Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : The Philosophical Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: FrozenZ who wrote (179)	8/8/2005 2:03:54 PM
From: FrozenZ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 26251

Back to the original subject which is the question as to whether someone can pass into unconscious nothingness at death. Again I maintain that such a state cannot exist, by the very definition of exist. On the surface someone might think consciousness could cease similarly to going unconscious during surgery. But the fact is, even in this unconscious state there is a form of consciousness by the very fact that when you wake up you can remember being unconscious! If you did not have that memory and a distinct impression of what it was like, then when you opened your eyes after surgery you would say to the doctor, "Ok, put me under and we can start," and he would say, "I have already put you under, did the operation and am now done." You would say "no, that can't be, I have no sense of having been under." You do have a sense of it because there was a form of consciousness in operation.

To: FrozenZ who wrote (179)	8/8/2005 2:38:09 PM
From: LLCF	Respond to of 26251

<In Nirvana you cannot meet anyone. There are no souls to meet.> IMO, that's because the whole idea in Buddhism is to transcend the ego.. or sense of self. So of course you can't really talk in a linear {egoic} fashion about 'who' it is that is in the 'realms' talked about. It's also my understanding that the Buddha spent his time teaching transcendance in this lifetime, and spent very little time on teachings of the afterlife. IF you follow the Buddha's teachings {or any other teachings and actually are successful in transcending your ego}, then the 'ego self' no longer exists. IMO, therefore teachers through the ages were very careful not to 'personalize' whatever it is that 'goes on'. Christian translations seem much more personalized and ego-centric: <In Christianity and other religions that believe in a soul when you reach union with God you can meet Jesus and Mohammed and Moses and Krishna and your dead grandmother. They are all there. > So a personal "you" gets to heaven with ego intact... and that's 'soul'... OK. <practically universal concept among Catholics that by having children they are facilitating in the creation of souls.> Thats why I said ask a 'priest'. It's dependant on intention I think... God is the creator, as you know. So if a Catholic thinks she/he is creating souls and playing god by having sex that's quite different from a baby coming by love making through the grace of god. See John Paul's "Theology of the Body". Not to say you're wrong about what people say... don't know about that... it's certainly true that the Catholic church's stand on contraception is to allow 'gods will' to prevail... ie. to 'allow' children to come into the world. That's different than an egoic goal to 'have more babies' which really is the flip side AND THE SAME AS of the egoic goal to 'not have so many babies'... there's not necessarily love or grace of god in either of those egoic positionalities. ALL JMO OF COURSE!!!! Anyway, we're off topic a mile, again, the original point was 'life after death'... or as you say 'uncouncious nothingness after deatth??? yes or no? I agree with you, and add that IMO for one thing there are way too many 'near death' and other 'experiences' even amoung psychologists and scientific types that have been chronicled to ignore. DAK