What Happens When You Die?

[Thief]

Thief, that has already been explained to you multiple times. Do you understand how a word can be used purely as a matter of convention? I explain it, and you ignore it, then turn right around and repeat the same old tripe. Now cut it out....literally.

When I say 'you', I mean from the vantage point of consciousness; not from any particular ego called "I".

And you keep making denial all the while ....you are there.

You cannot be separated from ....you.

 

[Muffled]

Then 'evil' must have originated from God, since it was from God that the gift of free will came in the first place. IOW,' evil' is built-in.



Is ethical good different than moral good? Does ethical good have an opposite?

I can imagine seeing it that way but it is only the possibility of evil that exists. A good God isn't desiring that to happen but He knows it will. In order to stop it from happening He would have to eliminate free will. I can bake a cake and it will be good but if I keep it around for too long it will get moldy and taste bad.

Moral good is what society deems as good but ethical good comes from God. For instance the morals of our day say homosexuality is OK but God's ethic is that it is a sin.

The opposite of ethical good is evil.

 

[Muffled]

In Vedanta paralance, Consciousness is pure, untainted, and not conditioned by superposition of any form and name.

The consciousness that we have is an effect, like reflection of one Moon in many puddles or like reflection of a face in many mirrors. This consciousness is called 'Conditioned consciousness'.

I suppose, we are saying the same thing.

I believe so but somehow mine sounds easier to understand.

 

[Muffled]

Born to be aware?.....only to die...

We won't lose what we have become.

Not much point in a device to generate individual spirits....only to lose that quality.

I believe that. All our experienced of mind and body are also experienced by the spirit. If I wanted I could image my present body in Heaven and it would seem as though I were in it again.

 

[atanu]

I believe so but somehow mine sounds easier to understand.

I do not believe that however.

 

[godnotgod]

The Skandhas are empty does not mean that the Lokitesvara is also so. Lokitesvara perceives/experiences the objects as empty and disconnects from all pain. But who said that Lokitesvara as a Seer is empty? Then the Sunya would not be known and it would not be conveyed in words to us.

Can you know Sunya unless your true nature itself is Sunya? (ie; 'Tat tvam asi')

It is because the Seer is empty that Sunya can be known. (ie; 'no obstructions').

There is a passage in the 'Mahaparinirana Sutra' in which Buddha nature is defined as the ultimate emptiness and the Middle Way. It reads:

Good son, Buddha nature is the ultimate emptiness ,which is 'prajna' itself. [False] emptiness means not to perceive emptiness or non-emptiness. The wise perceive emptiness and non-emptiness, permanence and impermanence, suffering and happiness, self and non-self. What is empty is 'samsara' and what is not empty is great 'nirvana' ... Perceiving the non-self but not the self is not the Middle Way. The Middle Way is Buddha nature.​

Heng-Ching Shih explains this as follows:

The essential point of this passage is that true emptiness, or in this case Buddha nature, trancends any dictomony [between] being and non-being, self and non-self, suffering and happiness, etc. Ordinary people and the heterodox see only the existence of self, while 'Sravakas' and Pratyekabuddhas perceive only the non-self, but not the existence of a self. Clinging to one extreme or the other, they cannot realize the ultimate, and true emptiness and consequently cannot realize the Middle Way. Without the Middle Way, they are not able to comprehend Buddha nature. Trying to lessen the monistic flavour of the Buddha nature, the 'Mahaparinirvana Sutra' interprets Buddha nature as both encompassing and transcending the notions of self and non-self. It makes the doctrine of the Buddha nature adhere closely to the Buddhist teaching of non-duality and the Middle Way. Thus Buddha nature should not be treated as equivalent to the monistic absolute. If it does seemly indicate the presence of a substantive self, it is actually a positive expression of emptiness.

Progressive Buddhism: Empty of what?

'Form is the wave and emptiness is the water.'

Thich Nhat Hanh

​

 

[godnotgod]

I can imagine seeing it that way but it is only the possibility of evil that exists. A good God isn't desiring that to happen but He knows it will. In order to stop it from happening He would have to eliminate free will. I can bake a cake and it will be good but if I keep it around for too long it will get moldy and taste bad.

Moral good is what society deems as good but ethical good comes from God. For instance the morals of our day say homosexuality is OK but God's ethic is that it is a sin.

The opposite of ethical good is evil.

If you were to deliberately and knowingly place sweet but deadly poisonous cookies in your child's room without them knowing what they are, and then instructing them not to eat of them, would that be evil?

 

[godnotgod]

And you keep making denial all the while ....you are there.

You cannot be separated from ....you.

You have yet to show me two things:

Where is this 'you' which is being referred to, and

Where do you leave off and Everything begin?

Until you can provide real answers, all your talk of 'I' and 'me' and 'you' are completely meaningless.

 

[godnotgod]

I believe that. All our experienced of mind and body are also experienced by the spirit. If I wanted I could image my present body in Heaven and it would seem as though I were in it again.

How would your present body and self, which are not of heaven, relate to the heavenly experience, neither of which has had such experience?

 

[atanu]

Can you know Sunya unless your true nature itself is Sunya? (ie; 'Tat tvam asi')

One knows because one is existent and of the nature of knowledge.

How would Sunya know itself as Sunya?

 

[Thief]

You have yet to show me two things:

Where is this 'you' which is being referred to, and

Where do you leave off and Everything begin?

Until you can provide real answers, all your talk of 'I' and 'me' and 'you' are completely meaningless.

You are there...I am here.
That would be two things.

There are billions of other 'things'.

 

[godnotgod]

You are there...I am here.
That would be two things.

There are billions of other 'things'.

'Here' and 'there' are just a continuum of the same singular Reality, in which Everything is interconnected totally as One.

There are no such things as 'things'. There are no separate 'things' that exist independently of everything else. What you call "I" is not separate from Everything; you are completely integrated 100%. Only your deluded mind tells you otherwise.

 

[godnotgod]

One knows because one is existent and of the nature of knowledge.

But 'existent' compared to what? There is no agent of knowing. There is only knowing itself. You seem to want to perpetuate the notion of self; that the Seer is an agent of knowledge. I think you are using the word 'knowledge' differently than I. I say knowledge is the accumulation of data and facts, while knowing is awareness of the nature of Reality. I do not call that knowing 'knowledge'.

Part of the problem here is duality. To say that there is a knower of the known is to create such duality. The knower and the known are one and the same. There is no object of knowing.

How would Sunya know itself as Sunya?

Because it is its own suchness. Someone who is realized sees everything as none other than his own nature.

 

[atanu]

One knows because one is existent and of the nature of knowledge.
How would Sunya know itself as Sunya?

How does Sunya knows Sunya?
.....................

Employing ideas based on erroneous translation of Buddhist scripture leads to confusion only. Absence of actual realisation componds that.

 

[Thief]

'Here' and 'there' are just a continuum of the same singular Reality, in which Everything is interconnected totally as One.

There are no such things as 'things'. There are no separate 'things' that exist independently of everything else. What you call "I" is not separate from Everything; you are completely integrated 100%. Only your deluded mind tells you otherwise.

Do you ever proof read?

 

[Nakosis]

Would it really be meaningful to you if I were to provide a 'yes' or 'no' answer?

I don't think so.

The important thing is whether YOU see into the nature of things, and in this respect, I can only say that Sunyata is always present, whether we realize it or not.

I've no reason not to trust you at your word to this point. It would have meant something if you had answered yes or no.

I've never heard the word Sunyata before this conversation however I have experienced something that seems to fit well what Sunyata is described as. Still the description does not do justice to the actual experience.

Sunyata, if that is what I experienced, this void scares the heck out of me. Sat Chit Ananda is wonderful to be able to experience. Sunyata seems not so wonderful. Sunyata frightens me. I'm just trying to understand.

 

[Nakosis]

The Sunyata is not the frontier .... Otherwise Sunyata will not be known and taught.

Sunyata frightens me because it is not only letting go of the ego, it is also letting go of all anchors that the ego uses to establish it's existence that I fear. Letting go of an/a partucular ego, I'm ok with. Letting of ego entirely, that's frightening

The links you provided helps to understand a little. Sound is a anchor. There are many anchors the ego uses to establish itself. Maybe I could let go of ego, however with the anchors remaining it does not seem difficult to re-establish the ego.

These anchors allow the ego to be re-established at birth. There is some security in this. The cycle of birth and death can continue.

If there is no sound, if sound is no longer available as an anchor for the ego to establish itself, would I lose the capacity to hear?

It is taught this is not the case but being told/taught something is not the same as knowing.

 

[godnotgod]

Sunyata frightens me because it is not only letting go of the ego, it is also letting go of all anchors that the ego uses to establish it's existence that I fear. Letting go of an/a partucular ego, I'm ok with. Letting of ego entirely, that's frightening

The links you provided helps to understand a little. Sound is a anchor. There are many anchors the ego uses to establish itself. Maybe I could let go of ego, however with the anchors remaining it does not seem difficult to re-establish the ego.

These anchors allow the ego to be re-established at birth. There is some security in this. The cycle of birth and death can continue.

If there is no sound, if sound is no longer available as an anchor for the ego to establish itself, would I lose the capacity to hear?

It is taught this is not the case but being told/taught something is not the same as knowing.

Since the ego is illusory, there is really nothing to cling to nor to let go of.

Realized people still need to function in this ordinary world. They need to have identity; go to work; relate to others, etc. But he is aware of the illusory nature of identification at the same time. It's not like you will wake up to find yourself wandering naked in the woods, not knowing who you are. In fact, realization will help sort out the details of life, rearranging them to make them serve you. Your hearing may become even more acute, but what you hear will no longer be needed to reinforce the existence of the ego. You will simply see and hear things as they actually are, rather than how the ego requires them to be.

Mooji likens the ego to a beggar at your front door when you come home one day. You return to give him a sandwich, and the next thing you know, he is in your living room, asking for soup and salad as well. You go to prepare a meal for him, and when you return you find him in your bed, pleading with you to stay just one night, and then on and on. As Mooji explains, he is not trying to teach unkindness, but the ego must be dealt with somehow. When the ego is found out for its deceptive character, it will put up a tremendous fight to stay alive, doing every dirty trick in the book to fool you. This is the real challenge of a man intent on overcoming fear and finding peace.

One big mistake is to get into a fight with the ego. It only reinforces it's strength. It should be watched, observed, but not responded to; not forming an attachment to it. Eventually, it will fade as it is being starved of attention, which is what it thrives upon.

I love Zen master Philip Kapleau's metaphor-image stamped on his trilogy, 'The Three Pillars of Zen'. It is a salmon leaping upstream, totally focused on one goal, to return home, and then to die.

 

[godnotgod]

I've no reason not to trust you at your word to this point. It would have meant something if you had answered yes or no.

I've never heard the word Sunyata before this conversation however I have experienced something that seems to fit well what Sunyata is described as. Still the description does not do justice to the actual experience.

Sunyata, if that is what I experienced, this void scares the heck out of me. Sat Chit Ananda is wonderful to be able to experience. Sunyata seems not so wonderful. Sunyata frightens me. I'm just trying to understand.

What is there to fear, and who is there to fear it? Emptiness is indestructible.

The fear is not you. It comes as a result of your social indoctrination and the reinforcement of the ego's need for security. But the security becomes a trap. We need freedom.

 

[atanu]

Now... now....You know when I speak of the Spirit as First it is in regard to the Creator.
Spirit as the Source of all things.

I am not so immense....not so omnipotent.

Still, even on this smaller scale....spirit first.
And for now my influence is limited.

(this forum extends my reach quite a bit)

If you agree Spirit as the source of all things, then there really is no second that can exist separately. Although, it is perfectly plausible for the Spirit to play a role as Thief. That is good.

Where I disagree with you is that this is not the ultimate, since Jesus says "Be ye perfect as Father in Heaven is perfect."

OTOH, I disagree with GnG because he, while denying a self, is with all his might asserting existence of his own personal self only.