Is there a life after death ?
Related Topics
"Am?©d?©e" ame...@amedee.org
No, because death does not exist. It is just an illusion.
We think we must die one day because we believe we were born.
In reality, we have always been, at least our consciousness.
We are nothing else than that, all the rest is pure illusion.
Our bodies, our egos, are only waves that continually go back and forth, creating a permanent swell on the ocean of our consciousness.
We are free to identify ourselves with the waves if we wish to do so, and for the time we want to do so.
But we should not forget that they were born and they die, and thus they are source of sufferings.
They are certainly beautiful and look invincible when they reach their peak.
But as soon as they meet the rocks and cliffs of the tests of life, They end up in vanishing again in the ocean of Universal Consciousness.
Of course it is easier to identify oneself with the waves that, such as our thoughts, appear in an unceasing ebbing and flowing, than it is with the infinite and peaceful ocean of our consciousness.
However, it means to forget that the waves lead to nowhere but to the ocean they emerge from.
But to perceive our deep reality, we have to close our eyes and silence our mind, for they can not embrace nor conceive the infinite and eternity.
Only the heart can see, hear and feel the immeasurable dimension of our consciousness.
While entering the depths of Universal Consciousness, we discover that we are nothing but That and we realize death was only the last illusion.
Amedee ================================ Healing by Consciousness - Interactive website about Conscience Awakening.
http://www.amedee.org ================================
"RoyBoy" aphy...@usa.net
*** No, because death does not exist. It is just an illusion.
We think we must die one day because we believe we were born.
In reality, we have always been, at least our consciousness.
*** I like the idea. But how can we always have been?
I believe that for consciousness to form, it needs a physical manifestation. This by no means is limited to a brain or the human body, I feel comfortable with the thought of our consciousness in robots, then finally on its own as pure energy. (got the last one from 3001) But still need to be manifested.
And I do not think there is such thing as consciousness without memories and/or sensory inputs.
If I know nothing before birth, then I will probably know nothing after death. I know this is not proof that consciousness does not exist forevermore...but consciouness could be something that is formed...and it is no something that just is. Maybe. :')
--
"If the Truth is dynamic; how will it ever be found?" - RoyBoy go.to/bladerunner
"Ross Murker" rwmur...@home.com
Is there a life? If so, how do we prove it? If not, then what is the nature of what has created this illusion, and what the nature of that/those who are fooled?
--
www.vivarebates.com/Index.cfm?ReferralID=rwmurker ...
LondonR ...@webtv.net (Im Sad Mommy)
Please check out the work of Dr. Ian Stevenson and his research with children who remember past lives. Most if not all the children begin speaking spontaneously about the previous life by age 4 and begin to lose recognition with the previous life around ages 8-10. Why do these children not take the knowledge of the previous life with them into adulthood? Would not this be advantageous from a Darwinian perspective?
It may be that we are not supposed to remember our previous physical incarnations. I cannot remember my existence before my birth but from reading the work of Dr. Stevenson, I can conclude that a high probablity exists that I did have a pre-conception existence.
"RoyBoy" aphy...@usa.net
*** Please check out the work of Dr. Ian Stevenson and his research with children who remember past lives. Most if not all the children begin speaking spontaneously about the previous life by age 4 and begin to lose recognition with the previous life around ages 8-10. Why do these children not take the knowledge of the previous life with them into adulthood? Would not this be advantageous from a Darwinian perspective?
It may be that we are not supposed to remember our previous physical incarnations. I cannot remember my existence before my birth but from reading the work of Dr. Stevenson, I can conclude that a high probablity exists that I did have a pre-conception existence.
*** It may also be a way to deal with stress and solve problems that the children are facing for the first time, and those hallucinations are a coping mechanism, that is no longer needed in adulthood.
The amount of stress and the type of hallucinations varies from person to person, so this can continue into adulthood.
Today we call them Schizos and 'crazies', in the past they were oracles and deities.
In the past this behavior was encouraged (for an individual with this talent could make substantial wealth and bring pride to a family), today it is mostly suppressed because of fear, and misunderstanding. But not all the time.
Of course I do not HAVE the answer for what consciousness is, and what it derives from (energy, life, electricity, space, spirits, another dimension, a previous life). However, there is no reason that anyone would have a previous life, unless it is part of our genetic memory. Which is possible, but detailed memories are far less likely, than a sub-conscious attempt to make sense of things when the conscious mind is not mature enough to do so.
Having genetic memory would certainly be advantageous, in the evolution of things, and we do have it...but it doesn't record lives...it records behaviors...and other exciting and vitally important stuff, like face and speech recognition, and the voice of the Gods...
--
"If the Truth is dynamic; how will it ever be found?" - RoyBoy go.to/bladerunner
artn ...@minsprong.com (Art Kopp)
Apparently you've never studied Stevenson's work. The children were by no means hallucinating anything whatsoever as proven by the pile of evidence and verifications collected.
You can question what it means since the reincarnation hypothesis is just the most believable and plausable one. But to say the children were hallucinating is nonsense.
Art <http://home.mindspring.com/~artnpeg>
"RoyBoy" aphy...@usa.net
*** Apparently you've never studied Stevenson's work. The children were by no means hallucinating anything whatsoever as proven by the pile of evidence and verifications collected.
*** True, I have not. Although I know that looking at a piece of a puzzle does not reveal the whole picture, give me one example of this verified evidence.
Does this have something to do with a detail, that upon further research appears to be correct. How many detail(s) is it?
How specific are these detail(s)? How were they obtained?
Hold that thought, I will research. Ah, found a website.
http://www.childpastlives.org/stevenson.htm "In each case of children's past life memory, Dr. Stevenson methodically documents the child's statements. Then he identifies the deceased person the child remembers being, and verifies the facts of the deceased person's life that match the child's memory.
He even matches birthmarks and birth defects to wounds and scars on the deceased, verified by medical records. His strict methods systematically rule out all possible "normal" explanations for the child's memories." The problem I see is. 'Then HE identifies the deceased person the child remembers being' This makes it sound like he does the research...then finds the best match. If I am wrong, tell me, but why can't the children identify their previous persona?
*** You can question what it means since the reincarnation hypothesis is just the most believable and plausible one.
*** Not by a long shot. But I am pondering your claim of verified evidence. I do admit, I feel unswayed by the claim.
But its succinct conviction does give me pause.
*** But to say the children were hallucinating is nonsense.
*** Why? It is known children have overactive imaginations.
We, and especially children hallucinate.
It is part of life. 'Previous lives', could just be a part of this.
The reason I do not put faith in 'reincarnation', is because we want to believe it. This really tips the scales of logical thought, and makes a mockery of science.
artn ...@minsprong.com (Art Kopp)
Again, do your own research.
Go to a library. That where it all starts. They are very strongly identified with a "previous persona". They begin speaking of their "other mommy and daddy". Since the alleged past life was recent in these cases, the child's claims can be verified. Hallucination is ruled out, as I said.
Quite to the contrary. I favor extinction myself. But I'm open to the possibility that death is just a transition. If you're really interested in good science and not making mockeries of it then do your homework.
Art <http://home.mindspring.com/~artnpeg>
"RoyBoy" aphy...@usa.net
*** That where it all starts. They are very strongly identified with a "previous persona". They begin speaking of their "other mommy and daddy". Since the alleged past life was recent in these cases, the child's claims can be verified.
*** Easily verified, and falsified.
RoyBoy: *** Quite to the contrary. I favor extinction myself. But I'm open to the possibility that death is just a transition.
*** I favor extinction myself, or a variation, but I would rather believe as many do, that reincarnation is real.
*** If you're really interested in good science and not making mockeries of it then do your homework.
*** Going to the library and reading accounts of children reciting stories of previous lives that match up to reality isn't homework.
I am just as likely to find an unbiased account on the Internet than in a library, which is of course pretty close to nil.
There are alternatives to 'reincarnation' to explain stories of children reciting previous lives, no matter how much homework I do, some of those will still remain.
When it is all said and done, I probably will read a book by Dr. Ian Stevenson and see how he goes about eliminating errors and quantifying his results.
Despite all this, many people say they have been abducted by Aliens...I do my homework and it seems not to be the case, nor even a possibility. Causes in most cases, sleeping disorders, daydreams, dreams. I use to believe in that...now I look before I leap. Which is of course what you are suggesting...but what I see can differ from what others see.
I see he does not use hypnosis, that is certainly encouraging me to further my research. But in the end, if he does his interviews without leading children to answers he (or the parents) want, and that is a big IF...
the context of the evidence is still subjective, and is not science.
That is how many of these things end up.
Interesting questions, with many possible answers.
artn ...@minsprong.com (Art Kopp)
I disagree. There is much good science in these areas. Stevenson, for example, doesn't claim to prove reincarnation (or any other hypothesis). But the evidence he has am***ed is overwhelming, and something or other is definitely going on. Exactly what is anyone's guess.
Art <http://home.mindspring.com/~artnpeg>
artn ...@minsprong.com (Art Kopp)
Incidentally, on "wishful thinking", the scientific evidence suggestive of reincarnation would not have appeal to the wishful thinkers. The circumstances of a "next life" is often far worse than the previous one. No doubt that's the actual reason many people reject the evidence. As wishful thinkers, they prefer to cling to either the Christian heaven or extinction.
Art <http://home.mindspring.com/~artnpeg>
"RoyBoy" aphy...@usa.net
RoyBoy: Art: *** Incidentally, on "wishful thinking", the scientific evidence suggestive of reincarnation would not have appeal to the wishful thinkers. The circumstances of a "next life" is often far worse than the previous one. No doubt that's the actual reason many people reject the evidence. As wishful thinkers, they prefer to cling to either the Christian heaven or extinction.
*** Worse?
Well then I guess it is my bias coming in here. When reincarnation is thrown about, the first thing I think of is Nirvana, and/or merely a continuation of life (for better or for worse) as life is.
I never really considered reincarnation to be something that is bad. I mean it COULD be...but I mean with Heaven you get Hell. So that is balanced out...does reincarnation have a similar balance? I just thought it was pretty much life and let live, roll of the dice, keep on trucking type thing.
"RoyBoy" aphy...@usa.net
RoyBoy: Art: I agree with that, I think. Lemme look up science.
Hmmm...ya I guess it does fall under the first definition, as long as he is a good scientist (which he is, see below).
But also it is a behavioral science...so that checks out too.
Main Entry: sci.ence Date: 14th century 1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding 2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge 3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE 4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws 5 capitalized : CHRISTIAN SCIENCE Main Entry: behavioral science Function: noun Date: 1951 : a science (as psychology, sociology, or anthropology) that deals with human action and seeks to generalize about human behavior in society
- behavioral scientist noun Art: I will agree.
Well then he is a good scientist.
Or in other words: We are in complete agreement with this post as far as I can tell. But a little confusion at the top.
Sufi George sufigeo...@MailAndNews.com
Maybe the question shouldn't be "Is there life after death," but "Is there life?" I think that if we understand that life is non-material, that life is really awareness, then we can forget about the death part.
Awareness is a permanent thing, and it doesn't need experience to validate it.
Awareness can be aware of itself, of its own ability to be aware, and nothing else at all.
Experience is no measure of life. Experience is what happens, not what is.
Experience comes to us from outside of ourselves, and flows through us. It doesn't define who we are.
As for reincarnation, we know that living matter dies. Life doesn't.
Experience is saved in memory, but awareness only knows about now, not the past (or the future). Time is part of the material illusion, and doesn't exist in the non-material universe. "Past" lives happen now.
I've worked on these questions for decades, and hope you'll take a look at "Sufi George's Dynamic Model of Consciousness," which presents my results in text and as a Shockwave movie that illustrates the interactions of the components of consciousness and how they make it possible to be aware of experience. www.sufigeorge.com
------------------------------------------------------------
The Sufi George Phenomenon! a new paradigm website for understanding consciousness and achieving enlightenment. www.sufigeorge.com
artn ...@minsprong.com (Art Kopp)
You have been reading the wrong stuff I see.
I suppose it just _is_. (If it is.) It may balance in ways you never dreamed of. I think it probably does.
I suspect that the result is truly magnificent.
Art <http://home.mindspring.com/~artnpeg>
artn ...@minsprong.com (Art Kopp)
Reincarnation is making a comeback.
Art <http://home.mindspring.com/~artnpeg>
"RoyBoy" aphy...@usa.net
*** Maybe the question shouldn't be "Is there life after death," but "Is there life?" I think that if we understand that life is non-material, that life is really awareness, then we can forget about the death part.
*** I disagree. Life merely is something that propogates itself.
I cannot see bacteria being aware...they propogate.
You may see this as a bias that I see awareness as meaning 'self-awareness', I know the distinction. What I am pointing out is that we can somehow define what it is to be aware when all we 'know' is self-awareness.
*** Awareness is a permanent thing, and it doesn't need experience to validate it. Awareness can be aware of itself, of its own ability to be aware, and nothing else at all.
*** Well once you get it, it tends to be permanent. However, how one attains awareness 'of itself' is through experience. There is no other way around it. You can give me a whole bunch of stuff...
but I mean...you are biased...because you are self-aware.
I find it difficult to hear from someone who is self-aware attempt to say that one does not need experience to be so...
when that is exactly what you needed to be self-aware.
I try to think in sci-fi terms, a super computer is turned on and it discovers itself...that maybe in some way it could become self-aware by simply being alive...but I do not see that...it needs input...you need to be able to constrast yourself to others and say...that is them...this is me.
That is how I currently view things.
---
"Smiles free. Do you want fries with that?"
"RoyBoy" aphy...@usa.net
Art: Imagination is always making a comeback.
Well, I certainly have to read something now...
I distaste the hypocrisy of me criticizing something I have not researched...since I find it quite distasteful in others.
However, I do not have pre-conception memories...
I sometimes have strange vivid dreams...but thats another story.
---
"Anything that thinks logically can be fooled by something else which thinks at least as logically as it does."
- So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish
artn ...@minsprong.com (Art Kopp)
Neither do most people unless in trance. The kids that did soon forget them. You have to consider that if past life recall did involve normal memory you would have a great deal of difficulty focussing on the current life. Some past life therapists do claim to have helped people get over phobias allegedly related to past life traumas ... so if that is the case there can be a mental health benefit to a limited amount of clear recall. One of the ideas that struck me years ago after I had done my research on this sort of thing was the powerful religious or spiritual value of facing up to this probable truth. No longer would one feel separated from his fellow man. He or she would feel identified with both sexes and all conditions of mankind .... feeling quite strongly, "There go I" without any of the ego bullshit of the "for the grace of God" clause. I certainly was inspired and felt this very strongly at one time .... and the feeling of oneness never really left me. So do not ask for whom the bell tolls ....
Art <http://home.mindspring.com/~artnpeg>
"Alex Green" dralexgr...@yahoo.co.uk
etc...
Dear Amedee, What you say may be true but can you give us some evidence?
dsaint ...@earthling.net (Dominik)
On Fri, 2 Mar 2001 15:17:18 -0000, "Alex Green" What are you expecting ? miracles ?
What if you only trusted your inner intuition?
;-Dominique
Philip Harding pla...@fka.att.ne.jp
Infinity cannot of course be explained in objective terms, like a bowl cannot be explained in terms of the contents within it. You're right though-
the scientific method is a powerful tool. But strictly in a transitory reality. What can science ever say about the nature of itself? Not much, nothing meaningful anyway. In the future, new evidence of psycho-phenomena will certainly be uncovered, but it won't bring us any closer to the core of experience, which is simply known.
I think we can all agree on at least objective explanations for the nature of all things. Why we experience anger for example, or why flowers bloom.
But to explain the subjective, what it is actually like to feel and experience anger, is not science's role. The best we can come up with is analogy. But science does not (or shouldn't!) deny the subjective. And the vast majority of us accept the subjective nature of our experiences and feelings without question. We know them to be profoundly complex and haven't a shred of doubt that these experiences are real despite having no evidence to prove them. The external evidence tells us nothing about the internal out-flowing of course, aside from the fact that it's happening.
Another interesting question might be on why we doubt our own eternal existence.
Philip
artn ...@mindsprong.com (Art Kopp)
On Thu, 08 Mar 2001 12:26:48 +0900, Philip Harding Why shouldn't we doubt it? Why would anyone not doubt it when there is no direct evidence of it? What do you mean by "our"? What is the "I" that is allegedly eternal? How do you distingush between this "I" and the "me" that dies and rots in the ground? Didn't the "me" have the life experience? Did only the "I" have the experience? What is the nature of this (immaterial) experience? What is consciousness?
Art <http://home.mindspring.com/~artnpeg>
Philip Harding pla...@fka.att.ne.jp
Because of the sadness at the thought of one's utter annihilation? My question is though, why do we doubt it?
What sort of evidence? You'll find no evidence at all for the eternal. Do you believe the universe has a beginning and an end? (The answer must be "no".) It's the same sort of riddle.
Anyone reading this correspodence I suppose.
Intuivitely known as eternal. It's the sense within that cannot fathom an ultimate beginning or an end.
Well, the "me" is obviously the body, more specifically the brain, and psychologically, the ego. But there is no empirical evidence at all for the subjective experience of the "me" in physiological terms. Even if there were, would it alter the experience of being "me" in any significant way?
The "I" is that which transcends the me. It is that which can manifest itself within untold billions of "me's". It is the intermediate between the "me" and the eternal.
Most certainly. And no one else!
No, but the "I" shares fully in it.
It's anything but immaterial, don't you think? (Or do you mean not having substance?) The nature of it is known as it is experienced.
In daily life, the eternal taking on the viewpoint of the individual.
PH
"Alex Green" dralexgr...@yahoo.co.uk
I dont believe that everyone should have to start from scratch. It would be wonderful if children could start the journey of discovery with a few crumbs of knowledge that could not be destroyed by the first physics teacher they meet!
...
| To Top |