Hey everyone I thought I'd yet again rip another chapter out of the book "The Perennial Philosophy" by Aldous Huxley and expose here in the forums. It is a really good chapter about the different Perennial Philosophy points of view about what happens at death and the difference between that and enlightenment.

Let me point out that Aldous Huxley writes on the subject in the most witty and eloquent way. Anyway here it is:



Immortality and Survival

IMMORTALITY is participation in the eternal now of the divine Ground; survival is persistence in one of the forms of time. Immortality is the result of total deliverance. Survival is the lof of those who are partially delivered into some heaven, or who are not delivered at all, but find themselves, by the law of their own untranscended nature, compelled to choose some purgatorial or embodied servitude even more painful than the one they have just left.

Goodness and virtue make men know and love, believe and delight in their immortality. When the soul is purged and enlightened by true sanctity, it is more capable of those divine irradiations, whereby it feels itself in conjunction with God. It knows that almighty Love, by which it lives, is stronger than death. It knows that God will never forsake His own life, which He has quickened in the soul. Those breathings and gaspings after an eternal participation of Him are byt the energy of His own breath within us.

----- John Smith, the Platonist

I have maintained ere this and I still maintain that I already possess all that is granted to me in eternity. For God in the fulness of his Godhead dwells eternally in his image---the soul.

---Eckhart

Troubled or still, water is always water. What difference can embodiment or disembodiment make to the Liberated? Whether calm or in tempest, the sameness of the ocean suffers no change.

---- Yogavasistha

To the question "Where does the soul go, when the body dies?" Jacob Boehme answered : "There is no necessity for it to go anywhere."

The word Tathagata (one of the names of the Buddha) signifies one who does not go to anywhere and does not come from anywhere; and therefore is he called Tathagata (Thus-gone), holy and fully enlightened.

---Diamond Sutra

Seeing Him alone, one transcends death; there is no other way. ---Svetasvatara Upanishad

God, in knowledge of whom standeth our eternal life. . . .

--Book of Common Prayer

I died a mineral, and became a plant.
I died a plant and rose an animal.
I died an animal and I was man.
Why should I fear? When was I less by dying?
Yet once more I shall die as a man, to soar
With the blessed angels; but even from angelhood
I must pass on. All except God perishes.
When I have sacrificed my angel soul,
I shall become that which no mind ever conceived.
O, let me not exist! for Non-Existence proclaims,
"To Him we shall return."

---Jalal-uddin Rumi

There is a general agreement, East and West, that life in a body provides uniquely good opportunities for achieving salvation or deliverance. Catholic and Mahayana Buddhist doctrine is alike in insisting that the soul in its disembodied state after death cannot aquire merit, but merely suffers in purgatory the consequences of its past acts. But whereas Catholic orthodoxy declares that there is no possibility of progress in the next world, and that the degree of the soul's beautitude is determined solely by what it has done and thought in its earthly life, the eschatologists of the Orient affirm that there are capable posthumous conditions in which meritorious souls are capable of advancing from a heaven of happy personal survival to genuine immortality in union with the timeless, eternal Godhead.

And, of course, there is also the possibility (indeed, for most individuals, the necessity) of returning to some form of embodied life, in which the advance towards complete beatification, or deliverance through enlightenment, can be continued. Meanwhile, the fact that one has been born in a human body is one of the things for which, says Shankara, one should daily give thanks to God.

The spiritual creature which we are has need of a body, without which it could nowise attain that knowledge which it obtains as the only approach to those things, by knowledge of which it is made blessed.

---St. Bernard

Having achieved human birth, a rare and blessed incarnation, the wise man, leaving all vanity to those who are vain, should strive to know God, and Him only, before life passes into death.

---Srimad Bhagavatam

Good men spiritualize their bodies; bad men incarnate their souls. ---Benjamin Whichcote

More precisely, good men spiritualize their mind-bodies; bad men incarnate and mentalize their spirits. The completely spiritualized mind-body is a Tathagata, who doesn't go anywhere when he dies, for the good reason that he is already, actually and consciously, where everyone has always potentially been without knowing. The person who has not, in this life, gone into Thusness, into the eternal principle of all states of being, goes at death into some particular state, either purgatorial or paradisal.

In the Hindu scripturesand their commentaries several different kinds of posthumous salvation are distinguished. The "thus-gone" soul is completely delivered into complete union with the divine Ground; but it is also possible to achieve other kinds of mukti, or liberation, even while retaining a form of purified I-consciousness. The nature of any individual's deliverance after death depends upon three factors: the degree of holiness achieved by him while in the body, the particular aspect of the divine Reality to which he gave his primary allegiance, and the particular path he choose to follow.

Similarly, in the Divine Comedy, Paradise has its various circles; but whereas in the oriental eschatologies the saved soul can go out of even sublimated individuality, out of survival even in some kind of celestial time, to a complete deliverance into the eternal, Dante's souls remain for ever where (after passing through the unmeritorious sufferings of purgatory) they find themselves as the result of their single incarnation in a body.

Orthodox Christian doctrine does not admit the possibility, either in the posthumous state or in some other embodiment, of any further growth towards the ultimate perfection of a total union with the Godhead. But in the Hindu and Buddhist versions of the Perennial Philosophy the divine mercy is matched by the divine patience: both are infinite. For oriental theologians there is no eternal damnation; there are only purgatories and then an indefinite series of second chances to go forward towards not only man's, but the whole creation's final end---total union with the Ground of all being.

Preoccupation with posthumous deliverance is not one of the means to such deliverance, and may easily, indeed, become an obstacle in the way of advance towards it. There is not the slightest reason to suppose that ardent spiritualists are more likely to be saved than those who have never attended a seance or familiarized themselves with the literature, speculative or evidential. My intention here is not to add to that literature, but rather to give the baldest summary of what has been written about the subject of survival within the various religious traditions.

In oriental discussions of the subject, that which survives death is not the personality. Buddhism accepts the doctrine of reincarnation; but it is not a soul that passes on (Buddhism denies the existence of the soul); it is the character. What we choose to make of our mental and physical constitution in the course of our life on earth affects the psychic medium within which individuals minds lead a part at least of their amphibious existence, and this modification of the medium results, after the body's death, in the initiation of a new existence either in a heaven, or a purgatory, or another body.

In Vedanta cosmology there is, over and above the Atman or spiritual self, identical with the divine Ground, something in the nature of a soul that reincarnates in a gross or subtle body, or manifests itself in some incorporeal state. This soul is not the personality of the defunct, but reather the particularized I-consciousness out of which a personality arises. Either one of these conceptions of survival is logically self-consistent and can be made to "save the appearances" --in other words, to fit the odd and obscure facts of psychical research.

The only personalities with which we have any direct acquaintance are incarnate beings, compounds of a body and some unknown x. But if x plus a body equals a personality, then obviously, it is impossible for x minus a body to equal the same thing. The apparently personal entities which psychical research sometimes seems to discover can only be regarded as temporary pseudo-personalities compounded of x and the medium's body.

These two conceptions are not mutually exclusive, and survival may be the joint product of a persistent consciousness and a modification of the psychic medium. If this is so, it is possible for a given human being to survive in more than one posthumous form. His "soul"--may go marching on in one mode of being, while the traces left by his thoughts and volitions in the psychic medium may become the origin of new individualized existences, having quite other modes of being.



Wasn't that beautiful.... Aldous Huxley was such an artist with words.

Any thoughts comrades???

I absolutely agree with his ideas on preoccupation with posthumous deliverance being an obstacle to the advancement towards deliverance. I also agree, he uses excellent words!

I am starting to seriously ponder the existence of the "soul" or "character" as energy, and the conscious a product of this energy combining with the physical body. Could the body, with it's various chemical reactions and electrical activity translate this energy into consciousness? Or does consciousness survive the death of the physical body?

In the last paragraph, he discusses the idea that individual existences can be born out of residual thought. What could be the modes of being?

The way I see it is that science will never discover how the brain creates consciousness hence they will never truly know whether the brain is responsible for consciousness. I believe the body and brain are simply thoughts we think to be real hence why we think we are the body when we are actually the consciousness that thinks it is the body. To identify oneself with consciousness alone as one's true being is enlightenment. All of creation arises out of consciousness. I believe that our consciousness at some level created the body or mind with which we identify ourselves with and has forgotten who it actually is, which of course is God.

As for other modes of being, if we agree that we live in a universe with an infinite amount of dimensions and forms of being whether corporeal, incorporeal or inanimate then there would be a fantastic amount of potential modes to experience. Whether one needs to experience each and everyone of them is debatable because our true identity already is the whole universe with everything in it. However man is a creature capable if it so chooses of immense spirituality and hence why the Gurus and Perennial Philosophers say that we should be greatful with our current incarnation and not to waste the opportunity we have to achieve the best form of spirituality that we can.

I like this paragraph by Huxley in your opening:
In oriental discussions of the subject, that which survives death is not the personality. Buddhism accepts the doctrine of reincarnation; but it is not a soul that passes on (Buddhism denies the existence of the soul); it is the character. What we choose to make of our mental and physical constitution in the course of our life on earth affects the psychic medium within which individuals minds leada part at least of their amphibious existence, and this modification of the medium results, after the body's death, in the initiation of a new existence either in a heaven, or a purgatory, or another body.

I think maybe I should investigate your beliefs, I reject God but when you are stating things, as in the quote box above,I can see it making sense.I have always rejected God but keeping in mind I am thinking of God as everything it seems but how YOU are explaining him. In general I and others see God as a being or entity, but you are saying (I think) he is our consciousness, which from what I understand you see as awareness..so God is responsible for our awareness. is this right? And that it is God (as our consciousness) who created our identity via our body and mind...can you let me know in fairly simple terms whether this would be correct to your thinking so I can continue to think and comment about what you are stating here please Brave.

PS; Love the joke Uhmanduh:
Q. What do you get if you cross a Jehovah's Witness with an Atheist?
A. Someone who knocks on your door for no reason.

You have summed it up well. Without me getting too abstract ,yes that is what I have faith in. God is responsible for our I-consciousness but finding God in all trueness is identifying not with the "I" but with consciousness itself. Within consciousness is all of infinite creation. And since that consciousness cant be found anywhere but within ourselves, that means all of infinite creation is within us.

This may sound very egotistical but you must remember that our true self is this infinite consciousness and not the limiting "I" that identifies with the mind or body, or if you like the entire universe in all it's apsects is one gigantic "I". Let me put in some small short writings that elucidate what I am saying here. I sure you'll enjoy them.

Let me first mention that because consciousness is indeed infinite there is always an element of paradox when explaining it because we are using finite words and concepts. So try and have an intuitive feel to what is in these writings when you read them. If you do you'll find that there isnt any contradiction in the logic but will find that logic cannot explain the contradictions.

A monk asked Wei-kuan: "Where is Tao (God)?"

Kuan: "Right before us."

Monk: "Why don't I see it?"

Kuan: "Because of you egoism (I-consciousness) you cannot see it."

Monk: "If I cannnot see it because of my egoism, does your Reverence see it?"

Kuan: "As long as there is 'I' and 'thou,' this complicates the situation and there is no seeing Tao."

Monk: "When there is neither 'I' nor 'Thou' is it seen?"

Kuan: "When there is neither 'I' nor 'Thou,' who is here to see it?"


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA brilliant aye? Yet so simple! No high academic education is ever required to grasp the simple spiritual truths however sometimes education can make one too prejudice against different possibilities because education emphasizes too much on the seen and isnt open to the mysterious possibilites of the unseen. Hence why I love religion. Anyway back to the quotes:

You are the Self, the infinite Being, the pure, unchanging Consciousness, which pervades everything. Your nature is bliss and your glory is without stain. Because you identify yourself with the ego, you are tied to birth and death. Your bondage has no other cause.

---Shankara (Hindu mystic)

A soul pure in God is God. ---The Philokalia

There is no greater mystery than this: Being Reality ourselves, we seek to gain Reality. ---Ramana Maharshi (Hindu Mystic)

Pleasure or pain are only aspects of the mind. Our essential nature is happiness. We forget the Self and imagine the body or the mind to be the Self. It is this wrong identity that gives rise to misery.

---Ramana Maharshi

The whole of existence is imagination within imagination, while true Being is God alone. --Ibnal- 'Arabi (Sufi mystic)

..The real God is not to be sought in idols and symbols, in temples or churches.
The truth of the matter is that the purified man is God himself, for he has become one with universal life. The purified man is the self-realised man. He has not to await answers from God, for he has no questions to ask. He himself is the answer to all questions; his life itself is a benediction. (Sudhakar S.D, 1988.
p55)


The Kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the Kingdom of God is within you. --Jesus Christ

Where is God? In His kingdom. Where is his Kingdom? Within you.

Anyway There are sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo many more short quotes and writings I could have put in but I restrained. I don't want to bore you. I hope this post gives you at least an indication of my faith. According to my faith everyone will find God, Tao, Allah, infinite consciousness, The Self, Great Spirit or whatever you wish to call it. It may not happen this life time but it will happen, it is inevitable because it is who we actually are, well so I believe.

All will surely realize God. All will be liberated, It may be that some get their meal in the morning, some at noon, and some in the evening; but none will go without food. All, without any exception, will certainly know their real Self.

----RamaKrishna (Hindu mystic)

This seems quite logical. When we die, no part of our body known as the "spirit" or "soul" moves on, but our character, the idea of heaven or hell shows how humans use justice to rule over the world, but I do not believe in a heaven or hell. The essence of our just wanders the earth, or another world all together.



Maybe we even travel to an alien world! ( Who knows? )

It is a shame that Christians try to avoid hell....If they truly had faith they would be indifferent to either hell or heaven. There is an old Zen story that shows the true compassion of a saint in regards to hell. It goes as so:

Once upon a time there was a Zen master and student standing by a river. The student asked his master, "Master when you die where will you go?" the master replied concisely "To hell". The student was taken aback and said "Why master would you go to hell?" To this the master answered "Because that is where help is needed most".

Unknown source, just a good parable I have tatooed on my brain. A different spin on hell aye? Personally I think hell is just the state of being when we are not enlightened.

Brave new world , great thread, interesting, Im perplexed to add a post but it is 6"10 am , and I have but just a few minutes left online, Ill post tonight, ok?

Abecrombie

If you're happy Im happy.

ha ha you pinched that from my other thread

.......... And I thought your profile picture was taken at a Reptile Park. lol You must be very into this to have travelled to India and I'm interested in what I'm reading because I have an open mind but only know what I know so unless someone is informing me otherwise how am I to know any different. My post here is really all about my understanding and in very simple words, 'red lollypop' explanations suit me just fine... Things are not black and white to me but all grey, causing me much to-ing and fro-ing OK, so back to the topic...I believe character is very important, in every day life karma is mentioned, karma is repaying you for your actions in relation to your character. Life is good to me, I believe karma is responsible for that, I don't bring ill will on myself, which I see many people over and over who are in emotional turmoil but it's like they bring this on themselves with their actions. They whinge, whine and have little respect for other people, easily offend others and generally make their own lives a misery with thier own actions, I have friends like this and they wear me down, then I believe all their negative energy brings on them bad luck you could call it. Ok sounds like I'm going off an another tangent but just explaining where I'm coming from...I do think God could be within us and it takes realisation to see it, I have not realised it yet but many have, that's why I'm defending the believers in my previous posts in the Athiesm is based on Faith forum and listening to you, I never thought of it the way you are stating though until now. I don't believe in A God of any kind doesn't neccessarily mean I don't believe there can be a God in us. The word God is too generalised, I am thinking Christian God or a God you pray to as a generalisation of God but now I've been enlightened to think of God in another way, as part of ourself, not someone else. So had you bought up this topic the other week, as a hard core Athiest who at that point did not understand the concept of God being part of my consciousness but only saw A God in a Christian or Catholic sense I would have said OK, we die, we go into ground, A God will not be part of the equation, end of story. But now I can see why I have always felt karma played an important part in our life, our character justifies how we are reincarnated. I'm going around in circles and sound to be contradicting myself alot but its just me reassessing my beliefs each day you know..? I dislike religion is a simple enough statement that I've made several times but at the same time I appreciate it and find it a very interesting subject, otherwise I would not be here in the religious forums. What I dislike is disharmony and I see alot of religious believers causing this so its not so much the religion in general its the effect the belief of some religion does, it makes people every intolerant of others who do not share their view (and again it is really just a generalisation) so I distance myself from being part of it. I can believe in God being part of me but not A God as a creator or answerer of prayers. Basically my opinion (and keep in mind my opinion is not neccessarily my belief yet) on your original Huxley text is that prayer will get you no where in the afterlife, character will get you everywhere, so hopefully because I don't bring bad karma on myself the God inside me will judge me accordingly and select the appropriate afterlife for me, a nice one.

When we enter into meditation we become one with the Universe, because we are the Universe. Along with everything else; the stars, planets, grass, trees, cats, the Gods, everything is the Universe. The Godhead we perceive within us is the Universe. Our existence is as long as the Universes. The Gods are within us cause we are all one being, the Universe. Christians see God as a separate entity outside the Universe as creator, but they are not, they are a part of the Universe same as us. The Universe creates itself as growth like a child grows. So being we are part of the Gods we actually are in a sense Gods ourselves along with every other living thing. Or as I see it God-lings as we have much to learn before we join with Gods.

There is no "I" except in through the "sense" of "self awareness", which like vision to the sighted person, is overused resulting in the degradation of the other senses.

I agree that the "I" does not exist beyond death, but add that the "I" does not exist in life either. There is no self, even though it may seem so real.

There is nothing that is infinite. Only that which appears infinite from within a certian perspective.

There is no future, this too is a product of a brain capable of such abstraction. Much like the "I", it is an illusion created by the brain.

Goals of man should be to be aware of the "I", "future", and "infinite" illusions.

Man is too linear at this stage.

Reincarnation is not the continuation of your life but just the continuation of life.

So there is the "I" consciousness, which is the body and mind. Then there is the true conscious, which is neither of these. But is it affected by the body and mind? Or is this conciousness at one with the body and mind, and through time and awareness, overtakes the "I" consciousness. Is there a balance that must be achieved?

My friend and I were discussing this, and he sort of believes in reincarnation. He thinks that true consciousness is a being in itself, and that these beings, or souls, choose to live in us because it is the only way that they can gain knowledge, and that in their "pure" state they are infinite and unchanging, yet they are still us... kind of, and that through meditation we come the closest to shedding our "I" conciousness to an awareness of this soul. I made it sound a bit more crazy than he did, he's much better at having clear thoughts than I am. Any thoughts?

edit- One other thing my friend believes, is that one "soul" can recognize another that it has known in a previous or future incarnation.

If man is too linear then how can man know what you have stated above? To know the 'I' does not survive death you have to experience both the 'I' and death. Have you?

LOL! Actually no, my friend airika and I found a bunch of jokes on the net yesterday and she posted that one in the Riddle thread Sheri started the other day! We must have all been thinking alike!

And this is why I don't really have anything to say about this topic.

I've got a job to do here and now, wasting my time trying to figure out posthumous deliverance is not on my agenda. Nor is it necessarily my concern.

I'm simple in my beliefs, they are at the core of my lifestyle as well. Comtemplating my eternal salvation or deliverance is not something I can know, or predict, therefore I won't give the subject undo time. All I can do is trust the Holy Spirit to guide me and have utter faith and trust that what I hear on the Light is true. That is what is important. What there is after this life will remain a surprise, hopefully a delightful one.

The term "there is no self" is very misunderstood. There is a self, but it is not separate from anyone or anything else. All that is is connected to us and part of us. We are constantly dying and being reborn.

So death (not-self?), the not-being, is connected to the self, the being?

I would ask again, then. How do you know this? Or is it a belief rather than a knowing?

I appreciate this may not be easy to explain to someone not versed in the 'mysteries' of oriental tradition, but I would appreciate learning why you think the way you do.

Cheers, rev.

Although I don't really have an opinion on the subject, I find this subject fascinating. It would be useless of me to comment because I have very little knowledge as to this topic, thanks for allowing me to learn from your posts, and thanks for trying to keep it simple.

Good post. It is good that you are keeping an open mind about this instead of allowing preconcieved ideas and concepts rule out any possibility of this subject. If you just keep on keeping an open mind on everything you come across you'll always be fine. Your character may go everywhere but your true self (God) already is everywhere. Through detachment from your character (which by the way is a very arduous life long process which I havnt come close to achieving) you realise your God-self or Self.

Many peoples physiological/psychological make-up requires a personal Deity to worship because they cannot comprehend the abstract. This is a necessary beginning for many people especially those with a endomorphic build with its psychological component viscerotonia. Many spiritual directors often suggest worship of a personal diety whether it be a God or avatar i.e. Jesus as a means to progressing to the abstract. People start off worshipping a "form" of God then if the devotion is intense enough slowly the "form" gives place to a vision of the "formless" which if it wasnt for the "form" worship they may never have had a glimpse of. After realizing the true that is the "formless" they can now dispense with the "form" and progress to harmonizing themselves ever more with the formless to the point of perennial conscious realization.

This little paragraph gives a good account of what I am saying here:

But man does need God. Vedanta defines God as Brahman, which is beyond all duality, plurality and beyond all categories of thought; yet including these. But the Vedantic concept of God is difficult for the common man to understand. It is beyond those who are incapable of abstract thinking, for it is impossible for them to establish an effective living relationship with what is formless, infinite, transcendent, that Brahman is. Such people need a personal God with whom they establish a personal relationship- a father, mother, master, goddess, beloved, friend. Lord Krishna, a human incarnation of God, is closer to the heart of common man than Brahman could be. For unless the infinite is conceived in the finite form of a personal God, devotion will be lacking in depth and intensity. The senses need a form, a concrete something that can be held, touched and adored. (Sudhakar S.D, 1988. p54)

Give me some time to formulate the best (read that as the least confusing...for both of us ) answers.

Marvellous post! And thank you for your contribution. There is a part here I agree with at a certain level of comprehension. This small paragraph explains it:

This is the awe-inspiring universe of magic: There are no atoms, only waves and motions all around. Here, you discard all belief in barriers to understanding. You put aside understanding itself. This universe cannot be seen, cannot be heard, cannot be detected in any way by fixed perceptions. It is the ultimate void where no preordained screens occur upon which forms may be prjected. You have only one awareness here--- the screen of the magi: Imagination! Here, you learn what it is to be human. You are the creator of order, of beautiful shapes and systems, an organization of chaos.

----Atreides Manifesto, From one of Frank Herberts "Dune" novels.

Also not all christians (though the mass majority of orthodox Christians do which is most unfortunate) believe in God as separate from themselves. Christianity is a religion with valuable insight of setting oneself free from oneself to realize the true self. Christianity has produced a great succession of saints who were as enlightened on the nature of reality than many of the saints of the Eastern philosophies. Here are some small examples:

In those respects in which the soul is unlike God, it is also unlike itself. ----St. Bernard

The soul is in itself a most lovely and perfect image of God. ---St. John of the Cross

My Me is God, nor do I recognize any other Me except my God Himself. ---St. Catherine of Genoa

To gauge the soul we must gauge it with God, for the Ground of God and the Ground of the Soul are one and the same. --Eckhart

The knower and the known are one. Simple people imagine that they should see God as if He stood there and they here. This is not so. God and I , we are one in knowledge. ---Eckhart.

When the "I" does not exist prior to death, what would lead to it existing after death?

It is not having to experience "I" and death, but having broken the illusion of "I"!

As rev suggested, individuality (I) is not the same as "the self does not exist". It is that each element (in this case human) is a product of interactions with other elements (nodes). The interaction history is what defines the element (human). To give you a simple test of this interconnectedness history that is "you" just to yourself address this challenge: define yourself without using any external references (this includes memories of external references).

Why do I have the overwhelming sense that I'm watching a table tennis match with one person playing both sides of the table?

The "I" may very well exist after death. "I" is the root cause to our ignorance who who we are. Death is no cure for ignorance meaning that death is no cure for dissolving the "I". The knowledge that exists in this world of matter and time that can set people free of the "I" must also exist after death otherwise to commit suicide would be the best solution.

Of course in theory the "I" doesnt really exist in life as well but in practice for the everyday unregenerate person (like me) I identify with the "I". As much as I know it is illusion one cannot break free from it unless they undergo certain psychological and physical conditions and austerities. The "I" is sooooooooo deep rooted in our being that even to intellectually realize it isnt enough to be free from it.



This is all correct. But even you cannot express that which is free from the infinite without using words or concepts which are finite. Here is a Buddhist writing to demonstrate:

Those who vainly reason without understanding the truth are lost in the jungle of the Vijnanas (the various forms of relative knowledge), running about here and there and trying to justify their view of ego-substance.
The self realized in your inmost consciousness appears in its purity; this is the Tathagata-garbha (literally, Buddha womb), which is not the realm of those given over to mere reasoning. . . .
Pure in its own nature and free from category of finite and infinite, Universal Mind is the undefiled Buddha-womb, which is wrongly apprehended by sentient beings.

--- Lankavatara Sutra




This is where you and I differ. I believe the brain is a product of the "I" and not the "I" created by the brain, though brain doubtlessly plays a part in regulating our consciousness it was certianly not created by the brain. I do agree that there is no future or past or present for that matter. All concepts are illusions. However they are all we have until we are free of them.



I dont think man is too linear at this stage. Since the beginning of recorded history man (and women) has "realized" his true nature. The only reason why most of us (including me) think too linear is because we have induced these patterns of thought on ourselves via education systems etc. All that needs to be done is to think differently and change/adapt the best we can our patterns of thought that our physiology will allow (again I am not denying that it plays a role).

The "soul" or "Self" doesnt exist in the mind or body but rather the mind and body exist in the "soul" or "Self". True consciousness is beyond consciousness and unconsciousness. It is beyond all concepts but includes them all. The mind cannot affect True consciousness because True consciousness is eternal and unchanging.

It is knowing when one reaches enlightenment (something I have not) and faith or belief when one hasn't. Mysteries of consciousness cannot be explored via physical instruments but explored via consciousness itself. The Self gives rise to the "self" or "I-consciousness" but the thing is the I-consciousness isnt really there. All is actually the Self or Godhead. It is very paradoxical. But we must not forget that consciousness cannot be physical defined.

Even is science we must go beyond the physical to explain the physical. Take quantum physics, in order to explain particles we must use wave-function which most scientists believe only to be there symbolically as mathematical constructs and not real. Even particles when explained as particles without the wave function are a mathematical analogy for explaining the everyday world.

Let me add that when one realizes the oneness of the universe that there is no need for the concept of "I" because such a concept is only ever used in conjunction with a "thou". If you are all there are no thous and since you are all to whom can you profess an "I" too? The Self being the Self doesn't need to justify it's own existence. It just "is".

Ya I know where you are comming from. I myself am a compulsive speculator

Ya, we know hahaha... but we love ya man.

Yes, I believe that this description makes the most sense, and I have for awhile. My friend and I disagree on that point that is central to his beliefs. I don't like to attach "God" to it, because God is understood by so many people to be something else as well as the word consciousness, which is confusing to people and adds too much complexity.

It is a shame about the reflex response to the word "God" people have. I like Gandhi's definition: Truth is God. God exists because Truth exists.

My awareness of myself allows me to express thoughts, emotions. I recognise these thoughts and emotions as having a unique origin, but your test is flawed in that for me to communicate any result to you, or for you to comprehend my answer, both of us have to be experiencing the 'I'. If we were in a 'not-I' state you would not need to ask me any questions nor supply me with any answers.

Unless you were to divorce yourself from everything, embrace nothing, you still partake of the 'I' because you have to relate your experience to another when trying to communicate. How, then, can you perceive this 'illusion' if you are still enmeshed in it?

MissMels, I can assure you that I, at least, am an individual distinct from the other posters. I cannot prove it, of course, so you'll have to take my word for it. I think multiple personas is frowned upon on UM although I don't know of a way to prevent someone determined enough from posting under multiple userids.

It's ALL good Leo! I was just getting a brain cramp reading ALL the posts on this thread.

Like Hyperactive said, describe what the "I" is without using any external references. What is the "I" in itself?? It is nothing in itself but a product of a whole mixture of things. The buddhist doctrine describe it best. Here are some examples:

Just as the word chariot is merely a means of expressing how axle, body, wheel, and poles are brought together in a certain relationship, but when we look at each of them one by one there is no chariot in an absolute sense; and just as the word house is a way of expressing how wood and other materials stand in relationship to each other in a certain space, but in the absolute sense there is no house; and just as the word fist is an expression for the fingers and thumb in relationship, and tree for trunk, branches, leaves, and so on, but in an absolute sense there is no fist or tree -- in exactly the same way the words living entity and person are but ways of expressing the relationship of body, feeling, and consciousness, but when we come to examine the elements of being one by one, we find there is no entity there. In the absolute sense there is only name and form and the mystery which they express. Such ideas as "I" and "I am" are not absolute.

----Visuddhi Magga

As an unintelligent man seeks for the abode of music in the body of a lute, so does he look for a soul within the skandas (the material and psychic aggregates, of which the individual mind-body is composed)."

---Buddha

Even many of the Hindu writings before the Buddha religion formed state that the "I" is an illusion and that the true "I" is beyond "I". The "I" (the ego) we think is there isnt actually there at all. Ramana Maharshi who died in 1950 was greatly revered for his knowledge on this. I'll put in some of his interview lines for elucidation:

Questioner: How did the ego arise?

Ramana Maharshi: Ego (I-consciousness) is not. Otherwise do you admit to two selves? How can there be avidya (ignorance) in the absence of the ego? If you begin to enquire, the avidya, which is already non-existent, will be found not to be, or you will say it has fled away.

A little later within the same interview he is asked:

Q: How has the unreal come? Can the unreal spring from the real?

R: See if it has sprung. There is no such thing as the unreal, from another standpoint. The Self (God) exists. When you try to trace the ego, which is the basis of the perception of the world and everything else, you find the ego does not exist at all and neither does all this creation that you see.

And another short:

Q: But how is one to reach this state (that of the Self)

R: There is no goal to be reached. There is nothing to be attained. You are the Self. You exist always. Nothing more can be predicated of the Self than that it exists. Seeing God or the Self is only being the Self or yourself. Seeing is being. You, being the Self, want to know how to attain the Self. It is like something like a man being at Ramanasram asking how many ways there are to reach Ramanasramam and which is the best way for him. All that is required of you is to give up the thought that you are this body and to give up all thoughts of the external things or the not-Self.

Here we have Immortality and Survial - the thread topic
With mention of the soul and spirit ,the question of life after death, in energy or in chracter. Does it go on.?
Inbetween the to subtitles there is the underlaying subject of all global cultures and the similarity of their belif in a god they call there own, meaning Budda, or Nirvana , God , who I might add is a god .There are gods of the Egyptian Empire when the Pharrohs ruled in turn as well.
I want to retain the atteention to the topic as is it titlaed Immortality and Survival . Withe that in mind allot can tie the two togther into a bigger meaning of the words , the same for the whole idea that soul and spirit do seem to also.
But , my last 31 years of reading scripture { king james version} through out my life time I expanded my library into various form of so called religious books anchient sriptures , dead sea scrolls and even hebrew and greew dictionaries to find the truth for myself. Like everyone on the planet , I tend to believe that everyone is looking for a truth, a reason for being. In that resepect nobodys all together wrong or right in professing their truth , expecting another to arrive where realization meets up with the uderstanding in that persons self. It happens due to joyess awakenings, but people do learn and experience God and life in and on different levels and sometimes we meet people who are about the same level of undertanding and beliefs based on studying knowledge books in general, History books have validated most of the what the bible has told of certain events , then later it comes up, artifact or discovery , a tomb, or some sort of ancient civilazation , even a calander. The discoveries of mankind that have know a Christan God of the bible ,is where I am at in my research in all the different cultures and churches , types and examples , it is all very simliar in that we must have a sense in the fact we are basicly and inevidibly in strife and searching to validate the meaning of life, and what happens after we die ?

In the first paragraph , I mentioned how everyone believes in differnent gods , but the surface , if we all get there , some see it now the commonalities of all , the ones that speak of love as the most main motivater. I personaly will inform the board that so far Ive come to the understanding, thus far, that the god I beleive in is the god of the bible, bringing in back in my own studies to go far back in language so I can find my own interpretation , rather than someone else manipulation in there sometimes pushy way of becoming a joyess creature. Unless we have had that particular experience we cannot underatnd why people believe in God due to the unanswered questions, and reality in where we are living. But even though , no doubt those people should never tell you you have to believe it there way. Its an individual choice but some are so willing to sahre their discovieries , they just can retain composure , later on they realize its not the coorrect way to share the good news as many of us bible students refer to as the bible.
God is our god but why isnt that a obvious question here? Even to those whom dont want to believe look at the word Budda, or
The Virgin Mary is worshiped and prayed to as a saint but is con=sidered to be a god, Nature was the native indians , they had many gods . Pharohs worshipped Rah, the sun god . So god are gods except who God ,Whats the difference here ?
Does anything raise your eyebrow? Why does the word God in the bible appera in capitol first letter when reffering to Him . Other places are mentioned in the bible of gods or a god , but that doesnt perstain to God Himself. Ever wonder why this occurs?

My thought first to getting any substanial evidence in truth , is asking questions, always. Those in question or what ,... is , should be asked such as this,....

WHAT WHY HOW WHEN WHERE

Five words that if a questioning in someone or anylising something , this has been the five words I go back and tie them into the subject matter . If all five can be pieced into a senseable plausable consideration of thruth than the path is continued to go forward in that topic of study or research, belief. God in the bible is capitolized due to some past jewish translations using God instead of god based on the hebrew language within the orgin of it being a male form of language , such as all other languages. In the Old Testament the word Lord is also used and lord as well , What makes these different and unfortunately leads the reader to confusing identies between God Lord and Jesus,? Are they one , seperate ? Its too far complex to try and reason out here in a post of how I came to realize this truth , all I can say its in scripture and basically just a sincere searching out for God Himself.

The translaters of the time when the re recording and copying the scriptues again to retain the form for preservations, the religous sytem had the hebrew sacraments in written form and God is capitolized because every persone name usualy is . The textragrammonton is a sacred hebrew part of scritue that is written where God personal name is written over 7000 times through out the bible. The men at that time believed it to be blasphemy if generations after an those who didnt take into consideration pronoucing God name correctly or speaking in a abusivly manner would go against the very commandment, " Thou shall not take the Lord thy Gods name in vain. Lord was the substitued word also reprenting God as God and not just a god. or Lord instead of lord, Jesus himself was to be king of kings and lordzs of lords . Back then there was lords and servants , their master was the lord of the dwelling place they lived in, home a house or property.

the textragrammonton has Gods personal name there and in english is now looking like this,.. YHWH . Later in the greek language the new testament , today we know God as Yahaweh or Jehovah , which means " He that causes to become"

Lets get back to the topic now.
Now Jehovah , God , the Almighty , Creator, and Father of all creation is part of the other relgious based cultureal beleifs as fzar as having a name. Today there are allot of Christans , but they themselves fight umonst eachother , trying to proove they have the answer . Im not one of those.
In the king James, or any bible for that matter, Gensis starts off with the creation of the heavens and the earth and the beginning.
He also continues to form from out of the ground Adam and Eve in His image. God breathed through the nostrils of Adams and breathed His active force , life into man and then,MAN BECAME A LIVING SOUL. Animals were mentioned as having a soul as well as the spirit creatures in midheaven and in heaven. Every living creature is , in fact a soul due to the Gods active force .
What is that force, The Holy Spirit , Gods living energy that is called life itself , for with out it living beings wouldnt survive. I consider it also to be oxygen in a sense. First He said let there be light and there was ,.. { believ it or not Jesus was Gods first creation , because of him everything else was created. its a long drawn out post thus far so if you have any questions of where I found this to be true I ll continue, piont is together , Light and the Active force of Jehovah were able to create life on earth on the animal life and the waters , trees friuts of their kind , all after their kind.

He that causes to become , again continues to state in Genisus , " Let us make man in our image " Let the watr swim forth living souls , let the earth put forth living souls of their kindand then procceded to make the animals from the ground according to its kind.

This is where the spirit is different in scripture source , from the soul , read it for yourself. Even most christians dont know this
I ve arrived at a level through experiencing every kind of comfort christian within myself , whats convienant for me, that is or was,
But there still might be some out there that can determine this without intense yezars of study. In fact I call my self a member of the christan congregation or with the help of that congrgation, I beleive Jesus was the first born and God allowed him to die for our sins in a ransom to deat the devil and his injustice, Jesus willingly wanted to sacrafice himself as a living soul in the image of God but with the tempation of devil remained faithful, perfect and died in the flesh for all of mankinds salvation, therefore Im a christian but most christians I know dont agree with me, HUH? cALL THAT WEIRD OR WHAT.

God blessed the first coupke Adam and Eve and when God was first making Adam from the dust of the ground , he blew in his nostrils " the breath of life"

SOUL - a living creature that is also flesh and eventualy die in the flesh form .
SPIRIT- the breath of life , the active force of God . it goes back to God , and man goes back to the ground after death , knowing nothing, like alseep, no concept of time . the wages of sin is death , the dead know knowthing.Now what happens after that is I feel God only knows,.... and I would think for a good reason if still the world today is prooving ,
something derived from a negative force is about to become destuctive into a cataspophie. earth and the poulations of people, places , things , laws, religion, hate crime, disease, deficits of debt, extremely rich and still the thrid world countries are hungry, a deceptive force is populated on the planet working his little tricks messing up our hair. Its in the good book from my reading and I will let you know I have merits of recoginitions from educational branches of time spent in study . two certificates Ive earned to let you know . why?

Its not that Im saying IM THE RIGHT ONE HERE, YOU BETTER LISTEN TO ME OR YOULL BE DAMNED, IM RIGHT YOUR WRONG, ON THE CONTRARY ,..I KNOW A HELLA OF ALLOT BUT IM STILL A STUDENT OF THE AWESOME TRUTHS IVE FOUND IN READING AND SEARCHING OUT TO WHAT MYSELF KNOW TO BE A TRUTH , ITS ALL I HAVE BUT ITS WORTH THE TIME SPENDING IN DEP THOUGHT. I WILL STILL NOT SAY I HAVE THE ANSWERS BUT I CAN AT LEAST SAY, THERE IS MORE TO THE GOOD BOOK THEN PEOPLE GIVE CREDIT TO. ITS A WONDERFUL RESOUCE AND I CAN HIGHLY RECCOMMEND IT.


brave new world , are you happy now love,? whoooweee that was a long post,.. have a goody,
Im going to go make some coffee now.

Abecrombie

Whoa big post. I'll need time to read it.

In conclusion to the topics of the Imortality and Survival,....brave new world, I like what your saying, you explore your revenues avaible to you with alll seriousness and I can say we have a similar thought , and if not that , an understanding of excepting eachothers insights as fellow human beings, and the smart enough as well to know the difference of , repecting knowledge and embracing truth for our here after and here on , the planet to be the most beneficical a person can tolerate , due to the course of error we seem to have adopted , We hang on. Thats my veiw on you "cooligoo".lol

Your friend
Abecrombie
and if you dont like it then thats just,,... teehehhehlolol im kicking it in first gear now. lol


ADDIING IN THIS THOUGHT, *Alister Crowly was the one whi started praying to satan by objecting the Lords prayer and reversing it , in english it is pertaining to self I and whatever I wants for selfd I wills it . the "Be thou art thy will " Instead of going with the bibles verse where Jesus through the example of how to pray to God ,said ," Our Father , who art in heaven HALLOWED BY THY NAME, THY KINGDOM COME , ...continuing on then continues with,... , Thou will be done This is in the new testament in the sermon on the mount. thou will be done on earth as it is in heaven, in english we should do on earth what is done in heaven and what heaven is administerd by Yah or Jah - Yahoweh ,{Jehovah} the only true God.
*Alister Crowley for those whom dont know was a world known occult leader who worshipped satan and beleived that he could be undere the influence of opiuts and intoxicate the female he planned on seducing into intercourse that her soul would be a exhilleration in pleasure while he obbsessed in taking the life , consciensousness while during the act of intercourse with their knowledge , he was found broke in a hotel overdosed on herion . 1947 december 1st he knew Hitler by the way , Have you ever noticed that most forms of spiritism, dont argue thir points to eachother but they mostly argue as a group of indiffereces against God,.hmmmmm, { the bible } its overall message , that is.

I admire and respect Christianity being one myself. I find fault with parts of it and reject it but the essence I have faith in. Your post well what I have read of it so far was very informative.

As soon as anything is expressed in concepts, the "knowing" becomes "believing". You would be correct in that it is difficult to explain it to someone who is not versed in Oriental thought. This is because Occidental philosophy (and for the most part religion) is based in the concept of separation. When we explain anything we have to define things as separate concepts so that our minds can grasp the point of a particular message.

Much as you said you cannot prove that you are individual, I cannot prove to you that what has been said by brave, hyper, and myself to be true. The only way to realize this is to look for yourself. I can point you down the road but I cannot take the steps for you.

I'd say one of the causes of confusion is that those of us who are schooled in Buddhist/Taoist/Hindu/"mystical" thought are thrusting those that aren't directly into understandings that take some training of the mind (in that particular framework) to comprehend. Truly it isn't right to expect a person to understand a different state of mind, a different framework of reality when they are perfectly comfortable with their own. So in order to explain to you why I think the way I do, I suppose I would have to educate you on Zen from the foundation, rather than beginning with the bathroom window. If you are interested in going that far. If you are let me know and I will start the thread.



This particular idea is also known as Indra's Net if anyone wants to dig a little deeper into the concept.



*snicker* What you say is true, from a certain point of view.



But even this does not accurately explain Buddha Nature. Even if Gautama supposedly said it himself.



To reply to the emboldened: This is because you still cling to the idea that enlightenment is something to be attained, or more accurately that it is something in the first place. I owe you a whack with my cane at some point (as soon as I find it and get to Oz).



Careful mate, you may convert and not even realize it. Or it could be that your Buddha was a carpenter and mine was a prince.



Interesting that you used the word "attach". See below...



True That mentioned this in another thread. Aversions and preconceptions based on experience, nothing more. This is one reason why the message must be tailored to the audience. You say "God" or "consciousness", I say "Buddha Nature" or "Original Mind" when you get past the attachment to aversions and preconceptions, then it's easy to see we are speaking of the same thing (or no-thing actually)



A very good question that contains it's own answer.


One of the mods would have nipped this in the bud by now were it true.


form, feeling, perception, mental formation, and consciousness.

Also in the King James , or in this one on my lap the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures is reads in
LEVITICUS 17:11
For the soul of the flesh is in the blood,*and I myself have put it upon the alter for you to make atonement for your souls , because it is the blood that makes atonement by the soul in it.
_______________________________________________________________________________________-
The whole book of Leviticus as know is based on the 650 mosaic laws given to Isreal and moses . blood laws are very easily explained there allot more in depth of , get this,

when a woman has her period, a soul has died and passes through the body, think about that , if the egg isnt fertilized at that time , if no conception in taking place , she bleeds meaning not pregnant.
bleeding a animal after killing it for food , is important, Jesus blood is a symbolic form of remebering him on earth , his words at the last supper. he shed his blood. when dying in a fleshy body . the blood of the lamb, etc. I think you catch my drift. also vampires drink the blood of the living so they ca become immortal. theres your word immortal , what a trip . I learned a bit myself here brave new world. ha

take care
Abecrombie

I see that, like me, several people here commented on this paragraph. It always seems so silly when the afterlife, which must be part of the natural structure of the universe, is simplified into a form of reward or punishment.


I think this is true and it verbalizes a problem that I struggle with when considering life-after-death. I thoroughly believe that life continues after death. My neopagan take on things is that the spiritual world and the physical world are one. Looking at the physical world, we can see that things don't cease to exist. They lose their definition (decompose, break up) and then emerge as something else. What's true in the physical world must also be true in the spiritual world-- the life force within us doesn't disappear either. It becomes part of something greater and then re-emerges in a different form.

As a normal person, I very much want my personality to be part of what survives after death. I guess that I'd be at peace with the question of afterlife if I could shed enough of my ego to not care whether my personality survives or not.

But I can't get beyond the ego thing yet, so I contemplate the physical world and wonder which part of my spiritual being is equivalent to which part of physical reality.
Is my personality *A* like a leaf that withers, falls off the tree, becomes soil, and is later imbibed by the tree as food to be distributed among other leaves? Or is my personality *B* more like an elemental molecule that passes from state to state and doesn't break down.

Obviously, my ego motivates me to hope for B. Another part of me tells me it's probably A.

I myself am scared of losing the "ego", "personality" , "Character" or "individuality". But when it comes down to it, that is the last barrier between us and enlightenment or union with the Godhead. As long as there is individualism of any kind for the universe to remain relative to in which that reality is refracted by our being and shaded by our individuality, there can be no union with the universe because individualism creates the illusion of "I am separate" when the universe is an integrated whole . The computer in front of us is just as much apart of our body as our arm or nose. Our individuality stops us from seeing everything as ourself.

I think William Blake sums it up the best when he wrote: "If the doors of perception are cleansed everything would appear to man as it is, infinite."

The physical body is just a thought in your brain and your brain is also just a thought within your consciousness. Consciousness the mystics say is our true nature. onsciousness is infinite and contains everything of creation within it. Once we identify with awareness itself and not with the mind "I-consciousness" or "body" that is self-realization or enlightenment. And the ironic thing is, is that once we do we simply become aware of what we have always been in the first place, nothing new is gained. Paradoxical I know.

Thank you kindly for posting

Also when we enter deep sleep without any dreams there is no sense of ego or personality. Yet we look forward to sleep and we know we were present in sleep because we say "I had a good sleep". Deep sleep is bliss yet it is without a sense of "I".

I hope this isn't throwing this off topic, but this is in reference to this paragraph in the original post:

"These two conceptions are not mutually exclusive, and survival may be the joint product of a persistent consciousness and a modification of the psychic medium. If this is so, it is possible for a given human being to survive in more than one posthumous form. His "soul"--may go marching on in one mode of being, while the traces left by his thoughts and volitions in the psychic medium may become the origin of new individualized existences, having quite other modes of being."

I asked what the modes of being could be, and brave new world responded that it could imply multiple dimensions based on the nature of the universe.
I have to admit that when I first read it, I thought of quantum physics and string theory. I've had a recent fascination with this and through conversations with people had pondered whether different versions of ourselves can exist in multiple dimensions. We had also wondered if when one of these other selves dies, what happens to their soul or their portion of the soul. I realize that some of you will think this is hogwash, and I'm not saying that I even believe it, I just like to speculate. My husband thinks that there is a possiblity that when another version of yourself physically dies, their energy gets transferred to the other selves. He also speculated that when there exist very few versions of these selves, there is a greater amount of this energy focused in fewer places.

Again I apologize if this is too OT, and I do know that it doesn't fit into some of the beliefs presented here.

No dont apologize. Many of the Hindu saint believe that the "I-consciousness" at death creates another body whether it be a physical one or a mental/astral one etc and keeps on going until self-realization or enlightenment of one's true nature which isn't the "I-consciousness" but simplly the consciousness itself which is the true "I".

Ultimately all the separate selves are actually reflections of your mind which h