What Happens When You Die?

[RichardParker]

Of course you are clinging. You use a system of thought as a tool to determine what factual knowledge is called science.

To see things as they are, on the other hand, is to let go of all systems of thought.

I don't know what is so incoherent about that. It seems incoherent because you are filtering through your conceptual mind, which is conditioned to only accept ideas which match those already hardwired into your brain.

If I let go of all I know, think to know, of all that can be scientificly demonstrated and... oh, yes, actually is "filtered through a conceptual mind"... then SURE, an entire new reality will open up to me!

Where unicorns ride on rainbows, Mars is the home of the Elves, the earths core is made of ice cream and in my brain there lives a dwarf called Steve who has a poker night with the Yeti, ever Saturday night

All kidding aside, my point is:
Yes, I rely on science and rational arguments. Because they provide us with evidence and actual application, which we ALL use (you included, btw).

If your method could in any way present equally reliable results, we wouldn't even be debating it here, it would be accepted as the best methodology we have...
But it doesn't seem to have that success-story, so I don't know why I should give it preference over things like rationality, thought and science.

 

[Nakosis]

No. This is just an asumption.
But in contrary to many of the assumtions that get thown around here a lot, this is actually a necessary one. Because if we assume the oposite (that reality just exists in our minds), then we would stop interacting all together, since there is no point interacting with an illusion.

It's not necessary that it exists, it is only necessary that we have agreement about it's existence. As long as we all work under the same assumptions we get along well enough.

Like money. Our currency has no real value. The value printed on it is an illusion, yet we all agree to accept that illusion as reality so it works. So there is a point to interact with an illusion but it is a matter of agreement. You accept it's reality, as long as I agree to interact with it as if it were reality then there's no issue.

I suppose that's why people work so hard to convince each other about the "truth". Less issues amongst those with agreement on the truth.

I don't see why we need trust for that.
If a claim is true, then we can confirm it... regardless if we originally trusted the persons claim. That's the nature of things that are true: They don't depend on opinions or faith to be verifiable.

It takes time and resources to verify a claim. You'd have to have some acceptance of the claim before being willing to waste your time and resources. Like Buddhism requires an investment to verify it's claims. Are you really going to waste your time and resources on something you already belief is false?

Well, having something that can be investigated and verified by other people certainly helps. If I just have an experience that can't be verified by others, it at least has to give me some information which I can verify and cross-check with other people.
Of course, as stated in the very beginning, if ALL my senses are desieving me, to the point where even the rest of the world I experience is fake, this mechanism will fail.
But leaving aside the problem of solopsism, we can test the reliability of an experience by having it tested and replicated by independent sources.

I usually use consistency, if you can repeat something and get similar results.

However yes I do check with others. There is a lot of information about people claiming to have had similar "spiritual" experiences. However all I can really say is that my experiences are common enough to provide some plausibility

So I look for consistency and a commonality of experience with others. Still never 100% certainty. Every thing for me, in my ideas about reality, fall somewhere in between.

So my spiritual experiences fall somewhere between absolute rejection and absolute acceptance.

 

[Nakosis]

If I let go of all I know, think to know, of all that can be scientificly demonstrated and... oh, yes, actually is "filtered through a conceptual mind"... then SURE, an entire new reality will open up to me!

Where unicorns ride on rainbows, Mars is the home of the Elves, the earths core is made of ice cream and in my brain there lives a dwarf called Steve who has a poker night with the Yeti, ever Saturday night

All kidding aside, my point is:
Yes, I rely on science and rational arguments. Because they provide us with evidence and actual application, which we ALL use (you included, btw).

If your method could in any way present equally reliable results, we wouldn't even be debating it here, it would be accepted as the best methodology we have...
But it doesn't seem to have that success-story, so I don't know why I should give it preference over things like rationality, thought and science.

I can get reliable results. However keeping in mind I probably dismiss a lot the the same things you dismiss. Like prayer. I think there is nothing reliable about how people pray. Also Prophets, I don't assume prophets have any reliability. Heaven, Hell, I don't see these as reliable ideas.

What I test for myself, what I cross check with others I accept has some reliability with regard to reality.

Of course some will claim prayer has reliability. That's not been my experience so I suspect I'd be a waste of time for me to spend any resources trying to verify the claim.

 

[RichardParker]

I can get reliable results.

Really?
Like what? (just an example or so...)

 

[Nakosis]

Really?
Like what? (just an example or so...)

I consistently see a bright white light. I ignore it mostly. To me, sight, what we accept as reality seems superimposed on it. It's there if I focus on it.

I hear "celestial music" more like a celestial background noise. Again it's always there if I focus on it.

Together it's pretty peaceful. In difficult times I can focus on these and become pretty calm.

During meditation there is bliss. An intense joy happiness that is there to be experienced. It's a place where no desire exists as all desire is fulfilled.

I can duplicate these experience when I want to. They are beneficial. The reality of them is a real as anything of reality that you are likely to agree as real.

You'd, hopefully, agree there exist a moon in the sky because you've perceived it for yourself. these things have the same perceptual impact to me.

Probably none of that has any meaning for you and I understand. You can't understand the reality of the perception until you perceive it for yourself.

Kind of like if you had lived in a cave all your life. I probably could convince you of the existence of the moon until you saw it for yourself.

 

[RichardParker]

I consistently see a bright white light. I ignore it mostly. To me, sight, what we accept as reality seems superimposed on it. It's there if I focus on it.

I hear "celestial music" more like a celestial background noise. Again it's always there if I focus on it.

Together it's pretty peaceful. In difficult times I can focus on these and become pretty calm.

I think you misunderstood. I probably didn't make it very clear.
I didn't want to know, what experiences you've had, and neither what experiences you constantly have, or can replicate to yourself.
I wanted to know about something that can be independently verified. I also think you are attaching interpretations to your experiences, which I think need to be justified and demonstrated too.
Also, I'm not sure how you know that these things aren't just illusions, things created in your own mind. If we look at the same spot, and you see a light (or see a light wherever you go) and neither I nor anybody around you also sees it, the more likely (I'm NOT saying that necessarily correct) explanation is, that it is something that is playing in your head.

So, let me rephrase the question:
What independently verifiable things do you have to offer? What is your explanation for it. And how do we test, if your explanation is the correct interpretation?

 

[godnotgod]

If I let go of all I know, think to know, of all that can be scientificly demonstrated and... oh, yes, actually is "filtered through a conceptual mind"... then SURE, an entire new reality will open up to me!

Where unicorns ride on rainbows, Mars is the home of the Elves, the earths core is made of ice cream and in my brain there lives a dwarf called Steve who has a poker night with the Yeti, ever Saturday night

All of which is only saying that you haven't let go, as such fantasies are still the product of the thinking mind.

All kidding aside, my point is:
Yes, I rely on science and rational arguments. Because they provide us with evidence and actual application, which we ALL use (you included, btw).

If your method could in any way present equally reliable results, we wouldn't even be debating it here, it would be accepted as the best methodology we have...
But it doesn't seem to have that success-story, so I don't know why I should give it preference over things like rationality, thought and science.

Excuse me? Doesn't have the success story? It is over 4000 years old, produces the same view from one practitioner to the next*, in different historical times, and in different places around the world. It is the basis of all knowledge, including scientific knowledge. While the scientific view is constantly changing to adjust to new findings, the mystical view has been the same view since its inception. The reason for this is that science is dealing with phenomena, while the mystical view is dealing with the source of phenomena itself. The problem is that science discards the mystical view in favor of the scientific view, while the mystical view is all encompassing. It has no preferences of one view over another. For the mystic, then, the findings of science do not present any problems. You may have noticed that Buddhism, for example, only confirms new scientific findings.

*When that view is clear and undistorted.

 

[RichardParker]

It is over 4000 years old, produces the same view from one practitioner to the next*, in different historical times, and in different places around the world. It is the basis of all knowledge, including scientific knowledge. While the scientific view is constantly changing to adjust to new findings, the mystical view has been the same view since its inception. The reason for this is that science is dealing with phenomena, while the mystical view is dealing with the source of phenomena itself. The problem is that science discards the mystical view in favor of the scientific view, while the mystical view is all encompassing. It has no preferences of one view over another. For the mystic, then, the findings of science do not present any problems. You may have noticed that Buddhism, for example, only confirms new scientific findings.

So... you just take credits for everything humanity has achieved by proxy?
Sorry, I don't think I'm convinced.
"Buddhism only confirms new scientific findings".
Not really. It's similar to all other religions in that regard. After science found something, the religion just says "Oh, we knew that all along!" and point to some poetic statement of their religion, that they can fit in there.
Noticed that none of this understanding ever actually comes from the religions, philosophical views, or even your mysticism?
It only comes out AFTER science has found something and claims "Yep, we knew that all along, and take now credits for it".
Mystisicm had nothing to do with the discovery of germs and the development of the germ theory of disease.
Buddhism didn't present any revalation that let to the discovery of electricity.
None of these philosophical views or religions did ever bring something forth that's as confirmable, real and with as many practical applications as science did.
Yes, science changes, because we make progress. To say that your system doesn't isn't really a selling point to me, and that it tries to take credit now is somewhat insulting.

 

[godnotgod]

So... you just take credits for everything humanity has achieved by proxy?
Sorry, I don't think I'm convinced.
"Buddhism only confirms new scientific findings".
Not really. It's similar to all other religions in that regard. After science found something, the religion just says "Oh, we knew that all along!" and point to some poetic statement of their religion, that they can fit in there.
Noticed that none of this understanding ever actually comes from the religions, philosophical views, or even your mysticism?
It only comes out AFTER science has found something and claims "Yep, we knew that all along, and take now credits for it".
Mystisicm had nothing to do with the discovery of germs and the development of the germ theory of disease.
Buddhism didn't present any revalation that let to the discovery of electricity.
None of these philosophical views or religions did ever bring something forth that's as confirmable, real and with as many practical applications as science did.
Yes, science changes, because we make progress. To say that your system doesn't isn't really a selling point to me, and that it tries to take credit now is somewhat insulting.

Excuse me, but I am afraid you have a gross misunderstanding of what I am referring to. It is not about very specific things, like germs and disease, and antibiotics to treat them; it is, instead, about the NATURE of what science, up until recently, thought of as the 'material' world. As I tried to tell you, Higher Consciousness has no protest in regards to the discoveries of science, but what science is after is not what the spiritual experience is after. Do you understand so far? Good!

The things that the mystics have discovered are universal truths that do not change. That does NOT mean, as you imply, that no progress is made. On the contrary, mystics have found the key to the perfection of wisdom, so why does it require further 'progress'? As for science and 'progress', we seem to be further away from understanding the true nature of the universe than ever before. Theories abound by the dozens, and we are more perplexed than ever. As for science and drugs, unfortunately, big business and technology are in bed together. and I won't comment any more on that. The bottom line is simply that the American people are being manipulated Big Time, both by the pharmaceutical industry and by the HMO's. The American Medical System is a mess. Nuff said.

At any rate, what Eastern wisdom in particular has known for centuries, science is now only coming around to scratch the surface of. What I am talking about is how Quantum Theory has completely overturned classical science's paradigm about the nature of the material world and how it behaves. The key world in the East is called 'Emptiness', or 'Sunyata', and the idea that the world, instead of being the solid material we previously thought it to be, is now seen as a 'field of possibilities'. The East has said pretty much the same thing for centuries.

Emptiness

“Emptiness is that in which all arises and returns from. Buddha says reality rises from emptiness, a non-dual and infinite source. For instance, the chair you are sitting on, the computer you are looking at, even you are body is arising in this moment from emptiness. To better to illustrate it – think of a dream. In this dream there is an elephant and you. So you think – this is me and that is an elephant. They have the appearance of being two separate entities. However you are wake up you realize that both yourself and the elephant were both manifestations of your dreaming consciousness, the source of both this dream and an infinite variety of other possible dream worlds.

Another way to picture emptiness is as the page of a book. The page of the book without words can be understood as emptiness. While the page is itself relays no message, there are an infinite variety of words, sentences and stories that can be placed upon the page. So, emptiness can be understood as the field of potential in which every possibility arises from.”

Where Science and Buddhism Meet: Emptiness, Oneness and Nature of Reality [Video]

Please take some time to read some of the other ideas on this site, like theemptiness of the atom (99.999999999999 % empty space), the wave/particle duality, the quantum field, etc.

And if you can watch the provided video, even better, here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qj_i7YqDwJA

...and here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlmrHMBW36w

 

[DanielR]

@godnotgod

would you say dying is 'waking up from the dream' (to stick with the famous dream metaphor)? And will 'we' (it) dream again?

 

[DanielR]

with dying I mean physical death!

 

[Thief]

with dying I mean physical death!

He doesn't know the difference.
He thinks he doesn't exist.

 

[Aupmanyav]

with dying I mean physical death!

Not an easy question to answer. What is physical? What is death? Includes the whole of physics.

 

[godnotgod]

@godnotgod

would you say dying is 'waking up from the dream' (to stick with the famous dream metaphor)? And will 'we' (it) dream again?

I would say that birth and death are part of the dream world, and that a true Awakening is to transcend both life and death. Then you realize your true nature, which is Unborn. Being Unborn, how can you die, when you yourself are the Indestructible Sunyata itself, pretending to be something other than who you really are in the cosmic game of Hide and Seek?

Who is it that lives?

Who is it that dies?

Watch..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wU0PYcCsL6o

 

[DanielR]

Thanks, finally I watched the video, it was great, I quite like Alan Watts


so basically it will never end? Brahman or Sunyata (in the case posted by you) will play Hide & Seek forever?

 

[DanielR]

I don't want to play anymore


(this is not meant suicidal btw lol )

 

[Nakosis]

So, let me rephrase the question:
What independently verifiable things do you have to offer? What is your explanation for it. And how do we test, if your explanation is the correct interpretation?

Let me rephrase the answer for you then. It is all available for you to independently verify.

If you don't want to put the time in for training and leaning, how do you expect to be able to verify any of it?

My explanation for it is no more important then if I offered an explanation for the moon. What would be important is for you to see the moon for yourself.

How we test it? How do we test that a reality exists independent of our perception?

You have to learn how to perceive these things for yourself. Once you do, you are stuck with the reality of them whether you come up with an explanation for them or not.

I don't know what you think you are looking for. Independent testimony? Read about the life of Dr. M. W. Lewis.

I don't think you are willing to find the truth of this for yourself. If fact I'd suspect what you really want is to convince yourself there is no truth to any of it.

Find a Guru or Find a Buddhist Master and allow them to teach you. Or maybe just stop pretending that you have any interest in the truth of these teachings.

 

[Nakosis]

I don't want to play anymore


(this is not meant suicidal btw lol )

Really?
I felt the same for a while.


Life is a sandbox. You can shape it according to your desire. The limit of our ability we have to shape our life I'm not sure. I'm still finding out. However I can create a lot. Kind of important to discover what you really want though.

However we get conditioned/taught to believe in some idea of what we should want. Money, fame, power. You'll probably find these things are not as satisfying as you were led to believe.

The true value in life is the experience of life itself. All of the experience. The good and the bad, gain and loss, joy and suffering. Just can't get too attached to what you create because it's just sand. It won't retain it form forever. However you can always create something new.

 

[RichardParker]

I don't think you are willing to find the truth of this for yourself. If fact I'd suspect what you really want is to convince yourself there is no truth to any of it.

Sure, yeah.
It was my fault for actually asking for evidence. I guess this means I am not interessted

Actually, the reason why I ask is, because I want to understand the world as good as I can.
You suggests way I might be able to reach the same experiences as you, but here is the thing:
I've never asked you to prove to me that your experience is true! I believe you, that you've experienced stuff!
But you also interpret things into it (like, that there is a deeper truth to it, than just your brain playing tricks on you... which we know is a very likely and demonstrable explanation for all kinds of experiences), and I still don't know how you demonstrated the truth of this.

 

[RichardParker]

The key world in the East is called 'Emptiness', or 'Sunyata', and the idea that the world, instead of being the solid material we previously thought it to be, is now seen as a 'field of possibilities'. The East has said pretty much the same thing for centuries.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlmrHMBW36w

And yet, it took us that long, to actually find out about quantum physics and all of that...
Why?
Well, maybe because the teachings you now (retrospectivly) match to the scientific discoveries don't really describe anything about our understanding of quantum physics.

This is in no way different, than the christian saying "Look, in this verse the bible says "The things of the world are made up of the things we cannot see" (paraphrasing on my part, I don't have the verse memorized and it doesn't matter)! This means, he was talking about atoms! See, the bible was talking about atoms, long before we knew that atoms existed!"
No, sorry. If this text had been talking about atoms, it would have been specific enough to actually identify atoms in the text.
And if your teachings were refering to quantum physics, than that's what it would have been talking about.

But ok, in that case:
I assume your teachings can already solve some of the mysteries and problems current physics is working on.
Or will it just be, that after they have discovered it, we will hear that the eastern teachings have always said these things (again)?

Never mind big pharma, btw!
Why don't your teachings provide us with a cure for cancer? Or a source for sustainable energy?
Sure, you are saying that your teachings are just telling you the "underlying truth", or whatever, but given that we have overlayd problems here, that demand demonstrable solving, I'm not impressed by people who tell me that they have found the underlying truth, which we all have to discover for ourselves.