Afterlife

[Tricky]

I suppose at least few here agree with my notion of "survival of self-awareness in death through individuals to-be-born" - I hope that's a sufficient and simple enough way to put it - also called "natural reincarnation"..

So based on this idea, would it be fair to say that we have in fact a "next life" awaiting for us?

I still can't get a handle on what you mean by this. Sometimes it seems you are just saying "life goes on", other times you seem to be proposing an actual "survival of self-awareness". I agree with the former, but not the latter. I don't think human self-awareness survives death. I think it is created every time a new human mind arises and is destroyed every time that human mind dies. Notice that I say "arises" rather than "begins", because when your life begins (at conception) you are in no way self-aware. Your self-awareness increases as your neural system matures.

You have an interesting way of looking at things, Joyrex, but I cannot say that you have demonstrated any convincing evidence for any sort of "next life" for a given individual.

 

[joyrex]

I still can't get a handle on what you mean by this. Sometimes it seems you are just saying "life goes on", other times you seem to be proposing an actual "survival of self-awareness". I agree with the former, but not the latter. I don't think human self-awareness survives death. I think it is created every time a new human mind arises and is destroyed every time that human mind dies. Notice that I say "arises" rather than "begins", because when your life begins (at conception) you are in no way self-aware. Your self-awareness increases as your neural system matures.

This is an aspect I ran into in another discussion, which I forgot to consider before. So, the survival is an erraneous term since it would imply that there are no interrupts to the experience of "I am" (from the point of view of an external observer). This is clearly false as you demonstrated.

However, this merely refines my idea rather than falsifies it - since from the point of view of the individual, these interruptions cannot be separated nor detected, because there is no awareness of them. This could be compared to being in dreamless sleep or amnesia (which are different from "natural reincarnation" only in the sense that the individual stays the same - and alive inbetween). Only indications we have of time passing between falling asleep and waking up are the changes we notice in ourselves and the environment while waking up compared to the state before falling asleep.

I found yet another point of view that is crucial in understanding my idea, I think:

"Awareness of existence is always bound to the individual."

I have had some difficulties in mediating this thought of mine to others too - then again some seem to understand it immediately.. I'm beginning to think it actually requires some sort of enlightenment to understand it

Maybe TheERK could help us out.

 

[joyrex]

I'm a bit unsure why I suddenly have this burning obsession to teach my thought to everyone, or at least converse about it. It seems so important to me - it gives my life a meaning and a new perspective. And when I see that people such as TheERK can understand it, it gives me hope.. so that everyone could understand it.

Then when I die, and after that "I wake up in the next life to my self-awareness" (quite a horrible way to put it I know), this idea could be teached to me and I could have the peace of mind I have attained right now when I understand it.

 

[joyrex]

As long as there exists self-aware life,

there will be a witness to the world from the point of view of the individual.

I think that sums it up, hopefully!

 

[Dancing David]

When you die, I believe your mind will cease to exist. Only the body remains, inanimated. There will be many newborn babies.. at about the same time. You will probably have one of those new consciousnesses.

Well, it's not actually you and it has nothing to do with the you that has died.. but an equal amount of 'self' that you have had, will be given to each newborn baby. 'You' will live again and experience life.

We are already in the afterlife. Actually, it's inseparable from the life itself. As long as life exists, this will go on as an endless cycle.

For long I have pondered about whether there are souls or afterlife in another form of existence. But now that I've thought about it from this point of view which seems most probable for me, I almost feel as if I no longer fear death.

Wow!

I just came into this thread, this is very close to the buddhist idea of karma and transmission of acts!


We are already in the afterlife. Actually, it's inseparable from the life itself. As long as life exists, this will go on as an endless cycle.


Bravo!

 

[Dancing David]

Re: Re: Afterlife

I'm confused. Who receives the consciousness, you or the newborn baby? In what way will the "recycled" consciousness resemble the old one? Will it have memories or emotions or anything resembling the previous owner? Or will it by like an erased diskette with nothing to tell about what was on it previously?


If it has nothing to do with "you" then it is not "you" in any sense of the word. What is "self" if it contains nothing of "you"? How can you distinguish a baby with a recycled "self" from one with a brand new one? (There must be some new ones, because we are increasing our population all the time).



But you can tell nothing about your previous life? How is this different from having a totally new life? Time never repeats itself. Why should souls?


It sounds to me as if you are terribly afraid of death. I mean real death, where nothing of your "self" survives. So frightened that you must comfort yourself with a totally implausible scenario in order to assure yourself that you don't "completely die". If you truly weren't afraid of death, then you wouldn't need to do this.

But if you must have something to survive you, let it be your ideas, or "memes " if you will. Some people, like Shakespeare, have ideas and words that have survived long after their deaths. In my mind, that is true immortality.

Or as
Edgar Lee Masters said:

I most humbley submit my awe and respect to the elightened one! Most Venerable Tick!

:Bow:

Two posts and already all the wisdom of the elightened ones is presented.

Kaon on!

 

[Dancing David]

to Tricky

Sorry if I was a bit unclear, it's so common to me..

There are no souls, nothing from us will remain after death (only atoms of our body). Nothing gets recycled from the self / ego / I / whatever. Consciousness will not be sent nor received.

I was just contemplating on the issue that in the same manner we now are alive and have consciousness, everyone who is born will have it too. 'I' will experience life again.. in the same sense, although it's not me..

This is what I meant by "an equal amount of self".

On the contrary to your interpretation, I am quite certain that nothing of me will survive after death, death will be complete.

Be ye lamps unto yourself!

I will post just a little less, Praise Coyote!

 

[Dancing David]

Re: Re: Afterlife

What about the nature of cause and effect which we understand so well within our psyche? Does this sensation just magically disappear when we die? Or, is it possible that it continues on through the "Karma" we experience in the afterlife?

Also, do radio waves exist outside of a radio? Then perhaps this is a good indication that we may not be alone.

No man is an island. He is more like a penisula!

Jefferson Airplane

 

[Dancing David]

Maybe, but then again I feel that there should be a term for this insight at hand.. after all it's quite an enlightening and liberating thought, wouldn't you agree? "Natural reincarnation" would be okay as long as at the same time it would be explained that there's nothing supernatural or even spiritual about it. It's just the way life is - although I guess not everyone has seen it this way before.
Quite right, this is yet another way to express the idea.

The buddha is quite a sceptic, you have stated the dharma very well!

 

[Dancing David]

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean that they can't conceive of it. After all, there are quite a number of humans (several on these boards) who are not fully aware that they will die. They seem to think that their "mind" or "soul" or some such thing will somehow survive death, because they simply cannot comprehend total and complete death. To escape death, they chew off a bit of their brain, believing that between giving up logic and giving up life, they can do without logic.

The god of laughter is incarnate,

All Hail Tricky!

 

[Dancing David]

I suppose at least few here agree with my notion of "survival of self-awareness in death through individuals to-be-born" - I hope that's a sufficient and simple enough way to put it - also called "natural reincarnation"..

So based on this idea, would it be fair to say that we have in fact a "next life" awaiting for us?

Well Mr Shaven Wookie, master of enlightenment, the buddha asks just one question upon which the rest devolves.

Where is the self?

There is nothing that is the self, all things we call self are transient and ephemeral, therefore the self is an illusion.

The buddha stated that all things are interdependant and unique, the lamp that shines in a room is the creator of the light in the room. Does the flame exist while the lamp is out?

Consiousness does not carry from one heap to another.

 

[Dancing David]

I'm a bit unsure why I suddenly have this burning obsession to teach my thought to everyone, or at least converse about it. It seems so important to me - it gives my life a meaning and a new perspective. And when I see that people such as TheERK can understand it, it gives me hope.. so that everyone could understand it.

Then when I die, and after that "I wake up in the next life to my self-awareness" (quite a horrible way to put it I know), this idea could be teached to me and I could have the peace of mind I have attained right now when I understand it.

But a lamp may light many different rooms, so is the lamp the light that shines in the room?

Maybe you were the buddha in a former life, acording to the buddha only thoughts and acts are transmitted in the world that we percieve.

But when I read a book, do I have the same experience of the person who read the book before that I called me?

How do you know that you are you?

Everything you are is transitory, you may share the same thought as someone, in the same place but the buddha taught that everything is unique and interedependant. A person may have the same thoughtsa s you but they can never be you.

 

[joyrex]

Where is the self?

It is the part of my awareness that merely witnesses. I can distinguish it, can't you?

There is nothing that is the self, all things we call self are transient and ephemeral, therefore the self is an illusion.

I dunno. Why can't self be just a label for some bunch of braincells which gives us ability to say, "I am me"? So what if it is an illusion (emergent perhaps)? We use it every day, you and me, everyone.

Consiousness does not carry from one heap to another.

True, but as I explained (illusion of survival) it gives such an impression.

 

[joyrex]

When we die and the last drop of awareness if gone from us, the focus of the witness changes to an infant that is about to have it's first sparkle of awareness.

Remember, there is nothing supernatural about this.. I just can't explain it in any other way

I know I cannot adequately explain why I feel this must be so. It's like nothing about human existence would make sense if the POV was gone for good.

 

[joyrex]

From http://homepage.mac.com/morgannels/dogma/C1040450390/

For thousands of years, Buddhists have seen the self as an illusion, if not exactly for the reasons listed above. And they see the self not only as an illusion, but as the primary attachment that is the cause of most of our suffering. In their experience, intense mindfulness or meditation will lead to the extinguishing of that false sense of a distinct self and of all of the suffering to which it is subject.

This idea is akin to mine, but as I see it, when one understands this part of himself which could be called "self" / "pure" sensation of "I am" and is able to distinguish it, one obtains the ability to ignore suffering and fear (to some extent, depending on individual programming of the brain). This is because you're on a free ride here that is life, and you cannot escape it even if you would want to .. the next one will be waiting at the door.

The alternative to all this is, I'm about to go insane and I'm merely giving reasons for myself to be extremely lazy.

 

[joyrex]

Every one of us has the sense of self. Yet, we cannot share it among others[, at least directly, as it is experienced].

The individual POV cannot go away, as long as we humans exist.

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

One of the best depictations of the Budda is Him sitting under a tree with one hand extended opening outwards embracing the universe and the other with one finger in the ground symbolizing even tho he was enlightened he still had a connection to the baser physical life.

So The take I got from it was that as there is oneness there is separation. If you look at the Hawiian islands they are all separate from the top view, goto the sea floor and you will see they are all connected.

 

[joyrex]

I still can't get a handle on what you mean by this. Sometimes it seems you are just saying "life goes on", other times you seem to be proposing an actual "survival of self-awareness".

To me they are the same thing. The self arises again. (While sentient life goes on.)

Beforehand I have read about self-realization but it made no sense to me, until I personally understood that the contemplation process must begin from birth, death and afterlife. At least it works for me.

I also must confess that this realization process in is no way rational, though neither is it irrational. (Since I don't see how it would conflict with any rational knowledge.) I suppose postrational would be more fitting. While I cannot adequately prove the true nature for any of premises in the process, the process itself is very real and it changes the individual. In the end it's a worldview rather than a theory that would need to be proven.

 

[Dancing David]

I wpuld like to respectfully sugest that the self is not continous, all the elements that we call self change from moment to moment. There is the individual aggregate of things we call the self. But the continuity of the self is illusion.

If I feel that I am not the same me that i was five years ago, then how can i believe that someone else who shares an experience with me (in the dustant future) is the same self?

 

[joyrex]

I wpuld like to respectfully sugest that the self is not continous, all the elements that we call self change from moment to moment. There is the individual aggregate of things we call the self. But the continuity of the self is illusion.

If I feel that I am not the same me that i was five years ago, then how can i believe that someone else who shares an experience with me (in the dustant future) is the same self?

I still would say that all this is irrelevant. It's about the points in time while which one can say "I am" - and right now you probaby have many memories that originate from a time period that was more than five years ago. I find these memories, for example, as evidence that the self remains (the self / ego that remembers), despite consisting of a totally different set of particles. It is not about the quality of the feeling nor any other attributes.

But I suppose this boils down to mere opinion and way of seeing things, so further discussion would be rather pointless.