion on the Self. Best of luck.
Kem
Kem
Last edited:
