Life after death

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.

Re: Life after death

Postby Tomas » Mon Feb 27, 2012 11:37 am

brokenhead wrote:
David Quinn wrote:Brokenhead seems to have reincarnated into a clone of Samadhi. He has suddenly become an exact copy of him. Did he will this, I wonder?

Suddenly, as in just now it happened?

You are so full of shit. What tweaked you? That I called you a liar because you backtracked poorly and denied having said something that you really did say?

You know very well Samadhi and I have nothing in common. What you are doing is sharpening your axe. Brokenhead and Samadhi are the same. Sam gets banned, then brokenhead, because he has suddenly become an exact copy of Sam. If I banned Samadhi, then logically I have to ban brokenhead.

Your threats are mere poo poo, David. You just cannot entertain the notion that other people can think as well as you can, as logically, and as truthfully, and yet disagree. You just cannot be wrong, can you?

Huh. Brokenhead was first, then Samadhi shows up as Brokie's sockpuppet. Brokie attempts to pull an 'Alex' and have multiple username accounts. Samadhi is busted. Brokenhead announces .. What is love? he's running off to Idaho .. the ex-girlfriend throws the loser out. Couple months pass .. And now, Cousinbasil appears.

la di fucking dah

That's what both Brokenhead and Cousinbasil say.

Top right corner is the Genius Search Engine.

See for yourself, Scroll to bottom as that is the first known usage of term.

The miracle of Reincarnation...
Don't run to your death
User avatar
Tomas
 
Posts: 4321
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 2:15 am
Location: North Dakota

And they're off

Postby Tomas » Wed Feb 29, 2012 7:30 am

Liberty Sea wrote:If nobody has done this before, I think it's appropriate for you two to open a new thread in the Crucible section to debate about the role of logic in spiritual aspiration, and settle for once the war between the pro-logic school and anti-logic school. Similar to Yogacara school v.s. Madhyamaka school, we may now have Bob Michael - the self proclaimed one true disciple of J. Krishnamurti v.s. David Quinn - the self proclaimed enlightened logic master.

This I'd like to see!

The muses are entering the crucible area...

Entrants are: Liberty Sea, Bob Michael and David Quinn

Win place and show bets explained - http://www.ultimatecapper.com/win-place-show.htm

I'm placing $50 on Bob to show.

.
Don't run to your death
User avatar
Tomas
 
Posts: 4321
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 2:15 am
Location: North Dakota

Re: Life after death

Postby movingalways » Mon Mar 05, 2012 6:34 am

David: It was Jesus who said:

"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.

By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them."


Without explaining why you used this quote in reference to my thoughts, it means nothing to me.

It should be noted that you're using logic all through out this paragraph, but not very well.


My intention was to use the spirit of logic. I have never denied that the spirit of logic is the way for the sentient mind to become enlightened to the truth of the [singular] I AM. But once the discovery of I AM is made, the spirit of logic, having served its purpose, is cast aside.

For example, there is the faulty premise that sentience automatically equals suffering/self-righteousness/ignorance. If that were the case, then it would be impossible for any sentient being to become enlightened while remaining sentient. Buddhas would be an impossibility. So at the very least, a distinction needs to be made between deluded sentience and enlightened sentience.


I have always said that one becomes enlightened while being sentient. What I argue is that sentience enlightens sentience; to me, this is a faulty premise. What is not a faulty premise then, is that there is a transcendent Witness that is the cause of being awakened to Its existence.

As for logic working out the cause of suffering, this is exactly what the Buddha and other wise people in the past were able to accomplish without any problems. Suffering is essentially the experience of lack, of desiring to be somewhere else.


I agree that suffering is the desiring to be somewhere else, with the remedy being that one live of their unconditional I AM, whether they see an image of I AM or they do not see an image of I AM.

Logic thus dictates that suffering ends either when you are so fulfilled by the moment that you no longer experience any lack (i.e. a fleeting emotional attainment that is experienced very rarely), or when you put an end to desire altogether.


True, but once one begins to live unconditionally of their I AM, of what use is the fire of logic? Has it not served its purpose, time to expand beyond its purging ways? And in doing so, experience his integrity of "know thyself?"

What is the difference between sentience and consciousness?


Sentient consciousness produces sound, image, taste, smell and touch. The transcendent Witness does not.

Here is a Zen story:

Flowers rained down on Subhuti. The gods whispered to him "We are praising you for your discourse on emptiness".

"But I have not spoken of emptiness" said Subhuti.

"You have not spoken of emptiness, we have not heard emptiness", responded the gods. "This is true emptiness".

Blossoms showered upon Subhuti as rain.


Zen aside, there is great benefit in discussing Emptiness when it is discussed in the spirit of Emptiness.

So to the degree that one finds one's own life to be meaningful, the realization of meaninglessness is meaningful.


If one's I AM is not in union with their meaning, then there will always be degrees of meaning present. It is the unconditionality of Meaning that makes a person truthfull.

On the contrary, it is the very end. Once you are permanently without delusion, there is nowhere else to go. You are fully integrated with Reality at all times.


This sounds to me as if you are meaning the same thing as me when I speak of the unconditional I AM of Meaning. However, where you see logic continuing once this integrity of I AM is realized, I do not [except to awaken another to their own Singular Reality].
User avatar
movingalways
 
Posts: 1742
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Life after death

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Mon Mar 05, 2012 7:06 am

movingalways wrote:My intention was to use the spirit of logic. I have never denied that the spirit of logic is the way for the sentient mind to become enlightened to the truth of the [singular] I AM. But once the discovery of I AM is made, the spirit of logic, having served its purpose, is cast aside.


So one can safely return to the ease of being discoherent and inconsistent? Why not just remain rational and logical effortesly after the laws have been engraved deeply into the heart? Reason is the flower of consciousness after all.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 5010
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: A∴A∴

Re: Life after death

Postby jufa » Tue Mar 06, 2012 1:47 am

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
movingalways wrote:My intention was to use the spirit of logic. I have never denied that the spirit of logic is the way for the sentient mind to become enlightened to the truth of the [singular] I AM. But once the discovery of I AM is made, the spirit of logic, having served its purpose, is cast aside.


So one can safely return to the ease of being discoherent and inconsistent? Why not just remain rational and logical effortesly after the laws have been engraved deeply into the heart? Reason is the flower of consciousness after all.


When is one not discoherent and inconsistent? And when is one logically secure when one is always expressing opinions not coherent and consistent with the collective whole of logic?

I find no one here neutralized. And reason is not the flower of consciousness. Reason is an expression of relativism.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

http://theillusionofgod.yuku.com
jufa
 
Posts: 673
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:17 am

Re: Life after death

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Tue Mar 06, 2012 2:51 am

jufa wrote:When is one not discoherent and inconsistent?


When is one enlightened?

I find no one here neutralized.


I find no one here enlightenized.


And reason is not the flower of consciousness. Reason is an expression of relativism.


And relativism grows on trees.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 5010
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: A∴A∴

Re: Life after death

Postby Kunga » Tue Mar 06, 2012 5:07 am

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:When is one enlightened?


When you realize what you really are....you are already it...you just haven't realized it yet.
But then (like DQ say's), enlightenment is just the begining....


Diebert van Rhijn wrote:I find no one here enlightenized.


If Buddha is enlightened....then, being that THE ALL is not separate...Buddha is also US. We are ONE. We ARE BUDDHA.


It's only logical.
User avatar
Kunga
 
Posts: 2291
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am

Re: Life after death

Postby jufa » Tue Mar 06, 2012 7:35 am

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
jufa wrote:When is one not discoherent and inconsistent?


When is one enlightened?

I find no one here neutralized.


I find no one here enlightenized.


And reason is not the flower of consciousness. Reason is an expression of relativism.


And relativism grows on trees.


The question to you was not about enlightenment. The question to you was:
When is one not discoherent and inconsistent?


Answer the question before you before you ask a question.

Here again you you use the word enlighten in place of that before you. The word before you was
naturalize


Enlightenment grows on trees also.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa


http://theillusionofgod.yuku.com
jufa
 
Posts: 673
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:17 am

Re: Life after death

Postby jufa » Tue Mar 06, 2012 7:39 am

Kunga wrote:
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:When is one enlightened?


When you realize what you really are....you are already it...you just haven't realized it yet.
But then (like DQ say's), enlightenment is just the begining....


Diebert van Rhijn wrote:I find no one here enlightenized.


If Buddha is enlightened....then, being that THE ALL is not separate...Buddha is also US. We are ONE. We ARE BUDDHA.


It's only logical.


Should it be logical what need is there for you to use words of relativism, and not words of collective exactness?

I was enlightened when I used the toilet a little while ago.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa


http://theillusionofgod.yuku.com
jufa
 
Posts: 673
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:17 am

Re: Life after death

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Tue Mar 06, 2012 7:59 am

O dear, was it so hard to detect the irony, guys?
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 5010
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: A∴A∴

Re: Life after death

Postby jufa » Tue Mar 06, 2012 10:58 am

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:O dear, was it so hard to detect the irony, guys?


What is not hard to detect is your running away from he questions
When is one not discoherent and inconsistent? And when is one logically secure when one is always expressing opinions not coherent and consistent with the collective whole of logic?


Deal with the subject matter and questions I presented to you. Cut the crap!

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

http://theillusionofgod.yuku.com
jufa
 
Posts: 673
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:17 am

Re: Life after death

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Tue Mar 06, 2012 5:46 pm

jufa wrote:When is one not discoherent and inconsistent? And when is one logically secure when one is always expressing opinions not coherent and consistent with the collective whole of logic?

Deal with the subject matter and questions I presented to you. Cut the crap!


Okay, this time without any irony or rethorical element then:

When is one not unenlightened? And when is one wise when one is always expresssing opinions not coherent and inconsinstent with the whole?

The problem here is the assumption that wisdom or logic means being "consistent with everything else". Logically one is always consistent with everything else since that is what "cause and effect" means. The "whole" of logic, is the "whole" of everything, since "everything" is already a logical construct to begin with. Yes, logic trumps existence as existing means thinking or realizing existence.

The real issue here is one of quality. How to derive the quality of insight, how to rank one thing above another. It's important to understand one cannot escape it within thought or communication: the differentation, valuation, and so on. The moment one does not need to value one above the other, all communication ceases.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 5010
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: A∴A∴

Re: Life after death

Postby jufa » Wed Mar 07, 2012 2:57 am

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
jufa wrote:When is one not discoherent and inconsistent? And when is one logically secure when one is always expressing opinions not coherent and consistent with the collective whole of logic?

Deal with the subject matter and questions I presented to you. Cut the crap!


Okay, this time without any irony or rethorical element then:

When is one not unenlightened? And when is one wise when one is always expresssing opinions not coherent and inconsinstent with the whole?

The problem here is the assumption that wisdom or logic means being "consistent with everything else". Logically one is always consistent with everything else since that is what "cause and effect" means. The "whole" of logic, is the "whole" of everything, since "everything" is already a logical construct to begin with. Yes, logic trumps existence as existing means thinking or realizing existence.

The real issue here is one of quality. How to derive the quality of insight, how to rank one thing above another. It's important to understand one cannot escape it within thought or communication: the differentation, valuation, and so on. The moment one does not need to value one above the other, all communication ceases.


The problem here is not as you have stated.
The problem here is the assumption that wisdom or logic means being "consistent with everything else".

The problem is you are changing the question I asked:
When is one not discoherent and inconsistent? And when is one logically secure when one is always expressing opinions not coherent and consistent with the collective whole of logic?
to what you want to deal with.

That which I have presented are your words. You should be able to defend your words as you have stated them. Should I have not understood what you meant, you should be able to to give a definition. This is all I asked.


Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

http://theillusionofgod.yuku.com
jufa
 
Posts: 673
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:17 am

Re: Life after death

Postby DonaldJ » Wed Mar 07, 2012 10:20 pm

I suffered through seven over the line and back NDE's.. There be an afterlife forsure..

I met the North American First Nations Shaman of all central North America.. We shared gifts..
He was 107 years old when I met him.. We shared a "soul to soul".. He died at 111.. The moment he shed his body, in Ontario, I sustained a tremendous tug to my chest, in Calgary, which nearly pulled me face to the floor.. He seemed confused about what to do next.. I gently seized his "ghost", and pushed him through the path of a hundred dangers, into what I perceived as the afterlife.. He returned half hour later to teach me what he had learned of the afterlife in that half hour...

Thing is, if you are not confident that you know you have the afterlife, you don't...
DonaldJ
 
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 11:18 am

Re: Life after death

Postby movingalways » Sun Mar 11, 2012 1:59 am

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
movingalways wrote:My intention was to use the spirit of logic. I have never denied that the spirit of logic is the way for the sentient mind to become enlightened to the truth of the [singular] I AM. But once the discovery of I AM is made, the spirit of logic, having served its purpose, is cast aside.


So one can safely return to the ease of being discoherent and inconsistent? Why not just remain rational and logical effortesly after the laws have been engraved deeply into the heart? Reason is the flower of consciousness after all.


If one has truly realized the infinite nature of consciousness, why would one remain stuck in their Self translations of logic which are the ways of rebirth into dualism? Does logic not require duality to exist? Does the arousal of duality not halt the expansive ways [worlds] of Spirit?

Just because you say reason is the flower of consciousness does not make it so.

Please show me where Jesus or the Buddha spoke of reason as being the voice of Infinite Consciousness.
User avatar
movingalways
 
Posts: 1742
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Life after death

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Sun Mar 11, 2012 2:10 am

jufa wrote:The problem is you are changing the question I asked:
When is one not discoherent and inconsistent? And when is one logically secure when one is always expressing opinions not coherent and consistent with the collective whole of logic?
to what you want to deal with.


The questions which formed my reply were the answer. Which meant to say that the questions were to me the same. But you don't think so which means there's quite a big difference here with the definitions. Is it really worth digging into that any further? As you say: "never give power to anything a person believes...". And the source of your strength looks like muddy conversation! It takes two willing participants to create clarity in any communication so this will never happen here.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 5010
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: A∴A∴

Re: Life after death

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Sun Mar 11, 2012 2:17 am

movingalways wrote:If one has truly realized the infinite nature of consciousness, why would one remain stuck in their Self translations of logic which are the ways of rebirth into dualism? Does logic not require duality to exist? Does the arousal of duality not halt the expansive ways [worlds] of Spirit?

Would the Spirit then halt the expression of reason and replace it with whatever sounds best? Please think this through.

Just because you say reason is the flower of consciousness does not make it so.

That's of course true for all being said anywhere or by anyone. It's merely an invite to think at best.

Please show me where Jesus or the Buddha spoke of reason as being the voice of Infinite Consciousness.

They were the voice of reason, personalized. In that way, they speak through all of us, when sober at least.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 5010
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: A∴A∴

Re: Life after death

Postby DonaldJ » Sun Mar 11, 2012 5:20 am

"Please show me where Jesus or the Buddha spoke of reason as being the voice of Infinite Consciousness."

___________________


Please show me even a tiny shred of proof that "jesus & buddha" even existed, beside the bs gossip and distorted folklore sources, and prove that they even spoke anything... Prove they weren't just some drunk's pretend imaginary friends.. I thinks that sort of means "put up or shut up".. not to you sir, but to the mindless mass insanity authority that claims to wear god's hat for our purposes...
DonaldJ
 
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 11:18 am

Re: Life after death

Postby movingalways » Sun Mar 11, 2012 3:35 pm

Would the Spirit then halt the expression of reason and replace it with whatever sounds best? Please think this through.


What replaces reason when it has revealed the Kingdom of God is within is union with one's conscience, of speaking only of what one knows to be true of oneself. Integrity of intent, living by one's word, saying what one means and meaning what one says. These are the ways of the man who lives of Spirit Consciousness. Logic has nothing to do with the unconditional living of one's I AM.

Quote movingalways:
Just because you say reason is the flower of consciousness does not make it so.


That's of course true for all being said anywhere or by anyone. It's merely an invite to think at best.


Saying reason is the flower of consciousness implied, to me, that it is the apex or pinnacle of consciousness. Obviously, I do not agree that this is so.

Quote movingalways:
Please show me where Jesus or the Buddha spoke of reason as being the voice of Infinite Consciousness.


They were the voice of reason, personalized. In that way, they speak through all of us, when sober at least.


You avoided answering my question. You saying they were the voice of reason is your opinion. I asked you to show me where Jesus or the Buddha spoke of reason as being the voice of Consciousness.
User avatar
movingalways
 
Posts: 1742
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Life after death

Postby movingalways » Sun Mar 11, 2012 3:42 pm

movingalways: "Please show me where Jesus or the Buddha spoke of reason as being the voice of Infinite Consciousness."


___________________


DonaldJ: Please show me even a tiny shred of proof that "jesus & buddha" even existed, beside the bs gossip and distorted folklore sources, and prove that they even spoke anything... Prove they weren't just some drunk's pretend imaginary friends.. I thinks that sort of means "put up or shut up".. not to you sir, but to the mindless mass insanity authority that claims to wear god's hat for our purposes...


I can give you no such proof, any more than you can prove your encounter with the shaman during your NDE.

The words of Jesus and Gautama reflected a wise mind and a pure heart, whether they existed in bodily form or not.
User avatar
movingalways
 
Posts: 1742
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Life after death

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Sun Mar 11, 2012 8:50 pm

movingalways wrote: Logic has nothing to do with the unconditional living of one's I AM.

It's simply about reaping what was sown. David Quinn called it once "acting through momentum". A momentum of decisions, being it ethical or logical, which were at the base of the journey. Without light, there won't ever form a discernible path. And without a proper path, light will always remain distant and obscured.

Saying reason is the flower of consciousness implied, to me, that it is the apex or pinnacle of consciousness. Obviously, I do not agree that this is so.

Disagreeing with it doesn't make it less so. Actually it makes it more so if you'd disagree hard enough, giving it all your effort in finding the flaw.

I asked you to show me where Jesus or the Buddha spoke of reason as being the voice of Consciousness.


Did they speak reasonably or unreasonably? Did they represent consciousness or unconsciousness? So was reason their voice or not?

But with reason I mean something more fundamental than just some expressed thought, I mean the fundamental distinction which gives rise to all thought, whole of the world and all feelings and sensations that provide meaning and context. Reason is logos, the flower unfolding creation itself. But when the logos would be given a voice, how would it sound? How would it describe itself to us in a way we can understand? It would be consciousness explaining about consciousness. This process is called "Buddha", or the "self-aware one teaching".
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 5010
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: A∴A∴

Re: Life after death

Postby movingalways » Mon Mar 12, 2012 3:04 pm

"Everyone, without even a single exception, who sits down with closed eyes, will instantly be overwhelmed by a veritable storm of mentally created distractions: this is the Mind! This is undeniably real mental activity knocking at your door! When this dynamic self-sustaining duality of mentality-materiality, this self- sustaining perpetum mobile, ceases to evolve, consciousness thereby ceases to establish itself on an object! This - only this, in and of itself - is the very final End of all Suffering... " ~ The Buddha

"The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light." ~ Jesus Christ

Diebert, can you explain how your meaning of reasoning, which is

...the fundamental distinction which gives rise to all thought, whole of the world and all feelings and sensations that provide meaning and context. Reason is logos, the flower unfolding creation itself.


relates to seeing no object and having a single eye?
User avatar
movingalways
 
Posts: 1742
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Life after death

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Tue Mar 13, 2012 3:24 am

movingalways wrote:"Everyone, without even a single exception, who sits down with closed eyes, will instantly be overwhelmed by a veritable storm of mentally created distractions: this is the Mind! This is undeniably real mental activity knocking at your door! When this dynamic self-sustaining duality of mentality-materiality, this self- sustaining perpetum mobile, ceases to evolve, consciousness thereby ceases to establish itself on an object! This - only this, in and of itself - is the very final End of all Suffering... " ~ The Buddha


That sounds pretty bizarre. Are you sure these phrases have any credible origin? It makes a mess of many of the well known fundamentals in Buddhism. Our ever-changing consciousness will always evolve with the ever-changing circumstance of nature.

"The eye is the lamp of the body; so then if your eye is clear, your whole body will be full of light." ~ Jesus Christ


The mind's eye has to be clear, healthy and unclouded as through this we can know ourselves. Light means knowledge here, the means by which something can be known. Science at the core is one specific example of this principle applied. It's not arcane, religious or exclusive at all. One needs to see how obvious this all is and then apply it to clear out the deeper obstacles to the degree one is able to.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 5010
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: A∴A∴

Re: Life after death

Postby movingalways » Tue Mar 13, 2012 8:29 am

movingalways wrote:
"Everyone, without even a single exception, who sits down with closed eyes, will instantly be overwhelmed by a veritable storm of mentally created distractions: this is the Mind! This is undeniably real mental activity knocking at your door! When this dynamic self-sustaining duality of mentality-materiality, this self- sustaining perpetum mobile, ceases to evolve, consciousness thereby ceases to establish itself on an object! This - only this, in and of itself - is the very final End of all Suffering... " ~ The Buddha



Diebert: That sounds pretty bizarre. Are you sure these phrases have any credible origin? It makes a mess of many of the well known fundamentals in Buddhism. Our ever-changing consciousness will always evolve with the ever-changing circumstance of nature.


I was unable to locate the source of these phrases, but I have located these sourced teachings which address the same wisdom of the cessation of birth/existence, which is the objectification, within one's own consciousness, of time, distance, space and matter (one's physical body):

"Verily, there is an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed. If there were not this Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed, escape from the world of the born, the originated, the created, the formed, would not be possible" (Ud.VIII.3).


Please note that the Buddha uses the word 'escape' when he speaks of attaining to the Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated and Unformed. Many times I have spoken of final enlightenment or nibbana or heaven as the being the exit from the world of the born into the Unborn and have been told I am deluded.

Also, the Buddha speaks of the two aspects of nibbana, source: http://what-buddha-said.net/library/DPP ... bbaana.htm

(1) The full extinction of defilements (kilesa-parinibbāna), also called sa-upādi-sesa-nibbāna (s. It. 41), i.e. 'Nibbāna with the groups of existence still remaining' (s. upādi). This takes place at the attainment of Arahatship, or perfect holiness (s. ariya-puggala).

(2) The full extinction of the groups of existence (khandha-parinibbāna), also called an-upādi-sesa-nibbāna (s. It. 41, A.IV.118), i.e. 'Nibbāna without the groups remaining', in other words, the coming to rest, or rather the 'no-more-continuing' of this physico-mental process of existence. This takes place at the death of the Arahat. - (App.: Nibbāna).


How this relates to your statement that

Our ever-changing consciousness will always evolve with the ever-changing circumstance of nature.


is that this understanding, being of attachment to birth/existence [nature, objectification of form] belongs in the first aspect of nibbana.

Quote movingalways:
"The eye is the lamp of the body; so then if your eye is clear, your whole body will be full of light." ~ Jesus Christ


Diebert: The mind's eye has to be clear, healthy and unclouded as through this we can know ourselves. Light means knowledge here, the means by which something can be known. Science at the core is one specific example of this principle applied. It's not arcane, religious or exclusive at all. One needs to see how obvious this all is and then apply it to clear out the deeper obstacles to the degree one is able to.


Jesus said the eye is the lamp of the body and that your whole body will be full of light, not that your mind will be full of the light of knowledge. There is a clear distinction between the two aspects of wisdom, the first is heavenly, the latter is earthly.

In relating Jesus' words to the words of the Buddha above, Jesus came to fulfill the law [of nature], not to destroy it, and in doing so, ascended, upon his death, into his second aspect of nibbana, the cessation of the idea of birth in his consciousness. Being that logic is of the world of the born, of nature, it is the same as saying Jesus came to fulfill the law of logic, not to destroy it, but rather, to finish it in his consciousness.
User avatar
movingalways
 
Posts: 1742
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Life after death

Postby Dennis Mahar » Tue Mar 13, 2012 8:40 am

Please note that the Buddha uses the word 'escape' when he speaks of attaining to the Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated and Unformed. Many times I have spoken of final enlightenment or nibbana or heaven as the being the exit from the world of the born into the Unborn and have been told I am deluded.


No.
What's been said is that while appearance persists,
Reason is the gateway to deal with suffering.

While appearance persists,
don't discount, minimise, deny, negate Reason.
Dennis Mahar
 
Posts: 4084
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

PreviousNext

Return to GENIUS FORUM

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest