When do we cease to exist?

I'm trying to slip you into a belief category and you're confusing the heck outta me

www.IANDS.org

Ever heard of Dr. R. Moody? He's a psychologist and medical doctor. He's written books on this topic and also been in documentaries. I met him years ago. He's an interesting and compassionate person.

Raymond is a friend of mine.
He had me over to his lumber mill in Alabama.

"The understanding that the eternal soul is never slain is being confirmed by its freedom from the six changes of material existence being: birth, existence, growth, modification, decay and death which are controlling all living entities high and low in the material existence. The Supreme Lord by declaring the eternal soul is not born confirms the absence of any birth and by declaring the eternal soul does not die confirms the absence of any destruction. The word va occurring twice is used in the sense of and as in and the immortal soul does not come into existence by birth. The immortal soul is already by nature itself eternal. So existence by conception is proven false due to the fact the eternal soul is birthless. That which is conceived attains existence after birth; but that which already eternally exists by its own nature cannot be conceived again. This is the purport of this verse. Constant means not subject to modification. This confirms the absence of growth. Eternal confirms the absence of decay. Ancient confirms the absence of ageing ever beyond time the eternal soul is ageless."

" Now begins the summation.

The living entity and the Supreme Lord are both irrevocably established as unborn, eternal and indestructible."

Bhagavad on the absurdity of birth.

Interesting guy...I can see why people have such an affinity towards him.. He doesn't make any apology for he believes in. He doesn't ( at least to me) come across as a fake charlatan. Like it or don't...he comes across as genuinely honest in what he believes. I liked him very much.

This is a contradictory statement even in philosphy.. You initially say"... growth , modification...," (1st sentence). Then you deny it when you say "constant means no subject to modification."

He is not a real charlatan, either.




I made marginal notes in his books,
of my questions n comments.
Then when I visited him,
I asked him to comment upon them.
He is a retired psychiatrist.

Meant to say a fake comma a charlatan. But --- interesting. How did it come about you collaborated on this book? Are you a writer yourself?

NO, I was just a humble customer.
I had merely entered my own marginalia onto the pages of his books.
(Questions n comments) That was a long-standing idiosyncratic habit of mine.
He invited me to his place. That gave me the opportunity
to express the marginalia to him, for his explanations. It was fun.

Those were not fake commas; thay were real,
tho temporary deaths.

You're quite a character your self Sir...if I may say so.

Thank u. That allegation has been raised b4.
My mother was first to accuse me of that.





David

Didn't think I was the first one.

"This is a contradictory statement even in philosphy"

http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/verse-02-20.html

copied from here.

Why I copied the bhagavad: I think that it is illogical to believe that one begins and ceases to "exist." These statements are confirmed by orthodox religions, and aren't any different from them. My statements, however sounding, are very orthodox, and that's all I want people to know. My lifestyle too is not very far either. See I have been accused numerous times, too many times of inorthodoxy, incorrectly, inaccurately, when my statements have been traditionally exact. These are the words and teachings of Lord Krishna and Prince Arjuna as witnessed by the military.

"Realizing that his enemies are his own relatives, beloved friends, and revered teachers, he turns to his charioteer and guide, Krishna, for advice. Responding to Arjuna's confusion and moral dilemma, Krishna explains to Arjuna his duties as a warrior and prince, elaborating on a variety of philosophical concepts."

Thus begins the Kurukshetra War for the throne of Hastinapura.

Language: not really a "guru" ; this is the name of a holy man, the holy name Krishna implies Christ as it is throughout history of holy people, the language of holy as it is an orthodox religion. Lord also implies that, Lord is a divine position, Lord Jesus, again as compared with the orthodox bible where God demands people realize that sometimes their loved ones are the enemy. The orthodox teachings are very similar. Obviously we get the word arduous from arjuna, a word used religiously scholarly for religious faith type trials: shared customs between orthodox faiths.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavad_Gita

Neither Prince Arjuna nor Lord Krishna are humans, prince Arjuna being born to a royal family but whose real father is a god making him a demi god in the truest tradition. Pandu was unable to bear children, so by the grace of high god Indra, Indra's seed, Arjuna was born, and Pandu died. Then they moved with their mother where he was brought up with his cousins, descendents of a king, leading a human life (like Jesus.)

Their words are that the soul neither begins nor ends or is capable of it.

Many times my words are mistaken as inorthodox, and they are exact to the temple, the temple of many temples. Because people do not have religious educations, like I have.

Krishna

not exactly Jesus though; Krishna was born of demons, being a "dark one" a dark Lord, son of the sister of the demon king, actually-only a god then, not a demigod. As such many demons tried to kill Krishna who was hidden like Jesus, and exchanged for a cowherds daughter. He was brought up by cow herders and enjoyed himself by playing people his flute, playing many destructive pranks, in earnest, stealing things, not just for joy but to teach his disciples not to fixate oneself on material matters. Though the mystery of Jesus is that his friends were sinners, who were devotees of the same thought line.

Moving a mountain: Krishna makes a religious mistake by claiming the rain came from a hill and not Indra, also Prince Arjuna's father. After Indra's fury with Krishna he moves the hill and holds it as an umbrella, proving that godly powers are only responsible for matter.

However Krishna's love for his devoted adopted mother stands as an example of love between a mother and child, much like Jesus.

An orthodox faith.

Started reading but gotta run...I'll let you know later.

Notice that right off the bat you are not only concerned with what 'experts' have to say on the subject, bit that you are already 100% sure that this is what others are/should be concerned with.



When the 'brain' dies? Why are you treating the 'brain' (concept/ mushy stuff inside a skull) as if it had the same 'properties' as what you would call a humna being? I.e. you know humans 'die' (or cease to exist anymore), why do you apply the same 'logic' or 'thinking' to mush inside a human skull?



Okay? What does that have to do with you? Your own wording shows your ad mission that you take 'the body' to exist as something independent of 'you', otherwise it couldn't be identified as such.



I put 'clinically' in bold so to indicate how it is evident to me that you're insistent on showing everyone here that you're someone who goes along with experts. Hey, if the so-called 'experts' say it's viable then golly it must be! Nonsense. At the risk of sounding like a total hipster, let me tell you, what the satus-qo has to 'offer' you isn't anything you're really interested in. Also note that here you've identified the following concepts: "brain, viable, human being, clinically, dead." which are SEPARATE from whatever it is that you consider 'you' to be. Yes, you reading this right now. Who are you who is aware of these conceptions?



Is this really the way you feel/experience your own existence? Do you 'feel' you have a 'central operating unit'? Are you some sort of robot? Ridiculous!



Play on words, 'brain' and 'mind' mean the same thing. Both are just concepts which you are not only aware of, but have also employed as valid and useful.



'Free will' is another concept which I suspect will be endlessly toyed with. What you consider to be 'you' is 'will' itself. Has nothing to do with 'mind' (concept.......you are NOT a concept). In order for 'will' to be free, there has to be a 'you' which is separate from it. That's not how it works and you know it. Who you really are is 'will', cut the crap.



What's this 'we' stuff white man? Everyone here is now perfectly clear on how YOU classify 'existence', asking the above questions is a presupposed one. You already have an answer in mind and aren't really asking a question. Once again, consciousness/self-awareness, and free will are all IDEAS. Have you ever stopped for a second and thought about who it is who is aware of these ideas? Or what 'he' would gain by putting them forward as 'facts'?



Why does 'life' have to be 'constituted' for you? If 'free-will' really existed as a viable conception then how is it not accessible to you? Any concept which you bring 'forth' is something which was already at your disposal, it all comes down to your 'allegiance' to that-which is explainable. You see, you, like most people, only consider what they really know to be that which they can tell other people about and have them agree with. Free will will never exist (for you) because it has become explainable (once again, for you) OTHERWISE. You are very easily able to explain to others how there is no such 'thing' as free-will and therefore it is no longer a viable conception.

Concepts are your own play, you're deciding which ones are 'viable' and which aren't.



You asked.

Actually, I know what the experts believe since that is the legal way to determine death ( not only my opinion). If the brain is simply "mush" , then it's not capable of recognizing it's own individuality or that of others. Therefore, not an identity unto itself. You don't have to agree with me. In clinical settings, the law supports taking people off life support once brain death has been established. Again, not my opinion but common established lawful medical practice. I definitively have a central operating unit---my brain. I've never seen a dead person exercise free-will--Free will is tricky. We are plagued by many things that can affect outcomes such as hormonal imbalances, changes in brain chemistry--illnesses.