• Thank you to Carol and Steve Bowman, the forum owners, for our new upgrade!

Sharing an Understanding of Death

Dear Majic,
I feel as if you must be tearing out your hair, by now, thinking "How many ways can I explain?"

I really do understand you now..We have not been discussing your philosophy as much as a "term" for it.THIS MUST BE HOW WARS ARE STARTED!!.Sorry to give you such a hard time. I must have swallowed "contrary pills"

The truth is I completely agree with your concerns about "attachment"..and you probably are correct to say that most of us are too attached, because of society although I am reluctant to admit it.(In this area, I do prefer to say society, rather than Christianity or religion...since I believe society molds religion..not vice versa.I must have overdosed on "contrary pills".)

Still, I am in some ways, an optimist and have seen some examples in my life of love that is unattached...albeit some are in books and movies. But what you are talking about IS often portrayed positively...therefore encouraged by "society".

By "synchronicity",(no co-incidence)I happened to see an episode of "Touched by An Angel"last night. In it, a family learns to love their brain dead son, enough to "let him go" to the light.It's meaning was quite clear.The ghost of the man actually begs the Angel to convince his family of this.
I have belabored this point, too long...and I repeat I agree with you about unhealthy attachments..or your interpretation of the word "attachments".
I just want to emphasize something I have learned from my recent bereavment experience a point I seem to have veered from. I learned that feeling sadness and even pain at losing someone from THIS life...even while letting go...is fine,natural and cathartic.It is only if one cannot get past the grieving when attachment becomes a problem. Understanding reincarnation has helped me quite a bit with non-attachment...but, I guess, one has to be attached to a certain degree to one's present life...otherwise NOTHING would make any difference..We are , after all meant to BE fully here are we not? Acknowledging this, means that "feelings" will come..which we need to have for lots of reasons, including empathy.
Are we starting to be on the same wavelength?

Thanks for your patience, again.
Just being here at this hour demonstrates that I have some attachments(some may call addictions)This one is to this forum.Someone once said. "We all choose our poisons". I guess I have a way to go...but I am, after all, only HUMAN!
As I see it,
Nexus
 
Nexus

I just want to emphasize something I have learned from my recent bereavment experience a point I seem to have veered from. I learned that feeling sadness and even pain at losing someone from THIS life...even while letting go...is fine, natural and cathartic. It is only if one cannot get past the grieving when attachment becomes a problem.
Click to expand...

Such a good point Nexus….I’ve loved following this thread, despite my quiet way.

It is also normally only after this “release” of the attachment to the physical loss that we begin to perceive and acknowledge their eternal nature and spiritual self all around us as well in the little messages and thoughts, etc. (but you probably already knew that…LOL…just had to add something at last)

Lots of Love


------------------
Kelly
 
Nexus:

It has been a pleasure to have the opportunity to express what I have discovered over the years. You are a rare person to have such deep questions. You are searching but you are not gullable.

I respect that you believe "society" shapes relgion, and not the other way around. This could be compared to the chicken or the egg thing. I slant towards the egg, however. I feel people values are shaped by what they believe (and this comes in a large part from religion) and in turn that shapes the society they live in, and the society, in turn, reinforces their beliefs and values.

I agree with Kelly and support your views that bereavment is natural and a growing experience. Living a life of non-attachment will only make it easier. Kelly pointed out that the sooner attachment is release after a death, the sooner you can get along with life and "feel" the presence of the departed person. Again, if your life was lived with non-attachment, then there isn't any need to release attachment during the bereavment process - there won't be any attachment to release. You will be free (the departed soul will also be free) and you can get on with life sooner.

Majic
 
Majic,
All agreed, even the chicken and egg..(good analogy).I can't REALLY be sure...
As for never having attachments...What about the lost PASSION?(See New topic!)
By the way, I too have been very grateful for such challenging and thoughtful discussion...and I believe you are also a rare breed in your apparent detachment.
Nexus
 
Nexus,
I really enjoyed your fable about the disappearing ship.
I believe that being born is the same as dying..inside out. Does that make any sense to anybody?
 
Pandora

I agree that death and birth are the same. Like going through an Enter and an Exit door. What follows are a few verses of a song I wrote:

When you know that you are a Soul
Living in this old shell.
Then death is simply letting go.
And your're infinite, you know.

Death is much better explained as a birth
Into the Spirit world.
And it s not a physical curse.
But it is beauty and mirth.

refrain

Gramma is being born tonight
Into the spiritual world.
Experiencing the love and the light
And is filled with insight.

Gramma's death is about returning
To where she first came from.
She left a world full of learning,
For a place of loving.

etc.

Majic


------------------
 
To All,
Continuing the original topic of Understanding Death..I think the idea of Death and Birth as the SAME phenomenon is one that seems logical and would help humanity a great deal to understand the nature of Life!
Some similarities to consider, as evidence of this theory:
Both usually involve physical pain.
Both involve disorientation or re-orientation?!
The timing of both do not seem predictable to a scientific understanding but appear to be decided by the soul itself.
The major DIFFERENCE in our "living" society that we celebrate birth but grieve death.
Or is it just that we have forgotten??
Nexus
 
I'm trying to figure out what you mean about being disoriented or re-oriented? How do you mean?
How do you know the soul decides?
 
After death...?

I'm in the second half of my life, will be 50 later this year, so my thoughts naturally turn to those of death and the afterlife more readily than they did when I was a young man. (Of course, my consciousness still considers 'me' to be a young man in his early 30s.)

There is one clearly defined, binary, black-and-white question.

One - when our bodies die, our consciousnesses are extinguished for good.

Two - when our bodies die, our consciousnesses somehow survive.

If one, then that's it, end of argument.

If two, we go into a longer list of possibilities.

One - when our bodies die, our souls 'go to heaven'

Two - when our bodies die, our consciousnesses migrate to another living body, becoming its consciousness, with just a smidgin of memory of 'our' past life.

Three - universal consciousness is like an ocean. Individual consciousness is like a droplet flung up from that ocean; it arcs for a lifetime before returning to that ocean.

Four - Consciousness is like a radio transmitter/receiver. We transmit bursts of consciousness, we receive bursts of consciousness. The 'past life memories', 'flashbacks', anomalous dream events' etc, are us receiving pulses of consciousness from other human beings, not necessarily in our lifetime/lifespace.

Could it be a mix of all four?

What do you all think, forum members?

Michal
 
I think consciousness is energy. I don't believe that the energy is ever really extinguished. It just changes forms. And those forms can be bodies. I believe that our consciousness migrates. It's like putting on a different coat. You are not the coat that you wear. You can always change the coat later on. Heaven to me is just another plane where the soul can rest in between incarnations.
I like that idea about universal consciousness being like an ocean. A lot of "water" (us) is "trying" to return to its source.
Some very sensitive individuals have the potential to observe the past lives of others. Some people consider those individuals mediums.
 
Simply saying that your "consciousness" is made up of fundamental particles would take the debate into a slightly different direction. I think he was hypothesizing that the "soul" had no particles in this case.
 
This is where the realm of science, based upon empirical observations and reductionism, clashes with religion. The very front line of human intellectual combat over the centuries.

I believe (as do a number of people on this forum), that one day spiritual beliefs and science will be reconciled, as mankind gets closer to grasping the eternal mysteries of the spiritual and material nature of the Universe - and God.

Michal
 
I was kicking around in the attic and found this thread from a few years ago. It is so relevant here in my own world and wanted to bring it forward for others to read. It has some wonderfully interesting words on death and attachment. I like the idea that even though we know reincarnation, and sometimes think it will make death easier, the physical loss of another will always be hard...I believe it is suppose to.

What are your thoughts? I loved the poems.

Tinkerman
 
I think people get all muddled up when they think of the soul, or consciousness, or whatever you want to call it, consisting of 'particles' or even 'waves' of anything. Does your memory consist of particles or waves? Don't confuse this with your physical brain, which obviously is made of particles and emits waves. If we accept that the memory exists independently of the physical brain, which we simply must if we read Dr Stephenson's work, not to mention our own personal experiences, it is obviously not attached to anything 'material'. The soul/spirit is not 'of this world' with its carbon atoms and electricity, gold fish and volcanoes. It does not have material properties of any sort (in my view).

I don't belive the soul/consciousness/whatever actually 'goes' anywhere either - like a hermit crab creeping across the sea bed looking for a new shell. I think it is where it is in the timeless eternity of the spirit world. Now and again it appears for a little while in the material world, when it incarnates. It runs about for a bit, bumps into things and old friends, has some adventures, a few laughs, makes a few mistakes, then 'dissolves' once more into the immaterial realm from whence it came.

Think of a rain drop and you have a better analogy than a hermit crab.
 
Hi Tanguerra,

I have a question. Do you mean Dr. Ian Stevenson?
"...which we simply must if we read Dr Stephenson's work..."
Click to expand...
????

You have given a lot of time and effort to members here, and I have noticed that your guidance is both encouraging, helpful and stable. Thank you for that.

I am curious though and thought perhaps you could clarify the following for me?:
...it is obviously not attached to anything 'material'.
Click to expand...
Can we talk about that?

A basic debate ----Wolfgang Pauli a famous physicist entered into the debate between Einstein and Bohr regarding the nature of reality. Einstein believed that there was a "real" objective world "out there," while Bohr held to the notion that we cannot speak about things that are in principle incapable of being observed. Ultimately, it was about the nature of observation.

To make a long story short, Pauli was convinced that a new conception of reality had to include matter and SPIRIT as complementary aspects of one world. That spirit and the unconscious does indeed observe reality. In other words, physicists are suggesting that there is no reality unless it is "observed" reality.

We tend to think in this day and age, in terms of quantitative sequences -- how one thing effects another. We have cultivated our intellect so well, we have come to believe it is the only way to see the world. Maybe, the problem is that we are thinking in terms of our own limitations.

I like the Tibetan Book of the Dead and their explanation for the dharmata bardo, which is the experience of luminosity and literally means the essence of things as they are.

This experience is the experience of energy, such as space, water, fire and air. The dharmata is the experience of Light and energy in subtle space. The bardo is the experience between two things, the duality of experience -- dualities like birth and death, and the gap between the two (pages #11 & #37 translation by Francesca Fremantle and Chogyam Trungpa).

In reference to this duality and luminosity, it states:
“...These two, your mind whose nature is pure emptiness without any substance whatever, and your mind which is the vibrant and luminous, are inseparable luminosity and emptiness in the form of a great mass of light, it has no birth or death, therefore it is the Buddha of Immortal Light.”
Click to expand...

To me michaldembinski, the above quote answers your original question from my POV. To me, we are The Light, we are made up of the Light and so is the world.

Gregg Braden in his book The Isaiah Effect, expresses it very well.

“It is within our body temple that the forces of the cosmos unite as an expression of time, space, spirit, and matter. More precisely, it is within the experience of time and space that the spirit works through matter to find the fullest expressions honoring life.”(pg 218)
Click to expand...

So - to me - memory is within the LIGHT, within me, my ethereal body, my spiritual body and my physical body. Synthesis (awareness) is achieved with the merging of all three and consciousness can move instantaneously - anywhere, at anytime, past present or future..

I love your rain drop analogy BTW -perhaps I will share why with you in a PM.

Many Blessings
 
Many thanks, Tanguera and Deborah for your through-provoking replies. You make this forum a comforting place to return to.

I guess in a nutshell my question about the afterlife revolves around the individuality; do we continue through the cycle of rebirth as 'I'; do we merge, split, meet, part with, other elements of the eternal 'I'? Like the drops of water returning to the ocean, then splitting again, though different next time round.

Again, another old conundrum - "what if my parents had never met, or married someone else - would "I" have existed?" I think the answer is "yes". Same soul, different body, different challenges.

As I was drifting off to sleep the other night, I postulated the following thought, that I considered entirely plausible.

Say you are on your deathbed; considering the life you've just had, and what you'd like for your next life. You consider merging souls with a close person, an admired person, a beloved soul... could that happen?

I do think that in the realms of the spirit, you can will much. I'm convinced that God is pure will, pure awareness, pure knowledge, pure love.

Michal
 
Hi Deborah,

Thank you for your kind words. I like the forum and find it very interesting and stimulating to participate in these discussions. Thank you for having me. Thank you for existing. Yes, I you are quite right I mispelt 'Stevenson'.

We are thinking along the same lines. I thoroughly agree that 'reality' and 'matter' are two separate concepts. People sometimes have trouble envisaging how anything can be 'really real' but not be made up of 'matter'. They theorise the 'soul' being made up of teensy weensy little particles of matter, or being some 'very fine' matter. People have tried to locate it in the pineal gland, photograph it, weigh it and measure it, but they are completely wasting their time. I am saying I believe it has nothing to do with 'matter', but is 'not of this world' (or dimension, or plain of reality, or universe or however one likes to visualise this).

The people working in the quantum physics field are still trying to work out how 'reality' and 'matter' fit together, and indeed as you say, some of them (particularly Pauli) are sounding more and more like ancient mystics the more they delve into this, with their descriptions of dual nature of 'reality' and so on.

'Dark energy' is believed to make up about 90% of the known universe - but there is no really good 'scientific' explanation of what exactly that is. Actual matter - atoms, rocks and so on - make up only 10% of the 'contents' of the universe. The very word 'quantum' - for those who don't know that already - is Latin for 'thingamejig' because they don't really know what a quantum is either, no matter how many new words are made up to describe its attributes.

Dark energy is hardly science fiction, although no less intriguing and full of mystery for being real science.
"The universe is made mostly of dark matter and dark energy," says Saul Perlmutter, leader of the Supernova Cosmology Project headquartered at Berkeley Lab, "and we don't know what either of them is." http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/dark-energy.html
Click to expand...

Perhaps they should call it 'light energy' instead of 'dark energy'? Perhaps they might call it 'love' or even 'God' (however you conceive her) but that would not be considered very scientific, would it? :)
 
Hi Michal,

I don't have all the answers to these profound questions. :laugh: In the reading I have been doing I have not come across anyone who said they had experienced a 'merging' of souls, but that is not to say that it never happens. I don't like to use the word 'never' or 'impossible' if I can avoid it.

I personally see the soul as much vaster than the individual body/life not the other way around as some people see it (with the soul being a 'little' thing that lives in the heart or elsewhere in the body before getting booted out at death and having to go in search of a new body).

Envisage a tree with deep roots and spreading branches. The leaves are like individual incarnations which have a limited life span, while the tree just goes on and on. Now, a tree is not immortal, although it probably looks that way to the leaf. Perhaps at some vaster time scale the soul gets 'recycled' just as a tree eventually dies and decays back into the ground. But these are all just metaphors, as the drop of water is, and should be taken as illustration, not literally.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top