afterlife

[FancyPants]

<br>Logic as a form of linear statements, such as if then is rooted in linear time scales, thus if there is no past or future then logic cannot be true in any real sense....<br><br>I am not advocating re-incarnation but it cannot be refuted by the lack of linear time, <b>many texts which advocate re-incarnation also advocate non-linear time and state that there is no past or future but instead speak of dimensional aspects of singularities</b>. <br><br>Perhaps as a simple concept re-incarnation is itself problematic, this phrase can mean several things and is not always employed in a consistent manner. Some speak of the re-incarnation of self as a transference of atman or spirit, others speak of it as consequence of thought itself that the concept of I as self begets a concept of serial incarnations of perceived self, in this manner the latter implies that self lacks continuity in a linear sense, something rather apt for a consideration of time as a constant singularity with multidimensional aspects. <br><br>Moreover though, re-incarnation presupposes in most every sense that an aspect of awe exists inherently in the universe which begets self perception though manifestation of forms and essences including all aspects of energy, dimensionality, physicality etc, as well as in terms of consciousness. To observe a manifestation of undifferentiated potential as differentiation of form shows multiple incarnate aspects of the inherent source, which in and of itself is by definition without characteristics. This multiplicity of incarnation of the source can be thought of as re-occurring because of it being plural, thus in this sense re-incarnation is itself the serial manifestation of energy as mass and matter itself, as well as time space.<br><br>All is self, so to speak, is a form of the doctrine of re-incarnation, this does not mean that self imposes dimensionality or is deterministic, rather this means that all is itself entity and our aspect of entity is not something biological in origination but is inherent to all matter and phenomena. <br>There is nothing in scientific theory that contradicts the doctrine of incarnation of energy as form and property, incarnation is itself required for re-incarnation and re-incarnation does not distinguish itself from incarnation in any profound sense. A refutation of incarnation itself is fundamental to a refutation of re-incarnation. <br><br>This does not mean that continuity exists regarding sense based consciousness, rather the opposite is frequently taught, that sense based self is an illusion and that real self is unmoving and beyond the perception of the mind, being itself mind. In an analogy an eye does not see itself to see, nor does the mind perceive itself to perceive.  Memory is not self and thus the transference of self does not entail the transference of memory or persona, the doctrine of re-incarnation thus does not entail a transference of memories or personality any more than a molecule of water recalls the shape of a snowflake it was part of before it melted in the sun.<br><br>I believe in an afterlife in a sense, but not in heaven and hell or religious aspects of afterlife that are commonplace.<br>

<br><br>I wonder if physical Perspective is limited to dimension. As in being physical, one is limited to seeing things in a "3D" world. We are not IN a dimension; the dimension is only how we perceive from the inside/dimension is projected. Our point of physicality is the edge of a glass prism, with white light being bent to project the colour spectrum/chakras. So we're like magnifying glasses for God/higher consciousness... Sorry for the thoughts-vomit...

<div><br></div><div>Edit: still trailing in thought... if we see dark matter as virtually also a magnifying glass (gravitational lensing etc), then maybe dark matter is another form of being/consciousness, and we're seeing IT'S dimension/perspective, but it clearly doesn't resemble ours, or at least from our perspective it doesn't. Time is the effect created when white light has to bend through one of these consciousness prisms. Why it's impossible to travel faster than the speed of light, the second we leave our prism we burst. To see outside the prism we must learn to reinterpret wavelengths/vibration into what it must look like outside. Would the point of light entering our prism be the crown chakra? Our aural layers densifying (and lowering vibration) in a spiral vortex within the crystal prism of our being. Different shaped prisms reflect light differently ergo different personalities. </div><div><br></div><div>Hmm anyway enough rambling...</div>

Edited August 20, 2011 by FancyPants

[Sir Jeans]

Logic as a form of linear statements, such as if then is rooted in linear time scales, thus if there is no past or future then logic cannot be true in any real sense....

I am not advocating re-incarnation but it cannot be refuted by the lack of linear time, many texts which advocate re-incarnation also advocate non-linear time and state that there is no past or future but instead speak of dimensional aspects of singularities.

Perhaps as a simple concept re-incarnation is itself problematic, this phrase can mean several things and is not always employed in a consistent manner. Some speak of the re-incarnation of self as a transference of atman or spirit, others speak of it as consequence of thought itself that the concept of I as self begets a concept of serial incarnations of perceived self, in this manner the latter implies that self lacks continuity in a linear sense, something rather apt for a consideration of time as a constant singularity with multidimensional aspects.

Moreover though, re-incarnation presupposes in most every sense that an aspect of awe exists inherently in the universe which begets self perception though manifestation of forms and essences including all aspects of energy, dimensionality, physicality etc, as well as in terms of consciousness. To observe a manifestation of undifferentiated potential as differentiation of form shows multiple incarnate aspects of the inherent source, which in and of itself is by definition without characteristics. This multiplicity of incarnation of the source can be thought of as re-occurring because of it being plural, thus in this sense re-incarnation is itself the serial manifestation of energy as mass and matter itself, as well as time space.

All is self, so to speak, is a form of the doctrine of re-incarnation, this does not mean that self imposes dimensionality or is deterministic, rather this means that all is itself entity and our aspect of entity is not something biological in origination but is inherent to all matter and phenomena.

There is nothing in scientific theory that contradicts the doctrine of incarnation of energy as form and property, incarnation is itself required for re-incarnation and re-incarnation does not distinguish itself from incarnation in any profound sense. A refutation of incarnation itself is fundamental to a refutation of re-incarnation.

This does not mean that continuity exists regarding sense based consciousness, rather the opposite is frequently taught, that sense based self is an illusion and that real self is unmoving and beyond the perception of the mind, being itself mind. In an analogy an eye does not see itself to see, nor does the mind perceive itself to perceive. Memory is not self and thus the transference of self does not entail the transference of memory or persona, the doctrine of re-incarnation thus does not entail a transference of memories or personality any more than a molecule of water recalls the shape of a snowflake it was part of before it melted in the sun.

I believe in an afterlife in a sense, but not in heaven and hell or religious aspects of afterlife that are commonplace.

 

Beautifully put! If I understand correctly (and please forgive me if I don't!), it seems you accept a notion of reincarnation that is consistent with mainstream science. You seem to view reincarnation as a real phenomenon whereby "we" will all live future lives (to put it roughly), in the sense that we are all part of one churning universe of matter and energy, which is constantly producing new lifeforms.

I'd be interested to know if you (or anyone else) thinks that it follows from such a view that we can personally identify with other life forms within the universe as if they were ourselves (because in a sense, they are). It may not be clear what I mean by that. Put it this way: when non-living matter comes together under appropriate conditions, life and (sometimes) consciousness emerges. Life and consciousness is thus emergent from non-life and non-consciousness. All matter and energy is in a constant state of interaction.*** Thus once we die, the non-living matter and energy from which we were once composed will merge with all the rest of the non-living matter and energy, from which future life forms and consciousnesses will emerge. Speaking about future lives makes it conceptually more digestible, but it applies to all lives living today as well. So again, does this mean we can personally identify with other lives, including future ones? Can we look forward to having future experiences (although of course no vestige or memory of any "previous lives" would remain)?

If so, and this is something I've pondered for a while now, how do we deal with the problem of suffering? If we identify personally with all life in this way, then we must accept the immense suffering that most life forms experience. New lives will emerge that will experience all manner of horrors and pains (think of the insect world, for example). If we identify with other lives in the way I have tried to describe above, it seems we have innumerable, unbearably horrible experiences ahead of "us" (the same if true for wonderfully blissful experiences, as well as all other "types" - but I doubt many would be concerned about those!). It also means that there is nothing we can do about it - no amount of avoidance or practice in this lifetime will help, and there's no way to get outside of the system that produces these other lives (i.e. the universe).

Does this make any sense to anyone or does it sound as crazy to you as its starting to sound to me? If it does make sense, how do we deal with this problem? Do we really just have to accept the unacceptable? Or is it not as unacceptable as it seems? I am starting to think that we probably can't identify with other lives in this way, but I'd love to know what others think!

*** I don't know or even believe that this is the way things are. I'm just interested in what the implications would be if this is how things are.

[White Wolf]

At times during meditations, i have felt like i have connected with something greater than this physical plane of existence, a feeling that everything is connected, and all sorts of visions. I don't know if this means there is an afterlife, i get a feeling there is, but theres no way for me to tell for sure, until i actually die, until then, i will only have a inkling of the possibility.