After Death

[Steve1114]

I find it foolish to believe that we all should live our lives in the visions of others, such as Christianity and the beliefs based upon Jesus (no intent to center out Christians); to achieve what some will believe as, "enlightenment." All so that in the afterlife we can live perpetually among beings supposedly, beyond our comprehension.

What are your views of the afterlife?

[Steven Coyle]

Hey Steve,

I've read that photons pop into existence due to observation.

I believe if there was an afterlife, our consciousness would return to the source of these photons.

While the path to enlightenment is initially traversed with proper guidelines, it soon becomes more about the intense investigation of the nature of one's own unique mind. The more you meditate on the experiences you encounter, the more you may uncover the underlying relationship between yourself and your own divine nature.

[ExpectantlyIronic]

I'm in no hurry to get there, but I think it'll be nice to be nothing for awhile... an eternity. Whatever.

[Matt Gregory]

Hi Steve,

My view of the afterlife is summed up by this quote from Poison for the Heart:

We come from dust, we are dust, and return to dust. Thus is the unchangeable nature of God. Behold immortality!

[Jamesh]

From Genius News

Living Beyond Death

Anna: My current thoughts on reincarnation may be a little different - that is, most people imagine their emotional soul-self as having immortality, going from life to life. I think most of what we consider to be "I" is chaff.

David Quinn: Which part of the "I" do you consider to be not chaff?

Anna: This is the spirit that is nonmaterial and has essential existence. It is tied to the person and the person has the components of body, mind, emotion and soul. the soul receives the impressions of those three. That is the path of reincarnation. When a person dies, all that is probably lost as not having any real value. But when a person becomes fully conscious, the soul may then be capable of uniting with the spirit in a permanent way. The spirit, meanwhile, is impersonal. This would be the only meaning to "saving" the soul. Thus you end up with a real soul, a real individual. That is what I was referring to earlier when I said my ideal is for mankind to become a terrestrial angel.

David Quinn: I tend to think of reincarnation in a very mundane way. Reincarnation simply refers to what is created in each moment from what has gone on before. That is to say, it refers to the endless process of cause and effect.

Everything we do has consequences which, like ripples in a pond, spill out from us and affects countless other things in the Universe. Every time we breathe out, for example, we are creating endless effects - mostly within the local atmosphere, of course, but sometimes spilling out into the larger world beyond. Added to this, our every thought and action has endless consequences in human society and beyond - through the example we set, the things we say, our reponses to situations, etc. Even our lack of thought and action - in the sense of our not doing the right and noble thing - has endless consequences. These endless effects and conseqences are our "future lives". Even after our deaths, we are still busily creating future lives - even if it's only to push up the daisies from six feet under. Only in this sense is there life after death.

Anna: How do you know this?

David Quinn: What about clouds? Do you think clouds experience life after death? Is there some part of a cloud that lives on after it disappears?

Anna: Do clouds have consciousness?

David Quinn: Can humans float in the sky?

Anna: Physical attributes are a fundamentally different question from one of consciousness.

David Quinn: Is it really? Or is that just your ego speaking? What exactly is the difference been consciousness appearing in the brain and a cloud appearing in the sky? They have different attributes, sure. But aren't they identical in that they both merely arise when the causal circumstances are ripe? One needs the right air temperature, pressue, and humidity, while the other needs the right chemical processes and neuronal firings.


Peering into Death's Eyes

Sean: Do you ever sit down and peer into your own non-existence?

Attempting to fully realise that you will die, and be devastated that your ego/ideals/ philosophies will die with you?

I have peered into death's eyes (not physically), and it's a grim picture. It is also refreshing, it gives you a new perspective on thoughts and emotions that have been left unresolved or misunderstood.

To do this, you need a very good imagination, and you also need to be intuitive. One more thing is you need to be psychologically strong. Do not stare death in the eyes if you think you cannot handle what you might see.

Death will show you the truth, sparing all the frills and fancy perceptional clouds that on a daily basis make the world a foggier place.

Try it...or if you have, please tell me what you resolved or understood.

Dan Rowden: Well, I peered into the eyes of life, only to discover that I am already dead.

Sean: Were there any specific factors included in your conclusion?

Dan Rowden: When I looked into the essence of existence itself, I realised that life and death are fundamentally the same in that everything that is - even the state of death - is driven by causal forces. The nature of my existence which I label "life" is as much a product of deterministic forces as is the state I label "death".

Then there's the observation that there is no point at which this thing we call "life" actually came into being; that is, no precise, distinct moment. Can one be alive if life never really came into being? So, to be more accurate than my original statement, I consider my true nature to be beyond life and death. My true and ultimate nature is beyond such dualities.

When I am said to be dead, my basic nature will be no different from when I was said to be alive. I'll just look and smell a little different.

[Nordicvs]

What are your views of the afterlife?

Maggots devour my flesh, returning my atoms to Nature, and whatever energy is there goes, returns...somewhere.

The quest for permanence is folly; it is feminine.

[Shahrazad]

There is no after life. All we have is life, and since it's not particularly long, we'd do well to make the best of it.

[Cory Duchesne]

After seriously desiring it, pursuing it and pondering it years ago, I've come to realize that that preoccupation with the possibility of immortality through supernatural means is indeed decadent. It creates a poor character, one that I think is much more vulnerable to fear and anger. Such preoccupation is a waste of energy that could be better spent thinking less selfishly.

It was only the other day that I met up with an old friend who claimed to discover the meaning of life through this site - here. He had attained so much security and enthusiasm by knowing he had an astral body and was going to live forever.

I also noticed he had a great deal of frusteration and disdain for everyone around him for not being enthusiatic as he was. He said: "What's wrong with everyone?? They're all asleep!"

[Cory Duchesne]

However, that doesnt mean that I wouldn't prefer to live forever in some way. The sense of a seperate "I consciousness" is a real illusion, and as long as one sees that it's an illusion, I see no harm in wanting to maintain the individual sensation of existing for indefinite time - - just as long as it isnt all fire and pitchforks. If it's unavoidable drudgery and pain, count me out.

[Carl G]

How quaint, a gallery of opinions about that which we cannot know with certainty. It's so retro, so juicy, so....unphilosophical.

Of course, I agree, beliefs are good. They help steer our lives to better or worse.

[Carl G]

After seriously desiring it, pursuing it and pondering it years ago, I've come to realize that that preoccupation with the possibility of immortality through supernatural means is indeed decadent.

Whatchoo talkin' 'bout? What are "supernatural means"?

It was only the other day that I met up with an old friend who claimed to discover the meaning of life through this site - here. He had attained so much security and enthusiasm by knowing he had an astral body and was going to live forever.

Nothing wrong with Gnosticism per se, but a quick look at the site tells me it has little to do with it.

I also noticed he had a great deal of frusteration and disdain for everyone around him for not being enthusiatic as he was. He said: "What's wrong with everyone?? They're all asleep!"

Nothing wrong with his observation, but not much to be gained by him or anyone else getting emotional about it.

[Cory Duchesne]

After seriously desiring it, pursuing it and pondering it years ago, I've come to realize that that preoccupation with the possibility of immortality through supernatural means is indeed decadent.

Whatchoo talkin' 'bout? What are "supernatural means"?

Well, I only say supernatural because that's the word we give for natural laws that are unknown to us. Utimately it's all just natural.

The sensation of an phantom (astral) body (often people have the sensation of OBE in their sleep) leads many to excitedly believe they have some sort of soul and a special place in human evolution.

Now, if there really are astral bodies, then surely there is a science to it, there would be 'natural' laws involved.

I also noticed he had a great deal of frusteration and disdain for everyone around him for not being enthusiatic as he was. He said: "What's wrong with everyone?? They're all asleep!"

Nothing wrong with his observation, but not much to be gained by him or anyone else getting emotional about it.

In regards to his observation, there was something very ironic about him scorning the world for being asleep, all the while having no interest in philosophy, science, world events, and being tethered to 'what gnosis said'. For instance, when I told him that there are lots of new age groups saying what gnosis says and that gnosis ideas really arent that radical or unique - he had a flash of anger, and then calmly retaliated with a slew of replies:

Well Cory, Gnosis says that the only way to immortality is through gnosis itself.

And Gnosis says that people arent interested in Gnosis or immortality because they are asleep and driven by unconscious fears

And Gnosis says that as an organization they are not a religion, a set of beliefs, a faith - but rather, gnosis offers direct experience of God, of cosmic consciousness.

Do you want to borrow my book? I bought five copies. I'm always giving them away to whoever will take them.

In my mind, his attitude, aside from being incredibly bound to an authority, is an attempt to pacify his hunger to avoid facing his mortality and to establish a sense of having a superior position to his peers. From there he proceeds to feel as if he is living on the edge, living a heroic and exciting life, helping people out of their inferior hole with his generous superior spiritual nature.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not laughing down at him as if I've never sucombed to a similar attitude in the past, as I unfortunately have. I guess maybe that's why I feel warranted in analyzing him. I'm just pointing out how 'all-consuming' and neurotic a belief in immortality can become and the reasons why people get involved in such a manner. It really limits peoples thinking, as it protects peoples egos from pain, and leaves them unconscious of and driven by their fears. The result is a poor character, one that is easily angered and stirred up.

Here's another website he emailed me the other day:

http://www.mysticweb.org

[Carl G]

Reminds me of the EST movement with Werner Erhard, back in the 70s. Lots of cheerful young adults testifying to the power of the material, and solicting others to the fold. Part self-improvement crash course, part fundamentalist religion. Dunno how much money is changing hands, nor how lasting the results might be for the participants, but judging from a few folks I knew who were involved with EST, there's likely some personal improvement being experienced by your friend, Cory, with a modicum of permanent benefit to the psyche ensuing.

Definitely, though, anyone who wishes to continue their spiritual growth (i.e. to a real awakening) will need to graduate themselves to meatier (i.e. truer) stuff sooner or later.

[wolfgang von gothmoth]

I find it foolish to believe that we all should live our lives in the visions of others, such as Christianity and the beliefs based upon Jesus (no intent to center out Christians); to achieve what some will believe as, "enlightenment." All so that in the afterlife we can live perpetually among beings supposedly, beyond our comprehension.

What are your views of the afterlife?

I have had many experiences that assure me that our consciousness transcends that which Hamlets calls 'This Mortal coil', a term many see as an end end. End yes but to a new beginning, even so I still get bloody depressed with life.

'Accept acceptance only when it is acceptable.'.

Wolfgang Von Gothmoth.

Peace

[Nick]

You know what things were like before you were born? That's what it's gonna be like after your dead.

[Carl G]

You know what things were like before you were born? That's what it's gonna be like after your dead.

You said nothing. Why make a post to say nothing?

[Shahrazad]

Because death is nothingness.

[Carl G]

Spoken by one who knows not, makes it a subjective opinion.


Nick's original statement says less while implying the same:

You know what things were like before you were born?

No, I do not.

That's what it's gonna be like after your dead.

..?


Maybe this is just a fun thread, but as it's in Genius Forum, let's at least distinguish between fact and simple belief.

[Shahrazad]

Carl, if death were something (a sort of experience), would it be called death?

[Carl G]

By people who don't know, sure.

Lots of misnomers out there among the ignorant. People call emotional bondage love. Heck, people call the artificially raspberry-flavored twizzler candy licorice, even though there's not a whit of the root in it.

[Nick]

Carl, my point is that our consciousness is only temporary just like everything else in this universe. It will end one way or another. Before we were born the causes weren't ripe to produce consciousness, there was infinite nothingness. After we die the causes will again no longer be ripe to maintain our consciousness, and once again there will be infinite nothingness.

[Leyla Shen]

Pfft. Nothingness is an object of consciousness. Tacking the word “infinite” onto it is meaningless; it implies infinite consciousness. And then you would have to explain why I could not logically conclude from that some sort of “after-life.”

[Leyla Shen]

Carl, if death were something (a sort of experience), would it be called death?

It it were not "some sort of experience" would it be called anything?

[Nick]

Nothingness is an object of consciousness.

Of course, everytime I describe anything it is from a conscious perspective because I am in fact conscious. You have a better way to describe the "non-experience" I'm trying to describe? The only other thing that comes to mind is to simply remain silent when someone asks what happens after death.

Tacking the word “infinite” onto it is meaningless;

Why? Do you think our consciousness has a chance at reappearing at some point after our death?

it implies infinite consciousness.

So whenever you use the word consciousness you are implying nothingness, or does it somehow only work the other way?

And then you would have to explain why I could not logically conclude from that some sort of “after-life.”

I've already provided a logical explanation as to why there is no such thing as an "after life", it's on you to provide a logical explanation as to why there would an "after life".

The bottom line is, consciousness is sustained through cause and effect just like everything, and is finite just like everything else, meaning it will end just like everything else.

[Leyla Shen]

Nick wrote:

Of course, everytime I describe anything it is from a conscious perspective because I am in fact conscious. You have a better way to describe the "non-experience" I'm trying to describe?

Of course not. As I said, it is strictly a conscious experience. Logically, you can’t describe a "non-experience," Nick. I should have thought that more than abundantly clear. I mean, really, how do you describe something that can’t be experienced? It’s not even a thing. Get rid of the quotations marks and think on it, instead.

The only other thing that comes to mind is to simply remain silent when someone asks what happens after death.

Oh, you’re confused because of the Wittgenstein thread, I see. If death is non-experience, nothing happens after it, by definition--and, funnily enough, experience. But whose experience?

You say someone is dead when you see that nothing happens after their death. Sometimes, people will tell you that they have died and returned from the dead, to tell you all about what happened whilst they were dead. Fantastic. Such stories abound after pronouncement of clinical death. Then they get the ol’ ticker and whatever going again and he’s told, “Man, you were dead for two minutes.” So, the guy says, “Wow. There is an afterlife! Bright, tunnel lights, action, camera…saw you all from the ceiling!” Did the guy die, or didn’t he? Was this an after-death experience or an experience in consciousness?

A dead person does not experience death. Only the living and dying do.

L: Tacking the word “infinite” onto it is meaningless;

N: Why? Do you think our consciousness has a chance at reappearing at some point after our death?

Why don’t you re-read and have a good think about what I wrote. Just the way you state others need to treat what you write (which I have easily done, by the way).

What you said was meaningless, and an argument for an after-life. It’s up to you to defend it.

L: ...it implies infinite consciousness.

N: So whenever you use the word consciousness you are implying nothingness, or does it somehow only work the other way?

Don‘t be stupid. Think. This is how it all began:

N: Before we were born the causes weren't ripe to produce consciousness, there was infinite nothingness. After we die the causes will again no longer be ripe to maintain our consciousness, and once again there will be infinite nothingness.

You are trying to tell Carl there is nothing before and after death except this one thing, infinite nothingness. The only way you can know this is in consciousness, see?

You are confusing consciousness with ego. If you want to tackle him on his own personal infinitude, then do so. That is an entirely different issue to consciousness and infinite nothingess. Unless you would like to elaborate upon a relevant connection you see between them.

As I have said many, many times before: the infinite can only be understood through the finite. And ALL things are finite, including conceptions of “infinite nothingness.”

L: And then you would have to explain why I could not logically conclude from that some sort of “after-life.”

N: I've already provided a logical explanation as to why there is no such thing as an "after life", [snip]

No, you have not. Quite the contrary, in fact.

Stop regurgitating David's "ripe causal circumstances" words and demonstrate your understanding in your own words. I'm am more than capable of coming up against them, Nick.

[Edit: who needs another fucking lecturer, for God's sake!]