What Happens When You Die?

[godnotgod]

So, on what basis did you judge, that the verses you've picked contain the "pure" and "uncorrupted" teachings?

Well, you had presented Jesus as the Big Boss and Master of the Universe, and my response was simply to show you, from scripture, a passage to the contrary.

 

[RichardParker]

Well, you had presented Jesus as the Big Boss and Master of the Universe, and my response was simply to show you, from scripture, a passage to the contrary.

Sure, and I can show you passages that support the idea that Jesus was god, and that god is the master.
But I think you will tell me that these are the corrupted parts, right?
So, I'm asking how you can tell one from the other.

 

[godnotgod]

Sure, and I can show you passages that support the idea that Jesus was god, and that god is the master.
But I think you will tell me that these are the corrupted parts, right?
So, I'm asking how you can tell one from the other.

In post #2800, I had asked of you:

"Do you have an experiential understanding as to how the spiritual world works? You are aware, are you not, that scripture is merely a second-hand account of this spiritual experience?"

 

[RichardParker]

In post #2800, I had asked of you:

"Do you have an experiential understanding as to how the spiritual world works? You are aware, are you not, that scripture is merely a second-hand account of this spiritual experience?"

I'm not even sure I understand what you mean by that.
What do you mean by "spiritual world"? I don't even know if such a thing exists. What is that?

 

[godnotgod]

I'm not even sure I understand what you mean by that.
What do you mean by "spiritual world"? I don't even know if such a thing exists. What is that?

This very world is none other than the spiritual world. It's conscious and alive. If you don't experience it that way, then you are still looking at nature in a subject/object relationship. Is that the case?

 

[RichardParker]

This very world is none other than the spiritual world. It's conscious and alive. If you don't experience it that way, then you are still looking at nature in a subject/object relationship. Is that the case?

So... this world is the "spiritual world"?
Then why make the distinction? Why not just say "the world"? (or "the universe", or "reality").
If they are synonimous I don't see the point why you use two different words to describe it. This only leads to confusion.

Now, you claim this "world" (and as I said: I assume you don't mean this planet, but rather all of existence, if I'm understanding correctly) is conscious and alive? Why would you think that?
I mean, it CONTAINS things that are alive, and are conscious, sure. But that doesn't make it ALL conscious and/or alive, right?

Also, speaking from the position as a biologist, "life" referes to something with very specific attributes, like having a metabolism, being able to reproduce and so on.
I get the impression that, again, this is not what you mean when you say "life" or "being alive". So again, you seem to use terms in a different way than their general meaning...
Which is fine, but then you will have to define it first, otherwise I don't know what you are talking about.

 

[`mud]

A lot of this thread seems to me has been involved in what is involved in the afterlife,
or some brahmanic attitudes of non-realistic applications of pseudo spiritualistic beliefs.
Thief believes in the Heaven that he is going to.
Godnotgod seems to believe in some kind of perpetual ongoing state of gnosis.
Atheists seem to accept the idea of what is gone is gone,
some remaining gases that could be refered to as 'spirit',
that some call other people's memories of one.
~
But....does the 'spirit' really go on ? What cognizent ability would it have ?
I think that is the question to be asked, regardless of one's religion.
~
Not clear enough here I'm sure, but just a thought about dieing !
~
'mud

 

[methylatedghosts]

While I appreciate the point you are making, and I do, your assumption is that by 'arrival' I mean that it is a static condition. To the contrary, it is a very dynamic condition, but one in which Everything is to be found right here, right now, including 'new' discoveries and experiences. The difference I am pointing up is that now, having arrived, all your experiences are full and complete, as contrasted with the seeker, who is forever looking to some imaginary non-existent future. We pretty much know, via direct experience with any such imagined future, that things never pan out the way we imagine them to be, but direct experience with Reality in the here and now, without expectation or preconception, is always exactly what it is; always fresh, new, and alive. What we call the 'future' is actually a vision based upon the past, and therefore, is dead. When we live fully in the Present Moment, life is an ongoing flowing experience from one moment to the next. To never arrive in the Present is to not be here, now. Are you here, now, or are you somewhere else?

To say that one has arrived does not mean that one now knows everything; it only means that one is now focused on what is going on in the present moment, rather than having one's attention diverted to the dead past or to the imaginary future. Only the present moment is Reality, so arrival is to be fully present, here, now.

We are indoctrinated with the notion that the past builds up to create the present, but that is just an illusion. The reality is that the present is what creates the past. The dead past cannot create the living present; it's already dead. It only trails off from what is occurring right now. The ship creates the wake; the wake cannot create the ship.

Wrong. That is not my assumption at all. Nice try though. Like the guy at the truck stop... He gets up, goes to the bathroom, puts a coin in the juke box... He's not static entirely. But he doesn't move away from where he's at. He thinks "I have all I really need, here. Food, music, company. And this is the best experience I've had with these things. Surely I've arrived now."

While he may not be physically static, and his experiences there might not be static, and may come with some variation every day, his beliefs have most definitely become static. He's forgotten that sense of discovery and adventure, forgotten to see what new truths he might find around the next bend or over the next crest. Though, he's not unhappy - he thinks he's arrived, that he's made it. He's quite unaware that he is limiting himself, and so is quite happy living with the things he knows and is comfortable with.

And that is ok.

Some people are just not made for adventure.

 

[godnotgod]

Wrong. That is not my assumption at all. Nice try though. Like the guy at the truck stop... He gets up, goes to the bathroom, puts a coin in the juke box... He's not static entirely. But he doesn't move away from where he's at. He thinks "I have all I really need, here. Food, music, company. And this is the best experience I've had with these things. Surely I've arrived now."

While he may not be physically static, and his experiences there might not be static, and may come with some variation every day, his beliefs have most definitely become static. He's forgotten that sense of discovery and adventure, forgotten to see what new truths he might find around the next bend or over the next crest. Though, he's not unhappy - he thinks he's arrived, that he's made it. He's quite unaware that he is limiting himself, and so is quite happy living with the things he knows and is comfortable with.

And that is ok.

Some people are just not made for adventure.

Maybe so, but that has nothing to do with what I am saying. The guy with the jukebox may indeed feel he has found the Mother Lode and close his mind to any other music, or he may wonder if there might be more. But still, this is not my meaning. To arrive simply means to be fully attentive to what's going on in the here and now. If you live this moment fully, then you can live the next moment fully, without dragging toxic residue from the past into the present. That way, each moment you live is new and alive, and not stifled with baggage from previous experiences. We call this kind of stifling being 'jaded'.

Having said that, all experiences are to be had in this present moment, and in no other moment. In this sense, the present moment is indeed the Mother Lode.

As for adventure, it can be pursued two ways: within the present moment, or sought in some future time and place. In either case, it can turn into an addiction we call Sensation, and end up polluting the psyche. It can turn into a drug, with each new adventure requiring a bigger and bigger fix to get the same high. Currently, Extreme Sports and the like are of this type.

I would say that real adventure comes via an unplanned, spontaneous event, where there is no expectation of reward or preconception of what one is about to experience, and in that sense, the greatest adventure of all is the spiritual experience.

 

[godnotgod]

So... this world is the "spiritual world"?
Then why make the distinction? Why not just say "the world"? (or "the universe", or "reality").
If they are synonimous I don't see the point why you use two different words to describe it. This only leads to confusion.

You're absolutely correct, but the problem is this: the world is already classified as the 'material' world, implying the 'non-material' world, when, in reality, there is only one world. Because we are conditioned in general to see the world as being material, the distinction has to be made. But the spiritually enlightened person does not see it as one or the other; he sees it as one and the same. IOW, his view is non-dual. What the spiritual experience does is to transform the conditioned mind into one that is unconditioned, wherein one now sees things as they actually are, rather than how our conditioning tells us it is.

From a scientific point of view, if we have learned anything from Quantum Physics, it is that what we call the 'material' world isn't much 'material' as we thought it to be under classical physics.

More on the rest of your post later....
[/quote]

 

[godnotgod]

....does the 'spirit' really go on ? What cognizent ability would it have ?
I think that is the question to be asked, regardless of one's religion.
~
'mud

Firstly, you seem to acknowledge that such a state as the spiritual is a reality. But the question then becomes, in light of your question, is: is the spirit a personal spirit, as in 'my' spirit, or simply a universal spiritual presence inhabiting a body? In the former case, many do think it survives bodily death; in the latter case, it was present before bodily birth and is present after bodily death. It is impersonal, but the mind has created an "I" to make it personal. Hence, my ongoing question: Where is this so called "I"? Once it is seen to be an illusion, who is it that lives or dies? Who is it that has an afterlife? As Chopra tells us: 'we return to where we've always been'. The wave-form simply dissolves back into the infinite sea from which it emerged. The snowflake, enjoying a brief and unique experience as a snowflake, simply returns to the universal substance we call water.

Simple. Clean. No muss; no fuss, and no memory to foul things up.

Let all sharpness be blunted,
All tangles untied,
All glare tempered.
All dust smoothed.
This is called the mysterious leveling.

Tao te Ching, Ch 56

So the message here seems to be: live now and do not be concerned with death or the afterlife. This moment is all we will ever have, so live it fully and joyously. The Buddha tried to tell that in his famous Kalama sutta, where he tells the villagers to pay attention to the suffering they are experiencing in the present and to resolve that suffering. Then everything will simply fall into place of its own accord.

 

[Shade Cell]

We are dust, and unto dust we shall return is another way of putting it. He is speaking of both the infinity and the finality of life. The great paradox that in order to live, you must die, but in dying, you live far more than you ever do it life.

"...in dying, you live far more than you ever do in life."
- so hummed the extremist as he detonated in the crowded public square.

 

[YmirGF]

Maybe so, but that has nothing to do with what I am saying. The guy with the jukebox may indeed feel he has found the Mother Lode and close his mind to any other music, or he may wonder if there might be more. But still, this is not my meaning. To arrive simply means to be fully attentive to what's going on in the here and now. If you live this moment fully, then you can live the next moment fully, without dragging toxic residue from the past into the present. That way, each moment you live is new and alive, and not stifled with baggage from previous experiences. We call this kind of stifling being 'jaded'.

I tend to agree with this very much however I don't see the toxic aspect you describe. I see richness of continued experience, as one, in the present. Then again, maybe I've just been at this too long, LOL.

Having said that, all experiences are to be had in this present moment, and in no other moment. In this sense, the present moment is indeed the Mother Lode.

Indeed, 'tis the open doorway to infinite probability.

As for adventure, it can be pursued two ways: within the present moment, or sought in some future time and place. In either case, it can turn into an addiction we call Sensation, and end up polluting the psyche. It can turn into a drug, with each new adventure requiring a bigger and bigger fix to get the same high. Currently, Extreme Sports and the like are of this type.

Again, I just don't see it that way. I see the richness and experience of unbridled awareness. It wouldn't occur to me to see such rewarding experience of value-fulfillment as being pollution. But, that's just me.

I would say that real adventure comes via an unplanned, spontaneous event, where there is no expectation of reward or preconception of what one is about to experience, and in that sense, the greatest adventure of all is the spiritual experience.

Given that it is a somewhat permanent adventure, to call it the greatest is a bit weak. Saying it is the greatest undermines the usefulness and extraordinary opportunities, that limited experience offers. Dovetail the two and that is where the fun REALLY begins....

 

[RichardParker]

You're absolutely correct, but the problem is this: the world is already classified as the 'material' world, implying the 'non-material' world, when, in reality, there is only one world. Because we are conditioned in general to see the world as being material, the distinction has to be made. But the spiritually enlightened person does not see it as one or the other; he sees it as one and the same. IOW, his view is non-dual. What the spiritual experience does is to transform the conditioned mind into one that is unconditioned, wherein one now sees things as they actually are, rather than how our conditioning tells us it is.

From a scientific point of view, if we have learned anything from Quantum Physics, it is that what we call the 'material' world isn't much 'material' as we thought it to be under classical physics.

More on the rest of your post later....

[/quote]

Ok, so let me summorize what you've said here, just to make sure that we are on the same page:
You believe that there is a supernatural element to reality, right? That's why you object to the idea that the world is only considered to be a material world.
Did I get this correct?

Now, my question is:
What evidence is there to support the idea that there is a part to this world that is beyond the "material" components?
After all, even quantum physics doesn't lead to the conclusion that there is more to this world than the "material", it has just revealed new properties of this "material" of this world.

 

[godnotgod]

Ok, so let me summorize what you've said here, just to make sure that we are on the same page:
You believe that there is a supernatural element to reality, right? That's why you object to the idea that the world is only considered to be a material world.
Did I get this correct?[/quote]

No, you did not. I never said there was any such 'supernatural' element to Reality, let alone that it was cause for protest. What we call the 'material' world is not the case, as shown by Quantum Physics. From the spiritual point of view, the 'material' world is none other than the spiritual world. They are one and the same. 'Supernatural' means over and above nature; I am saying that nature and spirituality are not two different things.

Now, my question is:
What evidence is there to support the idea that there is a part to this world that is beyond the "material" components?
After all, even quantum physics doesn't lead to the conclusion that there is more to this world than the "material", it has just revealed new properties of this "material" of this world.[/quote]

No, it did not. It revealed a completely new view of reality, falsifying the old view. What the old paradigm saw as solid form and 'material', QM sees as a 'field of possibilities'.

And that is exactly what the spiritual experience does: it shows us that what we thought to be the case, is not the case, and that is the reason why I asked you what I did:

"Do you have an experiential understanding as to how the spiritual world works? You are aware, are you not, that scripture is merely a second-hand account of this spiritual experience?"

There is no 'part to this world beyond the material': there is only one, whole, undivided world, and this is it.

 

[RichardParker]

No, you did not. I never said there was any such 'supernatural' element to Reality, let alone that it was cause for protest. What we call the 'material' world is not the case, as shown by Quantum Physics. From the spiritual point of view, the 'material' world is none other than the spiritual world. They are one and the same. 'Supernatural' means over and above nature; I am saying that nature and spirituality are not two different things.

Ok, then I again don't understand what you mean by "spirituality" or the "spiritual" world.
So, it's not supernatural, therefore it is part of the natural world? Right?
Maybe it would help if you defined what you mean by "spiritual".
Because as I've said, we could just drop this word, and we wouldn't lose anything in your argument, since you are simply seem to apply this world to the thing we already agree to be the natural world.

No, it did not. It revealed a completely new view of reality, falsifying the old view. What the old paradigm saw as solid form and 'material', QM sees as a 'field of possibilities'.

And that is exactly what the spiritual experience does: it shows us that what we thought to be the case, is not the case...

So... "spiritual experience" is "science"?
Because that's what gave us the new understanding of quantum mechanics. Are you using them as synanumous here, or do you mean something else when you say "spiritual experience"? And if yes, then what do you mean, and how can you say that it was this "experience" that revealed that knowledge to us, when it was clearly the scientific process.

...and that is the reason why I asked you what I did:

"Do you have an experiential understanding as to how the spiritual world works? You are aware, are you not, that scripture is merely a second-hand account of this spiritual experience?"

There is no 'part to this world beyond the material': there is only one, whole, undivided world, and this is it.

So...
Do you simply mean if I understand quantum mechanics, when you ask me if I have an understanding of the spiritual world?
Because at the moment it seems that this is what you mean, but as I've said, I really can't exactly tell.

 

[Thief]

When you die....you end up alongside other souls just like yours.
(no one else will come around)

How else to be happy?
How else to be fair?

Billions of possibilities!

 

[methylatedghosts]

Maybe so, but that has nothing to do with what I am saying. The guy with the jukebox may indeed feel he has found the Mother Lode and close his mind to any other music, or he may wonder if there might be more. But still, this is not my meaning. To arrive simply means to be fully attentive to what's going on in the here and now. If you live this moment fully, then you can live the next moment fully, without dragging toxic residue from the past into the present. That way, each moment you live is new and alive, and not stifled with baggage from previous experiences. We call this kind of stifling being 'jaded'.

Having said that, all experiences are to be had in this present moment, and in no other moment. In this sense, the present moment is indeed the Mother Lode.

As for adventure, it can be pursued two ways: within the present moment, or sought in some future time and place. In either case, it can turn into an addiction we call Sensation, and end up polluting the psyche. It can turn into a drug, with each new adventure requiring a bigger and bigger fix to get the same high. Currently, Extreme Sports and the like are of this type.

I would say that real adventure comes via an unplanned, spontaneous event, where there is no expectation of reward or preconception of what one is about to experience, and in that sense, the greatest adventure of all is the spiritual experience.

Ok, let me make it a little more clear.

I think you have some good ideas. But, like the guy in the example, you've reached a particular set, and seem to believe that this is as far as the road goes, and you are limiting yourself in that regard.

But, like I said, that is ok. Maybe you're the kind of guy that doesn't like overlaying old truths with new ones. Maybe you're not really the adventurous type.

And that is ok

Just remember, as soon as you feel your current ideas are old and stale, you can always get back on the road, and keep trucking to the next stop. I see you're comfortable here, now

 

[RichardParker]

How else to be happy?
How else to be fair?

Who says, that the correct solution is necessarily fair?
Why does the correct solution needs to make you happy?

 

[godnotgod]

Ok, let me make it a little more clear.

I think you have some good ideas. But, like the guy in the example, you've reached a particular set, and seem to believe that this is as far as the road goes, and you are limiting yourself in that regard.

But, like I said, that is ok. Maybe you're the kind of guy that doesn't like overlaying old truths with new ones. Maybe you're not really the adventurous type.

And that is ok

Just remember, as soon as you feel your current ideas are old and stale, you can always get back on the road, and keep trucking to the next stop. I see you're comfortable here, now

Your'e still not understanding what I'm saying.

To arrive in the Present Moment, again, means simply to be here, now, fully present and attentive to what is. It does not mean attaching to a new idea of Reality or particular 'set', as you call it; it is the state of no idea at all. Reality is non-conceptual, and if you are at one with it, you also are in a non-conceptual state.

"Do not seek the Truth;
only cease to cherish opinions"
6th Zen Patriarch