What Happens When You Die?

[Thief]

And I say that you have never understood.

An ocean is all the waves. But the waves have their reality too .. in their own scope.

So, when we are in a phenomenal realm, the separate souls are phenomenally true.

Else you would not continue for 100 pages trying to convert others to your view point and in the process also insult them.

Who are you trying to convert and who you are insulting?

Frubals for this!

 

[godnotgod]

And I say that you have never understood.

An ocean is all the waves. But the waves have their reality too .. in their own scope.

So, when we are in a phenomenal realm, the separate souls are phenomenally true.

Else you would not continue for 100 pages trying to convert others to your view point and in the process also insult them.

Who are you trying to convert and who you are insulting?

You only perceive my comments as insults because you are personally attached to your view, and so become defensive. You have made several dogmatic statements and then repeated them as if they were infallible Truth. Doing so does not make them true, nor does associating them with religious 'authority'.

There are no such things as 'waves'. What you think are waves are an activity of the formless sea from which they emerge. At no time are they ever disconnected from the undifferentiated sea. So no. I completely disagree that these so called 'waves' possess their own reality and scope. Such reality and scope belong entirely to their source. More accurately, waves are the sea itself.

I have no interest in converting anyone to a personal opinion that I may hold. That is ridiculous in and of itself. My only interest is in bringing to light opinions held as truth so that they may be dismissed. What is left will be what is real.

The separate souls are not phenomenally true; they only seem to be. Such is the history and drama of the world, a 'troubled voyage in calm weather'.

How convenient it is for you to simply pinch off a section of Reality to serve your own purposes, saying: 'this is over here, and that is over there, and this has its own separate sphere of behavior, and that its own'. You seem to deliberately ignore the Law of Dependent Origination.

 

[godnotgod]

Frubals for this!

Yay! :bounce

 

[Thief]

You only perceive my comments as insults because you are personally attached to your view, and so become defensive. You have made several dogmatic statements and then repeated them as if they were infallible Truth. Doing so does not make them true, nor does associating them with religious 'authority'.

There are no such things as 'waves'. What you think are waves are an activity of the formless sea from which they emerge. At no time are they ever disconnected from the undifferentiated sea. So no. I completely disagree that these so called 'waves' possess their own reality and scope. Such reality and scope belong entirely to their source. More accurately, waves are the sea itself.

I have no interest in converting anyone to a personal opinion that I may hold. That is ridiculous in and of itself. My only interest is in bringing to light opinions held as truth so that they may be dismissed. What is left will be what is real.

The separate souls are not phenomenally true; they only seem to be. Such is the history and drama of the world, a 'troubled voyage in calm weather'.

'You' can't use a possessive without 'you' holding on.

Your viewpoint?.....really?

 

[godnotgod]

'You' can't use a possessive without 'you' holding on.

Your viewpoint?.....really?

There is no such viewer of the view.

 

[Thief]

There is no such viewer of the view.

Then 'you' don't exist and all of your words are void.

'You' may as well stop posting.

 

[godnotgod]

Then 'you' don't exist and all of your words are void.

'You' may as well stop posting.

"I" do not exist, and neither do you, but words continue to magically appear before us both.

 

[Thief]

"I" do not exist, and neither do you, but words continue to magically appear before us both.

'I' don't believe in magic.

 

[godnotgod]

'I' don't believe in magic.

Sure you do. You believe in the Good Ship Lollipop and the Yellow Brick Road that leads to the Golden Afterlife in the Sky.

These words appear magically on your screen through cyberspace, even though there is no writer of the words. No need for belief; just watch for them to appear. Magic.

 

[Thief]

Sure you do. You believe in the Good Ship Lollipop and the Yellow Brick Road that leads to the Golden Afterlife in the Sky.

These words appear magically on your screen through cyberspace, even though there is no writer of the words. No need for belief; just watch for them to appear. Magic.

No, I believe in heaven.

 

[godnotgod]

Negation, or śūnyatā, takes the place of the doctrine of impermanence.
The main theme of these sūtras and its accompanying literature is that
there is no change, no origin, no end. The real is neither one, nor many,
neither ātman, nor anātman. All these are so much speculation born
of ignorance. The real is absolutely devoid (śūnyā) of such conceptual
constructions. It transcends thought and can be seized only by non-dual
knowledge or prajñā. Śūnyatā is not simply one more concept among
others; it is the absence of all concepts.

https://nirc.nanzan-u.ac.jp/nfile/2135

 

[Thief]

God may say of Himself...was, is, and shall always be.

The rest of everything else will change.

 

[atanu]

You only perceive my comments as insults because you are personally attached to your view, ...

While attributing ignorance and ego to your opponent you conveniently forget that there is no "i" and no "you".

There are no such things as 'waves'. ..

I have no interest in converting anyone to a personal opinion that I may hold. That is ridiculous in and of itself.

Who is saying this? Yes this is ridiculous, since this whole thread is the proof.

The separate souls are not phenomenally true; they only seem to be.

That is what is called relative or phenomenal truth, btw.

 

[atanu]

[/

Still you misunderstand.

Think...

If the 'observer, the observed, and the process of observation all are a single reality, then there is no such separate observer or observed. These are merely concepts. To say that they all merge into a single reality is in keeping with 'Tas tvam asi'. IOW, what one only THINKS is 'this and that' is not so; 'this' IS 'that'.

The evident truth is that the Universe is Seen. The Seer is self evident. The deny a Seer/Self is to acknowledge the Seer/Self.

The falsity/delusion is the notion of separate selves/objects with their own essences. But the Seer-ship is not the falsity. There would be no scripture without the function of the Seer. There would be no truth in all scripture if the Seer was a delusionary effect.

The functions of Seeing and Knowing are immortal aspects of the Absolute. What we see and what we know begin at the root.

 

[atanu]

You behave as if your Hindu beliefs are equivalent to infallible Truth, and that anyone who questions such beliefs is merely expressing opinion.

This is precisely the same problem with the Christian, who treats his beliefs as if they were Absolute Truth.

Shruti is guide to meditation.

When Shruti says "The Knower of Brahman becomes Brahman", it is an advaita teaching.

One cannot know Brahman as a second to oneself, since by definition Brahman is one without a second and it is the Self of all. So, knowing of Brahman is not possible in dualistic mode.

I wish that you would take time to meditate on Shruti saying before passing all knowing pompous opinions.

 

[atanu]

"I" do not exist, and neither do you, but words continue to magically appear before us both.

Ha ha. Who is saying this? The Absolute says so? Or an ego self is asserting this?

Does the Absolute ever come and say "Hey, I do not exist and neither do you."

 

[Nakosis]

God may say of Himself...was, is, and shall always be.

The rest of everything else will change.

Everything else is maya-illusion.

Change seems the only constant to my perspective to the point where I have said change is the only truth. It is the perspective of illusion.

Everything I identify myself with is illusion, impermanent. If that is all there is to me then I don't exist. Yet I exist. That, in my experience is the only constant.

Everything I perceive as "self" is constantly changing. Except I remain. The observer, the seer.

You're not perfect, I'm not perfect. How can we have the audacity to believe the only real thing about us is perfect?

I don't know what you think Heaven will be like. Full of change?

Heaven, Nirvana... Truth is the consciousness of bliss. Bliss, what else is there to want?

Bliss is real, accessible, available whenever you you want. The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand. So why don't people know of it?

We accept the illusion as who we are. We accept the imperfect as truth.

 

[godnotgod]

While attributing ignorance and ego to your opponent you conveniently forget that there is no "i" and no "you".

I did not say you are ignorant; I said you were attached.

I was not aware that you are my opponent. I do not consider you to be as such, as I do not recognize you as an individual ego. (take note that I use the terms 'I' and
you' purely as a matter of convention).

Would you please package one of these 'waves' for me and ship to me USPS Priority Mail, Insured, so that I may examine it? I have been trying to capture one for years to no avail. And while you're at it, would you mind including a small sample of some wind as well? Much appreciated!

Who is saying this? Yes this is ridiculous, since this whole thread is the proof.

You begin with the assumption that there is some 'who' that is saying anything at all, just as Descartes does. This is the initial error. Prior to this notion of 'who', there is nothing, only consciousness without an agent of consciousness. Both you and Thief seem to have a fascination with the notion of this 'who', which cannot be shown to exist.

That is what is called relative or phenomenal truth, btw.

Something that seems real is not ultimately real.

 

[godnotgod]

The evident truth is that the Universe is Seen. The Seer is self evident. The deny a Seer/Self is to acknowledge the Seer/Self.

The falsity/delusion is the notion of separate selves/objects with their own essences. But the Seer-ship is not the falsity. There would be no scripture without the function of the Seer. There would be no truth in all scripture if the Seer was a delusionary effect.

The functions of Seeing and Knowing are immortal aspects of the Absolute.

Yes, but to jump to the notion that there exists an agent of Seeing and Knowing is where the fatal flaw in your logic lies. It is merely an assumption based on your own delusional notion of yourself as an "I" that also sees. How can you, in one breath, state that Seeing and Knowing are aspects of the Absolute, while knowing the Absolute to be without form or boundaries? There is nothing such as a 'Seer' within which the Absolute can be contained.

The only reason you find any truth in scripture is because you have it first within yourself. If it were not in yourself, you could not possibly recognize it anywhere else. Yeshu warned about this, saying that some search the scriptures for eternal life when it is He that the scriptures are about (not meaning his personal identity, but his universal essence that is the Absolute).

If the functions of Seeing and Knowing are aspects of the Absolute, then we can say:

'You are the Universe looking at itself through your eyes'.

IOW, you and I are total actions of the Universe, just as the wave is a total action of the sea.

 

[jewscout]

according to Shlomo HaMelech in Kohelet....nothing, you just go in the ground