Heaven, Hell, Re-incarnation?

Proteus's analogy showed that all things are just like the waves.They rise, stabilize, decline and dissolve. Yet the entire time they were dependent on the ocean and were never separate from it.

This is a beautiful thing....

I've read some say the only difference is the vibration of the waves, part of much larger broader spectrum. Much broader then we can experience but it still have an influence on us.

I think this has devolved a lot into criticism and semantics. Let Khaos do what works for him, and do what works for you. Arguing with him is not the point. It doesn't matter if he's cremated or not, though those are his wishes. Please.

I am of the belief that "return to the force" and "reincarnation" are nice words for saying we will be broken down to our base components and recycled into a new life form. And I think that is beautiful. I don't know what the conscious mind is, but I do not believe mine will live on after my physical body dies. And that's okay with me. Oblivion is nothing to fear, but to me, to be embraced. We think too much. This life is stressful. Oblivion is eternal serenity.

For the record, I too want to be cremated. Though, by the same token, I'm an organ donor because I believe that what happens to my body after I am no longer using it is irrelevant to me.

I believe heaven and hell (and purgatory for that matter) do exist - not as places we go after we die, but psychological spaces we inhabit whilst we're alive. Most simply hell is separation (selfishness), heaven is connection (love) and purgatory is that feeling I experience most of the time: some combination of the two. None of these states are permanent - they are all subject to change. However, through practice we can gain some control as to which psychological space we reside in.

As for any experience after physical death, I agree with Liwa Nim, it is probably very similar to the experience before birth (or conception, or whatever). I like the Richard Bach quote on this:

"What the caterpillar calls the end of the world, the master calls a butterfly."

Its off-topic but I was enjoying the discussion on the prevalence of metaphor in our human experience - might start another thread on that . . . *ponders*

Gisteron wrote: there is no telling that it is actually going to happen, likely though it may be and reasonable though it is to assume that indeed it will.

Assume nothing. Every assumption is a conclusion. Every conclusion is an end, a death, if you will. All things move and evolve, including thought.

Streen wrote:

Khaos wrote: The point still escapes me, as you seemed to have answered your question, but I still don't see what point your trying to make.

It's alright, I was being vague on purpose, thinking you might get my point without me spelling it out. No harm done though. It's simple really. It comes down to the old Zen koan, "If a tree falls in the woods, and no one is around, does it make a sound?" The tree falling in the woods if your death. But if you're not around to witness your own cremation (the sound of it falling) then does it happen at all?

If we're talking about trees in this sense, the technical answer to the question is, "No, it doesn't make a sound". Why? Because the definition of sound includes the existence of an ear in which the vibration will be received. If there is no ear, there is no sound.

So, if there is no You, does your cremation ever happen? Does Khaos' world continue to exist without him? Just a rhetorical question really, since there is no way to know.

Then it is not only pointless, but useless.

I can say that my mother sits in a jar not 100 feet from me.

Does her world go on?

No, her cremation still happened, and your proposition would also have to mean I am the last person on earth, or in the case of your analogy, the only thing in the forest. My mother was not, we "heard" the "tree" fall, so to speak.

I have no use for zen koans.

Also,if you conclude there is no way to know, then the question is not just rhetorical, but without merit.

Streen wrote:

Gisteron wrote: there is no telling that it is actually going to happen, likely though it may be and reasonable though it is to assume that indeed it will.

Assume nothing. Every assumption is a conclusion. Every conclusion is an end, a death, if you will. All things move and evolve, including thought.

Conclusions are not an end, actually.

Of course, this conversation is getting a bit woo, woo, trying to impart some grand lesson by being vague when really, its not.

You argue for something you conclude that there is no way of knowing.

That, is a dead end.

Loudzoo wrote: As for any experience after physical death, I agree with Liwa Nim, it is probably very similar to the experience before birth (or conception, or whatever).

That experience being?

Also, you imply evolution into a butterfly, but then, if death simply is like what was before experienced, then there was no evolution, no change.

A butterfly is much different then a caterpillar, and in that analogy life is the chrysalis...So I was a butterfly that regressed only to be a butterfly again?

Streen wrote:

Gisteron wrote: there is no telling that it is actually going to happen, likely though it may be and reasonable though it is to assume that indeed it will.

Assume nothing. Every assumption is a conclusion. Every conclusion is an end, a death, if you will. All things move and evolve, including thought.

Yea, don't go full woo-woo on me, sir...


A conclusion is a proposition reached from given premises.
An assumption is a proposition accepted (tentatively) without premises to inescapably lead to it.

They are literally the opposite of each other!

Khaos wrote:

Loudzoo wrote: As for any experience after physical death, I agree with Liwa Nim, it is probably very similar to the experience before birth (or conception, or whatever).

That experience being?

That experience being something we don't typically have access to whilst we are alive / awake - like being in deep (non-dreaming) sleep. I imagine death being like that: peaceful, insensitive to the passing of time and inpenetrable to our conscious waking experience.

Also, you imply evolution into a butterfly, but then, if death simply is like what was before experienced, then there was no evolution, no change.

A butterfly is much different then a caterpillar, and in that analogy life is the chrysalis...So I was a butterfly that regressed only to be a butterfly again?

Rumi explains it better (for me) than anyone else:

I died as a mineral and became a plant,
I died as plant and rose to animal,
I died as animal and I was Man.
Why should I fear? When was I less by dying?
Yet once more I shall die as Man, to soar
With angels blest; but even from angelhood
I must pass on: all except God doth perish.
When I have sacrificed my angel-soul,
I shall become what no mind e'er conceived.
Oh, let me not exist! for Non-existence
Proclaims in organ tones, To Him we shall return.

Please remember to be polite to other posters on the forum. It's ok to disagree with people but there is no reason to be an arse doing so

General Mod thought to know one and everyone, thank you :side:

Bareus wrote: What do you belive happends after you leave your body /after death?

What i belive is that heaven and hell does not exist, if it does it is something we create ourselves
... it would be a reflection of who you are

What i belive is that you never die and that you don't go to an eternity of torture or heavenly pleasures depending on your choices in life, rather that you live on forever, as i see it, through the force.

I believe much as you do, Bareus.

I do not consider myself a Christian in the conventional, contemporary sense. Yet the phrase "God is love" from the New Testament is a pillar of my spiritual orientation. I cannot conceive of a loving deity that would condemn any sentient being of its creation to an eternal hell, even for a series of travesties committed throughout a lifetime.

Most people who report near-death experiences describe them positively, but there are some who relate experiences that are dark and threatening. The Buddha also acknowledged the existence of hell-worlds, but in my understanding of Buddhism they are not inescapable - any more than oppressive experiences in this life are inescapable. It's conceivable to me that perhaps some of us undergo a painful experience in the afterlife as some sort of purging or severe teaching tool, but I do not believe it is eternal for anyone.

A friend (now passed) expressed years ago his view of the afterlife which I sometimes consider. It's a half-serious, half-whimsical view: He stated his belief that the place we go when we leave Earthly life is aligned with our beliefs. A Christian may go to a place with pearled gates and golden roads. A virtuous young Muslim male appears in a harem with 72 virgins. A devout Buddhist is blissfully absorbed into the All. However, there are many people who adhere to no discrete faith whatsoever, and for them there is a default location -- downtown Los Angeles. :laugh:

My belief for the afterlife is roughly in agreement with the book 'Many lives, many masters' by Dr Brian L Wiess (or Weiss). Life is like a class in high school, and death is the walk to the next class. But lives are not in sync with normal time. Your last life could have been in 1207ad, your currently living in 2015 and your next could be in 1754ad. We have groups of souls that we encounter every life. They could be your mother, who was your son in your past life and your best friend in your next. Worth the read if your interested thats for sure

I take an agnostic view to the afterlife. We can never really know thus increasing the importance of this life. I will focus on doing good here and making this life enjoyable.

I am convinced this, 'existence' is lack of a better word, a dream. We are also all connected because we are all one playing many different parts, in many different lifetimes. I could explain but would take a bit.

Please, go ahead. If we are resurrecting a four year old thread, might as well add something interesting to it.

I apologize as you can see this is lengthy but I would be doing a disservice if not explained.
On my path of truth I tried to first start with the most truthful thing and tried to maintain so called absolute truth.

Side note: just because I say its absolute don't take my word for it. Look at it yourself.

My first truth is that this is occurring. Meaning, 'experience', 'universe', 'all that is', 'it'

Side note:#1 I didn't say happening because if it is real can be debated.
#2 I didn't say occurring TO ME, because even the notion of I is unknown and thus can be debated.

My second truth is that since it is occurring it must become what it is.

Side note: #1 if a thing IS it has form and therefor needs to be arranged as such.
#2 the one liberty I do take is implying time as part of the occurrence because I have not witnessed the occurrence without time.
#3 based on #2 it is safe to say it has progressed to be what ever the occurrence is at present.

My third truth is if it became what it is today in order to become occurrence that's now it must come from a state of
That it was not

Side note: a thing cannot become what it already is because then it would just be and not in a state of becoming.

My 4th truth is if occurrence is becoming from what it previously was not it's very occurrence, meaning 'initial', '1st' must be from a none occurring state.

Side note: #1 this initial state is without color, form, or substance.
#2 this state is without time
#3 this state is without consciousness or obervation
#4 this state is without all

My 5th truth is this state, in the pre-beginning off all occurrence is so... Lack of a better words... Infinitely Infinite, that in its state IT IS! IT IS ALL THAT IS.

Side note: #1 this state I call Devine Nothingness.
#2 Devine nothingness cannot be witnessed or imagined, don't try. I can only point to it.

My 6th truth is since Devine nothingness IS and In it's state ALL THAT IS, it must become.

Side note:#1 Devine nothingness is so IT'S Self that it becomes nothing.
#2 this nothing is different than Devine nothingness.
#3 its like a tip of a needle.
#4 this dot is a good representation. •

My 7th truth is if Devine nothingness became then an observer must record it. It being • that nothing.

Side note:#1 if there is no memory/ recording/ observation of something it did not occur.
#2 the observer is within nothingness. It cannot be in the state of Devine nothingness.
#3 this point • is a third person perspective. And is not accurate. Think of this dot thinking,"i am nothing"

My 8th truth is that this nothing with an observer on the inside is infinite because in the act of becoming it's self a true thing is in complete saturation.

Side note #1 a better way of viewing this is if you were going to stack infinite nothings together side by side •••••-> ect
#2 what's after infinity? That would be nothing. Or 0, so think of these infinite nothings creating a circle O.

My 9th truth is that all nothings must be named and causes duality

Side note:#1 all nothings are accounted for because there is all nothings that can be.
#2 duality is caused because 2 nothings will be crossing the same plane of existence.
#3 so not this not that, not black not white, not up not down, not in not out ect....

My 10th truth is that this ring of nothing that is the cause of duality causes choas and interaction.

Side note#1 this interaction is the world we see.
#2 and the nothings are the consciousness's we see the interaction of the world.

Sigh of relief. OK so if your still fallowing bless your heart and what does it mean if true.

It means you will always be

It mean you are me in a different lifetime

It means even if you become the Devine nothingness it is so explosive and has no occurrence that you must be! Always!

If true it means you are not your body

If true it means the world is lack of a better word, a dream, where nothing consciousness is the substance and the existence is the movement of it.

Glenn wrote: If true it means the world is lack of a better word, a dream, where nothing consciousness is the substance and the existence is the movement of it.

Can you walk me through that part again, please? I don't understand how any of the truths you listed link the 'it' to a dream. Indeed, from what I can see, beyond stating that by 'it' you mean all of existence, most of the rest of that post was constructing a crude history of 'it' from more of those truths of yours. As to the statement that "We are also all connected because we are all playing many different parts, in many different lifetimes", if I am to be charitable I must assume that this was something you were going to explain in a later post, since that part is completely untouched in your last. None of your truths say anything at all about any of us either individually, or collectively, or our lifetimes, or the parts we play in the 'it' in any of them.

If true it means the world is lack of a better word, a dream, where nothing consciousness is the substance and the existence is the movement of it.-

When I say dream i am referring to existance. Everything in your awairness.

I say dream lightly because it is always becoming. Time is ticking. So nothing in your experience of the world is actually real. Because it never truly is.

Huge disclamer: not saying it doesn't feel real. Life is full of pain, happiness, worry, physical ailments, accomplishments etc...

Are you the same 5 minutes ago. Everything is changing.

Also most assume, um ill used a dinning room table for instance is solid. But there is 99.999998% of the atoms that make up the table consisted of empty nothingness.

When you smell something its just a reaction. Elements don't have a sent.

Um when you hear something for instance its just the moment of hairs in your earlobe. Sound is not real.

When you see your tv, that light goes to your eyes through your retina to your brain and then the mind sees it. You only see within your own mind. The tv is not actually out there. You have only seen and walked the hallways of your own mind.

Everything you experience is abstract. Explain a color to a blind man.

I should be careful. Most people are not ready for the 'red pill'.

Valid concern regarding what this means individually.

So if this is true it is unbiased.
Personal meaning, and purpose and how to live your life should be personal and biased and are important no doubt. Collectively these truths just show how the world operates, not what we should do about them.

For instance if every person and animal and plant is you how are you going to eat without causing suffering to yourself. It shows suffering is inevitable, but not how to handle it.

I guess finding a really good reason to suffer for something brings a beautiful life, so in other words finding reasons to do the inevitable truths gives meaning.

For instance from this stand point if you never ultimately die your many life times have very little importance. If I bye a million dollar car and someone keys it, I'm going to be pissed, red hot, full of anger. That's because its important to me, attachment.

So what's my next life, honestly I don't know.

Why this one? The times are not ours to decide, all we have to do is to decide what to do with the time that is given.

Right, I think I'm starting to understand now.

Glenn wrote: When I say dream i am referring to existance.

So now we can use this to substitute and find that when you said

Glenn wrote: I am convinced this, 'existence' is ... a dream.

what you really meant all along was

'Existence' is existence.

Well, I guess that's quite true indeed. Profound? I'd hesitate saying that much. But true, nevertheless.


Okay, moving on. Which of your truths says anything about the connectedness of anything. It seems to be a conclusion you are liberally drawing, but I'm not sure how it is either stated or follows from any of your postulates.


Also, since you digress into other topics, I'll indulge you in those a little, while it hasn't gone completely out of hand.

Glenn wrote: Also most assume, um ill used [sic] a dinning room table for instance is solid. But there is 99.999998% of the atoms that make up the table consisted of empty nothingness.

Really? Okay, couple questions about that:

1. How did you come by that figure?
2. If 99.999998% of the atoms in the table consist of empty nothingness, what do the other 0.000002% of the atoms consist of?
3. If 99.999998% of the atoms in the table consist of empty nothingness, what accounts for the table's appearance of solid-ness?
4. How does the table reflect light, conduct heat, or sound, if 99.999998% of its atoms consist of empty nothingness?

Um when you hear something for instance its just the moment [sic] of hairs in your earlobe.

Are deaf people's earlobe hairs too rigid then or do they lack them entirely, or are they not connected to their brains somehow? If someone loses their earlobes in an accident, does that make them lose their hearing, too? What is the significance of the eardrum or the cochlea, if hearing comes down to earlobe hair movement?

When you see your tv, that light goes to your eyes through your retina to your brain and then the mind sees it. You only see within your own mind. The tv is not actually out there. You have only seen and walked the hallways of your own mind.

What if I hadn't watched the TV, but placed a camera in front of it and recorded the screen? Will that tape contain an imprint of the light the TV emitted during the program, or will the tape show the same blank screen I would see on the turned off TV at the time of my reviewing the tape? If the image is not real outside of my retina, I shouldn't be able to produce a casting of it without the aid of my retinas during the procedure at all, let alone a casting to some sort of permanent storage medium.

I should be careful. Most people are not ready for the 'red pill'.

Thank you for your patience and understanding.

When I said existence is ...a dream i was refiring that existence is not as it appears.

I retreat posting suck a list because it is confusing.

In the beginning you can call it god, the force, the big bang, doesn't matter. We are derived from that so in god, the force, the big bang, or whatever we are connected.

My line of thinking was we have in science and mathematics and philosophy as humans have been trying to answer how this is the way it is. As far as I can tell it hasn't worked, or is not self evident or we would have had everyone come to the same conclusion. So I decided to start at the bottom. Where did the universe come from. Was it always here? That raises problems philosophically. It can't go endlessly back. So how do you start a universe? From it not being. So I asked my self can I start with absolutely nothing and get something out of it. And I found a way that you can start with absolutely nothing and get a potential universe. And it answers many if not all questions in our world that are paradoxical.

I miss spoke 1atom has very very very little matter in it. Obviously higher the atomic weight more mass, but still very very little.

The table appears solid because of the weak nuclear force. It repels other atoms away. And also the Hindenburg's uncertainty principle which is roughly things come in pairs like position and velocity, and you can one know one at a time. Also this principle of quantum physics states a particle or atom behaves differently if you look at it, verses not and the observer has a distinct role in how the universe behaves.

The table reflects light heat and sound because they are all waves interfering with the waves of the atoms of the table there not solid.

People with hearing loss or no hearing have complications somewhere where they are not able to create the sensation of sound.

Back to Hindenburg's uncertainty principle. If it's not bring observed it has been proven it only is a series of possibilities until it is observed and then the possibilities colapes into something.

Your camera doesn't exist until it is in you observation, then it shows up with the video of the TV that it didn't record because it chose to be in that state.

Reality is not brick and mortar. Its smoke and mirrors.