16 Mar 09
Originally posted by ScriabinI cant quite make out whether you are saying it is ridiculous to even consider the possibility of consciousness after death, or whether you think it is an unknown.
you can claim what you like, but since your question is rather silly, not much point in spending time on the argument.
the point has already been made that we do not know what happens after we die.
as to what happens when we die -- that one is easy, just look it up, there are entire books written on what happens when we die.
all those that concern ...[text shortened]... of all or a part of a person after they die are in the realm of speculation or outright fiction.
Whatever the case I think your tactic of avoiding the argument is a waste of every bodies time. If you don't want to discuss it then why not keep quiet?
16 Mar 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadAn ancient product of meditation is that, every day of our life as we grasp it whilst we are alive, it contains in full the experience of death as you understand it. You sleep, and from this condition you return gradually into a situation of another level of existence -into your everyday life. The very moment that you get into the condition of sleeping, you get the experience of the "clear light" (the experience of the time of death).
The initial question is whether or not we need to interview someone who has already died in order for us to know anything about what happens to consciousness after death.
I believe that consciousness involves memory. I believe that we can conclusively say that when a human being dies his memory is either lost, damaged and certainly becomes inaccessible t ...[text shortened]... this is sufficient reason to claim that consciousness does not and cannot continue after death.
This extact experience is identical with the one you become "aware of" whilst you meditate; the condition whilst meditation is analogous to the situation we experience the time we die and to Dharmakaya, whilst the condition we experience when we are dreaming is analogous to Dharmata. So, the "body" you experience whilst you are dreaming is similar to the "body" "you" have after your death.
Now I can answer to your exact question:
Every single moment of the consiousness as you experience it in your everyday life is supposed to be the product of the "dawn/ birth" and of the "sunset/ death" of your consiousness of the moment before this present one; the current "consiousness" of yours -every "unit of current consiousness" - is a unit of consiousness that was born from the death of the previous unit of consiousness of yours.
All in all, your consiousness as you percieve it whilst living is just blocking the real nature of your mind and leads you to misunderstanding.
However the Human is able to keep his units of consiousness together; by the way, this is how the Thibetan monks use their mind😵
16 Mar 09
Originally posted by black beetleI don't understand you. In what way does any of that answer the question? Do you think consciousness continues after death or not? What is the 'real nature' of your mind?
Now I can answer to your exact question:
Every single moment of the consiousness as you experience it in your everyday life is supposed to be the product of the "dawn/ birth" and of the "sunset/ death" of your consiousness of the moment before this present one; the current "consiousness" of yours -every "unit of current consiousness" - is a unit of con ...[text shortened]... ts of consiousness together; by the way, this is how the Thibetan monks use their mind😵
16 Mar 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadMy answer to your question is clear -further explanation I cannot offer.
I don't understand you. In what way does any of that answer the question? Do you think consciousness continues after death or not? What is the 'real nature' of your mind?
The nature of my mind is the void;
17 Mar 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadyou missed the point. again.
I cant quite make out whether you are saying it is ridiculous to even consider the possibility of consciousness after death, or whether you think it is an unknown.
Whatever the case I think your tactic of avoiding the argument is a waste of every bodies time. If you don't want to discuss it then why not keep quiet?
you answered the wrong question.
I was quite clear that we have no known manner in which to gather data on whether consciousness is possible after death.
Absent any data, what is a rational person to conclude?
17 Mar 09
Originally posted by black beetleah, well I accept that the nature of your mind is equivalent to being entirely empty headed. I told you what you had to say was vacuous -- now you affirm it.
My answer to your question is clear -further explanation I cannot offer.
The nature of my mind is the void;
thanks 😀
17 Mar 09
Originally posted by ScriabinAt least now you state "I choose to accept that I do not know because I don't know" and you do not choose anymore to state "I choose not to accept as true or established fact that of which I cannot become aware, either through my own perceptions, or through those recounted by others whom I can accept as rational and reliable sources"
you missed the point. again.
you answered the wrong question.
I was quite clear that we have no known manner in which to gather data on whether consciousness is possible after death.
Absent any data, what is a rational person to conclude?
😵
17 Mar 09
Originally posted by ScriabinDo you see now the projection of twhitehead in your mind?
ah, well I accept that the nature of your mind is equivalent to being entirely empty headed. I told you what you had to say was vacuous -- now you affirm it.
thanks 😀
The void emerges when there is no projection
😵
17 Mar 09
Originally posted by ScriabinYes you are quite clear, but you provide no reasoning to back up the claim. Rather you try to derail any discussion that might show it to be false.
I was quite clear that we have no known manner in which to gather data on whether consciousness is possible after death.
Absent any data, what is a rational person to conclude?
There is plenty of data including what I have presented. You refuse to see it which leads me to believe you have a vested interest in not doing so.
17 Mar 09
Originally posted by black beetleelucidate how you see a distinction that makes any difference.
At least now you state "I choose to accept that I do not know because I don't know" and you do not choose anymore to state "I choose not to accept as true or established fact that of which I cannot become aware, either through my own perceptions, or through those recounted by others whom I can accept as rational and reliable sources"
😵
I choose to accept that I do not know because I cannot obtain the information I would need to know.
In such cases, rational people dismiss arguments that attempt to establish an answer as true. Such questions essentially are meaningless.
17 Mar 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadOh, that's right. I forgot. My entire retirement plan and all my savings are invested in Afterlife, Inc., which has turned out, strangely enough, to be something of a growth stock, despite the recent downturn.
Yes you are quite clear, but you provide no reasoning to back up the claim. Rather you try to derail any discussion that might show it to be false.
[b]Absent any data, what is a rational person to conclude?
There is plenty of data including what I have presented. You refuse to see it which leads me to believe you have a vested interest in not doing so.[/b]
As I've always said, follow the money.
Now, that was a snark -- here's the straight answer: I don't need to provide reasoning for that which is quite self-evident to any rational person.
You have an axe to grind -- and should immediately return to that void between your ears you mistake for a mind.