Is There A Life After Death

truth
My "GUESS", Montana is that you will not know, that there will not be a knower or knowing function once your brain ceases to function. Elsewhere I've speculated that once we've died there is no longer the delusion of a subject to be dead. In that sense we will never BE dead. We surely will die, however, in the sense that we will cease to be functioning organisms that enjoy and suffer experiences. But when "I" am dead there will be no "me" to be dead. But, then again, Buddhists suggest that there is no "me" now either.

Now I understood that perfectly.

I agree with you JLNobody, from a transcendent, nondual no-self perspective, However there may be many levels(?) of worlds, realms, realities(?) besides this one.


I don't know if you have heard of Robert Munroe, but he (the RM institute) has done extensive research into out-of-body-experiences. Something I ?'used to be' more interested in. Now I see it as some what naïve in regards to the deeper insights of sages, and the nature of no-self. (plus it is so commercial). But I do believe that its direction towards other realms of ?'content' for consciousness is significant, even though they are just more observations, more pictures passing by etc.. When you, I die (apparent physical body) we may well be viewing other realities(?) including this one from a different perspective, unless of course one (no one) gains (doesn't gain) enlightenment, and passes, ignores all those distractions,

Here's a [snip]
The Institute's research efforts align closely with principles originally set forth by the eminent William James - research being the exploration of reality through the crucible of experience. The experience of focused consciousness interests us. Bob Monroe felt that focused consciousness contains solutions to the questions of human existence. First-person experience and state-specific research of these focused states of consciousness provide answers and promote the propitious evolution of humankind.

One method of experiencing focused consciousness (peak states, mystical states, meditative states, healing states, vigilance states, intuitive states, etc.) is using Hemi-Sync. Therefore, much (but not all) of the research of the Institute focuses on Hemi-Sync. Although research on the Hemi-Sync process can be said to have been ongoing for over four decades, today this effort can be seen to be concentrated into three distinct areas:

What is Hemi-Sync®?

Hemi-Sync® is a trademarked, state-of-the-art audio technology based on the natural functioning of the brain that encourages coherent brainwave activity. Our brains produce waves or patterns of electrical activity. Different patterns indicate different mental states, such as rest (occipital Alpha), deep sleep (central Delta), meditation (central and frontal Theta), physical activity (wide-spread Beta). Hemi-Sync®'s audio binaural beats influence these brainwave patterns and in concert with other components of the Hemi-Sync® process provide experiences in focused states of consciousness.

Focused consciousness implies something different from ordinary consciousness. Focused, coherent states of consciousness appear to provide clarity to knowing, an organizing influence on perceived reality. Ordinary consciousness encourages entropy of thought and frenetic, dissonant perceptions of reality. Since consciousness is not limited to the often-narrow confines of the physical body, has field-like properties, and is not limited to the concepts of time and space, these principles apply on both an individual and worldwide basis, possibly across all time and space.[/snip]
[bolding added]

http://www.monroeinstitute.org/research/index.html


"Consciousness has field-like properties".........sounds nondual.

Now dont get me wrong cause I have no idea what your description of Hemi-sync is (other than a first gear in a 440 Chrysler muscle car). However, anytime I see a trade mark associated with something supposedly scientific, accompanied by definitions that use the word itself in its own definition (we call that ipsodixitism ), my pseudo science antennae start popping out of my skull.

truth
Twyvel, I couldn't say anything about "levels," "realms," etc. I have never experienced anything that might be labeled by such terms. I just don't know. I have meditated in focused fashioned for at least twenty years. It helped me substantiallly to maintain balance and peace of mind during the protracted illness and eventual death of my wife; it helped me cope with the stresses of an academic career (some faculty, upon seeing how well I handled that environment asked me how to practice what they came to term "acadebuddhism" . But if I have any sense of mystical/existential insight I believe it really began to develop when I gave up on focused approaches (either counting or just watching the breath or feeling the "hara"). I began to use no focus at all, to begin mediation with a perfectly ordinary state of mind, passively observing WHATEVER comes to conscious but not focusing on it, letting it come and go "of its own accord." Letting the "Witness" or "Atman" gain a dominance in my perspective (without my trying to focus on it at all). This has been over the last ten years. But all this has resulted in no flashes of truth or "enlightenment", only a growing sense (more unconscious than conscious) that Reality--"my" reality of the on-going moment--is complete and wanting in nothing. But then again, as a Hindu friend told me only this morning: "that's all talk."

Yes farmerman I agree, but as they say the truth is in the pudding, , though we choose what to taste and not to taste. I'm no advocate.

Though it is interesting to note that Elisabeth Kubler-Ross, psychiatrist and the author of "On Death and Dying" did a session at the RM center where one spends a good deal of their time in a sound proof room listening to various taped sounds, and said after her week stay that, "There is life after death beyond a shadow of a doubt" (paraphrase)

By ?'death' I understand ?'body death', by ?'life afterwards' I understand as more observations etc. (there's got to be more then mere 'observations,.... sheesh, )

JLNobody, ?'observing' may well continue after supposed ?'body death', and if one has practiced non-attachment, non-identification, one (read noone) might not rush into those realms as if they were real, caught up as a character with all its activities, blind to its true nature. That's why our practice, meditation, reflection, contemplation, observation, inquiry into the nature of self, no-self, etc. is transcendent as a preparation for other trans-this-world challenges. Who knows? Can one (no one) sit quiet observing an alien world from an alien body? Is that what is now present?

***

Re: truth


Good point.

truth
Twyvel, I am just not capable of taking seriously the notion of preparing myself for other trans-this-world experiences (especially in the sense of observing an alien world from an alien body), at least not in the sense of "experience" as I understand it, i.e., this sense requires a live functioning brain: Atman's window to this person's experience. Boy, we're sounding wierder and wierder by the minute. Not to us, of course, but as you said, "Who knows?" Frank is sounding wiser by the minute.

sympatric. occurring in the same place.


Just helping out folks.

Re: truth


JLNobody's experience is what I have suspected to be true for quite a while. It seems to me that most meditations are of the focused type as opposed to being unfocused. Focusing on transcending, I think, is somewhat like trying to get to sleep by counting sheep. Mostly, all that does, is keep you in the waking state as you are engaging in activity (waking state) instead of letting it go.

That your reality of the moment is complete indicates, I believe, a reduction in ego. (See my reference to Ken Wilber at the end of my second post.)

There is an idea that the foundation of reality is Consciousness and that by the elimination of ego, we can become aware at that level being no longer the individual but, instead, the universal.

I can speak from my thirty years of the daily experience of TM. Things have spontaneously occurred over the years but have generally not been "flashy", just unpredictable. Things like the development of an inner happiness have occurred.

Although recently, I did have an extraordinary experience - at least for me. I was in deep sleep and was experiencing pure awareness. Then I was disturbed by a hum of sorts and awoke. Was this a dream I wondered. I think not. There were none of the usual delusional qualities of dreaming and the awareness experienced was awareness of no thing. Others have reported similar experiences but when you experience something first hand, it is a lot more significant.

truth
Thanks, HSweet. That made sense. I don't think we (or I) should expect or even desire to be rid of the ego. It serves essential functions; we only need to see it for what it is: a passing orientation and set of visceral sensations, no more, not a little person inside of us, an agent of actions and recipient of experiences. It is just another experience. Also I agree that trying to transcend the reality of everyday existence, is like trying to leave Reality. The trick, as I see it, is simply (actually not so simple) to not distort or add to the reality of immediate experience. Our conceptual ability to do so is both a blessing and a curse. But we should not try to gain something when meditating, just being aware (profoundly open or passive in non-judgemental awareness), a kind of deep appreciation for life or reality just as it is. Our problem, as I see it, is that we reject the on-going moment in favor of some kinds of unreal idealization of how things SHOULD be. Meditation is probably best oriented to an almost absolute passivity. It is the EGO that is active. But it is exposed for what it is in the clear experience of immediate experience, a kind of radical empiricism, as I think Wm. James called it.
Pardon the talk.

Yes I love JLNobody's talks on meditating....


imhw....Vipassana meditation is a little different, though I haven't been doing it that long. Awareness moves through the body, observing whatever sensations are present at one location at a time, then moving on. There are many blank spots where there is no sensation at all, but eventually (apparently) one can feel ever aspect. One is mindful of not choosing or ?'desiring' any one sensation over another, there is just observing, gradually moving into interior sensations as well. Sometimes what happens when one is very quiet and sensations are subtle, for many including myself, is the experience of a sensation called "free flow", which ?'feels' like a wave of moving energy that flows on it's own accord through out the non visual body. It's a warm vibrating energy (though it might be different for others) initially an incredible occurrence which one has to be careful not to develop a desire for, like always, just observe. At present it rarely happens, though it does happen. What significance it has I don't know, accept to say it's apparently closer to what we are, if we are any 'thing' which I doubt. Eventually the ?'free flow' spreads out to fill ones perceived environment, though I think I'm far from that. There is no self to be found in these sensations or anywhere else.

Just observe, observe, but what else can you do, what else does anyone ever do except observe? We do nothing but observe yet imagine otherwise it seems.

truth
Twyvel,

It's actually laughable, I mean it's bloody hilarious, that we(?) spend decades making an effort, non-effort to just observe, to meditate, that we have to in a sense learn to ?'just observe', when not only is that all we have ever done, but there is nothing else to do, nothing else ever happens. It is truly quite impossible to learn something one has been doing all along. Just observe! What else could you(?) possibly do? Atman couldn't be more present.

Krishnamurti couldn't have been more correct.

This non-dilemma is a peculiar thing indeed.



One of these days we're just going to roll on the floor in uncontrollable laughter at our ridiculous ideas.

truth
Yes, Twyvel, we'll roll on the floor with cosmic laughter. But who (as you will be soon asking if I don't) will be laughing, ego, Atman or Brahman? Yes, we always observe, but as I see it--and as you imply here--it's not a lack of observation that deters us from liberation; it's the fact that we ADD meanings to such observations, including the tacit belief that "I" am seeing all this.
By the way, Alan Watts was once told by a woman (don't remember who) that his efforts to be in the HERE and NOW were absurd because when and where else could he be? He felt that was a small liberation for him.

JLNobody, I suspect all four will be laughing, (body, ego, Atman, Brahman), ergo all one. Perhaps all that can be said is laughter will be present as observation. You are right that observing meaning, (identifying and attaching to it), and past?-future concepts, appear as a deterrent to that aspect of meaning that appears to be an " I ", even though there no ?'one' or " I " that does any identifying etc.

Point is though even this 'meaning' is nothing but observation. As Krishnamurti and others have said, all there is is observation. Belief is observation.

truth
So true, Twyvel. Thanks for yanking me out of the pit of dualism. It is very insidious.

JLNobody,