Earth is Paradise

[Tomas]

Is it the same self as 20 years ago? What happens when it dies?

Who fucking cares?

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Who fucking cares about all of this then lol, it's all talking about nothing anyway

[Dennis Mahar]

What happens when it dies?

under the circumstances, the circumstantial evidence indicates a loss of circumstances ;)

unconditioned, unborn, infinite

[SeekerOfWisdom]

There is supposed to be this state for those that don't return to existence after death through craving. I get the impression nothing will ever ever change and never has. That leaves no other reasonable possibility for existence except acceptance.

[Dennis Mahar]

The Buddha is the middle way.

It avoids eternalism which is the idea of a 'soul' as an unchanging personal entity that continues in time infinitely which comes out of the assumption of theism.

It avoids annihilationism which means being 'cut off' at death which denies reality apart from body.

The middle way is dependent origination.
This arising that must be.
This ceasing that must cease.

and that is a restatement of transitoriness.
transitoriness implies causality.

infinite implies shedding causality or conditioning.

can you see how the good man 'thinks'?
how he's got an eye out for the causes of suffering.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Thinking to realize thinking is the main cause of suffering so he can guard against thinking.

[Dan Rowden]

Really, what makes you think that?

[Dennis Mahar]

The whistle blower on thinking whistles thoughts.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Thinking to realize thinking is the main cause of suffering so he can guard against thinking.

What the mind giveth, the mind taketh away again.

Ah...but...

Not without a struggle.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

An interesting article about St. Francis, and why did he bother to do as he did? As with Bhagavan Nityananda, from one perspective he was loon, from another perspective, a saint.

Or better yet: the jongleur of god like he himself called his followers "Jongleurs de Dieu". Undivided attention, acrobatic shifts in perspective, full reversals and juggling a couple of different things at the same time. But for which audience?

[Cahoot]

An interesting article about St. Francis, and why did he bother to do as he did? As with Bhagavan Nityananda, from one perspective he was loon, from another perspective, a saint.

Or better yet: the jongleur of god like he himself called his followers "Jongleurs de Dieu". Undivided attention, acrobatic shifts in perspective, full reversals and juggling a couple of different things at the same time. But for which audience?

I say the audience is intent.

[Pye]

Seeker asks about a self: What happens when it dies?

Is your question the same as "What happens when it ceases to exist?"

If the latter, then you have all you need to answer. There is only existence. If a thing doesn't exist anymore, it doesn't exist anymore.

Is this a hard thing to think about oneself? Well, one can only fuss over it whilst one exists - the only place where anything can happen. :)

[Diebert van Rhijn]

An interesting article about St. Francis, and why did he bother to do as he did? As with Bhagavan Nityananda, from one perspective he was loon, from another perspective, a saint.

Or better yet: the jongleur of god like he himself called his followers "Jongleurs de Dieu". Undivided attention, acrobatic shifts in perspective, full reversals and juggling a couple of different things at the same time. But for which audience?

I say the audience is intent.

Should the question even be answered? But if you want to go there, perhaps like the Little Drummer Boy or the better original The Tumbler of Our Lady, the audience is whatever we imagine to be God or the universe as a receptive whole. This has to do with the wiring of our mind, always to perform for, to play it out, signals like any other acts having "address". The mind is never really quiet deeper down, it talks to itself, to others or to the heavens.

This is one way to answer the question "why bother to do as you do". It's then not about starting or stopping performance, it's about getting right view on audience (the "right audience").

[SeekerOfWisdom]

I didn't ask what happened to Pye when Pye body ceases to exist, to be more specific, I asked what happens to consciousness when the body dies?

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Really, what makes you think that?

If you were saying this in response to the nothing will change thing... what makes me think that is because the only thing that anyone has ever known to exist is changing seeing/senses, changing thoughts/mental formations.

Why would I assume that there is some other kind of existence that is different to consciousness without any reason?

[Dennis Mahar]

Can we say consciousness is 'seeker after object'.
if so it's dependently arisen.

the job then is pacifying seeker by disclosing the ultimate reality of object.


.

[Dan Rowden]

Really, what makes you think that?

If you were saying this in response to the nothing will change thing...

I was responding to the statement about thinking, immediately preceding my post, which is how posting works - i.e. if a post immediately follows another (with no intervening posts) then the immediately preceding post is the one being addressed. I was making an ironic point about your approach to thought.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

See at first I didn't think it made sense in relation to that comment, I thought maybe they had happened close together, but it does when I see the sarcasm.

Thoughts make me think that. It's not guarding against thought in general, talking about those that irrationally bring suffering.

What does everyone do with their time/understanding besides GF?
Examples being like blogs and youtube. Do you consider doing these things as worthwhile?

[SeekerOfWisdom]

It avoids eternalism which is the idea of a 'soul' as an unchanging personal entity that continues in time infinitely which comes out of the assumption of theism.

It avoids annihilationism which means being 'cut off' at death which denies reality apart from body.

There is no soul that is an unchanging personal entity after death, but neither is there an ego in life. You don't retain anything of the ego or self at death because there is nothing of the ego or self, there are only the transient experiences.


You do continue through time infinitely, the concept of death being related to "end" is completely false, you do live eternally, there just is no you.

[Dennis Mahar]

The causes of life are the causes of death.

death is definite and the time is indefinite.

the body kicks me out.

friends and money can't help.

Saturday night isn't the time for pondering the problems of cyclic existence.
Sunday morning is. I can vouch for that.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

May have been doing it Saturday afternoon, last night was my sisters birthday went to the city.

But there is always time for pondering existence.

[Dan Rowden]

It's not guarding against thought in general, talking about those that irrationally bring suffering.

Well, fine, I agree with that. But of course to make a determination regarding such dynamics one has to think meaningfully about the ego, self and reality in general. Till one has sorted out the nature of such things properly, everything is just hypothesis. True and abiding understanding is paramount and not - at any point at all - mere belief in certain idea or perspectives. In short, one must be a philosopher and not merely one who adopts a philosophy.

What does everyone do with their time/understanding besides GF?

I can only speak for myself. Thinking, writing, and until more recent times, Youtube videos. But, after a stroke and change in living circumstances, some of that has stopped or diminished, for now at least.

Examples being like blogs and youtube. Do you consider doing these things as worthwhile?

That would depend on whether God wants to be helpful or an arsehole, metaphorically speaking. But, that joke aside, even if all such activity does in strengthen your own understanding (and possibly your ability to effectively express and share it), it is necessarily worthwhile.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

He is a sad comedian.

Writing books or just some things for yourself? At first I felt that doing things like that, contributing something or influencing people, was the only thing worthwhile that wasn't simply passing the time while being. The only thing I'm really keeping track with now is something simple, "wise quotes from sages", just posting some of the less commonly heard profound words which I think is a good thing to expose to a lot of people regularly. I know it is good thing for me to see them.

In terms of contributing something new, I have learned now it doesn't matter to rush or care about who will see it, quality is what should really count. I decided if I ever write anything it would be only a few things I spend large portions of my life on, I also realized the highest quality cannot really be created by a singular person without time and time in solitude.

I am also still under the impression that whatever positive influence any one of us could have, it can be greatly improved through a team effort. Sadly though most people have the lone wolf thing going on and don't realize the potential we all have when pushed with a real motivation, which is almost impossible to retain for long periods alone without the correct incentive. Although with a motivated and cooperative goal, almost anything can be achieved.

[Dennis Mahar]

It looks like you are generating the philosophy of 'permanence' John in a roundabout way.

Be the philosopher of permanence.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Consciousness is impermanent permanently, that is where eternal life comes in, "you" were never truly born.